House of Representatives
19 October 1933

13th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. H.Mackay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3614

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether there is any foundation for the published report that the Government contemplates the imposition of a sales tax on flour?

Mr.LYONS.- The Minister for Commerce has already indicated that at the appropriate time, when further consideration has been given to the matter, a definite statement will be made on behalf of the Government as to the assistance that it proposes to give to thewheatgrowers of Australia, the form that; the assistance shall take, and the method in which it will be applied. He is not yet in a position to make that definite statement, but I hope that it will not be long delayed.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Will the Minister for Commerce give the House the assurance that ‘any scheme which the Government brings forward for the assistance of the wheat industry will not have the effect of increasing the price of poultry foods to poultry farmers?

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

– As the Prime Minister has stated, the Government is not yet in a position to determine what are the needs of the wheat industry. Until that knowledge is in its possession, it. is impossible to contemplate the methods to be adopted to furnish assistance.

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It has been stated in the Sydney press that the Minister for Commerce consulted the growers of wheat as well as the merchants. Will the honorable gentleman give the House the names of those growers?

Mr STEWART:

– It must be borne in mind that I had only a couple of days in which to deal with this matter over the week-end. The growers’ representatives with whom I discussed it, were members of the honorable member’s own party in this House. I also held conversations with the Vice-President of the Wheatgrowers Federation of Australia, Mr.

Bussau, M.L.A., of Victoria, who claims to represent between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the wheat-growers of Australia.

page 3615

QUESTION

AGRICULTURAL MACHINE PARTS

Standardization

Mr BLACKLOW:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been drawn to the proposal put forward by the Agricultural Bureau Executive of Tasmania, and supported throughout Australia, that agricultural machine parts should be standardized and be interchangeable as between agricultural machines, the object being to lower costs of production? Has the Minister also considered the necessity for a standard to he set in regard to the galvanizing of iron, iron wire, &c. ?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

– On account of the many different types of agricultural machinery manufactured, standardization would prove difficult. Actually this is a matter that concerns the agricultural implement industry itself, and I haveno doubt that as the result of the association of the Sunshine Harvester Company and the Massey-Harris Company, there has been a good deal of standardization as between Australian and imported machines. The Standards Association of Australia has issued a draft specification in regard to galvanizing and has invited criticism of it.

page 3615

QUESTION

BANANA INDUSTRY

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Government proposed to allocate to the banana industry, for research purposes, the sum of £5,000 out of the revenue received from the customs duty imposed on Fijian bananas imported into Australia. As the amount received from this source is considerably less than was anticipated, does the Government intend to allocate £5,000 this year for research purposes in the local ind ustry ?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– The original intention was to devote to the assistance of the Australian industry any revenue derived from the importation of Fijian bananas, and an advance was made against the anticipated collection. So far the sum of £5,000 has been neither collected nor expended. I think it will be found that the amount allocated to the industry exceeded the revenue derived from the duty, but that surplus will have to be met by future collections. It is not intended to provide £5,000 during this year . If there is any surplus from the revenue collected that amount and no more will be devoted to the assistance of the Australian industry.

page 3615

QUESTION

VICTORIAN CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

Importation of Band

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago it was reported that a band was to be imported for the Victorian Centenary celebrations. It was then suggested that the governments of Victoria and the Commonwealth would collaborate in the matter. Will the Prime Minister state whether that is a fact; and if it is, whether there are not in Australia musicians who are capable of fulfilling the requirements ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The request for permission for the band to leave England had to be conveyed through the Commonwealth Government. That is the only part which this Government has taken in the matter; ithas no responsibility, either financial or otherwise.

Mr Martens:

– Did the Commonwealth agree to this band being brought to Australia?

Mr LYONS:

– It neither agreed nor disagreed; it merely conveyed the request of those who desired to have the band brought out. I have no further information to convey as to the attitude of the Victorian Government or of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

page 3615

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In Tasmania the telephone directory for the whole of the State is published in one volume, and a similar practice is adopted in regard to South Australia, whereas in Western Australia separate directories are issued for the metropolitan and other districts. When the next print is being made of the directory of Western Australia will the PostmasterGeneral consider the adoption of the practice that prevails in Tasmania and South Australia, so that the whole of the subscribers throughout the State will be included in one volume?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– It is the general practice of the department to limit the entries in the main telephone directories to subscribers to exchanges in the metropolitan network and other exchanges in close proximity thereto. This principle is already observed in the larger States. The publication of one directory covering the whole of the entries in one State would add enormously to the already substantial cost involved in printing and materially increase the serious loss sustained in the telephone branch. The publication of one directory was found practicable in Tasmania because the number of enr.ri.es is not large. A similar practice lj as been followed in South Australia, but the additional number of subscribers resulting from the extension of the telephone system in that State will shortly render it necessary to adopt the course followed in the larger States. That applies also to Western Australia.

page 3616

PENSIONERS’ HOMES

Outstanding Rates

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Many invalid and oldage pensioners having refused to pay rates and taxes to municipal and shire councils, the revenues of those local authorities have been adversely affected, and seeing that this state of affairs has been brought about by legislation passed by thi3 Parliament confiscating the property of pensioners–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must know that the term “ confiscating “ is disorderly when . applied to legislation that has been passed, by this Parliament, and I ask him to frame his question, in language which conforms with the Standing Orders.

Mr JAMES:

– As this position, has been brought about by the operation of a provision of the financial emergency legislation introduced by this Government, does the Government intend to repeal that provision and so enable municipal authorities to collect rates on these properties?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I cannot make any statement as to Government policy in reply to a question.

page 3616

QUESTION

TENNANTS CREEK GOLD MINES

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Will the Minister for the Interior lay on the table of the House the report of the Director of Mines for the Northern Territory which deals with the Tennant’s Creek gold mines ?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have given some consideration to this matter, but am not yet in a position to answer in the affirmative or otherwise. I shall be pleased to allow the honorable member to examine the report and will further consider the desirability of placing it on the table of the House.

page 3616

QUESTION

PARTY DISCIPLINE

Mkx.boubs’13 “Herald” Report.

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a paragraph which appeared in the Melbourne Herald and which reads as follows: -

It was made clear at a party meeting that any members of tlie party who did not vote for the budget would, fail to receive endorsement fi om that organization.

As I wish the Victorian press to know exactly how mutters stand, I ask the right honorable gentleman whether there is any truth in that statement?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– It is not customary to reply to questions which relate to proceedings within the party room, but as a matter of principle is involved on this occasion, I inform the honorable member that there is no truth in the statement, to which he has called attention. Neither the Government party nor any Minister has anything to do with the endorsement or refusal of endorsement of any person’s candidature on behalf of the organization.

page 3616

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Appraisement of Leases.

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for the Interior advise whether it is a fact that he has recently consented to a reduction of the appraisement of unleased lands within the Federal Capital Territory; if so, will the honorable gentleman consider applying a. similar reduction to lands which are already leased, and so obviate the anomaly of having adjacent blocks of a similar nature leased at differing rentals?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall have the matter investigated, and shall communicate the result to the honorable member.

page 3617

QUESTION

HANSARD

Disorderly REMARKS.

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I rise to a matter of privilege. On Friday last you, Mr. Speaker, directed that certain statements which were made in this chamber, and which were withdrawn upon objection being taken to them, should not be recorded in Hansard. I should like to know why, so late in the career of this legislature, you have seen fit to take such action. I should also like to know whether, in giving this direction, you were influenced by a desire on the part of honorable members who support the Government to have certain remarks expunged from Hansard^ On many occasions during the life of this Parliament supporters of the Government have directed at honorable members who sit on this side objectionable remarks which have eventually been withdrawn at the request of the Chair, but on no occasion has an instruction been issued that those offensive references ‘ should be expunged from the parliamentary records. If a remark considered damaging to an honorable member when given publicity, may, after demand for its withdrawal, be expunged from the parliamentary records, will Hansard continue to be an accurate record of the proceedings in this chamber ?

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G H Mackay:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I remind the honorable member that all reforms must have a. beginning. Duning my parliamentary career, which has extended over twenty yea-rs, I have always had an objection to the practice which has obtained in Federal and State Parliaments that permits an honorable member to contravene the Standing Orders by making offensive or disorderly remarks which, after having been withdrawn, appear in the records. Hansard does notpretend to record everything that is said and done in this chamber. I am afraid that if it endeavoured to do so a mistaken impression would be created among the general public. I assure the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that it is certainly not my desire to give unfair protection to members on the Government side. Honorable members must understand that the occupant of the Chair does not make the Standing Orders. He simply administers them. It seems to me that, as disorderly and unparliamentary remarks should not be made in the first place, it is a wise practice to expunge them from Hansard when they are made. I ‘assure honorable members that while I occupy my present position I shall endeavour to carry out my duties quite impartially.

page 3617

QUESTION

TOBACCO INQUIRY COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister yet able to inform me when the report oi the Tobacco Inquiry Committee will be made available?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I said a few days ago that I expected to receive the report within ten days. It has not yet come to hand, but I shall make inquiries to ascertain the present position.

page 3617

QUESTION

STABILIZATION OF BUTTER MARKETING

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister foi Commerce name the States which have not yet made representations to him respecting the marketing of dairy products throughout Australia? The honorable gentleman said a few day3 ago that certain States had not yet stated their views to him. Which States have not done so?

Mr STEWART:
UAP

– My statement was to the effect that I bad not yet heard from the States on this subject. I have said over and over again in reply to questions that an undertaking was given at the recent Premiers Conference that the various States would confer on the stabilization of the marketing of dairy products, and convey the views of the conference to the Commonwealth Government. So far as I know, that conference has not yet been held. Certainly no decisions on the subject have been communicated to me.

^ LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Germany’s Withdrawal.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– Yesterday the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) asked whether in view of the statement made by ‘the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Latham) in the press regarding Germany’s notification of withdrawal from the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference, I would make a statement to the House embodying the considered views of the Government.

The statement made in Melbourne to the press by the Minister for External Affairs, at a time when the House was not sitting, embodied the considered views of the Government on this matter. It read as follows: -

The Government has seen with the gravest concern the announcement of the action of Germany in withdrawing from the League of Nations and from the Disarmament Conference.

The resulting situation is very critical. It is impossible to disguise the danger to European and world peace which is involved in the refusal of Germany to co-operate with the other nations of the world in the endeavour to reach a solution of some of the world problems which threaten almost to overwhelm humanity. In the view of the Commonwealth Government it would be a disaster if matters were now allowed to drift, and no clear and definite action were taken.

Reduction and limitation of armaments cannot dispense with the necessity of adequate defensive provisions, Which the Commonwealth Government recognizes to be the first responsibility of any government, but reduction of armaments by other nations will diminish the risks against which such provision will have to bo made.

The Government considers that the first thing to be done is to press on with the work of the Disarmament Conference. The presence of Germany at the conference, though very desirable, is not essential. Disarmament provisions were imposed upon Germany by the Peace Treaty. The Allied Powers stated that the disarmament of Germany was to be the first step in a general process of the reduction and limitation of armaments. The action of Germany does not excuse the other powers from carrying this policy into practical effect. Indeed, it emphasizes the urgency of doing it.

The Government considers that the chances of success of the Disarmament Conference have been prejudiced, not only by the great inherent difficulties of the problem, but also by the procedure which has been followed by the conference.

Many months were spent in endeavouring to obtain an agreement to operate for an indefinite period. It appears now tobe realized that it is wise, on every ground, to seek an agreement for a limited period only. This principle should be definitely declared at once.

Further, an effort has been made to cover the whole field of disarmament at once. Intricate schemes of budgetary limitation have been discussed alongside general proposals for limitation of effective personnel and of material. The Government considers that some degree of practical achievement is imperative. The Peace Treaty provides a starting point. That treaty prohibited the possession by Ger many of warships over a certain tonnage, of submarines, of tanks, and of fighting aeroplanes. Reduction and limitation in these categories would bo readily achieved were it not for widespread national distrust and fear. It should now be realized, however, that failure to act does not mean the diminution of the menace to national security. Complete failure of the Disarmament Conference would mean an exacerbation of already excited nationalist feeling, an immediate increase in armaments throughout Europe, and elsewhere in the world, and it may mean also the abandonment of hope of international cooperation for an indefinite period.

Australia is vitally interested in world peace - not only from the point of view of humanity and human happiness, but also from the point of view of trade. The intense economic nationalism which is spreading over the world is closing what were our markets, and is inflicting great loss upon our people.

The Government most earnestly hopes that this, perhaps the last, opportunity will be taken and that the Disarmament Conference will immediately reach affirmative decisions.

The views of the Commonwealth Government, which it is believed are in accord with those of the British Government, have been communicated to the High Commissioner in London, and to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

page 3618

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

WarService Homes Act - Report of the War Service Homes Commission for year ended 30th June, 1933, together with Statements and Balance-sheet.

Ordered to be printed.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Building and Services Ordinance - Canberra Building Regulations amended.

WAYS AND MEANS (Formal).

Newsies Shale Oil Deposits.

Question proposed -

That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the purpose of going into Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I wish to take advantage of the opportunity afforded me by the moving of this motion to express my views on the Government’s policy for the development of the shale oil industry at Newnes. In order that honorable members may fully understand the development of this industry I crave their indulgence while I review the earlier history of this project. When this Government took office some twenty months ago, affairs at Newnes were being administered by the

Shale Oil Development Committee appointed by the ‘preceding administration. That committee had approximately £30,000 allocated for its work. When that money was spent, about February of last year, operations at Newnes were suspended by this Government, and employment at that centre languished for some six or eight months. During that period the Government unsuccessfully endeavoured to have the field developed by private enterprise. Messrs. Treganowan and Chambers tried to float a company for- the purpose, but at that time the then Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) was in full stride, and the Calamitous effect of the legislation and administration for which his Government was responsible was being severely felt by industry and by the investing public throughout New South Wales. Messrs. Treganowan and Chambers could not raise the necessary capital to develop the field. In January last, the Commonwealth Governmen t, at the instigation of the Minister in Charge of Development, appointed a body known as the Shale Oil Investigation Committee for the purpose of making a thorough investigation of the prospects of Newnes from both the technical and economic viewpoints. It is only fair to say that the members of the Shale Oil Development Committee did their be3t according to their lights, but they failed lamentably in many respects, the chief of which was their neglect to engage in any research work or to make any technical investigation. It was obviously necessary that a proper scientific survey should be made of the field and for this purpose the Government appointed the Shale Oil Investigation Committee last January. We were given to understand that this committee would be able to complete its work in about six months, and on that understanding I visited Newnes and explained to the people what th6 Government proposed to do. I asked them to bear patiently the period of waiting that would be necessary before the committee could submit its report. It must be remembered that these people had already endured a considerable amount of suffering. They had been given to understand that projects would be put in hand which would create a considerable amount of employment at

Newnes very much earlier than was possible under the Government’s proposal. However, they accepted my assurance that tlie investigation would be completed within six months and in doing so showed a philosophic cheerfulness which, I must say, did them very great credit. But it is now nine months since the Shale Oil Investigation Committee was appointed and no ‘considerable amount of employment has yet been provided for the people of Wolgan valley who have, consequently, had to suffer great difficulty, hardship and anxiety. These people are unfortunately in an isolated position and have not been able to reap any advantage from relief works put in hand with the money provided by the New South Wales Government. A considerable amount of such work has been done in the neighbourhood of Lithgow, but the Wolgan valley people have not benefited , from it. This places upon the Commonwealth Government’ a very definite obligation to push on as speedily as possible with its developmental policy for the Newnes shale oil field. Honorable members will recall that the terms offered by the Commonwealth Government, while, being liberal, were not unduly so. Briefly, they provided for the expenditure of £10,000 on investigation work by the Shale Oil Investigation Committee. The Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government then conjointly agreed to loan £70,000 at 4 per cent, to an approved company which undertook to develop the Newnes oil shale deposits. I respectfully urge the Government to press forward as fast as possible with the development of these deposits. Yesterday, when I asked the Prime Minister when the final report of the committee would be made available, he assured me that it should be ready early in December. While that is not quite as early as some hoped, it gives us ground for believing that a definite move is being made to provide employment in the near future. I fervently hope that the termination of the work of the Shale Oil Investigation Committee will not represent the first of another .series of the unfortunate delays and mishaps that have marked past years and interfered with the development of the field. It is hardly necessary for me to stress the vital importance of oil fuel from a defence viewpoint. Apart altogether from the unemployment problem, honorable members will agree that any defence policy in which ample provision is not made for a supply of fuel oil in Australia can be nothing but a farce and a sham.

Mr Riley:

-What about other key industries ?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The same argument applies to all key industries concerned. The quantity of fuel oil at present being produced in Australia is almost negligible, and the Newnes plant, even if it were worked at full capacity for twelve months, could not provide sufficient motor spirit to meet the requirements of Australia for more than a week or ten days. That is a factor that should be considered seriously in connexion with our defence policy. In the event of an invasion of this country, or of Australia being involved in a conflict with some other nation, when its trade routes would be closed and its lines of communication severed, our defence forces would be rendered almost wholly immobile had we not an assured supply of fuel oil for transport purposes and for the propulsion of our ships and aeroplanes.For these reasons I urge the Government to press forward with the greatest possible speed in the development of the Newnes field, not only in the interests of defence, but also because I consider it necessary that those persons in Lithgow and in the Wolgan valley, who have suffered so much in the matter of unemployment, should be afforded the relief which they have long been promised by this Government, and also by governments which preceded it.

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. H. Mackay.)

AYES: 45

NOES: 16

Majority … . . 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate adjourned.

page 3620

FINANCIAL RELIEFBILL 1933

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the18th October (vide page 3585), on motion by Mr. Lyons -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr.Forde had moved by way of amendment -

That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the complete restoration of the percentage reductions in Public Service salaries, wages, pensions and social services.”

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- Last night when I obtained leave to continue my remarks 1 was dealing with the property provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) stated in the course of his speech that the old people who had surrendered their pensions had done so because they feared an investigation, and one inferred from his remarks that these old people had been drawing pensions illegally. That statement was challenged by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), but having had an opportunity to travel throughout Queensland to the Gulf of Carpentaria and the border of the Northern Territory, 1 can assure the Assistant Treasurer that in every town which I visited I found that the property provisions of the act were causing considerable hardship to old people. The Assistant Treasurer has not long returned from the Old Country, and his ignorance of the act is shown by the fact that he did not know that an investigation is made by the Police Department on behalf of the pensions department in every State of the Commonwealth before an invalid or old-age pension is granted. In addition, the relatives of the claimant for a pension arc asked by the police whether they are in a position to contribute towards the support of the claimant, and, if so, any contribution by them is classed as income and the pension is reduced accordingly. In one ease an old man of81 years of are - his wife being 76 years of age - refused to sign form No. 43. He wrote me stating that he owned a piece of land in the flooded areas of Claremont - one of the towns which were washed away by flood of 1918, that he was raising a few fowls on it and thathis rates amounted to 17s. 6d. a year. He asked me what he could do in regard to form 43. I advised him to sign it because at the next election the action of the Government would not be endorsed by the people. He replied that, on principle, he would not sign the form. He also said thattwo of his boys enlisted in 1914 to fight for the principle of the protection of their home against enemy invasion, that one of them had paid the supreme sacrifice and the other had died of war injuries on his way home. The old man said that he was now compelled to fight for the same principles - the protection of his home - and that he would sooner starve than sacrifice a principle for which he had stood firm all his life. He made an application to the pensions department for exemption, but. it was refused.

Another old man with a home worth about £60 made application for exemption. His boy enlisted in 1914, was wounded, and is now in receipt of a war pension of £1 a week. As the result of his war injuries he now looks older than his father. The old fellow would not sign form 4.3 because he wanted to leave the home to his son. An old man who is living in a deserted town in the Charters Towers district is depending on the charity of a few generousfriends. His wife and children are dead; his home, if put up for sale, would not fetch £3, but because he owns it and refuses to sign form 43, he has been deprived of his pension.

Mr McGrath:

– In that case the home is exempt.

Mr RIORDAN:

– It is not exempt.

Under the property provisions the department’, upon the death of a pensioner, may seize everything except £50 worth of personal belongings. I have appealed to the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Pensions, but, the old man is still without, a pension. The pension hand-book definitely states that the claimant must sign over the whole of his property, but that at death £50 worth of his personal belongings may be exempt. This old man desires to leave the home to his son, a returned soldier, who built it, and is prepared to assist his father, but cannot got work. At present he is “ jumping the rattler “ from town to town trying to find some of those patriotic gentlemen who told him in 1914 that if he fought overseas for his country nothing would be too good for him on his return. He is now only waiting to become one of “ our glorious dead.” Last year the income of an old man living in North Queensland was £6. As he has a wife, the department has decided that each has an income of £3 and has accordingly reduced their pensions by 2s. 6d. a week. During the last month I have interviewed nearly two hundred “ dishonest “ pensioners, who, according to the Assistant Treasurer, have surrendered their pensions because they fear an investigation into their affairs. The Commissioner for Pensions cannot be blamed for the present position. He has to administer the act as he finds it.

About six months ago, I made representations on behalf of a returned soldier at Charters Towers who, after having obtained work, developed tuberculosis as the result of having been gassed. The tribunal which adjudicated on his claim for a pension returned the finding that his state was the result, not of gas, but of having worked in mines prior to enlistment. Is it conceivable that a doctor would pass as fit for active service a man who was suffering from tuberculosis? Prior to enlistment,, this young chap had worked for about three months in the Einasleigh Mine, in North Queensland. “When his claim for a pension was rejected, he appealed to the Entitlement Tribunal. That body travelled from Melbourne to Brisbane at a cost of, I suppose, £12,000 or £15,000 a year to decide whether this unfortunate man should receive 25s. a week. Having heard the case, it upheld the previous decision, but said that another appeal could be lodged if further evidence could be produced iri support of the claim. The applicant obtained additional evidence from the caplain under whom he had served, the case was again dealt with by the two tribunals, and the pension was refused a second time. This man subsequently became one of “ our glorious dead,” while his wife and children are given the dole as the only reward for the services rendered to his country by the husband and father. Neither the digger nor the man who is unemployed can expect any appreciable measure of relief from this legislation.

The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin) last night referred to the fact that racing stakes are being increased. “What sort of a feast can the unemployed have off racing stakes? The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) said that Australia had turned the corner. He also ‘said that the genera] practice, when rounding a corner, is to steady up, and to accelerate on a straight stretch of road. The wheat-grower is asking for a further bounty this year. In my opinion he should receive at least the cost of production; but there is another section of the community which also should be shown consideration, and that is the section which has no income whatever, and is kicked from pillar to post. The nation should be mindful of the danger that lurks in that quarter. The unemployed will not continue in a state of semi-starvation much longer. “When we talk of unemployment amount- ing to 28 per cent., we refer only to registered members of industrial organizations. What about the parent who is faced with the problem of his growing boys ? What about the children who leave school every year? What provision is made to place them in industry?

I was inspired to make this speech by the remarks of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) who, as a member of the Cabinet, is responsible for the formulation of the budget, which gives no practical consideration to the unemployed. The honorable gentleman said last night that, as the result of the operation of the budget proposals, some benefit would accrue to those persons. That story was told last year. I fear, however, that if the unemployed are depending on the PostmasterGeneral and the other members of the Cabinet, they will be as hungry this Christmas as they were last Christmas.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

;- This bill is primarily intended to deal with the financial relief measures enumerated in it. Those measules naturally arise from the budget, which at this stage we are not allowed to traverse. I may, however, be permitted to say that, taking the budget as a whole, the Government is to be congratulated, because a close study of it reveals an endeavour to give financial relief justly and equitably over as wide an area as possible. Thai object, I believe, will be achieved. In certain directions one would like to see improvement; but one must realize that the Government is faced with difficult problems. The extent of the relief to be given is most gratifying. The Government has found itself able to reduce taxation by £7,490,000, and to grant relief by an increase in expenditure of £1,658,000. Few budgets in the British Empire . have brighter features than this. The recent efforts that have been made to meet obligations, overcome financial difficulties, and improve the industrial outlook, will, help to enhance the reputation of the Empire as a whole..

The first measure of relief proposed by the bill is in connexion with the land tax. That proposal has my wholehearted support. From its very’ inception, I was opposed to this tax. My mind goes back to : the first policy speech delivered by the late Sir Edmund Barton at Maitland, in which, he pointed out that, although under the Constitution the Commonwealth had the power to impose a land- tax, it would be levied by the National Parliament only in a grave emergency. The tax was first imposed, however, not during a time of grave emergency, but with the object of bursting up large estates. How far it has succeded in that direction is a matter of opinion. At the time, it was pointed out that it’ might not be possible to confine the tax to country lauds; consequently, it was brought down to include both country and town lands. It was argued that there was every justification for doing this, because the owners of city lands enjoyed unearned increment from them. Those who opposed this provision prophesied that the tax would fall on the residents generally of the cities, and not merely on the owners of the land; that the big city land-owner would pass the tax on to the public. That that would be the effect was obvious. The result of the legislation that we are now considering will be to relieve, not the big wealthy men in the cities, but the community generally.

The proposals in relation to income tax are equitable. Life assurance ‘ companies will benefit i to the extent of £710,000 per annum. In the main, those companies are mutual concerns, and are composed of hundreds of thousands of small policy-holders. Figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the policies in force in Australia in .1931 numbered 2,420,966. This relief, therefore, will be spread over a wide area, and embrace a large number of persons. The extent to which life assurance is taken up in Australia gives cause for great satisfaction, and shows that, notwithstanding what is said about the Australian character, it is solid and good. The savings bank deposits for 1931-32 totalled £197,966,000, averaging £30 4s. 7d. a head, compared with £8 0s. 3d. a head in 1901. There are other things which point to the fact that’ Australians have a saving side to their character, and realize their responsibilities as citizens both to themselves and to their families.

The reduction by 15 per cent, of the income tax rate from personal exertion, involving a remission of £200,000, indicates clearly the desire of the Government to spread taxation relief over as wide an area as possible. Similar action is being taken in respect to the sales tax, the 1 per cent, reduction of which will amount, in the ‘ aggregate, to £1,350,000, while additional exemptions will involve a loss of revenue of £1,322,000. Taken in conjunction with the exemptions granted last year, the country districts have been given substantial relief. It covers a very large area. For the butter and dairying industries, the bacon curers, and the dried fruits and canning industries, the’ Government proposes to grant an extensive series of exemptions. It is true that these are mostly rural industries, but assistance will also be given to the urban districts, so that it should be welcomed by all sections of the community. Tariff reductions have been granted which relieve every section of the community instead of being confined to any one. So that when one examines the position one finds no justification for the claim that these concessions and remissions are exclusive to a privileged class such as our great financial institutions and the wealthy community.

The Government proposes to reinstate superannuation benefits, to restore a portion of their salaries to public servants and to reinstate to a certain extent war and invalid and old-age pensions. I am exceedingly gratified that the Government has made a complete restoration of superannuation payments. I was associated with the original measure when it was drafted and introduced the measure in this Parliament and I must confess that when a deputation waited on me in Brisbane and protested against the action of the Government in reducing payments under the act, I was in sympathy with the views put forward and entirely in accord with the opinion expressed that there had practically been a breach of a contractual obligation. “When the superannuation fund was originated public servants felt that, in return for their contributions they would, at a certain age, receive a stipulated amount. Instead of that, as the result of the operation of the financial emergency legislation, superannuation payments were reduced both to retired public servants and to their dependants, in cases where the contributors had died. Those who had contracted for annuities from life assurance companies were not subjected to any diminution of those benefits because of the depression, their rights being fixed under contract just as the public servants thought would be the case under the Superannuation Act. In many cases officers surrendered life assurance policies and relied solely on benefits that they rightly expected to receive from their superannuation contributions. I am, therefore, very glad indeed that the Government has reinstated these payments on their original basis. I am also glad that the Government has been able to do something for certain dependants of deceased soldiers and for dependants of ex-soldiers who were drawing pensions. From cases which have come before my notice I believe that the time is not far distant when the Government will have to provide still greater relief in regard to war pensions.

On a previous occasion I expressed my views regarding the reductions that were made in invalid and old-age pensions. I have not found any reason to alter those views. Time has not altered the basic principle of the invalid and old-age pension law, that the pension is a right and not a charity, and in reviewing any alterations of the act that basic principle must be always be kept in sight. I give the Government the greatest possible praise for its proposed amendments of this legislation which, I believe, will remove the major portion of the complaints with which honorable m embers have been deluged. The two provisos to section 24 of the act’ are to be repealed, the rate of pension is to be fixed at 17s. 6d., and pensioners are to have the right to earn or receive an additional 12s. 6d. a week. That should remove much of the hardship brought about by the amendments of the act made by the Financial Emergency Acts. It was found that if a son, seeking to assist his parent, invited him to live at his home, the pensioner’s allowance was reduced from 17s. 6d. to 15s. as soon ashe crossed the threshold of the son’s house. That anomaly is to be removed. Let me give another illustration. A man with high attainments who at one time filled a good position was thrown into unemployment. Piece by piece he and his wife sold their possessions until finally they were compelled to live in a single room and depend upon the pension. The lady, who was unaccustomed to hard work, took in a little washing in order to earn a further 5s. a week, but this had to be used by the administration as a ground to cut down the rate of pension. That hardship also is to be removed. Another case was that of a husband receiving a pension of 17s. 6d. a week. The department discovered that the wife was in receipt of 5s. 9d. a week as a war pension, and, as the result, the husband’s old-age pension was reduced by 2s. 6d. All those anomalies are being removed and the Government is to be congratulated upon making a helpful contribution towards overcoming these difficulties. Admittedly these alterations will involve an additional expenditure of £635,000 per annum, but it is justified. Pensioners will be grateful for the action of the Government and will be thankful if this Parliament passes the implementing legislation without delay. I also appreciate the further hope that is held out for pensioners by the amendment which provides that their allowances will be built up to £1 by increments of 6d., as the cost of living warrants that step.

Mr Rosevear:

– Does the honorable member take that promise Seriously?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– I do. It is an indication that under present conditions 17s. 6d. is a fair allowance, but if the cost of living increases, the pensions will he raised accordingly. I think that that, will have the general approval of honorable members.

Mr.holloway. - It would be a fair thing to reinstate the pension at £1.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– It must be remembered that the last Government reduced pensions to 17s. 6d. because of the difficult conditions which then existed. I believe that the action was justified, and that when our finances are in a healthier condition the pensions will be restored to the original £1.

Mr James:

– The honorable member previously said that the pension was not a charity.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– And I do so again ; it is a right. On previous occasions I have referred fully to the action which, was taken by the Governnien in creating a charge on the homes of pensioners for the pensions they receive, and I still feel that the Government should make every endeavour to repeal those provisions. It is the duty of the Government, arid of all of us, to encourage persons to become home-owners. A man ought to be the king of his own castle. Nothing can be better for a working man then to feel that he is acquiring a home of his own; and that should he be thrown out of. employment he will not have rents accruing against him. The home-loving instinct is strong among us, and it increases the- interest of a man in his country ; it increases his sense of responsibility and heightens his value as a citizen. The Bureau of Census and Statistics has supplied me with some interesting figures upon this subject. I find that at the census of 1921 there were 580,000 private dwellings occupied by their owners, and 450,000 occupied by tenants, as compared with 442,000 .and 404,000 respectively in 1911. During the ten years private dwellings occupied by owners have increased by 30 per cent, while tenanted private dwellings have increased by only 12 per cent. The Commonwealth Statistician writes -

There is evidence that this proportion has increased still further since 1921, but exact data are not available.

When one realizes that in 1921 there were practically 1,000,000 homes occupied, the majority of which were owned by their occupants, one must admit that the position is most satisfactory. Some of the State Governments have workers’ dwelling acts of one kind or another in operation. The latest return available for Queensland shows that from 1910-11 to 1932-33 the number of dwellings built for workers was 15,524. In addition, there are 2,280 homes under the Workers Homes Act. It is highly desirable that people should be encouraged to buy their homes, and. we should not agree to any legislation which would tend to discourage them from doing so.

Mr Holloway:

– The results mentioned by the honorable member were achieved in the years when” the standard of living -was improving.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Not only was the standard of living improving but so also were the facilities for the buying of homes. In these days building societies have been formed in practically all country towns. This movement is natural and characteristic of the homeloving and home-acquiring instincts of our race. It appears to me that- if we retain the principle of making a charge on the homes of pensioners to recoup the Government for the amount paid in pensions we shall discourage people from acquiring homes. After all, parents buy homes, not only for their own enjoyment, but also for the advantage of their children; a husband naturally desires, in the event of early death, to leave a home for his wife’s occupation. We all know that considerable sentiment centres round the old family home. The building of homes by private people for their own occupation involves, of course, the payment of sewerage fees and municipal rates; also the expenditure of money in maintenance. These homes are bought, not by one expenditure of a large amount of money, but by many payments of a few shillings a week over a long period of years. Thi3 is the only means of saving that some people have. Hitherto, home purchasers have felt t-hat they would be able to leave their property to their children, but the incorporation in 0111 pension law of the provisions enabling the Government to attach the property of pensioners endangers this. Under existing conditions, people who buy homes for themselves are simply providing for a pension in their old age. In many instances homes are purchased by the combined operations of the whole family. The father may start by investing £100, obtained from a building society, but the children very frequently maintain the payments due to that society. By this means it is hoped that the home will ultimately become the unencumbered possession of the family. Many children contribute regularly towards the cost of homes until- they are themselves married and need homes of their own. In these circumstances, I believe that the sooner we remove the property provisions from our pensions law the better it will be. It was never intended when the homes were exempted in assessing the pensioner’s income that the Government should he recouped in this way for amounts disbursed in pension payments. I therefore hope that these provisions will be removed from the statute-book at the earliest possible moment.

The budget as a whole is undoubtedly welcome to the Australian people. It is desirable that the relief proposed to be given in various directions shall be afforded the people at the earliest possible moment. I therefore hope that the passage of the bill will not be unduly delayed.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- This measure is entitled “ A Bill for an Act to provide relief to taxpayers, to amend laws relating to financial emergency, and for other purposes.” I have a very decided objection to the practice of introducing bills covering a multiplicity of acts of Parliament. This measure, for instance, seeks to amend nine different acts of Parliament. During the two years that I have been a member of this Parliament, the Government has, on several occasions, followed this undesirable procedure. I hope that bills of this character will not be introduced in the future. It is very difficult for honorable members to express their views on all the subjects dealt with. Honorable gentlemen may agree with certain provisions and strongly disapprove of others. They are, therefore, under a serious disability. This measure proposes to amend legislation covering our land, income, sales and entertainments taxation, invalid and old-age pensions, war pensions, salaries and wages, and superannuation payments, and it also includes a number of general provisions. In the circumstances some honorable members will be forced to vote in favour of some provisions of the bill with which they disagree in order to give their approval to some other provisions of it with which they are in hearty accord. The Govern.ment should refrain from introducing legislation in this form. We should not be hampered in the expression of our opinion on specific matters of great public importance, but undeniably we are .so hampered when we are obliged to deal with a bill which seeks to amend nine different acts of Parliament, and all the amending acts associated therewith.

I wish to deal, first, with the land tax provisions of the bill. I have strongly urged for many years that the Government should completely repeal our land tax legislation. I do not agree with the opinion expressed by honorable members of the Opposition that the amendments of the land tax law proposed in this measure will, if approved, be in the nature of a Christmas box of £1,000,000 to the landholders of Australia. Unfortunately, many people who hold land in this country are only the nominal owners of it, for they are carrying- heavy financial burdens in the shape of land tax and otherwise in respect of such land, although their equity in it has practically disappeared in the last few years in consequence of the fall in the value of land. It often happens that taxpayers who submit returns to the department showing an actual loss on their operations over a certain period, are called upon to pay heavy sums in land tax. The Leader “of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has strongly criticized the Government for seeking to reduce the land tax, but I congratulate it for doing so.

In seeking to reduce this burden, however, the Government is likely to create additional anomalies in the administration of the department. The report of the Commissioner of Taxation for the year ended the 30th June, 1932, which is the last available, shows that in 1930-31 land tax yielded £2,139,511 to the revenue. If we allow for the onethird reduction of land taxation last year we must assume that the amount collected from this source last year was considerably less than £1,400,000. If we make a further allowance of 50 per cent, in respect of the assessments for the current year, it is evident that the revenue derived from this source will this year be somewhat less than £1,000,000, for it must be remembered that land values are still depreciating. The result of these reductions will mean that, while the land tax collected in Tasmania in 1931-32 amounted to £22,708, the yield last year must have been less than £14,000. Allowing for the 50 per cent, reduction proposed in this bill and also for the fall in land values, it is probable that the yield this year will be approximately £10,000. In the case of Queensland this source of taxation yielded £76,095 in 1931-32, . but in 1932-33, allowing for the reduction in the rate of the tax and the fall in land values, the yield must have been less than £50,000. Allowing for the further reduction of 50 per cent, now proposed and also the depreciation in values, the yield this year for that State will be less than £30,000. In spite of such reductions as these in all the States, the Government will still be obliged under our land tax legislation to maintain 13 land valuation boards, comprising 39 members, 13 of whom are permanent full-time chairmen. The same number of boards will have to be kept in commission in Tasmania, and the department will also be obliged to maintain the existing clerical staff and collecting machinery, although only a . paltry £10,000 will be collected. Three valuation boards with three permanent chairmen and nine members will also have to carry on their business in Queensland, and all the. clerical and travelling expenses and the outlay in respect to office accommodation will have to be incurred to collect approximately £30,000. The Government would have been well advised to apply in this field of taxation the procedure it applied to the entertainments taxation. It is proposing entirely to evacuate the field of entertainments taxation, and- it should also, I submit, entirely evacuate the field of land taxation. I do not suggest that it should forgo the sum. of £1,000,000 which it proposes to collect from this source; but I think that it should assure itself of this amount of money by adding a fraction to the income tax rate. We do not ask the Government to sacrifice necessary revenue by abandoning land taxation, but only to collect the amount it requires in the simplest possible form from those who are able to pay it. The persistence of the Government in assessing land taxation simply means that in many cases persons who own land, but have suffered serious losses, will be called before a court and obliged to plead poverty. The court will then say that if these land-holders really have no money with which to pay the tax, they will he forgiven the amount claimed from them. In other words people are forced to incur unnecessary expense and trouble in proving their poverty before they are exempt from land tax. The principle is wrong, and the sooner the Government recognizes the necessity for getting right out of the field of land taxation the better it will be, not only for those who have to pay the tax, but also for the whole community. If the Government vacated that field of taxation, revenue could be obtained from other sources, and all the expense associated with the administration of the Land Tax Act would be avoided.

Under the existing administration land tax returns are demanded from persons owning or holding land, the unimproved capital value of which exceeds £4,000. Prior to July last returns had to be furnished when the unimproved land value exceeded £3,000, but land was not taxable unless its unimproved capital value exceeded £5,000. On several occasions I brought this matter before the House, and I take this opportunity to ventilate it once more. I appeal to the. Prime Minister to consider the advisability of further raising the limit from £4,000 to, say, £4,750, or as near to £5,000 as is possible, to. avoid the’ collection of valueless returns. I have a letter. from the Prime Minister pointing out that he had had the matter investigated with the result that the limit had been raised from £3,000 to £4,000. It will, therefore, be seen that those persons owning land, the unimproved capital value of which exceeds the latter amount, still have to furnish land tax returns. When that alteration was made the ex-Assistant Treasurer (Senator Massy-Greene) stated definitely, in contradiction of my public statement, that it was effected, not as the outcome of representations made in this chamber, but in the ordinary course of events in the department over which he then presided. I am very pleased to find that that gentleman no longer presides over1 that department. The statement that the alteration was made in the ordinary course of events was untrue and unbecoming a Minister of the Crown. 15 o government should tolerate any Minister making a statement which is not only misleading but also a malicious and deliberate attempt to miscontrue facts. Approximately 10,000 land-owners are being compelled to furnish returns on land, the unimproved “value of which is between £4,000 and £5,000 and which, under the existing law, is not taxable. Under the present system the department is loaded with a lot of unnecessary returns, and the Government is caused considerable expense. The cost to land-owners who are not taxpayers is considerable in that they are compelled to comply with an unnecessary provision of the law by furnishing non-taxable returns.

Again I congratulate the Government upon the fact that it proposes to reduce income taxation, not, as has been suggested by honorable members of the Opposition, with the object of assisting its wealthy friends, but in the interests of the whole community. The more the Government reduces taxation, the greater will be the amount of money used by private enterprise in the development of the country and in the employment of labour. It is gratifying to find the Government introducing amending legislation of this description, providing for the considerable relief of taxation, particularly at a time when State Governments, notably in New South “Wales, arc also making reductions. These remissions will relieve private enterprise and industry generally of many unnecessarily heavy burdens carried in the past, all of which have impoverished industry to such a degree that it has been almost impossible for it to employ labour profitably. The outcome of tins legislation when enacted will be to increase incomes and eventually augment the amount of income tax collected. Immediately industry becomes- profitable employment will be increased and the number of taxpayers will become larger. Instead of people being burdened with unnecessary taxation we shall find buoyancy in industry. which will more than compensate the Government for the remissions of taxation which are to be made. I am offering constructive criticism in all seriousness in the interests of taxpayers. Owing to the numerous anomalies in our income tax legislation, many taxpayers are forced to pay income tax upon mythical millions. Let us consider the position of primary producers in the matter of their stock increases. There may be increases, but as the result of anomalies which may creep in, a taxpayer may be almost’ ruined, owing to the application of the act or regulations issued under it, or unsympathetic administration. I submit that the law requires drastic amendment. The natural increase may represent a considerable number of stock, but until the stock is sold and paid for, it should not be looked upon as income. The owners have not received the money on which they are taxed. Nevertheless they have to furnish an income tax return and include the specific value of the natural increase which has not been. sold. In many cases that natural increase could not be disposed of.

Mr Bell:

– The taxpayer is not compelled to show that; I never do so.

Mr THORBY:

– Up to a point it is optional. A taxpayer can return the actual sale value or a valuation on a basis accepted, years ago, which is expected to be adopted right through. Stock-owners are expected to pay income tax on high and fictitious values, and also to include the value- of large fodder reserves and crops which are unsold. The only logical principle, and one which does not permit of any evasion, is to assess taxpayers on the actual money received by them for the preceding twelve months, regardless of the stocks .accumulated or their natural increase of stock. They should not be taxed until these assets are realized, and the cash is actually received.

A similar anomaly exists under the sales tax acts. I am sorry that the Government has not seen fit to amend the incidence of sales taxation, and to grant relief as I suggest in connexion with income taxation. Under the present law practically every trader is being taxed on sales for some of which they have not been paid, and on others for which the money may never be collected. There is, of course, a provision relating to bad debts, but under which .few obtain relief. At present business men are being compelled to pay a sales tax of 6 per cent, on the total amount of the sales effected during the previous month, and in nearly every instance the tax is paid before the money is collected, thus throwing an unnecessarily heavy burden upon small traders whose resources ave limited. I appreciate the fact that the Government proposes to reduce the rate of the tax in this respect from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent. It is a reduction which will be appreciated by all sections of the community, and will afford a certain amount of relief; hut as the Government has not been able to fix a definite date upon which these reductions will become operative, trade and industry is being hampered, and put to a good deal of unnecessary expense. Practically no business, with the exception of that of an urgent nature, is at present being transacted, because those engaged in trading operations are anxious to obtain the benefit of the proposed reduction of 1 per cent. In many instances the sales tax on certain commodities is to be entirely removed.

Mr Marr:

– It depends on Parliament.

Mr.Thorby. - It was the duty of the Government to provide that these remissions should commence on a certain date. In many measures passed by Parliament provision is made for remissions to become operative on a specific date, regardless of whether they have or have not been passed by Parliament before that date. Similar provision could have been made with respect to the sales tax.

Mr Marr:

– The Government might so provide, and Parliament might not, agree to its legislation.

Mr THORBY:

– The logical course to adopt is to rely upon Parliament, in its wisdom, passing the bills. The passage of this hill depends upon the wisdom of Parliament. The Government is unwise in failing to provide that the amendments relating to the sales tax should commence on a specific date, as is provided in that portion of the bill dealing with income taxation, under which remissions are to be made retrospectively. Parliament may continue to debate this bill for a considerable time, but until it is passed, and a proclamation issued, these amendments of the sales tax law will not become operative. That is distinctly wrong. The Government should give the commercial interests a definite assurance that these amendments shall take effect on a specified date. The Government must realize that all the exemptions agreed to in the last amending legislation, which we are further amending under this bill, expired on the 30th September last, and that at present they are non-existent. They are being re-enacted under this legislation. The Government had power under regulations to extend such exemptions to only the 30th September, 1933, but not beyond that date. What is the position of traders who are selling goods which were exempt up to the 30th September, but which to-day are not exempt because that legislation is not now operative? If it is possible for the Government to make provision in that way, it should also be possible for it to specify the date when the amending sales tax legislation will become operative. On the 31st December, 1932, the Commissioner of Taxation issued an extensive volume containing 1,223 rulings on the sales tax acts alone. Those rulings cover a long period of time, and the great bulk of them will now become obsolete; because immediately this amending legislation is passed, it will be necessary for the Taxation Department to issue another volume of some hundreds of pages containing many hundreds of rulings to try to give the commercial interests of Australia some confused idea of where they stand in connexion with the sales tax. I have said outside, and I repeat in this chamber, that not even the Commissioner for Taxation himself, the Minister in charge, nor the Government itself can tell the, business interests to-day where they stand in connexion with the sales tax acts. I shall quote from this volume of rulings, and I challenge any honorable member, or the Parliament if necessary, to place a clear interpretation upon the position as it applies to certain business interests under the acts. If the proposed amendments are passed, all the existing rulings will be scrapped, and another hatch of complicated rulings will have to be issued, and probably honorable members will have to pay another 10s. for them. As further exemptions are made further anomalies are created immediately making it difficult for the department to administer the law. My criticism is constructive, because I wish the department totry to avoid the anomalies, disabilities, and annoyances that the people and commercial interests have suffered during the last two years. The amended legislation provides that if scoops are for use in farming or pastoral pursuits, they shall be exempt from sales tax. I quite appreciate the fact that the probable intention of the Government was to grant relief to those engaged in farming and pastoral activities by removing the sales tax from articles required by them, but in doing so the Government actually makes it utterly impossible for those persons to obtain exemption from sales tax. Exactly the same thing -will arise in connexion with scoops as arose in connexion with tractors. Recently 1 brought that matter before this House, and the Government has seen fit to alter the position. Under present conditions it is utterly impossible for the importers to give the necessary declaration demanded by the department in order to gain exemption under the Sales Tax Acts, because they do not know who is the buyer of the tractor or where it is to be used. Exactly the same thing applies to scoops, which under this legislation the Government proposes to exempt if they are used in agricultural or pastoral pursuits only. That is all right in theory, but in actual practice we find that scoops are bought, not by the farmer or grazier alone, but also by ‘shire councils, and pastoral protection boards, for the sinking of tanks and dams for the watering of travelling stock, and by contractors for the sinking of wells, &c, on pastoral and agricultural holdings. Under the proposed amending legislation exemption can be secured only in cases in which the stoop is to be purchased by a person directly or actually engaged in pastoral or agricultural pursuits, and he agrees to use it for no other purpose. Does the Assistant Minister suggest that the manufacturer of scoops knows whether his product is to be bought by a shire council, which will have to pay sales tax, or by a grazier, who will be exempt from sales tax? It will be impossible ‘to give effect to this legislation. The department will have to issue another batch of rulings, and demand from the traders securities as at present, and declarations specifying who exactly is to use the scoop, so that the exemption, which apparently is granted in this legislation, can be obtained. The same thing applies to fencing wire. If it is used for one purpose it is exempt from sales tax, but if it is used for another purpose it is not. No one knows where he stands in connexion with these items. In the majority of oases the tax is being collected on the very items which this Parliament has said were to be exempt, as the necessary declarations and securities cannot be supplied by the city business interests.

