House of Representatives
25 September 1935

14th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 159

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Taxation - Seventeenth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, year 1933-34 and part 1934-35.

page 159

QUESTION

MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE

Debate resumed from the 24th September, 1935(vide page 138), on motion by Mr. Forde -

That this House strongly condemns the Government for-

1 ) Its flagrant neglect of its duty to the people by failing to call Parliament together for more than 39 days in twelve months.

Not having met Parliament earlier, thereby prejudicing parliamentary control over taxation and expenditure by necessitating the passage of. a further Supply Bill before the budget can be passed.

Its failure to provide and put into effect a bold, progressive policy to deal with the unemployment problem on a national basis.

Its irresponsible attitude to the drift that is taking place in the overseas trade balance.

Its failure to formulate a permanent plan for the relief of the primary producers.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Flinders

.- The Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) is to be congratulated upon the widespread and fine-mesh net which he cast in moving this motion. If that net has not brought to the surface anything of note, it is not the fault of the honorable gentleman. The best of fishermen cannot catch fish that are non-existent. In having given such wide scope to his motion, he has rendered a service; because, if any cause exists for lack of confidence in the Government, that cause should be brought to light. After all, the major function of Parliament is to express either confidence or lack of confidence in the government of the day.

The first point in regard to which the honorable gentleman contends thai the Government should be condemned is, “ Its flagrant neglect of its duty to the people by failing to call Parliament together for move than 39 days in twelve months “. Every honorable member realizes that in the present, case the reason for not calling Parliament together for a considerable period was the visit paid to England by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) and other Ministers for the purpose of attending the Jubilee celebration of His Majesty the King and of negotiating meat and other trade agreements with the United Kingdom. Strong efforts have been made to belittle the results achieved by that delegation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof, and on that principle I consider that the results well justify the sending of the delegation to Great Britain. When it left Australia, the feeling that I had v/as that no mission had ever embarked upon a much more difficult crusade. It will be remembered that at about that time Australia was faced with the likelihood of a quota being imposed on its meat exports to Great Britain, the quantity proposed being a good deal less than what was then actually on the water. Realizing tho nature of the difficulties with which tho negotiations -would be surrounded, I felt that the task of the delegation was well-nigh hopeless, lt is all very well for honorable members to make either disparaging or commendatory remarks . concerning the work of the delegation; those who are best able to judge the result of the negotiations are the people who first feel the effects of tho agreements made. I say “ first “ because, after all, the interests of every individual in the community are definitely at stake. The graziers, however, are the first to feel the effects. Just prior to coming to Canberra for the present period of the session, I attended the annual meeting of the Graziers Association of Victoria, at which a motion was carried unanimously and enthusiastically congratulating the delegation upon the splendid success that had attended its efforts. An outstanding fact that I then noticed was that some members of the association who, before the departure of the delegation from Australia, had been most impatient in regard to the negotiations, were most lavish in their praise of what had been accomplished by it. .No further comment is necessary to dispose of the criticism that has been offered. But I also feel called upon to draw attention to the very valuable effect that is likely to accrue from the personal contact of Australian and British Ministers. In contemplation of the material commercial objectives of the delegation, one has been apt to lose sight of the fact that the Prime Minister was primarily engaged in representing Australia at the Jubilee celebrations, and to overlook the wonderful work that was done by the right honorable gentleman in that connexion. Apart altogether from sentiments of loyalty and kinship, and judged solely from the aspect of security and material benefits, one cannot over-estimate the necessity for Australia being worthily represented upon an occasion when efforts were being made to cement the ties that bind together the different units of the British Empire and to celebrate the jubilee of the monarch who is the one material tie in that binding process. It is no exaggeration, arid no disparagement of the previous occupants of the high office of Prime Minister, to say that not one of them did more to engender kindly feelings in the hearts of the British people towards Australia than was done by the present Prime Minister (luring his recent visit to Great Britain. In saying that I am not going on newspaper reports only. I base my statement on what I have learned from people, both English and Australian, who were in England at the time. All of them bear testimony to the wonderful personal success of our Prime Minister, and that success, we must remember, is of material, as well as sentimental, value, seeing that we depend so much upon Britain as a market for our produce. In the dairying industry alone no less than 90 per cent of our exports are absorbed by the British market. Much as our representatives and the Ministers of the Imperial Government may do to improve trade relations between the Commonwealth and Great Britain, such relations are affected to an equal or even greater extent by the mutual goodwill of the peoples of both countries. Therefore, everything we can do to retain and increase the goodwill of the British purchasing public is of importance to Australia.

In addition to his efforts to belittle the work of the Ministers one honorable member opposite chose to make sneering reference to the recent trip to the Northern Territory of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) and various members of Parliament. I happened to pass through the Northern Territory shortly ahead of the Ministerial party, and I can assure honorable members that the visit was looked to with the very greatest expectation by all sections of the people there.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that invitations might have been extended to members of all parties to accompany the Minister?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I do not know what invitations were issued, but if members of the Opposition or other parties wished to visit the Northern Territory, there was no reason why they should not have made their own way there. Residents of the Northern Territory feel with justification that, owing to their isolation, their problems are little understood throughout the rest of Australia. Not only was the Minister’s trip justified, but I suggest that it is advisable for the proper discharge of his duties that he should visit the Northern Territory every year. The round trip can now be made comfortably in a week or ten days, so that no great loss of time need be involved. Moreover, it should be made possible for administrative officers from the north to visit the Southern states as often as can be arranged, because they undoubtedly feel keenly a sense of isolation and loss of touch with th« rest of the community. This disability has been to’ some extent mitigated since the installation of the air mail, but I found when I was there that there was still the greatest thirst for information about what -was going on in the south. Not only is it right and proper that we should keep in better touch with the Northern Territory; it is also the duty of the Government to make information regarding the territory available throughout Australia and overseas. At the present time, the lack of knowledge abroad concerning the nature of the Northern Territory and its possibilities is a direct menace to the security of Australia. It is true that the territory holds possibilities for large-scale grazing, and probably for mineral development, but it is. wholly unsuitable for small-scale settlement. People overseas either hear nothing about the territory at all, or they hear it mentioned in connexion with fantastic schemes for dumping in it settlers by the million. “We should explain to the world what the real position is so that the people of other countries may understand that we are not withholding from settlement huge areas capable of supporting a large population.

Another count in the charge against the Government i3 that it has failed to meet Parliament earlier, thereby prejudicing parliamentary control over taxation and expenditure by necessitating the introduction of a further Supply Bill before the bringing down of the budget. The. importance of exercising proper supervision over taxation and expenditure cannot be over-emphasized, but I do not see how the bringing in of a Supply Bill before the introduction of the budget affects the matter one way or the other.

The third charge against the Government is that it has failed to provide and put into effect a bold, progressive policy to deal with the unemployment problem on a national basis. If by this the Acting Leader of the Opposition means that the Government has failed to embark on some desperate and reckless attempt to create artificial employment on the lines followed by Mr. Roosevelt in America, by Herr Hitler in Germany, and by Signor Mussolini in Italy, what he says is true enough. The Government has not embarked upon any desperate measures of that kind, but it has followed a definite policy of stimulating employment in a natural way. Every member of this House will remember that, when the first Lyons Government came into power, Australia was in the depths of a depression which had been brought about in the first place by the collapse of world’s prices and stagnation of world trade, but which had been greatly aggravated by a sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people. The first duty of the Government was to stimulate employment by’ the removal of that fear and the restoration of confidence. In a very short time trade and commerce responded to the stimulus, and a definite improvement in trade returns became evident. The moment that this new trend was reflected in the revenues of the country the Government set out to further stimulate business and employment by reducing taxation and by a scientific revision of the tariff. Honorable members opposite have quarrelled with the unemployment statistics that have been quoted, and have suggested that the figures do not reveal the true facts of the situation. They allege that certain classes of unemployment are excluded from the returns. All I have to say on that point is that whatever tendencies may apply to current figures those tendencies have also been applicable to the figures for past years ; so that for comparative purposes the figures are sound. Personally, however, I am more interested in employment figures than in unemployment figures. The employment figures which have been quoted cannot be successfully challenged. During this debate, the returns relating to employment in our factories have been brought under notice, and they reveal a progressive improvement since this Government came into office from 337,000 to 451,000, an increase of 114,000 in the period under review. The number of persons employed in the factories in Australia at present approximates, if it does not actually exceed, the number so employed before the depression hit Australia. But even more convincing than the figures relating to factory employment are those relating to the building industry. . I remember that in the very depth of the depression, the Honorable John Cain, Deputy Leader of the Labour party in the Victorian House of Assembly, declared in the course of a debate that of all trades and callings hit by the depression, none had. been hit so hard as the building trade. I think honorable members opposite will readily admit that Mr. Cain is an authority on employment matters and trade union affairs generally. I have every reason to believe that his view of the situation at that time was correct. Since this Government has been in office, a remarkable change .has occurred. The value of building permits issued in the capital cities of Australia has increased during that period from £6,685,000 to £17,610,000, the latter figures being those for 1934-35. There has thus been an improvement equivalent to 150 per cent, in this industry. Building activity is now nearly three times greater than it was when this Government assumed office. Surely no further figures are necessary to drive home the fact that this Government’s policy has had a definitely beneficial effect in increasing employment.

Two factors in the Government’s activities which have been chiefly beneficial in stimulating commercial and industrial activity have been the reduction of taxation and the small measure of tariff revision that has been effected. I suggest that the Government should increase the rate of tariff revision and still further decrease taxation. I have no doubt that its policy will be constructively criticized along these lines by honorable members on this side of the chamber. In view of what I have said, it is absurd to suggest that, on the ground of unemployment, there is any justification for expressing a want of confidence in the Government.

The fourth ground on which the Acting Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government was what he described as “its irresponsible attitude to the drift that is taking place in the overseas trade balance.” Personally, I can find no evidence of lack of concentration on this subject, particularly on the part of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey).

I have seen frequent statements which the Treasury has issued on this subject. But I am much more concerned about the total volume of our trade than about our trade balance, whether favorable or unfavorable. The prosperity of this country depends upon the total volume of its internal and external trade. I consider that what is so cheerfully referred to as a favorable balance is very often a menace. Very little consideration must convince honorable members that our trade with countries with which we have a large favorable balance is for the most part precarious, because the larger our favorable balance with these countries, the smaller must be their ability to purchase good3 from us. I always view a rapidly mounting favorable trade balance with particular countries with great concern. I endorse the sentiments expressed yesterday by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker), who said- that the building of high tariff walls with the object of restricting world trade was one of the most potential causes of war, and a great danger to the world. “We find to-day that Italy, Germany, and Japan, three virile, vigorous and efficient nations, are hemmed in dangerously. These countries, for the most part, have no great mineral or agricultural resources, but have tremendous manufacturing potentialities. Yet. they are finding themselves cut off from the raw materials that they need. Unless the nations of the world are prepared to remove the restrictions to trade caused by tariff impositions, countries such as these will either have to starve or go to war, and I know what those countries, or any others worth their salt, which are similarly situated would do. Either the countries of the world must facilitate international trade, or there must follow another world war with nations fighting for outlets for their peoples.

The last point upon which the Acting Leader of the Opposition, in his motion, chided the Government was with respect to its alleged failure to formulate a permanent plan for the relief of primary producers. I draw the attention of honorable members to the expression, “the formulation of a permanent plan.” In other words, apparently, the honorable gentleman considers that the primary producers are always to remain in such a situation that a “ permanent “ plan for their relief will be necessary. If the honorable gentleman’s doctrine of higher and higher tariff barriers were carried to its logical conclusion, a permanent plan for the relief of the primary producers would indeed be necessary; but if a logical, common-sense policy of tariff revision and effective negotiation of trade treaties is carried out, a permanent plan for such a purpose will not be necessary. However, so far as the granting of relief to primary producers is concerned, I claim that no Commonwealth Government has ever occupied itself more earnestly in this matter than has the present Government. I am aware that the bold plan of making money available for the adjustment of farmers’ debts is viewed by many with great concern, and I feel there is a danger that this policy may not prove as successful as was hoped for by many honorable gentlemen. Any failure in the application of this scheme likely to come about will possibly be due to steps that are being taken by the State governments to tack on to their legislation dealing with this matter many provisions which will make the debt difficulties of the farmers permanent, but the attempt which has been made by the Commonwealth Government in this direction has been well justified, and it has been made on sound and courageous lines.

Apart from this attempt to clean up the debt position in the rural industries, an attempt which, as I say, is being rendered abortive by the provisions which are being tacked on to State legislation, this Government has a greater record than any of its predecessors in the giving of assistance to primary producers, not only so far as direct assistance is concerned, but also in such directions as the fertilizer ‘ bounty. This bounty has been based on sounder lines than any other bounty yet made available to primary producers., and it has brought about benefits out of all proportion to the amount of the bounty. Through it also, assistance has been given to branches of primary production which previously enjoyed no assistance of any sort whatever. The assistance given through the medium of this bounty has not only been felt by the farmers to the extent of 15s. per ton of fertilizer, but also has brought about very much greater benefits_ to production generally. The first has been a big reduction of price. The increased use of superphosphates has had the effect of reducing overhead costs per ton, thus enabling the companies to further reduce the price. The second benefit has been the placing of the sale of superphosphates on a cash basis. Prior to the granting of this bounty prices were’ kept up owing to the great volume of bad debts, which then existed. This bounty has helped to put the sale of superphosphates on a cash basis, because superphosphates have had to be paid for before a farmer could collect the bounty. This cash basis lias enabled companies, co-operative and proprietary, to bring about a still further reduction in the price.

Another very courageous step taken by the Lyons Government to assist primary production was its reduction of the land tax, an iniquitous capital tax which probably has had a greater effect than any other tax in bringing about unemployment and stifling the expansion of industry. The Government must be congratulated on having reduced this tax by half. In doing that it has made one of its most progressive steps towards creating employment. I feel that the Government could go further anc! remove this tax completely.

I believe that every honorable member of this House realizes that this Government has done more for primary production than any other Commonwealth government. I commenced my speech by congratulating the honorable the Acting Leader of the Opposition on having cast a wide-spread, fine mesh net, in an endeavour to find some cause of lack of confidence in the Lyons Government. I conclude by congratulating the Right Honorable the Prime Minister and his Ministers on the fact that this most comprehensive dragnet motion has failed to disclose any reason for lack of confidence in this Government.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- Listening to the replies made by honorable members opposite to the speeches made from this side of the House, one would be justified in assuming that supporters of the Government believe that all the good things that have happened in Australia are entirely attributable to its wisdom, and that every unfortunate circumstance, whatever ‘its origin, can well be ascribed to the failure of the government which preceeded it. However, in the course of such declarations, admissions were made which, if examined, reveal very strikingly the invalid premises upon which the defence of the Government ha3 been founded. As the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has said, unemployment is increasing in various countries to-day. Is there anybody in this Parliament who would have the audacity to declare that these countries are suffering in that respect because their governments are incapable of grappling with the unemployment problem in their respective spheres? Will we not, even at this stage, following six years experience of world depression, frankly confess that unemployment is rising in those countries, as it did in Australia at the onset of the depression, as the result of events far removed from the control of the governments of those countries - events which it is impossible for them to combat, and which, furthermore, preclude any immediate re-orientation of their economy or industry to the new situation? I am somewhat shocked at the manner in which the right honorable the Prime Minister referred to the record of the government in which he himself, for practically half its term of office, had been a most conspicuous and influential Minister. It ill becomes those who are charged with grave responsibilities in the government, of Australia to seek an easy and cheap way . out of the difficulties at present confronting this country by comparing things as they are to-day with what they were six years ago, and assuming that the difference in conditions is in itself a revelation of the differences in the characteristics of the two governments. That might be all very well in places outside of this chamber. I was astonished yesterday at some of the claims advanced by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) and I invite him to contrast some of the observations he made in respect of unemployment and employment, with those which he made in this chamber immediately after his election, when he dealt with the mechanization of industry, its effect on the displacement of labour, the problem of women in industry, and the need for some vocational system so that the youths of Australia might be helped towards making the best use of the idleness which they now compulsorily suffer. That speech attracted, I hope, the attention of Australia, and was in marked contrast to the cheap and uncalled-for manner in which he dealt with the proposals of the Acting Leader of the Opposition in relation to employment and unemployment at the present time. I believe that Australia, after five years of world depression, had either to effect some measure of recovery from sheer recoil from the onset of the depression, or to sink into absolute national bankruptcy. I say that an examination of the position in which we find ourselves to-day, in which there is definitely a considerable measure of improvement, will, on analysis, indicate that that improvement, insofar as it has been accomplished, is the result of principles of national policy which honorable gentlemen sitting behind this Government do not accept as valid principles. First the Prime Minister referred to the improvement in the number of factories in Australia. He, as did also the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Fairbairn), dealt with the increase in the number of employees in factories since the depression. I put it to the House that this improvement is due to a number of causes. It is due in the first place to the embargoes imposed against the admission of imports. It is due in part, also, to a reduction of wages and to the expenditure by govern^ ments from funds other than from loan or revenue - stimulating the purchasing power of the Australian people, by means which the Attorney-General yesterday in his speech regarded as fundamentally unsound, namely, by bank credit inflation. Over £50,000,000 of the additional public debt of Australia has been the outcome definitely of bank credit inflation. At present it is less than that, because there has been a small funding of treasurybills amounting to approximately £6,000,000. The total amount of bank credit inflation is now down to between £45,000,000 and £48,000,000. The Government claims that the effects due to the policy of embargoes are really attributable to its own wisdom. The effect of that policy was to throw Australia entirely on its own production capacity for its internal requirements.’ Associated with that was a devaluation of the currency, which had the effect of imposing a further disability upon imports, a policy with which honorable members opposite do not agree, because most of them hold that there should not be any interference with the currency. As a matter of fact if there is anything in the natural law of exchange, the rate of exchange, should fall. Incontestably the speech of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) on Monday night proves that Australia is in a far healthier position so far as national solvency is concerned than it was in when the rate of exchange was raised first to 30 per cent., and then stabilized at 25 per cent. If it was reasonable to fix it at 25 per cent, then it is unreasonable to keep it at that figure to-day. All of u3 know that the rate of exchange is maintained deliberately at its present level as a matter of financial policy. I put it that the maintenance of the rate of exchange at this high level places a heavy tax upon the budgets of the States, and part of the budgetary difficulties of Australia has been due to the rate of exchange being maintained at a degree incompatible with the facts of the situation, and laying a heavy burden on some industries for the benefit of export industries, in which the financial institutions have invested very substantially. The export industries had to be upheld during the nadir of the depression, not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the banks which had made substantial investments in them, by subsidies which have aggravated the budgetary difficulties of the nation. The States have met this impact by treasury-bill accommodation and the issuing of credit. I mentioned earlier that the public debt had been enormously increased from £1,156,000,000 in 1931 ‘to £1,242,000,000 at the present time. I point out now more accurately that £51,000,000 of this additional debt was entirely due to the issue of treasurybills. I say to the House, particularly to the Attorney-General, that the expansion of the credit policy has been the foundation of Australian recovery; also that the fact that the Labour States show the best results in a detailed dissection of the character and extent of Australian recovery is something the honorable member should bear in mind.

Reference has been made to the fact that Australian factories and employees have greatly increased. “Western Australia has had little or no increase in the number of factories.

Mr White:

– Yes, it has.

Mr CURTIN:

– The only increases that have taken place have been in what we might call domestic industries. I am speaking now of manufacturing industries; the Minister is thinking of blacksmiths’ shops. Apparently he does not know the distinction between an assembly plant for the repair of machinery and engineering works for the manufacture of capital goods.

