House of Representatives
31 August 1937

14^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
QUESTION
- MOTOR CHASSIS
QUESTION
- MEMBER. FOR BALLARAT
PAPERS
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS
QUESTION
- AIR MAIL SERVICE TO TASMANIA
QUESTION
- MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD
QUESTION
- IRON ORE DEPOSITS
QUESTION
- OWNERSHIP OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS
MIGRATION
- Influx of Southern Europeans
QUESTION
- MONEY LENDERS IN CANBERRA
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH UNITED STATES OEAMERICA
QUESTION
- TRADE TREATIES
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- MORTGAGE BANK
QUESTION
- SINO-JAPANESE CONFLICT
ADDRESS-IN-REPLY
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL 1937
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1937
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38
- Second Reading
INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1937
- Second Reading
SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Youth Employment
- Migration
- Cost of Transferring War Exhibits to Canberra

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

page 286

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It has been stated that invalid and old-age pensioners will not receive the proposed increase of the rate of pension unless the validating legislation is passed by this Parliament before the 9th September next. If that be so, will the Treasurer expedite the ‘ passage of this legislation, in order that pensioners may derive immediately the advantage of the increase? I also desire to know whether the Government proposes to abandon the cost of living adjustment in respect of pensioners.

Mr.Curtin. - This is absolutely indecent.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I had proposed to ask leave of the House to introduce to-day a bill to amend the Invalid and OldAge Pensions Act. I give to the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that I did not inspire this question.

Mr.Curtin. - I unreservedly accept that assurance. The Opposition will give the honorable gentleman leave to bring down the measure.

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the honorable gentleman include in the validating bill a provision which will ensure that inmates of government institutions shall receive the additional1s. a week?

Mr CASEY:

– I think it would be unwise to anticipate the contents of the bill. The honorable gentleman, and all other honorable members, will be aware of the Government’s proposal very shortly.

page 287

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Newspaper Speculation

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs been drawn to very conspicuous headlines in a newspaper that is one of the most widely read in the Federal Capital Territory, which imputes a knowledge of aggressive hostile designs by one of the powers in the Pacific against another power with which there is no hostility at the present time, the basis of the assumption being a report from an unnamed observer which appeared in a .’journal somewhere in Europe? Can the honorable gentleman suggest to the Minister for External Affairs that the proprietors of newspapers in Australia ought to be urged not to seek a sensation which might- prejudice the friendly relations of Australia with other powers?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I shall certainly bring immediately to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs the representations of the honorable gentleman. He will, I am sure, recognize that the Government can exercise no control over speculations in the press such as those to which he has just referred.

page 287

QUESTION

MOTOR CHASSIS

Tariff Board’s Report

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Trade and Customs expect, to receive the report of the Tariff Board n motor chassis before the impending dissolution of Parliament?

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

– It is expected that the report will be received this week or at latest, next week.

page 287

QUESTION

MEMBER. FOR BALLARAT

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the honorable member for Ballarat, who was appointed by the Government as a member of the Meat Board, then became chairman of that body, and later had himself appointed London representative of it at a remuneration of £2,500 a year, has yet tendered his resignation as a member of this Parliament ‘(

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– I have no official information in regard to the appointment of the honorable member for Ballarat as London representative of the Meat Board. The honorable member will need to ask Mr. Speaker .whether or not the resignation of the honorable member for Ballarat has been tendered to him.

Mr HAWKER:

– Oan the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce inform the House as to whether it as a fact, as has been suggested, that the honorable member for Ballarat was appointed a member of the Meat Board by the Commonwealth Government, and not on the nomination of the producers of Victoria, as the House previously understood was the case?

Mr LYONS:

– I shall bring the honorable member’s question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce, who is temporarily absent from the House.

page 287

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Munitions Supply Board - Report for period 1st July, 1933, to 30th June, 1935.

Australian Imperial Force Canteens Funds Act - Seventeenth Annual Report by the Trustees, for year 193C-37 (including the Sir Samuel McCaughey Bequest for the Technical Education of Soldiers’ Children ) .

Petroleum. Oil Search Act - Statement or expenditure for .period. May, 1938, to June, 1937.

page 287

QUESTION

TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General endeavour to persuade the Government to provide me with either a secretary or an assistant to facilitate the acknowledgement of the congratulatory letters that I am receiving from telephone subscribers all over Australia for having requested the Postal Department to attach to private telephones an instrument which records the calls that are made?

Question not answered.

page 287

QUESTION

AIR MAIL SERVICE TO TASMANIA

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I should like the responsible Minister to inform me as to whether the time-table adopted for the daily air mail service to Tasmania will prevent the arrival of the mail in Hobart in time for delivery on the same day? If so, will he take steps to have the timetable altered so as to allow Hobart to receive and deliver the mail on the one day?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am informed by the Postmaster-General that the whole question is under his consideration and that of his officials at the present time.

page 288

QUESTION

MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– -In view of the fact that the report of the Munitions Supply Board for the period from 1933 to the 30th ‘June; -1935, was signed by the Secretary of the board on the 30th March, 1936, does not the Minister for Defence think that an unwarranted delay has marked the submission of this report to Parliament? In view of the importance to honorable members of having the latest information available regarding this most essential aspect of our defence resources, will he ask that the Munitions Board furnish an interim report to the very latest date upon which it is in a position to make particulars available?

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

– I feel sure that there is some excellent reason for the delay to which the honorable member has referred, but I shall be glad to. make inquiries with a view to learning whether it is possible to produce an interim report, or whether there is a statutory obligation to produce the report, at a certain date.

page 288

QUESTION

IRON ORE DEPOSITS

Export FROM Yampi Sound.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– by leave - I wish to dispel any misapprehension that may exist in regard to the attitude of the Commonwealth Government in connexion with the export of iron ore from Yampi Sound. A preliminary survey of the potential supplies of iron ore has revealed the existence of very considerable deposits, sufficient for all our requirements for a great many years ahead. However, this survey is incomplete, and it is believed that much greater supplies exist than have been taken into account in this preliminary survey. A .more detailed and comprehensive examination is now in hand. The leases in connexion with the proposed export of iron ore from Yampi Sound were granted to Brassert and Company by the present State Government of Western Australia. The Commonwealth Government is aware of no reason why it should interfere.

The Government, therefore, does not think it likely that the necessity will arise to limit the export of iron ore.

The responsibily for constant. watchfulness for the conservation in the national interests, not only of our iron ore resources, but also of the essential nonferrous metals, is one which falls on the Commonwealth Government. This responsibility the Government accepts, and will act upon whenever and in whatever connexion it is necessary.

Later:

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether the leases of the Yampi Sound iron ore deposits were handed by the Government . of Western Australia direct to Brasserts Limited, or whether they were not held by Sir James Connolly, a Nationalist ex-Colonial Secretary of Western Australia, and handed by him to Brasserts Limited for the sum of £35,000?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have no information on the point raised by the honorable member, but I shall be quite prepared to investigate the matter further. The statement which I made on this matter earlier this afternoon was simply to the effect that the leases were issued by the present Government of “ Western Australia.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister if he will make available to the House, the information so far obtained by the survey of iron ore and other mineral deposits, arising out of the discussion on the leasing of the deposits at Yampi Sound to Japanese interests ?

Mr LYONS:

– I shall give consideration to the request of the honorable member, but our information on the point he raises has really been too incomplete to serve as a guide either to the Government or to the Parliament. However, I shall look into the matter.

page 289

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– On the 26th August, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), and the honorable member forWest Sydney (Mr. Beasley), asked questions concerning the commercial broadcasting stations. The honorable member for West Sydney specifically asked if the regulations relating to the multiple control of stations had been infringed. In reply to that question, I can now state definitely that the regulation has not been infringed. The Leader of the Opposition referred at length to the growth of newspaper control of stations, and asked what steps the Government had taken to have an inquiry made by an expert into these matters. With regard to the control of stations by newspapers, I can now state, in amplification of the inf ormation which I supplied on the 26th August, that newspapers have complete control of 20 stations, out of a total of 90 stations in the Commonwealth, fourteen being controlled by metropolitan newspapers, and six by country newspapers. In addition to this, metropolitan newspapers have interests in other stations which they do not control, to the number of five, while country newspaper proprietors have a similar part interest in six stations. In the case of Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited, which has been referred to as controlling a large number of stations, I find that this company has not infringed the regulations which stipulate that no one person or company may control directly or indirectly, more than eight stations in the Commonwealth. Amalgamated Wireless has complete control of seven stations, controls another under lease from the proprietors, and in Papua controls another small station. The company also has interests in three other stations, but it is not in a position to exercise any control over them.

Regulation 48a, which came into force in November, 1935, provides an effective means of preventing any person or organization from controlling a large number of stations. The degree of compliance with this regulation, which, incidentally, is complete, is ascertained by demanding a statutory declaration from each licensee company when application is made for renewal of the licence. A similar declaration is demanded before any new licence is issued. In addition to these precautions, the department recently obtained complete particulars from each licensee company of the shareholding arrangements in each company, and from the information thus obtained the particulars that I supplied last week in reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition were obtained.

page 289

MIGRATION

Influx of Southern Europeans

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Has the Prime

Minister received a petition signed by over a hundred Australian tourists, passengers on the Otranto, which arrived at Fremantle on 17th of the month, wherein adverse comment was made concerning certain southern European immigrants on that ship? If the right honorable gentleman has received it, will he state whether a reply has been made, and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The petition has been received, but I am not certain what reply was made. However, the matter was considered by the Government and statements have been made hy the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) regarding the Government’s attitude generally upon the matter of immigration.

page 289

QUESTION

MONEY LENDERS IN CANBERRA

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the prosecution last week in Canberra of a civil servant for debt, during the course of which it was stated that interest had been charged at a rate of 130 per cent.? In view of the fact that the ordinance issued twelve months ago- states that not more than 12 per cent. shall be charged, and that money lenders are required to be registered in the Federal Capital Territory, will the Government take steps to ensure that the registration of the money lender concerned in this case is cancelled so that he may be no longer in a position to exploit persons in necessitous circumstances.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall take steps to have the matter investigated.

page 290

QUESTION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES OEAMERICA

Importation of Motor Oaks

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that, owing to the trade diversion policy of the Government which has restricted the importation of motor cars from the United States of America, the motor distributors of this country have taken advantage of the fact that the present demand for such cars exceeds the supply, and have raised prices? Will he take action to permit a larger quota of cars from the United States of America to enter Australia for the benefit of these persons who prefer American cars to any other kind?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– The facts of the matter are not a3 related by the honorable member. I do not know whether or not he quoted from a fallacious document issued by a so-called tariff reform body, which i3 really a free-trade body, in which it was claimed, erroneously, that prices had gone up by £20 in each instance. That statement was corrected by me in the press, yet it is persisted in in the document issued by this organization. As a matter of fact, in some instances, prices have gone up by from £5 to £20 in the United States of America and Canadian makes, £20 being the highest increase, but, on the other hand, British prices have been reduced.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Minister must confine his answer to the question.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member has asked that the quota be increased because, he says, the demand exceeds the supply. I assure him that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the biggest importers of American cars are not importing up to the limit of their quotas, though undoubtedly the quota is too small for some of the smaller importers. That is all I can say in respect of the matter at the moment.

page 290

QUESTION

TRADE TREATIES

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

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether any progress . has been made lately in trade negotiations with other countries; if so, with what countries?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– Considerable progress is being made in trade negotiations with different countries, including Canada, Japan and Germany. As matters of policy are involved in the honorable member’s question, I cannot disclose the details of those negotiations.

page 290

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Transport Services

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– In view of the statement by the Minister for the Interior that investigations are being made with a view to providing a road-train service from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek, will he consider the advisability of handing over complete control of transport in the Northern Territory, including the proposed road-train service, to- the Commonwealth Commissioner of Railways, in order that transport in Central Australia will be conducted competently in that, sphere, and regular time-tables may be worked in conjunction with the railway services?

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

– The matter raised by the honorable member is already under consideration.

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– When the Minister for the Interior is considering the matter just raised by the honorable member for the Northern Territory, will he bear in mind the agreement entered into between the State of South Australia and the Commonwealth some years ago in connexion with the handing over of the territory to the Commonwealth, that a railway would be constructed from Oodnadatta to Darwin - with a view to continuing that line as early as possible from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek?

Mr PATERSON:

– I assure the honorable member that the agreement to which he has referred is not being overlooked.

page 290

QUESTION

MORTGAGE BANK

Mr McEWEN:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill this session to establish the mortgage bank referred to by the Treasurer in his budget speech ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– It is hoped that an opportunity will be availed of to introduce such a bill.

page 291

QUESTION

SINO-JAPANESE CONFLICT

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of reports in the press of a serious conflict in the East, I should like .to know from the Prime -Minister whether the Government is being fully informed of happenings in i hat sphere through the External Affairs Department, and whether it has in its possession information other than that already published in the press which should be made known to honorable members? Will the right honorable gentleman make a statement on the situation?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The Government is being informed from time to time as to what is taking place in the East. I do not think that we have any information in addition to that which has already been made available to the public through the press. If at any stage, however, it should seem desirable that we should add to that information for the benefit of honorable members, I shall make a statement.

page 291

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General, the following communication in connexion with the Address-in-Reply : -

Mr. Speaker,

T desire to acquaint you that the AddressinReply at the opening of the second session of the Fourteenth Parliament was duly laid before his Majesty the King, and I am commanded to convey to you and to honorable members, His Majesty’s sincere appreciation of the loyal assurances to which %our Address gives expression. (Sgd.) Gowrie

Governor-General . 30th August, 1937.

page 291

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Lifts and Refrigerator

Mr SPEAKER:

– Last Friday the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) asked a question in regard to the lifts on the House of Representatives side of the .building. I now inform the honorable member that I have personally gone into this matter and have come to the conclusion that the lifts are not entirely satisfactory. I have, therefore, arranged for the engineer to discuss with a representative of the manufacturers whether improvements can be effected.

