House of Representatives
20 November 1935

14th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1785

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN EXPORTS

Marketing in Great Britain.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Has the Minister for Commerce noticed the comments of Mr. Dunningham, a member of the New South Wales Ministry, in relation to the quality of Australian goods marketed in Great Britain? Do those comments agree with the recent strictures of Sir Stanley Argyle?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Commerce · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I understand that Mr. Dunningham’s statements dealt particularly with the advertising of Australian products overseas. Only a month or six weeks ago, Mr. T. Flood Plunkett, chairman of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, returned to Australia from a long visit to England, which he made for the purpose of investigating the whole position. I quote the following, in regard to advertising, from the report made to the board by Mr. Plunkett : -

It wouldbe impossible to set out in this reportthe benefits Australian producers receive fromthe publicity organization under the management of Mr. A. E. Hyland. I can definitely say that I was surprised at the good work accomplished and the splendid feeling created amongst distributors.

The number of shops now stocking and selling our products as Australian is growing from year to year, and the reports received when making inspections justify the credit given to Mr. Hyland and his staff forthe splendid work done in widening the distribution of our various products.

Mr. Plunkett suggested that a further sum should be made available for this purpose. Additional provision, amounting to £10,000, has been made in this year’s estimates, and that is being supplemented by further sums which are being provided by the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, the Apple and Pear Board, and the Dried Fruits Board. The opinion of Mr. Plunkett, who is closely associated with the matter, is probably the best obtainable.

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Commerce been drawn to the fact that the amount of £90,000 allocated by New Zealand for trade publicity purposes in Great Britain is, on a population basis, far in excess of that allotted by Australia? If so, will the matter be considered with a view to. placing Australian products in Great Britain on at least an equal basis with other Empire products?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The report of Mr. T. Flood Plunkett on his investigation regarding the organization of marketing of Australia dairy produce overseas states -

Splendid results arc being obtained from the publicity methods employed by Mr. A. E.

Hyland and hia staff, and increased sums are being provided to permit ot an extension of this work.

Increased publicity work is being undertaken by the Dairy Produce Board and other boards which I have mentioned, and the Meat Export Control Board, when constituted, will also doubtless make a satisfactory contribution.

page 1786

QUESTION

OIL FROM COAL AND SHALE

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES · FLP; ALP from 1936

– The Canberra Times yesterday published the statement by the Minister for Defence that tho establishment in Australia of a plant for the extraction of oil from coal and shale would give employment to about 3,400 persons, would use approximately 800,000 tons of coal a year, and would produce from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 gallons of excellent quality petrol at an estimated cost of ls. Id. a gallon. Will the honorable member undertake to do everything possible to establish this industry . in Australia, thereby assisting unemployed miners and taking a step in the right direction for the future defence of this country ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– At the request of the Prime Minister, I received a deputation ou this subject, and made the remarks the substance of which the honorable member has given. I have not seen the report which appeared in the Canberra Times. A full report of the deputation is being prepared, and will be submitted to the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of Development, to whoso department the matter particularly relates. I assure the honorable member that every consideration will be given to the representations of tho deputation in view of the importance of the matter.

page 1786

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Home-Consumption PRICE.

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister for Commerce confirm the statement, attributed to the Attorney-General of New South Wales, that he ‘had ‘boon in communication with ‘6he Commonwealth Government and that it-had been agreed that the proposals for the fixing of a homeconsumption price for wheat should not come into operation this year? Will she Government bring down, bef ore the Par liament adjourns far *he Christmas recess, proposals to deal with ‘the subject during this year’s ‘harvest? In particular, is consideration being given to ‘the matter of specially assisting farmers in droughtstricken areas ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– Legislation has already been brought down, and is at the second-reading stage, dealing with the automatic operation of a homeconsumption price for wheat, insofar as the Commonwealth Government may legislate in that direction. In my speech on that measure, I pointed out that if an automatic arrangement were made whereby a home-consumption price could . ‘be obtained, the Treasurer -would be in a position to discuss the matter’ of assisting needy farmers. The policy of the Government is -as was stated yesterday in reply to a question, and in Melbourne last Thursday, by the Prime Minister.

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement made yesterday by Mr. Manning du the Legislative Council of New South Wales, -that the Wheat Products Bill would not apply to this year’s harvest, will .the Minister for Commerce state whether the. scheme to provide a home-consumption price for wheat will operate during that harvest? If not, will the sales tax on flour be re-imposed, or will other means to assist the wheatgrowers be adopted ‘by the Commonwealth Government ? ‘

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I have nothing to add to Ohe reply that I have made to tlie honorable member for Perth (Mt. Nairn).

page 1786

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– I ask Hie Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs if it is not a fact that the administration of that very important department is hampered because it is considerably understaffed ? If so, does the Government intend to take steps to strengthen it?

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

– The matter of increasing the staff to adequate proportions is at present being given consideration by the Government?

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

– If the staff of the Department of External

Affairs is to be increased, will the Government consider the wisdom of selecting young men and of sending them far training in the British Foreign Office or in certain British embassies in selected capitals in various parts of the world?

Mr MENZIES:

– That is the intention.

page 1787

QUESTION

NORTHERN CHINA

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs able to give the House any information concerning the latest inroads made by Japanese armed troops in Northern China, and can he say whether the League of Nations is conducting any investigation to ascertain whether Japan is the aggressor nation?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I have seen newspaper reports concerning the matter referred to by the honorable member. If he places his question upon the noticepaper I shall endeavour to ascertain the facts.

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister consider a major crisis in Northern China is one upon which the Government should be directed by newspaper reports? If not, will he ascertain through official channels at the earliest possible date the dangers of such a crisis concerning which we have received such sensational reports, and what are the prospects of isolating it ?

Mr MENZIES:

– The answer to the first portion of the honorable member’s question is “ no “, and that to the second portion is “ yes “.

Mr WARD:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether the lack of information available to honorable members concerning the latest inroads of Japanese into provinces in Northern China is due to the fact that the Department of External Affairs is under-staffed, or that the Government is disinclined to answer questions framed to elicit information?

Mr MENZIES:

– There is no reluctance to furnish any information in the Government’s possession.

page 1787

QUESTION

WORKS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Commonwealth Assistance

Mr McEWEN:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether at the recent meeting of the

Loan Council held in Melbourne he discussed with the representatives of the States the proposal outlined in his budget speech for joint Commonwealth and State assistance in subsidizing interest payments upon proposed sewerage and water supply works undertaken by local governing authorities, and if so, will he inform the House as to the decision reached?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Yes. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Loan Council. Also, prior to the meeting the Commonwealth Government circulated a letter to each State Premier. No definite conclusion was reached, but the State Premiers undertook to communicate their views upon the subject to the Commonwealth Government at the earliest possible date.

Later:

Mr McEWEN:

– In view of the fact Chat a sum of £100,000 has been placed upon the Estimates for the purpose mentioned in my previous question, will the Government endeavour to expedite the completion of arrangements with the States so that this money may be used for the relief of unemployment in country towns before Christmas?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– That is the purpose and intention of the Government.

page 1787

QUESTION

COOTAMUNDRA AERODROME

Bombing Exercises

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– On the 14th November, the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) addressed a question to me without notice directing attention to a notice appearing in the Gazette of the 14th November, authorizing the air force to enter upon and use lands in the vicinity of Cootamundra for bombing exercises. I have now been informed that the area is situated approximately six miles north of Cootamundra and will only be required for use between the 20th November and the 20th December, 1935, when an air force unit will be located temporarily at Cootamundra for training purposes. The area is sufficiently far removed to ensure that civil aircraft are not restricted in their use of the Cootamundra aerodrome in any way.

page 1788

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Hobart Studio

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Can tho Minister representing the Postmaster-General say when plans and specifications for the proposed wireless broadcasting studio at Hobart will be completed and on what date tenders are likely to be called?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I shall obtain the information from the Postmaster-General .

page 1788

QUESTION

PETROL COMMISSION

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Is it the intention of the Government to give honorable members an opportunity, this year if possible, to discuss the report of the royal commission appointed to inquire into the sale and distribution of petrol and oil?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– If the honorable member refers to this calendar year I am afraid that there will be little opportunity to discuss the report. If certain urgent matters are disposed of before the date upon which the House proposes to go into recess and sufficient time is available honorable members may be able to discuss the report mentioned.

page 1788

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– As the practice of continuing a session from year to year is inimical to the interests of some of the smaller States, will the Government comply with the Constitution, which provides that there shall be a session of Parliament in each year, and prorogue Parliament when the present sittings terminate ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– During the honorable member’s absence from the chamber I replied to a similar question asked by the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green). I expressed the view that it is desirable, if it is possible to do so, to terminate the parliamentary session each year; but I see no possibility of following that course this year, particularly in view of the fact that the tariff schedule will have to Le disposed of during this session. In the early part of the new year, the Government will endeavour to complete the business with which it has to deal, and to terminate the session in the ordinary way as was the practice formerly.

page 1788

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Swearing-in Ceremony.

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Why is the swearingin of the new Governor-General to take place in Melbourne instead of Canberra?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– When the GovernorGeneral is appointed he will he resident in Canberra generally throughout the year. The Governor-General elect has already been Governor of the States of South Australia and New South Wales; he will be sworn in in Victoria because, immediately after that ceremony, he proposes to visit the State of Tasmania. At an early date he will also visit the States of Queensland and Western Australia. The Government is desirous that he should, at the earliest possible moment, become familiar with all the States of tho Commonwealth.

page 1788

QUESTION

MONETARY AND BANKING COMMISSION

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the fact that a select committee, representative of all parties in the Tasmanian House of Assembly has unanimously recommended that -

The inquiries of the Com mon wealth Monetary Commission should not be confined to superficial aspects of the present monetary system, but should be directed, firstly, to tho basic principles on which money, and especially credit, is issued and controlled, with particular attention to the manner in which it functions in industrial operations in the creation and liquidation of costs and debts.

Will the Government give consideration to this suggestion?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The Commonwealth Government has no intention to alter tho terms of reference of the royal commission to inquire into monetary and banking systems in Australia. The Tasmanian committee was appointed io investigate this question, and, surely, with ail thi1 great ability displayed by its members, should have settled the question long ago.

page 1788

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1935. K”os. 113, 110.

page 1789

PRIVILEGE

Action of Chairman of Committees

Debate resumed from the 19th November (vide page 1736), on motion by Mr. Brennan -

That, in the opinion of this House, the Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. H. Prowse), on the 14th instant, offended against the privileges of the Parliament by reflecting from his place as Chairman of Committees, on the conduct in Parliament of an honorable member, in terms which were not in accordance with the facts nor on other grounds justifiable.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

– In moving the adjournment of the debate on this motion, I said that I did so with the object of giving honorable members more time for reflection, and so that they might examine more carefully the actual facts associated with the incident referred to. I am afraid that I am not in a much better position now in this respect than I was then. I heard the complaint of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), and the explanation of the Chairman of Committees that the honorable member for Batman, after apologizing for his action, not only moved that another honorable member on this side be not further heard, but was also again distinctly disorderly.

Mr Scullin:

– That is not true.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order !

Mr LYONS:

– I hope I shall be allowed to say a word in explanation of my position. I say that the declaration of the Chairman of Committees-

Mr Scullin:

– It is not true.

Mr Thorby:

– It is perfectly true, and the right honorable gentleman knows it.

Other honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Upon this question, I fear that there is great danger of much heat being engendered. A number of ‘honorable gentlemen on my left have continued to interject since I called for order. I askthat, during the progress of this debate, interjections be definitely curtailed. I shall not allowany more than pertinent questions to be asked. That practice is usually followed, although it is in conflict with the Standing Orders. Frequent interjections and interruptions, however, will definitely not be allowed during the course of this debate.

Mr LYONS:

– I should like to state briefly the position in which I find myself. Two entirely contradictory statements have been made. I make no reflection either on the Chairman of Committees or on the honorable member for Batman, and I would accept the assurance of either of them. But, in this case, conflicting statementshave been made by both, and, while I make no distinction between them, I feel that, unlessthe debate as it proceeds demonstrates to the contrary, I shall be compelled to accept the statement of the honorable member who is acting as umpire in the impartial position of Chairman.

Mr Garden:

– Impartial ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorablemember for Cook (Mr. Garden) is distinctly out of order.

Mr Garden:

– I wasmerely ‘asking a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member was reflecting on the Chairman, indicating thathe wasnot acting impartially. I have already warned honorable members of the attitude that I should take up in the conduct of this debate, and the honorable member for Cook has immediately offended against my ruling.

Mr LYONS:

– Unless it can be shown clearly in the debate which follows that the Chairman of Committees has made a statement which is not in accord with actual fact, then I would regard it as essential on my partto supporthim, particularly because he is responsible for the maintenance of order in this chamber. Therefore, I propose, at this stage, to listen to the discussion onthe part of those who were present when the incident took place to which the honorable member for Batman has taken exception. I was not than present in the chamber and, therefore, I must hear what ‘honorable members have to say.

Mr Forde:

– Did the Prime Minister read the Hansard report of the incident?

Mr LYONS:

– I read theHansard report with the object of ascertaining the position. But honorablemembers will realize that, on many occasions, Hansard does not, and obviously cannot, record accurately frequent interruptions and interjections.

Mr Curtin:

– Did the Prime Minister ascertain from the Chairman of Committees actually what it isalleged the honorable member for Batman did ?

Mr LYONS:

– Yes.

Mr Curtin:

– What didhe say?

Mr LYONS:

– Exactly what he had said in the House. I am afraid honorable members have forgotten that the Chairman of Committees said yesterday that the honorable member for Batman had been guilty of obstructingthe business before the House, after his apology for his conduct had been made and accepted.

Mr.Forde. - Did the Chairman of Committees say in what manner the honorable member for Batman had offended, or in what words?

Mr LYONS:

– I did not think it necessary to gointo detail. In any case, what the Chairman of Committees said is clearly reported, and in these circumstances, unless it is shown to me that the Chairman was wrong, I shall support the action of the Chair.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The point that seems to be in dispute, followingthe Prime Minister’s statement, is as to what actually took place after the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) had been called upon to apologize to the Chair. It is suggested that the Chairman alleges that his conduct was not in keeping with that expected of honorable members in ‘this chamber. I was present during the whole of the incident and, if I may be permitted to do so, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refresh the minds of honorable members as to what actually took place. It will be remembered that the guillotine had been applied during the consideration of the Sanctions Bill, and although it was agreed that most of the debate should take place on the second reading, thereby restricting the time needed for the committee stage, this did not provide an opportunity for all honorable members to express their views regarding this important measure. There was a tacit understanding between honorable members.

Mr Martens:

– That was practically admitted by the Chairman of Committees.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The Chairman, I think, realized, to a degree, that the general opinion of honorable members was that the remaining portion of the time allotted for the discussion in the committee stage should be made available to those honorable members who had been prevented, by the application of the guillotine, from speaking on the second reading. It was at this period that the incident in question arose. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) had already spoken on the second reading of the bill-

Mr Rosevear:

– And he voted for the application for the guillotine.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That is true. He rose at a time when it was thought that the call should be given to those who had not already spoken on the measure. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) contends that he was on his feet before the honorable member for Barker, but I am sure that I am not exaggerating in saying that the two honorable members rose at the same time. Although honorable members generally expected the Chairman to respect the general wish of honorable members in regard to the allotment of the call, the honorable member for Barker was given the call, and proceeded to discuss the bill a second time. It is not difficult to appreciate the feeling of dissatisfaction that then prevailed. Indeed, considerable hostility was engendered. Certainly, a good spirit did not prevail towards the Chairman of Committees, and the honorable member for Batman raised a point of order regarding his action. That, I think, exactly indicates the atmosphere in which this incident arose.

Controversy continued between the Chairman and the honorable member for Batman, and at one stage that honorable member was named. Discussion ensued as to whether he should he suspended, and the motion was subsequently withdrawn. I should say that this disposed of the question as to whether the honorable member had been guilty of the improper conduct alleged against him by the Chairman. Although the subsequent action of the honorable member may have irritated the Chairman the fact is that his conduct, far from being improper, was in strict accordance with the Standing Orders. The mere fact of his being named by the Chairman, and the incident having been closed with his apology, did not prevent the honorable member from proceeding to take whatever steps he considered desirable, within the limits of the Standing Orders, for the purpose of preventing the honorable member for Barker from proceeding with his remarks. It seems to me that the Chairman was, to some extent, irritated by what had occurred, and naturally was inclined to deem the action of the honorable member for Batman, in moving the closure when the honorable member for Barker was speaking, to be conduct not in keeping with proper procedure, but the honorable member for Batman was clearly within his rights in following the course he took.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) has been asked to indicate what the Chairman said the honorable member for Batman actually did subsequent to the withdrawal of the motion for his suspension. That is a point which must b«s satisfactorily cleared up. Were any remarks made to which exception could be taken? Did the honorable members speak disrespectfully to the Chair? Of course he did not, otherwise his disorderly remarks would have been recorded in Hansard, although, for my part, I do not desire to adhere rigidly to the Ilansard report of the incident. 1 have referred to the atmosphere in which it arose, the circumstances under which the call was given to the honorable member for Barker, the application of the guillotine, and the naming of- the honorable member for Batman, which closed with his apology, and I have stated my belief that he was perfectly within his rights in taking whatever action was open to him. The action he took, that of moving that the honorable member for Barker be not further heard, did not warrant any further reflection upon him. We ave all human, and in certain circumstances are liable to become irritated. Probably the Chairman of Committees thought that the honorable member for Batman was not entitled to take the course adopted by him. On the other hand, I consider that the honorable member had a perfect right to do what he did. Any honorrable member might have acted similarly, and, therefore, I say again that the conduct of the honorable member for Batman was in conformity with the Standing Orders, and. did not warrant any reflection being cast upon him.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– I was present during this incident, as I had been during the whole of the sitting when the Sanctions Bill was under consideration, and I have a clear recollection of what took place, but it differs materially in some respects from that of the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). It seems to me that members of the Opposition consider that, when the guillotine has been applied they have a right to a monopoly of the rest of the time available for discussion of a measure.

Mr Forde:

– No !

Mr Scullin:

– Nonsense !

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– But I agreed with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) across the table that, so far as possible, honorable members who had not already spoken should be called. I had no communication with the Chairman of Committees on the subject, but that was the general understanding between us, and I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me on that point. When the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was given the call, the opinion was held by the Opposition that that understanding was not being observed, and, in my opinion, deliberate obstruction was resorted to in order to prevent that honorable member from speaking. This resulted, in the end, in the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) being named, he having very cleverly endeavoured, by points or order, and by the exercise of various other artifices, to prevent the honorable member for Barker from being heard. In that object he succeeded, and he was named by the Chairman. The Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page) was in the House, and gave the honorable member for Batman an opportunity to withdraw what he had said and apologize. This was done, and there this particular incident closed.

I now come to the aspect of the matter on which I differ from the honorable member for West Sydney. The disorder continued. The honorable member for

Batman had conducted a campaign, so to speak, against the honorable member for Barker, andhewas looked to by the other members of the Oppositionwith interest and amusement to see what he would do next.He then, as skilfully and effectively as he could, continued in a disorderly manner and proceeded to create a disorderly atmosphere.

Mr Baker:

– Quote what he said.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– He continued in a manner that he is probably better able to affect than any other honorable member opposite.

Mr.forde. - What did he say?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– His conduct consisted of grimaces and gesticulations, and of conversations with honorable members in his immediate vicinity. The exact words I could not hear, nor did I desire to hear them, but I assert most emphatically that there was created by the honorable member for Batman, after he was named, an atmosphere of disorder which was prevalent on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr Curtin:

– Then why did not the Chairman act?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– In my opinion the honorable member for Batman should have been named again. No apology should have been accepted from him, and he should have been suspended from the sitting. Half a dozen times he deserved tobe suspended. I do not agree with the clemency that the Chairman exercised, and Iregard it as a piece of sheer effrontery on the part of the honorable member forBatman to pose now as an injured party, seeing that the honour and traditions of this House, and of honorable members themselves were being injured by his conduct.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

– I came into the chamber on the occasion when the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) was quoting the Standing Order to direct the attention of the Chair probably to the state of confusion which had arisen in the committee because the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was exercising a right which technically the Standing Orders gave to him but which, from the viewpoint of the spirit of Parliament, was a deprivation of the rights of other honorable members. In con sideration of the consent of the Minister for Defence to extend the time for the debate on the second reading, I agreed, on behalf of the Opposition, that, in committee, the bill should be taken as a whole, so that the general principle of the measure might again be discussed at that stage. The purpose was to give to honorable members who, because of the guillotine, had not been permitted to express their opinions during the second reading, a further opportunity to do so in committee. It was not made with the object of depriving any honorable member of a privilege. It was made to ensure to those honorable gentlemen who had not enjoyed their right to speak on the second reading of the bill at least the same equality that others in the same category had enjoyed. But the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) defiantly, in my opinion, attempted to deliver two speeches on the general principles of the Sanctions Bill, whereas quite a number of honorable members had not had the opportunity to make any speech owing to the effect of the guillotine.

Mr Thorby:

– The honorable member for Barker had not spoken previously in committee.

Mr CURTIN:

– But he had spoken on the second reading, and the committee stage was to be devoted exclusively to a discussion on the general principles of the bill, which was being considered as a whole. The consideration of the bill, clause by clause, was not attempted and was never even contemplated ; the committee stage was to be essentially as much a second-reading debate aswas the second-reading stage itself. The honorable member for Barker, while claiming the full use of his own rights, was, in the circumstances, actually depriving other honorable members of a right which he had previously exercised.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition used the word “ defiantly “ when referring to the attitude of the honorable member for Barker.

Mr CURTIN:

– I repeat it, because I was staggered at the presumption of the honorable gentleman who believed that he should have been permitted to speak twice on the general principles of the bill before some other honorable members had had an opportunity to address themselves once to it. The basis of the complaint of the honorable member for Batman is not respecting what toot place on the 7th November, for that episode was ended. He was named, and without being requested by anybody, he immediately withdrew and apologized.

Mr Lane:

– He apologized at the request of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr CURTIN:

– It is recorded in Hansard that the Chairman called “Order!” and made a long speech. He sa id -

Despite my frequent calls for order, honorable members have persisted in interjecting, and preventing the honorable member for Barker from addressing the Chair. I name the honorable member for Batman for disregarding the authority of the Chair

Mr, Brennan immediately said t should like to withdraw what I have said, mid apologize.

Whereupon, the Chairman reiterated that he had named the honorable member for Batman, and the Minister for Commerce accordingly moved the customary motion for his suspension. After this procedure, 1 addressed the Chairman and urged that, in view of the fact that the honorable member for Batman had already withdrawn and apologized. per: haps some leniency would be extended to bini; and again the honorable member withdrew and apologized, whereupon the motion was, by leave, withdrawn. What took place subsequently was that the honorable member for Barker proceeded with his speech, and I did not hear any uproar, nor did I notice any interference upon the part of the honorable member for Batman. If, after immediately withdrawing and apologizing twice, before the suspension motion was by leave withdrawn, the honorable member for Batman had persisted in his offence, I question very much, in. the then temper of the Chairman of Committees, whether he would have viewed such an interruption with any tolerance. I am quite confident that the committee would not have tolerated it. For my part, I heard no remarks whatever from the honorable member for Batman. In any case, the whole episode had ended. But a week later, on an entirely different matter, tin’s episode of the 7th November, which had been completely closed, was revived by the Chairman of Committees as a reason for persisting in naming another honorable member of the committee.

Mr Barnard:

– And in the absence of the honorable member for Batman!

Mr CURTIN:

– That matters not. The Chairman had no .right to drag up the episode of a week previous unquestionably to reflect, further on the general conduct of the honorable member for Batman, when he was dealing with the disorderliness of another honorable member. It is unfortunate that this matter has reached the present stage, and there is undoubtedly a conflict of opinion on what took place. If the statement made by the Chairman of Committees yesterday be correct, undoubtedly the honorable member for Batman offended after having been named. But I submit that, if he so offended, it is certain, in my opinion, that the Chairman would again have named him, because the Chairman was very reluctant to permit the Minister for Commerce to withdraw the motion moved, which would have involved the suspension of the honorable member. I have no knowledge whatever of the honorable member having persisted in any further offensive conduct. It is true that he moved a motion which the Standing Orders entitled him to move; and if we look back on the matter impartially, we shall see that the honorable member for Batman set himself to comply strictly with the Standing Orders and, rather than interject, moved a motion which was the appropriate procedure for him to follow. The fact that the Chairman of Committees a week later drew attention to the matter which, so far as he was concerned, had closed seven days -earlier could lead honorable members to draw no other inference than that it was his intention to reflect upon the conduct of the honorable member for Batman. There was no occasion for the Chairman to reflect upon the honorable member, or, for that matter, upon any other honorable member, when dealing with the second occurrence of disorderly conduct. I regret that the matter has reached the stage it has, and I believe that if the Chairman of Committees would state that he had no intention to reflect unduly upon the conduct of the honorable member for Batman when dealing with the conduct of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) a week later, this unpleasantness might be terminated. To sum up, the honorable member for Batman feels that his parliamentary reputation has been besmirched by the reference which the Chairman of Committees made to an incident which had closed a week earlier. He had no opportunity to call for a retraction by the Chairman of Committees. I exonerate the Chairman of ‘Committees from any deliberate intention to reflect on the honorable member for Batman when he used the words complained of by that honorable member, and therefore I suggest that the fact that he inadvertently did so might be sufficient justification for his rising and saying that he had no such intention. If the Chairman of Committees does that, I think that the honorable member for Batman will be satisfied.

Mr MENZIES:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

– I regret that I am unable to contribute to the controversy any account of what took place in committee on the 7th November, as I was not in the chamber on the occasion referred to. I do want, however, briefly to direct the attention of honorable members to the terms of the motion now before the House -

That, in the opinion of this House, the Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. H. Prowse)’, on the 14th instant, offended against the privileges of the Parliament by reflecting from his place as Chairman of Committees on the conduct in Parliament of an honorable member, in terms which were not in accordance with the facts nor .on other grounds justifiable.

Time has not permitted me to make an exhaustive examination of one of the most difficult and obscure questions of parliamentary procedure, but I take leave to doubt whether any question of privilege arises here at all. As honorable members know, the Standing Orders of this House do not give any definition of “ privilege,” and so we are remitted to the practice’ of the House of Commons. In the tenth edition of May an endeavour is made to sum up the various grounds on which a question of privilege may be based. I ask the House to be patient while I read from page 69 -

Breaches of privilege may be divided into: ( 1 ) disobedience to general orders or rules of either House; (2) disobedience to particular orders; (3) indignities offered to the character or proceedings of Parliament; (4) assaults or insults upon members, or reflections upon their character and . conduct in Parliament; or interference with officers of the House in discharge of their duly.

Honorable members will have noticed the phrase “ reflections upon their character and conduct in Parliament”, which appears to cover the case set up by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan). But a perusal of the succeeding pages of May will indicate clearly that all the individual instances on which that general statement is based are instances in which persons outside Parliament have reflected on the conduct and character of persons inside Parliament. In other words - I speak subject to correction - every case that has been treated as an instance of a breach of privilege by the House of Commons is one in which some one outside Parliament has done or said, something which has been taken to impair the privileges of Parliament in relation to the rest of the world.

Mr Ward:

– The House of Commons has never had a Chairman of Committees like ours.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for East Sydney interjects again I shall name him.