Mr White:

– In almost every secondary industry in Western Australia there is an increased number of employees.

Mr CURTIN:

– The imports that have poured into Australia during the past years have had to be kept in repair, and therefore there has been, an addition to the number of employees. But the bulk of employment of this nature is located in the great cities of Melbourne and Sydney, and part of it is due to the fact that owing to the curtailment of imports from overseas the’ primary-producing States have been depending on Australian production. In 1930-31 -Western Australia imported from the Eastern States goods to the value of £6,400,000. In 1934-35, the fiscal year just ended, that amount had grown to over £10,100,000, an increase of roughly £4,000,000 in the consumption in Western Australia of the products of the factories of Victoria and New South Wales. That increased consumption in Western Australia of the products of the Eastern States was the result of the policy pursued by the Labour Government in Western Australia. That Government substituted work for the dole. For years previously, against the advice of the most influential men in Australia, it had stimulated the gold-mining industry and had saved it from absolute collapse. During the period of the depression in that industry, it had made advances to goldmining companies and had kept them in going order, thereby increasing substantially its own national debt - a fact which . now constitutes a reason for criticism by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The percentage of unemployment in Western Australia in 1932 was 29.5, the average for the whole of Australia being 29. In the second quarter of 1935, however, the percentage was only 13.9, whereas the average for Australia was then 17.8. That is to say, Western Australia was above the average before this credit expansionist policy was pursued; before the operation of the policy of raising wages and of reversing the principle of the taxation of the lowest incomes.

There has been a marked improvement in factory activity in the eastern States, entirely as a result of the adoption of principles and the operation of policies which honorable gentlemen opposite have denounced as being in themselves invalid. Queensland, too, has the same story to relate. Its purchases of goods from other States have been increased as a result of the policy of expanding employment which has been pursued, not by the Commonwealth, but by the State authority. This Commonwealth Government has had no policy; it has merely had the fortuitous reaping of the results of its predecessors’ operations.

Furthermore, when during last year the state of the trade balance began to excite some disquietude, and an examination had to be made of exports from the States, what did that examination reveal ? It proved that the percentage decline in the value of exports was lower in the two Labour-governed States than in the States of Victoria and New South Wales. There was a total decrease of £10,680,000 in the value of our exports. The figures in New South Wales fell by 10 per cent., those of Victoria by 8 per cent., those of Queensland by 7 per cent., and those of Western Australia by 5 per cent. It will thus be seen that the two Labourgoverned States not only maintained at a higher level than the other States the volume of their exports, thus preserving Australia’s credit abroad and making it possible to keep our trade balance upon some basis of parity, but also, by an expansionist and employment policy, enormously stimulated the manufacturing industries of Victoria and New South Wales. These two considerations - the benefit to Australia overseas of the maintenance of its exports, and the stimulation of factory activity in Victoria and New South Wales - have been cited in this House as proof of the wisdom of the Lyons Government, when, as a matter of fact, they had their origin in policies the very antithesis of the principles espoused by the members of that Government.

Mr Fisken:

– The biggest drop in exports occurred in New South Wales, because that State grows the largest quantity of wool.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is so. The honorable gentleman asks me to look at the national economy of Australia on the basis of a single issue. Were I to reply in the terms used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in reply to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) that coal is a special problem, I should be warranted in saying that wool is a special problem. As a matter of fact, every industry has its own special problems. In a speech lasting only 35 minutes, it is impossible to do more than deal with the trade of Australia as a whole.

I say to those Ministers who have been engaged overseas in negotiations designed to promote Australia’s export trade : Have they had a look at the position in regard to world trade? The quantum of world trade last year was 77 per cent, of what it was in 1929. I disregard values because, in an estimate based upon values, the currency changes that have taken place make any valid comparison almost impossible. A comparison of quantities, however, shows that although last year there was a slight improvement compared with the previous year, the quantum was only 77 per cent, of that of 1929. I affirm that the improvement which has taken place in world trade during the last three years has been confined entirely to non-European countries; that the purchases of Asia, South America, and the dominions are solely responsible for such recovery as has been made. I do not deny the statement of members of the Government that they have had results from their negotiations with the British Government. I should have been astonished had they failed in their mission. In such an event I should have asked myself: What justification exists for a British preferential tariff, if negotiations of the character of those in which the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General were engaged could not succeed? What answer would those gentlemen have made to the accusation that Australia is called upon to assist Great Britain in important world causes and Argentina is not, but that, when it comes to a question of equality of trade, Australia has to take the same place as Argentina ?

Mr White:

Mr. White interjecting,

Mr CURTIN:

– The honorable gentleman may view the situation as he likes. I say’ quite definitely that so far from censuring the Government with respect to the meat agreement or in relation to the value of contact with British Ministers and the British people, I agree with their contentions in that regard. All that I say is that, had they not succeeded to the extent that they have, not only they, but also the British Parliament, the British people, and this Parliament, would have been forced to an entire reconsideration of the whole principle of Imperial trade. If there is to be any logic in the situation, British preferential tariffs can only continue so long as there is assured to Australia at least some degree of preference in the United Kingdom market.

I say further, parenthetically, that this country has lost the greater part of its export trade not in the United Kingdom, but in Europe, and that we cannot afford to give preferential treatment to the United Kingdom if it involves the loss of markets on the Continent, unless there is assured to us some reasonable return for the sacrifices which we make in markets that we could enter were we agreeable to the manufacturers of those countries entering the Australian market on the same terms as every other supplier of the goods that we require. I know that it is contended by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) that it is the Australian tariff which keeps out of this country buyers of our products from Japan, Germany and other European countries. It is nothing of the kind. That is a fundamental fallacy. What the manufacturers of Europe and Japan require is that they shall have in Australia equality with all other non-Australian suppliers of our imports. When that principle of equality operates in the Australian fiscal policy, then indeed will be removed any difficulty that may now exist in finding opportunities for trade in countries that are disposed to look somewhat askance at us.

May I say, also, that the problems which flow in this country at present are in principle precisely those that have perplexed us from the onset of the depression? There has been, as I have said, an improvement of the conditions; that is to say, the intensity of the crisis has diminished. But the nature of- the problem has not been altered; there is no expanding market for Australian products, and, on the other hand, budgetary difficulties have not been lessened, although they may appear to have been. Last year the sinking fund provisions exceeded the amount of the deficits. It must be borne in mind that the burden of debt which State instrumentalities have to carry is to-day so large that the earning capacity of those instrumentalities has been grievously affected, and they are not able to meet the whole of their interest commitments. Thus taxation is becoming increasingly mulct in the obligation to meet interest’ charges. I issue a warning to the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey), whose promotion in the Cabinet I gladly welcome. May I say in passing that I regard the Treasurership as a sufficient portfolio in itself for any Minister to hold. We have to face quite frankly the unstable future of Australian governmental finance.

The Attorney-General yesterday endeavoured to lead us to believe that the Government is fully alive to all the difficulties which face this country, and that it is meeting the situation grandly and nobly. Let me put this to him: What is being done to preserve the structure of the Australian federation? What steps are being taken to make workmanlike and efficient tho multitudinous number of councils which the Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page) is continually incubating? By what means are they to be made to function, unless this Commonwealth Parliament makes the concert of States a reality? This federation was envisaged as a concert of States. It has to be a concert of States in function, in being, in actuality. The visit which the Cabinet paid to Perth must have revealed the uncertainty under which this Parliament has to embark upon those programmes which mean so much for the welfare of the Australian people.

The Attorney-General referred yesterday to the two alternatives, borrowing and inflation. The question of providing employment in Australia has to be faced. The development of our farming industries does not increase the employment capacity of this country. The statistics show the enormous contraction that has taken place in the number of persons engaged in farming operations between 1915 and the census year. There has been an improvement in the manufacturing industries. For the most part, however, Australia, as the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Fairbairn) has said, consists of a wide-spread territory, and in outlying places means must be provided whereby industrial undertakings and the security of the country may be maintained. In the matter of employment a national plan is demanded, and there must be co-ordination between the Commonwealth and the States. The States have to be sympathetic with the Commonwealth ; they have to feel that the Commonwealth is not, as it were, an alien authority which lays down Draconian codes to which they must conform in respect to this, that or the other. There must be a realization of the fact that we are all common servants df the people of Australia; that we are engaged in the discharge of functions that have been allocated either to the States or to the Commonwealth, as the wisdom of 30 years ago suggested. I ask the Minister for Commerce : What steps does the Government propose to take to make the feeling of the States towards the Commonwealth healthier than it is; what changes does he contemplate, other than the holding of conferences to consider farmers’ debt adjustment, medical research, and a few other matters? Surely more is required than that? I understood that the visit of the Cabinet to Perth would result in an immediate improvement. . None will deny that we are due for a re-arrangement of our industrial economy. Our cultivated marginal lands will have to be put to other uses. The losses sustained in connexion with the growing of wheat will have to be borne.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– They should not be borne by the States alone.

Mr CURTIN:

– They cannot be borne by the States alone. If it is believed that private enterprise can find employment for the citizens of Australia, let us say so, and put an end to all efforts on the part of the Government to make up the leeway. As a matter of fact, however, governments all over the world have found it necessary to take up the slack of unemployment due to the inability of private enterprise to maintain everybody. I say to the AttorneyGeneral that it is not an alternative of borrowing or inflation which the Acting Leader of the Opposition has to face when he asks the Government to frame a positive policy. The Attorney-General takes a word and makes a menace of it. He hears the phrases “bank credit inflation.” and “enterprising credit policy “, and magnifies them into a national danger. That is the cowardice of conservatism. He asked usto consider the very low standard of living in Europe, and said that if the people there could only be induced to eat more meat and fruit, Australia would be able to sell more of those commodities. How, I ask him, are they to buy these commodities? Only by doing work that is paid for. How, indeed, can the people of Australia obtain a better standard of living? Only by doing work that is paid for. The honorable member told us that the League of Nations was to survey this problem of the consumption of foodstuffs, and it is interesting to observe that only this year the director of the International Labour Office is reported to have said -

Public works are economically effective in combating depression only when accompanied by an expansionist monetary policy. To attempt, on the one hand, to increase the total volume of buying by promoting public works, while, on the other, the means of payment are being restricted rather than increased is a policy of self-contradiction. It would seem probable that much of the misunderstanding of the value of public works as a means of organizing recovery is based upon a failure to recognize this vital condition.

That means that if a Government borrows money for public works, private enterprise cannot borrow except at hardening rates of interest, and, as a matter of fact, interest rates are hardening now.

The fact that we have pursued a borrowing policy up till now has had the effect of increasing the cost of money. There is a great deal of truth in the statement that if we are to operate a policy of public works as the result of borrowing, there must necessarily follow competition between public and private enterprise for the money available. Economic problems cannot be solved in that way. At best, it involves the storing up of budgetary difficulties to confound posterity. A much cheaper way out must be discovered. The Attorney-General takes refuge in the conservatism of orthodoxy, rather than make any endeavour to find an effective and scientific method to ‘overcome the difficulty. Dealing with the subject of unemployment last year, he said -

Any treatment of the problem of unemployment will be partial and haphazard unless it is prepared to go to the root causes in an endeavour to ascertain how far this Parliament can effect a policy in relation to them.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition has asked for a national plan in regard to unemployment. A year ago the AttorneyGeneral said that unless the matter were dealt with at the root only a partial and haphazard policy could result. Has he done better since he spoke a year ago ? Is the Government more competent to formulate a policy now than it was then ? In any case, the charge in the motion before us is that, in the intervening period - during which the problem has not assumed any less importance in character, and in which the potentialities for evil are still as great as they were - no contribution has been made by this Government, either as a lead to the States, or as an exposition of its own intentions. What does the Government propose to do in regard to the displacement of labour by the mechanization of industry? “What does it propose to do in regard to the thousands of men flungout of work as a result of the growing obsolescence of certain industries ? The decline of the coal industry as an employer of labour, due to the growing use of electric power, and the use of oil fuel in ships, has permanently removed all chance of employment from thousands of coal miners. What does the Government propose to do in regard to the displacement of wharf labourers by the introduction of bulk handling of wheat? Bulk handling means economy for the farmers, and it is a justifiable economy which marks a definite forward step, but it means loss of employment and destitution to thousands of men who have no other avenues of employment offering to them. The Government must find an answer to these questions before we can feel satisfied that it is discharging the duties which devolve upon it. It is not true that -

All is well though faith and form Be sundered in the night of fear.

I believe it is true that during the two years that the Scullin Government was in power, a psychology of fear was created in Australia. A deliberate campaign was waged by the enemies of that Government with the intention of arousing such fear. National confidence was weakened, not by what the Government did, but by what its enemies said. I maintain, however, that the present Government cannot continue to justify its existence merely by giving us echoes of things which occurred four or five years ago.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Minister forCommerce · Cowper · CP

– It was refreshing to hear the remarks of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) regarding the success of the Government’s delegation overseas, so far as the meat industry is concerned, and to contrast that frank and candid statement with the dismal tale told by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), who said that the mission had been a failure. It was also very interesting to notice that the honorable member for Fremantle dissociated himself from the prohibitive protection policy of the Labour party, which is advocated by some as a panacea for all our ills.

Mr Martens:

– Who said that it was?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I understood that the honorable member himself was elected on a policy of prohibitive protection, but I am glad now to learn that he repudiates the policy uponwhich he was elected.

The weakness of the attack on the Government by the Acting Leader of the Opposition is shown by the multiplicity of the charges that he has framed. He found that not one of his charges was of sufficient force in itself to do any damage, and so he had the bright idea of using a five-barrelled weapon, as it were, hoping that, by letting off the whole five barrels together, sufficient noise would be made to distract public attention from the fact that none of them had done any damage to the Government. Between the time when the Acting Leader of the Opposition gave notice of his motion and the delivery of his speech in support of it, the budget was introduced, and that robbed the honorable gentleman’s attack of even the little sting which it might otherwise have had. Indeed, in the light of the budget, everything that the honorable gentleman had to say can be dismissed as mere propaganda. Even as propaganda it was not very effective, because during the Government’s term in office there has been a continual increase in the number of jobs made available to the unemployed; more wages have been paid to the workers; and more markets have been opened up to our primary producers. These facts constitute a complete answer to the Acting Leader of the Opposition. He is now a. veritable Jeremiah, though as a Minister he was always prophesying the fairest things even though they never eventuated.

The second charge against the Government is that it has failed to meet Parliament earlier, thereby prejudicing parliamentary control of taxation and expenditure by necessitating the passage of a further supply bill before the budget is disposed of. The records of this Parliament show that ever since federation, it has been the practice to bring in a supply bill to enable the services of the country to be carried on while the financial proposals of the Government, as disclosed in the budget, were under discussion. That being so, it is an extraordinary thing that this Government should be condemned for doing what every other government did before it.

The Government is further charged with the fact that Parliament, during the last year, met on only 39 days. I suggest that the proper measure of the services of Parliament is the work it has actually done, rather than the number of words spoken. Let us compare what was done by Parliament during the year just past, with what was done during the last year the Scullin Government was in power. During that period, Parliament sat for 94 days, and passed 56 acts of which eighteen were sales tax acts. Of all those acts, the only ones which are likely to remain on the statute-book are those dealing with the imposition of the sales tax. Thus, the accession of the Labour party to power for the only time during the last twenty years will be remembered by the one fact that it introduced a new system of taxation. I was interested to note that the honorable member for Fremantle also repudiated another act of the Scullin

Government in connexion with the raising of the exchange rate during the period it was in office,

Mr Curtin:

– - That was not an act of the Government.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– It was an act of the Government taken in conjunction with the Commonwealth Bank. I believe that it was practically the. only meritorious act for which the Scullin Government was responsible. Ear from the raising of the exchange rate having harmed the country, it did more than anything else to counteract the injury caused by the imposition of embargoes, and the other panic measures taken by the Scullin Government. If, as the real corrective for our trade position, the exchange rate had been allowed to find its natural level at that time, there would not have been anything like the amount of unemployment, dislocation, and misery which subsequently took place, nor would the States now be faced with such heavy expenditure on unemployment relief.

Let us now compare the record of the present Government with that of the Scullin Government with its 94 sitting days. Fifty-one bills introduced by this Government have been passed by Parliament, of which six were sales tax measures. They, unfortunately, are still with us. This legislation has left several permanent marks on our national economic structure. I refer first to the bill authorizing the taking of the second step in the standardization of the railway gauges of the Commonwealth - the Port Augusta to Red Hill Railway Bill. The first step in this standardization programme was taken ten years previously, during the regime of the Bruce-Page Government, when the measure authorizing the construction of the Grafton to South Brisbane railway was passed.

Another bill that has been passed carried with it a complete refutation of the fifth charge levelled against the Government by the Acting Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that it had “failed to formulate a permanent plan for the relief of the primary producers “. I refer to the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Bill. It has been the custom during the last day or two for honorable members opposite to sneer at the insufficiency of the £12,000,000 made available by the Commonwealth Government for the pur pose of compounding farmers’ debts. It now appears likely from what has happened in New South Wales and South Australia, that the class of debt that this amount of money was made available to liquidate will be compounded on an average basis of 4s. in the pound. This will mean that debts amounting to about £60,000,000 which have been weighing heavily on the distressed, farmers of Australia will be lifted from their shoulders. It is worth emphasizing, I think, that the debts that will be so lifted are those which have been pressing ; most heavily upon our producers. . The .effect of the passage of the Farmers’ Debt Adjustment Bill has been to secure for thousands pf farmers throughout the Commonwealth a definite equity in their properties. Before the beneficial effects of this measure are exhausted, between 30,000 and 40,000 farmers will have been helped by it. This great army of producers will have been given a great deal more hope, and with even a slightly better price for their products, they will undoubtedly be able to make good. It is true that debts amounting to many millions of pounds still bear heavily on the farmers of this country; but with low interest rates many farmers will now be able to carry these burdens until better times come. What is of vital importance is that the work of production will now be proceeded with to the advantage of the whole community. This desirable end will be assisted, of course, by reason of the fact that the exchange rate is to remain at its present level. It will not be forced down, as, apparently, the honorable member for Fremantle desires it to be. The maintenance of the exchange rate at the present figure will give our producers some hope of getting at least a small profit from their work and will help to maintain employment in secondary industries. [Quorum formed.’]

By imposing a flour tax specifically for the purpose the Government has also assisted the farmers by taking the first step to permit a homeconsumption price to be fixed for wheat. The machinery to enable this to be done is now being devised at conferences of Commonwealth and State Ministers and officials, such as the honorable member for Fremantle referred to to as being so necessary. In addition to this help to the primary producers an amount of £5,600,000 was made available last year to assist farmers in various avocations, and this amount, together with the assistance made available during the preceding three years, brings the grand total for this definite purpose to £15,000,000. During last year, out of this sum, an amount equivalent to something like 8d. a bushel was paid to the wheat-farmers of Australia to enable them to remain in production. This payment, made possible by the passage of legislation introduced by the present Government, compares more than favorably with the futile attempts made by the Scullin Government, during the two years it was in occupation of the treasury bench, to provide some help for the farmers.

