View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
8 October 1936

14^th Parliament · 1^st Session

INDIA, BURMA AND CEYLON
PAPERS
QUESTION
- MISSING MONOSPAR CROYDON AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- TICK ERADICATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CARS
QUESTION
- DOCK FACILITIES AT MELBOURNE
QUESTION
- LEAGUE OF NATIONS
QUESTION
- LONDON FUNDS
QUESTION
- TRADE POLICY
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF NIGHTINGALES
QUESTION
- TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SERVICE
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN
QUESTION
- NAMING- OF AIRPORTS
QUESTION
- NEW SOUTH WALES HOUSING SCHEME
QUESTION
- SAFETY OF GLIDERS
QUESTION
- HOURS OF LABOUR
QUESTION
- ENGLAND- AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL,
QUESTION
- TREATMENT OF CANCER
QUESTION
- MEMBERS’ SUGGESTIONS
AUSTRALIAN PUBLICITY ABROAD
QUESTION
- INVALID AND SERVICE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS TRADE BALANCE
QUESTION
- FOOD ALLOWANCE AND PENSIONS
QUESTION
- ALIEN MIGRATION
QUESTION
- BI-CARBONATE OF SODA
PRUNE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 193G
SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936
- Second Reading
ORANGE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1936
SPECIAL ANNUITY BILL 1936;
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1936
SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936
- Second Reading
WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936
- Second Reading
TASMANIA GRANT BILL 1936
- Second Reading
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- National Insurance
- Protection of Northern Waters
- Public and Private Wealth
- Ottawa Agreement
- Tariff Proposals

Mr. Speaker (Eon. G. J. Bell) took tie chair at 9.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 892

INDIA, BURMA AND CEYLON

Report ov Australian Trade Delegation.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minis ter · Wilmot · UAP

– I lay on the table-

Australian. Trade Delegation to India, Burma and Ceylon - Report.

In moving -

That the paperbe printed,

I wish to say that this report results from the visit madeby the Australian trade delegation to India, Burma and Ceylon late in 1985 and early in 1936. The delegationwas a combination of business men representing secondary and primary industries, with an ofScer of the Federal Department of Commerce. Its report is an excellent example of the results which can be achieved by such a form of collaboration. It is a most valuable document, containing authoritative information on a great variety of matters which will be of the utmost assistance to Australian producers and manufacturers who are anxious to secure markets in the countries visited by the delegation. The members of the delegation are to be congratulated on the thoroughness with which they have compiled their report, which will be regarded for many years as a text-book on trade opportunities in countries which, while close to Australia, have heretofore been inadequately exploited as markets for Australian products.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- In seconding the motion, I regret that so much delay has occurred in the presentation of the report, and in the making of any reference to the subject of the delegation in this Parliament. As a matter of fact, the. season will be commencing at about the present time, and any action arising out of the report which the. Australian industries concerned or the Government might contemplate taking should have been taken in time to admit of this: season’s trading operations being conducted. Unfortunately, there appears, to be too much delay generally between the submission of reports to the Government and the notification to Parliament of their having been received. There is also much longer and graver delay in connexion with the consequential action which usually the Government evidently intends to take.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 892

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Science and Industry Research Act - Tenth Annual Report of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for vear 1935-36.

Ordered to bo printed.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1936, Nos. 137, 136.

Scat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance of 1936 - No. 41 - Timber Protection.

page 892

QUESTION

MISSING MONOSPAR CROYDON AIRCRAFT

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

– by leave - The following is a resume of the available information in regard to the . missing Monospar Croydon aircraft : -

The Australian representative for thu Monospar firm, Mr. H. Rigby, telephoned to the civil aviation authorites about4 p.m. yesterday, stating that the Monospar had not been heard of since 7.50 a.m. A message from Darwin stated that the last message was to the effect that the Monospar’s latest known posi- tion was 460 miles from Darwin on its course. No further word was received of the aircraft, but additional messages covering the above were later received from Darwin. This information indicated that the aircraft would be approximately 70 miles from Koepang, and about 30 or 40 miles off the coast of Timor. The Air Force wireless telegraphy station at Darwin was then instructed to keep constant watch on 900 metres, the operating wave length of the Monospar. The Administrator, Darwin, also passed known information to the Department of the Interior and stated that the patrol boat Larrakia had been instructed to proceed to Koepang. Wireless and cable contact with Singapore, Sourabaya, Batavia, Rambang and Koepang was made, to ascertain if any news had been, received, but with negative results. At 10.50 a.m., Greenwich mean time, Darwin heard the Monospar calling on bearing 291 degrees from Darwin, and it was heard intermittently afterwards. This seems to indicate that the aircraft landed on Timor Island, to the east of Koepang, and apparently was not badly crashed as the wireless functioned. No information’ has been received as to the condition of either the personnel or the aircraft. Attempts were then made to open up the Koepang wireless telegraphy station in order to obtain details of messages from the aircraft, which were unintelligible at Darwin, but, up to 6 a.m. to-day, Melbourne time, without result.

Messages were sent by cable to the Administrator. Koepang, containing available information, and requesting him to conduct investigations, and to the British Consul-General, Batavia, requesting him to do anything he could to facilitate an early search and to endeavour to have Koepang wireless station opened. Constant wireless telegraphy communication was maintained by the Royal Australian Air Force wireless station, Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, with the Air Ministry, London j Singapore; and Darwin. Information was received during the night by wireless telegraphy, that two Dutch flying-boats were to leave Singapore early this morning for Koepang, and that a Boya! Air Force flying-boat was _ to leave ‘Singapore at dawn this morning in search of the missing Monospar.

The representative of the Monospar firm, the Royal Australian Air Force Staff Officer for Signals, and the Controller of Operations, Civil Aviation Board, were standing by in the wireless room at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, until 5.15 a.m. this morning. Up to that time, no further information from the Monospar had come- through.

This morning, the Royal Air Force, Singapore, advised that they were holding up the departure of their flying-boat, as the Dutch were leaving and were so much closer.

Koepang came on the air at 6 a.m. this morning, but had not heard the Monospar.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– In- view of tlie fact that within 2,000 miles of Darwin, there is no Australian civil or military aircraft suitable for going out in search) of the missing Monospar, or any other machine which may be lost, will the Minister for Defence state whether consideration has been given> to the suggestion that I made in this- House a yeE ago, namely, that Royal Australian. Air Force flying-boats should be stationed at Darwin for the patrol of the north coast of Australia, and for use in an emergency such as that which has now presented itself ? If so, what steps have been taken by his department?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I am not sure that I can recall the suggestion. I shall, however, be very glad to spc that consideration is given to that which the honorable gentleman has just expounded, in conjunction with the result of a visit recently paid to Darwin by Major-General Laverack.

page 893

QUESTION

TICK ERADICATION

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Has the AttorneyGeneral seen in the press to-day the report of a public meeting in. regard to tick eradication, held on the far north coast of New South “Wales,, in which the following paragraph appears -

Mr. P. M. Woodward, of Messrs. Parker and Kissane, solicitors, told the meeting that the Stock Diseases Tick Act was invalid, because it came into conflict with federal law, and that the compulsory dipping of stock was illegal. He read a telegram from Mr. Mason., K.C., of Sydney, advising the owners to refuse to dip.

– I preface a question that I desire to ask the Treasurer by making the following quotation from an article which appeared in the Sydney Bulletin of the 7th instant: -

The answer to Mr. Barnard shows clearly that the statement quoted from the budget vas a men’ wild and woolly generality, designed to re-assure those nervous about the continued failure to provide an export surplus large enough to enable Australia.-

Mr SPEAKER:

– It appears to me that, the honorable member wishes to direct attention to the opinion of the Bulletin, rather than to obtain information.

Mr BARNARD:

– I desire to know from the Treasurer whether he is now in a position to supply the information asked for regarding the amount of money taken overseas. If he is not yet in a position to do so, when will the information 1m? available?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I do not entirely understand the honorable member’s question, but I assure him. that the reply I gave to him recently was an accurate reply, while the comment of the newspaper which he has quoted is not accurate, and if not fair comment.

page 894

QUESTION

TRADE POLICY

Mb. Barren’s ‘Speech at Geneva.

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

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the opinions expressed at Geneva yesterday by the High Commissioner for Australia (Mr. Bruce) on the subject of greater freedom of trade throughout the world reflect tlie intention and policy of the Commonwealth Government?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I think the honorable member knows that the policy of this Government lias always aimed at increasing the volume of world trade, so that there is no conflict of opinion in that regard between the High Commissioner and the Government.

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– When the High Commissioner advocated freer trade between the nations, was he voicing the considered opinion of the Commonwealth Government? When was the High Commissioner last advised of the policy of the Commonwealth Government on this matter?

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member’s question has already been answered.

Mr FoRDE:

– But not adequately.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member’s question involves a matter of policy, and he must know that it is not usual to divulge the Government’s policy in reply to questions, particularly questions without notice.

page 895

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF NIGHTINGALES

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Yesterday I received from Mr. Simon Harvey, an amateur bird fancier, a communication stating that three nightingales, which had arrived in Australia on the Moldavia, were held up because, unfortunately, they were not accompanied by the necessary certificate, and he expressed the fear that they would be destroyed. Will the Minister for Health inquire into the matter with a view to having a permit granted for the release of the birds?

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have received no previous advice regarding the matter, but I shall have inquiries made.

page 895

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SERVICE

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

– Some days ago, I suggested that the tri-weekly train service over the trans-Australian line might be restored to cope with increasing traffic. Will the Minister for the Interior state whether anything has yet been done in regard to the matter ?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– I have been in touch with the Commonwealth Commissioner for Railways, who has made in quiries of the South Australian and Victorian Railways Departments. When additional trains are put on the transAustralian line, the States have to vary their own traffic arrangements to fit in with the new schedule. ‘The Commissioner is not yet in a position to advise me exactly what will be done, but the request is receiving the closest consideration.

page 895

QUESTION

TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Mr FISKEN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to trade statistics prepared by the ‘Commonwealth Statistician, and published yesterday in the press, showing that Britain sold to Australia £30,000,000 worth of goods during the last year, and only £15,000,000 worth to Argentina, while during the same period, Argentina sold to Britain proportionately more goods than Australia did ? In view of this fact, will he request the High Commissioner in London to bring these figures very prominently under the notice of the British authorities in order to counteract the continuous and insidious propaganda emanating from Argentina to 0111 disadvantage ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The attention of the Government has been drawn to this aspect of the matter for a considerable time. When I was in London last year and during more recent discussions between representatives of the Commonwealth and of the Government of the United Kingdom, no opportunity was lost to impress the British representatives with the importance of Australia as a customer, with the result that, during the last few months, we have made distinct progress in the direction of obtaining a larger share of the British market.

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

– Has the attention of the Assistant Minister for Commerce been drawn to the statement of Mr. Sanders, M.L.A., to the effect that Australian products were unprocurable outside London, while those of New Zealand were to be found all over Great Britain? In view of the repeated charges of inefficiency in regard to the advertising and distribution of Australian foodstuffs made by prominent men on their return from the United Kingdom, will the Minister make an investigation, and if the charges are substantiated, take steps to bring the staff handling these matters at least up to the standard of efficiency of those of other competing countries ‘(

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

– My attention has been already directed to Mr. Sanders’ statement, which is entirely incorrect and unwarranted. It merely indicates that Mr. Sanders is not conversant with what the Commonwealth Government, through its capable officers attached to Australia House, is doing in Great Britain.

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

– Statements of that kind are very persistent.

Mr THORBY:

– They are made persistently only by persons ignorant of the conditions. It is unnecessary and impracticable to place Commonwealth products before the public in all parts of the United Kingdom. “We must recognize that Australia supplies only a small part of the foodstuffs consumed in Great Britain, and it would be folly to advertise our goods all over the United Kingdom, when we can supply only a small part of the market. The policy of the trade section of the Department of Commerce in Great Britain is to advertise sufficiently in those areas which will ensure that the full quantity of goods sent will be absorbed, but not to advertise in order to create a demand in centres which cannot be supplied. I challenge Mr. Sanders or anybody else to put forward a better policy.

page 896

QUESTION

NAMING- OF AIRPORTS

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In thB event of a seaplane port being established in Australia, will the Minister for Defence give favorable consideration to the proposal that the name of the late C. T. P. Ulm be associated with it, in view of the prominent part which he played in the air navigation of the Tasman Sea?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– This matter is at present before the Civil Aviation branch of the department, and I shall submit to it the suggestion of the honorable member.

page 896

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES HOUSING SCHEME

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to a statement that the Premier of New South

Wales proposes to inaugurate a housing scheme, and that he hopes for the cooperation of the Commonwealth? Have details of this scheme yet been received by the Commonwealth, and if favorable consideration is given to the proposal, what would be the nature of the cooperation required of the Commonwealth?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No communication in regard to the matter has yet been received from New South Wales.

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it would be possible to make arrangements to bring the suggestions, which are made by honorable members of this House in regard to the functioning of departments, particularly for the safeguarding of life, under the attention of the Ministers concerned?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Arrangements of that nature are already in existence. If occasionally some slip occurs, I cannot understand why it should do so, but I assure the honorable member most definitely that an officer is appointed to make a note of the questions asked by honorable members with a view to bringing them under the notice of the Ministers concerned.

page 897

AUSTRALIAN PUBLICITY ABROAD

Ir.’.E. J. HARRISON.- Has the Assistant Minister for Commerce received from Sir Henry Lindsay, who is Director of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington, England, and who, I understand, is also Director of the Imperial Film Library, a request to make available instructional films of Australia for use in schools and colleges? If so, will he consider the advisability of supplying films of that type directed to offset the adverse criticism which has been levelled in regard to the marketing of exportable Australian commodities?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– A special committee, which is attached to the Department of Commerce, deals with the whole matter of films. I can inform the honorable member that the request is receiving consideration, and any films which are being used by the department for publicity purposes are being carefully reviewed, keeping in mind the necessity for giving the best publicity to Australia.

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

– Then such a request has been received?

Mr THORBY:

– Yes.

– T shall put it on the notice-paper.

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether he approves of the method which was adopted by the Repatriation Department of sending policemen to the homes of neighbours of totally and permanently incapacitated returned soldiers who are receiving a full pension to ascertain whether they do any work ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I have already endeavoured to . make myself perfectly clear to the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) on this matter, but it appears that I have failed. The point which the honorable member raises is one of great importance, but, as I tried to impress upon the House, it is impracticable. The position is actually very different from what the honorable gentleman assumes.

page 898

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE BALANCE

Mr McCALL:

– Can the Treasurer explain the reason for the increased adverse overseas trade balance for the expired months of the current financial year as announced by the Commonwealth Statistician this morning?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– There is nothing unusual in the existing figures.

Mr Curtin:

– They have been trending in that direction fo’r the last two years.

BI-CARBONATE OF SODA

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I ask the Minister for Health whether he has noticed in the press, an advertisement for a patent medicine, in which the public-

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall call upon Business of the Day unless honorable members preserve order. I ask Ministers to regard questions as serious unless the Chair otherwise rules.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Has the minister seen in the press a patent medicine advertisement, which warns the public against the use of bi-carbonate of soda. In view of the fact that every medical practitioner will admit that the moderate use of bicarbonate of soda in certain cases is not injurious, but beneficial, “will the right honorable gentleman ascertain whether anything can be done through his department to prevent the public being misled in this way, and, consequently, induced to buy expensive-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is giving information and not asking a question.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Can anything be done through the Department of Health to prevent these urgers from misleading the public in order to make a profit?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– The honorable member’s question consists of several parts, of which I have been able to grasp only two.

He asks me whether I have seen a certain advertisement.I have not. He then asks me whether I am prepared to do something to protect the public. Yes, I am. If the honorable member will supply me with full details of the matter to which he refers, I shall deal with it without delay.

page 900

PRUNE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 193G

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 900

SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th October (vide page 836), on motion by Mr. Casey -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- Honorable members were much interested last night by a speech which the honorable member for Darling. Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) delivered on this bill, which dealt with the question whether, in fixing the amount of grant proposed to be voted from any State, regard should be had for all the disabilities which a State suffered. The honorable member adopted a contention made on page 68 of the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, that even if regard were paid to the disabilities which the States suffered, mainly through the tariff, such disabilities were balanced by the benefits which they received through the allocation of Commonwealth moneys. The figures set out on page 68 of the report seek to establish that the claimant States have received substantial benefits. It is stated that the people resident in Tasmania, for example; have received an advantage of nearly £1 a head as between the Commonwealth and the State. The argument in support of this contention is very plausible and I noticed that it was apparently accepted by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) who nodded his head during the honorable member’s speech, and also by several honorable members who seem disposed to cavil at the amount of the grants to be made to the States. An examination of the position will not bear out the view enunciated by the commission. The commission sets out that the adverse effects of Commonwealth policy in respect of “Western Australia aggregate £1,188,000, while the benefits to it in the allocation of Commonwealth moneys amount to £1,117,000 showing a nominal disadvantage to “Western Australia of £71,000. The report states that those figures are compiled from data supplied in the claim presented to the commission by the Government of Western Australia. The claim made by the State Government, however, was simply in respect of excess costs, which, it was calculated, the people of “Western Australia had to pay in consequence of the operation of the Commonwealth policy of protection. A balance was made between the cost of Australian goods and the estimated cost of similar goods if imported from Great Britain; but the commission was fair enough to admit that possibly many items could be obtained at a lower cost from other countries than Great Britain. I wish to remind the House, however, that the disadvantage to Western Australia through the operation of the Commonwealth policy of protection is not to be measured merely by the excess price which the people of that State have to pay for their goods. That is only one factor. To my mind a far greater loss has been inflicted onWestern Australia, because of the loss of factories and other secondary industries which were operating successfully there prior to the consummation of federation. If those industries had been able to maintain operations during the period of federation, with the moderate tariff protection that was in operation in 1900, they would no doubt have continued to develop, and other industries would also have been established ; but because of the limited market available in Western Australia, the industries I have in mind were not so well organized as similar industries in the eastern States. It is all very well to speak of the beneficial effects of competition, but it has been established again and again that certain manufacturing concerns operating in the eastern States sell their goods for a lower price in Western Australia than in the States in which they are manufactured., the object being, of course, to crush the

Western Australia industries. That, in my opinion., is unfair competition. If Western Australia had been able to continue the tariff that was in operation at the time of Federation, it would have been in a far better position to-day than it is. The people of the eastern States admittedly pay more for some locally manufactured goods than they would have to pay for similar imported goods, but they pay cheerfully because they believe that the advantages of our national policy of protection more than outweigh its disadvantages. That argument has often been advanced by protectionists in this Parliament. I have often heard the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) speak on this subject, and he has visualized hundreds of factories growing, up like mushrooms and providing employment for our people. Unfortunately that is not true of Western Australia. The excess cost of the goods our people have to buy is not by any means such a great disadvantage as the loss of their factories. Last year, the people of Western Australia bought from the eastern States goods to the value of £11,000,000, but the people of the eastern States bought Western Australia goods to the value of only £1,000,000. That position has arisen because we have free trade within Australia, but protection against manufacturers of other countries.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– ‘Would not manufacturing on a small scale be uneconomic ?

Mr NAIRN:

– I remind the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) of the situation in Victoria at the time of Federation, when the population was about the same as the population of Western Australia to-day. Under the policy of protection with which the people of Victoria were at that time enamoured, substantial manufacturing industries had been established although the conditions may have been somewhat uneconomic1. That would be the position of Western Australia to-day if it were able- to free itself from Commonwealth policy and adopt its own customs procedure. At present, although we pay extra for the goods which we buy from the eastern States, we do- not enjoy the compensating advantage which comes to people of the eastern States who also pay more for their goods than they would pay for similar imported products. The idea hai been expressed in other words. If we buy our goods abroad, we have the goods and our suppliers have our money, but if we make the goods within our own country, we have both the goods and the money. That is a summary of the policy of protection so favoured by the honorable member for Fawkner, but I do not think he should deny to Western Australia the advantage of a policy WhICh proved so effective in Victoria years ago.