Mr MENZIES:

– What has been suggested here is that, by reason of something that has occurred inside Parliament, there has been a breach of privilege. I am at a loss to understand what privilege can be said to have been interfered with. Any authority on parliamentary procedure will make it clear that every member of Parliament enjoys the privilege of free speech. If it be that the honorable member for Batman alleges that the privilege of free speech which he should enjoy has been interfered with, I point out that the privilege of free speech is a privilege as against the people outside Parliament. Every member of Parliament is privileged to say what he likes in Parliament, and to enjoy immunity in relation to any proceedings which may be instituted by persons outside Parliament. But it does not follow that a member of Parliament has the privilege of unlimited free speech inside Parliament itself. Indeed, we have restricted that privilege by providing chat freedom of speech shall be subject to the Standing Orders. A member who abuses his privilege may be called to order by the Chair, and dealt with either by the Chair or by the House. Should the ruling of the Chair not be acceptable to the House, it may be disagreed with by following the appropriate procedure. Iu this case, I am not in a position to determine who is right on the facts, because, unhappily, no one who has spoken has been cross-examined. Consequently, I should feel tremendously embarrassed if I had, as a member of a jury, to decide this question. Some honorable members might feel more embarrassed if they were cross-examined, but I cannot go into that now. My difficulty is in understanding how it can be said that, on the facts that have been alleged here, any honorable member has been deprived of some privilege which may rightly bc described as a privilege of Parliament. Remembering my proposition that, primarily, parliamentary privilege is a privilege against the world, I can conceive of only one case in which it might be said to be an internal privilege. If conduct calculated to deprive honorable members of their rights within the Standing Orders were indulged in, then it might be said that a question of privilege inside Parliament had arisen. But what are the facts here? In his version of the incident, the honorable member for Batman did not say that he was prevented from speaking. On the contrary, he said he did not speak. He did not say that he wanted to exercise some right as a member of Parliament, and that the Chairman prevented him from exercising it. All he said was that the Chairman made a rude observation to him.

Mr Brennan:

– I was slandered. Then the action of the Chairman of Committees was defamatory.

Mr MENZIES:

– The honorable member agrees that he was not prevented from doing anything which it is alleged a member of Parliament ought to be permitted to do. He says that an observation of a defamatory nature was made by the Chairman. I have not been in this Parliament very long, but I have had some experience of other parliaments, and have heard many defamatory remarks. Does the honorable member for Batman go to the point of saying that each of those defamatory remarks constitutes a breach of the privileges of Parliament? That a defamatory remark constitutes disorderly conduct I am prepared to agree, but that it constitutes a breach of the! privileges of Parliament I am at a loss to understand. Indeed, as I have said, one of the most cherished privileges of Parliament, as against the world, is to be able to offer defamatory remarks without let or hindrance.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- lai order to reach a decision on this question of privilege, it is not necessary for honorable members to give their versions of the incidents which led up to its submission, as they should easily reach a verdict on statements made at the time by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Prowse). Those remarks constitute a greater reflection on the Chairman himself Chan cm the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) and, if he could have them excised from Hansard, he would be doing himself a favour. The honorable gentleman is reported by Hansard to have said on the 14th November -

I named an honorable member from this Chair last week. He offered a humble apology, unci its acceptance was recommended by the Chair: but that honorable member immediately proceeded to impede the progress of business after his apology had been accepted.

Honorable mem’bers will see in that statement a reflection by the Chairman on himself . He said that the ‘honorable member for Batman had offended, had been named, and had apologized, and then admitted nhat he had allowed him to continue to impede the committee. Honorable members will realize that, if the honorable member for Batman had continued to impede the progress of ‘the committee, he would have suffered the consequences of his actions. The Chairman was watching him as a cat watches a mouse, and he would have seized the first opportunity again to name the honorable gentleman if he had transgressed a second time. The report in Hansard of the Chairman’s statement convicts him and no need exists to consider what I think might have happened. Neither is there need for the Minister for Defence (Mr. Parkhill) or any other (honorable member to do so. A party division on this motion cannot be avoided.

Mr Thompson:

– Let 113 have a vote.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The _ honorable member ‘has made up his mind, but I remind him ‘that ‘he may not always be a member of an arrogant majority in this chamber. This matter, however, should be judged on its merits, and not on party Lines. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said ‘that he could not make up his mind. [ should like to know what he meant when he repeated the remarks ascribed to th« Chairman of Committees. Is it not has opinion that, if the Chairman were correct in his version of the occurrences Which led up to the naming of the honorable member for Batman, he should have named him a second time for the second offence ?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– That is what the Chairman should have done.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– If, at the time of the alleged offences, the Chairman acted so leniently as to let the honorable member get away with offensive conduct to the Chair, Why did he, a week la’ter, voice his spleen ? Obviously the. incident was irritating kim and bc took an opportunity to relieve his feelings at the expense of the honorable member for Batman. An impartial reading of Che few lines, recorded in Ilansard, of the Chairman’s remarks must lead to the conclusion that the Chairman is convicted out of his own mouth. The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) does not need to crossexamine anyone as it will not overtax his powers of analysis to decide that if the honorable member for Batman had continued to give offence to the Chair after having been named once he would have been named again and suspended from tho service of the committee.

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

.- The debate has shown that if there is any injured party it is myself and not the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan). A perusal of the Hansard report of the period under review will show that the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), who spoke before me for fifteen minutes, occupy two pages. I spoke for 20 minutes, and the Hansard record of that period occupies less than a page and a half of which 34 lines are attributed to me. I disagree with the contention made by members of the Opposition at that time that by speaking I had taken rights from them. It has been explained to me that the call alternates between the two sides of the House. When the honorable member for Melbourne Ports resumed his seat, 1 was the only member on this side of the House to rise. Accordingly I received the call. Honorable members on this side of the chamber will support me in that. The purpose for which I rose was to reply in committee to three points made against the Government in the debate on the second reading.

Mr Ward:

– Was the honorable member put up by the Government to reply on its behalf?

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

– Tho only reason for my speaking was as 1 have stated. I realize that such a small incident as the one to which exception has been taken may result in the wounding of pride, but the extent of thai wounding depends on the amount of pride with which a man is endowed. On active service a self-inflicted wound is never recorded in the casualty list, but is always recorded in the pay book of tinsold ler when a fine is imposed for the offence. That is exactly the position which is occupied to-day by the honorable member for Batman. If he i.suffering, it is the suffering from a selfinflicted wound. Honorable members will recall that when I rose to speak !i was subjected to a great many interjections and interruptions from the Opposition. Honorable members opposite contended that I was usurping something which I should have left to some one else. They villified me, and the honorable member for Batman declared that he would prevent me from delivering the speech. I replied that, whether . heinterrupted or not, I would deliver it. He persisted in interrupting, and after making incessant interjections he was good enough to quote to the Chair the Standing Order that an honorable member who interrupts the work of the committee is open to correction by the Chair. The Chairman of Committees is open to criticism for the part which he played in the incident, not because he was just to the honorable member, but because he allowed him a great deal of mercy both before and after he was named. The honorable member for Batman should be the last to complain about the treatment which was meted .out to him. If it were any other honorable member I should say that he was guilty of sustained and deliberate obstruction, but the honorable member is too angelic in temperament to indulge in anything like that. Pursuing the purest virtue and the sweetest charity he could never be guilty of sustained obstruction.

I am loth to enter too deeply into this argument for I remember that such a discussion, in the nature of things, has repercussions. A man who chops wood must expect to make chips. But the scone that occurred in the committee that night arose in circumstances which should make tha honorable member for Batman the last member to refer to it. It was an incident of the kind that causes interstate visitors in the galleries of the House to return to their homes with the idea that the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah would be too lenient for the occupants, for the time being, of seats in this chamber. Such conduct is bringing the parliamentary institution into disrepute throughout the Commonwealth. Those are hard words, but I believe not only that they are true, but also that the honorable members of the Opposition, generally speaking, know in their heart of hearts that they are true.

The whole argument hinges upon whether, after the honorable member for Batman was permitted to apologize the second time, he continued to interrupt the proceedings of the committee, and my recollection - and I have a very good memory, I believe - is that he did do so. If anything surprised me in connexion with the incidents of that night, it was that the Chair did not deal with the honorable member a second time for what took place after he was named. I know that I am probably taking a great risk in daring to disagree with the view of the honorable member for Batman. As one who has read history, I recollect reading about a great Irishman, Cardinal Cullen, of whom it is said that no one dared contradict him in his life-time, and no one cared to write his biography after his death.

Mr BRENNAN:
UAP

– I have not the gre:ii honour to be an Irishman.

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

– I hope that the honorable member will not adopt the attitude that his actions alone are not to be questioned by honorable members on this side of the chamber. My part in the incidents of that evening can be easily described. I was absolutely unaware of any tacit understanding between the Government and the Opposition in regard to that discussion. Prizing, as I do, my privilege of speaking in this chamber, I would not willingly deprive any member of the Opposition of the right to express his views, particularly on such an important matter as that which was then before the Chair. But considering that honorable members who support the Government had not risen as frequently as they were entitled to do to take part in the debate, I rose in my place to address the committee. Any criticism that the Opposition can level against me for exercising my privilege is also a criticism of the Chair. The Chairman was entitled to call me or any other honorable member on this side of the chamber. It is the Chairman’s sole right to make the call, and unless what I understand to be the practice in this Parliament is to be departed from - that is, that two members shall not be called in succession from one side of the chamber if an honorable member on the other side wishes to speak - the Chairman was justly entitled to call me.

Referring now to the second incident, I saw and heard what took place. But it is not my desire to discuss that aspect of the subject. I am not able to determine what was behind the mind of the Chairman when he made the references of which the honorable member for Batman has complained. I am, however, able to say, from the very statements of the honorable member for Batman himself, that when I commenced to make my speech, he intended to prevent me from proceeding with it. I must say, with great respect to the honorable member, ‘that his success on that occasion was one of the very few successes of his parliamentary career. Had the ‘honorable member permitted me to exercise my right to speak on that occasion, he would, of course, have been deprived of the pleasure that I know he must derive from listening to my speech this afternoon.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

– I was present in the chamber when the incidents, which are the subject of this debate, occurred. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has given a fairly clear description of what occurred, but I do not agree with his deductions.

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

– We agree as to the facts.

Mr GARDEN:

– Yes. When the honorable member for Barker received the call from the Chair, we, on this side of the committee, objected, because of the agreement that had been made, and the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) interjected in She course of the proceedings with the result that the Ch airman called him to order and named him. The honorable member for Batman then apologized. In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) had asked the Chair to exercise leniency towards thehonorable member for Batman. Later, when the honorable member for Barker endeavoured to address the Chair, the honorable member for Batman book every means afforded him by the procedure of the committee to prevent the speech from being made.

As a matter of fact, the Chairman made two errors that evening. On the first occasion, he accused me of having used a word which I did not use and asked me to withdraw it. I do not know that I blame the Chairman altogether for what happened, but the fact is that he accused me of having used the word “ rooking “, whereas the word I actually used was “ fooling “. The ‘honorable member for Echuca (Mr. McEwen) said that I used the word “ fooling “, and so didthe honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins), to whom the word was directed. When I was requested to withdraw the word “fooling”, I did so, but the Chairman made a mistake insaying that I used the word “rooking”, and he actually named me for using a word that I did not use.

Mr McEwen:

– The Chairman said: “ I will name the ‘honorable member.”

Mr GARDEN:

– As a matter of fact, I did not open my mouth when later the Chairman named me. It is apparent, therefore, that there was something very wrong. No doubt the Chairman was irritated.

Mr Prowse:

– I have no knowledge that I have ever named thehonorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden).

Mr McEwen:

– The Chairman said: “ I will name the honorable member for Cook.”

Mr GARDEN:

– Well, even if that is so, the fact [remains that I did not open my mouth. It is out of those incidents that the trouble arose which is the subjectmatter of this discussion. Thewhole incident could have been passed over easily if the Chairman had intimated that he wished to uphold ‘the authority of the Chair and had asked for the support of honorable members to that end. I know that I personally take every opportunity that I have, at times, to express myself. Sometimes I am right and sometimes I am wrong. But I believe that what was done that night was not intended to discredit the honorable member f or Batman and was no reflection upon him. If the Chairman admits that his sole intention was to uphold his authority over the proceedings of the committee, the whole incident could have been passed over without trouble, and there would be no occasion for the moving of this motion of privilege.

Mr LANE:
Barton

– I propose merely to describe the incident that happened on that particular evening just as I witnessed it. Immediately the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) was namedhe sat down and, so far as I could see from my position in the House, he practically turned his back on the Chair, and entered into conversation with members of the Labour party of New South Wales. The subsequent disorder was such that the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) could not have heard one word the honorable member for Batman said. Thus, he was not on sound ground when he challenged the House yesterday to contradict his statement that the honorable member for Batman did not utter a single sentence after apologizing to the Chair, because at that stage there was a continued uproar among members of the Labour party of New South Wales, in which the honorable member for Batman joined with the object of interfering with the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). I myself heard the honorable member for Batman say to the honorable member for Barker, “ I will not allow you to speak “.

Mr Baker:

– The honorable member lias just said that no one could have heard what the honorable member for Batman said at that time.

Mr LANE:

– The honorable member for Batman made that declaration before he was named. Immediately after the incident he repeated the threat; and, as honorable members generally are aware, the honorable member for Barker could not continue his speech, because of the uproar created by the honorable member foi- Batman and members of the Labour party of New South Wales. I am astonished that any honorable member should try to excuse the behaviour of the honorable member for Batman. It is useless for the honorable member to come in posing as a wounded animal. He is a clever and a very subtle lawyer; he does things quietly. I assure him that, had I been in the place of the honorable member for Barker, he would not have prevented me from speaking. When the honorable member for Batman declares that injury has been done to bis political name by this episode, I remind him that if any such injury has been clone he still retains the reputation he has carried throughout his political life. When he desires to interfere with other honorable members, the honorable member for Batman can get away with a lot of things, because he is a lawyer and knows how to handle a situation under the Standing Orders without getting into trouble himself. I emphasize that the Chairman of Committees acted very leniently towards him on this particular occasion, and the attitude now adopted by the honorable member for Batman appears to me to be a case of biting the hand that fed him. He has attacked the Chairman of Committees, but I claim that the Chairman should have named the honorable member again; he should not have allowed the honorable member to present himself again in the House for the remainder of that sitting. I hope the House will reject the motion. The honorable member for Batman himself abused the privileges of the House and deliberately prevented the honorable member for Barker from speaking. In doing that he associated himself with members of the Labour party of New South Wales, among whom he appears to exercise a sort of semileadership. When in doubt about procedure, those honorable gentlemen promptly look to him as a lawyer and ask him what to do next. On this particular night he led them gallantly in abusing the privileges of the House by creating uproar. 1 oppose the motion.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) has provided the strongest argument in favour of the case of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), He accepted the challenge made by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) in this House yesterday, and declared that it was impossible for the honorable member for Yarra, owing to the uproar then taking place, to hear anything said by the honorable member for Batman, yet he now asks us to believe that he himself heard a statement made at that particular time by the honorable member for Batman, although he was seated much further away from the honorable member for Batman than was the honorable member for Yarra. I. agree with the statement made by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that the honorable member for Batman told him he would not get a hearing. When the honorable member for Batman rose to a point of order that a tacit understanding had been arrived at between the Government and the Opposition that those who had not already spoken on the measure would be given an opportunity to do so in committee, the Chairman ruled, rightly in my opinion, that a point of order did not arise; and if the honorable member for Barker had then proceeded to make his speech instead of defying the honorable member for Batman to stop him, he would have had an opportunity of continuing.

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– What did the. honorable member for Batman do?

Mr MARTENS:

– The honorable member road a standing order to the committee in connexion with the matter and he was again told by the Chairman to resume his seat. He did so. An interruption followed and, in my opinion, the Chair rightly named the honorable member for Batman for interrupting. However, at a later stage the honorable member for Batman apologized to the Chair but - and I say it definitely - between the time when he apologized and when he moved a certain motion there would not have been time for him to have interrupted again. As soon as the honorable member for Batman resumed his seat following the ruling of the Chair an uproar certainly did occur but some honorable members who were sitting not far from myself, and not the honorable member for Batman, were responsible for that uproar. I repeat that almost immediately after the honorable me’mber for Batman apologized he rose again and moved “ That the honorable member for Barker be not further heard.” In doing so he exercised the right available to any honorable member to apply the gag on another honorable member. When the division on this motion had been taken the honorable member for Barker’s time had expired and he. was not further heard. Any honorable member who has read the Hansard record of this incident knows that the honorable member “ for Barker delivered very little of the speech he intended to make. He was prevented from doing so by action taken by the honorable member for Batman within the Standing Orders of this House. If honorable members examine the records they will find that between the apology and the moving of the motion, the honorable member for Batman could not have made «ny of the remarks attributed to him.

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

– The honorable member for Barker made a speech.

Mr MARTENS:

– He said a few words but he had not been on his feet for more than half a minute at the outside when the honorable member for Batman moved his motion. The Chairman of Committees is entirely wrong in his recollection of what took place at the particular time to which I have referred and I claim the endorsement of the honorable member for Barton who says that, because of the uproar, the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), who was sitting only two seats away from the honorable member for Batman, could not have heard what the latter had said although he, himself, says he heard something the honorable member for Batman said. As the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) has said, if the honorable member for Batman had acted as the Chairman of Committees alleges honorable members are entitled .to tell the Chairman of Committees that he is not competent to fill the Chair inasmuch as he allowed au honorable member to interrupt on a second occasion and to continue interrupting. A competent Chairman of Committees, I suggest, would not have allowed such disorder to take place. Having accepted the apology of an honorable member no one competent to occupy the Chair would have allowed the same honorable member to interrupt on a second occasion without talcing definite action against him.

Motion (by Mr. Thompson) put -

That the question he now put.

The House divided. (Mk. Speaker - ‘Hon. G. j. Bell.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 25

Majority 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question - That the motion (Mr. Brennan’s)be agreed to - put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 38

Majority . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1801

QUORUMS

There not being the number of “ Ayes “ requisite in accordance with the Standing Order, the Chairman announced that the motion for the closure had not been carried.

Thereupon, the debate was continued and subsequently the proposed new clause was negatived. Whilst the debate was in progress, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) directed the attention of the Chairman to the state of the committee and the bells were rung. I direct attention to Standing Order No. 34, which reads -

When the attention of the Speaker, or of the Chairman of Committees, has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of members present, no member shall leave the chamber until the House has been counted by the Speaker.

Whilst the bells were ringing, two members - the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr.Corser) and the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) - left the chamber.

The quorum in Committee of the Whole should consist of the same number of members, exclusive of the Chairman, as shall be requisite to form a quorum of the House.

My contention is that there was not a quorum of members present when the Chairman of Committees decided that there was. Iregard the issue as important, because if legislation is passed when a quorum of the House is not present, it might subsequently be declared invalid by the High Court upon appeal. In the debate which took place after the division on the closure motion, the proposed new clause was negatived, and the schedule and title of the bill were agreed to. The bill was then reported without amendment.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It was necessary that I should hear whatthe honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) had to say before I could determine whether or not his point of order should be raised at this juncture, although it appeared, from the outset, that it certainly should not have been raised now. I remind the honorable member that the issue which he has raised is not one upon which I could give a ruling. The Chairman of Committees alone should decide the point, and it should havebeenraised in the committee at the time. “When the House is in. committee, the Chairman of Committees is in charge and controls the proceedings in exactly the same way as the Speaker does in the House. If, in the opinion of the honorable member for Griffith, there was some irregularity of the committee proceedings, he should have taken the point of order at once and obtained the ruling of the Chairman of Committees upon ‘ it. The honorable member’s contention is that there was not a quorum of members present - the Chairman of Committees is the judge of that. In regard to the further contention that had objection not been made when the Minister in charge of the bill sought leave to move the third reading, the measure would have been passed through the remaining final stage. I remind him that had there not been a quorum the Chairman of Committees would have reported the fact to me in the House. I should then have counted the House; and if there had been a quorum present the bill could have been passed, but failing the presence of a quorum the House would necessarily have been adjourned. Therefore, the point taken by the honorable member, that legislation might have been passed, but for an objection being raised to the third reading, is not sustained. I am entitled to say this much to correct the misapprehension on the part of the honorable member for Griffith, although it would not be right for me to express an opinion regarding any action of the Chairman of Committees.

The honorable member has also stated that the Chairman of Committees is not included in the count of the committee. That question was considered many years ago. The honorable member has correctly read and interpreted the relevant Standing Order. I point out to him, however, that it clashes with the Constitution. It has always been my opinion that a standing order may not be made which conflicts with the Constitution, and my view is in accordance with that of my predecessors.

Mr Baker:

– The Constitution only fixes a minimum number for a quorum. Parliament may make a standing order stipulating that any greater number shall constitute a quorum.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Parliament has not taken action in this regard.

page 1803

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1935

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s Message) :

Motion (by Mr. Thorby) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the War Service Homes Act 1918-34.

Resolution reported, and - by leave - adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 19th November (vide page 1780).

Clause 2-

Section eight of the principal act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2) the word “ three “ and inserting in its stead the word “ seven “.

Section proposed to be amended -

8.- (1.)…..

(2.) The Commissioner may from time to time be re-appointed for any term not exceeding three years.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- The Government proposes by this clause to increase the tenure of office of the Commissioner from th ree years to seven years. I consider that there is no justification for that extension. Honorable members have to render an account of their stewardship at the expiration of a term not exceeding three years. I have never yet been privileged to remain elected for that period; an election has forced me to face my constituents before the expira tion of the full term. Therefore, those who are subordinate to Parliament in responsible positions such as the office of Commissioner of War Service Homes ought not to have a greater privilege. Frequently criticism is directed against the administration of this important department, and it would not be right to place the head of it beyond the control of an incoming government with whom his views might be in conflict. I am not reflecting in any way upon the present occupant of the office. Many other provisions of the act more urgently require amendment. No commission, committee or other body has suggested the extension of the tenure of this office.

Mr Thorby:

– The clause only fixes the maximum tenure.

Mr JAMES:

– Three years is a sufficient maximum. I propose to vote against the clause.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Assistant Minister (Mr. Thorby) should make some reply to the point raised by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). Section 8 of the original act reads -

  1. Subject to this act, a person who is appointed Commissioner shall hold office during good behaviour for a term’ not exceeding three years.
  2. The Commissioner may from time to time be appointed for any further term not exceeding three years.
Mr Thorby:

– The original act provided for a term of seven years.

Mr FORDE:

– I am quoting from Commonwealth Acts, Vol. 27, 1929. Evidently there was good reason for the term’ being fixed at three years. I could advance sound arguments against long appointments in such cases. Under the Commonwealth Constitution a general election is held every three years. Frequently an election results in a change of government. The person occupying the position of War Service Homes Commissioner might not, in the opinion of an incoming government, be discharging his functions satisfactorily, and it should be possible for that government to remove him from office. His might have been a political appointment, or he might not have the necessary qualifications to perform his duties with the sympathy, tact, end administrative ability needed.

Mr Thorby:

– This would apply only to reappointments after the Commissioner had served for a term of three years.

Mr FORDE:

– I do not think that that alters the position. Reappointments should not be made for a period of seven years. Three years should not be exceeded in the case of either an appointment or a reappointment. Unless the Minister can give a good reason for the proposed departure from the present practice, I shall support the honorable member for Hunter in his opposition to the clause.

Mr THORBY:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · Calare · CP

. -The object in asking the committee to agree to the alteration from three years to seven years is to enable any commissioner who has already served for a term of not less than three years to be reappointed for a further term not exceeding seven years. Many appointments are made for a term of seven years. In some cases the period is not specified, and the appointment continues until it is terminated.

Sir Littleton Groom:

– For what term are the tribunals under the Repatriation Act appointed?

Mr THORBY:

– Five years. The term of the Commissioner of Patents is not specified, while that of the Commissioner of Taxation is seven years. I emphasize the point that the proposal contained in the clause would not permit the making of a new appointment for a period exceeding three years. Reappointment should he for any period up to seven years. I ask honorable members to agree to the clause so that the Government may appoint the Commissioner for War Service Homes, who has given valuable and capable service, for a period greater than three years.

Attention having been called to the slate of the committee,

Mr THORBY:

– The way in which the Opposition is obstructing this bill is a shame. It is deliberate obstruction. [Quorum formed.]

Mr Rosevear:

– I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to what I regard as an offensive statement by the Minister, to the effect that the way in which the Opposition is deliberately obstructing this bill is a shame. I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr J H Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– If the Minister made the remark, he must withdraw it.

Mr THORBY:

– I made the remark that in my opinion it was deliberate obstruction of the bill. If any honorable member takes exception to it, I withdraw it. I was explaining that the intention of this amendment is to enable the re1 appointment of the Commissioner for War Service Homes to be made for a period not exceeding seven years. In a position such as that dealing with the administration of the War Service Homes Department, which embraces the whole of the Commonwealth, considerable time is needed to make contact and become conversant with the operations of the act in the different States. The officer who discharges these functions being a single commissioner, I am definitely of the opinion that it is desirable to appoint him for a reasonable term. Continuity of policy is a valuable factor in connexion with the administration of such an important department as that now under consideration. It is advisable that the Commissioner should be reappointed for a period not exceeding seven years, as was provided in the original act. That system continued until for administrative purposes it M’as deemed advisable that the Commissioner should be appointed for a period of three years, and the act was amended accordingly. The Government is of opinion that after a Commissioner has been in office for three years it should have power to reappoint him for a further period not. exceeding seven, years in all. This is not a new principle, and in the interests of the administration of the War Service Homes Commission the amendment should be agreed to. Security of tenure will be given to the person holding the office, who will bc able to give even closer attention to his duties than if he were appointed for only three years.

Mr Forde:

– The Government proposes to appoint the Auditor-General for a period of only three years.

Mr THORBY:

– That may be so, but perhaps at the expiration of that period he will have reached the retiring age. This bill provides that when the War

Service Homes Commissioner nas completed three years of satisfactory service, lie should he eligible for re-appointment for a period not exceeding seven years.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- The original act, which provided that the Commissioner should be appointed For a period of seven years, was amended in 1923 to provide that the appointment should be for only three yea,rs. The Government now proposes to ensure that the period during which a Commissioner small serve shall be that provided in the original net. There is a reasonable objection to the Government’s proposal, because the Commissioner is not subject to the control of the Minister. When u general, election is approaching, a government, realizing the possibility of defeat, may attempt to ensure continuity of its own policy by appointing a commissioner whose general attitude may not be acceptable to the succeeding ministry. In such circumstances, an appointment covering two parliaments could be made. I n 1923, Parliament amended the act to prevent the Ministry of the day tieing the hands of successive ministries.

Mr Thorby:

– An incoming ministry could limit the powers of the Commissioner by amending the act.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– When a Commissioner is appointed for seven years, it is unlikely that Parliament would reduce the term of his appointment.

Mr Thorby:

– I was referring to the powers of the Commissioner.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– The responsibility of the Commissioner is, subject to i lie control of the Minister, to administer the act in detail. The Minister’s control, of course, cannot extend to matters of detail. A commission has been constituted to ensure that there shall be satisfactory administration in matters of detail. I realize the force of what has been said concerning the desirability of retaining the services of a suitable Commissioner; but if a Commissioner has demonstrated that he is capable of carrying out to the satisfaction of all the important work entrusted to him, there would be no doubt as to his re-appointment. If the proposed amendment is adopted, the government of the day may fasten upon its successors a Commissioner who may carry on his work in the way which may be unsatisfactory to the government then in office. The suggestions of honorable members on this side of the chamber have been submitted, not with the object of obstructing the passage of the bill, but because there are good reasons why the appointment should bc made for the period provided in the existing law.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- The proposed amendment is unnecessary. Quorvm formed.] If the present War Services Homes Commissioner is a permanent public servant and under the control of the Public Service Board, he is assured of continuity of appointment. I am sure that many purchasers of war service homes who we dissatisfied with the interpretations of the Commissioner would oppose that officer being appointed for a term not exceeding seven years. Before the present Minister assumed control of war service homes, there were many differences of opinion between the Minister and the Commissioner. On several occasions I have objected to his decisions, and have also had great difficulty in obtaining from him a satisfactory interpretation of various provisions in the act. I do not think that there would be expressions of regret if the present Commissioner decided to resign his position. A person holding a similar position who feels that he is secure for seven years may flout the Minister and act contrary to the wishes of those directly concerned. Many purchasers of war service homes have experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining from the Commissioner sympathetic consideration of the proposals they have submitted. If his tenure is somewhat insecure, he may not feel disposed to force his opinions upon the Minister. Decisions supported by the Minister on one day have been reversed two days later. I spent nearly a month in getting the Commissioner to give an interpretation of the law, and action which prevented a purchaser of a war service homes being harshly treated was eventually postponed. If the period of appointment is for only three years, and the Commissioner is likely to resign, there are others in the Commonwealth Public Service quite capable to carrying out the duties now undertaken by this officer.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- We are now dealing with the term of office of an officer occupying a very responsible administrative position. I do not think the Minister has made out a very good case for the alteration of the period of appointment. After all, everything he has said in favour of the extension of the period to seven years could be said with equal force, and perhaps to better advantage, in respect of the term of office at present prescribed in the act. Section 5 of the act reads -

There shall bc a Commissioner who shall, subject to the direction of the Minister, be responsible- for the execution of this act.