The Acting Leader of the Opposition has said that the Government should be condemned because Parliament has not been kept continuously in session. A food deal has been made of the fact that during the recess the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues have visited Great Britain. It is well, therefore, to recall the circumstances under which the right honorable gentleman and his fellow Ministers left Australia. It will be remembered that during last December an acute crisis occurred in the Australian meat industry by reason of the fact that the Minister for Agriculture in Great Britain had threatened to apply restrictive quotas to Australia’s exports of meat to Great Britain. That action would have caused a tremendous glut of meat in Australia. The crisis was so serious that it was the subject of daily references in the press and of innumerable questions in this Parliament. The Prime Minister had been invited to visit Great Britain to participate in the Silver Jubilee celebrations of the accession of His Majesty to the throne; but the meat crisis was so urgent that the right honorable gentleman decided to leave Australia six weeks earlier than would otherwise have been necessary. His object was to avert the crisis which threatened. Conditions became even more acute while the party was travelling to Great Britain, and it was thought advisable for the Prime Minister to cancel his contemplated European engagements to enablehim to arrive in Great Britain before the end of March. The party spent three months in Great Britain and has now returned to Australia under the happy conditions of an averted crisis and of a very much improved outlook for Australian export products of practically every kind. A definite agreement has been reached which will enable Australia to export to Great Britain substantially greater quantities of mutton and lamb than previously. We shall be able to send 300,000 cwt. more mutton and lamb to England this year than was sent in 1931- 32, the year of the Ottawa Conference. Further, not one carcass of cattle, sheep or lamb has been slaughtered in Australia this year for which a market has not been found. Whereas in 1931-32 Australia sent only 1,500,000 cwt. of mutton and lamb to Great Britain, in 1936 we can send 1,800,000 cwt. That is a substantial increase. At 3d. per lb., this increased quantity represents £450,000, which the meat producers will receive, and they will not be subjected to the deplorable conditions of glut and low prices that would have arisen in the local market had mutton and lamb exports been restricted. When we compare our position with that of Argentina and New Zealand, we have further evidence that the delegation was able to do a great deal of beneficial work for the producers. New Zealand is still able to send to Great Britain only the same amount of mutton and lamb as it sent in 1931-32; and Argentina is permitted to send only 35 per cent, of its exports of that year. We, on the other hand, have been granted an increase of 20 per cent, or an increase of 300,000 cwt. on our exports of 1931-32. Yet some honorable members have had the audacity to say in this House that the delegation accomplished nothing.

Mr Forde:

– I said that the meat arrangement was not satisfactory because only a short-term agreement, lasting to the end of the current year had been obtained.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I shall deal with that point in a moment. First let me direct attention to the beef position. At the time the crisis arose it was suggested that our exports of beef should be restricted to the exports of the Ottawa year, but as the result of the work of the delegation we have been able to send an additional 560,000 cwt of beef from Australia, compared with the amount sent in that year. At 2d. per lb., which is a low price, that represents £560,000 more for our beef producers. The additional sales of mutton, lamb and beef will thus benefit our producers to the extent of more than £1,000,000. Surely this is a worthy outcome of the negotiations conducted by our representatives who went overseas!

The Acting Leader of the Opposition has complained that no long-term arrangement has been made, but he is well aware that a long-term arrangement cannot be made until the Anglo-Argentine agreement expires. I am glad to be able to say, however, that our delegation was able to do a great deal to clarify the position even in that regard. It brought back to Australia proposals for the setting up of an Empire organization to deal with the meat industry, and this proposal will be considered on Friday week, at a meeting of representatives of all the meat interests of this country. I hope that at that conference an Australian pillar will be put into place that will strengthen the proposed organization, and that its framework will begin to take permanent shape. The delegation was also able to obtain approval to a new principle in Empire trade relations,, which will have important influences on the whole of our Australian export industries. The principle provides that in the future Great ^Britain and other countries of the British Empire will give first consideration to home producers, second consideration to Empire producers, and then consideration to foreigners. It has been agreed, further, that if restrictions become necessary in the United Kingdom they shall be applied first to foreigners. This should permit a regular and progressive expansion of the dominion export industries, which is a notable gain of extraordinary importance, not only to the export industries of Australia, but also to those of the dominions generally. It will be seen, therefore, that the delegation was able to do a great deal to assist, not only the meat industry, but ako other Australian export industries. Next June the trade treaty between Denmark and Great Britain in regard to butter and other products will terminate. It is absolutely necessary for the development of this country that definite provision shall be made to enable us to export butter, eggs, dried fruits and other products to Great Britain on a basis which will permit of the continued development of these exporting industries. The principle to which I have already referred will be applied to all future negotiations in connexion with dominion export products. ,

The delegation was also able, while in Great Britain, to dispel much misapprehension in regard to the general attitude towards Australia and to make valuable personal contacts with Government officials, and British commercial leaders and general consumers. It has been able to replace an atmosphere of ill will and enmity against dominion producers, with an atmosphere of friendship and good-will. Such a change will be of immeasurable benefit to Australia’ in the near future, so far as our trade relations are concerned. It is a benefit that ultimately may be calculated in terms of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The right honorable the Prime -Minister and his colleagues are therefore to be congratulated on the result of the negotiations that took place overseas. I am glad that the honorable member for Fremantle ha 3 been candid and courageous enough to admit that the delegation which went overseas undoubtedly scored a notable success in its negotiations.

Mr BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BATMAN, VICTORIA · UAP

– Did the honorable member say that? I was listening very intently to him.

Mr Curtin:

– I think I said that honable members generally would have been shocked if the delegation had secured less than it did.

Mr FORDE:

– The delegation secured for Australia an advantage of £1,000,000.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Of course I suppose the honorable member would require a microscope to see what effect a mere million pounds would have as a contribution to Australia’s present needs. The honorable member cited statements of two men who have been bought out by Vestey’s, a South American combine, using them to condemn the result of the delegation’s negotiations. But every honorable member, like the honorable member for Flinders (Mr.

Fairbairn), who has an interest in Australian grazing industries, and producers’ organizations generally have congratulated the Government on the results obtained by the delegation. Honorable members opposite smile and suggest that the gains obtained by the delegation are a mere nothing; they will prove of immense benefit to Australian industries.

Mr Rosevear:

– When Australia gets them.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Australian producers have already reaped substantial benefit from the delegation’s efforts, because the produce affected has already been sold and Australian producers will continue to reap benefits in the years to come.

Mr Forde:

– Does not the Government accept the opinion of Mr. Angliss as that of an Australian?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The two gentlemen quoted by the honorable -member have since sold out their interests to Ves toy’s. To-day, both of them are intimately in touch with, and are part and parcel of, a South American combine. However, I reiterate that the producers of Australia as a whole have congratulated the Government on the result of the delegation’s negotiations overseas.

Mr FORDE:

– Is not Vestey’s a reputable British firm?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes ; but it has very big interests in South America. The governments of Australia claim that the interests of Australia and the Empire should come first, and in order to ensure the attainment of that end, both this Government and the State governments generally have insisted that during these negotiations the Meat Advisory Council should consist solely of men interested in Australian industries.

Honorable members opposite have asked for an explanation of the Government’s plans to cope with unemployment. Could a better national plan be evolved to deal with this problem than by securing an outlet for the products of this country? What better method than that could be evolved to put the out of work back in employment ? At the back of the minds of honorable members opposite is the idea that employment can be created only by the carrying out of a public works programme, but this Government rests assured that the greatest. possible -mass of employment can be provided through assisting private enterprise to provide more work. And that end can be best attained by ensuring markets for the disposal of Australian products and exports, because the money received from the sale of those exports forms the purchase money for the purchase of goods from our factories. If the primary producers are prosperous they will b.e able to purchase goods from the factories, the factories will be able to give work, the shops will be able to keep open and general employment will result all round. There is no other way really by which we can create employment. The Government has therefore dealt with tariffs and taxation in order to ensure that private enterprise will be enabled to give the greatest possible amount of employment in this country. Studying the results which have followed the operation of this policy, we find that within the last four years the number of employed in factories in Australia has risen from 337,000 to 451,000. I am aware that facts such as this rob the Labour party of its catch cries and its only hope of .getting into power by playing upon the distress of the people of this country. I repeat that the only way by which greater employment can be created, is to encourage private enterprise; and that is tho policy which this Government is pursuing. The position is reflected in the fact that savings bank deposits increased by £25,000,000 from £193,000,000 in 1931 to £218,000,000 in 1934-35. Furthermore, advances made by the banks have increased from £304,000,000 to £326,000,000 over the same period, revealing the . increased- activity which has taken place. In the cities the value of (building construction has increased from £6,800,000 in 1932-33 to £17,000,000 last year.

The motion of the Acting Leader of the Opposition claims that our present favorable trade position is threatened, yet in the face of such a contention we find that industry generally is prospering in Australia, that it is feeling confident of the future and is building up new industry .at the fastest possible :ram The effects of this development .are revealed in a study of the nature of our imports. These - increased by £1-2,900,000, of which amount £4,838,000 was accounted for by an increase in the value of raw materials imported. The fact that such a volume of raw material is being introduced into the country must reflect increased activity here. Further included among the total increased value of imports is an increase of £2,915,000 for capital equipment, an amount of £166,000, representing the increased value of tools of trade imported - every tool of trade introduced into Australia must provide additional work - and an extra £2,250,000 for vehicles and motor chassis, the introduction of which, also, must bring about more employment for more men. It is suggested, directly or indirectly, by honorable members opposite that we should prevent the importation of this - mass of raw material, despite the fact that it is required for work which must strike at the root cause of unemployment in Australia. Any one who cares to examine these figures must realize that they actually reflect expansion of industry. It certainly cannot be claimed that these imports endanger Australian industry.

In view of all these facts I see no reason further to labour the Government’s reply to the’ charges specified in the motion ; nevertheless, I may add that, because there is still a big proportion of unemployed in Australia, the Government is doing its best to ensure that interest rates will be kept at the lowest degree possible and that the maximum amount of public money will be spent at this time to provide reproductive work f or those in urgent need. Last year the Government was able to provide £3,163,000 for expenditure on public works, and this year it proposes to make available for this purpose a sum of £5,610,000, as well as the rural debt loan. In addition to this it has given considerable assistance to the State governments in order to enable them to’ cope with the problem of unemployment. The forestry grant made available by this Government last year was part of this assistance. This grant was, mainly, made available with the object of providing employment for a large number of youths up to the age of 25 years. A certain proportion of such youths was to be employed by the State governments when this money was being expended. It became necessary subsequently to modify that stipulation, otherwise it would have been impossible to spend all the money made available by reason of the fact that a sufficient number of youths could not be secured for the work. Honorable members will agree that it was better for the money to be spent in giving work to men of all ages rather than that it should be reserved simply because a certain number of youths of a specified age were not forthcoming.

In every way, I repeat, the Government has endeavoured to meet the present unemployment position. Last year it made available the sum of £2,000,000 to assist the States to balance their budgets and this year it will provide approximately £500,000 to the States to enable them to meet their unemployment difficulties. At the present time it is finding approximately £3,000,000 with a view to assisting the smaller States of “Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania in the special difficulties confronting them as regards unemployment. In the Federal Capital Territory the Government is embarking on a programme of works such as the re-transfer of the Military College to Duntroon and the transfer of certain government departments to this city. These works should absorb the great bulk of the unemployed in the Territory. I feel that the motion moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition will be rejected by this House, because practically every argument advanced in its support has been effectively answered by a relation of the deeds and record of the Government.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- The right honorable gentleman who has just spoken (Dr. Earle Page) resumed his seat after expressing confidence that the censure motion would be rejected. I endorse his estimate of the . position, as I believe the Government has the numbers to ensure that it will be rejected by the House. Nevertheless, some candid home-truths have been told to the Government during this debate. It seems remarkable that the United Australia party section of the Government, which made so many good promises to the unemployed at the last election, together with the Country party section of the Government, which at the last election promised to inaugurate an effective scheme of rural rehabilitation, are inclined to let any question get under their skin if it is directed towards the nonfulfilment of those promises, as it has been through the medium of the censure motion now before the House. The first of the five grounds on which the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) has moved this motion deals with the Government’s flagrant neglect of duty to the people by failing to call Parliament together on more than 39 days in 12 months. It is a notable fact that any anti-Labour government, when in control of Parliament, seems to think that its duty to the people consists of keeping Parliament closed instead of assembling Parliament as a deliberative chamber to deal with the difficulties confronting the country. I was particularly interested in the contribution made to this debate by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies). It was most interesting to hear the honorable member defend strongly the action of the Government in meeting Parliament on only 39 days- during the last 12 months, when we recall that in the course of the first speech he made in this House lie claimed that the problems of the country, so far as parliamentary action was concerned, could only be overcome by utilizing the collective brain power of the Parliament, and that whether opinions directed towards the solution of such problems came from members of the Opposition or the Government, they should be given due weight. In spite of that statement he has now endorsed the action of the Government in refusing to seek the opinion of this Opposition and in ignoring the right of the Opposition to place the views of the people they represent before the Parliament. In view of this contradiction I ask the AttorneyGeneral how he can claim to be utilizing the brain power of this Parliament as he previously suggested should be done. Honorable -members generally know the procedure which is adopted in this House. “We know that the Government party holds its caucus meeting in its party room, and honorable members supporting the Government, after making decisions in the party room, come to this chamber, the proceedings in which open with a prayer for divine guidance, and then proceed to record votes designed to put into effect decisions previously made outside this chamber. And furthermore, the Government applies the gag and the guillotine to prevent the views of the Opposition being expressed. Press reports, to which some attention must be paid, because of their accuracy in the past, forecast last week that early this session the Government intended to use the number of condolence motions which would have to be considered, and the presentation of the budget, as an excuse to apply the forms of Parliament to prevent discussion on the possibility of Australia’s being embroiled in war which is the most important question confronting this country to-day. The reason advanced for the failure of the Government to call the House together for six months is that a delegation had to go overseas to conduct negotiations regarding matters which we were told, in 1932, were all to be settled by the Ottawa conference and agreement of that year. The Attorney-General appreciates the driving force of the Opposition to compel the Government to take action when it neglects to do so. The motion. I believe, will be defeated; the Government has the. numbers ; but at least the discussion will sting Ministers into some form of activity along the lines suggested by the Opposition.

Dealing with the question of unemployment, the Government claims that everything that has been done in this country to ease the position has been brought about as the result of the action of this Government, and is largely due to the confidence reposed in it by the investing public. It is most remarkable that on the many occasions when the subject of unemployment and the Government’s inactivity in relation to it have been brought before the House, we on this side have been told that the responsibility for creating employment is the concern of private enterprise and State governments. Yet now that some degree of reemployment has been accomplished, the Commonwealth Government seeks all the credit. On. the 11th March, 1932, the Prime Minister said -

The Government has ever since its assumption of office, given close consideration to the subject of unemployment. As I indicated the other day, we had set up a special subcommittee of Cabinet, which has already consulted with the authorities which our predecessors in office consulted. Although we propose to carry this investigation much further, we have already reached the point at which we recognize the extreme urgency of the problem.

At that time 30 per cent, of the employ able people in Australia were unemployed, and only after much urging by the Opposition did the Prime Minister condescend to agree that the problem had become one of extreme urgency. In his policy speech in 1934 the right honorable gentleman said -

After months of careful study of the problem, the Government has decided that, in the national interest, , tlie Commonwealth should take a larger share .in this responsibility. The States have nearly exhausted their financial possibilities in a whole-hearted effort to overcome it. The task is almost beyond their resources.

This followed two and a half years of office by the present Government, a government which had continually stated that the responsibility was one for solution by private enterprise and State governments. It was only at that stage that the Prime Minister, on a vote-catching tour throughout Australia, made his specious promises to the unemployed that if he were returned to power he would take steps to deal with the problem, and that the Commonwealth would take a larger share of responsibility for its solution. The right honorable gentleman went on to say -

A conference of the State governments will be summoned. Our aim will be to handle the problem upon a national as well as a State and municipal basis. Instructions have been given for the assembling of all the information directly accessible to the Commonwealth. This information will be supplemented by a swift and detailed survey of all that has been and is being done by the States; and, in the light of the complete information, comprehensive co-operative planning between the Commonwealth and State governments will follow.

That was nearly twelve months ago. That undertaking has been reiterated in this chamber time after time, but the conference has never been convened, and we have had no evidence that this co-operative planning has been given effect either by the Commonwealth Government or State governments. Early in the election campaign the Prime Minister made it known that it was not his intention to make promises to the unemployed or to any other section of the community, but realizing the necessity for something better than vague generalities to capture the vote of that section of the community which had suffered so much during the depression, he eventually promised that if his Government were returned to office £10,000,000 would be expended in an attempt to solve the unemployment problem. As polling day approached this amount became larger. But how was that promise redeemed? We all know that the only contribution made by this Government last year towards the relief of unemployment was the provision of £176,000 for Christmas relief. Further, the Prime Minister definitely promised the people that he would appoint a full-time Minister to. deal with all aspects of the unemployment problem. But owing to subsequent negotiations which took place between the United Australia party and the Country party, characterized by ignominious snavelling for office between the member of the two parties, that promise was overlooked. There were not enough portfolios to go round. Subsequently, the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Stewart) was appointed Under Secretary for Employment without ministerial rank. He was placed in an invidious position without recognition in Cabinet, either as a. Minister or an Assistant Minister. Under the forms of the House it was impossible for honorable members to question him as to what steps he proposed to take to carry out the job for which he was appointed, or to elicit any information. He was given an office in a remote part of the Commonwealth Bank. His efforts resulted in the provision of £176,000 as Christmas relief for the unemployed. After this had been done the honorable gentleman, who had assumed responsibility for finding a solution of this great problem, and who was to give, effect to the policy of this Government in connexion with the unemployed, went abroad on a trip which was to last seven months. Apparently all the work he had in hand - if any - is being left in abeyance until he returns. When he does come back it is questionable whether the Government will give him any higher status than he enjoyed before he left Australia. The honorable member for Parramatta took advantage of occasions outside of Parliament to make very important observations on the question of unemployment, and perhaps in his outspoken remarks lies one of the reasons why he was not appointed to ministerial rank. Speaking at a United Australia party meeting at Parramatta, the honorable member said -

Unemployment is tho greatest national problem, and whether we like or not it will have to be treated by new methods. The United Australia party will have to realize that it has been following the wrong track, and sooner or later will have to accept the methods to suit the times. Just because a Labour party held these views, nothing will stop me expressing my opinion, for I honestly believe such ideas to be correct and I intend to do all in my power to convince my colleagues in Canberra that increased wages and reduced hours are the only hopes Australia has of solving unemployment. In many industries wages and hours do not play such an important part in costs of production as some members of our party would have us believe. A difference in wages and hours between tho States has a detrimental effect, but on a Commonwealth basis it would not make any great difference even if the hours of labour were reduced to 42 or 40. Whether you like it or not, this has got to come.

In view of his political associations that was a very outstanding and courageous statement to make, though it probably resulted in his being relegated to oblivion so far as ministerial rank was concerned.