Another disadvantage to Western Australia of our national policy of protection is that it deprives us of the opportunity to do profitable business with such countries as the Netherlands East Indies, Ceylon, and Java, which are in close proximity to us, and with which, if w were free agents, we could establish profitable trading relations. Under our Australian system, these countries may buy our goods, but Ave exclude their goods from our shores. We are therefore not in a position to trade on reasonable terms with our best customers. Our worst traders are, of course, the people of the eastern States. Considering the subject from the purely local angle and not from the broad Australian point -of - view, protection is a good thing for the eastern States but a bad thing- for Western Australia. Whilst I am prepared to admit that we- should consider the greater and wider interests- of the people of Australia and accept the policy of protection, I claim that it involves the adoption of a compensating principle. We in Western Australia should not have to pay the extra cost of goods and also suffer the loss of our factories and local industries without some compensating advantage.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission clearly recognized the position of tha claimant States., It admits, that the burden of the tariff falls very severely on each of the claimant States. In this respect, it points out that Western Australia produces a very much greater proportion of goods which might be described as unsheltered goods, than do the other States, and it concludes that on that ground. Western Australia is entitled to much greater consideration than either of the two other States.

A third, and perhaps equally important, ground on which all three States, and particularly Western Australia, are entitled to claim compensation from the Commonwealth is that the policy of protection, adopted as a national policy, had the effect of forcing them as outside States to adopt the policy of encouraging primary industry. Factories in those States were closed as the result of the breaking down of internal tariff barriers and there was nothing left for them to do but to resort to the development of primary industries, such as wheat and dairying. They did this, and in order to do it, they were obliged to borrowheavily.

Mr Nock:

– South Australia did the same thing before federation was brought about.

Mr NAIRN:

– On that account South Australia was able to carry ont its development on cheaper lines than were available in Western Australia. The fact remains, however., that the three outside States wore forced into this position. The Commonwealth at the same time pursued a policy of encouraging the manufacturing industries, and thus during almost the whole of the period since federation two systems of protection have been operating concurrently - the one applied by the Commonwealth which required no capital, but was simply a policy of tariff protection, and the other, that forced on the States, that of protecting primary production by means of borrowed money. The Commonwealth Grants Commission discusses this position at considerable length on pages 36 and 37 of its report under the heading of “Problems of State Development.” It refers at length to the necessity for these two systems, and says -

Development requires expenditure on public works, communications! and water supply, which must be marie in advance of occupation, and if it fails great losses are made. Marginal States have, therefore, a much more difficult tusk than the other members of the federation.

On page 43 of its report the commission refers to the two competitive methods of protection as follows: -

There is almost a competition between the two factors of development; each frustrates thf> effect of the other; the burdens created by the one make the protection required for the other greater, so that the clash we noticed earlier becomes more intense as each protective effort grows.

Further on in its report, it states -

. it is obvious that a tariff which extracts from export industry a substantial subsidy must add seriously to the burdens of States attempting to develop such industry.

Another quotation from the commission’s report reads -

The interaction of these two protective policies is vital to the problems the commission has to consider.

The commission recognizes that consideration of the position thus brought about is vital to the welfare of the States, but after discussing it in this manner it refuses to take it into consideration in framing its recommendations. The complaint of honorable members from Western Australia is that the commission has not taken into consideration those matters which most concern the claimant States.

– I think it was evolved first by Professor Giblin in his “ Case for Tasmania “. At any rate, that was the genesis of the doctrine of needs, and through his subsequent appointment to the Grants Commission Professor Giblin was able to influence the other commissioners to adopt this basis as the proper method of deciding these claims. Incidentally, it did not adopt as a basis the needs of the community; it adopted the needs of the State government, and it fixed its standard of governmental needs as one which would enable a State to function on a level not appreciably below that of another State. My first objection to this basis is that it is in the nature of a dole. Before a State can qualify for it its government must be “ hard up “. The ground of the claim is thus one of poverty, and not one of right; but Western Australia claims that it is entitled to com pensation as a matter of right, as compensation for losses which it suffers through federation.- That State accepted federation as being in the general interests of the Commonwealth, and surely when it asks for compensation for losses suffered by reason of that fact its claim on that ground should ‘be heard.

– That is so. Commonwealth policy has forced South Australia to enlarge its wheat areas into marginal country; otherwise the State would have stagnated. If the high costs at present prevailing had not to be faced agrarian development in marginal districts might be carried on profitably. Those high costs have made farming operations in the marginal areas unprofitable. It is late now to blame the States for settling people on the land in those areas, because they were driven into nutting them there.

– It took no cognizance of the budgetary positions of the claimant States. It could have obtained from the Under-Treasurer in Western Australia an estimate of his budget figures, lt might have assumed that the Under-Treasurer would have expected this year’s grant to be the same as last year. He budgeted to receive £SOO,000 from the Commonwealth, but, being £300,000 down, the budget is in deficit to the extent of almost £300,000.

– The Government recognized that fact in appointing to the commission at least one member from the claimant States.

Another regrettable thing is that the Government has re-appointed this commission, although with a different personnel. We had hoped that the Interstate Commission would be revived. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), in his policy speech, made a definite pronouncement, that the Government intended to reconstitute that body. This, of course, would’ be a more suitable body than the present commission to deal with the claims of” the smaller States, and it would be guided by the principles set out in the Interstate Commission Act 1912. One of those principles is that the Interstate Commis- sion should take into consideration the effect of the tariff on the financial stability of the States. That principle has been recognized by the Parliament and the Government itself, and if the Interstate Commission were reconstituted, it would inquire into the disabilities of the States due to the tariff. Of course, the smaller States mav be given something in the nature of an eleemosynarygift, but the underlying principle should be a desire to compensate them for disabilities caused by federal policy. The Australian Labour party has recognized the need for the recognition of this principle. The Leader of the Opposition quoted last evening the decision reached at a conference of the Australian Labour party to the effect that step3 should be taken to compensate the States for disabilities due to federation. The Government has already supported this policy. The Treasurer himself has written protesting - in a very mild way, however - against the Commonwealth Grants Commission adopting the policy of needs, pointing out the danger of taking that policy as the basis for compensation. He recognized how easy it would be for a profligate government to pile up a large deficit, because the more profligate it were,, the better chance it would have to secure a large grant from the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that if the Government of Western Australia this year spends money freely and increases its deficit, it will have a greater claim next year for a large grant. I notice that Tasmania has obtained an increase of its grant this year, to the amount of £600,000, largely because its Government has been extravagant.

Mr Mahoney:

– That is not correct. The commission did not say so.

Mr NAIRN:

– Perhaps the honorable member would like me to use the word “ progressive,” and. withdraw “ extravagant.” At any rate, the Government of Tasmania has produced a deficit.

– Yes, but the commission refused to follow the advice. Its report, which runs into nearly 200 pages, is unnecessarily verbose. Much fruit is seldom found in an abundance of words. Western Australia would have appreciated a shorter report. The commission need not have indulged in mental gymnastics. It could have said in fewer words, “This State is already in deficit, and needs increased assistance. “

Since the report of the commission was presented new circumstances have arisen which the commission could not have foreseen. Western Australia is now suffering from a drought much worse than that of the last two years. The wheat industry is in a worse position than last year, and the plight of the wool-growers is disastrous. The clip is not half so great as in normal years and there has been very short lambing. Evidently the Treasurer of the State will have to find relief for settlers to prevent them from being thrown on the unemployed market. lt would be better to prevent the State from falling into a condition of bankruptcy by coming to its rescue immediately. Obviously the State authorities will, need further assistance from the Commonwealth.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Ray

– The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) and the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) have apparently entered into a competition to see who could tell the most woeful and depressing story about the conditions obtaining in Western Australia, and 1 do not know to whom the prize should be handed. Yet their remarks are of concern to honorable members generally, because, when the files of Hansard are received in other countries, their speeches will prove a very bad advertisement for Australia. If their qualifications as representatives of their constituencies are adjudged by the facility with which they i el ate a story of depression, difficulty and hopelessness, it will be found that they are exceedingly well equipped. Their speeches remind, me of the gramophone record “ Down on Misery Farm “. A determined effort to remove any little disability, due, not to federation, but to other causes, would soon place Western Australia in line with the more progressive ‘States, with, the result that population would be attracted to it instead of being driven from it, industries would be established, and a stimulus would be given to the efforts of those who are endeavouring to make this country what it should be. The honorable members I have mentioned claim that the whole of the disabilities from which Western Australia suffers are due to the policy of protection, which was adopted by Australia to give employment to our people, develop our secondary industries, and provide an outlet for our raw materials.

– I agree with the honorable member for Barker that South Australia has not been so greatly blessed by nature as has Western Australia, which possesses rich timber resources, wealthy gold enterprises that are booming at the present time, and extensive coal and iron deposits, none of which natural advantages are enjoyed by South Australia. That State has more cause to tell a tale of woe than has Western Australia. I am giving these figures not complainingly, but merely with a view to showing what has been done for South Australia.. During the last six years, that State has received from the Commonwealth by way of grants no less a sum than £7,250,000. In direct payments to the States, Queensland has received £1,884,000 and South Australia £2,739,000. In assistance to prima reproducers, £195,000 has been paid to Queensland and £7S0,000 to South Australia. In connexion with, works and other payments the figures are respectively £2,250,000 and £3,500,000. The estimate for 1936-37 provides for a payment of £2,300,000 to Queensland and £3,247,000 to South Australia. Those figures prove that South Australia’s disabilities are recognized. A commission having been set up to do the fair thing, is it not right that the States assisted should continually ask for more than is recommended.

– There is something in that point.

Ki-. BERNARD CORSER.- I cannot agree that Queensland is in such a wonderful position as the result of federa tion, that it should provide revenue to be handed over to any of the other States in compensation for disabilities which I claim do not exist. The three claimant States are represented by eighteen senators in this Parliament, while the three larger States are represented by only the same number. Moreover, while we hear much of the principle of one man one vote, the fact remains that some Western Australian members of this Parliament represent few electors in comparison with members representing constituencies on the- eastern sea-board. In my opinion, federation has been very kind to the smaller States, and I cannot see wv States with deficits of £1,000,000 or more should be called upon to make contributions to other States which have balanced their budgets.

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

– When considering this subject, we must give adequate attention to those facts always found in operation in any federation. If honorable members will look up the debates which, took place at the time the Constitution was being drafted, they will see that everybody who attended the conventions agreed that the Commonwealth Government, by the very nature of its constitution, would be bound to collect revenue in excess of its requirements, and the provision was actually made at that time for a rebate to the States of no less than three-quarters of the total customs revenue to be collected by the Commonwealth over a period of ten years. Members of the convention properly raised the point that there were objections to the proposal that the States should be charged with the expenditure of revenue which they did not have to collect. Every one will admit that money, which is easily obtained, is often easily disposed of, and parliaments, being composed of human beings, are inclined to pay less attention to the expenditure of money which they do not have to obtain by direct taxation of their people-

One of the most important points in this discussion was that raised by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), namely, the abandonment by the Commonwealth of the principle of recognizing the disabilities which the States suffer under federation. A study of the convention debates reveals that the best minds of the six colonies were agreed at that time that the smaller States would necessarily suffer disabilities under federation. There is nothing peculiar in that. The situation is common to every federation throughout the world, and some re-allocation of revenue collected by the federal authority on behalf of the constituent states or provinces is a ic-gular feature of all federations. Consequently, in providing constitutionally for some repayment to the States of excess revenues collected by the Commonwealth, the convention was only acting in the light of common-sense. It stood to reason that, as soon as the Commonwealth was formed, the greatest source of revenue available to the States, namely, customs and excise, would be taken away from them altogether, but the same responsibility would rest upon them to develop the territories which they controlled. No less a person than the late Governor-General of Australia, Sir Isaac Isaacs, referred, at the convention, to the possibility of the States, if some provision were not made to secure their future independence financially, being left with a load of debt around their necks and their revenues just out of reach. That is the position of the three smaller States to-day. They have been obliged to go on with the development of their territories, but the tariff policy of the Commonwealth has resulted in the aggregation of secondary industries in the three large eastern States. The great manufacturing industries are centred chiefly in New South “Wales and Victoria, while Queensland is in an excellent position in regard to its primary industries. Queensland obtains the great bulk of the benefits of whatever butter marketing scheme happens to be in operation; it obtains almost all the benefits of the sugar embargo, and it enjoys the undisputed benefit of the protection afforded to cotton, bananas, peanuts, &c, commodities which can be produced only in that State, and which, therefore, do not have to face competition from other parts of Australia.

Mr Holt:

– And yet it has the highest rate of taxation in the Commonwealth.

Mr McEwen:

– There has been a Labour Government in Queensland for nearly twenty years.

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

– The high rate of taxation may be due to the tact that there is only one House in the Queensland Parliament, and to the policy of Labour in raising as much money as possible by taxation to expend on so-called social services. Queensland is one of the wealthy States of the Commonwealth in regard to its pastoral industry, being practically on the same footing in this regard as New South Wales. The value of pastoral products raised in New South Wales and Queensland is more than double that of those products in South Australia and Western Australia at their best. I do not desire to minimize the difficulties which the pastoralists of New South Wales and Queensland have to meet, but they are nothing like so great as those which confront the pastoralists of South Australia and Western Australia. No honorable member from the State of New South Wales, and certainly not the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark), would be prepared to claim that the country west of the Darling, and up to the Queensland border, could support any considerable country town, except to the extent it might be supported by the mineral industry. The conditions which prevail in the western part of New South Wales extend right across to Kalgoorlie, becoming very much worse in South Australia right up to the border of the Northern Territory. The eastern States, which have much better opportunities for primary production, much greater mineral resources, and very many more manufacturing industries, should take a broader view of this matter, and we should not hear from their representatives talk about the “misery farm” attitude of the claimant States, as we did from tin honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser). I admit that he was good enough to say some kind things about South Australia, and to point out that that State lacks supplies of coal, timber and water power. Those are the natural disabilities under which we suffer, and they cannot be remedied by legislation.

In my opinion, the effect of the tariff was well summed up by Melville and Wainwright, in discussing the first application for Commonwealth assistance put forward by South Australia in 1919. This is what they said -

The tariff threw unequal strains upon the different State Treasuries, and resulted in embarrassment of States producing proportionately the smallest amount of protected goods, hut encouraging the greatest development of primary industries, e.g., South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania. [Quorum formed.] I am grateful to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), for having called attention to the state of the House because J. am about to refer to the address on State disabilities which his leader made to this House last night. In this connexion the Labour party has broken out in an entirely new direction. Hitherto, the policy which I have heard enunciated by honorable members of the Labour party has been one of straightout, downright unification, but now it seems that there is a little change, in the possibilities of looking to the country. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) whether with the consent of his followers or not, indulged in what one might term a “ political flirtation waltz “ in this House last night, and he departed entirely from the usual orthodox attitude of the party of advocating unification as a remedy for the ills of the smaller States. For once in his life the honorable gentleman got down to a recognition of the fact that there is such a thing as a disability affecting the smaller States of the Commonwealth. This disability is traceable fo three” major actions of Federal Labour policy: first, the federal tariff, secondly the Arbitration Court, and thirdly, the Navigation Act. Some honorable members of the Opposition representing Tasmanian constituencies have had much to say in regard to the Navigation Act and sometimes, after having said it, they have voted in favour of it. I suppose that they spoke in accordance with their personal inclinations, and voted in accordance with the decision of their party.

Mr Barnard:

– What has that to do with State disabilities?

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

– Nothing at all, except that I thought that it would be just as well to introduce that subject because of the observations which the Leader of the Opposition delivered last night. I wonder whether his atti- rude was concerned so much with the,. desire to right the wrongs of the smaller States, rather than to protect certain very doubtful seats of honorable members, who represent constituencies in the smaller States. I have to face that position, and some of my friends who sit in the Opposition will also shortly be obliged to face it. The policy enunciated last night by the Leader of the Opposition who openly in this chamber referred to his approaching translation from the Opposition benches to this side of the House was not the policy contained in the official publication of the Labour party as I have understood it for a considerable number of years.

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

– Why does not the honorable member proceed with the consideration of the case for South Australia, and refrain from muck-raking?

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

– I shall yield my place directly to the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A Green), but these matters have to be considered by not only honorable members of this chamber but also the electorate at large, anc! particularly the electorate in the three smaller States which the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) and I happen to represent, if not in common, at least for the time being. When the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) was addressing himself to this subject, he made extensive reference to the “misery farms of Western Australia.” I accept his correction in regard to South Australia. Recently I paid a. flying visit to Western Australia, and I believe that if the honorable member for Wide Bay were transferred to some of the farms which I was shown on the marginal areas of the Western Australian wheat belt, there would indeed be misery.

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

– Hear, hear !

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

– His complaints would reach, not only to high heaven, but also to Canberra itself. Whether or not he happened to come here, he would see to that. It is just as well for honorable members to recognize some of the facts of the situation in regard to the disabilities of the smaller States. I am quite prepared to plead guilty on behalf of South Australia, to excessive loan expenditure. South Australia, in common with every other State of the

Commonwealth., has been guilty of that charge, and I make no exception in its respect. If the landed resources of the States were known to the bondholders of London and New York who subscribed to some of the loans which were floated by previous governments for land development, they would want to put those governments in the dock for being “ go-getters “ on account of the false representations which they made.

Mr Mahoney:

– That applies to South Australia ?

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

– lt applies to every State. Since the dawn of federation, and particularly since the conclusion of the war, the tendency has been to contract State debts in accordance with the hopes of the State governments rather than in accordance with a strict business valuation of the landed resources of the States. In common with the other States, South Australia has been guilty in that connexion. Possibly it has been, to a degree, more guilty than the others, because it has a greater proportion of poor land than any other State in the Commonwealth.

Mr Holloway:

– I think that the bondholders can look after their own interests.

Mr Stacey:

– What about Western Australia ?

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

– I claim no authority to speak on behalf of Western Australia, but if we are . to accept the conditions which are laid down on page 13 of the commission’s report, the Commonwealth Government will shortly face a most remarkable set of conditions, and will be called upon to make some difficult choices. Not so very long ago, this Federal Parliament decided in the matter of the Commonwealth v. J. T. Lang, that it was responsible for all State commitments, and that if a State government, through any cause whatsoever, failed to meet its commitments, the Commonwealth was bound to intervene and accept the responsibility on its behalf. That is the position as I understand it. But the recent report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission sets out that henceforth the position is not to be as it was in the past; no longer is the question of the disabilities of the States, due to the incidence of federal policy, to be taken into consideration; the sole condition in arriving at the determination of the amounts of those grants will be the necessity of the States. In years past some State governments have been what one might honestly call “ a little careless” in the manner in which they have expended public moneys, and the time may come when similar governments will again be in office. So far as I can see to-day, there is nothing to prevent any State government from going ahead with any wild and woolly scheme whatsoever, let it be called land development, tlie increase of social services, &c, and if, thereby, it gets into financial difficulties, the Commonwealth will, according to the principle laid down by the commission in its report, decide that it is entitled to a grant on that account. An entirely different attitude should be adopted by this Parliament in that connexion, and I should bc extremely sorry to see this Government agreeing to the proposition that such a contention as has been submitted by the Grants Commission should be the accepted policy of the Commonwealth. It is a policy which will lead us into serious difficulties before we are much older. If this is the policy of the Commonwealth Government and the guiding star of future commissions which will deal with the financial disabilities of the States, New South Wales is to-day the most deserving State of the Commonwealth, because it is called upon to contribute more than half of the total of the deficit of the other States.

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

– New South Wales has to find more than £1,000,000, and that is the cause of its objection.

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

– So far as the smaller States are concerned, NewSouth Wales is not finding a penny. The smaller States are finding the money originally in the form of disabilities incurred as the result of three acts of federal policy; first, the tariff ; secondly, the Arbitration Court; and thirdly, the Navigation Act.

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

– Is not the honorable member’s opinion rather coloured ? The commission has stated that there arc no disabilities.