The Minister will determine the policy which the Commissioner will carry out. In view of the fact that the Commissioner holds office only subject to these conditions, an extension of the period of office beyond the period of office of a government itself would be bad. The first thing to consider is the policy which the Minister will direct; the second, the manner in which that policy is administered. The Act provides that a person who is appointed Commissioner shall hold office, during good behaviour, for a term not exceeding three years. What would be termed good behaviour? The Commissioner might carry out a policy which he deems fitting to meet the circumstances. Upon a change of Ministers he may be required to carry our. another policy and conflict may arise between the Minister and the administrator in the actual administration of the act. The Commissioner, can only be removed from office as a result of bad behaviour. It would be very difficult to define as bad behaviour the failure of the Commissioner to carry out to the letter the policy of the Minister, and. yet the departure from, such policy to even a minor degree might have the effect of destroying its real purpose. I think, the present provision for appointment for a term of three years, at the expiration of which it may be renewed for a similar period, is quite adequate. If, during his occupancy of the office, his administration is such as to commend itself to the Minister at that time in charge of the department the Commissioner need have no fear as to the continuity of his tenure. The Minister has already put forward as one reason why the term of office should be extended that there may be a degree of uncertainty in the mind of- the Commissioner in the last year of his office as to whether his appointment will be renewed; he might fear that something he had done or omitted to do might prejudice him in the eyes of the Minister. But I point out that that would equally apply whether the period of office were three, five or seven years. The amendment proposed in the bill will not. remove that fear. The administrator, apart from general instructions, is vested with enormous powers under the act. I have no hesita- tion in saying that an efficient officer would have nothing to fear. And. he certainly would .have nothing to lose because, on relinquishing his duties as Commissioner, if he were a member of the Public Service, he would be placed in another position in the same grade as that which he occupied prior to his appointment as Commissioner. The major argument against the acceptance of the proposed amendment is that the power wielded by the Commissioner is so great that no government should commit a succeeding government, which may be of an entirely different political complexion, in respect of this appointment.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- In considering the term of appointment of the Commissioner there are two conflicting considerations; one is that if the Commissioner is appointed for a long term of office he is likely to become neglectful or arbitrary, or perhaps both ; the other is that if he is appointed only for a short term and is dependent upon the goodwill of the Government for a renewal of his appointment he is likely to become too amenable to the wishes of the Minister in office for the time being. As the Commissioner is a guardian of public funds it is desirable that the duties of his office should be discharged by an officer rather than by a Minister. Honorable members are amenable to requests by private persons and Ministers in turn are amenable to requests by members. There is no doubt that if the Minister had to decide questions involving the interpretation of the Act he would be under a temptation to be unduly influenced by requests made from different sources. [Quorum formed.’] It is the practice to give officers occupying judicial or semijudicial positions a considerable degree of security of tenure. I think it may be desirable to do so in this case, and, although seven years does appear to be a long period, it is preferable to a term of three years. I shall support the clause.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- In my few remarks on the second reading of this bill, I definitely stated that I was opposed to this amendment. I take this opportunity of repeating my opposition to it, and, at a later stage, shall cast ray vote against it. I disagree with the remarks of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) that it is desirable that the term of office of the Commissioner should ‘be extended to seven years. One hesitates to introduce personalities into these matters; but I certainly object to any extension of the period of office of the gentleman now occupying the position of Commissioner. There is no weight in the argument advanced by honorable members that the occupant of this office might, in order to secure re-appointment, allow himself to be unduly influenced by Ministers. Under the act he is obliged to do certain things subject to the direction of the Minister. His position is quite different from that of a chief executive officer in a government instrumentality such as a railway department, water and sever ageboard, and the like. These officers are by statute independent of governments, and are free to exercise their own discretion. But the War Service Homes Commissioner is definitely subject to ministerial direction. He is a public servant in receipt of a classified salary, and. as the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) lias said, if Iris appointment should terminate, he will, provided he has done nothing in the meantime to warrant derating, be transferred to another position in the Public Service of similar grade to that which he occupied prior to his appointment as Commissioner. Thus he will suffer no loss of seniority or dignity. I am opposed to an extension of the period of office for two reasons : first, I do not believe in appointments for a long period - seven years is altogether too long a period, and it is possible that the Commissioner may develop a tendency to think that he is in office for life; secondly, if the amendment is accepted the term of office of the present Commissioner will be extended for a much longer period. I say quite frankly that I do not think the present occupant of the position gives sympathetic consideration to cases placed before him, and that his administration of the Act is as harsh as it could possibly be. That, at any rate, has been my experience during the last few years. During the depression, as the economic position of the country became more acute, and great hardship was imposed upon the people generally, the unsympathetic administration of the present Commissioner has stood out in bold relief. For that reason mainly I am opposed to the amendment. If the Government wants to retain the present Commissioner in office for any lengthy period it can continue to re-appoint him while it remains in office. I say, however, that it is not right that any government should extend beyond its own life the period of appointment of an officer in control of a department of this kind which directly gives expression to a policy that is rapidly becoming a vital matter on the hustings, and involves a direct mandate from the people. lt seems to me that by appointing the Commissioner for seven years an attempt is being made to place the administration in tho hands of an individual who will possibly carry out the policy of a government that has been rejected by the people.

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– I entirely agree with the Assistant’ Minister (Mr. Thorby) that continuity of sound administration is always desirable, and it is particularly necessary i:i the administration of war service homes. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) maintained that seven years was too long a period for which to appoint the Commissioner, and other honorable members have expressed similar views, on the ground that, the period of the appointment would extend over the lives of two Parliaments. This argument might also be used in opposition to the appointment of the Repatriation Commissioners for five years, but it has never been advanced. I suggest that the Minister should agree to an amendment providing that the term of the appointment be five years, as in the case of the Repatriation Commissioners. I regret the remarks of the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) regarding the present War Service Homes Commissioner. My suggestion for a reduction of the term of the appointment should not be regarded as a reflection upon that gentleman, for he has carried out his difficult duties faithfully and well for a number of years. All honorable members have had cases under their notice in which the occupants of war service homes have suffered hardships; but the Commissioner has discharged his difficult duties with impartiality, and to the best of his ability. A reduction of the term of the appointment from seven to five years would probably meet the wishes of the majority of the committee.

Mr Thorby:

– I am prepared to meet the wishes of the committee in that regard.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

.- The Commissioner should not be appointed for so long a period as seven years. His decision is usually final, and appeals to the Minister are useless. Many of us know that the administration of these homes has been anything but satisfactory to the occupants. The Commissioner should not be appointed for more than three years, so that if it were found that he had not discharged his duties fairly he could be replaced at the end of that term. Some shocking cases have come under notice in which the administration has been of a brutal nature. I have no reason to suppose that the occupants of war service homes will receive better treatment in the future than in the past, and I do not consider that the present Minister will be more sympathetic towards them than his predecessors have been. The Government will, no doubt, appoint a commissioner who will give effect to its harsh policy of administering these homes on even stricter business lines than those followed by private property-owners. Women and children have been evicted from their homes in Hobart, and left on the streets in the snow; yet the party which supports the present Government promised to do everything possible in the interests of returned soldiers and their dependants. I have no doub’t that under the policy adopted by this Ministry, the occupants of these homes who cannot afford to meet their commitments will be thrown upon the cold streets.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I am pleased to know that the Minister (Mr. Thorby) is agreeable to a reduction of the term of the appointment of the commissioner from seven to five years, as suggested by the honorable member for Lilley (Sir Donald Cameron). The act now provides for a period of three years, with the right of re-appointment from time to time for a further period of three years; but honorable members have wrongly interpreted the purpose of the act in suggesting that these appointments should be reviewed every throe years when a new Parliament is elected. Such a practice would be contrary to that usually adopted in British communities, which have sought to give public servants security- of tenure as opposed to the American system of spoils to the victor. It would be quite wrong to provide that with each change of government a new commissioner should be appointed. Commonwealth and State public servants are entitled to security of tenure, and there should also be continuity of administration. When an officer has served faithfully and well for three years, he has. earned the right to re-appointment. I welcome the intimation by the Minister that he is prepared to make the period of the Commissioner’3 appointment five years instead of seven years as proposed in the bill. The reflections cast upon the present occupant of the position are wholly unwarranted. He has proved himself to be a competent and loyal public servant, and there is no reason to suggest that he would not discharge his duties fairly to all concerned. His motives are certainly above suspicion.

Mr THORBY:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · Calare · CP

– In view of the opinions expressed by honorable members on both sides of the chamber, I am prepared to compromise regarding the term of the appointment of the commissioner. I move -

That the word “ seven “ he omitted, with u view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- Apparently the purpose of increasing the Commissioner’s tenure of office from three years to seven years is to protect him against the risk of disturbance following a change of government. That impression is supported by the fact that when the act first came into operation in 1918, the term was fixed at three years and this has not been altered, notwithstanding that in the intervening period, with the exception of two years, governments of the same political complexion as the present Ministry controlled both chambers of this legislature. Lest any doubt as to the intention of the alteration should arise, the Minister himself has made it clear that the provision is inserted in the bill to ensure continuity of administration. The administration has been sufficiently continuous during the last seventeen years to obviate the need for an extension of the Commissioner’s period of office to seven years. I ask leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Progress reported.

page 1809

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1935

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

Second Reading

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

.- by leave - I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The bill which I have the privilege to introduce has a two-fold purpose. First, there are amendments to sections of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act designed to facilitate administration and to ensure smoother and more expeditious working. Secondly, there is a new section which authorizes the Repatriation Commission to pay service pensions to returned soldiers between the ages of 60 and 65 years and to returned nurses between the ages of 55 and 60 years, provided that they served in a theatre of war. To those soldiers who served in a theatre of war, and whom the stress and strain of their experiences may reasonably be regarded as having made permanently unemployable, a service pension will be granted at any age, and for those former members of the Australian Imperial Force who suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis which has not been accepted as due to war service, there will be a service pension irrespective of age, capacity for work) or the nature of their service.

I am sure that all honorable members will, with me, regret that circumstances have rendered it impossible for the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) to introduce this bill. Together with other members of the Cabinet, he displayed an active interest in the preparation of the measure. His earnest desire to alleviate the conditions in which former soldiers and their dependants find themselves, coupled with his knowledge and experience, have been of material help to the Government in the preparation of the bill now about to be presented for consideration.

The introduction of this bill affords me an opportunity to enlighten not only honorable members, but also the public generally, with regard to the colossal task which has been successfully performed by the Repatriation Commission and its staff over the last fifteen years, and some reference to the organization and administration will prove of both interest and value.

The administration of the act is entrusted to three Commissioners - a chairman and two members - one of whom is appointed by the Government from a list submitted by returned soldier organizations; the other two are directly selected by the Government. The commission operates on behalf of the Government as its instrument for providing what the Australian people’s sense of gratitude and equity have resolved upon as being properly due to the former soldier and his dependants, and has ensured that no effort should be wanting to reduce to a minimum the deprivations inevitably resulting from participation in modern warfare. At present the main activities of the commission arc concerned with the granting and renewal of war pensions, provision of medical treatment in properly equipped and efficiently staffed institutions, and the granting of educational training for thu children of deceased, totally and permanently incapacitated, and blinded soldiers. In each State a Deputy Commissioner for Repatriation is responsible to the commission for the whole of theorganization in his particular State, and he exercises such functions as are delegated to him by the commission or prescribed by the regulations. ‘ Boards, composed of the Deputy Commissioner as chairman, one senior departmental officer, and one member representing returned soldiers, are appointed in each State to determine claims for war pensions and to deal with such other matters as are prescribed by the act. There is also a Soldiers’ Children Education Board, which consists of representatives of the department, the returned soldier organizations, and the primary, secondary, technical and university educational authorities in each State, to deal with applications from children for training under the soldiers’ children education scheme. The commission has also appointed a Purchase and Contract Board in each State to deal with the purchase, by public tender, of the various commodities required in its branch offices and institutions. This hoard, which consists of a business man as chairman and two senior departmental officers, also arranges the disposal of any surplus products.

In 1929, the Government of the day decided that the provisions of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act would be improved by providing appeal tribunals separate from the ordinary repatriation administration, so that soldiers should have the right of appeal to an entirely independent authority. At that time one Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and two Assessment Appeal Tribunals were appointed. The Entitlement Appeal Tribunal consists of three members. The chairman is one who has been admitted to practise as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court, or of the Supreme Court of a State. One member represents the returned soldiers and the other is a Government nominee. The tribunal decides on appeal from the decision of the commission whether a soldier shall receive a pension. An Assessment Appeal Tribunal, which determines on appeal the rate at which a pension shall be paid, is composed of a chairman, who is nominated by returned soldiers and who has been admitted to practise as a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme ‘Court of a State, and of two medical men

J/r. Lyons. selected from a panel approved by the Minister and specially experienced in the particular type of disability from which the soldier suffers. Quite recently the Government, actuated by a desire to reduce the number of appeals awaiting hearing, appointed an additional Entitlement Appeal Tribunal for a period of six months.

Since the commission was appointed in 1920, over 250,000 applications for employment were received and dealt with, and approximately 280,000 positions were found for the 264,000 men who returned to Australia. Quite naturally, soldiers injured and unsettled by their war experiences found it extremely difficult to re-enter the routine of civil life, and, consequently, the commission was obliged to find several jobs for the one man. To assist further in obtaining employment, tools of trade, equipment, and rail warrants to the value of £2,388,774 were made available, and, in addition, the Government granted £450,000 to the municipal authorities throughout the Commonwealth to provide employment for returned soldiers. For many years past, an amount of £2,500 has been paid annually to the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia to assist that organization in finding suitable employment for returned men.

It is an unfortunate fact that the returned soldier has suffered in common with all other members of the community during the difficult times through which the Commonwealth has passed, but I am sure honorable members will agree that successive governments have’ done all in their power to help those who served abroad. For soldiers who enlisted when they were under the age of twenty years and for those who, as a result of injuries received, could not return to their former occupations, a comprehensive scheme of vocational and industrial training was established. Throughout the States, leaders in education and industry advised the commission of the requirements, and trade unions co-operated most heartily with the Government in making the scheme an undoubted success. Practically £5,000,000 was expended in building and equipping proper training institutions, in providing highly qualified and experienced instructors for training soldiers, and for placing in employment over 27,000 who had qualified as wage earners. In addition, night courses were approved in about 46,000 cases, so that those who were employed during the day could increase their efficiency and qualify for positions of greater skill and responsibility with higher rates of pay. One interesting phase of this work was the Industrial Training Scheme. As honorable members will readily appreciate, a soldier who had been -withdrawn from the industrial world for such a lengthy period, had fallen behind his fellow artisans, and was not up to date in the use of tools or in current commercial practice. In other words, his efficiency had been lessened, and to assist him to regain his normal place in the industrial sphere, it was arranged with some industrial concern to employ him and pay, say, 40 per cent, of the award rate of wage, the Government making up the balance of 60 per cent. Thus, even though his efficiency was low, he received the ruling wage for the industry in which he was employed. From time to time his efficiency was re-assessed and eventually the employer paid the full award rate. Training of this nature was of distinct value to the economic life of the community.

The commission has made available gifts and loans totalling £1,106,765 for furniture, and £422,000 has been expended in the establishment of businesses, the purchase of stock, live stock, plant, &c. Whilst in some instances failure resulted, there are to-day many successful business men who commenced operations with the assistance given by the commission. In connexion with employment, vocational and industrial training, and the business ventures of the department, there was established a “ problems committee “ to deal with cases of severe illness or injury - for example, the loss of both legs or the loss of one leg. and one ann. This committee, which consists of the Deputy Commissioner, a senior medical officer, a business inspector, and at least one sympathetic experienced honorary worker interested in the welfare of returned soldiers, interviewed each applicant for assistance and endeavoured to find employment or businesses within the man’s physical powers.

The medical aspect of the commission’s activities has received particular attention. Associated with the commission in Melbourne is a committee of eminent consulting physicians and surgeons, who assist in the formulation of medical policy and in the determination of difficult medical cases. It is known as the “medical advisory committee,” and has numbered amongst its members some of the most noted physicians and surgeons of the southern hemisphere.

In each State there is ample hospital accommodation, iu hospitals staffed, where possible, by returned soldier doctors, returned war nurses, and returned soldier administrative and other officers. Independent observers have frequently remarked that, as those dealing with the work are appreciative of the hardships suffered by the patients, there has been developed a sympathetic temperament which specially fits them for the work.

There are repatriation general hospitals for the treatment of general diseases or illnesses; there are sanatoria in which pulmonary tubercular cases caused by war are treated, and the men instructed in hygiene and health measures; there are Anzac hostels specially equipped and maintained for those whose injuries are exceptionally severe; there are most, up-to-date artificial limb factories, staffed by highlyqualified and well-trained artisans most of whom are limbless themselves. In these factories are manufactured artificial arms and legs, crutches and walking sticks, surgical appliances and other essentia] aids which, have earned favorable comment from’ those who use them., and from other3 who are qualified to express an opinion.

These institutions are visited regularly by consulting surgeons and physicians, who also served abroad, and are representative of the leading members of the medical profession of the capital city of each State. The X-ray, pathological, neurological and bio-chemical works are in the hands of highly-qualified and experienced practitioners. Major operations are performed by visiting surgeons, and medical cases are attended to by visiting physician specialists, with the help of the full-time medical staff. In addition to its own hospitals, the commission utilizes State institutions, and bears the expense of treating returned soldier inmates for war disabilities.

One feature of the medical organization is worthy of special mention. In over 800 country areas, the commission has .appointed medical practitioners to act as local medical officers. This is most convenient for returned soldiers who may require immediate attention for a war disability; and not infrequently this service has saved life, limb and expense.

Some returned soldiers have been so severely injured that their locomotion is confined to wheeled chairs or cots. In order to enable them to obtain a change of environment and some pleasure in life, the commission provides a special recreation allowance of £2 10s. a week, in addition to pension and attendant’s allowance. It is possible for a soldier with a wife and three children to receive, by way of pension and allowance, a weekly amount of £10 6s.

As an integral part of the medical work, the commission has arranged that widows, widowed mothers and children of those who died as a result of war service shall, at the expense of the commission, become members of a friendly society. In order to ensure the success of this scheme, agreements were entered into with the British Medical Association, the Pharmaceutical Society, and various friendly societies, and I take this opportunity to express publicly the Government’s gratitude for the cooperation of those bodies.

At the present time, there are about 1,600 in-patients receiving treatment, whilst there are over 17,000 out-patients in attendance. Last year about 40,000 cases were treated, and there were more than 146,000 out-patient attendances at departmental ins ti t u tion s .

The commission has manufactured over 10..750 artificial legs, at a cost of £194,000; over 1,090 artificial arms, at a cost of £22,000; 132 wheel chairs, at a cost of £19,000; 28,000 pairs of surgical boots, at a cost of £72,000 ; 77,000 stump socks, at a cost of £12,000; 3,367 pairs of crutches, at a cost of £65,000; and over 75,000 surgical appliances, at a cost of £104,000. In addition, 167,000 stock or repair jobs, costing about £183,000, have been carried out by the Commonwealth artificial limb factories.

The transportation recreation allowance assists over 100 men, and last year involved the expenditure of over £13,000 ; while the medical treatment for widows, widowed mothers and orphans cost over £15,000 and assisted about 14,000 cases. From this brief outline, honorable members should feel reassured that medically the war-disabled soldier has been, and is being, well provided for by the Government.

Mr Ward:

– Tell us what is in the bill?

Mr LYONS:

– I have taken this opportunity to acquaint Parliament and the people of Australia generally with what is being done for the returned soldiers.

Mr Beasley:

– We do not want to be restricted in debate.

Mr James:

– If we refer to artificial limbs, Mr. Speaker will probably tell us to confine our remarks to the bill.

Mr LYONS:

– I shall not attempt to limit discussion, but I have taken the opportunity to give information which I thought would be appreciated by all. .1 am proud that Australia is able to do these things as some return for the great services rendered by its soldiers.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I ask honorable members to observe silence. Their references to the restriction of discussion and what the Chair may do at a later stage, is distinctly disorderly.

Mr LYONS:

– One of the most interesting and valuable sections of the work is the scheme of education for children of those who died, or are totally and permanently incapacitated, or are blinded as a result of war service. So far as practicable, the child’s natural vocation is selected, and education is continued through the primary, secondary, technical and university stages where necessary. Financial assistance, ranging from 5s. to £2 10s. a week, is made available according to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the training. Moreover, a scheme of apprenticeship, or unindentured apprenticeship, helps considerably to absorb these young people in suitable employment. In addition to the skilled artisans and professional students, there is a big group of trainees employed in business and commercial occupations; and whilst these occupations do not call for the manual dexterity of the trades, or for the extended academic knowledge of the professions, they do require specific training and specialized experience. This frequently takes the form of a course in accountancy, secretaryship, economics or commerce. This scheme so far has cost £1,500,000; the expenditure last year exreeded. £80,000. Over 18,000 applications have been dealt with and more than 10,000 children have completed their training and are qualified as wageearners. Most of them are in employment. At present, over 2,000 boys and approximately 2,000 girls are at school, whilst over 1,500 are in apprenticeship. 189 are doing professional training, aud 46 are in agricultural training. This scheme has a definite social value and national significance, and is a contribution of incalculable value to the economic life of the community. The Government is grateful to the members of the Education Boards - experts in primary, secondary, technical, and university education - who skilfully and scientifically, in a voluntary and honorary capacity, guide the beneficiaries to ultimate success.

I turn now to the war pension aspect of repatriation. From time to time wre ure prone to criticize the actions of the commission regarding individual cases, largely because we do not appreciate the intricacies of the situation, and do not always bear in mind that the commission must work within the limits of the act. The basic principle underlying any sound system of war pensions is that a pension is made available for a war-caused disability in accordance with the degree of incapacity revealed by a careful and com pc tent medical examination. The existing act provides a limit beyond which the commission dare not go, but I am convinced from a careful examination of the position that the commission has made a sympathetic attempt to grant claimants the fullest possible measure of relief that an honest interpretation of the act would permit.

An amount exceeding £130,000,000 has been paid in war pensions ; last year war pensions expenditure was over £7,369,000.

Each fortnight about £280,000 is paid to the war pensioners of the Commonwealth. Each day approximately £20,000 is added to the bill. There are at present about 75,000 soldiers and 1S9,000 dependants receiving pensions.

Since the inception of the scheme more than 443,000 applications have been granted, over 57,000 have been rejected, and over 35,000 pensioners have died. The administrative cost for every £100 of pensions paid is £2 2s. 5d., which may be regarded as a very satisfactory figure.

One particular section of the rehabilitation scheme of any other country may be more liberal than the corresponding provision in the Australian act, but a comparison of the whole of the benefits availa bie shows that Australia has every reason to be proud of its repatriation effort. The special rate pension of £4 per week is not found in any other legislation, nor is the loss of one eye compensated at such a high rate by Great Britain or any other dominion. The irreducible pension at 100 per cent, rate, and at higher rates for severe sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis, is not found elsewhere, nor is there such a liberal scheme of allowances for those whose injuries are so severe as to warrant the services of an attendant.

I trust that I have shown that wise and helpful provisions have been placed upon the statute-book, and that the wellbeing of those entitled to benefits for reasons arising out of war service has been carefully safeguarded. The effort may have fallen short of perfection; but, viewed as a whole, in the light of what has been achieved in the face of unprecedented social and financial stress and industrial dislocations, the result must be regarded as extremely favorable.

An endeavour has been made to alleviate the conditions of those who suffered through war service, but as time progressed it became very evident to those administering the scheme that, suffering some intangible effects, was a big class which so far had not been catered for. In Canada, these men were referred to as “ burnt out “ men - man who had become prematurely aged - and special legislation was introduced in the Canadian Parliament in 1930 to give to them some form of amelioration by making available n Veteran’s allowance. The maximum allowance for a single man is about £1 a week, and that for a married man about £2 a week, provided that the total income in the former case does not exceed £76 per annum, and in the latter case £152 per annum.

The British Ministry of Pensions has not found it necessary to make special provision for this class of sufferer because returned soldiers, in common with other members of the community in Great Britain, benefit under the scheme of National Health and Unemployment Insurance.

New Zealand now proposes to help, these men by granting certain allowances, and the Commonwealth Government, after a careful review of the position, has decided to do something also. It is of the opinion that a man who served his country in the Great War and was damaged, even to a slight extent, either traumatically or by disease, and has superimposed thereon civil disabilities which combined with war effects render him permanently incapable of earning his living, should not have to depend upon the public or upon institutions or personal friends for help. Frequently, it is impossible to make any arbitrary difference between the pre-war, war, post-war, constitutional, domestic or economic circumstances which render the individual concerned of little or no value in the industrial world. It seems undeniable that his period of usefulness has been shortened when compared with that of the civilian, and it is also undeniable that the strenuous conditions of modern war are capable of hastening the process of decay which impairs organic functions.

The Government, therefore, contemplates making provision for a pension at 60 years of age for those soldiers, and at 55 years of age for those nurses, who served in a theatre of war as defined, and whose experiences and hardships may reasonably be presumed to have aged them prematurely. It is proposed, also, to assist those who, though not having reached the ages mentioned, are in a physical or mental condition which renders them permanently unemployable. For those soldiers who suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis, it is proposed to provide a pension whether they served in a theatre of war or not or whether they are permanently unemployable or not. In addition, having in view the national significance of doing everything possible to prevent the spread of this disease, the Government intends to give treatment in repatriation institutions to all soldiers suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The maximum rate of pension will be 18s. a week for a single man or widower, 30s. a week for a man and his wife, and 2s. 6d. a week for each child ; the last-mentioned provision is limited to four children. The total allowed income in respect of any pensioner will be £79 6s. per annum.

The Government desires it to be fully understood that “ permanently unemployable “ is a state in which a person is rendered, by physical or mental impairment, incapable of work. That incapability is to be construed as meaning not solely inability to pursue a remunerative occupation; it will include the almost insuperable difficulties some men will face when seeking employment. Inability to resume or follow a particular calling at which the applicant has hitherto earned his living does not in itself warrant payment of a service pension for the remainder of - his life. The possibility of his taking up some other work will be investigated, and the service pension will be paid so long as, by reason of his state of health, previous training, aptitude, or other circumstances, no such work is, or can be reasonably made available to him. On the pensioner will rest the responsibility of making a genuine effort to fit himself for unaccustomed work; it is expected that he will endeavour to adapt himself to changing circumstances, because, by so doing, he may regain his earning capacity. If the contribution which Parliament is asked to make gives additional comfort which will help him in his effort to qualify far employment, it will be of advantage, not only to the soldier, but also to the community generally. The question of capability for work, or suitability for work of an alternative nature will be viewed in the light of all the surrounding circumstances and in a reasonable manner, having regard to all the facts and conditions pertaining to the applicant’s education, experience, age, general quali- fications, and previous employment. Medical opinion and recommendation in arriving at a determination in these cases will be sought and given due consideration and weight, but the Government intends that the deciding authority shall accept the responsibility for making a decision, and, in arriving at that decision, shall use common sense, justice, and sympathy.

In addition to this new scheme of pensions, the Government has given consideration to other phases of pensioning, and proposes to liberalize the existing provisions. The Repatriation Commission, by powers conferred upon it under section 32 of the act, commuted pensions in many cases. These lump sums were not paid unless it seemed that the conditions for which the pension was received had become stationary. It now transpires that some pensioners, unfortunately, have become worse, and have an increased disability, but no pension. The Government after a careful consideration of all that is involved has decided to restore pensions in commuted cases at the rate shown to be justified by medical examination.

An important clause in the bill now about to be discussed is that in which the Government proposes to accept the death of a blinded soldier from any causes as being due to war service. This, in effect, means that, upon the death of a blinded soldier, his dependants will be granted increased war pension and other benefits as if the death had been due to war service.