The Prime Minister quoted certain unemployment figures compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician, also figures relating to factory employment in the manufacturing industries, and claimed that the improvement disclosed by these figures has been due to the efforts of his Government and of the State governments. But the right honorable gentleman studiously avoided pointing out definitely just how much the Commonwealth Government was responsible for in this so-called improvement in the position. He quoted the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures to show that 32 per cent, of the people were unemployed in 1932, and that by 1935 the ratio of unemployment had dropped to 17.8 per cent. But in giving these figures the right honorable gentleman neglected to mention that they covered only 53 per cent, of the trade unions of this country, and did not take into consideration that vast section of the working community not organized in the trade union movement. I refer particularly to those in the rural industries, and those young men who have never been in any occupation since they left school, and who consequently have not been enrolled in a union. If we take their numbers into consideration the improvement in the position does not appear to be so bright. The Prime Minister quoted the unemployment figure of 1932 as being 32 per cent., but I point out that whereas the figures compiled by the Statistician’s Department disclosed that only 106,652 persons in Australia were unemployed at that particular date, the census revealed a total of 392,000 breadwinners without any income at all. In other words, the figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician’s Department in relation to unemployment showed only about one-quarter of the actual number of people who were unemployed at that time. Another factor in connexion with the compilation of figures by the Commonwealth Statistician must be borne in. mind. Anybody in employment for more than two days a week is considered by the Statistician to be fully employed. Since the introduction of the “work for the dole “ system in 1932, thousands, probably tens of thousands, of relief workers in New South “Wales, principally single men and married men with no dependant’s, have been included in that category. Does the Government claim that such men are fully employed?

Let us take another view of the unemployment question. The Prime Minister claims that the improvement of the position is entirely due to the restoration of confidence by his Government. An examination of the figures compiled by the Statistician, however, shows that the percentage of unemployment is 15 in

Victoria, 18.9 in South Australia and 22.7 in New South Wales - the three States that are controlled by anti-Labour governments - while in the Labourgoverned States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, the percentages are respectively 8.8, 13.9 and 16.4, an average of 13.3 in States controlled by Labour governments compared with one of 18.6 in States controlled by anti-Labour Governments. That comparison indicates that greater advance has been made in the provision of employment in the States that are controlled by Labour governments than in those which are administered by anti-Labour governments. It would therefore appear that any improvement which has taken place is not due to” confidence in the present Commonwealth Government.

There is another factor which those who confine themselves to statistics have not taken into consideration. That is, that there are thousands of young men leaving school who have never been engaged in industry, and, not being registered with trade unions, are disregarded in the calculations of the Statistician. Even the statistics of the labour bureaus in the different states are unsatisfactory in this respect, because those young men who are members of families in which the male parent is also unemployed are dealt with as units of a family and not as unemployed units.

This Government claims that it has revived prosperity in the primary industries. What has become of all those specious promises which have been made by the leader of- the Country party (Dr. Earle Page) regarding rural rehabilitation? Year after year, this Parliament has been asked to vote millions of pounds out of Commonwealth funds for the assistance of the wheat-growers. On each occasion, honorable members have been told that the Government had not had sufficient time to bring forward a comprehensive scheme of rural rehabilitation, but that one would be forthcoming before the next harvest. We are still anxiously waiting for this concrete scheme of rural rehabilitation. There is more than the word of the Acting Leader of the Opposition in support of the contention that the farmers are no better off under these particular measures than they were before. The president of the Farmers and Settlers Association of New South Wales at a resent conference held in Sydney has made the following criticism of the United Country party and the Government that it supports: -

I wonder whether our Country party parliamentarians realize the value of this organization, which is always alive and is not existent merely to fight an election. I am inclined to think that our ‘ representatives are not doing all they should to strengthen their associaion. Some measure of the present seeming prosperity has been at the expense of the wheat-growers. I say, “ seeming prosperity “ for I am not sure that it rests upon a sound foundation, in the absence of stability and real prosperity in some of the principal primary industries. The position of the wheatgrowers has gone from bad to worse, and their patience, long suffering, and self-sacrifice, which has characterized them while they watched their life savings and assets disappear under the present system governing production and marketing of their products in Australia, have all gone for nothing. Conditions, financial and otherwise, are fast undermining his morale. He has become impatient and disgusted at the vacillating, backing and filling policy of certain Governments.

Yet this Government claims that, by its legislation and the assistance it has given to primary industries, it has been responsible for the placing of those industries in a position of prosperity. This gentleman continued -

It is now some six months since the report of the royal commission was placed in the hands of the Federal Government. Notwithstanding all the Government says it has done, and all the excuses and reasons put forward for its failure to give effect to the recommendation for a collective marketing scheme through a Commonwealth wheat pool, the fact remains that, though we are on the eve of another harvest, nothing has yet been done to relieve the anxiety and restore confidence in the industry by the Government concerned.

That is not condemnation by representatives of the Labour movement, either in this House or outside, but is criticism that has been levelled against the Deputy Leader of the Government, the United Country party, and the Government as a whole, because of inactivity so far as primary producers are concerned.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) has asked to -be advised as to who, apart from the’ Commonwealth Government, could have raised the £12,000,000 needed for the so-called rural rehabilitation scheme. In my opinion, any authority could have raised, it for a similar objective. The farmers did not get the money. Instead it was used to partially pay off unsecured creditors. The money was merely taken out of one door of the bank and passed in at another. In effect, the whole purpose of the proposal was to enhance the prospects of the banks being able to collect interest on mortgages given to the farmers.

There is to be another conference of farming interests to thresh out the problem with which they are confronted. I hope that they will give to the Deputy Prime Minister a thrashing equal in effectiveness to that of the threshing that he proposes to invite them to give to their problem. I shall be interested to learn whether the Deputy Prime Minister and the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) - who apparently attended the Sydney conference with the object of drawing the sting out of it - succeed in justifying what this Government has done.

The Attorney-General claimed that the effect of the negotiations of the delegation to Great Britain would be to place millions of pounds in the pockets of the primary producers of this country. It was noticeable that, notwithstanding all Australia has done for him, the honorable gentleman referred to Great Britain as “Home”. He assured the House that the delegation went “ Home “ to fight for what Australia allegedly had already under the Ottawa agreement, the reason being that a foreign country - Argentina - was in .a position to resist any suggestions that the delegation might make. The honorable gentleman made the following statement to the press : -

The Anglo-Argentine agreement, which has a currency to 1936, prevented an unfettered consideration of the position and involved constant discussion as to how far Argentina was likely to agree with any proposals which might be jointly formulated by the British and Dominion Governments.

After all we have been told about Australia’s responsibility to’ the Empire, and what it owes to the Empire, the delegation had to fight for the interests of the Australian farmers and against foreign interests. The Attorney-General informed the House that one of the results was that we were to be given an opportunity to expand our market for mutton and lamb in the United Kingdom. The Ottawa agreement, which was passed by this House in December, 1932, embodied that very provision. Paragraph 4 of the declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom reads -

The policy of His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom in relation to meat production is, first, to secure development of home production, and, secondly, to give to the dominions an expanding share of imports into the United Kingdom.

Yet the Australian delegation had to fight for this concession.’

We have also been informed by the Attorney-General that the delegation devoted much time to an exploring of the possibilities of increased consumption in Europe. A notable achievement he claims was that it secured a reference to the Council of die League of Nations of the question of the under-consumption of our products on the continent. The Attorney-

Mr. Rosevear..

General need not go so far as Europe to consider the question of underconsumption ; there is ample evidence of it in Australia. Much better work would have been done had this Parliament met and evolved a scheme designed to increase the purchasing power of our people. That would have led to greater consumption of the products of this country. According to the census returns, at June, 1932. 2,217,000 of the 3,355,000 wage-earners in Australia were in receipt of less than £3 a week.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. BELL:

AYES: 40

NOES: 24

Majority 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the motion (Mr. Forde’s) be agreed to - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 39

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 181

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1935

Motion (by Mr.White) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under Customs Tariff Proposals.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the validation until the 30th November of this year of the collection of duties made in accordance with the customs tariff proposals introduced into the House on the 28th March last. As honorable members know, unless the schedule is passed by both Houses of Parliament within six months of its introduction into Parliament, a validating bill is necessary. Prior to a recent amendment of the Customs Act, it was sufficient if a new schedule were ratified within the current session of Parliament, but that has now been altered. There is insufficient time in which to discuss the items before the 28th September.

Mr Forde:

– Whose fault is that ?

Mr WHITE:

– I am not concerned at the moment about whose fault it is. The bill provides that the collections shall be validated until the 30th November, which is the date to which the collections involved in the tariff proposals tabled on the 6th December last have been validated. The passage of this bill will mean that the Government will be afforded an opportunity to combine the two schedules and so make it more convenient for the individual items to be discussed. The passage of this bill will not carry with it assent to the duties set out in the schedule. Provision is being made merely for the validation of the collection of the duties.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The statement of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) that there is insufficient time for Parliament to discuss the items of the schedule involved in the passage of this bill is similar to one that he made just before Easter when he introduced a validating bill to cover the collection of the duties imposed by the tariff schedule tabled on the 6th December last. When that bill was introduced, the honorable gentleman would not permit any discussion of it, and resorted to the gag to prevent debate. On that occasion we had to suffer the indignity of being gagged seventeen times on the one measure, and I was allowed to speak upon it for only five minutes, although it validated the collection of duties on 200 tariff items. The only speech that the Minister could make on that occasion was “I move that the question be now put”, which was not illuminating in any respect. The bill was ultimately passed at 2.7 a.m. No justifiable reason was given for validating the collections in that way. The honorable gentleman continued the same procedure in connexion with the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Validation Bill. I was allowed to speak on that measure for ten minutes, but the gag was applied 31 times to prevent any other speeches. This action was taken, I remind honorable members, by a Minister who, on other occasions, had urged very strongly that the fullest possible discussion should be allowed on all tariff variations. Previously, he had said that the tariff should be discussed item by item; but on those occasions he said that there was not sufficient time for discussion. The time was insufficient because the Government wished to rush Parliament into recess. This was not desired by the Opposition. As a matter of fact, many members of the Country party, as well as the members of the Opposition, desired that Parliament should be called together after Easter for the specific purpose of dealing with the tariff item by item, and they were strongly opposed to a prolonged recess for which they believed there was no justification. The Government, of course, suited its own convenience in the matter, and probably contributed to its own political safety by rushing into recess, for there were rumours of a good deal of dissatisfaction in its own ranks at its procedure. The scurry into recess was not generally desired. But some Ministers had already gone abroad. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment (Sir Frederick Stewart), who was supposed to be making a “ rapid survey “ of the unemployment problem, had also left Australia.

I shall be surprised if the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) sup* ports this bill, and I am sorry that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) is not here to express his view on it. On the 28th October, 1931, the honorable member for Swan moved an amendment to the customs bill then be- fore Parliament, to provide that all tariff schedules should be considered and a decision reached upon them within 90 days after being tabled. The present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) and his colleagues, the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill), the Minister directing negotiations for Trade Treaties (Sir Henry Gullett), the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes), the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson), the then honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) and the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) all, at that time, expressed the view that tariff schedules should be discussed item by item without delay, and some of those worthy gentlemen put forward substantial reasons in support of their contention. They were clearly opposed to dealing with tariff schedules holus bolus. The present Minister for Defence said on. that occasion -

The effect of the new clause if agreed to will be that tariff schedules must be ratified by Parliament within six months. The intention of the Government’s amendment is tohasten the consideration of customs taxation) proposals, which concern every one. The clause is a good one.

Can he now justify the action which the Minister for Trade and Customs is taking? The same honorable gentleman had also on previous occasions criticized the Scullin Administration for not facilitating the early discussion of tariff schedules item by item.. The honorable member for Swan said in that debate -

I hope the clause will he approved by honorable members. We should insist on tariff schedules being passed by both chambers more particularly if those resolutions affect thetaxation of the people. The Minister has said clearly that customs schedules must be ratified! by Parliament within six months or the duties collected pursuant to their provision must berefunded.

He was particularly emphatic in expressing the view that the schedule should beconsidered item by item within a specified period of its being tabled. Thepresent Minister for the Interior (MrPaaterson) also took an active part in the debate. He was, of course, then sittingwith the Country party. This was before he was welcomed into the compositeMinistry.

Mr Brennan:

– His views are not sostrong now.

Mr FORDE:

– No, they have been watered down. The fusion of the Country party with the United Australia party Government has, at least, silenced this former candid critic of the United Australia party. The honorable gentleman said during that debate -

The Minister should have set out in direct and simple language that a customs schedule must be ratified within six months of its having been tabled.

The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), who is also a fearless critic of the Government at times, expressed definite views on the desirableness of early consideration of tariff schedules item- by item. He was direct and emphatic, and said -

The schedule should become void if it is not ratified within six months.

He opposed any delay in dealing with tariff schedules. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), who, at that time, was still a private member and had not been received back into the Ministry, rose in his place on the back bench opposite and said -

The language should be more binding. If & schedule is not ratified within six months it should pass right out of consideration.

He was totally opposed to the imposition of taxation by means of the tabling of tariff schedules, and insisted that early discussion was essential. In all these circumstances, I protest strongly on behalf of the Opposition at the policy which the Government is now pursuing. “Whatever may be the personal views of the Minister for Trade and Customs- in regard to the prolonged parliamentary recess, he’ must, as a member of the Government, accept his share of responsibility. It is not the fault of honorable members of the Opposition that there has not been time for an adequate discussion of the tariff schedule ere this. It is generally recognized that, strictly speaking, the tariff is not a party political matter, and that honorable members should be given a proper opportunity to express their views upon it. The opinions so strongly advanced, a few months ago by honorable gentlemen now sitting on the treasury bench, are in themselves a condemnation of the measure which we are now asked to accept. The Minister for the Interior surely cannot remain silent during this debate.

I am gravely suspicious that the honorable member for Henty, who is now abroad, is carrying on secret negotiations with low-wage countries with the object of making trade treaties that will imperil he future of our secondary industries. Since the return of this honorable member to the ranks of the Cabinet, in the capacity of Minister directing Negotiations for Trade Treaties, there has been a serious weakening in the protectionist policy of the Government. I remind honorable members that the present Minister for the Interior said on the 9th March, 1933, when he was acting leader of the Country party-

I am prepared to support this or any other government in reducing by half the duty on every item of the tariff.

I fear that the first definite information that this Parliament will have of the work of the Minister directing Negotiations for Trade Treaties, will be an announcement that a treaty has been made. It will, doubtless, be tabled in Parliament, and we shall be informed that we cannot dot an “ i “ or cross a “ t “. We shall have to accept it en bloc, irrespective of the effect that it has on our secondary industries. We have been told on previous occasions, under similar conditions, that no amendment whatever can be accepted, and that the treaty must be approved in the exact form in which it is tabled. It should be self evident that for a country like Australia a vigorous protectionist policy is the only one that will provide it with an effective system of defence. Great Britain was able to play an outstanding part in the Great War of 1914-18 only because its territory was intensively industrialized, and because it had a large population of skilled people trained to manufacture. By allowing this Government, in pursuance of its tariff-slashing policy, to introduce tariff reductions and validate them from time to time, and in so doing break all . the promises it made that every opportunity would be given to the House to vote on such matters, we permit the protectionist policy of Australia to be undermined. Whence could Australia look for skilled workers and vital wealth in machinery if we are to restrict our industrial development in the way that some public men, including members of the present Ministry, would have us do? It is of vital importance that Australia be made as relf-reliant as possible in all the multifarious industries that are needed for the adequate defence of our country. Trade treaties, which the press hints in a veiled way are likely to be concluded with some Eastern countries and with some of the cheap-labour European countries, will strike a deadly blow at some of our great industries. I ask the Government to defer making a final decision with respect to these treaties until it consults Parliament. The best way to enable Australia to defend itself is to make it as self-reliant as possible by following a constructive policy of industrial encouragement under an adequate protectionist policy such as the Labour party stands for. Such a policy would help us very substantially to place in employment large numbers of the hundreds of thousands of our people who are now out of work. It would help to absorb in industry many of the 50,000 boys who leave school every year searching, mostly in vain, for work. We cannot place these youths in primary industry, because a glance at the number of persons employed in primary and secondary industries in Australia over a period of twenty years shows conclusively that there has been a . falling off in the employment available in primary industry, whilst only an additional 120,000 have been directly found work in secondary industries during that period. Australia can attain a comparatively safe position by increasing the standard of living of our people, and by scientifically developing both primary and secondary industries so as to enable them to absorb an increasing number of workers. When these are placed in employment they will be able to take their part in paying taxation, thus lightening the burden upon the people generally.

Despite what the present Minister for Trade and Customs may contend to the contrary, the foundation of the big development policy which ‘ he now claims to be apparent in secondary industry was laid down by the Scullin Administration. The warehouses were stacked with goods imported during the disastrous period in which the BrucePage Government held office, but when those surplus stocks were used up as the result of the Scullin Government’s measures, such a. stimulus was given to secondary industry in this country that it employed 70,000 additional people whilst many thousands more would have been employed had that policy not been whittled down by the meddlesome and interfering policy now pursued by the present Minister. The tariff policy of the present Government is dictated by the free-trade interest. The Government has been pushed hither and thither by every free-trade element in the country, and by representatives of foreign traders, and, latterly, it has had to water down its former policy considerably because of the inclusion within the Ministry of four members of the Country party.

Mr BRENNAN:
UAP

– The honorable member for Balaclava (Mi-. White) once declared he would forfeit his seat rather than give way to the free-trade interests.

Mr FORDE:

– Yes, the honorable member at one time took a very strong stand against these interests, and we are told that he said he would refuse to sit in a Cabinet with any of their representatives. In fact, he told them that their policy would be suicidal to Australia. But when it became a matter of political expediency to give security to the United Australia party Government, he threw his own principles overboard. The present Ministry is to-day only a shadow of the protectionist Government that went to the country in 1934. At any rate, every fair-minded man realizes that its protectionist policy has been considerably watered down.

I protest against the action of the Minister in introducing this validating bill in circumstances contrary to the promise he made to this Parliament that it would not be asked to validate, en Moa, hundreds of tariff items as it is now being asked to do. He also promised that the fullest, discussion on these, matters would be invited by the Government. He said it would not stand for stifling free and open discussion of tariff proposals. Are we now in a position to consider those proposals item by item ? No. We cannot move that any single item be increased or reduced ; we must accept all the items en bloc and reimpose this taxation as up to the 30th November next. Whilst I do not expect them to say what they said when in opposition, I hope at least that fair-minded honorable members in the Country party and the Nationalist party will say clearly now whether they support or oppose the procedure now being adopted by this Government.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- As was the case with respect to many other acts, the Tariff Act was amended by this Parliament to overcome abuse of privilege practised more frequently by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) when he was Minister for Trade and Customs in the Scullin Government than by any other Minister for Tradeand Customs since federation. To-day he seems to be seriously concerned that the House will not have an opportunity to discuss the tariff until November next. He was not so concerned about giving such an opportunity to the House when, for three years as Minister for Trade and Customs, he prevented any discussion whatever on the tariff. It was because of the position then created that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) sponsored an amendment of the act, the purpose of which was to limit the validity of tariff resolutions. I still believe in that amendment. The. bill now before the House is not unreasonable. It will validate the March tariff proposals only until November next. I hope that the House will be given an opportunity to consider the schedule by that time. It is well for Parliament to consider every schedule within the year in which it is proposed. Otherwise, business of this nature soon mounts up. I remember the House sitting for nine months on end considering the MassyGreene tariff. If tariffs are not considered in the same year in which they are proposed, their consideration soon becomes a real labour to Parliament. The amendment sponsored by the honorable member for Swan exercises a check upon the Government, and although the Minister (Mr. White) should have given reasons why it has not been allowed to operate in this instance, we have to realize that the House has been in recess for a long period this year due mainly to the fact that an Australian delegation was overseas, and that tha result of its efforts justified the length of that recess. 1 regret that the amendment of the act was found necessary. Had the Acting Leader of the Opposition, when Minister for Trade and Customs in the Scullin Government, been less autocratic and had he not sought to force a fiscal policy of his own upon the Commonwealth, it would not have been necessary. But the honorable gentleman did not. want to hear the opinions of any other honorable gentleman on fiscal matters. He has just said that the House was given only five minutes in which to discuss a validating measure. I remind him that when his Government submitted tariff proposals honorable members were given no time for such a discussion. He brought down schedules which had not even been considered by the Tariff Board, and he imposed embargoes at his own sweet will without paying the slightest heed to the opinions of other honorable members. I submit that the request of the Government embodied in this bill is justified.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- I trust the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) will be a little more accurate than he has been in statements which he has just made. He said that the Scullin Government held up tariffs for three years. That Government was not in power for three years.