Under the Sales Tax Acts, the Government is, to my mind, acting unconstitutionally, because it is* augmenting customs duties. I can give scores of illustrations where the sales tax is eoi*lected on articles that have been imported. If of Australian manufacture the articles are exempt. Take an article such as cheese, bacon or ham. If it is an Australian product it is exempt from taxation, but if it is imported it still carries the sales tax. That procedure causes confusion among the commercial interests, because they do not know exactly what cheese, bacon or ham is taxable, and what is not. Another ridiculous position arises in connexion with the application of the sales tax. Bale fasteners, metal fasteners used in connexion with the fastening of wool bales after they have been pressed are, according to the Commissioner’s interpretation, exempt from sales tax on the condition that the manufacturer can. furnish a certificate and a statutory declaration to the effect that the package of bale fasteners, as sold by him, has been used for the specific purpose of fastening wool bales containing a primary product. How can any manufacturer or merchant supply the details demanded by the Taxation Department, and give the names and addresses of the thousands of people who: use bale fasteners, and a statutory declaration that they have been used for the purpose specified? The position is too ridiculous for words, and while bale fasteners are supposed to be exempt from sales tax the manufacturers are actually paying the tax because they cannot comply with the regulations laid down by the department. That is another illustration of the anomalous position in which the merchants and traders find themselves in connexion, with the application of this vexatious tax.

The rulings of the Taxation Commissioner more directly control trading activities to-day than do the sales tax acts. The business interests refer, not to the sales tax acts, but to the volume of rulings so as to decide what articles are taxable, and what are not. Take the position of the boot manufacturers. We are told that manufacturers are exempt from the payment of sales tax so long as they quote their registered number when purchasing their raw materials; but about fifteen or sixteen articles used by the manufacturer of boots and shoes have been placed by the Taxation Commissioner in the list of articles subject to sales tax. The manufacturer has to pay a sales tax of 6 per cent, when he buys these raw materials,1 and when he sells the finished article a further sales tax of 6 per cent, is demanded on the total value of the shoe. I contend that these articles are part and parcel of the shoe, helping to make up its ultimate value, and that the manufacturer should be allowed to quote his sales tax number so as not to be compelled to pay a sales tax of 6 per cent, twice on some materials. Under ruling 167, page 37 of the volume of sales tax rulings, abrasives used in connexion with the heel and bottom securing papers and pads are not exempt, and have to bear a sales tax of 6 per cent. In addition, sales tax is again levied on the finished article. We find also that benzine is taxable when used by a shoe manufacturer for cleaning purposes, because after it is used it evaporates, and as the Taxation Commissioner cannot find or see it, he will not allow it to be included in the value of the shoe. Thus sales tax of 6 per cent, is paid twice on the benzine. There is a long list of other articles such as cheese cloth, cover paper, french chalk, lacing thread, lasting tacks, patent cleaner, perforating paper, toe bracing wire, and vaseline. Vaseline is used in the manufacture of certain shoes, and this item appears in the volume of rulings as follows: - “Vaseline used when ironing patent leather with hot iron.” The vaseline vanishes some into the shoe and some into the air, or is burnt through the hot iron. As a result, sales tax is paid twice on that article when it is used by the boot manufacturer. I could give scores of other similar instances. Prom ruling 294 to ruling 377, there are 84 rulings governing the sales tax on containers, and it is utterly impossible to interpret the law as it applies to-day. No one can say when bags are taxable or not taxable.. If an importer of bran bags can say that they are to contain chaff they are not taxable, but if they are to contain bran they are taxable. Ruling 269 says that chaff- manufactured in Australia is not exempt from the sales tax as a primary product, ‘but that chaff used for the feeding of live-stock is exempt if it’ is grown or . manufactured in Australia. It is absolutely impossible for business interests to comply with the rulings of the Commissioner in regard to wrapping palmer and newsprint. If wrapping paper is used to wrap shoes, which are then placed in a cardboard container, it is exempt from sales tax. but if used to wrap the outside container it is subject to the tax. If clean newsprint is used for the printing of newspapers, it is exempt; but’ if the same newsprint is used for the printing of advertising matter, such as show schedules and sales schedules, which cannot b,e classified as newspapers, and the waste printed matter is subsequently sold to the local butcher for the wrapping of meat”) it is taxable. I repeat that while all these complications exist it is utterly impossible for business interests to comply with the requirements of the acts with any degree of certainty or cheapness. What I particularly wish to avoid is the overloading of business interests with the high clerical cost involved in complying with the instructions of the Commissioner. I make a serious appeal to the Assistant Minister (Mr. Casey), who has only recently been placed in charge of the administration of the taxing authorities, to lay it down as a hard and fast rule that every effort shall be made to relieve the’ business interests of Australia from unnecessary demands. I do not suggest that any taxpayer should be allowed to evade his responsibility; but I do say that the taxpayer should not be harassed without justification by the Commissioner. The following paragraph appeared in the press . only a few days ago, under the heading “ Sales Tax Prosecution Dismissed “ : -

After a hearing lasting several days, Sir. Laidlaw, C.S.M., in the Central Summons Court in Sydney this afternoon, dismissed an information laid by the Federal Taxation Department against P. R. Williams Limited, of Wentworth-avenue, of having failed to become registered within 28- days after the commencement of the Sales Tax Act. Mr. Laidlaw held that the defendant company had not been required to register until the act was amended in 1032. Costs of £15 15s. were allowed against the department.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired

Mr JENNINGS:
South Sydney

– I do not intend to speak at length, because I realize that the people of Australia are anxiously awaiting the passage of this legislation in order that they may participate in the beneficial effects of the proposed tax remissions. In many centres throughout Australia there has been a cessation of trading, because of the uncertainty that exists in regard to the sales tax. I have information to the effect that at least two Sydney factories are ceasing their operations because of the falling off of orders that have been held up awaiting sales tax remissions.

No one who has read the budget speech of the Treasurer (Mr. Lyons), can escape the conviction that a genuine attempt is ‘being made to lift Australia out of its economic troubles in a bold and statesmanlike way. It is certainly bold to budget for a deficit, particularly at a time when great stress is laid on the necessity for balancing budgets; but the Government realizes that, in order to rehabilitate Australia, it is necessary to remove some of the shackles that have been placed on industry and to enable it to escape from the barbed wire entanglements with which it is surrounded, Ministers, therefore, propose to effect remissions of taxation. It is unfortunate that during the last few years it has been found necessary to levy additional taxation. We are assured by the Treasurer, however, that the worst of the depression is over, and that Australia may now begin to reap the reward of the sacrifices which it has made. Some of the critics of the Government contend that it is going too far, and that it is not justified in budgeting for a deficit. I shall deal with that contention from a. business point of view. At the outset, I would remind honorable members that in his policy speech, delivered in the Sydney Town Hall in December, 1931, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) definitely stated that taxes would be remitted at the earliest possible moment, with a view to relieving industry of its burdens and easing the unemployment situation. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has argued that, instead of proposing these remissions, the Government should embark on a big public works programme that would cause money to circulate and enable factories to provide additional employment. The Prime Minister has rightly replied that the solution of the unemployment problem is rather in the hands of private enterprise, which, in normal times, is responsible for 82 per cent, of the employment provided. Government measures can be regarded only as temporary palliatives or expedients; it is to private enterprise that we must look to stem the tide of unemployment.

Let us consider the effect of taxation upon industry. I have before me the statement of a manufacturing concern in Sydney which affords a striking illustration of the burden thus imposed. , The figures are vouched for by a prominent firm of Sydney auditors. The percentage of payments to governments in special taxes to wages and salaries paid to employees is 36.09 ; that is to say, on every £100 paid in wages, over £36 is paid in special taxes. Notwithstanding the sea of taxation through which this industry has passed, it has managed, through careful and skilful control, to pay an 8 per cent, dividend; but in the process, it had to pay indirect taxes amounting to no less than 314.75 per cent. That is to say, for every £100 paid in dividends, over £314 was paid in direct taxation ; or for every £8’v paid in dividends, £26 was paid in direct taxation. The taxation paid on total sales amounted to 11.34 per cent. The socialization of industry is advocated by our friends opposite. The facts that I have related suggest that semisocialization is in progress. This concern has good foundation for its statement that, in addition to being a private business undertaking, it has been transformed into an employee of the Government.

The Government does not propose to confine itself to . assisting private industry; it also intends to embark on a vigorous public works programme. During the debate on this bill, the Sydney Water and Sewerage Board has been criticised for having undertaken works which, when completed, will have cost £2,500,000. I consider that it deserves commendation. The works will employ 10,000 men for two years, on a relief scale which averages about two weeks’ work in four, and the remuneration is according to the basic wage. The programme includes work of tremendous importance to the people of Sydney. About £1,250,000 will be spent on schemes such as the extension of water supply to outlying districts, including the areas of Ingleburn, Minto, Blacktown and St. Marys, and as far north as Newport. This will be the means of making available a water supply that will make the future safe for small settlers. In addition, reservoirs, rising mains, and work in amplification of mains will be carried out. The sum of about £1,250,000 will be spent in connexion with sewerage work, which entails the construction of large mains and sub-mains, as well as a large programme of reticulation that will make the sewer available to many areas around Sydney. A point that should not be overlooked is that the employment of 10j000 men for two years will save for the State Government the sum of £350,000, which it is now paying out for food relief. Further, apart from conserving the health of the community, the works will be reproductive and revenue producing.

I do not think that the most optimistic person in Australia imagined that, within two years, the Government would l>e. able to make taxation remissions amounting to £7,500,000. The action of the Government has ensured that money will pass into circulation. It is important to remember that every thousand pounds that is withdrawn from industry lessens to that degree the amount that is available for the payment of wages to develop industry, and that every pound that is restored to industry correspond ingly swells the wage fund. Encourage capital, and industry will expand and employment increase; and that is what the Government is doing. When we talk of “relieving industry,” we mean “relieving the people in general.” The remission of sales tax is an example, and although the reduction of the rate from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent., with additional exemptions, will involve the Government in a sacrifice of £2,500,000 in revenue, it will benefit all sections of the community of Australia. The great bulk of that money will remain in the pockets of the people who have had to pay it, for, like customs and other indirect taxes, it has been passed on to the public. The reduction will be greatly approved by trading concerns, as a tax of 5 per cent, is far easier to compute than one at 6 per cent., and the new rate will save much time and a good deal of expense to business men.

The reduction of income tax will be welcomed by a large section of the community. When a State bleeds the people by taxation it brings about a condition of national anemia; as one suffers so the other suffers, and as one flourishes so may we expect to see the other flourish. The Commonwealth is to be congratulated in this respect.

The Government is also to be highly commended for removing anomalies in connexion with invalid and old-age pensions. I make no secret of the fact that I should like to see the property section revised, or, p refer ably, removed; but I recognize the difficulties with which the Government is faced. I know that it has given the subject its earnest consideration, and that it is not because of any lack of sympathy or understanding that the provision has not been repealed; it is simply because the Government is desirous of safeguarding the interests of the general taxpayers, and also because no satisfactory alternative scheme has yet been devised. Honorable members of the United Australia party are fully aware that the Government has dealt exhaustively with the problem and many of them had suggested alternative schemes, long before other sections, in the chamber became so vociferous in the matter.

I believe that it is the general desire of honorable members to hasten the day of full recovery, but’ we all admit that the process must be a gradual one. It will be conceded that, in view of the tremendous crisis with which the nation has been confronted, remarkable progress has been made towards recovery, for which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet must be thanked. The fact still remains that, while the general taxpayers must find the necessarymoney for pensions and are entitled to all. reasonable safeguards, it is recognized that any man who owns his home, be he pensioner or otherwise, is a valuable citizen. The more home-owners we have the better it is for the country. Persons should be encouraged to establish homes of their own and have a real stake in the country, for there is no better antidote to the pernicious doctrines of communism. Those who think that every other country is better than their own are not truly representative of Australia. I believe that the time must come when our invalid and old-age pension legislation will have to be reviewed in the interests of the taxpayers generally as well as of pensioners.

I come now to the Public Service, which has been called upon to make considerable sacrifices during the last two or three years. No one with any real knowledge of the work that is performed by our public servants and the sacrifices which they have been called upon to make, will be other than glad that the work of restoration has begun and that they are to benefit to the extent of £550,000 during the present financial year. I have had a good deal of experience with these men through the business and civic world. We call the navy the “ silent service, “ and a similar compliment is due to our public servants who have carried on in the face of adversity, loyally, faithfully and silently. I hope that it will not be long before the Government is able to make . further restorations of salaries to these people. It is on the Government, however, that responsibility lies for leading the country safely out of the financial morass into which it floundered. Nothing has impressed me so much during this debate as the readiness of honorable members opposite to tell the Government how the money which it has saved ought to be spent.

The budget estimate is conservative and well-controlled, and, in my opinion, in accordance with commercial and accountancy practice: I should not be surprised if there is a surplus instead of a deficit when the financial year closes. With industry stimulated and more money in circulation, there will be an increased- return from sales tax; income tax will probably show an increase, and, notwithstanding substantial reductions of customs duties on account of exchange adjustments, the revenue from that quarter may show an increase because of the additional spending power of the people and the resultant larger volume of trade. The position is further affected by the fact that prices of commodities have in many instances become steadier. The indications, indeed, are that prices are improving. Our credit at home and abroad has improved vastly since this Government assumed office, and for this we owe a great deal to the invaluable work Mr. Bruce has done. in London. The loan conversions which were effected under his guidance have resulted so far in an annual saving of no less than £1,280,000 in interest payments. If exchange is added, the annual saving is £1,600,000. By sane and sound methods, and by adhering to its election promises, the Government has not only stabilized our credit in Australia and London, but has actually placed it on a higher level than has been the case for many years. That is a notable achievement, and the Government deserves the thanks of the people of the Commonwealth. I believe that these tax remissions indicate that we have “ turned the corner “, and that our sacrifices have not been in vain. I agree that “ The more we work and the less we talk, the better results we shall get “. . We have had our lesson, and it is up to us to profit by it. In the words of Kipling -

Let us admit it fairly, as a business people should,

We have had no end of a lesson; it will do us jio end of good.

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

– I support the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). I sincerely believe that the financial position of the Commonwealth, as revealed by the budget, warrants a.complete restoration of salaries of federal public servants and payments to invalid and old-age pensioners. It would not be inappropriate for me to refer to the promise that was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), when on the 9th July, 1931, when, as Leader of the Opposition, he was speaking on the Financial Emergency Bill then under consideration. His remarks on that occasion, which I take from Hansard, are as follow : -

I appeal to the right honorable member for North Sydney not to persist in his amendment, because he has the assurance of the Treasurer, on behalf of the Government, that this is merely an emergency measure. Every honorable member on the Opposition side has looked upon it in that light. 1 was one of the first to suggest the general reduction of expenditure, because I knew that it was inevitable. Were it possible to avoid these cuts, I would certainly have done all in my power to prevent them. Not one member on this side of the chamber supports with pleasure the reduction of wages and pensions, and, so far as we are concerned, the reduction will not operate longer than is necessary for the restoration of financial stability. At the earliest possible moment, members on this side will stand behind any proposal for the restoration of the wagesand conditions that have been enjoyed by public servants up to the present time. Possibly in three years the circumstances of the Commonwealth will have so improved that the old conditions can be restored.

I can only conclude from that promise that the Government has been guilty of misleading the people of Australia. The present Prime Minister, while specifically referring to the restoration of salaries to public servants, inferentially included restorations to pensioners. Unfortunately, that is one of many promises that have been made by honorable members opposite only to be broken at the first opportunity. Last year the Government was in a position to honour its promises to the public servants and pensioners. Instead, it subjected them to further reductions, and claimed that it was necessary to balance the budget. Yet within two months it remitted approximately £9,590,000 to the wealthy section of the community! It budgeted for a deficit of £1,301,000, and finished the year with a surplus of £3,546,000.

During the debate on the budget last year, honorable members on this side of the House opposed the proposals to make further encroachments on the salaries of public servants and payments to pensioners on the ground that the Government’s tariff-slicing policy would result in additional customs revenue and, consequently, a surplus. Our forecast has proved correct. Last year the Government reduced pensions and the salaries of public servants by another £1,513,000. It now proposes to restore to them only £113,000 more than it then took away.

I regret greatly that the Government has not fully restored the reductions made in pensions and Public Service salaries. While the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) was paying a recent visit to Brisbane, he made what I regarded as a promise that favorable consideration would be given by Cabinet to the request of public servants for a full restoration of their salaries. At a banquet tendered to him by the officers of his own department,the honorable gentleman made certain remarks which certainly justified the expectation that the Government would do a great deal more than it has done in this respect. The report of the banquet, which appeared in the Daily Mail of the 9th August, 1933, read as follows : -

page 3635

QUESTION

OFFERS HOPE

Postal Salaries

Minister’s Sympathy. willurge claims. “ I believe the case of the Federal Public Service for a restoration of the reductions in salaries made as a financial emergency measure is entitled to the fullest consideration. I assure these public servants that they can rely on a greater measure of sympathy from the Ministry to which I belong than from any other.”

This statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Archdale Parkhill), to members of the Queensland Postal Institute last night was received with cheers.

Mr. Parkhill said he agreed that postal workers were not by any means overpaid, and the question of their salaries would receive the earnest consideration of the Cabinet. “ You can rest assured,” said Mr. Parkhill, “ that my sympathies are with those who are striving rather than with the conservative forces.” “ You can take my word that what I am saying to you to-night on this question of salaries I will say in another place, where my words might have some effect.” ( Applause. )

That promise, like many others, was made to be broken. The Postmaster-General did not. repeat his words in the speech which he delivered last night.

The provision which the Government is making for the partial restoration of pensions is totally inadequate to the needs of the situation. Representing, as I do, a city constituency, I have been interviewed by thousands of pensioners in the last twelve months. I could quote literally, thousands of cases of hardship which pensioners have submitted to me; but as they are of the same nature as other cases which have been referred to during this debate, I shall not do so. When the Financial Emergency Bill was under discussion last year, honorable gentlemen on this side of the chamber said that the real effect of the provisions of that measure would be to reduce pensions to 153. a week generally, but Government supporters replied that the rate of pension would, in the majority of cases, remain at 17s. 6d. a week. Experience has shown that the members of the Opposition correctly interpreted the effect of the bill. On that occasion, the Government promised that it would restore the pension rate to £1 a week when the financial situation permitted it do so; but although the financial situation has enabled it to grant remissions of taxation amounting to millions of pounds in all to wealthy sections of the community, it has done next to nothing for the pensioners. We have been told that the provision now being made for the determination of the pension rate in the future, according to the cost of living figures, will ultimately restore pensions to £1 a week; but few pensioners alive to-day would ever again enjoy a pension at that rate if they had to wait for a cost of living adjustment. Fortunately, there is every prospect that this Government will be defeated at the next election, and when the Labour party returns to office, it will restore the pension rate to £1 a week, and also fully restore Public Service salaries and other social service advantages. I am glad that the Government has proposed certain amendments to the existing law which will enable pensioners to earn up to 12s. 6d. a week without endangering their pension. This, however, is a very small measure of relief. I remind the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), who made a point of this concession in a speech which he delivered yesterday, that the Scullin Government made a provision to that effect which was repealed by the Financial Emergency Bill passed last year. This Government is merely offering a sop to the. unfortunate pensioners. The plain truth is that pensioners cannot expect any full restoration of their pension rate until the Labour party is returned to office.

The property provisions incorporated in our pensions legislation by thi3 Go- vernment have been harsh and unjust in their operation, and I .sincerely hope that the members of the Country party who have said that they favour the repeal of those provisions will fight with effective rifles, and not with pop-guns, in their endeavour to force the Government to repeal these pernicious sections of the act. Certain members of the Government party have also announced their intention of voting for the repeal of these provisions. I hope that they, with the members of the Country party, will stand by the Opposition in a united effort to secure this measure of relief for the pensioners. Although I could occupy the attention of the House for hours with specific cases of hardship among pensioners, I shall confine my attention to one case which I mentioned in this House on the 12th of May, 1933. It relates to the home of a widow which was purchased by one of her .two daughters. The property is in the mother’s name, but she has made a sworn declaration that it was purchased by one of her daughters and that she herself has not contributed a farthing towards the cost of it. Under section 52 ea. of the Act it is provided that the commissioner may, if satisfactory evidence is submitted to him, exempt the property of pensioners either wholly or in part from attachment by the Government. The daughter concerned in this case made an application to the commissioner for such exemption and at his request submitted affidavits to the effect that her mother had npt contributed towards the purchase of the property although it was in her name. The commissioner has not, so far, relieved the anxiety of the daughter regarding the fate of the property in the event of her mother’s death. I sincerely hope that action taken by honorable members before this bill leaves the commitee stage, will ensure that there will be no . likelihood whatever of such. a property being sold to recoup the Government for any amount that may have been paid in pension to the occupier of it. Many thousands of ex-pensioners have surrendered their pensions rather than incur the risk of losing their properties. The Prime Minister stated that, as a result of the amended pensions legislation, over 12,000 pensions have been surrendered, and that this has enabled the

Government to effect a saving of approximately £500,000 a year. The Government has also saved many thousands of pounds owing to persons entitled to pensions declining to make application for them, because they are afraid of their homes being taken over by the department.

I am disappointed that the Government does not propose fully to restore public servants’ salaries. The amount involved in the restoration of21/2 per cent. of such salaries will cost the Government £570,000 a year. There was no justifiable reason for the further reduction which was made last year because of a variation in the cost-of-living figures. In view of the present buoyant position, the Government should return to public servants the full amount of which they have been deprived.

I am also pleased to find that the pensions to superannuated Commonwealth public servants are to be restored. During the last five months I have conversed with many of such officers, and I am convinced that they should not have been compelled to suffer any reduction under the Financial Emergency Act, as they are in a totally different position from others who had to make sacrifices. They contributed to the Commonwealth superannuation fund according to their means, as a form of life assurance, in orderto provide them with a regular income during their retirement. Many of them were able to contribute for a sufficient number of units to provide them with a pension of £2 a week, but under the financial emergency legislation thispension was considerably reduced, and in many cases ex-officers were receiving less than invalid and old-age pensioners.

I am pleased to learn that consideration is also being extended to those in receipt of war pensions, and that some of the cuts made last year are to be restored.

In committee I propose to move certain amendments which, I trust, will have the support of the majority of honorable members. It is claimed that, as a result of the remission of taxation, particularly the land tax and sales tax, additional employment will be provided ; but I am convinced that, as the result of the remissions proposed, not more than 1,000 additional persons will be provided with employment. During the last twelve months unemployment has been reduced by only 2 per cent. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde).

Mr HOLMAN:
Martin

.- The honorable member who has just spoken enunciated certain bloodthirsty sentiments concerning honorable members on this side of the chamber, which did injustice to his amiable temperament and his good heart. He did not, however, give effect to them, for which we feel a certain amount of gratitude, and he has recognized the urgency of passing this bill speedily by delivering a brief but exceptionally interesting speech for which we owe him more. I, too, recognize the necessity for facilitating the passage of the bill; but I crave the indulgence of the House to challenge certain statements concerning the budget, on which this bill is based, which were made last night by the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley). I ask the House not to consider what ought to be done by the Government but to examine as did he what is proposed under this bill. The honorable member said that the Government had been scattering largess amongst the wealthy supporters of the Government whose hirelings they are and whose behests they carry out.

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

– He did not use those terms.

Mr HOLMAN:

– Not in those words, but that is my interpretation of them. I say with every possible respect to and admiration for the honorable member for Darling who has been my personal friend for the last twenty years, that I do not. suppose the House was deeply affected by what he said. In the first place I would ask the House to realize the forms of taxation under which remissions are proposed. The total remissions in indirect taxation are estimated to amount to £4,330,000, while the total remissions of direct taxation amount to approximately £3,020,000. In the first place we should consider the indirect taxation which affects the whole population. Any person who purchases an article upon whi ch sales tax and primage duty are imposed cannot escape taxation. The number of wage-earners in this country totals about 3,000,000, and I think that we are safe in assuming that this 3,000,000 pay indirect taxation. Those who - pay income tax number 300,000. It is probable that there are but few who pay land tax who would not be included in that 300,000, because our land taxation laws do not affect those owning a. property the unimproved value of which is £5,000 or less. It is improbable that persons, holding land of that value, do not pay any income tax at all, and would therefore be included in the 300,000 mentioned. We may assume, therefore, that 300,000 pay direct taxation. The items upon which indirect taxation is to be remitted are set out in the budget speech. With the exception of numbers 4, 7 and 8 which cover reduced duties and excise on spirits, benzol and crude rubber, I cannot find one which is not of immediate interest to the masses, and particularly the workers, in whose well-being we are as much interested as are those who make the welfare of the masses their political stock in trade. I frankly confess that I do not know whether a reduction of 4d. a gallon in the excise on benzol is being made in the interests of those wealthy aristocrats mentioned by the honorable member for Darling. A reduction of 2d. a lb. on crude rubber is also proposed. Some time ago I said by way of interjection that the man on the land did not live on galvanized iron, and I may say now that the aristocrat does not live, on crude rubber. I admit, however, that the reductions on those two items may be singled out as a special concession to what some may term the plutocrats. There is also to be an adjustment of duties in accordance with the Tariff Board’s recommendation on exchange amounting to £310.000.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I must remind the honorable member that the House is discussing the Financial Relief Bill, and that extended reference to the budget or the tariff is not in order.

Mr HOLMAN:

– I have no desire to transgress the rules of debate.’ There is to be a reduction of duty on beer. Surely no honorable member will say that beer is a special drink of the aristocracy, or that honest toilers like ourselves do not sometimes find a desirable relaxation in having a drink of beer. There is also a reduction of duty on tea. J have had much pleasure in drinking tea in this House with other honorable members, Who are certainly just as industrious as I am, and probably better representatives of the workers. There is also a reduction of excise on spirit for fortifying wines. While wine is not essentially a drink of the workingclass, though it should be in Australia, the spirit applied to the fortification of wine is used almost wholly in connexion with the preparation of port and sherry. Those are much more popular drinks than dry wine, which is consumed mostly by the aristocracy whose favours, as conferred by this Government, we are now discussing, and who apparently are receiving no concession in this particular instance. With the exception of the two items that I have enumerated - benzol and rubber - and certain spirits such as brandy and whisky, which may be regarded perhaps as the drink of the club man, and not of the worker, every reduction of customs or excise duty is of direct benefit to the masse3 in Australia. Of course, some reductions, such as that in respect of tea, do benefit the aristocracy. Nevertheless, if we take the taxing liability generally as our guide, we find that there are 300,000 favoured people who carry the burden of taxation, and that the remaining 2,700,000 people are the struggling poor, who are exempted from direct taxation. It can fairly be assumed that the indirect remissions will benefit the worker in the same proportion, possibly not 9 to 1, but” probably 5 or 6 to 1. The great mass of the people benefits mostly by these remissions. Some concessions are unquestionably being made to industries. There is no remission of sales tax upon raw materials, because they are not affected by sales tax, but there is a remission of sales tax upon machinery. It may be said that the remissions of this tax will benefit the employers rather than the employees. In’ a time of depression, such as that through which we are passing, the purchase of machinery is at the lowest level, and many industries, during the last three or four years, must have postponed renewals and replacements because of the lack of funds. Therefore, the sales tax collected on machinery must have -been small. On the whole, it can fairly be said that the remissions of sales tax will be of direct and immediate advantage to the poorer sections of society. What is true of the sales tax is also true of the primage duty, with certain modifications which I am not now in a position to discuss in detail; but the great bulk of the benefits under the remissions of primage will especially benefit the poorer sections of the community. The remissions of sales tax amounting to £2,570,000, and of primage duty amounting to £450,000, will directly benefit the less favoured classes of society. The total remissions amount to about £7,500,000. Of indirect taxation they amount to £4,330,000, of which, I think, £1,000,000 may fairly be considered as largess to the upper classes, the remainder being a definite gift to those who depend upon their daily exertions for their daily bread. I come now to direct taxation which is at present paid only by those whom the honorable member for Darling has described as the wealthy class. .It is not paid by any one whose yearly income is less than £250, and I cannot see what special interest honorable members opposite have in the rights and enjoyments of those who are receiving an income in excess of that amount. According to the honorable member for Darling, the wealthy are being specially favoured by the Government. Surely he does not ask us to believe that he divides the wealthy into two strata, one a reasonably wealthy class with an income of from £250 to, say, £400, and the other an unreasonably wealthy class, and that he is prepared to defend the rights of the one. as against those of the other. Income tax and land tax are contributed by the more wealthy members of Australian society, and if they are to be relieved of taxation to a greater extent than the less wealthy, surely no objection should be taken by honorable members opposite who claim to represent the working classes. Surely the honorable member for Darling would not say -that the artisan, the carpenter or the engineer should be relieved of income tax. which would only be payable in very unusual circumstances. Therefore the honorable member cannot say that he is fighting for those who pay income tax. Contrary to the honorable member, I would divide society into two classes - one which pays direct taxation, and the other which, does not. These remissions of taxation are perfectly justifiable. The remissions of indirect taxation are, with certain exceptions, of direct benefit to the working class, and the remissions made in direct taxation, however wrong they may be according to honorable members opposite - and I do not admit that they are wrong - affect that section of society which we on this side of the House, at least, recognize must bo watched and protected, and saved from bankruptcy just as much as that section of the community represented by the Opposition.

Mr Scullin:

– Does the honorable member contend that remissions of direct taxation should have been made before the Government honoured its promise to restore reductions of wages and. salaries and social services?

Mr HOLMAN:

– Some of the remissions of direct taxation are justifiable. Those to whom we look to restore our position in an emergency should be considered and their necessities provided for. Take the illustration of a ship which is on the verge of sinking. If it were thought that the ship would sink almost immediately the invalids on board would have every consideration; but if it were thought that the sinking might be prevented by the working of the pumps, all the food available on the vessel would be distributed among the able-bodied, men so that they could keep the ship afloat. A good commander would give those men first consideration. Similarly, when this country has been on the verge of bankruptcy, and certain industries have suffered severely, we have been faced with the necessity to save them even at the expense of other sections of the community. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) was, for instance, one of the first to bring forward proposals to assist the wheat industry. His proposals, although we did not agree with them, were right in principle, and the right honorable gentleman acted in a statesmanlike manner in his application of those principles. The great bulk of the remissions of £7,500,000 will benefit directly, and not merely indirectly, the poorer section of the community. In addition to this, a further sum of £1,500,000 is to be restored to invalid and old-age pensioners, war pensioners, public servants, and drawers of superannuation. The increased expenditure in respect of those items compared with last year is £1,500,000. A careful and impartial scrutiny of the Statistician’s figures must lead one to the conclusion that in view of the surplus which is available, and the deficit which might fairly be contemplated without alarm next, year, the Government has made every endeavour to give relief to every section of society. I join with many other honorable members in congratulating the Government upon the introduction of its splendid budget, because two years ago had we been told that the Government intended to ‘make these remissions at this .stage, our credulity could not have withstood the shock.

Mr MCNICOLL:
Werriwa

.- I ‘do not propose to support the amendment of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde).

Before dealing with the Financial Relief Bill, I take this opportunity to offer personal congratulations to the Assistant Minister (Mr. Casey), who, so far, has been in charge of the measure, upon his accession to ministerial rank, and to express appreciation of the manner in which he has handled one or two points that have arisen jim. debate. His demeanour is likely to conduce to a very much better atmosphere, and to a higher tone of debate, in this House.

The bill provides for remissions of taxation. These have been referred to frequently by the Opposition as gifts to the wealthy sections of the community. I consider that it is impossible to regard, the remission of taxation as a gift. The Government merely proposes to refrain from taking what otherwise would be taken. The result of the proposed concessions will be a deficit at the end of the present financial year of a little over £1,000,000, to provide for which the Government has up its sleeve an accumulated surplus of £4,S60,000 ; consequently, there will still he a surplus of over £3,500,000 to. carry forward to the next financial- year. It has been pointed out by an honorable member that the present proposals imply that public business is prospering, and that we may anticipate a repetition of last year’s experience, when the Government, which had budgeted for a small deficit, closed the accounts with a substantial surplus. If the revenue of the first three months of the current financial year is maintained for the balance of the year, we can reasonably expect another surplus instead of a deficit. It has been suggested that further remissions of taxation should be made. The Government, however, may have some object in saving portion of the accumulated surplus. If it has in mind the possibility of having to provide substantial relief for the wheat industry, there may be justification for keeping this sum in reserve.

My colleague, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), has dealt on two occasions with the sales tax and with the Taxation Department generally, and I do not propose to refer to those subjects. I believe that it would have been better to divide a big bill like this and deal with it in sections. The proposed restoration of Public Service salaries is not very great. It will, I think, be agreed that the reductions, made last year hit very severely the lower-paid members of the Public -Service. The Postin assterGeneral (Mr. Parkhill) has probably learned that hundreds of responsible men in his department were then reduced to a figure almost, lower than the basic wage. The flat-rate reduction seemed most unfair., hitting, as it did., the lower-paid men. I deeply appreciate the proposed restoration, but find it almost impossible to understand the formula according to which the amounts are calculated.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– The lowerpaid men will receive the best return. Those whoso salaries are less than £300 will have restored to them all that has been deducted, except the reduction based on the cost of living figures.

Mr McNICOLL:

– I am glad that there are to he returned some of the reductions made in war pensions. According, to a statement, that appeared in the press to-day, the aggregate amount provided for the payment of war pensions this year is lower than it was- last year. In 1931 the appropriation under this head was nearly £S,000,000; in 1932 it was almost £7,500,000 ; and in 1933 it was in the vicinity of £6,900,000. This definitely indicates that the recipients of war pensions are passing on to a place where the pension is of no further use to them. From one point of view, that causes sadness. On the other b.aud, however, the Government must realize that this obligation is gradually being lessened. But that is not the case with invalid and old-age pensions. When hard tunes struck Australia, the number of invalid and old-age pensioners increased, and that increase has been maintained, apart from the reductions which allegedly are due to the possibility of prosecution or punishment in the case of fraudulent and unwarranted claims. The Government now proposes to restore the pension rate to 17s. 6d. a week. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has suggested that it should be made £1 a week; but he has failed to realize that, with the present number of pensioners, the Government would be. involved in an additional expenditure of £2,000,000 or £3,000,00,0. He has also overlooked the fact that at the present time 17s. 6d. is worth more than £1 was worth three or four years ago. I am pleased to note that a matter which I brought up twelve months ago - the proportionate payment to inmates of tubercular homes and other institutions - has been dealt with. The proposal to increase this payment from 3s. 9d. to 5s. a week is an excellent one. Then there is the contentious subject, the property owned by pensioners. .1 do not favour the practice of bringing forward individual cases in a second-reading speech. Every honorable member has had placed before him instances of very great hardship. I have had numerous cases referred to me, but I shall not now go into the details. The point to be stressed is that the property provisions of the act have operated in a way that was never intended, and have certainly caused considerable hardship. Some honorable members claim that they have led to the relinquishment of pensions, and have thereby saved the Government an appreciable outlay. I contend, however, that the Government has been put to a great deal of trouble, and has suffered considerable damage. Throughout the House not only in the ranks of the Opposition, but also among Government supporters, there is the feeling that these provisions should be re-considered. Therefore, I was gratified to read in the press this morning the statement that the Government is definitely preparing to take action with respect to these offensive sections of the act, and to remove the cause of offence. It is also stated in the press, but not by the Government, that such an amendment would cost £1,000,000. I cannot see any basis for that figure, and do not for a moment believe that’ it is accurate. If the removal of the property provisions were to result in claims being made by unqualified persons, the Government could tighten up its departmental machinery. It is ridiculous to say that the removal of these provisions would add £1,000,000 to the expenses of the Government. Their enactment did not reduce the outlay on pensions by £1,000,000; and one is the natural corollary of the other. I therefore hope that the Government will meet the wishes of the Opposition, the Country party, and many of its own supporters, by dealing fairly with this matter, which involves not only financial but also sentimental considerations.

Both the Government and the country are to be congratulated on the main features of this measure. I am sorry, however, that it is brought down in such ‘ a form that honorable members are obliged to discuss a number of subjects in a limited space of time.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- -The sales tax acts have had the effect of adding seriously to the cost of running businesses, particularly wholesale businesses. I am informed that some wholesale businesses have had to incur expenditure amounting to thousands of pounds a year on clerical labour for the compilation of the returns required under the acts. The difficulties of wholesalers who also do retail business are worse than those of purely wholesale concerns. It is not right that a special tax should be imposed on any particular section. The wholesalers are largely performing the functions of the department, by collecting the tax. I am informed that about one-half of the total amount is collected by them. I commend to the Government the suggestion that the extra expense which on this account has to he incurred should be compensated for by the allowance of a small discount on the total amount of sales tax which the wholesalers have to pay. The extent of the discount could well be ascertained by the Commissioner of Taxation, who can obtain full information on the subject from the returns submitted.

The bill proposes to grant relief to life assurance companies to an extent estimated at about £710,000. In the discussion on the budget it was stated that the Leader of the Opposition (Mi-. Scullin) had expressed the view that the tax on these companies; was not justifiable, and ought to be removed, and as the Government gave an assurance that that taxation would be removed I was satisfied, but many honorable members opposite are- adopting the opposite view and protesting against the proposed reduction. I should like the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to give an explanation as to the nature of and the need for the remissions. Insurance taxation is an intricate subject and can be understood only by an expert. We have been told that one result of these remissions will be a reduction of the interest charged to the public. Even before the Government announced its intention to reduce this taxation, the Australian Mutual Provident Company stated its willingness to pass on any remissions to those who have borrowed money from the society. I should like the Minister to state whether he has had ov has expectations of similar assurances from other companies, and to what extent he anticipates interest will be reduced as the result of the remissions.

I shall deal only briefly with invalid and old-age pensions, because I referred extensively to the subject during the debate on the budget. Last year I objected to further reductions being made in pensions because I considered that the proposed bill went beyond the scope of the Premiers plan. The matter was reviewed by the Government and a substantial improvement made in favour of the majority of pensioners. With other honorable members I accepted that compromise, which was accompanied by a promise that the matter would again be reviewed when the financial position of the country had improved. There has been sufficient improvement to warrant the Government making further restitution to pensioners who, I am sure, will feel grateful that the rate is now to be 17s. 6d. a week. I for. one am pleased with the action of the Government. The property provisions of the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act have been made the subject of controversy and I believe that they should be substantially amended. The Leader of the Country party indicated that he would move an amendment, and, had the Government not given an assurance on the matter, I should have voted for the amendment. But the Prime Minister has given a definite undertaking that before Parliament goes into recess an opportunity will be afforded honorable members to review the whole subject of pensions, and that offer I gladly accept. Pensioners, as well as others who will benefit from this amending legislation, are eager to have it passed without delay. Therefore I shall not continue to discuss the merits or demerits of the property provisions, but will accept the assurance of the Prime Minister and support the second reading of the bill.-

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

.- In common with other honorable members on this side I oppose the bill as it stands, and support the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) is evidently under the impression that honorable members of the Opposition oppose the proposed reduction of taxation in respect of life assurance companies. While the charge might truly lie against the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) and those “who support .him, it cannot lie against honorable members of the official Opposition.

On the 31st May, 1931, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) promised that directly the financial position was restored, invalid and old-age” pensions and the salaries of public servants would be reinstated to the level which obtained before the operation of the Financial Emergency Acts. The right honorable gentleman has changed his views upon that point, and it is in that respect honorable members of the Opposition differ from the Government. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey). and the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman) took umbrage at the suggestion that the bill provides benefits principally for the wealthy sections of the community, and more or less neglects pensioners and public servants. The honorable member for Martin spoke at length upon the indirect advantages which will be enjoyed by the poorer sections of the community as the result of these remissions, and you, sir, prevented him from referring to the tariff. These are matters which will come up for discussion when we deal with the budget in committee, when we shall be able to prove that a large proportion of the remissions of customs duties will not be handed on to the consumer, as some honorable members so fondly hope will be the case.

When dealing with the budget the Prime Minister dealt with three issues upon which his party went to the country. One was the Government’s undertaking to balance the budget, which is a contentious subject. Industrialists who support the Opposition do not believe that the budget should be balanced by imposing burdens upon the poorer sections of the community.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]

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

– When honorable members of the Labour party who supported the Scullin Government were compelled by circumstances to agree to certain reductions of pensions and wages, and by so doing, appeared to be turning their backs upon principles for which they had stood throughout their lives, they undertook to restore the cuts that were made immediately the financial position of the country enabled that to be done. The present Prime Minister, who was then Leader of the Opposition, also gave an undertaking to that effect. Yet within a few short months, the right honorable gentleman has entirely repudiated that undertaking. I remember that the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson), on one occasion, when he was questioning the Prime Minister, said that he found it difficult to pin the right honorable gentleman down to anything. I can now sympathize with the honorable member. I have no animus against the

Prime Minister, but I feel certain that he is at present taking a course which he will eventually regret. Nemesis undoubtedly follows those who eschew their principles. The Prime Minister should not have repudiated his own undertaking to pensioners and public servants. As a matter of fact, the right honorable gentleman has done worse than that, for when he introduced the Financial Emergency Bill last year, and told us that it was probable that there would be a deficit of £1,460,000 on the year’s operations, he proceeded to call upon pensioners to submit to further reductions amounting to £1,100,000. Honorable members of the Labour party pointed out that the customs revenue for that part of the year which had elapsed since the introduction of the budget was £900,000 in excess of the budget estimate, and argued that in those circumstances, it was unreasonable to expect a deficit. Events proved that our attitude was sound, for the year ended, not with a deficit, but with a surplus of £3,546,600. This made it all the more regrettable that the Government should, at that time, have called upon the pensioners to suffer an even heavier blow than they received when Australia was actually facing a condition of emergency. Not only did the Government reduce the rate of pension; it also incorporated in our pensions act the property sections which have been the cause of so much trouble and distress. The provision that the Government shall be entitled to recoup itself for amounts paid in pensions by attaching the property of pensioners makes the pension even less than a loan. By taking this action, the Prime Minister was guilty of a distinct breach of faith. Having promised that, immediately the financial position warranted it, pensions would be restored, the right honorable gentleman proceeded to take from the pensioners another £1,100,000 to offset an estimated deficit of £1,460,000. The pensioners were therefore called upon to provide 75 per cent. of the expected deficit. It was deplorable to penalize the most needy section of the people in this way. The Government also called upon public servants to make an additional sacrifice of £220,000 in respect of cost of living reductions, although it was understood when the original financial emergency measures were taken by the Scullin Government that no further reduction of public servants’ salaries would be made in consequence of cost of living readjustments until such cost of living adjustments exceeded the percentage losses which public servants had suffered under the financial emergency legislation.

Mr Hutchin:

– The amount that was taken was given to the wheat-farmers.

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

– The honorable member’s interjection reminds me that the wheat-farmers are the one class of primary producers in Australia which will receive no benefit whatever from the Government’s proposals. Not a penny piece is being provided to assist the wheat-growers. I do not know what arrangements the members of the Country party have made with the Government, or what tick-tacking is going on between the Government and the Country party, but I protest strongly on behalf of the wheat-growers of Western Australia that nothing is being done for the wheat industry of the Commonwealth. In the year that the Government took the additional amounts that I have mentioned from the pensioners and the Public Service, it also remitted taxation to the extent of £2,100,000. In these circumstances we are entitled to ask what has animated the Prime Minister, and his party to take this course and especially what has caused them to fight the invalid and old-age pensioners of Australia. Is it because a certain section of the press of Australia has demanded insistently that taxation shall be remitted ? I know that it is said that the remissions of taxation will benefit the unemployed, but it is hardly to be expected that we shall display such a child-like faith as to believe that the largess which the Government is distributing to its wealthy friends will, by some circuitous method, find its way back to the workers of Australia. These remissions of taxation have been made, in my opinion, in consequence of certain sinister influences at work in Australia. A section of the press controls the policy of this Government. When it calls upon the right honorable gentleman at the head of the Government to jump or to march, he jumps or he marches. He is the creature of these press interests, but Nemesis will surely overtake him. I believe that the people of Australia will not approve of this pandering to- the wealthy interests in the community. There is a spirit of justice abroad in the Commonwealth. When our invalid and old-age pension legislation was placed on the statute-book, through the work of one of the greatest statesmen that Australia has ever known, the Right Honorable Alfred Deakin, it was never intended that the property of these old people should’ be attached. Mr. Deakin was not a Labourite, but I pay my tribute to him as an illustrious statesman, and honour hi in for the work he did for the poor people of Australia. Instead of a deficit la?t year the Government found itself with a surplus of £3,546,000, towards which the invalid and old-age pensioners and also members of the Public Service made a substantial contribution by the sacrifices they were called upon to make.

Such budgeting is fictitious, and should not be resorted to by a responsible government or tolerated by any legislature. The Prime Minister has stated that invalid and old-age pensioners are to receive some benefit under the Government’s proposals, and that every pension is to be increased by 2s. 6d. a week, provided that it does not exceed 17s. 6cl. a week. We are told that this concession will benefit pensioners to the amount of £635,000 per annum. But it represents only half of what was taken from them last year, and the most objectionable feature of the act as amended last’ year - the property provisions - is still unrepealed. The Government has in mind some cunninglydevised scheme under which pensions will be increased. We are told that, based on the cost-of-living index for food and groceries, 17s. 6d. will now purchase what, would have cost 23s. 9d. in 1925, when the pension was raised from 17s. fid. to £.1, and that, expressed in another form, it now takes only 14s. 9d. to purchase what would have cost £1 in 1925, when the pension was increased to £1. The Government contends that, with a. pension of 17s. 6d. a week, the position of the pensioner is therefore relatively much better than it was in 1925.

The new basis is to operate by an annual rise or fall of 6d. a week for each variation of 100 points in the index number for food and groceries, so that fi a week will be paid when the index number again reaches 1,800, which was the level in 1925, when the pension was increased to £1. The index figure is now under 1,340, so that it will be some considerable time before the pension reaches the equivalent of what it was in 1925. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition has described this as a “Kathleen Mavoureen “ proposal, since it has no real meaning and indicates nothing.

The Prime Minister stated that we had n surplus of £3,500,000 for the last financial year. That amount, together with the surplus of the preceding financial year, is to be made a gift to wealthy taxpayers instead of being used to reduce our accumulated deficit of £17,000,000. The Prime Minister also said that it was hoped that the benefits .conferred by the reduction of the company rate of taxation, the reduction of the “personal exertion “ rate, and the reduction of special tax on income from property, would be passed on by way of giving employment to the people of this country. The only way to assist the man who is .struggling to make a living is to make him a direct concession. The invalid and old-age pensioners, who are now to benefit to the amount of £635,000, suffered a reduction of £1,130,000 last year. They are also supposed to benefit, from any increase in the cost of living. There are hundreds of pensioners scattered all over Australia, in the Northern Territory, in the north-west of Western Australia, and in the hinterland of Queensland, most of whom live in shacks, and eke out an existence in the great open spaces. Having pioneered all their lives, they prefer to live in the outback, and because of that they are to be penalized to the extent of being precluded from any increase of pension on account of cost of living. The company rate of taxation is to be reduced from ls. 4.8d. to ls. in the £1. The Prime Minister stated in his budget speech that, even before these proposals were mooted, the shares of a representa tive list of 90 ordinary industrial companies listed on the Melbourne Stock Exchange showed an improvement in market value of 29.6 per cent, within twelve months. Despite the fact that the companies are in such a flourishing condition they are to receive remissions of taxation of 40 per cent., representing an amount, of £585,000. “ Life assurance companies are also to receive remissions of taxation. This concession will benefit thousands of people who have insured their lives, and it would have had my support had the Government granted substantial relief to the pensioners and public servants who suffered a compulsory reduction of their payments when it was necessary to place Australia on the road to recovery. The reduction of the “ personal exertion “ rate involves a remission of £200,000 and the reduction of the special tax on income from property from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent, involves a remission of £1,100,000. Last year the Government reduced the federal laud tax by £600,000, and this year it is proposed to reduce it by. £400, 000. That tax does not apply to land the unimproved value of which is less than £5,000; therefore, few primary producers will benefit from this concession. As a matter of fact, 75 per cent, of the land tax is collected from the owners of land in’ the capital cities and large towns of Australia. It is one of the fairest taxes that can be levied, because the value of the land has been enhanced by the growth of population. I can quite understand that the Prime Minister, if he were sitting on this side of the House, would be loud in his protests against these proposals, because they are opposed to every principle to which, he subscribed during the last 25 years.