In December, 1921, the Repatriation Act was amended to permit of payment of war pensions in cases where a disability originated before enlistment and had been increased to a material degree by war service. To obtain pension under this amendment, these cases, which are known as material aggravation cases, were required to apply within six months of the passing of the amendment. This restriction is found to be operating harshly, and the bill proposes to repeal’ it and enable a material aggravation case to apply at any time. It is also proposed to insert amendments permitting these cases to seek redress before an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal. At present they are legally debarred from making appeals to these tribunals.

One further important clause restricts the time within which the commission may appeal against an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. At present the commission may appeal at any time; it is intended to reduce this to a period of six months, except in cases where pension has been obtained by fraud or impersonation. In such cases, the commission will have the right to appeal at any time.

In addition to the new benefits contained in the bill, the Government is glad to be able to say that it proposes to authorize the commission to liberalize the basis of calculation of pensions to aged parents and similarly placed dependants of ex-soldiers. It is anticipated that this will increase expenditure on repatriation services by £30,000 a year. The granting of such pensions depends on a determination as to whether the applicant has adequate means of support. In future, certain items now classed as income, such as friendly society benefits, gifts by children, &c, will not be classed as income. The result will be that some pensions will be increased.

The annual cost of the proposed new pensions and benefits is estimated to be -

Mr Curtin:

– Is it expected that the amount entailed in the liberalization of pensions will increase?

Mr LYONS:

– It is certain to increase. The amount stated is the minimum, and it is anticipated that for some considerable time it will continue to increase year by year as new cases come under the act. This bill is the result of the Government’s experience of the working of the act, and of representations made to it by returned soldier organizations, to whom Ministers are always ready to listen. My own relations with the executives of the various returned soldier organizations throughout my ministerial experience in this and previous governments, have been most cordial, and I have learned to appreciate the great value of the work they are doing for their comrades. I look forward to a continuance of the co-operation which has always existed between those bodies and the Government. I also desire to pay a tribute to the splendid work done by the officers of the Repatriation Department, who have carried out their duties conscientiously and sympathetically. In the preparation of the present amending bill they have been particularly helpful.

Australia has reason to be proud of its humanitarian achievements regarding invalid and old-age, repatriation and other pensions. No country in the world does better, and probably none does anything like so much for the pensioner class. About 540,000 persons - men, women and child ren - in Australia are receiving pensions of one sort or another - invalid, old-age, or war. When this bill is passed the cost of pensions and similar benefits this year will amount to more than £21,000,000.

Mr Rosevear:

– They are worth it.

Mr LYONS:

– That is so; otherwise, the Government would not be proposing to extend the benefits. I commend the bill to the earnest and sympathetic consideration of all honorable members. It will involve heavier burdens on the Treasury and the taxpayers, but the enlargement of benefits is only in keeping with the services rendered to the community by the returned men and women, who are to-day suffering as a result of war experiences. It is a great pleasure to me to have the honour of introducing the measure.

Mr Beasley:

– Did the Government in drafting the bill give consideration to removing from the war pensioners the onus of proof, and placing it on the Repatriation Commission ?

Mr LYONS:

– Every aspect of the repatriation problem has been taken into consideration. A memorandum will be circulated immediately to honorable members showing the effect of each provision in the bill. Further information will be furnished at the committee stage.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Curtin ) adjourned.

page 1816

QUORUMS

The House having resolved itself into Committee of Supply,

There not being the number of “ Ayes “ requisite in accordance with the Standing Order, the Chairman (Mr. Prowse) announced that the motion for the closure had not been carried.

Debate on new clause continued.

New clause negatived.

It was necessary for the Government to have 24 votes in the affirmative before the closure motion could be declared carried.

Subsequent to the division the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) directed attention to the state of the committee. In this connexion I invite your attention, sir, to Standing Order 34, which reads -

When the attention of the Speaker or of the Chairman of Committees has been called to the fact that there is not a quorum of members present, no member shall leave the chamber until the Househas been counted by the Speaker.

You, sir, were in charge of the proceedings of the committee at the time in question. Two honorable members, the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) and the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), left the chamber while

I be bells were ringing to summon the attendance of a quorum. I understand that the honorable member for Wide Bay went out in order to secure the attendance of Mr. Speaker in his capacity as a private member.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order! The honorable member is not in order in discussing this subject now. His point of order should have been taken ;it the time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not in order in referring to that subject, for it has no relevance whatever to the matter with which he is dealing.

Mr Baker:

– I wish to take another point of order, and in this connexion I refer to Standing Order 21G, which roads -

The quorum in committee of the whole shall engirt of the same number of members exclusive of the chairman as shall be requisite to form a quorum of thu House.

In other words, 25 honorable members exclusive of the chairman are necessary to constitute a quorum. When a quorum was called on the occasion, to which I have referred, only 24 honorable members including yourself were present.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member should have raised this point also at the time. For his future guidance J inform him that the Constitution overrides the Standing Orders, and since 190G the Chairman of Committees has been counted in the number of honorable members requisite to form a quorum.- In this way the requirements of the Constitution have been met.

Mr Baker:

– I wish to direct attention to the relevant section of the Constitution

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member should have taken his point of order at the time of the occurrence. He will not now be in order in discussing the matter further.

page 1817

QUESTION

ESTIMATES 1935-36

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from the 13th November (vide page 1559) :

Department of the Treasury.

Proposed vole, £731,500.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I emphasize the statements made by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) last week that the officers of the Taxation Department do not seem to give the same consideration to taxpayers who honestly pay their income tax as to those who do not treat the department fairly. The honorable gentleman stated that persons with sufficient money to obtain legal advice in order to ascertain the minimum amount which they must pay in income tax, receive more consideration than those who pay even more than they are legally required to pay. The department should afford greater facilities than it now does to taxpayers generally to assist them to deal wilh their taxation affairs. People who, through their ignorance, pay more tax than they need pay should not be penalized for so doing. We all know that many companies have been formed in Australia for the purpose of advising taxpayers on taxation affairs. It is unjust that taxpayers who are able to pay for information to enable them to take advantage of technicalities in our taxation laws should be placed in a more favorable position than the general body of taxpayers who cannot afford to pay for such advice, or who, even if they could afford it, do not desire to obtain it or act upon it. Better facilities should be provided by the department to enable taxpayers to avoid overcharges in taxation. If the staff of the department is not largo enough or the accommodation is not sufficient - as a visit to some of the taxation offices would lead one to suppose - larger staffs and better facilities should be provided. I have no desire to oblige people to pay one penny more in taxation than they need pay, -but neither do I wish to put in a favorable position people who, because of their financial standing, can afford to take advantage of every loophole that there may be in our taxation laws.

I wish now to make a strong protest against the failure of the Government to call upon several major oil companies in Australia to pay accumulated arrears of taxation to the amount of millions of pounds. The department should be instructed to take every possible step to collect this money. It was suggested indirectly, in certain reports of the Royal Commission on Taxation, that these major oil companies were greatly in arrears in their taxation accounts - a state of affairs that should not be allowed to continue. It is entirely unfair that struggling business people should be forced to pay income tax on the very last farthing of their income while these huge companies are allowed to escape

The payment of millions of pounds. Apparently the arrears have accumulated to such an extent that there is even reluctance to try to enforce payment, but the duty should be faced courageously in the interests of the whole community.

Another matter to which I direct attention has relation to the position, from the taxation viewpoint, of a certain company operating in several States of the Commonwealth under various names, but generally known as the Australian Conference Association Limited; I discussed this matter privately with the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) some time ago, and he promised that he would place it on the agenda for discussion at a Premiers Conference. I do not know, whether he has done so. The people connected with this company are Seventh Day Adventists who, in many respects, are good citizens. They engage in missionary work and in other directions perform a useful public service. Certain of their operations, however, bring them into direct competition with ordinary business undertakings on a basis which is unfair. This company has established sanatoriums in various parts of the country, some of which are equipped with the most uptodate scientific apparatus. Patients who enter these institutions are charged the. ordinary fees for treatment.

This company also has a subsidiary company which trades under the title of the Sanitarium Health Food Company, and engages in competition with ordinary companies manufacturing similar goods on a basis, which, to say the least of it, is not fair. The fact, that the Australian Conference Association Limited engages in missionary enterprises in the Pacific Islands and spends between £60,000 and £70,000 a year in the work is not sufficient justification for allowing it to continue to compete against legitimate business concerns on an inequitable basis. The Sanitarium Health Food Company employs several hundred people who, however, must be Seventh Day Adventists. The company makes use of the scriptural injunction “ Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers “ as a justification for preventing its employees from joining ordinary industrial organizations, and also for refusing to associate with employers’ organizations.

On the ground that it is a religious and missionary organization, the Australian Conference Association Limited as also its associated companies, is exempt from income and land taxation. This enables it to sell certain of its products at about half the price charged for similar goods by other industrial concerns, with the result that the business of the ordinary commercial enterprises has been seriously undermined.

Mr Nock:

– Does taxation represent 50 per cent?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I have not yet finished the story. In addition to being exempt from land and income taxation, the company imposes a levy of 10 per cent, on the wages of employees, and as this reverts to the funds of the company which itself is exempt from taxation, the Government is also robbed of the opportunity to collect income tax on this amount from the employees, who are not covered by legal awards and therefore need not be paid the wages fixed for payment by other companies. Furthermore, the raw material from which this company’s finished commodity is made is procured as a by-product from breweries in England and is only packed in Australia.

Mr Casey:

– The company contradicts that statement.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I repeat that the raw material used by this company is sold as a by-product by breweries in Great Britain. It is simply packed in Australia and then sold as the finished commodity. Thus this company competes unfairly with Australian companies which, in addition to treating and packing their articles here, also procure their raw material in Australia. I understand that the raw material imported by this company is allowed entry into the Commonwealth as oil men’s stores which is practically dumped here as only a very low duty is charged on it. With each tin or packet or pot of its goods such as “Marmite”, the company gives away a coupon which entitles the purchaser to another packet free of charge. This would appear to be selling the article at half price although I suppose the main reason for this concession is to increase turnover. T. do not take exception to the exemption of these people, as a religious organization, from income and land taxation, if all that they did with the money they earn were to carry on religious activity or purely charitable work and if none of their profits were used for other purposes. If the money were used for missionary purposes or for worship as other religious bodies use their funds, they should be exempt from such taxation, but this company competes with legitimate firms and in various ways undercuts them : it will not join any organization of employers, such a3 the Chamber of Manufactures, nor will it allow its employees to join any employees’ organization, so that neither the company nor its employees can be compelled to observe industrial conditions laid down bv the Arbitration Court; neither can be cited to appear in that court. Consequently the standards of nol only other employers, but also employees of other companies are being gradually undermined by this unfair competition brought about first, because this company acquires its raw material at a lower rate of duty than it should pay; secondly, because it is exempt, from income and land taxation ; and thirdly, because, under a supposedly religious formula, it is not allowed to join any organization of employers and its employees are not allowed to join an employees union. Under such conditions this company, from an industrial, point of view is undermining the standard of living of employees generally throughout Australia. The Treasurer should look into this matter again. A year ago he promised he would make investigations, and I feel sure that he did so. When, previously, I spoke about this company I dealt mainly with its exemption from the payment of the sales tax. The only satisfaction the Treasurer could give me was the information that it paid that tax. He does not dispute the fact that it does not pay income tax or land tax. I suggest that I have indicated reasons why such taxes should be collected from it. The income of the company is earned in the conductof an ordinary business in unfair competition with other companies. As itis carrying on trading operations, it cannot be regarded as a religious organization and, therefore, should not be given any advantage over other companies. It was with the object of establishing fair competition in business that the Arbitration Act was passed. Under that legislation employers and employees generally were’ placed on a similar footing, their survival depending purely on business merit and management. The Government, therefore, should not close its eyes to the unfair operations of any particular company. Possibly the only reason for failure to act in this case is that members of Parliament do not like handling “sticky” questions such aa offending religious organizations. However, the matter has got beyond that stage now. I believe that more employees are affected in New South Wales, but in my electorate over 1,000 employees in this industry are affected by this unfair competition. Gradually other companies are losing ground, and reducing the number of their employees, and the invariable reason given for it is the unfair trading competition felt from this supposedly religious organization. The fact that it is exempt from land tax and income tax makes it. impossible for other companies to compete. The Treasurer should discuss this matter with the Cabinet and the departmental officers to see whether or not this company is purely a religious organization. During the last ten years at least it has engaged in ordinary business operations in competition with other companies. Its average profit for the last eight years has been £28,000. Its gross profit over the same period amounted to £469.700. On behalf of the company it is stated that it spends between £60,000 and £70,U00 annually on missionary work outside Australia. The people of Australia, I am sure, would not agree to exempt from taxation any other religious organization which earned between £60,000 and £70,000 a year in this country and spent all of that amount, even for religious purposes, outside Australia. In the case of this company this amount which is devoted to missionary work outside Australia is taken out of the annual profits before the balancesheet is made up. Thus the profit of £28,000 which it made last year was in addition to this sum of between £60,000 and £70,000, so that it would have made nearly £100,000 profit during the year ended the 30th June last. I know I shall get myself disliked for making such statements, and will probably be misunderstood by many people, who will infer that I am attacking this company purely from sectarian motives. That is not so. I have the greatest respect for this organization, many members of which I know personally and hold in the highest esteem. I can speak favorably of the good work the Seventh Day Adventists are doing, particularly at the Healesville Sanatorium, in Victoria. But the activities of this company cannot be regarded as charitable or religious work; they are purely of a business nature from which profits are made, and the company should pay taxation like any other ordinary business organization. The operations of the Australian Conference Association Limited arc on a far bigger scale in New South “Wales than in Victoria.

To-day I asked when honorable members would be given an opportunity to discuss the report of the royal commission which inquired into the operations of the major oil companies in respect of the production, distribution and sale of petrol. When that report comes before the House I feel sure that many honorable members will -want to know more about the income tax payable by these companies. I repeat that one or two major oil companies must owe over £1,000,000 for income tax. I believe that this matter has been practically ignored by the department for so long that the department does not now feel inclined to unearth it. Furthermore, I do not believe that these companies are paying a just rate of tax to-day. I urge the Treasurer to take action as soon as possible with the object of collecting retrospective taxation owed to this Government.

Another matter which I ask the Treasurer to deal with as soon as he finds it convenient to do so concerns certain claims by public servants who retired o.u a superannuation pension. Along with other government employees, the payments to these ex-public servants were cut down during the operation of the financial emergency legislation. They were more fortunate perhaps than others, in that the cut suffered by them has now been fully restored; but they now claim retrospective restoration of tho money they lost when the reduced rate was in operation. As these ex-public servants had paid some of their own money into the fund from which they now draw their pensions, they contend that they are on a different footing from other public servants who suffered cuts under the financial emergency legislation. They claim that they entered into a contract with the Government, and that had they entered into a similar contract with any insurance company or benefit society they would not have suffered such losses as they have suffered at the hands of this Government, due to the reduction of their pensions under the financial emergency legislation. I ask the Treasurer to look into this matter.

I also desire to draw the attention of the Treasurer to one or two anomalies which still exist in connexion with the payments of invalid and oldage pensions. Some years ago several honorable members, including the Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page), and the honorable members for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) and West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) suggested that the provisions governing eligibility for invalid pensions should be less severe than at present. There is always a difficulty in securing justice in borderline cases. The matter has been straightened out to some extent in regard to repatriation claims, but difficulties still exist in regard to claims for invalid pen- sions. Officers connected with the Pensions Department have admitted that, in some border-line cases they would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicants, but they are tied by the decisions of the medical referees. When medical referees were first appointed, their duty was to ensure that justice was done to the applicant, hut that principle has not been consistently followed. Indeed, they have become more and more like the hired legal advisers of insurance companies whose duty it is, when an injured workman claims compensation, to keep the amount down as low as possible. For some years past successive Treasurers have allowed it to bo understood that the pensions bil] is to be kept down as much as possible, with the result that medical referees feel it to be their duty, not to see that justice is done to the applicants, but to seek some reason for refusing pensions. This situation has grown up as the result of demands for economy following upon criticism by the AuditorGeneral, or of Cabinet pressure for reduced expenditure. It was suggested some time ago that a board of three medical men should be appointed to which border-line cases’ might appeal from the decision of the medical referee, and this proposal received the support of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) before he became a member of the present Government. It often happens that, after the medical referee has turned down an application, several private doctors, when consulted, give it as their opinion that the applicant is entitled to a pension. I urge the Government to institute a system whereby an applicant may appeal from the decision of the medical referee to a board of doctors, so that he may have yet another chance.

A great many people are of opinion that maternity allowances must be paid direct to a nurse or hospital from which the mother has received attention, and that the mother herself cannot draw the allowance. I know that that is not so, and I am taking this opportunity to correct the wrong impression which so many people hold. I have discussed the matter with the Victorian authorities, and have been assured that the mother herself is entitled to draw the allowance, but the belief has been fostered by hospital authorities that they have the right to claim the money for themselves, and they frequently get the mother to sign an authority for them to draw the allowance. I repeat that the mother has the right to draw the allowance herself, and she can pay the doctor and the nurse afterwards. I do not suggest that the doctor and the nurse should not be paid, but I insist that the mother’s first duty is to her child and to herself.

I desire to draw the attention of the Treasurer to an injustice which is being inflicted upon many pensioners who have been notified that they possess a small reversionary interest in some estate. The amount, perhaps, does not exceed £50 or £60, and even that small sum will not come to them for perhaps seven or eight years, or until the death of some other person. In the meantime, however, the pensioner, who is probably about 70 years of age, has his pension reduced because the Treasury, insists that account must be taken, in assessing the pension, of the interest which the pensioner possesses in the estate. Quite often the pensioner has no real prospect of ever receiving the money, and it is almost criminal for the Pensions Department, in the circum-. stances, to reduce the pension. The position is that the pensioner, if he lives long enough, will receive a few pounds from the estate; in the meantime, so far as the department is concerned, he may starve. There is neither justice nor humanity in that.

Another matter which frequently gives rise to injustice is the difficulty of proving that there has been a legal separation between a man and his wife. In one case that came to my knowledge a man was refused a pension because he could not prove legal separation, although actually he had been separated from his wife for 37 years. I took the matter up with the department, and when T placed the facts before the officials, the pension was granted, but the man had been enittled to a pension for several years before he received it. This provision should be made more elastic so that injustices of the kind I have mentioned could not occur. In some instances there is bad feeling between the separated mau and wife, and the wife, it may be, persistently refuses to give such, information as would be necessary to enable her husband to obtain a pension. The law requires that a wife must support her husband if she has an income, and if she declines to acquaint the department with her circumstances her husband may be refused a pension to which he is entitled. Surely some formula could be evolved for the solution of this difficulty. It may happen in some cases that the wife has a certain sum of money at deposit in a bank, but she declines to state what the amount is. The husband may be convinced that the amount is not enough to prevent him from qualifying for a pension, but the bank authorities have no power to disclose the information which would entitle him to receive that pension.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) with regard to the injustice suffered by persons who, because they have expectations from property, upon which they are not able to realize, are deemed by the department to be holders of property and on that ground pension rights are withheld from them. In this category are persons having reversionary interests under wills which they hope some day to enjoy, but owing to the depression it has been found impossible to realize on the properties and thus they are deprived of pension rights. I have in mind the case of a mau who sold his farm several years ago. Over £3,000 is owing to him under the contract of sale, but owing to the depression he is unable to secure payment from the purchaser, and the moratorium law prevents him from suing or from repossessing the farm. He is unable to obtain a. pension although he is much in need of this form of assistance because he is in a state of absolute penury. As I believe his case is typical of many others, I suggest that if expectations in property are to be held against an applicant for a pension, the property in question should bc real and not notional. I have another case which must be determined by the Commissioner of Pensions, and I invite the committee to consider the facts only as far as they illustrate the principle involved. A widow who came to Australia from England, in 3926 to live with her family. She is now 66 years of age and is an invalid. She has not resided in Australia the requisite 20 years to entitle her to the old-age pension, but she has resided here for five years, the term necessary to entitle her to an invalid pension. Her application for an invalid pension has been refused on the ground that she has never, whilst in Australia, been capable of earning her own living. The law requires that the incapacity must be permanent, and the department has ruled that it must be permanent and also total; and further, that the incapacity must have arisen in Australia. The following minute has been issued by the department in connexion with this case : -

She has not at any period during her residence in Australia earned her living. Her sworn evidence of the 14th November, 1934 reads as follows: - “I kept house . . . . I merely assisted with the light duties. I do not think I could have earned my living on arrival. I do not think I could have done a day’s work. I have always depended upon my family, but now they are unable to continue.”

Upon that the department makes this comment -

She has not been capable of earning her living since her arrival -in Australia,” and therefore the pension was refused. An invalid pension could not, therefore, be approved in her name.

The department has not followed the definition of permanent incapacity which has been observed hitherto. It has ruled that the incapacity must be total and permanent. The department has consistently refused the applications of women who, like this one, were not capable of earning their own living entirely, but were able to keep house or perform other light, duties. Apparently it has a. sort of rough rule that if applicants are able to earn a few shillings a week in any capacity their incapacity is not permanent. I have not the slightest doubt, t.li at if this woman had been qualified by residence to apply in 1926 for a pension in the circumstances then existing, her application would have been refused on the ground that she was able to do light work. The department must be consistent in its administration of the act. If it were to apply to all applications the interpretation which it has applied to the one which I have just mentioned, hundreds and probably thousands of people who are now denied invalid pensions would, qualify. In this case, I think, the department has erroneously ruled that the applicant was totally incapacitated for work on her arrival in Australia. I propose to refer this matter to the Commissioner of Pensions, so I do not expect the Minister to express tin opinion upon it in the committee. As the circumstances of this case affect administration in a very definite way, I suggest that the Minister should issue a general direction to the Deputy Commissioners throughout the Commonwealth concerning the principle upon which this particular provision in the pensions la.w is to be operated.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

– I direct the attention of the Minister to certain phases of administration of the federal land tax, particularly as it affects transfers of property. It is recognized that when a property exceeds the exemption limit the tax must be paid, and that in the case of a sale on the basis of immediate possession the tax on the increased value should also apply. But in cases where property is bought for delivery, say, after harvest, the department, I consider unjustly, now levies taxation on the new property, not from the time of possession, but from the date of signing the contract. That principle was not always observed. Recently there has been an alteration in’ the administration, because now immediately a contract is signed the property transferred is regarded as belonging to the purchaser, even if he does not take possession or enjoy income from it until after the ensuing harvest. The man who is iia possession or has the right to receive the income from the property is the one who should pay the tax. I ask the Minister to look into this matter and see if it is possible to rectify this anomaly by restoring the old principle adopted when making assessments.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) and the honorable member for Perth (Mi-. Nairn) in regard to the administration of the Pensions Department, particularly in relation to the assessment of property of pensioners. It is well known that the Valuer-General’s figures are intended mainly for the use of local governing bodies, and do not represent the true value. In some cases, his assessment is 50 per cent, higher than the actual market value. I have had brought under my notice the case of an old lady, 70 years of age, possessing a farm property apart from the home in which she lived. The farm was valued by the local governing authority at £425, and because it exceeded the exemption limit fixed by the act, she was unable to get a pension. Further investigation revealed that she had received the farm, and another property on -which she resides, from her father, who stipulated that she should give to her sister and other members of the family £295 as part of their share. Her two son3 paid this amount to her sister and relatives, and the property was thereupon transferred to the sons; but the department does not recognize the transfer. I submit that the transaction represented a legitimate sale in accordance with instructions of her father, and that the department is treating this woman unjustly.

Another case is that of a returned soldier, who, in order to serve his country, understated his age by about 20 years. This man, who is now 84 years of age, lives at Wallsend. He applied for the old-age pension, but because ho transferred some property, valued in excess of £100, to his son, his application was refused. The act relating to the transfer of property by pensioners was amended in April of this year. It seems that the property which he transferred was valued at about £300, but a re-assessment has placed its value at about £200, and he is now getting a pension of 9s. or 10s. a fortnight. The son claims that the cost of the father’s board and lodging more than offset the value of the property transferred to him. I have brought this case under the notice of the department, which is not prepared to admit the claim., beyond the amount of pension which I have indicated. I consider that in this matter the administration is unnecessarily harsh. Because of the son’s callous treatment of the father, who still has a good deal of spirit and independence, declines to live with him, and I contend that he is entitled to the full pension. The position of old-age pensioners whose domestic relations are unhappy also calls for more sympathetic admin.istra.tion. In many cases definite hardship is inflicted upon a husband or wife, as the case may be, who is dispossessed of property. I have submitted many such cases to the department for review. One is that of a woman whose invalid pension has been suspended because it has been discovered that her husband is earning money, although they have been living apart for twelve years. She has taken out a warrant for the arrest of the husband, but if he cannot be located difficulty will be encountered in having her pension restored. “When a husband and wife have lived apart for a considerable time no hesitation should be shown in granting the pension.

A further point is that, in fixing the amount of the pension, consideration should be given, not to the value placed on a property by the local authority, but to its revenue-producing capacity. A property that does not produce revenue should have no effect on the amount of the pension. A ease in Maitland that has been sent on to me by the State member for the district is that of an old gentleman who has a property which, he says, is valueless, and which has been condemned by the local authority as unfit for human habitation. Although he lives elsewhere with a relative, the value placed on the property by the Valuer-General has been taken into account, and his pension has been reduced to about 10s. a week.

I wish to refer, also, to the point raised by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), in connexion with migrants who arrive in Australia at a fairly advanced age. According to replies that I have received from the department from time to time, such persons who apply for an invalid pension are deemed to have been incapacitated when they arrived in Australia. Take the case of a husband and wife who come to this country at the age of, say, 56 or 58 years. The husband obtains employment, and the wife performs all the necessary housework. He may be killed or injured in the course of his occupation. She having reached an age when she has no ability to earn a livelihood, applies for an invalid pension. She is informed that, in view of the age at which she came to Australia, she was then partially incapacitated, and is not qualified for the pension, although her husband is receiving an invalid pension as a result of injuries received in this country. I know that a regulation provides that a claimant for an invalid pension must have resided in Australia for a period of five years, and must have earned a living for a considerable portion of that time, but I claim that a woman who does all the work of a house earns her own living. I refer particularly to a case in Cardiff, and another in Young Wallsend, which have been brought to my notice by Messrs. Kay and Rutherford, ‘ the respective secretaries of the Old-age Pensioners’ Associations in those districts. I have been unable to establish the claims of these persons, and believe that the department is treating them very harshly. Many young migrants bring with them their aged parents, who, if they remained in England, would qualify for a pension within two or three years. It is admitted that under the contributory insurance scheme in England a continuance of contributions after their arrival in Australia would entitle them to draw the pension, but they are not made aware of this fact before they leave the Old Country. I have learned of it only by studying the English act. Very few persons in Australia draw an imperial old-age pension. Two systems operate in England. One is an old-age scheme similar to the Australian scheme, although the payments under it are not so liberal as ours, and the other is the existing contributory scheme. An old gentleman who lived in my electorate died recently at the age of 83 years. He drew an old-age pension while in England, but could not. continue to draw it after he came to Australia with his children The Commonwealth should make representations to the imperial authorities, with a view to a reciprocal, arrangement being made whereby an imperial pensioner could draw his pension in any part of the Empire. That is the case with imperial army pensioners. Members of the industrial army are entitled to equally favorable treatment. Many imperial soldiers who drew their pensions in a lump sum, and came to Australia, became incapaci- fated as the result of their war service after working for a few years, and to-day are drawing the invalid pension. That is grossly unfair to this country. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I have nothing against the migrant soldier who is forced .through incapacity to take advantage of om- pensions scheme; but I have a grudge against the imperial authorities, because it is their responsibility, and not ours, to provide for those who are suffering by reason of war service in the imperial army. I know of half a dozen such cases in my electorate, l t will be admitted that shortly after the Great War many thousands of imperial ex-soldiers who were miners came from Great Britain to the northern districts of New South Wales. A number of them who are suffering from the effects of the war are to-day drawing the invalid pension in this country. It is, of course, much better for a migrant to bring his or her aged parents to Australia, instead of making periodical trips to the Old Country to visit them, expending in fares and in other ways money that would be better kept in Australia. On the other hand, why should not those who came to Australia at an early age, and who in later years wish to return to the land of their birth for the remainder of their lives, be permitted to enjoy there the pension granted to them in Australia? As a young man I frequently heard my mother speak emotionally of the position in which she had left her parents in the Old Country. The phrase that she used was that she had “ buried them alive.” Such a state of affairs does not conduce to family unity.