Mr Prowse:

– I meant for as long as it was in power.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Even that period would not be correct, because the Scullin Government did not bring down a tariff during the first six months it was in office. In reply to the honorable member I remind him that during the regime of the Scullin Government Parliament sat almost continuously, and that owing to the obstructionist tactics adopted in another place the Government had not sufficient time in which to put through its legislation. In fact, the Parliament sat so continuously when the Scullin Government was in office that along with other honorable members I was contemplating shifting ray home to Canberra. Parliament at that time sat so continuously that honorable gentlemen in another place threatened not to allow an adjournment for Christmas. But, even if what was done at that time was wrong, the present Government is not justified in following that example.

Mr Prowse:

– The honorable member should recognize that the tariff proposals of the Scullin Government were carried out without being considered even by that Government itself.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– That position may have arisen because of the urgency of other matters that had to be considered. If the Scullin Government had adopted the practice of this Government it would have had to put through its tariff within five minutes.

Mr White:

– The Scullin Government devoted 29 days within two years to the consideration of the tariff, whereas this Parliament has had 70 days to consider such matters within the life of the Lyons Administration.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– That is beside the point. I agree with the honorable members for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), Swan (Mr. Gregory) and Wakefield (Mr. Hawker), and many other honorable gentlemen, and I held my present opinion when the Scullin Government was in power. Tariff schedules impose heavy taxation on commodities and on the community generally. The point I make is that, because of the methods adopted by the Government in presenting this measure, whether I support or oppose this validating measure, I am compelled to support virtually the collections proposed under this tariff. Honorable members may desire that some of these items should be either increased or reduced, but when the whole have to be dealt with collectively they are not given an opportunity to carry out their desires. If I support the validation of this tariff I give my consent to the collection of the duties imposed over the last six months.

Mr White:

– The honorable member was quite prepared to do that at election time.

Mr Forde:

– That is quite a different matter altogether.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I remember that when the Massy-Greene tariff schedule was debated in this House discussion proceeded for nine months on strictly nonparty lines, members from both sides of the House frequently voting together. I do not consider the tariff to be a party matter to-day. Although I am a staunch protectionist, and the party to which I belong supports protection, there is room for divergency of opinion. This is the second validating bill covering the same schedule. I ask the Minister if he will at least afford the House this crumb of satisfaction: Will he say definitely that there will not be any further validation bill covering this schedule?

Mr White:

– The schedule to which this bill relates was tabled in March, and this is the first validation bill covering it.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Will the Minister give honorable members an assurance that this tariff schedule will be discussed before the end of this session?

Mr White:

– If honorable members talk for more than six months without passing the tariff schedule another validating bill will be necessary.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– This schedule is a fairly lengthy one and honorable members should be given ample time, at least a couple of months, in which to discuss it. This is a matter in which public morality is involved and we are doing a very dangerous thing in consenting to the imposition of this heavy taxation. The Government has no right to continue to levy heavy duties on the country and collect large sums of money in revenue without the consent of Parliament.

Mr White:

– The Government which the honorable member supported did it on many occasions.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Burglary has been committed on many occasions, but we still put men in gaol for burglary. Because things have been done in the past, is no reason why they should continue to be done in the future. I hope that this method of dealing with tariff schedules will not be allowed to continue and that the rights of Parliament are not usurped by the Government. Honorable members should be afforded every opportunity to discuss questions which affect not only the revenue of this country, but also the employment of its people and every avenue of its economic and social life. I record my emphatic protest against the validation of this tariff.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- The tariff proposals which this bill seeks to validate were introduced on the 28th March last, so only a few days remain of the period within which they must be dealt with by Parliament. The intention is to validate the collection of duties up to the 30th November next. It so happens that the general trend of the existing tariff proposals has my approval, but I am not prepared on that ground to waive the principle that Parliament, and not the Government, should determine the tariff policy of this country. The purpose of the act passed last year was to correct very serious abuses of the recognized practice with regard to tariff matters. No legal authority exists for the collection of customs duties until they have been approved by Parliament, but for all practical purposes the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs is permitted to enforce collections from the date upon which tariff resolutions are laid on the table of the House, pending ratification by Parliament, which includes the Senate. . In consequence of the unsatisfactory situation which had developed, the measure passed last year contains provision that customs duties must be approved within six months of their being brought down to this House. When that bill was before the House, I was one of those who protested against its terms. It was drawn in such a form as to make it possible for the government of the day to collect customs duties without getting the authority of Parliament, by adopting the expedient of coming to Parliament from time to time for the ratification of the duties, knowing that the House would be forced, as it is now, to pass the measure in order to safeguard the revenue. This is bad parliamentary practice. I did not approve of it when it was adopted by the Minister for Trade and Customs in another government, and I do not approve of it now. In 1929-30, the tariff policy of this country was altered in a wholesale fashion by the government of the day simply by increasing duties and imposing embargoes and other restrictions without the authority of Parliament. There is. good reason for saying that this country suffered a great deal from the excessive duties then imposed. As was to be expected, retaliatory measures were taken by countries which, for many years, had been our best customers, and we have not yet been able to recover important trade which Australia lost then in consequence of the precipitate action of a government which imposed excessive duties without the authority of Parliament. I realize, of course, that in special circumstances it may be necessary to validate collections of customs duties even if the period of six months provided for their consideration by Parliament has expired without honorable members having been given an opportunity to discuss the resolutions. This is one of those special occasions. It has not been convenient for Parliament to consider the tariff proposals brought down by the Minister in March last, so it is necessary now to validate the collections made under those resolutions. But I deprecate the practice, and. I should have been more satisfied if the Minister had given us some assurance that Parliament would be given an opportunity to discuss the schedules at an early date. The bill fixes the 30th November next as the period for the validation of the collection of Customs duties under the March resolutions, but it is safe to predict that the House will be called upon at a later stage to pass another validating measure, and it will probably be twelve months or longer before Parliament has an opportunity to deal with the schedule.

Mr White:

– We shall deal with it as quickly as possible.

Mr NAIRN:

– There is not now any great hurry, but I strongly object to the principle involved. I condemned this practice when it was followed by the previous Government and I still maintain that the continued collection of duties without the authority of Parliament is unjustifiable. It leaves open the way for a Government that may not be strictly scrupulous to continue the administration of tariff matters in this way almost indefinitely. It is not a good practice, and I hope that in future the House will be given an early opportunity to discuss tariff schedules as soon as possible after their introduction. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is hoped to give honorable members an opportunity to discuss the items this year, or whether we shall have a session early next year to consider tariff policies. In the circumstances, I support the bill.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– The unfortunate position in which the Government is now placed has been occasioned by the amendment of the act which provides that customs resolutions must come before Parliament for discussion within six months of their being brought down to the House. That amendment was, of course, sponsored by the freetrade members of this House, and another place. I opposed it because I realized that it would interfere, to some extent, with the authority of this chamber in respect of a government’s tariff policy. In supporting the amendment, the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and his colleague, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) clearly had in mind the possibility of the Senate being given an opportunity, within the period of six months, to reject the tariff proposals of a reasonable protectionist government. The bill now before the committee is an illustration of the first embarrassment of this Government in connexion with tariff matters. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), who has always consistently opposed increased Customs duties, has told us that, until ratified by Parliament, collections of Customs revenue are, strictly speaking, illegal. I would, however, remind him that the practice has been approved by the courts, so there is no reason why it should not be continued.

Mr Nairn:

– Parliament may ratify the collections.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– I appreciate the honorable member’s sincerity in tariff matters, and also give the same credit to the honorable members for Swan and Forrest. Being staunch freetraders, they strongly supported the proposal that tariff resolutions should be brought before Parliament within a period of six months, hoping, no doubt, that the Senate would reject increased duties and thus frustrate the intention of the majority of the members in this House.

Mr Prowse:

– ‘Senators are also elected by the people.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– But not at the same time as members of this House. Members of this chamber may. receive a later mandate and their views should therefore prevail. What would have been the position during the regime of the Scullin Government if it3 tariff, which was designed to meet a special set of circumstances and safeguard Australian industries, had to be submitted to Parliament within a given period and run the risk of rejection by the Senate? The tariff policy of that Government was intended to rectify the unfavorable trade balance of this country, and no one can doubt that its enforcement had the effect of saving Australia from a grave disaster. If that tariff had been defeated in the Senate, we should have been in a desperate position. I am not opposing the validation of the collection of these duties, but I suggest that if the amendment providing for the validation of Customs duties within six months of the imposition had been rejected, the Government would not have been in its present embarrassing position.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– The Government would be well advised to reconsider the amendment of the Customs Act, which has placed us in the position that we occupy to-night. Honorable members will remember the circumstances surrounding its enactment. For more than 30 years the Customs Act- contained no such limitation as the act now places on this House. The provision which in effect compels the passage of tariff schedules within six months of their introduction originated in the impatience of a member of the Country party to have tariff items dealt with. When the amendment was proposed, I drew attention to the effect that it would have, and argued that its inclusion in the original act would have prevented a general revision of the tariff at any period in the history of the Commonwealth. The first tariff was introduced by the Honorable C. C. Kingston in October, 1901, and its passage occupied a period of eleven months. The task could not have been completed in less time, as it involved a consideration of the different State tariffs and was designed to meet the needs of the new Australian nation. Later in 1907 the tariff had to be revised generally to meet the demands of the new circumstances that had arisen, and a considerably longer period than six months was involved. When Sir Walter Massy-Greene was Minister for Trade and Customs, a further comprehensive schedule was introduced in 1920, and again Parliament was engaged upon the task for more than six months. Inevitably that must be so. Parliamentary experience has shown that the consideration of Parliament cannot be exclusively devoted to the tariff when once it is introduced. Important measure’s, b ave continually to be dealt with by the House while the tariff is still before it. The first session of the Commonwealth Parliament had not only to deal with the tariff, but had also to lay the foundations for the administration of various Commonwealth departments. Had that Parliament attempted to deal only with the tariff, the legislation and administration of the Commonwealth would have been held up. During the administration of Sir Walter MassyGreene questions arising out of the war were among the many with which Parliament had to deal. Parliament should not be shackled by being compelled to accomplish the whole of the work of tariff-making within a too limited time. Early in the life of this Parliament when faced with the adjournment, the Government was compelled to introduce a validation bill. If a limitation of time is to be imposed it should be a reasonable one, having regard to the exigencies of national affairs, and the other legislation that has to be passed. The situation which confronts Parliament to-day will be repeated time after time if the sixmonths provision remains in the act. This House has placed itself in this position. Should this House take four months, which is not a long time, to pass a tariff, and the Senate fails to pass it within the remaining two months, there could be actions for the recovery of duties paid, although those had already been passed on to’ consumers. It would have been infinitely better to have allowed the experience of 30 years to prevail. lit must be remembered that the Government is giving effect to the will of the people, I agree with other honorable members as to the absolute necessity for passing the tariff as soon as possible after its introduction, because it either imposes or remits taxation and causes uncertainty until ratified. But no act of Parliament should be passed to limit the powers of this House. The situation to-day is that, unless the Senate is willing to repeal or amend the limitation imposed by the recent amendment of the Customs

Act, the Government can merely introduce validating legislation. Should the Senate decline to pass a validating bill those who had paid the duties could sue for their recovery.

Mr McEwen:

– Does the Senate not represent the will of the people?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– I am referring at the moment to the collection of duties. The Senate is presumed to represent the people from the State viewpoint, but members of this House are the representatives of the people on a national basis. The Government should seriously consider an extension of the period of limitation to at least twelve months, or repeal the provision and revert to the former procedure. The Government has been charged with the conduct of the affairs of the nation, and for any dereliction of duty can be called to account in this House. Meanwhile our only course is to validate the schedule affected and thus extend the time available for the consideration of the individual items.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP

– I hope that the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) considers that he has been sufficiently reprimanded by members of his own composite party, and that it is not necessary for me to emphasize what has been said. The honorable gentleman harked back to 1930, to the tariff introduced by the Labour government of which I was a member. He referred to the drastic nature of that tariff, as though it was part of a general calamity which overtook the people incidentally to the success of the Labour party at the polls in the previous year. I was pleased to notice that the honorable gentleman was answered to-night from two quarters in this House, neither of which is Labour. I venture to submit that, drastic as the tariff of the Scullin Government was, it represented one of the manifest acts of courage for which that courageous and ill-fated Government became famous. It was not necessary then to give effect to what some people call the settled policy of this country, namely, sound protection. As everybody knows, it was essential to put the Commonwealth on an even keel and to save the nation. That was the foundation of the long-range policy that the Scullin Government had in view. It was approved not only unanimously by Labour, but also by the majority of those who were opposed to Labour. That, I think, has been indicated by the short speeches delivered to-night by the honorable members for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) and Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom). Action had to be taken, and it was courageously taken. It effected a reversal of the adverse trade balance of this country and put the nation on an even keel once more. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) approved of that action generally.

Mr White:

– I did not approve of the prohibitions lasting for five years.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Perhaps not. Some of the items, admittedly, were of a special character, and it possibly was not intended that in every individual case they should be so continued. It, however, was; and is, intended that an effective policy of protection should be continued in this country. The Minister now finds himself entangled in his own machinery. The Labour party opposed the amendment of the Customs Act imposing the six months’ period of limitation. That section was inserted in the act not because of the Labour party, but in spite of it. Its insertion necessitated the Minister’s rushing precipitately on a Sunday afternoon to Canberra in order to extricate himself from the difficulty into which his ill-considered legislation had landed him. We shall help him in his work of ratification by agreeing to the validation of the tariff schedule. I endorse in general terms the wise statements made to-night by the honorable members for Darling Downs and Wide Bay. In case there should be any hard words, let us not hark back to 1930, when the Scullin Government, in its brief career, laid the foundations of Australia’s economic recovery.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The House will agree that, as a general rule, the conduct of the business of Parliament should be within the control of Parliament itself; but in practice certain exceptions to that rule are recognized. Those exceptions are that there shall be no imposition of taxation without the consent of both Houses of the Parliament, and that there shall be no expenditure of public moneys without due authorization by both Houses. Consequently, when we reach the position described by the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), who says that nine months is not too long to devote to the consideration of a tariff schedule—-

Sir Littleton Groom:

– I referred to the time necessary for a complete revision of the tariff.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– The imposition of taxation by means of a tariff, or the remission of taxation by a reduction of duties, is so serious that there should be some limitation of the power of Parliament. Therefore, I see no great harm in the existence of the law which binds both Houses to give due consideration to either the imposition or the remission of taxation, especially if such taxation has been in force some time without the will of Parliament. This year we have been faced with an unusual set of circumstances. The Commonwealth sent a delegation of Ministers overseas to undertake certain trade negotiations with Great Britain. Having done so, no sane government would have kept Parliament in session in order to indulge in a first-class debate on tariff matters. To do so would be tantamount to sending the head of the Government to negotiate peace with another country while a civil war was in progress at home. The subject is altogether too big for party politics. I believe in a substantial reduction of the existing tariff. Long before I entered politics, I opposed high tariffs, because I hold that one of the greatest barriers to the establishment of efficient manufacturing industries in Australia is the very tariff which is supposed to be assisting them. A high tariff defeats its own purpose. The question before us is whether we shall postpone until the 30th November the necessity for validating certain collections of customs. The honorable member for Darling Downs asked what would be done in the event of the Crown having collected certain duties to the imposition of which Parliament had not agreed. The Government was in no difficulty in this connexion last session, when it introduced a bill to validate the collection of certain sales tax which hadbeen declared illegal by the High Court. On that occasion some of ‘ us on this side of the House ranged ourselves against the Government.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– Suppose the duties had been paid?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– In March last the honorable member did not advocate paying the sales tax back to the consumers.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– Of course I did. I tried to get a fair deal for Australians.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– I have all along contended that the money, having been collected illegally, should not be retained by the Crown. The persons to whom it should have been returned would have had to prove that they were rightfully entitled to the money, otherwise it would have been possible for persons with no claim to it to make huge profits out of the collection of customs dues which had not been approved by Parliament. There should be some limitation of the power of Parliament to postpone from time to time the consideration of tariff matters. The granting of privileges to manufacturers- in this country at the expense of the consumers should not be allowed to go on indefinitely without some pronouncement by Parliament as to their wisdom and validity.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

.- The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has set out clearly the reasons for amending Section 226 of the Customs Act which reads - .

No proceeding whether against an officer or otherwise for anything done for the protection of the revenue in relation to any tariff or tariff alteration proposed in Parliament shall except as mentioned in the next section be commenced before the close of the session in which such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed.

The practice of having only one session during the life of a Parliament was the rule for many years and advantage was taken of this fact by the last Labour Administration, which would not get on with the tariff discussions. The act has since been amended to force discussion within six months. I should not have mentioned that fact but for the criticism of the Government which has been indulged in. The present is not the occasion for a full-dress tariff debate; the House is asked merely to validate the collection of customs beyond the period of six months which will expire on the 28th September. There was no occasion for honorable members opposite to refer to the diminishing trade balance, or to some of the other subjects which have been mentioned. For a comparison of the attention given to these matters by the different administrations, I mention that between 1929 and 1931 our predecessors introduced 30 tariff resolutions, of which 12 dealt with duties of customs and 10 with excise duties. The first of them was introduced in November, 1929, and it was followed at varying intervals by the others. I shall not dilate on the speeches of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) at that time, in which he spoke of the thousands of Australians who would find employment as a result of the Scullin Government’s tariff. Nor shall I enlarge on the fact that during that Government’s short regime unemployment continually increased. To-day, the honorable member had the audacity to say that the return to work in the secondary industries of the country of 70,000 Australians was the direct result of that Government’s fiscal policy.

Mr Forde:

– I repeat that. Surely the honorable Minister does not blame the Scullin tariff for the world depression?

Mr WHITE:

– Carried to its logical conclusion the reasoning of the honorable member means that, had the Scullin Government continued in office for another two or three years, there would to-day be no unemployment in Australia. Honorable members well know the crude and haphazard way in which the Scullin Government dealt with tariff matters. Schedules which bore clear evidence of immature consideration were introduced in rapid succession.

The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) said that the Scullin Government set out to rectify Australia’s adverse trade balance. That the then Opposition, which is now on the Government benches, supported that attempt, does not suggest that-it favoured the perpetuation of prohibitions and surcharges. Although the first tariff schedule introduced by the Scullin Government was tabled in November, 1929, the debate on it did not commence until the 28th April, 1931. The schedule was discussed for 29 days, but before the debate ended a validating bill covering the whole schedule was introduced. In order to assist in an early appeal to the electors the then Opposition agreed to that validating measure. Under the administration of the Lyons Government 70 sitting days were occupied on tariff matters alone during 1932 and 1933. The bill before the House deals with a tariff schedule which was introduced in March, but was not discussed because of lack of time. Now that an opportunity for discussion is presented, the Opposition reprimands the Government for not having called Parliament together earlier. This validating legislation is one reason for Parliament having been summoned at this time.