The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked the following questions on the 27th August: -

With reference to the Deputy Speaker’s reply to my questions in regard to the purchase of a Canadian-made refrigerator for Parliament House, Canberra, in preference to an Australianmade article, were tenders invited, and in what way and by whom were they considered ?
Will he give the names of Australian manufacturers who were asked to quote, and the prices quoted for a comparable article?
What experts decided which refrigerator was of the most superior quality ?
From what firm, and at what price,, and by whom was the Canadian-made refrigerator purchased ; and was the price paid inclusive of import duty?
What officer actually decided to purchase a Canadian-made refrigerator, or was it done by Mr. President or Mr. Speaker?

The replies are as follows: -

No, but quotations were obtained in accordance with practice.
There is no refrigerator completely manufactured in Australia, and I am informed that the vital parts of such apparatus must be imported from overseas. Prices were obtained from various firms who assemble or import refrigerators. The following are the quotations: - The Genalex (British General Electric Company), £86 ; The Leonard (Radio Industries Company), £77 16s. 3d. The Tasma Radio Company were also asked to quote hut stated that they had ceased assembling refrigerators for the time being and recommended the refrigerator sold by International Radio Company Limited. The agents of H.M.V. refrigerators were also approached without result.
It was not considered that experts should be called in to decide the kind of refrigerator to be used in the bar. The electricians on the staff, who are required to maintain the refrigerator, reported favorably upon it. The machine has proved eminently satisfactory since its installation.
International Radio Company Proprietary Limited. The price was £56 5s. and was inclusive of import duty.
The secretary, Joint House Department, as head of that department.

page 292

ACTS INTERPRETATION BILL 1937

Assent reported.

LATE SENATOR J. V. MacDONALD.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to report that I have received a communication from Mrs. MacDonald thanking the House for its resolution of sympathy on the occasion of the death of her husband, Senator J. V. MacDonald.

page 292

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1937

Motion (by Mr. Casey) - by leave, - agreed to.

That he have leave to bring in a bill for i n act to amend sections 24, 31, 45 and 47 of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908-36.

Bill brought up, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to implement the Government’s budget proposal to increase the maximum rate of the invalid and old-age pension from 19s. to 20s. a week. The reason for my somewhat unusual procedure in introducing this bill is that the next pensions pay day falls on Thursday, 9th September, ‘and in order to enable the postal officials to do the large amount of clerical work necessary to make it possible to pay pensions at the increased rate on that day it will be essential for this bill to be passed by both Houses of Parliament by Thursday next.

I shall briefly review the history of pensions payments over the last four years. Honorable members will recollect that in 1933 provision was made in the principal act for an annual review of the rate of pension in accordance with cost of living variations, and a table was inserted in the act for the purpose. In

J uly, 1935, in accordance with the movement in the cost of living, the rate of pension was increased to a maximum of 18s. a week. In September, 1936, in connexion with the budget proposals of that year, an alteration was made in the table relating to cost of living for pension purposes in favour of the pensioners, and the rate of pension was increased from 18s. to 19s. a week although the cost of living variation at that time did not warrant an increase of ls. a week. It is now proposed to repeal all the provisions which deal with the variation of the rate of pension in accordance with the cost of living. Consequently honorable members are asked to agree to the elimination of certain sub-sections of section 24 of the principal act. If they consent, the existing law relating to the variation of the pension according to the cost of living variations will cease to operate and the pension will, in future, be 20s. a week without any provision for a decrease in accordance with any future decrease of the cost of living.

Mr Beasley:

-What is the meaning of the wordshaving regard to all the circumstances of the case?

Mr CASEY:

– Those words are a mere repetition of the language of the existing law.

The bill also makes the necessary ancillary provision to raise the total maximum income a pensioner may have. At present the maximum is 31s. 6d. a week including pension. This bill provides for an increase of this figure to 32s. 6d. a week or £84 10s. a year.

After the passage of this bill, a pensioner will be able to earn 12s. 6d. a week . and still be entitled to a full pension of £1 a week. That has been the case for probably the last ten years.

Mr Nock:

– Will practically every pensioner receive ls. a week extra?

Mr CASEY:

Debate (on motion by Mr. Curtin) adjourned.

page 293

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 27th August (vide page 277), . on motion by M r. Casey -

That the bill bo now read a second time.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- During the last short session of this Parliament which extended, I think, over about three weeks, we granted Supply for a period of two months; now we are asked to grant further Supply for a period of four months, making, in all, six months, or one half of the financial year. That means that Parliament is voting money for half the year’s expenditure without being given an opportunity to discuss the items in detail. That is not a reasonable request for the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to make to Parliament particularly in view of the very brief period for which Parliament has sat since the last general elections. Parliament by passing a Supply bill authorizes the payment of certain sums by each department, whereas the passing of the Estimates means authorization by Parliament of each individual item in the Estimates. Parliament is being ignored by this Government; it should have been called together at an earlier date in order to give honorable members an opportunity to scrutinize the whole of the Estimates, and to debate whatever items interested them.

I have gone to some little trouble in looking up the number of days on which Parliament has sat since the last elections which took place on the 15th September, 1934. In 1934 the House of Representatives sat on 21 days and the Senate nine out of 107; in 1935, the House of Representatives sat on 55 days and the Senate 37 days out of 365; in 1936, the House of Representatives sat on 71 days and the Senate 49 out of. 366 and in 1937, the House of Representatives sat on thirteen days and the Senate twelve out of 238. Since the general elections the House of Representatives has sat 160 days and the Senate 107 days out of 1,076 days. This year - and we are in the eighth month - this Parliament will have sat, by the time it adjourns, on only 20 days. Is that a fair way to treat Parliament? Is it not an insult to the intelligence of the elected representatives of the people and to the whole electorate to say that the ‘ government of the Commonwealth should be carried on by what is known as the “ big four “, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), the right honorable the member for Cowper and leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page), the Leader of the Government in another place, (Senator Sir George Pearce) and the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill). They are, without doubt, the four most unpopular members of the Ministry. If the Treasurer were included in the “ Big Four,” the position would be somewhat different, because all honorable members will credit him with being a hard worker. Gentlemen who, since the last sittings of the Parliament, have been peregrinating around the world, dictate the policy of the Government and have kept the doors of the Parliament shut except for 20 days during the year.

On the eve of an election, the Government framed a budget which it hoped would meet with an enthusiastic response throughout Australia. It has not done so, however. On the contrary, it has left the people cold, and more than the shrewd electioneering speech of the Treasurer will be necessary to remove their disappointment. The Government cannot deny that, since the last appeal to the country, the voice of the people has sounded against it on major matters of policy.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The next appealto the people is of more importance.

Mr FORDE:

– The result of the appeal to the electors of Gwydir is an indication of what we may expect. Although, in the Gwydir by-election, the Government chose its own battleground - a district which for many years has been a Lyons-Page stronghold - its candidate was defeated. The hostility to the Government’s legislative programme has been reinforced by a series of blundering administrative acts on its part. In some instances, these were of such a nature as to make Australia look ridiculous in the eyes of other nations. It is little wonder that the Government’s candidate was beaten ignominiously in Gwydir.

We have become accustomed to the alluring and extravagant claims made by the Government in its pre-election budget. The speech of the Treasurer in introducing his latest budget contained more electioneering propaganda than has been associated with any previous budget speech; but, despite the enthusiasm with which he put forward extravagant claims on behalf of the Government, he failed to convince any one that the budget was really a good one. To some of his statements of fact, no one can offer serious objection; but I strongly disagree with the reasons advanced by the honorable gentleman for the improvement of world trade, and, particularly, of conditions in Australia in relation to employment. Four factors Lave operated to bring about the improved conditions in this country. Foremost amongst them was the Scullin Government’s tariff policy, the beneficial effects- of which took some time to become evident. Those benefits would have been considerably greater but for the bungling policy of the present Government, which has .tried to please both free-traders and protectionists, and has succeeded in pleasing neither section. The second factor was the expenditure of large sums by State governments on works to relieve unemployment. The third was increased prices in the world’s markets for Australia’s exportable products; and the fourth contributing factor was the rehabilitation policy put into operation by the Scullin Government. The present Government cannot fairly claim to have been responsible for improvements resulting from the operation of those four factors. Conditions have improved, despite the inaction of the Government, which has sat idly by hoping for something to turn up.

The Government preens itself on its recurring surpluses; but there would have been no surpluses had it not been for the savings resulting from the conversion of much of the country’s internal indebtedness at lower rates of interest, by the Scullin administration.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– What about the conversion of the external debt ?

Mr FORDE:

– The High Commissioner in London arranged for the conversion of loans amounting to approximately £200,000,000, at an average interest of approximately 3£ per cent. ; tut Great Britain. converted, at 2-£ per cent., loans amounting to £2,000,000,000. I have no wish to under-rate the services rendered to Australia by the High Commissioner in London, but I point out that those loans had to be converted in any case. The conversion of those loans was not due to anything which the Lyons Government, did.

Mr Casey:

– Who was responsible?

Mr Brennan:

– The people were rushing the securities.

Mr FORDE:

– The Government claims credit for those conversions, but it has not attempted to convert, at lower rates of interest, other overseas loans bearing interest at over 5 per cent. Loans amounting to £536,000,000 were converted by the Scullin Government at rates which reduced the interest bill of Commonwealth and State Governments by £7,500,000 a year ; but the Treasurer did not give credit where credit was due. As the result of the conversions effected by the Scullin administration, the Governments of the Commonwealth and of the States have gained £46,000,000 in respect of their interest commitments. Of that sum, £20,000,000 represents the saving of interest to the Commonwealth budget alone.

The Treasurer said that the present Government had done much to restore confidence, but he dealt in generalities, and gave only one example to support his claim. I read with amazement a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in Sydney on the 2nd January, 1934, when the right honorable gentleman said -

Four per cent. 1901 Australian stocks in September, 1931, were down in value to £70 188. 2d. On the 22nd December of that year, a few days after the present Government had been elected, they had risen to £90 18s. fid.

The right honorable gentleman by that statement had sought to create the impression that Australian stocks had jumped up in value immediately his government was elected. But what are the facts? The facts are that the value of those same stocks had risen from £70 18s. 2d. to £90 14s. 5d. before the elections were held. The success of the conversion of the £536,000,000 brought about by the Labour Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) created confidence, and the fact that in the three months before the 1931 elections the value of Australian stocks rose by £20 shows that to a large extent confidence was restored before the advent of the Lyons Government. Honorable members opposite had no justification for the hollow claim that they were responsible for the restoration of this confidence. The Prime Minister would have been much safer had he stuck to generalities in respect of which the Treasurer is such an expert.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member did not show much confidence in 1929.

Mr FORDE:

– The electors did not show much confidence in Gwydir and they certainly will not show much confidence in the present Government at the coming elections. No one will deny that Australia is in a better position to-day than it was during the worst years of the depression; this state of affairs applies, however, not only to Australia but also to all countries in the world. Consider, for example, the increased annual cheques which have been received for our export commodities, wool, wheat and gold. Whereas our wool clip in 1931-32 was valued at £35,073,000, in 1936-37 it yielded £66,950,000, or nearly twice as much. Can this Government claim credit for the annual wool cheque doubling itself?

Mr Casey:

– Not at all.

Mr FORDE:

– Yet honorable mem- bers opposite point to the increase of employment and say that it is due to the administration of the LyonsPage Government. The value of the wheat crop which in 1931-32 amounted to £30,316,000, rose to £39,200,000 in 3 936-37. In 1931-32 gold production in Australia was valued at £4,522,000 but by 1936-37 it had risen to £11,219,000. Will any one have the audacity to claim that these substantial increases of £30,000,000 for wool, of . £9,200,000 for wheat, and £7,000,000 for gold are due in any way to any statesmanlike action by, or the administration of, the Lyons-Page Government? So much for the hollow claim that that Government has been responsible for the improvement of industries and trade generally throughout Australia? The Treasurer in the opening words of his speech with a great flourish said -

Indeed it can be said that the present level of prosperity is higher than it has ever been in the previous history of this country.