I object to the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) from the chamber during the discussion of matters affecting his department. I mentioned this matter when these Estimates were last being discussed. When I commenced my speech to-night some members of my party expressed the view that the Treasurer ought to be in the chamber to hear what J had to say. This is the only opportunity that Ave have to discuss these matters, and we are merely beating the air if we receive no reply to our representations. Last week I referred to the very important matter of the maintenance of pensioners in hospitals but have not been furnished with any information by the Treasurer. The contention of the department is that a hospital is not entitled to receive any payment in respect of an inmate who was not a pensioner prior to entering the institution. I have already broughtunder the notice of the Treasurer the manner in which industrial subscribers to hospital funds are treated. Many of those who have been engaged in the coalmining industry in my electorate have contributed to hospital funds for many years, and their contributions are subsidized by the State government on a £1 for £1 basis. When they are compelled to become inmates of public hospitals the payment of their pension is stopped by the department, and an amount is paid direct to the hospital concerned. As these persons contribute towards their maintenance in hospital, the pension should be paid direct to them. The officers of the department have informed me that they are not under any statutory obligation to make any payment to the hospitals; but that. they do so because it is their responsibility to maintain the pensioner. Some time ago I wrote to the Treasurer on this subject, and the concluding paragraph of his reply reads -

In these eases where the pensioner is a contributor to a hospital fund and payment for his maintenance is being made to the hospital by a friendly society or from the hospital fund, it is considered that the logical step would be to decrease the esc gratia payment which is made by the Commonwealth to the institution. This question has already been considered, but as the contributions are generally not large it has been decided not to take any action in that direction.

It will be seen from the Treasurer’s letter that if the department did anything in the matter it would be in the direction of decreasing the payment to the hospital, instead of making the proper payment to the pensioner. Why should the Government take advantage of the fact that pensioners contribute to hospital funds for their own benefit? The attitude of the department has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst many pensioners in my electorate, and although I have endeavoured to get the department to pay the pensioners the amount to which they are entitled, it has declined to do so. As the Treasurer has now returned to the chamber, I trust that he will give close attention to thematters which I have just been discussing, and particularly the case of pensioner contributors to hospital funds. I direct his attention to a portion of his letter which reads -

It is considered that the logical step would be to decrease the ex gratia payment which is made by the Commonwealth to the institution.

To follow such a course would be mean and petty. If payment cannot be made to the pensioner, then it should be made to the hospital, which is in need of assistance. 1 also direct his attention to the case of a returned soldier who died recently in the Maitland Hospital as a result of war service.For the first five weeks this unfortunate man was in the hospital his brother paid the institution £3 3s. a week. He remained in the institution for a further two weeks before he died, and although he was in receipt of an invalid pension before entering the hospital, the department, not only stopped payment of the pension for the first28 days in which he was in the institution, but also refused to pay him the customary 5s. a week during the next three weeks. [Leave to continue given.] The act provides that payment shall not be made during the first28 days in which a pensioner is in hospital, but I believe that, if the patient should die and the relatives are in poor circumstances, the department is now considering the advisableness of paying for the 28 days.

Mr Casey:

– How long was this person in the hospital?

Mr JAMES:

– Seven weeks. As his brother paid three guineas a week for five weeks, why should the Pensions Department also pay the hospital for his maintenance ? I am sure that the officers of the department do not understand thoroughly the basis upon which industrial contributions are made to hospital funds and the benefits which such contributions are supposed to confer upon pensioners. I trust that the Treasurer will give immediate and earnest consideration to the important points I have raised.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– At this stage, I should like to deal with some of the points raised earlier in discussion of the proposed vote for the Treasury. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) referred to the case of a pensioner prospector, which may be taken as typical of others who, after many years of prospecting, suddenly made a find which netted him approximately £100. The honorable member suggested that in such cases the amount so received should not be allowed to affect the pension. If it can be shown, as I think it could quite reasonably, that a discovery of precious metal of about that value was the result of many years work, its value would not be regarded as income against the pensioner. If the honorable member knows of any particular case where it has been so treated,I shall be glad if he will let me know.

Mr Ward:

– It is treated as capital.

Mr CASEY:

– Yes, and a proportionate reduction of the amount of the pension would be the outcome when the sale was reported. The point that is not clear to the honorable member is that the person concerned is entitled to spend that money at a reasonable rate - not necessarily the 12s. 6d. a week, which the honorable member suggested, but any rate the pensioner wishes, provided that such expenditure is reasonable. If he makes application to the department when his capital becomes depleted, his pension will be restored by reason of his diminished capital.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) brought under my notice the cases of taxpayers who, duo to ignorance, inadvertence, or actual mistakes, show in their return a higher income than they actually receive. It has been suggested that the Taxation Department, while making every effort to obtain all the taxes legally payable, does not voluntarily inform taxpayers of any overpayment and retains the amount overpaid. I should like to make it perfectly clear that a definite instruction has been issued by the Commissioner of Taxation to deputy-commissioners that, in any case where it has been ascertained that there has been an overpayment or an overstatement of income, the department shall inform the taxpayer and make the necessary refund. That may not be done at the time when the return is lodged or the assessment made, because of the tremendous pressure upon departmental officers. If the honorable member knows of any case where he has reason to believe that the Taxation Department is aware of overpayment anc! has not made a refund, L shall be glad if he will supply rae with particulars so that the matter may be inquired into.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The department is-constantly making refunds.

Mr CASEY:

– Yes. lt has been said that the department does not make refunds or advise taxpayers of overpayments, but, as the responsible Minister, I should like to be informed of actual cases. I have heard of only one case and in that case owing to the stress of business in making out assessments the taxpayer was not informed of his overpayment until many months later.

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

– Quite a number of men in the Taxation Department had knowledge of very many cases where money should have been refunded to taxpayers. They left the service, went into business for themselves, and charged their clients a big fee for securing the refunds.

Mr CASEY:

– lt is a regrettable fact that up to five years ago, unfortunately, such things did happen; but I do not think anything of that sort has happened in recent years. I would say further that it is not always easy for the department to become immediately aware that a taxpayer has paid more or returned more income than he should. After all, he is the only person who knows his own situation; the department knows only what it is told by the taxpayer. It takes a good deal of perspicacity on the part of the officers of cbe department to spot cases of over-payment of tax.

Mr Holloway:

– The officers soon spot cases of under payment. The department has to examine the returns to make sure that tax is not short-paid.

Mr CASEY:

– As soon as the pressure of work in the department allows the taxpayer is advised and moneys improperly paid are refunded.

The case of pensioner’ inmates of the Waterfall Sanatorium and similar institutions was brought up in the House some few months ago by the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini). At that time I undertook to have the position investigated to see whether the period of three months provided to determine whether a man was temporarily or permanently an inmate, could be extended. I am glad to be able to inform honorable mem bers that the Government has decided to increase the period from three to six months, and that I am giving instructions accordingly. I hope this decision will go a long way towards easing the situation which the honorable member mentioned.

The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) raised the question of assistance to local governing bodies in connexion with interest and sinking funds on loans raised by those bodies. As I replied in answer to a question in the House to-day, the Government is going into the question carefully with the State governments and hopes at an early date to be able to evolve a satisfactory scheme which will be announced in the House.

The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) raised the point that manufacturers, printers and other traders in the various States should be given an opportunity to tender for postal and other Commonwealth supplies for the particular State in which they were engaged in business. The position is that the requirements of each of the States and of all the States collectively are ascertained periodically and incorporated in a collective schedule in which the quantity of each item for each State is shown separately. An opportunity is given to quote for either the whole of the collective items or for any particular item in each State. South Australian printers, I think, take very full advantage of the opportunity to tender for the printed requirements of South Australia, hut in general tenders from suppliers and contractors in cities other than Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, are very infrequent. An opportunity does exist, however, for contractors, particularly printers, to tender for the requirements of their own State.

The honorable member also mentioned the desirability of simplifying the income tax form. I have discussed that matter with the Commissioner of Taxation, and I am advised that the form now used to collect the relevant information is as simple as possible for the purpose.

The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) inquired about the item in the Estimates : “ Cars for valuers.” It is essential that land valuers should have cars in order to carry out their work. In some cases, however, they are not in t lie position to purchase them, and the Government makes an advance, up to £200, on a stipulated basis for the purchase of a car. The valuers are required to pay off the advance within three years and portion of the mileage allowance payable under Public Service regulations is retained towards this re-payment. This is a reasonable system, which has been in operation for a number of years. It works quite well and results in a saving to the Government. If this system were not adopted, it would be necessary to hire cars for the use of these men and the cost would be greater.

The honorable members for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) and Herbert (Mr. Martens) raised the question of the appointment of a Commissioner of Pensions. I may say for the information of honorable members that Mr. Metford was appointed Acting-Commissioner while Mr. Heathershaw has been engaged on special duties. Mr. Heathershaw’s period of service normally ended a few months ago, but he has been retained to complete certain special work. The period of his extension ends in a few weeks’ time. Immediately he retires from, the Service an appointment will be made to the position of Commissioner of Pensions, which, I feel sure, will be quite satisfactory to honorable members on both sides of the chamber.

The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) spoke about pensions being reduced because the pensioners held life assurance policies. The point is - and I myself have raised it in the Treasury several times - that life assurance policies cannot be regarded as other than property within the meaning of the act. As such, they must be taken into account in assessing the pension, but the practice is to consider only their surrender value.

A number of honorable members have mentioned special cases concerning pensioners, sometimes by name, and sometimes not by name. They are, of course, usually particular cases, are sometimes extreme eases; and sometimes border-line cases. Without having the pensioners’ file before me, it is quite impossible for me to reply to the points raised in any adequate way. I am afraid from my point of view it is of relatively little value to bring up individual cases in the House because it is impossible for me to comment on them without full knowledge of the facts.

Mr Ward:

– ‘What about the several cases which I have mentioned?

Mr CASEY:

– I have already dealt with them by letter.

Mr Ward:

– Not all of them.

Mr CASEY:

– As I have said, it is impossible, offhand, to deal with individual cases in a satisfactory way. 1 think that the departmental officer and I have never failed to give conscientious attention to individual cases submitted by letter.

Mr James:

– Is it intended to change the policy at present adopted in connexion with the pension paid to members of benefit societies who happen to bc inmates of hospitals?

Mr CASEY:

– I cannot go further in that matter than I advised the honorable member by letter a few days ago. If the amount the Government pays to the hospital were equal to or more than the cost of maintenance of the pensioner, there might be something in the honorable member’s suggestion; but in most cases that is not so. This is an ex gratia payment^ by the Commonwealth to the State or other hospital concerned.

Mr James:

– It would not amount to the cost of maintenance.

Mr CASEY:

– I doubt whether the honorable member would get the hospital to agree that the amount paid was equal to the cost of maintenance.

Mr James:

– What attitude would the Government or the department take up if the hospital itself made a refund of pension to the pensioner who was insured ?

Mr CASEY:

– That is purely a hypothetical case. I have never come across a suggestion of that sort.

Mr Rosevear:

– Does the Treasurer endorse the principle adopted by the department of refusing pensions to tubercular applicants on the ground that they are not totally incapacitated?

Mr CASEY:

– The question of tubercular applicants is an extremely difficult one for the department administratively. In the early stages of tuberculosis ir is impossible to state conscientiously that ibc individual suffering from that dreadful disease is totally and permanently incapacitated.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Is the Treasurer speaking of pulmonary tuberculosis or general tuberculosis ?

Mr CASEY:

– In. this case, pulmonary tuberculosis.

Mr Rosevear:

– What advantage is there in the Minister for Health preaching against this dreadful disease while at the same time the Government, by refusing to grant pensions, is forcing the applicants back into the workshops?

Mr CASEY:

– In the early stages of tuberculosis it is impossible to say that the patient will not improve in health or completely recover. It is a question of degree. The department makes every effort to deal fairly and adequately with tubercular applicants for pensions. That is instanced by the number of invalid pensioners who are suffering from tuberculosis in one form or another. [ think that is an earnest of the efforts made administratively to deal fairly with those who are unfortunately suffering from this disease.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports also mentioned a matter which is not new either to this committee or to the honorable member and me. I refer to the alleged unfair advantage regarding exemption from taxation that the Sanitarium Health Food Company and allied organizations have in trading in competition with others who make similar lines of foodstuffs. I have had lengthy correspondence with both the Retail Grocers’ Association, which is not without eloquence on the subject, and the Sanitarium Health Food Company, and the religious organization behind it. When both sides of the case are examined it appears in a different light from that in which the honorable member has presented it to-night. According to an undertaking which I previously gave to the honorable member, this matter was discussed by representatives of the governments of the Commonwealth and the States in connexion with the uniform taxation measure which will shortly be submitted to this Parliament, and it was agreed unanimously I think, that there should be no alteration of the law on this subject. The matter was gone into at great length about twelve months ago, and it has been raised lately in a circular, which I think most honorable members have received; but on the evidence submitted to the various governments, none of them thinks it necessary or right that any change in the law as it now stands should be made.

Mr Nock:

– For what purpose does the company use its profits? That is the question.

Mr CASEY:

– That is one of a nun. ber of questions that arise. I hold no brief for the company, but it has told n different story from that presented to-night.

Mr Curtin:

– Does not the company cease to be a religious organization when it engages in competitive trading for profit, and publishes returns disclosing profits ?

Mr CASEY:

– That question, I think, depends for its determination upon two things: Do other religious organizations do this, or anything like it; and to what purpose are the profits applied? Almost every religious organization engages in trade to varying degrees. Everybody is aware of. and, I think, appreciates, the efforts of the Salvation Army to provide cheap lodging houses in the capital cities. This is a form of competition with others who supply similar services. We know, of course, that this organization uses its profits for religious purposes.

Mr Curtin:

– But the profits are not great.

Mr CASEY:

– Perhaps not; but. if a profit is made, it surely shows that the company is trading on a basis which i? reasonably fair to its competitors. I do not wish to be drawn into a complete discussion on this subject. Nearly twelve months have elapsed since I have had it under consideration. If the company were to deal on the basis of no profit, I should say that there would be much more justification than there now appears to be for a charge that it competes unfairly against those who make similar goods. Of course, the company presents a good case as to the way in which it disposes of its profits, which it definitely maintains are used for religion? and social purposes. I think that it can also dispose satisfactorily of the argument that it pays low wages, or interferes with the rights of its employees to join a union. When this matter was brought under my notice in all its detail, I was personally satisfied that I could not recommend the Government to follow any other course than that which it is now taking.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I draw attention to the case of an old-age pensioner living at Mackay who, under doctor’s orders, removed to the seaside for the benefit of his health. He was able to obtain a rental of 10s. a week from his own dwelling, and he had to pay the same amount of rent for a similar cottage on the coast; but he was advised by the department that his pension would be reduced because of the income he was receiving by way of rent from his own cottage. 1 suggest that if the officers of the department had authority to deal with such cases, it would not be necessary to bring them under the notice of the Minister, because the officers who always investigate such matters fully and fairly would recognize the justice of paying the full pension. The reduction of the pension in such circumstances is indicative of harsh administration, to say the least of it. It may be said by the Treasurer that if individual cases of this nature are brought under his notice, he will consider them; but he must almost certainly be guided by the advice of the responsible officers.

Another point referred to by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn),, and also, I think, by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) is the department’s insistence on legal separations being obtained by married couples who have been living apart for years, before, each party is entitled to the full pension. I have in mind two cases in Townsville in which legal separations cannot easily be secured, because of the opposition of one of the parties. The husband and wife have been living apart for 22 years in one instance, and in the other for 27 years. I have conversed with the police magistrate on the matter, and have been assured that there is not the slightest hope of the pensioners ever living together. The wife of one of the pensioners objects to the granting of a legal separation on the ground thai she is agreeable to the husband returning to the home; but, if the husband went back, they would immediately disagree, and find it impossible to live together. If the authorities are satisfied that a couple who have been separated for years cannot live together, the cost of granting the full pension to each of them would not involve the country in heavy expense. In the case of the other elderly couple in Townsville, the husband has spent a considerable time in the public hospital in the last three years. I have been interviewed by the wife, who has told me thai the home is available to her husband whenever he cares to return to it, but the sub-inspector of police informed me that there was no hope whatever of the couple living together peacefully. Such matters as these could easily be investigated, and I believe that the department would be satisfied as to the justice of the claims made for the pension.

Although the Auditor-General has not yet resigned from his position, the public has been informed as to who will be his successor. We know that the Commissioner for Pensions, Mr. Heathershaw, will shortly conclude his term of service, and the Government could have announced the name of his successor as easily as that of the successor of the Auditor-General.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- The case of pensioners in hospitals is somewhat different from that stated by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). The hospitals are encouraging a scheme of weekly contributions which entitle pensioners to free treatment for a certain period. A number of pensioners in industrial areas have participated in the scheme, and the department should not be called upon to meet the hospital charge of 12s. 6d. a week which is now paid on behalf of each pensioner. I contend that if, by a system of weekly, contributions, the pensioners can obviate the hospital charge which the department has had to meet, the 12s. 6d. a week should be returned to them. I hope that the Treasurer will make a note of this matter. I am aware that the department is of the opinion that the pensioners should have this money refunded to them by the hospital authorities, because the department has already paid it. There should be no payment by the department to the hospitals in cases where the pensioners join the voluntary contributory scheme initiated by the hospitals themselves. Immediately the pensioner announces that he has made provision for free treats ment the full pension should be paid during his period in hospital.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– The hospital receives no payment for 28 days.

Mr LANE:

– I am guided in my’ remarks by advice which I have received from the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions. [Quorum formed.]

I propose now to deal with the position of elderly persons who are beneficiaries under a will. A serious injustice is being done to many old people in New South Wales. One case that has come under my notice is that of a man and his wife who are both nearly 72 years of age. A younger brother has made a will providing that, upon the death of his wife, other relatives shall participate in the division of the estate; but his wife happens to be a young woman, in perfect health, and, therefore, likely to outlive the two old folk. Old people in such circumstances are suffering from penury and want, as the result of being denied the pension. They may obtain food relief from the State Government and apply to the Chief Secretary’s Department for rental, which amounts in some cases to 5s. a week, and in others to 103. a month, but they have no other sources of assistance. In the instance which I have cited, the old folk offered to authorize the repayment to the department of any amount which they received in pensions if they happened to share in the division of the estate. I admit that cases of this kind are rare, but why the Government insists upon the interpretation of the strict letter of the law I cannot understand. I trust that the Treasurer will give consideration to the issues I have raised.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

.- Much dissatisfaction exists because of differences of opinion expressed by various doctors in regard to the eligibility of applicants for invalid pensions, and a board of appeal should be created to deal with this matter. The Pensions Department abides by the certificate of its medical officer, although two or three other doctors may disagree with him. When two doctors grant a certificate to show that a patient is suffering from a certain complaint and a third doctor issues a contrary report, it has been the practice for many years to accept the decision of the majority. To overcome this unsatisfactory position, the department should establish a board of doctors, and the decision of the majority in each case should be accepted. But the department adheres to the hard-and-fast rule that the diagnosis of its own doctor is the only one to be recognized. Often one has to procure new medical certificates in order to re-open a case for review, and then after many months have elapsed, and strong representations have been made, the departmental doctor may state that a person is entitled to a pension.

I shall now refer to the number of infirm persons in various institutions, who the Commonwealth Government considers are not eligible to draw the pension. In Hobart, 37 persons are domiciled in the Old Men’s Home, but they are not in receipt of a pension ; they are a charge upon the State. State governments should not be compelled to keep persons who are totally incapacitated and enter an institution. The time has arrived, I think, when the Commonwealth should shoulder the full responsibility for these aged people. The oldage pensioners of Tasmania are a respectable body of people who have fulfilled their obligations to the Commonwealth ; they are not drunkards as the AuditorGeneral has described pensioners in his annual report. In every sense they are fit and proper persons to receive the reward that the Commonwealth grants to old people. One or two cases may occur in which the pensioners are subject to over-indulgence in alcohol, but in Tasmania I have heard of very few of such cases; and in my discussions with the department itself I have learned that an overwhelming majority of these people are sober and conscientious. It is a “ lowdown” and despicable act on the part of a man in his declining years, one who has long held an honorable and responsible position in the Commonwealth Public Service, to subject the old people to abuse for partaking of a little drop of beer in the declining years of their, lives. I guarantee that the Auditor-General would drink himself . to death with the money he has taken under false pretences from the pockets of the taxpayers. I make no apology for this criticism. He has been in receipt of a salary out of proportion to the services he has given to this country–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Collins:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member must not digress.

Mr MAHONEY:

– I am defending the old-age pensioners from the attack made upon them by the Auditor-General.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The matter of the Auditor-General does not come within the scope of this department.

Mr MAHONEY:

– The character of the old-age pensioners has been attacked-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– ‘ The honorable member has reflected upon the Auditor-General who, I repeat, does not come within the scope of the discussion.

Mr MAHONEY:

– I do not desire to enter into conflict with the Chair. According to the act, an applicant for a pension must be deemed to be a reputable person : a criminal or a disreputable ‘person is not eligible to receive a pension. The pensioners, as a body, are a credit to Australia, whose development is due to the old men who have blazed the track, in order to make this continent one of the greatest in the world. The administration of the invalid pension should be more liberal in certain directions, or the Minister should instruct the department to give favorable consideration to totally incapacitated persons who are not old enough to be eligible for the pension. A young man who meets with an injury finds it difficult to obtain work, but for a man 55 years of age, who is incapacitated as a result of an. accident, the difficulty is accentuated. One case rejected by the department was that of a man who had a leg broken at the ankle and was a complete cripple, but the departmental doctor declared that he was not totally incapacitated. That man cannot obtain employment in any industry. His case, therefore, should receive more sympathetic consideration from the department, and a pension should be granted to him. At any rate, a victim of an accident in such circumstances should not be a charge on a State government, which, because of the inability of the Commonwealth legislation, must see that he does not die as the result of starvation. The Commonwealth declines to accept, responsibility for his maintenance because although he may be permanently incapacitated he is not totally incapacitated, notwithstanding that another doctor has granted a certificate stating that he is totally incapacitated. Irrespective of criticism or of the fears expressed by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that this country may not be able to fulfil its obligations to the pensioners in future, unfortunate persons in circumstances similar to that which I have quoted should be granted a pension. Australia is in a better position to provide for the pensioners than the Treasurer is prepared to admit.

At the other end of the Treasury accounts there is a tremendous charge of £15,000,000 a year made available by the Commonwealth to the States for the relief of unemployment. It is a strain upon the finances of the country which Australia cannot continue to bear. The Commonwealth should co-operate with the States in the payment of interest and sinking fund on relief works carried out by local-governing bodies. Why is it not co-operating with the Government of Tasmania in providing the money to finance these charges on certain public works in that state?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member must confine his remarks to matters affecting the administration of the Treasury Department.

Mr MAHONEY:

– These matters are decided at meetings of the Loan Council, which the Treasurer attends.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The matter referred to by the honorable member may not be discussed at this stage.

Mr MAHONEY:

– The Treasurer told me that he was negotiating with the States.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! If the honorable member con- tinues to argue with the Chair I shall be compelled to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr MAHONEY:

– Surely I am entitled to criticize the Treasurer!

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member will resume his seat.

Mr McEWEN:
Echuca

.- In view of your ruling, sir, I doubt whether I shall be free to refer to a matter which I desire to discuss.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is entitled to discuss only the administration of the Department of the Treasury.

Mr McEWEN:

– In delivering his budget statement, the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) said that the Commonwealth desired to enter into arrangements with the States whereby joint action could be taken to subsidize interest and sinking fund payments on loans raised for the purpose of carrying out certain approved works by local-governing bodies. To-day I asked the Treasurer a question on this subject, and he replied that he was negotiating with the States in the matter. I therefore assume that this is a subject which may be discussed at this stage.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN”.No. The committee is discussing the administration of the Department of the Treasury.

Mr McEWEN:

– I wish to refer to an item of £100,000-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.That item comes under the heading of “Miscellaneous services” and is dealt with by a special appropriation.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not wish to miss the only opportunity that I may have to refer to ti matter of considerable importance.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member would not be in order in referring now to an item under the heading “ Miscellaneous services “.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I desire to refer to the policy of the Pensions Department in regard to borderline claims for invalid pensions. I realize that, from their very nature, these are difficult cases; hut it seems to me that something might be done to evolve a scheme which would be more satisfactory to claimants for invalid pensions. Several persons who, I am sure, are totally and permanently incapacitated have been refused pensions and their cases have been brought to my notice. In one or two cases, after much delay, the claims have been recognized by the department and pensions paid. The procedure should be simpler than it is. I ask the Treasurer to bring under the notice of the Pensions Department the desirability of evolving a simpler scheme.

A “ hush “ policy is being followed in regard to the taxation of big oil companies. The report of the Royal Commission, on Petrol seems to be a closed book to members of this Parliament and the public of Australia. It is true, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) pointed out, that throughout the country there is a general belief that the oil interests are evading taxation by clever and cunning methods. I have here a letter from a gentleman who, for a number of years, has been interested in the taxation of oil companies, and I propose to read a few extracts from it -

Since 1910, I have made a continual appeal to the governments and the commissioner to apply the same methods of assessment to the Shell Company as have been ruthlessly applied to the man in the street. In 1021, when Parliament, through my efforts, passed an amendment of the act to deal with this case, it was freely stated that £3,000,000 was collectable from the Shell Oil Company. Despite my persistent efforts, the Commissioner for Taxation has refused to assess the enormous profits made by this company on a higher basis than 20 per cent. Before the royal commission, the Shell Company admitted having arranged their invoice prices to avoid paying income tax in Australia. Evidence was given that the Shell Company had not been assessed for three years, and that their assessments for the previous years were still awaiting adjustment. In the accounts presented to the commission, I showed that approximately £7,000,000 - plus penalties as enforced on others! - was justly collectable from the Shell Company.

If that be true - and I take it that it has some foundation in fact, otherwise the statement would have been challenged before this - there is something seriously wrong with the department. It is unfair not only to ordinary taxpayers, but also to the revenue of the Commonwealth that these companies should be placed in a privileged position. I do not know whether this Parliament will have an opportunity to discuss the operations of the .Shell Oil Company before the Christmas adjournment, but I am strongly of the opinion that it should give serious consideration to the affairs of that company. The writer of the letter to which I have referred has pointed out since 1916 what has been going on. It is time that an inquiry was instituted. I do not suggest that the officials of the Taxation Department are neglecting their duty; I have every respect for them, for they are endeavouring to carry out the law as they find it. Why is it that oil companies operating in Australia are able to avoid their full responsibilites regarding income tax? An inquiry is long over-due.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– The Commonwealth can afford to be lenient with the invalid and old-age pensioners. I propose to suggest two or three simple amendments to the Pensions Act, which would not be seriously opposed by any section of the House or cause difficulties to the department, but would greatly help the pensioners. The first amendment that I suggest concerns the payment of pensions to inmates of hospitals. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) declared that a pension of 123. a week was payable to hospital authorities in respect of each pensioner-patient. Cases which I have recently had before me prove that no payment is made either to the pensioner or to the hospital until 28 days after the patient enters the institution, when an amount of only 5s. a week becomes payable. The honorable member for Barton contradicted that statement and said that the acting commissioner had already stated that 12s. a week was paid to pensioners receiving hospital treatment. Only yesterday I received the following letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Pensions in Queensland -

With reference to your personal representations on behalf of the Biggenden Hospital Board, I ha.ve to say that under the provisions of section 48 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, a pension becomes automatically suspended when a pensioner becomes an inmate of a hospital. No payment of any nature can bo made ‘during the first 28 days. After that period provision is made for the payment of a maximum amount of 5s. per week to the pensioner whilst he remains an in-patient. There is, however, no statutory direction to pay maintenance to the hospitals which is merely an ea> gratia payment.

I regret, therefore, that payment cannot be made by this department for the first 28 days pensioner-inmates are in hospital.

Mr Lane:

– That means that the pensioners are paid something, even if it is only an ex gratia payment.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– After 28 days they are paid 5s. a week.

Mr Lane:

– What payments are made to the hospitals?