Mr Beasley:

– Are we to understand that Parliament would not have met so soon otherwise?

Mr WHITE:

– The bill merely extends until the 30th November next the right to collect certain duties of customs. By that time the two schedules covered by it will have been re-introduced in another form. As soon as the business of the Parliament permits, an opportunity will be given to honorable members to discuss the schedule item by item, and I have no doubt that the Acting Leader of the Opposition will follow his usual practice and have something to say on every item or sub-item.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 192

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1935

Motion (by Mr. White) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of adjustments in duties of customs under Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

by leave -

I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill, which the House has just passed. Its object is to ensure that the exchange adjustment amendments shall continue to operate in the same way as has been provided for in regard to the tariff schedule itself. It is a machinery bill only.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 192

SPECIAL ANNUITY BILL 1935

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Mr. Casey) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for the payment of an annuity to the widow of the late Senator the Honorable Sir Walter Kingsmill.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

Bill brought up by Mr. Casey and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill was a member of the Western Australian Parliament for about 25 years continuously, first in the Legislative Assembly, commencing in 1897, and later in the Legislative Council, in which he occupied successively the offices of Chairman of Committees and President. In Western Australia, Sir Walter held the ministerial offices of Minister for Public Works, Commissioner of Railways, Colonial Secretary and Minister for Education. In 1922 he was elected to the Senate, where he was ViceCh airman, and later Chairman, of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. After having been Temporary Chairman of Committees of the Senate he was elected President in 1929, and was a member of the Senate until his death.

Sir Walter Kingsmill’s total service in the parliaments of Australia was from 1897 until his death - a period of nearly 38 years. Having regard to the valuable services rendered by the late senator during a long and honorable public career, and to the financial position of his widow, the Government is strongly of opinion that an annuity of £156 per annum should be provided. There are several precedents for a provision by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of annuities for dependants of former members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 193

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1935-36

In Committee of Supply:

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That there be granted to His Majesty for or towards defraying the services of the year 1935-36 a sum not exceeding £4,531,540.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.-I move -

That the amount be reduced by £1.

If my amendment be carried, it is to be taken as an instruction to the Government -

  1. That this House desires to increase the rate of invalid and old-age pensions to £1 a week ; and
  2. That the Government take steps to ensure progressive reductions in the number of working hours and increases in living standards commensurate with increased powers of production due to the mechanization and speeding up of industry.

I do not put my proposal forward in any party spirit, but because I wish to provide an opportunity for honorable members to indicate to the Government their views on these matters. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), when he was Leader of the Opposition in 1931, pledged himself to support the restoration of pension and salary cuts as soon as the financial position of the country would permit it. He stated definitely that reductions of pensions should be temporary only, and that they should be restored to their former level as soon as possible. No one can deny that the financial position of the country has improved. Higher prices for our exportable products, and an improvement of world trade, have brought about a general betterment of the financial position. At the time when pensions were reduced the deficit in Commonwealth finances was £10,000,000. At the end of the next financial year, 1931-32, there was a surplus of £1,314,000. Nevertheless, in that year further reductions of pensions were made, and there was a general tightening up in administration by the present Government which resulted in a loss of another £1,000,000 to the pensioners. In 1932-33, there was a surplus of £3,500,000; in 1933-34, there was a surplus of £1,300,000; in 1934-35, there was a surplus of £711,000 ; while the estimated surplus for 1935-36 is £1,072,000. The Government has already remitted taxes amounting to £9,500,000, and provision has been made in the present budget for further remissions amounting to £510,000. In view of these facts, and in view of the fact that pensioners have found it extremely difficult to subsist on the meagre allowance of 18s. a week, I ask the Government to give favorable consideration to my request. I know that the Assistant Treasurer himself would like to meet my wishes if his Government would permit him.

The second portion of my amendment has an important bearing upon unemployment, the working week, and the standard of living of the workers of Australia. Throughout the world there are about 30,000,000 persons unemployed, and many of them will never get back into industry unless a shorter working week is adopted internationally. What is Australia doing to give a lead in that direction ? Even if there be a return to better trade conditions, we shall still have the problem of unemployment, on account of the widespread use of laboursaving machinery and the speeding-up devices used throughout industry to-day. Modern methods of production have not proved beneficial to the workers, but usually lead to unemployed artisans standing outside factory fences and watching machines accomplish the work which was previously done by hand. It is a reflection on the whole system of society, and upon those who control governments, that we should be seeking to solve the problem of so-called overproduction by reducing production, or manipulating it in such a way as ultimately to reduce it by means of export quotas. Instead of endeavouring to eliminate what is erroneously referred to as over-production, we should be turning our attention to the removal of poverty and unemployment. I believe that the present Government could exercise a great influence in the direction of bringing about this desirable result. Conferences of State and Commonwealth Ministers are held periodically, and the whole matter could ‘be seriously discussed at those gatherings.

Early consideration should be given to an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Of course there are constitutional limitations, and Parliament cannot compel the Arbitration Court to do things; but we could indicate to the court our views on this matter of shorter hours. The State parliaments having residual powers could lay down general principles for the State Arbitration Courts to follow, and the courts could provide for special conditions in various industries. This course was followed in Queensland in regard to hours of labour. I believe that the Commonwealth Court would take cognisance of legislative action in. this Parliament along the lines I have suggested. Action of this kind was taken some years ago by the Bruce-Page Government, which, in 1927, caused Section 25d to be inserted in the Arbitration Act. That section provides -

The Court shall . . . take into consideration tho probable economic effect of the agreement or award in relation to the community in general and the probable economic effect thereof upon the industry or industries concerned.

The Parliament should stress the point that the increased production due to the use of modern machinery and speeding up devices should be met by the provision of increased consumption of goods and increased leisure for those who have hitherto been called upon to suffer as the result of the introduction of laboursaving machinery. Such an intimation should be embodied in the act as an expression of the opinion of the Parliament, pending the passing of appropriate amendments of the Constitution which would render possible more effective Parliamentary action. I again urge the wisdom of the Commonwealth authorities discussing this problem with the State governments at the periodical conferences. The Commonwealth Government has the machinery at its disposal to ascertain all the facts, and . it could obtain the latest information from the International Labour Office. Indeed, it had a representative at the recent conference at Geneva, and his speeches were favorable to the introduction of a shorter working week. The honorable member for Parramatta, (.Sir Frederick Stewart), speaking at the International Labour Conference at Geneva on the proposal for a 40-hour week, remarked -

It is because I can think of no more logical way of arranging this than by an appropriate reduction of working hours that the proposal now before the conference has my fullest commendation. Much as we may dislike making the confession, I am afraid we must admit that industry has been prone to be unprepared to accord to its workers an equitable participation in the benefits resulting from the improved technique which has been such a feature of latter-day industrialism.

That was an important admission. The representative of the workers of the United States of America stated at the conference at Geneva -

In 1932 there were 3,000,000 workers in the “ United States of America under the 40-hour week, and since March, 1933 probably 3,000,000 workers have been re-absorbed in industry under the National Recovery Act. Organized labour in the United States of America looks upon 40-hours a week as a half-way station in the progress towards a universal 30-hour week.

Those who suggested the introduction of an 8-hour day 50 years ago were looked upon as revolutionaries. Every reform has occasioned great hostility in the initial stages. When Kanaka labour was employed in the sugar industry of Queensland, it was said by many of the leading plantation and mill owners that if the coloured labourers were sent back to the South Sea Islands the industry would be ruined. But time proved those gloomy individuals to be quite wrong. In the industrial towns along the Queensland coast, where formerly there were thousands of black workers, there are to-day thousands of white workers bringing up Australian families. Any suggestion that there should be a universal 40-hour week is opposed to-day by the big employers of labour, who predict that it would bring ruin to industry: The Australian

Council of Trade Unions stands for a 30-hour week, and I believe that eventually that goal will be reached. Considering that to-day there are 325,000 unemployed in Australia, and 30,000,000 throughout the world, the inevitable conclusion must be that, millions of these people will never get back to work until a snorter working week is adopted internationally. Why should we make men slaves to the machines that may set them free ? I find that a Marion electric shovel will handle 30,000 cubic yards of earth in 24 hours, and do as much as 15,000 labourers could accomplish in a ten-hour day. When the Cunard Line of Steamers gave up the use of coal and began to use oil fuel with mechanical and self-feeding stokers, 688 out of 951 stokers were thrown out of employment. Now 263 men watch and oversee the machinery in glittering boiler rooms where previously firemen worked stripped to the waist. Modern iron works in the United States of America where 80 men are employed, can produce four times as much wrought iron in a single turn as 225 men could furnish by the hand-puddling process. The only persons who are deprived of the right to benefit from labour-saving machinery are the employees in industry. An’ up-to-date electric light bulb manufacturing plant in the United States of America can now produce 650,000 lamps from each machine in a day, which represents an increase of 10,000 times a man when compared with the old system of manufacture. This, of course, means that an enormous saving is made in production, and in the employment of labour. Similar advances have been made in the manufacture of cigarettes. Nowadays, the rate of manufacture is 2,500 a minute for each employee, whereas a year ago, the maximum- rate was between 500 and 600 for each person. A rayon factory is being designed at New Jersey at present, which is intended to be,’ run without human labour at all, except for a solitary man who will watch a switchboard. This factory will produce considerably more than factories which are to-day employing hundreds of men and women. It formerly took three and a half hours to cut a crane hook from solid steel, but now, with the assistance of a blue print, it can be done in 21 minutes. The moment an industry reaches a complete state of mechanization, employment in it falls sharply, and the tendency is always towards further decreases, irrespective of whether times are good or bad.

In view of the fact that the Government was represented at the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June of this year, I direct attention to the official report of the proceedings of the conference, in which it is stated that the Italian employers’ representatives had said that Italian employers had made agreements with the Italian workers’ confederations which provided for a 40-hour working week wherever practicable. As the result of these agreements, it had been possible to reduce the number of unemployed persons in Italy in the last few months by 200,000. This reduction of hours had been effected without any corresponding adjustment of wages, because Italy could not, by unilateral action, place itself in a position of inferiority in international competition. The report also expressed the hope that the International Labour Office would promulgate a draft convention for a 40-hour working week.

All these reports are furnished to the Government periodically, and no one should know more about them than the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey). Because I know that honorable gentleman is thoroughly conversant with business affairs in the Commonwealth, and is in constant touch with representatives of the State governments through the Loan Council, over which he now presides, and because I believe that he is throwing himself into his work with great enthusiasm, I appeal to him to obtain the authority of the Government to convene a conference of Commonwealth and State representatives to discuss the urgent need for a shortening of the working week throughout Australia. A number of our industries already operate under a 40-hour working week. Even a few years ago, this was thought to be quite impracticable, and it was even suggested that any reduction of working hours below the then existing standards would ruin industry. I have been in touch with some of the large employers of labour, who are operating under- the 40-hour week, and they have admitted frankly that their enterprises have not suffered in any way in consequence of the reduced working hours. They have also said that they are getting better service from their employees, who find greater contentment and happiness and improved physical and mental conditions resulting from the reduced working hours. The Commonwealth Government could assist in various ways to bring about a general reduction of the working week. It could, for instance, introduce an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which would give a lead to the court, or induce the State governments to bring about reforms of this nature, or influence the State governments to grant additional constitutional power to the Commonwealth to enable it to do what is necessary. I therefore seek the favorable consideration of the Government to the proposals which I have made .

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I support the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) and take this opportunity to make some observations which concern the Attorney-General’s Department. I wish the Government to give some indication to the House and the people of the Commonwealth as to what it. intends to do to fill the vacancy that has occurred on the High Court Bench. This matter is of great importance, particularly to the workers of Australia. If the rumours current in the lobbies of this House, and elsewhere for that matter, can be believed, the Government has already committed itself to the appointment of Sir John Latham as Chief Justice of the High Court. In spite of the fact that that gentleman, in this House and elsewhere, has in the past been loud in his condemnation of what he described as “political appointments to the judiciary”, there seems to be no reason to assume that he will not accept this high office if it be offered to him. The subject is of such vital concern to the workers of Australia and their organizations, that. I feel called upon to review the record of Sir John Latham, particularly during the period of his membership of this Parliament. I do this with the object of demonstrating that this gentleman is not a fit and proper person to be even considered for appointment to the High Court Bench. Further,

I believe that he would be quite incapable of efficiently filling such an office. When he was a member of this Parliament he was frequently involved in serious disputes with the workers of Australia, and he carried on the fight both inside this House and outside it, to such an extent that it must be apparent to all except those who deliberately refuse to bow to the facts that he is seriously biased against the workers and their organizations. I direct attention first to the attitude adopted by Mr. Latham, as he then was, in connexion with the British maritime strike of 1925. This was shortly after his election to this Parliament. At that time he took every opportunity to vent his spleen upon the workers; and, as AttorneyGeneral, he took action against the Australian Seamen’s Union with the object of causing Messrs. Walsh and Johnson, two of its officers at that time, to be deported. Honorable members will recollect that an amendment of the Immigration Act was introduced, under the terms of which it was thought that these men could be deported. What was called a Deportation Board was set up, and it found Messrs. Walsh and Johnston guilty of the charges levelled against them by the Government and ordered their deportation; but upon appeal to the High Court, the finding of the board was reversed.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Was that while Sir John Latham was Attorney-General? I think it was before he was appointed.

Mr WARD:

– Whether he was Attorney-General or not, is unimportant, because he undoubtedly strongly supported the action which the Government took at that time and so is culpable. What I have said shows that this gentleman is seriously biased against the workers.

I now come to a consideration of what will be remembered as the I.W.W. case. During a discussion of that case in this House, on the 28th January, 1926, the honorable gentleman said -

In Sydney the position became very serious, lives were lost and many buildings were burnt down, rendering strong action necessary.

We can all well remember the outcome of that business, which, in my opinion, was far from creditable to Mr. Latham’s party. Honorable members will recollect that in that case Mr. Justice Ewing reversed the finding against Mr. Donald Grant and others. Sir John Latham was guilty of delivering a cowardly attack upon these men after they had been found not guilty by the court, and yet to-day we find that he is undoubtedly being considered for appointment to the highest judicial position in the land, in which office he would be called upon to adjudicate upon many matters affecting our industrial organizations. If this appointment is made, the Government cannot expect the workers to believe that they will receive justice from the hands of this- gentleman.

The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) questioned the accuracy of a statement I made a few moments ago; but he will not be able to deny the truth of what I am about to say, concerning the connexion of this former AttorneyGeneral with the notorious Abrahams case. The Abrahams brothers were undoubtedly allowed to rob the Commonwealth Government of large amounts of money due by them under certain taxation assessments, and they were able to escape the payment of their just dues, because of the protection given to them by Mr. Latham.

Mr Casey:

– The honorable gentleman should not talk nonsense.

Mr WARD:

– I shall relate the facts, and honorable members will be able to form their own opinions as to whether what I am saying is nonsense or not. The three Abrahams brothers were charged with defrauding the Government of taxes due by them over a period going back to 1915. Inquiries were made into the case, books were examined, safes were blown up, and a large amount of material was gathered by the Government after a great deal of trouble. Yet, in spite of this, two of these brothers were allowed to leave Australia. The Commonwealth Government actually permitted them to do so. The Commonwealth law provides that before a person may lawfully leave the country, he must pay whatever taxes are owing by him and also obtain a passport. Special officers were detailed by the Attorney-General to watch the Abrahams brothers, yet in spite of this they were allowed to leave Australia.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– They were not “ permitted “ to do so.

Mr WARD:

– They were !

Mr Bernard Corser:

– That is not so.

Mr WARD:

– The facts of the case are that these men were permitted to leave Australia. Had they remained here, they would have had to face a charge of conspiracy; but, because two of them left the country, the case was dropped. In my opinion, this shows serious culpability on the part of the Government and the Attorney-General of the day. Proceedings had already been instituted against these individuals, and, as honorable members know very well, the Attorney-General does not take action against a person unless he is quite satisfied that he has a good case. The Government, however, accepted £500,000, plus £10,000 for legal costs, from the Abrahams brothers in settlement of its claim, and withdrew the court proceedings against them. In other words, they made terms with criminals. Abrahams brothers violated the law, but were granted immunity from prosecution. If the honorable member for Wide Bay wishes to take up the cudgels on behalf of Sir John Latham, let him explain to the community why these persons were granted immunity from prosecution for conspiracy. In an endeavour to clear itself, the Government, acting upon the advice of the Attorney-General (Sir John Latham), took action under the Income Tax Assessment Act for’ the recovery of taxes due for the years 1924-1926. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Starke who said’ -

The whole case seems to be based upon conspiracy. Why they will not prosecute for conspiracy I should like to know.

The people of Australia also would like to know why they were not proceeded against under the Crimes Act. As the records show, Sir John Latham as Attorney-General took the full responsibility for the Government’s action. It is quite clear on the material available that the defendants operated together and possibly with others to defraud the Government of large sums of money. That was the statement of Mr. Justice Starke.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– That is true.

Mr WARD:

– I am glad to have that admission from a supporter of the Government. The records show clearly that the then Attorney-General was criticized by a judge for using his position in the way he did. It is very dangerous for a Government to institute proceedings against criminals and then to discuss terms with them or their representatives. Was the Government’s representative prepared to do that in other instances such as when it took action against trade unionists for breaches of the Commonwealth law? I remind honorable members of what occurred in connexion with the Kidman-Mayoh ship-building contracts. The right honorable gentleman to whom I am alluding was not anxious to press home a judgment against the contractors in that instance.

When the coal lock-out occurred in 1929 there was a good deal of pressure and agitation by honorable members on this side of the House in connexion with the whole dispute, and the Government eventually decided to take proceedings against that great coal baron the late Mr. John Brown. It decided to charge him with a .breach of the Commonwealth law for having locked out his employees, and, according to the records, its action in that respect was applauded by honorable members on both sides of the chamber. Shortly after the Government’s intentions were announced the summons was withdrawn at the instance of the AttorneyGeneral. The Government did not proceed against Mr. Brown, and Sir John Latham again took the full responsibility for its action. To show honorable members that responsible persons opposed to the Labour party believed that Mr. Brown should have been prosecuted, I shall quote a letter written to the press by the late Mr. Maxwell: -

The announcement by the Prime Minister reported yesterday that in order to promote peace in the coal industry proceedings against John Brown had been withdrawn comes, I have no hesitation in saying, as a painful shock to every member of the Ministry. In my opinion, respect of persons by those charged with the duty of enforcing the law is a much greater menace to the stability of the Commonwealth than open defiance of the law by those who object to it. As a Nationalist member of Parliament and as a lover of evenhanded justice, I desire to dissociate myself from and to publicly record my protest against the action of the Ministry in abandoning proceedings against Mr. John Brown, which had been instituted by the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) on grounds which, in his opinion, warranted a prosecution.

That is a strong condemnation from a supporter of the Government, and one who was quite capable of assessing the worth of the then Attorney-General.

Next I come to the case of Mr. Jacob Johnson against whom proceedings were taken because of his activities during a shipping dispute. There was no suggestion that the Attorney-General should meet Mr. Johnson and discuss terms as was done with the Abrahams brothers. The then Attorney-General used every ounce of his political and professional strength against Johnson because he happened to be a trade unionist. Evidence and sworn declarations were produced in this chamber, which corrected statements previously made by certain witnesses who admitted that they had committed perjury. They also said that a Commonwealth officer was responsible for preparing the case based on perjured evidence and thereby bringing about the conviction of Jacob Johnson. Notwithstanding these glaring admissions the Attorney-General refused to hold an inquiry or to make available to the House or to the press the information at his disposal. When pressure was again brought to bear upon the Government it was found that many of the letters and official papers were missing from the file. Mr. Andresen, one of the important witnesses in the case, was in New Zealand, a fact of which the then Attorney-General was aware. Mr. Dillon, the secretary of the Ship-owners Association, had provided the passage to New Zealand for this important witness in the case against Johnson.