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

– I do not agree with the commission’s viewpoint. Probably Mohammed said that there was no truth in the Bible, but I do not agree with him, and I assume that the honorable member for Wentworth also would not agree with him on that score. But the commission’s report is only for the guidance of this chamber. I will never accept the position that, because Parliament appoints a commission to inquire into a certain matter, honorable members are bound to accept everything that it adduces. If the honorable gentleman desires to argue from that aspect, I refer him to section 668 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry, and he will see that the commission calculated that the average cost of establishing a farm of 1,280 acres, due solely to the incidence of the federal tariff, was no less than £500. Examining the matter from the viewpoint of South Australia, I also refer him to the report of the former Director of Agriculture in South Australia, Professor Perkins, who recently retired. That gentleman’s association with the department extended over a period of 30 years, and in his report he recommended the closing up for wheat production of no fewer than 1S6 hundreds in South Australia, which is due to the fact that over a period of years they have failed to return an average of six bushels an acre. I have not attempted to work out the number of farms which would be included in those 186 hundreds, but if they are closed down it, will be a very serious matter for the State. According to the calculations of that royal commission, each of those farms has, on an average, paid into the Commonwealth revenue £500, through the medium of the tariff, and the Commonwealth has therefore been the beneficiary. That is why I say that originally the smaller States have provided the money which is now being returned to them in the form of a grant. It is not being provided by the taxpayers of New South Wales. For years since the war, parliaments have been continually increasing the tariff, and, at the same time, the standard of wages has been raised, through the operation of the Arbitration Court. In many instances, the Federal Arbitration Court has stepped in and increased wages in State instrumentalities over the heads of State parliaments and governments who, of their own free will, would not have taken that course, because they were not able to bear the additional burdens. In many instances these extra wages have had to be paid out of loan moneys. Nobody except a few persons associated with certain institutions would suggest that under the existing system of Commonwealth administration a State gets 20s. worth for every £1 of loan money it expends. Actually it only gets a proportion of the amount nominally made available to it, for a large proportion of the total is expended in customs duties on imported goods used in the construction of public works.

Mr Gregory:

– The average is nearly 40 per cent.

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

– If the money does not revert to the Commonwealth in that way, it is used to pay artificially inflated prices for the locallymanufactured goods which have had to be used and which cost much more than similar imports of the same kind. It stands to reason, therefore, that going back over a period of years, every State has paid to the Federal Government in the guise of tariff taxation, or by taxes on incomes made in secondary industries, a considerable proportion of the loan money which it has received.

Mr Holloway:

– That would apply to every State.

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

– That is so, but it applies to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania with greater force than to the other States, for they do not benefit to any large degree from the activities of secondary industries within their own borders. I declared years ago, when I was a member of the House of Assembly of South Australia, that the continuance of the existing financial system was bound to end in trouble, for it was unsound and, in my opinion, politically immoral to tax the loan expenditure of one government to provide revenue for another government. It stood to reason that, during the years that loan commitments and expenditure were highest in the States, the Commonwealth revenue from customs was correspondingly buoyant. I am not able under this bill to criticize the Commonwealth Government’s use of its revenues, but I believe I shall not be going beyond the scope of the bill when

I say that during the times to which I refer the Commonwealth Parliament showed no tendency to consider the catastrophe that was imminent to State finances. If any thought of that nature was harboured by any Commonwealth Minister, he kept it to himself. I have heard the subject brought under notice by various Premiers of South Australia from 1927 onwards, who have pointed out time, and time again that Commonwealth policy must have an injurious effect upon State activities in this connexion; but no sign appeared to indicate that their contention was given any serious consideration in Canberra.

Mr Thompson:

– The point was referred to in this House five or six years ago.

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

– I go back ten years to the time when the first, Butler Administration was in office in South Australia, before the end of the Bruce-Page regime. At that time Commonwealth Ministers appeared to bo incapable of contemplating any other state of affairs than those then existing. In my opinion, the Bruce-Page Government was extremely fortunate to get out of office when it did.

Notwithstanding these remarks, “South Australians have been ready to admit certain faults in their loan expenditure, but we also contend that extenuating circumstances were present. In States like South Australia, large areas of submarginal dry country were provided with water conservation schemes and extensive reticulation services, the cost of which was not light. Then, of course, South Australia has had problems in regard to its railway systems. Although I cannot place the ultimate responsibility, it is a fact that the railway systems of South Australia are under three different ownerships. We have Commonwealthowned, State-owned and privately-owned railways, and we have in operation all the gauges to bc found anywhere in Australia. This also has bad its adverse effect upon our railway finance, and the position must become increasingly difficult, until the standardization of our railway gauges is achieved. I regret that this Government, instead of giving effect to its election policy for the standard 17.a. ti on of our railway gauges, has made confusion worse confounded by building the Port Pirie to Port Augusta railway, and so added another strip of entirely useless railway to those already to bc found in South Australia. I understand, however, that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to accept some responsibility on that account.

In common with other States, but I think to a greater degree, South Australia has had to face problems connected with soldier settlement. These Iia ve been due chiefly to the wholehearted way in which that State put in hand irrigation projects along the Murray River in the days immediately following the conclusion of. the war, and we are far from out of the financial wood in that regard. I have always held the opinion that soldier settlement should have been solely a Commonwealth liability. The State governments were foolish to undertake any financial responsibility in connexion with it. As things have worked out, the Commonwealth has enjoyed all the benefits from the expenditure of loan moneys in the States, and has, in fact, been heavily subsidized on that account through its tariff revenue, whereas the States have been left to carry the heavy load which should have been the burden of the Commonwealth.

I have no desire to compare the merits of the three claimant States to the grants proposed to be made to them. For that reason I have had very little to say about the position of Western Australia or Tasmania. I have admitted certain faults in South Australia in regard to loan expenditure which was particularly heavy and unjustifiable in some years. One government, expended £24,000,000 - about a quarter of our public debt - between J 924 and 1927, but it is fair to inform honorable members from other States that South Australia has made every effort- to put its financial house in order. Taxation has been increased with what I may call a savageness which has been unknown in the other States. All licence-fees have been substantially increased. In this connexion it may bc said that we have done our best to bear our own burden. The rate of income tax increased in South Australia from 5d. to ls. 6d. in the £1 within two or three years.

No other State of the ‘Commonwealth imposed such a high rate of income tax. The general exemption was reduced to £100 in South Australia and a flat rate of 2s. 3d. in the £1 was imposed on the incomes of all single persons, with a minimum of £1 in respect of any person who had any income at all. These taxation measures have been in force for some years. I could give enlightening figures, also, in regard to the increases of land tax, and could point out that the increases of railway freights and fares were such as to make them the highest in the Commonwealth. Water rates were increased and hospital taxes imposed at a time when other States were doing no more than to talk about such things. I claim, therefore, that the Parliament of South Australia has gone to the limit in increasing taxation in order to meet the financial requirements of the State. We have also, as I have confessed, been overoptimistic in judging the value of certain land resources, and have pushed our wheat belt too far out into the marginal country. Owing to political agitation, it is unfortunately true that good sheep stations were cut up to make bad farms. The wickedness of that policy has become apparent to-day and through the menace of drift and erosion is being brought home even to people in our capital cities. Professor Perkins’s declaration that 186 hundreds in South Australia will have to be abandoned for wheat growing and turned back to grazing purposes is a further indication of the trend of things in South Australia. If the sheep stations to which I refer had been left alone, many graziers who were actually ruined through the loss of their properties would have remained good taxpayers, and many farmers who were ruined through settling on unsuitable country would doubtless have been engaged in more profitable occupations. It is undoubtedly a grave mistake to attempt to apply land to purposes for which nature has unsuited it.

I notify the Treasurer that I intend to support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan, and I should like to hear him announce that the Government is prepared to. regard a favorable vote” on it as an indication that the, House wishes a similar provision to be incorporated in the bills to provide grants for the other claimant States. I do not desire to obstruct business, but I plead with the Treasurer to accept the proposition that disabilities due to federal policy should be taken into consideration. I urge the recognition of this principle with all the sincerity of which I am capable, and I declare emphatically that if necessity is to be the only test, a grave financial situation will arise in this country. I shudder to think what the position of the claimant States will be in a few years time if that policy is continued. We shall get into such a state of financial chaos as between the Commonwealth and the States as will present this Parliament with a problem, the solution of which T will not, at this stage, attempt to discuss.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speech of the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) and I find myself in a measure of agreement with him when he says that State disabilities due to Commonwealth policy should he taken into consideration in assessing the amount of any proposed grant. The honorable member was correct in his statement that some State ‘Governments have expended loan moneys on works which cannot make a commensurate return in the form of additional productivity, ‘but I dissociate the Government of Tasmania from any guilt in that connexion. Very little work of that kind has been done in the island State. It is apparent that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has given patient and exhaustive consideration to the various problems which confronted it, and has made a strenuous endeavour to discover a permanent basis upon which grants may bc made automatically to °the various claimant States. Whilst it is true that the commission to some extent has shifted its ground in respect of the basis upon which it first assessed these grants, it has explained generally the reason for this change. I confess that, to some degree, I sympathize with the Government in its difficulty in determining its future policy of assistance to the smaller States. The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser) attempted to make out a case against the smaller States, and endeavoured to show why they should not be given grants, but the fact remains that tlie honorable gentleman, together with other honorable members from Queensland, is always anxious to support any proposal to this chamber to give assistance to Queensland. He is very anxious to have protection for industries in Queensland, which policy, in the main, explains why the smaller States to-day find it necessary to appeal to this Government for financial assistance. This is clearly borne out in the report of the royal commission which inquired into the wheat industry, and also in the report of proceedings at a conference of State Ministers on the wheat industry. At that conference the Queensland representative did not ask for anything, as, evidently, Queensland was satisfied with what itwas receiving.

As undoubtedly the smaller States are suffering disabilities due to federal policy, they are entitled to financial assistance by way of compensation. All of the States are members of the federation for better or for worse. The Commonwealth Constitution was accepted for good or ill by its founders on behalf of all the States, and to-day each State must accept its fair share of responsibility as an integral part of the Commonwealth. In my opinion, it is quite outside the realms of practical politics to say that any State can withdraw from the federation. Our only alternative, therefore, is to. see that States which suffer disabilities arising from the policy of the Federal Government of the clay should be compensated.

It has been said that some of the States have borrowed unwisely and expended loan money on schemes which have not shown a commensurate return. The Grants Commission, after very mature consideration of the matter, has come to the conclusion that great economy has been exercised by the Government of Tasmania, and that its loan expenditure has been very low. This refutes the claim made by certain honorable members from South Australia. But this policy has reacted to’ the detriment of Tasmania. Every one accepts the theory to-day that a policy of economy in Government expenditure is detrimental to the State that applies it. Those States which have been prepared to spend money in the development of primary and secondary industries have gone ahead by leaps and bounds, whilst those which have not adopted so vigorous a policy in this direction have lagged behind. That this position has arisen as one of the results of federation cannot be denied on behalf of the larger States. To the honorable member from South Australia who spoke about the extravagance of Labour Governments I point to the results of the Labour administration, which has been in office in Queensland for twenty years, and which, I contend, has been very largely responsible for the progress of that State.

It is very pleasing to note that the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its current report congratulates the Treasurer of Tasmania on his method of compiling his budget, and on the statement which he presented to the commission. Several years ago, when the commission visited Tasmania, it was found that whilst a certain financial statement had been submitted to- the State Parliament, a different statement was submitted to the commission. When the commission visited Tasmania in 1935, the Chairman, referring to this fact said -

The commission views with great satisfaction the reforms by the Tasmanian Treasurer in the 1934-35 budget, and the attempt made to present a true picture of the State finances. For, it is true, as your Premier pointed out recently, that several States’ budgets are seriously at fault in not presenting an accurate statement of accounts … In the year 1934-35, Tasmania made a revolutionary change in financial policy. Expenditure and losses were shown in the budget, instead of being postponed or concealed in trust accounts. Tasmania now presents a budget which is a complete statement of its finances for the year in question.

Such commendation by the chairman of the commission is very pleasing indeed to me in view of the fact that a Labour Government is in office, in Tasmania to-day. On this matter the commission in its report says -

The budget as it stands at present may .be called a “standard budget,” and enables the commission, and indeed the citizens of Tasmania, to see at a glance the true state of Tasmania’s finances.

The commission’s report now under consideration by the House is very comprehensive, and it has been drawn up in a very satisfactory manner. If it errs at ali it does s® in the direction that it presents so vast a volume of facts. I wish to draw particular attention to paragraph 3il of the report which reads -

While in respect to South Australia and Western Australia we fee’l convinced that 9.he grants recommended are sufficient to give these States full opportunity to redress their financial inferiority, we tlo not feel the same conviction in respect to the Tasmanian grant, though we believe it to be ample for the immediate purpose of budget adjustment. This is on account of her longdepressed conditions, some degree of exhaustion of her natural resources and a cumulative wastage of her capital assets, which, of course, cannot be remedied by full provision for depreciation for a year or two. We think, therefore, that there is occasion for special help or encouragement beyond the scope of special grants, and we recommend this need to the consideration of the Commonwealth Government and Parliament. The form such help should take would require technical examination, and we do not consider it our province to recommend it except in general terms. An example, however, may make our meaning clearer. Tasmania has great forestry possibilities, but her assets have been depleted. A long-term forestry policy involving considerable expenditure over a term of years is needed. Such . a policy has been worked out and described to us in evidence, and the Commonwealth Director of Forests commented on it very favorably to us. This policy has now been initiated with the help of the Commonwealth grant for forestry, but it is hampered by uncertainty as to the necessary funds in future years, which prevents, for example, the recruiting of an adequate technical staff. An undertaking to finance some such scheme, approved by the Commonwealth’s technical advisers, seems to us the kind of additional help that Tasmania now needs.

The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) described the form of assistance to the States as “ temporary “ and urged that this Government should deal with this matter on a permanent basis thus obviating the necessity for claimant governments to come cap in hand to the Commonwealth Government year after year. That suggestion should be carefully considered. In respect of forestry development, to which I have just referred, the Premier of Tasmania has written to the Prime Minister propounding a scheme of assistance to cover a period of several years which it is considered would remove the necessity for special grants in future years. There can be no doubt that, forestry in Tasmania presents great possibilities. This matter has been dealt with in this chamber on more than one occasion, and suggestions for the fullest development of Tasmania’s forests have been approved by the forestry advisers of the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Casey:

– That statement can hardly be accepted.

Mr BARNARD:

– Whatever might be the opinion of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) on this matter, I have seen reports published, to this effect from time to time, and so far I have never heard them disputed. I myself have made similar statements in this chamber on previous occasions, and not even the Treasurer has questioned them. This aspect of the problem, was mentioned last year, when the claim for special assistance to Tasmania was under discussion. Since then, the Treasurer has indicated, in reply to a question, that the matter is under the consideration of the Government, but that no further action has been taken. The Treasurer will not deny that a fairly complete scheme ha3 been submitted to the Government. I hope that before this debate concludes he will indicate to the House whether any decision has been reached in the matter, and what the Government proposes to do to remove the necessity for annual applications by the smaller States for grants to assist them in balancing their budgets. The long-range policy for Tasmania recommended in the report of the commission should be considered by honorable members generally. Indeed, the recommendation is made for the consideration of the Government and the Parliament., I regret that when proposals for the making of grants to the claimant. States are submitted to the House, there is a tendency on the part of some honorable members, to ridicule them. I hope that the House will assist in the framing of the necessary long-range policy now recommended.

Tasmania has been particularly unfortunate in regard to recommendations made for the granting of financial assistance to the smaller States. .In .1.926, a case was presented on behalf of Tasmania, and Sir .Nicholas Lockyer was appointed by the Commonwealth Government of the day to investigate the disabilities of that State, but the recommendation which he made was not given effect. He recommended that a loan free of interest be granted by the Com- mon wealth to Tasmania of such amounts as might be required from time to time for a period of ten years, but not exceeding the total sum of £1,000,000, for the purpose of developing the agricultural and horticultural resources of the State. That recommendation was not accepted, and last year the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in regard to forestry was also ignored. I urge the Government to give full consideration to the latest recommendation of I ho commission on this matter; it is substantially the same as that made last year. This Parliament should consider the claims of the smaller States, not merely having regard to their immediate needs, but also desiring to help them to discharge their important functions as sovereign. States instead of having to depend on animal grants from the Commonwealth. The commission states that it has explored the possibilities of the Commonwealth , taking over, from the States such activities as the administration of railways, State debts, health and education matters and the like. It seems to me that owing to the loss of revenueproducing departments consideration will soon have to be- given to relieving the States -of some of their liabilities.

Mr. JOHN LAWSON (Macquarie) 5.23].- The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn), and, I think, also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), and other honorable members, when addressing themselves to this bill, alleged that the Commonwealth Grants Commission was consciously or unconsciously biased when considering the various claims put before it by the smaller States.-

Mr Nairn:

– I did not hear anybody make that statement.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The honorable member said that the attitude of the commission to Western Australia, was biased because of its personnel. He did not impute dishonesty, but he definitely implied that the commission was unconsciously biased. I suggest that when an honorable member imputes bias to such a body as the Commonwealth Grants. Commission, and claims that, although .he represents an electorate which is interested in the progress of this bill he himself is free from bias. we have come to a pass that calls for protestation. Whatever our opinions may be as to the recommendation of the commission concerning the claims by certain States, at least we should do it t h«; justice of saying that it is far less likely to be biased, either consciously or unconsciously, than any member of this chamber, and particularly those whose constituents and electorates have a special interest in any proposal before the House.

I propose to make some comments that have as their text the following statement made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its second report: -

We. have found no ground for compensating the people of a State for disabilities due to federation or any other causes.

Again, in its third report, the commission states in paragraph 164 - ‘

Special grants arc justified when a State through financial stress from any cause is unable efficiently to discharge its functions .-is a member of the federation, and should’ be determined by the amount of help found necessary to .make it possible for that State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States.

I do not allege bias against the ‘commission. I believe that it has honestly endeavoured without bias to do its ‘work in a -proper manner. It is competent, however, for members freely to .discuss the conclusions -which the commission has reached, and, perhaps, to suggest that a variation of the determination that has been made should be considered. The Prime Minister (Mr.- Lyons), speaking in this House in 1932, when he held the portfolio of Treasurer, said -

The Government considers that these large grants are justified only because of the difficulty and special circumstances now existing, and that grants of such magnitude cannot be taken as a basis for permanent or long-term relief.

– To be perfectly candid, I cannot quite understand the exact import of the amendment,

Mr McEwen:

– The honorable member for Swan has not yet convinced .himself.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Nor have I been convinced. Apart from tho dangerous precedent that the Government is establishing, it is placing itself in an even worse position by committing itself to such an undertaking without demanding of the commission a more reasoned statement in justification qf its recommendation. The commission admits that there are no disabilities due to federation, lt agrees, of course, that there is financial stringency; and merely on that account it proposes to award au amount of £2,430,000, without giving any reasons for the existence of the financial stringency. While I admit the originality which lias enabled the commission to find, not a reason, but an excuse, for making this recommendation, I must confess that I have not been able to follow its logic. I say most emphatically that financial embarrassment does npt, of itself, necessarily place on the Commonwealth Parliament the obligation to give financial relief. That cannot be given by the Commonwealth until it is established, in some degree at least, that there is a definite obligation upon it to alford such relief. Honorable members from Western Australia and other States have had the wit to attempt to establish a case, but the body which this Parliament has set up to adjudicate in the matter has never made any attempt to prove that it is obligatory for the Commonwealth Government to provide financial relief.

Last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) indulged in an oratorical frenzy on the subject of the very severe disabilities under which the State of Western Australia labours, for what reason or from what causes I did not. exactly grasp. The honorable gentleman waxed eloquent in respect of the inadequacy of the proposed grant.

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

– Is not the honorable gentleman a little jealous of his eloquence?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I admit his eloquence.