Mr Rosevear:

– Some hospitals are recognized as official, hospitals for purposes of the Pensions Act.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– The Biggenden Hospital is recognized officially under the Hospital Boards Act.

Mr Rosevear:

– One of the largest hospitals in Sydney is not officially recognized for the purposes of the Pensions Act.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– My concern is in regard to the principle that is involved. The Commonwealth Government owes something to the pensioners and to the hospitals. The unfortunate pensioner patient requires at least the care of the .hospital, and. the pension should be paid to assist the institution, and to enable the pensioner to make at least some payment to it. I hope that a slight amendment will be made to enable the pension to be paid to the hospitals which are caring for invalid and old-age pensioners. No obligation of the Commonwealth should be evaded because a hospital has taken over the care of a pensioner.

  1. was notified recently that an application for the invalid pension was refused because some kind-hearted person had given the applicant a home in return for the lightest of duties. About all that the applicant’s health permits him to do is to turn on a tap for the fowls, or, perhaps, water the garden. That certainly is. work of little value, but as he receives his keep and food because of the kind-heartedness of a friend, he is refused the invalid pension. The Pensions Department should be pleased to hear that a. man who should be receiving the pension has been given a home, but, instead of adopting a charitable outlook, it claims that the applicant is not permanently and totally incapacitated, unci is therefore, ineligible to receive an invalid pension. By refusing such applications the department is putting a harsh interpretation upon the act.

In another case an invalid pensioner received an intimation from a relative that some money had been left to him in England. In his honesty he communicated with the department and suggested that it should be a friend and help him to get the money. The pension was cancelled from that day, and the cancellation continues. I inquired about the matter and later the department was good enough to assist the pensioner by communicating by air mail with the British authorities with a view to establishing his claim. When a man actually receives a legacy his pension naturally ceases, but in the present instance the man had not received the money; he was merely making inquiries about it. Denied the pension, he was left in unfortunate circumstances and friends had to come to his assistance. In a case of that kind a little . leniency should be shown. I am not suggesting that the administration of the Pensions Act is unfair. The department is generally courteous in every way and assists the pensioners so far as it can within the act. I hope, however, that the act will be amended so that these petty anomalies will be removed.

The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) claimed that the Government should further reduce the land tax. ff the Government has surplus revenues, the benefit of remissions should be given to the invalid and old-age pensioners. I would not at the moment favorably receive any suggestion for a further reduction of the rate of the land tax. In order to relieve the budget during the depression, pensions, and Public Service salaries were reduced, and heavy burdens of sales tax and income tax were placed on the people. During and since the depression, however, the payers of land tax have received much consideration from the Commonwealth Government. The tax was first reduced by onethird, and subsequently it was cut by 50 per cent. Not only has that been done, but a tribunal has been set up to which the payers of land tax may apply for relief in respect of the remaining rate of tax. While I should like to see the land tax abolished, I would not support any action in that direction while the invalid and old-age pensions are still subjected to reductions, and while the sales tax and income tax remain at such high levels. No one section should benefit exclusively from remissions of taxes.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I am surprised at the neglect of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to give information in regard to some of the matters which I raised earlier. I mentioned the medical examination of applicants for invalid pensions, and to show that I was not making charges which could not be sustained, I cited the case of Mr. P. Moyson, of 21 Wilson-street, East Sydney, who was examined by Dr. Ludowici when he made application for an invalid pension. The doctor rejected the application on the grounds that the applicant was suffering only from neuritis and therefore was not permanently and totally incapacitated. The applicant became dangerously ill a few days later, and, when he went to Sydney Hospital for an X-ray examination was ordered an immediate dangerous operation. He had a tumour on the right lung. That should prove conclusively that Dr. Ludowici did not efficiently carry out the examination. His is not an isolated instance, as many Government doctors do not make adequate examinations of applicants for pensions. The sys*tem under which they are paid a fee for each examination should end, because most of them, having large private practices, give little time to applicants for pensions, knowing that all they have to do in order to receive payment is to put them through some cursory examination. These rush methods leave to the doctors more time in which to attend to their lucrative private practices. I suggested that the Government should alter the present practice and prepare a panel of Government medical officers from which the claimant for a pension could nominate one. I would prefer, of course, that the claimant should have the right to nominate his own private medical practitioner, but if the Government would not agree to that course I suggested that a panel of Government doctors should be made available from which a selection may be made. The result would be that a doctor who gained a reputation, for dealing harshly with pensioners would get very little business, while a doctor who treated pensioners fairly would be well patronized and build up a connexion.

I have repeatedly listened to speeches of honorable members opposite to the effect that anomalies exist in our pensions legislation; but although requests have sometimes been made by Government supporters for an increase of the rate of pension we know very well that the policy of the Government is to keep the pensions bill at the lowest possible amount. The Government has, in fact, introduced a practice in regard to the fixation of the rate of pension which was never contemplated by those responsible for the introduction of the pensions scheme. I refer to the provision that the rate of pension shall be determined according to the rise and fall of the cost of living. Speaking from memory, I think the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), voted for that provision. If the Government has a genuine desire to increase the rate of pension it will now need to repeal the provision that the rate of pension shall be determined by the rise and fall of the cost of living. I regret that the power to determine the rate of pension should have been transferred to an authority outside of this Parliament. Although I concede that some honorable members have referred to anomalies in our pensions legislation the fact remains that such concessions as have been obtained for pensioners have been wrung from the Government partly by force of public opinion outside the Parliament and partly by the agitation of honorable members on this side of the committee. Although any request to the Government to liberalize our pensions legislation is a waste of words, it is nevertheless necessary that honorable members of the Opposition shall take every opportunity to voice their objection to the policy of the Government so that the public will not be deluded into believing that this Government has a real desire to assist the pensioners. This Parliament is divided definitely on party lines and the Government represents one section of the community. We are experiencing party, or class, Government.

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

– What has this to do with the vote before the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) to confine his remarks to matters relating to the administration of the Treasury Department.

Mr WARD:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I suggest that you do not require honorable members opposite to prompt you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must proceed to discuss the vote before the Chair or I shall direct him to resume his seat.

Mr WARD:

– I shall do my best to speak the truth -within the confines of the Standing Orders so far as I am permitted to do it. I repeat that honorable members opposite, who have had a good deal to say about the anomalies in our pensions legislation which bear harshly on pensioners, have not been prepared to support their statements by their votes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already drawn the attention of the honorable member to the necessity for him to confine his remarks to matters affecting the administration of the Department of thi: Treasury.

Mr WARD:

– Probably I was wrong in the manner in which I addressed myself to the subject. I now refer the matter definitely to the Treasurer, who is in charge of the business before the committee. In referring the matter to the Treasurer I take it that I am automatically referring it to the Government. The Treasurer and government supporters have repeatedly delivered speeches in which they have said-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will resume his seat.

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- Mr. Chairman-

Mr James:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask why the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) was directed to resume his seat ? I claim that he was–

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Hunter is not raising a point of order.

Mr James:

– If you will hear me, Mr. Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not raising a point of order.

Mr James:

– I wish to know why you ordered the honorable member for East Sydney to resume his seat?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No point of order has been raised.

Mr James:

– Then I move -

That the ruling of the Chairman of Committees bo dissented from.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s motion is not in order, for I have given no ruling.

Mr Ward:

– I rise to a point of order. I wish to know, for my own information, seeing that I defied no ruling of the Chair, why I was not permitted to take the time allotted to me by the Standing Orders to discuss this vote?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member was requested by the Chair not to continue an irregular discussion. I warned him three times, but he proceeded in the same way. The Chair then properly directed him to resume his seat.

Mr Ward:

– I was not proceeding on the lines objected to.

Mr James:

– I take a point of order that the ruling-

The CHAIRMAN:

– No ruling was given by the Chair.

Mr James:

– I wish to move dissent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honor- able member resume his seat?

Mr James:

– I will not resume my seat. I am taking a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I name the honorable member for Hunter for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

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

Mr Baker:

– This is a fine example of majority rule !

Question put -

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

The committee divided. ( Chairman - Mr. Pro wse. )

AYES: 31

NOES: 18

Majority . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the House:

Question - That the honorable member for Hunter be suspended from the service of the House - put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 35

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 13

In division:

AYES

NOES

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member is well aware that, under the Standing Orders, the House has no knowledge of anything which happens in committee apart from what is reported to it by the Chairman.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

In Committee of Supply: (Consideration resumed).

Long continued parliamentary practice gives the Chair the power and the right to order an honorable member to resume his seat if his remarks are irrelevant to the matter under discussion. Three times I drew the attention of the honorable member for East Sydney to the fact that his remarks were irrelevant, but he persisted with such remarks, and I ordered him to resume his seat.

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- The recent report of the Commissioner of Taxation discloses that on the 30th June last over £3,000,000 of income tax, and £61,798 of estate duty were’ overdue. I notice that an extension of time has been granted in many cases for the payment of the taxes. I appreciate the difficulties which confront the department in the collection of such large amounts, and I recognize that officers of the department invariably treat taxpayers in such cases very fairly. In view of the large sum involved, I suggest, that in the public interest the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) should make a statement in connexion with these amounts.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– I’ trust that as a result of the criticism which has been voiced by honorable members on both sides of the committee, various defects in connexion with the administration of the pensions law will be rectified. Such administration can be improved in many ways. Whilst I do not suggest that departmental officials are unsympathetic - indeed, the majority of them do their best to be fair to pensioners - I know of instances in which the treatment meted out to pensioners has not been satisfactory. We find that many pensioners who have been found to have committed an offence, are deprived entirely of the right to receive a pension in the future. That is wrong. In my electorate cases have occurred in which pensioners who really committed an offence were deprived of their pension, and the benevolent society in their district had to assume responsibility for their keep. I suggest that in such cases pensioners should be treated in the same way as offenders against any other law of the country; after suffering the loss of pension for a certain period, and so purging their offence, they should not be deprived of the right to have the pension restored.

Mr Casey:

– They are only debarred from receiving further pension in cases of repeated offences.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I have in mind pensioners who committed only one offence, and when representations were made to the authorities to continue payment of the pension, the authorities pointed out that it would be inadvisable to raise this particular case, as the offence was serious. A representative of a benevolent society in my electorate brought this case under my notice, and asked me to endeavour to persuade the authorities to give the claims of the pensioner further consideration. However, in view of the intimation I had received from the authorities, it seemed to me that such representations would be futile. I plead for sympathetic consideration of such pensioners, and I suggest that after a pensioner has suffered a penalty for having committed an offence, whether or not he has admitted guilt, he should again become eligible to receive a pension.

Mr Casey:

-That is the usual practice. The honorable member’s remarks apply only to cases where the pensioner has been guilty repeatedly of a minor offence such as drunkenness.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The case I have in mind was not one of drunkenness. This particular pensioner had failed to disclose fully funds to his credit. I am informed that his pension was cancelled. When his funds had been exhausted the pensioner applied for the reinstatement of his pension and was informed that he was not eligible to receive that benefit. It has been represented to me that several cases of this kind have occurred. I have in mind, also, another case which is similar to many which have been brought under my notice by the Pensioners Association. In this instance the pensioner was suffering from tuberculosis and was ordered to appear before the Departmental Medical Officer. Because of the state of his health, he was unable to do so; the medical officer examined him at his home and decided that he was not eligible to continue in receipt of an invalid pension. A nurse was sent from the State Government Tubercular Clinic to attend to him and after he had been deprived of his pension for a period of three months, he was advised to visit the clinic for examination. The doctor there said he was not fit to work and, whilst not desiring to criticize the Pensions Department, expressed the opinion that he should still be paid a pension. After the pensioner again applied, a pension was given to him, but no compensation was made for his loss during the period in which the department had deprived him of his pension. In cases of this kind, where a man who has been deprived of a pension is later shown to have been entitled to it, the pension should be restored retrospectively. The department does not do that now. It allows a pensioner to remain for a certain period without pension, during which period he has a. struggle to exist, often having to depend upon a benevolent society or the charity of his friends or relatives for help. Such a practice is unjust. If, because of the recommendation of its medical officer, the department makes a mistake in depriving pensioners of what they are entitled to, and, later, the pensions ‘ are restored, payments should be retrospective over the period of unjust deprivation. If the Treasurer will consider cases of this kind, I feel sure that many causes for dissatisfaction will be removed. I am not suggesting that such cases are general. However, when such cases do occur, pensioners suffer injustice under the practice now adopted by the department. Generally speaking, I have nothing but praise for the administration of the department and I have no captious criticism to offer in respect of its methods. In some instances, however, officers seem to be unfairly restricted by governmental policy. The position would be remedied if the Treasurer would issue instructions to officials of the department to modify what appears to me to be unfair governmental policy in these matters. Similar grievances occur in respect of applicants who own property and have made mistakes in the information supplied by them to the department. I support the suggestions by the honorable members for Perth (Mr. Nairn) and Hunter (Mr. James) with respect to husbands and wives who are denied the pension because they live apart. I have in mind a case where a wife and husband were living in the same house; the wife refused to speak to the husband, declined to do any of his washing, and would not attend even to his meals. She also refused to disclose particulars of property owned by her. The man, in good faith, made a statement to the department that his wife possessed no property, but it was afterwards learned that certain moneys had been supplied to her by her family, and because of this he lost his pension. Cases of hardship of this kind should receive more sympathetic consideration.

Mr FISKEN:
Ballarat

.- During the earlier part of this year, the Pensions Department sent a doctor into my electorate to review certain invalid pension cases. Evidently, he reported in several instances that persons who had been receiving pensions were no longer totally and permanently incapacitated, and notices were sent to them that their pensions would be terminated from a certain date. Some of them interviewed me, and it appeared to me that their cases were genuine,- and that they were entitled to a pension. I communicatd with the department, and in every case the pension was immediately restored. My contention is that, either the pension should never have been taken away, or it should not have been restored. I do not natter myself that I have any particular influence with the Pensions Department, and < it seems to me that the pensions received by the people should not have been disturbed. Occurrences of that kind bring the Government and the pensions administration into disrepute among honest people. I bring this matter under the notice of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) now in the hope that nothing of the kind will be allowed to happen in the future.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- ‘In my electorate there are some pensioners who, many years ago, purchased blocks of vacant land which have remained ever since valueless and unsaleable, though carrying a fictitious value placed upon them by the Valuer-General. Such land is not an asset, but is an actual handicap to the owners. Nevertheless, the Pensions Department insists upon taking into consideration the nominal value of the land when determining the pension to which the owner is entitled. In my opinion, non-revenue producing and unsaleable property of that kind should not stand in the way of a person’s pension rights. In many cases, the owners would gladly give the land to any one who would take i t. from them.

The present system of medical examination of applicants for invalid pensions is unsatisfactory. Instead of there being only one medical officer in each centre, there should be a panel of four or five doctors in each metropolitan area, before any one of whom the applicant could appear. If the doctor certified that the applicant was entitled to a pension, that should be sufficient for the department. “

I urge the Government to give more sympathetic consideration to the position of pensioners. I have received more than one request from pensioners’ organizations for the full restoration of pensions. These old people have banded themselves together into organizations iti order to protect their interests, and when one is amongst them one cannot help feeling that they are entitled to more generous treatment. Perhaps the Treasurer does not come into direct contact with pensioners, and does not so thoroughly understand their outlook and needs as do some other honorable members. Recently, at a gathering of pensioners, one old gentleman, who had obviously seen better days, complained to me that the reduction of his pension by 2s. 6d. a week had deprived him of his tobacco money. I trust that the

Treasurer will soon see his way to recommend to Cabinet a full restoration of pensions.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

.- I should not have spoken if the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) bad replied to some of the remarks of other honorable members. but, although he was asked for an answer, he brushed the requests aside. Every honorable member, particularly in Sydney, has received complaints regarding the present system of medical examination of applicants for invalid pensions. At present, the examination is very severe. I hop: the Minister will give favorable consideration to the request that a panel of doctors be appointed in each metropolitan area. There is one doctor in Sydney engaged on this work to whom applicants absolutely refuse to present themselves, but ihe Government seems to value his services because he can be relied upon to turn down applicants. I have obtained certificates from some of the best doctors in Sydney to the effect that certain persons were totally and permanently incapacitated, but ]the doctor of whom. I speak has refused to take any notice of the certificates.

Mr Beasley:

– What is his name?

Mr GARDEN:

– His name is Ludowici. The Minister knows who he is, foi- complaints have been made in regard to him in this chamber on previous occasions.

Mr Beasley:

– I think the mau is a quack.

Mr GARDEN:

– That opinion is fairly widely held. The Treasurer should ask the British Medical Association to nominate a panel of doctor? before whom applicants might appear for examination.

I support the remarks of the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) regarding non-revenue producing property held by pensioners. I know of one case in which the pensioner offered the land to the department for nothing if he could receive his full pension, because the land was of no value to him, and was, in fact, a liability instead of an asset. The land is situated in the bush somewhere outside Bankstown, and there is no prospect of its being of any value for many years to come.

I desire to bring under the notice of the Treasurer the case of an Australianborn seaman whose home is in Australia, and who was employed under Australian articles on a ship trading to the islands. There he fell sick, and became incapacitated, but because he was incapacitated outside Australia, he was refused a pension.

Mr Casey:

– Was not that man given a pension ex gratia^

Mr GARDEN:

– No. I hope the Treasurer will lay down some definite policy for pensions officials to follow. At the present time, even though the officials may be sympathetic to a particular application, they are bound by the act. I ask the Treasurer to give careful consideration to all these matters, and also to satisfy himself that the method adopted for determining the rate of pension is, in all circumstances, quite fair. Nearly all honorable members agree that serious anomalies in administration have been disclosed, but supporters of the Government, while complaining ofl hardships that have been inflicted upon pensioners, hesitate to support their representations by their votes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing that line of argument; under this vote he is entitled- to discuss only the administration of the Department of the Treasury.

Mr GARDEN:

– Since the Treasurer has been in charge of the administration, I have not troubled him greatly with cases that have come under my notice. I deal with the Commissioner or his Deputy in Sydney. But it should be possible, in this committee, to induce the honorable gentleman to take action to appoint a panel of doctors in the Sydney metropolitan area. Perhaps he will also consider favorably the suggestion that the department should take from pensioners non-revenue producing properties which, they say, are a handicap instead of an asset.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I assure the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden) that, if he had the impression that I did not intend to reply to the statements made by honorable members, he was mistaken. When I spoke earlier in the evening I answered as many questions as was possible in the limited time then available to me. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) and the honorable member for Cook have complained that because certain applicants possessed land which they alleged to be worthless, their applications for pensions were refused. I may explain that if applicants complain of the departmental valuation of their property, the department secures a valuation from a reputable land agent, with a sound knowledge of property values in that particular locality.

Mr Rosevear:

– At the expense of the pensioner.

Mr CASEY:

– In my division such valuations are usually made without charge to the applicants for pensions. The applicant then has the option of accepting a reduced pension and retaining the land, or selling the property and using the money. If he considers that the land is worthless, he may, if the land is unencumbered, hand it over to the Commonwealth so that it will not be taken into account against his pension.

Mr Lazzarini:

– “Would he be expected to hand over the land for nothing?

Mr CASEY:

– If it were worthless, yes. The department may not buy land.

Mr Holloway:

– I know of several pensioners who would be willing to surrender their land to the department.

Mr CASEY:

– That may be done if land is unencumbered. I may add that it is very rare indeed to find land that is, in fact, worthless.

Mr Rosevear:

– In many of the suburbs in Sydney, the charges for rates and taxes are so heavy that some land is worthless to the owner.

Mr Ward:

– Would the department allow outstanding rates to be offset against the value of the land ?

Mr CASEY:

– I believe not, but I maj be able, later, to furnish the honorable member with a reply in detail.

Some honorable members complained that the administration of the pensions law is in some respects unsympathetic, and definite complaints have been made about examinations by medical referees, Dr. Ludowici’s name being mentioned again.

Mr Beasley:

– There have been complaints about him for the last seven years.

Mr CASEY:

– Complaints were made about twelve months ago, and I took the trouble then to inquire into his record with the result that I was quite satisfied that he is a gentleman of high repute.

Mr Beasley:

– Of whom did the Treasurer inquire?

Mr CASEY:

– I made inquiries of the Commissioner of Pensions.

Mr Ward:

– Will the Treasurer make definite inquiries about Moyson’s case which I mentioned to-day?

Mr CASEY:

– I shall do that. In fairness to Dr. Ludowici it should be stated that, as the result of investigation made about twelve months ago - there is no reason to believe that his reputation has suffered in the meantime - I was quite satisfied that, in the opinion of the medical profession, he is a man of high standing.

Mr Beasley:

– Some medical men regard him as an absolute “ quack “.

Mr CASEY:

– That must be a matter of opinion. At the time I took all reasonable steps to investigate his record, and was, as I say, satisfied. It is, I think, almost inevitable that complaints should be made about medical referees, whose duty it is to report to the Commissioner on applicants; for pensions.

Mr Beasley:

– How is it that Dr. Ludowici is the only medical referee about whom complaints have been made?

Mr CASEY:

– I do not pretend to explain that, but I shall make further inquiries about this gentleman. If, as has been suggested, there is anything wrong, the Government will take steps to put n right.

Mr Rosevear:

– He is a good government doctor.

Mr CASEY:

– That, I think, is an unfair statement to make. Applications for pensions are made on the report of private medical practitioners, and the applicants are examined by a governmenmedical referee. The private medical practitioner examines the applicant as to the state of his health at the time, not knowing the requirements of the act. Frequently the opinion of the private medical practitioner, who, after all, has his living to earn–

Mr Beasley:

– That is an unfair and sinister suggestion.

Mr CASEY:

– Not in the least. Not infrequently the report of the private medical practitioner differs from that of the -government medical referee. In such cases, the applicant is naturally upset and feels disgruntled.

Mr Rosevear:

– We have received complaints about this man from successful applicants.

Mr CASEY:

– But I think that the strongest complaints concerning medical referees come from unsuccessful applicants.

Mr Barnard:

– Sometimes the medical referee gives a. favorable opinion to the applicant, and makes an unfavorable report to the department.

Mr CASEY:

– I have not heard of any such cases. If the certificate of a private medical practitioner differs substantially from the opinion of the government medical referee, the Commissioner may submit the case to another government medical referee.

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

– Has a Deputy Commisisoner authority to do that?

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

– That is the practice in Sydney.

Mr CASEY:

– If there is any doubt concerning a case upon which the medical referee has reported, the Deputy Commissioner may obtain an opinion from another government medical referee. There are many cases in which the deputy commissioners have granted a pension notwithstanding an adverse report by the Commonwealth medical referee, and in most instances the payment of such pensions has been justified.

Mr Garden:

– If an applicant can secure a favorable report from two medical practitioners, the Commonwealth medical referee will reconsider his case, but if a report is received from only one reconsideration is refused.

Mr CASEY:

– It is a matter of the degree of honest doubt in the minds of the deputy commissioners. Honorable members opposite have not questioned the fairness of the deputy commissioners, and I think that honorable members generally recognize that they are making an honest attempt to perform successfully an exceedingly difficult task.

Inquiries will be made into the ease of the seaman mentioned by the honorable member for Cook. In some instances

I have authorized ex gratia payments to such persons. If the honorable member will supply me with particulars I shall have inquiries made.

Mr Ward:

– What is the Treasurer’s opinion concerning the applicant having the right to select one medical practitioner from a panel of five?

Mr CASEY:

– The difficulties of administration are already so great that. I am afraid that the Government cannot consider the suggestion.

I inform the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), who mentioned the case of a man named Moysonthat the Acting Commissioner has called for the papers, which are now on the way from Sydney. When they are received the matter will receive further consideration.

The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Jennings) referred to the amount of income tax how overdue. That is a peculiar phenomenon of the depression years. For some years taxpayers have been unable to pay the full amount assessed in the year in which it should be paid. The carry-over from year to year is steadily declining, more particularly in the last three years. I can assure the honorable member that the amount owing is not due to any laxity on the part of the commissioner or of the department.

Mr Jennings:

– I am not suggesting that.

Mr CASEY:

– I have not the report of the Commissioner of Taxation before me, but the carry-over from year to year is declining. Of course, there will always be a carry-over, as it is impossible to collect in one year all the taxes assessed during that year.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I cannot agree with the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that the amount of income tax outstanding is steadily declining from the high point it reached in the worst year of the depression. As a matter of fact the report of the Commissioner of Taxation shows that the amount of income taxation outstanding on the 30th June last was greater than in the previous year. Another aspect to be considered is this : The amount of taxes outstanding should be considered in relation to the amount of taxes collected. In 1932 the amount of taxes collected was £13,400,000, and the amount outstanding £5,300,000. For the last financial year the amount collected was £8,700,000 - substantially less than in 1932 - whereas the amount outstanding was £4,300,000, or practically 50 per cent, of the amount collected. It must be apparent that the proportion of tax assessed and not collected is rising instead of falling, particularly having regard to the remissions which have been made. It seems unquestionable that there is a greater amount of tax outstanding in proportion to the amount assessed than was the case some years ago.’ In the particular group of income tax debtors for whom an extension of time or permission to pay by instalments has been granted, there appears to have been an extraordinary upward movement during the last year. For the year ended the 30th June, 1934, there were 6,779 cases for which an extension of time or permission to pay by instalments had been granted, and the amount of tax involved was £726,000. But lastyear the number in that group increased to 7,049 - about 270 more - but the amount of tax involved had increased from £726,000 to £1,671,000. That appears to be an extraordinarily large amount to be due by taxpayers who’ have applied for an extension of time in which to pay or who have been granted permission to pay by instalments. Those administering the Taxation Department should be asked to explain why within the last twelve months there has been such a . large increase in the pro-, portion of taxes due to the tax assessed, when, as a matter of .general knowledge, if the budget is any criterion, the capacity of taxpayers to improve their position has definitely increased. Many have had very substantial advantages by remissions of taxes and because of the improved conditions in industry. This matter requires a much fuller explanation than has been given to the committee.

Will the Treasurer state “what action Ids department has taken during the last twelve mouths to collect money due to the Government by the purchasers of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers? So far as I can gather from, the facts set out in the Auditor-General’s report, the amount due in 1933- was £662,098, but in 1934 it had increased to £778,330. If no payments were made during the last financial year, the presumption is that approximately £110,000 must be added to the total outstanding in 1934. I do not know whether that is or is not so, but in any case the Treasurer should give the committee some information concerning the collection of moneys due from a company which purchased a very substantial Commonwealth asset. If the Treasurer fails to collect the money due to the Government, obviously the Parliament is hampered greatly in dealing with the various problems which come before it. While the Government is harassing numerous persons to pay their taxes, it. ‘appears ‘ incomprehensible that no statement has been made in respect of a debt of over £750,000 due to the Commonwealth.

Sitting suspended from, 11.57 p.m. to 12.80 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 21 November 1985, Quorum formed.)

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I desire to refer to the failure of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) or the Treasury officials responsible for the collection of debts due to the Commonwealth to collect the. amount owing to the Commonwealth in respect of the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers. After reading the Auditor-General’s report regarding this matter, it appears that there has been serious neglect on the part of the Government or the Treasury officials in allowing the purchasers of the vessels of that line by fraudulent means to escape the payment of- purchase money amounting to over £700,000. In order to impress the committee with the importance of this matter, I draw attention to the report of the Auditor-General, who hot only says that these things are happening and have happened, but also says that on more than one occasion he has drawn attention to the fact that this money is outstanding and remains uncollected. The Auditor-General states -

In my report for 1932-33, I gave many details concerning the purchase of the vessels of tlie Commonwealth Government Line by the White Star Line. The vessel’s originally cost the Commonwealth about £7,500,000. They were purchased by the White Star Line for £1,900,000, of which at the 30th June, 1933, there was a balance owing to the Commonwealth (including interest) of £002,098. As no further payments, either of interest or principal, have’ been made, the amount now owing to the Commonwealth has increased to £778,330* The White Star lune is now in liquidation, and its affairs are mixed up with various subsidiary companies in a manner which it is not practicable to deal with in this report. About three years ago, the vessels bought by the White Star Line for £1,900,000 were sold for £500,000 to a newly-formed company in which the White Star Line held n “ substantial’ financial interest “ through another subsidiary company.