In the case of the timber workers’ lockout, proceedings were instituted by the then Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), and the union was fined £1,000. . At the same time, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) was fined £50. In those instances there was no suggestion of conferring with the unions’ representatives, or of asking them to pay a certain sum and the prosecution would be withdrawn as was done in the case of Abrahams brothers and the late Mr. John Brown. On another occasion Sir John Latham as Attorney-General introduced an ordinance into this Parliament to provide that civil cases in the Federal Capital Territory should he heard without a jury. In view of all these incidents do honorable members opposite believe that this gentleman is a fit and proper person to occupy the high position of Chief Justice of the Commonwealth of Australia? If they do, they hold an opinion which is shared by few in the community. He also advised the Government to over-ride the Public Service Arbitrator’s decision concerning the payment of juvenile wages to adults in the Public Service. A man assisting to administer the laws of the Commonwealth was prepared to veto a decision of a tribunal constituted for the purpose of determining the conditions under which public servants should work. On other occasions he had strongly supported the arbitration system, and asked the workers to accept the decisions of such tribunals; but when he had an opportunity he used his position to urge others to veto a decision given in favour of the workers. Another reason why he is incapable of filling this high office is that he has had more reverses in the courts in respect of legislation he has framed than has any other Federal or State Attorney-General. Within the last few years actions taken under the Crimes Act against a Mr. Devanny, the editor of a Sydney newspaper, failed, and amendment after amendment was introduced into this House in an attempt to tighten up that act. The Labour party opposed the Crimes Act as a piece of class legislation, but the failure of Sir John Latham proves conclusively that this gentleman was incapable in a legal sense of performing the tasks allotted to him. Under the Transport Workers Act, provision was made at the instigation of the same gentleman to licence waterside workers as if they were dogs. This is the man whom the people of this country are asked to regard as capable of occupying a high and honoured position. He also objected to political interference in appointments to the judiciary. When discussing the appointment of Mr. Justice McTiernan and Mr. Justice Evatt to the High Court Bench, he said -

The independence of the judiciary is essential to the preservation of our national and individual liberties and it is upon the independence of the judiciary that the just and non-political interpretation and just administration of the law depends. The judges when they are appointed take an oath to administer the law without fear, favour or affection. I say that I agree that the acceptance by

Cabinet of political direction regarding appointments to the judiciary is unsound, and strikes vitally at the authority of the court.

That statement was made by the right honorable gentleman when occupying a position in this chamber. Yet he vacated his seat in this Parliament so that after the Government had exercised undue pressure to bring about the retirement of the present Chief Justice, Sir Frank Gavan Duffy, he might be able to slip into the vacancy as did Mr. Justice Drake-Brockman in the Arbitration Court. Prior to his appointment Mr. Justice Drake-Brockman was a member of the Senate, and also president of the Employers’ Federation. Sir John Latham and other honorable members supported the appointment of Mr. Justice Drake-Brockman; they said that it was not a political appointment. We do not wish further instances of the Government refusing to take action against their wealthy supporters such as the Abrahams brothers and the late Mr. John Brown, and at the same time enforcing the law against trade unionists and trade union organizations. Is it any wonder that large numbers of persons say that there is one law for the rich’ and another for the poor? An attempt is being made to secure this judicial position for a member of the United Australia party who has given very real service to the wealthy section of the community, but has always been the enemy of the poor. Such action will not add to but will take from the prestige of the courts. I urge the Government not to consider the appointment of Sir John Latham to the vacancy on the High Court Bench.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I support the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), which provides that the Government should keep the promise it made four or five years ago to restore old-age pensions to 20s. a week, and that it should give its attention to the necessity for collecting, tabulating and examining reports with the object of introducing a shorter working week. Honorable members of all parties have taken part in what I call a conspiracy to defraud the invalid and old-age pensioners of this country. Unanimously, in 1931 we made a definite promise that, whenever the finances of the country so improved as to enable any remissions of taxation to be made, the first relief given would be the restoration of the full amount of the pension, and then the restoration of the other deductions made under the emergency legislation. Since that time as much as £20,000,000 has been remitted to various sections of the community, but nothing has been restored to the invalid and old-age pensioners; on the contrary, these people until recently, when 6d. a week was given to them in consequence of the increase of the cost of living, have suffered further indirect reductions of pensions. It will amount to dishonesty on the part of honorable members if we do not keep the promises we made to these people. We are not only forgetting to fulfil those promises, but also are deliberately making permanent a state of affairs which it was agreed should only exist temporarily under the emergency legislation.

The fact that the Government at the conclusion of the last session of this Parliament introduced an automatic adjustment clause into this legislation is proof of this contention. At that time, whilst I agreed with the system of adjusting invalid and old-age pensions in accordance with fluctuations in the cost of living, I said that it was wrong to introduce such a measure at that stage instead of first restoring the pensions to their former amount of £1 a week. I suggested that the taking of such a course at that time sounded the death knell of any hope that the pensioners would get back that basic rate. The budget proposals for 1935-36 prove that contention. The Assistant Treasurer has not made a single statement in his budget that offers any hope that the normal pension will be fully restored, despite the fact that he has painted and decorated the Government’s financial shop window to the best of his ability. There is not even a suggestion that the Government intends to partially restore the 2s. 6d. a week which is still owing to the pensioners. I repeat that all honorable members will recall that, when the first emergency legislation was introduced, it was unanimously agreed that, so soon as any restoration could be made, priority would be given to the pensioners. On the contrary, however, when other restorations were made, the pensions were cut further, and several measures were introduced which indirectly reduced the income of the pensioners. I remember protesting against the Treasurer’s suggestion that compulsion should be placed upon the relatives of pensioners to contribute ‘ something towards the pension. That contribution was to be made, not to the pensioner, but to the Government in part payment of the pension. That provision indirectly robbed the pensioner of a certain amount of money. At that time I argued that many sons and daughters, and other relatives, could afford and did give sums of ls. 6d. and 2s. a week to pensioners, but by the introduction of compulsion this voluntary help would be withdrawn, because the sons and daughters could not make donations to the Government and to their parents also. That prediction has been fulfilled, and in that way the pensioners have suffered a reduction of income. Furthermore, the new provisions, which gave the Government a claim upon the property of pensioners, led many people to forgo their pensions. A large number of the pensions have not yet been restored, and in the meantime aged and invalid people have been deprived of money that was legally due to them.

Mr Brennan:

– Those provisions drove many old people to the grave.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Since the first cut was made in the pension honorable members of this House have had a portion of their salaries restored. Business groups of various classes have enjoyed remissions of taxation, and a present of £20,000 a year was made to the overseas ship-owners. A man died recently, worth £40,000,000, who had been associated with a company which was one of those to participate in that present from the Government. But the Ministry has not made any effort to restore the 2s. 6d. that was taken from the pensioners. I protest against the attitude of the Government. Even if the normal pension of £1 were too much - and I doubt whether any honorable member would suggest that - we are bound by the promises we made to restore the payment to that level. The Government cannot truthfully say this is impossible, because, as I have already pointed out, over the period with which we are concerned a sum of £20,000,000 has been restored to other sections of the community. To-day it is suggested that we shall spend an extra £5,000,000 on defence, and that another fraction of the amounts taken from the salaries of public servants and members of Parliament shall be given back. Yet there is no suggestion in the measure now before this Committee to restore within the next year any fraction of the reduction made in the pensions. I urge the Government to accept the amendment andto reconsider the position with the object of restoring the pension to the basic amount of £1.

Mr Beasley:

– The New Zealand Government has restored all pensions.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– In all countries invalid and old-age pensions, family and maternity allowances and health insurance allowances are being increased or instituted, not alone from humanitarian motives but also because such payments tend to improve economic conditions generally by increasing purchasing power. How can we hope to restore a full demand for goods and services, which is the only way to restore business prosperity, if we continue to cut down the spending power of our people, especially in respect of a section of the community such as the pensioners who spend every penny as fast as they get it? “When the original measure to reduce the pension was before this House, I charged the Scullin Government with proposing something more dastardly than had ever been done by any other government in this country. Apart from the inhuman aspects of this action,I pointed out that that Government was taking an uneconomic course, and that its measure would have an effect opposite to that desired. I warned this House that the £2,000,000 which it was then proposed to take from the pensioners would immediately be lost to the business community, with the result that more people would be thrown out of work. It had to be admitted that the £2,000,000 paid to the pensioners was distributed in purchases as quickly as the pensioners received it. The pensioner must spend all he or she receives in order to live, because if this is not done any accumulation of income is followed by a reduction of the pension. I predicted that at the end of the first half of the ensuing financial year the pensions bill which would have to be paid by the Government at the rate of 17s. 6d. a week would be greater than the pension bill it was then paying when the rate was £1 a week. Subsequent events have proved my contention.

The Assistant Treasurer has pointed out that during the last year an additional 13,000 people claimed the pension. Surely it was obvious to everybody that the number of pensioners would increase rather than decrease, while unemployment was steadily waxing. I will stake my reputation on the contention that at least 10,000 of those 13,000 pensioners are men who used to earn 30s., £2 or £2 10s. a week when it was possible to get a job, and that it was because they could not get casual work - not because they were too feeble to work - that they were forced to claim a pension. Consequently, by allowing the present state of affairs to continue and by continually cutting down pensions, we are strengthening the ill influences of the depression. Some of our leaders are at last realizing, as do the leading economists of the world, that present economic ills can only be corrected by spreading the available work among as many employees as possible through the shortening of the hours of labour, and by the provision of more spending power, thus increasing the market for our products. I hope that the Government also will see the light.

The second portion of the amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition urges the Government to consider seriously the necessity for reducing the hours of labour. I have held the view for many years that it would be a good thing if this Parliament from time to time reviewed our economic and industrial history and by legislation fix the basic wage and a universal working week to be observed in industry, in the light of the existing economic situation and the power of the community to produce and distribute goods. To the courts could be left the adjustment of other conditions, such as the proportion of juvenile to adult labour, apprenticeship, and margins for skill, but the fundamentals - the basic wage and a maximum working week - should ‘be from time to time decided by this Parliament in the light of the changing economic conditions. Through this amendment we are asking the Government to consider whether we have not reached a stage, as leading economists of the world are contending, when we should reconsider the whole matter of working hours in industry, and how best to distribute work, and to make more uniform the incomes of our people. I recall putting the Union’s case on such matters before Mr. Justice Higgins in 1920 when the question of a universal eight-hour day was considered, and later in 1927 before the Pull Court when the then Attorney-General (Mr. Latham) intervened and gave the Pull Court, for the first time, power to deal with the matter of the reduction of hours on a universal basis. The reasons advanced at that time in support of those reforms were different from the reasons advanced today. When Mr. Justice Higgins considered the matter, the main arguments advanced in favour of an eight-hour day related to the health of the workers, and efficiency ‘of workmanship, and involved the question of whether production could not be stimulated by a reduction instead of an increase of working hours. But to-day the reasons advanced in favour of a reduction of hours are very different. The world’s greatest capitalists are working to secure a reduction of the hours of work without reducing the spending power of the people. They point out definitely that it is no use to roll out the spending fund wider and thinner, spreading it over a larger number of people by payment of the dole, without increasing the aggregate amount of spending power of. the community; they declare that hours’ should be reduced in order that people may be put back to work at a higher standard so that they may be able to buy the goods that are being produced in abundance. I urge the Government to give favorable consideration to this amendment. There is no sentiment or humanity about it ; it is a sound economic proposal and must be adopted to save the employers as well as the employees. Those controlling the agencies of production and distribution have brought about such a high state of efficiency that they are now ruining their own market. Unless action along the lines of the amendment is taken, the production and distribution of goods will become a rank failure. In other words, we are killing our own market by our efficiency. The momentum of production is increasing so rapidly and the power of consumption is diminishing so rapidly that, the whole economic scheme is collapsing because of its success. I urge the Government to consider the acceptance of this amendment in the form in which it is presented as the one and only scientific method of attacking this problem.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– With the consent of the committee I shall take my second period now.

I have read in the newspapers that the Government is considering the appointment of a committee or commission to inquire into the need for the reduction of the hours of labour. In common with statesmen all over the world our Ministers recognize that we are not tackling this problem in a scientific way at all. At present we are spending £30,000,000 in doles and sustenance relief, the money being given to the people in such small amounts that it might as well be poured down a sewer. Unless we can put people back to work and give them back their manhood by granting them decent pay for reasonable hours of labour, all this money which is being handed to the unemployed, and to farmers, wheat-growers, mixed farmers, fruit-growers, and all kinds of primary producers, will be of little benefit. How can we help the wheat-grower by giving him bounties and cheap fertilizers? What he requires is a profitable market for his product. The most outstanding statement that appeared in the newspapers in regard to the Australian delegation abroad was that made by Mr. Bruce, and amplified by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies), that we must make it possible for the people of the world to consume more beef and other commodities. We cannot do that by giving to people the dole. We must first create a market, and the only way we can do that is by adopting the proposals set forth in this amendment for readjusting the hours of labour so that employment may be given to all at full award rates. If that were done, a new spending fund would be created and industry would be brought back into active operation.

I support the amendment because I, like other honorable members who were in this House when the invalid and oldage pensions were reduced, feel that we must redeem our promise. I remember the then Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) saying that he proposed the reduction of pensions very greatly against his will, but it was only an emergency measure, and so soon as it was possible to remit any taxation the people on the lowest rung of the social ladder should be the first to benefit. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) and the then honorable member. for Kooyong (Mr. Latham), and all other honorable gentlemen sitting in opposition at the time exclaimed, “Hear, hear!” There was complete unanimity on the part of _ all sections in this House that “that policy should be adopted. We must keep our word if we are to remain honest men. No one can deny that since that time many millions of pounds have been remitted to other sections of the community, including some people who had not been affected by the emergency legislation, and whose taxation had not been increased for 20 or 30 years. We have not kept our word to the pensioner ; but I believe that the finances are buoyant enough to enable us to do that now. If we are wise, instead of spending £5,000,000 on defence this year, we shall provide £2,000,000 or £2,500,000 for defence and give the remainder of the money to the pensioners. I claim that the best way to build up the defence of this country would be to raise the physical, mental and technical standards of our people, to a higher level, and make the laws and conditions such that every man will think that his country is worth defending.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) two very grave anomalies in connexion with the administration of the invalid and oldage pensions legislation. I am constantly receiving communications from a large number of tubercular soldiers and others in the Waterfall Sanatorium in regard to the exercise of the power conferred upon the Commissioner of Pensions to make regulations. I contested the right of the Commissioner to make such regulations, and I received from him the following reply : -

With reference to your personal representations concerning the above-named, I have to inform you that when a pensioner becomes an inmate of a proclaimed charitable institution, the law provides for automatic suspension of the pension until the pensioner is discharged. For any period over 28 days, the pensioner is paid 5s. per week, and on discharge adjustment of ordinary pension for the first 28 days in the institution.

It is further provided (section 37) that the pension may at any time be cancelled if it be considered expedient so to do. Under the powers conferred by the section quoted, it has been decided to cancel the pension of any pensioner who is an inmate of a. benevolent asylum for not less than three months, and who is not likely to be shortly discharged. The effect is that such pensioners will be paid 5s. per week during the whole time in the institution, but they will not be entitled to any payment on discharge until a fresh pension is applied for and granted.

Waterfall Sanatorium is proclaimed as a benevolent asylum, and while the proclamation remains the inmates must be placed in the same position as inmates of other asylums.

Under the circumstances, it is regretted that it was necessary to cancel the pension formerly paid to Mr. Shepherd, who is now in receipt of the special hospital pension of 5s. per week.

Among the inmates of the Waterfall Sanatorium are many returned soldiers who are denied war pensions on the ground that their incapacity is not due to war service. That decision I regard as a deliberate professional lie. No reasonable man can say that these unfortunate men, who to-day are expectorating their lungs away, are not suffering the awful after-effects of the deadly gases which they inhaled on overseas battlefields. The Commissioner has ruled that the Waterfall Sanatorium is a benevolent asylum. Consequently pension payments to inmates are automatically reduced to 5s. a week, and when pensioners leave this place they are required to make fresh application for full pensions. Sometimes several weeks elapse before payments are restored to them. It is impossible for the men to say how long they will remain in that institution. Many recover sufficiently under treatment to be allowed to leave.

Mr Casey:

– Are those men temporary inmates of the Waterfall Sanatorium?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– All of the inmates could be classed as. temporary inmates, in the sense that they are unable to say how long they will remain in the institution. As I have explained, some of them recover temporarily and are allowed to leave. I am astounded at what I can only describe as the brutal administration of this department in recent years. Some years ago pensioners were treated with greater consideration. I do not know whether the change is due to instructions from the Government or the Minister, but the effect is to save the department many thousands of pounds per annum at the expense of a large number of war and invalid pensioners who have been thrown on the industrial- scrap heap. The following official communication, which was sent to nearly every patient in the Waterfall Sanatorium a few months ago, speaks for itself: -

I have to inform you that as you have remained an inmate of a charitable institution for a period of three months continuously your outside pension has been cancelled.

From the first pension pay-day after your admission to the institution you are entitled to an asylum pension of 5s. a week which will continue until you are discharged.

If at any time you leave the institution you may re-apply for the pension, and, provided you have a suitable home to go to and do not intend to return to the institution, except on account of ill-health, the pension will be re-granted.

Until recently the Waterfall Sanatorium was classed as a hospital. Now it is classified as an asylum, the result being that pensioner inmates automatically go off the full pension list. When they leave the institution they have to make a fresh application, and the Commissioner fixes a date at which pension payments recommence. The present administration of the Pensions Department is in marked contrast to the policy adopted in the earlier days of pensions payments. Then an applicant for an old-age pension had merely to satisfy the department that he was a person of good character, had been a citizen of Australia for the required number of years, was without sufficient means, and was 65 years of age, in the case of a man, and 60 years in the case of a woman. Persons applying for the invalid pension received the utmost consideration, and if the department was satisfied that the applicants were entitled to pensions, payments commenced from the date of application. But the recent arbitrary decision of the commissioner enables the Government to save thousands of pounds a year, by commencing the payment of the pension three or four weeks after the date of the lodging of the application. I appeal to the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to instruct the commissioner to reverse his dastardly decision and adopt the practice of payment from the date of application. If the honorable member himself is responsible, he ought to be ashamed of his action. If, however, the commissioner accepts full responsibility, he ought to be removed from his position because it is essential that this department be administered by an officer possessing a humane and kindly disposition.

I naturally support the proposal to increase the rate of pension to £1 a week. Had. my wish and that of some other honorable members prevailed, the decrease would never have been made. I opposed it not only in the party room, but also at every subsequent stage until it became law, and I shall never cease fighting and voting for restoration to the amount, of £1 a week. If there is to be a sliding scale, it should be applied above that amount.

The country well knows where my colleagues and I stand on the subject of the reduction of the hours of labour. No other means can deal adequately and effectively with the economic position that was occasioned and has been intensified and aggravated by the mechanization of industry. Unless steps are taken to remedy the position, as industry becomes further mechanized there will be an extension of the dole system, with finally a complete collapse of civilization. The existing economic system has outlived its usefulness and must be discarded. There must be a properlymanaged economy, with a mobilization of the whole of the productive resources of the country. The existing conditions can produce nothing but hopeless futility. The reduction of the hours of labour would go some distance toward arresting the progress of economic dry rot.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- The amendment moved by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) is the natural corollary to the budgetary provision for a larger revenue than has ever been received in the history of the Commonwealth. It is logical to assume that in these circumstances there should be complete restoration of the “cuts” that have been made in the payments to oldage and invalid pensioners, war pensioners, and others. Since Australia, in common with the rest of the world, is suffering largely from the unemployment resulting from the mechanization of industry it would also be logical to effect a definite reduction of the hours of labour, as the amendment suggests should be done. The present Government has. been in power during the last four years. Admittedly, the personnel of the Cabinet has been altered; but those alterations were made merely in order that the United Australia party might assure itself of a majority in this chamber. Because some honorable members of an almost identical political persuasion did not always see eye to eye with it, the advisability was recognized of placating them by Cabinet representation. At the last two elections the Government put forward what it chose to describe, and what a majority of the people were persuaded to regard, as remedies for unemployment, and as the result was returned to power. The reason why a policy to reduce unemployment is considered to be of such great importance is that under the existing social system employment of some kind is necessary if one is to have the wherewithal to obtain food, clothing, and shelter. “Work is still regarded as the chief end of mankind, but if by the introduction of machinery a given quantity of goods can be produced in a shorter time, the need for employment as it is understood to-day will be greatly reduced. For over 2,000 years man has been trying to reach the stage at which machines, not men, will do the work of the world. That stage has now been reached; but instead of mankind being better off and having a larger share of the good things of life, many hundreds of thousands of human beings are denied the bare necessaries of life. Idleness is not leisure if it involves starvation, as is the case with 100,000,000 people in the world to-day. One of the problems of the future will be the education of the people in the proper use of their leisure. It may be that, before long, the hours of labour will be reduced far below our presentday standards. Ten years ago, a 44- hour working week’ was thought to be impossible; but to-day, even among Government supporters, are many who advocate a working week of 40 hours. Even Nationalist organizations now favour a reduction of working hours, a better distribution of the fruits of production, and the removal of the anomaly of want in the midst of plenty. Other political parties have been forced to admit the soundness of the policy which the Labour party has advocated for many years. The reason why many of the reforms of which “the Labour party stands are not embodied in legislation in this country is that that party has not had a majority in both Houses of this Parliament for twenty years. At the Geneva Labour Convention, Sir Frederick Stewart, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, strongly supported a working week of 40 hours, and promised that on his return to Australia, he would do all in his power to persuade the Commonwealth Government to confer with the State governments with a view to the introduction of a 40-hour week. In Queensland a working week of 44 hours is already prescribed by law. It would be much easier for the Commonwealth to introduce a 40-hour week throughout Australia than for any State alone to introduce a 44-hour week, for, unless all the States acted simultaneously, there would be unequal competition between them. There is no reason why, without awaiting the holding of a conference on the subject, a reduction of working hours should not be made. The only advantage of an inquiry would be the possibility of further data being obtained in support of even a shorter working week than 40 hours. One honorable member opposite applauded the Government for not indulging iri experiments such as those which have been tried in the United States of America, Russia, Italy, Germany and elsewhere. In years past, it was our proud boast that Australia led the world in its humanitarian legislation; but that is not the position to-day. Queensland is the only Australian State in which the Labour party has had a reasonable opportunity to put its policy into operation, and even that State is subject to. the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. No State government has the same opportunity to introduce reforms as has the Commonwealth Government.

The amendment also aims at the restoration of pensions to £1 a week. The present rate of 18s. a week is the result of the introduction of a sliding scale about eighteen months ago. “When provision for a sliding scale was made in the Pensions Act, the cost of living in Australia was falling, and it was not thought possible that the Commonwealth would be called upon to increase pensions because of any rise in the cost of living. Consequently, the Government claimed credit for assisting pensioners. Unfortunately for the Government, the cost of living has taken an upward turn, and by the operation of the Government’s own index figures it has been forced to increase the pension from 17s. 6d. to 18s. a week . I am now suggesting that as the amount involved is the paltry sum of 2s. a week for each pensioner, the Government should utilize a small portion of the revenue of almost £80,000,000 which is expected thisyear, to increase the pension to at least £1 a week. Quite apart from the moral point of view, and from the fact that the person who is most in. need and closest to the bread line should be the first person to get something from the money which pours into the federal coffers, the best possible way to increase the purchasing power of the community is to provide money for those people who are most certain to spend every penny they receive. Pensioners certainly would spend all their pensions if they were increased to £1 a week. That would mean an immediate increase of the purchasing power of the community, and would be of considerable assistance in bringing about further employment.

Shortly after this Government assumed office, it made a pretence of carrying out its promises to deal with unemployment, and a special Minister was appointed whose whole attention was to be concentrated on the solution of the problem. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) was entrusted with the task, but then, for political reasons, irrespective of any benefit or loss which might accrue to the country, it was decided that a coalition ministry should be formed. In order to allow certain members of the Country party to join the Ministry, the services of certain members of theGovernment, including those of the honorable member for Parramatta, were dispensed with.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his first period.

Mr BAKER:

-With the consent of the Committee, I shall take my second period now.

In order to make room for new additions to the Cabinet, the honorable member for Parramatta was dropped from the Government, despite the fact that coincident with this, an additional assistant ministership was created. He took a place on the back benches in this chamber, and a few days later Parliament adjourned, when the honorable member, like the. Prime Minister and his retinue, made a trip overseas. Although he is still known as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment, he has not yet returned from his trip, nor has he made any effort to deal with the pressing problems associated with unemployment, though perhaps that is because the Government has not given him the chance. Neither has any member of the Ministry attempted to solve the problem, although almost twelve months has elapsed since the Government’ was returned to office. The Prime Minister to-day applauded himself and his Government for what he termed a remarkable improvement in the country’s affairs. He contended that the slight improvement that has occurred was due to the efforts of the Government, but in doing so he was pursuing the well-known fallacy that because one thing happens after another, the first must be the cause and the second the effect. That was the argument used by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), leader of the “Win-the-war Government”, who won an election on the cry that his Government was responsible for the victory of the allied forces in the Great War, as if a country with a population of less than 6,000,000 could claim credit for winning a war in which scores of millions of soldiers were engaged! The improvement of the unemployment situation is world-wide, and’ the Lyons Government cannot claim that the paltry reduction, of the number of workless in the Commonwealth is due to its policy. The depression through which Australia is now passing is merely following the course of every other depression since the present social system came into being 150 years ago. The ship of state almost capsized this time, and it is now slowly regaining an even keel, but each depression is worse than the preceding one. A time will come eventually, unless some collective action is taken by the governments of the world, when a depression will overtake us from which we shall fail to recover and the social system will crash.

The census taken in June, 1933, disclosed a total of 481,000 unemployed in Australia. That figure includes a number of persons unemployed because of illness. Excluding all those who are workless for any reason other than scarcity of employment, the number of unemployed as a result of the depression was officially stated to be 440,000 persons. That does not make allowance for 170,000 persons on part-time employment, rationed work, sustenance or relief work. In June, 1933, therefore, 610,000 persons in this country were not in full-time employment. Included among those shown as being in employment were 27,000 persons on relief work or sustenance. That is how governments fake the figures ; they reckon as fully employed those who are actually receiving sustenance. When the census figures showed that 440,000 persons were totally unemployed, apart from those engaged on relief, sustenance and part-time work, the trade union figures, calculated on the basis of about 415,000 persons for whom returns were provided, showed that 106,000 were unemployed. The census figures of 1933, which are the most reliable we can take, show that the total number out of work in this country was approximately four and a quarter times 106,000. The 1921 census figures show a similar proportion, therefore, if we multiply the present trade union figures by four and a quarter we find that the number unemployed in Australia to-day is 325,000. Despite all the pratings and applaudings of themselves indulged in by the members of the present Government about the reduction of unemployment, there are still 325,000 persons, apart from those engaged in relief, sustenance or part-time employment, who are not receiving the necessary food, clothing and shelter. Dr. Nott pointed out recently that in Canberra, which comes directly under the control of a member of the present Government, many people are not properly fed. He said -

The Canberra Hospital was a heterogeneous collection of paint, patches and plaster. The Government provided a magnificent building to house Phar Lap’s heart, and another for the study of grasshoppers, while a hospital for human beings was on the level of a British poor law infirmary. Overcrowding had been so bad that it had been necessary to treat tubercular cases in the general ward.

The wooden houses at Causeway, Molonglo and other suburbs were climatically quite unsuitable, and there was piteous overcrowding,’ as many as twelve people being compelled to live in one small house.

Yet the Federal Capital City is supposed to ‘be a model for all Australia. If the Government cannot provide decent living conditions for the people of Canberra with a population of only 7,000, and if it is necessary for hundreds to march to the doors of Parliament House, as occurred this evening, in order to demand a few more pence from the Lyons Government, how can we expect it to deal adequately with the needs of a population of nearly 7,000,000?

To-day there is much talk of war, but it was proved in the last war that both in Britain and Australia malnutrition was so prevalent that many of the men who were expected to enlist for war were classed as C3 and thus unfit for active service either at home or abroad. One of the doctors at the .recent conference of the British Medical Association pointed out that, in Britain alone, 20,000,000 persons were underfed. That was a serious indictment, in view of the fact that this is the wealthiest period in the world’s history. According to statistics published last year, 2,500,000 persons died from starvation, and 1,250,000 committed suicide because of it. The Inspector-General of Asylums in New South Wales says that a quarter of 1 per cent, of the population of that State are to be found in mental asylums. New South Wales spends £500,000 a year in maintaining the inmates of these institutions. This system, which the present Government is endeavouring to uphold, fills our prisons and asylums, on the inmates of which we are spending more than was spent on them when they were normal citizens. No indication is found in the budget proposals, or in the Government’s reply to the recent censure motion, of any constructive policy. It is content, Micawber like, to wait for something to turn up and it has the temerity to claim credit for the fact that through purely fortuitous circumstances the prices pf wool, wheat, meat and other primary products have risen and a fictitious prosperity is apparent.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) saw fit to refer to certain political events in the last seven or eight years, and he introduced the name of Sir John Latham in a way which I consider was calculated to traduce it. It should not be necessary for me to make any reply in this committee to the remarks of the honorable member, but for obvious reasons I think I should say that because of the high esteem in which Sir John Latham is held in the public mind, it is not in the power of the honorable member to traduce the public reputation of the right honorable gentleman.

The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) referred to certain pensioners who are inmates of charitable institutions. Two classes of pensioners become inmates of charitable institutions. One class goes in on a temporary basis. A man has some complaint, or suffers from some sickness for which he requires treatment, enters an institution, and is eventually discharged within a relatively limited time. In such cases his pension is withheld for 28 days, but on the twentyninth day and thereafter until his discharge he receives an asylum pension of 5s. a week. When he eventually leaves the institution the 28 days’ pension that was withheld on his entering the institution is restored to him.

Mr James:

– But if he dies in the institution his relatives get nothing.

Mr CASEY:

– That depends on the circumstances of the relatives. The honorable member for Werriwa referred to a case of this kind. The other class consists of pensioners who, through senility or some complaint not likely to be cured by the passage of time, go into an institution permanently. When that happens they are at once paid an institutional pension of 5s. a week, but nothing else, because, presumably, they have entered the institution permanently. A limited number of institutions deal with both these classes of pensioners, and discharge the dual functions of a hospital and a benevolent institution. The Waterfall Sanatorium, mentioned by the honorable member for Werriwa, is one of these.

Mr Lazzarini:

– But it is wholly maintained by the State.

Mr CASEY:

– That is so; but the inmates are still subject to the financial conditions that I have mentioned. Since the honorable member delivered his speech on this subject, I have made inquiries into the matter, and have ascertained that some of the people who go into this institution as temporary inmates actually stay for varying lengths of time.

Mr Lazzarini:

– They go out and come in again.

Mr CASEY:

– That is so. If they enter the institution on a temporary basis, and go out again in a limited time, the ordinary conditions applicable to temporary inmates of hospitals apply. But a practice has grown up which has led to a certain degree of abuse. Individuals suffering from some serious disability, .who should enter an institution as permanent inmates, go in, and after a lapse of time go out again. They draw their 28 days’ pension; but after some little time they return to the institution. They remain in it for another period, and then leave it again, and once more draw their 28 days’ deferred pension. The abuse, in the Commissioner’s mind, does not lie so much in the drawing of the 28 days’ pension as in the fact, of which complaint is made by those in charge of the institutions concerned, that the individuals who follow this practice undo the benefit of the treatment they receive by their frequent admission and departure. In such cases the Commissioner has instituted a practice which, to my mind, is not unreasonable. He has provided that an individual who enters an institution may remain in it for up to three months, and continue to be regarded as a temporary inmate. If he leaves the institution at any time within the period of three months he is paid his 28 days’ deferred pension. If, on the other hand, he remains longer than three months he is classed as a permanent inmate of the institution. I think that honorable members generally will agree that at some point of time a decision must be made, if only for purposes of book-keeping, as to whether a person is a permanent or a temporary inmate of an institution.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The trouble is not so much in relation to the 28 days’ refund of pension, as in the necessity for making a new application for a pension. In such cases it sometimes happens that there is a delay of six weeks.

Mr CASEY:

– We have, on other occasions in this chamber, thrashed out the pros and cons of departmental delays in dealing with applications for pensions, and it will be remembered that some time ago I gave an undertaking that if undue departmental delay were shown to have occurred, arrears of pension would be paid to the individual concerned. I think even the honorable member for Werriwa must agree that there must, at some point of time, be a “ cut-off “ as between temporary and permanent inmates of institutions.

Mr Lazzarini:

– I do not think that that should be so in connexion with this institution.

Mr CASEY:

– Unless there is such a “ cut-off “ difficulties must occur. The Commissioner has fixed a period of three months as the time which will determine whether a pensioner is a permanent or temporary inmate of an institution. The point which the honorable member for Werriwa has raised seems to me to be, in effect, whether the period of three months should be shorter or longer.

Mr Lazzarini:

– It certainly should not be shorter.

Mr CASEY:

– This is the first complaint of this kind that has been brought directly under my notice, and I give the honorable member an undertaking that I shall make an investigation to determine whether three months is a reasonable time to fix for the purpose, or whether a slightly longer period should be allowed.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

page 209

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated : -

The League of Nations

Mr Francis:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What are the total annual contributions made for the support of the League of Nations?
  2. What is the total amount of arrears in payments to the League of Nations?
  3. What was the total amount of arrears for the last financial year?
  4. What is the amount contributed annually by Great Britain and the ten next highest contributors ?
  5. What is the amount (including exchange) contributed annually by Australia?
  6. What is the amount contributed annually by the other British dominions?
  7. What is the amount of arrears of payment (if any) by each nation mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6?
Mr Lyons:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

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

  1. 27,258,446 gold francs for the calendar year 1935.
  2. 24,513,564 gold francs for the period 1920 to 1934. This represents 7.3 per cent. of the total budgets of the League, of which 3 per cent. represents arrears in respect of the years 1933 and 1934.
  3. For 1934 the total arrears were 4,833,368 gold francs.
  4. The amount varies annually according to the total budget of the League. For the year 1935 the contributions of the countries concerned were as follow: -
  1. For 1935 the total contribution in Australian currency, including exchange, is £67,767 (817,955 gold francs).
  2. For 1935 -

7.To December, 1934, the only nations of those within the scope of the question in arrears were -

In the case of China, arrears for the period 1922 to 1930 were consolidated at an amount of 7,767,133 gold francs, which are payable by annual instalments.

Assistance to Primary Producers

Mr Mccall:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

l asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What is the total government assistance (both Commonwealth and State) per annum given to the producers of all primary products ?

Dr Earle Page:
CP

– During 1934-35 the Commonwealth Government has assisted primary producers as under -

Detailed information regarding the assistance granted to primary producers by the State is not available.

Appointment of Chief Justice

Mr Brennan:
UAP

n asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

Assuming the statement to be correct that the Chief Justice is retiring, has the AttorneyGeneral considered the propriety of appointing a chief justice from amongst the present judges, in the light of the precedent of the last two appointments of a chief justice, and the most recent appointment to the Victorian bench, having regard also to the view widely held that the High Court bench is overloaded in point of numbers; also, that the then Chief Justice Isaacs on his appointment stated that there was no need from their point of view to make an additional appointment?

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

– The appointment of a chief justice will be made by the Governor-General in Council upon a consideration of all the relevant circumstances.

Commonwealth Loan

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What are the names and addresses of the underwriters of the last £12,000,000 loan in London?
  2. What was the rate per cent. for the underwriting as charged the Commonwealth Government?
  3. What were the other expenses of the flotation ?
Mr Casey:
UAP

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

  1. The name and address of the underwriters of the 3 per cent. conversion loan for £13,470,000 issued in July, 1935, is -

    1. Nivison and Company, 6 Threadneedlestreet, E.C.2, London.
  1. Particulars of the other expenses of the recent flotation have not yet been received. On the conversion loans of £14,602,000 and £22,384,000 raised in November, 1934, and January, 1935, the other expenses amounted to 6s. 9d. per cent. and 4s. l0d. per cent. respectively (see page 132 of Budget Papers 1935- 36).

Investigations by Industrial Inspector

Mr Martens:

s asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Will he consider the advisability of giving the Industrial Inspector (Mr. A. Blakeley) power to investigate the retail butchering trade in North Queensland, where breaches of the Commonwealth award are taking place ?
  2. Will he consider the advisability of giving this officer power to investigate the Merchant Service Guild with a view to preventing further breaches of awards?
Mr Menzies:
UAP

– The Industrial Inspector is engaged in investigating the matter of the observance of awards relating to the Bank Officers Association, the Insurance Staffs Association and awards relating to organizations of a like nature. His time is fully occupied on these investigations.

Rottnest Island Defence Works

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

What steps, if any, have been taken to consult with the Rottnest Control Board to ensure that the defence works to be carried out atRottnest Island will not inconvenience the tourist traffic to the island during the summer, and in particular in respect to the reconstruction of the jetty?

Mr Archdalb Parkhill:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The chairman of theRottnest Board of Control was consulted by the Commonwealth Works Director, Western Australia, in regard to the reconstruction of the jetty atRottnest Island. As a result of that consultation, it was decided that the work should be carried out by the State Works Department. It is understood that this arrangement meets with the entire approval of the chairman of the ‘board.

Mr Thorby:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

y. - The information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible in answer to a series of questions asked by the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) regarding evictions from war service homes. tasmanian Shipping Services. Mr. Barnard asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will he supply the information asked for by the honorable member for Bass on the 9th April, viz.: - the total cost in Australian currency of the new steamer Taroona?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The department is not yet in possession of the information sought.

Trade Treaty with Japan.

Mr Beasley:

y asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. Does the Government propose to arrange a trade treaty with Japan?
  2. If so, what stage have the negotiations reached?
  3. In the event of the Government deciding upon the acceptance of a treaty, will the Parliament have full and ample opportunity of discussing and amending, if necessary, the proposed terms before it is signed?
Dr Earle Page:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1, 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Government is at present negotiating with the Japanese Government to see whether a trade treaty mutually beneficial to each country can be made, but no statement of the position can be made at the present time. Any treaty with a foreign country must be submitted to Parliament for approval which provides an opportunity for full discussion by honorable members.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 September 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1935/19350925_reps_14_147/>.