The obvious question for us to ask is: Who is enjoying this prosperity ? Only a very privileged few, the wealthy sections of the people which are the backbone of the support behind the Nationalist Government, are probably enjoying a greater degree of prosperity. Does the basic wage worker enjoy a greater degree of prosperity than ever before in Australia ? The figures of the Commonwealth Statistician show that the average federal basic wage for six capital cities in1928 was £4 7s. 6d. a week. In 1929 it was £4 10s. 6d. a week, and on the 1st July, this year, including the increase of 3s. a week granted from the 1st July, 1937, it was £3 13s.0d. a week, showing a reduction of 17s.6d. a week comparing the period 1929 to the 1st July, 1937, and proving clearly that no greater prosperity is enjoyed by the basic wage worker generally throughout Australia. On the contrary, he actually gets less. In New South Wales, the State basic wage in 1929 was £4 2s. 6d. a week plus child endowment; to-day it is £311s. 6d. plus child endowment, or l1s.0d. a week less. The average federal basic wage is, as I have stated, 17s. 6d. a week less. What about this “unparalleled” prosperity about which the Treasurer boasted? In his budget speech at the commencement he said -

From the valley of despair, we have emerged into the sunlight.

No doubt the “ big four “ consisting of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Commerce, the Minister for External Affairs, and the Minister for Defence have emerged from the depression of opposition into the sunlight of lucrative posts in the Government, but for the masses of the people, and certainly for the basic wage worker, there is no room for this boast of “unparalleled” prosperity. The Prime Minister, speaking on the 19th August last, said -

Bright times have come again.

Mr.Curtin. - It sounds like a song.

Mr FORDE:

– Indeed, it does. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have been attending dinners in the various State capitals and making these extravagant claims until they have convinced themselves that the masses of the people to-day are better, off than ever before. Let us examine the facts and see where this “ unparalleled “ prosperity exists. In March last year, the Prime Minister said -

Now whatever test we apply, revenue, employment, &c, the condition of Australia as a whole is satisfactory.

I, like the rest of the people of Australia, am pleased that world conditions to-day are much better than they were a few years ago ; but knowing the true position of the people of Australia to-day, I cannot reconcile these extravagant statements of the Government regarding prosperity with the actual condition of the people generally in this country, brought about by the uneven distribution of wealth, resulting in the rich becoming richer and the masses of the people finding it increasingly more difficult to meet their annual commitments, and for workers to provide their wives and children with the necessary foodstuffs to eliminate that malnutrition that the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) said stalked the land in this country, and in reference to which he said he had a great and practical sympathy. The right honorable gentleman, however, has done nothing in regard to it or has failed to convince his Government that it is necessary to take any deeper interest in it than that. When it is said that a high level of material prosperity exists, we must point out the -actual conditions in which individuals live, and ask the Government what it is doing for the 200,000 unemployed and their dependants throughout Australia, or for more than 450,000 of those who depend on some form of charity or another, or for the undernourished masses of the community - and there are many of them as the malnutrition committee found out - or for mothers and children for whom the Minister for Health said he had great sympathy, or for the thousands of others living in the slum areas of Australia for whom the Prime Minister before the last elections expressed his great sympathy and promised to inaugurate a great national housing scheme. This he has not attempted to carry out. Can it be said that, the hundreds of people in Sydney, who have been evicted from their homes during the last few years, evidence of which is to be found in the reports appearing in our daily newspapers from time to time, are enjoying a period of “ unparalleled “ prosperity? Or can this be said of those thousands of youths who cannot get employment, and for whom the prospects of becoming useful citizens of the Commonwealth is very black? What has this Government done for all these people? It had stood idly by and, so far from helping the suffering people, has pursued a policy of making the rich richer at the expense of the masses. Thousands of farmers have been forced off their holdings in recent years. This Government, soon after it took office, promised to provide £20,000,000 for rural rehabilitation, but actually it set aside the comparatively meagre sum of £12,500,000 for the adjustment of farmers’ debts, aggregating £500,000,000. And so inadequate has been the provision made that it is estimated it will take fifteen years to disburse the £12,500,000 provided.

The fact is that while, in the aggregate, there may be a greater measure of prosperity in Australia to-day than there was a few years ago, the observant student of Commonwealth affairs, after studying the Treasurer’s “ prosperity “ budget figures, will be forced to the conclusion that the maldistribution of prosperity has never been greater in the history of Australia. The rejoicings of those who have benefited from this Government’s financial policy is not echoed by the large army of unemployed or by those who have been driven from their homes because of circumstances over which they have no control. These people constitute the real background to the Treasurer’s budget speech. Their reactions to the Government’s declared intentions are more important than the comments of certain favorable newspapers whose sole purpose is to boost this Government and make black appear to be white.

This year the defence vote will reach £11,531,000, a record for peace time, and we are told that this immense sum must be expended at once. The Government does not propose to raise the money for the liquidation of this sum immediately. The sharers of the present unexampled prosperity, of which the Treasurer speaks so glibly, are not to be asked to pay.

Mr Brennan:

– How many profiteers will make their appearance as the result of this Government’s defence policy?

Mr FORDE:

– That is a pertinent question to ask. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) rightly said that tie Great War was waged in the interests of the richer classes rather than any other section of the people, and we on this side believe that the rich should he called upon to pay an adequate share of our defence expenditure. Probably it was because he gave utterance te sentimentsof this nature, that the honorable member was cast out of the Ministry which, as we know, depends for its continued existence upon the reactionary elements of the community. Lately it has been the practice of the Treasurer and other ministers to survey retrospectively the financial position of the Commonwealth, in order to persuade the people that the improved financial state of the country is due to their financial and fiscal policies. The electors might, also with some profit, follow the lead of the Treasurer and his ministerial colleagues. A glance at the figures will show that six years ago Commonwealth expenditure amounted to £70,21S,000, as compared with an estimated expenditure for the current financial year of £85,160,000. Six years ago the aggregate amount received from direct and indirect taxes was £53,950,000 whereas the estimate for the present year is £62,846,000, an increase of£9,096,000. Despite these figures ministers and their supporters are claiming that this Government is taking less from the pockets of the people than any previous federal administration and the Treasurer, in his budget speech, had the audacity to declare that these reductions of taxation had benefited all sections of the community! He omitted, however, to say: 1. That the amount received by this Government in taxes in 1935-36 was the highest, collected by any Commonwealth Government. 2. That the amount per head of population was the highest ever received. 3. That the remissions made largely benefited those taxpayers in receipt of the higher incomes; and 4. That the tax burden bore most heavily on the workingclases.

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

– Who says that?

Mr FORDE:

– I could not expect the Minister for Defence to say it, because he is too biased in his outlook to make an impartial survey of any national problem when the interests of this Government are at stake. But the position is as I have stated it. The amount received by this Government in direct taxation is to-day greater by £14,000,000 than it was iri 1931-32. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Melbourne Age, commenting on the Government’s efforts to claim credit for the general improvement of trade, said in a leading article yesterday : -

That they owe any great debt in terms of that emotion of gratitude for improved conditions to the present Federal Government is far from certain. The improvements the Treasurer rehearsed have been largely attributable to factors beyond the governmental scope.

– The Joint House Committee did not make the purchase. The President and Mr. Speaker should not have allowed such a thing to happen. The whole of Australia’s requirements of refrigerators and many other similar lines can be manufactured in our own factories. There is no justification for going outside Australia. Tn the manufacture of refrigerators in Australia, nearly 5,000 persons are employed at award rates of wages. If everybody did as has been done in this case, what would happen ? Those persons would be thrown out of employment.

The Labour party believes in giving Great Britain a generous measure of preference; hut it also believes that charity begins at home, and that we should give adequate and effective .protection to our own secondary industries. During the year 1934-35, the amount of the preferential provision was £35,000,000, and the preferential duty paid totalled £3,343,000. The application of the general tariff to goods from Great Britain would’ have meant the payment of an additional £5,736,000. While in no way detracting from the importance of our primary industries, I contend that it is to the secondary industries of this country that we must look for the absorption of our unemployed and for the provision of avenues of employment for the bright products of our public schools who, having passed university examinations, seek largely in vain for a means of livelihood.

The views of the Labour party on the Ottawa agreement are in accord with those of another important witness that I shall- call - the Right Honorable W. A. Watt, ex-Nationalist leader in Victoria, ex-Nationalist Commonwealth Treasurer and Acting Prime Minister - to the following effect -

The existing atmosphere of doubt and anxiety arose from the existence of what is popularly known as the Ottawa agreement.

In his inimitable style, addressing a gathering of the Australian preference league at a banquet given by that body in Melbourne, the right honorable gentleman said -

Let us take the words of clause 10 of the Ottawa agreement. By it, the British producer is guaranteed full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production. To my mind, that guarantee constitutes most definitely a challenge to the protectionist system of Australia. The main objective of the protectionists was to give to the Australian manufacturer a definite advantage in his home market. If you will read clause 12 of the Ottawa agreement, you will observe that “No existing duty shall bo increased on United Kingdom goods to an amount in excess of the recommendation of the tariff tribunal.” Docs this not give an enormous stretch of authority to the Tariff Board ?

We said the same when the Ottawa agreement was before this House, and were told that we were political partisans, and did not know what we were talking about. But the Right Honorable W. A. Watt, who is not now tied to the party machine, clearly analysed the effects of the Ottawa agreement and substantiated the claim of this party that it cut right across the protectionist policy of Australia and was the greatest “ ramp “ ever perpetrated on behalf of British manufacturers at the expense of Australian industries and workmen. We believe that the right honorable gentleman was right when he said -

The phraseology of clause 12, and the practice followed, is equivalent to handing over the powers of responsible Ministers to a body of men who do not represent the people in any constitutional sense.

The Australian manufacturer is put “on the spot”, and Evidence is taken from importers of his competitors’ goods. He, at all times, is called upon to furnish reasons for any increased protection he may seek, but his overseas competitor, who is 16,000 miles away, is treated most sympathetically by this Government and not as a criminal or a robber. The Government says to the British manufacturer “ You have a right to share the Australian market with the British manufacturers”, despite the fact that 250,000 of our. men are walking the streets without employment and the 50,000 of our youths who leave school every year seek mostly in vain for a position in the industrial world.

I ask the Minister for Defence, who lias enjoyed to probably a greater extent than any other Minister the advantages of having a portfolio and has travelled abroad extensively: “Is the Treasurer right in casting a reflection on the governments of the States for having spent money in absorbing the unemployed of this country, and in claiming that the Commonwealth Government has reduced its total indebtedness by £11,000,000 while the States have increased theirs by something like £S0,000,000?

Mr Clark:

– He “‘passed the buck” to the States.

Mr FORDE:

– Quite so. This Government, in 1934, made the definite preelection promises that it would inaugurate a major policy of development, bring about the standardization of railway gauges, and initiate a great national housing scheme for Australia.

Mr Mahoney:

– It has not yet erected a tent.

Mr FORDE:

– It also promised that an adequate scheme of water conservation and irrigation would be one of its chief concerns. Yet it has accomplished nothing! As the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark) has said, it has “ passed the buck “ to the States. The expenditure of many millions of pounds by the governments of the States has been responsible for the substantial reduction of the number of unemployed in Australia. Practically the whole of the £80,000,000 increase of our public debt has been utilized by the States in providing employment in the States. The Federal Government disclaims any responsibility for that increase, and shelters behind the book entry of a reduction of the Commonwealth debt by £11,000,000 while disregarding its obligation to the unemployed of Australia. It will not be able to escape the unemployed at the ballot-box; it will then be brought face to face with them, and will have to explain why it has failed to fulfil its specious promises, as the result of which Labour candidates were defeated, because the unemployed voted for representatives of the party opposite, in the belief that great national public works were to be undertaken.

One of the declarations of the Treasurer is to be found in his budget, speech when he said -

For the reasons that I have given, it is considered inadvisable at thu present time to take this loan money from the Australian market. It is proposed in the first place to raise £2.000,000 sterling, the equivalent of £2,500,000 in Australian currency, on Commonwealth Treasury bonds, from the Commonwealth Bank in London, and at an appropriate time to fund the short-term securities from the proceeds of a public loan.

When the honorable gentleman was asked by an honorable member on this side as to whether that public loan would he floated here or overseas, he evaded the question. This obviously, notwithstanding the constant denials of certain representatives of the Government, is the beginning of an overseas borrowing policy. We know that that wa3 one of the principal reasons for the Treasurer’s trip abroad. He wished to sound the London money market in order to ascertain the possibility of raising money overseas for the purchase of muni- lions. I am reminded of the inglorious record of the Bruce-Page Government, which earned for the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) the description applied to him by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) - that he was “the most tragic treasurer Australia had ever had.” We must bear in mind that the right honorable gentleman to-day dominates the policy of this ministry. It is a ministry which consists largely of politically tired men, “who desire a rest. This energetic Leader of the Country party is driving them into doing things that arc greatly at variance with the policy placed before the people at the last federal elections. I am reminded that in the last three years of the adminis1:ration of the Bruce-Page Government, under its eyes, and with its connivance and approval, borrowings overseas totalled £40,000,000 a year, and goods were imported into Australia at the rate of £140,000,000 annually, one half ofwhich could have been efficiently and economically manufactured in Australia providing employment for our own people. The reason given by the present Treasurer for the suggested flotation of t loan abroad - that loans were falling due in this country - will apply for the next twenty-five years.- If honorable members will look at page 127 of the budget papers for 1937-38, they will find that the following loans are 1 ailing due within the next few years -

mid so on. In some years, the amount is £30,000,000, and in others it is over £60,000,000, showing clearly that there is no valid reason on this score for again commencing an overseas borrowing policy. The money itself would not come to Australia; it would take the form, of goods. Doubtless, it will be a sop to theimporting friends of the Government, who want to import goods that can be manufactured here. They have not that sense of Australian patriotism which would lead them to establish factories in this country and give employment to our own people. At the right time, the electors will show decisively that they do not want a repetition of the inglorious record of the Bruce-Page Administration, which left an aggregate adverse trade balance of £78,000,000, an empty treasury, and accumulated deficits totalling £7,000,000. When that administration went out of office, Australia was on the verge of financial ruin and disaster, and a Labour administration had to apply a rehabilitation policy which enabled Australia to get on to an even keel again, to which more than to any action of this Government can bc attributed any improvement of trade generally in Australia.

The people of Australia, who have been looking to this Government to bring about a system of national or social insurance, have the right to feel keenly disappointed, and I believe that they will show their resentment at the ballot-box. The Government submitted this subject to a royal commission which sat from 1925 to 1927, but now, in 1937, the Government is still delaying putting into operation the scheme which that commission recommended. In 1928, the Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page), who was then Treasurer in the Bruce-Page Government, introduced a national insurance bill providing ‘for compulsory insurance against sickness, permanent disability, death and old-age, as well as making provision for allowances for widows, orphans and children. .When introducing the bill he said -

Members will appreciate the honest effort of the Government to contribute a practical proposal for tho banishment of that grim spectre of want and misery that has for too long haunted our sick and aged people in the community.

That bill had received the imprimatur of three prominent actuaries whose qualifications were beyond question, yet it was never proceeded with. It was merely an electioneering dodge. Two more reports were received regarding national insurance, but still the Government was not satisfied, and further reports were obtained from Sir Walter Kinnear and. Mr. Ince. Altogether the Governmenthas obtained five reports at a. total cost of over £18,000, but it is still unable to come to a decision, and a committee has been set up to furnish a further report. Recently, the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) speaking with that glib eloquence which is characteristic of him, declared that the Government was “ dealing with the matter as rapidly as it could, consistent with accurate consideration and proper judgment.” The rapidity of the Government can be gauged from the fact that twelve years have elapsed since the Bruce-Page Government first promised to bring in this legislation. It is evident that the judgment of the Government is influenced by those who are opposed to this reform. [Leave to continue given.’] In a pamphlet which he authorized in 1925, by the present Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill), the following appears: -

Reasons why you must vote Nationalist.

Australian womanhood, because I will legislate to protect the mothers of our race through motherhood endowment.

You and yours are safe under a Nationalist Government which provides -

Mother endowment.

Unemployment insurance.

That was twelve years ago, and to-day the Government is making similar promises. Will the people he hoodwinked again? What confidence can they have in promises so readily made and so easily broken? Is not the welfare of the people of Australia of at least as much importance as the defence of the country? I believe it is. The people will demand to know from the Government why prompt action was not taken to institute a system of national insurance. It has a majority in both chambers of Parliament, and this legislation could have been on the statute-book three years ago. During the election campaign the Government issued slogans stating : - “ You and yours are safe under a Nationalist Government which provides £20,000,000 for homes, and a great national insurance scheme.” The posters went on to assure home-lovers that the Nationalist Government was prepared to raise £20,000,000 to ensure that every city and country dweller who desired his own home should have the means to do so. Then the generalissimo of the Nationalist party, Mr. Lyons, speaking before the last general elections, promised to have national insurance on the statute-book without delay, and to co operate with the State governments in regard to unemployment, child welfare and maternal welfare. He promised particularly to co-operate in regard to. the building of workers’ homes, and the elimination of slum areas. What has come out of this welter of promises? All that has happened is that the Government has set out to create something that the people do not want, an Inter-State Commission, to provide jobs for its friends. The chairman is to receive £2,500 a year, and there are to be two other members who will each receive £2,000 a year. There is no justification whatever for any such proposal.

The Government has made a very belated restoration of old-age and invalid pensions. Had the Scullin Government remained in office until the end of the financial year 1931-32, when there was a surplus of £1,300,000, old-age and invalid pensions would have been restored to £1 a week during the financial year 1932-33. The Scullin Government would have redeemed the pledge which it gave, which, indeed, was given by the whole of this Parliament, when the financial emergency legislation was passed, that as soon as there was a surplus, pensions would he restored to their former level. The surplus was achieved on the 31st July, 1932, and there have been surpluses every year since, but the Government, far from restoring the pensions, took another £1,000,000 from the pensioners. It searched the pockets of their relatives, and made provisions for the confiscation of the old people’s homes in order to compensate it for the pensions it paid to them. In other words it made the pension a loan. On numerous occasions, when the party on this side of the House moved for the restoration of pensions, honorable members opposite voted against us, but the Government is now making a great parade of virtue because, six years too late, it is restoring pensions to £1 a week. The Government merits political oblivion, and I am confident that when the people have an opportunity they will show their disapproval of the many acts of omission and commission of the LyonsPage Government, and will put into office a government which stands for Australia and Australians first.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah. · UAP

– I have listened with interest to the speech of the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde), but his speech would have been much more interesting if I had not’ heard it many times before. The sentiments he has expressed have no novelty about them. However, I have seldom heard a story more terrible in its inaccuracies, its misrepresentations and its false conclusions. I propose to refer to some of those inaccuracies, and to leave it to the judgment of the House just how much value should be placed upon his statements.

Mr Martens:

– The electors will appreciate the value of them.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– Yes, and I am sure that their answer will be the same in October next as it was three years ago. I make this comment after listening to the speech of the honorable member. I can understand now why he is not Leader of tie Opposition.

In the first place, he referred to the sittings of the House, and apparently he thinks that legislative achievements are to be measured, not by their actual benefit to the community, but by their lineal dimensions; in short, by the number of days which the legislature sits. That is his first indictment against the Government and its budget. It is sufficient for me to echo the statements of those who say that when certain governments are in office it would be far better for the country if they never sat at all. Evidently, that was the opinion of the electors also, because, at the first opportunity they had, they dismissed the honorable member for Capricornia and his Government from office by the largest majority by which any government has over been defeated.

I can pass over without further comment the honorable member’s references to the “big four”. There is no such thing in existence; it is merely a figment of the honorable member’s imagination, or, at most, the product of a feeble attempt at levity.

On the subject of employment, I have never heard a more laboured effort than that of the honorable member to prove that the people of Australia are not in employment when he knows perfectly [ll] well that they are. He was forced to all kinds of artifices in order to account for such employment as he admits exists. He said that it was due to the effects of the Scullin tariff of 1930-31, a tariff which, a little later in his speech, he said had been altered at least a thousand times. It must be evident that practically none of the Scullin tariff is left, or the present tariff is working successfully only because so many alterations have been made. No fewer than 1,800 alterations have been made, until to-day the original tariff has almost wholly disappeared, but under the tariff which has taken its place there has been phenomenal development of Australia’s secondary industries.

The honorable member for Capricornia also referred to the work of the High Commissioner in Great Britain (Mr. Bruce) in respect of recent loan conversions, and he endeavoured to belittle what the High Commissioner had done.

Mr Forde:

– I gave him credit for what he had done, but I said that it was nothing to boast about.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– Apparently all the boasting is to be done by the honorable member himself. He referred to the conversion of Australia’s internal loan by the Scullin Government, but he seems to forget that the reduction of interest on that loan was voluntarily accepted by the people themselves. That was the course taken. Thus, in that respect, the Opposition cannot claim any particular credit. In any case, however, the claim made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the £500,000,000 conversion operation, which resulted in an interest saving of £7,500,000 per annum, is entirely inaccurate. The success of that conversion was due to the cooperation of all parties. On that occasion, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lyons) and Sir John Latham and their colleagues supported the Scullin Government’s proposal, and actually signed a circular which asked the bondholders to take the course which, subsequently, they did take. No particular party is rightly entitled to the credit for the success of that loan conversion. It was effected during a time of great national crisis. AH parties and all sections of the people co-operated for its success. But the claim made by the honorable gentleman in this regard merely serves to reveal the straits to which he is reduced in seeking credit for his party. I again point out that the success of tho conversions in Great Britain waa achieved without any of the co-operation that was evident in respect of the £500,000,000 conversion loan in Australia. These conversion loans have been described by American financiers, and by men who are constantly engaged in this class of work, as the greatest financial achievement of the last, generation, and were entirely due to a concatenation of circumstances all of which were created by the High Commissioner and were based on the confidence which investors had in the sound leadership of this Government in bringing back prosperous times to Australia.-

The honorable member referred .to the basic wage in one particular year, and he coolly endeavoured to point out that that wage was comparatively high, because of the confidence which the people of Australia had in the Scullin Government.

Mr Forde:

– I merely compared tho pre-depression basic wage with the present basic wage.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– The more the honorable member says, the more apparent his inconsistencies appear. At any rate, if the position was so satisfactory during the regime of the Scullin Government, why was that Government rejected so solidly when it faced the electors ? If what the honorable member now says is correct, it would have impressed not only himself, but also the electors. But the electors failed to agree with him; they rejected the Government of which he was a member, and his party, by the largest majority recorded against any government since federation. Therefore, it is useless for the honorable member to make the claim to which I have just referred.

The honorable member could not have chosen a more unfortunate subject to discuss than the matter of employment. Obviously, something has to he done by the Opposition in an endeavour to offset the paeans of praise in respect of the success of this Government in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Something has to be said, whether it carries weight or not, in deprecation of this Government’s record in that respect. But let us examine the position, which, by the way, the honorable member did not set out. When the Lyons Government took office, as the Treasurer pointed out in his budget speech on Friday morning last, the returns supplied by secretaries of trade unions - and I am perfectly sure they would not favour the Lyons Government unless circumstances have changed by reason of the work it has done for unionists - indicated that of every 100 trade unionists in this country 30 were out of work. To-day’s figures, which are based on similar records supplied by tho same unions, show that only 9 per cent, of trade unionists are out of work. These figures surely are telling in their effect, and no matter what the honorable member says, he cannot get away from their significance. They tell their own story without embellishment; because they convey at once to the minds of the people what has actually been done by this Government in respect of employment. Particularly do they convey to the minds of those people who have been found re-employment, that this Government has taken this problem in hand and is dealing with it successfully. In his efforts to belittle Jm achievements of the present Government in respect of unemployment, the honorable member asked what section of the people was benefiting by the prosperity that exists to-day and, in reply to his own query, answered, “ the wealthy people “. I shall tell him actually who is enjoying this prosperity. It is the working man who has been found re-employment; it is he who gets satisfaction out of the figures which I have given and he who will naturally be interested in seeing that the present Government is kept in office. The honorable member said that the unemployed were misguided enough to vote for this Government at the last election. They were not misguided; they realized what this Government would do for them ; and it has fulfilled its promises. I say, positively, that this Government, at the next elections, will receive the support of the thousands of men who have been found re-employment as the result of the sound legislative programme it adumbrated and carried into effect. Further, in reply to the honorable member’s question as to who is enjoying our present prosperity, I mention the old-age pensioner. With a reduced cost of living and the pension restored to £1, his 20s. will enable him to buy 23s. worth of goods where previously, on a comparative basis, he could only buy less than £1 worth.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The pensioners were promised 3 2s. by the last Labour Government.

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

– That is untrue.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I do not wish to go back over that. I repeat that the people enjoying our present prosperity arc the great masses. I say unhesitatingly, that any one who is prepared to take an unbiased view of the picture that was presented in this country in 1931, when the Scullin Government went out of office, and compare it with the economic picture of to-day, following six years of office by the Lyons- Government, will agree that this country is to-day experiencing a period of unexampled prosperity. Whether the fairminded man judges the record pf this Government in respect of providing employment, its financial administration, the amount of new business it has brought to this country, or the amount of money it has given to the States and- primary producers and for the encouragement of various industries - on whatever standards the record of this Government is judged, he will arrive at the conclusion which 1 have just indicated. Time does not permit me to go into every phase of this Government’s record, but its achievements, as revealed in the soundness of its budget, offer conclusive evidence of what it has been able to do in the interests of the masses of the people.

The honorable member had the temerity to refer to reductions of taxes made by this Government and to suggest that those reductions were inadequate. He endeavoured to 3how, in effect, that taxes had not been reduced because the present amount of revenue was equal to or even larger than what it was before the reductions were made. On that point it is undeniable that at least £15,000,000, which was previously taken out of ths pockets of the taxpayers and paid into the Treasury in’ the form of taxes, remains to-day in the pockets of the people.

Mr Clark:

– In the pockets of the wealthy.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– Apparently honorable members opposite admit that what I say is correct, but they now shift their ground by saying it was only the wealthy people who benefited. Those taxes were reduced not because this Government had any particular affection for any section of the community which benefited, but because it sought to release that money for investment in. industry,- thereby creating more employment. That the Government’s policy has been successful is unquestionably shown by the additional employment that has been provided for the people of Australia in consequence of the additional money left to those engaged in industry to expand their operations.

Still another aspect of the subject of tax remissions and reductions merits attention. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the reductions had been inadequate; yet his Leader (Mr. Curtin) said not long ago that, if Labour were returned to office it would reimpose the taxes which this Government had removed, and use the money to provide additional social benefits. Only last Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (Senator Collings) also said that if Labour were returned to power it would restore taxes to their former rates. It is difficult to reconcile the views of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with those of the Leader of the Opposition in either this House or the Senate.