Although the Government is restoring to the public servants 2£ per cent, of their salary reductions and a further sum of £S on account of cost of living which was previously taken from them, there are still a number of public servants situated in the most remote parts of Australia who are not provided for in this measure. I refer to the Commonwealth railway employees. Recently I asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to these men, and he replied that he could not interfere with an award of the Arbitration Court; but I submit that if he wishes to do justice he can overcome the difficulty by issuing an instruction to the department to restore the reduction of 10 per cent. which was applied to the employees on the trans-continental railway. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) has pointed out, these men also suffered a reduction in their cost of living allowance. They are working in an isolated and inhospitable part of Australia; and as the climate is trying, it is necessary for their wives and families to have a periodic change at the seaside. I ask the Prime Minister to see that these public servants are given just treatment. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) to the effect that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the restoration of pension payments and Public Service wages and salaries.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

.- I am pleased that honorable members have been afforded this opportunity to discuss the Government’s financial proposals, and particularly invalid and oldage pensions. Certain honorable members opposite promised meetings of invalid and old-age pensioners that, at the first opportunity, they would vote for the restoration of pensions. That opportunity is now being provided. Those who favour a restoration of pensions can support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). Last night, the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) attacked the ex-Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang), but with the exception of those honorable members with whom I am associated, no objection was raised. The honorable member for Gwydir also said that he intended to support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Abbott:

– No. I said that I intended to support the amendment to be movedby the Leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page).

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP ; LANG LAB from 1931; ALP from 1936; ALP (N-C) from 1940; ALP from 1941

-Where is the right honorable member?

Mr GANDER:

– I understand that a party has been out searching for the Leader of the Country party and the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), but they cannot be found. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment similar to that which the right honorable member for Cowper proposed to move, the honorable member for Gwydir will have his opportunity to give our pioneers the pensions to which they are entitled. I am always prepared to support any amendment in the interests of the people regardless of the honorable member who moves it. If the honorable member for Gwydir will not support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is that we shall leave him to the electors of Gwydir, who will deal with him at the next general election, which is likely to follow the vote shortly to be taken.

I thank the. Government for granting to the aged people in State institutions an extra1s. 3d. a week. Previously, the inmates of these institutions were in receipt of a pension of 5s. a week which was reduced by this Government to 3s. 9d. a week. I was the only member of this Parliament who spoke on their behalf when their weekly pension was reduced, and I attribute the restoration now proposed to the eloquence which I displayed on that occasion. Since this Government has made these iniquitous cuts in invalid and old-age pensions, I have handled more cases on behalf of pensioners than any other honorable member.

Mr McGrath:

– That is not so.

Mr GANDER:

– I submit that I have because I represent the largest electorate, in which there is the most intelligent body of electors in theCommonwealth. In these circumstances, I, am continually in contact with pensioners. When the Government found that a number of pensioners were living in tents on Crown lands at the rear of the Rookwood cemetery, it reduced their weekly pension from 17s. 6d. to 15s. When I made representations to the Government on their behalf, I was informed that the reduction had been made because they had no rent to pay. Their so-called free accommodation was calculated as income, and their pension reduced by 2s. 6d. a week. A pensioner who lives in his own home, whatever its value may be, receives a full pension. On the other hand, the person who lives in a tent on the bank of a river, and pays no rent, has his pension reduced to 15s. a week.

Mr McGrath:

– That practice’ has been altered in Victoria.

Mr GANDER:

-It. was- altered in New South Wales’ when I took the matter up. Another case that I handled was that of a man and his wife, each of whom received 15s. a week. In addition, the wife drew a war pension of 4s. 7-Jd. a week. Neither had property or any other source of income. I inquired of the Government the reason for the reduced amount, and received the reply that, as the wife was in receipt of a war - pension of 4s. 7-^d. a week, and, as under the act half the income of a wife had to be credited, to her husband, it was compelled to reduce the pension of each to 1.5s. a week. These old people were 9d. a week worse off because the bones of their sons were left to bleach on the cliffs and crags of Gallipoli. That is another act of cruelty of this cold and callous Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman must not use unparliamentary language.

Mr GANDER:

– If an old-age pensioner has a bank deposit of £20, which he intends shall be used to defray the expenses of Ms burial, the Government deducts from his pension from Hd. to 3d. a week because the interest on the money is regarded as income. In Belmore, a man and his wife, living in their own home, received the full pension. The wife became very ill, and was ordered by a doctor to live at the seaside. He told her that, unless she moved from where she was living, she would not last much longer. She informed me that she desired to sell her home and I placed her case before the Government. The reply that I received was in the following terms : -

With reference to your personal representations concerning the abovenamed, I have to say that a pensioner can not sell, transfer, or mortgage her property without first obtaining the permission of this department. If she “desires to sell the property and is prepared to give an undertaking that the whole of the proceeds, will he invested in another property in which she will reside, an application for consent to sell will be considered.

T might also add that if the pensioner rouses to reside in her present home it will become necessary to reduce the rate of pension at -present paid to her.

A person may be as sick as it is possible for him to be; he may be ordered a change of scenery by the greatest physicians in the country; or it may be necessary for bini to undergo an operation; yet, theGovernment will not allow him to sell his property. It says to him: “Don’t sell your home; live in it, and, when you die, we shall come along, like Shylock, for our pound of flesh, in return for the pension you have received. “ That is a very harsh attitude for the Government to adopt.

In Lidcombe lived an invalid pensioner who- was totally incapacitated and had to use crutches. Eight years ago, his wife strayed from the path of rectitude and left him to live with another man. When the Government ‘became acquainted with this fact, although the separation had taken place eight years previously, it informed the husband that his pension would be reduced to 15s. a week, because his wife had free board and lodging. I sent him the Government’s letter and received from him the- following reply : -

Just a few lines to thank you for the trouble you went to re my pension. Well, I oan still smile at a joke, even when it is on me - and the way that cln-n.se of the Pensions Act reads is some joke. I do not know if I am reading it aright, but it seems to me that if that man pays my wife £2 a week I am not entitled to any pension at all, as half her income belongs to me. .

I’.S. Hurry up and get this Government out of office

Another case that I handled was that of a man who had deserted his wife 2S years previously, and had reared another family. The wife received a pension- of 17s. 6d. a week; but when the Government eventually heard that the husband was living in- a State institution, it was reduced to 15s. a week, the reason given being that her husband was receiving free board and lodging.

Mr Nock:

-t- Have all these cases occurred in the Reid electorate?

Mr GANDER:

– Yes; but the husband who deserted his wife had previously lived in the Riverina electorate.

I believe that the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) will be carried. Many honorable members opposite have promised to vote for it, and I have been sent here to see that they do so. When a similar measure was before the House previously, the honorable member -for Barton (Mr. Lane) made the following comment upon one of its provisions:-

When the higher rate of pension was paid, the finances of the country were buoyant, but in our present straitened circumstances pensioners recognize that some adjustment must be made.

He went on to say -

The provision under which the amount of pension paid will, upon the death of the pensioner, be a first charge upon his estate, is a wise one.

Other honorable members opposite have made even stronger statements, and I shall be interested to see how they vote on this occasion. Even members of the Country party have shown signs of a belated repentance, and, I believe, have expressed the intention to vote for the amendment. If they have genuinely repented we shall rejoice, for we know that -

Toy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I trust that the Government will be defeated on this issue, or, if it is not, that the iniquitous property provisions will be amended in committee. Failing that, the time will not be far distant when the old pioneers of this country, who are only awaiting the opportunity, will throw the Government out of office.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WideBay

– One of the last remarks of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander) has drawn me to my feet. I wish to make it clear that I am not responsible for any promise having been given, either to the honorable member or to the Opposition, to vote for the amendment asking for the withdrawal of this bill. I believe that that applies also to the other members of the party with which I am associated.

The honorable member has dealt extensively with details relating to pensions, and in his usual sympathetic mannerhas shown the unfortunate position in which many pensioners are placed. This bill restores to pensioners the recent reduction, and fixes the pension at 17s. 6d. a week.We have to consider, not only the misfortunes of pensioners, but also the condition of Australia, its industries, and its people. I voted against the last reduction of the invalid and old-age pension. I hold the view that neither the present

Government nor the Scullin Administration should have meddled with pensions. Had the first reduction not been made, the precedent would not have been established, and there would probably have been no demand for any reduction at all. I support the restoration of the pensions cut, but this bill deals with other matters besides pensions. Nothing like this measure has been presented to any Empire parliament since the advent of the depression. Australia is the first country which has so far recovered from the depression as to be able to grant taxation remissions to its citizens.I congratulate the Government upon having made remissions totalling £7,350,000, from which commercial, rural, and industrial interests will benefit. Honorable members opposite, in their anxiety to condemn the Government, have overlooked the fact that the relief which the Government proposes to afford various sections of the community will definitely tend to provide additional employment throughoutthe country. There is no section which will not benefit as a result of this legislation. Already it has had an important influence on trade, and on Australia’s credit at home and abroad. Two years ago Commonwealth 4 per cent. bonds were selling at £76, whereas to-day the demands of buyers cannot be satisfied at £106. Two years ago New South Wales was plunged in the depths of financial depression. Its State Savings Bank had been closed’, and the Treasury was bankrupt. To-day matters have been so far remedied that £6,000,000 of taxation has been remitted. No matter on what side of the House honorable members sit, they should be able to give their sincere support to this bill.

Last year the federal land tax rate was reduced by one-third, and this year further reductions have been made, so that the rate will be only 50 per cent. of what it was. Income tax remissions will amount to £2,620,000, while reductions of company taxation will amount to £855,000. Honorable members of the Opposition have criticized the Government for remitting company taxation, but some of the companies have already passed on the benefit to the public. I trust that the Government will take steps to ensure that those on the land will also share in the benefit. If possible, something should be done to reduce, not only the interest payable by rural mortgagors, but also the amount of the debt itself.

The sales tax remissions will be of benefit to every section of the community. Last year, the primary producers were granted sales tax remissions to the value of £1,150,000, and this year further general concessions will involve an amount of £1,250,000. Concessions in this direction have been granted to dairy farmers, pastoralists, dried fruitgrowers and miners, and to those using drugs, medicines, surgical appliances, implements, household requisites, foodstuffs, building material, timber and printing requisites. The entertainments tax has also been reduced. Over and above that, the Financial Relief Bill provides for an increase of pensions and for the partial restoration of Public Service salary cuts. I. trust that the Government will push the measure through as soon as possible, so that the relief, the anticipation of which has already been of great benefit to business, may be speedily applied.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I should not have spoken if the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) had not expressed regret that pensions had been reduced in accordance with the Premiers plan. If I remember rightly, the honorable member himself voted for the reduction.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I voted with the Labour party.

Mr MARTENS:

– The honorable member voted for the reduction of pensions. Honorable members opposite have freely used the argument that taxation remissions will assist the unemployed. To hear them, one would imagine that they only had sympathy for the unemployed. As a matter of fact, sympathy is all the unemployed will ever get from them. I hope that, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) is replying to the speeches of honorable members, he will tell us just in what way the unemployed will benefit from the taxation remissions. In my opinion, it is an open question whether taxation remission will be of any use whatever to the unemployed. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) stated that we must look to private enterprise to provide work for the unemployed.

If that is so, will the Prime Minister tell us on what undertakings private enterprise will employ those now out of work? As a matter of fact, the opportunities for profitable employment are being deliberately reduced by the Government through its policy of restricting production and exports. Private enterprise is not likely to invest capital in industries, the operations of which the Government has thus restricted. I hope that I am wrong in my view of the situation, and that the Government is right, but I cannot believe that a policy of restricting exports is going to help the unemployed or any one else.

The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Casey) said yesterday that the remission of company taxation would be of benefit to the people of Australia. When I asked him in what way, he said that the insurance companies would be able to increase their bonuses. I cannot see how that will be of much benefit to any one except those fortunate persons who are able to afford insurance policies. If the companies pass on the tax remission in the form of lower premiums it might be of some use to the general public. Even to the policy-holder, the increasing of bonuses will not be of much benefit in the case of a life policy, though his dependants, no doubt, will benefit.

Mr Stewart:

– What about the reduction of interest on mortgages?

Mr MARTENS:

– Itwill help those who have borrowed money on mortgage, but it will not help the unemployed. Private enterprise will not employ more workers simply for the good of their health. Unless private employers can see a prospect of making profit out of the labour of their employees, they will cease to employ them. I do not blame them for that; if I were an employer, I should follow the same policy.

Mr Stewart:

– Does not the honorable member believe that the reduction of the interest rates on money lent to local authorities will have the effect of increasing employment?

Mr MARTENS:

– How will it have that effect?

Mr Stewart:

– The revenues of municipalities will go further, and more work can be provided.

Mr MARTENS:

– Any relief afforded in that way will be so small as hardly to count. We were told two years ago that the advent of the present Government to office would reduce unemployment.

Mr White:

– So it did. Unemployment has now been reduced to 25 per cent.

Mr MARTENS:

– Unemployment has been reduced for the time being because the big rural industries are now working at top speed. Many men are employed in shearing, for example, but in the near future they will be put off. No matter what government is in power, the volume of employment is determined to a considerable extent by the demands of seasonal industries. In Queensland, alone, there are at present employed in the sugar industry about 16,000 persons who have no constant work throughout the year, but who are now assured of employment until Christmas. Just a couple of weeks prior to Christmas they will be thrown on to the unemployed market. And so it is with the great shearing and other seasonal industries, which have already employed the maximum number they need. In what way, therefore, will these remissions of taxation benefit the unemployed problem ? Are we to produce more wheat? The mere fact that world production is being rationed answers that question. Are we to produce more wool or more of any other primary product when world prices are at their present level? I shall be interested to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) stated that I had voted with the Government in favour of the Financial Emergency Bill of 1932. I have before me volume 135 of Hansard, at page 746 of which the division on pension reductions is recorded. Those who voted in the negative are as follows: -

That will confirm my statement that I voted with the Labour party against the proposal to reduce pensions.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I shall not occupy much of the time of the House because it is the desire of the Government, myself, and, I think, of honorable members generally, to expedite the progress of this measure so that it may become law and its benefits may be made available as quickly as possible to those concerned. The subject-matter of the bill has been extensively debated by honorable members on both sides of the House, and the justification for its provisions may be found in the remarks which were made when it was introduced, and in those which introduced the budget itself. Consequently it needs no further recommendation. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber have congratulated the Government and the country on having been able to submit a bill containing such wonderful proposals for the relief of the community.

Mr Blakeley:

– The right honorable gentleman’s statement might be true, but it is certainly ambiguous.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I know that honorable members of the Opposition had not a good word to say for the bill.

Mr Gander:

– I had.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, in regard to a minor benefit that is to be conferred on certain institutions. Those who have not a good word to say for the measure are entirely but of touch with the best thought, not only in Australia and the Empire, but also in all parts of the world. It is generally accepted that no other country has been able, during the depression, to produce a bill which confers such far-reaching benefits as this does.

I know that it is the duty of an Oppotion to ask for greater concessions when such a measure is brought forward. If I were not a member of the Government, and were free from the responsibility of maintaining a properfinancial perspective, I should probably share the feelings of some honorable members opposite on this subject. But the Government is charged with financial responsibilities. If it were to give effect to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), it count. We were told two years ago that the advent of the present Government to office would reduce unemployment.

Mr White:

– So it did. Unemployment has now been reduced to 25 per cent.

Mr MARTENS:

– Unemployment has been reduced for the time being because the big rural industries are now working at top speed. Many men are employed in shearing, for example, but in the near future they will be put off. No matter what government is in power, the volume of employment is determined to a considerable extent by the demands of seasonal industries. In Queensland, alone, there are at present employed in the sugar industry about 16,000 persons who have no constant work throughout the year, but who are now assured of employment until Christmas. Just a couple of weeks prior to Christmas they will be thrown on to the unemployed market. And so it is with the great shearing and other seasonal industries, which have already employed the maximum number they need. In what way, therefore, will these remissions of taxation benefit the unemployed problem ? Are we to produce more wheat? The mere fact that world production is being rationed answers that question. Are we to produce more wool or more of any other primary product when world prices are at their present level? I shall be interested to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) stated that I had voted with the Government in favour of the Financial Emergency Bill of 1932. I have before me volume 135 of Hansard, at page 746 of which the division on pension reductions is recorded. Those who voted in the negative are as follows: -

That will confirm my statement that I voted with the Labour party against the proposal to reduce pensions.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I shall not occupy much of the time of the House because it is the desire of the Government, myself, and, I think, of honorable members generally, to expedite the progress of this measure so that it may become law and its benefits may be made available as quickly as possible to those concerned. The subject-matter of the bill has been extensively debated by honorable members on both sides of the House, and the justification for its provisions may be found in the remarks which were made when it was introduced, and in those which introduced the budget itself. Consequently it needs no further recommendation. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber have congratulated the Government and the country on having been able to submit a bill containing such wonderful proposals for the relief of the community.

Mr Blakeley:

– The right honorable gentleman’s statement might be true, but it is certainly ambiguous.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I know that honorable members of the Opposition had not a good word to say for the bill.

Mr Gander:

– I had.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, in regard to a minor benefit that is to be conferred on certain institutions. Those who have not a good word to say for the measure are entirely but of touch with the best thought, not only in Australia and the Empire, but also in all parts of the world. It is generally accepted that no other country has been able, during the depression, to produce a bill which confers such far-reaching benefits as this does.

I know that it is the duty of an Oppotion to ask for greater concessions when such a measure is brought forward. If I were not a member of the Government, and were free from the responsibility of maintaining a properfinancial perspective, I should probably share the feelings of some honorable members opposite on this subject. But the Government is charged with financial responsibilities. If it were to give effect to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), it count. We were told two years ago that the advent of the present Government to office would reduce unemployment.

Mr White:

– So it did. Unemployment has now been reduced to 25 per cent.

Mr MARTENS:

– Unemployment has been reduced for the time being because the big rural industries are now working at top speed. Many men are employed in shearing, for example, but in the near future they will be put off. No matter what government is in power, the volume of employment is determined to a considerable extent by the demands of seasonal industries. In Queensland, alone, there are at present employed in the sugar industry about 16,000 persons who have no constant work throughout the year, but who are now assured of employment until Christmas. Just a couple of weeks prior to Christmas they will be thrown on to the unemployed market. And so it is with the great shearing and other seasonal industries, which have already employed the maximum number they need. In what way, therefore, will these remissions of taxation benefit the unemployed problem ? Are we to produce more wheat? The mere fact that world production is being rationed answers that question. Are we to produce more wool or more of any other primary product when world prices are at their present level? I shall be interested to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) stated that I had voted with the Government in favour of the Financial Emergency Bill of 1932. I have before me volume 135 of Hansard, at page 746 of which the division on pension reductions is recorded. Those who voted in the negative are as follows: -

That will confirm my statement that I voted with the Labour party against the proposal to reduce pensions.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I shall not occupy much of the time of the House because it is the desire of the Government, myself, and, I think, of honorable members generally, to expedite the progress of this measure so that it may become law and its benefits may be made available as quickly as possible to those concerned. The subject-matter of the bill has been extensively debated by honorable members on both sides of the House, and the justification for its provisions may be found in the remarks which were made when it was introduced, and in those which introduced the budget itself. Consequently it needs no further recommendation. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber have congratulated the Government and the country on having been able to submit a bill containing such wonderful proposals for the relief of the community.

Mr Blakeley:

– The right honorable gentleman’s statement might be true, but it is certainly ambiguous.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I know that honorable members of the Opposition had not a good word to say for the bill.

Mr Gander:

– I had.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, in regard to a minor benefit that is to be conferred on certain institutions. Those who have not a good word to say for the measure are entirely but of touch with the best thought, not only in Australia and the Empire, but also in all parts of the world. It is generally accepted that no other country has been able, during the depression, to produce a bill which confers such far-reaching benefits as this does.

I know that it is the duty of an Oppotion to ask for greater concessions when such a measure is brought forward. If I were not a member of the Government, and were free from the responsibility of maintaining a properfinancial perspective, I should probably share the feelings of some honorable members opposite on this subject. But the Government is charged with financial responsibilities. If it were to give effect to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), it count. We were told two years ago that the advent of the present Government to office would reduce unemployment.

Mr White:

– So it did. Unemployment has now been reduced to 25 per cent.

Mr MARTENS:

– Unemployment has been reduced for the time being because the big rural industries are now working at top speed. Many men are employed in shearing, for example, but in the near future they will be put off. No matter what government is in power, the volume of employment is determined to a considerable extent by the demands of seasonal industries. In Queensland, alone, there are at present employed in the sugar industry about 16,000 persons who have no constant work throughout the year, but who are now assured of employment until Christmas. Just a couple of weeks prior to Christmas they will be thrown on to the unemployed market. And so it is with the great shearing and other seasonal industries, which have already employed the maximum number they need. In what way, therefore, will these remissions of taxation benefit the unemployed problem ? Are we to produce more wheat? The mere fact that world production is being rationed answers that question. Are we to produce more wool or more of any other primary product when world prices are at their present level? I shall be interested to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) stated that I had voted with the Government in favour of the Financial Emergency Bill of 1932. I have before me volume 135 of Hansard, at page 746 of which the division on pension reductions is recorded. Those who voted in the negative are as follows: -

That will confirm my statement that I voted with the Labour party against the proposal to reduce pensions.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I shall not occupy much of the time of the House because it is the desire of the Government, myself, and, I think, of honorable members generally, to expedite the progress of this measure so that it may become law and its benefits may be made available as quickly as possible to those concerned. The subject-matter of the bill has been extensively debated by honorable members on both sides of the House, and the justification for its provisions may be found in the remarks which were made when it was introduced, and in those which introduced the budget itself. Consequently it needs no further recommendation. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber have congratulated the Government and the country on having been able to submit a bill containing such wonderful proposals for the relief of the community.

Mr Blakeley:

– The right honorable gentleman’s statement might be true, but it is certainly ambiguous.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I know that honorable members of the Opposition had not a good word to say for the bill.

Mr Gander:

– I had.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, in regard to a minor benefit that is to be conferred on certain institutions. Those who have not a good word to say for the measure are entirely but of touch with the best thought, not only in Australia and the Empire, but also in all parts of the world. It is generally accepted that no other country has been able, during the depression, to produce a bill which confers such far-reaching benefits as this does.

I know that it is the duty of an Oppotion to ask for greater concessions when such a measure is brought forward. If I were not a member of the Government, and were free from the responsibility of maintaining a properfinancial perspective, I should probably share the feelings of some honorable members opposite on this subject. But the Government is charged with financial responsibilities. If it were to give effect to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), it

count. We were told two years ago that the advent of the present Government to office would reduce unemployment.

Mr White:

– So it did. Unemployment has now been reduced to 25 per cent.

Mr MARTENS:

– Unemployment has been reduced for the time being because the big rural industries are now working at top speed. Many men are employed in shearing, for example, but in the near future they will be put off. No matter what government is in power, the volume of employment is determined to a considerable extent by the demands of seasonal industries. In Queensland, alone, there are at present employed in the sugar industry about 16,000 persons who have no constant work throughout the year, but who are now assured of employment until Christmas. Just a couple of weeks prior to Christmas they will be thrown on to the unemployed market. And so it is with the great shearing and other seasonal industries, which have already employed the maximum number they need. In what way, therefore, will these remissions of taxation benefit the unemployed problem ? Are we to produce more wheat? The mere fact that world production is being rationed answers that question. Are we to produce more wool or more of any other primary product when world prices are at their present level? I shall be interested to hear the Prime Minister’s reply.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) stated that I had voted with the Government in favour of the Financial Emergency Bill of 1932. I have before me volume 135 of Hansard, at page 746 of which the division on pension reductions is recorded. Those who voted in the negative are as follows: -

That will confirm my statement that I voted with the Labour party against the proposal to reduce pensions.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I shall not occupy much of the time of the House because it is the desire of the Government, myself, and, I think, of honorable members generally, to expedite the progress of this measure so that it may become law and its benefits may be made available as quickly as possible to those concerned. The subject-matter of the bill has been extensively debated by honorable members on both sides of the House, and the justification for its provisions may be found in the remarks which were made when it was introduced, and in those which introduced the budget itself. Consequently it needs no further recommendation. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber have congratulated the Government and the country on having been able to submit a bill containing such wonderful proposals for the relief of the community.

Mr Blakeley:

– The right honorable gentleman’s statement might be true, but it is certainly ambiguous.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to misrepresent anybody. I know that honorable members of the Opposition had not a good word to say for the bill.

Mr Gander:

– I had.

Mr LYONS:

– Yes, in regard to a minor benefit that is to be conferred on certain institutions. Those who have not a good word to say for the measure are entirely but of touch with the best thought, not only in Australia and the Empire, but also in all parts of the world. It is generally accepted that no other country has been able, during the depression, to produce a bill which confers such far-reaching benefits as this does.

I know that it is the duty of an Oppotion to ask for greater concessions when such a measure is brought forward. If I were not a member of the Government, and were free from the responsibility of maintaining a properfinancial perspective, I should probably share the feelings of some honorable members opposite on this subject. But the Government is charged with financial responsibilities. If it were to give effect to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), it

would not be possible nearly to balance the budget.

Mr Blakeley:

– I thought that was the last thing which the right honorable gentleman wished to do.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member knows how keen I am on balancing the budget, and how little he has assisted in that direction. He will recollect how, on one occasion, I had to drive him and his colleagues to do the things which the country demanded of them. The Government should feel pleased that after a period of two years of accumulated deficits, it is able to make these remissions and still budget for a deficit of approximately only £1,000,000. If the added requests were incorporated in the measure the deficit would be a huge one and Australia would again be deep in the morass from which it is being dragged. Instead of being able, to make restorations to invalid and old-age pensioners and public servants, the Government would again have to ask these and other sections of the community to tread the road of sacrifice.

Mr Scullin:

– The right honorable gentleman knows that the amendment would not involve additional expenditure, but merely provides alternatives to the proposals which are at present in the bill.

Mr LYONS:

– Additional restorations of moneys would necessarily involve a greater deficit. It has been said by one honorable member, whose speech was entirely unpleasant, that, because I am recommending remissions of taxation, I am breaking away from some of the principles to which I have always adhered so strictly. Ever since I have been in a responsible position, I have held to the principle that no government has any right to take from the taxpayers one penny more than is necessary for the maintenance of public finance. I have done that in my own little State of .Tasmania. When the opportunity afforded itself I supported the remission of taxation and, later in the federal sphere, when it was essential that increased burdens should be placed upon the people, like the Leader of the Opposition I did not hesitate to recommend that course of action, however unpleasant it was. Circumstances forced us both to do things we did not like. Neither of us wanted to do them. Now, however, when the Government finds that its financial position enables it to relieve the community of some of these burdens, there is an outcry from honorable members opposite which would make one imagine that it must have been a pleasant task to them to impose taxes on the people. I know that that is not true of the Leader of the Opposition, but honorable members cannot have it both ways. I say advisedly that this relief will be welcomed by the people of Australia. Replying to. the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), I say that there is no doubt whatever that the lifting of burdens is the only method of putting fresh life into industry and creating employment. The honorable member’s apparent objection to this relief from taxation, seems to suggest that he would be satisfied to maintain it, expecting that employment could be found as easily under heavy as under low taxation conditions.

Mr Martens:

– I am not suggesting that at all.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member himself answers the question that he put to me by admitting that that is not so. If lower taxation will relieve industry and provide employment, it is necessary. When the honorable member was speaking, the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) interjected that as a result of these remissions local governing bodies will be able to provide additional employment. I am sure that honorable members are aware that many local governing bodies have to consider seriously whether their revenues leave it possible for them to carry out certain desired public works they know that a reduction of even i per cent, in the rate of interest frequently enables works to be carried out’ which otherwise would have to be abandoned. What is true of those bodies is also true of primary and secondary industries. Nothing can help to relieve unemployment so much as relief from taxation.

The Government would like to be able to accept the suggestions of honorable members opposite and give even greater relief, but it delayed the preparation of the budget for two months in order that it might be in a position to grant as much relief as possible.

Mr Ward:

– As much relief as the bankers would allow it to give.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member knows that that is not correct, and that this Government prepared its budget without any interference from outside sources. At the same time, my memory is long enough to remind me that that was not the case with another government with which I was associated. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) knows that, as the result of directions which came from a certain organization, he prevented me from submitting a supplementary budget to Parliament and that, after calling honorable members together from all over Australia, I had to apologize and state that I had nothing to put before them.

A person would not be human - and politicians are human - if he did not desire to grant greater concessions than are possible. But the Government is responsible to the people for adjusting the financial position of the country. Therefore, I ask honorable members to reject the amendment that has been moved by the. Deputy Leader of the Opposition and accept the bill in its present form without delay so that relief may be passed on to those concerned. It has been suggested that there should be further exemptions from sales tax. Whenever further exemptions are granted additional anomalies occur.For instance, if exemptions had not been granted to the building trade on timber, roof tiles, cement and bricks, the anomaly in respect of blue metal which has been complained of by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Dennis) would not exist. The Government does not propose to add any items whatever during the passage of the bill; but if the discussion in committee should show that anomalies exist, the position will be re-examined. If the Government is then convinced that action should be taken, it will bring down a further schedule and give the House an opportunity to deal with it.

With reference to the amendment relating to the property qualifications of pensioners, foreshadowed by the right honorable the leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page), requests to remove the charge against the homes of pensioners have come from all sides of the House. If this proposal were agreed to, it would increase substantially the expenditure on pensions. The Government could not accept such an amendment, but, in response to the requests that have come from honorable members of all parties, it is prepared to give further consideration to the subject. An investigation at this stage to ascertain the effect on the finances of the suggested amendment would delay the passage of the bill, and also the receipt, by the various sections of the community, of the relief provided by it, including, of course, the increase of pension paymentsby 2s. 6d. a week.

Mr Baker:

– TheGovernment will then bring forward amendments as an election cry.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member need not be unfair. I am endeavouring to make a definite statement of the Government’s intentions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has said that I was not fair in my references regarding the amendment moved by the honorable member for Capricornia.

Mr Scullin:

– The right honorable gentleman misrepresented it.

Mr LYONS:

– If I did that, it was because I misunderstood the amendment. If the right honorable gentleman says that the amendment would not increase expenditure–

Mr Scullin:

– The benefits it proposes would be in lieu of remissions of taxation.

Mr LYONS:

– The Government cannot agree to a proposal that would involve the maintenance of the present heavy taxation.

Mr Scullin:

– The Prime Minister said that the amendment would create a deficit in the accounts.

Mr LYONS:

– So it would. If the Government insists, as it will, on granting relief to taxpayers–

Mr Forde:

– The Government need not. insist on that.

Mr LYONS:

– We are bound to do that in justice to those from whom such substantial amounts have been taken in recent years. The acceptance of the amendment must increase the amount of the deficit. The Government will further consider the matter, and, before the Christmas adjournment, will give honorable members an opportunity to deal with it. That, I remind the honorable member for Oxley, will not be delaying the concession for election purposes.

Mr Baker:

– But an election will then be fairly close.

Mr LYONS:

– I hope that the honorable member is wrong; I think he is. The proposal indicated by the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) will be examined very carefully in its relation to the pensioners, the revenue and the taxpayers from whom is collected the money with which pensions are paid. When this has been done and when the Government has reached a decision on. the matter the House will be given an opportunity to discuss it.

Before resuming my seat I wish to refer to thu charge of untruthfulness made by the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) against Senator Massy-Greene, my former colleague in the Ministry, with reference to the furnishing of returns for land tax purposes in. respect of estates having an unimproved value of £4,000. The honorable member has not been fair to my former colleague. I had thought of placing on record the correspondence that passed between Senator Massy-Greene and the honorable member, but I do not desire to do anything that might widen the breach. I feel sure that if the honorable member were seised of all the circumstances he would frankly admit his mistake and withdraw his charge against Senator Massy-Greene.

Mr Beasley:

– What would the electors of Calare have to say about the matter then ?

Mr LYONS:

– My experience is that one never loses by admitting one’s mistake. In this matter I think that the honorable member for Calare has made a mistake. Senator Massy-Greene stated in the Seriate that the alteration of the departmental practice concerning which

Hie honorable member for Calare had made several references in this House, would have been made whether or not the honorable member had raised the issue.

Mr Fenton:

– Or anybody else either.

Mr LYONS:

– That is so. It has been the practice in the past to do what the honorable member had suggested should be done. Senator Massy-Greene’s statement is borne out by the memoranda from the department, which, has no axe to grind in the matter’. The honorable member for Calare asked a question on this subject and I promised that .1 would have the matter referred to the department. I did so and, in a letter which I sent to the honorable member later, I expressed regret that he had not been notified of action which had already been taken. That, of course, was an oversight, due to communications passing between the Prune Minister’s Department and the Treasury. But that did not warrant the honorable member’s charge of untruthfulness against the then Assistant Treasurer.

Mr Thorby:

– No exception was ever taken to that. ,

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member certainly did complain that the information was given in the Senate, and not in this House, in reply to his question.

Mr Thorby:

– The right honorable gentleman is unconsciously putting a wrong construction on that matter also.

Mr LYONS:

– I certainly was under the impression that the honorable member was annoyed because he had not been supplied with information he had sought although that information was supplied in the Senate.

Mr Thorby:

– The press put a wrong construction on. that matter, also.

Mr LYONS:

– I do not wish to carry the matter further by giving in any detail the contents of a letter sent to the honorable member by Senator MassyGreene. I have given him my assurance regarding what happened in the department and I think he should withdraw the charge which he made against my former colleague, whose political record is one of which any man might justly be proud. Senator Massy-Greene is incapable of telling an untruth for political purposes.

Mr Thorby:

– Does his statement, with regard to pensions also stand good?

Mr LYONS:

– I had hoped that no feeling would be imported into the matter to-night and that the honorable member would do the right thing in the circumstances. I regret that he now goes further and suggests, by way of inter- jection, that something else which Senator Massy-Greene said might not be true.

Mr Thorby:

– I was referring only to’ his statement that I had made representations to the pensions department in respect of only four anomalies in pensions administration.

Mr Beasley:

– What has all this to do with the bill ?

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member for Calare raised the issue during this debate, and, in justice to my former colleague, I felt it incumbent on me to put the facts before the House. For the moment I must leave it there, because I do not wish to add to the trouble. But the honorable member forCalare can accept my assurance with regard to the matter, and I think he might express regret for the charge which he made against Senator Massy-Greene. I hope that the amendment of the deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) will not be carried.

Question - That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Forde’s amendment) stand part of the question - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. H. Mackay.)

AYES: 43

NOES: 19

Majority . . 24

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved inthe affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2-

The several parts and sections of this net (other than Part I. and the sections contained therein and section nineteen) shall, except where otherwise provided by this act, commence on such dates as are respectivelyfixed by Proclamation, and Part I. and the sections contained therein and section nineteen shall commence on the date on which this act receives the Royal Assent.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the clause be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following new clause: -

Parts I. and IV. of thisact, except section eighteen, shall commence on the date on which this act receives the Royal Assent, and the remaining parts and sections of this act shall, except where otherwise provided by this act, commence on such dates respectivelyas are fixed by Proclamation.

The object of the amendment is to provide that both the exemptions from sales taxation and the reduced rate of 5 per cent. shall come into operation on the date of the Royal Assent, instead of, in the one case, on a date to be fixed by proclamation, and, in the other case, on the date of the Royal Assent. The Government desires that the sales tax provisions of the bill . shall become operative as soon as possible, and also that other relief afforded by the measure shall become effective without delay. It is possible for relief to be given to pensioners on Thursday, the 26th October, and to public servants on the next day; but this will be dependent, in bothcases, onwhether the bill is afforded a speedy passage through this chamber and the Senate. If the bill is not passed early enough to become effective in respect to pensioners and public servants on the dates I have mentioned relief cannot be granted until a fortnight later in each case.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– Apparently the Government is desirous of substituting the date of the Royal Assent for a date to be fixed by proclamation as the time when this measure shall become operative. The first we heard of this proposed amendment was when the Assistant Treasurer moved it a moment or two ago. Honorable members of the party, to which I belong consider that relief should first be given to pensioners. Apparently, the Government is chiefly concerned about granting relief to those affected by the sales tax provisions of the measure, for I find that retrospection is given to those provisions of the bill which relate to this impost only. It is as well to remind the Government that it will be responsible for any delay that occurs in affording relief under this bill, for Parliament was in recess for practically the whole of the first four months of this financial year, and would have met on Tuesday of this week if the. Government had not, at the eleventh hour, deferred the meeting till Wednesday. It is quite apparent, therefore, that, the Government, which has control of the business of Parliament, is itself blameworthy for any delay that may occur. Having left the consideration of the bill. until the last minute, the Government cannot expect us to accept any responsibility for delay in putting certain provisions of the measure into operation. The bill could have been introduced months ago. I reiterate that we are concerned about the granting of relief firstly to pensioners and then to those who are called upon to pay sales taxation. If relief will be granted earlier by providing that the act shall come into effect on. the date of the Royal Assent, then lei us make an all-embracing provision of that nature.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I intend to move at the appropriate time that Parts VI. and VII. of the measure relating to pensions shall take effect as from the 26th October, and Part VIII., relating to salaries and wages, as from the 27th October. I am not prepared to rush this bill through the committee stage, for we had experience of the unsatisfactory consequences of such haste in connexion with the passage of the Financial Emergency Bill through Parliament last October. There is no reason why a definite date should not be stated in the bill upon which the sections I have mentioned shall become operative. If a definite date is mentioned, it will not matter if there is a delay of a day or two in this chamber or in another place. If the Government desires to do so, it can quite easily “provide that the provisions of the bill shall apply as from the next pay day to both pensioners and public servants.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I point out to the honorable gentleman that my amendment affects only those provisions dealing with, sales taxation. I have not suggested any alteration of the provisions relating to pensions or Public Service salaries. It is proposed that these provisions shall take effect from the next PaY day after the Royal Assent has been obtained. That procedure was followed in connexion with the Financial Emergency Acts. In reply to the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), I may explain that certain provisions relating to sales tax exemptions have been dated back in order to make the exemptions continuous. The retrospective effect will be limited to only a few weeks.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– As the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has said, the Government can easily ensure that pensioners and public servants shall obtain relief as from next pay day by naming in the bill the definite dates, the 26th October and the 27th October respectively. If that is done, any delay that might occur in the consideration of the measure either here or in another place, or in obtaining the signature of the Governor-General, will be unimportant. If the Government -really desires that the relief provided by this bill shall be given as soon as possible, it will not hesitate to accept ‘ the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Dalley. Even if the bill were not passed by the next pay day the new rates could be made retrospective. Honorable members have therefore an opportunity now to ensure the early payment of the extra amounts. If any errors occur in the drafting of amendments responsibility for them cannot be placed upon the shoulders of honorable members on this side, because we had no notice of the Government’s proposal to alter this clause.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

. - I have no doubt that the statement by the Assistant-Treasurer (Mr. Casey) was made in good faith, but, in the event of the passage of the bill being delayed in the Senate, difficulty could perhaps be avoided, and certainty of early payment assured, by the committee agreeing that the payment shall be made from the dates mentioned, provided this measure has previously been passed by both branches of the legislature. The Minister has asserted that, if his expectations are realized, the increased payments will be made on next pay day.Why not declare that they shall be so paid, provided the bill is passed beforehand, failing which the payments shall be made retrospectively ?

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I move -

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word”assent” the following words: - “That Parts VI. and VII. shall commence on the 26th day of October, 1933, and Part VIII. shall commence on the 27th day of October, 1933.”

In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the Government is anxious that the increased payments to pensioners shall operate from Thursday next, and that public servants shall have the benefit of the increases from to-morrow week, the Minister should accept my amendment, so that if the other branch of the legislature delays the passage of the bill the increased payments will be made retrospectively.

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

AYES: 17

NOES: 39

Majority .. ..22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Reduction of land tax).

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- Aboutit half an hour ago, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) waxed eloquent over the need for avoiding deficits, and balancing budgets, he wrongly accused the Opposition of submitting an amendment which he declared would cause a huge deficit, though the statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he moved the amendment made it perfectly clear that we favoured the balancing of the budget and the restoration of the special cuts made in pensions and Public Service salaries. The adoption of the amendment would necessitate a reduction of the remissions of taxation provided for in the bill. This year, it is estimated that there will be a deficit of £1,176,000, and honorable members who believe in balancing budgets have an opportunity on this clause to do something to that end. I ask them to vote against the clause, and thus reduce the anticipated deficit. Later, the Opposition may suggest other means of protecting the revenue. I see no justification for the proposed reduction of the land, tax. This impost was introduced in 1910 for the dual purpose of providing revenue by taxing the unearned increment on land, and breaking up large estates. Some honorable members have said that the tax has failed to achieve its main objective, but I challenge that statement. The first annual report of the Commissioner of Land Tax, referring to a return dated 3912, stated at page 24-

This return throws some light on the effect of the tax in bringing about the subdivision of large estates. Through the inspection of contracts of sale produced by sellers of land in support of claims to be divested of taxable ownership at 30th June, 1010, the departmentis aware that immediately prior to the date named, many land-owners, in anticipation of the imposition of tax, sold largely. In the period between June and September, the concession of separate taxation of the areas made tlie subject of sale was given by the law. ‘ In this period land to the value of £2,712,775 was sold by taxpayers, and the land thus sold was not aggregated with the remaining estate nf the taxpayers.

Dealing with another table, the report stated -

This return throws additional light upon the effect of the tax on land ownership. It shows that taxpayers sold more than £18,000.000 worth of- land in 18,288 separate transactions, and other taxpayers, or in some instances, the same taxpayers, bought over £9,000,000 worth of land in 2,874 transactions. This indicates a substantial subdivisional movement as a result of the tax.

That is the answer to the loose statements of some honorable members who have given, very little study to this subject. The land tax rate was increased during the first year of the war. In 191S a surtax of 20 per cent, was levied, but was withdrawn in 1922-23. In 1927-28 the rate was reduced by 10 per cent. Last year it. was reduced by 33-J per cent., and now the Government proposes to reduce it by a further 16§ per cent., making a. total reduction of 80 per cent, since 1923. The reductions last vear and this vear represent £1,100,000. In 1927-28, the collections from land tax amounted to over £3,000,000. The estimate for this financial year is £1,250,000, so that we are gradually wiping out the great reform measure which was put into operation in 1910. Honorable members who support the Government talk of remitting emergency taxation. The land tax was not emergency taxation. The Government is proposing to remit taxation to people who own large areas of Australia, at the same time ignoring the obligation entered into to restore the special cuts to those who suffered during the depression.

Mr Beasley:

– And the Government took advantage of a national crisis to remit this taxation.

Mr SCULLIN:

– That is so. Honorable members have stressed the need to reduce the land tax because of the extraordinary position of a number of pastoralists and agriculturists who are paying land tax, but not many agriculturists are paying land tax. On Friday last the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) tried to show that share-farmers would be affected by a reduction of land tax, but the benefits he indicated are mythical. Those men on the land who pay this tax are principally large pastoralists, and I frankly admit that recently some of them have had a bad time because of the low price of wool. Even the present price is not high, and I am quite satisfied that many primary producers are entitled to relief. Of course, there may be some city landholders, too, whose returns, as a result of the depression, are not sufficient to enable them to pay the tax. But special provision has been made in the Land Tax Act to meet the circumstances of such landowners. They can obtain relief year by year if they prove their case before the board, whose objective is to conserve the revenue, at the same time doing justice to those who make application for relief. I have with me the last report of the board, which shows that , from the 1st, January to the 31st December, 1932, the board dealt with a number of applications for exemption. In all, it granted relief to the amount of £48,772 in amounts ranging from about £1 to £17,000. I do not quarrel with that. I have confidence that the board granted only such relief as was warranted, but I emphasize its activities to show that the contention that land tax rates must be reduced because of the fall in the prices of wool and wheat is specious and without substance. Included among those who are now to obtain relief under the Government’s proposals are people whose shares are rising on the stock exchange. I shall not name any particularpersons, because this is not a personal matter, but certain people are making considerable profits at the present time. Many owners of valuable city blocks hold valuable country properties as well. All the pastoralists are not poor-. Some men engage in the pastoral industry merely as a sideline. Yet this tax is being gradually wiped out. The Prime Minister has stated that the Opposition does not believe in balanced budgets, yet the Government, although budgeting for a deficit, is making remissions of land tax. The claim of the Government to have balanced the budget is, to say the least of it, hypocritical. I ask the committee to reject this clause, and to retain the revenue from the land tax, so as to ease, to some extent, the , burden of other taxpayers, and at the same time enable the Government to. honour the obligation which was entered into when special cuts were made at a time of emergency.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

– I support the proposed reduction of land tax because, on principle, I oppose this form of taxation. This is a matter, not of the price of wheat or wool, but of a tax upon capital. Land is the essential capital of primary industries, and this tax is levied, not once, but annually. A tax on capital in land is no more justified than is a tax on capital in bonds from which income is derived by way of’ interest, or on machinery and the plant used in the conduct of industries. The land tax is unjust because it also materially hampers industry, particularly rural activities. Its effect upon secondary industries and big businesses is not so drastic, because it can be passed on to the general community. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has contradicted the assertion that this tax has failed to achieve its original purpose; The land tax statistics show that, in 1910, land of an unimproved value of £184,000,000 was assessable for taxation, and year after year that sum has increased, until to-day it is £317,000,000. In addition, the figures show that, in 1910, an amount of £11,000,000 was transferred to non-payers of land tax, and, in 1928, only £5,000,000, but, on> the other hand, there has been an accumulation of estates. Although there has been some subdivision, the accumulation has been intensified, and, therefore, the tax has failed to achieve its original purpose. As the land tax is a levy upon capital, and cannot be justified, I support theGovernment’s proposal to reduce the rate, and I would welcome ‘the completerepeal of the act.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I support the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) for the retention of the land tax. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) has drawn attention to the hardship which this tax inflicts upon primary industries, but he did not quote figures toshow the number of people who actually pay this tax. “We have, from time to time, heard the parrot-cry that the land tax is hampering industry, but not one instance has been given in support of that statement. This tax has operated for many years. Its original purpose was to break up large estates. If it was then and is now the intention of this Parliament that large estates should be subdivided in the interests of closer settlement, it should increase, and not decrease, the land tax. The honorable member for Riverina has said that this tax has a bad effect on primary industry, yet, in the next breath, he said that it had not broken up large taxable estates, but on the other hand, had brought about large .accumulations of estates. I want to know how the landowners have been able to add to their estates if the land tax is diametrically opposed to the interests of the primary producers. If this tax interferes with primary production, I should’ imagine that the last thing a pastoralist would do would be to acquire other estates. The statement has been made, and not challenged, that two-thirds of the land tax is collected from owners of city properties. How many people in the country pay land tax at all? The Country party is opposed to this tax on principle. It is opposed to anything that it considers will impose a levy upon the primary producers. It is not concerned about the rest of the people of Australia, who provide the wheat bounties and other concessions given to the farmers. If the land tax is not achieving its objective of breaking up large estates, the rate should be increased. The majority of those who pay land tax are people who at death leave large estates valued at from £100,000 to £500,000 for division among their relatives. There should be no reduction of land tax. If the Government has surplus money to dispose of, I can suggest a much better use for it than the remission of land taxation.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) suggested that the land tax had been instrumental in breaking up large estates, yet immediately afterwards he said that two-thirds of the tax is collected from owners of city properties.

Mr Rosevear:

– I said that if the land tax had failed in its objective, the rate should be increased.

Mr THORBY:

– I submit that, irrespective of who actually pays the tax, it ultimately falls on the shoulders of those engaged in primary production.

Mr Beasley:

– In that case, we cannot reach the man on the top.

Mr THORBY:

– The man on the top is caught effectively under the Income Tax Act. On analysing the taxation returns we find that the land taxpayers include banking institutions, which have acquired properties all over Australia for the establishment of their branches. They pay a large proportion of the tax, which is passed on to their borrowers by way of interest charges. The woolbrokers also have acquired in the capital cities large warehouses in which to handle the products of the pastoral industry. Insurance companies, warehousemen, and manufacturing interests also are affected by the land tax. As it is a charge upon capital, it cannot legitimately be called taxation. That is why we have a decided objection to it on principle. If the Government is short of revenue, the proper way to get it is by means of a tax on incomes, not by a tax on assets which is the true nature of the land tax.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Government. did not have in mind the struggling farmers of this country when it decided to make remissions of land tax amounting last year to £700,000 and this year to a further £400,000, or £1,100,000 in all. The annual report of the Taxation Commissioner shows that the federal land tax collected during the four years 1928-29 to 1931-32 amounted to £10,700,000, or an average of £2,675,000 a year. The Government must have money in abundance if it can hand out £1,100,000 in two years to the big city land-holders. At a time when the Government is treating its friends so handsomely, it is withholding from invalid, old-age, and war pensioners, public servants, and others, amounts taken from them under the financial emergency legislation passed by this Parliament. Those cuts should be restored before concessions are granted to the owners of city properties valued, in some cases, at as high as £3,000 a foot. The bulk of the federal land tax is paid by these wealthy interests, not by the struggling farmers. The members of the Country party would have us believe that some of the struggling wheat-growers, who have had to sell their wheat at below the cost of production, have been paying this tax.