In my earlier report, I criticized somewhat severely the misleading character of the statement of the chairman of the White Star Line to shareholders concerning this transaction, as well as the complaint of the chairman that his company had been the victims of a very hard bargain by the Commonwealth. As I pointed out, this very fine fleet of vessels, which cost the Commonwealth originally £7,500,000, was resold for £500,000 only, and the asset forming the security for the payments duc to the Commonwealth now seems to have. disappeared through the manipulations of tho company with its subsidiaries. In the winding up of the White Star Line, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company lodged proof of debt for £2.440,000 plus interest - seriously prejudicing the Commonwealth position. When the Commonwealth objected to the claim ranking for dividend, the claim was withdrawn and one for only £60 substituted.

All that now can be done is to await developments, but as far as the accounts show, it is unlikely that the Commonwealth will recover as much as £300,000.

It is my contention that either the Government or the Treasury officials have been guilty of neglect, which should be dealt with in a very severe manner. There is not the slightest doubt that both the Government and the Treasury officials were warned of the type of individual with whom they were dealing, for shortly after the line was sold to Lord Kylsant, that gentleman was gaoled in Great Britain for having fraudulently sold the shares of a shipping company.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order ! The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing his remarks along those lines.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I have no intention of discussing Lord Kylsant other than to show the committee that, in view of his career overseas, the Treasury officials should ha ve. been warned of the type of man with whom they were dealing and should have forced him, before the line was sold again, to make repara tion to the Commonwealth. I do not propose to deal with this subject further than to indicate the measures which should have been taken to protect the assets of the Commonwealth. As I have said, Lord Kylsant was gaoled. He had issued a fraudulent prospectus claiming that a certain company whose shares he proposed to sell was making a profit, whereas it was afterwards clearly proved that the so-called profits were nothing more than hidden reserves brought into the balancesheet and produced as dividends. That, I say, should have been sufficient warning to the Treasury officers and the Government of the type of man with whom they were dealing, and they should then have taken action to recover the moneys due to the Commonwealth.

Mr McBride:

– This is a matter which comes under the Prime Minister’s Department.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I take it that the Treasury officials are responsible for the collection of debts due to the Commonwealth. If the honorable gentleman can lightly see assets of this description taken away from the Commonwealth by fraudulent means, then I do not think lie fully represents the electors of Grey in this Parliament. The Commonwealth disposed of an asset worth £7,500,000 for £1,900,000, and the AuditorGeneral’s report shows that while this company was indebted to the Commonwealth for an amount of over £600,000 it sold to another shipping line through another subsidiary company in- which it had a controlling interest, vessels which did not belong to it but actually belonged to the Commonwealth. When the White Star Line went into liquidation the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company put in a claim for £2,440,000. That it was a fraudulent gesture is to be seen from the fact that when the claim was contested in the court it was reduced to £60. Time after time, practically every month, members have asked questions in the House regarding this matter, but the Government has been stalling off the evil day when the demand for the settlement of this outstanding debt should be made. To-day we are informed by the Auditor-General that the Commonwealth will be fortunate if it recovers £300,000 of the £778,000 still owing.

I am surprised at the maimer in which the Treasurer dealt with the very important matter of the treatment meted out to tubercular applicants for invalid pensions. It is all very well for the Treasurer to dismiss the matter by saying it is difficult to determine whether a tubercular applicant for a pension will be permanently incapacitated or not. While these unfortunate people remain in the workshops and are forced even to associate with the members of their own families they constitute a menace to the health of all with whom they come in contact. The ex-Minister for Health went round the country like a travelling circus advertising his department by drawing attention to the dangers of this disease. The least that could be expected was that his colleagues would give more sympathetic treatment to those suffering from it. While these applicants remain outside the sanatoriums and are forced, through economic circumstances, to go into the workshops, they are a menace to the health of the community at large.

The Treasurer has expressed doubt as to whether the departmental doctors are as bad as they are painted by applicants foi- invalid and old-age pensions. I have received numerous complaints in regard to the treatment meted out by these doctors. These complaints have been made not only by disgruntled applicants whose applications have been rejected, but also by people who receive the pension, women and men, who state that had they known what they had to go through at the hands of a particular doctor in Sydney, they would not have presented themselves to him for examination.

Another important point is the date of the commencement of the pension. In the administration of the Pensions Act on many occasions great delay takes place between the receipt of the application for the pension and the commencement of the pension. I have in mind at the moment the case of an applicant for an old-age pension who had been separated from his wife for 34 years. I think the fact that this man had been separated from his wife for 34 years would satisfy any reasonable person that it was a genuine separation, and not a separation brought about for the purpose of defrauding the Pensions Department. In inquiring into the circumstances of the separation to discover whether it was genuine or not, an officious officer got into communication with the Melbourne office in order to ascertain some information about the applicant and also made inquiries concerning the whereabouts of his wife. In this way the matter was delayed for seven weeks. I brought this case under the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, who realized the fallacy of such inquiries and the pension was immediately granted. He declared that there had been no occasion, in the circumstances, to institute all these inquiries. The point is, however, that the act definitely says that a resident of Australia, having attained the age of 65 years, shall be entitled to a pension. This man applied for the pension when he reached that age, and there was not the slightest doubt as to his eligibility for the pension on the ground of age. But as I have said he was kept waiting for seven weeksand then when the pension was ultimately granted it was paid retrospectively for only three weeks. If a delay occurs through foolish acts on the part of an officer of the department, the pensioner should be entitled to payment from the date of application.

Some time ago, I brought under the notice of the department the ease of a woman who had been separated from her husband for eighteen years. She had reared a family, and it was proved on the testimony of the members of her family and neighbours that the husband wasresponsible for the separation, and since that time he had not supported his wifeor children. The department found that he had made a sworn declaration to the effect that he possessed’ only £30, but his bank book disclosed the fact that he had hundreds of pounds. He had been proved to be a liar, yet, when he said that he was prepared’ to take his wife back and look after her, the department accepted his word. Thewife was paid a reduced pension, although the husband had not contributed a penny to the cost of rearing the family. The reason given for the refusal was that the husband had money and was willing to support her ; hut, if the husband had applied for the pension, his request would have* been refused on the ground that he had not supported his wife for eighteen years. Thus the department plays one applicant against another and “ gets it both ways “. Those . are the chaotic rulings under which the affairs of the department are administered to-day. I do not blame the Deputy Commissioner. It seems that either the Minister or somebody higher up than the Deputy Commissioner gives instructions for a general tightening up of the administration. In many cases, it is proved that the medical testimony submitted on behalf of the department is misleading, and for a couple of months the pensioner is denied money to which he is entitled. When the pension is ultimately restored, the department escapes from payment of back money by claiming that there was reasonable ground for doubt, and that, in the circumstances, it bad acted generously. Consequently, many persons are temporarily driven off the pension list.

The report of the Auditor-General contains a general condemnation of the oldage pensioners as a class. The language employed by this officer is quite uncalled for, and I do not think that any honorable member approves of it. Admittedly, there is a limited number of fraudulent pensioners, but the proportion throughout the Commonwealth is very small. An examination of the Auditor-General’s report regarding tax-dodgers reveals outstanding taxes to the amount of millions of pounds. I draw the attention of the committee to the difference between the language employed by the Auditor-General in his reference to persons who fraudulently escape the payment of their taxes and his remarks concerning the few old-age pensioners who attempt to defraud the department. The report states -

In the matter of questionable returns, the total income omitted by 658 taxpayers was £1,952,179. Penalties imposed in this connexion amounted to £96,767. Legal proceedings were taken against 1,450 persons for recovery of the tax owing. Judgment was obtained for £49,135, with £1,077 costs. Taxpayers to the number of 1,158 who neglected to furnish returns were fined £6,260, with £469 costs.

On page 40 of his report, the AuditorGeneral remarked -

It cannot be denied, however, that the present recipients of old-age pensions include large numbers who, from extravagance, lazi ness, drink and general worthlessness in their earning years, have become a burden on the community.

It is interesting to know that, at the 30th June last, the following taxes were outstanding : -

The Treasurer would find it more profitable to devote attention tothe forcing of fraudulent taxpayers to meet their obligations than to the harassing of the old-age pensioners, because a very small proportion of them attempt to take advantage of the department.

There appears to be something wrong in regard to the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, and somebody should be brought to book over the matter.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– In reply to the case which I submitted on behalf of patients in the Waterfall Sanatorium, the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) endeavoured to lead the committee to believe that I have referred to the shortness of the time allowed them to prove that they were permanently inmates, and that he had decided to extend the period from three to six months. My complaint was that because of the action of the department in declaring that institution an asylum for the purposes of the act - this has been done only recently, in order to save the Treasury a certain amount of expenditure - the inmates are deprived of their pensions for two or three weeks, and sometimes for longer periods. These unfortunate persons suffer from tuberculosis, contracted when engaged in rock-chopping and other occupations. The delay occasioned by declaring this institution to be an asylum sometimes occurs twice a year, and by means of it the Treasury receives a considerable rake-off. Only recently has this attitude been adopted by the department, and I believe that it is due to a determination to cut down expenditure at every opportunity. The

Treasurer carefully avoided making a reply to the criticism of the administration of the department in this respect.

I support those honorable members who have contended that pensioners receive unfair treatment at times by some of the Government medical officers. In defending one of these officers, the Treasurer cast aspersions upon the character of other doctors,, and said that they had to earn their living. The only inference to be drawn from his remarks was that they were prepared to sell certificates as to incapacity- A qualified medical officer can readily tell whether an applicant for the pension is totally incapacitated. The average doctor has his practice to consider, and it is not likely that a person applying for an invalid pension would be able to offer him sufficient inducement to risk his reputation by certifying to the total incapacity of the patient when his diagnosis might be proved to be not only incorrect but also entirely dishonest. The cases I handle are in the country and I have no knowledge of any that have been examined by Dr. Ludowici, but I am prepared to accept the word of honorable members who have referred to him. However, T do know of instances where a private doctor has been willing to certify to the total incapacity of a patient, conflicting with the Commonwealth Medical Referee’s opinion. The statements of the Treasurer show that if the medical officers appointed by the department do not deliberately deprive anybody of the pension, they make the examination as exacting as possible in order to save money to the Treasury.

The Treasurer cannot maintain that he has acted generously towards the people who enter certain institutions because I, as their representative, know that they are not satisfied, nor am I satisfied myself, by the extension of the period to six months. Any person suffering from tuberculosis and entering such an institution will remain an inmate on his initial visit for a period of at least six months. I think the Treasurer knows it; therefore, he is giving nothing away.

I support the statements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) and the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) in regard to the gross neglect of the

Treasury officials, in treating in an almost cavalier fashion, the money owing to the Commonwealth from the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line. The line was practically given away, having been disposed of at about one-quarter of its value, and it should be the duty of the Treasury officials to see that the purchaser meets his obligations.

In the collection of taxation it is remarkable how the responsible officials are so lenient when the claims are for large amounts, and how easily wealthy taxpayers can obtain extensions of time in which to pay their assessments. The honorable member for Melbourne Porta (“Mr. Holloway) wondered whether the Taxation Department was overworked. My experience of the ridiculous methods adopted by the officials, amounting to little short of persecution and sometimes bordering on the inquisitorial, convinces me that the taxation officials have plenty of time to spare. Imagine the great Taxation Department, metaphorically searching with a microscope, through files extending back for a period of six years, in order to collect 17s. That was my own experience. While sums amounting to £1,600,000 were outstanding from wealthy taxpayers, the officials traced back my returns for six years in order to assess me for this trifling amount. Shortly after my defeat as a member of this House I received an assessment for 4s. 2d., which went back for a period of six years. Subsequently, my successive income tax adjustments were for 3s. 4d., 7s., 6d. and 2s. 4d.. What has been my experience of this great department which handles millions of pounds is to my knowledge common to many taxpayers. I paid income tax for small amounts long before I entered this Parliament and never once were my returns challenged. I received assessments from the department for the payment of 6d. on the 15th of September and for approximately 16s. a month later. Intending to send the department a cheque for the full amount early in October, I neglected to pay the account of 6d. by the 15th of September, and I received a letter from the department stating that unless I paid the 6d., I would be summoned and. would be required to defray legal costs. That is one way in which the Taxation Depart- ment carries on its business with the small taxpayers. Its methods are irritating, and amount almost to persecution. But the big taxpayers, whose total amounts outstanding are £1,600,000, are granted liberal extensions of time in which to pay. Such methods bring the department and its officials into public contempt and ridicule.I see no justification for this procedure, which is going on all the time, affecting all manner of persons. I hope that the Treasurer will instruct the department to collect at once the money that is outstanding with interest added. If it is paid immediately, there may be some funds in the Treasury to obviate the whittling away of invalid and old-age pensions.

I commend the statement of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) in which he said that a responsibility devolves on the Treasury to pay municipal rates on Commonwealth property.

Mr Mulcahy:

– The Commonwealth Bank does so.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I admit that the Commonwealth Bank is an exception. But the Commonwealth Government owns nearly half of the municipality of Liverpool, and pays no rates, with the result that the municipality finds difficulty in financing its operations and in providing for adequate administration, unless it imposes a high rate on private property. The Constitution, apparently, relieves the Treasury of the obligation to pay rates, but a heavy burden is thereby imposed on municipalities.

Mr Mulcahy:

– It is morally wrong.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– It may be legally right, but it is certainly morally wrong. Every citizen of Liverpool maintains that the omission of the Commonwealth to pay rates and taxes on this large area of land is the one obstacle to the return of the district to prosperity, because the local governing body has difficulty in carrying on through lack of funds. What the Treasury would pay to the municipalities in rates would not amount to the remission of £200,000 which the Treasurer yesterday granted to the wealthy taxpayers. Certainly it would not amount to the remissions made by the series of financial relief acts.

I request him to give this matter his earnest consideration, and to recognize that the municipality of Liverpool is deserving at least of a reasonable payment of rates for the use that the Defence Department makes of its roads. As a result of the movements of military vehicles to and from the camp, extra expenditure is incurred by the municipality, because heavy traffic causes the roads quickly to fall into a state of disrepair.

Mr McEWEN:
Echuca

. -I desire to refer briefly to the methods adopted by taxation officials in connexion with appeals under section 66 against the land tax assessments.

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– That is the hardship clause ?

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes ; I believe that the procedure followed by the departmental officials is not in accordance with the intention of Parliament when it passed that section. I mention particularly the undue delay caused by the requirements of the department and of the appeal board itself, which lead to a considerable interval between the time when the appeal is lodged and when it is eventually considered by the board. From the experience of many taxpayers who have made application under this hardship provision, one could quite reasonably infer that this is not merely departmental delay, but is actually a matter of tactics on. the part of the department to see whether the taxpayer will subsequently make a recovery in his transactions and so be in a more favorable position to be assessed for the taxes which are due by him but which he at the moment is unable to pay. Without naming the particular taxpayer, I can refer to the procedure followed in respect to one individual, who was placed in circumstances such as I have outlined. He fell into arrears of land tax. to the extent of £1,900. This man, desiring to benefit by section 66, had an opportunity to sell a small parcel of land. He negotiated thesale at £500, but, not having paid his land tax, he could not carry through the transfer without the consent of the taxation authorities. He approached the department, with the result that it agreed to allow the sale to bake place, provided he paid to it as part payment of the £1,900 arrears owing for land tax the whole of the £500 received from the sale of the land. That was an altogether wrong attitude for the department to adopt. It made the position of the taxpayer worse when his appeal for consideration under the hardship provisions of the act was dealt with, because, instead of his arrears being £1,900, they were only £1,400. The action of the department in that instance was a contravention of the intention of Parliament in regard to section 66. Bad as that case is, it is not to be compared with one which I shall now outline. A taxpayer made application on the 4th May, 1931, for relief from land tax for the year 1930-31. On the 22nd June, he received a requisition from the Deputy Commissioner for information to be supplied concerning his transactions for the year. That information he supplied to the Deputy Commissioner on the 29th September, 1931. No action having been taken, he made a further application to the Relief Board on the 15th March, 1932, in connexion with his land tax for the year 1931-32. On the 21st November, 1932, he received another request from the Acting Deputy Commissioner for Taxation for information to be supplied in connexion with his transactions for the year 1931-32. On the 16th December, 1932, he supplied the information. Again, on the 29th April, 1933, he made a further application to the board for relief from land tax for the year .1932-33, no action for relief having been taken in the meantime. On the 22nd June, 1933, he received a’ requisition from the Deputy Commissioner foi’ information to be supplied in respect of the year 1932-33 and on the 26th September, 1933, he supplied the information. On the 3rd January, 1934, a statement of the individual assets and liabilities of his partners as at the 30th June, 1933, was required of him by the Deputy Commissioner. On the 27th February, 1934, he received a letter from the Acting Deputy Commissioner stating, first, that the application made on the 4th May, 1931, nearly three years previously, had not been submitted to the Appeal Board and, secondly, that a statement of the individual assets and liabilities of his partners as at the 30th June, 1933, was necessary in order to prepare his case for consideration by the board. On the 21st March, 1934, he received a further letter from the Acting Deputy Commissioner requiring a statement of individual assets and liabilities of his partners as at the 30th June, 1930. More than three years after his first application for relief, the department required from him infomation relating to a period four years earlier! On the 30th April, 1934, he received a letter from the Chairman of the board informing him that his application had been referred to the Chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review for inquiry and report. On the 31st August, 1934, he received advice that the Board of Review would deal with his application on the 24th September, 1934. On that date his appeal was heard. On the 18th December, 1934, he wrote a letter to the chairman of the board asking for a reply to his application. On the 13 th February, 1935 - four years after he submitted his first application for relief - he received a letter from the Commissioner, stating that the Commissioner or the board hoped to deal with his application at an early’ date. On the 21st June, 1935, four years and six weeks after his first application, he was advised by the Deputy Commissioner that no relief could be given. That case shows that the intention of Parliament in regard to cases of hardship is not being observed in the administration of the Taxation Department. A few days ago I asked the Prime Minister, by way of a question in the House whether the circumstances of the taxpayer at the time that he had suffered hardship, or his circumstances at the time that his application was heard, should be the deciding factor in determining his application for relief. The reply was that the circumstances of the taxpayer both at the time he made his application and at the time of the hearing of his appeal would be considered. Although taxpayers may be suffering heavy losses, they do not expect to continue to make losses indefinitely. The reply of the Prime Minister to my question, and the procedure adopted in the case which I have outlined, make it appear that the Taxation Department is evading the intention of Parliament with, regard to relief by delaying the hearing of appeals until such time as the taxpayer is again making profits. It may then be shown that it would be possible for the taxpayer to raise the funds necessary to pay the arrears of tax, in which event relief will not be granted. The experience of . the taxpayer whose case I have mentioned is not unique. I trust that before this debate terminates,- the Treasurer will indicate that he will alter the procedure followed by the department and see that appeals are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, so that a taxpayer who has suffered heavy losses in any year may receive that benefit which Parliament intended he should have, and not have his case delayed in the hope that he will eventually become a profit-earning taxpayer again, and thus lose his right to relief. Such action is the more necessary as the decision of the Appeal Board is absolutely final.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP

– I wish to refer to invalid and old-age pensions and kindred subjects. I have no complaint to make regarding the administration of the Pensions Department, for I have always found the officials sympathetic and, so far as I am competent to judge, efficient in the discharge of their duties. But in those matters in which the commissioner enjoys a discretion, one realizes that he exercises that discretion very largely in accordance with what he believes to be the policy of the government in power at tile time. His discretion naturally is influenced by the attitude of the party in power and by discussions in Parliament. Following upon what appeared to be a drive in the name of economy, I was shocked to find pensions refused to persons who obviously were ill and suffering from what even a layman could see were incurable diseases. In my own house I have met many persons, obviously totally incapacitated, who have been denied pensions. I refer, not to new applicants for pensions, but to persons, who had previously enjoyed pensions - one hesitates to use the word “ enjoyed “ in the case of a person in receipt of a pension, because he is suffering from an incurable disease, and is endeavouring to eke out an existence on 17s. or 18s. a week - which, however, had been taken from them by reason of recent medical examinations. I am bound to admit that in my limited’ experience the position has recently, to some extent, been relieved. In some of the cruel cases the pension has been restored, but in others it has not. The matter of invalidity is left too much to the arbitrary decision of an individual medical man. He i* asked to answer the question : “ Is this person totally incapacitated?” In my opinion the word “ totally “ is one introduced by regulation in violation of the statute. The medical man in answer to the question says: “Well, no, not totally incapacitated.” That reply might technically be true regarding an incurable sufferer from tuberculosis. Such a person, however, cannot possibly obtain employment. What possible chance has any woman whose ordinary work is domestic service, and who is a tuberculosis patient, of obtaining light duties in any home? Even the most humanely disposed person will not bring a sufferer from tuberculosis into a home, especially one which consists of young childen as well as adults. It would not be right for the head of a home to run such a risk; in fact it could not be done. Wherever work is sought, the tuberculosis sufferer will inevitably meet the response that no work is available. Such a person deprived of the invalid pension either perishes from want in a state of destitution or becomes a charge on some charitable institution or on the charity of friends. The charity of friends is always somewhat cold because people who find it hard enough themselves to live and to maintain their families will say: “ The Commonwealth provides pensions for these people if they are invalids, and if they are not invalids they ought to be working.” Their position is exceedingly difficult.

Inquiry into applications for the granting of invalid pensions, I think, should be something more than a mere examination by one individual doctor. It should be an intelligent inquiry, of course, but it should be a more far-reaching inquiry as to whether by reason of the nature of the invalidity from which the applicant is suffering it is at all likely that such a person will be employed or will be able to obtain means of living by his or b”r exertions. From that point of view I regard the matter of the invalid pension as even more pressing and important than that of the old-age pension, because the hardship of invalidity is itself heavy and sometimes cruel. With the burden of extreme poverty added, the invalid pensioner’s position becomes unenviable. Very little credit redounds to this country of super-abundant resources that invalids should be compelled to live in a condition of penury. So far as these Estimates are concerned, I should confidently express the hope, which, being expressed, may reach the ears of those administering the department, that the utmost care should be given to invalid pensioners and that searching inquiries should be made into each individual case of invalidity so that such a person as I have described should not be thrown on a cold world with a burden of suffering from disease, accentuated vastly by the suffering of extreme poverty.

Another matter spoken of to-night, although of less importance, indicates how crudely drawn has been the section of the act which refers to separated husbands and wives. The causes of separation are not material to the granting of pensions. The act says that unless the couple are separated in pursuance of a decree, order, judgment or by virtue of a deed of separation, their income is pooled, and they are supposed to enjoy the aggregate wealth on a fifty-fifty basis. I am quite aware that this is not the appropriate time for discussing in detail the merits of the pensions act,, except insofar as administration is concerned. I know of cases where, for many years, there has been a separation understanding, and where there is no probability of the parties coming together again. There may be no ill will; there may even be perfect understanding; but, in any case, it is not the business of the Pensions Department, or of anybody else, including the Treasurer, to inquire into the cause of separation. After a few lines in the nature of a deed of separation have been subscribed, as if by magic a couple in the eyes of the Pensions Department is deemed to be separated by a deed. It is ridiculous. It is merely a formality which has no legal consequence at all, and it should not affect the Pensions

Department in fixing a pension for an applicant, whether it be a husband or a wife. The only case in which a separation of parties is by actual decree is in divorce jurisdiction, whether it be by judicial separation or by decree. Reference in the pensions act to an order of the court is ambiguous. Orders of the court are made in petty sessions for the maintenance of wives and deserted children, but they do not effect separations. In other courts orders are made such as the judgments of supreme courts relating to the rights of wives in regard to whom domestic difficulties have arisen with their spouses. Those supreme court judgments and divorce court decrees and separation agreements are the only instruments where there is something in the nature of a really formal separation. I suggest to the Minister that a short amendment of the pensions act would put the position on the basis that, if there is actual and permanent separation in fact between the parties, and a pension is sought, it should be granted when other circumstances justify it. If the Commissioner of Pensions is satisfied the applicants are separated, he should deal with- them on that basis, and should not have to examine the separation from a technical point of view. Neither the Pensions Department nor the Government should be the censor of the morals and .habits of the pensioners. A superabundance of laws is provided in this country for regulating the conduct of individuals. We have a series of courts, ‘ from the police court upwards, dealing with all classes of offences, and the Pensions Department should not be called upon to pay attention to matters which are capable of being dealt with by the courts of law. The courts will punish a pensioner either by fine or by imprisonment for any delinquency of which he may be guilty. If he has answered to the law, that should be sufficient. The Pensions . Department, I say, should not be the censor of public morals. What of it if it is’ true that a pensioner has a weakness in regard to alcohol? One naturally waxes indignant when a public official in a very high place - I refer to the Auditor-General - offends to a very grave degree by making general statements entirely unsupported by evi- dence, reflecting onthe characters of our pensioners. This person, secure in the possession of a superabundance of this world’s goods, has animadverted upon the conduct of pensioners and criticized them for what he has called their wastefulness, drunkenness, lack of provision for their old age, laziness and so on. It is easy and cheap to criticize unfortunate people in this way. I make these statements in all seriousness because I feel deeply that the public officer concerned is deserving of the severest censure. I ask the Minister for Defence to submit the statements that I am making to the departmental officers so that they may be informed of the views of the public on these subjects, and so that we may, without undue extravagance, make provision for a more liberal administration of our invalid and old-age pensions legislation to the credit of ourselves and our country. After all, surely the first duty of any civilized organized community is to have regard “for the welfare of its aged and infirm, and especially its invalid people.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

– I should not have risen again to take part in this debate had the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) replied to the representations I made to him earlier. The matters that I raised were of considerable concern to the pensioners affected and deserved at least the courtesy of a reply. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to allow the matter to drop. I shall continue to refer to the cases that I have brought under the notice of the Treasurer until he furnishes a proper reply to my requests. I invited the attention of the honorable gentleman to the case of a person 61 years of age, suffering from chronic bronchitis, who, because he had secured a job looking after a Government tank outback, for which he received the munificent wage of 10s. a week had his invalid pension cancelled. That man, I submit, is entitled to the pension because his earnings are not in excess of. 12s. 6d. a week. This case was submitted to the Treasurer in writing, but no reply has yet been received to the letter. At any rate I shall persist in my representations however long it takes me to obtain a reply.

I wish now to direct attention again to the case of a person in my electorate who also has received scant consideration.

It seems to me that the gramophone record that is sometimes played on the instrument in the lounge, “ I’m 94 today “, could well be played in this chamber to stress the absurd attitude of the department in respect to such cases as this one. The department’s attitude would be humorous if the matter were not so serious to the pensioner. In this letter to me he stated -

I have been out of work for some considerable time and my doctor informs me that I will not work again. My father is working at the North Mine as a change house keeper, on the basic wage. He is getting up in years. He was 75 years old last July. I have a younger brother home with me also out of work. His age is 31 last January. He has been unemployed four years, last work on the mines. Myself, my age is 40 last June. My father supports both of us, and my brother still follows the mines up in the hope of getting work, but he has notbeen successful yet. Both Dr. Quinn and Dr. Dobbyn issued certificates recommending me for the pensionon the grounds that I am unable to follow any occupation. The nature of my complaint is heart, chest and eye trouble. I am enclosing the reply I received and would be pleased if you would take up the matter with the department on my behalf. I have been unemployed about six years.

The reply of the Treasurer was to the following effect: -

The Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act provides that an invalid pension shall not be granted to a person who is adequately maintained by his relatives. This claimant is maintained by his father and investigation of the latter’s circumstances indicates that the maintenance is adequate within the meaning of the act. Under these circumstances it is regretted that it is not possible to authorize the grant of a pension.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– What is the name of the applicant ?

Mr CLARK:

– His name is W. F. Painter. On the representations that have been made this man is clearly entitled to the pension. [Quorum formed.]

Motion (by. Mr. Thorby) put- -

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. Nairn.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 18

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote put and agreed to. attorney-general’sdepartment.

Proposed vote, £181,370.