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

– And his logic?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Not always. While admiring his eloquence, I consider that the plausibility of the claim which he made last night was equalled only by the utter spuriousness of the arguments which he advanced. For example, he quoted facts concerning the commodity balance as between the smaller and the larger States, and asked the House to accept his dictum that the more statement of a commodity balance indicated the prosperity of one State as compared with another. I venture to assert that no more ridiculous proposition has ever been put before this -House. The statement of a commodity balance is as meagre and as small a fraction of a statement of the general economic position of a country or a State, as one could well imagine. The honorable gentleman further asked us to infer that, because of the overwhelmingly^ rural character of the occupations followed, the inhabitants of Western Australia were in a most disadvantageous position compared with the inhabitants of a State like, for example, New South Wales, in which consider a blf wealth is represented by manufacturing and other industrial concerns. I challenge that statement. I have yet to be convinced that the fact that- a State is overwhelmingly industrialized, rnakes its citizens wealthier on the average than the citizens of another State, in which industry is predominantly rural or primaryproducing.

Mi-. Lazzarini. - The honorable member does not know much about economic history.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– f do notclaim to have a very great knowledge of economic history. Nevertheless, I ask the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) to toll me whether he believes that, because Shanghai is a highly industrialized city, the average dweller in it is any wealthier or better off than the average dweller in Western Australia. I ask honorable members, also, to consider whether the mere fact that England is highly industrialized rnakes the. average standard of well-being among its citizens higher than the average standard enjoyed by the citizen of New Zealand or Australia, in which rural industries predominate over manufacturing industries. Yet that was the theory advanced last night by the Leader of the Opposition, in his endeavour to establish a case for Western Australia. I suggest that arguments of that nature are utterly futile and spurious. But even if there were any merit in what the honorable gentle^ nian put forward, the million or so rural dwellers in New South Wales, who receive no special grants are at least as badly off as are the few hundred thousand persons who arc engaged in rural industries in Western Australia, and. who will ‘benefit under this bill. That argument, if it has any merit at all, which I deny, applies equally as much to the man on a small grazing proposition at Bourke or Longreach, as to the average farmer or grazier in Western Australia. Again., if one compares the savings bank deposits in New South Wales with those in Western Australia, or in the smaller “States generally, we find that the per capita average is rather less than in the smaller States which are to benefit under this bill. In New South Wales, the savings bank deposits per capita amount to £29 9s. 2d., whereas in South Australia” they amount to no les;than £41 7s. 2d. I think that that is a sounder basis 11Don which to compute thu relative wealth of individuals, to determine whether or not grants should be made, than that employed by the Grants Commission. In Western Australia, the average taxable income for Federal purposes is almost identical with the average taxable income in New South Wales. I rely upon the 17th Report of the Commissioner of Taxation for this information. Facts of that kind make it quite clear that the case put forward, by certain honorable members for increased grant5 is, to say the least,.very much more biased than is the commission, which has made the recommendations embodied in these grant bills.’

I should like to set out just how the grants offered by the Commonwealth benefit a .State like South Australia, and in taking out these figures I tried to effect a comparison between South Australia mid New South Wales. It is proposed that the Commonwealth shall grant to the three claimant States a total of 0,430,000, of which £1,330,000 has been awarded to South Australia. I speak subject to correction but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, of the total sum of £2,430,000. New South Wales will contribute, roughly, £1,000,000.

The sum of £1,330,000, winch is to be made available to South Australia, is equivalent to the complete remission by the Commonwealth Government of all the excise collected from South Australia, the whole of the federal land tax, the entire proceeds of estate duties, the whole of the federal income tax, and 20 per cent, of the sales tax. If we continue the comparison further we find that, after making allowance for all ordinary and special grants to the two States of South Australia and New South Wales, the net contribution by South Australia to Commonwealth revenue amounts to only £1 15s. per capita each, year, while the comparable figure for New South Wales is £6 15s., almost four tunes as much.

Mr Prowse:

– That shows how prosperous New South Wales is.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The honorable member is now propounding, the novel theory that heavy taxation implies a high measure of prosperity. Has the honorable member considered the relative financial position of South Australia, and New South Wales, upon which these awards are allegedly based? Has he considered that, during* the last financial year, the State of New South Wales has achieved u very heavy deficit, while the State of. South Australia has achieved a surplus? Has he further considered that the public servants of New South Wales are still being asked to make concessions to the State to the extent of over £900,000 a year, while those in South Australia have had their salaries practically restored in full, and will enjoy full restoration in thu very near future? Moreover, 1” understand that it is a fact that the Government of South Australia is making some taxation remissions, while it is utterly impossible for the Government of New- South Wales to do anything of the kind.

In my opinion, the Grants Commission * should prosecute a very much more searching inquiry as to the underlying causes of the financial stress which these bills aim to relieve. It is not sufficient for the commission to say that, because there exists financial embarrassment in a State, the Commonwealth Government should offer relief. There is a duty upon the commission, hot merely to say that there exists financial embarrassment, but also to state clearly and unequivocally the underlying causes of the embarrassment and, if possible, to suggest remedies, f think myself - and I offer the opinion with diffidence, because of the difficulty of the problem - that the cost of administration in the smaller States is the heaviest burden that they have to bear. T believe that, at the present stage of development and population, it is impossible for us to hope for financial stability in the smaller States. Some of the gentlemen who have been so enthusiastically advocating the secession of Western Australia from the Commonwealth would be better advised if they sought to merge the administrations of South Australia and Western Australia, and the representatives of Tasmania should consider the advisableness of linking up the Government of that State with the Government of Victoria. I have never been a unificationist, but I believe that there is a strong case for the merging of the Governments of the smaller States with a view to achieving economies in administration.

Mr McEWEN:
Echuca

.- The bills before the House at the present time present a suitable occasion for us to review the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States rather more fully than has been done by those honorable members who have so far spoken. I, as a new member of this House, have been astounded to discover the magnitude of the contributions by the Commonwealth to the States, and not merely to the three claimant States. I believe that my astonishment in discovering this would be shared generally by all the citizens of Australia if they knew the extent to which the Commonwealth is raising taxes to hand over to subordinate governments. I have been in this Parliament for just two years, and have seen three budgets introduced. When the legislation now before Parliament ha? been passed, there will have been voted £46,175.493 of Commonwealth money to State Governments during the brief period that I have been a member of this Parliament. I do not think that the citizens of Australia generally have the slightest conception of the extent to which the Commonwealth is used as a taxing machine to provide money for the States to expend, nor that they have any idea of the percentage of Commonwealth revenue so handed over to the States. The estimated revenue of the Commonwealth from taxation for this financial year is £.61,580,000, of which it is proposed to disburse in grants to the States no less than 25 per cent. As the proposed grants by the Commonwealth to the States this year, and its statutory commitments to them under the financial agreement total £15,322,000, I regard this as a fitting occasion for this House to review more fully the financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States, aud to consider whether we should be content to allow the present state of affairs, under which the Commonwealth really acts as a taxing machine to a very large extent for the States, to continue. I am in no sens8 offering criticism of the State governments, but I allude to the system which makes it necessary for one parliament to levy taxes, the proceeds of which other parliaments expend; and I am offering criticism of the division of constitutional authority which makes it impossible for this Parliament to spend its revenue in giving to the people certain services, which must be given, but which can only be constitutionally given by the State parliaments. At the same time, I point out that in addition to those direct grants and statutory commitments which the Commonwealth has entered into with the States, the States are actually receiving certain other financial advantages of considerable magnitude, which are not generally realized by the public or even by honorable members of this House.

Mr Holloway:

– They are based upon the needs of the States, and not upon disabilities.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pare*:) adjourned.

page 923

ORANGE BOUNTY BILL (No. 2) 1936

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 924

SPECIAL ANNUITY BILL 1936;

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Casey) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for the payment ofan annuity to the widow of the late William James Mcwilliams, Esquire.

Resolution reported. tanding orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

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

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now road a second time.

The object of this bill is to provide for the payment of an annuity of £156 per annum from the 1st October, 1936, to Mrs. Mcwilliams, widow of the late William James Mcwilliams, who had 26 years Parliamentary service - six years in the Parliament of Tasmania, and twenty years in the Commonwealth Parliament, as member for Franklin in this House.

Following upon representations made to the Government, inquiries have disclosed that Mrs. Mcwilliams is in most necessitous circumstances. Parliamentary authority has been obtained in the past in certain special cases for the payment of annuities to widows of exmembers of this Parliament who have rendered distinguished service to the Commonwealth.

The late Mr. Mcwilliams played a prominent part in the deliberations of this House, and in the public life of Australia, and in view of the destitute position of his widow, the Government has decided that the case is one which merits the special consideration of Parliament.

The proposal contained in the bill is therefore, commended for acceptance by honorable members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 p.m.

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed - by leave -

That Standing Order No. 70 - eleven o’clock rule - be suspended for this sitting.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– I wish to know why this motion has been moved. Several years ago, when a certain bill to grant financial relief to a State was under discussion, we were pressed to pass the motion for the second-reading without delay, but the committee stage of the bill was not proceeded with until 2 a.m. two or three days later.. There was no justification for such action. I ask the Treasurer whether this motion is intended to have application only for to-night.

Mr Casey:

– Yes, and the purpose of it is to allow us to pass the Western Australia Grant Bill and the Tasmania Grant Bill after the South Australis Grant Bill has been disposed of.

Motion agreed to.

page 924

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1936

Second Heading.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to appropriate from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the sum of £12,000,000 for invalid and old-age pensions. It is the usual practice to seek parliamentary approval for periodical appropriations for this purpose. The last such appropriation was £12,000,000, in October last. That amount is now almost exhausted, and it thus becomes necessary to ask Parliament to appropriate a further sum.

It is estimated that the £12,000,000 now asked for, will meet pensions expenditure for about ten months. The total amount appropriated by Parliament since the inception of the invalid and old-age pensions system is £183,250,000, and the actual expenditure until the 31st August of this year has been £180,500,000, leaving a balance of only £2,750,000 to meet future expenditure. This is sufficient for the requirements to the end of October.

The bill, as usual, provides for the payment of this amount to the credit of the invalid and old-age pensions trust account as required. The bill has no relation to the rates of pensions or to the conditions under which they are payable.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 925

SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from page 923.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- In July, of 1933, the Commonwealth Grants Commission was set up to consider applications made by State Governments to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance. The commission consisted of three members: Mr. F. W. Eggleston, Chairman;. Professor L. E. Giblin, and Mr. Wallace Sandford. I regret that Mr. Sandford, who is a South. Australian, has recently felt compelled to resign his membership of the commission owing to the pressure of private business. I wish to place on record the appreciation of the people of Australia of his excellent work as a member of the commission. I regret that another South Australian has not been appointed te take Mr. Sandford’s place, though I do not propose to argue, at the moment, that that will be another disability to- South Australia. Mr. Sandford has, however, rendered valuable service to the whole community, and it is proper that we should express our appreciation of it. I hope that the gentleman who has been appointed to take Mr. Sandford’s place will carry out his duties with the same efficiency as Mr. Sandford did.

I propose to confine my remarks to the circumstances of South Australia, for I do not profess to know much at first handabout the affairs of either Western Australia or Tasmania. Moreover, I feel it my duty, as the representative of a South Australian constituency to emphasize the justice of the case submitted to the commission by the Government of South Australia in support of its claim for a grant of £2,000,000’ in this financial year on the ground that serious financial difficulty has been occasioned to the State by the impact of federal policy on State policy and finance.

Section 96 of the Constitution provided that the Commonwealth Parliament might grant financial assistance to the States during- the first ten years of federation, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provided, and it is under that section that necessitous States may seek financial aid from the Commonwealth. Section 90 of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth exclusive power to impose duties of customs and excise, but it should be mentioned that the Commonwealth and State Parliaments have full power over taxation in other respects. It was provided in section 87 of the Constitution that at least three-quarters of the revenue derived from customs and excise duties should be paid to the States during- the first ten years of federation, and, thereafter, until Parliament decided otherwise. All surplus revenue not required by the Commonwealth was to be paid to the States monthly, and, I understand, that for a number of years tha various Commonwealth Governments which ha.ve been in office honoured that arrangement. At the time the Constitution was. framed grave doubts were entertained as to the financial results of federation from, the view-point of. the States.

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

– There is nodoubt now.

Mr PRICE:

– No. Several honorable members have suggested in this debate that the Commonwealth Government should cease giving financial assistance to the States. South Australia could not very well carry on without it. In asking for such assistance, the State doe* not feel that it has to come cap in hand! to the Commonwealth, but contends thatit has a right to it. In that respect, there> fore, I make no apology for South Australia. The Commonwealth is- obliged to pay these grants as something- justly due to the States. Under- sections 87., 89, 93, and 94 of the Constitution, the Stateshave a right to expect the Commonwealth to pay to them a share of its surplus, revenue. Thus, when the Commonwealth enjoys buoyant financial years, it is only natural that necessitous States should, apply for a little of that money to help them over difficult times. Under federation, the Commonwealth Government enjoys a wonderful source of revenue in customs and excise duties, and, as thisrevenue is denied to them, States in need are compelled to ask the Commonwealth from time to time for what may be termed a “’ hand-out.” It is only fair, in such circumstances, that the weaker States financially, should receive benefits from the Commonwealth Treasury.

In view of the tone of certain speeches which have been delivered from both sides of the House in this debate, I feel it necessary to deal somewhat in detail with the finances of South Australia. For the years J 934-35 and 1935-36, its revenue and expenditure were as follows : -

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– South Australia’s financial position is improving each year.

Mr PRICE:

– Yes, and I hope that this improvement will continue, not only in South Australia, but also in the other States. But the fact that that is the general trend throughout the Commonwealth is no real reason why the States should be denied their just share of any surplus revenue enjoyed by the Commonwealth. For 1935-36 there was a general improvement of revenue in South Australia, which exceeded the estimate by £191,303, whilst expenditure exceeded the estimate by £43,678. The chief items in which revenue failed to reach the estimated figure were - Succession duties, which fell £66.000 short, and income tax, which fell £64,000 short. Expenditure was kept down to a minimum, the principal items in which the estimates were exceeded being - Railways, £61,000; roads and bridges, £54,000; reserves for drought relief, £19,000; centenary celebrations, £8,000; maternal welfare fund, £S,000. Notable cases in which the expenditure was less than the estimate were - Unemployment relief, £50,000 ; public debt, £30,000 ; child welfare and public relief, £22,000. It is pleasing to note that, owing to improved economic conditions generally in South Australia, it has been possible for the Sta,te Government to relieve the unemployment, situation very materially, and it hopes that, in the near future, it will be able to say that there is no unemployment in South Australia.

In presenting its balance-sheet, the South Australian Government subdivides revenue and expenditure, and shows clearly the financial gains and losses of its principal activities. As I was a member of the Sta te Parliament’ of South Australia for a number of years, I cun appreciate the value of such an improvement., and 1 congratulate the Government on its new method of keeping its accounts. They can now be easily understood by the average person, and it is a method that should be followed by the other States. In fact, I should like to see the Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr. Casey) adopt a similar method. His accounts would then be presented in a more simple way than is the case at present, and would bc understood by all taxpayers. It is the duty of every government to simplify its accountancy methods. Net receipts from direct taxation in South Australia last year were as follows: -

Net expenditure on community services was as follows : -

In respect of community services, education, including interest, on sinking fund on loans to schools and grants to the Adelaide University and School of Mines, accounts for £970,000; and hospitals, child welfare and public relief, unemployment and health, cost £838,000.

These services, including roads, absorbs the whole of the Government’s income from land and income tax and stamp and succession duties. The whole of its taxation revenue was spent on education, health and other community services. If the Commonwealth Government were to assume the responsibility for the education of the people of Australia, it would relieve the State of South Australia of an expenditure of £S55,000 annually. In view of much that has been said by honorable members in this debate, I feel obliged to emphasize these facts, in order to show clearly how South Australia is spending its revenue. A few years ago the State was in the unfortunate position of being the heaviest-taxed State in the Commonwealth. To-day Queensland occupies that position. It should be noted that the Commonwealth Government has power to take over the whole of the State railways; but it is a significant fact that this Government is loath to assume any further liability, and State railways to-day are definitely liabilities. This matter has been debated for many years, but I doubt whether we can postpone much longer the time when the Commonwealth shall have to take over State railways. Meantime, however, as this Government does not want anything that does not pay, the State governments are obliged to bear the full post of running their railway systems, although these arc rendering an essential service of a purely national character in transporting primary products to the seaboard. From time to time, requests are made to the various State governments to reduce railway freights, and the cost of these reductions usually falls on the taxpayers. Last year, the losses of South Australia on its railway system totalled fi ,000,000. I hope that the grant to South Australia for 1937-38 will amount, not to £1,330,000, as for 1936-37, but to £2,000,000. The Commonwealth can afford to hand over that sum to the State, and. South Australia deserves it. The Commonwealth collects in petrol tax about £8,000.000, and some of this money should be used to reduce the capital cost of the railways, which have a strong competitor in road transport.

The annual losses of South Australia include £2,600 on irrigation works and the locking of the river Murray, and £2,460 on soldier settlement. Irrigation schemes could not have been successfully carried out without the locks. The total annual losses in connexion with the locking of the Murray and with soldier settlement approximate £500,000. The aggregate losses on loan works for the last three years are as follows: -

From these figures it will be seen that the aggregate loss, though still heavy, is £480,000 less than it was two years ago. Last year, 20 per cent, of the total revenue of South Australia came from Commonwealth grants. The total indebtedness of South Australia for the years ended the 30th June, 1935 and 1936, was as follows: -

The actual increased indebtedness was £1,173,981 for the year 1935-36, which meant an increase of £1 3s. 4d. a head of the population.

In June, 1936, a loan was floated in Loudon, which converted £1,996,335 of 3$ per cent, stock, maturing on the 1st July, 1936, into a new’ loan bearing interest at 2;,; per cent. The loan was floated at an issue price of 99 per cent., and the new loan will mature on the 1st January, 1.943. with the right of repayment at any time after the 1st January, 1941. As the result of the flotation of this loan, South Australia will save in interest approximately £15,000, and allowing for exchange, say £3,750, the total savings can be set down at £18,750 per annum. Owing to a change in the incidence of interest on the new loan, this saving will not be fully effective until 1937-38. Although, the loan was satisfactory and further reveals the confidence which people in Great Britain have in our securities, the saving is not very great this financial year. It will not amount to more than £3,000. The real benefit of the saving in interest will be felt in future years. .It is pleasing to note that our stocks are maintaining a good price in Great Britain and it is to be hoped that this confidence will be maintained.

I have endeavoured to give the House full details of the financial position of South Australia, and I hope that every honorable member will recognize that the State’s finances have been wisely and carefully managed.

Having studied the various reports published by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I consider that its work on the whole has been well done. Each year since 1928, I have spoken in this chamber on the need for the payment of grants .to the smaller States. If the present .system is not continued for a considerable period, as I hope it will be, T trust that some other equitable arrangement will be made to enable those States to balance their budgets. The Commonwealth, as a great revenue tax collector, will always have money that it can hand out to the smaller States. The special grants received by South Australia from the Commonwealth since 1929-30 are as follows : -

The people of South Australia are thankful for the grants that have been made to the State in the past, and nothing would please them better than to be in the happy position occupied by those States which need no financial assistance. They believe that, side by side with primary industries, it is necessary to have secondary industries, and they are hopeful that, as time goes on, South Australia w;ll have a large number of secondary industries in operation. Tt is pleasing to know that at last the alkali industry has been established there. When I was elected to this Parliament in 1928, I brought prominently under the notice of the Government of the day the necessity for such an industry, and I did no* cease drawing attention to the matter until last year.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Does South Australia desire a grant for that?

Mr PRICE:

– No. This industry will provide a great deal of employment. Already from 200 to 300 men are engaged, and in the course of time the number will increase. Many of the industries established in Victoria and New South Wales could well be operating in South Australia. I know that there is gradually growing up in that State what may be termed a secondaryindustry mind. For many years it was only what is known as a primary industry State, but the people are now beginning to recognize the necessity for having manufacturing enterprises side by side with primary production.

South Australia submitted a claim for a grant of £2,000,000, and the Grants Commission, after an exhaustive inquiry, recommended one of £1,133,000, “which the Commonwealth Government has adopted. The South Australian Government hoped that the commission would have recommended an amount at least equal to that granted last year.