Mr Nock:

– That is so’.

Mr FORDE:

– How many struggling farmers in the Riverina district own land of an unimproved value of more than £5,000? Most of them are men with small holdings of from 300 to 500 acres, who are exempt from this tax. It is true that during the boom years unsuspecting men bought country properties at extortionate prices, and now own more than £5,000 worth of land, but even so, they do not represent any considerable proportion of those who pay this tax. The high price of land in the boom years is having a disastrous effect on production, and so long a3 the system of the private ownership of land remains’, we cannot hope to avoid these setbacks. The problem of inflated land values has never been tackled earnestly. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has told us,. the first report of the Taxation Commissioner, after the federal land tax was imposed, showed that more than 18,000,000 acres of land was disposed of in 18,288 separate transactions, showing clearly that the tax did have a beneficial effect in breaking up large estates. During the debate, members have been reminded of the existence of a Land Tax Relief Board, which was established to deal with cases of hardship resulting from die operation of the tax. This board has granted relief to sufferers, in one case to the amount of £17,000. The claim that this tax imposes hardship on struggling primary producers cannot, therefore, be sustained. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) was unfair when he said that if the proposals of the Opposition in regard to pensioners, public servants and others were given effect the Commonwealth would face a deficit. As Treasurer, he should know that the Government has deliberately budgeted for a deficit at the end of the present financial year, and contemplates another in the following year. -Had the Government not decided to give these concessions’ to its wealthy friends, it could have restored to pensioners, public servants, and cithers the amounts taken from them, and still have had a surplus. Persons owning land of an unimproved value of £5,000 ought to be prepared to pay this tax. Those who ask for this concession are not fighting for the primary producers of Australia,- but for the wealthy newspaper companies, the private banking institutions, and the big commercial and retail houses which support the present Government. The concessions are a sop to these interests, and the Opposition is justified in opposing them. [Quorum formed.]

Mr RILEY:
Cook

.- i endorse the view expressed by honorable members who have opposed this clause. This is not a time to make concessions which will have the effect of increasing the already large areas held by wealthy pastoralists. In some of the rich areas of Australia numbers of small settlements have entirely disappeared as a result of the concessions given to wealthy landowners during the last ten or eleven years. Statistics prepared by the education authorities reveal that in areas in which previously there were 20 or 30 schools, there are now practically no schools at all. These additional remissions of taxation will have the effect of further increasing the possessions of already wealthy interests in our capital cities - the insurance companies, the banks, the shipping companies, the master retailers, and the huge newspaper co.mpaJii.es. Those who support a reduction of land, tax claim that the re duction will provide employment, but I submit that it will not create one additional job in any newspaper office, shipping office, bank, or retail establishment. Instead of remitting £400,000 of taxes payable by wealthy land-owners, the Government would have done better if it had used the money to provide work for the unemployed. It is not difficult to understand the attitude of members of the Country party towards the Government’s proposal, for they represent not the struggling primary producers, but the wealthy pastoral companies which contribute to the party’s. campaign funds at election time. I am strongly opposed to the clause, arid I hope that the committee will reject it.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I hope that before a vote is taken the Minister will give to the committee some information regarding this clause. We should be told the total amount of the remissions granted last year, and the effect of the “ hardship “ sections of the existing legislation. As was explained during the second-reading debate, the act contains provisions whereby relief may be given to persons who would suffer hardship if compelled to pay the tax. Honorable mem”bers should not be asked to vote on this clause until they have been supplied with the fullest information regarding the effect of the remissions already granted. Some time ago this Parliament passed certain emergency legislation which had for its object the balancing of the national budget, and to that end called upon sections of the community to make heavy sacrifices. At the time an undertaking was given that, immediately the financial position of the nation made it possible, those sections of the community would be restored to their former positions before concessions were made to others. Those who will benefit by this provision were not in any way involved in the financial emergency legislation passed by this Parliament. A federal land tax was first imposed in 1910, not only for the purpose of bursting up large estates, but also to reimburse the revenue in respect of the unearned increment created by public expenditure. In many instances, the values of large rural holdings are considerably enhanced by national undertakings such as railways, bridges, highways, and water conservation schemes. To finance these works taxation is imposed upon persons who do not gain any direct benefit from them, but those owning properties adjacent to such undertakings derive a substantial advantage, on these circumstances, it has been considered sound in principle to impose a federal land tax upon the owners of land that is made more valuable by public expenditure. A representative of the Country party in this chamber has said to-night that a large proportion of this tax is paid by bankers and woo] brokers. That is a candid and interesting admission, and disposes of the arguments advanced by some honorable members that even a partial remission will be of direct benefit to struggling primary producers. It was suggested in November last, and has been mentioned again since this bill has been under consideration, that land taxation is to be reduced in order to afford some relief to struggling farmers, but a perusal of the reports submitted by commissions which have inquired into it3 application discloses that a reduction will not be of any benefit to the poorer farmers, but will assist only banking institutions, wool brokers and others. A survey of the financial circumstances of those engaged in such businesses does not suggest that they are in particular need of assistance. During the present crisis they have always remained on top, and any sacrifice required of them has not been commensurate with that required of the unemployed, the pensioners and the public servants. The burden has been placed upon the unemployed, and those who have had to submit to cuts in. salaries and pensions. v

Mr Riley:

– Companies have made exorbitant profits, and the banks have not’ reduced their interest rates.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is true. Throughout the crisis the banking institutions have had the farmers at their mercy. The members of the Country party say that they represent the primary producers and are working in the interests of the struggling farmers. But those who formulate the Country party’s policy dabble in big city businesses, and to them the farmers’ interests are only a secondary consideration. They are directors of banking institutions, insurance companies, and newspaper companies. In the morning such gentlemen attend meetings of the Country party at which they speak of the high cost of production and the needs of the struggling farmers, and in the afternoon they attend meetings of bank boards and insurance companies, which impose upon the farmers the very conditions that cause their distress. This discussion is helping us to appreciate what is happening in regard to taxation. If, as is said,, the banking institutions and wool brokers pass on the taxes imposed upon them, governments are in a helpless position, and it appears that the richer and more powerful the interests, the less is the chance of collecting taxation from them. We often hear the slogan, “ equality of sacrifice,” but I hope that it will not be repeated, because as we unmask the application of the financial emergency legislation the fact becomes more apparent that there are sections of the community upon which it appears to be humanly impossible to impose some of the burden which others are compelled to shoulder. Why should not the Government be strong enough to say to ‘ the bankers, the brokers, and exchange operators, “You shall share in the sacrifices imposed upon others,” and prevent them from passing on the tax, as the members of the Country party say they do? I cannot support the opinion expressed by some that the taxation remitted will provide the additional employment prophesied, and I deprecate the action of honorable members opposi te who .make of unemployment an excuse for enabling those engaged in big business to receive these remissions. This is mere exploitation of the distress of the poor. Aided by the publicity that is a vailable to them, Government supporters delude the people into the idea that, because taxation relief is given here and there, some unfortunates will get jobs. In country districts wages have been reduced to the lowest possible level. .When low wages prevail, owing to the economic circumstances, employers take full advantage of the opportunities afforded them. Men have been told to work for big squatters at 10s. a week; if they have declined to do so, food, relief has been refused. Some honorable members have said that the federal land tas. is a tax upon capital, and that they are opposed to it on principle. Is not the reduction of public servants’ salaries and pensions a class tax on capital? In order to obtain revenue with -which to finance the functions of government, some forms of taxation are necessary, and it is logical that those who get the greatest return from society should ‘bear the greater share of the liability. This tax was first imposed in 1910 for that purpose, and has not ‘been repealed by succeeding governments. It is suggested that if a portion of this tax is remitted unemployment will be relieved; but I do not agree with that contention, and the experience of the past confirms my view. The Prime Minister, who has supported the Labour party’s policy, including a federal land tax, for 25 years, should be the last to subscribe to the policy to which this clause gives effect, especially as these remissions can only be made at the expense of those who have suffered so severely under the financial emergency legislation. I am strongly opposed to banking institutions and wool brokers, exchange opera. tors, and big city interests deriving benefit from this source. At a recent/meeting of the directors of David Jones Limited, Sydney, the chairman, Mr. Lloyd Jones, said that the proposed remission of federal land tax would benefit that company to the extent of £20,000 a year, and the representatives of other big city businesses have said that even this concession, large as it is, will not place them on an even keel.

Mr Riley:

– -How many additional persons will these firms employ?

Mr BEASLEY:

– None. Work cannot be made available until the purchasing power of the people is increased. Those who are out of work have no purchasing power, and those on relief works very little, because they are paid only sufficient to provide them with food. The proposed mere remission of taxation will not diminish unemployment to the extent anticipated by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I am opposed to this clause, which proposes to repeal section 4 of the Financial Emergency Act of 1932, because it is unfair to confer benefits upon the owners of large properties at the expense of the poorer sections of the community. When the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) suggested that Part VI. of the bill relating to pensions should become operative as from the 26th October, the Minister said that he could not accept such an amendment, but paragraph a of the proposed new section relating to land is to be made retrospective to July of last year. This provision will not be of any benefit to the owners of small properties, because the tax is not imposed on those holding land, the unimproved value of which does not exceed £5,000. A person owning a property valued at £10,000 would not pay more than £16 a year, while the owner of a farm consisting of 700 or 800 acres would, under this measure, benefit to the extent of only £7 or £8 a year. In these circumstances it will be seen that the big city interests are to derive all the advantage. The big insurance companies, shipping companies, and banking institutions, the Sussex-street farmers who farm the farmers- these people will benefit from this remission of land taxation. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) can tell us who they are, and what they contribute to the funds of the Nationalist party, because at one time he was the organizing secretary of that party.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s remarks have no relation to the clause.

Mr JAMES:

– The Government is conserving the interests of those by whom it is supported. Let this be a lesson to the Labour party in future; let it consider the welfare of those who support it.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr JAMES:

– I am showing that the bill favours the wealthy members of the community, who support the present Administration. In having their assessments reduced by 50 per cent., these persons are being given a handsome Christmas box. Yet the Government refused to extend to pensioners the consideration sought on their behalf by representatives of all schools of political thought in this chamber. The proposal that the higher rate of pension should date from the 26th of Octoberwas rejected by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member may not deal with an amendment that has been negatived by the committee.

Mr JAMES:

– I am entirely opposed to a number of clauses in this bill.I feel that if the Government were sincerely desirous of rehabilitating Australia, it would not give handsome presents to those who contributed nothing to the balancing of budgets under the so-called Premiers plan. These people had no extra burden placed on them; they were not asked to sacrifice one penny during the years 1931, 1932, and 1933. Yet they are receiving consideration in preference to those who did make sacrifices. Before any concessions are given to other sections, those who contributed to the balancing of budgets under the Premiers plan should have their cuts restored.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- Any unbiased person listening to the speeches of honorable members opposite must have formed the opinion that those honorable members are completely irresponsible. The statement that the main basic industry of Australia should not be placed on a sound footing is to my mind absurd. The history of the depression is largely that of the decline of wool values; that decline has involved the reduction of social services, wages, and all other governmental expenditure. Under the clause before the committee, an attempt is made to place the great basic wool industry once again on a sound, economic footing, and enable it to pay its way. I say emphatically that the woolgrowers of this country, whom the land tax affects to a greater extent than any other section, are quite prepared to pay any equitable impost; but they rightly object to the principle of the taxation of capital. The Commonwealth land taxwas first imposed in 1910 for the purpose of breaking up huge estates. The idea of the Labour Government of the day possibly was that wool could be grown on pockethandkerchief farms.

Mr Martens:

– The members of that administration knew as much about the wool industry as the honorable member knows.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Their knowledge of the application of the land tax was negligible. That tax has failed in its object, and the honorable member knows it. To-day the land tax is purely and solely a revenue tax, and imposes a cripplingburden on Australia’s main basic industry. I believe that in removing portion of that burden the Government is definitely helping every section of the people. The prosperity of the wool industry must have a reaction on all sections of the community. No honorable member opposite can deny that the result of such prosperity must beto increase the receipts from income tax, to make the purchasing power of the people greater, and to raise wages. When the wool industry was prosperous, Australia was prosperous; when it went down, Australia went down. The application of the land tax to city properties has resulted in its having been paid by the consumer, because it has been passed on. The city land-holder, the big business man, the owner of a large emporium, is able to pass it on, but primary industries cannot do so. If honorable members opposite were really mindful of the best interests of the consumers, they would gladly welcome the reduction of costs. If costs are now reduced, a portion of the additional income derived will come back to the Government in the form of income tax, and that will enable the Government to restore some of the cuts about which honorable members opposite appear to be so greatly concerned.

I am confident that the clause will be passed. I trust that this further remission of land tax is merely a second instalment of a policy designed to abolish this capital levy, which has definitely failed in. its objective.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- This gift of £400,000 to a wealthy section of the community would be bad enough in ordinary circumstances, but it is infinitely worse when associated with the proposal to end the year with a deficit. It is amusing to find a Government which claims to have some knowledge of finance, and which continually talks of balancing budgets, coming forward with such budgetary proposals. The disposal of the surplus of £3,546,000 in the manner intended would lead one to believe that in the year which has passed, the finances were in such a sound condition that the budget was actually balanced, and the public debt was reduced.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s remarks would be quite in order in the form of a general reference to the bill, or in a debate on the budget, but they have no relation to the clause.

Mr WARD:

– With due deference to you, sir, I am arguing that the money which is to be left with a wealthy section of the community would be better employed in the reduction of the accumulated deficits. I contend that I am in order in suggesting that this remission of tax should not be made. During the last twelve months the national debt was increased by approximately £16,000,000, and during the last two years by approximately £48,500,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member must see that his remarks have general application to the budgetary position of the Commonwealth, and that ifhe were permitted to proceed along those lines he could deal with every aspect of the budget.

Mr WARD:

– Supporters of the Government have stated that “the effect of this remission of land tax will be to lessen the burdens of the community generally, and have denied that it will afford relief to only one section. I am endeavouring to show that the disposal of the surplus in the manner proposed will tend not to lighten, but to increase the burdens of the people generally. During the last two years, the public debt of the Commonwealth has been raised by approximately £4 4s. per head of the population. The methods adopted by this Government to balance its budget are no different from those adopted by previous nationalist governments.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The honorable member is distinctly out of order. He is not referring to the clause.

Mr Beasley:

– On a point of order, I contend, sir, that your ruling must necessarily restrict honorable members to such an extent that they will not be able to deal with the application of what is contained in the clause, namely, public finance. This is a very important matter, involving as it does the remission of land tax to the extent of at least £400,000. If we are to be denied the opportunity to discuss the effect of that on the general finances of the country, we shall be denied the right to discuss the problem at all.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s own words should reveal to him that he is departing from the discussion of the clause. The honorable member for East. Sydney (Mr. Ward) was referring to the practice of this and other Governments in balancing budgets by borrowing money. That has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr WARD:

– The measure we are now discussing is called the Financial Relief Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are not now discussing the Financial Relief Bill, but a clause of that bill. The bill itself was discussed during the debate on the second reading.

Mr WARD:

– Part 2 of the bill provides for the remission of federal land tax to the amount of £400,000 a year, and this will seriously affect the revenue of the Commonwealth. If I am able to show that this remission is not in the interests of the public, surely I am entitled to do so. I contend that, in the present condition of the country’s finances, we cannot afford to remit this taxation to a section of the community which has made no sacrifices during what has been called the emergency period.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Apparently the honorable member is still arguing with the Chair as to whether or not he is in order. He may proceed with his speech, and if he is again out of order, the Chair will check him.

Mr WARD:

– The Government proposes to apply £400,000 of this year’s surplus for the remission of land taxation. I contend that the Government is able to show a surplus only by manipulating the public accounts. Actually, Australia is in a worse financial position than before, because the debt per head of population has been increased in order that this gift may be made to the political friends of the Government. Surely . I am entitled to demonstrate that fact.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member for East Sydney previously stated that the Government was making a gift to its wealthy political supporters, and you required him to withdraw the statement. He lias now repeated it, and 1 ask that he be called upon to withdraw it, and to refrain from repeating it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member for East Sydney to discuss the clause, and that only. I should be sorry to have to take action against Lim, but the debate must be conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders. -

Mr WARD:

– The sum of £400,000 is, in effect, to be handed over to a wealthy section which does not include supporters of the .Labour party. Such generosity is not warranted by the financial position of the country, and, for that reason, I hope that honorable members will not agree to it.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I am opposed to the remission of land taxation as proposed in this clause, because I think the money which will be involved could be put to better use. This remission will assist not the man on the land, but certain wealthy persons, mostly absentees, with holdings in the large pastoral companies. It will also assist large financial institutions, such as the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company, which hold mortgages over pastoral land, and which are keeping the nominal owners on the property only until it suits their interests to put them off. I have already said that the Government’s relief proposals will not provide employment for any one, and my objection has not been answered except by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart), who interjected that local bodies, as a result of being able to obtain loans at a lower rate of interest, would have more money with which to provide employment. Even that virtue cannot be claimed for the proposal to remit land taxation. The graziers are employing just as many men as are needed to do the work, and they will not employ any more no matter what taxation remissions are made. When I worked on a station at 15s. a week and rations, no more men were employed than were absolutely necessary, and just as many were employed when the wage went up to £3 10s. and £3 15s. a week. There are at present 300,000 persons out of work in Australia, besides many others who are working only part time. Something should be done to increase their purchasing power, so that they will be able to buy the commodities of which there is at present a surplus. We have food and clothing in plenty, but the people cannot buy what they need, and the reduction of the land tax will not provide them with the means to buy. It will merely put more money in the pockets of the wealthy friends of the party opposite. It may not be true that those wealthy interests have contributed to government party funds, but the insurance companies undoubtedly have.

Mr SCHOLFIELD:
Wannon

– I was surprised to haar honorable members opposite say that the remission of a part of the land tax will not help to provide work for the unemployed. I am in possession of direct evidence that it has already resulted in the reemployment of many men on various stations. It is well known that, for a long time pas.t, fencing and other maintenance tasks on station properties have been neglected because the land-holders have not had the money -with which to do them. Within the last twelve months, however, as a result of the previous reduction of the land tax, a great deal of this kind of work has been put in hand. Working men, and members of the general community, will also benefit from the reduction of the land tax on city property, because commodities manufactured in the cities will now be cheaper. It has been stated that the land tax represents a charge of 9d. on each pair of boots made in Australia. Despite what some honorable members have said, the wheat-growers will also benefit as a result of the reduction of the land tax. Many wheat-growers own areas of 640 acres of land of an unimproved value of £S an acre or more, and this brings them within the scope of the tax. I am only sorry that the Government has not gone further, and abolished the tax altogether. It is definitely doing harm by restricting industry, and placing an unjustifiable burden on the community.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

.- In the southern States objection is taken to the federal land tax, although it is the only tax which the land has to bear, but in Queensland, land-holders have to pay a State tax as well. On one freehold property in my district the federal and State land taxes and the local authority tax amount to no less than 2s. an acre, whereas Crown land in the same district can be obtained for a rental of 6d. or Sd. an acre. As regards Queensland, there is no justification for saying that the federal land tax has the effect of breaking up big estates because, compared with the State land tax, it is of minor importance. The State tax has to be paid on all land of a greater value than £300, whereas the federal land tax is paid only on land valued at £5,000 and over. On a fairly large property in Queensland, the Federal and State land taxes . are so heavy that it is doubtful whether it is worth owning freehold land at all, at any rate for the purpose of running sheep. Certainly the reduction or total abolition of the federal land tax would be most welcome. If the State Governments will not remove land tax it is a relief when the Federal Government does so.

Mr Riordan:

– What proportion of the pastoral lands of Queensland is freehold?

Mr HUNTER:

– There is Northampton Downs, Landsdowne at Tambo, the Fairbairn Pastoral Company’s holding, Peak Downs, the Jondaryan estate near Toowoomba, and also some country about Dalby. If the desire is to drive the owners of freehold land off their country on the assumption that they have no right to run sheep on such land, by all means maintain this tax, for those concerned will not then be able to carry on. But if we wish them to continue, and the State Government will not lighten it’s land tax, let us endeavour to persuade the Commonwealth Government to vacate a sphere of taxation that belongs properly to the States.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– Several honorable members on the Government side have made the definite statement that all honorable members on this side of the chamber are opposed to any remission of taxation. That is an unnatural and improper statement to make. I am opposed, on principle, to the remission at the present time of direct taxation, whether it be on income or land:, but I am also impelled to resist this remission, because it grants relief from taxation which existed prior to the imposition of the financial emergency legislation.

I have waited in vain for the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson), the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock), and others who are not associated with city industries, to endeavour to prove that the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) is unsound. The right honorable gentleman said that, the tax on unimproved land values was imposed for the purpose of breaking up large estates, and making them available for settlement by the sons of farmers. Some argue that that purpose was not achieved, but figures supplied by the Commissioner of Taxation prove that it was. On referring to the. increased value of land, the honorable member for Riverina proved conclusively that if the scheme has failed it is because the tax is too low. He did not prove that the purpose of the tax has been thwarted or that the aggregations of land have become greater. Everybody knows that in the boom period that followed the imposition of land tax, there occurred an artificial inflation of land values because of the keen competition of those who wanted to get on the land. As a result, returned soldiers and others have tried vainly for twelve or fifteen years to make a profit from their holdings.

The honorable member for Indi made the statement - it was so obvious that it should not have been uttered - that when the wool industry is prosperous, Australia is prosperous. It could be said with equal truth that when all other industries are prosperous, Australia is prosperous. I merely point out that during the years in which unimproved land reached its peak value, the wool industry was in the most prosperous condition that it has enjoyed for the last two decades. No evidence is forthcoming that these remissions will assist those engaged in the industry.

It has been argued that, though these remissions of taxation will be enjoyed directly only by a small number of persons, indirectly they will cause a large number to be placed in employment. Economists who have been called to the aid of governments throughout the world, particularly during the last four years, have advised that the only way to give impetus to private enterprise is bycreating a wages fund, and not by remitting taxation to large companies. That is also the contention of honorable members on this side, and. it can be given effect if the Government would directly assist municipal and other authorities, which, in turn, would provide additional work, and so increase the purchasing power of the community. Every one knows that during the last ten years the great banking companies have played safe and built up reserves, and that they will continue to do so until the boom period again comes round. They have not helped the Government in the slightest.

It is not fair to say that honorable members on this side are opposed to remissions of all kinds of taxation. No sensible man is other than glad when taxation can be remitted. But all of us are pledged to remove the effects of this emergency legislation before remitting taxation which existed previously. A definite promise was made to the people of Australia that there would be no remissions of taxation until this legislation is wiped out, and reductions restored in full. Because of the failure of the Government to fulfil its pledges to the people I am opposed to every section of the bill. In addition, I am opposed to remissions of land tax, on principle, because the effect would be to take money out of industry and create further depression rather than afford relief.

Sitting suspended from 11.43 to 12.15 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 20 October 1933.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– It is essential that I should quote some figures to correct certain misapprehensions about land taxation. During the last eight years, £21,750,000 has been collected in federal land tax alone, £9,500,000 of which has been collected in the last four years of the depression. The average amount paid in federal land taxation during the last eight years has been £2,750,000 per annum. This is admittedly a capital tax, and it is imposed whether or not income is earned from the property concerned. As honorable members know, many large city and country properties have been non-revenue producing in the last few years. The remission of this taxation will grant a certain amount of relief to the wool-growers. It should be remembered that, in spite of the recent rise in price, wool is only now fetching about the cost of production. Several authoritative reports have been made on the wool industry in recent years, and each has recommended the abolition of the federal land tax. The Country party holds the view that the tax should be entirely abolished, while the Labour party is opposed to any alteration in the rate of tax. The Government has wisely adopted a moderate policy in preference to either of those extremes. The reduction now being made is 162/3 per cent. of the rate applicable to 1931-32 assessments, making a reduction of 50 per cent. over two years.

The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) expressed fears that paragraph a of the proposed new section might have an adversely retrospective effect, but I assure him that its purpose is to enable the Government to collect last year’s unpaid tax at the old higher rate. Paragraph b provides for the current year.

The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) referred to resident and absentee land-owners, but with his experience he must be aware that no exemption whatever is allowed in respect to absentee land-owners, who are obliged to pay much more than the rate of tax applying to resident land-owners. It should be remembered that even if the federal land tax were abolished, State land taxation would still exist, and that inVictoria the exemption from such taxation is only £250, whereas under the federal legislation it is £5,000.

Mr Scullin:

– The State land tax rate is moderate.

Mr CASEY:

– Probably on a wide range of land the federal tax is higher, but the State land tax reaches a fairly high rate in certain circumstances.

The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby), in his second-reading speech, referred to the cost of collecting the federal land tax. During the four years ended the 31st June, 1931, the latest figures that I have at hand, the amount of tax collected was £11,500,000, and the cost of collection less titan. £500,000. The average cost of collection was just over 4 per cent.

Mr Thorby:

– But with the reduced rates it will amount to 12 per cent.

Mr CASEY:

– The cost per cent, of collection will be higher if the same staff is employed. The honorable member also appeared to be under the impression that the thirteen valuation boards operating had thirteen different full-time chairmen. I assure him that there is only one fulltime chairman, who travels round the country and sits on each board with two co-opted members with local experience. Probably the total cost of the thirteen boards as constituted at present is less than the cost of one full-time board with three permanent officials would be.

The arguments for and against the reduction of the federal land tax have been fully stated from time to time in this chamber, and no useful purpose would lie served by rehearsing the Government’s point of view at this stage. In view of all the circumstances, the remission now proposed is only reasonable.

Mr Beasley:

– What amount of tax has been remitted under the hardships sections of the act?

Mr CASEY:

– Remissions are made only in extreme cases, and the total amount of such remissions is very small.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– It has been stated by some honorable members opposite that the Labour party is opposed to the remission of taxation, but that is not the case. We believe that the burden of taxation should be lifted, but under equitable conditions. We are opposed to the remission of land taxation because we believe that it will benefit only the wealthy sections of the community. The remissions now proposed will not benefit the real wealth-producers of the country. In Queensland 95 per cent, of the land used for wool-growing and cattleraising is held on lease, so that this remission of- taxation will be of very little benefit to the wool-growers and graziers of that State. The people who will benefit from it are the wealthy city landowners. It is claimed by some people that the taxation of city properties increases the cost of commodities, but it should be remembered that three-quarters of the amount of land taxation remitted in the last two years has benefited city property-owners. I join issue with those who argue that the federal land tax has failed to break up large estates. In the Mount Abundance district of the division of Maranoa, a land tax of 2s. 6d. an acre was imposed on a certain property, with the result that the owners of the estate allowed the land to revert to the Crown, retaining for themselves only what is called a living area. This was converted into leasehold, and the remainder of the property was made available for closer settlement under leasehold tenure. The Moore Government gave holders of leased land the opportunity to convert their properties into freehold, but very few of them took advantage of the offer. The wool committee which recently inquired into the problems of the graziers, recommended the abolition of land taxation, but the members of that committee were chiefly interested in the welfare of those engaged in the rearing of stud flocks. Very little evidence was taken in Queensland. Most of the wool produced in New South Wales and Queensland is grown on leasehold land, the holders of which will receive no benefit whatever from these remissions. In my opinion the Government would have been well advised to retain this tax and use the revenue derived from it for making land available for the landhungry people of the Commonwealth. Recently, when a big estate in Queensland was subdivided for closer settlement, between 700 and 800 applications were received for the blocks.

In conclusion, I reiterate that while the Labour party is in favour of the reduction of taxation on an equitable basis, it is not favorable to the remission of taxation to wealthy interests at the present time.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.It appears that the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and I are somewhat at cross purposes in regard to the real position of the thirteen land valuation boards. I said that there were thirteen boards with thirteen permanent chairmen.

Mr Casey:

– There is only one full-time chairman.

Mr THORBY:

– I direct the attention of the Assistant Treasurer to the following statement which appears on page 5 of the report of the Taxation Commissioner, published on the 26th May, 1933:-

There are thirteen valuation boards operating throughout the Commonwealth, each consisting of a full-time chairman and two other part-time members.

That statement surely means that there are thirteen full-time chairmen. At any rate, that statement was the basis for my remarks on the subject.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I admit that the extract read by the honorable member leaves room for misapprehension; but I assure him that there is only one full-time chairman, who is continually travelling in order that he may serve on each of the thirteen boards. The paragraph from the report quoted by the honorable member is clumsily worded.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman -Mr.Bell.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Life insurance companies).

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– During the second reading discussion, members of the party with which I am associated drew attention to the technical nature of this clause, and the Minister admitted that it was somewhat involved in its terms. Does he now intend to give the committee an explanation of the new section proposed to be inserted in the principal act?

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– This clause is fairly complicated. Life insurance companies have two principal classes of income - that derived from investment of their accumulated funds, and that obtained as premiums. As the law stands at the present time, the companies are liable to pay tax on their investment income, less a reasonable proportion of their expenses in collecting that income. This has resulted in some of the newer companies, and those that have not had time to build up reserves in good years, being progressively, year by year, put into an actuarially unsound position. The Government taking so much away from them in income tax each year that they are unable to allocate sufficient to reserves to build up a fund that is actuarially capable of meeting their liabilities in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to relieve these companies of taxation, particularly because the Parliament has interested itself in their actuarial soundness by passing an act last year demanding a deposit from them in the interests of their policy-holders. Accordingly, the Government is logically obliged to do something at least to restore the weaker companies to a sound actuarial position.

In this clause, provision is made to insert after section 20 of the principal act a new clause 20a. Paragraphs a and b of sub-section 1 are repeated from the principal act, with the omission of the word “ and “ at the end of paragraph a. The effect of these two paragraphs is to exempt life insurance companies from taxation on their premium and annuity income. Paragraph c exempts 4 per cent. of a certain sum. That sum is an amount which bears to the total liabilities of the company, which I shall define in a moment, the same relation as the value of the taxable income-producing assets bears to the total assets of the company. The sum, ofwhich 4 per cent. is being made free from taxation, is thus an amount slightly less than that necessary as a reserve to meet all future liabilities. In some cases, where all the assets of the company are income-earning, and the income is all taxable, it is proposed to remit 4 per cent. of the tax on a sum actuarially calculated as being equal to the total liabilities of the company. A definition is given of “ valuation of liabilities “, or the present value of liabilities; in other words, the capital sum at an actuarially assumed rate of interest which, together with future premiums, would be necessary to meet all future liabilities of the company.

Provision is also made in the clause to ensure that the companies do not deduct too much. Every company, as I have discovered only lately, has an actuarially assumed rate of earning power on its assets, and the company’s actuary has complete freedom in assuming the rate of interest. The usual, though not the average, assumed earning power is 4 per cent. Hence the proviso at the end of sub-section 2.

Mr Rosevear:

– That is not borne out by the Financial Bulletin.

Mr CASEY:

– The rate of earning power is not the rate of interest, but it is an actuarially-calculated figure which takes into account the earning power of the company, that is, its interest-bearing assets, together with the present value of future premiums.

Mr Rosevear:

– Other profit is made on surrendered policies.

Mr CASEY:

– The proviso takes into account, not only the companies with an assumed rate of 4 per cent., but also those operating on the basis of 31/2 per cent., and even lower rates. In other words, if the assumed earning power of the assets be 4 per cent., the whole of the reduction provided under the bill is to be allowed; but if it be less than 4 per cent., a proportionately smaller reduction will be made. The actuarial valuations are, apparently, made yearly or fiveyearly. In any event, I understand that they must be made at intervals of no longer than five years. Sub-section 3 deals with companies which are actuarially unsound, or really potentially insolvent, and are, therefore, not obliged to pay the tax. The description of this clause is somewhat involved, but the subject is particularly simple, and I shall be glad, so far as I am able, to reply to any queries of honorable members.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

. It is difficult to follow the method of calculation in determining the taxable income of insurance companies, and it is still more difficult to understand how any of the life insurance companies can be actuarially unsound. I do not follow exactly the explanation of the Minister. Financial Bulletin, No. 23, shows that the average interest rate per cent. of funds invested at the date of valuation, was over 5 per cent., and, as the Minister has stated, that is an annual or quinquennial calculation. The bulletin also shows that, at the end of 1931, out of 42 companies only two charged a rate of interest lower than 41/2 per cent. on their investments. The interest rates ranged from about 41/2 per cent. to £6 18s. per cent. on funds invested by the various companies. Then, in regard to the assets and liabilities of ordinary and industrial insurance companies, their assets at the end of 1930 were £143,000,000 - that is the Australian business - and their liabilities £106,000,000, the surplus of assets being £37,000,000. During 1929-30, their liabilities had increased by £284,000 and their assets by £9,356,000. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how these companies can be in financial straits, particularly as they charge high rates of interest on moneys invested and amassed in one year surplus assets amounting to over £9,000,000. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), during his budget speech, said that he hoped that this remission of taxation would be used, not to increase the bonuses of policy-holders or shareholders, but to benefit the debtors of the companies by way of lower interest charges. Then the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) said that the object of the remission was to benefit policyholders. Now the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) says that this remission is being made in order tobolster up insurance companies which are not too sound financially. In view of the conflicting hopes of these three Ministers, I should like to know what is the actual objective of this remission of taxation.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I think that the interest figure quoted by the honorable member is the actual rate of interest on the interest-producing assets, which is quite different from the assumed rate of interest arrived at by actuarial calculation.

Mr.Rosevear. - It is definitely the average rate chargedon loans made by the company.

Mr CASEY:

– That is not what is known as the assumed rate of interest which takes into account, not only income from investments, but also the premiums on future policies. These and other factors have to be lumped together at an assumed presentday value. A complicated actuarial calculation is made, and out of that arises an assumed rate of interest on all assets real and potential.

Mr Rosevear:

-Who are to actually benefit from these remissions?

Mr CASEY:

– The Prime Minister in his second-reading speech said -

To some extent these alterations as affecting life insurance companies are directed to effect a reduction of interest rates charged to industry.

Mr Rosevear:

– Did not the Prime Minister express the hope that this remission of taxation would not benefit the share-holders or policy-holders?

Mr CASEY:

– I think that the right honorable gentleman said that at this particular time the full benefit of these remissions should not be passed on to the policy-holders. There is no doubt that there are three directions in which a company could make use of this remission of taxation. In the first place, it could benefit the policy-holders; secondly, it could reduce premiums; and, thirdly, it could reduce interest rates to those to whom it has lent money. The Australian Mutual Provident Society has already advertised a reduction of one-half per cent. in its mortgage rate, so soon as this bill becomes law. I cannot blame honorable members for not having a complete understanding of this clause. It is a complicated subject, and we have to take the actuarial calculations on trust. The clauses of the bill have been carefully discussed with some of the principal actuaries, and we have the assurance that the bill gives effect to the intention of the, Government.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- Honorable members should be in possession of more detailed information respecting this clause. At present. we have to be guided by the statistics available to us, and they disclosecertain interest rates. The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has stated that those rates do not apply to this clause, and that it is necessary to arrive at what is called an assumed rate of interest by taking into account various factors which are apparently unknown to the Government. Has the Government authority to test the validity of any assumed rate of interest?

Mr Scullin:

– The accounts of the companies must be audited by certified auditors.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Accountants can prepare statements and reports, and actuaries can arrive at decisions which are quite satisfactory to those who employ them. We know that the petrol companies have adopted all kinds of methods in order to hide their profits. I wish to know: - whether the Government will have the right to test any actuarial calculations; what companies are actuarily unsound; to what extent these remissions will bolster up unsound companies, and what reductions of the interest rates charged by life insurance companies are likely to take place. That information, if procurable, would provide a means of testing the real benefits which will accrue from the proposed remission.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.This is a proposal to remit taxes payable by insurance companies. The bulk of the insurance business in this country is done by mutual companies which have no capital, and devote the whole of the profits from their investments to their policy-holders. When this tax was first imposed in 1928 I was of the opinion that it ought not to be imposed. I could not say now that it is the first tax which I would remit, but it is one which should be dispensed with as soon as possible. The calculations associated with insurance business are most complicated. The actuarial calculation for investments does not necessarily agree with the return on the investments, because the calculations are always made on a conservative basis in the interests of safety. The actuarial calculation is made on an assumption over a long period, and is based on the average ruling rate of interest expected on investments. A proper calculation is always below the actual return; otherwise a company may be unable to meet its obligations. The mutual companies distribute any profits in excess of their calculations in the form of bonuses to their policyholders after making provision for reserves. One of the difficulties associated with insurance matters in recent years hasa risen in connexion with new companies which have come into existence since high rates of interest on gilt-edged securities and trustee stocks have been general. These companies have made their actuarial calculations on a basis rather too high to be safe. When my Government carried out a big conversion loan and reduced arbitrarily the rate of interest on bonds by 221/2 per cent., a point was reached at which the younger insurance companies were in danger of being embarrassed. I have no doubt that they will be glad of the relief now proposed. I regret that any private capitalistic concerns have been allowed to exploit insurance business in Australia. This class of business should be carried out entirely by co-operative companies. Fortunately, the bulk of it is cooperative, and, in the main, is well managed. The books of the societies are subject to a strict audit, and it is well that their actuarial calculations are conservative. If the position were otherwise they might have difficulty in meeting their obligations, let alone provide bonuses for their policy-holders. As I have stated, these bonuses are the excess profits over their actuarial calculations.

Mr Beasley:

– Do they make provision for the non-payment of premiums due to unemployment?

Mr SCULLIN:

– They make certain allowances in such cases. The actuarial calculations are based on the expectation of life, and allow a margin for safety, but do not make any allowance for wars. It is well that the companies have been conservative in their calculations, because the Great War struck them a severe blow.

Mr Prowse:

– Any scourge or serious epidemic would have a similar effect.

Mr SCULLIN:

– There is nothing wrong in the mutual companies making their calculations on a basis lower than their actual receipts because any excess profits are distributed among their policyholders. Over a long period of years their calculations have been remarkably close to the actual results.

Mr Beasley:

– They do not pass on all their profits, but use a part of them to build up reserves.

Mr SCULLIN:

– They are wise to do that. The bonuses are not paid to policyholders in cash; they are reversionary bonuses held in reserve for the strengthening of the companies. 1 am glad that the Government is able to remit this form of taxation, although I hold that its first duty was to honour its promise to restore the cuts in pensions, Public Service salaries and social services. However, if taxation is to be remitted, this is a remission with which I agree.

The question arises whether the companies which will receive the benefits of this remission should reduce the rate of interest on mortgages, or pass on the benefits to their policy-holders. They will probably do a little in each direction. The rate of interest charged on mortgages is altogether too high for industry to stand, and if the insurance companies use some of this concession to help industry, their action will eventually prove of benefit to their policyholders. Many of the borrowers from insurance companies are their own policyholders, to whom most companies give preference in order to enable them to build homes for themselves. Many homebuilders use their insurance policies as security for money obtained to assist in the purchase of their homes. I estimate that about 1,500,000 individuals in Australia are insured, so that this remission will cover a wide field.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.- I direct the attention of the committee to the position of the Starr-Bowkett societies, whose funds have for many years been exempt from taxation, but are now assessed by the taxation authorities. The bulk of the members of these societies are persons who have obtained money from the societies to establish homes for themselves. The taxation authorities are endeavouring to tax Starr-Bowkett societies retrospectively to 1915. One society recently received an account from the department for £1,600. I realize that this bill does not directly deal with StarrBowkett societies, but as it is a measure to relieve the funds of insurance companies from taxation, the claims of these societies, which are similar to insurance companies, ought not to he overlooked. Investments in Starr-Bowkett societies are similar to deposits in a savings bank account. In most cases the money is used as the financial basis for the establishment of a home. The decision of the department to claim taxes from these societies is based on recent decisions in England and Ireland. Some time ago the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins) placed the position of the StarrBowkett societies before the Government, and gave details of the working of the society at “Wagga. I hope that the Minister, will take these representations into consideration, with a view to granting the Starr-Bowkett societies some relief.

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

– The action of the Australian Mutual Provident Society in reducing the rate of interest on loans has been given considerable publicity in the press recently. A week or two before the budget was introduced, a gentleman of my acquaintance was informed by that company that the interest on a loan to him had been reduced from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent. I should like the Minister, when replying, to say whether the Australian Mutual Provident Society, and others which have acted similarly, were told by the Government that .they could anticipate the introduction of legislation providing for the remission of taxes payable by insurance companies.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– The principle underlying this clause has the support of honorable members generally, but I am somewhat dubious about helping insurance companies unless the Government can, in some way, control them. The introduction of legislation to safeguard policy-holders by requiring these companies to place a substantial deposit with the Commonwealth was a step in the right direction. Many of the companies which will obtain relief by the passing of this measure have dealt harshly with persons who have been unable to keep up their premiums. I have been informed by persons who have come to me for advice that when they have been compelled to surrender their policies they have been able to obtain only two-thirds of the amount which they have paid in premiums, and that no . bonuses or interest have been paid. One individual who had paid £32 or £33 on an industrial policy received only £17 or £18. Had persons who, through force of circumstances, surrendered their policies, deposited a similar amount in a bank, they would have received the amount deposited and also interest. Starr-Bowkett societies and some insurance companies do not return to their members or policy-holders the full amount of the money received regardless of interest. I should like the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to keep this matter in mind, and, if possible, to give me some information on the subject at a later date.

Mr CASEY:
^Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I think that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has answered to a large extent the points raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). I presume the honorable member for West Sydney was referring to pages 60 and 61 of the Financial Statistics. The difference between the two sets of interest figures appears to be fairly clear. The column on the extreme right gives the average rate at which invested funds - the physical funds invested - are earning money. The other figures, which represent the assumed rate, and which is covered by this bill, are shown in the central column. The rate of interest on which the- valuation is based is the estimated actuarial percentage, which is not the real percentage. The column on the right represents the real percentage.

Mr Rosevear:

– Can the assumed rate be arrived at with any certainty?

Mr CASEY:

– I do not think so. It would require a calculation, based on the present valuation, and on the assumption of earning power. A portion of the real and a portion of the imaginary rate produce the assumed rate. The honorable member for West Sydney asked the extent to which the Government is able to check these figures. During my short experience iu the Treasury, I have ascertained the power which the Commissioner possesses to investigate insurance companies’ accounts. It is, I can assure the honorable n lumber, quite extensive. There are also actuaries in the employment of the Government in Canberra, and with the machinery at the disposal of the Commissioner, it would be a pretty shrewd company that could mislead the Government’s representatives in this respect.

Figures supplied by the Statistician’s Department show that 2,420,000 ordinary and industrial policies are in force in Australia, and that the total sum assured amounts to over £352,000,000. The average value of the ordinary and industrial policies is £145. As stated by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition, that does not necessarily mean that nearly 2,500,000 persons are assured.

I am afraid that I cannot give the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) a satisfactory answer to his inquiry, because I was not occupying my present position when the budget was prepared. I have no knowledge of any compact between the Government and the insurance companies, and, so far as I know, the reductions of interest advertised in the press are to come into operation as from the date on which the act is proclaimed. I have no knowledge of any previous reduction, and I do not think that it could have been made in the hope of a favorable budgetary position.

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

– Can the person to whom I have referred expect a further reduction ?

Mr CASEY:

– As I am not acquainted with the details of the business of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, I cannot say. That society advertised the classes of borrowers who would benefit.

I assure the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) that I shall see what can be done concerning the back assessments on Starr-Bowkett and building societies.

I have no personal knowledge of the point raised by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), but I shall go into the matter. I do not imagine that the Government has assumed any legislative power to control companies on the lines he suggests.- I shall inform him of the Government’s position in that regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Oversea ships).

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

Under this provision, the taxation imposed on overseas shipping companies is to be reduced. In 1923, this tax was reduced from 10 per cent, to 7^ per cent., and it is now proposed to reduce it to 5 per cent. We have not been given any reason why the tax, which has always been fixed On an arbitrary basis, is to be further reduced. It is said that many shipping companies are not making the profits they made some time ago, but that is probably true of many other companies and individuals. I do not think that a tax of 7£ per cent, is unreasonable. It was 10 per cent, for a considerable period before it was reduced, and was paid by the companies concerned. ‘ This is not the time to reduce the taxation on overseas shipping companies. I shall want to hear a valid reason for this proposed reduction before I shall support the clause.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– As stated by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), this tax was first imposed at an arbitrary rate of 10 per cent, on the gross takings of overseas shipping companies at Australian ports without allowing any reduction for expenditure incurred. The rate of 10 per cent, was reduced in 1923 to 1 per cent., and it is now proposed to reduce it to 5 per cent. It is an arbitrary method of assuming profits, and the overseas shipping companies have never ceased to complain of it. It is admitted that the operations of some of these companies in Australia and in other waters have resulted in a considerable loss, yet, during the period in which these losses were incurred a tax of 10 per cent, was imposed on their total receipts in Australia. It was later reduced to 7-J per cent. It is also admitted that this is a most unsatisfactory way in - which to tax companies, and the Commissioner of Taxation has spent considerable time in attempting to arrive at a more logical and defensible basis, but up to the present has been unsuccessful. The Government has no alternative method of taxation that would apply equitably to British and foreign shipping companies. Any oilier method than that now in force must take into account the profits of the companies, and then assess some portion to the Australian trade. That might be possible in respect of British companies, but extremely difficult in the case of foreign companies whose headquarters are outside Australia. For the moment, we are thrown back on maintaining this arbitrary method of taxing them. The Government is anxious to do everything possible to reduce freights. They have been reduced lately, but our efforts in that direcare not yet complete. It is thought that this reduction will help in that direction and that the Government’s efforts will be more fruitful than they have been. I do not think that a reduction of from 7£ per cent, to 5 per cent, is inequitable.

Mr Scullin:

– Has the Minister any evidence as to the profits or losses these companies are making?

Mr CASEY:

– The published balancesheets of the British companies are available, but we have to rely upon the newspapers for the financial position of foreign companies.

Mr Riley:

– Are any of them making a loss?

Mr CASEY:

– I have not seen the balance-sheets. In recent years, British shipping companies have incurred losses. In order to deal with foreign shipping companies it would be necessary to study their profit and loss accounts, and the Commissioner of Taxation would have to bo satisfied as to what was a reasonable basis. The Government has gone into the matter very carefully, and thinks the proposed reduction from 7% per cent, to 5 per cent, reasonable. The .amount involved represents only £25,000 for twelve months, which, compared with the other remissions, is not large.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I am strongly opposed to the remission of taxation on overseas shipping companies, particularly in view of the fact that the statement has been made that these remissions are to provide employment. The proposed reduction in this instance will not be of any benefit to Aus tralian workmen. In order to show the extent to which some British shipping companies go in depriving Australian workmen of employment to which they are entitled, I quote the following letter from the Operative Painters and Decorators Union of Australia: - 29th September, 1933.

Dear Sir. - I desire to bring under your notice the action of the Orient Shipping Company in regard to work required to be done on their ships while in Australian waters. The usual procedure is to renovate the lavatories and passenger accommodation where required. Sections of cabins stored to make room for cargo on outward trip is re-erected for passengers leaving Australia. When sections are erected at least twenty men are required, but sometimes they are erected by the crew. During the period Mr. Scullin was in power he was approached to have this work done by shore labour and the manager of the company definitely agreed that such should be done. Previously, when smaller ships were on the run, if there was insufficient time to carry out the work in Sydney, shore men were sent on the ship to Brisbane and worked on the trip, but a change has taken place, and on the last cruise of the Oronsay about the 12th of August all renovations for the cruise were carried out by the crew while in Australian waters. We strongly object to the methods of this company using material brought out in the ship and using the crew to carry out the work that should be done by Australian workers while at the same time they are competing with interstate shipping companies for passengers, and collect a subsidy from the government. Anything you can do to force this company to stop the above practice would be greatly appreciated by this union.

That letter is .signed by R. T. Reeves, the secretary of the union. The supporters of the Government cannot contend that the remission of this taxation is likely to provide employment for Australian workmen. The statement of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that some of these companies are operating at a loss is unsatisfactory. Those who are controlling’ these organizations are not foolish enough to carry on unless profits are available. Because the overseas companies, while making as much as possible out of Australia, have the biggest part of their work done outside of this country, I am opposed to the remission of taxation in their case, and shall, accordingly, vote against the clause.