Mr CURTIN:
Eremantle

. - I notice that provision is made for the office of Conciliation Commissioner, although this office has been vacant for some time past, and so far no intimation has been given of any intention to fill it. I would also like to know what steps, if any, are being taken in connexion with bankruptcy administration. Is the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) disposed to make any statement in connexion with rumours which have been circulated concerning the Judge in Bankruptcy. It has been reported that he contemplates retirement from that office, and the name of a member of the Cabinet has been mentioned in connexion with the appointment of his successor. This rumour has been contradicted, but as the judge now in charge of bankruptcy proceedings has been ill for some time his early retirement seems to be a possibility. The committee, I suggest, should be given information on this matter. I would also like to know the reason for the considerably increased expenditure proposed in these Estimates for the AttorneyGeneral’s Department this year compared with actual expenditure last year. I understand that the increase is due largely to the extension of the Patents Department. Why is that the case? Furthermore, why is it that the Investigation Department appears to incur considerably more expenditure in some States than in others?

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– About three years ago two prominent Sydney barristers went to the trouble of making a very exhaustive survey of the Commonwealth statutes, and after much work and deliberation published a consolidation of those statutes.

Mr Brennan:

– It is an excellent work.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I am glad to hear the comment of an honorable gentleman who is more competent than myself to express an opinion on the merits of this work. When the consolidation was completed, and in the hands of the publisher, and steps were being taken to circularize all interested bodies on the matter with the object of obtaining sales, almost simultaneously, a circular was sent from the Crown Law Department in Canberra to barristers and lawyers generally throughout Australia, intimating that it was the intention of the department to proceed with a consolidation of the Commonwealth statutes. Naturally those engaged in the legal profession would be inclined to prefer the consolidation prepared by the department to that prepared by these two barristers. I do not know whether it could be contended that the department’s officers were more competent to do this job, but it is reasonable to assume that barristers and lawyers generally would prefer to wait until the department’s consolidation had been completed, and there is no doubt that the circulation of the department’s intimation seriouslyaffected the sales prospects of the publication prepared by the two Sydney gentlemen. The matter was mentioned in this House at that time. The present Attorney-General (Mr.

Menzies) did not occupy the position then, and cannot be held responsible for any development in this matter. Nevertheless such responsibility must rest upon the department. The strange aspect of this incident is that a circular was issued from the Crown Law Department; a good deal of suspicion surrounds such action, particularly when we find that the department’s consolidation has not yet been made available although its circular was issued three years ago. Honorable members are entitled to some explanation, if not from the Attorney-General himself, at least from his officers, of the reason for this delay. Such action does not lead to the best of feeling in the profession and there seems to be more in this incident than is apparent on the surface. I am unable to say what stage the Crown Law Office has reached in this work. The Attorney-General perhaps can give us that information. The fact remains that the two enterprising barristers to whom I have referred spent long hours burning the midnight oil and went to much expense to produce a publication which has been favorably commented upon by those competent to judge the merits of such a work, and the attitude taken up by the Crown Law Office in these circumstances seems to me to be most unjust. I would like the Attorney-General to give some explanation of this matter or at least to inform the committee whether the department genuinely intends to prepare a consolidation of Commonwealth Statutes, and when we may expect this publication to be completed

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP

– I feel indebted to the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) for having mentioned the matter of the consolidation of Commonwealth Statutes. The work of consolidating the Commonwealth Statutes as up to the year 1911 was undertaken by the Crown Law Department, the present Solicitor-General, who then occupied a relatively subordinate position being mainly responsible for the work. The intention at that time was that a consolidation should be made at least every ten years; but the intervention of the war, which disturbed our social activities in so many ways, to a degree prevented the department from carrying out its intention, as much additional work consequent on the war was thrust on the department. The consolidation of Commonwealth Statutes by Messrs. O’Sullivan and McGrath, the advantages of which we are now enjoying, was commenced and indeed was far advanced before it was brought under my knowledge at that time. I am pleased to say that I gave every encouragement to those gentlemen who, largely from a sense of public spiritedness, devoted their very considerable talents to supplying an urgent need in publishing a consolidation of the Commonwealth Statutes. I will not say that the department over which I then presided frowned upon their efforts - that would perhaps be unfair to those loyal officers with whom I had the honour to be associated in the Crown Law Office - but I think there was a feeling in the department that the work should be carried out by the Crown along the lines originally intended but which, as I have pointed out, had to be abandoned. The AttorneyGeneral may now be in a position to tell us whether a consolidation by the department is in immediate prospect. It is a big work, and of course, it is necessary that consolidation should be kept up. The profession, at all events, would like to know what the department intends to do in this matter. Some time ago we were informed in the public press that a new body of police was to be appointed. I do not knowhow far that statement was officially inspired, or how far it was true. No doubt the Attorney-General can throw some light, on it.

Mr Paterson:

– Some defence watchmen were provided with uniforms. That was all there was in it.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I do not know, and I am now asking what truth there was in the published statement. I should also like to know to what extent the functions of these new police officers, if they are to be appointed, will coincide with those of the officers of the Commonwealth Investigation Branch?

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- I endorse the statements of the two previous speakers with regard to the consolidation of the statutes of this Parliament by two Sydney barristers. This matter was debated at length, when the bill providing for statute law revision was before Parliament twelve months ago. The point was then stressed that the previous Government had more or less given an undertaking to these two barristers that if they proceeded with the work the officers of the Crown Law Department would not undertake a similar work for a considerable time. It may be argued that there has been a change of government since then, but it is usual, in matters of this kind, for new governments to honour the undertakings of their predecessors. It was also mentioned during the previous debate that the two barristers circularized the legal offices stating that they had undertaken the work, and shortly afterwards other circulars on stationery of the Attorney-General’s Department were distributed stating that the work of consolidation was being undertaken by the officers of that department. The result was that the sale of the legal books prepared by the two barristers was prejudiced, though they had been highly recommended. The matter has been raised in this House several times, but no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why, if the circulars were not issued officially from the AttorneyGeneral’s office, they should have been written on the stationery of that department. This is an opportunity for the Attorney-General to give an explanation of the matter, and perhaps he will also be able to say when the” work of consolidation is to be carried out. It may be relevant to point out that one of the two barristers who prepared the consolidation, which the official of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department caused to be boycotted, had been an official Labour candidate for Parliament. It seems obvious that that had something to do with the action taken to spoil the sale of the books.

Provision is made for expenses in connexion with the publication of statutes and statutory rules. A consolidated statute is sometimes published in pamphlet form, but is occasionally placed at the back of the annual volume of statutes. I suggest that in all cases where .considerable amendments are made to acts, the consolidated act should be published, not only in pamphlet form, but also at the back of the volume of statutes for that year. The only argument against such a proceeding is the expense involved, but I submit that it would be well worth while.

Some years ago I suggested that a branch of the Crown Solicitor’s Office should be established in Brisbane. Branches already exist in Sydney and Melbourne. Brisbane is the third largest capital city in the Commonwealth, and is entitled to a branch of the Commonwealth Crown Law Office. Upon investigation I have learned that the firm of Chambers, McNab and Company, in Brisbane, has been receiving over £1,000 a year from the Commonwealth for carrying out legal work on its behalf. It would probably cost more than that to maintain a Crown Law Office branch in Brisbane, but we should not look at this matter only from the pecuniary point of view. The Crown Law Department decides whether prosecutions shall be launched in respect of alleged offences against Commonwealth laws, and in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, this decision is made by impartial officers of the department. In Brisbane, the decision is made by members of a private legal firm. Without casting any aspersions on the firm’s integrity, I think I am justified in pointing out that the more prosecutions it recommends the more it will profit. The system is somewhat like that which prevailed in the past when judges were paid according to the number of cases they heard. If a branch of the Crown Law Office were established in Brisbane old-age and invalid pensioners, who often do not know whether they have broken the law or not, and who cannot afford to get legal advice, would be assured of just treatment, because prosecutions would be launched against them only when there was a reasonable case. When members of a private company recommend a prosecution they know that they will be paid whether the prosecution is successful or not. If a prosecution is unsuccessful the Government must pay the legal firm which represents it, and must also pay the costs of the successful litigant, so that it is in the position of having to pay both sides.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that all litigation should be free?

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · FLP

– As far as possible justice should be accorded to rich and poor alike. At the present time, it is an advantage to have money in the case of litigation, as in most other things. The rich man may carry his case from one court to another, while the poor man must accept the verdict of the first court. In Queensland, which leads the world in many things, there is a Poor Prisoners Defence Act, under which legal defence is provided in criminal cases to persons who cannot pay for it, and who can present anything like a reasonable ease. I hope that the same principle will be extended to civil eases.

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

– Is the cost of such legal defence a charge against the Crown ?

Mr BAKER:

– Yes.

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

– In South Australia, poor prisoners are defended by the Law Society.

Mr BAKER:

– We do not believe in leaving them to the tender mercies of the Law Society. We believe that the Crown should come -to the assistance of poor persons who, perhaps through no fault of their own, become involved in litigation, and without such aid would be unable to brief counsel for their defence. There is a State Crown Solicitor’s Department in Queensland which renders a useful service to the community.

On several occasions, I. have urged that sittings of the High Court should be held at regular intervals in every capital city, and I am pleased to know that my representations have been successful. The High Court now sits at regular intervals in the capital city of each State. I hope that this most desirable practice will be continued.

Several years ago, when the present High Commissioner in London was Prime Minister, a comprehensive bankruptcy bill, consisting of over 50 pages, was introduced, but as it was brought forward late in the session, the pressure of other public business prevented discussion before its passage. That legislation altered substantially the whole foundation of bankruptcy law in Australia, and contained provisions which are not to be found in the bankruptcy law in any other country.

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

– In respect of other measures, the honorable member would claim as a virtue the fact that Australia was pioneering the way.

Mr BAKER:

– If the provisions to which I refer were calculated to be of advantage to Australia, there would be good reason to be proud of the fact that this country was leading the world, but I fail to see why we should give a lead by placing on our statute-book legislation which, in some respects, may be regarded as reactionary. As I have stated, there was not sufficient time to discuss the bill, but, after consultation with the then Prime Minister, a committee was appointed, consisting of representatives of the different parties in the House, to consider the proposals. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), an exAttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth, was chairman of the committee which held nineteen sittings and acquired a considerable amount of information concerning suggested alterations to the bill. Communications were received from the Chambers of Commerce and other representative commercial bodies throughout the Commonwealth. In due course the report was placed in the hands of the Government, and it was accepted in toto. The next step was the introduction of a bill about eighteen months ago, but again so late in the session that there was not time to complete the discussion of it.

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

– What has all this to do with the Estimates?

Mr BAKER:

– Surely the honorable member for Barker, who is continually making irrelevant interjections, realizes that the committee is discussing the Department of the Attorney-General, which prepared the legislation, so my remarks are, I submit, relevant. The Government, it is understood, had received further communications from the Chambers of Commerce with regard to the measure, and to allow for the discussion of objections that had been raised, a small bankruptcy bill dealing with only one or two of the more urgent phases of the law was introduced and passed.

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

– Is the honorable member discussing the Estimates or the bankruptcy law?

Mr BAKER:

– I am endeavouring, despite the disorderly interjections of the honorable member, to voice my complaint that the comprehensive bankruptcy bill of over 50 pages, which was introduced in this Parliament over four years ago, has not yet been considered by this Parliament. I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will look into this matter, and see what can be done. I understand that the suggestion now is that the committee of members of this House shall again be asked to consider the proposed legislation. If this course is adopted, I hope that the Government will expedite the sittings of the committee, and that Parliament will be given an early opportunity to deal with the bill. But as Parliament will adjourn in about a fortnight for the Christmas holidays, there will be little chance of considering the legislation this year. Probably it will not come before this House earlier than March.

Mr Lane:

– The honorable member is guilty of tedious repetition.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:

-Order !

Mr BAKER:

– I cannot claim to have the personal knowledge of tedious repetition so often impressed upon this House by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane). In conclusion, I again express the hope that arrangements will be made for the committee of members to consider the legislation without delay, and that the bill will be submitted to this Parliament at an early date.

Mr MENZIES:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) was correct in pointing out that the office of Conciliation Commissioner is vacant. “Whether it is desirable or necessary to fill the position will be determined by the amount of work available. In case an appointment should be necessary it is desirable to have the salary covered by appropriation.

Rumours have been published from time to time with reference to the position of a judge in bankruptcy; but all I can say is that I know of no foundation for the suggestion that there will be a retirement, and therefore a vacancy, or that any particular person will be appointed to fill such vacancy. .

The increase of expenditure in the Patents Office is due to the fact that provision has been made for five additional examiners of patents, one examiner of trade marks, three clerks, two assistants and three messengers. All these increases, which have been made with the concurrence of the Public Service Board, arise from the. fact that there has been an enormous increase of the work in the Patents and Trade Marks Department. In fact, the work has fallen so much into arrears that the section of the public which deals with patents and trade marks has complained of delay. It has been our endeavour to overcome the difficulty by officers working overtime, and by employing temporary assistance, which is extremely unsatisfactory in a department in which expert knowledge is required. Consequently, in order to cope with the greater volume of work, increased expenditure and an increase of staff have become necessary.

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), and the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) referred to the consolidation of Commonwealth statutes. I do not wish to tell the members of the committee a long story concerning this matter, because probably some of them have heard it before. I may, however, point out that no hostility exists in my department towards the private publication of Messrs. Sullivan and McGrath, as such. Indeed, I purchased a copy myself, and, if I remember correctly, paid for it. It is a useful work, but is not a consolidation of the statutes in the true, sense; it is an ordinary compilation. There is a great difference between the two, having regard to their utility to the public. I entirely agree with the views of a previous Attorney-General, that there ought to be a periodical consolidation of the Commonwealth statutes. The preparation of a consolidation by Commonwealth officers was in hand before the private publication was made; but its issue was deferred, partly in order to give the private volumes an opportunity to be sold, and so not interfere with the rights of the authors and the publisher.

Mr Beasley:

– But the AttorneyGeneral’s Department circularized persons interested.

Mr MENZIES:

– A circular was distributed to the profession intimating that a consolidation in the strict sense of the term was being undertaken by the Crown Law Department, which, I venture to suggest, is the only body competent to undertake a consolidation of the statutes. When I assumed office as AttorneyGeneral representations were made to me on behalf of those responsible for the private publication, that the circulars should not be issued in connexion with the proposed consolidation, and that a reasonable interval should be allowed before its publication, so that further sales of the private publication might be made, and agreements entered into with buyers be honoured. I thought that the request was reasonable, and I undertook that there would not be any further circularizing in connexion with the publication being prepared by the Commonwealth until approximately the end of the present year, thus giving an additional year of grace to the private publication. I think that honorable members will agree that that was a fair attitude to adopt. The suggestion of the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) that the private publication was treated in a hostile manner by the Crown Law Department because one of its compilers had been a Labour candidate for Parliament is one which I hope, upon reflection, he will not pursue. In the first place, it is an extraordinary suggestion to make against a public department, and secondly I shall reinforce the honorable member’s knowledge of the case by saying that, although he may be right in stating that one of the compilers had been a Labour candidate for Parliament, the principal publisher who was incurring the risk is a prominent member of the United Australia party. Consequently, if any person responsible for the administration of the Crown Law Department at that time was attempting to inflict injury upon some gentleman because he was a Labour candidate, he was injuring one of his friends a great deal more.

I do not know anything concerning a new body of police referred to by the honorable member for Batman. His remarks do not relate to such a body in my department.

The honorable member for Griffith, who referred to bankruptcy legislation, knows that, by the grace of those honorable members who have given a good deal of unselfish work in connexion with the matter, I have already taken steps to re-constitute the committee. I share the honorable member’s desire that there shall be all possible expedition in submitting an amending bankruptcy bill to Parliament.

Motion (by Mr. Thorby) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 19

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1860

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

Thatthe House, at its rising, adjourn until 11.30 a.m. this day.

page 1860

ADJOURNMENT

Action of Chairmanof Committees

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

– I am desired by the members of my party to say that, having regard to the proceedings in the committee this evening, the Federal Parliamentary Labour party expresses-

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order ! The honorable member must not, in the House, refer to proceedings in committee.

Mr CURTIN:

– The facts are that members of my party held a meeting this evening and carried the following resolution : -

That, having regard to the proceedings in the Parliament this evening, the Federal Parliamentary Labour party expresses its indignation at the gross partiality displayed by the Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. H. Prowse).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Leader of the Opposition will not be in order in referring to the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, except upon a substantive motion, notice of which must be given at the appropriate time.

Mr Menzies:

– On a point of order. I submit that an honorable member is not permitted, under the rules of the House, to accuse, whether by quotation or otherwise, another honorable member of gross partiality. I suggest that that expression should be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already ruled that the Leader of the Opposition is not in order in referring in the House to the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. If he does not intend to take the further action which I have indicated is necessary, the course he is pursuing is most irregular, and, indeed, disorderly in the extreme, because he has taken an advantage by making a statement of the nature of which the Chair could have no knowledge until it was completed.

Mr Forde:

– His party is unanimously behind him..

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The conduct of the Leader of the Opposition is not vindicated by the support of his party. I had supposed that the Leader of the Opposition would have had an influence over his party. If he does not intend to take the action I have indicated, I ask him to withdraw the reflection he has made on the Chairman of Committees.

Mr Curtin:

– I am unable to withdraw my statement, and therefore, intimate that later I shall submit a substantive motion concerning the conduct of the Chairman of Committees.

Mr Beasley:

– I take this opportunity to say that the members associated with me in this House, stand wholeheartedly and unreservedly in support of the action of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) is distinctly out of order and is acting in defiance of the ruling of the Chair. Any similar action of that nature I shall deal with promptly.

Mr Gander:

– Put him out!

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander) interjects again I shall take action in regard to him.

Mr GANDER:
Reid

.During the currency of the debate this afternoon-

Motion (by Mr. Parkhill) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker. - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 30

NOES: 19

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the House do now adjourn.

Division called for and bells rung.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 3,13 a.m. (Thursday).

page 1861

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Shipping: Freights on Wheat Exports

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

  1. In view of the recent increase in grain shipping freights of 2s.6d. a ton, what steps are contemplated to make unnecessary the payment to wheat-growers of subsidies which in part arc diverted to the shipping owners by the increased charges they have levied and are levying?
  2. Has he read the statement by Mr. H. E. Braine (Secretary of the Wheat Fool of Western Australia) in the West Australian of the 8th instant dealing with the additional charge of £80,000 in freight on Western Australian wheat as a result of the increase in rates?
  3. If so, what action has been taken?
Dr Earle Page:
CP

– The answer to the honorable members questions is as follows: -

My attention has been drawn to the statement by Mr. H. E. Braine. Neither the Com monwealth Government nor the Australian Overseas Transport Associationhas any control over the rates of freight on wheat carried by sea from Australia to overseas markets. The rates are, as a rule, arranged by charter agreements between shippers and ship-owners, and vary according to the tonnage available and the demand for such tonnage. The Commonwealth Government is not in a position to take action in relation to sea freights on wheat, which would make it unnecessary to assist wheat-growers.

Northern Territory : Hydraulic Survey

Mr Blain:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

In view of the fact that no comprehensive hydraulic survey has ever been made of the sub-artesian basins in the Northern Territory consonant with the hydraulic surveys in Western Queensland of the artesian and subartesian basins, and in view of the fact that the department proposes to have an isolated water survey made of Tennants Creek, will the Minister invoke the aid of the Queensland Hydraulic Department to trace out the subartesian basin of the Barkly Tableland to ascertain how near it impinges on the Tennant’s Creek mineral belt?

Mr Paterson:
CP

– The matter will receive consideration.

International Labour Conference Conventions.

Sir Littleton Groom:

asked the

Attorney-General, upon notice -

Whether he will state the number and nature of the conventions of the international Labour organizations which have been forwarded by the Commonwealth to the States for action by them, and what action has been taken by the States ?

Mr Menzies:
UAP

– Forty-four conventions, adopted by the International Labour Conference up to and including the session in 1934, were duly referred to the State governments for any legislative or other action they might see fit to take, and for information as to the extent to which the provisions of the conventions were covered by existing legislation. The convention on the 40-hour week, adopted at the 1935 session of the conference, is at present under reference to State governments for the purpose of ascertaining their views in connexion therewith. The other conventions adopted at this latter session have only recently been received from Geneva, and will shortly be referred to the States.

I am laying on the table of the Library two comprehensive statements which,I think, contain the information desired by the honorable member, viz.: -

  1. Statement A indicating the conventions already ratified by the Commonwealth, and outlining the attempts made by the Commonwealth Government at the conference between Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1929, and, subsequently, to secure the co-operation of and action by the States in relation to international Labour conventions; and
  2. Statement B showing the nature of the conventions not yet ratified by the Commonwealth Government, and the position in regard to State legislation.

H.M.A.S. Australia

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the reasons for withholding wireless news from Australia to H.M.A.S. Australia at Alexandria?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– No such instructions have been given by the Government.

Petrol Tax

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the total amount of revenue derived annually from the petrol tax?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Royal Australian Airforce: Retired Officers

Mr Rosevear:

r asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Melbourne Star that no superannuation or pension is pa.id to officers of theRoyal Australian Air Force in normal circumstances, and that officers have been compulsorily retired at a comparatively early age?
  2. Has he noticed the report that some of these men are now engaged in such occupations as conducting small refreshment shops at seaside resorts?
  3. If so, will he inquire into the allegations, and, if necessary, take steps to preserve the rights of members of the Force?
Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

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

  1. I have seen the press report referred to. The Superannuation Act provides pensions for Air Force officers in case of invalidity and for the widows and children of married officers in the event of death. Air Force officers contribute at greatly reduced rates for limited benefits which do not include a retiring pension. In lieu of the latter they receive deferred pay by way of a retiring allowance, but in these cases they do not receive a refund of their contributions to the superannuation fund. No officers have been compulsorily retired except for disciplinary reasons, ill-health, or on reaching the prescribed age for retirement.
  2. Yes; but departmental officers know of no such case.
  3. No member of the Air Force has been deprived of any rights to which he is entitled under existing regulations.

Italo-Abyssinian Dispute : Suez Canal

Mr Holt:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

t asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Italian Government is owing£1,200,000 to the Suez Canal Company for canal dues ?
  2. Is it a fact that the British Government has a share holding of 44 per cent. in the Suez Canal Company?
  3. Has any information been received which would indicate that any action is being taken or is likely to be taken to recover this amount from the Italian Government?
  4. What provision, if any, exists under the International Convention of 1888 or otherwise dealing with a company or government which may be in arrears with its canal dues?
  5. Is the Suez Canal Company empowered to prevent the passage through the canal of the vessels of a company or government so in arrea rs?
Mr Menzies:
UAP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government has no official knowledge of the alleged debt. The latest traffic report of the Suez Canal Company for the first six months of 1935 contains no mention of outstanding dues by Italy. 2.Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The regulations for the navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, January, 1912, published by the company provide that payment of duos must in every case be made previous to the commencement of the journey, and that all charges must be made in cash.
  4. The Commonwealth Government is not in a position to express an opinion on this question.

I am laying on the table of the Library two comprehensive statements which,I think, contain the information desired by the honorable member, viz.: -

  1. Statement A indicating the conventions already ratified by the Commonwealth, and outlining the attempts made by the Commonwealth Government at the conference between Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1929, and, subsequently, to secure the co-operation of and action by the States in relation to international Labour conventions; and
  2. Statement B showing the nature of the conventions not yet ratified by the Commonwealth Government, and the position in regard to State legislation.

H.M.A.S. Australia

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the reasons for withholding wireless news from Australia to H.M.A.S. Australia at Alexandria?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– No such instructions have been given by the Government.

Petrol Tax

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the total amount of revenue derived annually from the petrol tax?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

  1. If so, will he inquire into the allegations, and, if necessary, take steps to preserve the rights of members of the Force?
Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

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

  1. I have seen the press report referred to. The Superannuation Act provides pensions for Air Force officers in case of invalidity and for the widows and children of married officers in the event of death. Air Force officers contribute at greatly reduced rates for limited benefits which do not include a retiring pension. In lieu of the latter they receive deferred pay by way of a retiring allowance, but in these cases they do not receive a refund of their contributions to the superannuation fund. No officers have been compulsorily retired except for disciplinary reasons, ill-health, or on reaching the prescribed age for retirement.
  2. Yes; but departmental officers know of no such case.
  3. No member of the Air Force has been deprived of any rights to which he is entitled under existing regulations.

Italo-Abyssinian Dispute : Suez Canal

Mr Holt:

t asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Italian Government is owing£1,200,000 to the Suez Canal Company for canal dues ?
  2. Is it a fact that the British Government has a share holding of 44 per cent. in the Suez Canal Company?
  3. Has any information been received which would indicate that any action is being taken or is likely to be taken to recover this amount from the Italian Government?
  4. What provision, if any, exists under the International Convention of 1888 or otherwise dealing with a company or government which may be in arrears with its canal dues?
  5. Is the Suez Canal Company empowered to prevent the passage through the canal of the vessels of a company or government so in arrea rs?
Mr Menzies:
UAP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government has no official knowledge of the alleged debt. The latest traffic report of the Suez Canal Company for the first six months of 1935 contains no mention of outstanding dues by Italy. 2.Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The regulations for the navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, January, 1912, published by the company provide that payment of duos must in every case be made previous to the commencement of the journey, and that all charges must be made in cash.
  4. The Commonwealth Government is not in a position to express an opinion on this question.

Royal Australian Airforce: Retired Officers

Mr Rosevear:

r asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Melbourne Star that no superannuation or pension is pa.id to officers of theRoyal Australian Air Force in normal circumstances, and that officers have been compulsorily retired at a comparatively early age?
  2. Has he noticed the report that some of these men are now engaged in such occupations as conducting small refreshment shops at seaside resorts?

I am laying on the table of the Library two comprehensive statements which,I think, contain the information desired by the honorable member, viz.: -

  1. Statement A indicating the conventions already ratified by the Commonwealth, and outlining the attempts made by the Commonwealth Government at the conference between Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1929, and, subsequently, to secure the co-operation of and action by the States in relation to international Labour conventions; and
  2. Statement B showing the nature of the conventions not yet ratified by the Commonwealth Government, and the position in regard to State legislation.

H.M.A.S. Australia

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the reasons for withholding wireless news from Australia to H.M.A.S. Australia at Alexandria?

Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– No such instructions have been given by the Government.

Petrol Tax

Mr Lazzarini:

i asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Will he inform the House of the total amount of revenue derived annually from the petrol tax?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

  1. If so, will he inquire into the allegations, and, if necessary, take steps to preserve the rights of members of the Force?
Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

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

  1. I have seen the press report referred to. The Superannuation Act provides pensions for Air Force officers in case of invalidity and for the widows and children of married officers in the event of death. Air Force officers contribute at greatly reduced rates for limited benefits which do not include a retiring pension. In lieu of the latter they receive deferred pay by way of a retiring allowance, but in these cases they do not receive a refund of their contributions to the superannuation fund. No officers have been compulsorily retired except for disciplinary reasons, ill-health, or on reaching the prescribed age for retirement.
  2. Yes; but departmental officers know of no such case.
  3. No member of the Air Force has been deprived of any rights to which he is entitled under existing regulations.

Italo-Abyssinian Dispute : Suez Canal

Mr Holt:

t asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Italian Government is owing£1,200,000 to the Suez Canal Company for canal dues ?
  2. Is it a fact that the British Government has a share holding of 44 per cent. in the Suez Canal Company?
  3. Has any information been received which would indicate that any action is being taken or is likely to be taken to recover this amount from the Italian Government?
  4. What provision, if any, exists under the International Convention of 1888 or otherwise dealing with a company or government which may be in arrears with its canal dues?
  5. Is the Suez Canal Company empowered to prevent the passage through the canal of the vessels of a company or government so in arrea rs?
Mr Menzies:
UAP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government has no official knowledge of the alleged debt. The latest traffic report of the Suez Canal Company for the first six months of 1935 contains no mention of outstanding dues by Italy. 2.Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The regulations for the navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, January, 1912, published by the company provide that payment of duos must in every case be made previous to the commencement of the journey, and that all charges must be made in cash.
  4. The Commonwealth Government is not in a position to express an opinion on this question.

Royal Australian Airforce: Retired Officers

Mr Rosevear:

r asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Melbourne Star that no superannuation or pension is pa.id to officers of theRoyal Australian Air Force in normal circumstances, and that officers have been compulsorily retired at a comparatively early age?
  2. Has he noticed the report that some of these men are now engaged in such occupations as conducting small refreshment shops at seaside resorts?

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 November 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1935/19351120_reps_14_148/>.