Discussing the benefits and burdens of federation, the commission has said that in the case of South Australia and Western Australia these almost balance, and that special grants are not necessary because of the effect of federation. That is very hard to swallow. In effect, it means that the claimant States are mere dependants on national charity. With that I disagree, and I would describe it as sheer humbug. South Australia has never made a specific claim in relation to which it has not received compensation. Its burdens have been enormously added to by high protection. Because it has striven to develop its resources with loan moneys, the commission seeks to penalize it. A portion of its loan money was borrowed to pay customs duty on imported articles used in its development. It has contributed millions of pounds towards the maintenance of industries in the eastern States. Does any one deny that?

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yes;

Mr PRICE:

– South Australia did not apply for a grant from the Commonwealth until 1928, whereas the first grant t’o “Western Australia was made nineteen years earlier and1 the first to Tasmania seventeen years earlier. It will, therefore, he seen that South Australia has not been a grasping State. It applied for assistance, only when it. was. forced to do so by reason of the condition, of. its finances.

I regret that, the: Commonwealth has not seen fit to. grant the £2,000;.000 sought by South Australia, which I assure honorable members is sadly needed. I believe that the time has arrived for the, setting up of an interstate commission to deal with future grants. In my opinion, the Commonwealth Grants- Commission has outlived its usefulness..

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

.- 1 have very much pleasure in joining with my colleagues from Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania, in advocating the claims of the smaller States, by which I mean those that are smaller in relation to financial capacity or are less favoured by Commonwealth policy than are the eastern States.

The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price).,, in his closing remarks, stated that Western Australia had received a grant from the Commonwealth nineteen years prior to the first claim for assistance by South Australia. That correctly states the position. The big- Australians who were in the Parliament of the Commonwealth in those days were animated by the true Australian spirit. They recognized that a primary producing State which had very few manufactures was” at a disadvantage compared with the eastern States; with their highly-developed industrial enterprises. Western Australia was given a sliding tariff which it was- thought would enable the State to overcome its temporary disabilities in a period of 25 years. Unfortunately, however, that was not the- result, though I believe the- time will come relatively soon when it will’ have: a- population of 1,000,000 persons, and with it secondary industries which will, make it independent of any assistance from the eastern’ States: The- claim for a larger amount’ than the Government proposes to make this year cannot be regarded as peculiar. In 1933-34, the grant was £600,000; in 1954-35, it was the same amount ; in 1.935-36 it was £800,000 ; and this year it is to be only £500,000. Honorable members who,, like the honorable member for Wide. Bay (Mr. Bernard Cosser), say so glibly; that the people o£ “W<i stern. Australia oe always whining, would do well to spend’ a month or two ins the distant parts of that State, as was suggested by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), so that they might see. whether the condition of the people there is; as happy; as that of Queenslanders- who are engaged- in heavily subsidized prosperous primary industries. I am sure that even, the honorable member foc Wide.’ Bay would agree that the position of the. primary producer in Western Australia) is- a sad one indeed. I agree that. SouthAustralia needs assistance; I probably see as much of that State as- the- majority of mert who live in it. Those- who come fa-em Western Australia by train are able to follow the progress of its crops, upon which it largely depends’ for ite’ pl’03,perity. It is known that South Australia’s belated application for- assistance from, the Commonwealth was; caused by four very bad crop failures which reduced almost to the bread line a large body of the citizens of Adelaide who previously were considered to be financially solid. Many retired farmers had to resume their properties from the persons to whom they had sold them, because of the inability of these men to continue their payments. The Scullin Government freely made a grant of £1,000,000 to the State, at a time when conditions were very parlous. Now there is an overflowing Treasury, and times are prosperous. Of this we are continually reminded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons).. As late a-s yesterday the right honorable gentler man, addressing a commericial gathering in Sydney, pointed out that in the near future millions of pounds would’ come into Australia foi: the establishment, of new industries, and expressed the hope that the manufacturers of Victoria and New South Wales would not begrudge the primary producers- a share of the: wealth produced. That. fell from the lips of the Prime

Minister of this country, and yet we find that his government, perhaps because it has unduly reduced taxation in preparation for the coming elections, is insisting upon its pound of flesh from Western Australia in order to placate the interests in the east of Australia that may be affected by its financial policy. I agree with the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) that the basis upon which the Grants Commission has made its recommendation cannot be justified. Tasmania’s greatest disability is its isolation from the mainland, and that disability must always exist, unless manufacturers take advantage of the cheap water power available in Tasmania ana establish secondary industries there. I hope that this will happen, just as I hope that secondary industries will he established in Western Australia. I remind honorable members that it is not simply out of caprice that one-third of the continent is being developed by only 450,000 people in the west, while there are over 6,000,000 people in the east of Australia. Western Australia suffers from great natural disadvantages. Even if it were a fertile area from Cape Londonderry in the north, to Cape Leeuwin in the south, which it is not, the extent of the State is so great that it would cost an enormous sum of money to provide it with, railways, and other means of communication. As it is, less than one-third of the Stale is served by railways of any kind, while the relatively small area suitable for wheat-growing when marked ou the map, makes the rest of the State appear to be unsuitable for close development. Western Australia has proved to be a hard State to develop, and the men who have gone into the outback, cutting themselves off from the amenities of civilization, are now faced with drought, so that they will probably lose 60 per cent, of their sheep and lambs, and will be worse off after ten years’ struggling than they were when they began. I am not parochial in my outlook, and I am anxious that Australia should develop its own industries, even if, for the time being, they must be located largely in the eastern Sta”tes; but I do ask that those in the eastern States, who derive all the benefit from those industries, shall take a sufficiently Australian view of this matter to see that a. fair deal is given to those parts of the continent less favorably situated than their own.

I cannot understand, why the Grants Commission should have any doubt regarding the disabilities suffered by Western Australia under federation. There was certainly no doubt of it in the minds of the members of the royal commission which was appointed by the Commonwealth Government to inquire into the matter, and whose report was presented to Parliament in 1925. The commissioners, although they did not bring in a unanimous report, certainly found that the State was suffering definite disabilities under federation. Dealing with the subject of the Commonwealth customs tariff, a majority of the commissioners stated -

That whatever benefit the Commonwealth protectionist policy may have conferred upon other States of the Commonwealth, it has not benefited the State of Western Australia: that it is impossible to give the primary producers of Western Australia relief by way of reducing customs duties without injuring the secondary industries of the eastern States: and that the only effective way of removing the chief disability of the State is to restore to the State, for a period of years, the absolute control of its own customs and excise.

If any one were to advocate that course at the present time he would be called unpractical. If such a proposal were put forward by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) and the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) they would be called visionaries, but it was, nevertheless, made by two of the commissioners, neither of whom belonged to Western Australia. They further recommended -

That the State of Western Australia shall, during a period of 25 years, and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, have the absolute right -

To impose its own customs tariff as in pre-federation days, provided the State of Western Australia shall not impose higher duties upon the importation into the State of Western Australia of any goods produced or manufactured in, or imported from other States of Australia than are imposed on the importation into the

State of Western Australia of the light goods produced or manufactured in or imported from other countries.

Ill) To impose its own excise tariff.

They pointed out in the report that Western Australia has to carry the burden of iiic undeveloped north-west, while South Australia was able to get rid of its responsibility for similar territory by handing it over to the Commonwealth. Up to 1924, the Government of Western Australia had spent £3,680,000 on the development of this northern section. No doubt some people will ask why Western Australia does not follow the example of South Australia and hand it over to the Commonwealth, but the people in that area believe that they will get more value for their money by remaining under the State government, especially in view of the lack of success achieved by the Commonwealth in the development of the Northern Territory. They have all their commercial relations with those in the south, and Perth provides a market for their products. There is no doubt that this northern area constitutes a grave responsibility, and every few years the Government is put to the expense of renewing jetties and harbour facilities destroyed by occasional storms. Only recently a storm destroyed the jetty at Onslow, which cost £40,000 to build, and had to be replaced al a similar cost.

It has been stated in this House that the feeling in favour of secession in Western Australia has been fanned by a few malcontents, but the members of this royal commission actually advocated secession for Western Australia long before it had been seriously discussed, by any one else. In their report they stated -

It is difficult in a community such us Western Australia, with its relative isolation from the seat of government and also from other States, to prevent the creation and growth nf the belief that, other States are somewhat indifferent to Wenton) Australia’s peculiar problems and difficulties. It is, indeed, very desirable that a greater knowledge of Western Australia should lie attained by the residents in other States, and ably directed propaganda, having that object in view, should, in our opinion, be undertaken. Some reasonable degree of assistance by the Commonwealth, on the lines indicated in other sections of this report, would, in our opinion, go far to put an end to the dissatisfaction with federation which has been sedulously fostered by at least one Western Australian journal of wide cir culation, and which has obtained a degree of acceptance that cannot hu dismissed as insignificant. 1 make bold to say that, if the people of Western Australia could have heard the taunts flung by some honorable members in this Hou3e at those who are asking for justice for the claimant States, whatever federal spirit they still retained would have been dissipated. Commissioner Entwistle expresses himself in these terms -

In my opinion . Western Australia should never have entered the federation, but, having done so, there is, I feel convinced, only one complete and satisfactory remedy for her present disabilities, namely, secession. If that event occurred, all other recommendations in this report would become unnecessary. As, however, it cannot be taken for granted that secession will take place, I have joined in recommendations having the object of relieving (at least to some extent) the present financial disabilities of the State of Western Australia.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– When was that report issued?

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

– In 1925. The report was called for by a government of the same political colour its the Minister. It was presented, and was conveniently shelved, just as other similar reports have been. The vote in favour of secession in Western Australia was carried by a majority of two to one. I am not a secessionist, even iti the face of that majority, but honorable members should recognize that the secession sentiment in Western Australia is not mere bluff. Probably the most enthusiastic toderationists in Australia were the 40,000 gold-fields residents who signed a petition of great length and sent it to Queen Victoria demanding that they be given an opportunity to vote on the proposal for inclusion in the federation. When the vote was finally taken, the proposal was carried by 44,800 votes to 19,600. At that period, Western Australia was only an infant State, but that vote was an emphatic declaration for the federal principle, and T hope that this Parliament will not utterly destroy the spirit then evinced, because much of it has already departed from Western Australia. Many people in that State are firmly convinced that without secession it will never progress. As a keen Australian I hope that Western Australia will never be parted from the federation. Apart from any benefit or ‘otherwise that Australia might receive from retaining Western Australia despite its depleted finances as part of the union, if the Commonwealth had been dismembered by the secession of one of its States, there is no man but -would regret it deeply. 1 regret that I am unable to paint the rosy picture of the finances of Western Australia that was painted of South Australia by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price). In Western Australia, the debt per capita was £172 on the 30th June, 1934, hut to-day it has increased to £196, the highest in the Commonwealth. Such a staggering burden cannot be borne by the small population of that State if it is to prosper. The position has not been brought about because the people revel in exorbitant expenditure, and whatever the administrative capacity of its successive State governments, they ‘ have not spilt largesse as lavishly as the Commonwealth has done for a number of years past in innumerable ways. The suggestion of the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) that, to overcome disabilities of the smaller States, Tasmania should be tacked on to Victoria, and South Australia and Western Australia should merge is a ridiculously fantastic method by which to settle their troubles. How could .the people of Western Australia, for instance, expect, a government 1,000 miles .removed from them to understand and appreciate their difficulties’.? The truth is that the three smaller States have been obliged to exercise -particular caution in connexion with their finances. The country railway stations in Western Australia, in nine cases out of ten, are unattended.

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

– So they are in South Australia.

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

– Yes, South Australia also has been pushed into that position. A passenger by rail in the country districts of Western Australia, travels by a train which runs on a 3-ft. 6-in. gange at what is considered to De a fairly rapid rate of 15 miles an hour, and sees freight dumped off at an unattended siding. They are unattended because the expense of staffing the stations cannot be borne by the

Government. I would prefer to see employment given to men in looking after the stations, but it may he said to the credit of the men of the back country that I have never heard of a single instance of the theft of any goods from an unattended siding.

According to the latest Commonwealth Year-Booh, the value of imports into Western Australia from the eastern States was £9,500,000, compared with its exports to the .’eastern States of £1,333,333. I am not for the moment dealing with the adverse balance. I am merely endeavouring to show that Western Australia is a valuable customer of the eastern States. At the present time, the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) and other members of the Cabinet are undoubtedly worried in connexion with matters of trade with a country inhabited by another race and by people who are not white, and yet slighting references are made to our own kith and kin in Western Australia, who are actually one of the best customers in the world of the eastern States. The exports from Australia to various countries are set out in the latest Commonwealth Year-Booh. Of those of British nationality New Zealand buys £3,000,000 worth of goods from the ‘Commonwealth and, with the exception of Great Britain, is our best customer. Malaya purchased £1,000,000 worth of commodities from .Australia; Canada £1,267,170 worth, and the other seven British possessions listed a littleover £1,000,000 in all. It will, therefore, be seen that Western Australia is assisting the eastern States by way of trade to the extent of £9,500,000 annually, which is equivalent to three times as much as New Zealand buys from the Commonwealth and more than the purchases of all the other British possessions combined. The Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) recently made a special trip to that dominion, and I suggest that he pay a special visit during the recess to Western Australia, which as a customer of the eastern States is three times as valuable as New Zealand.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– I was in Western Australia last year.

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

– I am aware that the Minister is not slothful inhis duties, and for that reason I suggest that he should pay another visit to that distant state, and on his return use his influence with his colleagues in connexion with its claims. Australia exports to eighteen foreign countries, but the purchases of only one of them - Japan - exceed the value of the goods that Western Australia buys from the eastern States. Japan buys £14,000,000 worth of goods, most of which is wool, and which it must bare for its manufactures. Its purchases of wool will probably decrease now, because it is obtaining its requirements from other sources, although at a higher cost, but I have no doubt that Japanese business men are sufficiently keen to endeavour to operate again on the Australian market. I shall not refer to this aspect, however, because, as the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) and I would call it, the matter is sub judice. Germany, which buys £9,500,000 worth of goods from Australia, ranks next on the list, but its purchases are not more than those which Western Australia makes from the eastern States. Belgium takes £7,500,000 worth, and France £6,000,000 worth, and the rest taper down to the United States of America, with £2,500,000. Many other countries, which are considered to be of importance in world affairs, take a trifling percentage of Australia’s exportable goods, compared with the purchases of Western Australia from the eastern States.

Mr Curtin:

– What does Czechoslovakia purchase from Australia?

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

– I do not know that that country gets even honorable mention in the list. I have not the figures with me.

Western Australia continues loyally to purchase goods from the eastern States, and up to the present, I have heard of no proposal to boycott those goods, because the particulars of this bill are not yet known to Western Australia. As a matter of fact the people of that State do not expect this Parliament to pass the measure in its present form. Honorable members may make a joke of secession, but those of us who are loyal Western Australians regard it very seriously when it” raises its ugly head, and we desire the Federal Parliament to assist us to obtain for our State a grant similar to that which was made last year.

Mr Prowse:

– The Americans were lost to England for a less cause.

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

– That is so. Altogether, the disabilities of Western Australia have been investigated by three bodies. Honorable members may remember that a commission was appointed by Mr. Bruce in 1927, composed of Professors Brigden, Copland, and Giblin and Messrs. Dyason and Wickens, to deal with the effect of the tariff upon the people of Australia. They adduced figures which appear in The Australian Tariff, showing that the amount received from the tariff in Australia was approximately £36,000,000. In other words, the tariff cost the people of Australia £6 a bead. For the moment I am not finding fault with our tariff policy. I refer only to the benefit which the people of the different States obtain from it, as indicated by this commission, which was inquiring into the special disabilities of the States, and was not composed of special pleaders on behalf of any particular State. Out of the £6 New South Wales received £5.5 a head of the population, which shows that something was being lost to the people of that State. Victoria received £7 a head.

Mr.Gregory. - The tariff is nearly double what it was then.

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

– The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser) dubbed us small-minded Australians because we ventured to criticize the sugar bounty. According to the figures of the commission, Queensland received £8 a head of the population, or £2 more than the amount to which it was entitled. Based on its population of 876,000 persons Queensland profits from the tariff by £1,752,000. Before any warmhearted member from Queensland interjects, let me inform the House that the sugar embargo is a sore point with many Western Australians and I am frequently questioned about it. In the country districts of Western Australia the price of sugar is increased to 5d. and 6d. a lb., and Western Australians are prone to ask the reason why they are being robbed of £6,000,000 a year in order to maintain a population in northern Queensland. 1 always endeavour to show them that they take a narrow-minded view, that sugar growing has settled 180,000 persons north of the tropic of Capricorn, and that they have established an industry, the only one of its kind in the world to be carried on by white labour. Of that fact I am particularly proud. The sugar-cane growers of Queeusland form a barrage against any invader. Where it is necessary for coloured labour to do the work in other parts of the world, hardy white men are doing it iu northern Queensland under conditions which hitherto were regarded as impossible for white men to endure. I would not sacrifice the industry, but do the honorable member for Wide Bay and the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom), an old campaigner, whom one would expect to be absolutely fair in considering the matter of making grants to States to compensate them for their difficulties and to assist people who are really suffering, suggest that those people are being fairly treated when they ask “ When will the payment of this dole finish ?” My reply fo those honorable gentlemen is that in view of what the rest of .Australia is doing for Queensland, they should forever keep silent on the matter.

Continuing an examination of the commission’s figures 1 find that South Australia receives- a benefit of £3.7, and. Western Australia £3.6 a head, which is considerably less than each State’s share. On this basis, as the commission showed, Western Australia should be receiving a grant of £926,000 instead of the paltry sum which this Government is desirous of giving to it. It is vain for the commission to say that any disabilities from which the claimant States suffer have been counterbalanced by advantages. No monetary grant can compensate Western Australia or the other claimant. States for the loss of the large industrial population which has settled chiefly in New South Wales and Victoria, and which, obviously, is of such tremendous benefit to them. Practically the only effect of the tariff wall in Western Australia has been that the manufacturers of the eastern States have beenable to dump goods in Western Australia for sale at a lower price than, that obtained for similar goods in the place of manufacture. I am not opposed to our policy of protection. I- know that it has been beneficial to the eastern States, but unfortunate repercussions have occurred in the States which are now seeking financial assistance from the Commonwealth. In this connexion, 1 direct attention to the final paragraph in the volume The Australian Tariff, which reads as follows: -

Tho States which enjoy more than their proportional share of the benefits of protected industries may be able to alford this result. Their taxable capacity is increased through the protected industries established in their territories. But opposite results are experienced in the other States. Their taxable capacity is lowered so that their rates of taxation have to be increased; industry is further encouraged to concentrate in the more fortunate. States, and the cumulative effects which follow intensify the inequalities created by the tariff itself.

The Prime Minister might consider that, paragraph in the light of the remarks that he made in Sydney on Tuesday to the accompaniment of such hearty cheer’s from the Sydney manufacturers.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– It seems to me that this debate has really developed into an excursion into the field of relativity. To the uninformed mind relativity simply means that Newton has been overthrown by Einstein, who says that nothing can be known positively, and that science itself is ignorant. But the fact, is that as soon as the cause of the relativity or variation is known and the amount measured, we have its co-efficient. Actually, what wo need is a co-efficient. When we have its co-efficient, relativity ‘becomes a positivity as far as that operation or activity is concerned. We have simply to take an ordinary surveyor’s chain or steel tape to ascertain that relativity is an undeniable fact, for it contracts with cold and. expands with heat. By careful comparison, the amount; of variation is measured per degree per chain, and, adopting a standard temperature for all chains we obtain a standard, or invariable, length, and a puzzling variation becomes a fixed or positive value. In this debate wo are seeking a co-efficient to deal with relativity. Otherwise such a debate as this could not have occurred. I am personally seeking a co-efficient.