Mr RILEY:
Cook

.- I am opposed to the remission of taxation in the interests of overseas steamship companies. I am at a loss to understand “what justification there is for any of the taxation remissions proposed by the Government ; but evenif there is justification in other directions, there certainly is none here. This is in keeping with the lifting of certain provisions of the Navigation Act by the present Administration, for the benefit of overseas companies, and is on all-fours with the action of the BrucePage Government, when it sacrificed- the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. The withdrawal of the competition provided by that line made it easier for foreign companies to avoid the losses which, apparently, the Government advances as justification for affording them relief. Any losses that these companies may have made in the past have been due largely to the fact that there has been a surplus of tonnage on the Australia and United Kingdom service, and to the policy of employing in that service floating palaces with much too luxurious and extravagant fittings. What Australia needs is a more efficient service, and much lower rates than now prevail. Had the overseas companies displayed greater readiness to respond to the demands of Australian Governments and shippers for reduced freights, I might have been prepared to view this proposal more considerately. They will have to do a great deal more towards assisting our exporters, as well as in the direction of providing employment for Australian people in dockyards and repair shops, before they may expect the goodwill or the assistance of honorable members on this side of the chamber. Some companies spend hundreds of thousands of pounds while in Australian waters, not only in the payment of harbour dues and other fees, but also in repairs, provisioning, and other directions. The proposal of the Government should not be supported, and I hope that the committee will reject it.

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

– I should like the Assistant Minister to say whether American companies will participate in the proposed remission ?

Mr Casey:

– Yes; all foreign companies will.

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

– In no hostile spirit towards the American people, for whom I have a profound admiration in many respects, I suggest that, in the case of American shipping companies, the re mission ought not to be made. The Government of the United States of America has shown a remarkable aptitude for conserving its own interests. That is illustrated by the big balance in that country’s favour in its trading operations with Australia. American shipping is highly subsidized. It is well known that no Australian vessel may trade between American ports, and that places an almost insuperable barrier against Australian trading between Honolulu and San Francisco. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) concerning British shipping. The British mercantile marine is of primary importance to that country, and has been responsible for much of its financial greatness. As the Australian rates of wages are much higher than those paid on some foreign vessels, no concession should be granted.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

. - I join with my colleague the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) in his protest against the remission of tax in the case of foreign shipping companies. On the evidence that he has produced, those companies apparently want it both ways. They are not benevolent concerns, and would not continue to trade with Australia unless the business was profitable. They may complain that the conditions at present are not so good as they were at one time; but that applies to others as well as to them. The least that could be expected is that they would make some return to the country from which they derive substantial profits. I have glanced- at the correspondence read by the honorable member for East Sydney, and it appears to me that the attitude adopted by these big companies is the meanest and the most paltry imaginable.

Mr Makin:

– They are even given special permits under the Navigation Act to exploit the coastal trade of Australia.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I thank the honorable member for that interjection, which carries my case a stage further. The concession to which he has referred must necessarily be to the disadvantage of Australian concerns which are connected with the coastal trade, not only afloat, but also on shore. It appears to me that the Government is particularly benevolent towards overseas companies. In every sphere - shipping, secondary industries, and primary production - all countries are naturally striving to protect their own interests. Some of our friends opposite describe this as an intense form of economic nationalism. In Australia, however, the tendency of governments is to act. in the opposite way, with results that are detrimental to our interests. The indication of what has actually taken place is disclosed in the correspondence from the organizations that have brought the matter under the notice of the honorable member for East Sydney, and is sufficient to warrant our dissociating ourselves from the proposed concession. The overseas companies cannot have it both ways. If they continue to trade with and obtain profits from Australia, I shall join with those who are prepared to fight to the end to see that at least a portion of those profits are distributed locally. Hundreds of men in trades that are associated with the maritime industry in Australia are unable to find employment. In regard to shipping this country has suffered severely in this crisis, because when times were better and work was more plentiful many men were attracted to our shores who had. never been associated with any industry except shipping. There is no hope whatever for them to-day. Even though the jobs referred to by the honorable member for East Sydney are small, they are important; because, as we all know, many tradesmen would be pleased to be employed for even a few days a week. Before proposing to give any concession to overseas companies, the Government ought to have made itself acquainted with the facts. If it is a question of a quid pro quo, I shall be out to see that Australia gets a fair share of the results. In this case I am satisfied that it is not doing so.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I am opposed to the granting of this remission. I cannot see how it will have the effect of providing additional employment - a result which, it has been argued, will follow from the granting of most of the taxation remissions proposed. The vast majority of British vessels engaged in overseas trade are manned with coolies, and even if the number of ships trading to Australia were increased the only effect would be to provide additional opportunities for the employment of coolies. The American lines are heavily subsidized by the Government of the United States of America, and do not need this concession from the Australian Parliament. It is in their favour that they employ white labour, and that when they reach the waterfront in Sydney they give to Australian waterside workers a far better spin than is given by the British companies.For instance, waterside workers engaged on American ships use the old hand truck, whereas the British shipping companies have adopted the motor scooter, which carries a couple of tons at a time, so that fewer men are required.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Are the British freight rates lower than those charged by the American companies?

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Not so far as I know, but, in any case, the British and American shipping companies are not in direct competition. This concession cannot be justified on the ground that it will provide more employment; nor can it be claimed that it will lead to a reduction of freight rates, because the amount involved is too small to be passed on to the exporters. It will merely swell the dividends of the shipping companies, and the money might very well be put to better use.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) laid stress upon the fact that this remission of taxation would not increase employment. Possibly not ; indeed, I am prepared to admit that it is one of the few remissions that will not directly or indirectly have that effect. The honorable member also made light of the possibility of cheaper freight rates as a result of the remission. I remind him that, chiefly as a result of the representations of the Commonwealth Government, freight reductions worth £400,000 have been made on wool, meat and dairy produce. The granting of this relatively small tax reduction will at least not put the Government in any worse position for continuing its task of obtaining cheaper freight rates.

The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) spoke of the shipping lines owned overseas, and I have to admit to a considerable sympathy with his point of view. At the same time, I recognize that it would be unwise to attempt to discriminate in regard to taxation between certain non- Australian companies, because that would lead to retaliation.

Mr Ward:

– Is the Minister in favour of those companies employing their crews on waterside work?

Mr CASEY:

– I cannot comment on the internal administration of the Orient shipping company, or of any other company, but I have seen the formidable list of charges paid by shipping companies by way of harbour dues, administration expenses and the like.

Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman -Mr.Bell.)

AYES: 36

NOES: 17

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Ordered -

That Part IV., consisting of clauses9 to 19 (inclusive), be taken as a whole.

Clauses 9 to 19 (Sales tax).

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I have received a request from the secretary of the Small Shopkeepers Association to support their representations for the abolition of sales tax on certain lines of confectionery, and a similar request has, I understand, been received by other honorable members. It is asked that relief should be given in respect to sales tax levied on those small shopkeepers whose turnover in confectionery is mostly dependent upon people of very limited means, and their children. The goods they sell are. known as standard lines, and are sold at prices of from one penny to1s., at which prices they are advertised by the manufacturers. The sales tax is passed on by the manufacturers to the retailers, who are unable to pass it on to the consumers, because the bulk of the sales, for reasons already stated, are made at prices of1d., 3d. and 6d. for standard packets and blocks. The manufacturers are able to protect themselves in regard to sales tax, but the small retailers are not able to do so. This is an important matter to these shopkeepers, especially as the profit they are able to make is never large, and, in these times of depression, the volume of their trade has been seriously diminished. I ask the Government to afford them some relief.

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

– I understand that the Government has set its face against any addition to the list of exemptions, but that consideration will be given to items now raised for the first time. Perhaps at some future date a further list of exemptions will be compiled. I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to the confusion of ideas which exists in regard to exemptions of sales tax on biscuits. From a biscuit manufacturing firm in my electorate, I have received a communication which states, among other things -

We are aware, of course, that cakes, cake and pastry are exempt, and, while we are faced with the position that many biscuits are in reality pastry, and yet by the Commissioner’s rulings, only biscuits specified, such as milk arrowroot and rice, are exempt, we really don’t know where we are.

It would appear that sales lax is levied on biscuits which are made in factories, whereas biscuits that are made by pastrycooks, or in home kitchens, and are sold to the public through the many cooperative stores which have sprung up during the depression, are exempt. I recommend the matter to the consideration of the Minister.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I submit for the consideration of the Assistant Minister the exemption of -

Boots used in the mining industryand engines used in thefishing industry.

Miners have to use waterproof boots which are made from a special material; these boots can really be classed as tools of trade and should, therefore, be exempt. Engines used in the dried fruits, mining and other industries are exempt from sales tax, and apparently it is merely an oversight that those used to propel boats used in the fishing industry have been omitted. They are used extensively on our coastal and inland waters, particularly at Lake Macquarie . The officers of the department have been good enough to inform me that the items to which I referred in my second-reading speech have already been placed on the exempt list, for whichI express my thanks. I urge the Minister to have these other anomalies rectified.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I should like the Government to add tomato paste and tomato puree to the list of exemptions, as they are closely allied to other items which appear in the list of exemptions, such as pickles, sauces and vinegars. The tomato industry is thriving in certain parts of Australia, and, although tomato sauce is exempted from sales tax, tomato paste, which has the same ingredients, but contains less liquid, has been omitted, as also has the concentrated puree, the basic ingredient of tomato soups. As these details have probably escaped the attention of departmental officers when compiling the list of exemptions, I urge the Minister to have the oversight rectified.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

– I should also like to draw the attention of the Minister to what appears to me to be an oversight. I notice that while building materials, such as bricks and cement, are exempt, lime is subject to sales tax. Cement is used largely for big buildings, while lime acts as a substitute for cement in smaller buildings. I hope that the Government will have the omission attended to.

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

– I should like to make a further appeal on behalf of tailors who are in business in a small way. They have received certain remissions, but I feel confident that their case is so exceptionally strong that they would be enjoying further concessions had they kept quiet. The small tailor purchases suitlengths from the wholesaler, and although the woollen mill, the warehouseman and the manufacturer who makes the suits, do not pay sales tax, the tailor has to pay tax on a 662/3 turnover - whether he makes a profit or otherwise. I have seen returns which disclose that many tailors in a small way of business have lost money for a considerable time. For the year 1932 one firm made a financial loss of £200 on its trading, yet it was called upon to pay sales tax to the tune of £130! Although it had a decreased turnover of 40 per cent. for the first two months of 1933, on which it showed a loss of £40, it was liable to. pay £12 in sales tax. No one would object to sales tax being charged on the first cost, but it seems unfair that it should be charged on the accumulated costs after the cloth has passed through the hands of various merchants. Let me refer to another anomaly. Many tailors make up suits from material supplied by the customer, and on which the tailor makes no profit. Yet he has to pay a higher tax than usual, because tax has to be paid on the full selling price of the suit. Further, the purchaser of the suit length paid sales tax on his original purchase. These small tailors are admirable community units, and it is unfortunate that they are forced to collect revenue for the Government. That should really be the task of the department.

Another item to which I direct attention comes within the category of “ expense items,” and” is known to the Minister as “ aids to manufacture.” It consists, in ordinary factory life, of needles, oil, belting, and so forth, on all of which sales tax has to be paid, and all of which eventually come into the final cost of the article produced, by medium of the overhead.. Caustic soda, soda a3h, and soaps are “ aids to manufacture “ in the scouring of wool, and on each sales tax has to be paid. Throughout the whole process, combing, spinning, &c, until the article passes to the warehouse, sales tax is added to sales tax, almost indefinitely. I suggest that the Minister should give consideration to the exemption of these “ aids to manufacture.”

I join with the honorable member for West ‘Sydney (Mr. Beasley) in pressing the case of the small confectionery manufacturer. Some exception should be made in favour of shopkeepers handling small proprietary lines, compared with firms engaged in the handling of the more expensive proprietary lines. I suggest that this item should be dissected with “ the object of giving relief to the small shopkeeper.

I also draw attention to a ruling by the Commissioner that, wholesale and retail stores, which allow a. rebate to employees who make purchases in their stores, must register as wholesalers. I suggest that that is grossly unfair. The retail stores have no desire to act, as wholesalers, but are merely carrying out a purely internal business arrangement which favours their employees.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

– f. could direct attention to many anomalies. Articles used for making soups are exempt. Pearl barley is used for this purpose, but so are split peas. Pearl barley is exempt, but split peas are not. The larger country shopkeepers are labouring under great difficulties in respect of goods they sell to smaller storekeepers. If the price of jam, for instance, is 9s. a dozen in” the ordinary way, and a storekeeper sells a dozen to a smaller trader for 8s. 6d., he has to pay sales tax on the transaction. Nails, paint, and other building materials are a frequent cause of complaint on this score. If a storekeeper ‘ sells a gallon of paint to a journeyman painter, and allows him a discount of 10 per cent., he becomes a wholesaler for the purposes of the act, and is practically obliged to employ a special, clerk to keep records for sales tax purposes. This may involve him in an expanse of £.120 or £140 a year, although the amount of tax he may be called upon to pay is only £8 or £10 a year.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The Prime Minister (M’r. Lyons), in his second-reading speech, gave a. resume of the effects of these exemptions, and he dealt with the subject again this evening. The Government is well aware that fresh anomalies have been created by the extension of the list of exemptions, but that is unavoidable. I suppose every honorable member could refer to two or three new anomalies created by this large list of exemptions; but, as the Prime Minister has said, the cutting-off point had to come somewhere. The Government has reluctantly decided that it cannot, at present, agree to the inclusion of any other items on the list of exempted goods, but honorable members may submit claims for exemptions and the reasons therefor, and the applications will be considered when any further list of exempted goods is being prepared.

Mr Beasley:

– By what principles was the Government guided in making these additions to’ the list of exempted goods?

Mr CASEY:

– An endeavour was made to see that the benefits which would flow from the granting of exemptions would be spread over a considerable number of people. It was also the desire of the Government to assist the primary producers. This list has been prepared after most careful consideration, and is, I think, defensible, though it. cannot be denied that fresh anomalies have been made. I am well aware of the claims that can be advanced, in connexion with the confectionery trade, though, at the moment, I cannot give the technical reasons why further exemption was not granted in this direction. I also know that the fixed charge on small packet goods sold by small storekeepers is strongly objected to, and I undertake to give careful consideration to the representations that have been made in’ this connexion. The Government has granted fairly wide exemptions to building trade requirements, but I am well aware that honorable members could make out a strong case for the exemption of at least half a dozen other items. I am familiar with the points that have been made on the subject of aids-to-manufacture, but if a general exemption were given in this direction, it is probable that the rate of sales tax would need to be increased by at least 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. to yield the Government the amount of revenue that it needs from this source. I regret that I cannot give honorable members any promise that the anomalies that have been mentioned will be rectified, but I can promise that the representations that have been made will be considered.

Mr E RILEY:
Cook

.Although the Assistant Treasurer has advised honorable members to forward their applications for further exemptions, I take it that he will consider any representations of that nature that are made during this debate.

Mr Casey:

– That is so.

Mr RILEY:

– I should like to know why glass for building purposes has not been included on the exempt list ? The Government has lifted some of the burdens that were resting on the building industry, and so given it a fillip. Sales tax has been removed from bricks, timber, tiles and cement; but for some extraordinary reason, it has not been lifted from glass. The builders of suburban villas, blocks of flats, public offices and the like must use glass. In these days when the purchasers of homes are endeavouring to make small improvements to their properties, they frequently wish to enclose back verandahs with glass. There is every reason, therefore, why Australian sheet glass should be exempt from sales tax. I also suggest the reasonableness of exempting from this taxation plant and machinery required for secondary industries, but not manufactured in this country. People who are prepared to invest their capital in the establishment of new secondary industries deserve every consideration, and plant and machinery which cannot be manufactured within the the Commonwealth should not be subject to sales tax.

Salmon, which is an article of food in every day use, should be exempt. Meat and meat products, whether or not marketed in containers, viz.- raw meat, cooked meat and poultry, sausages, sausage meat, mince meat, suet, dripping, lard and butcher’s small goods are exempt; but salmon, which is not canned in Australia and is subject, to a substantial import duty, is not exempt. The

Government should be satisfied with the customs revenue it derives from this article of food.

Plain branded milk and cream bottles, which are used for the hygienic marketing of milk and cream, should also be exempt. I hope that the Country party will support my request in this connexion. Child welfare organizations and kindred bodies are doing a valuable community service by distributing milk in these hygienic containers, and they should not be called upon to pay sales tax on them.

Mr Thorby:

– I understand that bottles branded by the manufacturers and not sold are exempt from sales tax.

Mr RILEY:

– I do not think that is so. I urge the Assistant Treasurer to give special consideration to the items that I have mentioned.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.I wish to refer to two items of considerable moment to the building trade. One of these has been mentioned -frequently to-night, but the other has been overlooked. If the Government would relieve the building trade of some of the burdens it is carrying in the shape of taxation it would undoubtedly make possible the reemployment of tradesmen and builders’ labourers who have been out of work for a long time. Timber and tiles have been added to the list of exempt goods, and iron was previously on the list; but for some reason metal screenings and crushed metal are still subject to sales tax. Crushed metal screenings form an important item in buildings operations, particularly in the capital cities. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Forde) has referred to the fact that, in some cases, £2,000to £3,000 a foot has been paid for city land, and it is therefore essential, on the score of economy, that the walls of city buildings should be constructed of reinforced concrete. Walls composed of this material may be as thin as 4 inches, but brick walls range from 9 inches to 18 inches in thickness. A large amount of labour is employed in the erection of concrete buildings, and, irrespective of whether metal screenings are exempted from sales tax, this method of construction will still be favoured. Honorable members have suggested that the tax should be removed from such luxuries as biscuits and salmon, but I am dealing with an essential commodity. The shortage of houses in Victoria is most marked. A friend of mine, who was living 100 miles north-east of Melbourne, was recently transferred to the city, and he spent a week in an unsuccessful search for a vacant house of five or six rooms.

Mr Rosevear:

-What percentage of houses are built of concrete?

Mr DENNIS:

– I realize that the proportion is small owing to the large numbers of houses built of wood ; but I have pointed out that reinforced concrete con struction, which gives employment to many skilled workers, is mostly favoured in the capital cities. On this matter, the Melbourne Quarrymasters Association has telegraphed to me as follows: -

My association thinks that stone should be exempted generally from sales tax. At present metal is exempted from this tax as far as government and municipal supplies are concerned. For direct orders, peculiarly, council contractors arc not exempt. It is understood that cement is now free and sand has always been free. There is no doubt that if the exemption is extended to stone generally, new building will be assisted. Do you require further particulars, or do you think it advisable to send representatives to Canberra?

If the Government proposes to remove the sales tax from any article, the general public should get the benefit of the reduced taxation. On receiving that telegram, I wired as follows : -

Am urging Government to extend operation sales tax as desired on stone. Everything possible beingdone. Suggest you telegraph me that any reduction sales tax will be passed on to public by your association.

The answer which I received to that telegram was in these terms -

The Melbourne Quarrymasters Association will undertake to immediately reduce the price of crushed stone by an amount equal to the sales tax if stone is exempted from the payment of sales tax. My association believes that this will assist to bring about an impetus to the building trade.

I also urge the Government to give consideration to the exemption of fibrous plaster which is largely used at the present time in the construction of workmen’s homes. Much would be done to relieve unemployment if the Government, which has exempted many building materials from the sales tax, completed the good work begun by it in that direction.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.It is proposed to exempt agricultural pipes and tiles for draining. In a previous list of exemptions, galvanized piping of 3-in. diameter appeared, and I desire to know whether “ agricultural pipes and tiles for draining “ includes all pipes and fluming necessary for irrigation purposes. In connexion with the exemption of saddlery and harness, a line of aerated rubber lining for horse collars is on the market, and a similar article is used for lining riding saddles. The bill provides for the exemption of “saddlery and harness, trace chains (complete), collar check, kersey and saddle serge.” If all those items are regarded as saddlery and harness, I submit that it is reasonable to exempt the rubber lining to which I have referred.

I support the request for the exemption of confectionery. A letter has been received from a small storekeeper, who points out that he and many others went off the dole to establish a small confectionery business. His turnover was £900 for the year; but nearly £60 was paid by him in sales tax. As his net income was only 10s. a week, he stated that he might almost as well have remained on the dole.

I suggest that the Minister should also consider the desirability of exempting sodium chlorate and machines used for sewing wheat bags. As sodium chlorate is required for the destruction of noxious weeds, and is one of the most satisfactory chemicals used for that purpose, I trust that the Government will include it. Lubricating oil for farming purposes has not been placed on the free list. Seeing that the Government intends to reduce the cost of the commodities required by the primary producers, I hope that lubricating oil and all irrigation pipes will be added to the list of exempt articles. Finally, I would point out that no sales tax is imposed on aerated waters made in soda fountains in cool drink and fruit shops, whereas manufacturers who bottle these waters are required to pay the tax. I urge upon the Government the desirability of treating both alike.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

– I direct the attention of the Minister to one or two articles that, in my opinion, should be exempt from sales tax. Bitumen used for road-making, to which item

I have previously referred, has, I think, been inadvertently omitted from the schedule. This is a serious omission from the list of exemptions. During the depression shire and district councils and municipal bodies had great difficulty in collecting their rates, and some of them are now thousands of pounds in arrears. Many roads are built and maintained by the Government, and no sales tax is charged on the bitumen used in that work, but there is no exemption in the case of local governing bodies carrying out similar work. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to remedy this anomaly. Huge quantities of bitumen are used throughout Australia, and I have received a number of letters from the Municipal Association of South Australia and various district councils asking me to urge the Government to exempt this material from sales tax.

Large quantities of cider are now being produced in Tasmania and South Australia, and as dry wines are exempt from sales tax, it would be of considerable assistance to the apple-growers if cider were included in the list of exemptions.

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

– I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister state that it is not the intention of the Government to accept any amendments to that part of the bill relating to sales tax exemptions, but I was pleased to hear that at a later date a further list will probably be brought down. I have on several occasions communicated with the Taxation Department on behalf of the Queensland Social Service League, which is a charitable institution. It complains that it is called upon to pay sales tax on goods purchased for free distribution to the unemployed and persons in- distressed circumstances in Brisbane. The following paragraph appeared in the Courier Mail of the 1st September last : -

Goods sold to State sustenance departments for free distribution to unemployed are exempt from sales tax under a ruling issued by the Federal Commissioner for Taxation. This ruling is the reverse of his original decision that such goods did not come within the exemption providing that sales tax shall not be payable on the sale value of goods sold for the official use of a government department or of an authority controlled by a government and .not for re-sale.

I ask the Minister to make inquiries into the case of the Queensland Social Service League with a view to exempting from sales tax all goods purchased by that institution and distributed to the unemployed and persons in distressed circumstances.

I have also received the following letter from Dr. Hamlyn-Harris of the Department of Health, Brisbane City Council : -

Unfortunately we are still subject to a charge of sales tax which is ‘ a considerable handicap in our work. Under the Sales Tax Remissions Acts Nos. 1-9, 1930-32, all materials and preparations used in the eradication of pests are exempt from payment of sales tax, but as the pests herein referred to only apply to poultry, birds and live stock, we can claim no exemption. Mosquitoes are, as you will know, a pest of the very worst kind, and the eradication of mosquitoes, especially those capable of carrying disease should, in my opinion, be encouraged by every government, And if you can do anything to assist us to have the sales tax remission made applicable to pests of this type, you would be rendering a signal service to Brisbane.

I hope that the Minister will make a note of the request of Dr. Hamlyn-Harris, and include in the next exemption list all materials used for the eradication of mosquitoes.

Some months ago I approached the taxation department on behalf of MurrayFraser (Pty.) Ltd., of Brisbane, with a request to exempt newspaper blocks from the sales tax, and the department replied on the 15th June to the effect that the matter had been noted and that a further communication would be addressed to me. I then sent a telegram to the department and received the following reply: -

I desire to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of 6th September, 1933, relative to representations made by you on behalf of Messrs. Murra’y-Fraser ‘(Pty.) Ltd., 15-23 Charlotte Street, Brisbane, in regard to the sales tax on newspaper blocks, and to inform you that a further communication will be addressed to you at as early a date as possible.

I despatched that telegram over a month ago, and have not yet received any notification from the department as to whether the request of Murray-Fraser (Pty.) Ltd. has been granted. I notice that the list of exemptions in the bill contains some mention of newspaper blocks, and I should like the Minister to give special attention to the request of this firm.

I have also received a letter from Drain Pipe Suppliers Limited, of Brisbane, in which this firm points out that it has been i.n communication with the Prime Minister with respect to exempting from the sales tax, glazed earthenware, or stoneware, drain-pipes. It claims that this product is to all intents and purposes in the same category as building material, such as bricks, cement, tiles and timber, which are included in the new list of exemptions. I urge the Minister to include this class of drain-pipe in any further list of exemptions.

I join with the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) and the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) in asking that confectionery be exempt from the sales tax. Quite a number of the small shopkeepers of Brisbane waited upon Mr. Speaker (Mr. Mackay), the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Francis) and myself, and brought under our notice the fact that the Sales Tax Acts operated harshly upon them because most of their confectionery lines were sold at under ls. They pointed out that the volume of business transacted by many shopkeepers is so small that it is impossible for them to pass on the sales tax, and that they therefore have to carry the whole burden of it themselves. I agree with the honorable member for Wentworth that the master tailors are entitled to more consideration than has been given to them. I hope that these matters will be given favorable consideration by the Government.

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

– In the Derwent Valley in Tasmania, large quantities of coir yarn are used to support the hop vines. Coir yarn is at present subject to sales tax, but I hope that the Government will include it in the list of exemptions.

Calcium carbide is another commodity which should be included in the list of exemptions. Kerosene and electric lights are exempted, and there is no good reason why carbide should be treated differently.

I claim also that Bournvita, a food composed of eggs, milk, and malt, which is largely used by invalids, should bo exempted from this tax. Although the tin in which this food is sold is not specifically labelled as containing food for invalids, Bournvita has all the qualities of an invalid food, and, in my opinion, should be included in the list of items which are exempted from sales tax.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

That the item “wreaths and floral tributes” be added.

The omission of these articles from the list of exemptions is, I feel sure, the result of an oversight. The suppliers of flowers to florists are principally aged persons who receive not more than 30s. or £2 a week. They grow flowers in order to provide a livelihood for themselves, and to avoid the necessity for applying foi1 the old-age pension. The acceptance of the amendment would probably not affect the revenue by more than £300 a year, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will agree to the amendment.

Mr MCGRATH:
Ballarat

– Although the Minister has said that the Government will not agree to any further exemptions at this stage, I hope that he will not turn a deaf ear to my plea on behalf of hospitals and benevolent 1 institutions. A large proportion of the requirements of these institutions is already exempted from sales tax, but blankets and other articles used by them are subject to the tax. The Ballarat Benevolent Home recently was called upon to pay £15 sales tax on articles which it had purchased. It is not right that these institutions, which experience great difficulty in obtaining funds with which to purchase the articles they require, should have to pay sales tax in addition.

In the interests of the health of the people, I ask that the goods sold by opticians shall be free from the liability to pay sales tax. Some of the goods sold by chemists are already exempted and there is no reason why the articles sold by opticians should be treated differently.

I support the request of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) for more favorable consideration to be given to the claims of the master tailors. It is not right that sales tax should be imposed on wages; but that is actually the case in connexion with the goods sold by these tradespeople. The material for a suit which is sold for £5 may cost the master tailor only £3, the difference being the wages of his employees, yethe has to pay sales tax on the selling price of the suit which includes those wages. I understand that at one time the Minister contemplated charging the sales tax on the cost of the material only, but experienced difficulties, and consequently abandoned the idea. Few if any, of the master tailors of Australia are making any profits whatever, and it is not right that they should be compelled to pay sales tax on the wages which they pay to their employees. I hope that these matters will be favorably considered by the Government when preparing further lists of exemptions from the sales tax.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.Although I agreewith the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that it would be desirable to exempt wreaths from the sales tax, I suggest that the exemption of these articles might cause anomalies and make the administration of the tax more difficult. There would have to be some method by which exempted articles in a florist’s shop could be easily distinguished from other articles not so exempted. The principle underlying the tax should be that all things associated with the exempted article should also be exempt. If we decide to exempt wreaths, we ought also to decide what constitutes a wreath. In the Supreme Court of New South Wales the Chief Judge in Equity, His Honour Mr. Justice Harvey, decided on the 16th September, 1932, in the case of Searl’s Limited, that a florist who carried on the business of making bouquets, floral baskets, posies, sheaths of flowers, and/or wreaths, was a manufacturer within the meaning of the Sales Tax Assessment Acts. Flowers are used for various other purposes besides the making of wreaths.

Mr Ward:

– My amendment includes floral tributes as well as wreaths.

Mr THORBY:

– A floral tribute may he a basket of flowers presented to tin actress, or a bunch of flowers laid on a grave at a funeral. Ruling 504 of the Commissioner of Taxation, reads -

A registered florist is not, however, liable for payment of tax on the sale of such goods of Australian origin as natural flowers. . .

Who would decide what constitutes a natural flower? In order to overcome the difficulty, a definition of a natural flower would have to be prepared, and that would probably lead to further complications. I hope that the new Minister in charge of the administration of these acts will instruct his officers to go through their rulings and to frame new rulings, with a view to avoiding difficulties in administration. Conflicting rulings are serious matters to business interests, which try to comply with the demands of the department. In view of the circumstances I have outlined, I trust that the Minister will give careful consideration to the requests for exemptions, as the adoption of some would lead to serious administrative difficulties.

Mr JENNINGS:
South Sydney

– I direct the attention of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to the exclusion of plaster and plaster products from the list of exemptions of materials used in the building trade. These commodities are, in various forms, used extensively in all parts of buildings; and, as certain materials which come into direct com petition with plaster products are exempt from sales tax, it is only fair that they should be placed in the same category. The industry by which these materialsare produced employs thousands of men, and their exemption from the sales tax would have a direct bearing on the building trade. I also remind the Minister that I was a member of a deputation which recently brought under the notice of the Government the fact that a sales tax of 6 per cent. on many of the lines handled by small shopkeepers represents their net profit. I trust that this fact will also he considered when any further list of exemptions is being compiled.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert.

– I ask the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) if it is not practicable to exempt from sales tax sweets and confectionery of the kind usually distributed by school committees to the scholars when the schools disperse for Christmas and other similar vacations. I have received many communications on this subject, and I trust that such goods will be included in the exemptions.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I have made a complete list of all the requests made by honorable members for exemptions from the sales tax, and I shall see that they are carefully considered when any further list of exemptions is being prepared. If I give the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) an assurance that wreaths and other floral tributes shall be considered when further exemptions are made, I trust that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Ward:

– On that assurance I shall not press the matter.

Clauses 9 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 (Citation).

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– This clause is to implement the Government’s proposals with respect to invalid and old-age pensions, and perhaps I may be permitted to set out briefly the amendments to be made. Under this provision the maximum rate of pension is restored to 17s. 6d., at which rate it stood before the Financial Emergency Act of 1932 was passed. In consequence of this amendment pensioners in receipt of less than 17s. 6d. a week will receive an increase of 2s. 6d. a week, provided that that increase will not bring the pension above the maximum of 17s. 6d. a week. The amount of income plus the pension allowable is increased from 27s. 6d. to 30s. a week. When this bill becomes law, a pensioner may enjoy an amount of 12s. 6d. a week from any source whatsoever without affecting his or her eligibility for a full pension of 17s. 6d. a week.

Mr Martens:

– Will the interest on a savings bank account be exempt if it does not exceed that amount ?

Mr CASEY:

– Yes.

Mr Baker:

– What is the present pension?

Mr CASEY:

– The maximum is 15s., and in certain cases, 17s. 6d.

Mr Baker:

– When the bill was introduced the Government said that it was 1 7s. 6d. a week.

Mr CASEY:

– It was 17s. 6d. a week in some instances and 15s. a week in others. There are two maxima, 15s. and 17s. 6d. a week. The clause also provides for excluding from income, for the purpose of assessing pensions, amount received by way of sustenance by unemployed or wages in lieu of sustenance, also contributions short of adequate maintenance and payments of any kind including children’s board and lodging paid to pensioner parents which will not in future be included as income for the purpose of assessing a pension. I have given a brief outline of the effect of this clause, but further details can be given later.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22-

  1. – (1.) Section four of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the definition of “ Income “ the words “ not any “ and inserting in their stead the words “ shall not include the value of any assistance by way of sustenance or food relief granted under any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth relating to the relief of unemployment, or any wages received for work performed under any scheme of emergency or intermittent relief work provided under any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, to the extent to which such wages are received in lieu of sustenance or food relief, except in cases where, for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any person to receive such assistance or wages, any pension paid under this Act is excluded from income, and shall not include any “. (2.) This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the sixteenth day of March One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three.

Section proposed to be amended -

  1. In thinact, unless the contrary intention appears - “ 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 whatever, whether in or out of the Commonwealth, and shall be deemed to include personal earnings, but not any payment -

    1. By way of benefit from any friendly society registered under any Act or State Act, or

    2. During illness, infirmity, or old-age from any trade union, provident society, or other society or association, or

    3. By way of allowance under the Miners Accident Relief Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales, or (d)By way of gift or allowance from the husband-, wife, father, mother or children of that person.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.I. move -

That after the word “ unemployment “ subclause1, the following words be inserted: - “ or the value of any food and lodging provided by a son or daughter for a parent or by a parent for a son or daughter “.

I have moved this amendment because in cases where parents are living with a son or daughter, and thus obtaining free food and lodging, the department has assessed the assistance so received as income and reduced the pension accordingly. The -same can be said of an invalid child pensioner living with his or her parents, in which case the food and lodging are treated as income, and the pension reduced accordingly. In some cases it has been considered adequate maintenance. Any such assistance given by relatives should not be treated as income. I know of a case where an old-age pensioner was taken off the street by a charitably disposed person, and given a tin shack in which to live; but because the place was renovated, and a fireplace erected, it was held that he was receiving free lodging, and his pension was reduced accordingly.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) is unnecessary, because paragraph d of sub-clause 1 of clause 24 repeals the provisions under which the contributions of children to their parents who are pensioners by way of food and lodgings are now taken into account in assessing pensions in excess of 15s. a week.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– I trust that there will be no misunderstanding over this matter. I should like a definite assurance that the. proposed amendment of the law will cover all cases that have been brought under the notice of honorable members. During the last nine months I have found that of the applications handled by the department, only about 1 per cent, are granted on the basis of a pension of 17s. 6d., the balance being granted at 15s. a week. I claim that the act is not being administered in accordance with the intention of Parliament. I wish to make sure that some of the wrongs that have been inflicted will be righted. I have handled the case of a woman who lived with a married daughter, whose husband - a returned soldier - earned £3 a week. The daughter has three children, and pays a rental of £1 ls. a week. When the mother applied for a pension she was given 15s. a week. I objected, but the department would not increase the amount because the daughter was helping to keep the pensioner by providing her with some necessaries that ought to have gone to her own children. I fought the case for four months, and ultimately had the pension increased. The other day, I placed before the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) the case of a totally blind woman who was living with her sister. I filled in her papers. When she told the magistrate that her sister was .keeping her, the pension was fixed at 15s. a week. I protested to the department, whose answer was that the pensioner was getting free board and lodging from her sister. I want to be sure that the amendment of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) is covered by the clause mentioned by the Assistant Treasurer. I do not want to have any more misunderstandings with the department. The number of insulting letters that I have written to the Deputy Commissioner is sufficient to last me.for the rest of my life ; I have written thousands. My postage allowance has not been nearly enough, and I have had to spend in postage stamps many pounds that I could ill afford. I claim to have a thorough knowledge of the act, but I cannot be sure of what, interpretation will be placed on it by the Commissioner. I dealt with the case of an old man who lived in a hut, which he did not own, and which was not worth 30s. Because he said that he lived rent free, the Deputy Commissioner reduced his pension by 2s. 6d. a week. 1 had that remedied. The people in the back country are not acquainted with members of Parliament, and do not know, to whom to refer. As secretary of the Pensions Committee, I have received letters from all over Australia, and have had many anomalies rectified. In numerous cases, however, when pensions ave reduced, the pensioners have no remedy, because they have no one to fight their case. Those who have a member to .prosecute their claims can usually have their troubles rectified. I wish it to be made clear that the Deputy Commissioner will not be able to make these blunders in future, and that if he does so he may be severely reprimanded by the Assistant Treasurer. I declare that if the honorable gentleman will go into the Pensions Department in Victoria, he will find that 99 per cent, of the new pensions granted amount to only 15s. a week. I have had many of them raised to 17s. 6d., but there is quite a number with which I do not come into contact, including many in the Ballarat electorate. I do not concern myself with cases submitted by the Pensioners’ League, because

I am acquainted with the officers of that body, and know that they are loafers who have never done a day’s honest work in their lives. They are battening on the poor old people, from whom they obtain 3d. a week, upon which they are able to live in comparative luxury. I have no time for them. I believe that the branch of the League in Ballarat is defunct. I have not heard of its having held a meeting for months. Pensioners do not want outsiders to take 3d. a week from them in return for the promise that they will do all sorts of things for them. Wrong interpretations by the Commissioner have gained me hundreds of votes. People who voted against me have approached me to make representations on their behalf when their pensions have been reduced to 15s. a, week, and, when I have succeeded in having the matters put right, I have been regarded by them as the best fellow in the world. Therefore, I speak not in a. political sense, but from the point of view of what is right and fair for these old people.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– Clause 22 amends section 4 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act by enlarging the definition of “ income “. That 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 whatever, whether in or out of the Commonwealth, and shall be deemed to include personal earnings, but . . .

At this point it is proposed to insert the following words : - shall not include the value of any assistance by way of sustenance or food relief granted under any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth relating to the relief of unemployment, or any wages received for work performed under any scheme of emergency or intermittent relief work provided under any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, to the extent to which such wages are received in lieu of sustenance or food relief . . .

The effect is to exempt sustenance or food relief, or cash payments received for work done in lieu thereof.

Mr Rosevear:

– The Minister has not read the proviso in the last three lines.

Mr CASEY:

– It reads- except in cases where, for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any person to receive such assistance or wages, any pension paid under this act is excluded from income.

I believe that in one State the amount of old-age pension is not taken into account.

Mr Rosevear:

– That means that in New South Wales every pension will be reduced.

Mr CASEY:

– In New South Wales the old-age pension is not taken into account in determining whether food relief shall be given. In other States the position is different.

Mr Rosevear:

– The pensioner does not get the dole; but under this provision the pension will be reduced if his wife does.

Mr CASEY:

– At the present time the receipts of husbands and wives are pooled in calculating the rate of pension. In future, if the wife is a pensioner and the husband is not, or vice versa, the value of food relief of one will not be taken into account in determining the eligibility of the other.

Mr Rosevear:

– But when this provision begins to operate the pension of the husband will be reduced.

Mr CASEY:

– In all States except New South Wales the old-age pension is taken into account in determining whether a person is eligible for sustenance. The object of the last three lines of the definition is to prevent duplication, which would be unfair.

Mr Rosevear:

– Does not the Minister remember that last March the Government decided that even if a pensioner were in receipt of the dole his wife was still entitled to the full pension? That is now being reversed.

Mr CASEY:

– Not at all. Sub-clause 2 of clause 22, makes the following provision -

This section shall be deemed to have commenced on the16th day of March one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three.

It is ante-dated so that it will have effect from the date of the Prime Minister’s announcement in this chamber.

Mr McGrath:

– Does the Minister say that in assessing the pension of the wife the earnings of the husband are not taken into account ?

Mr CASEY:

– I say that in future, if the husband or the wife is in receipt of sustenance, or of payments in lieu of sustenance, such earnings of the one will not be taken into account in calculating the rate of pension of the other.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I support the amendment of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). The explanation given by the Minister is not convincing, and I feel that he is not correctly interpreting the provisions of the act when he says that the income of the husband or wife will not be taken into account when assessing the amount of the pension of the other.

Mr Casey:

– I said that sustenance or relief, or money paid in lieu thereof, would not be taken into account.

Mr MAKIN:

– I shouldbe glad if the Minister would make absolutely sure on this point. It would be a calamity if we found later that he has misinterpreted the act, and that he was prevented by the terms of the act from carrying out what he now believes to be its intention. It has been stated that the situation would be met by omitting the third and fourth provisos of section 24, sub-section 1, of the act as provided for in paragraph d of sub-clause 1 of clause 24 of the bill. Section 24, sub-section 1, of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act states - (1.) The amount of a pension shall in each case be at such rate as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who determines the pension claim deems reasonable and sufficient, but shall not exceed the rate of Thirtynine pounds per annum in any event, nor shall it be at such a rate as will make the pen. sioner’s income, together with pension, exceed Seventy-one pounds ten shillings per annum:

Provided further that, where by virtue of the provisions of this act, the pensioner or claimant is eligible for a pension at a rate of not less than Thirty-three pounds per annum, and is not in receipt of an income amounting to two shillings and sixpence or more per week, the amount of pension may be increased by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who determines the claim, by an amount which accords with the prescribed scale, but not in any case by more than two shillings and sixpence per week, and so that the amount of the pensioner’s income, together with the pension, shall not in any case exceed Forty-five pounds ten shillings per annum.

Provided also that, for the purposes of the last preceding proviso, the income of a person shall be deemed to include any payment by way of gift or allowance from the husband, wife, father, mother or children of that person.

That certainly does not include gifts from relatives other than those named, and in that respect it does not provide for all that the honorable member for Hunter seeks to effect on behalf of the pensioners. The Minister should immediately put the matter beyond doubt.

I strongly object to the remarks of the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath), in regard to old-age and invalid pensioners’ associations. I have had occasion to do a considerable amount of work in connexion with these organizations, and I have always found them most helpful in resisting inroads on pensioners’ rights.

Mr McGrath:

– Is the honorable member talking of South Australia?

Mr MAKIN:

– Yes, and of organizations in Victoria also. I feel that the honorable member’s remarks are a gross reflection on those who have a right to organize for the purpose of protecting their own interests.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

That all the words after “food relief” second occurring, sub-clause 1, be omitted.

I agree with the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) that the clause, in its present form, is contrary to the direction given by the Government in March last. In New South Wales to-day, a Commonwealth pension is not taken into account when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for food relief. Of course, the pensioner himself is not entitled to food relief, but no account of his pension is taken when another member of his household seeks relief. If the clause is left in its present form the pension must be taken into account when another member of the household applies for assistance. There should be no connexion between old-age or invalid pensions and food relief; the two should be kept absolutely apart. A pension is only granted to those who are in absolute need of it in order to maintain life, and the same applies to food relief.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– Am I to understand that the honorable member for Hunter does not press his amendment?

Mr James:

– I am prepared to accept the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney, and will not press my amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Amendment (by Mr. Ward) proposed -

That all the words after “food relief”, second occurring, sub-clause 1, be omitted.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– New South Wales is the only State in which no account is taken of a Commonwealth pension when application is made for sustenance or dole relief. If the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) were agreed to, it would be possible for a man or women to earn 12s. 6d. a week, by way of food relief, and still receive the full pension of 17s. 6d. a week.

Mr Ward:

– In New South Wales, pensioners do not receive food relief.

Mr CASEY:

– If a pensioner and his wife are receiving the dole in New South Wales, the maximum pension will not be affected unless the dole, plus other income, exceeds 25s. a week. The provision to which the honorable member objects has been inserted in the clause to ensure that there shall be equality of treatment as between the residents of New South Wales and those of other States.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– The clause in its present form does not appear to me to mean very much. It states that - (1.) Section four of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the definition of “ Income “ the words “ not any “ and inserting in their stead the words “ shall not include the value of any assistance by way of sustenance or food relief granted under any law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth relating to the relief of unemployment. . .

As a matter of fact, a pensioner is not eligible in any State for relief work, for sustenance or for the dole. If he is receiving a pension of 17s. 6d. a week he is not entitled to relief work, even for the purpose of earning the 12s. 6d. a week allowed to him under the act. The clause makes no mention of board and lodging which may be given to the pensioner by a dependant. I regret that the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) has withdrawn his amendment.

Mr Casey:

– The purpose of the honorable member’s amendment will be given effectby paragraph d of sub-clause 1 of clause24 which eliminates the two provisos to which exception is taken.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Had the honorable member persisted with his amendment, the position would have been made clear. It now remains uncertain whether a Deputy Commissioner in any State will consider that board and lodging shall be regarded as a charge against the pensioner. My experience is that those who administer the act do so sympathetically; but too much responsibility is cast upon them by the Government, which is not courageous enough to shoulder theresponsibility. The difficulties that have been encountered by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) have been common to all honorable members, and I am afraid that the deletion of the provisos will not improve the situation.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– I take it that clause 22 relates only to a section of the principal act, which it validates. Complaints have been made, particularly by New South Wales members, that if a person in a pensioner’s home were receiving the dole, that would be taken into consideration when the rate of pension was assessed. This amendment makes it clear that in future such payments will not decrease the pension. Furthermore, we have the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that that is the position.

Mr Ward:

– Will the honorable member explain the meaning of the words “ for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any person to receive such assistance or wages, any pension paid under this act is excluded from income, and shall not include any “ ?

Mr McGRATH:

– I accept the Minister’s assurance on the subject, and should the Deputy Commissioner give an incorrect interpretation of those words, we have the statement of the Minister on record. This clause makes the position easier for pensioners in every way. It may be necessary in another portion of the bill to press the amendment that was proposed by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) in order to make it clear that the granting of board and lodging will not be treated as income to a pensioner.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.I believe that the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) is labouring under a misapprehension, and that, no doubt unwit- tingly, lie lias misled the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). He declared that the difficulty with which the honorable member for Hunter sought to overcome would be dealt with by a subsequent amendment. Only one special class will be affected by that amendment, persons who are in receipt of a pension of not less than £33 a year, and who have an additional income of 2s. 6d. or more a week. The amendment of the honorable member for Hunter was designed to cover all classes of pensioners.

I now wish to deal with the amendment moved “by the honorable member for East Sydney. Clause 22 (1), after declaring that the dole shall not be regarded as income, concludes with the words - except in cases where, for the purposes of determining the eligibility of any person to receive such assistance or wages, any pension paid under this act is excluded from income …

Last year, the Deputy Commissioner for New South Wales decided that if the husband of a pensioner were in receipt of the dole - which is equivalent to 5s. 6d. worth of rations a week - half of that amount should be deemed to be the income of his wife, whose pension was accordingly reduced by 2s. 6d. a week. That position continued until the 16th March of this year, when the Government decided that irrespective of whether the pensioner’s husband was in receipt of the dole or not, she was to receive the full amount of pension. Now, this provision means that’ if the Government of New South Wales does not regard the pension as income to the wife, the husband may receive the dole; but the lines which I have read clearly state that in such circumstances, the Commonwealth Government will again reduce the wife’s pension by 2s. 6d. a week. There is not the slightest doubt that there is confusion in the mind of the Minister on the subject. The net effect of the provision is that a pensioner who had 2s. 6d. a week given back in March last will owe the department that amount for each week that it has been received. It is evident to me that this provision was framed to cover dole regulations in States other than New South Wales. It will not be of ‘any use for honorable members, in these circumstances, to blame the Commissioner if he gives an interpretation of the provision that is opposed to their present opinion.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- If honorable members will read the whole of sub-clause 1 of the clause they will find that the position is clearly stated. I obtained a ruling from Senator MassyGreene on a case affecting a man who had received one week’s work in four, which was equivalent to 15s. 9d. a week, to the effect that the 15s. 9d. a week earned by the husband would not cause a reduction in the amount of the wife’s pen-* sion.

Mr Rosevear:

– If that is so, the last throe lines of this sub-clause are not needed.

Mr LANE:

– I submit that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) is putting a meaning into the sub-clause which the words do not justify. The ruling which Senator Massy-Greene gave me was quite clear on the point. The wife’s pension was not reduced by reason of the fact that her husband received 15s. 9d. a week in dole relief over the four weeks’ period. If that is so, those pensioners who have suffered a reduction on this account since the 6th March last will be able to obtain a refund.

Mr THORBY:
Calare

.I also find it difficult to interpret this sub-clause, although. I have read, it through carefully several times. Although I agree with the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) that income received by way of sustenance or food relief is not intended to be taken into account in assessing the income of an applicant x for a pension, yet I must admit that difficulty is caused by the words “except in cases where for the purpose of determining the eligibility of any person to receive such assistance or wages any pension paid under this act is excluded from income.” It appears to me that the intention is that moneys received for food relief or from relief work in lieu of food relief shall not be considered except in the circumstances covered by the words which I have read.

Mr Lane:

– If the words were “ eligibility of any pensioner,” I should agree with the honorable member; but the words are “ eligibility of any person “.

Mr THORBY:

– Surely “ person “ means pensioner. The whole case hinges round whether the State authorities controlling relief or relief works in lieu of food relief take into consideration in the granting of such- relief the receipt of a pension by the wife or husband. If the State authorities recognize pension as income, it looks to me 38 if the Federal authorities intend to do so; and if the State authorities ignore pension as income, the Federal authorities will also do so. If the Assistant Treasurer will assure me that the Federal authorities do not in any case intend to regard food relief or income from work in lieu of food relief as income for pension purposes, I shall accept his assurance. The clause is certainly very involved, and I shall be glad to have the meaning of it elucidated.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.. - The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has himself intimated that pensioners cannot have it both ways. If this provision is passed in its present form it will result in the reduction of pensions in New South Wales. The only safeguard that I can see is that when this measure is passed pensioners will be allowed to earn up to 12s. 6d a week without a reduction of their pension. It appears, therefore, that so long as food relief does not exceed 12s. 6d. a week, or the pensioner does not enjoy an income of more than 12s. 6d. a week, including what he may get by way of food relief, his pension will not be affected. The honorable member for Calare (Mr. Thorby) has, to my mind, set the position out clearly. If the Government intends that assistance granted to pensioners by way of food relief or work in lieu of food relief shall not affect the pension, it should accept the amendment.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– This clause gives effect to the Government’s decision not to take into consideration’ sustenance or food relief granted under a State law, or cash payments received for work in Heu of sustenance or food relief in the calculation of income for pension purposes. In anticipation of this legislation, benefits of this nature have been disregarded since the 16th March last in assessing the rate of pension, and it is proposed “that this provision shall operate from that date in order to validate payments already made. If, in a certain State, not necessarily New South Wales, the amount of the oldage pension is not taken into account in determining eligibility for sustenance or food relief, it is necessary to retain the last three lines of the clause. Otherwise pensioners in that State may receive greater benefits than are allowed in other States.

Mr Beasley:

– If a State Government desires to give increased benefits why should this Parliament seek to prevent it?

Mr CASEY:

– The Government merely desires to obtain uniformity throughout Australia. The clause is not at all obscure.. I have stated the Government’s intention, and this provision merely implements it.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. When a person makes an application for the old-age pension, his eligibility for it is determined not by his individual income, but hy the total income of the home. The Government’s intention, as outlined by the Minister, is not clearly defined in the clause. The Minister said that its object is to prevent a pensioner also receiving food relief.

Mr Casey:

– We cannot prevent that.

Mr WARD:

– Then the meaning of the clause must be that the receipt of such relief by a wife or husband would affect the eligibility of either for the pension.

Mr Casey:

– It does when the - two pensions exceed 25s. a week.

Mr WARD:

– A member of the family might be assisting to maintain the pensioner. If the Government does not intend that food relief should be taken into consideration, why not leave that relief, and also payment received in lieu of sustenance, out of consideration when assessing the rate of pension payable. If the Government’s intention is as the Minister has indicated, it should welcome an opportunity to eliminate the throe concluding lines of the clause.

Mr. CASEY (Corio- Assistant Trea vision is made for the elimination of the fourth proviso to subsection 1 of section 24 of the principal act, and that clears up the point which is exercising the mind of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). In future, income received from children will not be taken into account in the calculation of the pension, and “ income “ will include hoard money so long as it is not a large amount.

Mr Gander:

– If a girl pays board to the amount of 22s. 6d. a week to her parent, who is a pensioner, the department takes 2s. 6d. a week off the pension.

Mr CASEY:

– Allowances made by the children of a pensioner will not be regarded as part of the pensioner’s income. I suggest to the honorable member for East Sydney that if I am wrong in saying that the receipt of the old-age pension is not taken into account in New South Wales in determining eligibility for sustenance or food relief, no harm can result from the inclusion of “the last three lines of the clause; buta government in another State might make provision for that double benefit, and it is, therefore, necessary to insert this clause as it stands to prevent pensioners in one State having an advantage over those in another. There is nothing Machiavellian in the clause.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

.- If a boy or girl pays 25s. a week board to a parent who is receiving a pension, how much of that amount is regarded as profit to the pensioner? In one case in my electorate an elderly woman, who is a pensioner, has four or five other pensioners living in her home, and they pay for their board. Will the Minister inform me how this pensioner would fare under the bill?

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– If the daughter of a pensioner pays 25s. a week for board, that sum will not be taken into account in future in determining whether the pensioner shall receive the maximum amount of pension. I suggest to the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander) that the other question raised by him cannot be properly considered in connection with this clause.

Mr McGrath:

– The old lady who has other pensioners living in her home would be regarded as a boarding-house keeper, and if her income exceeded a certain amount she would not be eligible for the pension.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot allow that matter to be discussed at this stage, because, as the Minister has indicated, it maybe raised when a later clause is under consideration.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 34

Majority . . . .18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I move -

That after the word “any” the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (b) by inserting the following after paragraph(d) of the definition of Income’ -(da) By way of child endowment.”

From time to time certain payments have been excluded as income in assessing pensions. We have already discussed food relief- payments. Child welfare payments are excluded as income and we now ask the Assistant Treasurer to place child endowment in the same category. There is no need to discuss this amendment because its intention is well known to honorable members.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I draw attention to the fact that it is not competent for a private member to move’ an amendment, the effect of which is to increase the appropriation. The Chair is not in a position to know whether that would be the effect of many of the amendments that have been circulated, and I ask the Assistant Treasurer to indicate to the Chair, when, in his opinion, the effect of an amendment would be to increase the appropriation.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– In answer to you, Mr. Chairman, and the honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), let mc say that the amendment is unnecessary, because child endowment is not taken into account in assessing the pension. It is a payment for the benefit of the child and not of the pensioner parent.

Mr Prowse:

– An old-age pensioner would not receive child endowment.

Mr CASEY:

– I believe that about a year ago, in the early months of the operation of the last amendment of the act, there were instances in which child endowment was wrongly, taken into account, but so soon as the anomaly was pointed out to the Deputy Commissioner it was rectified.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.Although the Minister has given a definite assurance that child endowment will not bc taken into account in assessing the pension, we must remember that he will not always administer the act and that his successor may possibly instruct the department, as has been done in the past, to tighten up the provisions of the act so as to increase the revenue. When the wife of an invalid pensioner is receiving child endowment or child welfare payments, half of the amount is deemed to be income of the husband and is taken into account when assessing his pension. It is altogether unfair to take child welfare payment into account in assessing pensions. Last March the act was administered harshly as a result of the

Minister instructing the department to tighten up its provisions. The department was told that if it could not decrease pensions by half a crown in one way it should do it in another, and by that means the maximum pension was reduced to 15s. in practically every instance.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The fears of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) will be laid at rest if he reads the definition of “ income “, which is : “ Income means any moneys received by any person for his own use or benefit “. That definition makes it perfectly clear that income does not include child endowment.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– When the Prime Minister was delivering his second-reading speech no mention was made of the fact that child endowment was not to be considered as income in assessing pensions. I asked him whether he was prepared to exclude child endowment from consideration as income and he replied definitely in the negative. My statement can.be verified by the Assistant Treasurer by a perusal of the remarks of the Prime Minister, as recorded in Hansard.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- Before honorable members opposite raise objections to this clause, they should cite particular instances to justify its amendment. I have never heard of the . departmental officers taking child endowment into account when assessing pensions. If child endowment does not come under the definition of income, how can it be classed as income? The amendment is quite unnecessary.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- There is no occasion for the amendment. Obviously, a payment by way of child endowment would not affect the husband, but it is suggested that if the wife received it, he might be affected. The definition of “ income “ in the case of a wife, is the same as in the case of a husband; it must be income derived for her own use or benefit. Money paid to a wife for the maintenance of a child is not money paid for her own use or benefit, but is solely for the benefit of the child. Child endowment is, therefore, not income, whether paid to the husband or to the wife. The fears of honorable members opposite are groundless.

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

AYES: 16

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.In view of your previous ruling, Mr. Chairman, I do not know where I stand in connexion with an amendment which I have circulated, namely, that after the word “ any “ the following paragraph be inserted - “(c) by inserting after paragraph (d) of the definition of ‘ Income ‘ - * (db)* By way of superannuation paid by the Commonwealth Government or by the Government of a State.’ “

The CHAIRMAN:

– As I indicated in connexion with a previous amendment, the Chair can have no knowledge of the effect of an amendment. If the effect of this amendment would be to increase the appropriation, it would not be in order.

Mr Casey:

– This amendment, if carried, would definitely increase the appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In that case, the amendment would not be in order.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I move -

That after the word “ any “, last occurring, sub-clause 1, the following paragraph be added - “(d) By inserting the following after paragraph (d) of the definition of Income ‘ -

By way of profit deemed to be derived from payment of money for board and lodging paid by a son or daughter of the pensioner to the pensioner or the wife of the pensioner.”

In assessing the income of a pensioner, the department takes into consideration the profits deemed to be derived by him from the board paid by his children, either to the pensioner himself or to his wife. Any payment in excess of £ 1 a week is deemed to be profit. I hope that the Minister will agree to accept the amendment, which is a reasonable one.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The amendment is unnecessary in view of the proposal to increase pensions to a maximum of 17s. 6d. a week, and to wipe out the provision that contributions from children shall be regarded as income.

Amendment negatived.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.I move -

That after the word “ any “, last occurring, sub-clause 1, the following words be inserted: - “ ; and (b ) by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: - .

For the purposes of this act, husband and wife shall be deemed to be living apart if - (a) they are doing so pursuant to a decree, judgment order, or deed of separation; or (b) they satisfy the Commissioner that they are not doing so for the purpose of avoiding the application to them, or to either of them, of any provision of this act, but not otherwise ‘ “.

The reason for the amendment is the unfair practice of the department of assessing property against a pensioner when husband and wife are living apart. In my second-reading speech I mentioned the case of a husband and wife who had lived apart for twenty years. The wife possessed considerable property at Randwick, whereas the husband was living in a tent. The man was regarded as a respectable citizen by those who knew him, but he could not get the pension because his wife possessed property. I told him that he could get a pension if he could get his wife to sign an indenture to effect a separation,but she refused to sign it, notwithstanding that he was prepared to forgo any right to her property. The result was that, because of a domestic disagreement twenty years old, the old man could not get a pension. I know of other cases in which the husband has refused to sign the document, and the wife has been deprived of a pension. My amendment would not involve any considerable expenditure, but it would do a justice to people in the unhappy state which I have mentioned. If the Minister accepts the amendment the Commissioner will have to be satisfied that the parties are living apart for the purpose of avoiding the assessment of property against a pension.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) is seeking to define the term “ living apart “. It has not been found necessary to define those words, and on the point raised the act is quite clear. The Commissioner has wide discretionary powers vested in him which he can exercise in deciding cases such as those mentioned by the honorable member. Only a few of such cases occur. I have conferred with the representatives of the department, who contend that no good purpose would be served if the honorable member’s amendment were adopted.

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

– I know of a reputable citizen in Western Australia who was once a wealthy man and who separated from his wife. She owns a certain amount of property, but because of his religion - he is a Roman Catholic - he will not sign a deed of separation. In these circumstances this man, because of fidelity to his faith which we must respect, is debarred from receiving assistance in his old age. The Deputy Commissioner should be empowered to deal with such cases.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I believe that some relief could be afforded in cases of this kind. When a member of the State legislature I dealt with two cases in which I obtained separation documents from the pensions department, which were duly signed. The last two cases in which I have been interested concerned men who deserted their wives and children twenty years ago. Pensions have been refused, not because the wives declined to sign a deed of separation, but because the husbands left their wives without any reasonable means of support. Can the Assistant Treasurer give the committee some information on the subject?

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– I have known cases where pensioners have become so infirm that they have been compelled to reside with a daughter, and deductions have been made from the pension on that account. Can that be avoided?

Mr McGrath:

– I rise to a point of order. I should like to know if the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) increases the appropriation, and if it does I submit that it is not in order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is a point which the Assistant Treasurer can elucidate.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– If the discretionary powers now possessed by the Commissioner arc replaced by a definite instruction that he must grant beneficial treatment in certain cases which is not now necessary, to that extent I submit the expenditure would be increased.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In view of the information given by the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that if the amendment is adopted the appropriation would be increased, the point of order raised by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) is sustained. I therefore rule that the amendment is not in order.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– I understood the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to say that if this amendment were adopted the Commissioner would be given wider discretionary powers in dealing with husbands and wives living apart. In exercising such a discretionary power, would the Commissioner be able to deal with a person who obstinately refuses to sign a deed of separation ? I know of a number of cases in which the Department has endeavoured to locate one of the parties concerned; and, having succeeded, the party has, for some vindictive reason, or owing to ignorance or religious principles, refused to sign a deed of separation. In cases of that kind the Deputy Commissioner says that he has no discretion whatever, and that unless the two parties agree to sign a deed of separation the department is powerless. A case was recently brought under my notice of an old crippled woman who is wheeled about in an invalid chair by members of a benevolent society. She does not possess one penny. Her husband, who has a bad character, left her years ago and apparently had a grudge against her. It was two years before the police and the representatives of the Pensions Department induced him to sign a deed of separation. During that time his wife was deprived of a pension.

Mr McGrath:

– Why did she not sue him for maintenance?

Mr THOMPSON:

– That would have necessitated a heavy outlay and a good deal of trouble. In many cases that have come before the department, applicants for a pension have declined to sue for maintenance because of the expenditure and publicity involved. This man was once sued for maintenance and when an order was made against him he was unable to pay. Perhaps the Minister may be able to give some information to assist honorable members in dealing with similar cases.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I understood the honorable member to refer to cases in which one party refuses to sign a deed of separation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Riordan:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– As the chairman has ruled the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), out of order, the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) will not be in order in discussing it.

Mr Thompson:

– The Chairman of Committees allowed me to discuss it, and I submit that the Assistant Treasurer is in order in answering the point I raised.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The amendment has been ruled out of order and cannot be further debated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24. (1.) Section twenty-four of the principal act is amended -

  1. by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “ Seventy-one pounds ten shillings “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Seventy-eight pounds “ ;

Section proposed to be amended - (1.) The amount of a pension shall in each case be at such rate as, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner who determines the pension claim deems reasonable and sufficient, but shall not exceed the rate of Thirty-nine pounds per annum in any event, nor shall it be at such a rate as will make the pensioner’s income, together with pension, exceed Seventyone pounds ten shillings per annum :

Mr GANDER:
Reid

.- I move -

That the following paragraph be inserted in sub-clause (1.) : - “(ec) by inserting the following further proviso in sub-section (2.) : -

Provided further that for the purposes of this sub-section the value of the accumulated property from which the pensioner derives no income shall not be taken into account in making deductions under this sub-section ‘.”

The object of the amendment is to protect pensioners who own non-productive land from which no profit is derived and which may even be an encumbrance. It cannot increase the expenditure, and I am confident that it will have the support of every honorable member.

Mr Marr:

– On a point of order, I suggest that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the expenditure, and that it is, therefore, not in order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Chairman has ruled that if the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer states that the effect of an amendment would bo to increase the expenditure, it must be ruled out of order. I shall abide by that decision.

Mr Casey:

– I believe that the effect of the amendment would be to increase the expendi ture.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Then I must rule the amendment out of order.

Mr James:

– I dissent from the ruling of the Chair, and shall give my reasons in writing.

Mr Thompson:

– The Temporary Chairman has merely re-affirmed a ruling given by the Chairman. May that be dissented from?

Mr Beasley:

– If it can be proved that the effect of the amendment would not he to increase the expenditure - and I claim that I can furnish that proof - are honorable members to be brushed aside because of the declaration of the Minister, unsupported by evidence, that the expenditure would be increased?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– If the Minister definitely states that the expenditure would be increased, I must rule the amendment out of order.

Mr Casey:

– I can only say that that is my opinion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That is not sufficient. The amendment may be debated.

Mr Riley:

– During the consideration of the different clauses of the bill the Chairman of Committees has asked the Assistant Treasurer whether certain amendments would have the effect of increasing the expenditure, and as the result of assurances given by that gentleman he has given a certain ruling. Now, however, the Assistant Treasurer merely states his opinion. I take it that every statement is no more than an expression of opinion. For the guidance of honorable members, I am anxious that the matter shall be cleared up.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.While the Chairman was in the chair, the Minister gave the definite assurance that the effect of an amendment would be to increase the expenditure. In the present instance, he has merely given his opinion.

Mr Thompson:

– The Chairman of Committees having definitely laid it down that an amendment is out of order, the effect of which, in the opinion of the Assistant Treasurer, would be to increase the amount of the appropriation, that ruling becomes the law of the committee and cannot be overridden by a Temporary Chairman of Committees. Were it otherwise, there would be no finality. This is an important matter. The Chairman of Committees has already ruled that certain amendments were not in order. If the latest ruling of the Temporary Chairman stands, we may debate those amendments.

Mr Casey:

– I have given the matter further consideration, and now definitely state that the effect of this amendment would be to increase the expenditure.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Acting on that statement, I must rule that the amendment is definitely not in order.

Mr Ward:

– On a point of order, I ask why previous amendments, the effect of which obviously would be to increase the expenditure, including those relating to further exemptions from the sales tax and the elimination of food relief in assessing income, were not ruled out of order on the same ground. The anxiety of the Government to dispose of the bill is no justification for depriving honorable members of the opportunity to obtain an expression of opinion on important matters in it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The ruling of the chair may not be debated.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

That the words “ Seventy-eight “, paragraph (c), be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ One hundred and four “.

The effect of the amendment would not be to involve the Government in additional expenditure, because it merely provides that the income which a pensioner may receive without becoming disentitled to the pension shall be raised from the 12s. 6d. a week provided for in the bill, to £ 1 2s. 6d. a week, making the total, inclusive of the pension, £2 a week. The view is held that 30s. a week is not sufficient to provide an old-age or an invalid penssioner with even the bare necessaries of life. Some children might be prepared to make further sacrifices so as to increase the assistance rendered by them to their aged or invalid parents, so long as the Government did not take advantage of their generosity by reducing the pension.

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

AYES: 15

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– This is the principal executive clause of the bill. It increases the maximum pension to 17s. 6d. a week, and the total income, plus pension - provided the pensioner does not possess property of a value of £60 or more - from 27s. 6d. to 30s. a week. Provision is also made for the inclusion of a method of automatically decreasing or increasing the rate of pension by 6d. a week for variations of every 100 points above 1,400 in the Commonwealth Statistician’s index figures in respect of food and groceries for the six capital cities. Under this provision the index figure at the 31st March in each year will be ascertained, and the rate of pension will be adjusted from the first pension pay day in the following July. It is necessary to add the words “ subject to this act “ in order to bring in the qualifications that the index number variation represents.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I know that it would be ruled out of order if I were to move an amendment to increase the pension in certain circumstances to £1 a week, but I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to a request that invalid pensions should be made up to £1 in the case of those persons who have to receive special food and medicine on account of their physical condition.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– Our support of this clause is in- fluencedby the fact that we shall not have an opportunity to move that the pension rate be increased. We do not favour the scheme which provides for variations of the pension according to the rise and fall of the cost of living index number, because we claim that that method does not reflect the actual cost of living. The number is assessed on the cost of food and groceries only, no account being taken of rent and clothing. We stand for the restoration of a full pension of £1 a week.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– The official Opposition believe that this clause was inserted by the Government for the purpose of fooling the pensioners, and that the Government has no intention whatever of increasing the pensions to £1 a week. The time has arrived when the pension should be restored to the full amount. This clause, if agreed to, will have the effect of fixing 17s. 6d. a week as the permanent maximum pension. Instead of remitting £1,200,000 to the wealthy landowners, who pay federal land tax, the Government should have restored the old-age and invalid pensions.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I endorse the remarks of the last speaker, because the clause, in its present form, is likely to deceive the pensioners into believing that their pensions will be increased in the same proportion as the cost of living increases. As a matter of fact, the cost of living figure to-day, as compared with the base figure, is 1,189, so that the index number would have to rise by 211 before the pensioners would receive an increase of even’” 6d., and the cost of living would have ;to increase by 51 per cent, before the pension would be restored to £1 a week. If the Government desires that the pension should be fixed in such a way that it will always purchase the same amount of goods, a table should have been devised which would provide for variations in the pension in strict accordance with variations in the cost of living.

Mr Hutchin:

– In that case the starting point should be 14s. 3d. a week instead of 17s. 6d.

Mr WARD:

-!-! do not agree with the honorable member. If pensions are to he varied in strict accordance with the rise and fall in the cost of living, the first thing we should do is to give the pensioners a living wage. The Government is making believe that there is some hope that the pensioners will have their full pension restored to them, but, as a matter of fact, there is none. This is a cruel trick played by the Government in an endeavour to fool the pensioners. In the Financial Emergency Act, the pensionof £1 a week was cut in order to balance the budget, and now it is proposed to restore half the cut, whereas theGovernment should have restored the full amount. The Labour Party believes that even a pension of £1 a week is not enough to provide pensioners with the bare necessaries of life, and, when it has the opportunity, will increase the pension to more than £1 without waiting for a rise in the cost of living.

Mr Nock:

– What pension would the honorable member suggest ?

Mr WARD:

– If the pension is to be based on the cost of living, we should first give the pensioners a living wage. If the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutch in) said that the living wage should be 14s. 3d. a week–

Mr Hutchin:

– I made no such statement. I said that if the honorable member’s proposal were adopted, the starting point should be 14s. 3d. I made no reference to a living wage, and I ask that the honorable member’s statement be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– I cannot require an honorable member to withdraw a statement merely because it is said to be incorrect.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

, - Like the property provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act this class of. legislation obviously cannot survive, but will be repealed after this party is returned to office at the next election. This provision cannot work to the advantage of pensioners, who could reach £1 a week much more quickly under normal methods than by this means of computation, which, frankly, I believe is loaded.

Australia is a wide-flung continent and, recognizing the disabilities suffered by men stationed in remote districts, both Federal and State Governments pay them special district allowances. For instance, public servants at Broken Hill, Tibooburra, Milparinka, Oodnadatta, Alice Springs, in the Northern Territory, and distant places of Western Aus tralia and Queensland, receive allowances because the cost of living in those districts is higher than in the capital cities. I should like to know whether a similar policy will be employed in connexion with pensioners? It is quite unfair to take an index figure baaed on the cost of living in capital cities and apply it to pensioners who may be 600 miles away from those centres.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– It is indeed a surprise to me, and probably to other honorable members, to find that members of the Opposition intend to. oppose this most liberal provision under which pensioners are to receive an increased payment should the cost of living rise. It is many years since the index figure has been lower than it is at present, and everything is in favour of the pensioner when his payment is fixed to begin at 17s. 6d. a week.

Mr Ward:

– Why not takethe price index number as it is to-day, instead of fixing it arbitrarily at 1,400 units?

Mr CASEY:

– Because this is a more liberal basis. Pensioners would have been perfectly happy to receive 17s. 6d. a week, let alone this advantage which enables them finally to reach £1. In the circumstances, I cannot understand why the project is being opposed by honorable members opposite.

Mr Makin:

– Is the Assistant Treasurer prepared to consider, and recommend to the Government, the suggestion that I advanced?

Mr CASEY:

– I am quite prepared to give full consideration to the proposal, but I do not intend to give an assurance about something I do not know.

Mr Forde:

– Will the Assistant Treasurer persuade the Government to pay pensioners £1 a week instead of using this formula ?

Mr CASEY:

– Obviously, that cannot be done. It has been insinuated that the Government is doing something underhand and unfair. The price index Dumber for food and groceries is well known; and upon that the rate of pension is to be determined. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has mixed up two price index numbers and brought in the cost of living, which is not involved.

Mr Ward:

– What is the present price index number for food and groceries?

Mr CASEY:

– As nearly as possible it is 1,340 units. The honorable member claimed that there will have to be an enormous increase in the figure before even a6d. a week addition is paid to pensioners. That is completely untrue. Regarding the suggestions that were made by the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley), if the Opposition opposes the whole idea of an increase in the rate of pension based on the price index number for food and groceries, I do not see how the Government can go beyond that, and grant a district allowance to pensioners. At present those living in outlying districts receive only the ordinary rate of pension, which this proposal liberalizes. The opposition of honorable members opposite is neither logical nor justified.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I do not suggest that there is anything underhand about the Government’s proposal, because it is stated clearly; but I consider that it is unfair, inasmuch as it is permanently placing pensioners on a reduced rate which was introduced only because of the state of emergency into which the finances of Australia had drifted. To be fair the Government should start from a basis of £ 1 a week, and it should adopt the cost of living index number which is used by Arbitration Court and the Public Service Arbitrator. Instead, the Government is making a permanent reduction in the scale of pensions. Surely the Government does not expect honorable members to believe that this is being done in the interests of pensioners?

The attitude of the Government will force honorable members on this side to vote against something against their desires, for they fear that this proposal will still further injure pensioners. Students of economics and industrial development have begun to realize that our price levels cannot fall much below present standards, for if they did the whole community would become insolvent. Thereis not one of those experts who does not wish to see a rise in the cost of living. Consequently, it would be more advisable if the Government temporized for twelve months, or made the basis of reckoning £1. The impression created by this clause is that the Government has definitely decided not to adjust pensions on a higher basis than 17s. 6d. I repeat that is unfair, because pensions were reduced from £1 merely to meet a state of emergency; and it was generally understood that, as soon as matters became normal, pensioners would be restored to their former position. I am justified in saying that this cannot be called emergency legislation, for it proposes permanently to bring about a lower rate of pension.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I gathered from an interjection that was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) that his party proposes to vote against these clauses only for the purpose of fooling the pensioners.

Mr Forde:

– That is incorrect. I said that pensioners should be paid £1 a week in accordance with the promise that was made by the Prime Minister.

Mr NAIRN:

– I am sorry if I misunderstood the honorable member. This clause will definitely operate to the advantage of pensioners, and those who have the true interests of the pensioners at heart will accept this provision for what it is worth.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– The Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey), has said that this Government is acting liberally towards the pensioners. If this is liberal treatment I hesitate to think what would happen if a government assumed office which did not have a liberal outlook. My objection to this provision is that it leaves the pensioners’ position as unstable as ever. Though the present pension which is the basis of this prescribed table is now being fixed at 17s. 6d. a week, the Government could at any time within the next twelve months reduce the rate to 15s. a week. Perhaps it was convenient for the Assistant Minister not to tell us why the Government has limited the consideration of the cost of living adjustments to the index figures for food and groceries, and that at any time when there is no indication whatever of an upward trend in these figures.

Mr Casey:

– There is an upward trend.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Everybody knows that the cost of living figures have steadily declined since 1929. The present figure is 1,337, and there is no indication whatever that it will rise to 1,400 in the near future. Until it does rise to that point the pensioners will be left on the present rate of pension. Why has not the Government allowed the cost of house rent and clothing to be taken into consideration iii fixing the pension, as is done in the fixing of the basic wage? Pensioners need clothing and housing, as do other human beings. Until all these factors are taken into consideration it is idle to compare the lot of the pensioner with that of the basic- wage earner. The plain fact is that the pensioners are being deluded into thinking that something is being done for them.

Mr Thompson:

– At any rate the pension cannot fall below 17s. 6d. a week.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It is within the power of the Government to reduce the pension rate to I5s. a week as it did last October, if it desires to do so. However, I shall not vote against- this provision, for I do not intend to give honorable members opposite room to sa.y that I resisted anything that the Government desired to do that was even alleged to be in the interests of the pensioners.

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

– The basis for which the pension should be determined is 20s., and not 17s. 6d. a week. When the financial emergency legislation was introduced in 1931, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), speaking as Leader of the Opposition, on the 9 th July, said -

At the earliest possible moment honorable members on this side will stand behind any proposal for the restoration of the wages and conditions that have been enjoyed by the. Public Service up to the present time.

Similar observations were made in regard to pensioners; but under the Government’s policy, as expressed in this Hill, the pensioners are not likely to enjoy a pension of 20s. a week for a very long while. “ Kathleen Mavourneen “ promises of the kind which the Government is making to the pensioners, are of no value whatever. I shall not, however, vote against this proposal.

Mr Stewart:

– The honorable member will apparently talk one way and vote another.

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

– I am not prepared to allow this Government, which is the most reactionary that Australian political life has ever known and is controlled by the press of this country, to declare that I resisted any move that was supposed to be designed to restore the pension to 20s. a week; but 1 say quite plainly that even if, within, the next month or two, conditions generally were restored to their old level, the pensioners would not, under this proposal, be a penny better off. The Prime Minister has gone back on his own word, and is not restoring pensions to their old level, although, it is plainly within his power to do so.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- It should be said on the floor of this chamber that the arguments advanced* by honorable members opposite against the policy of the Government are fallacious. The Government is actually restoring the pension to 17s. 6d. a week, at which figure is was left by the Scullin Government. The trouble with honorable members opposite is that they are now unable to charge the Government with having acted cruelly to the pensioners. They will have to go back to their constituents and eat their words. If they are honest, they will admit that the Government has done the very thing that they said it would not do. Honorable members of the Lang party have spent practically all their available time in the last few months in propaganda among the pensioners. The effect of this provision will be to restore the cuts made in pensions last year, and also partially to restore the cuts made in the previous year by the Scullin Government.

Mr Forde:

– That is not so.

Mr LANE:

– As a matter of fact this Government has actually restored, to some extent, the cuts made by the Scullin Government. This has annoyed honorable members opposite, but it will please the pensioners.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The people of Australia should be told plainly that in the last twelve months this Government has taken £700,000 from the pensioners in a direct attack upon their pension rate, and another £500,000 in an indirect attack upon their property. Pensioners have not had restored -the conditions which obtained when the last Government left office. Although we did not stand for the pensions policy of the Scullin Government, we are hot prepared to allow the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) to lead the people to believe that this Government is restoring to the pensioners more than it took away from them. These unfortunate people will still be on a lower level than that on which they were left by the Scullin Government, and we intend to fight continuously in their interests until their pension rate has been restored to 20s. a week.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

Proposed new clause.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I have circulated an amendment for the insertion of a new clause, 27a, which provides for the repeal of sections 52a to 52m of the principal act. I suggest that it would be advisable to deal with it immediately, because subsequent amendments, of which notice has been given, provide for alterations of sections of the act which, under my proposal, would be repealed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Then I see no reason why the proposed new clause should not be moved now.

Mr WARD:

– I move-

That the following new clause be inserted: - “27a. Sections 52a to 52m (inclusive) of the Principal Act are hereby repealed.”

If this amendment is accepted the Government will not he involved in any additional expense. Honorable members on all aides have expressed disapproval of the action of the Government in making a claim on the properties of deceased pensioners. Although about £34,000 has been claimed, only about £9,000 has been actually collected. Honorable members who have protested against the harsh nature of the property provisions, now have an opportunity to assist the pensioners in a practical way. My amendment provides for the elimination of the sections relating to the confiscation of the property of pensioners upon their death.

Mr Marr:

– The proposal, I submit, would definitely increase the amount of the appropriation under the bill, andI contend that it is therefore out of order.

Mr Forde:

– I hope that the proposed new clause will not be ruled out of order. I understand that members of the Ministerial party and the Country party want the property provisions removed, and the Opposition will heartily support them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not debate the matter.

Mr Makin:

– Having carefully read the proposed new clause, I respectfully suggest that it does not involve an increase of the appropriation, and should, therefore, be accepted by the Chair.

Mr Beasley:

– I submit that the Minister should give facts to support his contention that the amendment is not in order. The argument has been used by the Government that the property provisions have resulted in the cancellation of many pensions, and that this shows that many persons who were not entitled to pensions were receiving them. No other reason has been advanced for the retention of the provisions. Honorable members have expressed the opinion that these should be removed, and I submit that the appropriation under the. bill would not be increased if the proposed new clause were accepted.

Mr Ward:

– I have already stated that the amount collected by the Government by seizing the property of deceased pensioners is about £9,000. The only argument which the Minister put forward in support of his claim that the appropriation would be increased was that the Government anticipated that a year hence it would receive a similar amount from the sale of property taken over by it from deceased pensioners. It seems to me that the small amount of £9,000 would be offset by the saving in expenditure in policing the property provisions, and that . a reduction rather than an increase of the vote would be effected.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the Assistant Treasurer indicate in what way the appropriation would be increased if the committee accepted the proposed new clause.

Mr Casey:

– By the elimination of the property provisions as a whole, I believe that an increased charge would result in two directions. The department would collect less money from the estates of deceased pensioners, but, what is more important than that, many thousands of pensioners would successfully re-apply for the pension.

Mr Beasley:

– Are they a lot of “crooks “?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) is out of order. I especially asked the Assistant Treasurer to supply me with certain information, and the Minister should be heard in silence.

Mr Casey:

– Owing to the elimination of the property provision a large number of persons who are now either, through having means of their own or through the assistance of relatives, able to provide for themselves, would return to the pensions list. On that account a large increased expenditure would occur immediately.

Mr Scullin:

– The point of order has been taken that the proposed new clause should not beaccepted, because it would add to the burden of the budget. It is true that it would do that, but it seems to me that it was never intended that the Standing Orders should debar an honorable member from submitting such an amendment as that presented by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). It is true that no private member may move directly to increase an appropriation. Frequently fine points are drawn in respect of what are machinery bills and what are money bills, but generally speaking, the Standing Order that no private member may move an amendment to increase the appropriation has prevailed. A private member may move to decrease taxation. The property provisions require that pensioners who have properties must enter into an understanding that they will not transfer them without the permission of the department and that at their death there must be a return to the Treasury of the amount of pension paid to them. The indirect effect of the amendment to repeal the property provisions on account of such provisions will be to cause people who have cancelled their pensions to make application for a restoration of payments. That, of course, would increase the number of pensioners, but it would be only an indirect effect. If the amendment directly made provision for increased pensions, it would he out of order. There is nothing even at the present time to prevent the 12,000 people affected from applying for pensions. They are still eligible.

Mr Casey:

– Their eligibility was never contested.

Mr Scullin:

– The amendment does not confer an eligibility which was not present before.If it conferred eligibility on persons who would otherwise be ineligible, with a resultant increase in the number of pensioners, it would be out of order. I submit that the amendment is in order.

Mr McGrath:

– The amendment is definitely out of order. It is true that people who have property cannot obtain pensions unless they sign form 43, but this amendment to remove the necessity for signing that form would, if carried, increase the number of pensioners considerably.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– The point that impresses me in determining whether this amendment is in order or not is that those people who have cancelled their pensions because of the property provisions of the act, are still eligible, and I am not in a position to say whether such cancellations would be affected by the amendment. It has been stated that as a result of this amendment, the revenue would be affected indirectly because at some distant date, perhaps years hence, certain pension payments will be returned to the Treasury. I do not consider that a sufficient reason for ruling the amendment out of order. I am not satisfied that this amendment will directly bring about an increase of the appropriation. I do not wish to give a ruling that will be inconsistent with my previous rulings, and if the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) is still dissatisfied, I am willing to hear any further reasons that he may wish to put forward.

Mr Casey:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) will not deny that the immediate, if indirect, effect, of the repealing of the property provisions of the act would be an immediate increase in the charges on the budget.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Are not the people concerned eligible for the pension? Mr. Casey. - Only if they comply with the provisions of the act. It cannot be denied that the immediate effect, possibly the indirect effect of the elimination of the property provisions of the act, would be to bring about a heavy increase in the charge on the budget.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I feel that I am bound to accept the assurance of the Assistant Treasurer that the amendment would immediately effect a. heavy increase in the charge on the budget. In those circumstances, I must rule that the amendment is out of order.

Mr Beasley:

– I move -

That the ruling of the Chairman be dissented from.

The Leader of the Opposition has summed up the position accurately. You, sir, have based your ruling on the statement of the Assistant Treasurer that the amendment, if agreed to, would increase the burden on the revenue. We claim that the people in question are eligible for pensions, apart altogether from this amendment or the property provisions of the act. There is nothing to prevent them from recovering the pension to-morrow, and if that were to take place, there would necessarily be an increase of the appropriation. It may be that even as a result of this discussion many persons who have not yet applied for pensions will take early opportunity to apply. It can also be argued that even the introduction of the bill has increased the appropriation, because attention has been drawn to certain benefits that can be obtained. In any case, the appropriation will be increased in the ordinary course of events, because applications are daily being made for pensions. The calculations in respect of pension payments are only estimates, and will be greatly exceeded. An exceedingly bad and growing practice in this chamberis the tendency of the Chairman to reflect the opinion of Ministers, whose opinion thereby becomes binding upon every honorable member. The Chair should be free, and not partisan in its rulings. The Assistant Treasurer, naturally, must act according to his instructions in order to keep control of the bill in a manner acceptable to the Government, and if the Chairman merely reflects ministerial opinion, ho becomes the mouthpiece of the Government. If the Chair is to be guided by the Minister at the table, then is is useless for us to put forward any proposal that is not acceptable to the Government. If your ruling is upheld, a blow will have been struck at the privileges of honorable members. The Chair has taken its instructions from the Assistant Treasurer, and has refused to be guided by the Standing Orders. The position is intolerable, because this is no longer a deliberative chamber. If the Chair intends in future to act under Min isterial guidance, parliamentary proceedings will become a farce and sham. I take this early opportunity to protest against the attitude of the Chair.

Mr Marr:

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has complained because the Assistant Treasurer desires to keep control of the bill, but let me point out that, once a Minister loses control of a bill placed in his charge, he loses the confidence of honorable members, and that, I submit, is undesirable from every point of view.

In view of the statement of the Minister in charge of the bill that the amendment would increase the appropriation provided for in the measure, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling was correct. No member of the committee is better qualified than is the Minister in charge of a bill to say whether or not an amendment would, if carried, increase the appropriation. Honorable members know that not even a Minister may move an amendment to increase an appropriation unless it is preceded by a message from the Governor-General. In thiscase there has been a message from the GovernorGeneral to cover the amount expected to be necessary to meet the obligations covered by the bill.

Mr Scullin:

– I should like a ruling from the Chairman on that point.

Mr Marr:

– The departmental officers state definitely that the amendment would increase the appropriation.

Mr Rosevear:

– Are they in control of the committee?

Mr Marr:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) admitted that if the amendment were agreed to, the budget would be affected, either directly or indirectly, and that indirectly the appropriation provided for in this measure would be substantially increased. The statement of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey), supported by Treasury officials, should be sufficient evidence to satisfy the committee that your ruling was correct.

Mr Scullin:

– I am sure that the committee appreciates the difficulty confronting the Chair in deciding a matter about which there is considerable feeling. One of the harshest measures ever applied to old-age pensioners is involved. While I agree that the Chair must be guided largely by the assurance given by the Minister in charge of the bill, I submit that the Chair is not bound by any such statement. After all, the carrying out of the Standing Orders is entirely in the hands of the Chairman. He informs his mind by paying attention to the remarks of Ministers and private members. I agree that the Minister in charge of a bill is in a better position than is any. private . member to acquaint himself with the effect of an amendment because he has at his disposal the information possessed by the departmental officials. All that is conceded ; but it is apparent that in this case you,Mr. Chairman, came to a decision after the Minister had made the definite statement that the amendment would increase the appropriation. The direct effect of the amendment would be not to increase the expenditure but merely to deprive the Government of the opportunity to collect certain moneys at some subsequent period. It is true, as the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Marr) said, that the amendment would affect the budget; but that is true of any motion to reduce taxation or to restrict the sources from which revenue is to be obtained. After a budget has been introduced any honorable member may move that the rate of tax in. any particular direction be reduced by 20 per cent. or even 50 per cent.

Mr Marr:

– No government would stand that.

Mr Scullin:

– It is not a question of what any government would stand, but what would be in order.I appreciate that no government would be likely to accept such an amendment, but I suggest that the proper way to resist it would be to submit it to a vote of the committee. IfI were the Minister in charge of a bill I would not accept an amendment to reduce the revenue by 50 per cent.; but I would not adopt the subterfuge of trying to have the motion ruled out of order. The argument that the amendment would affect the budget is not sufficient. Any motion which would take from a government the right to collect certain moneys for which it had budgeted would, of course, affect the budget, but it might still be in order I submit that the amendment is not one to increase pensions directly, or to increase the scale of pensions; it is one to deny to the Government the right to collect money from pensioners or from the estates of pensioners. I shall not be dishonest ; I frankly admit that the indirect effect of the amendment will almost certainly be to cause to apply for pensions a number of persons who are eligible for them, but declined to apply because they took exception to certain sections inserted in the act last year. Unless the amendment directly conflicts with the Standing Orders, the matter is one for the committee itself to decide. Your decision, sir, was based on the definite statement of the Minister. I submit that the last words to be heard by the committee should not necessarily be those of the Minister in charge of the bill.

Mr Casey:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has not contested my statement that the immediate effect of the wiping out of the property provisions from the legislation now on the statute-bookwould be to increase the expenditure proposed in the budget. The right honorable gentleman has exercised his mind concerning the words “ direct “ and “ indirect “. I used the word “ immediate “ ; I said that the immediate effect of the amendment would be an increase of the expenditure provided for in the budget.

Mr Scullin:

– That would be the immediate effect of any reduction of taxation.

Mr Casey:

– The immediate effect would be to call for a greater expenditure on pensions than the budget contemplates. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) spoke of the eligibility of certain persons to receive pensions. Both in my speech and by interjection I specifically stated that that eligibility is not contested. The point is that these persons could get the pension now if they complied with the property provisions of the act. They have not applied for pensions because of those provisions, but would do so if those provisions were repealed. In that case, the budget provision would be increased. I have not attempted to shape the. mind of the Chair, other than by giving an assurance in regard to a point upon which I was questioned by the Chair. I submit that the ruling of the Chair was right in view of all the facts.

Mr Watkins:

– I regret at any time having to support a motion of dissent from the Chairman’s ruling, but it is evident that, if the ruling in this instance is correct, no private member may seek to amend any money bill which comes before the committee. The standing order which prevents a private member from moving to increase an appropriation, applies only to the bill before the Chair at the time, and not to the general budget proposals of the Government. The amendment which has been moved would merely alter the machinery of the bill. There is nothing to indicate whether those sections of the act which, it is now admitted, were placed in the measure to keep people from applying for pensions, have any direct bearing on the amount of the appropriation. A similar proposal when the bill was under discussion in the House was allowed. I submit, sir, that your ruling is wrongly based, and is not in accordance with the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– The correctness or otherwise of my ruling is a matter for the committee to decide, but I am entitled to express my view before the motion of dissent is put. The arguments of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) really supported my ruling. The honorable member said that if the amendment were carried many persons who had relinquished their pensions would re-apply for them. Obviously, in that case the amount of the appropriation necessary to pay pensions would be increased. The honorable member also said that the Chair became partisan when it took into account the views of the Minister, who was biased. Surely the Chair is entitled to inform its mind as to whether or not an amendment would affect the Government’s budget proposals or the revenue of the Commonwealth, that being the only question involved in the point of order raised. No other member or Minister is in so good a position as is the Assistant Treasurer to say what effect the amendment would have on the finances of the Commonwealth. Any suggestion that the Minister has de liberately attempted to misinform the Chair cannot be entertained. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), as well as the honorable member for West Sydney, agreed that if the property provisions of the existing legislation were removed, numbers of pensioners who had relinquished their pensions would re-apply for them. In that event, the appropriation necessary to meet pension charges would necessarily be increased.

Mr Ward:

– Who determines that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I contend that in this matter I am entitled to be informed by the Assistant Treasurer, and on his assurance I am satisfied that if the amendment were adopted it would increase the appropriation.

Question - That the Chairman’s ruling be dissented from - put. The Committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29. (1.) Section fifty-two e of the principal act is amended -

  1. by inserting after sub-section (1.) the following sub-section : - (1a.) The following encumbrances shall be excepted encumbrances within the meaning of sub-section (1.) of this section:-
  2. encumbrances which existed prior to the twelfth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirtytwo, on real property or were created bona fide for value before the grant of a pension to the pensioner;

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 except encumbrances thereon in respect of which the Commissioner has consented in writing and except encumbrances created bona fide for value before the grant of a pension to the pensioner) and shall be recoverable by the Commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I move -

That the words “grant of a pension to”’ sub-section 1 be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ death of “.

If the amendment is agreed to a pensioner will have the right to operate on his property by way of a loan. Many invalid pensioners require to do this in order to meet necessary medical expenses. I direct the Assistant Treasurer’s attention to the fact that the adoption of this amendment will not increase the appropriation. It is submitted to give greater liberties to pensioners to deal with their own properties. Honorable members are aware that under the act a pensioner is not entitled to borrow upon his property without first receiving the permission of the Commissioner. This is done to prevent him controlling an asset which may eventually come into the hands of the Government. If this amendment is adopted it will enable a pensioner to obtain an advance upon what is virtually his savings. I trust that a majority of the committee will support the amendment.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The object of this clause is further to liberalize the principal act.

Under the present law, several encumbrances on the property of a pensioner have priority over the Commonwealth charge in respect of pensions paid. Those are encumbrances on real property which existed prior to the 12th October, 1932, encumbrances on real property to which the Commissioner has consented in writing, and encumbrances on any property created bona fide for value before the pension was granted. The bill proposes to extend such priority to all encumbrances on personal property created bona fide for value at any time prior to the death of the pensioner. Such encumbrances are now defined as including bankers and solicitors’ liens, and certain other forms of security. These amendments are being effected by repealing the present provisions and substituting a new provision as set out in paragraphs c andf of the proposed new sub-section. I submit that the amendment is unnecessary because’ a pensioner cannot mortgage his property without consent, and where consent has been given the encumbrance has priority over the Commonwealth charge.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) aims to restore the rights of pensioners relating to private property. This is a principle of which the members of the Government are alleged to be avowed supporters. If I possess property, I am at least permitted to deal with it in my own way. A pensioner should have similar freedom. Circumstances might arise necessitating the raising of money to meet the expenses of medical treatment, or care and attention in other ways, and pensioners should, therefore, be given complete control over their property. If, by dint of hard work and thrift, they have been able to purchase property, they should be entitled to deal with it in whatever way they please. If any one attempted to interfere with the rights of honorable members opposite over any property they possess, they would resent it, even to the extent of resorting to violence. The amendment is submitted to test the sincerity of those who support the rights of private property.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I wholeheartedly support the amendment, because I feel that the cardinal principle is involved that owners of property and other assets shall have the absolute right to use them as they may find necessary. This legislation appears to trespass deliberately on the rights of the individual, by placing upon the pensioner such a restriction that he is unable to deal with his property as he -wishes. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has made out a clear case in favour of these old folk not being treated differently from other sections of the community. If any Government sought to impose these conditions upon other classes of persons, in whose interests it was proposed to legislate, the cry of “ confiscation “ would immediately ‘be raised, and it would be accused of trespassing upon the rights of the individual. If that argument is sound when applied to other sections of the community, it is equally sound in relation to old-age pensioners. The amendment, if carried, would remove some of the most objectionable features of the pensions legislation.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.Clause 29 apparently takes away some privileges that operate at the present time. Paragraph a of the clause proposes to omit from sub-section 1 of section 52 of the principal act the words “ except encumbrances existing, prior to such commencement, upon real property of the pensioner, and except encumbrances thereon of which the Commissioner has consented in writing.” I take that to mean that the right of the Commissioner to consent to an encumbrance is to be taken from him. If that be so, it is a strong reason for the acceptance of the amendment. L admit that the amendment cuts at the foundations of the property provisions of the act. On that ground, however, it commends itself to me. I am prepared to support any proposal to liberalize those provisions.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The proposed new sub-section Iac reinstates the exemptions removed by sub-clause la, and in addition provides for the exemption of encumbrances on personal property which were created bona fide for value at any time prior to the death of the pensioner or person. That is a definite liberalization of the property provision. The proposed new sub-section 1a/ proposes, by way of definition, additional exemption from encumbrances. It reads-

For the purposes of this section the term “ encumbrances “ includes bankers’ liens, solicitors’ liens and other liens, pledges, deposits by way of security, and rights of purchasers under contracts of sale.

I say again that the amendment is unnecessary, for the reason that a pensioner may not mortgage his real property without consent, and if consent is given the encumbrance has priority.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- I have always consistently opposed interference with the property of pensioners. Cases of severe hardship have been brought to my notice. The circular issued by the Registrar-General to the effect that no mortgage or transfer may be registered without a declaration by the owner of the property that he is not an old-age pensioner, is nothing but an insult to owners of property.

I should like to know whether, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has the power to interfere with the title deeds of properties controlled by the Governments of the States. That point, I believe, would tax the legal minds of our most eminent constitutional lawyers.

Because of the cases of hardship that have been brought to my notice, and for the other reasons that I have given, I intend to support the amendment of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), to give to the pensioner greater liberty to deal with his own property.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– I am pleased to find a new recruit in the ranks of those who oppose what I regard as one of the most brutal provisions to be found in any act of Parliament - the provision under which the homes of old people, who, in their declining years, are forced to apply for a pension, are taken out of their control. This provision has caused considerable hardship. The pensioner does not desire to hang on to his property for purposes of gain. It is merely a sentimental reason which, induces a mau who has .acquired a home by lifelong thrift and self-denial to desire to retain possession of it while he lives in order to bequeath it to children or other relatives. Let us consider the circumstances of two persons living side by side, one in a rented cottage and the other in a home which he has acquired after perhaps 40 years of struggle. The mau who has spent all the money he had earned draws the full pension, while the thrifty man is penalized to the extent of 2s. 6d. a week. There is no hope of recovering the outlay on the pension paid to the first man, but in the second case it is a charge on the property of the pensioner. This is one of the dirtiest pieces of legislation ever enacted in any country. I should like the young Australians in this chamber to join with the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins) in protecting the homes of oldage pensioners. The pensioner Newton, at Clermont, to whom I have already referred, when asking me to endeavour to secure exemption for him, said, “ It is a matter of principle with me; I would sooner starve than sign. My boys went 12,000 miles to protect the homes of Belgians against a foreign invader.” To-day he is 81 years of age, and his wife is 76. One son was killed at the front, and the other died from injuries received in “Western Australia after his return. If those two boys were alive to-day, the father would never have had to apply for a pension. Before their enlistment, they had helped him to get possession of the home, which was a worker’s dwelling valued at about £300. Even yet it is not fully paid for, but the old man, in order to maintain the principle for which his sons gave their lives, would rather starve than surrender his property. He made application under section 52e for exemption from the property provisions, but the application was refused. There are thousands of similar cases throughout the Commonwealth. The Government would have acted more decently had it allowed the pension to remain at 17s. 6d. a week, and restored to the pensioners their homes. However, the Government knows that it will save more money by, in effect, lending pensions to the old people who have made sacrifices to obtain their homes. At the same time it is paying 17s. 6d. a week to those who never made any attempt to acquire a home of their own. I feel very strongly on this matter because, during the last three or four months, I have been interviewed by thousands of pensioners. At Charters Towers I addressed a meeting of 220 pensioners. Some of them were nearly blind, and were led to the hall by others, and 85 per cent, of those who attended, came to find out if there was any way in which they could retain their homes without signing the white card. It is to the shame of the Government that the aged and invalid should be placed in this position at the end of their days. I hope that the amendment will be carried.

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

– I, too, have had a considerable amount of experience with regard to pensions, and I know of many pensioners who have refused to sign the white card because they are unwilling to surrender their homes. Some, upon my advice, have signed, but others resolutely refuse to do so. The result is that, instead of being supported by the Commonwealth, they have been thrown on the State Government, which is now bearing the Commonwealth’s responsibility. During last session I brought under the notice of the Minister, cases of pensioners who had surrendered their pensions on the first pay day after the end of December, but who, because they had not done so before the end of December, were required to refund all pension moneys paid to them after the 12th October. Many of them did not receive notice from the department until the first pay day in January, but even from them a refund has been demanded. It was no fault of theirs that they had not surrendered their pensions earlier, and the department should, not insist on this condition.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

. -It is quite true that the effect of this bill is to liberalise the Old-age and Invalid Pensions Act. The Country party had intended to move that the application of Clause 52 j should be limited to homes of the value of £600 and over. Everybody knows that some people possessing considerable means have been drawing pensions. I have known of pensioners whose sons were in good positions, and paid the rates and taxes on their parents’ property so that they might receive the benefit of it when their parents died. Of course, such parents should never have received the pension, and that is why we proposed to limit the amount to £800.

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

– How many oldage pensioners have an equity of more than £600 in their property?

Mr HUNTER:

– Some time ago I knew a man who made £15,000 in one year, and that man’s father was drawing the old-age pension in Brisbane. I know of other cases nearly as bad, but I admit they arc few in number. They would not amount to 5 per cent, of all pensions paid. The object of our proposal was to protect the homes of poor people. The Prime Minister promised last night that an opportunity would be. given to review the matter before Christmas, and we have accepted his assurance. By that time the Government will have had plenty of time to make arrangements for such consequential amendments as will be necessary. In the light of various rulings given by the Chairman I can now see that our amendment, if moved, would have been ruled out of order and we could not have voted even for the deletion of all clauses up to 52 st, because that would have included the clause which requires the pensioner to notify the Commissioner if. he receives any fresh income, or acquires any new property. That provision is eminently just, because the acquisition of property may affect the rate of pension, and I cannot understand why it was not put in the act before. We have accepted the definite promise of the Prime Minister, and therefore we do’ not propose to vote for the amendment. No one can fairly criticize the attitude of the Country party on: this matter, and it is not true, as has been suggested, that our leader has run away from the issue. If he had not returned to his home this week he would have sustained a loss of £4,000. As a matter of fact, he came back to Parliament two or three months before he should have. Tlie Country party believes in respecting the sanctity of the people’s homes, whether the people be rich or poor. Particularly do we say that no government has the right to take’ the homes of the poor even after their” death.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). It was interesting to listen to the last speaker wailing- over the unfortunate pensioners, and dwelling on their sentimental attachment to their homes. He would prevent the seizure of the pensioners’ homes if he could, but now that he has an opportunity of showing by his vote how much his sympathy is worth, he lias hoisted the white flag as his leader did, and has run away from the fight. We know that, in many cases, the sons of pensioners have contributed considerable sums towards the buying and maintenance of property held by their parents. They are paying the rates and taxes on such property because the pensioners themselves, as a result of the cut in their pension, are unable to meet these charges. Local governing authorities are complaining that their revenue has declined because pensioners, who have no children to pay the rates for them, decline to do so. They have taken up the stand that they will not pay rates on property that will eventually pass to the Commonwealth. As the Federal Government is not assessable for rates, the properties are being loaded with the unpaid rates. Some time ago the Government set up a committee which recommended that no claim on account of pensions should be made in respect of property valued at less than £500’. As a result many pensioners who had relinquished their pensions reapplied successfully. I submit that the recommendations of a properly constituted authority, such as the committee I have mentioned, should be observed in their entirety, and not side-tracked for political purposes, as has been done by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) and other honorable members opposite. Are those honorable members doing justice to the old-age pensioners, whose pensions, they have admitted, should be fully restored? We ask the people of Australia to be thrifty, and we encourage them to purchase their own homes. What encouragement is being given to our working people to become owners of their own homes? The average worker is from 40 to 50 years of age before he is able to accumulate sufficient to pay a deposit on a house; but as approximately twenty years later he will become entitle’d to the pension, he will consider it unwise to purchase a house as he will not be able to leave it to his children after having drawn the pension. But irrespective of whether he owns a house or not he will be able to draw the old-age pension. Fully 80 per cent, of the pensioners in my electorate either own or are purchasing their homes. I had the pleasure of introducing one of the largest deputations which waited upon the Prime Minister when he first visited New South Wales in that capacity. That deputation, which was supported by the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Jennings) and the honorable members of the party to which I belong, attempted to obtain some concessions for pensioners. The claims which were then made with respect to the property of pensioners, were admitted by the Prime Minister to be just. Iu December, 1931, the right honorable gentleman said that he would endeavour to have the act amended so that non-revenue producing property should not be regarded as a charge against pensions.

Mr Lyons:

– I did not give any such definite promise. I merely said that the matters raised at that deputation would receive the earnest consideration of the Government.

Mr JAMES:

– The Prime Minister said that for pension purposes it was unfair to assess non-revenue producing property.

Mr Holman:

– I rise to a point of order. Is the honorable member for Hunter in order in discussing a promise alleged to have been made by the Prime Minister with respect to a matter which is not now before the Chair? He said that the Prime Minister agreed that nonrevenue producing properties should not be assessed for pension purposes. I submit that that is irrelevant to the question now before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– The point of order is sustained. If the honorable member for Hunter wishes to continue his speech he must discuss the clause.

Mr JAMES:

– I have nothing further to add.

Mr WARD:
East ‘Sydney

– Some honorable members opposite, because of their anxiety to avoid a vote on the amendment, have become irritable.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Personal reflections of that nature are out of order.

Mr WARD:

– The Assistant Treasurer said that this amending legislation is to liberalize the property sections of the principal act. The amendment I have submitted is also “for that purpose. Those supporting the Government, including the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Holman), are continually speaking, both inside and outside of this Parliament, about the sacred rights of private property. I ask if such rights are possessed only by their wealthy friends, and whether pensioners are not entitled to similar protection? The honorable member for Martin and other honorable members who are loud in their protestations against certain provisions of the act, say that they are sincerely desirous of assisting pensioners. We are giving them an opportunity to do so without increasing the appropriation or affecting the position of the Government in any way. The amendment submitted is to give to pensioners the right to operate on the property which they have acquired as the result of thrift. If we suggested to the members of thu Country party that they could not sell their wool or their wheat without the authority of any Minister, they would immediately refer to the rights of private property; but in the matter of pensions it is entirely different. The existing provisions of the law can operate very harshly upon certain sections of the community. A doctor may advise a pensioner to try a change of climate ; to act on this advice the pensioner may require to sell or mortgage his property; but, according to the honorable member for Martin, he should not be permitted to do so, unless he has the authority of the Commissioner. A similar position exists with respect’ to invalid pensioners who may be ordered special treatment. Yet honorable members opposite are opposing this amendment because they believe that complete power should rest with the Commissioner to determine what a pensioner shall do with his property. That is what the existing law provides. We are giving to honorable members opposite the opportunity to do what they have said they are anxious to do for months. We shall judge them by their votes and not by their words.

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

AYES: 17

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 (Liability of debtors and persons having control of property subject to liability or charge).

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– Will the Minister explain the intention of proposed new section 52l ?

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The proposed new section provides that when there is a Commonwealth charge against the estate of a deceased pensioner the executor or trustee shall be obliged to apply the money on the application of the Commissioner to the satisfaction of the Commonwealth charge, or in the case of a person to whom the pensioner has, during his lifetime, lent money, that person shall be obliged to pay the Commonwealth to the extent of the debt so long as it is less than the Government charge on the pensioner’s estate. That is to happen only if the Commissioner claims upon the executor or the borrower.

Mr Rosevear:

– Who collects the bad debts ?

Mr CASEY:

– The Commissioner of Pensions. The trustee is authorized under this proposed new section to hold such moneys as may be necessary to meet the Government charge on application by the Commissioner. If he refuses to do so, the Commissioner may sue him in the court. The trustee will be indemnified for all payments made in compliance with the demand of the Commissioner. This is not in any way a radical provision, but is based upon common sense with a view to avoiding the administrative difficulties experienced in the past. With the property provisions in their present form it is necessary to have some such amendment of the act for the purpose of smooth administration.

Clause agreed to.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted: - 23a. Section 17 of the principal act is amended by omitting paragraph(fb).

Section proposed to be amended -

No person shall receive an old-age pension unless - (fb) his relatives, namely, husband; wife, father, mother or children do not, either severally or collectively, adequately maintain him; and

This provision was in the original act, was eliminated in 1912, and restored 21 years later. I feel that this is an opportune time to remove it altogether, because it unfairly penalizes a parent or possibly one of the children in receipt of an invalid pension because of the assistance given by other members of the family. This provision was inserted in the act to meet emergency conditions, and it imposed a severe hardship upon many invalid and old-age pensioners. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

– I cannot see any reason for not supporting the amendment because it seems to be quite in conformity with the Assistant Treasurer’s statement, that any contributions to pensioners by relatives or friends will not be taken into account in assessing the pension. There is nothing unfair in the amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I have had very little time to study the amendment, but I understand that the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) seeks to delete the section of the act which provides that no person shall receive an old-age pension unless the relatives, namely, husband, wife, father, mother or children, do not either severally or collectively adequately maintain him. I take it that that provision was inserted in the act to, safeguard the department against an old-age pensioner, not an invalid pensioner, who is living with children who have become wealthy.

Mr Makin:

-. - That is provided for in section 52m of the act.

Mr CASEY:

– In that case what is the reason for the amendment ?

Mr Makin:

– The amendment relates to instances in which the members of a family make contributions towards the added comfort of the pensioner, and seeks to prevent such contributions from being taken into account in assessing the pension.

Mr CASEY:

– This provision safeguards the department in respect of pensioners who are living with children or relatives having moderate or considerable means.

Mr Makin:

– Let me illustrate my meaning. A son or daughter of a pensioner may contribute £2 10s. a week to the home and a son or daughter of another pensioner may contribute only 25s. In the former case the department, if this provision stands, may reduce the pension on the ground that the pensioner is being adequately maintained.

Mr CASEY:

– It cannot be denied that, in the circumstances mentioned by the honorable member, the pensioner would be adequately maintained, and I fail to see what good purpose would be served by accepting the amendment.

Mr McGrath:

– In -one case in which a daughter contributes 25s. a week to a pensioner’s upkeep, the pension has been reduced by 2s. 6d. a week.

Mr CASEY:

– Other amendments in this bill will prevent that from happening. I cannot see that any obligation rests on the Commissioner to grant pensions to persons who are adequately maintained by their relatives.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.Section 52 q a (1) of the principal act provides -

The Commonwealth may accent a transfer from any pensioner or claimant of any property which is not subject to encumbrance or of any interest of the pensioner or claimant under a will.

I propose to move an amendment to substitute “ shall “ for “ may “. In numbers of cases, pensioners who have desired to transfer their property to the Commissioner of Pensions, have had their offers refused. One case concerned a property held under a miner’s right at Pelaw Main, where practically the whole township is held under that tenure. The Commissioner of Pensions refused to accept the property, claiming that he had the right to do so because the act provided only that certain things “ may “ be done. The objective of the proposed amendment is to make it obligatory on the Government to accept properties offered in such cases.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I appreciate the object sought to be achieved by the honorable member, but I doubt whether his proposed amendment is really in the interests of the pensioners. In a number of instances in which pensioners have proposed to transfer their property to the Commissioner, the department has advised them either to hold it or to dispose of it otherwise. That advice has been given in the interests of the pensioners themselves. The legislation has been administered sympathetically and liberally by the department. Only in very few instances has the Commonwealth taken over the property of pensioners.

Mr James:

– They cannot sell their properties if they want to.

Mr CASEY:

– They can generally dispose of them more satisfactorily than by handing them over to the department. If the proposed amendment were carried, the Commissioner would be obliged to accept properties which pensioners would do well to retain.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The proposed amendment is now too late, and could not be accepted.

Part VII. ( War pensions) .

Clause 34 (Pension of wives and children of incapacitated members).

Mr MARR:
Minister for Health · Parkes · UAP

.- Part 7 deals with war pensions. When the Financial Emergency Bill was under consideration in 1931, a soldiers committee was set up to advise the late Government as to what reductions shouldbe made in war pensions in order to effect the saving desired. The recommendation of that committee, which was acted upon by the then Government, limited the reductions to dependants of deceased soldiers and to dependants of ex-soldiers who were drawing pensions. Pensions in respect of disabled soldiers, war widows, orphan children, and widowed mothers who became widows within three years of the soldier’sdecease, were not subject to any reduction.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Minister is wrong.

Mr MARR:

– The only possible exceptions were mental cases.

Mr Makin:

– The more severe medical examination has resulted in reductions.

Mr MARR:

-The pensions of soldiers have always been subject to periodical review. That review has taken place every six months, excepting in cases of more or less permanent disability.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Some disabled soldiers have had their pensions reduced.

Mr MARR:

– Under the financial emergency legislation the pensions of wives of incapacitated ex-soldiers were reduced 221/2 per cent. The bill provides that the reduction shall be 10 per cent. instead of 221/2 per cent. This alteration affects 57,698 wives, and the annual cost of this concession will be £136,000. The Government has given further consideration to the cases of the wives of soldiers, and the effect of an amendment which has been circulated will be to restore their full pensions to them. The wife of a soldier who is in receipt of a pension according to his disability, also receives a pension, which, however, was reduced under the financial emergency legislation by 221/2 per cent. There are other wives, known in the department as “ office wives “, who, although widows, are not widows within the meaning of the Repatriation Act, their husbands having died from some cause other than a war disability. Those widows have been retained on the records of the department as wives and their pensions have been reduced by 221/2 per cent. In some cases where the husband died and the pension lapsed, the Government continued the pension to the widow. The reduction of 221/2 per cent. was made in respect of “ other dependants “ also, and pensions were granted only when the person concerned was found to be without adequate means of support. In some cases the reduction operated harshly, and the bill provides for its discontinuance. Pensions will be restored in full, provided those affected are without adequate means of support, are in receipt of an income of less than 30s. a week, or are not possessed of property, other than a home, exceeding the value of £200. The number of pensions in this group is 15,138, and the annual cost of the reinstatement will be £111,000.

It will be remembered that when these reductions were made under the Financial Emergency Act, some old-age pensioners were affected because they were also drawing a pension as widowed mothers. On investigation I promised that the 2s. 6d. that was taken from those persons would be restored by the Repatriation Department, but that process was akin to a dog continually chasing its own tail. This measure provides that no reductions shall be made from pensions payable to widowed mothers provided that their income does not exceed 30s.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– What about the three years’ qualification?

Mr MARR:

– That will have to remain. The Government is endeavouring to make the pensions payable to these widows as liberal as possible, and it is restoring the 221/2 per cent. reduction. It is also providing that pensioners who live in their own homes shall be debited with 12s. 6d. and not 15s. a week. This will bring them into line with invalid and old-age pensioners.

The other amendment deals with children born out of wedlock, whom the Government has always desired to include in these benefits. I submit these proposals to the favorable consideration of the committee, and ask that they be given an expeditious passage.

Mr.R. GREEN (Richmond) [8.50 a.m.]. - Ever since the Financial Emergency Act became law, the Prime Minister and his followers have spread the canard that no returned soldier pensioner has suffered reductions under it. I have pointed out more than once that there has been a definite cut of 20 per cent. on the allowance made to partially blind returned soldiers. The fifth schedule of the pensions act provides special allowances for specified disabilities, such as the loss of two legs, or a leg and an arm, but partially blinded men were omitted. Realizing that a mistake had been made, but being undesirous of recommitting the bill, the Government made provision, in 1924, under regulation 89 p, that those men should have advantages similar to those provided for in the fifth schedule of the bill. Under the Financial Emergency Act these persons were subjected by statutory rule to a reduction of 20 per cent. of the special allowance of 7s. 6d. a weekpaid to them because of their partial blindness. Thereby they lost 3s. a fortnight, and that deduction has continued in the intervening years. Speaking from memory, I believe that 1,556 persons are affected, the aggregate allowance being less than £24,000, so that the 20 per cent. reduction accounts for about £5,000. As it is impossible for me to move to amend the regulation, I appeal to the Minister to reinstate these men on their original basis. I also ask him whether the committee which advised the then Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) on the subject, did not recommend that these partially binded men should be reinstated? The honorable gentleman does not answer. Perhaps he does not know. If such a recommendation were made it strongly supports my argument.

Mr MARR:
Minister for Repatriation · Parkes · UAP

– The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) has persistently hurled insulting remarks at the Repatriation Commissioner and the Minister administering the department.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– On a point of order I ask that the reflection cast upon me by the Minister he withdrawn. I did not make any insulting remarks against the honorable gentleman or the Commissioner.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

-I have not heard the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) make any remark that could be termed insulting or unparliamentary.

Mr MARR:

– Referring to me, the honorable member said, “ Perhaps he does not know”, which I regard as offensive:

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– That was because the Minister doubted my statement that returned soldiers have suffered a reduction of pensions. I have demonstrated that they have, and I hope that the Minister will give favorable consideration to a restoration of those reductions.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.It is quite true, as theMinister has said, that soldiers’ pensions have not been reduced. The amount of 7s. 6d. which was given to partially blinded soldiers was an allowance, and not a pension. The matter was brought before my notice when I was in Brisbane recently, by returned soldiers, and I am arranging, in collaboration with the honorable member for Brisbane (Mr. G. Lawson), to introduce a deputation to the Minister to urge that the reduction of1s. 6d. a week be reinstated. I invite any honorable member who wishes to join the deputation to do so. I support the Minister’s statement that no soldier’s pension has been touched. The allowance was given because of what was regarded in 1925 by the then Minister for Repatriation, the late Sir Neville Howse, as a special disability, but the soldiers have looked upon the payment as part of their pension. The honorable member for Richmond himself is under that impression. The sum involved is small and it would be wise to make the restoration.

Mr Marr:

– I rise to a personal explanation. The right honorable member for Yarra has made representations on this matter, and I have promised to consider them.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- I trust that the Minister will endeavour to find a simpler way to provide this relief for the dependants of deceased soldiers. I have had occasion to present to the Minister the cases of widows of returned men, where pensions have been reduced on the ground that the ex-soldier’s disability had not arisen from war service. I have requested permission to inspect files and military records. A hardship is inflicted upon the dependants when they are required to prove the origin of the disability.

Amendments (by Mr. Mark) agreed to-

That after sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 42 the following sub-section be inserted: - “(1a.) Wherea pension is payable under the Principal Act to the widow of a member of the Forces who, after the date of his discharge, has died or dies from causes other than the result of an occurrence happening during the period he was a member, and who was immediately prior to the date of his death in receipt of a pension under the Principal Act, the rates ofpension payable to the widow shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that act, be thirty-six shillings per fortnight or such less rate as is proportionate to the extent of the incapacity of the member in accordance with which his pension was assessed under the Principal Act.”

That at the end of proposed new section 42 the following sub-section be inserted: - “ (3.) Any reference in this section to child’ or ‘children’ shall be deemed to include a reference to an ex-nuptial child or ex-nuptial children as the case may be. “

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

Clause 35 (General reduction of salaries and wages).

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

– I ask the Minister sympathetically to consider the position of Commonwealth railway employees, and, if necessary, to propose an amendment of the law. These employees were dealt with under the Financial Emergency Act, which provided that their salaries should not be reduced below £182 per annum. That provision was amended last; year, but, since then, Judge DrakeBrockman, in the Arbitration Court, has made an award which should, apparently, automatically relieve them of the operation of the Financial Emergency Act. I am not quite clear on the matter, but the men feel that they should be working under the award of the court and not under the act.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I assure the right honorable gentleman that the matter will be sympathetically considered by the Government.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 -

Section twelve of the Financial Emergency A ct 1931-1932, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act 1933, is amended -

by omitting the proviso to paragraph (i) of sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following proviso:- “ Provided that any adjustment so determined shall, as nearly as practicable be such that the salaries of members of the Forces shall be affected in like manner and to the same extent as the salaries of officers and employees are affected under the last three preceding sections”; and

Section proposed to he amended -

The salaries of members of the permanent Naval, Military and Air Forces shall be reduced in such manner as the Minister directs :

Provided that any reduction so determined shall approximate as nearly as practicable to the amounts by which salaries (corresponding in amount to the salaries of members of the Forces) of officers and employees are respectively reduced underthe last two preceding sections;

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the words “ as nearly as practicable bc such that the salaries of members of the forces shall be affected in like manner and to the same extent as the salaries of officers and employees are affected under the last three preceding sections “, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “be such that the salaries of members of the forces shall, in view of the reductions effected under the last three preceding sections, be affected in such manner and to such extent as. in the opinion of the Minister, is fair and reasonable “.

The original Financial Emergency Act 1931 provided for a reduction of the salaries of members of the Defence Forces in such manner as the Minister directed, subject to the proviso that such reduction should approximate as nearly as practicable the reductions made in the salaries of the public servants. It is proposed, as far as possible, to apply the same principle in giving effect to the- restorations, provided for in this bill. The pay and allowances of the Defence Forces are, however, of so diverse a character and so different from the consolidated rates of pay of members of the Public Service that it is not practicable rigidly to apply the principles contained in the bill to give effect to the Government’s proposals for restorations of pay. Further, the principle of adjusting salaries in accordance with variations of the cost of living has never, up to the present time, been applied to the Defence Forces. Consideration is being given to the practicability of applying this principle; but if this course be adopted, it may be necessary before giving effect to it to make certain adjustments in- order to preserve equality between the salaries of the Defence Forces and those of corresponding groups in the Public Service. The amendment now proposed will give to the Minister power to make such adjustments as may be found to bc necessary to achieve that object, subject to the condition that the variations, if any, so made shall be fair and reasonable, having regard to the provisions of sections 10, 11 and 11a, as amended by this bill, in so far as they apply to the members of the Public Service.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 to 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 (Reduction of payments under Superannuation Act).

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I shall be glad if the Minister will give an assurance that the restoration of the Commonwealth Government’s contribution to the superannuation fund will also be applied in equal measure to the deferred pay of the- members of the fighting services.

Mr MCNICOLL:
Werriwa

– I support the request of the honorable member for Bendigo that the deferred pay of members of the Defence Forces shall lie regarded as falling within the same category as superannuation payments.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– As an instruction to the Government that full pay and superannuation rights shall not be restored to the members of the federal judiciary, because they have not made the same financial sacrifice as other public servants, I move -

That the clause lie postponed.

Two of the judges absolutely refused to accept any reduction of their salaries. I understand that the Government is prepared to restore to them not merely a percentage of their superannuation rights, but every penny. The Government should not make this restoration to Judge Lukin and Judge Drake-Brockman, particularly, who, I understand, positively refused to make any voluntary contribution to the general sacrifice called for during the financial crisis. It is the practice to talk of equality of sacrifice. The judiciary has made no sacrifice. I hope that the Government will delete the provision for the restoration in full of judges’ pensions.

Mr. CASEY (Corio- Assistant Treasurer) [9.16 a.m.”). - :The restoration of judges’ pensions, which is on the same basis as the superannuation payments of the Public Service, is dealt with by clause 42, which has been passed by the committee. Clause 43 merely provides for the restoration of superannuation payments to retired public servants and certain members of the Defence Forces. As honorable members well know, superannuation payments were reduced under the Financial Emergency Act 1931, by 20 per cent. Clause 43 provides for the complete restoration of the Government’s contribution. There is no valid reason for postponing the operation of this provision. The only effect would be to prolong the sacrifice of elderly retired public servants. I suggest that the honorable member should withdraw his amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr CASEY:
-Corio - Assistant Treasurer · UAP

– The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. E. F. Harrison) has asked for the assurance that the deferred pay of the Defence Forces shall be dealt with on ibc same basis as superannuation payments. In the budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr. Lyons), referring to the proposal of the Government in regard to superannuation, said -

The same principle will be applied in the case of superannuation payments to the judges, and also, by a reference to the committee provided for in the Financial Emergency Act, to the deferred pay of the Defence Forces which is provided in lieu of superannuation.

This question has engaged the attention of the Government for some time. It has been referred to the committee that was set up under the Financial Emergency Act, comprising the Public Service Commissioner, the Public Service Arbitrator, and a representative of the Defence Department. The committee acts only in mi advisory capacity, the final decision resting with the Minister. I assure the honorable member that the matter is receiving the most sympathetic consideration. I have no doubt that he ‘will be satisfied with the result.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

– I ask leave to move -

That the bill be now recommitted to a committee of the whole House for the reconsideration of Part Vin.

My object is to have the question of members’ allowances considered. When I first entered this House, the allowance paid to members was £1,000 per annum. The Scullin Government reduced it on two occasions, and it stood at £800 when that * Government went out of office. Then the present Government, under the Financial Emergency Act of 1932, made a further reduction of £50. I contend that we should have been shown some consideration when the present year’s budget proposals were being framed. That applies particularly to members who represent far-distant electorates. From Canberra the distance to the southern boundary of my electorate is approximately 1,500 miles, and to the northern boundary 2.500 miles. The electorate has an area of 72,000 square miles, and the electors on the roll in August last numbered 66,700. During the last recess of sixteen weeks, I spent ten days in my home and over fourteen weeks in ir.n veiling through my electorate. It is impossible, on the present allowance of £750, to do justice to such a district. My ease is not singular. I understand that the zone system of payment of members’ allowances operates in Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland. Introducing the bill in the Queensland Parliament, -.the then Premier, Mr. Moore, said very definitely that, in his opinion, a flat rate allowance for city and country electorates was not fair, seeing that some members travelled over long distances and were obliged to be absent from their homes for lengthy periods. Those who represent city electorates in New South Wales, Victoria or any other State, are not put to nearly as great expense as are the representatives of electorates such as mine. The Government might well have made some restoration of the allowance, or have adopted the zone system. My attitude to-day is not different from what it has been throughout. I opposed the reductions made by the Scullin Government under the Premiers plan, and said then that the payment of a flat allowance to the members of either’ this or any other Parliament was not equitable. I took up the same position when the present Prime Minister introduced last year the Financial Emergency Act, which effected a further reduction of members’ allowances. E do not consider that I am asking for anything out of the way when I urge the Government to make some restoration.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– I support the contention -of the honorable member for Herbert. All other sections have had some portion of their cuts restored, and honorable members are entitled to similar treatment. I sympathize with the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) because lie represents an extensive electorate containing a large but scattered population. During the last 14 weeks I have been travelling through my electorate because I feel that I owe a visit to every portion of it at least once a year. I travel right-through to Camooweal, Boulia, Burketown., Normanton, and so on to Kidston, and it takes me eight, months to do the round trip. When I was contemplating going to Kidston two months ago I met a public works inspector who asked me how I proposed to get there, and I said that a friend of mine was bringing in a couple of horses. He told me that he had a requisition for a car in which he would run me across to Kidston and bring me back the next day if that would suit me. He said that he was receiving a salary of £850 a year, and was able to requisition for a car for wherever he wanted to go.

The last speech I made in the Queensland Parliament was on the occasion when members’ allowances were reduced from £750 to £500 a year. During the time I represented a State electorate, members were paid £750 a year, £100 special zone allowance, and had their fare paid once a year from the central town of their electorates to the capital, which made the salary worth altogether about £S90 a year. In the federal division of Kennedy there are nine State electorates. Each of the nine State members receives annually letters from hospitals, ambulances and unemployment committees, &c, soliciting contributions towards their funds. I receive the whole nine in a bunch, but I do not subscribe, because, I cannot afford to do so.

I believe that the Government should have made an attempt to restore, in part at least, the cut in members’ allowances. The public are fair enough to recognize that those who represent them in Parliament should be paid properly. I fought a couple of .elections in Queensland on the issue of increased parliamentary allowances, and usually noticed that the fellows who lost their seats were those who had opposed the increase, but were never known to decline it. No doubt there are some heroes in this House who will oppose the proposal of the honorable member for Herbert, but deep down in their hearts they hope that somebody will move a motion for the restoration of the cut, and that it will be carried. Then they will be able to sit back and snipe at those who are fighting for the restoration, but, after the restoration is granted, the rest of us will have to wait at the pay office door until they come out. Representing in Canberra a distant electorate is not a side-line for any man , it is a full-time job. After spending 16 weeks in my electorate, I was able to spend only a month at my home in Brisbane where most of my work is .done, and then I came down to Canberra to sample the cheap living provided here. I have to pay 7s. for bed and breakfast, but I do not have breakfast because I cannot afford it. I cannot transfer my home to Canberra, because this city offers no prospect of placing my family in suitable occupation, especially as I do not wish my children to become public servants. If they are, they may bring their families to Canberra and wait for some one in the Service to die and so provide an opening. There is an impression among the general public that members of parliament, when travelling through their electorates, receive a travelling allowance. They know that every public servant who visits a town receives such an allowance, and they think that members of Parliament are treated in the same way. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) visited my electorate, but was able to see only the larger centres of population. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that he gained some idea of the cost of travelling in that electorate; though, as was quite proper, his travelling expenses were paid by the Commonwealth. I have always held the belief that Cabinet Ministers should travel to every part of the State. I asked the Prime Minister to travel through the western part of my electorate in order to study the plight of the wool-growers, but, unfortunately, he was not able to spare the time. Had he been able to go, he would have gained some idea of the conditions under which * the people there have been living. They have had a long period of drought and low prices, and he would have seen the pastoral industry at its worst. At Mareeba the Prime Minister and the Assistant Minister for Defence (Mr. Francis), were received by a deputation. One man asked me why I had not joined the happy throng, and, not wishing to state the real reason, which was that I could not afford to attend all such gatherings, I said that I did not feel like taking part in gaieties, and so I stayed away. On that occasion I bad to wait a week at Normanton in order to get a mail-coach connexion to Forsayth, where I had to wait another three days before I could get to Kidston. Commonwealth members of Parliament have had their allowance cut by £200, and have also had a special cut of £50, and if the Government entertains any idea of restoring part of those cuts, it need have no doubt of my attitude. I favour the restoration of the cuts, for I have always stood for keeping up wages. When we see the bottom man losing some- thing, we may be sure that it will not be long before the rest of the community will be made to suffer. In October, 1929, the first attack on wages was made in Queensland by those who did not believe that they were worth £750 a year. The electors thought that I was worth that amount, and returned me to Parliament. I said at the time that the move to reduce members’ allowances was the beginning of a general wage cut, and I told those who were pleased to see the politician losing portion of his pay, that just as surely as our allowances were reduced, so would the wages of those engaged in industry be lowered. Not long afterwards there was a 25 per cent, cut of all wages throughout Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G H Mackay:

– Procedure on this motion is governed by Standing Order 181, which states that, should a bill be reported to the House without amendment, the adoption may be -moved without delay. In this case the bill has been reported with amendments, and I can accept the motion, only by leave of the House. Is there any objection?

Mr Gabb:

– Yes, I object.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Then I cannot accept the motion.

Standing orders suspended.

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) proposed -

Thai the report be adopted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Under Standing Order No. 181, it is now competent for any honorable member to move that the bill be recommitted for the consideration of a new clause.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I move -

That the bill be now recommitted to a committee of the whole House for the consideration of three proposed new clauses in Part vin.

I agree with all that the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), and the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) said, and particularly with the remarks of the latter, who, before resuming his seat, declared that while some honorable members might, in this House, oppose a restoration of portion of the reductions made in their salaries under the Premiers plan, they would certainly hold out their hands to take any increase that might be given. I wish to make my position in this matter perfectly clear. I strongly opposed the reductions of Public Service salaries, pensions and other social services made, first, by the Scullin Government and later by this Government. My position is similar to that of the honorable members for Herbert and Kennedy. As mine is a country constituency, it costs me a considerable amount to travel through it and meet the people I represent in this House. Some people will, no doubt, say that members of Parliament are getting a good salary. Probably it would be enough if we did not have an abnormally large number of calls, particularly from charitable organizations. When State members of Parliament are written to for donations, the charitable organizations or individuals making the requests always include the federal member, and since my constituency embraces five State electorates, the requests made to me for donations are approximately five times as many as are made to a State member. I do not wish to squeal about this matter, but I think it is only fair that the position of members of this Parliament should be placed before the people of Australia in order to dispel the erroneous idea which some people have, that we are able to accumulate money. Perhaps I could better illustrate what I mean by citing my own case. Before I became a member of this Parliament I did not have a great deal of money, but I had what I do not now possess, namely, a credit balance in the bank of £20, and a home unencumbered. Now, with a family of six to maintain, I owe approximately £200 and my home is mortgaged. My present position is not due to wasteful habits. No man can point his finger at me and say that I have wasted money in drink or gambling, because I do neither.

Under this bill a partial restoration is being made to those who suffered under the Premiers plan, and the Government is also remitting taxation to certain people who never made any contribution to the scheme for the rehabilitation of this country. I therefore claim that members of Parliament also should have restored to them a percentage, at all events, of the cuts made in their salaries. The parliamentary allowance was reduced from £1,000 to £750. I cannot remain silent and leave it to the honorable members for Kennedy and Herbert to plead for the restoration of portion of the salary cuts made under the Premiers plan. It would be cowardly on my part to hold out my hand a.nd accept the proposed restoration if I were not prepared to support them in their plea that such a restoration should be made. I am prepared to take my medicine, or any knocks which may come my way, because E consider it is only fair that members of Parliament should have restored to them some portion of the allowance which has been taken from them during the last few years. The position of a member of Parliament might not be such a bad job if one were not called upon to respond to so many calls from charitable organizations and others. It appears to be a custom of long standing that all members of Parliament should head every subscription list that is sent out. Some people who are opposed to this motion may point to the position of the workers, and say that we are not justified in seeking an increase of the present allowance. To those people I would repeat what I said when the reductions were effected, in that it would be an indication to industry to follow the lead given. When I was working in the coal mines my average wage was approximately £7 a week, but it was all my own money. Nobody else had a call upon it. Not a few of the charitable and other organizations in this country appear to be under the impression that they have a claim upon some portion of our salary. I fully expect that some honorable members ‘‘vill oppose this motion purely for the publicity and the limelight which they will get, and I am well aware that the move will not be ‘ approved by the press, which will severely criticize my action, and hold-up to ridicule all those who support it. I feel, however, that a percentage restoration of our salaries would be equitable, and I am prepared to go before the people I represent to justify my action.

Mr Riordan:

– If the newspapers object, we can remind the people that, dur- ing the depression, they did not reduce the price of their papers.

Mr JAMES:

– The newspaper proprietors in the cities, at all events, have made no contribution to the Premiers plan, yet they will benefit as a result of the passing of this bill. The Financial Emergency Act has not done what was expected of it. If members of Parliament have restored to them some portion of the cuts made under that plan, they will be able to respond more liberally to the many calls that are made upon them. I wish to make it clear that I stand for an increase of all salaries and wages.

Mr CAMERON:
Barker

– I strongly oppose the motion for the recommittal of the bill. Those honorable members who have spoken have endeavoured to show that members are entitled to an increase in their present parliamentary allowances. Probably every honorable member will admit that they correctly stated the- position, but I remind the House that it is only a year since the Government found it necessary to reduce by a further £50 the allowance paid to members, following the reduction of £200 made under earlier emergency legislation. I believe that a great number of the electors are under the impression that members of the Federal Parliament arc still drawing £1,000 a year, so it is desirable that the facts should be stated. But I repeat that, as it is only a year since a further reduction of our allowances by £50 was made. Despite the excellent budget’ presented, I fail to see that the House would be justified in increasing the amount at the present time. We all hope that the benefits accruing fromthe budget will percolate through all sections. ‘She partial restoration to public servants of salary cuts made under the plan is the fulfilment of a definite promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) when in opposition, and I assume that the people will offer no objection to it. As regards this motion, I have to consider the position of the people in my own State, which, I regret to say, is not better than it was a year ago. They must look to the Federal Government for a proper measure of assistance. The Government of South Australia finds it necessary to reduce the salaries paid to some of its servants, and also to lower the somewhat meagre allowance paid to members of the State Parliament. Tn view of the position in which a great number of taxpayers in my electorate are placed, I cannot support a partial restoration of the allowances of the members of this Parliament. The people of Australia would not have a high opinion of us if we, at this critical period of our history, directly increased our allowance while the rank and file of the primary producers and the workers of Australia are receiving such poor returns from their efforts. The primary producers of South Australia are in a desperate position. The wheat-growers are suffering, yet they are, perhaps, no worse off than dozens of other primary producers who supply the home market with potatoes, onions, honey, poultry, barley and oats. The producers of South Australia have not the advantage of the larger markets to be found in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. I have no fault to find with honorable members who contend that they are entitled to a partial restoration of their parliamentary allowance placing their views before the House ; but there is no occasion for honorable members to become heated on the subject; they should discuss it quietly and without any carping criticism of those who differ from them. I am, perhaps, in need of a greater parliamentary allowance just as much as is any other honorable member. The journey from Canberra to my home and return occupies ten days, and consequently I have to spend much time here. . That costs me at least £5 to £6 a week, and if my wife is with me my expenses are from £11 to £12 a week. Under existing conditions I cannot honestly vote for an increase of the parliamentary allowance, and I hope that the Government will not entertain the proposal.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

– I formally second the motion.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.- In view of some of the statements that have been made, I cannot silently acquiesce in this motion, which, I admit, can be viewed from two angles. I agree that honorable members are not overpaid ; in fact, they were not overpaid when they received an allowance of £1,000 a year. Certainly honorable members who represent huge electorates with poor railway facilities are put to considerable expense, and I think that when a revision of members’ salaries takes place, the special circumstances of such members should be taken into consideration. The public servants and pensioners are to receive a restoration of 2£ per cent., but against that we have to recognize that in spite of the balanced budget and the proposed remissions of taxation, there are still hundreds of thousands of our citizens whose budgets are not balanced. There still exists about £20,000,000 of abnormal taxation, unemployment is still rife throughout Australia, and our wheat producers are facing chaos. There is no justification for any greater restoration to members of Parliament than to pensioners and the Public Service, and on this basis it would be so small that I would prefer to defer the matter for another year until we gain some knowledge of the effect of the Government’s proposals upon unemployment and the rural producer.

Mr GABB:
Angas

– I regret the submission, of this distasteful motion. I had hoped that this year the budget would be discussed without any reference to parliamentary salaries. I hope that the Government is not conniving with honorable members who are supporting this motion. What took place on a similar occasion in 1920, is still vividly in my mind, and I trust that we shall not have a repetition of that experience. I oppose this motion to recommit the bill for the purpose of increasing the salaries of honorable members. In the first place the Government cannot afford the expenditure. Last night I voted for the recommittal of the bill for the purpose of increasing invalid and old-age pensions and Public Service salaries, not because I thought that the country could afford to do that, but because I regard the budget as a “gambler’s budget”; and as the Government is proposing unjustifiable reductions of taxation imposed upon the wealthy, I consider that the poorer sections of the community should also receive some benefit. In spite of the glowing pictures that have been printed of the improved position of the country; in spite of the general optimism, I still contend that we cannot afford to increase members’ allowances, or even to reduce taxation as is now proposed. Is the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) prepared to increase the a allowances of honorable members, who are in receipt of £750 a year, while 900 public servants over 21 years of age are receiving less than the basic wage? Are we adequately paid for our services? Of course it will be said that each member should speak for himself-. I contend that a member can carry out his work properly on a salary of £750 a year. Undoubtedly an honorable member who represents a large electorate has additional calls on his purse, but our job is to do our work as well as we can in order to merit the support of our electors, and not to endeavour to buy that support with donations. I live away from home for from four to five weeks at a time, and I find that I can do that and attend to my duties adequately on a salary of £750 a year. I hope that the Government will not agree to the motion.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I support the motion. The Government’s proposals provide for remissions of taxes and the restoration of portion of the special cuts in pensions and Public Service salaries, to an amount of nearly £8,000,000, and on the last occasion on which I spoke in this House I complimented the Government o« the action that it had taken. Last year the salaries of public servants and members of Parliament were further reduced. This year Public Service salaries and pensions are being partially restored, but no provision has been made for any restoration of parliamentary allowances. I believe that the reasonable people of the community would raise no objection if members of Parliament thought fit to increase their allowances, particularly in view of the fact that three, years ago, honorable members agreed voluntarily to accept a reduction of 25 per cent. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) made his usual statement, that he can live on his salary; I honestly believe that he could live on half of itHe advised honorable members to discuss this matter calmly. I have no wish to hide behind a bush when parliamentary allowances are being discussed. My electorate covers seven and one-quarter State electorates and where State members make one donation, I have to make seven. It is. expensive for me to travel through my electorate (Wide Bay) and to journey from there to Canberra. A federal member receives about the. same salary as a State member in New South Wales, and the- salary that I now receive is less than I was paid as a State member in Queensland. The honorable member for Angas stated that the country could not afford to pay increased parliamentary allowances; yet last night, after voting in favour of increasing, pension payments, then went home to bed. He expects the country to pay him while he is in bed and neglecting his duties in this chamber.

An increase of members’ allowances would cost about £10,000, yet the Government proposes to make remissions of taxation and restoration of salaries to the amount of nearly £S,000,000. If we cannot look after ourselves we are not competent to look after our electorates. We are asking only for a restoration of allowances equal to the concessions granted to certain other sections of the community. The honorable member for Angas, although opposed to an additional expenditure of about £10,000, is pressing for the granting of assistance to wheatgrowers which would involve this Government in an expenditure of, at least, £2,000,000. I support the motion knowing that every reasonable person in the community will endorse whatever action we see fit to take.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

– I do not agree with the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) that members of this Parliament can live well on’ their allowance, but I want to make my position quite clear. When I faced the electors in December, 1931, Australia was passing through a crisis from which it has not yet emerged, and I then pledged myself to support any motion which might be made to reduce the allowance of members. When the occasion arose, I voted according to my promise. I feel that I am still bound by my pledge to the electors, although I know that the allowance is not sufficient to meet the expenses of members. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) said last night that the budget would benefit only the rich sections of the community, but to-day he said that every section in the community, other than members of this Parliament, had been, granted concessions. Even at some cost to myself, I intend to carry out my work as a member of this Parliament for the remuneration which I agreed to accept.

Mr McBRIDE:
Grey

.I rise with diffidence to oppose the recommittal of this bill, because I realize the truth of the statement of honorable members who have spoken in support of the motion that they find difficulty in making ends meet. That is not my position, for, fortunately, I have other resources from which I can make up the difference between my parliamentary allowance and my expenses. As the representative of one of the largest electorates in Australia, I have first-hand knowledge of the expenses incurred by one who endeavours to do a reasonable job on behalf of the electors, but I rejoice that the Government did not spoil a good budget by including in it a proposal to restore the allowances of members of Parliament. The Government was, indeed, fortunate in being able to submit proposals to remit taxes, and partially to restore social services and Public Service salaries. I support those proposals; but I feel that as this Parliament has, in season and out of season, asked the people of Australia to make sacrifices in order that the financial stability of Australia may be restored, it is incumbent upon members to accept similar sacrifices for themselves, and, indeed, to ‘bear them a little longer than may be required of others. In. saying, that, I do not criticize those honorable members who have consistently opposed reductions of Public Service salaries, pensions and other social services, and the allowances paid to members of this Parliament. I hope that the Government will keep its budget unsullied, and will not yield to those honorable members who would increase the parliamentary allowance. In my opinion, the members of this Parliament should be the last to relieve themselves of their share of the burden.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

– At an earlier stage of this bill, I made some remarks which I shall repeat now. In my opinion, it is yet too early to restore the cuts which were made under the pressure of financial emergency. Production and wealth in Australia have not increased, and I do not think that the national income is greater than it was. Confidence has been restored to someextent, and the imposition of heavy taxation has brought to the Commonwealth Treasury more revenue than is necessary to meet urgent needs. The proper thing to do, in the circumstances, is to restore that surplus revenue to the pockets from which it came. I also said that we in Australia had set up standards which cannot be maintained. Those who advocate the restoration of a portion of the allowances of members are not inconsistent, for they claim that since other standards have been raised, the standard for members of this Parliament alsoshould be raised. Unfortunately, Australia cannot afford the standards which its people have set up. I was hopeful that the depression would at least teach us the need for sincerity. A leading London newspaper recently issued a warning when it expressed the hope that our apparent prosperity would not lead us to set up again untenable standards. I admit that to reduce the allowance of a member of Parliament to £750 per annum is to trim that allowance to the bone; but the question to be decided is whether we, who should set an example to the people, are justified in taking from the Commonwealth Treasury more than we ore taking to-day. The amount paid to members is in the nature of an allowance; it is not meant to be a salary commensurate with the importance of the duties they are called upon to perform. In my opinion, the allowance should bear some relation to the service rendered, and the difficulty of rendering it. A system of zoning might well be introduced. Some members of this Parliament can attend to their parliamentary duties and their business interests as well; others have, as it were, burned their bridges behind them. Some are able to return to their homes frequently, and to keep in personal touch with their constituents; others are not able to do so. A greater allowance should be paid to the representative of the district of Kalgoorlie, or of Herbert, than to the member representing a small district nearer the Seat of Government. The assessment of members’ allowances is a matter for a special tribunal. At .this juncture, however, I do not think that the interests of Australia will be best served by increasing the allowance. My remarks have not been influenced by the gibes of some honorable members that, if the allowance be increased, I shall be first at the paymaster’s office. If the House agrees to restore the allowance, I shall abide by its decision as I abide by its other decisions, and accept my full share, in the belief that I serve my constituents as well and as faithfully as do other honorable members.

Mr SCHOLFIELD:
Wannon

– It is- not often that I occupy the time of the House, but on this occasion I desire to express my resentment of the gibe by two honorable members opposite, that those who oppose this motion do so in order to put themselves in the limelight. Honorable members know that I do not seek the limelight. I regard the parliamentary allowance as altogether inadequate, but since all other sections of the community, with perhaps a few exceptions, are inadequately remunerated, we should not attempt to restore our allowance to its former level. I agree that the allowance must be restored some day; but it is yet too early to do so. Although Australia is in a good position compared with other countries, much still remains to be done. The world situation is uncertain; conditions in the United States of America are precarious. A failure there would probably have repercussions throughout the world and make it necessary to take away again the restored allowance. The problems of high taxation and unemployment, which the States as well as the Commonwealth have still to surmount, must be tackled before we restore our own allowance. We must carry on at the existing rate for at least another twelve months. I am not concerned with what the people think on this subject. On many occasions people have expressed astonishment that I can pay my way on an allowance of £750 a year and practically maintain two homes. The majority of the electors realize that members of this Parliament are not over-paid, but it would be wrong to restore their allowance, and it would probably have to be taken away again later. For a long time I have been opposed to honorable members being more or less compelled to make donations to all and sundry organizations, and I should willingly support any legislation designed to prohibit that practice. I do not wish to reflect on any honorable member, but it is well known that some of these requests are practically demands, and that our donations are more or less bribes to pre-dispose the recipients in our favour when election time comes around. I am also in favour of consideration being granted to the payment of a travelling allowance to honorable members. For these reasons I oppose the recommittal of the bill.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I support the recommittal of the bill, and, peculiarly enough, I find myself in partial agreement with ,the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Cameron), who opposes the motion. Apparently all who think with the honorable member represent a State in which parliamentarians have given a pledge not to vote for a restoration of salaries until the financial position of Australia becomes brighter. Honorable members who are under no such obligation are free to vote as they wish. This bill consists of ten parts, eight of which deal with concessions to different portions of the community, such as remissions of land tax, income tax, sales tax, entertainments -tax, invalid and old-age pensions, war pensions, salaries and wages, and pensions to orphans. The purpose of the recommittal is to give consideration to another section which has suffered reductions, and to which no reference is made in the measure - parliamentarians. I agree with the honorable member for Barker that a great many persons are unaware that any reductions have been made in parliamentary allowances. By voting for the recommittal of the measure, we shall make public that fact. Our desire is to bring about only a partial restoration of the reductions we have suffered. I hope that the House will agree to the motion. [19 ‘& 20 October, 1933.] Belief BUI 1933. 3727

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

– I oppose the recommittal of the bill. At the same time I agree with much that was said by the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse). I quite appreciate the difficulties of honorable members who represent large and remote electorates, for they are unfavorably placed as compared with representatives of city constituencies. A few months ago I had the privilege of visiting Central Australia in company with the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson). A good deal has been said about certain honorable members having the good fortune to possess extraparliamentary incomes, which enable them to carry on. My experience on that journey convinced me that the honorable member for the Northern Territory must be in that category.

The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) declared that those who oppose the motion are merely seeking the limelight. I am sure that he does not apply that to all honorable members who do not agree with him on this issue. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) stated yesterday that the percentage of unemployed in Ans.tralia is nearer 40 than 25 per cent. If that is so, a restoration of salaries to honorable members would be most inopportune, and therefore I shall vote against the recommittal of the bill.

Mr THOMPSON:
New England

– This is an awkward matter for an honorable member to discuss. Many must have definite opinions on the subject, but are not prepared to express them. Those who are plucky enough to do so are deserving of credit, because if one opposes the proposal one becomes unpopular with those who seek a restoration of salary, and if one supports it he lays himself open to the charge of endeavouring to get everything possible out of politics.

On both occasions when this matter has been under consideration I have supported a reduction of parliamentary salaries, believing that the Government was -best able to judge the financial position and was charged with the responsibility of finding money for various services, including allowances to parliamentarians. Although I keenly felt the salary reduction of 22£ per cent.,

I thought that, perhaps, we had got off lightly. However, when last year the Government submitted a proposal for a further reduction of 5 per cent., I was somewhat surprised that it and additional cuts of pensions and the salaries of public servants were considered necessary. Again I had faith in the Government, and supported the reductions which, the Prime Minister assured us, would be reinstated as soon as the financial position of the country warranted that being done.

The whole country has been agreeably surprised that it has been possible to make a partial restoration to various sections of the community, including pensioners, civil- servants, and taxpayers, but I was amazed to find that honorable members were not to participate in that good fortune. As the reductions were general, why should not restorations be general? My opinion is that we have established the principle that members of Parliament, irrespective of their commitments - which we know are exceptionally heavy - should share the up3 and downs with other sections. We must be fair to ourselves. Unfortunately, there is a tendency on the part of some members of the general public to belittle the work of honorable members, and the press is only too willing to lend itself to the campaign. We should at least get credit for this splendid restoration budget which, in great measure, has been made possible by our deliberations and action. I am afraid that honorable members do not receive the credit and attention which they deserve, for which statement I know I shall be ridiculed by that section of the press which labels us as enemies of the people. I shall not join in the cry of those who deride the work which members do both in this House and outside it. Our duties here are important and onerous, and they break the health of many members. They impose a continuous mental and physical strain on those who attend conscientiously to their job and I think we all do that. Since the depression, our work outside the House has assumed entirely new features, and we certainly do not have a happygolucky existence. For the last four years, members have suffered many phases of the depression, and we have had to spend our parliamentary allowances almost to the last penny; some of us have had a hard struggle to make ends meet. Many have as much difficulty in balancing their budgets as has any stricken section of the community. This statement may possibly be treated as a joke, but the position is anything but that, since the electorates of some members have an average enrolment of from 40,000 to 50,000 persons. In many respects a member of this Parliament has to do four or five times as much work as a State member, but there is only a difference of £40 a year between the salary of a member of this House and that of a member of the New South Wales Parliament. The restoration of the latest cut in our allowances would be most acceptable, and would perhaps enable us to be more generous to those who require our assistance. In times of depression honorable members cannot refuse these requests. The honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Scholfield) said that donations by members should cease, but it is impossible to take such a stand in times like those now being experienced. Members would find themselves most unpopular if they decided to refrain from giving help in needy cases, and if the Government were to restore the amount deducted we should not receive more than our due. I, for one, would not take the increase and throw odium upon the Government which had been responsible for that act of generosity.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

– Like the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) I was not in the chamber when the motion was introduced, but I understand from the tenor of the debate that if one votes for the recommittal of the bill one practically supports the suggested increase of the allowances of members. I desire not to give a silent vote in this matter. I find myself unable to support the motion, and in saying that I do not wish to reflect for a moment on those of my fellow members who hold a view different from my own. It is simply impossible for me, viewing the situation as I do, to take an increase at the present time. The budget with which we have been dealing represents the considered judgment of the Government upon the financial situation of the Commonwealth. It is a remarkable budget, as everybody seems to admit, and I am sure the Government has carefully considered the claims of every section of the community. I take it that the Government felt that, having regard to the present condition of the finances, an increase of the allowance of members was not justified. Like all other honorable members, I come into contact in my constituency with the acute distress consequent upon the widespread unemployment. I have tried to do what I can, with my limited means, to alleviate that distress. Without discussing whether the allowance of members is adequate, or otherwise, I consider the time most inopportune to make a move for an increase, and I hope that my fellow members will be of a similar frame of mind. I hope that it will not be suggested that. I take this attitude iu order to curry favour with the public. One honorable member made a suggestion of that kind, but I can honestly say that my attitude is dictated entirely by my conscience. I speak of this matter reluctantly. I should be only too glad to join my fellow members in making a request to the Government for an increase in the allowance if the finances warranted it, because many members whose electorates extend over enormous areas have much greater expense to meet than have city members. It is recognized in the House and on all side3 that, although there are signs of a return of prosperity, we have by no means turned the corner yet, and until we get well on the way back to prosperity the allowance should not be altered.

Mr ABBOTT:
Gwydir

– One fact that has emerged from this debate, whether members support or oppose the recommittal of the bill, is that all are agreed that the allowance now paid is insufficient for those who have no other income. That raises an important principle, because we must consider whether it is fair, particularly to’ La bour members, that such a position should arise. One feels diffident about speaking of personal experience, but I may, .perhaps, be pardoned if 1 mention that during the first three years of my service in this Parliament, when I had other means, I was considerably out of pocket, despite the fact that I had no undue expenditure in my electorate, which i3 of average size for a country constituency. I realize that those honorable members who represent particularly large districts must find the present allowance wholly inadequate. The people expect their representatives in this Parliament to have an allowance which enables them properly to carry out their duties, and the actual amou’nt paid is of comparatively small importance. If the suggestion made to the Government is that it should restore the amount deducted twelve months ago, I cannot imagine that the further expenditure of about £5,000 a year that would be involved would so greatly upset the budget, under which relief from taxation will be given to the extent of about £7,000,000, that all the other concessions would have to be withdrawn. Although a Parliament is supposed usually to have a life of three years, the average term since Federation has been not quite two years. The expense incurred by members at an election is very heavy, particularly in country electorates; and although the premier State of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, has been in a serious financial position, members of the State Parliament receive £675 per annum. My electorate practically embraces seven State electorates, and the salary of the State member, which, I admit, is fully earned, is practically the same as is received by members of this Parliament.

In my opinion, the allowance given by the people of this country to the Prime Minister is ludicrously low. It is almost an insult to the intelligence of the public that the man who is entrusted with the great responsibilities which have been carried by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and his predecessors from 1928 onwards should not receive a remuneration greater than would be paid to the general manager of a comparatively small commercial company. I hope that this anomaly will soon be reviewed. Having been a member of a Ministry, I am well aware of the heavy toll that is imposed upon Prime Ministers. It has been said that the present is not the time to consider these matters. But as the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) has stated, this Parliament is largely responsible for the fact that the Commonwealth is emerging from the period of crisis. I desire to pay a tribute to the work that was done by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) at the depth of the depression.

I shall support the motion for the recommittal of the bill. During the last year or two, I have attended several country conferences in the west and the north >f New South Wales at which wellmeaning enthusiasts moved for the reduction of the salaries of members of both the Federal and State Parliaments, but the proposals were always overwhelmingly defeated. Country people realize that it is up to them to see that those who represent them, often at great, sacrifice, are fairly remunerated.

Mr HOLMAN:
Martin

.This is a matter upon which, as the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) has said, one rises to speak with some diffidence. I ask the House to believe that my diffidence is much greater than his. I am a new member of this Parliament, my term of service in it having commenced only eighteen months ago; and I have been absent for a considerable portion of the intervening period on account of illness. . In a House which contains members whose experience is so much greater than that which I can claim to possess, I would not have undertaken the responsibility of suggesting a change. 1 say at once that I have the greatest respect for those who have spoken against the proposal. Their knowledge of the situation is much more profound than mine. They are acquainted with the difficulties that are experienced by honorable members generally. I have no doubt that it could be said of me with perfect truth that I am as well situated as any other honorable member; that I come from the metropolis ; that my travelling is not extensive; and that it is a comparatively easy matter to keep in touch with my electorate. I assure those honorable members that I have risen in no spirit of impertinent resistance to their superior knowledge. At the same time, however, there are matters upon which one must take a stand when the occasion arises. I entered this Parliament with a full knowledge of the position. I knew what the salary was, and I was aware that there was a possibility of its being diminished. Therefore, I labour under no’ sense of unjust treatment, loss, or insufficiency of remuneration. I was prepared to accept the position as I found it, and to leave it to the wisdom of those with more knowledge of the Parliament to make whatever judgments seemed proper. Although I do not pretend to be in any sort of difficulty, I agree with those who say that honorable members are inadequately remunerated. Great as my respect is for my honorable and learned friend, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), I disagree with his contention that this is not an opportune time to make some restoration of the allowance paid to honorable members. I submit that it is an opportune time, and that the sum at stake - about £8,000 in a full year - cannot possibly affect the budget.

I have had very lengthy parliamentary experience elsewhere. I was the Leader of the House in New South Wales when the allowance to honorable members was increased from £300 to £500 per annum. On that occasion, I listened to the same prognostications as I have heard to-day. It was said that those who voted for the proposal would be . considered to have helped themselves out; of the public funds at the expense of the taxpayers; that there was no warrant from the electors for the suggested change; that if the change were made by the party, that party would be defeated at the next elections ; and that if any individual were responsible for it he would be marked out for the punishment of the people. As a matter of fact, the party which introduced it was returned at the next elections with a greatly enhanced majority; and careful inquiries convinced me that no individual who voted for the proposal was marked out in any way, even for questioning, by the electors. The arrangement, the general justice of which was acknowledged by the House, was supported by only one side of it, the Opposition as an organized body condemning it. Subsequently, other increases were made, until the salary reached £800 per annum, at which figure it remained until financial stress compelled a reduction.

I cannot understand how it can be suggested that this is not an opportune time to make the proposed change. If it should prove, as certain honorable members fear, that the present signs of prosperity are illusory, and that a further period of depression must be passed through, the matter could again be considered. I am confident that, in such circumstances, the House would submit to any reduction necessitated by evil times, as readily and as unanimously as it did twelve months ago, when a selfdenying ordinance was passed without opposition or division. With a sense of their obligations which did them credit, honorable members then agreed to reduce their allowances. I submit that the country would not resent the return to them of a small annual sum representing proportionately the percentage of the cut that has been restored to the Public Service. I should play an unmanly part if I hesitated to express my views upon this matter. I believe that the parliamentary allowance is quite inadequate, and if the times permitted I would be in favour of restoring it to £1,000. I recognize, however, that that is not possible at the moment. But I do consider that the country can. very well afford the £800 suggested by the mover of the motion to recommit the bill. ThisHouse has the respect and the confidence of the people of Australia, who are prepared to leave in our hands the decision of these matters, in the firm conviction that we shall do the just and the proper thing. If that conviction has wavered at all, it was strengthened by what was done twelve months ago. It is true that in certain quarters there is criticism which, in my judgment, ought not to be levelled at members of Parliament; but the commercial and journalistic critics to whom we have to submit ourselves are astounded when they see how our work has to be performed. The general public, which knows very little of these things and is shown far less than it should be shown, is occasionally misled into making unjust comments; but the idea that a member of Parliament must be suspected and watched, and that he is always preparing to apply public funds to his own benefit, has long passed. The feeling between constituents and members is now one of mutual confidence. I submit that we can well recommit the bill, trusting to the understanding of the people, and realizing that the duties that have to be performed by honorable members involve them in considerable sacrifice. In their interests, and in the interests of the public weal, I am in favour of the suggested restoration.

Mr HUNTER:
Maranoa

– Because of the manner in which this debate has been introduced, I am sorry that I have had to listen to it. It should not have been left to a private member to bring the matter forward; the Government should have gone into the question, and come to a decision upon it. Had it done so, however, it would have had my sympathy, because it would have had to withstand the undivided wrath of the wealthy city press. The whole trouble in connexion with parliamentary salaries is attributable to the fact that they have to be fixed by honorable members themselves. The newspapers contend that in this respect we are in an advantageous position. In my opinion, it is a distinct disadvantage. I know from experience that when it comes to the fixing of one’s own salary one is afraid to fix it at more than the bare limit at which a member representing a city electorate is able to carry on. I have used the word “ salary “ in connexion with the remuneration of members of Parliament, because it is the term usually applied. Some of the professional men in this chamber would be able to command a much greater salary outside. It must be remembered that the parliamentary salary is not a net sum, and that people when comparing it with salaries outside forget that there are necessary extra expenses for which no provision is made, and that numerous calls are made upon the pockets of honorable members. Those extra expenses include one-third of the total amount of election expenses, extra cost of living while away from home, and additional cost of keeping another home and travelling to and from Canberra and throughout the electorate during parliamentary recesses. The position of members of parliament is no sinecure for a man even with plenty of money, and it is absolutely suicide for a professional man to enter federal politics. From a financial point of view, the worst day’s work that I have ever done was to enter this Parliament, because at that time I was approaching the crest of my own profession. What chance have I or any other professional member now of making any money at our professions except in our spare time on Saturdays and Sundays when other people are enjoying recreation? But I have no regrets, and am glad to have had the opportunity to serve my country for so long. During the last recess I travelled 3,000 miles in my own electorate, and half of that distance was traversed by motor car. That form of transport is expensive. I admit that we are provided with railway passes; but being a methodical person, I enter in a diary the particulars of my journeys, and on checking my travelling on a railway pass in my own district, I found that in one year it saved me £17 4s. 7d. Most people overlook the fact that our legitimate expenses absorb the greater part of our salaries. In one year my net allowance was less than the basic wage. Perhaps the Government could take action on the lines of the suggestion that parliamentary allowances should be based on the distance of constituencies from the Federal Capital City, and also on the size of the constituency. Honorable members should not have to face the criticism levelled at them as a result of being compelled to fix their own salaries. Members representing city constituencies had no.t the large legitimate expenses that country members have. New South Wales is the only State that has appointed a judge to make’ an inquiry into and to fix the salaries of State members. As a result of his investigation - and he was not a Labour supporter - he fixed the salary at £875. Much has been said about donations. I have not referred to that subject, because I think that donations are not legitimate expenses. If we included donations among our expenses our net salary would almost disappear. But even donations are practically compulsory. It frequently happens that some rich budding politician in the electorate, by making extensive donations to public funds, seeks to win from the sitting member his popularity. He is held up as a generous benefactor, while the sitting member, because of his small means, is stigmatized as a mean man. This has occurred often, and it may occur again. The position is rapidly approaching when only rich men will be able to enter the Federal Parliament, and I have yet to learn that they are more altruistic or sincere in their methods than poor men. I have also yet to learn that a rich man’s “ spare “ time is more valuable than a poor man’s “ whole “ time. I have had a good deal of experience of wealthy men. Many of them do not hesitate to attack members of parliament, and some of them would not only serve in this Parliament for nothing, but would also pay thousands of pounds for seats, expecting to recoup themselves in added dignity and in other ways. I am always suspicious of a man of this type. Iu this connexion I may be pardoned for quoting from a letter which I have received from Mr. C. H. P. Robinson, who was; until a few weeks ago, Principal Parliamentary Reporter of this Parliament. Mr. Robinson wrote - lt has been a privilege to be associated with the work of the Parliament, and nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to know that 1 had helped, if ever bo little, those who at much sacrifice of things which other men prize, devote their talents, energy, and experience to the service of the State.

That gentleman sat iu this chamber for many years and mixed- with the members of the House, and he has paid a warm tribute to those with whom he came into contact. There’ should be a proper inquiry by an outside authority into the salaries, not only of honorable members, but of the members of the Ministry as well. The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott) referred to the salary of the Prime Minister, and it is an absolute disgrace to this country that the first man in the Commonwealth should be paid a net salary not even approaching that of the secretary of his department. Outside critics think that all that honorable members have to do is to come to Canberra for three or four days a week. They forget that our .mail is heavy. Sometimes I receive from 110 to 130 letters a week, all of which have to be answered. They forget that we have to travel extensively and to pay our own costs. I have travelled nearly 130,000 miles in my own electorate. Although it is three times the size of the State of Victoria, I have been over every main road in it with the exception of two. I have been in every town in my constituency, and in some of the smaller towns I have visited every house.

That is the only way in which a member can gain a knowledge of the wants of his constituents” and it costs money to acquire it. I repeat that I regret the manner in which this proposal has been introduced. I hope that some system of adjustment of expense allowances based on the difference in outlay of city and country members can be put into operation after the whole question has been inquired into by a judicial body with power to institute a zone system of expense allowances such as is in operation in some of the States at the present time.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I intend to support the motion for the recommittal of the bill. In 1901, this Parliament was constituted of the present number of members in respect of a population of 3,765,000. To-day that population has grown to 6,575,000, and members’ work in the constituencies has increased correspondingly. In 1903, when women’s franchise was first introduced, there were 21,000 electors in my electorate; to-day the number is 45,000. That, of course, has meant that my workas a member has doubled since 1903. The fact that the Federal Parliament has taken over various additional responsibilities has tremendously increased the” duties of honorable members; and any member who desires to represent his constituency adequately, must be prepared to devote the whole of his time to the task. His private interests must take second place. If an honorable member is not prepared to concentrate the whole of his ability and energy in the interests of his constituents, his action approaches a dereliction of duty. The position of a member is one of service for others, and be has to place the well-being of his constituents and his country before his private interests. We are members of an Australian Parliament, and as such we require to have a first-hand knowledge of the conditions of this vast continent. Honorable members from Western Australia know how difficult it is for members representing other States to visit their State. In Queensland we welcome any members who are anxious to see our tropical and sub-tropical regions, so as to form an independent opinion of some of the great problems of Australia. The parliamentary salary is quite inadequate, and I speak after 30 years of experience. At the inception of federation the salary of members was £400 per annum. Honorable members who were in the first Federal Parliament know the sacrifices and the difficulties which its representatives had to make. Later their allowance was increased to £600 per annum, and then to £1,000. When the depression swept the country the allowance was reduced to £8”00 and, later, to £750. I ask honorable members to contrast that sum with what is paid to the average responsible executive in private enterprise. It is said that we should have men with knowledge, education and experience in this chamber. Just recall what is paid to practising accountants, barristers, and so on. At one time it was the pride and ambition of barristers in the different States to become representatives in Parliament, and, at a monetary sacrifice, to devote themselves to the service of their country. Some object that the working men who enter Parliament would be receiving the sumo salary as is given to professional mcn; but they are all representatives of the people and subject to the same expense; therefore, there should be no discrimination of payment.

I quite agree with what has been said regarding the small salaries that are paid to the Prime Minister and Ministers of the Grown. We have honorary Ministers administering departments of State, and they deserve every credit for the sacrifices they make, and the time that they devote to their task. It is my opinion that there are insufficient Ministers of ‘State in the Cabinet, and that they are inadequately remunerated. Too little is known of the sacrifices which they make; but that is characteristic of all who have accepted Cabinet rank, irrespective of their political leanings. Our Ministers have always been distinguished for their patriotic service, high integrity, and adherence to the best traditions of constitutional government.

As regards constituency work, I represent a large country district, and it is impossible to do so satisfactorily without constantly moving about among the people, and keeping in contact with their industries. Any one who represents a constituency in Queensland, or any other distant State, knows how impossible it is merely to make casual trips to one’s State and properly perform one’s duties. After a stay of three or four months in Canberra during the parliamentary session, representatives have to spend many months making contact with their constituents.

We have created a National Parliament which to-day has the same number of constituencies and representatives as it had 32 years ago. Compared with other dominions, our numbers are not excessive, and while I do not suggest an increase, I am confident that, as time passes, the pressure of work will make that step necessary if we are to carry on the work of the nation efficiently.

Our present task is to consider what ought to be done. Public servants are to receive a partial restoration of salary; my own feeling is that what has been done for them is small enough. It must be admitted that during the difficult times through which we have passed, our public servants have loyally stood by the Government and Parliament. Those in the lower ranks have felt the strain very greatly indeed. I have received many deputations “which have pointed out to me that these men have entered into commitments to acquire homes which, when coupled with superannuation payments and the reduction of salary, have placed them in a precarious position.

Mr Gregory:

– They are still very lucky.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– They candidly admit that they are fortunate to bo in employment. All that they ask is to be reinstated to their former status when the financial position permits that course to be followed. I believe that the Government has done all that is possible in the circumstances, also that honorable members cannot ask for more than has been conceded to public servants— a partial restoration on similar lines.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– I agree that this move should have been taken by the Government if it has any intention of making the restorations that have been suggested. I agree with the honorable member for Darling

Bowna (Sir Littleton Groom) about the difficulties which beset honorable members. It is obvious that if the suggestion were adopted that members should be paid according to the areas of their constituencies and their distance from Canberra the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) and a few others, including myself, would be most fortunately placed.

The question is not merely whether the country can afford to restore to us the amount that has been suggested. Honorable members must consider the psychological effect such an action would have on the people of Australia. The Government is somewhat to blame in the matter, because there is a general belief that, as it wau able to show a surplus last year, Australia has surmounted its financial difficulties and is out of the wood. Of course, that is not the case. An examination of our public finances discloses that there has been a huge increase in our public debt of £100,000,000 since 1929 in the form of short-dated bills, the money having been expended to provide for our unemployed work which, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed reproductive. Great leeway has yet to be made up. We must remember bow little we are exporting, and the difficulties which are being experienced in finding markets for our produce ; also the huge number of unemployed. The mere fact that many honorable members are battling for a greater restoration of invalid and old-age pensions, and the need for a continued adherence to the policy enunciated in the’ Premiers plan should cause us to pause. My position is similar to that of many others, in that I am subjected to heavy expense, and would- like to have a. restoration of my parliamentary allowance. But I do not think that the country can afford to do that at present. For weeks past I have been urging the Government to make some provision for the wheat-growers, but without success. Their needs are far greater than ours. If such a step were taken a bacl impression would ‘ be created concerning the legislators of the country. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not take the course of action suggested. It would be only a small matter to us and certainly not wOrth the stigma which would be placed upon parliamentarians. If the policy of government economy is carLried on a little longer and a change comes over our international relations to stimulate our export industry and enable it to ; earn a profit, so bringing- new wealth, the matter may receive our attention. But, at present, the time is not opportune.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I intend to vote for the motion. I have no hesitation in saying that the money I rece’ive for my parliamentary services is merely transferred from my pocket to those of ‘my electors. I have had experience as a State representative for four or five years. My experiences are being repeated in this Parliament. I do not hesitate to say that I regard it as a great privilege to represent a considerable section of the people of this country; and when restoration is contemplated, in view of the position in which other honorable members find themselves, their expenses being great where mine may not be considerable, I would consider myself a coward if I do not conscientiously vote for it, particularly having regard to my experience during the last three years. A number of honorable members spend in Canberra” a large proportion which they receive by way of salary. Those who represent large country electorates are most certainly entitled to an increase. The time is opportune to restore the cut that was made last year, and if we do so I have no doubt that the people will endorse our action.

Mr DEIN:
Lang

.- As one of the newer members, I do not intend to give a silent vote on this matter. When I was elected two years ago, the allowance was £800. On the introduction of the budget last year, the Government, in view of uncertainty regarding the financial situation, reduced- the expenditure on social services and members’ allowances. Since the Government has now seen fit to review the position of public servants, pensioners, and others, members of this Parliament should receive a similar increase. With one exception, every honorable member has stressed the inadequacy of their present payment. I presume that some members have resources other than their allowance; but I am not in that fortunate position, I do not believe that the people of Australia expect their federal representatives to work for them at a salary which precludes the balancing of their private budgets.

Reference has been made to the calls made upon honorable members from all parts of their constituencies. It is always a pleasure for me to meet the residents in my electorate. The member and his family are frequently asked to attend social functions and gatherings in aid of charities, and in the ordinary course of his duty the member is expected to contribute to all local funds. Ours is a fulltime job. “When, prior to entry into this Parliament, I was a public servant, my hours of work were only about half as long as they are now. To-day I am still a servant of the public, and I find it impossible to carry out my duties properly on the present allowance. A member of the New South Wales Parliament receives only a few pounds less than the allowance paid to a member of this Parliament; but his time is occupied in Parliament for only about three afternoons a week. Federal members have to travel to Canberra, and, although .they have railway passes, they have to defray their living expenses while here. I agree with the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton ‘Groom) when he said that a federal member should be familiar with Australia as a whole. Last year I visited Queensland for three weeks to learn something about the sugar and tobacco industries, the success of which rests to a large extent upon action taken by this Parliament. That trip cost me £27 10s. Most of our constituents imagine that we live in Canberra free of charge, and that everywhere we go our travelling expenses are paid by the Government. My constituents returned me in the belief that I was worth £800 a year, and if I .thought that a lower salary was sufficient, I should feel that I had fallen down on my job. I commend the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) for pointing out that he could not conscientiously accept an increase, and if I were of a similar opinion I would willingly follow his lead ; but I am prepared to defend in my electorate my active support of this motion.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.When I sought a seat in this Parliament in December, 1929, I was asked if I favoured the reduction of members’ salaries, which then amounted to £1,000, and I replied in the negative. I remarked that, if elected, it would be necessary for me to abandon my private practice,”and 1 referred to particular disadvantages suffered by members from distant States such as Western Australia. In December, 1931, 1 Avas asked whether I favoured a further reduction of members’ allowances, and 1 again replied definitely, “ No.” I am inclined to think that it is too soon to anticipate a general national recovery, and I should like to be satisfied that. Australia has definitely turned the corner. I- ‘make no pious pretensions - on the subject of members’ allowances. If a majority in this House agrees to the restoration of the allowance paid in 1931, I shall not he willing to accept the additional salary without shouldering the responsibility regarding, it, but at the present time, I am inclined to favour postponement of this matter.

Mr BELL:
Darwin

.- I feel bound to say at the outset that I am surprised at the methods adopted to bring this subject before the House. We have just experienced an all-night sitting during which I, as Chairman of Committees, heard members on the Opposition side advancing a plea on behalf of invalid and old-age pensioners, public servants, and others, and listened to the reply of the Minister in charge of the Financial Relief Bill that the Government would have gladly restored the cuts in pensions and in Public Service salaries, but, having considered the position of the nation as a whole, found it quite impossible to do so at the present time. During the debate on that bill, the Assistant Treasurer and other Ministers asked the committee and the House, from time to time, not to delay its passage. The Assistant Treasurer remarked that if &*< measure could be sent up to the Senate promptly, those whom it was intended to benefit would receive increases on the next pay day. Now we find that the passage of the” bill has been, delayed, and it will not go to the other chamber until we have come to a decision regarding members’ salaries. The position is most extraordinary. I have never been so astonished during my career as a member 1 of this Parliament. I shall be more astonished if the Government agrees to the proposal, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and the members of his Cabinet have said that the present financial position precludes the restoration of the reductions in Public Service salaries and Old-age pensions, but that further consideration would be given to the matter at a later date when the finances of the country would justify it. If, in these circumstances, action is deliberately taken in this House to increase our own salaries, I am not prepared to say what the people will think about us. I certainly will not vote for the recommittal ofthe bill. Eveu if I favoured au increase of members’ salaries, I would notbe a party to the recommittal of the bill at this stage, seeing that the Government has asked for the speedy passage of this measure in order that the, benefits that it will confer upon large sections of the community may be immediately felt. In attempting to justify an increase of the allowance to members, it is foolish to suggest that Australia has turned the corner. Are the prospects so bright that we are convinced that we are actually on the road to prosperity? I know only too well that, in my electorate, people who work particularly hard - farmers, miners and others - cannot benefit immediately from any provisions of this bill. I have praised the budget, and, although I believe that its effect will be to improve the lot of the majority in the community, it would be wrong for me to vote an increase of my allowance when the invalid and old-age pensioners and many other worthy people are in great need of assistance.

Mr RILEY:
Cook

.- The tone of the remarks of the honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Bell) surprises me, but I was pleased to note the temperate manner in which other honorable members addressed themselves to this subject. When the Parliament decided to increase the parliamentary allowance to £1,000, the name of the honorable memberfor Darwin, although he was within the precincts of the House, did not appear in the division list. Perhaps it would be well to remind the House that thehonorable member for Darwin, as Chairman of Committees,receives an allowance of about £500 per annum, that he is also a farmer in Tasmania, and that, he is not entirely dependent upon his parliamentary allowance. I have been a member of this House for eleven years, and have at all times endeavoured conscientiously to discharge my parliamentary duties and attend to the requirements of my constituents. This debate would have been maintained at a higher level had it not been for the remarks of the honorable member for Darwin. Other honorable members who have expressed opposition to the motion have been quite moderate, and in almost every instance have agreed that the present allowance is inadequate. I am not astonished, as tho honorable member for Darwin has said that he was, at the manner in which the question has been raised. So far as I can recollect, no proposal for an increase of the parliamentary allowance has ever been originated by the Government. It is a matter that solely concerns honorable members, and they are the most competent to raise it. I suggest that private members are best qualified to assessthe value of their services.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I agree with the last speaker, that there is nothing wrong with the manner in which this question has been raised. A private member has the right to introduce any subject, but not to have carried an amendment that would have the effect of increasing the expenditure of the Government. If it is the wish of the House that parliamentary allowances should be raised I shall have no hesitation in submitting the necessary resolution. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) has expressed the hope that there has been no connivance in this matter. I assure him that every honorable member is perfectly at liberty to discuss any matter with Ministers. Both those who are in favour of, and those who are opposed to this proposal, have discussed it with me.

Mr Gabb:

– Have they informed the right honorable gentleman that the numbers are up ?

Mr LYONS:

– I was not aware that the numbers were up; but the debate has givenme an idea as to how the vote is likely to go. Although this proposal was not embodied in the budget, the Government felt that honorable members, who had voluntarily reduced their salaries on two occasions– on the first by £200, and on the second by £50 - were entitled to some consideration. When I was approached I had not the slightest idea as to how many were supporting the proposition ; but I made arrangements that would enable honorable members to debate it fully and to come to a decision upon it. J. have at hand a message from His Excellency the Governor-General, which will place the matter within the control of honorable members should they decide to take the course suggested. I have felt that members of not only this Parliament, but also the State Parliaments, are not always adequately remunerated for the services that they render the community. The public are fair-minded, and 1 believe that they are in favour of members of Parliament, public servants, and others, being properly compensated for the work that they do. But there are some sections of the people who I am sure do not realize the expense which has to he incurred, particularly by private members - who draw no travelling allowance - in order adequately to represent their electors.

Mr Fenton:

– That is because the Federal Capital is so inaccessible.

Mr LYONS:

– I agree with the honorable member; but if it were in Melbourne, some honorable members would have to travel further than they now have. Honorable members, having voluntarily reduced their salaries by £250 per annum, are entitled to treatment equal to that accorded to public servants, who have had restored to them the cut made last year, and, in addition, 2-3? per cent, of the original reduction. To those who suggest that this action ought not to be taken unless we are prepared to restore pensions to their old level, and the salaries of the public servants to the position occupied before the first cut was made, I would point out that if the amount involved were sufficient to enable that to be done, I would not hesitate to forgo the restoration.

Mr Gabb:

– How about the men who are under the basic wage?

Mr LYONS:

– I shall deal with that matter. Even if this proposition were not accepted, no further improvement could be effected in the position of either the Public Service or the pensioners. I appreciate the concern of the honorable member for Angas for those who are receiving less than the basic wage, but would point out that this £5,000 would effect no improvement in that direction. . The Government is doing all that it can to absorb these men from time to time. I know that honorable members of the Opposition were opposed to the action that was taken. Government supporters, however, were agreeable to it. There wore two alternatives. The Government had to decide whether men who were doing boys’ work should be dismissed and their positions filled by boys. It felt that it could not do that; that the humane thing was to continue them in these positions, “ giving to the married men the basic wage and absorbing them in the Service when opportunity offered.

I shall not repeat what honorable members have said concerning the expense involved in representing their electorates. The honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Bell) has suggested that delay will be caused in the passage of the bill to the Senate, and that this House will be held responsible for it. I know that the honorable member will accept my assurance that I have spent the last hour in an endeavour to arrange with the Senate to proceed with the measure to-day, with the one object that the pensions payment next Thursday should be made under the amended scheme. The action taken this morning will not have the slightest effect in that connexion, because the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) had already given an undertaking that the second reading of the bill would be moved to-day, and that it would be proceeded with on Tuesday. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Barnes) has left Canberra on that understanding; consequently, the Leader of the Senate felt that he could not proceed beyond the stage he had indicated. When the officers of the Treasury informed me of the position, I felt that it would be a splendid thing if we could hasten the matter so as to enable pensioners to receive the increased pension for the first time next Thursday.

I appreciate the tone of this debate. I recognize that honorable members have the right to criticize the proposal. At the same time, however, I feel that the Government has done something for every section of the taxpayers.

Mr Gregory:

– It has not.

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

– The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has a grain of wheat in his eye. He may rest assured that, as the wheat-growers have not been overlooked by this Government in the past, they will not be overlooked in the future. There is no section upon which sacrifices were imposed that has not had a definite amount restored. The proposal in regard to honorable members would involve this year an expenditure of a little over £5,000. Having granted relief amounting to millions of pounds to other sections, honorable members would not be seeking too much if they asked for relief commensurate with that given to the Public Service.

Question - That the bill be recommitted - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. H. Mackay.)

AYES: 44

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative, and bill recommitted pro forma.

Progress reported.

Message reported recommending appropriation of revenue for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Prime Minister to the bill.

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

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue bc made for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Prime Minister to a bill for an act to provide relief to taxpayers, to amend laws relating to financial emergency, and for other purposes.

Resolution reported and - by leave - adopted.

In committee (Recommittal) : Consideration resumed.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– I move -

That the following ‘new clauses be inserted in Part VIII. : - 34a. Section six of the Financial Emergency Act 1931.-1932, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act 1933, is amended by inserting after the definition of “ officers and employees “ the following definition: - “ ‘ parliamentary office ‘ means any of the following officers, namely, Presiding Officer, Chairman of Committees and Leader of the Opposition in either House of the Parliament; “. 34b. Section seven of the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1932, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act 1933, is amended by omitting the words “ Ten thousand seven hundred and ten pounds “ and inserting in their stead the words “ Twelve thousand two hundred and forty pounds “. 34c. Section nine of the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1932, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act 1933, is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead: - “9. - (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, the total amount of allowances, or of salary and allowances, which would, but for this Act, have been received annually by any senator or member of the

House of Representatives (including any senator or member who holds a Parliamentary office) shall be reduced as follows: -

Where the amount does not exceed One thousand pounds - by seventeen and one-half per centum of that amount;

Where the amount exceeds One thousand pounds but does not exceed Two thousand pounds - by twenty per centum of that amount; and

Where the amount exceeds Two thousand pounds - by twenty-two and one-half per centum of that amount:

Provided that the allowance as a senator or member which would, but for this Act, have been received annually by any Minister of State shall be reduced by twenty per centum. “ (2.) Where the application of this section would result in the reduction of the allowances, or salary and allowances, of any senator or member to whom paragraph (b) or (c) of the last preceding sub-section applies below the amount to which the allowances, or salary and allowances, of any senator or member receiving the maximum amount specified’ in the next preceding paragraph would be reduced, the amount to be deducted from the allowances or salary and allowances of the firstmentioned senator or member shall be reduced to the extent necessary to prevent this result “.

As I indicated on the motion for the recommittal of the bill, the effect of these proposed new clauses will be to restore the reductions that last year were made in parliamentary salaries, and in addition 2½ per cent. of the previously existing salary so as to bring the reductions into conformity with those applied to the public servants. The cost of these reductions for twelve months will be £9,765, in eluding the Senate and the House of Representatives, representing a payment for the balance of the year of a little over £5,000.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- I should like to know when the order was given for the printing of these proposed new clauses ?

Mr Lyons:

– It was given about an hour ago.

Mr GABB:

– We are asked to discuss these provisions before we have had time to study them, and for the information of honorable members I shall read proposed new clause 34c. It reads -

Section nine of the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1932, as amended by the Financial Emergency Act 1933, is repealed, and the following section inserted in its stead: -

I have had no opportunity to peruse the act to ascertain the nature of the section which is to be repealed by this proposed new clause, and I venture to say that not one honorable member can supply that information. Honorable members intend to vote blindly in repealing the section of the act, so that’ they may increase their salaries.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must not reflect upon other honorable members, and I ask him to discussthe clauses without making personalreferences.

Mr GABB:

– The proposed new clause continues - “9. - (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Act, the total amount of allowances, or of salary and allowances, which would, but for this Act, have been received annually by any senator or member of the House of Representatives (including any senator or member who holds a Parliamentary office) shall be reduced as follows: -

  1. Where the amount does not exceed One thousand pounds - by seventeen and one-half per centum of that amount;
  2. Where the amount exceeds One thousand pounds but does not exceed Two thousand pounds - by twenty per centum of that amount; and
  3. Where the amount exceeds Two thousand pounds - by twenty-two and one-half per centum of that amount :

Providedthat the allowance as a senator or member which would, but for this Act, have been received annually by any Minister of State shall he reduced by twenty per centum. “ (2.) Where the application of this section would result in the reduction of the allowances, or salary and allowances, of any senator or member to whom paragraph (b) or (c) of the last preceding sub-section applies below the amount to which the allowances, or salary and allowances, of any senator or member receiving the maximum amount specified in the next preceding paragraph would be reduced, the amount to be deducted from the allowances or salary and allowances of the first-mentioned senator or member shall be reduced to the extent necessary to prevent this result”.

I take it that the substance of the proposed new clause is that the cuts in the salaries of members are now to be restored to £800, which was tho actual amount of salary operating when members were elected to this Parliament. I consider that the position of the country is far too precarious for honorable members to lure themselves into a feeling of false security and encourage people to indulge in extravagant habits. Some honorable members haveclaimed that their duties are most onerous, and that they should be paid proportionately. An allowance of £750 is fair enough remuneration for the work that we are doing. Aslistened this morning to the sophistry of some honorable members, I wondered why so many of them seek so eagerly to become members of Parliament and hold on so strenuously to the position once they have acquired it. It would appear that it is my privilege to be associated with the most “ self-sacrificing body of men to be found in Australia “. However, that is not my opinion. There appears to be great anxiety on the part of honorable members to expedite the passage of this salary restoration. I can partly understand that, because most of them went without their breakfasts to get it through. We have had a sorry exhibition of the lengths to which honorable members will go to benefit themselves.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member knows that it is distinctly out of order to make personal reflections against other honorable members. He must connect his remarks with the clause.

Mr GABB:

– I shall vote against the clauses, and leave it at that.

Mr Riordan:

– But the honorable member will not leave the additional salary in the Treasury?

Mr GABB:

– I was elected at the rate of £800 a year, and if the salary is raised beyond that amount I will not take the extra money. In 1920 I was elected on a parliamentary allowance of £600 a year and when that amount was later increased by Parliament to £1,000, I accepted only the £600; If my parliamentary allowance is now reinstated at £800 I shall take it, although I do not consider that the country is in a position to make the restoration. However, I believe that I do my job as well as any other member in this chamber, and if others are worth £800 a year then, by Heaven, so am I.

Mr Thorby:

– Where was the honorable member last night?

Mr GABB:

– I went to bed last night at 11 o’clock as a protest against the action of the Government which asked honorable members to meet on Tuesday, and then, because of a split in the party, did not meet Parliament until Wednesday and proceeded to push this legislation through by means of an all-night sitting.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I again warn the honorable member that he must confine his remarks to the clause. If he refuses to obey the Chair, I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr GABB:

– I shall oppose the clauses. The proceedings that have taken place in this chamber during the past few hours make me ashamed thatI am a member of Parliament.

Proposed new clauses agreed to.

Bill reported with further amendments; reports adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3740

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service Act) - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1933 -

No. 4 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 5 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia; Australian Postal Electricians’ Union; Australian Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks’ Union; Commonwealth Legal Professional Officers’ Association ; Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association; Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association ; Commonwealth Telegraph Traffic and Supervisory Officers’ Association; Commonwealth Telephone Officers’ Association; FederatedPublicService Assistants’ Association of Australia; Fourth Division Officers’ Association of the Trade and Customs Department; Fourth Division Postmasters, Postal Clerks and Telegraphists’ Union; Line Inspectors’ Association, Commonwealth of Australia; Meat Inspectors’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service, Professional Officers’ Association; Commonwealth Public Service; Arms. Explosives and Munition Workers’ Federation of Australia; Commonwealth Naval Storehousemen’s Association; and Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia.

No. 10 - Australian Postal Electricians’ Union.

House adjourned at 12.40 p.m. (Friday).

page 3740

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Backing of Note Issue

Mr Anstey:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Of the gold and sterling in the Commonwealth Note Issue Department, how much is sterling?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The published returns of the Note Issue Department of the CommonwealthBank give in one sum the total amount of the reserve in gold and sterling held under section 60k of the Commonwealth Bant Act. On the 16th October, 1933, the total amount of tho reserve was £11,506,950.

Prohibited Literature

Mr Beasley:

y asked tho Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What are the names orthe members of the committeeappointed to deal with literature?
  2. What are the duties of the members, and what are their powers ?
  3. Whatare the titles and theauthors of books or any other literature which have been banned since this committee was set up?
  4. What were the reasons in each case for the ban being imposed?
Mr White:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follow : -

  1. Sir Robert Garran, K.G.M.G., K.C.j L. H. Allen, Esq., M.A., Ph.D.; J. F. M. Haydon, Esq,, M.A.
  2. To advise the Minister as to whether any book submitted to the committee is blasphemous, indecent, or obscene. The committee has no powers. 3.It is not the practice to issue a list of such books.
  3. On account of being indecent or obscene.

Development of Northern Territory

Mr Riordan:

n asked the . Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government stated its intention to extend to chartered companies in the Northern Territory exemption from customs duties and land and income tax?
  2. Has the Government also stated that although this would be a constitutional violation in the case of a State, the Government considers that the Commonwealth Constitution dons not apply to all Australia?
  3. Does a condition which gives to the Northern Territory or any part of the Commonwealth a discrimination in or total exemption from customs duties, land and income tax, excise, unemployment relief, unemployment insurance, and industrial legislation, constitute an unfair advantage against industries within States which are subject to such taxation and regulation, and thereby violate section 99 of the Constitution?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. The Government has publicly stated its intention, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions,of asking Parliament to pass special legislation for North Australia in regard to the tariff, and in connexion with land and income tax. 2 and 3. lt is within the power of the Commonwealth Parliament to enact special legislation in connexion with the tariff and taxation in respectof territories within the control of the Commonwealth. The Government would not he likely, however, to ask Parliament to ratify any proposals of this character which would give North Australia, hearing in mind its comparative isolation, unfair advantages over the States. redistribution of electoraldiVISIONS.

Dr. Maloney usked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - 1.Is it obligatory for the Government to introduce legislation for the redistribution of States into electoral divisions followingupon the takingofacensus ?

  1. Does the Government propose to take act ion this your to appoint commissioners to redistribute the States into electoral divisions!
Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

  1. No. The enactment of further legislation is not necessary as the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1929 provides that a redistribution of any State into divisions shall be made when directed by the Governor-General by proclamation. Such a proclamation may be made whenever an alteration is made in the number of members of the House of Representatives to be elected for the, Stnte.
  2. The matter will receive consideration when the ChiefElectoral Officer has determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Representation Act, the number of members of theHouse of Representatives to be chosen in the several States.In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth and. of the several Status, the Constitution requires that certain persons on account of racial disqualification are not to be counted, and I understand that complete population figures for purpose of representation have not yet been made available to the Chief Electoral Officer by the Commonwealth Statistician.

Royal Australian Navy

Mr Francis:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP

s. -The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) has asked certain questions, upon notice, regarding the destroyers loaned to the Royal Australian Navy.

Inquiries will be made, and a reply will be furnished to the honorable member as soon as possible.

Tariff Board

Mr Blakeley:

y asked tho Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. How many cases have been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report under terms of section 15 (1) (h) of the Tariff Board Act (No. 5 of 1929)?
  2. What were the cases, and what Minister signed the terms of reference?
  3. Asa result, what action, if any, was taken, under sub-section 3 of the act?
Mr White:
UAP

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

  1. None. 2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.

Sir Charles Kingsford Smith

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

son asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the growing popular demand that action should be taken to enxure that the invaluable services of Air-Commodore Sir Charles Kingston Smith are not lost to Australia, will the Government consider taking steps to utilize to the best advantage his knowledge and ability?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The Government is not unmindful of the valuable services to Australian aviation rendered by AirCommodore Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, and the matter referred to by the honorable member will receive consideration.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions.

Mr James:

s asked thn Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fnct that 2s.6d. per week was deducted from the pensions of persons who were in receipt of income from friendly societies or by virtue of the Miners Accident Relief Act of the State of New South Wales?
  2. Were such deductions in accordance with the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act; if not. will the Treasurer issue instructions that all moneys so deducted be refunded to the pensioners concerned?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. On the passing of the FinancialEmergency Act 1932, the benefits referred to were taken into account in determining whether a person was entitled to a pension in excess of 15s. per week. Subsequently the law was amended, antt these benefits arc not now regarded as income for the purpose of assessing the rate of pension.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

Parliament House Roof.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has asked certain questions, upon notice, regarding the roof of Parliament House. The information is being obtained, and will be conveyed to the honorable member as soon as possible.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 October 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1933/19331019_reps_13_141/>.