I wish also to refer to certain observations made by the secretary of the Taxpayers Association in Sydney. Incidentally, that” body is foolish to allow this gentleman to make the statements that he is publishing at this juncture. As we have been assured that if the Labour party is returned to power it will restore taxation to its former level, the secretary of the Taxpayers’ Association would be well advised not to continue to embarrass this Government by his public speeches and printed statements. He may criticize this Government for not having done more than it has done, but the alternative which faces him is the placing in office of a Labour Government which would replace and reimpose the taxation taken off and undo the good work which this Government has done.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated that he concurred in an interjection made by one of his colleagues that the profiteers would benefit principally by the expenditure of government money in Australia for defence purposes. I assure him, and also the country at large that this is not at all likely to be the case. The chief benefits from our defence expenditure will go to the electors of West Sydney, Dalley and Maribyrnong and many others. Of course if the honorable member cares to describe them as profiteers they have their remedy, and may be trusted to deal with him. By far the greater proportion of the money to be spent on defence measures will be expended in this country. When the Works Estimates are under consideration, I shall give honorable members some detailed figures to indicate how our defence expenditure in Australia has increased compared with tho expenditure we incur overseas for defence purposes, and I shall show dearly that the industries of Australia have been definitely assisted by the defence programme formulated by this Government. It is both puerile and futile to assert that our defence expenditure will benefit profiteers.

In referring to the reduction of the national debt by £11,000,000, the honorable gentleman accused the Treasurer of having adversely reflected upon the State governments. Similar statements will doubtless be made on many platforms throughout Australia during the next few weeks. It is proper, therefore, that I should point out that such accusations are entirely without foundation.

Mr Casey:

– They are due to ignorance.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– No ; they are due to malice aforethought. Such statements are clearly intended to deceive the electors. The fact is that most of the money borrowed for expenditure by the State governments has been wisely disbursed. No reflexion was cast by the Treasurer upon the States in that connexion. It was, however, incumbent upon the Treasurer to show that Australia had been able to maintain its sinking funds payments during the whole period of the depression. That is a record of which few countries can boast.

I do not know whether it is really worth my while occupying the time of the House in replying to the feeble efforts of the honorable member to explain the prosperity of our secondary industries in terms intended to deprive this ‘Government of the credit of its successful achievements in this regard. The outstanding fact, which is as clear as a mountain peak, is that, whereas at the time this Government took office only about 300,000 persons were employed in our secondary industries, to-day more than 500,000 people are so employed. The honorable member may tear from their context sentences from speeches by Mr. Kneeshaw,’ Mr. Eady, Mr. McDougall, and even Mr. Watt, a gentleman to whom ordinarily he does not refer with approval, but he cannot, by any such device, divert attention from the major consideration that to-day more than 500,000 breadwinners are employed in our secondary industries. I do not care what other persons have to say on this subject, for the facts are beyond dispute. The honorable gentleman cited certain remarks by Associate Professor Wood designed to show that if, with our population at the 1932 figure, 300,000 persons were employed in secondary industries, it was only in accordance with normal development that, with our present population, 440,000 persons should be so employed to-day.

Mr Forde:

– Associate Professor Wood’s figure was 497,000.

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– Even if that be so, I cannot see what the honorable member can gain from the argument, for the number of persons employed in the secondary industries which have been encouraged by the policy of this Government is in excess of the associate professor’s estimate. The figures are, therefore, in favour of the Government.

According to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the figures quoted by the Prime Minister at the Chamber of Manufactures’ dinner in Brisbane were unfair to Queensland and to the industries of that State. I listened to the speech delivered by that right honorable gentleman on that evening, and I assure the House that he was most careful to state that his survey was not complete. He was also at pains to indicate that he was making no reflection upon Queensland or any other State in respect of which his figures did not seem to be favorable.

Mr Curtin:

– Did he claim that his survey was representative of the position?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– He said that it was sufficiently representative to justify the deductions that he was making.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the Ottawa Agreement was one of the greatest ramps ever perpetrated in the interests of British manufacturers. I am not prepared to allow such a statement to pass without registering my most emphatic protest at its fantastic inaccuracy. Every one who has studied the position without bias will admit that the Ottawa Agreement has conferred equal benefits upon Great Britain and Australia. I do not say that it is a perfect agreement. No agreement conceived by human minds and written with human hands is perfect. I could, myself, criticize certain clauses of the agreement, but to say that it was the greatest ramp ever perpetrated in the interests of British manufacturers is a gross exaggeration. I do not think even the honorable gentleman’s own supporters would concur in such a statement, which could have been made only for party political purposes. The honorable gentleman conveniently forgot the value of the concessions granted to Australia by British manufacturers. It is a poor and paltry procedure to attack the’ Government for some fancied grievance or disadvantage incurred in consequence of the Ottawa Agreement and to refuse to recognize the great benefits that had accrued to our primary producers of Australia through it because of. their increased access <to the British markets. It would be rank ingratitude if we did not put side by side with the honorable member’s libel on British manufacturers this registration of our appreciation of the benefits which the Ottawa Agreement has conferred upon the traders, the primary producers, and all the people of Australia.

Mr Nock:

– Does not sugar come into it?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– With the obvious approval of all sides of this House the Treasurer explained the great work that he had done in that regard.

The honorable member made some reference to loans overseas. He referred to the fact that we are seeking accommodation in London by means of treasurybills with the Commonwealth Bank in order to assist in the defence of this country, and in order to pay for the service of defence which we render to Great Britain. The honorable member does not say a word about the extra £2,000,000 that, under the budget, is going to the invalid and old-age pensioners this year; he only picks out these points of criticism, whereas it would, surely, be a fair thing to say that the Government is finding this additional money for the invalid and old-age pensioners. If the people of Australia paid heed only to the honorable member, they would think that the men on this side of the House and in this Government were so far removed from the masses of the people that they did nothing for them. I, therefore, bring them back to the realization of the fact that this Government stands first for the great mass of the people, for the working men of this country. Its first endeavours have been, and always will be, not for any special section of the community, but to ensure that the working men, the great mass of the people of this country, aTo prosperous and happy.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- Once upon a time, a certain man made up his mind to plant an orchard. He selected a block of land, cleared the scrub, tilled the soil, planted the trees, and did all the hard heart-breaking work. But, before the trees bore fruit, he was taken from the scene of his labours. Another came along, and, in a few years, gathered many basketfuls of rich luscious fruit. He gathered his friends and neighbours around him and asked them to rejoice with him and to congratulate him on his success. But a wise old neighbour who knew how the previous occupant had worked, asked, “Is not some credit due to the man who cleared the scrub, tilled the soil, and planted the trees?” I apply. the parable to the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill).

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– I wondered what it was all about.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I sat silently while the honorable gentleman was speaking, and did not jeer at him.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– What I would expect from the decent man you are.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Then .be decent to me. The application of that parable is so obvious that it does not require much explanation.

I wonder how long it will be in tho history of this country before a measure of justice is done to the men who tilled the soil, cleared the land, and planted tho trees for the rich harvest which this Government is reaping to-day. I am not going to deny anything- that this Government has done, but I ask, “ Is the speech to which we have listened from the Minister for Defence a fair summary of Australia’s history?” In their comparisons of the condition of the Commonwealth when the Labour party was in office and now, tho Minister for Defence, ruthlessly, and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), more mildly took all the credit for Australia’s improved position. They ignored entirely what every person of the age of reason knows, namely, that when I was Prime Minister the world was tottering. Throughout the length and breadth of the civilized world, there was not a business man who knew what next day would bring forth. There was not a government which did not have deficits which aggregated, not millions, but scores of millions of pounds. There was not a nation whose whole country was not faced with disaster. And there w,as not a government which faced that crisis so courageously and successfully as the Labour Government of Australia. Not a word had the Minister for Defence to say’ about that. He even discounted one of the greatest achievements in Australia’s history ; he treated as nothing the conversion, in the midst of that crisis, of £536,000,000 of Australia’s internal debt, which has saved the governments of Australia, Commonwealth and State, £7,500,000 every year since, and which has made an aggregate saving in the budgets of those governments of £46,000,000, and has given the Commonwealth Government itself budget relief of £20,000,000. This is passed over as nothing! Great emphasis is laid on the conversion achievements in London of the High Commissioner (Mr. Bruce). I am not discounting them; they are valuable, but the savings effected by Mr. Bruce in debt conversions in London aggregate only £11,000,000 against the £46,000,000 saved by the conversion my government achieved. The Minister for Defence justifies this kind of treatment by saying, “That was by. voluntary aci of the bondholders themselves.” Is ir. not a testimony to the government of the day that they did it without force? The Minister surely does not suggest that Mr. Bruce used compulsion? That would detract, from the merit of his achievement. The real merit of what we did lay in the fact that the conversion was done voluntarily, and that the people had sufficient trust in the Government of the day voluntarily tn convert all -their bonds, State as well as Commonwealth, into Commonwealth bonds under control by the Labour government which I led. All the Minister for Defence said was, “ You got help from all parties “. True, that help came because I was big enough as Prime Minister to invite all sections to help, and I never believed that I should live to see the day when political capital would be made out of that by a political opponent. The Government party has never been big enough to ask for the co-operation of this side of the House in a crisis. I recall that in 1927, when a serious position was developing through our overseas trade being threatened by the great excess of imports over exports, with a consequential piling up of debts overseas, I foresaw the day when Australia would approach default. I asked the Prime Minister of the day to put aside all political consideration’s, all Government or Opposition party business and invite us around this table in conference to consider the situation. My suggestion was waved aside just as airily as the Minister for Defence has waved aside that achievement of ours. As events happened, I had to be the Prime Minister leading the Government which faced the crisis which I had foreseen. Let me tell the Minister for Defence that there are nien who support his Government who rank high in the financial world of this country, men with brain3 and capacity, who have not hesitated to say that the Scullin Government courageously saved Australia. Is there to be no meed of credit for that? Have we to wait for 100 years for historians to give its the credit that we should be given now? Ours was an achievement and this Government is building on the foundations that the achievement provided. This Government lias achievements to its credit - God knows, they are not too great - and we acknowledge them; but some admission that something was done by my Government would be appreciated.

Sir Archdale PARKHILL:

– I did not want to hurt the honorable member politically.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The Minister for Defence said that when the Scullin Government left office, 30 out of every 300 people wore out of work in Australia, whereas ,to-day only nine ‘out of every 100 are out of work. Did he speak in order to paint the picture truly ? Did he give even three minutes of his time - he could really have afforded to give most of the minutes in which he spoke for they were not usefully employed - to give a brief picture of the “ causes of that unemployment? Could he not have admitted that there was practically the same percentage of unemployment all over the world and that there was nothing my Government did to bring it about? When we went into office, we inherited a deficit from the previous government, a deficit that had been piled up over years of unparalleled prosperity and rich abundance of harvests. We inherited a condition that brought us within a month of defaulting overseas. We had to take action to rectify it. These facts are known. The position was accentuated by a compulsory fall of purchasing power of the basic wage, caused by the 10 per cent, cut in real wages made in spite of our protests, and my Government, along with every other government, State as well as federal,- foreign as well as British, was faced with the position that it did not have money to carry on. Yet I listened to-day to tho honorable member for

Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) interject that the Labour party promised the pensioners 12s. in the £1. That is a vile untruth ! The interjection never had any foundation in truth. The truth is that, for eighteen months 1 resisted the financial institutions before I would make any attempt to make the reductions we made. Only when credit was stopped and there was no more money did we face the position and, in facing it, I said, “ Unless we do something, we shall be forced to something worse because the moneys available after July, 1931, will pay only 12s. m the £1 on all our obligations.”’ That was a statement of fact, but to say that that was a promise to pensioners of 12s. in the £1 is merely to twist what I said and meant. What I conveyed was that, by taking certain action, we should save them from 12s. in the £1.

I ask the honorable member to be man enough to withdraw his interjection.

– I ask the Minister to give their names to Parliament to-morrow if he can. I call the Minister’s bluff. He laughs, but a laugh will not suffice in the face of facts. I have been provoked into these remarks by the Minister for Defence.

– Who is the enemy?

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– I have never hesitated to say that the people of Australia are the most peace-loving people in the world ; no other people are more keen to live at peace and on friendly terms with their neighbours. The very fact that we are keen to be permitted to develop this country as we feel it should be developed, to enable it to reach its ultimate destiny, makes it essential for us to appreciate our responsibilities; and the first responsibility of a national government is to provide, as far as possible, for the defence of the country should the unhappy necessity arise.

Mr Gander:

– Outside of Australia?

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– I said just now that we will have to realize our responsibilities, not only to defend Australia, but also to help to defend the Empire. I feel that this is where I part from some of my friends opposite, though not all of them, because I know that all honorable members opposite do not disagree with me in the expression of this view. Not for one moment do I impugn the patriotism or the loyalty of my friends opposite, but I do most seriously question the wisdom of their national defence policy as enunciated by their leader in this House only a few days ago. As I understand it, that policy is that Australia should go to war if it is directly attacked, but that we should not involve ourselves in any overseas warfare. It is said that honorable members opposite would not agree to help in defending New Zealand from attack. I cannot believe that they would be prepared to carry their policy to the extent that they would not assist in defending the people of a sister dominion whose soldiers fought side by side with ours, not only in the Great “War, but also earlier in the Boer War. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.16 to 8 p.m.

page 316

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1937

Second Reading

Debate resumed from page 293.

Mr. Curtin (Fremantle) [8.0].- The Opposition wholeheartedly welcomes the. hill, and will do its best to facilitate its passage. We realize that unless the measure is passed this week it will be almost impossible for the Postal Department to carry out its share of the work entailed in making the additional payments to pensioners on the first pensions pay day in September. I notice that, in addition to the restoration of £1 a week to invalid and old-age pensioners, the bill contains a provision enabling pensioners who are permanently blind to have an income not exceeding £227 10s. a year, and also that the amount payable to pensioners in government institutions will be 6s. a week instead of 5s. 6d. This means that the extra ls. a week will be divided between the institutions and the pensioner inmates. I acknowledge that 6s. a week to this class of pensioner will be the largest amount that he has had for himself, apart from the maintenance charge to the institution, during the history of the pensions system.

This restoration to pensioners is appropriate, because a government which signalized its accession to office by reducing pensions might very well signalize its exit from office by increasing them. The bill is, in fact, four years late. Parliament and the pensioners had every right to expect that a measure of this kind would have been passed four years ago. I remind the House that when the Financial Emergency Bill was being discussed in 1931, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), speaking as the then Leader of the Opposition, said -

No one member on this side of the House supports with pleasure the reduction of wages and pensions, and so far as we are concerned the reduction will not operate longer than is necessary for the restoration of financial stability.

– The objectionable property provisions were then incorporated in the act. In October, 1933, the pension was increased to 17s. 6d. a week, the rate payable before the Lyons Government reduced it. Then, on the 4th July, 1935, it was raised to 18s. a week, owing to the increase of the cost of living, and the provision relating to the property of pensioners was repealed. On the 24th September, 1936, the pension was further increased to 19s. a week, a portion of the increase of1s. being due to increased cost of living. Next month I am hopeful that it will be increased to £1 a week.

Let us now consider the effect of the innovations which this Government introduced into the pensions legislation. As a result of the insertion of the provision relating to pensioners’ property, 12,000 persons surrendered their pensions.

Mr Lazzarini:

– That was what this Government wanted.

Mr CURTIN:

– In addition to the surrender of that number of pensions, the present Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir John Latham, who was then Attorney-General, estimated that another 13,000 persons, who otherwise would have been eligible, refrained from lodging applications for pensions. Thus, obviously, the field of pensions was greatly contracted as the result of innovations which the Government inserted in the act. On the 6th December, 1933, Sir John Latham stated in this chamber: -

If the whole of the property provisions were repealed, it is estimated that the annual expenditure would increase by at least £610,000 and, in addition - which is more important - the rate of future claims for pensions would be substantially increased.

– I agree with that; he goes for the big “ licks.” The Opposition believes that a pensioner inmate of an institution should receive the whole of the pension, thus giving to him an increase of 6s. 6d. a week. Some honorable members of this House have probably never visited the State-controlled institutions. The inmates are principally pioneers who blazed the trail and worked from early morning till late at night in order to make it possible for some of the Government supporters, who are now laughing at my remarks, to become members of this Parliament. Many of these persons from the outback parts of the country arrive at an institution’ with their clothes in a state of dilapidation; immediately a new outfit, which has the appearance of a “prison uniform is issued to them. If the personal belongings of the inmate are not worth cleaning, they are burnt. Consequently, if he wishes to’ visit any friends he may have, or even to go outside the grounds of the institution, he is compelled to wear the clothing with which he has been supplied. A similar practice is followed at Newington State Institution, where there are 600 old women. They are supplied with white stockings, canvas shoes, a little straw hat, and a shawl. No self-respecting woman dressed in that fashion would visit town. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) should provide that the inmates of institutions shall receive the full 6s. 6d. a week. Bystinting themselves for perhaps six or seven months, they might then be able to dress themselves decently. If the honorable gentleman will not agree to do this, I shall move in committee an amendment to that effect.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I agree entirely with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) and the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander) in regard to the inmates’ of institutions. The honorable member for Reid deserves commendation for his activities on behalf of these pensioners. I do not suppose that any honorable member visits these institutions more frequently than does the honorable member: therefore, he is well qualified to make an appeal to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) on behalf of the pensioner inmates. A similar procedure could well be adopted in relation to the inmates of hospitals. In industrial centres, many aged people cannot obtain entry into a benevolent institution, and remain in hospital until they die. I believe that the hospital authorities would willingly forego the extra 6d. a week.

There should be a provision in the Constitution to make it impossible for any Government to reduce the rate of pension below £1 a week. That is the considered opinion of very many electors.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- I congratulate the Government upon having restored the pension to £1 a week.

Mr James:

– It has only restored something it had taken away.

Mr LANE:

– The honorable member would serve a little less frequently if he interjected a little less frequently and a little more accurately. Some members opposite, of whom the honorable gentleman is one, have got into Parliament largely on the backs of the poor pensioners. I do not believe that £1 a week is sufficient to meet the needs of all. pensioners. Some thrifty old people of this country have been able to purchase a home for themselves in the course of their working life, and if an old couple in that position arc able to take advantage of the permission to earn 12s. 6d. a week and are otherwise entitled to the full pension, their joint income may be £3 5s. a week, which puts ‘ them in a fair position. Numerous pensioners, however, are not so circumstanced. Many church organizations and charitable bodies are doing their best to add to the happiness and comforts of the old people of this community and such work should be encouraged. The 2GB Happiness Club, foi” example, does a most praiseworthy service. I do not think that it is a wise policy to segregate old people into big institutions. I have in mind one institution in which 1,500 men are living, and another, at Newington, in which 800 old ladies are housed. This may be the cheapest but it is by no means the best way to care for these old people. I have been associated with many institutions which care for invalids. I have in mind, at the moment, a home at Ryde where invalids are received. It costs about £3 a week to keep them. Most of this money is provided by public donation. Where it is possible to accommodate old people in a homely atmosphere with others of similar temperament their lives are undoubtedly a great deal happier than they could be in large institutions. I strongly favour the doing of everything possible to improve the sur roundings of pensioners. When old people are accommodated in big institutions their lives are robbed of much of the cheerfulness which it should be the aim of the community to provide for them.

I repeat once again a statement which I have made frequently in this House: the procedure adopted, especially in Sydney, for the medical examination of applicants for invalid pensions should be completely overhauled.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing that line of argument on the bill now under discussion.

Mr LANE:

– I shall content myself, sir, with observing that the sooner a more exact method is adopted of dealing with claims for invalid pensions the more satisfied the general community will be. I strongly advocate the forming of community circles to care for invalid and old-age pensioners who are not in a position to care adequately for themselves. Everything possible should be done to create a home-atmosphere for these old people who no longer have the members of their own family at hand to care for them.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– In congratulating the Government upon the introduction of this bill to increase the rate of pension to £1 a week, I appeal to honorable members of the Opposition not to continue, their criticism of it but to give it their cordial support.

Mr Frost:

– Why did not the honorable member adopt this attitude four years ago?

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– I have supported all proposals for improving the lot of our invalid and old-age pensioners. It . is necessary to go back further than four years to make a proper analysis of the situation. As honorable members are aware, the pension was first reduced under the provisions of the unfortunate Financial Emergency Act introduced bv the Scullin Government. We should, however, endeavour to forget those unhappy days. Subsequently, when the Lyons Government came into office, the rate of pension was further reduced.

Mr Ward:

– Then why is the honorable member congratulating the Government?

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

Mr CASEY:

– I remind the honorable gentleman that the surpluses were used for the purposes I have outlined, and that, without them, the Government could not have done what it has done. The Government was obliged to do all these things piece by piece, and it could not at any time do one thing iri full to the exclusion of the others. It raised the pension rate to 18s. in 1935, and to 19s. in 1936, and will raise it to 20s. in 1937. Could there be anything more reasonable than that rate of progression? Could it be said, by unbiased men that the Government is dressing the window for the election, when year after year it has increased the pension by stages back to 20s. and has at the same time coped with the manifold other obligations it has had to meet ? The Leader of the Opposition spoke of recurring surpluses ! The surpluses were necessary to do the things of which I have told honorable members.

Again a claim has been made on behalf of institution pensioners. Every year, honorable members opposite repeat the old contention that those pensioners should have the same pension as others who are not in institutions. I remind honorable gentlemen who bring this point forward that the upkeep of inmates of institutions costs the State governments money, probably on an average more than we pay them. These pensioners are completely maintained by the State governments and the 5s. 6d. as it is now, and the 6s. as it will be, which each, of them receives every week means probably more to them than does the 20s. a week to the pensioner outside who has to maintain himself.

Mr Gander:

– Does the honorable member reckon that it costs more than 14s. a week for the State governments to maintain inmates of institutions?

Mr CASEY:

– Probably the average cost is fully that amount.

Mr Gander:

– Then why does the Government not give Mrs. Tierney the full pension ?

Mr CASEY:

– I shall discuss Mrs. Tierney at a later date.

Mr CASEY:

– I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the pension will shortly be back to 20s., but that something like £20,000,000 of emergency taxes still remains. If the restoration of the pension had been deferred until at least some further part of this emergency tax had been remitted, that would not have been a frightful thing. But the Government has not done that; it has restored the pension, and the Prime Minister’s undertaking, which he gave some years ago, has been entirely met.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 330

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 316).

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

– In theory, the defence policy of the Labour party is beautifully simple, and, undoubtedly, it is eminently desirable; but even a cursory examination, of the real issues facing us shows that it is impracticable and is, indeed, a mere dream of an idealist. I can envisage a war in which not an enemy soldier would land on Australian territory, but that war might menace our markets, our trading relations, the freedom of our trade routes, and the whole economic structure of the country. “Would that not be a war in which Australia would be directly and vitally concerned? Of course it would be. I go further, and picture a nation making war on England while Australia remained aloof from the struggle. Assuming the terrible possibility of England’s defeat, what would be the position of Australia in the chaotic aftermath? Would its territorial integrity be respected? Would Australia bc ‘left to pursue its own destiny in peace? I am not a cynic, but I cannot stretch my credulity so far as to imagine ihat such would be tho case. As we stood aside and watched the defeat of England, we should watch also the gloomy prelude to the end of the domination of Australia by British people. As rulers and owners of this land, we should become mere figures of history. I am neither a jingoist nor a belligerent imperialist, but I believe that Australia cannot stand aloof from the affairs of Empire except at its own peril. If the Empire is at war, Australia is at war. Even if Australia declared itself neutral, it is very doubtful whether the countries at war with Great Britain would observe that neutrality.

We have only to take our minds back to 1914, and recall what happened to Belgium in that year to convince ourselves that there can be no certainty that a country which decides to remain neutral will be permitted to do so.

I suggest that Labour’s policy on defence savours of window-dressing, and an appeal to popular emotion; in that respect it differs greatly from the inescapable logic of the Government.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that, instead of spending over .£3,500,000 on maintaining and strengthening the navy, Australia should provide itself with 50 squadrons of fighting aircraft. I do not propose to go into the pros and cons of this argument. I look forward with keen anticipation to the fuller statement which the Minister for Defence has promised to make on the works Estimates regarding the expenditure of the £11,500,000 defence vote. I should like tq see Australia with a stronger navy and a much stronger air force, and I freely confess that I have much sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition in his plea for a strong air force. However, the money at our disposal is necessarily limited, and I am confident that the Minister for Defence has weighed the matter wisely and well after his deliberations with Empire defence authorities in London. However, our air force must on no account be neglected, and I am particularly pleased to see that the budget provides for £2,672,000 for its development and nearly £1,000,000 for civil aviation. Perhaps, when the navy has been strengthened, money will be available to » provide, if not 50 squadrons, at least sufficient squadrons to satisfy both the Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the chamber. Tho provision of nearly £1.000,000 for civil aviation is a particularly pleasant feature of the budget. I have stressed repeatedly the vital importance of the development of civil aviation as an adjunct to defence, and I regard this provision as being particularly wise and necessary.

I congratulate’ the Government on its decision to make £11,500,000 available for defence. It was a decision that required courage, inasmuch as, coupled with increased expenditure in several other directions, it precluded all possibility of reduced taxes - and nothing makes a government more popular than its lightening of the heavy burden lying on the shoulders of the taxpayer. I say again that the Government does not seek to be returned to power on a scare defence budget, lt will go to the electors confident that its record of achievement and progress over the last six years will be sufficient commendation to those who, in the final analysis, arc the rulers of the country.

There are several other matters upon which I desire to touch briefly. First, there is the cost of invalid and old-age pensions, involving indirectly, the subject of national insurance. These pensions are about to be restored to the prodepression level of £1. I do not cavil at that. Indeed, I am glad that the Treasurer has been able to give this extra ls. to a needy and deserving section of the community. But I view with continued alarm our growing pensions bill. It is now nearly £16,000,000 per annum. Last year it was £14,000,000; the previous year it was £13,000,000. Not many years agoabout 1921 I believe - our pensions bill was only £5,000,000 a year. When it grew to £10,000,000, able commentators ii nd sober and conservative newspapers, proclaimed that the country could not stand further increased expenditure on these services. But the country now has to foot a bill of nearly £16,000,000 a year for them. I do not advocate curtailing these pensions, but I do plead for an easing of the burden which they place on the taxpayer, and I believe that the only just way in which that result can be achieved., is by the introduction of a sound scheme of national insurance. Sir Walter Kinnear and Mr. Ince, of the British Ministry of Pensions, who were brought to Australia by the Government last year, have submitted their reports and it now remains for the Government to act. Whether it shall act along the lines advocated by those two gentlemen or along different and independent lines, is a subject which this House must be given an opportunity to discuss, but quick action along some lines is imperative, if the burden of invalid and old-age pensions is not to grow to intolerable proportions. The preliminary steps have been taken, and we must now press forward to the production of a practicable plan suitable for Australian conditions.

The Treasurer has told us that a committee of officers and actuaries representing the Commonwealth and the States is now examining certain aspects of unemployment insurance, and that a report from the committee is expected shortly. In addition, the budget provides a sum of £75,000 towards meeting the initial expenses of national insurance. This, at least, is to the good, and gives some hope that Australia is at last on the road towards establishing a national insurance scheme of its own. If such a scheme is not established shortly Australia will again lag behind New Zealand in social legislation, for the press cablegrams inform us that a national insurance scheme will definitely be introduced into the New Zealand Parliament during the forthcoming session.

I regret very much indeed that no reference has been made in the budget to the new wives and children of soldiers who were excluded from pension benefits by the provisions of the 1931 emergency legislation. Last year representations on this subject were made to the Government and I introduced a deputation to the Prime Minister representative of exservice men of every party in the House. The honorable gentleman then promised that consideration would be given this year to the representations made. It is with real regret that I find that the Government has not been able to do something for this unfortunate section of the community, particularly when the financial position of the Commonwealth has so improved as to make possible the increase of the pension to £1 a week following improved conditions of the past which enabled the. Government to restore, the “ cuts “ made in public service salaries and parliamentary allowances. I trust that even at this late hour something may be done for these very deserving people.

– I admit that taxpayers on the higher income must necessarily pay more in. taxes than men in the lower income group, but I contend that when tax concessions are being made, persons in the lower income groups should enjoy consideration in accordance with their means the same as those in the higher groups because they experience much greater difficulty in meeting their obligations and maintaining their homes according to a reasonable standard of living than taxpayers with the higher incomes.

In its proposals to reduce taxes the Government should bear in mind that State emergency taxes press more heavily on taxpayers with the smaller incomes. Had it been possessed of a spirit of equity in this matter it would have exempted from taxation all persons whose incomes were less than £10 a week. What wouldthese exemptions have cost the Government? The figures for 1933 show that 66,305 taxpayers with incomes of approximately £300 a year paid taxes amounting to £37,9S8; 37,977 taxpayers wi th incomes of £350 a year paid £46,504 ; 44,046 taxpayers with incomes of £450 a year paid £136,788, and 23,588 taxpayers with incomes of £550 a year paid £152,528. If the Government had desired to distribute tax concessions equitably, the 171,916 taxpayers in the group to which I have just referred, with incomes ranging from £4 to £10 a week, should have been wholly exempted from taxation. As evidence of how the Government looked after the wealthy people we find 441 taxpayers, each with an income of over £5,000 per annum, received reductions totalling £152,940 per annum. Every consideration has been given to this class, but the Government refused to take one penny off the minimum tax of 10s. paid by the smallest taxpayer.

My other point is in connexion with penalties for the evasion of income tax payments. One of the most important of the penal provisions of the act relates to the furnishing of incorrect returns for the purpose of evading payment. It may be pointed out that income tax is based upon voluntary disclosure by taxpayers of income received and outgoings relating to such income. To overcome the tendency on the part of taxpayers to understate the amount of income received the act provides for a penalty double the amount of the difference between the tax properly payable by the taxpayer, and the tax assessed upon the income returned by the taxpayer. The penalty formula acts as follows: -

Tax on income returned by taxpayer, say £100; tax on income actually derived by taxpayer- (the actual income earned would be determined by investigations made by officers of the department), £200; difference between tax paid by taxpayer and tax which should have been paid, £100. Penalty (twice the amount of the difference), £200.

That is the principle upon which the department works with regard to the imposition of penalties. I am prepared to admit that the necessity exists for the department to take every precaution to ensure that correct returns are submitted by taxpayers; but it is most important that the department should adopt uniformity in regard to the imposition of penalties. This aspect, as revealed in the report of the Commissioner of Taxation, calls for some comment. Under the heading of “ Questionable Returns it is stated -

The department by investigation of taxpayers’ books and aceouut3 and other means, has discovered a number of cases in which questionable returns have been lodged by taxpayers. Tn some cases there has been little room for doubt to a lay mind that fraud kuri been present, but the difficulty of proving fraud in accordance with legal rules has been so great that in practically every such case the department has refrained from prosecution, and has claimed the maximum penalty imposed by section 67 of the Act, namely, double the amount of the tax that has been avoided. In the other cases, reduced penalties have been collected following upon explanations by the taxpayers. The cases in which penalties under this section have been imposed are stated hereunder in accordance with the direction under section 10(2) of the act. The cases given in detail are those where the total penalties charged amounted to £50 or over.

Three important statements arc contained in that commentary -

In practically every case the department has retrained from prosecution and has claimed the maximum penalty imposed by section67 of the act. namely, double the amount of the tax that has been avoided.

In the other cases reduced penalties have been collected following upon explanations by the taxpayers.

The cases given in detail are those where the total penalties charged amounted to £50 or over.

Three of the principal instances quoted in the report covering questionable returns for the year ended the 30th June, 1933, are most extraordinary; I direct the attention of the Treasurer to them. Mr. W. R. Adams, of Queensland, who gave his occupation as a manager, omitted from his return income of £4,583, and was charged a penalty of £646. Mr. L. Alcorn, of New South Wales, a storekeeper, omitted income of £7,267, and was charged a penalty of £57. Mr. J. Alison, of Queensland, a mill manager, omitted income of £1,225, and was charged a penalty of £61. The point which must strike the observer who peruses these reports is the extraordinary difference in the methods employed by the department in the exercise of its discretionary powers in relation to the application of the formula which prescribes that in the event of attempted evasion a penalty of double the amount of tax shall be imposed. In the instances which I have cited, W. R. Adams omitted income of £4,583, and was charged £646. Alcorn, who omitted £7,267 income, paid a penalty of only £57. Alison, who omitted £1,225 of income, paid the same amount of penalty as Alcorn, who omitted six times the amount of Alison’s attempted evasion.

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Would some of those omissions be intentional and others accidental ?

Mr Fadden:

– The circumstances of each case are taken into consideration.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That may be so; but the remarkable differences between the various penalties imposed call for some explanation. The application of the formula by the department appears to be inconsistent. Honorable members will appreciate that these discrepancies open up wide possibilities.

Mr Nock:

– They certainly make one wonder.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes. In order that Parliament and the taxpayers generally may review the administration of the penalty section, the Commissioner should state in each case the amount of tax that has been avoided. If the amount were given it would be a simple matter to discern whether the double tax penalty had been enforced, or otherwise. It is patent in the three cases cited that the penalty section has not been consistently applied. After all, there can be only one explanation of omitted income; that is the desire to avoid the payment of tax.

In the taxation report for the year 1934 some attempted evasions in Victoria further illustrate my contention. Alfred Abrahams, financier and merchant, omitted income of £15,473 and was charged a penalty of £2,026. E. Abrahams, financier and merchant, omitted income of £15,473 and was charged a penalty of £2,036. In respect of the estate of L. Abrahams, deceased, the omitted income was £13,258 and the penalty charged was £2,022. F. TJ. Christian, an investor, omitted income of £25,420 and was charged a penalty of £570. I contrast this with the penalties imposed upon the three previous cases in which the penalty was four times as great, although the omitted income was substantially less.

Mr Nock:

– The Abrahams’ cases were pretty consistent.

Mr BEASLEY:

– In respect of Jessie King, property owner, the omitted income was £15,784 and the penalty £312. Lanes’ Motors. Pty Ltd., motor car distributors, omitted income of £157,708 and the penalty imposed was £7,714. Mr. Hugh Mullen, orchardist and contractor, omitted income of £20,796 but paid a penalty of only £54. Another investor, C. M. Nathan, omitted income of £20,973, hut the penalty imposed upon him was £703. L. J. Nathan, warehouseman, omitted income of £24,809 and was charged a penalty of £832. Another firm of motor car distributors, Neal’s Motors Pty. Ltd., omitted income of £171,781 and was charged a penalty of £8,.635. The amounts of income omitted suggest that the . taxpayers in question are wealthy persons. In the case of Lanes’ Motors Pty. Ltd. the omitted income was £157,708 and the company rate of tax ranges between ls. and ls. 2d. in the £1. Why a company omitting such an enormous amount of income escaped the double tax penalty provided by the act, I should like the commissioner to explain. The same position arises in regard to Neal’s Motors Pty. Ltd. Had the act been applied in this instance the penalty should have been double £8,635. The cases of Alfred Abrahams and Christian appear to be inconsistent. Whereas Christian omitted income of £25,420 and paid a penalty of £570, Alfred Abrahams omitted income of £15,473 but paid a penalty of £2,026. Mr. Mullens appears to be rather fortunate when his circumstances are compared with those of Mr. C. M. Nathan. The former omitted income of £20,796 and paid a penalty of £54; Mr. Nathan omitted income of £20,973 but paid a penalty of £703. Evidently Mr. Mullen’s ability to explain matters carried the day with the Commissioner of Taxation.

I direct the attention of honorable members to a few more highlights in the report. Mr. O. J. Allan, a company manager, omitted income of £13,645 and was charged a penalty of £67. A men’s outfitter, Mr. J. Myrob, omitted income of £11,253 but was charged a penalty of £783. Like myself, honorable members doubtless have difficulty in comprehending the basis upon which the commissioner has acted in fixing the penalties for evasion.

I shall now refer briefly to circumstances illustrating how some poor but well-known taxpayers fared. The estate of the late John Brown, the coal-owner, omitted income of £98,448 and the penalty charged in this instance was £8,500. Mr. TJ. Pellegrini, a church furnisher, omitted income of £96,971, but was charged a penalty of £34,830, practically four times the amount of penalty imposed upon the estate of the late John Brown. Mr. J. H. Ryan, a casemaker, omitted income of £i22,978, but, unlike Mr. Pellegrini, he was penalized to the amount of only £7,318. Another taxpayer named Quirk omitted £117,000 of income, and the penalty in his case was £4,000. A theatre director named Coombe omitted £133,000 of income, and the penalty in his case was £7,451. The inconsistency of the penalties imposed is apparent. On the face of the matter, the policy appears to be that, the greater the amount of omitted income the lower the penalty. The commissioner may be able to explain the apparent inconsistencies in the penalties imposed, having regard to the amount, of income omitted. The cases of the estate of the coal baron, the late John Brown, and that of Pellegrini, when compared, reveal the most remarkable inconsistency, and no explanation of it is available to us. The cases of Ryan, Quirk and Coombe reveal almost incredible omissions of income. Surely no person can explain why such large amounts were omitted. The tax on such omitted income must have been in the vicinity of £20,000. If that estimate be correct. Quirk should have paid a penalty of about £40,000. Pellegrini seems to have paid a penalty of double tax. Taking his penalty as a basis, a conservative estimate of Quirk’s double tax penalty would be £40,000. All of these taxpayers are wealthy people, who are able to afford to employ accountants and solicitors to prepare their income returns. Surely there can be no excuse for their having furnished incorrect returns ! Yet they have apparently given a satisfactory explanation to the commissioner as to why the double tax penalty should not be enforced. It is obvious that in future reports the commissioner must state the amount of tax evaded by each taxpayer. Where the full penalty imposed by the act has not been enforced, the commissioner should state the reason. The review shows that the double tax penalty has not been imposed despite the commissioner’s comment under the heading “ Questionable Returns.” In practically every case the department refrained from prosecution and nas claimed the maximum penalty under section 67 of the act. In other cases, penalties have been reduced following explanations. It appears that the commissioner can take this course if he alone likes the explanation. No doubt small taxpayers who lack explanation as to why they omitted a few pounds of interest, rent or wages from their taxation returns duly receive tie full weight of the double tax penalty. The commissioner’s report omits the information necessary to a review of the treatment afforded this class of taxpayer. Itmay be conceded that the question as to whether the double tax penalty should be applied to the extent that it is, is worthy of some consideration. At the moment I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of its imposition. What I am endeavouring to do is to learn from the department the basis upon which the system is worked, the principles which guide the commissioner in the matter, and whether the time has not arrived for a uniform procedure to be established so that every taxpayer will know exactly where he stands. At present it is extremely difficult for him to ascertain the reason for such a wide disparity between the penalties imposed as is disclosed in the cases I have cited. I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave given; debate adjourned.

page 337

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth Statistician Evidence before RoyalCommission on Monetary and Banking Systems.

Motion (by Sir Archdale Parkhill) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

.- I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to state the full facts of the case. The truth is that the letter was addressed to Mr. Ward, and the only member of this House who is known as Mr. Ward is the honorable member for East Sydney. The letter first came to me by messenger, and I said, “ Mr. Ward is not in the House “. The messenger said, “ I must deliver this personally to Mr. Ward “. I said, “ I will get him “, and I went and fetched him from the Library. The messenger said, “ This is a letter which I must deliver into your hands “. It Avas addressed to Mr. Ward, not to Mr. Casey. The Treasurer has cried shame on the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), but I say shame on any public man who takes it upon himself to censor the evidence which an officer of the Crown is to tender to a royal commission on so important a subject as banking. The incident reflects no credit upon the Treasurer.

Question resolved in the affimative

House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

page 339

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated : -

Youth Employment

Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the grant of £200,000 for the training and employment of youth, was the statement that “ information available indicates that there is no problem associated with the teaching and employment of girls” issued on behalf of the Government?
Willhe state with some particularity the sources of such information, and give access to reports?
Was any census taken or general survey made to ascertain how many girls desiring employment were out of employment?
Will the Government consider either (a) diverting part of the grant, or (b) making a further grant, towards including girls in the scope of inquiry and assistance?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

A statement substantially similar to that referred to was made on behalf of the Commonwealth Government by the AssistantMinister for Commerce (Honorable H. V. C. Thorby, M.P.) at the conference of State and Commonwealth Ministers on youth employment held in Melbourne in February, 1937. The Assistant-Minister’s actual statement was : - “ It is satisfactory to note that there is very little unemployment amongst women and girls. The figures indicate that there has been a substantial increase of female labour in industry during the past ten years “.
The statement referred to was based upon information supplied by a responsible officer of the Commonwealth after personal contact with the Departments of Labour and private organizations in three States and after an examination of the figures regarding the employment of females in all the States of the Commonwealth.

The employment figures made available by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics show a satisfactory increase since July, 1933, in the number of females employed in all States of the Commonwealth.

Some States conducted such a survey.
The conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers on youth employment held in Melbourne, in February, 1937. unanimously carried a resolution that: - “The term ‘youth’ shall include all males under the age of 25 years not attending an educational institution “.

The Commonwealth Government will be glad to confer with any State government which wishes to bring girls as well as young men within the scope of the proposals.

Wireless Broadcasting : Second A Class Station in South Australia - Election Broadcasts.

Mr Price:

e asked the Minister representing thePostmaster-General, upon notice -

What progress has been made with the proposed installation of a second A class broadcasting station for South Australia?
When is it anticipated that the installation will be completed?

Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : - 1 and 2. The transmitting equipment for the second A class station in Adelaide will undergo final tests in the contractors’ works within the next three weeks. The station is expected to be in operation by the end of October.

On the 24th August, the honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) asked a question, pertaining to national relay broadcasts by party leaders in connexion with the general election campaign. I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the Postmaster-General has received information that the question will be considered by the Australian Broadcasting Commission at its meeting to be held on the 2nd September.

Migration

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

son asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

Will he make available the net result of alien migration, i.e., excess of arrivals over departures, of adults and juveniles of both sexes during the last three years?
What control does he exercise over the selection of these migrants?

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

Excess of arrivals over departures of white aliens during the last three years: -

(a) White aliens are required to obtain landing permits before being admitted into Australia. In cases where application is made by relatives or friends in Australia who furnish maintenance guarantees, careful inquiries are made in each case as to the character and financial standing of the guarantor; (b) Nominees who do not belong to the dependent relative categories are required to be in possession of not less than £50 landing capital, and where they intend to take up employment in Australia, care is exercised to see that permits are issued only to those who can be absorbed in trades or occupations without detriment to Australian workers; (c) Intending alien migrants who have no guarantors in Australia are required to complete a special form of application, to furnish certificates of health, and official certificates of character, and to be in possession of £200 capital:(d) In the ease of all alien migrants admission is also subject to their being in sound health, and holding valid passports.

Camp of Unemployed at Newcastle.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– On the 24th August, the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) asked the following questions, without notice: -

Will the Minister for Defence give consideration to the rescission of the recent order of the Defence Department, for the eviction of unemployed persons from defence land at Hobby’s Head, Newcastle, at least until arrangements can be made for housing them elsewhere ?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member as follows: -

Early this year the Department of the Interior, at the request of the Defence Department, negotiated with the Newcastle Council and the State Government with a view to the removal of unemployed campers from State and Commonwealth Reserves at Nobby’s Head, Newcastle, in order that there would be no obstruction to the building of defence works which are projected for that area. So far as the Defence Department is concerned, however, there is no objection to delaying action for a reasonable time, say, six months, until arrangements are made by the State authorities for housing the unemployed elsewhere.

Fishermen’s Bend Airport.

SirArchdaleParkhill. - On the 27th August the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) asked the following question, without notice: -

In view of the rumours, and the speculative statements that have appeared in the press regarding the Fishermen’s Bend site for an airport, will the Minister for Defence state whether any negotiations are proceeding between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Victoria?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member as follows : -

Following a conference in November last between representatives of the Government of Victoria and the Commonwealth Government, a sub-committee was appointed by the State government to analyse the proposal for the constitution of a trust in connexion with the question of the establishment of an airport at Fishermen’s Bend. Onthe 4th December last, the Defence Department, at the request of the sub-committee referred to, supplied certain information as to costs, standard requirement, &c, and it was understood that the date fixed for the next meeting of the subcommittee would bo notified so that representatives of the Commonwealth Government could bo present. So far, however, the Defence Department has heard nothing further from the Victorian Government.

Landinggroundin Katoomba District.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

.- On the 27th August the honorablemember for Darling (Mr. Clark) asked that inquiries be made into the position regarding the establishment of a landing ground in the Katoomba district?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that, at the request of the Defence Department, the Department of the Interior has been in touch with local interests for the purpose of selecting a suitable emergency landing ground at Katoomba. It might be pointed out that the country is exceptionally difficult insofar as locating a suitable site for an aircraft landing ground is concerned. However, the matter is receiving urgent attention with a view to finality being reached as early as possible.

Aircraft Flights Over Munitions Establishments.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– On the 26th August the honorable member for Martin (Mr.McCall) referred to an instruction issued by the Civil Aviation Board regarding the flying of aircraft over the Commonwealth Munitions Establishments at Footscray and Maribyrnong, and suggested that the Civil Aviation Board be dissuaded from circulating such information?

I am now in a position to furnish the following reply: -

With the big advance made in recent years in private and commercial flying and the development of long range (infra red) photography, the prohibition against flying over any particular areacannot be regarded as an effective measure of security. The warning notice to aviators referred to in this instance was not issued with the object of preventing persons from obtaining information, but to meet the request of the Munitions Supply Board that planes should be asked to refrain from flying over the area mainly because of the distraction caused to employees working on highly dangerous explosives, and also because of the possibility of an explosion due to a tool or aircraft part falling on an explosive building. The letters HI-X are the ground sign in use in this and other explosives areas as a warning to aviators that the area is one over which it is highly dangerous for aeroplanes to fly. Further inquiries are now being made witha view to seeking a satisfactory solution of the difficulty from both aspects - secrecy and safety. This is, however, by no means simple.

Postal Department : Housing Accommodation in Victoria.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP

– On the 27 th August the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) asked a series of questions, upon notice, pertaining to housing accommodation for postal employees transferred to country towns in Victoria?

I am now in a position to furnish him with the following replies to his inquiries : - 1.Inasmallnumberofcases, officers recently transferred to country centres are experiencing difficulty in obtaining suitable residences. Each of those officers is paid the allowance prescribed by the Public Service Regulations to compensate him for increased financial commitments due to his inability to obtain a residence in the centre to which he has been transferred.

It is not considered that the circumstances would warrant the step suggested.
It is considered that the allowance prescribed by the Public Service Regulations for cases of this nature adequately meets the position.

Cost of Transferring War Exhibits to Canberra

Mr Paterson:
CP

n. - On the 27th August, 1937, the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) asked the following question, upon notice -

What was the total cost of transferring the war and other exhibits from Prince Alfred Park, Sydney, to Canberra?
Were tenders called for this work?
Will he supply the names of those who tendered and the amount of each tender?
What is the name ofthefirm which carried out this work?

I am now in a position to furnish the following information : -

£2.966 18s.5d, including rail freight, £2,0106s.9d. andhandlingcharges at Canberra £420.
and 3. Tenders were not invited, but quotations were received for portion of the work comprising packing crating, casing and carting to rail, Sydney. The following prices were submitted: - New South Wales Railways. £850; Kilners Limited,. £1,150.
The work referred to in 2 and 3 was carried out by the Sydney agents of the Transport Branch of the Department of the Interior - Walter Stone &. Sons - at a cost of £53611s 8d.

Shipping: Sale of CommonwealthOwned Bay Steamers.

Mr Casey:
UAP

– On Thursday, the 26th August, the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

When were the Commonwealth-owned Bay steamers sold, at what price, and to whom?
What was their original cost?
Who was the Federal Treasurer at the time of their sale?
What amount of purchase money, without interest, has been paid?
What legal expenses in connexion with thom have been incurred by the Commonwealth since their sale, including the costs of the recent unsuccessful proceedings under the English Companies’ Act?
What balance of purchase money and interest is now due?
Has the freight on Australian produce - wool, meat, fruit, and wheat - been raised by shippers since their sale; if so, to what amount?
What prospect does the Government consider it has of collecting the money outstanding?

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

21st April, 1 928. £1,900.000. White Star Line Limited.
£7,527,505 (including the Ferndale and fordsdale) .
Right Honorable Earle Page.
£1,333,724 15s.6d.
Approximately £1,800.
Principal, £566,2754s.6d.; interest, £114,934 15s. 7d. Total, £681,210 0s.1d.
Wool. - No. Rates have been altered as follows: Increased by l/10th of a penny per lb. in 1930, but it was then agreed that there should be a deduction of ls. 9d. per bale which the shipper would receive as a loyalty rebate. This alteration resulted in a reduction in the freight received by ship-owners from,1,069d. per1b. to1,062.per lb. Reduced by1/16th of a penny per lb. in August, 1933. Reduced by1/8d. per lb. from 1st September, 1937. Meat. - No. Rates have been reduced as follows: Beef, reduced by7½ per cent. in August, 1933; chilled beef, reduced by1/16th of a penny per lb. from 1st July, 1937; mutton, reduced by7½ per cent. in August, 1933; lamb, reduced by 10 per cent. in August, 1933; veal, reduced by 20 per cent in August, 1933; pork, reduced by 20 per cent. in August, 1933. Fruit. - No. Rates have bean reduced as follows: From December, 1934, a rebate of 2d, per case has been granted to shippers of apples and pears provided they fill all the space booked. From the commencement of next export season this rebate will be increased from 2d. per caac to 5d. per case. Wheat. - Wheat is usually carried in chartered ships. Charter rates vary according to the tonnage available, and the demand for space. As a general rule fluctuations in parcel rates for wheat have followed the fluctuations in charter rates.
As legal proceedings affecting the Commonwealth’s claim have not yet beenfinalized, it is nol at present possible to supply the information desired.

Scottish Shale Oil Industry.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 26th August, the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) asked me a question, without notice, concerning the output of the Scottish shale oil industry. 1 am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the Secretary for Mines in the United Kingdom, in reply to a question in the House of Commons on the 9th March, 1937, stated that the Scottish shale oil industry had been maintained at a uniform level of about 30,000,000 gallons of crude oil and naphtha for each of the past five years. I may mention that during last year a new shale mine was opened at Burngrange, West Calder, for the purpose of enabling some expansion <)f the -industry to occur.

Fishing Industry.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. -On the 27th August, the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) asked me a question, without notice, relative to the’ progress of Commonwealth fishery investigations in Bass Strait off the east coast of Tasmania. I am now in a position to inform him that preliminary aerial observations have been carried out in this area with encouraging results, but it is too early yet to make any authoritative pronouncement upon the possibilities of the fishing industry inthis locality. Fishery investigations must necessarily occupy a somewhat protracted period in order to deal with such factors as seasonal occurrences of fish, migratory habits, and the quality and species of fish available at different times of the year.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 31 August 1937, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1937/19370831_reps_14_154/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives31 August 1937

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr GANDER:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:UAP

QUESTION

MOTOR CHASSIS

Sir HENRY GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

MEMBER. FOR BALLARAT

Mr FORDE:CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr HAWKER:

Mr LYONS:

PAPERS

QUESTION

TELEPHONE ACCOUNTS

Mr LAZZARINI:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

AIR MAIL SERVICE TO TASMANIA

Mr MAHONEY:DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD

Mr CURTIN:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

IRON ORE DEPOSITS

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr DRAKEFORD:MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING STATIONS

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:UAP

MIGRATION

Influx of Southern Europeans

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

MONEY LENDERS IN CANBERRA

Mr LANE:BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES OEAMERICA

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WHITE:UAP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr WHITE:

QUESTION

TRADE TREATIES

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

Mr WHITE:UAP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr BLAIN:NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Mr PRICE:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PATERSON:

QUESTION

MORTGAGE BANK

Mr McEWEN:ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

SINO-JAPANESE CONFLICT

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr SPEAKER:

House of Representatives
31 August 1937

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

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

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WHITE:
UAP

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

Mr WHITE:
UAP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

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

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

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

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah. · UAP

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

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