To put it in another way we are seeking a common yardstick. A common yardstick was postulated in 1900, when Australia was girdled with what we now know as our White Australia policy. A common yardstick implies that the various activities of the Commonwealth have to he maintained on an equal basis, or, in other words, that there must be a levelling up to achieve equity. To my mind, the achievement of this sense of equity as between the various conflicting interests of the Commonwealth is the most important task that faces us at the moment. We are seeking, so to speak, a standard temperature, otherwise this debate would not have occurred.

I am amazed to think that we should have set up a commission to measure the disabilities from which various States are suffering, and that it should inform us that no disabilities exist. [ am also amazed that certain honorable members are disposed to accept the findings of the commission. Among these is the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) who, I like to think, has a first-class brain. * Quorum formed.]*

In speaking of disabilities I do not wish to bo misunderstood. I do not propose, necessarily, to sing the praises of Western Australia, South Australia, and Tasmania, or even of the Northern Territory. I wish to take a broad view of the subject. We are here as Australians, and should be a united people. Unfortunately, we are disunited. I think what we call the weaker States should bo thoroughly ashamed of the manner in which they have misspent, the moneys allocated to them, in the past. The spendthrift policy that has been observed might have been expected to land them where they are.

The main troubles that face these States arc not arbitration, the tariff, or the Navigation Act, as certain honorable members from Western Australia would have us understand; they are actually geological and geographical. They have their root in soil and climate and a concentrated commercial complex. I do not think that that can be denied. I do not wish, to deliver a lecture on physical geography, but it is well for us to realize that while the currents of air that come down to the southern hemisphere from the equator, anti-clockwise, on our eastern seaboard and bring heavily laden moisture with them to the high basalt ranges of the Pacific coasts of the continent, and so cause the heavy rainfall that occurs in those regions making Queensland in particular remarkably luxuriant, the cold air currents which come up from the South Pole due to this anti-clockwise motion on the western coast of the continent are not moisture laden, and do not cause rain, with the result that large areas in that part of Australia are arid and must remain so. I mention this merely to illustrate my point that our troubles are due largely to the physical geography of the country.

I repeat, however, that in consequence of the White Australia policy, which we have been seeking to implement since 1900, and by reason of which we say to certain people, “ You must stay out of this country; we are the only ones who can live here we should be prepared to meet the situation which we have created in a reasonable way. As the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) has said, we must treat the people who have settled in our lonely outposts differently from the people who have settled in the richly endowed south-eastern parts of Australia. I hear the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) interjecting, but I advise him to give a little attention to the works of that outstanding Australian, Griffith Taylor. It would provide him with a useful occupation, and make it unnecessary for him to continue to attempt to play the part of the Tasmanian devil. It must be realized that those who go out into the arid areas of Australia are, to a notable degree, supermen. They must be adaptable to extraordinarily varied conditions, and it should really be axiomatic that move favorable treatment should be accorded to them than is accorded to people who live in more settled and civilized surroundings, and enjoy the greater amenities associated with them.

I do not wish to dwell to any extent upon the needs of the Northern Territory, which I feel like describing as the great, new State of the Commonwealth, but it, is desirable that I should remind honorable gentlemen that if the Northern

Territory had made available to it the full amount to which it is entitled under the federal aid roads agreement in consequence of the quantity of petrol its people use and the area served, its grant would be £175,000. That calculation is based on figures prepared by the officers of the Department of the Interior. If this money were made available it would be possible for us to develop northern ports to serve the country abutting on the Arafura and Timor Seas, and provide an outlet to the’ East.

In reply to the chorus we have heard to-day from honorable gentlemen representing constituencies in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, I feel disposed to remark that spendthrift habits bring their own rewards and punishments. I do not wish to say any hard words about Western Australia, for I finished my education in that State, and walked many hundred miles within its borders as a young surveyor. 1 can claim to know Western Australia better than most honorable gentlemen who represent Western Australian constituencies in this Parliament, but I am obliged to say that large sums of money have been foolishly Spent in Western Australia in connexion with migration schemes, group settlement plans, over-capitalized buildings, roads in Perth and its environs, and the like. I do not wish to mention any names in this connexion, but there is no doubt that certain persons have left the State a very unhappy legacy in this connexion. Ninety per cent, of the State’s debt is due to incompetency. The same thing applies in South Australia where an attempt was made to carry on farming operations beyond the Goyder line, as the result of which the people settled there now have to be brought to more suitable locations. As a matter of fact, a forceful policy of eviction similar to that employed in the United States of America to take the farming community from arid and semi-arid regions might be necessary. In the United States of America the people are assigning the real value to land, and are departing from the policy of trying to convert grazing land into farming land.

Turning to Queensland, I was amazed at. the speech delivered by the honorable member for Wide Bay. (Mr. Corser), because the rich State on the eastern sea-board should be grateful to nature. I have already pointed out how the endowments of the tropics were brought t0 Queensland, and how a great uplift of basalt gave to it a basic soil in situ and others that have been transported to the rich river valleys. It is overstepping the mark for Queensland members to decry other honorable members of this House for pleading the mendicancy of their States. As a matter of fact, Queensland has been for twenty years the biggest spendthrift in the Commonwealth, and has been saved from the consequences by the natural resources that it possesses. It has been able to hide its mistake’s. If any other State had been guilty of the spending of which Queensland lias been guilty-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to deal with the bill. At present he is embarking on a discussion which is far wide of the subject before the Chair. Queensland is not in any sense mentioned in the bills before the House.

Mr BLAIN:

– I desire to draw a comparison between the disabilities ‘of the three States concerned, which are exhibit A, and Queensland.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order : I ask the honorable member not to proceed on those lines.

Mr BLAIN:

– I bow to your ruling. But surely if honorable members would only admit the facts I have stated and appoint a competent fact-finding body to arrive at the solution they would agree to my co-efficient as a means of measuring the disabilities of isolated areas. The co-efficient as I see it, and which this Parliament as a national assembly should also seek, is allocation of rights to produce things, primary or secondary, away from the capital cities, and in other inland chosen geographical areas. Quorum formed.] Soil and climate will, of course, govern the activities in the chosen regions. To attain this objective we must have some fact-finding committee to locate these regions. Some of the money could be made available from the defence vote. This disabilities committee known as the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in my opinion, - I think many other honorable members agree with, me - has failed to do the job that this Parliament appointed it to do. because it has not the training in fact finding and is therefore unable to assess or acutely observe. In seeking the solution of the economic ills “which confront us to-day, which is necessary to bring about contentment among the people, we shall have to break down the artificial State boundaries. This will enable the people of Australia to get together as members, not of State communities, but of one great Commonwealth of economic regions, and the money which this Government year by year shovels out to the States, and does not control, will be distributed among the geographical regions to which I have referred, and will be under Control by the Commonwealth Government after vesting in local authorities power to advise and actually to control their own domestic policies. Why is this Commonwealth harrassed by the capital cities of the mendicant States to provide funds over which this Government has no control? Simply because the commercial complex has captured unreasonable powers from the people. The real criticism of the granting of these funds by this Parliament should, not be directed so much to the States themselves as to the bureaucracies situated in the capital cities. These bureaucracies have been so unmindful of their responsibilities that they should be forced to give an account of their stewardship. The capital cities take great bites out of the money granted, and the people who are really in need of it suffer in consequence. The Commonwealth has been charged with imposing upon the States disabilities which have caused them financial loss; but that charge should be sent right back to the States. Unless the policy which I have urged is adopted there will never be any hope of obtaining a unified Commonwealth, or of preventing the smaller States from coming forward year after year for more and more money. I sincerely trust honorable members, when thev a;o back to the capital cities, will try to show the people that we should rid ourselves of the artificial State boundaries and dispense with State governments altogether so that the Common wealth may be divided into geographical areas or economic regions on the lines I have suggested.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

– I am surprised at the antagonism that has developed in this House over these bills. I agree with the States that claim disabilities, but contend that they have attacked the question from the wrong direction. It is necessary for the Commonwealth to have a unified policy, under which those best situated should help less fortunate sections of the community. The debate which has taken place in this House, and its percolation throughout the Commonwealth, will awaken the people to the need for one Commonwealth Parliament to guide the destinies of the whole of the country. To-day we have six State Parliaments and six State Governments, whereas it would be more efficient to have one Commonwealth legislature looking after all the people as equal units. To-day we have one State blackguarding the other. Every one is at each other’s throat. Wchave heard representatives of country constituencies in this House, notably the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), laying the blame for the disabilities of the smaller States on the tariff, the Arbitration Court, the Navigation Act, and other aspects of federal policy, all of which have been of great benefit to the Commonwealth as a whole, although they admittedly have brought disabilities to certain sections of it. For those disabilities those sections should be recompensed. I agree with the analysis of Australia’s tariff policy contained in the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I also agree with a system of provinces tinder which the central government would collect the revenues and allocate them according to needs. That that will come is inevitable. On the tariff question the Commonwealth Grants Commission has reported -

These facts led to the phase of policy which the Stores contend is the main cause of their disabilities - the policy of protection. In the circumstances we have noted the demand for a substantial tariff to ensure the manufacture of a considerable proportion nf the requirements of the people was practically certain to be accented bv a progressive community. Tt is not within the province of the commission to make any pronouncement as to the propriety of the policy of protection, ft has been accepted as the settled policy of Australia; but, as it has been relied upon by the claimant States as the main cause of their disabilities, it is necessary to place it in its proper perspective.

The Tariff Committee of 192!) came to the conclusion that this policy had enabled an increase of population to take place. lt seems certain that the population so encouraged was greater than could have been absorbed on marginal land with a diminishing scale of returns. The policy of protection was, therefore, in every sense a development policy. This method of development involved increased cost3 for other production, and the main burden settled upon export industry. The chief export industries, wheat and wool, had been able to bear this burden, but there was evidence at the time of the report that the burden of excess costs of the tariff was becoming oppressive.

It will thus be seen that the policy of protection has been adopted by the people as a means to making the full use of resources of the continent. From this point of view the cost it involves must be regarded in the same light as running railways or supplying irrigation water below cost. There is little doubt that it has played its part in securing some development of the type aimed at. [ agree with that statement of the position. Each State has built railways to develop the country, which will not be payable for years to come and all parts of it have had to pay for them. It is the same with protection. As railways are necessary for the development of the country, so is protection necessary. The people of Western Australia complain about the protection given to the sugar industry in Queensland, and Queenslanders, on the other hand, contend that too much money is paid ‘by way of grants to Western Australia. I believe that the smaller .States are entitled to the sums claimed by them as compensation for disabilities due to federal policy, but it is regrettable that the debate in this chamber has shown that one State is jealous of another. The people of this continent speak one language, and have common ideals. We cannot agree among ourselves, yet we send delegates to Geneva in an effort to help the League of Nations to reconcile the differences between other countries speaking various languages and having different ideals. The commission remarks -

Though the heavy losses which make up State disabilities at present are partly explicable on the ground of the unsoundness of the financial methods and control, and partly on the ground of the fall in prices, it is obvious that a tariff which extracts from export industry a substantial subsidy must add seriously to the burdens of States attempting to develop such industry. Moreover, as one developmental activity, that connected with land settlement, is in the hands of the States, and (he other developmental instrument, the tariff, is controlled by the Commonwealth, there is a lack of consistency and co-ordination in the two policies. There is almost a competition between the two factors of development; each frustrates the effect of the other; the burdens created by the one make the protection required for the other the greater, so that the clash we noticed earlier becomes more intense as each protective effort grows. There is an increasing amount of protection to primary industry in the Commonwealth tariff, hut the broad distinction set out above still remains.

I consider that the commission has given a remarkably good exposition of the inter-action of protective policies, and their bearing upon State disabilities, and the House would do well to study the report from the broad aspect. If the people of Western Australia were asked to vote for unification at the present time they would flatly refuse because of the treatment they had received, but I maintain that until one national Parliament completely controls the destinies of this country the fight over the grants made to the smaller States will occur annually.

Mr Blain:

– The result which the honorable member desires could be obtained without unification.

Mr GARDEN:

– I do not agree with the honorable member. Western Australia has ‘been hamstrung and penalized, but neither that .State nor South Australia would accept the policy of unification because federation has outlived its usefulness and because, of the “ raw deal “ which each has received. There is too much talk about State rights. The commission further says -

The tariff has been used in Australia as an instrument of development with some justification, because it has tended to produce a larger population and a better balanced economy

The tariff ha3 imposed a burden on ex-port production, but the main exports, wheat and wool, have increased in spite of it.

There was a clash of interests between the claims for the development of primary industry by State assistance and of secondary industry by tariff protection.

Successive increases in the tariff by the Federal Parliament intensified tho clash bc- tween primary and secondary industries, and no doubt led to thu failure of some marginal settlement. 1” have always supported the granting of assistance to primary producers, and i shall always do so. That is why 1 often disagree with the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane), who, apparently, fails . to realize that the primary producers have been penalized. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) mentioned the tariff, the Arbitration ration Court, and the Navigation Act as being among the factors responsible for the disabilities of the smaller Staves. I believe in high wages, and I have always fought for them, but the primary producers in New South “Wales pay as low a wage as 10s. a week to their employees. How much can a man purchase with 10s.? The primary producers cannot pay high wages unless the whole policy of the Commonwealth is changed, as is shown throughout the report of the commission.

When federation was established, a step was taken in the right direction, but, after three decades, we are still struggling on with an obsolete instrument. We cannot expect an old blunderbuss to do the work of a modern weapon. The commission has given a remarkable lead to the Commonwealth. It further states in its report, in reference to the colonial tariffs of pro-federation days: -

When Hie Commonwealth was inaugurated, the States had enjoyed for sonic considers uie period the advantages of self-government, They had developed strong provincial selfconsciousness, and as each Statu had adequate territory for a “rowing population and independent access to the sea, each could develop its resources with freedom.

With federation this barrier was abolished by the’ enactment of a common customs tariff for the whole continent and the establishment of interstate freetrade There were then no obstacles to the development of n. single economic unit for the whole, continent, except such as were imposed by the remaining political power* of the States, which were not of great importance iu comparison with the tariff. This establishment of a single unit for economic affairs for the whole continent has been the determining condition of economic development since federation. It has led to a more complete concentration of management and financial control, and of manufactures, and therefore of population in the Pastern Stales, while the other States have increasingly specialized in the type of primary industry to which each is best suited.

That, again, is a correct analysis of the position in Australia. The commission further observes : -

Change is indeed inevitable, and in order to suit varying conditions it seems necessary to draw a financial scheme on the broadest lines . . . This must be accounted as one of the weaknesses of federation. It rendersit difficult to apply the principle of financial responsibility necessary to sound politics. In a federation each member insists upon pursuing its own policy independently. If the members were prepared to pool their functions and resources they would not federate, but form a unitary State. A State which claims to be sovereign should accept the financial consequences of the policy U determines to pursue, and if it is entitled to call upon another State in bearing those consequences its responsibility is weakened.

As has been shown in the James ease, in the sphere of primary production each State looks first to” its own interests; and so far as finances also are concerned, it does not want to give up anything. Each wants its parliament to continue as is the case to-day. Dealing with this aspect, of the matter, She commission in its report says -

When thu Australian Commonwealth Constitution was discussed, this problem was envisaged, hut all its implications were not developed. The States, up to that time, had relied for their revenues very largely on the Customs, and were still in receipt oi returns from the alienation of laud. . . .

It has been suggested to the commission that the States were very apprehensive of their financial position under federation, and that assurances were given that they would not be allowed to suffer disaster.

Out of that assurance have arisen the complications of to-day. I agree with the main contentions and analysis of the position made by the Grants Commission; it is it wonderful analysis. I am addressing myself not to the point, that the commission has shifted its basis of recommending grants from disabilities to needs, but to a general examination of the relations existing between the Commonwealth and the States. The only solution of the present difficulty will be. found when our primary and secondary production is harmonized under one control, and the present system, under which the States control primary industry and the Commonwealth, through the tariff, controls secondary industry, is abolished. Under a system of unified control of the Commonwealth, as I have indicated, Western Australia’s claim for assistance as a State consisting of a large area, -with only a small population, and, therefore, unable to compete with eastern States like Victoria and New South Wales, would receive proper consideration. This is impossible to-day. I contend that each State, or province, should give to the Commonwealth according to its abilities; but, furthermore, each State and province should also receive from the Commonwealth according to its needs. Unless such a system is evolved, we shall always be confronted with the complications which exist to-day. I am surprised to hear certain honorable members reviling other honorable members because they happen to press the claims of particular States. Honorable members have been criticized in the past because, for instance, they favoured assistance being given to the sugar industry in Queensland, and now honorable members, who are pressing the claims of Western Australia, South Australia-, and Tasmania, for increased grants, are being subjected to similar criticism. This “State Right” fight must be eliminated, and this can only be achieved by the abolition of all State parliaments, and having in their place one Commonwealth Parliament, with full .authority. It is said that these honorable members are holding out their hands for all they can get from the Commonwealth. If any State needs assistance, it is the duty of the Commonwealth to give that assistance. I hope that we shall have a unified Commonwealth in fact, and that this will be achieved through the abolition of all State governments and State governors and the like, and that we shall have one Commonwealth operating under one uniform system of taxation and one system of -extending benefits to the various parts of the Commonwealth, according to their needs.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- In the zeal with which honorable members have pressed the requests and requirements of the States from which they come, and the warmth which these considerations have engendered, the fundamental issue involved in this debate has become somewhat obscured. I propose, therefore, to recall to the recollection of honorable members some aspects of that issue. If justice is to be clone to all parts of the Commonwealth, it is essential that honorable members should, as far as possible, sink purely State considerations and prejudices arising from their representation of electorates in any one State or part of the Commonwealth. Under this measure, which arises out of section 96 of the Constitution, the States are entitled to approach the Commonwealth for financial assistance, and, taking advantage of that right which the Constitution gives them, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania have made such an application. This House has now to determine what financial assistance, if any, should be given to the three States now concerned. In coming to that decision, we have to make an examination along defined lines. [Quorum formed.] First of all, can the Parliament lay down any definite formula which, spread over the years, will decide, from year to year, the grants to be made for each State? Thus the first consideration of the Commonwealth Government in this matter was to decide whether any automatic formula could be laid down which it could adopt in deciding the grants to be made to these States, and to make an investigation for that purpose it appointed a Commonwealth Grants Commission. The commission was asked, first, to find if such a formula could be evolved. No such formula has been suggested by any individual State, and the commission itself has not been able to suggest one. Dealing with this matter in its report, it states -

Our conclusion is that the relative position of the States and the Commonwealth fluctuate* so considerably that any mechanical formula or constitutional change may speedily become inapplicable and unjust.

Some principle of adjustment is necessary, and as conditions change considerably from time to time the adjustment should be elastic.

In the course of this debate no honorable member has been able to show that any automatic formula will suffice for the fixing of grants to be made to the States from year to year. That being so, it becomes necessary to determine what body of men should inform this Parliament as to the grants to be made from time to time, what principles should govern the determination of the grants, and, finally, what amount should be granted as the result of the principles upon which that determination is made. It has not been seriously suggested at any stage of this debate that the Grants Commission is not a suitable body for the determination of this matter. In fact, general approval has been expressed concerning the ability of the present members of the commission, and compliments have been paid to them for the industry and thoroughness with which they have compiled their various reports and particularly their third report. This has been referred to as a monumental work, and any honorable member who peruses it will agree that it represents an exhaustive and painstaking .analysis of Federal and State finance and Governmental statistics generally. This being so, the really fundamental matter for consideration is the determination of the principle upon which these grants are to be made, and the early speakers in this debate concentrated on this argument. It has been stated by the commission itself that the principle which it has adopted is as follows: -

Special grants are j justified when a State through financial stress from any cause is unable efficiently to discharge its functions as a member of the federation and should be determined by the amount of help found necessary to make it possible for that State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

– I agree with other honorable members who have spoken that the so-called smaller States have many disabilities, but I disagree with those who say that those States are naturally poverty-stricken. However great the wealth of the claimant States may be, they still have their disabilities. When Professor Giblin was about to leave Tasmania, in order to accept a position on the mainland of Australia, he said that the disabilities from which Tasmania was then suffering would always exist. I did not agree with him. I know Tasmania as well as most people; it is a fairly wealthy State. Though small in area it possesses some of the best mines in the world- -its copper mines are the third largest in the world. It has ample water supplies which, if properly harnessed, could produce electric power sufficient to supply the requirements of the whole of the factories on the mainland. It can produce a greater quantity of potatoes to the acre than any State in Australia. It produces the heaviest crops of fruit. It has a perfect harbour amply supplied with cheap power, and it enjoys good climatic conditions. Yet in spite of all these advantages Tasmania suffers disabilities as the result of federal policy. It has to compete with the products of the mainland States, and the high freight rates operating between Tasmania and the mainland frequently rob the Tasmanian exporter of his margin of profit. Both Tasmania and Western Australia suffer the further disability that they do not share in the expenditure of Commonwealth money. It is proposed to spend a great deal of money this year on defence, but very little will be spent in Tasmania or Western Australia. When the majority of the younger people in Tasmania reach an age at which they must strike out for themselves they turn to the mainland States where the avenues of profitable employment are much greater. Though all of the States haveto contribute their share towards Com monwealth revenue, most of the money raised by the Commonwealth- is spent in Victoria and New South Wales. It isproposed to spend a large sum of money in New South Wales for the construe tion of sloops and war-ships. I do not object to that, but I urge it as an additional reason why Tasmania continues to be so poor.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has recommended that mortmoney should be- spent in the smaller States so that later on they will not have to approach the Commonwealth every year for a grant to enable- them to carry on. It was suggested by the commission that money should be spent on forestry in Tasmania. Although at present there is a shortage of timber throughout the world, the Commonwealth has wasted large sums of money in New South Wales and Victoria on forestry schemes on land unsuitable for that purpose. To recompense Tasmania for its disabilities the Commonwealth should be prepared to spend large sums to conserve its natural forests. In the southern and western portions of Tasmania there are large areas enjoying climatic conditions suitable for the growing of timber. In those areas tree? grow much quicker than in any other part of the world. It is the duty of the Commonwealth to assist the State Government to develop those areas. In Australia to-day we are depleting our forests and planting in unsuitable areas merely to provide work for the unemployed. Much more benefit would result to the Commonwealth as a whole if the natural forests of Tasmania were conserved.

Several speakers have said that we should have one Parliament for the whole of Australia. I feel sure that if another vote were taken on the secession question in Western Australia it would be carried by an even larger majority of people. Tasmanians would vote two to one iu favour of secession. I feel sure also that that would be the experience in other States. Some honorable members will say, I have no doubt, that the vote taken in Western Australia some time ago did not reflect the earnest convictions of the people of that State; that it was carried on a popular wave. All I can say is that almost everybody I have met from Western Australia has expressed dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs, and that the secession vote in that Stale waa one of the worst advertisements that Australia has ever had. When I was in England last year in company with the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory ), we were frequently asked why the people in Western Australia were dissatisfied with their position in the federation. Those who put this question wondered “why Western Australia had not been treated fairly. If the Commonwealth does not treat the smaller States fairly, it would be far better for the States to secede.

The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) accused the smaller States of asking for a dole. They are asking only for “what is their rightful due. I remind the honorable member that it costs Tasmanians nearly £1,000 a day to subsidize the Queeusland sugar industry, and that they could import their sugar requirements from other countries at a much lower price. It is true that I voted for the sugar agreement when it was last before the House, but I did so in order to keep the people in the northern State in employment. Tasmanians resent the suggestion that they are living on the dole. Practically every industry in Queensland has been protected. Protection has been granted in respect of cotton, bananas, butter, wheat, peanuts, and sugar. I defy the honorable member for Wide Bay to mention one industry in Tasmania which has been subsidized

Mr Bernard Corser:

– The potato industry. An embargo has been placed on the importation of New Zealand potatoes.

Mr FROST:

– The Tasmanian people have to pay high freight charges on butter imported into Tasmania, and no subsidy is given to the fruit-growers who have to compete against the fruit grown in the mainland States. It has been said that in the primary-producing States farmers are employing labour at 10s. a week. I should like to know where.

Mr Garden:

– In New South Wales.

Mr FROST:

– I do not think that that is being done in New South Wales; I have never heard of men being employed at such a low wage. The primary producers of Tasmania pay wages as high as are paid in any of the States. The wheat-farmers in Western Australia and South Australia are paying rates above the basic wage.

Mr Garden:

– In New South Wales all single men who refused to accept a job at 10s. a week were refused the dole.

Mr FROST:

– The smaller States should be given, not a dole, but a fixed grant over a number of years to compensate them for their disabilities. The Commonwealth Grants Commission nas recommended that the grants should he fixed for a period of at least ten years. If that were done, it would go a long way towards helping the smaller States to compete successfully in the markets of the mainland States where the hulk of Commonwealth money is spent. The whole of the States have had to contribute towards the cost of the building of the national capital at Canberra. Again, the Hume Reservoir has been constructed largely with Commonwealth money. Munition factories are established in certain States which cost the taxpayers large sums of money; but allof the States must contribute towards their support. The result of all thi3 is that the young people of Tasmania naturally drift to the States in which secondary industries are established, and in which the prospects of finding employment are brighter.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

.- The claims of the States for compensation for disabilities suffered as the result of federal policy should be dealt with on their merits. I am glad to notice that this year Tasmania is to enjoy a larger grant. One of the most serious disabilities suffered by Tasmania is in connexion with the high freight rates charged on the export of goods to the mainland. Very often the freight charged for transport to the mainland represents the margin of profit to the grower or manufacturer. In respect of those commodities which we are unable to produce in Tasmania, the Tasmanian people have to pay high freight rates which increase the price of goods in the local market. Tasmania should be compensated for the disabilities created by its geographical isolation. In contrast to the position of Tasmania, Western Australia has railways which were constructed by the Commonwealth. I am very much surprised by the attitude adopted by the honorable members for Swan (Mr. Gregory) and Forrest (Mr. Prowse) in regard to this bill. Last year they made no complaint against the grant recommended by the commission, but, at the same time, they made no protest on ‘behalf of Tasmania which was then given a very shoddy deal by the commission. To-day, when the State which they represent is touched in its pocket, theirs is a very different story. Tasmania has never benefited from, bounties, which have been granted to South Australia and Western Australia to an aggregate amount of millions of pounds; nor has it participated to any extent in Commonwealth expenditure from revenue and loan accounts. If honorable members from other States regard that as fair, I cannot understand their psychology. A State which has no disability is not entitled to compensation. The commission has adopted the budgetary basis in calculating the grant that should be made to the claimant States. That will have a bad effect upon Tasmania. I predict, that the grant will be substantially reduced next year. I shall support the amendment of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) as a protest against the reduction made this year, and hope that when Tasmania occupies a similar position, it will receive support from the representatives of South Australia and Western Australia.

I have asked the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) repeatedly for an indication of the Government’s intentions in regard to the adoption of tb(: commission’s recommendation for the initiation of a forestry policy in Tasmania, with a view to providing employment for the youth of that State, but he has evaded a direct reply. I hope that he will be more precise to-night. 1 should also like to know whether the provision of relief for damage caused by droughts or floods is in future to be regarded as a Commonwealth responsi- bility. When a big flood on the northwest coast of Tasmania caused tremendous damage, and Mr. Cosgrove, Minister of Agriculture, made representations for Commonwealth assistance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said that every breeze which blew was not a Commonwealth responsibility. If that principle is universally applied, the relief of farmers in drought-stricken areas in other States will not, so far as I am concerned, be any longer regarded as a Commonwealth responsibility. Tasmania has suffered to a greater extent than any other State by reason of Commonwealth policy. I offer jio objection to the Navigation Act or the Arbitration Court, because they have been the means of raising the standard of living of our people.

Mr Nock:

– But the honorable member complains of high shipping freights.

Mr MAHONEY:

– I do; but they are fixed by the overseas shipping companies, which trade in Australian waters with vessels manned by black labour, and carry goods from Tasmania no cheaper (ban Australian companies compelled to observe the provisions of the Navigation. Act. Those who produce goods in Tasmania and market them on the mainland should be compensated for the adverse position in which they are placed. That would adjust one of their most severe disabilities. Although Tasmania is not a big State, it has some stouthearted citizens who, in grubbing out its tremendous forests, have endured hardships equal to those suffered by men who have gone into the distant parts of Australia. Neither the mining industry nor the timber industry of the State has been assisted, and its potato-growers have not been compensated for losses suffered by reason of seasonal damage or the New Zealand blight, which wiped out thousands of tons of their product. Thos, growers struggled manfully against the ravages of that disease, the blame for the introduction of which rests upon ineffective Commonwealth quarantine administration. I hope that the Treasurer will continue the grant to Tasmania for a further ten years, at an amount of £600,000.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– in reply - I wish to address myself particularly to those honorable members who have spoken on behalf of South Australia and Western Australia, and to make it clear that the Government is not hostile to, but, on the contrary, is eminently sympathetic with those two States.

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

– We understand that.

M.r. CASEY. - I hope that anything that I say will not bo construed in any other sense. At the outset, 1 should like to traverse briefly - because it needs to be traversed - the personnel of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The chairman is Mr. Eggleston, a man who is known foi1 his objective and analytical thought as well as for a long lifetime of useful public service iu the State of Victoria, where ho is held in the highest esteem by all sections of the community. T next mention Professor Giblin, whose father and grandfather were Tasmanians, whose family has been settled in Tasmania for 1 1.0 years, and -who still has bis. roots well down in that small State. Nobody could have at heart greater sympathy for what arc known a3 the three smaller States of the Commonwealth. Then there is Mr. Sandford, a business man and a citizen of the claimant State of South Australia. I venture to think that no three men in the Commonwealth have greater knowledge of this particular problem and of the general problem of Commonwealth and State finances.

Mr Prowse:

– Does the Treasurer consider that Professor Giblin’s opinion is reliable?

Mr CASEY:

– I do. Professor Giblin is a man of high quality and of great experience and knowledge; he is a most useful member of the commission, and adopts a most sympathetic attitude towards the claims of the three smaller States. It will thus be seen that two of the members of the commission are men from the smaller States; and I assure the House that the third is above all suggestion of biased judgment in either this or any other matter. If they cannot produce something approaching an answer to the problem, I know of no three other men who could do so.

Mention has been made, in particular by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), of the original Common wealth Grants Commission Act, and of the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), who introduced the measure into this House. The right honorable gentleman said that this was a bill relating to a commission to deal with the matter of grants by the Commonwealth of financial assistance to the States. Later, he said -

The functions of the commission are, that it will he required to inquire into and report upon applications by any State for financial assistance under section of the Con stitution.

There is no reference in the body of the Prime Minister’s speech to the subject of disabilities until the honorable member for Swan interpolated something, which prompted him to say -

If a State feels that as n result of, say, the operation of the tariff, it is suffering disadvantage, there will be nothing to prevent it from not only putting that to the commission as a reason why it should be assisted, but also assessing the value of that disadvantage. .If that is done, the commission must of necessity inquire into and report upon the amount that ought to be contributed by the Commonwealth to compensate for the disadvantage.

Those remarks, which were prompted by the remark of the honorable member for Swan, are not comparable to the rest of his speech. The bill was drafted to deal with the claims of certain .States for financial assistance, not. on the basis of ti State’s financial needs, necessities, or disabilities due to federal policy, but on the broadest possible grounds.

Mr Curtin:

– Did not the Treasurer instruct the Treasury officials at successive hearings that disabilities were the basis of the commission’s work?

Mr CASEY:

– Exactly, for very good reasons, but different from those mentioned by the honorable member for Swan. The Assistant Secretary to the Treasury gave evidence before the Grants Commission, and I admit that I gave instructions directing the attention of the commission that, in all the years prior to the appointment of the commission, grants were made, so it was thought, on the basis of disabilities due to federation or federal policy.

Mr Gregory:

– And apparently it was desired to continue to do so.

Mr CASEY:

– But for reasons different from those mentioned ‘by the honorable member. The question of needs was an invention of the commission, and no. one had thought of that in determining grants based on the financial needs of the .States until the commission was appointed. The honorable member might thank the commission for having introduced grants on that basis, because, had that principle not been adopted, Western Australia’s position would be very different from what it is to-day. The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who each year has given evidence before the commission, has on every occasion stressed the desirability of assessing disabilities due to federation, and the commission has just as consistently professed that it is completely unable to assess disabilities under that heading. A brief extract, from the evidence of the Treasury officials is contained in the commission’s report, and I shall quote it. It reads -

Whilst extending to the commission thanks for the untiring labours that have been devoted to this task and’ appreciation of the measure of” success that has already been achieved, it is desired at the same time to express some regret that the basis arrived at by the commission has differed so materially from the general principles which have for years past been accepted by the Common wealth Government as a sine qua nan of the payment of States’ grants, namely the theory of compensation for disabilities due to federation or federal policy.

That aspect of the subject is then enlarged upon. It may be thought from the speeches of some honorable members to-day that the commission has entirely ignored disabilities, and submitted its own theory concerning financial needs. On page 62 of the report, the commission discussed the effect of Commonwealth policy in this way: It states that two questions ave involved -

To what extent have the effects ot federal policy contributed to the inferior financial position of any State?
1. Can the adverse effects of federal policy be taken as the basis for measurement of grants, even if they are found to be a cause of grants being required?

On both questions, it should be first observed that we must consider the total net effect ot all federal policy, and not only that of par’ticular items.

Later the commission stated -

It follows that, unless the adverse effects of federal policy on the claimant States exceed the benefits due to the allocation of Commonwealth revenue and expenditure, there are no adverse net effects of federation.

Mr Gregory:

– The commission is wrong, on that point.

Mr CASEY:

– That is the opinion of the honorable member which no doubt is quite valuable.

Mr Gregory:

– It is common sense.

Mr CASEY:

– The commission then devotes a number of pages to a close discussion of the subject of disabilities, and the problem of their measurement. In other places it mentions the extreme difficulty of getting any co-relation between tlie representations and calculations put forward in this connexion by South Australia and Western Australia, and submit? quantitative figures on the plus and minus side. After a long argument on this point the commission states -

It appears then that without reckoning taa benefit from exchange, benefits and burdensfrom federation almost balance for South Australia and Western Australia, while for Tasmania there is a net benefit of nearly £1 per head. It follows that no substantial part o£ the special grant received was made necessary by the effects of federation.

It was in this way that the commission arrived at its recommendations. Although the Treasury has stated consistently that it believes it would be fairer and more reasonable to take as a basis the disabilities of the States under federation, we cannot answer the commission when it says that it is unable to assess those disabilities accurately enough to base recommendations upon them. We have had to confess that we have not the wit or the ability to suggest a commoi:gen:c and reasonably fool-proof way in which payment on this basis of disabilities can be arranged. The commission made an attempt to do so, and reached the answer of “ nought “. I have, myself, tried, and the officers of my department have devoted a still greater amount of time to the matter, but we have been unsuccessful.

Mr Curtin:

– And the Treasury seems to have made as good a shot at the matter as has the commission.

Mr CASEY:

I shall not, at this late hour, reply to many arguments that have been advanced in the course of the debate to which I have a complete answer. I commend the bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 951

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd September (vide page 434) on motion by Mr. Casey -

That the hill he now read a second time.

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I move -

That all the words after “That” be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words: - “the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that owing to the special circumstance* of the State of Western Australia the special grant he the sum of £800.000”.

I had intended to move in accordance with the notice I gave a few days ago the object of which was to provide that financial consideration should he given for disabilities arising from Commonwealth policy and enactments, but I have reviewed the matter and although I have not altered my opinion in any respect, I wish to do the best possible thing thai I can for the State that I represent. Many of the arguments used in the course of this debate have made me feel that the Commonwealth Government’s position in this matter might well be likened to that of a publican who in the old days used to fleece the shearer of his cheque and then give him a bottle of whisky to go out and earn another cheque of which he could be fleeced in due course. Any person who could do other than believe that Commonwealth policy, with its high protection, its Navigation Act, and its industrial arbitraton system could do other than operate injuriously in respect of States wholly dependent upon primary production and having to sell their products on the world markets at world parity would surely be a fit inmate for a lunatic asylum or else be capable of completely distorting the facts of a case. I have on a previous occasion directed attention to the fact that in the course of the debate on the Commonwealth Grants Commission Bill the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), in reply to an interjection, gave an assurance that the commission when constituted would have regard to the disabilities which claimant States suffered under Commonwealth policy. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) also expressed himself emphatically at that time on the desirableness of that liberty being granted to the commission, yet he also has, in the course of this debate, changed his ground. Unfortunately, the people of Western Australia are becoming accustomed to inconsiderate treatment at the hands of this Parliament. Some years ago I moved a motion in this House to provide that the Commonwealth Constitution should be amended to give Western Australia tariff autonomy for a period of 25 years. If, according to the commission’s report, and according to the Treasurer, Western Australia receives as much by way of special grants as it loses because of disabilities due to federal policy, surely it would be wise to give it a concession of this kind. If it enjoyed tariff autonomy for a period such as I have mentioned, it would soon outstrip the rest of Australia, and show the advantages of having such a power. A definite promise was made to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that nothing would he done by the Commonwealth Government to prevent this Parliament from coming to a decision on that matter. He said that he would see that no undue delay occurred in having the matter debated in this House, but the discussion was not permitted. I claim that a breach of faith was committed on that occasion, and now there has been a further breach of faith.

Mr Casey:

– I ask that that remark be -withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).The honorable member used a common Parliamentary expression, and it was not directed against the Treasurer.

Mr GREGORY:

– I feel strongly in regard to this matter, because of many of the remarks that have fallen from tho Treasurer to-night. He gave the House an exhortation concerning the merits of the members of the commission, and contended that every phase of the subject had been considered. I interjected that Western Australia, over a five-yeal period, had exported goods to the value of £48,000,000 more than the value of its imports from overseas. What compensation is given to the smaller States for the huge sums brought into Australia for its exports of primary products, although they are compelled to pay high prices for the’ goods purchased by them from Australian manufacturers? Why did the commission recommend the payment to Western Australia of only £500,000 for tha year 1936-37, when the grant for 1935-36 was £800,000? In view of the conditions obtaining throughout Australia, how can it be said that South Australia is suffering to a greater extent than Western Australia, considering that the tariff and the Navigation Act impose a far greater penalty upon the western State than it does upon South Australia? It is difficult to imagine how any person with common sense can contend that Western Australia is not suffering greater hardship on account of federal policy than any other State. I refrain from again pointing out the many injustices the State suffers. I leave the question to honorable members, hoping that they will see that justice is done to Western Australia.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I do not intend to make a lengthy speech in support of the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), and I do not propose to raise any of the issues that have been controversial in this debate since the first measure was discussed yesterday. I merely point out that the commission’s recommendations, as far as they apply to Western Australia, are based upon an examination of the budgetary position of that State two years ago, though the grant recommended is for the ensuing financial year. I claim that the conditions in Western Australia this year are not similar to those in the year which the commission investigated. It has recommended a reduction of £300,000 in the grant for this year on the facts of two years ago. I put it to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), and the House, that, if this budgetary criterion is to be the permanent method of assessing grants for the future, Western Australia, two years hence, will get a very large increase by way of special grant, because of the position that 110W confronts that State. The year before last, it experienced a partial drought, and serious losses occurred. Th* commission allowed approximately £40,000 as a throw-in to help the State out of its difficulties. Last year, a partial drought was again experienced, and this was reflected in reduced railway revenue and tax collections. I remind the honor- able member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey), who, when the honorable member for Swan was speaking, interjected that the tax collections make a difference, that if he refers to page 163 of the commission’s report, and studies the table showing State taxation collections for 1934-35, he will see that, after allowing for various adjustments, the taxation per capita in Western Australia amounted to £5 10s. 7d. as compared with £5 10s. 3d. in South Australia. There was not the very substantial difference that the honorable gentleman would suggest. Revenue from lotteries and also motor taxation has been omitted and a motor taxation adjustment figure has been produced. It is true that these taxes are less in Western Australia than in Queensland but they are not substantially less than the average for the Commonwealth. I just mention that fact in passing and base my arguments upon the necessities of Western Australia as presented to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) by honorable members from Western Australia on last Monday week. It was stated in that interview, as the Treasurer is aware, that, owing to the prolonged drought in the pastoral areas, 40 per cent, of the sheep would have been lost and the wheat yield, instead of being something like from 28,000,000 to 30,000,000 bushels, was estimated at that time to be not more than 16,000,000 bushels. Owing to a- fortunate rainfall a week ago it is now estimated, I am informed on most reliable authority, that there will be an improvement in the yield to 20,000,000 bushels. By and large that seasonal disaster which has overtaken Western Australia is bound to have a serious effect not only upon Western Australia generally, but also, and more particularly, upon the budgetary position of that State. Revenue in many departments must fall and in addition the expenditure of the Government must be substantially increased as it will have to come to the relief of wheat-growers and pastoralists. Furthermore, increased costs will be incurred in maintaining railway services and ensuring water supplies. If_ the Grants Commission had made any ‘kind of prognosis of the position of Western Australia during the two years which have elapsed since the statistical year it has so minutely analysed it would have resisted the temptation to clip £300,000 off the total previous grant of £S00,000. It has, in effect, taken three-eighths off the total. That is a staggering cut and the effect on Western Australia has been most grievous.

Mr. Speaker, I speak in this Parliament at this moment as an Australian. I believe in this federation and have fought for it in places where it has been most difficult to support the case for the federation and have borne not only the sins of administrations formed from my own party, but also the sins of every other Commonwealth Government, in order to maintain some support for th’e preservation of the unity of this nation; and I say that the reduction of this grant at this time is a major political calamity to the preservation of Australian unity. It will fan to flame again the fires now dying out which led to the secession campaign and the referendum which took place on that question in Western Australia. It constitutes a grave disservice to those mcnand women in Western Australia who stand up for the federation, and it will be seized upon by every malcontent who is ready to make a scapegoat of this Commonwealth for things for which the Commonwealth should not be blamed. In addition those sincere-minded people who really believe that there is no future for the State except in secession will be reinforced in their previous advocacy, and a new wave of emotionalism which will be destructive of the best interests of the Commonwealth can easily emerge from this legislation.

The Treasurer may say that I am disputing the umpire’s decision in that the Grants Commission has given its verdict. My only answer on that point is that the verdict has been given on the facts of two years ago and that as a responsible member of this Parliament I am confronted with the factual position of the present and the immediate future. I invite the Treasurer to consult with his colleagues as to how far it would be wise to examine the effect of this decision upon the public life of Western Australia, and how far it would be a contribution towards the order and good government of Australia to say to the commission, “ We respect your verdict, but the circumstances have profoundly changed since the year upon the figures of which you based your recommendation for this year.” As I have said before, the honorable gentleman must know that two years from now, or next year, on this year’s budgetary basis, something else may emerge. For the present from this maelstrom of statistics, this almost intolerable congestion of data, there has emerged a vast bulk of calculations. No man can know what it means except that it is a most exhaustive and exhausting labour to follow the commission through the infinite variety of computations it makes. Whenever it gets into difficulties itself it says that it is theoretically impossible to measure disabilities, and when it is asked to face up to the fact that there are disabilities it finds that there ure disabilities, but that those disabilities are cancelled by advantages. Although this report, allowing for the scholarship and knowledge of the men who compiled it, and I have paid tribute to their very great ability more than once, and no one will question their utter impartiality, should be looked upon as a most valuable one, this Parliament ought not to look upon commissions and experts as authoritarians whose decision it is bound to accept without question. In the last resort this Parliament is responsible for the amount of the grant to be given to a State. We may look to the gentlemen who form these commissions for the best advice that they can give, but their advice on this occasion is based on the facts of two years ago, and constitutes no service to the political and economic position confronting Australia to-day. Taking it by and large I recommend the Treasurer to reconsider the matter. It will be no affront to the commission to say to it, “The situation in Western Australia is so pressing and so serious that some variation of your recommendation is deemed to be wise, having regard to the necessities of the State and also having regard to the major political consequences that must follow to this Commonwealth if we remain inactive or negligent or too formally acquiescent in your recommendations while allowing the people of Western

Australia to suffer.” Last night I argued for a general reconsideration of the merits of the commission’s report. It is true that I appeared before the commission on two occasions, on each of which the grant recommended was substantial. This year I was not able to appear on behalf of Western Australia. I do not say that its case suffered because of my absence, or because of any failure on the part of those who submitted its case; but I do say most definitely that the commission could not have been human if it had not been influenced by considerations which were political in their nature. When the secession campaign was in progress it would have been suicidal for the commission to recommend any reduction of the grant then being paid to Western Australia, and no reduction was made. But now that the secession campaign has finished, or appears to have been finished, a reduction is made so substantial that it appears to me to be founded on a most, erroneous calculation. I have no more to say at this hour; if I had risen earlier I should have spoken at greater length.

I return to a point which is distinctly relevant to this matter, -although to many honorable members it may not appear to be germane to the subject. The great majority of honorable members of this House come from the more densely populated States. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A. Green) said to-night that onethird of the territory of this vast continent is occupied by one-sixteenth of its people. Western Australia sends to this Parliament eleven representatives out of a total of 110. Those members are dis.tributed in two chambers, five of them being in the House of Representatives, where 74 members are entitled to vote. That is to say, Western Australia has about one-fifteenth of the voting strength of this chamber. Although the members from that State speak for only onesixteenth of the people of the Commonwealth, they represent a vast State whose resources are widely distributed over its territory. Communications between the areas capable of immediate settlement are costly to maintain. Vast distances have to be traversed by rail and road to connect those small settlements which, although poor at present, none the less make an important contribution towards the security and safety of Australia. I say to this House, from the very depth of my being, that although that onesixteenth of the population of the Commonwealth who reside, in Western Aus-“ tralia may not be able to return to the Commonwealth as much revenue as the Commonwealth expends in that territory, as set out in. the table of allocation of Commonwealth revenue in the commission’s report, there is another side of the subject which ought to be considered. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie put it plainly when he said that the people of Western Australia purchase each year from the eastern States goods to the value of £9,000,000. Western Australia provides a better market than does Belgium or Czechoslovakia, with which countries trade treaties have recently been made. It represents also a better market than does the dominion of New Zealand, with which, so far, it has been impossible to negotiate a trade treaty. It is as good a market as is Canada, with which a trade treaty was entered into some time ago, and is, I understand, about to be renewed. With the exception of the United Kingdom and Japan, Western Australia provides for the rest of the Commonwealth a market as valuable as that in any other part of the world.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– It is not as good as the -Riverina in that respect.

Mr CURTIN:

– This Parliament should keep clearly in mind that Western Australia is the greatest market that has yet been found’ by manufacturers of the eastern States for processed goods and manufactured articles. Outside of their own home-consumption market in Victoria and New South Wales, the secondary industries of Australia have no market anywhere in the world as good as that provided by the 450,000 people of Western Australia. I go back to my point. If needs are to be the basis of these grants, then the needs of Western Australia this year are such as to warrant the amount of the special grant being maintained at the figure at which it stood last year. Disregarding all considerations of party politics and my objections to the. report of the commission, I invite the Treasurer most, seriously to consider whether it would not be a supreme act of sagacity on the part of a government which has the best interests cif Australia at heart to increase the amount of the grant to £800,000, the figure at which it, stood last year.

Friday, 0 October 19S6.

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

– I think the correct position of Parliament in relation to this subject is laid down clearly in the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for last year, in which, on page 98, that body says -

The commission floes not think there can h’: any compensation to the people of a State for Commonwealth policy beyond that which may bo provided by Parliament itself as part of that policy.

The recommendation of the commission is not the final word on this subject. It is for Parliament and the Government to consider the recommendation in the light of any political aspects which may arise. I agree with the ease put by the Leader of the Opposition. (Mr. Curtin), but for a reason different from that mentioned by him - namely, that the grant to be paid to the various States this year is being fixed on figures nearly two years old. The Commonwealth Government should not lose sight of the fact that soon the electors of these States will be asked to grant additional power* to the Commonwealth. The cutting down of the grants in the way contemplated by these hills is not likely to create a favorable atmosphere in which to conduct a referendum seeking additional powers for the Commonwealth. The feeling in Western Australia is bound to be fairly hostile to the Commonwealth; aud I know that the case against the Commonwealth in South Australia will be that the only reward which the people of that State are to receive for submitting to heavy taxation for a number of years, thereby enabling its budget to be balanced, is a reduction of the grant by £170,000. That consideration alone should have been sufficient to cause the Commonwealth Government to think a little more deeply before committing itself to the recommendation of the commission.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.- While the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) was speaking, I wondered whether there was a general impression among honorable members that the Government was attempting to injure Western Australia, or was trying to force £500,000 on an unwilling State. If certain persons with anti-federal tendencies seek to make capital out of the present situation, they must indeed be on a sharp lookout for arguments to be used against the Commonwealth. The report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission must be regarded as a whole. The commission’s latest report is based on figures for the last financial year available to it, namely, 1934-35. I point out that,. instead of the time lag being two years, as has been stated to-night, only ten months had passed when the report was prepared, and even now only fifteen months have elapsed since those figures were made available. The commission made its report on the basis of the figures for the last financial year available to it.

Mr Prowse:

– It has shifted its principles.

Mr CASEY:

– The amount recommended for this year is certainly less than the grant for last year; but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to compare the budgetary results on which the two recommendations were made. Although the budget of Western Australia shows an improvement of £900,000 compared with the previous year, the grant has been reduced by only £300,000, namely, from £800,000 to £500,000.

If some of the honorable member’s potential anti-federalists in Western Australia make capital out of this situation, I suggest that Western Australian members on both sides of the House should make more of the facts known in common honesty, and in keeping with some of the high ideals that the Leader of the Opposition has expressed in his Australianism. I do not think honorable members on this side of the House have any reason to apologize for their degree of Australianism. It is possible to make an emotional appeal on almostany subject. The Leader of the Opposition has made an emotional appeal this evening, which I venture to think disregards the essential facts of the situation. If the honorable gentleman’s speech is reported in the Western Australian press - and I hare no doubt it will be almost verbatim - it will do a great deal of harm in Western Australia, and a great deal more harm to the federal cause than the potential anti-federalists in Perth. It is not a question of party politics. I remind the honorable member that the drop from £800,000 to £500,000 is based on the drop of the deficit from £1,800,000- that is, the deficit adjusted on a basis comparable to that of other States- to £905,000. These facts should be made known to the potential antifederalists in Western Australia at the same time as these people are made aware of the emotional appeals made by the Leader of the Opposition.

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

AYES: 27

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 957

TASMANIA GRANT BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd September (vide page 434) on motion by Mr. Casey -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

House adjourned at 12.21 a.m. (Friday).

page 957

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

National Insurance

Sir Frederick Stewart:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he place on the table of the House the terms of reference or other instructions issued to the British experts who were invited to assist the Government in its consideration of the subject of national insurance?
Is it correct that Sir Walter Kinnear will be returning to England on the 24th October ?
Can the Prime Minister intimate when the reports of the experts will be available for consideration by the House?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

No specific terms of reference were given to the British experts, who were asked to investigate all aspects of national insurance in the light of Australian conditions, and to advise the Government thereon.
Sir Walter Kinnear will be returning to Great Britain at an early date, as his services are urgently required by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom. The date of Sir Walter Kinnear’s departure has not yet been fixed.
It is not yet possible to give an indication as to when the reports will be available.

Rabbit Menace in Western Australia.

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

en asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Minister for Lands of Western Australia recently stated that “ there is urgent need for wire netting to combat the rabbit menace, but there is no hope of the State being able to arrange for the purchase of new supplies in the near future, as the agreement drawn up between the Commonwealth and State governments was terminated by the Commonwealth Government”?
In view of the incursion of the rabbit plague into the central farming districts of Western Australia, due to the failure of the grass and crops in the drought-stricken northern and eastern agricultural areas of the State, will he renew the agreement that was recently in operation between the Commonwealth and State governments, to provide funds necessary to acquire rabbit-proof wire netting to combat this menace?

Dr Earle Page:
Minister for Commerce · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

I have not seen the statement referred to.
In August, 1935, the States were informed that, if they were prepared to assist settlers in the purchase of wire netting, the Commonwealth would make a contribution equivalent to 1 per cent, per annum for twenty yearson the State loan money so used during the year 1935-36. The majority of the States, including Western Australia, indicated that they did not desire to avail themselves of this offer.

Protection of Northern Waters

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

en asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Have the patrol boats that were proposed to be used in the northern waters of Australia to prevent the illegal landing of alien pearl- fishing crews on our northern coasts, yet been put into commission?
If so, when did they commence operations ?
What is the number, tonnage, speed, and equipment of the boat or boats employed?
Will the Minister make representations to the Cabinet to authorize the vessels on the Northern Territory coast to extend their patrol work to the north-west coast of WesternAustralia, where similar illegal landingshave occurred?

Mr Paterson:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. A patrol boat was placed in commission at Darwin in May last.

Une boat of eight tons is in commission. Range and speed - approximately 1,000 miles at cruising speed of 10 miles an hour with lui! tankage (1)00 gallons) - approximately 430 miles at full speed of 20 miles an hour, but with reduced tankage of 400 gallons. The boat is 45 feet long and has three 100 horse-power petrol engines. She is equipped with a, wireess transmitting and receiving set, and is armed.
The patrol boat is required to stand by iu the vicinity of Darwin on Monday, Tuesday, Friday and Saturday in each week for thu purpose of rendering immediate assistance in the event of any aeroplane engaged in the overseas air mail service U-ing forced to alight in the Bea between Darwin and Keepang. In view of this fact, it would not be practicable to extend the patrol work to the north-west coast of Wesburn Austi n Iia.

Public and Private Wealth

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that statistics of the private wealth of Australia are only calculated up to 1929?
ls it a fact that the probable estimate of the public wealth of unalienated lands and other public wealth is not given in the pocket compendium of statistics in the same way as the private wealth’
Will he give instructions for an estimate to be made of the public and private wealth up to date?

Mr Casey:
UAP

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

The last estimate of the private wealth of Australia was prepared in respect of the year 1929. Estimates were not prepared during the depression years because of the difficulty of securing accurate particulars of the value of land and improvements, which accounted in 1929 for about 67 per cent, of the estimated total private wealth.
Yes.
As such estimates have a very limited value for statistical purposes, it is not considered desirable to postpone more urgent statistical inquiries in order to make the necessary staff available for an immediate investigation, but the matter will be put in band at the earliest opportunity.

Ottawa Agreement

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen a statement in the press to the effect that the British Government does not contemplate either the denunciation or the revision of the Ottawa agreement?
Is it the intention of the Government to seek a revision of the Ottawa agreement, in order to insist that Parliament shall be Supreme in the determination of our fiscal policy, and shall not be subservient to provisions in the agreement that tariff policy shall be governed by the recommendations o£ the Tariff Board; if not, why not?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

Yos.
The honorable member is aware of the fact that the provisions of the Ottawa, agreement, to which he refers, were approved by the Commonwealth Parliament. When the question of the revision of the agreement is under consideration all features of the agreement, and the trading policy of the Government, will receive attention.

Tariff Proposals

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has he seen the statement made by the Assistant Minister for Commerce in reference to the new. tariff proposals, which reads at follows : - ‘ The Government does not experiment with Such legislation. The decision was arrived at after the closest co-operation with the Parliaments of Great Britain and the dominions “?
In what way did the British Parliament or the British Government co-operate in this matter, and what suggestions or representations were made by thom ?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The tariff proposals are not experimental. The Assistant Minister for Commerce has denied the statement attributed to him. The proposals were not initiated in co-operation with the British Government.

Interstate Shipping : Competition by Overseas Lines.

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Is the Government granting time permits to overseas ships to allow them to trade between certain ports on the Australian coast?
If so, bow many vessels have been granted such permits this year, and why?
Is it a fact that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company is using these overseas vessels for the transport of iron ore?

Dr Earle Page:
CP

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

Yes.
One hundred and eighty-two single voyage permits have been issued this year. Licences for these vessels were not available for the required services.
During August and September of this vear eight single voyage permits have been issued to unlicensed vessels to carry ironstone from Whyalla to the Broken Hill 1’roprietary Company’s works at Newcastle and Port Kembla. In these cases, too, licensed tonnage was not procurable.

Transport of Cattle in NORTHERN australia.

Mr Nairn:

n asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Has he received a copy of a resolution passed by the Australian Meat Board strongly recommending the Commonwealth to have a survey made with a view to providing lm proved transport of cattle to Wyndham f
Was the view expressed by the board that, if no action is taken tq solve the transport problem, the position of producers now supplying Wyndham meal works will deteriorate to a point when they will jio longer be able to carry on?
Was advantage taken df the presence of Commonwealth surveyors engaged in delineating the boundary between the Northern Territory and Western Australia to make an examination of routes for railway or stock routes?
Whether the Minuter is in a position to outline any plan for the encouragement of stock production in Northern Australia?

Dr EARLE Page:
CP

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

Yes.
Yes.
No.
No. The matter is receiving careful consideration.

Wine Market in the United Kingdom.

Mr Price:

e asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What was the quantity of wine imported by the United Kingdom for the year ended the 30th June. 1936, from (a) Empire countries, and (6) foreign countries?
1. What was the quantity of wine exported’ to the United Kingdom during that year from Australia, South Africa, and Canada?
2. What was the quantity and value of the wine consumed in Australia during that year ?

Dr Earle Page:
CP

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

Imports of wine into the United Kingdom during the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1030 - (a) From Empire countries, 4,800,891 gallons; (6) from foreign countries, 11,415,558 gallons.
Imports of wine into the United Kingdom during the twelve months ended the 30th June, 19311 - From Australia, 3,435,491 gallons; from South Africa, 1,187,000 gallons. The figures for imports from Canada are not shown separately iu the United Kingdom statistics, but they are negligible. Canadian statistics show that, during the twelve months ended the 31st March, 1030, Canada exported 1,803 gallons of wine to the United Kingdom.
The quantity and value of wine consumed in Australia during the twelve months ended the 30th June, 1930, are estimated at approximately 5,500,000 gallons, valued al fi, 400,000.

Export of Chit, let) Berk to BRITAIN.

Mr Forde:

asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice - ls he in a position to make a statement in regard to the quota fixed for Australian chilled beef for the British market for the last quarter of 1930?

Dr Earle Page:
CP

e. - The information is being obtained; and will be furnished to the honorable member later.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 October 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1936/19361008_reps_14_151/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 October 1936

INDIA, BURMA AND CEYLON

Mr LYONS:Prime Minis ter · Wilmot · UAP

Mr CURTIN:Fremantle

PAPERS

QUESTION

MISSING MONOSPAR CROYDON AIRCRAFT

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

QUESTION

TICK ERADICATION

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CARS

Mr HUTCHINSON:INDI, VICTORIA

Sir HENRY GULLETT:Minister without portfolio, directing negotiations for trade treaties · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

DOCK FACILITIES AT MELBOURNE

Mr HOLLOWAY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Sir Donald CAMERON:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

Mr MENZIES:UAP

QUESTION

LONDON FUNDS

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr BARNARD:

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

TRADE POLICY

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

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:

Mr FoRDE:

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF NIGHTINGALES

Mr PRICE:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SERVICE

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

Mr PATERSON:Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Mr FISKEN:BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

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

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

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

Mr THORBY:

QUESTION

NAMING- OF AIRPORTS

Mr MULCAHY:LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES HOUSING SCHEME

Mr JENNINGS:WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

SAFETY OF GLIDERS

Mr STREET:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

QUESTION

HOURS OF LABOUR

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr GARDEN:COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

ENGLAND- AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL,

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

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

Mr LYONS:UAP

House of Representatives
8 October 1936

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minis ter · Wilmot · UAP

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

Mr HUTCHINSON:
INDI, VICTORIA

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister without portfolio, directing negotiations for trade treaties · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

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

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

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

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr FISKEN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

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

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

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

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr GARDEN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

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

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr THORBY:
CP

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

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

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

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

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr PATERSON:
CP

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA