House of Representatives
31 July 1934

13th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 13th Parliament
  3. 1934

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1149

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Senator Sir GEORGEPEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia

[11.1] -by leave - I lay on the table the following paper: -

Wheat, Flour and Bread Industries - First report of the Royal Commission.

The first report of the commission has now been received by the Government. The Government accepts the recommendation of the commission that on the basis of a price of 3s. a bushel for wheat f.o.r. at the principal shipping ports, assistance or relief to the amount of £4,000,000 is necessary for the coming season. This amount would increase if prices fell below 3s. f.o.r.at principal ports, and would decrease if prices rose above that figure. The commission, in recommendingthe payment of a bounty, makes the following statement : -

In view of the present uncertainties as to the coming harvest, particularly in some States, and as to the price likely to be realized, the commission is not prepared at this stage to recommend either the proportion of such total amount which should be applied to the payment of the bounty or the methods which should be adopted for the distribution of the remainder. A further recommendation will be submitted later.

The commission also slates that it will make a final recommendation as to the amount which, on the basis mentioned, will be necessary, before the coming crop is harvested. When the volume of the harvest is known and information is available as to the prices likely to be realized for the harvest, the Government will be in a position to deal with the methods of providing the necessarymoney and of distributing it. It is clear that at the present stage it would be a mistake to seek to make final decisions upon these matters. The Government, however, does desire to make it quite plain that it accepts, and will give effect to, the main recommendation of the commission as to the amount necessary upon the basis mentioned.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The Government promised that honorable senators would have an opportunity this session to discuss the report of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry. Will that opportunity be afforded as promised ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The report has been tabled, and copies are available to honorable senators. There may bo an opportunity to discuss the report on the motion forthe adjournment of the Senate; I do not know of any other which the Government can afford.

Senator COX:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the reply given to the question asked by Senator Cox on the 26th July, 1934, wherein it was stated that of £911,094 granted to the Government of New South Wales, for distribution to wheat-growers in 1934, only £374,744 bad been distributed to wheat-growers, and that the payment of the balance was a matter for the Government of New South Wales, will the Minister make representations to the State Government urging that the balance be distributed as soon as possible, and that, if immediate finalization is not practical, a further interim payment be made?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

– The Treasurer supplies the following answer : -

The closing date for the receipt of applications from wheat-growers in New South Wales for assistance under the Wheat Growers’ Relief

Act was the10th June, 1934. The Government understands that the New South Wales authorities are proceeding with the distribution to growers as rapidly as possible, having regard to the number of claims and the work involved in their examination.

page 1150

QUESTION

SECESSION MOVEMENT

” Case for Union “.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many copies ofthe Case for Union have been printed?
  2. Have instructions been issued for the distribution of this “ Case “ to every elector in Western Australia, at the cost of the Commonwealth?
  3. What is the estimated cost of (a) printing, and (b) distributing the “Case”?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The right honorable the Prime Minister supplies the following answers : -

  1. An order has been given forthe printing of 706,848 copies.
  2. Yes. 3. (a) £12,800; (b) £5,000.
Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With referenceto the distribution of copies of the Case for Union: How many copies are being distributed in each State of the Commonwealth ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The right honorablethe Prime Minister supplies the following answers: -

Arrangements have been made for the distribution of copies as follows: -

page 1150

QUESTION

CHOLERA IN INDIA

Quarantine Regulations

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - 1.Inviewof the terrible death roll due to cholera in India, where 0,000 people are stated to have died in one week,and where the plague is said to be still spreading, Europeans being amongst the victims, will the Government in- sist that all vessels arriving in Australia from India he placed for seven days in quarantine and fumigated?

  1. If not, why not?
Senator McLACHLAN:

– The Minister for Health supplies the following answers : -

  1. The application of quarantine measures to vessels from cholera infected countries is governed by the International Sanitary Convention to which the Commonwealth is signatory. This convention, based upon modern scientific knowledge, prescribes the measures indicated in the question only in the case of vessels actually infected with cholera. These measures are of no value in the case of clean vessels.
  2. See the answer to question No. 1.

page 1150

QUESTION

NEWNES OIL SHALE

Senator RAE:

asked the Minister administering the Development Branch upon notice -

  1. What is the amount of the mortgage on the old plant and machinery of the Newnes shale works!
  2. Who is the mortgagee?
  3. What is the security?
  4. Who is responsible for payment of interest (if any) and repayment of principle?
  5. What responsibilities of a financial character are assumed by the Commonwealth Government in respect to past and present experiments regarding oil production at Newnes ?
  6. What proportion of the cost of such experiments is being borne by the New South Wales State Government?
Senator McLACHLAN:

-The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : - 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Commonwealth Governmenthas an option over plant and machinery at Newnes from Shale Oil Investigations Proprietary limited, of 360 Collins-street, Melbourne, which expires on 31st December, 1934. If the option is exercised the company shall be entitled to receive £31,000 payable in cash or alternatively £20,000 incash and 11,000 fully paid shares of £1 each in the capital of any company that may be formed to operate Newnes.

  1. The sum of £29,579 was spent on experimental anddemonstrational operations at Newnes; in addition a sum of £8,180 has been expended to date in connexion with the work of the Newnes Investigation Committee, and it is anticipated that the total expenditure connected with the work of this committee, together with the cost of further experiments which are now to be carried out in America, will amount to approximately £10,000.
  2. The Government of New South Wales has undertaken to bear half the cost ofthe work of the Newnes Investigation Committee, together with half the cost of the further tests in America mentioned in 5.

page 1151

TREASURY BILLS INTEREST BATES

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the interest charged on treasury-bills in Australia is 2i per cent., while the rate in Great Britain is only 16s per ‘cent. ?
  2. If so, why is the rate so much higher in Australia than in Great Britain ‘!
Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

– The Treasurer supplies the following answers : -

  1. Yea.
  2. There arc considerable differences between the money market conditions of Great Britain and Australia. London is the world’s banker and it is customary for liquid sterling reserves to be held on account of external interests, particularly for Central Banks. At the end of 1033, the external demand fur sterling amounted to approximately £450,000,000. The large permanent market always available for short-term investment has been materially increased under present world trading conditions and as a result the rate of interest on treasury-hills has been brought down to the present abnormally low level. Although similar conditions do not obtain in Australia, the rate on treasury-bills has been progressively reduced since 1031 from 0 per cent, to the present rate of 2i per cent.

page 1151

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by ‘Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to -

That, until the 3rd August, 1934, unless otherwise ordered, Government business shall take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper, except questions and formal motions.

page 1151

QUESTION

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Brennan) proposed -

That the second report from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, presented to the Senate on the 8th December, 1933, be adopted.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– I wish to refer briefly to setae of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Paragraph 3 of the committee’s report reads -

The frequent amendment of regulations makes it extremely difficult for those concerned to lay their lingers upon all the regulations that bind them. Tour committee suggests three means by which this evil might be mitigated.

In paragraph 4, the committee suggests that a periodic consolidation of the regulations should be made, and in paragraph 6 suggests that when short paragraphs of previous regulations are amended by the omission or the addition of certain works, the whole original clause be repealed, and the clause, as it would read, with the omissions or additions, should be reenacted. The whole of the regulations from 1901 to 1927 have already been consolidated, and appear in two volumes which are available to honorable senators, but an anotation, as suggested, would present difficulties. For the convenience of those who have not examined the annual volumes of statutory rules issued by the Government Printer, I remind them that at the end of each volume is to be found a complete summary showing in one column the reference to the rule, and in another a description of it, and how and by what other rules it has been affected. By turning to any one of these in the preceding year’s volume, an honorable senator may see at once what the position is. As an example, several dozen amending regulations relating to the Treaty of Peace are noted in column 4 of the schedule appearing on page 425 of the new volume now before me. It would, I think, be somewhat burdensome to carry out the suggestions that have been made on this head by the committee. I ask it to re-consider when it meets again the aspect of the case which I have just put. The Attorney-General’s Department has at present under consideration the practicability of printing footnotes in small type referring to the amending regulations, in order to overcome one of the difficulties pointed out by the committee.

Senator O’halloran:

– Is not that what the committee suggests ?

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– Yes, and that can be done, but in regard to some matters there are, literally, hundreds of amending regulations. That is true of regulations under the Public Service Act; the reprinting of them would be a colossal task. If honorable senators examined the previous year’s volume, they could ascertain the complete situation up to the end of that year, and this should reasonably meet the committee’s suggestions. The tables attached to the annual volumes are made up with great care, with a view to that later consolidation of which we all approve. It is only on the points to which I have referred that I desire further “consideration to be given. I wish to make it clea’r that the matter has not been overlooked by the authorities responsible for trying to present the information, so far as it is possible, in tabloid form for the use of members of Parliament and the public generally.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1152

RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

SECOND Reading.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The bill makes provision for the following more important matters: - (1) The repeal of the Cotton Industries Bounty Act 1930-32, which provides for a bounty on the total production of seed cotton until the end of the 1936 cotton season. The repeal of the act will become effective immediately after the conclusion of the current 1934 crop about November next. (2) The substitution of a bounty on raw cotton for five years from the 1st December, 1934, to the extent of the annual requirements of the Australian users of raw cotton plus 20 per cent. thereof; (3) the payment of bounty on the approved quantity of raw cotton on a sliding-scale basis, according to weekly fluctuations in the world’s price of raw cotton as sold on the Liverpool market, subject to the rate of bounty not exceeding certain specified maximum amounts; (4) an increase of the stipulated rates of bounty to such extent as the depreciation of Australian currency in relation to United Kingdom currency becomes less than at present, if such change in currency relationships causes a reduction in (he net return for Australian raw cotton. In all other respects the various clauses are similar to the provisions of the present Cotton Industries Bounty Act

Before explaining to honorable senators the nature and purpose of the proposed legislation, I think it desirable to refer briefly to the various main steps taken by previous governments to assist the cotton industry.

The first serious attempt to develop the cotton industry in Australia was mads in 1920 under the guaranteed price system inaugurated by the Queeusland Government, following a visit to Australia by a delegation from the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, which urged the establishment of the industry. For three years an average net return of 5£d. per lb. of seed cotton was guaranteed. As 3 lb. of seed cotton are usually required to produce 1 lb. of raw cotton, this guarantee was equivalent to a market price of practically ls. 6d. per lb. of raw cotton - or lint - which is the commodity used by the textile trade. All the raw cotton then had to be exported, and the losses under the guarantee coat the Queensland Government £7S,929. However, the area under cultivation rose from 166 to 35,000 acres in those three years, and much new land settlement and employment were brought about. In 1922 the Queensland Government, asked the Commonwealth to assist the industry, and the Tariff Board recommended a continuance of the system of guaranteed prices for a further four years. The Commonwealth and all States except Tasmania then agreed for three years to share any losses arising from a somewhat lower scale of guaranteed prices for seed cotton than the original 5$d. per lb. More growers entered the industry, and both acreage and production increased considerably. Another result was that practical experience in several States showed that Queensland was apparently the State climatically best suited for cottongrowing. In view of increasing losses and other difficulties associated with the industry, the Queensland Government in 1925 urged the Commonwealth to take over the whole responsibility for assisting the industry. It was claimed that, the building up of new industries was essentially a Commonwealth matter, calling for tariff and/or bounty assistance.

Early in 1926, the Tariff Board recommended a bounty of 2d. per lb. for six years; this rate to diminish by id. per lb. a year to Id. for the tenth year. Concurrently the Tariff Board recommended a bounty of 6d. per lb. on cotton yarn manufactured in Australia. The Bruce-Page Government arrived at the conclusion that the policy hitherto adopted, that of assisting the cotton industry on a purely export basis, was fundamentally unsound, as Australia could not hope to compete in foreign markets with the much cheaper cotton produced in- other countries. It therefore introduced, for the first time, protection on the manufacture of cotton yarns. Small customs duties were imposed on cotton yarns n.e.i. that is, soft cotton yarns required for the knitting trade, mainly for such articles as hosiery and underwear. At the same time, bounties for u term of five years were adopted by Parliament. There was a bounty of id. a count per lb. on all cotton yarns up to count No. 49, provided not less than 50 per cent, of the raw cotton used in the manufacture of those yarns was produced in Australia. A bounty of 1½d. per lb. was also granted on all seed cotton produced in Australia. During the years 1927 to 1929 inclusive, cotton-growers secured an average net return of 4.6d. per lb., which was practically identical with the 4id. per lb. reported by the Tariff Board to be the price necessary to enable efficient growers to earn a reasonable living. During those years, relatively small proportions of the Australian production of raw cotton had to be exported.

In 1926 and 1929 the Tariff Board issued highly favorable reports concerning the value and prospects of the cotton industry to Australia, and in 1920 recommended the continuation for another four years of the seed cotton bounty of l£d. per lb., and also an increase from id. to £d. a count per lb. in the bounty on cotton yarns.

The Scullin Government dealt with the Tariff Board’s 1929 report. It decided not to increase the cotton yarn bounty, but endeavoured to introduce gradually-diminishing bounties in the hope of being able to do without them at the end of a term of years. At the same time, it so extended the scope of protection as further to increase the Australian market for raw cotton. Prior to that year, there had been a customs duty and a bounty on cotton yarns for the knitting trade and consequential protective duties on certain knitted cotton goods. The Scullin Government imposed additional protective duties on finished cotton goods of various kinds, cancelled the 1926 Bounty Act nearly two years before its term had expired, and secured parliamentary approval of the Cotton Industries Bounty Act of 1930. Under this act, the . existing rates of bounty were continued for ‘ one year past the normal term of the 1926 act, and were progressively reduced each year by onesixth of the full rate, so that both bounties should expire by the 30th September, 1936. The Government also undertook to increase the customs protection on cotton yarns and manufactured cotton goods from time to time, as might be found necessary to maintain a reasonable price to the growers for their seed cotton.

The next important stage in the fiscal history of this industry occurred in February, 1932, when the Lyons Government, in February, withdrew the special additional 6d. per lb. duty on cotton yarns, which had been imposed by the Scullin Government in 1931, contrary to a recommendation of the Tariff Board. Two months later, rapidly increasing production pointed to the probability of the yarn bounty imposing a burden on the Consolidated Revenue of £120,000 per annum, or even more. Furthermore, it was seen that the profits of certain manufacturers of cotton yarn which had been quite moderate in the earlier days of the bounty were likely to advance much beyond the prescribed limit of 10 per cent, per annum. Accordingly, -the position was fully discussed with the manufacturers and the Queensland Cotton Board, and it was mutually agreed that the cotton yarn bounty be abolished as from the 1st July, 1932, and that equivalent customs duties be imposed instead. That the withdrawal of the extra 6d. per lb. duty on- cotton yarn in February, 1932, and the substitution of customs duties for the bounty, did not injure the industry is abundantly proved by the following statistics of cotton yarn production since the Commonwealth accepted the responsibility of establishing the industry: -

The figures for 1931-32 were artificially inflated by the production of a large quantity of yarn in order to take advantage of the bounty, which expired on the last day of that financial year. The important point is that the production for 1932-33 was 4,465,730 lb., or practically 50 per cent. more than the production for the normal year 1930-31, when theScullin Government was in office.

I also draw the attention of the Senate to the large production of 5,417,384 lb. for the year just ended, during which only 115,099 lb. of protected cotton yarns was imported into Australia. These figures constitute striking evidence of the adequate support rendered to the cotton industry by the present Government.

I now come to the present bill and the reasons for its introduction. After prolonged investigations the Tariff Board furnished a report in November, 1933,on cotton lint - raw cotton - and cotton yarns. That report showed that the industry had reached an unbalanced state in several respects. The board pointed out, first, that the area planted to seed cotton in Queensland is capable of producing, under normal climatic conditions, approximately twice as much rawcotton as would be required for the manufacture of the yarns which have so far been protected, and secondly, that the productive capacity of the cotton yarn mills, on the economic working basis of two shifts a day, is approximately three timesthe extent of the present protected market for cotton yarns. These circumstances, the Tariff Board states, are undesirable, inasmuch as -

  1. The Commonwealth is paying bounty on the production of seed cotton, whereas a considerable proportion of the raw cotton made therefrom (about one-half) has to be exported from Australia.
  2. ) The overhead costs of the cotton yarn factories are unduly high because they are working at only one-third of their capacity.

At the same time the Tariff Board is opposed to a continuance of the present high duties on cotton yarns n.e.i. which, on a typical yarn, viz., No. 16, are 5d. per lb., plus 35 per cent. British Preferential Tariff, or 8d. per lb., plus 55 per cent. General Tariff. The board considers that the extension of the scope of protection at the rates now applicable to cotton yarns n.e.i. would impose too great a cost on the community, and would necessitate excessive additional customs duties on the manufactured cotton goods for which the newly protected yarns would be required.

Furthermore, the hoard has pointed out that previous policies in relation to cotton have necessitated high protectionwhen world prices are low, thus making a large part of the protection unnecessary when world cotton prices are high, a factor which might conceivably be taken advantage of by the manufacturers. The Tariff Board has, therefore, recommended that Australian raw cotton should at all times be supplied to the spinners at the Australian equivalent of world parity, grade for grade, and staple for staple. In other words, it has recommended that prices should be equal to the standardLiverpool prices plus exchange, freight and landing charges to Australia, but excluding any customs duty.

In order to give the Australian growers of seed cotton a reasonable return for their product, the Tariff Board has recommended that a sliding-scale rate of bounty for raw cotton be provided, based upon a central point of Liverpool middling spot raw cotton at 6d. per lb.

The board recommends that so long as the Liverpool price remains at 6d. per lb., the Australian bounty be3¼d. per lb. and that that bounty should fall by one one-hundredth part of a penny for every similar increase of the Liverpool price above 6d. per lb. Conversely, for every reduction by one-hundredth of a penny per lb. of the Liverpool price below 6d., the Australian bounty should rise by a similar amount, with the exception that no further increase of bounty should take place when the Liverpool price falls below4¾d. per lb.

The Tariff Board considers that steps should be taken to prevent an unwise and undue increase of the production of raw cotton in Australia beyond the approximate requirements of the local manufacturers. In order to achieve that result, it has recommended that bounty be payable only on the requirements of the manufacturers, as estimated in advance by the Minister, plus 20 per cent, of that quantity for the purpose of providing against reductions of the crop from climatic and other causes. Under such a plan, the cotton-growers will have to accept the responsibility for producing more raw cotton than the requirements of manufacturers, plus 20 per cent. If they do so, no bounty will be payable on the excess production.

The Tariff Board has also found that the limited range of cottons grown in Queensland does not meet the varied requirements of the manufacturers, and that Australian growers cannot be expected to meet all those requirements. It, therefore, proposes that manufacturers shall first submit orders to the Queensland Cotton Board for the particular types of cotton they require, at the prices ruling from time to time for equivalent foreign cotton, plus freight, charges and exchange to Australia. Should the Cotton Board be unable, or unwilling, to supply at such ruling prices the particular raw cotton ordered, the manufacturers will be allowed to import their raw cotton. Steps will be taken to prevent any mis-use of such importations by the manufacturers, and it is proposed to appoint a board, composed almost entirely of representatives of the growers and the users of cotton, to handle such matters and advise the Minister thereon. Nothing in the new policy will affect the right of the growers to bounty on a quantity of raw cotton represented by the estimated requirements of manufacturers, plus 20 per cent.

Reverting for a moment to the bounty of 3£d. per lb. on raw cotton recommended by the Tariff Board when the Liverpool price is 6d. per lb., I emphasize that the Government has carefully considered the net return to the cotton-growers thereunder. It is found, from calculations made by the Tariff

Board, that with such a bounty, the return to the growers would average only from 3d. to 3£d. per lb. of seed cotton. Seeing that the last investigation by the Tariff Board of the cost, of growing seed cotton was made late in 1925, when a price of 4£d. per lb. under strict conditions regarding efficiency, was considered necessary, and that the savings in production costs since then clearly do not justify such a low return as 3d. or 3id. per lb., the Government has decided to grant higher rates of bounty, as will be seen from clause 9. The rates of bounty on raw cotton when the Liverpool price is 6d. per lb. will therefore be 5¼d. per lb. for the first year, 4fd. per 11). for the second year and 4¼d. per lb. for the next three years. These rates will, of course, be subject to any deductions made, from time to time, under the Financial Emergency Act. So long as the financial emergency reduction continues at 20 per cent., the rate for the first year will result in a net return of approximately 3.4d. per lb. of seed cotton. The reduction of the rate of bounty by £d. per lb. of raw cot-ton for the second year of the operation of this legislation and the further reduction of M. per lb. for the next three years are considered justified in view of the present tendency in Queeusland to grow new varieties of seed cotton having a higher percentage of raw cotton content than the Durango variety hitherto grown almost exclusively. En view of the fact that the varieties of seed cotton now about to be grown on a large scale contain a higher percentage of lint the lower rates of bounty should not affect the average financial return to the growers.

It is important to note that with the present Liverpool price of 7.13d. per lb. for raw cotton, the relevant bounty of 4.12d. per lb. for the first year, leS3 the 20 per cent, financial emergency, reduction, is equivalent to only 40 per cent, of the landed duty-free cost of foreign cotton without exchange. With exchange, the bounty represents 30 per cent, assistance. This measure of protection compares favorably with that afforded to certain other primary and secondary products. The ad valorem equivalent will be lower in the following years, as the bounty rate decreases. Higher world prices would also reduce the degree of assistance.

Honorable senators will naturally expect to know the approximate cost of the new fluctuating bounty on raw cotton. If Liverpool cotton remains at the central point of 6d. per lb. assumed by the Tariff Board, the bounty will be 5¼d. per lb. That bounty, less the financial emergency reduction, would cost £131,000 for the 15,000 bales of raw cotton estimated to cover the requirements of manufacturers next year, plus 20 per cent. of such requirements. Seeing that the present bounty on an unrestricted production of seed cotton for next year had been estimated at £115,000, the new bounty, on the basis of a Liverpool price of 6d. per lb., will cost only £16,000 more. Actually, the Liverpool price is now 7.13d. per lb. If that price should continue for a full twelve months, the Australian bounty would be only 4.12d., less the financial emergency 20 per cent., and would involve a total payment of £112,500 on 15,000 bales, or virtually the same amount as the originally estimated seed cotton bounty for 1934-35.

The outlook for raw cotton prices is, on the whole, rather bright, largely because of the drastic reduction of acreage in the United States of America, the principal producing country, under President Roosevelt’s administration. Two years ago the area under cotton in the United States of America was 41,000,000 acres. Under the agricultural adjustment legislation passed by Congress, that area has been deliberately curtailed to 29,000,000 acres. The result, so far, has been that the world price of raw cotton has increased from under 5d. per lb. to 7.13d. per lb. If world prices should rise further - they averaged approximately10d. per lb. for twenty years before the GreatWar - the bounty rates, and therefore the total expenditure, would progressively become less.

I emphasize that the new policy advocated by the Tariff Board and adopted by the Government will result in reduced costs to the usersof many cotton goods. The payment of a bounty on raw cottonso that manufacturers will obtaineitherAustralianor imported cotton at Australian import parity will result in the production costs of existing Austraiian cotton yarns being correspondingly reduced. The consuming public will also avoid the cumulative added costs resulting from the trading margins of manufacturers and wholesale and retail merchants.

Under the new policy, the reduction of the present duties on cotton yarns n.e.i. will be equivalent to 4d. per lb., which must be passed on to the users of yarn, and ultimately to the consumers of hosiery, underwear, and many other cotton products. The increased scope of protection on cotton yarns proposed by the Tariff Board, in order to enable the spinning mills to operate under economic, conditions, will necessitate comparatively small duties being imposed on certain yarns now admitted either free or at nominal rates of duty. Those rates of duty will, of course, slightly increase the cost of such yarns to the manufacturers of the cotton goods affected, and, in some cases, such goods will require a consequential increase of their present tariff protection. Nevertheless, the lower costs of knitting trade yarns which will be made possible under the new policy, will more than outweigh the extra cost of the additional yarns which it is proposed to protect for the purpose of enlarging the cotton yarn industry and in turn the Australian market for locally-grown raw cotton. The Government is taking precautions to ensure that the lower costs of knitting trade yarns from the 1st April next shall be passed on to consumers, and it will also watch carefully, from the point of view of the public, the effect of the moderate increase of duty which will be imposed upon other cotton yarns in pursuance of the general stabilization policy now being submitted for the approval of Parliament.

I confidently commend the bill to the Senate. The Government’s policy in regard to cotton will create more employment in the factories, and will increase the more profitable Australian market for the benefit of cotton-growers in Queensland, who have now reached a stage at which half the production from the 70,000 acres now sown with cotton would have to be exported indefinitely were it not for this legislation.

Cotton is of prime importance to the nation in time of war as it is required for the manufacture of various kinds of military clothing and equipment. Australia cannot afford to bo without a healthy cotton industry, as one form of security against supplies of this commodity being cut off in the event of international complications affecting the Pacific Ocean. With a vigorous and sound cotton industry as a nucleus, Australia will possess adequate technical knowledge and skilled personnel to enable it to extend rapidly in time of war the production of some of the essentials of defence. There is also the imperative need for more settlement in the sparsely-developed, strategic portions of a vulnerable part of Australia. Where more settlement is required in Queensland or in any other State, necessary industries should be encouraged, provided always that the additional cost is not beyond our capacity as a nation. Having regard to all the circumstances, the Government believes that its policy will result in a safe and sound expansion of the cotton industry at a definitely moderate cost to the people.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

. -I shall offer no objection to a speedy passage of this bill. Although I speak in some ignorance of the conditions and needs of the cotton industry, this measure appeals to me, in 60 far as it is a step in the direction of making Australia selfcontained. Many other countries are giving effect to a policy of self-reliance called economic nationalism. In that respect, the Government seems to have taken a broad view of the cotton industry. Cotton, possibly, is not as indispensable to Australia as it is to other countries, because we have that great staple product, wool. I agree, however, that, for some purposes, wool might not be as valuable to the nation as cotton. If cotton can be locally grown and converted into manufactures to the advantage of our people, and a bounty is necessary to encourage this young industry, proposals to grant such assistance will have the support of the Labour party.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

.- The cotton industry is particularly a Queensland industry, and representatives of that State, I feel sure, are very anxious that the industry should be assisted. I do not think we should enter upon a discussion of some of the problematical matters with which the Minister has dealt, for, after all, we do not know what the future holds for this industry. The Minister is of the opinion that the industry will be very greatly helped by the Government’s policy as expressed in this measure, but I am afraid that, as the years go by, we shall find that the industry has not been stabilized by this legislation to the extent that the honorable senator anticipates. We have to accept the bill, of course, and I trust that it will be of great assistance to the industry. Nevertheless, I contend that it would be preferable to endeavour to place the cotton industry on the same footing as the sugar industry. Cotton production is vital to Australia, and every encouragement should be given to the production of our own requirements. I cannot see anything to prevent our stabilizing the industry by giving greater tariff protection to cotton goods. The Minister holds the view that, as a result of this measure, every one engaged in the industry - the grower, the worker in the fields, the manufacturer of yarn, the manufacturer of cotton goods and the importer - will be better off than he is to-day, and, further, that the public also will benefit. This must be a wonderful policy, but I am rather suspicious of a measure which, we are told, will give satisfaction to all sections of the community without interfering with the importation of cotton goods.

Senator Crawford:

– This measure blesses him who gives and him who receives.

Senator BROWN:

– Senator Crawford surely must realize that under a policy which, according to the Minister, will give so many benefits, some one must be going to suffer. Our contention is that if any are to suffer, they should bc those who export the goods to this country, rather than our own people. I challenge the Minister to convince me that every one connected with the industry, as well as the consumers, will be benefited as a result of this policy. Whilst we recognize that bounties must be paid to an industry in its infancy, we contend that there should be a limit to such a policy, because, if a bounty is continuous, the public naturally will regard the industry concerned as leaning on the dole, and will become antagonistic to it. Senator Crawford does not believe in bounties for the sugar industry; he believes in an embargo on imports. We agree that the sugar industry should be protected as much as possible from competition with black-grown sugar, but Senator Crawford, while demanding an embargo on imports of sugar, is quite prepared to agree with the Government’s preference for a bounty, rather than an embargo, so far as the cotton industry is concerned.

Senator Crawford:

– That statement is unfair. I have expressed no opinion yet.

Senator BROWN:

– I withdraw my statement if I have misinterpreted the honorable senator.

Senator McLachlan:

– Senator Brown is thinking of the 15 th September.

Senator BROWN. I was not thinking of the elections at all. I know that Senator Crawford is quite capable of looking after himself on the hustings. However, from my visits recently in the north, I am satisfied that on the 15th September Senator Crawford will be ordered by the electors to retire from this chamber.

Senator Crawford:

– Never prophesy unless you know.

Senator BROWN:

– I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but one can judge the feeling of the country as one moves about, and my recent visits to “the north have shown me that the feeling in Queensland is favorable to Labour. I inferred wrongly, apparently, that Senator Crawford is not favorable to the suggestion that the cotton industry should not be placed exactly on the same basis as the sugar industry. We believe in a protectionist policy, but we hold that bounties should be abolished after they have served their purpose. We look forward to the time when all our needs will be produced by Australian workers, and when we shall have built up an economic system under which the nation shall be self-contained, and will import from other countries only what may be necessary to raise our standard of living. All our basic needs should be- produced locally, and, to that end, it is essential to adopt a policy that will give the fullest protection to the man in the -field, tho spinner, the manufacturers, and the consumer, so that industry may develop commensurately with the growth of the nation.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I expected Senator Crawford to rise in support of my colleague. I can say to the credit of the honorable senator that he is a fairly decent protectionist. Knowing his career in the sugar industry, I would never say that Senator Crawford is opposed to protection. But even in respect of the sugar industry, he was not quite so optimistic a protectionist as he might have been. He heard so much from the free-traders against protection that he thought that the sugar industry should he content to pick up the crumbs that fell from the rich freetrade table. We have an embargo onsugar, and I am in favour of placing an embargo on certain imported cotton goods. By such means we would place the indutsry on a firm foundation, on which those who have already put their money into the indus<try could build soundly for the future. Cotton is an essential product. I was surprised to hear my leader say that he was rather ignorant of matters pertaining to cotton. I would remind him that the first material he ever wore was made of cotton. We have the climate and soil suitable for the growth of cotton and tropical products, and we should certainly do everything in our power to encourage such industries. We shall never become an, independent nation until we do. Queensland is practically the only tropical part of Australia, and, with good soil and rainfall and diversified climate, it offers scope for the establishment of useful tropical industries. And it would be to the interest of the people of the rest of Australia to assist the establishment of such industries in the north. Queensland would suffer a great loss should anything happen to blight the cotton industry. Most honorable senators are aware of the opposition which those engaged in the establishment of a new Australian industry have to meet from the conflicting economic interests of other countries. The Queensland cotton industry is no exception. It has to face opposition from the great cotton industry of the United States of America as well as from the cotton manufacturing interests of Great Britain. Long established producing industries, as we know, often go handinhand with allied manufacturing industries. That has occurred in connexion with cotton-growing. Furthermore, as British capital is invested in cotton production in certain Empire countries which employ coloured labour, Queensland cotton-growers have to face some amount of antagonism from that quarter also. This being so, I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Forde) emphasized the other day that the Labour party would prefer straight-out protection to a continuance of bounty payments. This is the only way in which we can ensure the permanent establishment of the. industry in Australia. Senator Crawford who, I know, is a good protectionist, will admit that adequate protection through the tariff is essential to put tho cotton-growing industry on a satisfactory basis. Since cotton is essential to the manufacture of munitions of war, the industry which is now being established should be regarded as a national asset. I would favour an embargo on the importation of certain forms of manufactured cotton goods in order to safeguard this new industry, whether it is established permanently in Queensland or any other part of Australia where the climate is suitable. In support of my contention that adequate protection through the tariff is the best form of assistance for this industry, I quote the following from a responsible authority - a gentleman occupying ministerial rank - whose name I do not wish to disclose. It epitomizes my own views on the subject. This authority describes the situation very fairly when he says -

The Lyons Government appears to have relied more entirely upon a system of bounties and grants for the relief of the struggling agriculturists. These bounties and grants were derived from Consolidated Revenue and became charitable grants given to indigent farmers.

It is true- they helped to tide growers over difficult periods, but they most certainly failed to achieve any permanent relief in the lot of the producer. Dubious measures such as flour taxes were embarked upon. In short, any action that did not involve the outraging of vested interests was taken, rather than the obvious, if bold, step, of suggesting to the farming community that they should be masters of the destiny of their products, and should be permitted to form organizations that would give them a Commonwealth control over their commodity.

The monetary value of cotton produced in Queensland is a reliable index of its importance and its potential value to the Commonwealth. Senator Crawford will, I think, agree with me that for various reasons, one of which was lack of sympathy on the part of the Government of the day, production is now confined to the Callide Valley and the Dawson River area in Central Queensland. In 1930 the value of the cotton marketed through tho board was £24S,257; in 1931 it had decreased to £217,000; and in 1932 to £92,000. Last year, however, it increased to £242,000. I doubt that the cottongrowers will be satisfied with the continuance of the bounty; they would prefer straightout protection.

Senator McLachlan:

– All interested parties have expressed their absolute satisfaction with the Government’s proposal.

Senator MacDONALD:

– Many, I believe, are of the opinion that the bill does not go far enough. The bounty system i3 not the best method for the development of this industry. Sooner or later we shall have to give it protection through the tariff.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Rates of bounty).

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– Can the Minister say to what extent the rates of bounty provided in this clause follow the recommendation made by the Tariff Board, and can he give some general statement as to the extent to which the recommendations of the board have been followed?

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council

– As I pointed out in my second-reading speech the increase in the rate of bounty is equivalent to about 2d. per lb. It is fixed on a sliding scale, based on a Liverpool spot price of 6d. per lb.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 19 agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

. -I move -

That clause 8 be reconsidered.

Information has recently been received in Canberra to the effect that grave dissatisfaction exists amongst the cottongrowers concerning the assistance proposed to be afforded to the cotton industry. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator McLachlan), who once said that if bounties were paid to all Australia’s industries the position would be chaotic, is now supporting the bounty system. The cotton-growers are anxious that a section of the act passed by the Scullin Government should be incorporated in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator having given his reasons for moving that clause 8 be reconsidered is not entitled to discuss the matter at length.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

.- Clause 8, which is a vital provision of the bill, reads -

The maximum amount of raw cotton produced in any year ending on the30th day of November, upon which bounty maybe paid under this act, shall be such quantity as the Minister determines as being the quantity of raw cotton required during the year ending on the31st day of March next following that year, for consumption by users in Australia of raw cotton, plus 20 per centum of the quantity so determined.

That provision should be sufficiently liberal to assist those engaged in the cotton industry, and I submit that there is no necessity to amend it.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– It is the practice to give an honorable senator, who moves for the reconsideration of a clause, an opportunity to state his reasons for so doing. Senator Brown has not yet been afforded that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Brown has already stated his reason for moving, that the clause be reconsidered.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– When clause 8 was put, Senator Brown was temporarily absent from the chamber obtaining information to enablehim to submit a certain proposal to the Government. He has therefore moved that the clause be reconsidered to enable him to move an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Brown will have an opportunity to test the feeling of the committee on the motion he has moved.

Senator MacDONALD:

– I understand that the Senate is a chamber of review. If Senator Brown is not permitted to state his reasons for moving that the clausebe reconsidered, we may as well go home.

Question - That clause 8 be reconsidered - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 6

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) pro.posed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I protest against the way in which Senator Brown and other honorable senators on this side of the chamber have been treated. The Government is endeavouring to rush the business through the Senate, but we should not attempt to get away until our work here has been completed. Senator Brown, expecting me to speak at greater length, and others to follow, was absent when the bill was rushed through committee. He, therefore, did not have the opportunity to move an amendment. When consideration of the clauses was completed I asked the Chairman (Senator Herbert Hays) if it was possible for Senator Brown to have a clause reconsidered.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - Senator Brown can at this stage move for the recommittal of the bill.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– Certain representations have been made to Queensland senators by cottongrowers who are fearful lest they suffer under this bill. Clause S imposes a limit, corresponding with the quantity of raw cotton required by spinners in Australia, plus 20 per cent., upon the amount of bounty to be paid in any one year. Iu some years, for certain reasons, the full bounty may not be paid. The growers would like to know whether, if the full bounty is not paid in any one year, the amount saved by the Government in that year can be paid to them in the next or other succeeding years, so that they may not lose any of the money available. I was desirous of moving an amendment on those lines, to test the feeling of the committee, but did not have the opportunity. I should now move for the recommittal of the bill for the further consideration of clause S, but the majority against me in the last division was so large that no good purpose would be served by doing so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1161

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL 1934

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1161

EXCISE BILL 1934

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1161

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bil] (on motion by Senator MoLachlan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is required in order to ensure that the duties set out in the CUstoms tariff resolutions introduced on the 24th November, 1933, relating to tobacco, and on the 1st August, 1934, relating principally to the cotton industry, shall operate until after the new Parliament assembles. It provides for the duties to be validated until the 2Sth February, 1935, which will allow sufficient time for the schedules to be reintroduced into the new Parliament, on which occasion the duties can be fully debated. The usual practice in these circumstances is for

Parliament to validate the schedules that have been tabled, in order that the revenue may not suffer. I can assure honorable senators that no one will be prejudiced by the passage of the measure.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

– Although the bill is formal, I take exception to the way in which the collection of customs duties is being validated. The schedules are tabled on, and the duties levied from, a certain day. I have never been able to understand why, if the duties are not later confirmed by Parliament, those who have paid them cannot obtain refunds. This again is a case of government by regulation.

Senator Rae:

– The money cannot be refunded, because the merchant has already passed the extra charge on to his customers.

Senator GRANT:

– It should refund the money to the people who paid it.

SenatorMcLachlan.- But they have already collected it from their customers.

Senator GRANT:

– I do not think that follows. The money has been illegally collected, and now Parliament is asked to validate the illegal action in order to enable the department to overcome the difficulty. I register my protest against this improper way of conducting business. If the department undercharges any one, it makes sure of collecting the difference later on, even if it takes twelve months to do so ; but, if an over-payment is made to the department, Parliament has to validate the retention of the money. If an over-charge has been made, it should be returned to the person who paid it, in the same way as refunds are made under the Income Tax Assessment Act.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Senator Grant’s objection is not valid. The merchant or storekeeper adds the duty to the price of his goods, and his customers, who may be scattered all over theCommonwealth, help to pay it. If the money could be refunded to the customers, which is impossible, the honorable senator’s argument would be sound.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Validation of collections under tariff proposals).

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– How much money is involved, and to what extent is the committee being asked to validate an illegal action? Does the bill take away people’s rights permanently, or can they secure redress later?

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– It is impossible to tell the honorable senator how much money is involved, because the duties have been collected from various dates, extending as far back as November, 1933, and the figures have not been kept separate.

SenatorBarnes. - The money is collected, I understand, legitimately and properly.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That is so.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I can see no reason for the clause, which states that duties “ demanded or collected “ shall be deemed “ to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected.” This at once raises the presumption that they have not been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected.

SenatorMcLachlan. - That would be so as soon as the House of Representatives was prorogued. Up to the present they have been lawfully imposed and collected. The only way to avoid passing this bill would be to pass the tariff schedules before the prorogation.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Then do I understand that no duties have been unlawfully or illegally imposed and demanded or collected?

Senator McLachlan:

– Not up to this moment; but, once the House of Representatives expired, that would no longer be true.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Do I understand that no one from whom duty has been improperly collected, and who is entitled to a refund, will be in any way prejudiced?

Senator McLachlan:

– Nobody can bo prejudiced.

Senator Grant:

– There will be no refund.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Then the fact is as I stated it first. “We are given no particulars of what the duties are, or how much is involved; but we are expected to validate an action which, without validation, would, on the wording of the clause, have been unlawful.

Senator McLachlan:

– The moment the House of Representatives expired it would become illegal.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– If it is illegal now why should we validate it ?

Senator McLachlan:

– It is not illegal now; the duties have so far been lawfully collected. Unless customs duties are agreed to in the session in whichthey are introduced, they lapse, and refunds have to be made. This bill validates them until the new Parliament meets, and obviates the impossible task of making refunds.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1163

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Aus tralia

.- I move-

That the hill be now read a second time.

This bill is required in order to ensure that the exchange adjustment shall apply to the protective duties included in the customs tariff resolution of the 1st August, 1934, which related principally to the cotton industry. It validates the exchange adjustment proposals of that date for the same period as that for which the cotton duties are validated, namely, until the 28th February, 1935. This will allow the incoming government sufficient time to introduce a new resolution, which can then be fully debated. This bill is consequential on the passing of the bill with which the Senate dealt before luncheon. In order to make the exchange adjustment apply to the British rate of duty this validating measure is necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1163

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Aus tralia

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is required in order to ensure that the duties set out in the excise tariff resolution introduced on. the 1st August, 1934, relating to fortifying spirit and concentrated grape must, shall operate until after the new parliament assembles. It provides for the duties to be validated until the 28th February, 1935, which will allow sufficient time for a schedule to be introduced into the next parliament, when the duties can be fully debated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1163

LATE EX-SENATOR D. M. CHARLESTON

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from the relatives of the late ex-Senator D. M. Charleston a letter thanking the Senate for its resolution of sympathy in their bereavement.

page 1164

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator -

No.16 of 1934 - The Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia; The Commonwealth Telephone Officers Association.

No. 17 of 1934 - The Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia.

No. 18 of 1934 - The Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers Federation of Australia; The Amalgamated Engineering Union; and The Australasian Society of Engineers.

War Service Homes Act - Memorandum of an arrangement between the War Service Homes Commissioner and the State of Western Australia, relating to the purchase of land, erection of dwelling houses, &c, in that State.

Universal Postal Congress at Cairo - Report by the Honorable Archdale Parkhill, PostmasterGeneral of the Commonwealth, and Mr. M. B. Harry, on the Universal Postal Congress, held at Cairn in FebruaryMarch, 1934, and of the convention adopted at the Congress.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory Administration Act - Ordinance No. 14 of 1934 - Roads. Encouragement of Primary Production Ordinance - Regulations.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government Administration Act - Ordinance No. 17 of 1934 - Court of Petty Sessions.

Wheat, Flour and Bread Industries - Royal

Commission - First Report.

League of Nations - Fourteenth Assembly, from the 25th September, to the 11th October, 1933 - Report of the Australian Delegation.

page 1164

CUSTOMS TARIFF (SPECIAL DUTIES) VALIDATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Aus tralia

– I move-

That the bill be now read asecond time.

This bill deals with special duties of customs and is for the purpose of validating all special duties collected since this Government assumed office. These special duties were originally introduced by the last Government as part of its scheme for the rectification ofthe then adverse balanceoftrade, and affected 74 items and sub-items. In re- introducing the special duties of 55 items and sub-items in February, 1932, the present Government made it clear that a continual review would be undertaken with the object of ultimately removing them entirely. The Government has acted in accord with its promise, and there are now only six items to which the special duties apply. Five of these items have revenue significance. The bill provides for the duties to be validated until the 28th February, 1935, which will allow sufficient time for the new Government to determine whether these duties are to continue, and if so, to reintroduce a new schedule.

Special duties are now operating in respect of tariff items 309; 310; 314; 315; 316; 330. The rates of duty payable under the ordinary customs tariff, and the rates under the special duties proposals are as follow: -

Senator Rae:

– Why were these bills not validated before?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If the honorable senator will examine clause 2 he will see that some of the duties were imposed us far back as the 25th February, 1932.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1165

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS REPATRIATION BILL (No 2) 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLach- lan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Aus tralia

. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is intended primarily to honour the promise given by the Prime Minister at the commencement of this session, that the Government would introduce legislation to include in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act the full pension granted to ex-members of the Australian Imperial Force suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis due to war service. I think that every honorable senator will agree with this action, which will result in bringing greater peace of mind to those unfortunate men who have rendered heroic service to their country with disastrous results to themselves. I should point out that the full pension was made available to soldiers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis by a Cabinet decision operating from the 1st July, 1925. Successive governments have affirmed that decision, but there has always existed in the minds of those benefiting from it a fear that some day they might be deprived of the full pension. The inclusion of the provision in the act guarantees that it can be lost by parliamentary action only. A similar state of affairs existed in regard to the payment of an attendant’s allowance to blinded soldiers. By some oversight when the second schedule to the act governing similar grants was prepared, the blinded soldiers were overlooked. Action was taken to obviate the effect of the omission by the issue of a regulation enabling payment to be made. It is now proposed to remedy the omission itself by including the provision in the act.

As it is necessary to secure parliamentary sanction for these proposals, this opportunity has been taken to include in the bill several other matters, some of which merely aim at removing technical difficulties of administration. I shall explain briefly the nature of these other matters and, should further information be required, I shall gladly furnish ample details of each of the clauses when the bill is in committee Clause 2 will result, in effect, in the widow of a pensioner who married the pensioner after the 1st October, 1934, being considered as a dependant and hence pensionable under the act. Clause 3 relates to repatriation boards and is designed to make it possible for repatriation boards to deal more expeditiously with reviews, assessments, &c. Under clause 4, the commission will be empowered to approve of arrears of pension for a period not exceeding three months in cases where a cancelled pension is re-instated or where a voluntarily relinquished pension is restored. Clause 5 will permit the commission to continue the pension to a dependant where the member fails to present himself for review after being duly notified to do so. Clause 6 deals with the pension payable to ex-soldiers suffering from tuberculosis. Clause 7 of the bill has been drafted to remove certain undesirable features of section 39 of the act which at present provides that the dependants of a. soldier who dies from other than war causes may continue to draw the pensions they were receiving at the time of his death. This section is operating somewhat harshly in certain cases and the Government is desirous of remedying the situation. Clause 8 purports to repeal section 40 of the act, which,” in its present form prevents the commission from granting a war pension to the dependants of a man who dies as a result of his war service, more than seven years after the date of his discharge, unless, at the time of his death, he was in receipt of a pension, and then only to his widow and children. Clause 9 of the bill has been inserted to meet the circumstances of a case recently brought to the notice of the Government. The amendment provides that, in cases of death, through accident, of incapacitated soldiers, the burden of proving that the incapacity did not contribute to the death shall lie upon the commission. This amendment is to date from the 30th October, 1933. Under clause 10 of this bill, the Government proposes to authorize the Appeal Tribunal, commonly referred to as the Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and the Assessment Appeal Tribunal to approve arrears of pension, not exceeding certain amounts in specified cases. Clause 11 of this bill gives power to an Assessment Appeal Tribunal to appoint a representative to continue an appeal by a mentally afflicted soldier. Clause 12 provides for the inclusion in the act of a provision in relation to an allowance to blinded men or women who have no useful vision, to provide an attendant. At present, this is dealt with in the regulations. In addition, it is proposed to empower the commission to grant an attendant’s allowance to other soldiers who suffer from serious disablement, the incapacitating effects of which -are similar to those resulting from injury or disease affecting the cerebro-spinal system. An attendant’s allowance is already in force under the second schedule of the act for spinal cases, and the amended definition will enable the commission to give wider interpretation of the provision, and assist many thoroughly deserving and seriously disabled men. Clause 13, aims in paragraphs a, b and e to remedy certain legal defects. The additions are selfexplanatory, and with a view ‘to protecting the interests of those cases already granted assistance under this schedule, it is the desire of the Government to date the provisions, with one exception, back to the 18th October, 1922. Paragraph c proposes to give legislative approval to grant ail allowance of 15s. a fortnight for men suffering loss of vision in one eye. At present this allowance is paid under regulation 97, and is subject to a reduction of 20 per cent. The Prime Minister, in his budget speech, announced that this 20 per cent, would be restored and the allowance of 7s. 6d. a week paid forthwith. By including the benefit in the act, the Government will give it that degree of permanency and statutory authority which is in the province of Parliament only to give.

Honorable senators will now perceive that the Government has made a genuine effort to make even more liberal an act which, all will admit, is already extremely generous, providing for the pensioning of those who suffered as a result of the great war. As” such an object must appeal to all honorable senators, I feel sure that they will welcome the measure and assist in its speedy passage.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– I cannot imagine any opposition being offered to the passage of this bill. I congratulate the Government on having brought it forward. It clears up a number of matters in regard to which doubts have existed in the minds of returned soldiers for some years past. As one who has taken a small part at least in the negotiations regarding those matters, I have great satisfaction in seeing them now brought to a successful conclusion. Unfortunately, we are unable to remedy the fact that most of the cases which have given rise to these amendments will be excluded from the benefits of the bill, for the reason that the times prescribed will not apply to them. Such causes for complaint in the future, however, will be very few indeed. I commend this measure wholeheartedly to honorable senators.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– We cannot appreciate the full incidence of some of these amendments without studying them in conjunction with the principal act. As we have not time to do that we have to take some of the provisions in the bill on trust. Do these amendments provide for consideration of the right to pensions of persons who were fit when they enlisted, but who have long since their discharge developed any of the diseases dealt with in this measure? Frequently we hear of a person having contracted some disease or complaint which he attributes to war service. The medical examiner, however, reports that there is no proof that the complaint or disease has arisen from war service. I think that in some countries the principle is now accepted that where a person was strong and healthy when he enlisted, but afterwards contracted a disease, it is taken for granted that such complaint has been induced through the weakening of his system by war service.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator wants to know if the bill changes the onus of proof of the cause of illness? It does not deal with that point.

Senator RAE:

– I am very sorry that it does not, but I hope that some day we shall be sufficiently enlightened to liberalize the law in that respect.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
.Tasmania

– This bill is a favorable opportunity to bring under the notice of the Minister the case of an unfortunate exsoldier who, after having been in receipt of a partial pension, was, following an examination, deprived of it. I understand that there are many similar cases throughout the Commonwealth. The man in question enlisted for service abroad, and while on service met with an accident, received hospital treatment in Great Britain, was returned to duty, and, following his return to Tasmania, was discharged. Subsequently he

Appeared before the board, and received a partial pension. Later, as his condition became worse, he sought medical advice, and then made application for a permanent pension. Following the usual procedure, his case was entirely reopened, and, as a result of a second examination, the pension was cancelled. He then appealed to the Entitlements Tribunal, which decided against him. Now, although he is suffering very severely as a result of injuries sustained while on war service, he is without a pension. Prior to enlistment he was doing work which could be performed only by a man in the best of health. Now he is totally disabled.

Senator Payne:

– He is a physical wreck.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– His condition became so bad that some time ago the Repatriation Department provided him with an invalid chair, but, when his incapacity was declared to be not due to war service, he was called upon to return the chair. I am not making any complaint of unsympathetic treatment by the department, because I believe that the officials were really concerned about this man’s condition; but they were obliged to act in strict accordance with the law. I am sure that the people would not complain if provision could be made by the Government to meet all such cases. This man is permanently disabled. He has to wheel himself about in an invalid chair, and, because of the withdrawal of his pension, his wife and family also are suffering hardship. I understand/ that he is not allowed to apply for an invalid pension. His position is really tragic, and, as might be expected, he is very depressed and lowspirited. I suggest that, if the Repatriation Department cannot pay him a pension, provision should be made in some way by the Government to meet his case. Although the departmental view is that his present disability is not due to war service, it is well known that, prior to enlistment, ho was a very healthy man, and that his present unfortunate condition is due to injuries which he received in England. The man is now in. dire straits. I hope that his case will ^ receive sympathetic consideration.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– All honorable senators must have been deeply moved by the pathetic case mentioned by Senator Herbert Hays. If he will furnish me with the name of the man, I shall submit the facts to the Minister in charge of Repatriation, and I can assure him that the case will receive sympathetic consideration. If the facts are as stated by the honorable gentleman, the man will probably have an opportunity to produce further evidence in. support of his claim. Tim is the only way in which it is possible for relief to be given. The commission, I am informed, did not take the view that the man was entitled to a pension, although subsequently it was granted to him, and, following the appeal made after the second examination, it was withdrawn. However, I shall see that the case is again investigated by the Minister, who, as honorable senators will agree, administers the act sympathetically and with a leaning all the time to the men who were his own comrades on the battlefront.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Duties ofboards’).

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– This clause makes several amendments to section 26 of the principal act, and, as the bill has not been long in the hands of honorable senators. I shall be glad if the Minister will explain what the various amendments mean.

SenatorMcLACHLAN (South Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.59]. - Section 26 provides that the boards shall, inter alia, determine whether the death or incapacity of a member of the forces resulted from events happening while he was a member of the forces, whether it resulted from his employment in connexion with naval and military preparations, the extent to which persons alleged to be dependent on a member of the forces were in fact so dependent, assess the rates of pensions payable, and the dates of commencement of such pensions. This clause merely makes a number of formal amendments to the section referred to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 -

After section thirty-one of the principal act the following section is inserted: - “31a. - (1.) The rate of pension payable under this act to a member of the forces in respect of incapacity caused by tuberculosis shall be not less than the rate specified in column four of the First Schedule opposite to the rate of pay of the member.

Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia

– I move-

That before the word “ tuberculosis “ subsection 1, proposed new section 31a, the word “pulmonary” be inserted.

Under a misapprehension or owing to a misunderstanding, the Government, in its anxiety to make the provision as liberal as possible, accepted an amendment, the effect of which is to delete the word “ pulmonary “ from the long title of the bill, and also from clause 6. Such deletion goes beyond the promise of the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to obtain parliamentary approval of the policy enunciated by Cabinet in August, 1925. The late Sir Neville Howse promised a pension at full rate for life to those suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis due to war service. Successive governments have continued the benefit as promised, but the Government feels that to extend the provision to other types of tuberculosis is beyond the intention of the Government. Tuberculosis affecting parts other than the respiratory system may be seriously debilitating and incapacitating, and where such incapacity is full, total pension is unhesitatingly granted. On the other hand, tuberculosis of, say, one joint of a finger, or any other joint, may cause the sufferer very little incapacity or possibly no pensionable degree of disablement, and in such a case it is not the intention of the Government to pay a full pension for life to the soldier, his wife, and children. Honorable senators will agree that where such a minute affection is present, and where it does not cause the restriction of employment andsocial activities, such as is caused by tuberculosis of the lungs and throat, it is unreasonable to expect any government to pay a full pension for life. In further explanation, and so that honorable senators may understand thoroughly the nature of the problem presented, the following cases are quoted: -

Amputation of a limb entitles the sufferer to a pension at 75 per cent. rate if the loss is below the hip or shoulder and at 80 per cent, rate if the loss is at the joints mentioned. In addition, an allowance to bring the pension to approximately full rate is granted. A man who has tuberculosis of one joint would receive 100 per cent. of pension and this is regarded as unduly liberal and a discrimination against more severely injured men. Hence the Government’s desire to insert the word “ pulmonary “. Similarly, if an ex-soldier had an eye damaged by a bullet on active service, and it had to be removed, he would get a pension of 28s. 6d. a week. If he has a tubercular lesion of the eye, he would, unless the amendment be accepted, get a pension of £2 2s. a week. In the event of severe facial disfigurement, a pension at 80 per cent, rate is granted. If a man had tuberculosis of the skin on his face, even though the lesion was so small that recognition is difficult, the incapacity negligible, and the disease’ very slowly progressive, he would obtain a 100 per cent, pension for rife. This would be unfair to the case suffering from facial disfigurement and in order not to create anomalies, the Government proposes to insert the word “ pulmonary “. Pulmonary tubercular cases will thus receive full pension for life unless fraud or impersonation is proved. Sufferers from other types of tuberculosis will receive pension in accordance with the degree of incapacity revealed by medical examination.

Senator Rae:

– And if the incapacity of a person increased?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– He could then apply for a full pension.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Death of member after discharge).

Senator Brown:

– What would be the position of the dependants of an exsoldier who committed suicide?

Senator McLachlan:

– I am informed that the law and practice is that the department has to prove that the act of suicide was not due to war service.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Consideration of appeals).

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– Cases have been brought under my notice where appeals have been rejected when it seemed evident to every one but the members of the appeal tribunal that the malady from which tho person was suffering was duc, indirectly if not directly, to the weakening of the system caused by war service. A grave injustice has been done in many cases which have come under my observation, because it is assumed that the applicant for a pension did not contract the malady from which he was suffering as a result of war service, unless he can prove that he did. Although it is obvious to every fair-minded person that that is the actual reason, in many cases it is humanly impossible to prove it. Those who

1-401

served at tho war for some time must necessarily have weakened their system or injured their constitution, thus rendering them more liable to disease than they would have been under normal conditions. At the landing at Gallipoli, a distant relative of mine received shrapnel wounds in the head, which rendered him unconscious. He was removed to Malta, and several days elapsed before he regained consciousness. He was subsequently operated on, and on numerous occasions small portions of shrapnel were removed from his head. Having recovered sufficiently, he was sent to Egypt, where he was placed in charge of a number of mules. On again becoming incapacitated he was sent to England, where further operations were performed. He was eventually returned to Australia and discharged. Prior to enlisting he was employed as a cleaner in the Railways Department, and subsequently became an engine-driver. Some time later he became subject to dizziness, which rendered him incapable of carrying out such responsible work, and he was then given employment in the shunting yards. As the Railways Department is not giving such men the difference between the higher and the lower rates, I submit that they should receive a pension for partial incapacity. If I am in order I propose to move an amendment to the effect that where a returned member of the Australian Imperial Force at any time contracts a disease which seriously or permanently incapacitates him from earning his livelihood, it shall be deemed that the incapacity is due to war services unless the Repatriation Department can prove to the contrary.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

[3.13]. - The proposed amendment in this clause to the existing law is to extend section 45 w of the principal act, which was inserted in 1929 to meet the class of case to which Senator Rae has referred. The amended provision is to cover the cases of men who may be partially deaf or who have lost the sight of one eye, and as a result may be knocked down in a street. Under the proposed new proviso, such cases can be reviewed. When the honorable senator first raised the matter, I thought it was the one that wediscussed years ago, hut that problem was met by the amendment made in 1929, so that the onus is now on the commission. The honorable senator instanced the case of a railway cleaner rising to the position of engine driver, and some nervous defect rendering him unable to carry out the more strenuous duties of the higher position.

Senator Rae:

– He is afraid that the lives of passengers may be endangered.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– That would be a good reason for the commission to intervene, because he is suffering from a disability, and the commission must face the problem. A prima facie case is made out by the appellant himself, and the onus is then on the commission to disprove it. But if it can disprove it, the general public should not be asked to meet the expense involved. On the facts as put by the honorable senator I think it is clear that the commission is bound to take action.

Senator Rae:

– He underwent no fewer than 16 operations.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– In the circumstances, I suggest that the honorable senator should advise the person concerned to make the necessary application, because the onus is clearly thrown upon the commission.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I thought that in my secondreading speech, I had clearly explained the case I brought up. I was not making a complaint against the department. The Minister said that if the man could in any way link his disability up with his war service, he had a right to appeal. I pointed out, in my second-reading speech, that that was the difficulty. The returned soldier concerned discussed the matter with the board, who made the position quite clear to him, after listening most sympathetically to his case, which, in fact, has been handled by returned men, who have done their best for him. I am not bringing it forward because others have failed, but I again draw the attention of the Government to the fact that under the existing law he has no redress unless he can prove that his disability is due to war service. I did not ask the Government to explain the procedure open to him, because that is quite definitely understood. What I do suggest is that the Government should make an appropriation in order to create a fund from which such cases might be met. No section of the community would object to such a provision being made on the estimates.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13-

  1. – The Fifth Schedule to the principal act is amended: -
  2. – The amendments effected by paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of sub-section (1.) of this section shall be deemed to have commenced on the 18th of October, 1922.
Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil · South Australia

.- I move-

That sub-clause (2.) be amended by leaving out the words and letters “ (6) and (e) “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words and letters: - “and (6) and paragraph (d) inserted in the proviso to the Fifth Schedule to the principal act by paragraph

Confusion has arisen as the result of the insertion in this clause in the House of Representatives of a new paragraph which was intended to come into operation on the date of the commencement of the bill. A special commencement provision is, however, already contained in this clause, and as the clause reads at present, the new paragraph will come into force on the special date mentioned, namely the 18th October, 1922. As this was not intended, the amendment should be made. It remedies what was obviously a slip made in the hurried passage of the bill through the House of Representatives.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title amended by inserting the word “ pulmonary “ before the word “ tuberculosis “, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments, and with an amended title; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1170

MANDARIN-GROWERS RELIEF BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[3.24]. - 1 move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I promised during the discussion of the Financial Relief Bill to see if anything could be done towards providing relief for mandarin-growers. This bill is introduced to provide for the disbursement of £10,000 to the States for the purpose of assisting the growers of mandarins. The grant is allocated to the States upon the basis of the acreage of mandarin trees grown in each State. The amounts will therefore be disbursed as follows: - -New South Wales, acreage 6,757, grant £8,515; Victoria, acreage 171, grant £216; Queensland, acreage 742, grant £935; South Australia, acreage 100, grant, £126; Western Australia, acreage 165, grant £208. Total acreage 7,935; total grant, £10,000. Tasmania does not grow mandarins. Following upon the imposition by New Zealand of an embargo on Australian citrus fruits in December, 1932, the Government, as an encouragement to the exploration of new markets, guaranteed all shippers of oranges against loss of their out-of-pocket expenses to a maximum of 13s. a case in respect of the United Kingdom market, and to such’ limit as might be decided in respect of markets of other countries. Similar provision has been made in respect of exports this year. This form of assistance is of value to the mandarin-growers, as considerations of distance preclude the export of the fruit to other than markets which are near by. Prior to the embargo, the exports of mandarins to New Zealand were as follows: - 1930, 56,114 bushels; 1931, 43,297 bushels; and 1932, 42,966 bushels. Almost all of these shipments were from New South Wales. Not only did the mandarin-grower lose his valuable market in New Zealand, but the local market for mandarins was detrimentally affected as a consequence of the cessation of orange shipments to New Zealand, and the resultant increase in oranges on the local market. The Commonwealth Government therefore considered that some action on its part was justified, and, after a review of the position which had arisen, decided to make available a sum of £10,000. Prior to reaching this decision, the State Government of New South Wales was consulted, as most of the areas affected are located in that State, and the question of joint assistance by the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments was discussed. The Commonwealth Government has again been in consultation with the State Government, and it is hoped that at an early date it will be possible to announce to the mandaringrowers of New South Wales that £10,000 will be made available by the State Government for their assistance in addition to the £8,515 proposed by the Commonwealth under this bill. As the bill indicates, the manner in which the funds shall be applied is left to the discretion of the State Government authorities. They are, of course, closely acquainted with the problems of their growers, and can confidently be relied upon to distribute the funds in a manner which will conduce to the best interests of the industry.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– The mandarin is an excellent fruit, and the assistance now proposed to be given to its growers is probably badly needed by them. The amount provided is not very large. I should like to know whether there is any general policy, under which growers of different fruits may obtain a share of the benefits which are being made available by the Government. We have done something for those who produce dried fruits and for the growers of apples, pears, pineapples and citrus fruits generally, but what about the growers of other fruits? Is there any general policy under which fruit-growers, as a class, will have their claims considered if they are in need of financial help? There are many other kinds of fruit for which, apparently, no provision has yet been made; although the growers of them may be just as capable and deserving, and in as difficult financial circumstances as are those who now receive assistance. The plum is a good fruit, although, perhaps, not equal to the apple, or so delicious as the pear. Is there any reason why the growers of plums should be treated differently from the growers of other fruits? I suppose that peanuts cannot be described as fruit, although I understand that the Trade and Customs Department regards the tomato as a fruit. Is there any provision under which the growers of tomatoes can receive assistance ?

Senator Crawford:

– Queensland produces large quantities of rock melons.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– ls there any special reason why the growers of rock melons should be excluded from this class of legislation? I am not questioning the difficulties of the growers of mandarins or the excellence of that fruit, but it seems to me that we should not legislate to grant assistance to the growers of some classes of fruit, while excluding other growers, who may be equally deserving.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON (Victoria) [3.33]. - It is impossible to disagree with the principle enunciated by Senator Duncan-Hughes. The foundation of the grants to certain classes of fruit-growers is the need of the industry, and those associated with it. Already the claims of the wheat-growers and the growers of apples and pears have been considered, and in this bill the Government recognizes the claims of the growers of mandarins. Senator Duncan-Hughes asked why plums are not included in this legislation. I suggest that it may be because only an inconsiderable portion of the plum crop is exported. If, however, representations on behalf of the growers of plums are made to the Department of Commerce and) after investigation, it is deemed necessary for the maintenance and stability of the industry to do something to tide them over the present difficult period, the Government will give those representations careful and sympathetic consideration. Naturally, it will welcome the return of conditions which will make unnecessary the granting of assistance to any industry.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Does the promise apply to the growers of potatoes ?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

– I am not making any promise that assistance will be granted to a particular industry. It may be that there is no general principle underlying this class of legislation; but the Government has been actuated by a desire to assist a deserving section of the community during a period of depression. I emphasize that no favoritism is intended; each case is dealt with on its merits.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1172

EVIDENCE BILL 1934

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1172

DESIGNS BILL 1934

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1172

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Vic toria

[3.40]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this measure is to appropriate a further £10,000,000 for the payment of war. pensions. The bill does not deal in any way with the rates of pensions or the conditions governing the granting of them; it merely asks Parliament to provide the money to pay those pensions which have been, or may be, granted under the sections, of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act relating to war pensions. The total expenditure on war pensions to the 30th June last was £109,431,194. Of the previous appropriations, the balance unexpended at the close of the financial year was £6,191,438. The amount will not be sufficient to cover payments of pensions during the current year. A further appropriation is therefore required, and the usual practice of asking Parliament to vote a lump sum of £10,000,000 has been followed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1173

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 1) 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Secondreading.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Vic toria

[3.45] . - I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The purposes of the bill are, briefly, to remove anomalies, and to ensure the effective operation, in accordance with the intentions of Parliament, of certain provisions regarding which doubt and administrative difficulties have arisen. Clause 2 re-expresses the definition of “ manufacture “ in order to place beyond doubt the liability of manufacturers who engage in the treatment of various foodstuffs for sale. In regard to cases in which taxable goods and other non-taxable assets are sold together for one inclusive price, the department has been advised that there is some doubt as to whether the sale value of thetaxable goods may be determined. The bill provides that in such cases, the sale value of the taxable goods shall be the amount for which they would, in the opinion of the Commissioner, have been sold separately. A uniform basis of taxation in cases where goods are manufactured for any person out of materials supplied by him is provided. In some cases, a customer supplies the materials for this purpose to a merchant who procures the actual making of the goods by a third person. In some such instances, tax has been paid by themerchant, whilst in others, the actual maker of the goods has paid the tax. It is intended to provide clearly that in all these cases, the merchant shall be responsible for payment of the tax. The bill also clarifies the position regarding the sale value of goods made by manufacturing retailers from tax-paid materials. It was intended that the special sale value of manufacturing and wages, plus 20 per cent., should apply only where the whole of the materials used have borne tax. This intention is made clear in the bill. Another provision is that which is designed to overcome a subterfuge adopted by certain persons with a view to partial avoidance of sales tax. The type of case affected is that in which merchants desiring goods to be manufactured sell the necessary raw materials to the manufacturer for much, less than their true value. The manufacturer in such cases is obliged to pay tax only on asale value consisting of the fictitious cost of materials, plus his charge for manufacturing. It is intended that such subterfuges shall not prevent the collection of tax on the fair market value of the goods. In respect to the distribution of the assets of companies in liquidation, it is intended that the preference allowed under the existing law in respect of sales tax shall be waived to the extent of permitting liquidators’ costs and remuneration to be paid before sales tax. Finally, the bill ensures that penalties for certain offences against the law shall not be escaped by reason of carelessness on the part of the taxpayer, or on account of lapse of time before discovery of the offences.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1173

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time..

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Vic toria

[3.52]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Thisis a very short measure, the sole purpose of which is to effectuate fully the intention of Parliament that sales tax should not be payable in respect of goods produced by home manufacturers whose sales do not exceed £500 per annum. The existing law, while it exempts the sale of such goods by the manufacturer, does not allow freedom from tax in respect of them when subsequently sold by a retailer who, by reason of other activities, is registered under the sales tax assessment acts. The proposed amendment will remove the liability to tax in such cases, and will obviate serious administrative difficulties which would arise from any attempt to enforce that liability.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1174

INCOME TAX BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[3.55]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is the usual annual measure to impose the rates of income tax payable for the current financial year. As the Government has decided that the rates shall be the same as for last financial year, the only difference between this bill and the Income Tax Act 1933 is that the sixth and seventh schedules of the latter, which prescribed rates of tax payable by companies assessed under section 21a of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922-1933 have not been repeated. This is because the Income Tax Assessment Bill now before Parliament repeals section 21 a of the Income Tax Assessment Act, and replaces it by the new provisions relating to the assessment of private companies. The scheme now adopted in respect of those companies does not require the prescription of a special rate of tax. Those particular schedules will, as a consequence, have no future application.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1174

TRANSFERRED OFFICERS’ PENSIONS BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia

[4.3]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to rectify an anomaly in the calculation of pensions payable to officers who were formerly in the employ of State services. Under the provisions of section 84 of the Constitution, the rights to pension of State officers transferred to the Commonwealth service were preserved, the amounts being based on the average annual salary received during the last three years of service. The Financial Emergency Act 1931 reduced the salaries of Commonwealth officers. Consequently the pension of any officer with State rights who retired subsequent to July, 1931, was calculated on a reduced salary, the result being that the officers suffered not only a reduction of salary, but also a permanent loss of pension. The officers with State rights who have retired since July, 1931, were formerly in the service, of the New South Wales and Western Australian Governments. In these States, the Governments, when introducing financial emergency legislation, made provision .protecting pensions and retiring allowances which otherwise would have ‘been affected by the reductions of salaries. In view of the fact that reductions of superannuation effected by the Financial Emergency Act 1931 have now been fully restored, it is equitable that any disability in regard to rate of pension under which officers transferred to the Commonwealth service suffer should be removed. The bill provides that where the rate of pension has been reduced because of salary reductions under the Financial Emergency Act 1931, the officers shall be paid an allowance to offset the loss of pension. In ascertaining this loss, it is not intended that these pensioners should receive any relief it respect of reductions of salary occasioned by the fall of the cost of living. There are seventeen officers who have retired, and who are now in receipt of reduced pensions, and about 90 transferred officers having State pension rights remain in the Commonwealth service. Restoration of these rights would cost about £220 per annum at present, whilst the maximum cost would be less than £1,000 per annum.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from48 to 9.17 p.m.

page 1175

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1934

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1175

SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[9.20]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I suggest to you, sir, and to the Senate, that as a matter of convenience, the debate on the second reading of this bill should cover also the Western Australia Grant Bill and the Tasmania Grant Bill. If this bill is agreed to by the Senate the two other measures can then be taken pro forma. The subjects, which are interrelated, are dealt with at length in the first report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. If this procedure is adopted no injustice will be done to any honorable senator.

The measures which are now being submitted provide for special grants to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania during the financial year 1934-35. The subject of financial assistance to these States has exercised the serious consideration, not only of the present Government, but also of previous governments for a number of years. The Common wealth Grants Commission recently inquired into the more recent claims submitted by South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, and after taking into account a wide range of factors claimed to have a bearing on the situation, the Commonwealth Grants Commission finally recommended grants as follows : -

The Government has accepted the recommendations of the commission, and in the bills that are now before the Senate it is provided that appropriations from revenue be made accordingly.

I have moved the second reading of the bill in a speech which I trust honorable senators will regard as commendably brief, and I shall be pleased if the example I have set is followed by them.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - It has been a longestablished practice in the Senate that, in the second-reading debate on a bill, other bills dealing with cognate subjects may be discussed, and, as suggested by the Assistant Minister, that procedure may, with the concurrence of honorable senators, be adopted in this instance.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I regret that I cannot share the enthusiasm displayed by the Assistant Minister (Senator Lawson) in moving the second reading of this bill. The grant recommended for Western Australia has been very disappointing to the Government, and to the people of that State, who submitted what seemed to be an unanswerable case for financial assistance to the amount of £1,500,000, and are to receive only £600,000. The report of the commission is just what I expected that it would be, coming as it does from a biased tribunal, the chairman of which had already pre- judged the case for Western Australia. You, sir, will remember the storm of indignation which arose, and in which you participated, when the personnel of the royal commission was announced twelve months ago. According to the newspapers that reached Canberra to-day the indignation in Western

Australia to-day in connexion with, the commission’s recommendation is as great as it was when the personnel of the commission was announced. I have an article written by the chairman of the commission (Mr. Eggleston), and published in the Perth Daily News on the 14th December, 1932, and, in order to save he time 6f the Senate, 1 ask that it be incorporated in Hansard. Those who read the article will see how closely the commission’s report follows the lines of the newspaper article -

Western Australians have never been able ib admit that their financial difficulties are due in any degree to their own fault. They point to their huge territory, mostly desert; they explain the difficulties of the change over to agriculture from mining. The retort of the critic is that no country should be unfinancial when mining id prosperous. All the Eastern States were able to keep their finances sound when the mines were turning out gold. Gold provides the working capital for development. Moreover, the agricultural area of Western Australia capable of development is as large as the whole of Victoria, and it is blessed with the most reliable rainfall in the continent. ‘Much capital has been imported for development of these agricultural area6, yet the current finance was still disordered. The Western Australian will then curse the Commonwealth, and say that it has ruined Western Australia, hut, from the point of view of administrative expense, the Federal service .must bear more lightly on a huge territory where the taxation is levied according to population, and the flat rates for posts and telegraphs must be a big advantage. When one refines these arguments they all centre in the tariff, and one finds that Western Australia pines for more secondary industries protected by its own tariff. It is difficult to be patient with this argument: a tariff in a large area iti probably justified, hut with 400,000 people, with a lot of development to do, it would be a devastating luxury, and that is what it was before federation. The financial incidence of the tariff failure represented by customs revenue may bc unjust to Western Australia, but as her grievances have been cashed bv extra.ct.in!* special large grants from l’ir> Commonwealth which tnt:.1 £4.500,000, the net burdon here cun be very little.

The truth is that a. person with a sense nf grievance is always a ba<l financier, and the alleged grievances of Western Australia 1, 9 Ve led to their toleration of financial method’! which cannot be excused. Not only h-i.vc these methods caused far more, loss to Western Australia in the past than the grievances themselves, but they will be a clog in future development. Unless they are cleaned up it is difficult to see how Western Australia can ever become really prosperous and financially sound, however much gilt may be put on the ginger-bread by borrowing.

I will not deny that the incidence of the tar.itf hurden ib a very real one to Western Australia, but the way to rectify that is to support a sound tariff and financial policy of the Commonwealth, and that Western Australia has never done. The true policy is reduction of burdens, fiscal, industrial and financial, but to a politician the lowering of a duty confers a benefit which is imponderable while a Commonwealth grant is very tangible. So Western Australia, instead of joining tha movement to reduce burdens, under the plea of compensation, is always increasing them. Hence the gold bonus, which even the doughty Colebatch is unable to refuse.

The truth is that Western Australia has a burden of unliquidated losses dating from the socialistic regime, when shipping lines and meatworks, mining batteries and trading enterprises ‘ of various kinds, were started, and speedily demonstrated’ the bankruptcy of the socialistic idea. A great many of these are closed, so dead that they cannot be kept open, but the lost capital still appears in the loan schedule, or in the trust funds, and is not being written off as dead capital should. The urgency of a clean-up is obvious, yet Western Australia has developed a habit of transferring debits from one account to another, instead of stating tho loss. There is £29.000,000 on the loan schedule for settlement and agricultural development. Yet there is £11,500,000 owing to the Agricultural Bank, and on this £1,762,594 is owing for interest, or 15 per cent., which represents about three years’ interest on the advances. The Treasury advances the Agricultural Bank capital as it is required, and in the loan schedule there is £7,000,000 borrowed for the Agricultural Bank, so that the real advance for settlement is about £32,000,000 for 400,000 people.

page 1176

ASSISTANCE BOARD

Then when an account is too bad for tha Agricultural Bank or other utility authority, there are “ trust funds,” and a body exists called the Industries Assistance Board, to which accounts can be transferred. The Industries Assistance Board was originally created for the purpose of assisting in an informal way those deserving projects so dear to the politician, but for some years it has become the refuge of bad accounts, and where ho dead and no longer profitable hopes of the politicians are buried. In its dark recess the commonplace distinction between asset and liability is lost. Very little has been said about it in the last budget except the passing of salaries, and as I have to write without the Auditor-General’s report, I cannot say what is being done with it now. I repeat there ls no hope for Western Australia until these things are all cleared up. Nor is there any excuse, for Western Australia has great opportunities, and with all her grievances, has the lightest taxation of all the States, the figures being:-

It is amazing to find how the arguments adduced in the commission’s report correspond .with the views expressed by Mr. Eggleston in the Western Australian press before his appointment aa chairman of the commission. Of course, it did not matter what he thought of the finances of Western Australia when he was writing articles at Id. a line or whatever rate is paid ; but it is serious when such a writer becomes head of a commission of inquiry, and his preconceived ideas are embodied in an official report, and the State of Western Australia is fined £200,000 for what Mr. Eggleston regards as the State’s mistakes - mistakes which he had already ventilated in the press at great length. When Mr. Eggleston was appointed chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, there was a storm of indignation in Western Australia, in which every section of the public participated, including you, sir, the Premier, Mr. Collier, who has a remarkable faculty for gauging public opinion, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Latham, and the leader of the Nationalist party, Mr. Keen an, K.O. With the following criticisms by Mr. Collier, which appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Melbourne Argus on Thursday last, I entirely agree: -

page 1177

COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION

SHARP Criticism bt W.A. Premier.

Perth, Wednesday

Saying that it would be useless to protest against the decision of the States Grants Commission, which recommended that no further grant be given to Western Australia during the financial year, the Premier (Mr. Collier) to-day sharply criticized the constitution of the commission. “ ]’ endorse the protest that was made at the time of its appointment against the composition of the commission,” he said. “ If the Commonwealth Government had decided it waa. unwise to have a representative from any of the small States on the commission, nobody could have objected to such a decision ; but what do we find? South Australia was specially represented by a prominent business man. and Tasmania was more or less directly represented by another member who, I think, was twice in the Tasmanian Parliament.”

He was a member of the State Parliament about twenty years ago. His family is one of the oldest and most honoured in Tasmania, and its members have done great work in the history of the island State. Mr. Collier continued -

Not only did Western Australia have no representative and was not put in the same position as South Australia, but the chairman was the Baine man who, prior to his appointment, had written a strong attack on the method of administration in this State, lt really looked from the beginning as if there was Borne feeling against Western Australia.

If a feeling against Western Australia exists, as it does, I regret to have to state that one reason for it lies at the door of the Prime Minister. I am one of those who admire him in many respects, but it is most unfortunate that he should have threatened the people of Western Australia in regard to the vote which was about to be taken on secession, and so have given rise to a measure of that resentment of which Mr. Collier speaks. The West Australian, of the 4th April, 1933, reports a speech made by the Prime Minister in Adelaide on the Srd of that month as follows : -

It should be clearly understood that while the Commonwealth Government is prepared to treat with Western Australia as part of the Commonwealth, and to discuss such matters as a convention as a means of fixing State grants-

This shows that State grants were in the right honorable gentleman’s mind when he spoke - an entirely different position would arise if they were to vote in favour of secession and any government or parliament of Western Australia should take any steps to put such a decision into effect.

The vote was taken and was in favour of secession, and now the Government and Parliament of Western Australia arc taking steps to put the decision into effect. The Prime Minister continued -

If, unfortunately, such a position should arise, all questions affecting Western Australia would have to be considered from a new point of view, and it would not be possible to treat the State on the same footing as those which continued tn recognize their duties to one another and the Commonwealth.

This threat has been widely quoted in Western Australia, and is, I think, responsible for the feeling to which Mr. Collier referred only last week in the speech from which I have quoted. Almost similar criticism has come from Tasmania. The following report appeared in the Melbourne press, having been sent from Hobart on Monday last : -

Apart from the dissension of Mr. T. Murdoch in the Legislative Council, members of both Houses of Parliament were unanimous in agreeing to the following motion of protest against the size of the federal grant to Tasmania: - “ That this Parliament protests strongly against the manifest insufficiency of the proposed Commonwealth special grant to Tasmania, and urges the Federal Ministry to reconsider its reported decision and to increase substantially the proposed grant.”

The special grant to be paid this year on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is £400,000.

In conveying the resolution to the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) the Premier (Mr. A. G. Ogilvie) said: - “If anything is calculated to intensify the profound dissatisfaction of the people and to antagonize them still further against the Commonwealth, it is the surprising recommendation just made and about to be adopted.”

Therefore the public opinion expressed by the Parliament of Tasmania, which is in session, and the Government of “Western Australia, whose Parliament is in recess, is in each instance a protest against the inadequacy of the grant proposed to bc made. There is, in addition, the feeling outlined by Mr. Collier that Western Australia has been at a great disadvantage in regard to the personnel of the commission, in comparison with the other States, which, fortunately, had on the commission representatives closely associated with them. Western Australia was also unfortunate as regards the choice of chairman. The commission recommends increases of £250,000 for South Australia and £20,000 for Tasmania, and nothing for Western Australia. When we read how the commission came to make these recommendations, indignation is justifiably felt by Western Australia, which is told that it is fined £200,000 for its mistakes in regard to group settlement - a policy undertaken by Western Australia in conjunction with the Governments of the Commonwealth and Great Britain, who agreed for five years to provide a share of the interest on the money borrowed to carry out the policy. The Grants Commission says, in paragraph 287 of its report -

A careful consideration of all these criteria shows that the amounts required to adjust tho budgets of the claimant. States to about the average of the other States are as follow : -

Apparently we are fined £400,000 because our taxation has not been so high as the gentlemen comprising the commission think it should have been. I have here another statement by Mr. Collier giving the exact figures upon which he contends that the commission has under-estimated the amount of State taxation in Western Australia. The commission states that State taxation is only £2 19s. a head of the population, but the State taxation figures show that it is actually £3 93. 3d. a head. The commission is not even accurate. The people applauded the Commonwealth Government for considerably reducing taxation. They regard that as a virtue in the Lyons Administration. I certainly applaud the Government for it, yet the commission regards as a vice in the Government of Western Australia that it has not put more crushing burdens on the people of its State. In estimating the grant to be given to Western Australia, after starting off on a proper basis, the commission says that we should be fined £400,000, because our taxation is not severe enough. On the next page, in clause 289, the commission makes a different assessment modifying the figures thus -

The item of “moral responsibility” is introduced largely because of the immense size of the State, and the work that has been done in developing the north-western portion of it. Then the commission says that owing to the difficulties of assessment and the defects of the data - and I give the commission credit for admitting the defects of the data and “the exceedingly difficult position of South Australia and Tasmania “ - something should bc added to the figures so arrived at, and then recommends grants as follows : -

Its recommendation that “Western Australia should be fined £200,000 for having entered into the great work of group settlement is a disgrace to the commission. In my opinion, also, it does not stand to the credit of tho Government that approved of it. When all is said and done, this Government stands convicted of having fined Western Australia £200,000, by way of reduction of its grant this year, on the ground that the Government of the State took the main responsibility of joining with the Commonwealth and British Governments in a great system of land settlement, which has been described by writer after writer, not only as a wonderful gesture of value to the Commonwealth and the Empire, hut as a real share in the work of building up a great nation. There could be no greater ideal than the one cherished by that great statesman, Sir James Mitchell, of transferring the unemployed and adventurous population of the Motherland to the empty and idle spaces in the south-west of Western Australia. That achievement will stand to his credit and the credit of the State of Western Australia when those puny people who condemn it to-day and fine the Western Australian Government £200,000 for having made it possible, are forgotten. I blame the commission for making such an unjust recommendation; particularly as group settlement has been described throughout the Empire as a magnificent essay in nation-building, which reflected great credit on Western Australia and the Commonwealth.

It is more than ungenerous of both the commission and the Federal Government to fine Western Australia £200,000 for having undertaken this important national work. Sir James Mitchell has been properly acclaimed as a nationbuilder and an empire-maker for proceeding with this enterprise, which transferred men from the ranks of the unemployed in the Old Country to the idle acres of this new land. It is to the credit of the Collier administration, which followed the Mitchell Government, that it has carried on the work of its predecessors in the great task of group settlement which has placed some thousands of people permanently on the land in the south-west of Western Australia. These settlers are gradually making prosperous homes on their selections. I am glad that Western Australia has instituted this great undertaking; I am proud of the part which successive governments of that State have played in assisting the Empire, even if, as a result, a commission, consisting of city gentlemen who are unable to understand the situation, should come along and say, ‘ You have made mistakes “. Was anything big ever accomplished without mistakes being made ? I regret that the Government has accepted the recommendation of the commission, but even now it is not too late for it to retrace its steps and grant to Western Australia the sum of £200,000 extra which it would have paid were it not for the recommendation of the commission on this point. The Commonwealth Government was a party to tho agreement which led to the inauguration of the group settlement movement; yet when losses occurred, it deserted its partner, and left Western Australia to “ carry the baby.” Sir James Mitchell made an error of judgment when he agreed that Western Australia should accept the responsibility for the whole of the capital expenditure. That an injustice has been done to Western Australia is evident from its inability to provide social services on the scale which applies in other parts of the Commonwealth. Public servants of the Commonwealth and New South Wales who suffered reductions of salary and wages under financial emergency legislation have had their emoluments restored either in whole or in part; hut the public servants in the employ of the Western Australian Government are still subject to a 20 per cent. all round reduction of their pay. I do not agree that the public servants of Western Australia should be placed on a lower standard than that of their fellow public servants elsewhere in Australia, whose responsibilities are no greater.

The commission shows an insufficient regard for the effect of the tariff on Western Australia, which is a primary producing State. The same disregard was shown in an article published in the Daily News of the 14th December, 1932, by Mr. Eggleston, who afterwards became chairman of the commission. The exports from Western Australia are valued at £37 per head of the population, compared with an average of £16 a head for the whole of Australia. The tariff operates particularly severely in regard to export industries, and thereby its effect is felt more in a primary producing State like Western Australia than in any of the other States. In a newspaper article, Mr. Eggleston scoffed at the antagonism of the people of Western Australia to the tariff. Similar views, in a somewhat modified form, appear in the commission’s report. Western Australia is not a mendicant State, but one which has tried to get fair treatment from the Commonwealth. It submitted a splendid case for a grant of £1,500,000 a year from the Commonwealth, but failed in the eyes of this biased commission. The treatment of Western Australia by the Commonwealth will antagonize the people of that State, and drive them to a course which the Federal Government does not desire, namely, to support more strongly the secession movement.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The claim of the State Government for £1,500,000 a year was, I consider, most reasonable. I am glad that ‘the grant to South Australia has been increased to £1,400,000 for this year. That sum is certainly not more than South Australia deserves, but I am puzzled to know why Western Australia, which comprises one- third of the area of the Commonwealth, should be granted a sum so much less than that approved in the case of South Australia. The commission’s recommendation, particularly in regard to the penalty of £200,000 imposed on the western State in connexion with its group settlement scheme, is most unjust. I am glad that Western Australia is to get something from the Commonwealth, but am keenly disappointed that the amount is so small.

The West Australian, of the 25th July, contains a lengthy criticism of the decision with regard to Western Australia by the Premier of the State. Time does not permit me to read it; but I commend its perusal to the Minister. In the same issue of the West Australian appears the following statement by the Leader of the Opposition in the State Parliament, Mr. C. G. Latham : -

The report is one that might he expected when we remember the views previously expressed by the chairman (Mr. F. W. Eggleston) and another member of the commission. The chairman ventilated his opinion in December, 1032, and left no room for doubt as to his biased attitude towards Western Australia. Professor Giblin, subsequent to his appointment to the commission, contributed an article to the Economic Record which was commented on in a leading article of The West Australian in December, 1933. It is therefore difficult to imagine that the report has been based on the evidence submitted to the commission, and not on preconceived ideas of Western Australia’s position. It may be gathered from the conclusions arrived at by the commission that Western Australia cannot hope to obtain any further assistance from the Commonwealth, and it remains for us to press for the right to manage our own affairs and be free from the federal handicap.

The remarks of the Premier and of the Leader of the Opposition will find general endorsement throughout Western Australia. Mr. John Curtin, who conducted the case for Western Australia before the commission, expressed similar views. They are recorded in the West Australian in the following terms: -

Mr. J. Curtin, who was the advocate for Western Australia before the Grants Commission, expressed surprise yesterday at the nature of the commission’s report and drew attention to the closeness of the aggregate of actual disabilities grants to the sum confidently forecast several months ago as likely to be set aside for this purpose when the federal budget was presented. As proof of the grotesque inadequacy of the Western Australian grant, Mr. Curtin said, two aspects of the report could bc taken. One was that £1,400,000 was given to South Australia while only £600,000 was deemed to be sufficient for this State. The other was that the commission admitted that Western Australia deserved £200,000 on account of thu north-west alone. Since the protection given to sugar cost this State £300,000 a year. £560,000 was absorbed under two headings leaving £40,000 against other disabilities.

Mr. Curtin is an able exponent of public opinion in Western Australia. Mr. H. K. Watson, chairman of the Dominion League, who holds different political views from those of Mr. Curtin, wrote the following letter to the editor of the West Australian : -

The complete rejection of Western Australia’s claim for an increased monetary grant from the Commonwealth by way of partial compensation for our disabilities under federation will surprise only those who have not eyes to sec and ears to hear. And let it be realized that the failure is due neither to lack of ability nor effort on the part of the committee which presented our case. The unsatisfactory result in no way detracts from the public service so strenuously rendered by Mr. John Curtin and his fellow committeemen; they are to be congratulated on their lengthy and painstaking efforts which were rendered in an honorary capacity. The chairman of the commission, Mr. Eggleston, had prejudged our case before his appointment. Western Australia’s grant is to remain at £600,000;but South Australia is to have its grant increased by £250,000 to £1,400,000 and for this increase South Australia has cause to bc thankful that the third member of the commission was a South Australian business man.

The commission states that “it is impossible to make any accurate estimate of the quantitative effect of the tariff burden on government financing.” But the burden of the tarin” is evidenced in many other directions besides that of government finance, and it will be interesting to ascertain whether the commission has ignored this most important aspect.

By auto-suggestion or some other means, the commission appears to have lost sight of the purpose for which it was appointed,’ and has translated itself into an anti-secession committee. The release of this document by the Commonwealth Government and its continued withholding of the Case against Secession is very significant.

Mr. Watson certainly now has no reason to repeat such a complaint, since the Government which refused to increase the grant to Western Australia is spending.nearly £20,000 in distributing 708,000 copies of the Case for Union. This is a criminal waste of public funds.

Senator Brennan:

– The Government, apparently, thought that the attitude of

Western Australia rendered the expenditure necessary.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That cannot be so, because the Government is sending 344,000 copies of this pamphlet to South Australia and 129,000 copies to Tasmania. The Commonwealth Government would have done better had it given that £20,000 to the State of Western Australia to assist in its development, instead of fining the State £200,000, because, with the approval and help of the Imperial and Commonwealth governments, it embarked upon one of the greatest land settlement schemes which any State in Australia has undertaken in recent years.

Senator Brennan:

– The money could be used to pay the expenses of the commission.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The public-spirited members of the committee which drew up the Case for Secession worked for four months in Western Australia in an honorary capacity, and were not even paid travelling expenses. But when the Commonwealth Government wanted to compile a reply to the case made out by that committee, it did not hesitate to pay fees of 100 and 150 guineas and travelling expenses to two eastern “ has-beens “ and two western “never-wassers “ to prepare The Case for Union, which the Government now regards as its bible, and is distributing from one end of Australia to the other at prodigal expense.

Dealing further with the commission’s report, Mr. Watson continued -

From my study of the tactics of Mr. Lyons and Sir George Pearce, I entertain but little doubt that the intention has always been to use the commission’s report as the real case against secession, and to try to fortify its many weaknesses by publishing it as the unbiased opinion of an independent and impartial body. Let me quote one incident, however, toshow the enthusiasm with” which the commission has out-Heroded Herod. In giving evidence on behalf of the Commonwealth before the commission, Dr. Roland Wilson, of the Commonwealth Statistician’s Department, acknowledged that there was no way of getting even a tentative estimate of the benefits of exchange to the exporting States. Taking the costs of exchange and the benefits of exchange, he claimed that the two figures would not quite cancel out in this State, but he couTd not measure the extent to which they would not do so. But the commission rises nobly to the occasion, and, covering up the weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s case, airily asserts that in the matter of exchange, the net benefit to Western Australia must be between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do or die. The Commonwealth’s anxiety not to appoint a Western Australian to the commission will bc readily understood.

The commission alleges that the people of Western Australia are under-taxed by the State Government by an amount of £400,000, or, in other words, that the financial emergency tax should be doubled and our troubles would be at an end.

Tha financial emergency tax levied in Western Australia without exemption ranges from 4jd. to 9d. in the £1. It is one of the highest taxes in Australia. I again quote Mr. Watson -

Neither the Grants Commission nor any other body will over convince the people of this State that they can tax themselves into prosperity.

The appointment of this commission, like the Constitutional Conference, waa one of the devices employed in an endeavour to sidetrack the secession issue. Once again time has proved the futility of such expedients, and the utter lack of sincerity with which they have been conceived by the Commonwealth.

If time permitted, I could cite many more similar expressions of opinion by influential citizens of Western Australia. I urge the Government to take some notice of public opinion in Western Australia, and at least not to proceed with the infliction of the fine of £200,000 on the State because it entered upon the greatest scheme of land settlement in the recent history of Australia, a scheme to which the Imperial and Commonwealth governments were parties, and should be generally applauded and assisted by any federal government.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– The general subject of grants to States has occupied the attention of honorable senators, not only during this Parliament, but for the last fifteen years. I think the first State to make application for this form of assistance was Tasmania. Western Australia followed suit, and later South Australia also pleaded its necessitous circumstances, and applications for increasing grants have been made annually by all three States. Last year the Government appointed a commission to inquire into the disabilities of the States and to advise as to the best means of assisting them from the revenues of the Commonwealth. The introduction of these bills, based on the recommendations of the commission, is proof that the Government recognizes the disabilities and claims of the States. Some years ago, when speaking on a bill which made similar provisions for South Australia, I asked honorable senators to consider how far this system of grantsinaid was likely to develop. I pointed out that some years prior to that date no one would have dreamed that the finances of South Australia would get into such a condition that the State would have to ask the Commonwealth for a special grant. It must be abundantly clear to every honorable senator that a general economic and financial policy cannot equally serve all States in this great continent. Climates vary, and while some States have extensive secondary industries, others are dependent almost entirely on primary production. Et seems to me that the general financial policy, apart from the special grants, is unbalanced, and this Parliament will have to consider whether that policy is to be re-adjusted to meet the needs of the primaryproducing States by remodelling some of our laws, or whether the present form of assistance is to be continued, or whether both methods shall be tried. If special grants-in-aid are to be continued, they will have to be made on a fairer and more permanent basis. Tasmania’s claims were fully explained in the case prepared by a local committee for the State Government. Tasmania has been receiving grants for quite a long time, but it cannot be fairly contended that there has ever been any lack of care on the part of those administering the State, or any failure to conserve its. resources. The greatest economy has always been practised, social services have been reduced, and everything conceivable has been done to balance the State’s budget. It seems to me unfair that people who have adopted these selfdenying measures in order to achieve financial stability in their State, should be always kept down to the lowest economic level of any people in the Commonwealth. However, I fully appreciate the position of the Commonwealth Government. It has received a report from the commission, but the grant to Tasmania now proposed is considered by the people of that State to be totally inadequate. I know that it is impossible for honorable senators to do anything tonight to bring about an increase of the grant, but we have the consolation of knowing that it is provided for only one year, at the end of which, I assume, the matter will be reviewed. I ask honorable senators to remember that the tariff and the provisions of the Navigation Act, along with other legislation passed by the Commonwealth Government, have operated to the serious detriment of Tasmania. That has been recognized by the Government, which I commend for having removed from Tasmania some of its disabilities and afforded relief in certain directions much in excess of that given by any previous government. Again, however, I must reiterate that the keenest disappointment is felt in Tasmania at the comparative paucity of this grant. The Government and people of that State expected much more substantial assistance, and I hope that the matter will be further investigated and more allowance will be made for difficulties and disabilities which the commission, on whose findings this special grant has been based, did not fully recognize. For the time being we must accept thankfully the grant proposed in the bill, but I hope that a reconsideration of the case compiled by representatives of all parties in the State Parliament, and by responsible public men and bodies outside, will result in more just treatment of Tasmania in future years.

SenatorJ. B. HAYES (Tasmania) [10.15]. - I am very much disappointed that the commission did not see fit to recommend the grant of a larger sum to Tasmania. Undue importance was apparently attached to the relatively good budgetary position of the State, which was due to the Government’s frugality and the sacrifices of the people, who have been required to do without many of the things which people in the other States have enjoyed. The people of one State should not be expected to accept substantially lower standards as regards social services and other privileges than people of any other State. Yet the citizens of Tasmania have been for many years called upon to make such sacrifices. Employees of the Public Service, for ex ample, have not had many of the privileges enjoyed by public servants in other States; and although the taxation per capita may not appear to be unduly high, it is actually heavier than on the mainland, because of the lower incomes of the people.

I think also that sufficient consideration has not been given by the commission to the effect on Tasmania of Commonwealth legislation. No one will deny that high tariff charges press with undue severity on the people of that State. It is difficult for Tasmanian manufacturers to compete with manufacturers in the mainland States because they have to import a considerable amount of the raw material required, and must look to mainland markets for the sale of their output. Bass Strait is a considerable handicap. The State also suffers disabilities due to Arbitration Court awards. Quite recently an award affecting the railways service was given, and, although hardly anybody took notice of it, compliance with it is costing the Tasmanian Government £12,000 a year. Recently, the Arbitration Court made a general award in the textile industry throughout the Commonwealth irrespective of the cost of living in any particular State, and as the cost of living is lower in Tasmania, the manufacturers there should get the benefit of it to compensate them in some way for the handicap of Bass Strait. As our manufacturers export 90 per cent. of their output to the mainland, they find it very difficult to compete with factories near Melbourne and Sydney. It is difficult to estimate how much that disability is costing the people of Tasmania.

The operation of the Navigation Act also has had a serious effect upon business generally in my State. Through the good offices of this Government, after suffering for many years, we are now enjoying some relief because of the suspension of the coasting-trade provisions of the act, thus enabling overseas vessels in the season to cater for the tourist traffic to Tasmania, which State is eminently suited to the entertainment of visitors.

But for many years the disability of the Navigation Act was suffered, which absolutely prevented the development of the tourist trade. For many years the State government has not been able to maintain its assets. Other States allow large sums for depreciation of railway rolling-stock and plant. Unfortunately Tasmania has not been able to set aside anything like a sufficient amount for that purpose, with the result that rolling-stock and other equipment is not being adequately maintained. Tasmania is a particularly hard State to develop. When the governments of other States alienate their Crown lands, their responsibility ends. In Tasmania, on the other hand, the sale of Crown lands involves the Government in expenditure for the construction and maintenance of metal roads. I was administering the Works Department for some time years ago, and I recall that even then Tasmania had 8,000 miles of metal roads - an unduly high mileage compared with mainland States - a great deal of it traversing country from which no return was being received. Physically and climatically Tasmania, is a very difficult State to develop. Yet it had to bc developed as an integral part of the Commonwealth, and its people should not be obliged to accept lower standards than people in the mainland States. No one will suggest that if in any State there exists an area of relatively poor or difficult country, the people living in that particular area should enjoy fewer privileges than citizens in the more favoured parts. That principle should apply to the Commonwealth as a whole. Consequently, Tasmania should receive a greater measure of assistance from thu Commonwealth than it has enjoyed hitherto. While population has increased in recent years on the mainland, in Tasmania it has been stationary. There has been a steady movement of its young people to mainland States, where the opportunities for remunerative employment are better. As a consequence, Tasmanians are to be found occupying good positions in all parts of the Commonwealth. This loss also is difficult to measure in money.

I join with Senator Herbert Hays in expressing the’ hope that in future the grant will be substantially increased. I am aware that at this late hour, and on the last day of the session, we can do little to secure an increase of the amount granted, but I sincerely trust that the disabilities which Tasmania suffers under federation will be again examined, and that next year the commission will recommend a larger grant.

Senator McLachlan:

– The commission has promised to make a further examination of the claim by Tasmania.

Senator J B HAYES:

– That is one of the redeeming features of the report. The people of Tasmania are dissatisfied with the recommendation, and I hope that next year the grant will be more commensurate with the needs of the State.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– It is not my intention to delay the Senate for more than a few moments, but I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words with regard to the position of Western Australia. It is an axiom that the wisdom of the rule by a majority is demonstrated by the care which it devotes to promoting the welfare of the minority. The task of recommending the amount of financial assistance to be given to States has been relegated to a commission which will hold sway for at least three years. I am wondering whether Parliament and the Government are content with that arrangement. Is government to be by rule of thumb, or based upon the knowledge by the administration of the psychology of the people and the people’s actual needs? For reasons of high policy it would, I urge, be wise for the Government to examine even more closely the position of Western Australia. Causes for discontent may have been magnified, but discontent there is and it lias given rise to the secession movement. The people voted upon the secession issue and the “’ case “ was prepared after the vote had been taken. Nov/ a counter case has been compiled. Both documents contain much statistical and other matter that will not be fully comprehended by many. That condition of things does not allay the feeling of dissatisfaction that exists. It is not quite sound to fine a State £200,000 for its administrative mistakes. If past Commonwealth Governments were similarly fined there would be little money left in the Treasury. Western Australia contains- a small community living in semi-isolation. It is practically undefended. Along its thousands of miles of coast there is not a single dock. It suffers from direct contact with the eastern States, and lack of satisfactory communications. Its shipping service has been reduced ; there are only two interstate trains a week, and recently the withdrawal of a subsidy has resulted iti the discontinuance of an aerial service.

Having lived in Western Australia for nearly 50 years, I have watched the population grow from 32,000 to over 430,000. I know how the State has been developed and what pride the people have in their achievements. But although they have been industrious they are not rich - the savings bank deposits are less per capita than in any other State - nor have they lived extravagantly. Altogether, and I speak as a Western Australian, there is undoubted scope just now for the exercise, in the interests of Australia as a whole, of a high order of statesmanship or, if we cannot have that, of diplomacy. I hope that the Government will avail itself of the opportunity and give early consideration to the fai’ts which I have mentioned.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

– I should not have spoken to this bil] but for the fact that certain proposals which the Government had intended to introduce relating to the Navigation Act will not be dealt with this session, and this measure gives me the opportunity to say what is in my mind. Tasmania has been looking for this amending legislation for many years, and the people, are surprised that the Government did not introduce the promised measure in time to ensure its passage before the adjournment. The difficulties suffered by Tasmania from the operation of the Navigation Act have been stupendous. We have endured our troubles for many years, but not uncomplainingly. As successive governments have had good reason to know, the Tasmanian representatives in this Parliament have persistently advocated some relaxation of those obnoxious provisions which have precluded overseas vessels from, engaging in the tourist traffic. We have to thank the present Government for the relief which we have enjoyed more recently, and we are hoping that further concessions will be given to us in the near future. The tourist trade is one of Tasmania’s most important assets. One of the first measures to be dealt with in the new Parliament should be a bill to provide greater facilities for the expansion of the tourist traffic. I agree with my colleagues that the grant recommended for Tasmania is quite inadequate. This opinion is endorsed by the people generally. Recently, the State Parliament carried with only one dissentient voice, a motion affirming, that, having regard to the disabilities suffered by Tasmania under federation, the grant was totally inadequate. The claim for financial assistance was submitted to the Commonwealth Grants Commission which virtually occupied the position of an arbitrator, and it has given- its award. I hope, however, that further consideration will be given to the needs of the State. The people of Tasmania are not unreasonable. I feel sure that when the commission re-examines the claim, it will realize that the grant recommended for this year is insufficient, and will recommend a substantial increase next year.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[10.30]. - It is not my intention to occupy the time of the Senate unduly in replying to the general observations of honorable senators, but I would emphasize the fact that the report of the royal commission, on which the grants are based, is the first which the commission has presented. It can be regarded as tentative. It exhibits great industry, and considerable research, and is a document well worthy of study by honorable senators. It endeavours to lay down principles. The commission is nonparty and non-political, and, in passing legislation under which it was appointed, and also in selecting the personnel, the Government endeavoured to secure the services of men as to whose judgment and impartiality there could be no reasonable doubt. I regret that it has been suggested that the commission is biased. A perusal of the report shows that it is absolutely impartial. I deplore particularly the attack made upon tho chairman, whom I know personally. He is a gentleman of great intellect, capacity, and erudition. His industry is remarkable, and honorable senators who know him have complete confidence in him. He may make an error of judgment - every one is liable to -err - ‘but the honesty of his decisions cannot be impugned. The commission is judicial in its essence, and it is for the State Governments and the Parliaments concerned to study the report and to consider th& principles upon which the commission has allocated the grant, to measure the extent of the disabilities of the less populous States, and to consider the extent to which the Commonwealth may be responsible for such disabilities. No good purpose can be served by attacking the umpire. The other day I read a report of a football match in Victoria, in which it was stated that the umpire was subjected to hat-pin attacks by some of the supporters of the losing side. The personal attack upon the chairman of the commission because of the recommendations of that body is akin to the poor sporting spirit of some football bar.rackers. An invitation has been issued to the States to attack the principles upon which the money has been allocated, and to give considered reasons why those principles are wrong. The commission has promised that well-reasoned and wellconsidered representations from the States concerned will be fully considered, and where it can be shown that the recommendations are unsound, further recommendations may be made. In allocating the grant the same principles have been adopted in respect of each State. One honorable senator referred to group settlement. Here is a considered paragraph in regard to that matter -

Some participation by the Commonwealth is apparent, and, though it does not involve legal responsibility, we think it sufficient to justify an addition to the grant, but on account of the financial methods adopted by Western Australia something must be taken into account on the other side.

I ask honorable senators to consider the financial difficulties of the Eastern States, which have to find the major portion of the money. As Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria all have deficits, the taxpayers in those States are entitled to some consideration. The commission has tried to arrive at a balance, obviously tentative, and to hold the scales evenly between all the States. The whole inquiry was undertaken outside the arena of party politics by impartial men, and I ask honorable senators, even those representing States which may not be fully satisfied or even dissatisfied with the findings, to consider what action the Government could have taken other than to adopt the report of the commission. The Government referred the matter to arbitrators and has accepted their decision. That is the true sporting spirit, and I ask the Senate to accept the commission’s recommendation in the same way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1186

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 1186

TASMANIA GRANT BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 1186

STATES GRANTS BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill on motion (by Senator Sir HARRY Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[10.46]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Its purpose is to grant financial assistance to the extent of £2,000,000 to the States as announced in the budget speech. It is proposed that this money shall be allocated on the basis of population, and on that basis the amount for each State will be: New South Wales, £786,000; Victoria, £550,000 ; Queensland, £2S6,000; South Australia, £176,000; Western Australia, £133,000; Tasmania, £69,000. I particularly desire to make it clear, not only to honorable senators, but also to the Premiers of the several States, that this grant is a share of fortuitous receipts in the possession of the Commonwealth, accumulated over three years, and that the proposed assistance must be clearly understood to be of a special and non-recurring nature. The matter was fully considered in connexion with the budget, and honorable senators are well aware of the promise that was made.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1187

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1934

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir HARRY Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[10.50]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is an absolutely essential measure, the purpose of which is to appropriate £10,000,000 out of. the Consolidated Revenue fund for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1187

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1932-33

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[10.52]. - I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

It covers the excess expenditure incurred during the financial year ended the 30th June, 1933, under the authority of the vote for Treasurer’s Advance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1187

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1932-1933

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria

[10.55]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is a small bill with two clauses making the necessary supplementary appropriation for additions, new works and buildings in. respect of the year 1932-1933.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1187

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 1934

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1187

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1934

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 1187

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the determination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1188

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till & day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1188

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia

[11.0]. - I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I thank honorable senators for the courtesy and consideration that they have extended to the Government under somewhat pressing conditions.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) in expressing goodwill towards all who have assisted to transact the business of the country in rather trying circumstances.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I support the expressions of gratitude and goodwill voiced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Pearce) and the DeputyLeader of the Opposition (Senator O’Halloran).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.2p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

page 1188

PROCLAMATION

Commonwealth of Australia to wit.

Isaac A, Isaacs Governor-General

By His Excellency the Right Honorable Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs, a Member of His Majesty’s Most Honorable Privy Council, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth of Australia.

Whereas by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia it is provided that the Governor-General may by Proclamation or otherwise dissolve the House of Representatives : And whereas it is expedient to dissolve the House of Representatives as on and from the seventh day of August, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-four. Now therefore I, the. Governor-General aforesaid, do by this my Proclamation dissolve the House of Representatives as on and from the seventh day of August, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, and I discharge Honorable Senators from attendance on that date. (l.s.) Given under my Hand and the Seal of the Commonwealth of Australia this sixth day of August, in the year ofOur Lord One thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, and in the twenty-fifth year of His Majesty's reign. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### By His Excellency's Command {: type="A" start="J"} 0. A. LYONS, {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Prime Minister

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 July 1934, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1934/19340731_reps_13_144/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant