House of Representatives
8 June 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SUBSIDIZED SHIPPING IN THE PACIFIC
QUESTION
- ASSISTANT TRADE COMMISSIONERS IN THE EAST
QUESTION
- TRANS-TASMAN AIR-MAIL SERVICE
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS AIR-MAIL SERVICE
QUESTION
- OTTAWA AGREEMENT REVISION
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN APPLE TRADE
QUESTION
- PORTFOLIO OF POSTMASTERGENERAL
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYED AT DARWIN
QUESTION
- SHIPPING SERVICE TO THE FAR EAST
QUESTION
- SENATOR SIR GEORGE PEARCE
QUESTION
- OFFER OF AEROPLANE
CANBERRA HIGH . SCHOOL
QUESTION
- POSTAL FINANCE
QUESTION
- FLYING SCHOOL AT BRISBANE
QUESTION
- MIGRATION POLICY
QUESTION
- FORMAL MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- IMPORTATION OF PEDIGREED STOCK
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION OF UNEMPLOYED COAL-MINERS
QUESTION
- SALARIES IN PATENTS DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- MIGRATION
QUESTION
- MARKETING LEGISLATION OF GREAT BRITAIN
QUESTION
- FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT ACT
MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR-CAR CHASSIS
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938
ADJOURNMENT
- National Insurance Legislation
QUESTION
- ANSWERS TOQUESTIONS

– No, I cannot yet five the- specific date. As I stated in the [ouse yesterday, tho -whole matter is being discussed by tho authorities who will bo responsible for the running of the service, and, until they can give the Government advice as to when they will be ready to begin operations, and when the whole organization will be complete, it is impossible for the Government to announce a definite date.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether, prior to the inauguration of the Empire flying boat service, - tie Cabinet will give further consideration to the practicability of carrying all first class air-mail matter without surcharge?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– All the matters that have been referred to recently in this House in connexion with the overseas air-mail service are now under the consideration of t,ho Government, and the matter to which the honorable member has referred is, among them.

page 1910

QUESTION

OTTAWA AGREEMENT REVISION

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will tho Prime Minister state whether the report in today’s press is correct that, owing to the temporary abandonment of the AngloAmerican trade treaty negotiations, tho Australian ministerial delegation will leave England about mid-July without having achieved anything? In the event of the delegation leaving England in those circumstances, does the Government intend to permit Mr. Bruce, the High Commissioner for Australia in London, to carry on the negotiations with regard to the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– As far as I am aware, the Anglo-American discussions have not been suspended. The date of the completion of the negotiations between Groat Britain and Australia will depend to some extent on the progress made in the Anglo-American discussions. If there is prolonged delay, it will not interfere with the important discussions between the Australian delegation and the British authorities. These negotiations would have necessitated a ministerial delegation from Australia in any case, quite apart from the Anglo-

American discussion, because consideration had to be given to the review of the Ottawa Agreement. Therefore, if the delegation returns in the circumstances mentioned by the honorable member - and I have no information as to when it. proposes to leave London - it will not come back without having achieved something, since it will have carried out very valuable negotions with the British authorities regarding the Ottawa Agreement.

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Australian trade delegation, at present abroad, yer completed any negotiations that are likely to prove beneficial to Australian primary or secondary industries.

Mr LYONS:

– Discussions are now taking place between the delegation and representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom. At a proper time a statement will be made in this House regarding the outcome of those discussions.

page 1911

QUESTION

TASMANIAN APPLE TRADE

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Willthe Acting Minister for Commerce state whether he has been successful in obtaining a sufficient number of ships to load fruit at Port Huon, Tasmania, during the 1939 season,so that fruit-growers in the Huon district may be saved the expense of having their fruit sent by road to the port of Hobart?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– That question is now engaging the attention of the Department of Commerce and the Australian Overseas Transport Association. The negotiations have not yet been completed. As soon as they have, I shall inform the honorable member of the result of the deliberations.

page 1911

QUESTION

PORTFOLIO OF POSTMASTERGENERAL

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the unsatisfactory outcome of the debate yesterday on the overseas air-mail service-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr McCALL:

– In view of the very great importance of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to the whole of Australia, in both country and city areas, will the Prime Minister consider the transfer of the portfolio of the Postmaster-General from the Senate to this chamber, so that honorable members will be able to get at that Minister?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– If it is the desire of the honorable member to “ get at “ the PostmasterGeneral, my reply to his question is “No”.

Later:

Mr McCALL:

– In view of the farreaching importance of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and in order that members may have greater facilities in making representations to, and obtaining information from, the PostmasterGeneral, will the Prime Minister seriously consider the necessity for transferring that portfolio from another place to this House?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– There is not one honorable member in this House who is not in a position to have access to the PostmasterGeneral and to obtain all the information he desires regarding that department. He gets such information as a member of Parliament. He may ask questions of the representative of the Postmaster-General in this chamber, and replies will be furnished to him respecting the administration of the department, by either the PostmasterGeneral or his representative in this chamber, whilst matters of policy can be explained even in the absence of the Postmaster-General. Thus, honorable members are placed at no disadvantage by reason of the fact that the PostmasterGeneral is a member of another place. They can get all the information they want either in the Senate or in this chamber, or outside both the Senate and the House of Representatives if they wish to approach the Postmaster-General himself.

page 1911

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED AT DARWIN

Mr.BLAIN. - I have received a copy of a. resolution passed at a general meeting of residents of the Darwin unemployed camp on the 29th May, 1938. It is as follows: -

That this general meeting of the Darwin unemployed camp request the Administrator to notify the successful tenderer for the laying of the water supply pipe line, that there are 30 men in this camp desirous of being engaged; and also, that the Administrator be requested to do everything in his power to absorb the Darwin unemployed on the undertaking.

I desire to ask the Minister -

Who is the successful tenderer?
When is it anticipated that the work will be commenced ?
Will the Minister either alter the regulation debarring men from both work and relief rations until they have been resident twelve months in the Territory, or, alternatively, cause this penal regulation to be published widely in the press to prevent men from going to the Territory in search of work?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– Regarding the first and second parts of the honorable member’s question, I shall secure the information he seeks, and furnish it to him later. In regard to the third part, I remind him that there is a regulation in the Northern Territory, as there is in the Federal Capital Territory, which stipulates a certain period of residence before a man is entitled to relief work. However, in view of what the honorable member has said, I am prepared to review the regulation.

page 1912

QUESTION

SHIPPING SERVICE TO THE FAR EAST

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Acting Minister for Commerce say what progress has yet been achieved regarding the efforts of theGovernment to secure for British shipping companies a larger share of the trade between Australia and the Far East? If negotiations have not yet been completed, will the Government endeavour to hasten them?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– Negotiations have not yet been completed, but the hold up has been at the Tokio end, not in Australia.

page 1912

QUESTION

SENATOR SIR GEORGE PEARCE

Removalof Documents

Mr BEASLEY:

– Is it a fact that Senator Sir George Pearce removed from the storeroom of Parliament House four large trunks containing official documents and letters dealing with the administration of the various departments controlled by him during the periods in which he occupied ministerial positions in this Parliament? If so, who authorized him to do so ? Is it competent for an exMinister to retain such documents ; and, if not, will the Prime Minister take steps to have them restored to their proper custody so that they will be available to future governments, or to any historian who may consider them valuable when writing the history of Australia for the last. 28 years?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have no knowledge of what the honorable member refers to, but I shall make inquiries. I take it that no retiring Minister would remove anything belonging to the Commonwealth, and that if any documents have been removed they are merely the personal papers of Senator Sir George Pearce. In the light of his long occupancy of ministerial positions, lasting for nearly three decades, it is not surprising that he shouldhave accumulated a large number of private documents which he has a right to take away.

page 1912

QUESTION

OFFER OF AEROPLANE

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Prime Minister state whether it is a fact that the Government has received an offer from the Greek community in Australia to provide an aeroplane for defence purposes? If so, has he any information to give the House in connexion with this important offer?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have received from the editor of the Greek National Tribune the offer of an aeroplane to the Commonwealth Government on behalf of his paper, and I have accepted that gentleman’s generous offer.

page 1912

CANBERRA HIGH . SCHOOL

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) asked whether work had been suspended some time ago on the construction of a new high school in Canberra, and had yesterday been renewed. I have to inform him that work was never suspended. The honorable member also asked whether the school was being erected on a site not set aside for that purpose. No special site was set aside in the original plan of Canberra for a high school. The site on which the school is being erected was chosen after full consideration, and after consultation with the Director of Education.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether the site upon which the new high school is to be erected in Canberra is the site designated on the plan for a university college, and whether a street shown on the gazetted plan has been closed and the school is being erected thereon. Was this departure from the original plan made without the revised plan having been laid on the table of this House and having remained on the table for fifteen sitting days?

Mr McEWEN:

– The new high school is not being erected on the site set aside for a university. It is being erected on a site adjacent to a street separating this site from that set aside for a university. When the final plans for the building were prepared and the playing fields designed, however, it was found that the area selected was a little too small to enable the playing fields to be laid out according to specification, so an alteration was made moving the street a few chains. In accordance with the statute I approved of that alteration of the plan on 2nd December last, and on the 9th December that alteration as approved by me was gazetted. The gazetted alteration: was tabled in both Houses on the first day of the present sitting and has lain on the table in either House for the statutory period of time.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– In view of the reply which the Minister gave in regard to the work having been commenced

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is basing his question apparently on a reply already given.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The work having been commenced on the site of the new high school, the notification to proceed has not lain on the table of this Parliament for the statutory period of fifteen sitting days. The Senate has not sat for fifteen days since the gazetted alteration was laid on the table.

Mr McEWEN:

– The intention to build a high school on the site chosen is no digression from the original plan. The only departure from that plan is the proposal to alter the location of a road. The alteration which has been gazetted in accordance with the statute, was tabled in both chambers of the Parliament on the first day of sitting subsequent to its gazettal. It has lain on the table of this chamber for the requisite fifteen days during which it could have , been challenged by any honorable member of this House. No challenge, however, was made. I cannot say off-hand whether the other branch of the legislature has sat for fifteen days since the tabling of the alteration there. If not, it is open for any honorable member of that chamber to challenge the alteration of the plan.

page 1913

QUESTION

POSTAL FINANCE

Mr HARRISON:

– In view of the possible misunderstanding existing in the public mind regarding surpluses in the Postmaster-General’s Department, will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral state whether all the profits of the department are being used for postal works, or does the Government regard the post office purely as a revenue-raising department ?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– It is true that the profit and loss account shows that a substantial profit was made last year by the post office, but when expenditure is taken into consideration, the discrepancy between receipts and outgoings is not so large. Last year there was a surplus of only about £500,000 after all expenditure on postal works had been met. It is thought that, within the next few years, expenditure will increase considerably, owing to the erection of new post offices, and the inauguration of new cable and telephone services, so that there is not likely to be any surplus in future. Whether it is good or bad policy to raise the money needed for such works by postal charges or by some other form of taxation is a matter for the Government to decide.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether, in the preparation of the profit and loss account of the Postmaster-General’s Department, the account is debited with interest on capital expenditure to date, and if so, what justification exists for taking capital expenditure into account when the annual expenditure of that department is being considered ?

Mr PERKINS:

– I am unable to say whether the interest is taken into account as suggested by the honorable member. I shall obtain definite information on that point. The second part of the honorable member’s question is a matter of Government policy.

page 1913

QUESTION

FLYING SCHOOL AT BRISBANE

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether finality has been reached in connexion with the selection of a site for the proposed flying school at Brisbane ?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– No definite site has yet been proposed.

page 1913

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR-CAR CHASSIS

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I have received from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely “ The failure of the Government to encourage the manufacture in Australia of motor car chassis, &c., in accordance with the policy enunciated by the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) on the 22nd May, 1936 “.

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

. - I move -

That the House do now adjourn.

I do so for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to encourage the manufacture in Australia of motor car chassis &c. in accordance with the policy enunciated by the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) on the 22nd May, 1936. I take this action because most honorable members are tired of the vacillating policy of the Government on this important subject. Without success, I have tried to elicit certain information from the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins). Yesterday, when I asked him for a definite pronouncement during the present sittings of this House as to the intention of the Government, he replied that the matter was still under consideration, and that no assurance could be given that a decision would be reached before Parliament rises at the end of the present sittings. That reply is typical of replies given to honorable members on both sides of the House. Two years have elapsed since the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties announced the policy of the Government in regard to the manufacture of motor car chassis. Linked up with my indictment of the Government is :

advisability of further expansion of secondary industries;
a breach of faith on an important matter of government policy;
a means of improving the trade balance; and
the present improper utilization of the proceeds of a tax imposed by the Government for a specific purpose.

I have in mind how resolute the Government was in support of the proposals of the honorable member for Henty. When they were introduced we were told that they would provide employment directly and indirectly to 10,000 people. The then Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties said on the 22nd May, 1936: -

The determination of the Government to give strong, and, as we intend, decisive encouragement to the establishment of this industry in the Commonwealth is in our mind separate from and independent of the general scheme of trade diversion which I have outlined.

He further went on to explain that when he placed his proposal for the manufacture of motor car engines before the Government, Ministers were very much impressed, and the proposed industry was regarded as being of so much value to this country that it was separated from the general trade diversion policy. They said, “ Here is a winner, and we will back it for all it is worth “. They invited the Minister to go into Parliament and make a declaration on behalf of the Government. In announcing the Government’s policy, he said -

In our view the time has arrived - indeed it may be overdue - when this car industry should be established locally as a contribution to our existing protected industries. We have the market;we have the raw material; we have engineering direction and artisans second to none in the world.

The Government anticipates that satisfactory engine production can be commenced within two years, and that within five or six years Australia should be producing80 per cent. of its engine requirements.

That was the considered opinion, hp said, not only of himself but also of the whole Ministry. He went on to say, “ This is a matter that should not be held over, but should be proceeded with at once “, and he estimated that production would commence with 5,000 units in 1938, increasing to 15,000 units in 1939; 30,000 units in 1940, and 40,000 units in 1941. He also said that the opinion the Government had reached after careful investigation was that there was room in the Commonwealth for the profitable working of three separate units for motor car manufacture. He also said this -

Honorable members need scarcely be reminded that the value of this industry to Australia is not to be measured merely by the capital and employment given, or by the direct making of engines and of additional accessories. As this great modern industry is increasingly transferred to Australia it will call for increased activity and employment in the iron and steel industry and the coal mining . industry and in many other directions.

At the conclusion of one of the best speeches I have heard him deliver in this House, he said -

I assure honorable members that these proposals are submitted in every sincerity by the Government, and that they have been devised entirely free from any party political outlook whatever.

There were “ Hear, hears !” from all the Government benches. I believe he was sincere in his proposal, but he. was not able to give effect to his views because of outside pressure from importing interests. It is significant that he is no longer in the Cabinet. He was supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in a definite statement on the 17th September, 1936. Here are the Prime Minister’s words : -

The arguments used against the manufacture in Australia of engines apply with equal force to the manufacture of bodies and many accessories manufactured here. They also apply with equal force to every other established Australian manufacturing industry which has not a market as great as that enjoyed by similar industries running in other countries. There is good reason to believe that the Australian market for cars is as satisfactory for engine production as for body production.

The development of the manufacture of car parts in Australia has been steadily progressive. There is no sort of evidence that the cost of the Australian manufacture of engine or chassis parts now imported will relatively exceed the cost of bodies or of many accessories already being manufactured here.

The Prime Minister said that those were the considered opinions held by the Government. That speech was made nearly two years ago, and still the proposal is on the shelf. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), at the opening of the McGrath Motor Works two years ago, said this in support of his colleague: -

We will undoubtedly manufacture motor cars in Australia before long; and the Government is doing everything possible to hasten that.

We all thought that the Government was sincere. The Prime Minister, the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties, and the Minister for Trade and Customs said that the proposal was practicable. They agreed that motor car engines, like railway engines, aeroplane engines, and much other intricate machinery, could be economically and efficiently manufactured in this country. During the year 1935, 22 manufacturers in Australia made 4,700 internal combustion engines. Of those, S2 per cent, were petrol engines. It is interesting to note that no fewer than 20 types, ranging from 1 to 80 horse power, were made in Australian factories in 1935. Last year the Dominion” of Canada made 207,000. The scheme is a practicable one and the Government has failed to carry it out. I am trying to prove to the Government that it should not have hesitated for so long. A careful analysis, according to evidence before the Tariff Board, showed that the cost of manufacturing a motor car engine in Australia would compare favorably with the average cost of manufacturing one in Great Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

– As an instruction to the House, I point out that the merits of the question of manufacturing motor car engines in Australia cannot be debated on this motion, which deals solely with the failure of the Government to give effect to a certain policy.

Mr FORDE:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We have ample evidence that the Government, having brought down a proposal over two years ago for the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia, and having collected approximately £775,000 for the purpose, and then having failed to go ahead with the proposal, is indeed deserving of severe censure by the House.

The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) must, in his own mind, if he dares to speak - if he fails to speak in criticism of the Government he is not so candid as he usually is-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must not reflect on another honorable member.

Mr FORDE:

– Australia to-day absorbs 70,000 motor cars and trucks per annum, and the market is expanding so rapidly that it will not he long before the number will be 100,000. ‘ With that knowledge in mind, the Government could, with complete confidence, have carried out its promise to encourage the establishment of a local industry. The Government should know that the manufacture of motor cars is the greatest labor-providing industry of our times, and that its value to other industries is considerable, as it permeates through all industries and becomes a vital and dominating factor in the industrial life of a country. The Government, by its failure to go on with the policy so eloquently enunciated by the honorable member for Henty two years ago, has deprived of employment the large number of people who would have been employed in the manufacture of the raw material needed by such an expansion of the motor car industry. It must know that about £5,500,000 sterling in 1935, and £6,700,000 sterling last year went out of this country for the purchase of motor car engines and chassis. Its failure to establish the industry in this country has, as it were, knocked sideways- Australia’s . trade balance, The far-reaching consequences of its neglect can be seen in true perspective by the fact that £60,000,000 is spent annually in Australia on auto-motive transport. If the Government had gone on with that scheme, which, we were told by the honorable member for Henty, was introduced after full consideration had been given to it, and after all investigation that was necessary had been made, much of this vast amount of money would have been saved to Australia. The then Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties and the experts of the Customs Department had conferred with the hig engineering firms best able to undertake the manufacture of motor cars’ before the proposal was made. When the honorable member for Henty brought his proposal before Parliament, we gathered from his statement to the House that it had received the unanimous endorsement of the then Ministry. I maintain that the failure of the Government to go on with its policy is a breach of faith, and is against the best traditions of honest government.

It is considered by those .best able to judge that motor car engines can be economically’ and efficiently manufactured in this country. The Government must be aware of that fact, and. must take the blame for the fact that no steps have been taken to establish the industry. In the statement made by the honorable member for Henty, to which I have already referred,’ no reference was made to the trade diversion policy. This was something apart, and it was intended to stand alone. The honorable member said that it stood as a beacon light. He elaborated the scheme, and urged the necessity to carry it out rapidly by saying-

To provide the funds needed to encourage the Australian manufacturer of. engines, steps will bc taken forthwith.

Has the Government done so? He proceeded - lt is proposed to impose an additional duty of .7d. per lb. on imported motor chassis and parts. Generally speaking, this additional impost will average over the range of imported chassis approximately’ ‘£5 each.

The honorable member said then that there was no need for delay, that the Government had made up its mind, and that there was no need to refer the proposal to the Tariff Board. The exact amount of the bounty on each engine was to be referred to the Tariff Board later, but the Government was making a definite declaration that the bounty in 1938 would be £38 and, in 1939, £26 on each engine. The exact payment necessary for subsequent years would be inquired into by the Tariff Board. He said-

We, after careful consideration, have come to the conclusion that this is a question of fur-reaching importance and there is no necessity for further delay.

This scheme is the finest that the Government has ever propounded. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) that no further time should be lost, and I am sure that his action will be endorsed by the people of Australia. When the scheme was first mentioned some of us, myself included, required further information. I remember speaking to the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) who was then the Minister directing negotiations foi trade treaties. I told him that the Labour party was behind him in the scheme, our only fear being that it might cause some unemployment if imports were ended too suddenly. He replied that there was no such intention, and that within the next two years the scheme would be in operation. This is proved by the fact that the amount of bounty was fixed on a sliding scale. For this year, the first year of production, it was fixed at £30 for each engine, for 1939 at £26. for 1940 at £8, and in 1941 at £3 15s. Unless this House makes some protest at the delay, and unless it urges the Government to put the scheme into operation at once, it will be missing an opportunity to do something in the interest of Australian industries and the people of this country. Only by establishing this industry for the building of motor engines can we expect to make Australia self-contained and secure. This is one of the key industries. Indeed, it may be regarded as our first line of defence. These things are so linked that the proposal to establish, this industry is one of the most important issues that has ever been raised in this House.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) for ‘having informed me, by telephone, soon after 2 o’clock to-day, of the intention of the

Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) to move this motion for the adjournment of the . House. That was the first intimation I had that action was to be taken. I do not think that I would have chosen this particular time to bring this matter before the House, but since it has been brought forward, I very warmly support practically everything that has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I understand that in the debate on this motion we shall be confined to the question of the failure of the Government to establish the industry for the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia. I shall endeavour to keep within the scope of the motion.

At the outset I should like to go back to the origin of this proposal and to trace its progress, -because only in this way can I give force to my support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his contention that the Government has failed. This matter had its origin in the Department of the Treasury, as had the whole trade diversion scheme of 1936. It began with an intimation to the Customs Department that the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) was concerned about the adverse overseas trade balance.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I regret the necessity to limit discussion of this topic, but it must be realized that . the motion relates to a definite matter of public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to do something that was announced .by the Ministry would ‘be done. Therefore, the origin of the scheme, the circumstances in which it was brought before this House, and whether or not it was justified, cannot be debated. Speakers must confine their remarks to the subject-matter of the motion.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that as failure is charged it must ‘ be clearly shown that there was a - definite commitment on the pant of the Government. I propose to establish .briefly that such a commitment was entered into, otherwise there could have been no failure. Honorable members opposite have already attempted to establish this by quoting from the speech on this subject made by me whilst Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties. The Government was very definitely committed to establish, this industry. As honorable members opposite have pointed out, it was committed first of all under its general trade diversion policy, but in addition to being a trade diversion measure, this scheme for the local manufacture of motor car engines was introduced and sponsored by the Government because of its great importance to this country. Further evidence of the Commonwealth Government’s commitment was the consent of the Government of the United Kingdom, conveyed by cablegram, to the proposal to offer a bounty on the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia. Had this consent not been given, the offer of that bounty would have constituted a breach of the Ottawa Agreement. The Prime Minister submitted to the British Government that this matter was of such great national importance as to warrant the British Government giving way and permitting the bounty to be offered.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– I merely wish to establish the fact that defence was involved. To the best of my knowledge the question of Australian and Imperial defence was specifically mentioned when the matter was referred to Mr. Baldwin.

The original intention was that the scheme should not be referred to the Tariff Board. From the moment, some months later, when, against my strongly expressed wishes, it was referred to the board, the Government has been failing in its original intention to, encourage this industry. At the outset it was not referred to the Tariff Board for the simple reason that-, we knew, as has since been proved, . that the board could not obtain the necessary evidence in this country. Obviously importers, could not be expected to give evidence in favour of home manufacture, nor could overseas manufacturers exporting motor car engines to Australia be expected to give this evidence. It was therefore decided that no good purpose ‘could be served by obtaining a report from tho Tariff Board.

Cabinet then decided that the matter should not be referred to the board, but that it should be dealt with immediately as one of great national importance, and associated with the problem of defence. It was considered that the board should investigate the position of the industry soon after its establishment, when evidence would he available as to the relative costs of Australian-made and imported chassis. The failure of the Government is further emphasized by the obvious fact that the speech which I made in this chamber at the time was not in any way a personal one. No matter ever raised in this House was more completely discussed and endorsed by the Cabinet asa whole. Every word of my speech had been read by the Prime Minister himself before I came into the chamber.

I now come to the change in the attitude of the Cabinet to the proposed new industry. The wilt on the part of the Government with regard to the great importance of establishing a new protected industry began with the reference of the matter to the Tariff Board. All that I could say was that, although the matter should go before the board, the offer made by me in this House should remain. “We now have the anomalous position that the proposal is being subjected to every possible delay, even to the extent of being taken for a trip overseas by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White). The Government could bring this industry into being immediately, because of the offer which it made in this chamber, and which is on record. The Government’s failure is emphasized, and is made completely mysterious, by the speech delivered here to-day by the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins). I have no disagreement with that honorable gentleman. He was not a member of the Cabinet at’ the time, and, with all respect to him, he does not know what took place before the proposal was introduced; indeed, he admits that. Yet he says that the Government is still whole-hearted with respect to this matter ! If so, it has £750,000 in hand, collected under a special duty on motor chassis, tabled by the Minister for Trade and Customs on the 22nd May, 1936. If the Government has the desire to assist in the establishment of the industry, and as it has the necessary funds to provide the promised bounty, I can assure the House that manufacturers are now waiting to put the industry into operation. I knew, however, that once the proposal was sent back to the Tariff Board, exactly what has happened was intended to happen.

There is one matter on which I should like to inform the House, to show the keenness of local industry to engage in this task. I have been approached for advice by no fewer than three groups of men in Australia - representing, in one case, the highest achievement in motor car manufacture in the world - who are supported by plenty of capital. I admit at once that the British and North American companies are not prepared to manufacture chassis in Australia unless pressure is put on them. It was always my intention, and that of the Cabinet, to put that pressure on them. We began to exert that pressure when we brought the North American companies down to the quota that they had reached during the year ended April, 1936. These groups have asked for my advice whether it would be safe for them to go on with the scheme to manufacture chassis in Australia. Each time, unfortunately, owing to the inaction of the Government, and the lack of any further pressure, I have been impelled to advise them not to risk their money at this stage. [Leave to continue given.]

On each occasion when I have been approached, I have said to the prospective Australian manufacturers that, as long as the North American companies . stand out, they will be risking great sums of money in this enterprise. I pointed out that, immediately it became known that any local company was about to begin operations in Australia, the North American companies would smother them because of their greater wealth and backing, and their greater readiness to embark upon the industry. So this proposal is held up in this wretched manner to-day. In view of the important business awaiting the consideration of the House, I do not intend to detain honorable members longer at this stage, but I do say that the Government has failed. One must regard with the utmost suspicion its repeated assurance that it is wholehearted in the matter, and is waiting ‘for an opportunity to go on with the scheme. The whole of the party behind the Government is really on trial with respect to its adherence to the policy of protection. If this Government or this party stands for protection, it should ‘not hesitate to assist immediately any interests offering to engage in the manufacture of motor car engines in this country.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The Government at the outset was prepared to get away from its policy that an inquiry by the Tariff Board should first take place, and that it con- templated imposing a duty on motor chassis entering Australia, the money derived from this source to be set aside for the payment of a bounty on manufacture when such manufacture was commenced. That, however, was not the last word of the Government on this subject. Its last word was not known until it announced its decision following all of the discussions which took place on this matter in Cabinet and in this Parliament. That decision was made known by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) when he was Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties, in making his last speech in this chamber on the subject, which is reported in Hansard, Volume 152, page 2543; the honorable member said -

I give my assurance at this stage that if the Tariff Board after an inquiry arrives at the conclusion that I am totally wrong, and that this industry ‘would be uneconomic and expensive, I shall be finished with the proposal. In that regard I speak for the Government.

The question as to whether the Government has committed a breach of faith clearly rests, therefore, on what is embodied in the report of the Tariff Board.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Where is that report?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

Sir Henry Gullett:

– No ; I said that about 80 per cent, of the cost represented Australian industry and profit.

Mr GREEN:

– One has only to visit a motor show, like that which was held in Melbourne recently, to realize the capacity and versatility of Australian workmen. The old idea that, under free trade, commodities can be purchased more cheaply than under a protectionist policy, has been disproved; importers do not fail to make ample provision for their own profits. The Acting Minister said that in the absence of data, the Government had not yet made up its mind on this subject. It is therefore interesting to recall what the then Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties said when he introduced his proposals on the 22nd May, 1936. He told the House-

The Government anticipates that satisfactory engine production can be commenced within two years, and that within five or six years Australia should bc producing SO per cent, of its engine requirements.

Not one member of this House would say that the Minister was deceiving himself when he spoke in that way. He spoke for the Government of which he was a member. The honorable gentleman has crossed swords with honorable members on this side of the House on many occasions, but no one will deny his ability to complete a task which he has undertaken. The trade diversion policy inaugurated by the honorable gentleman has been severely criticized, but I have seen nothing to supplant it. It was introduced because of the necessity to do something to adjust the balance of trade between Australia and countries which, while exporting goods of considerable value to Australia, bought little from us in return.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr GREEN:

– The then Minister went on to say -

At this stage, I do not propose to exhaust the House with excessive details, as these can bc announced from time to time as progress is made.

I now ask whether there has been any report as to the progress made. We have heard nothing. Indeed, the Government would have remained dumb had not this motion been moved this afternoon. Where is the Tariff Board’s report? If I were of a suspicious nature, I should say that the reason it has not been produced is that the Government has something to hide. In the speech to which I have referred, the Minister also said -

Important decisions have been made by the Government with the object of increasing our exports of primary produce, expanding secondary industry, and bringing about a considerable increase of rural and industrial development.

Charles Marr), both of whom asked the Minister specific questions and wrung from him the reply that the proposal would be proceeded with only if the Government were satisfied that it would be economic to do so. Replying to the then honorable member for Indi as the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) said -

The reference of this matter to the Tariff Board is undoubtedly a venture, but I give the committee my assurance at this stage that if the Tariff Board itself, after an inquiry, arrives at the conclusion that I am totally wrong, and that this industry would be uneconomic and expensive, I shall be finished with the proposal. In that regard I speak for the Government. It will not proceed with the expansion of this industry if the Tariff Board declares . that it will be uneconomic.

The honorable member for Henty in his speech this afternoon answered his own argument when he said that from the moment that the matter was submitted to the Tariff Board, the Government had failed to proceed with the project.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order 257b.

page 1932

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

In Committee: Consideration resumed from the 7th June (vide page 1905).

Clause 18-

Persons, not having attained the maximum age, shall, subject to this act, be insured, under and in accordance with this act as voluntary contributors, if -

they have been employed, and insured as employed contributors, for a period, whether continuous or not, of not less than one hundred and four weeks since their last entry into insurance;

they have given notice as prescribed that they desire to become voluntary contributors; and

they have paid contributions in accordance with this act.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– This is a fundamental clause because it deals with the insurance of voluntary contributors. I am opposed to it in its present form, and wish to amend it with a view to making it less sectional than it is at the moment by making it possible for a great many more people to come within its scope than is now possible.

That is my wish, but I am not sanguine as to my chances of the Chair accepting the amendment which I have circulated. As a matter of fact, I can already feel the sharpness of the axe on the back of my neck. Before the axe falls, however, I desire to direct the attention of the committee to the fact that, if this clause is allowed to stand as printed, thousands of people who are just as much entitled to enjoy voluntarily the benefits of health insurance as other persons now covered by the clause, will be excluded. The people I have in mind cannot become compulsory contributors, but I see no justice in preventing them from becoming voluntary contributors. I refer amongst others to the thousands of self-employed persons who do not average the maximum wage limit fixed under this bill - small shopkeepers, small contractors, small farmers, and those people engaged in viticultural and horticultural pursuits on a contract basis. In the rural industries there are thousands of persons who are never employed directly and never work for a fixed wage. All of those people will be excluded. There is a greater percentage of that class of work in the rural industries even than in the city industries, and accordingly what I am about to put before the committee should appeal to members of the Country party as well as to honorable members who represent city constituencies. This clause reads -

Persons, not having attained the maximum age, shall, subject to this act, be insured, under and in accordance with this act as voluntary contributors, if -

they have been employed, and insured as employed contributors, for a period, whether continuous or not, of not less than one hundred and four weeks since their last entry into insurance;

they have given notice as prescribed that they desire to become voluntary contributors; and

they have paid contributions in accordance with this act.

Paragraphs c and d would permit the people whom I have in mind becoming members of the insurance scheme on a voluntary basis, but paragraphs a and b exclude them because it is impossible for them to comply with their provisions. A great deal of the opposition to this bill arises from its sectional character. In order to widen the scope of the bill, I move -

That the following proviso be inserted at the end of clause 18 -

Provided that a person who has not been employed may be insured as a voluntary contributor if he complies with the provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The amendment moved by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) would have the effect of bringing in additional contributors and would result in additional expenditure from Consolidated Revenue, and, therefore, is not in order.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that that is the end of it. I did fear that you would give that ruling because my amendment would increase the cost. I point out, however, that it would also increase the revenue. I accordingly move -

That the clause be postponed.

If carried, my amendment would be an instruction to the Government - to redraft the clause to include as voluntary contributors persons who comply with paragraphs (c) and (d) of this clause.

– But this amendment isonly a device.

Mr CURTIN:

– If the Minister means that the Opposition is inviting the committee to do what it understands the Government has undertaken to do, he is quite right. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports suggested a formula, and, because it was ruled out of order, he has moved for the postponement of this clause as an instruction to the Treasurer to give effect to his suggestion. I understand that the Treasurer has undertaken to do this in a different way at another time. He says that his object is to avoid anomalies, but anomalies are already present in the bill, and nothing he can do by resisting the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports will remove them. Instead of eliminating anomalies, the Treasurer is providing an incubator in which they seem to be multiplying amazingly.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– This bill contemplates the provision of medical attention and certain other forms of security for 1,850,000 persons who possess the qualifier! don of being employees. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has somewhat overlooked the fact that this is made possible, not only by the employee’s own contributions supplemented by chose of the employer, but also by the super-imposition of a Government subvention. Nobody can deny that there are other folk in the community who are” as much in need of the protection to be given under this measure as are employed persons. Nor can we dc-ny their right to share in any Govern ment bounty or subvention by which the grant :ng of that protection is made possible. 1 sincerely regret that this measure docs not go as far as the Leader of the Opposition and other honorable members desi,-. The British scheme was recently widened ‘:> include many thousands of persons “who were originally excluded because of their inability to conform to the employee qualification, and this has opened the door to an additional 2,000,000 potential contributors. The British Medical Association has lately proposed that the scheme should ‘be further extended to embrace still another 20,000,000 residents of Great Britain. Sir Henry Brackenbury, a past president of the British Medical Association, whose services were recently made available to the New Zealand Government, has suggested that New Zealand should not confine its scheme to employees. In the National Insurance Bill which was submitted to this Parliament in 1928, provision was made for the inclusion of contributors other than employees. These persons have as much right to the protection contemplated in the measure as have their fellow-citizens who are to be included, but I do not intend to wreck this bill. I should be prepared to take a very definite stand regarding this clause, were it not for the fact that at an early stage another measure will be introduced to extend the benefits of insurance to persons of the class particularly mentioned this afternoon. I hope that the time taken to promulgate the second measure will not be so long as that occupied in preparing the bill now before us.

– Some are included but only because the experience of actuaries has shown that they are only a negligible proportion of the number embraced, and also because they have been a part of the wage-earning community; consequently, they constitute a spread risk. It is the duty of the Government to indicate just what are the terms of the supplementary scheme which it proposes to introduce; in fact, the supplementary scheme should have been ‘brought down simultaneously with this, so that honora’ble members would have been enabled to examine both schemes side by side.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

Mr POLLARD:

– I conclude by expressing the hope that even at this late stage some intelligence and understanding will be shown by those who are not inclined to support the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway). Particularly do I hope that supporters of the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Treasurer to have the clause withdrawn and redrafted so that justice will be done.

Mr McCALL:
Martin

– I am unable to accept the idea that the bill should not include the self-employed section of the community. In the true sense of the word the bill cannot be called a “ national “ insurance bill if it does not provide for this large and important section of the community. I am quite prepared to accept the assurances given by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), that further legislation will be introduced to include these people, but I am not yet convinced that it is impossible to bring them within the scope of the bill. The Treasurer has not advanced any cogent reasons in support of t hat contention. I do not agree with the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) that the inclusion of selfemployed persons would make the bill actuarially unsound. It is very easy for an honorable member to say that this or that would make the bill actuarially unsound, but why would it do so? What evidence has the honorable member for Richmond or the Treasurer that this alteration will have that effect? A suggestion has been made that if the bill be amended in the direction desired, it will have to be scrapped. If it is so absolutely impossible to include selfemployed persons, I want to know why it was not thought to be impossible by Sir EarlePage, when he introduced a national insurance scheme in this House some years ago? Clause 42 of the bill presented at that time stated -

Any person of the age of sixteen years and upwards but under the age of forty-fve years who is not employed within the meaning of thisact, but who is engaged in some regular employment on which he is wholly or mainly dependent and whose total income did not in the preceding twelve months exceed four hundred and sixteen pounds shall be entitled to become a voluntary contributor under this act, and to receive the benefits conferred by this act, upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed.

Were it a question of avoiding actuarial disequilibrium, I can see no reason why a higher maximum income limit than that already applied to compulsory contributors should not be applied to voluntary contributors. The clause goes on to say -

Provided that in the case of applications for admission to voluntary insurance received by approved societies and notified to the board within twelve mouths after the commencement of this act, the rate of contribution payable by the insured person shall be 2s. per week in the case of a man and1s. per week in the case of a woman.

If that was possible then, it is possible now. The bill from which I have quoted was compiled on the advice of the most expert persons available at that time - actuaries and leading economists of the day.

Mr.Archie Cameron. - That was ten years ago.

Mr McCALL:

– It does not matter if it was ten years, or even 50 years ago, the principle is the same. The bill was introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister, who was also Leader of the Country party, on this side of the House, on behalf of a government of the same political complexion as that which I support to-day. The honorable member for Richmond said that if self-employed persons were brought into the scheme, a great burden would be placed on the fund, because a large proportion of them would be bad risks. I submit that they will pay for what they receive.

Mr Anthony:

– The basis of the bill is sixteen years of age.

Mr McCALL:

– Even if the basis is sixteen years of age, the honorable member did not tell the committee how the scheme would be actuarially upset by the inclusion of these voluntary contributors. I desire to contrast the position of a selfemployed person under this scheme with the position of an employed person. The bill, to some extent, may be termed an employees’ scheme, but it is pleasing to have the assurance that the Government does not propose to stop at that. I am glad for a number of reasons. As an example, consider a self-employed person in a small business. In no State does he receive the benefits provided for employed persons by the various workers’ compensation acts. The workers of New South Wales receive wide and extensive benefits under the legislation of that State - benefits which the self -employer does not receive. In cases of total or partial incapacity, the compensation includes weekly payments and the cost of medical and hospital treatment; also ambulance service; - which is not provided for in the Commonwealth scheme. In the event of the death of a worker, his dependants are entitled to compensation. I could quote many more examples of the benefit the Workers’ Compensation Act of New South Wales is to employees as compared with the person who is self-employed. Again, it must be remembered that the self-employed person is subjected to great fluctuations of income. The great majority of those who would elect to come under the bill as voluntary contributors would be those whose occupations are such as would bring about a complete cessation of income in the event of their incapacity. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) said that the majority of self-employed persons were not subjected to the same loss of income as the employed person. To an extent that is correct, but I believe that those voluntary contributors who would elect to come under the scheme and pay a considerable sum of money would be that section of self-employed persons who would suffer a complete cessation of income if they were ill or otherwise incapacitated. We ought also to be given an indication whether, in the supplementary bill which is promised, the benefits and contributions of self-employers will be similar to those prescribed in the present bill. We have had no indication of the conditions under which the self-employed person will be allowed to come under the scheme. I am far from convinced that the difficulties in the way of the inclusion of selfemployed persons in this bill are insuperable. Surely the hill is not immutable! Surely some means can be improvised to permit these people to enter! I should be pleased if the Treasurer, in his reply, would set out the reasons why self-employed persons cannot be brought under the scheme. The Government has accepted the principle that they should be covered by the scheme, and, therefore, I ask him to give categorical evidence of why they cannot be included in this measure.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway). I have heard it said that certain sections in the House have been promised that the things they have complained about will be rectified by a bill to be introduced later. As I am on the “ outer “ at the moment, as far as my Country party friends are concerned, I have not been officially approached. I am not prepared, therefore, to accept promises of that sort. I do not question the sincerity of the Government, but there are possible obstacles in the way of the implementation of that promise. I doubt, for instance, whether it would be possible for a supplementary bill to be passed during this period of the session, and after the 30th June there will be a new Senate.

Therein lies the danger. It is not necessarily the function of the Opposition, with a majority in the Senate, to support the proposals of the Government, meritorious though they might be. If members of the Country party, who, during the second-reading debate, attacked the omission from this bill of small farmers and the like, were sincere, this is their opportunity to stand up for the principles that they enunciated. I have other objections to the bill, but this is the particular point that 1 wished to make. I feel that I should be unfaithful to the trust reposed in me, and that I should not be squaring with my previous attitude on this bill if I did not support with my vote the amendment moved by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I rise to oppose the amendment. I do that with certain qualifications. With other honorable members on this side of the committee, I have already made to the Ministry representations of a somewhat similar nature to those which the Opposition is making at the moment, and I suspect that the assurance given to us is what has caused < the suggestions that have been made by the Opposition. The Opposition realizes that ministerial supporters have stolen their thunder and, for political reasons, they feel it necessary to make a demonstration. The suggestions made by honorable members opposite have been very helpful, so helpful, in fact, that if adopted they would help to wreck the bill. For their purpose, honorable members have selected a clause inserted for the specific purpose of admitting those insured persons who at some time had been compulsorily insured in the scheme, and were entitled by their former contributions to continue their insurance by voluntary payments. There are limitations in the drafting of this measure with which I entirely disagree, and I feel with other honorable members that if this bill were, as it should be, a more national measure, the anomalies now objected to would not appear. This bill, however, is merely the first instalment of the national insurance scheme, and, as such, obviously cannot be comprehensive. I join with the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) in appealing to honorable members opposite to have patience, and to remember that no first instalment can contain everything that every section of the community would desire. Honorable members who have made suggestions to the Government for the inclusion within the scope of the bill of self-employed persons, such as small shopkeepers and small farmers, cannot appreciate the problem that the Government would have in policing such a provision. Not one suggestion as to how it could be policed has been made by honorable members of the Opposition. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has indicated that he wants clause 18 postponed as a direction to the Government to do a certain thing. The honorable member, in expressing his desire, has not said, “ This is an easy matter, because you can do it by adopting this or that principle “. He says, “ We want this done, and we do not care how you do it, or if the bill is held up indefinitely “. Something more concrete must be presented before the committee can take his suggestion into serious consideration. The very matter that he has raised is being considered at the moment by the Government, which proposes to explore the possibility of bringing the several sections of the community referred to under one comprehensive supplementary plan, not associated with the compulsory scheme, provided for in this measure. I am prepared to accept the ‘Government’s assurances, and my support is given on the assumption that those assurances will be honoured. If the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) is not prepared to carry out the assurance to the House that within a reasonable time the supplementary bill will be introduced, honorable members may have to consider their pos11;1011. I do not desire unduly to stress my reasons for the appeal I made in my second-reading speech, that the Government should make this scheme more national in its scope. All honorable members are fully aware that this bill is not intended to cover all sections of the community. If honorable members opposite can put forward some cutanddried scheme which will help the Government to implement the policy which they are now advancing, the Government will be very thankful to them for their help and, no doubt, will be prepared to hasten the legislation. I am prepared to accept the assurance of the Government that a further bill will be brought down, but I deplore the fact that the incidence and the coverage of this bill cause anomalies that invite criticism.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

.- It is strange to hear ministerial supporters devote half of the time occupied by their speeches in committee to apologies for the speeches that they made on the second reading. I was not aware that we had in this chamber such a fine acrobat as the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony). When he made his secondreading speech the honorable gentleman made the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) shudder. Glowering savagely at him, the honorable member for Richmond, who, like myself, has a great number of small farmers in his constituency, declared, “I shall support the second reading, but you will have to bring down a bill to provide for the small farmers. Do something for them !” Yet to-night he made a complete somersault and the savagery which had characterized his second-reading speech had given way to happiness, despite the fact that the Government has completely forgotten to assist the small farmers, whom, the honorable member is pledged to support.

I, however, am not concerned as to what honorable members opposite do; I am here to represent the small farmers, of whom I have many among my constituents. Those people who employ two nr three hands are, as the result of the poor returns from the fruit crops of the last three or four years, living on a pittance. They will have to contribute to the national insurance fund in respectof their employees, but they themselves will not be able to enjoy any benefit from the scheme, although their circumstances demand they should. The small saw-millers in my electorate are in the same plight. They are making little more than the basic wage themselves, but while they will have to contribute to the fund for their employees, they will not be able to contribute for benefits for themselves. Another class of persons, of whom there are thousands in Australia, who have been overlooked are the daughters in large families who sacrifice themselves and remain single in order to care for their ageing parents. I remind the committee that the property clauses of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act operated harshly on those self-sacrificing persons; they are being treated just as harshly now. I concede that when the parents die, the girl who cared for them generally inherits a small home, but she is left with no means of sustenance. She cannot get a pension because she has not been employed, and must go out in the cold world in search of a livelihood. Fishermen, small storekeepers and others, who are earning only sufficient to maintain themselves, would welcome some assistance under a scheme such as this. A comprehensive national insurance scheme would be of great benefit to a majority of the Australian people, hut this proposal has been brought forward merely with the object of placing upon the shoulders of the workers the responsibility of finding the money to meet the cost of invalid and old-age pensions. If the members of the Country party wish to assist those whom they represent, they should support the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

.- Unfortunately I was absent from the chamber when the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) gave his reasons for asking the committee to agree to the postponement of this clause; but I heard, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), and I think that I am representing his views fairly when I say that the gravamen of his case is that no actuarial problem is involved in the proposal of the honorable member foi- Melbourne Ports. If it can be proved that an actuarial problem is involved, I feel sure that the Leader of the Opposition fair-minded and reasonable as he is, will inform his colleagues that they are basing their arguments on wrong premises anc suggest that the proposal be withdrawn. I shall prove to the committee that there is an actuarial problem which cannot be. disguised. The main basis of the scheme is. of course, compulsion, and the object, of compulsion in all national insurance schemes is to include good and bad risks, and by so doing enable the contributions to be reduced to a reasonably ‘low level. All employees are being brought under this compulsory scheme so that there shall be a wide spread of risks and so that the contributions shall be small. Under this bill, there is room for a number of voluntary- contributors, who, as employees, have paid a minimum of 104 contributions. It appears that the number to be included is likely to be relatively small, and that the actuaries have taken that fact into consideration in assessing the rate of contributions.

Mr Curtin:

– What justification has the honorable member for saying that the number will be small? What evidence has he of that?

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The manual worker is involved, and it is admitted that as the majority of them earn under £365 a year they will remain under the scheme.

Mr Curtin:

– Contributors who have ceased to be employed may become employers, farmers or shopkeepers.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– The ages specified in the bill arc from sixteen to 65 years, and the average age of those who will come under the scheme will be between 31 and 32 years. If we include any voluntary contributors we have to determine whether the average age of shopkeepers and small farmers will be similar to the average age of those who are to be covered by the bill. It must be admitted that the majority of the voluntary contributors would be between 30 and 50 years of age. Very few would be between 16 and 25 years of age, and therefore we can assume that as the average age would be higher, the actuarial basis of the bill would be seriously interfered with’.

Mr Nock:

– The proportion of married persons would be higher amongst the voluntary contributors.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– Yes. We also have to realize that a voluntary system would not have such a large number of contributors; the experience of friendly societies tells us that. Of the 1,850,000 to come under this bill we have been informed that only 400,000 are voluntary contributors to friendly societies. It is, therefore, fair to assume that possibly only 25 per cent, of the small farmers and small shopkeepers would insure, and this limited number of contributors would be of greater average age than that of the compulsory contributors; this would necessarily affect the actuarial calculation. Would this limited number at a greater age affect the benefits aspect of. this scheme? According to the statistics appearing in the Australian Medical Journal of the 14th May, the average age of contributors to friendly societies is about 41.9, but under this scheme it will be only 31.5. That being so, the sickness rate will be 30 per cent. less.

Mr.Curtin. - The honorable member misunderstands the scheme. This bill provides for a longer contributing period than under friendly societies’ schemes.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– I understand the scheme and the amendment perfectly. If we allow a large number of voluntary contributors to be included in this scheme the average age will be higher, the sickness rate will be higher, and the proportion of married men will be greater. In these circumstances I defy any one to disprove my contention that an actuarial problem is involved in the amendment. If the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports be adopted the bill will have to be withdrawn until fresh actuarial calculations have been made. If the class mentioned by the honorable member be included, the contributions of the workers will have to be increased, and if that is the aim of the Labour party it is just as well that it should be known. Self-employed persons and small farmers should be provided for apart from this proposal, and the Government has already given an assurance that that will be done.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I support the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) that the clause be postponed with the object of providing that voluntary contributors who comply with the provisions of paragraphs c and d of this clause may be covered. Honorable members opposite are sheltering under the promise made by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), that another bill will be introduced later in which provision will be made for those whom the honorable member for Melbourne Ports seeks to include in this bill. I cannot understand why the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) should suggest that if the persons whom we wish to include were covered by this bill the scheme would be actuarially unsound. The honorable member endeavoured to show that the average age of the voluntary contributors would be over 30 years, but he failed to take into consideration the children of self-employed men ; many of the children would come in at early ages from sixteen years onwards, and they would help to offset the age factor which the honorable member stressed. Why should those who are sheltering themselves behind the promise made by the Treasurer to introduce a supplementary bill, be satisfied that the new bill will be more actuarially sound than would the present bill if amended as we desire? If it is possible to provide for voluntary contributors in another measure, why should they not come under this scheme? The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) asked how it would be possible to police a voluntary scheme associated with the compulsory scheme. How is it going to be policed under the now bill ? It is logical to assume that, if the Government intends to introduce a new measure to cover those people who are excluded from this scheme, it will make some arrangement to police the scheme. I submit that it is equally possible to do that in this measure. Obviously, those Government supporters who criticized this weakness in the scheme last week are now running to shelter because the Government has intimated, so we understand, that the bill must be passed. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) suggested that honorable members of the Opposition are perturbed because Government supporters have taken this matter up, and have cramped their style. I believe the honorable gentleman said that the Government had stolen our thunder. If he will examine the printed amendments circulated by the Opposition he will find that the proposal on this clause was decided upon before any action was taken by Government supporters, so it is logical to assume that pressure was brought to bear upon the Prime Minister by his own supporters. We have adopted the suggestion of the Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron), who appealed to honorable members on this side to co-operate with the Government.

We are offering constructive criticism of the hill with a view to improving , the scheme. But what do we find? The Treasurer sits hack and, apparently, is not prepared to accept any suggestions from this side of the chamber. The Commonwealth Year-Booh shows that there are 2,099,000 persons in the selfemployed group in the Commonwealth. The amendment has been drafted with a view to including not the whole of the people in this category, but at least some of the self-employed as well as those who have been for 104 weeks contributing to the insurance fund as employees. I fail to see how the adoption of the amendment would destroy the actuarial balance of the scheme. I appeal to the Treasurer to give further consideration to the amendment, so that even-handed justice may be meted out to the people.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

– Had this bill been drafted on a purely national .basis, there would not have been occasion for the debate which has taken place this evening. Why those people who will be affected by the amendment were not included and adequately provided for in the bill is beyond my comprehension. I have always been a strong advocate of the inclusion of the small employer and self-employed person, and I was hoping that some amendment would have been submitted to include them.

– If we are going to open the door to voluntary contributions, we should be prepared to take the risk of undulyloading employee contributors whom the honorable member and his friends say they represent in this chamber.

I have been looking for a way to provide for that important section of the community, the small employer groups. The income of many of these people is below the basic wage. I confess that I have not much faith in the soundness of voluntary proposals to relieve properly this section of the people. I say quite candidly that I do not think that the Treasurer can bring down a measure to include these people that will be acceptable to me, at all events; but I think we can provide equitable treatment for those who are unfavorably affected by this measure, by limiting their responsibility as employers. In my opinion the amendment will upset the actuarial calculations on which the soundness of this scheme depends. My experience suggests that we should not take this risk, particularly when the alternative is to increase contributions. If the bill is actuarially sound, and is based on the exclusion of voluntary contributions, it is logically impossible, without adding to the risk, to include at the same rate, a large group of citizens making voluntary contributions. The bill is bad enough in its present form; I urge honorable members not to make it worse.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- The substance of the argument of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) is that the actuarial basis of the scheme will be disturbed if the committee postpones consideration of the clause as an instruction to the Government to widen the range of voluntary insurance. I point out to the honorable gentleman that the Treasurer has already securedthe authority of the committee, re-inforced by a message from the Administrator, greatly to extend the obligations of the Crown. Therefore, from the time that this bill was introduced, we have seen its actuarial basis changed from point to point. When the Treasurer, after a series of caucus meetings, decided to frame amendments to his own bill, he found that the actuarial basis of the measure had been so disturbed as to make it imperative for him to get from the committee two appropriation resolutions in respect of the one measure.

Mr Casey:

– That does not happen to be the fact.

Mr.CURTIN.- It is a fact. When the second-reading stage had been passed, he obtained the approval of the committee to a resolution for an appropriation sufficient for the purposes of the bill as drawn. Then he prepared a list of amendments to his own bill, and because these would have involved a larger appropriation than had been provided for-

Mr Casey:

– Two of them.

Mr.CURTIN.- I do not care how the Treasurer narrows it down. The actuarial basis as originally framed has been shattered by the Minister himself, and one appropriation measure was inadequate.

– I do not know whether I am hard to understand, but that is what I am trying to do. I was pointing out that some honorable members on the other side had taken up a certain attitude during the second-reading debate, and had criticized this very clause. Now they are prepared to accept it, regardless of the hardship placed upon small farmers, business men and others. The motion by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has for its purpose the inclusion in the scheme of selfemployed persons, such as dairy-farmers, milk-vendors, small business men, auditors, &c, most of whom would like to come under it.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Auditors are included now.

Mr JAMES:

– I should be called to order if I answered the honorable member as he deserves. There is no provision made for auditors who have no permanent employers. The honorable member is the greatest hypocrite and twister in the House. The bill makes’ no provision for such self-employed persons as postal contractors, carriers, teamsters, taxi-drivers, fishermen, fruit barrowmen, hawkers and showmen, including boxers and “bone crushers “. They would like to come under the scheme, and not all of them are old or sick, or even married, and the Treasurer has suggested that only the old, the sick and the married will seek to become voluntary contributors. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) said that the purpose of the motion was to wreck the bill, but that is not true. Honorable members on this side of the chamber should be given credit for trying to improve the bill - for trying to make it a real national scheme.

– The minimum qualification under the bill is two years, and after having contributed for two years, a person has the choice of remaining a voluntary contributor or drifting right out of the scheme altogether. One such person may assume that he will remain healthy and, therefore, does not require insurance; another may be a sick man and may elect to become a voluntary contributor because he thinks he will get cheap insurance. Thus the only people who will be salvaged under this clause as drafted, are sick people who are looking for cheap insurance. Therefore; the conditions involved in the proposed amendment, which tho Treasurer contends will be fatal to the scheme, namely, that only the sick and the aged will insure voluntarily, applies with equal force to the clause as it stands at present. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) contends that it is impossible to blend a voluntary scheme with a compulsory scheme. I point out that such a blending has already been effected, because this bill contains a provision that all persons employed must remain contributors, and those who emerge from the employee class may exercise their own discretion as to whether or not they will remain in the scheme as voluntary’ contributors. Another objection raised by the honorable member for Darling Downs to the proposed amendment, is that the basis of this measure is compulsion. He asked how could an assessment be made of the voluntary contributors who would be offering for insurance if the proposed amendment were adopted. In reply, I ask the honorable member how an assessment could be made of the number of insured persons who would elect to remain as voluntary contributors under the clause as it stands. Actuarially that estimate would be just as problematical as the assessment of the number of persons who would be offering as voluntary contributors under the amendment. The honorable gentleman further questioned whether the financial stability of the scheme would be assured were the amendment adopted. Last week the honorable gentleman himself went to great pains to show that under the scheme generally there would be an enormous surplus annually, and he challenged the basis of the calculation made by the Government’s advisers in respect of the financial stability of the scheme. He suggested that this scheme is too heavily loaded with contributions and would produce an enormous annual surplus. The honorable member for Darling Downs admits that if a new bill is brought forward to cover all those classes which honorable members on this side desire to bring in under this amendment, the rate of contributions will be practically prohibitive. If the proposed amendment involves an extraordinary insurance risk because many voluntary contributors will view the scheme as a profitable investment, and as the scheme as it stands will show a huge annual surplus, then this is certainly the best opportunity to include small farmers or self-employed persons in a national insurance scheme. We should prefer to embrace them in a scheme which promises on its ‘ present basis to show an annual surplus, rather than to provide for them in a new hill by means of a purely voluntary scheme which will involve prohibitive contributions. This bill has been put forward as a health scheme, but if it is to be a health scheme in reality it should cover, not only those persons who are actually employed in industry, but also those who are competent to be so employed. One of the principal inducements held out to employers by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) in his second-reading speech-,1 as a set-off against the tax they will have to pay, was that the tax would be a profitable investment, because their employees would be kept in excellent health. If that is a good reason for taxing employers, it is an equally sound reason for providing for potential employees so that they will he in good health when they obtain employment. I have the same objection to the Government’s stand on this matter as to its refusal to cover the children of insured persons. I claim then, that any scheme that takes up a person only when he becomes a unit in industry, tackles the problem too late.

The Minister said that relief workers can come under the scheme, but the conditions covering relief workers make it virtually impossible for some of them ever to enjoy any real benefits under the scheme, as either compulsory or voluntary contributors. There are many thousands of relief workers in Sydney alone who work one week in four. If they have to contribute for 104 weeks before they can become voluntary contributors and enjoy certain other privileges, eight years will elapse before some of them will have a chance to share in the benefits of this scheme. Yet no workers are so greatly in need of a health insurance scheme as are the unemployed. Those who are least fitted to face the rigours of life are forced to maintain themselves on one week’s pay in four. They are the most underfed, the most poorly clad, and the worst housed section of the community. But if they can become voluntary contributors, the door should be left open for that to be done. If the amendment be carried, that door will be left open for them, whereas under the clause as drafted they will be excluded from the benefits of the scheme. E disagree with the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson), who suggested that acceptance of the amendment would lead to intolerable anomalies. It is ridiculous to provide that an employer of labour can be taxed to pay contributions in respect of his employees and yet be prevented from becoming a voluntary contributor in the event of his failure in business. Such a man would have paid half the insurance premiums of each of his employees, and yet be debarred from enjoying any benefits of the scheme. Last week an employer of labour told me that, although he had paid £95 a week in wages to over twenty employees, he had drawn only £3 10s. to maintain himself and his family. Had this scheme been in operation, most of his profits would have been absorbed by insurance premiums, and yet he himself would be excluded from the benefits of the scheme, ifr. Rosevear.

Mr McCALL:
Martin

.– The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) stated that any honorable member who supported the amendment would, by that action, indicate that he did not believe the promise of the Government to introduce a second insurance measure to cover self-employed persons. I do not hold that view. I accept the Government’s promise, but in my opinion such persons could easily be brought within the scope of this measure. The Government has admitted that self-employed persons should be included in a scheme of national insurance. I desire to compare the contributions. of a self-employed person, if he were provided for in this measure, with the contributions he would have to pay under the legislation which the Government has promised to introduce. At this stage, the amount which he will be called upon to pay under the promised measure cannot be accurately estimated, because we have been given no definite information regarding the Government’s intentions in respect of this section of the community. Under the bill now before us the employer will pay ls. 6d. a week, the employee will pay a similar sum, and the Government’s subvention, on a flat rate, will amount to £1,000,000 a year. It is reasonable to assume that with the same benefits under the supplementary bill a self-employed person would be called upon to pay an amount at least equal to the combined contributions of the employer and the employee under the bill now before us, namely 3s. a week. Surely it is not suggested that under the future scheme there will be no government subvention! The flat rate subvention under the present bill works out at 2-i-d. a week for each insured person. If the benefits under the supplementary bill for the self-employed person are to be the same as under this bill, it is reasonable to conclude that the contribution will be not less than about 3s. a week, and that the Government’s subvention will be at least 2£d. for each insured person. If the statements made are correct, that the majority of persons who will elect to come into the voluntary scheme will be bad risks, the Government’s subvention will have to he much greater. As apparently estimates can be made of the number of voluntary ex-employees who are likely to come under the provisions of this bill,, it should- be possible to estimate the number of self-employed persons who would come under the supplementary bill. Then I say it is possible for the Government to bring down a message from the Governor-General providing for their inclusion and increasing the Government’s subvention accordingly. In order to cover self-employed persons, it may be necessary for the Treasury to provide an additional £250,000. If some such amount will have to be provided under the promised bill, why cannot it be done under this bill? Some age limit would, of course, be necessary. The bill introduced in 19.28 by the then Acting Prime Minister, Sir Earle Page, provided for an age limit of 45 years. In a future bill it might be found that the age limit would have to be higher or lower. There would, of course, have to be a government subvention. If that would be necessary under a supplementary bill, I do not see why similar provision cannot be made in this bill. If it were provided in this bill on the same basis as it will be calculated under any future measure, in what way would it upset the actuarial basis of the legislation now under consideration ?

The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) said that no concrete proposals had been outlined by any honorable member. He asked how the selfemployed persons would be policed, if included in this measure.

Mr Lazzarini:

– They would police themselves.

Mr McCALL:

– Of course they would. I ask the honorable member for Wentworth how he thinks the commission which is to be set up under this legislation would police the employee who becomes a voluntary contributor. I submit that he would police himself. He would go to the nearest post office and purchase stamps to the amount of the payment required. If he did not make the necessary contributions he would automatically drop out of the scheme. The ex-employee who elected voluntarily to be included in the scheme would be induced to stay in it because of the fact that he had made 104 contributions. If, however, he dropped out of the scheme, because of an increase of his income, or a decision to become self-employed, or on account of unemployment,, he would still have to make his payments. Therefore, the argument advanced by the honorable member for Wentworth falls to the ground.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) stated that the voluntary insurance phase of the French scheme had been a failure. That scheme operated from 1930 to 1935, during which period France passed through the worst economic crisis in its history. It is only reasonable to expect that a voluntary insurance scheme would break down under such conditions.

I am not convinced that provision for self-employed persons cannot be made in this measure. It may take more time, and it may delay the passage of the bill, but a matter of this importance would justify the delay. I am most concerned that no intimation has been given to the committee of what lines the supplementary bill will follow. I believe that that could be done by the actuaries who have laid the basis of the present scheme. If the supplementary hill comes before Parliament and we decide that the contributions are too large, or that it does not provide for these people as we think it should, we shall then have to act as we might think proper at the time. For those reasons I should like to see the amendment incorporated in this bill.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– Before I try to reply to some of the contradictory remarks made by honorable members, I should like to draw attention to what is to me a most disheartening feature of the attitude to this measure. When the Government talked about introducing this legislation, it did so because of an urge from Geneva, and because of the reports of delegates who had attended conferences there. The urge was to spread and enlarge the field of social legislation, which was meant to raise the physical and economic standards of the people. It was not a question of minute actuarial calculation; it was a question of Australia advancing into line with other countries, after having been behind them for many years in social legislation. Every week we receive a report from Geneva showing that other countries are passing new and amending social legislation. The lust one that I received last week dealt with a poor and small country, with a population no larger than Australia - Yugoslavia. The scheme there has many better features than the one before us; it is more comprehensive, and it willbe no more expensive. My disappointment is because the committee, in discussing the bill, seems to have forgotten the fundamental requirements. Hearing one member after another telling the Government how to make the scheme more secure by getting rid of the dangerous risks and selecting the good ones, one would think that the discussion was taking place at a meeting of aboard of directors of an insurance company, or of a board of directors associated with a money-lending scheme. We are losing sight of the purpose of national insurance. I have read probably more than any other member of this committee about schemes of insurance passed in other parts of the world, and about amendments of schemes previously in operation. I admit that most of those schemes are not of a national character - that is to say, they are not run by the government of the country- concerned. They are either associated with groups of industries, or are run by municipalities or groups of employers, but they are more complete, they provide more safeguards, and they give larger and greater benefits to the people than the scheme now before us proposes. Every scheme in existence is a three-party scheme, which means that the Government stands behind it. The government concerned never did, and never will be able to calculate accurately all the losses and to estimate exactly the amount of money required. In all the schemes of which I have read it is mandatory for the Government to determine from time to time what its quota shall be in order to keep the scheme solvent. There is no fixed amount of government contribution. The Government may, from time to time, add to its subvention to meet the effects of bad seasons, depressions, and the like. It is impossible to calculate such things on a purely actuarial basis. I am disappointed very much at the turn the discussion has taken, and I believe that the people of Australia will be dissatisfied too. They believed, when the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) introduced the bill, that it was meant to be what he said it would be - something that would add to their economic security, something that would raise their standard of living and improve them physically, mentally and economically, both in their early years and in their old-age. But the bill does not mean that at all, according to the calculations made to-night. Having said that, and having expressed my disappointment, I should like to refer to two or three statements that have been made.

I think that the two most constructive speeches were made by the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden). They were both keenly critical and full of constructive arguments, but, even in them, there was a glaring inconsistency. In the first speech, he criticized the whole scheme and the Government’s outlook, and charged the Government with being too pessimistic. He showed, successfully, that the £10,000,000 budgeted for was in excess of what he considered would.be the requirements. He pointed out that the Government was too careful, and was either charging too much or giving too little Very cleverly and constructively, he backed up every suggestion, and proved to his own satisfaction, and to mine, that the Government had been too cautious and had made too sure of having surplus money to play with. To-night, he struck an entirely different note. He said we must be very careful and must work out the calculations exactly, and he tried to show that we could not include too many self-employed persons. He said that provision for both voluntary and compulsory contributors could not be included in the same bill. When answered on that point, he admitted that we are already, in this bill, grouping together compulsory and voluntary insurance; but he never, and neither did the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), explain why the two classes were not included in the scheme in its original form.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member know any country that has successfully grouped them together?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I know as much about schemes in other countries as the honorable member. I have read them and pondered them so much that I am sick and tired of them. Some one has said that there would be difficulty in policing the voluntary contributors. I answer that by saying that history and experience show that we have had to employ highly-paid inspectors, and we have had to invoke the aid of the police in order to enforce arbitrary law-made agreements. There is not half the difficulty in policing voluntary arbitration agreements as there is in policing compulsory awards.

Mr McCall:

– The friendly societies are also an admirable example of the success of voluntary schemes.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I agree with the honorable member. Friendly societies are established on the same basis as I would have for the voluntary contributions under this bill, that is to say, if contributions are paid up, the benefits of membership accrue to the member, but, if they are not, the member’s name is removed from the list. Members of friendly societies penalize themselves; they do not have to be policed. The same state of affairs would exist in respect of this bill if my amendment were carried. There is no reason why this bill should not be extended in its scope in the direction that I desire; already it makes provision for not only compulsory, but also voluntary contributions. The Treasurer said that that was partly so, but added that the Government under this bill had selected the safest and strongest classes to enjoy the right to make voluntary contributions. This bill, therefore, was introduced to help, not the sick and needy, but those who least need it. That is a contradiction of the fundamental principle of national health insurance - assistance to those who most need it. The only inference that can be drawn from the Treasurer’s remark is this: “We are taking the best risks in under this bill, and the worst risks will be covered in legislation to be introduced later”. If it is impossible for the Government, with the help of all the contributions of the com pulsorily insured persons, who are the best risks, to accept more voluntary contributors, how will it be possible for it to introduce another scheme, which will not have that backing, to take in the worst risks amongst voluntary contributors? Honorable members who are pinning their faith to the assurance given by the Treasurer, that supplementary legislation will be introduced, should give close attention to that phase of the matter.

From what I have been told of the ability of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) I have the greatest respect for him. He has reached a high place in his profession, and has an aptitude for mathematics. I remember that the honorable gentleman cited figures to show that a gigantic surplus was to be accumulated in the national insurance funds. Yet, to-night, he advanced the theory that if the classes of persons to whom I have referred were included as voluntary contributors, the whole scheme might be thrown out of balance. After having forecast that the fund would have a huge surplus, the honorable member is now of the opinion that, if more voluntary contributors than are already provided for in this bill came under the scheme, the fund would not be able to remain solvent. He would, he said, pin his faith to the supplementary bill which will introduce a scheme to cover all the worst risks, which will not have the backing of the contributions from the best risks.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden), in justification of his decision to await a further bill which will, we are assured by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), cover such persons as have been mentioned by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), said that if the clause were left as printed only a few voluntary contributors would come within the scheme.Does the honorable member know how many?

Mr Fadden:

– No.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Nor do we! One class of voluntary contributors already provided for in this bill has escaped the attention of the committee; I refer to women who, after having contributed on a compulsory basis, elect, when the compulsion disappears, to continue their membership of the scheme on a voluntary basis. I dare say that the time will arrive when two-thirds of the married women of Australia will be voluntary contributors to the national insurance scheme as it is proposed to-day. I have no statistics, but my wide experience of the country suggests that from two to seven years after taking jobs, girls, who, by reason of their employment, will be compelled to contribute to the fund, will marry. Under this bill every one of them will be entitled to make voluntary contributions to continue their membership of the insurance scheme. In justification of their opposition to the amendment the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) and the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) declared that we could not have two schemes, one compulsory and the other voluntary, running together, but - 1 point out that eventually about half of the adult population of Australia will enjoy the privileges of national insurance as voluntary contributors. That destroys the validity of their arguments.

I was astounded at the cold-blooded manner in which the Treasurer spoke. Before the elections he and his colleagues told the electors of what they were going to do for humanity by introducing a national insurance measure which would provide for all the people. The failure of the Government to carry out that pledge reminds me- of the fact that whereas, when our soldiers were going to the Great War, they were told that on their return, they would have everything that the country could give to them, actually every concession to them was measured with miserly care. Before the elections, ministerial supporters told the people that they were to be given health insurance which would cover everybody. Now they are telling the people that, like the insurance companies, they can take only the best risks.

Mr Casey:

– We told the country that we should do exactly as we are now doing.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Nothing of the sort. I can bring to this chamber the pamphlets that were issued and fling them in the honorable member’s teeth. The Treasurer to-night was like a butcher weighing a bullock to see how much meat and profit it would yield. His statements were not humane, but cold-blooded commercialism, and showed no consideration for the sick and unfortunate. The Treasurer’s attitude is that he should go through the people like a drover, draft out the good lives, and throw the others aside to die. Honorable members opposite are steeped in the psychology of commercialism and profit. Not even in a measure which purports to be humane can they take any other attitude. I rose also for the purpose of expressing amazement at the way honorable gentlemen opposite have handled this question. I regret that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) is not in the chamber. The honorable gentleman said that he approved of the whole of the proposal. Of course, he did! He has been whining “ national insurance “ all over the country, and has built his political career on it. He attends mothers’ meetings and discusses at. length the advantages of a comprehensive national insurance scheme, . but in this chamber he declines to support those whose claims he is alleged to advocate. He is the biggest political humbug and hypocrite in the Parliament.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– ‘Order! I ask the honorable member to discuss the clause.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I am referring to the honorable member for Parramatta, who has stated from time to time that he is anxious to assist all those whom the honorable member for Melbourne Ports wishes to include in this bill, but when he has the opportunity to do so he declines.

.- lt is with some diffidence that I rise to support the proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), because I have already condemned the bill and stated in the strongest language which I can command that it has no virtues. I believe that the most fortunate persons in Australia will be those who will be excluded from its provisions, but if there are any who think that some benefits can be obtained by coming under the scheme, we shall be acting unfairly if we exclude them. During the election campaign, and also during the speeches on the motion for the second reading, we were told that the object of the bill is to help that unfortunate section which is unable to help itself; but the members of the Labour party firmly believe that the bill has been introduced to relieve the wealthy section of the community of the responsibility which it is now called upon to accept in providing social services for the Australian people. We further said that this is not a national insurance scheme. If the Treasurer brings down a further measure to cover another section of the community who are not provided for in this measure and who he says will include the worst insurance risks, there will be a number of insurance schemes providing uniform benefits, but in respect of which the people will be making disproportionate contributions. ‘The members of the Country party contend that many primary producers who will get no benefits from the scheme will have smaller incomes than their employees in respect of whom they will be contributing to the fund, but when we ask the members of that party to support a proposal under which primary producers can come into the scheme as voluntary contributors, they shelter themselves behind the promise of the Treasurer that supplementary legislation to cover this section will be introduced at a later date. The supporters of the Government admit that it is proposed to include only the best insurance risks in this scheme, and, therefore, the worst insurance risks will be included in a supplementary proposal. Those who come in on a voluntary basis under the supplementary legislation will be compelled to pay higher contributions than insured persons under this scheme. Can the members of the Country party justify their action in this regard? The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) is the only member of the Country party who has been consistent in expressing the view of the country people. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) referred somewhat extensively to the actuarial position. I have heard a good deal about actuaries’ and about figures, but I do not know that figures in this instance prove a great deal, particularly when handled by unscrupulous individuals. It has also been said that “ figures can’t lie, but liars can figure “. When we examine the figures that have been put forward there is evidence of the fact that liars can figure. The honorable member for Darling Downs, when speaking earlier, said that the actuaries had failed to fix a contribution in keeping with the benefits which insured persons would receive, that the contributions had been based on too high a level, and that the Government would build up an enormous surplus. The honorable member now says that the actuarial calculations cannot be interfered with, and that the small farmers, although they are recognized by Government supporters as among the worst insurance risks, should come in under some other scheme under which they will have to pay higher contributions than will be required under this bill. As a matter of fact, the honorable member for Darling Downs said that if the scheme were widened to include small primary producers and other small self-employed persons, the workers would have to pay a higher contribution, otherwise the scheme would be actuarially unsound. If his previous statement that contributions have been fixed on too high a scale, is correct then it must be possible to bring in additional classes, even if they are “bad insurance risks”, without increasing the contributions. Another honorable member said that any interference with the actuarial basis of the scheme would jeopardize the position of those who would come in at sixteen years of age, because there would be no guarantee that when they reached the age of 65 years they would receive benefits to which they would be entitled and for which they had contributed all their lives. There is no guarantee that the scheme will be able to do all that is claimed for it. The Government itself does not guarantee the solvency of the fund out of which payments are to be made. The actuaries who fixed the contributions were necessarily obliged to base their calculations on the available data and they were not able to say what calls would be made upon the fund in the future. I notice that in another part of the bill there is provision that persons who served in the military or naval forces will be relieved of the necessity to make contributions to the fund. That opens up a wide possibility, which I think should be considered. What will happen to the fund if, unfortunately, Australia becomes involved in another war, and large numbers of workers, who will be contributors to this scheme, are called up for naval and military service? The bill provides that they will be relieved of contributions to the fund, the soundness of which will therefore be affected. This reinforces my contention that the scheme is weak in that the Government does not guarantee the solvency of the fund, and the actuaries have had to depend upon the available data and cannot say definitely what calls will be made upon the fund in the future.

Let me examine the attitude of Ministers and some Government supporters. The Treasurer, when introducing the bill, said the intention was to place on the statute-book a scheme giving ample insurance cover for employees in the Commonwealth against certain contingencies. But what does the honorable gentleman now propose? He proposes a scheme entirely different from that which the Government promised the people at the general elections and upon which the actuaries based their calculations. His changed attitude shows conclusively that the Government’s purpose was to relieve its wealthy friends of the responsibility to provide, by way of direct taxes, the funds necessary for a full range of social services in this country. I have had some doubt as to my attitude to the proposal, because I recognize that benefits will be given to only a small proportion of those who will be covered by this scheme. I put it to the Government that if it is right to argue that the widening of the field of insured persons will increase the appropriation, it is equally right to contend that a reduction of the number to be covered by the scheme will reduce the amount of the appropriation. I suggest that instead of compelling workers, the great majority of whom do notwant to be covered by the scheme, to contribute to the fund, the Government should allow them to be excluded, and allow small farmers and other rural selfemployed persons, a great many of whom it is said by the Government supporters desire to be covered, to be included. If the workers were given the opportunity to express their opinion of the scheme they would tell the Government in no uncertain terms that they do not want to he included in it. It will satisfy nobody, because it includes workers who do not want the protectionwhich this Government says it is going to give them. They know, from bitter experience, that when this Government talks about bestowing benefits on the workers their position will as the result of such legislation be worse than ever it was. If members of the Country party are consistent, and want to have included in the scheme their small farmer friends, for whose welfare they say they are so much concerned, let them now vote for the amendment. I well recollect members of the Country party on other occasions making excuses in this Parliament for speaking in favour of a certain course, and. then voting against it. No doubt they will do the same in connexion with this scheme. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) is the exception. It is refreshing to hear a member of the Country party vote in accordance with his declared convictions. Up to the present, at all events, that honorable gentleman has not been side-tracked by promises of Cabinet rank, like the honorable member for Wentworth-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Nairn:

-Order! The honorable member must not discuss the motives actuating the honorable member for Wimmera or any other honorable member.

Mr WARD:

-I have said all that I desire to say about the honorable member for Wimmera. The Government, as I have said, is encountering many difficulties in connexion with this scheme. Take, for instance, the attitude of the British Medical Association to the per capita payment of11s. The Treasurer made certain promises which members of the British Medical Association are not prepared to accept because they cannot depend on the word of the Treasurer.

Mr Casey:

– On a point of order I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I was not observing what the honorable member for East Sydney said.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– If the Chair had been listening it would have heard him.

Mr Casey:

– The honorable member for East Sydney said that my promise to the British Medical Association was not dependable; that remark is offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.I regret that I did not hear the remark.

Mr WARD:

– What I said was that members of the British Medical Association were not prepared to accept an assurance by the Treasurer, and some of them informed me that they could not accept his word because they could not depend upon it. And that is the attitude of the people generally, and the workers in particular who will be compelled to contribute to the fund. I ask honorable members not to accept any promise which the Government may give. The Ministry has proved that its word cannot be depended upon. If honorable members wish to do the right thing by their constituents they will vote for the amendment.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I am not opposed to the principle contained in the clause, on which an amendment has been moved. Employee contributors, who later become employers, should have an opportunity to continue asvoluntary contributors if they wish to do so. The suggestion has been made that the scheme should be extended to embrace small primary producers and other selfemployed persons, but I do not consider that it would be right to require the farmers in this class, who probably have lower incomes than the average employed person, to make a double contribution. I suggested on a previous occasion that if the Government paid one of the contributions required of small self-employed persons, no grave injustice would be done to the taxpayers. No section of the community is in greater need of insurance and medical attention than are the small primary producers. Efforts have been made from time to time to induce the Government to bring them within the scope of the scheme on an equitable voluntary basis, and the suggestion is now made that, if this clause were postponed, it might be possible to devise a scheme in their interests. It has been said that members of the committee who favour such a proposal will indicate that they do not trust the Treasurer, who has undertaken to safeguard the interests of these producers under the second bill, which is to be introduced shortly. I do not subscribe to that view. I accept the assurance given by the Minister, although he has not given all of the information for which I had hoped. I realize that actuarial calculations are necessary, hut the scheme has been under consideration by the Government for a long period. Every effort should he made to provide insurance and medical, benefits for country dwellers, who do not enjoy the amenities of city life. They are heavily taxed to provide benefits for city workers. The farmer and the members of his family find it necessary to work for very long hours, and they have few, if any, holidays. I should like definite information regarding the benefits proposed to be given to this class under the measure to be introduced in the near future. I do not expect the Treasurer to furnish full details, but the committee is certainly entitled to more information than it has at the present time. The unhatched egg which the small farmers are promised may prove to be addled. I am inclined to support the amendment of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports so that my vote may be consistent with my speech on the second reading of the bill. I hope £hat, before long, the Treasurer will be able to give honorable members some details of the supplementary bill which, we have been assured, will be introduced to cover primary producers and other self-employed persons in a voluntary scheme.

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- The proposal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) is sound, and is in accordance with the views expressed by most honorable members during the debate on the second reading of the bill. One speaker after the other protested” against the exclusion of certain groups of persons whom the honorable member for Melbourne Ports now proposes should be brought into the scheme. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) stated that it would be necessary to introduce a new bill to provide for these groups, because it would be difficult to collect their contributions if they were included in this measure. I submit that there would be no difficulty if the contributions were collected by approved societies. I have great respect for the friendly societies, recognizing as I do the wonderful work they have performed in Australia during the last 50 years, and 1 am convinced that they would continue to do good work under this scheme if given the opportunity. The actuarial objections which the Treasurer advanced as reasons for not including these new groups in the present bill would, in fact, be much stronger if they were included in the separate measure. The purpose of the amendment is to enable unemployed and self-employed persons to become voluntary contributors. Those are the persons who, before all others, are entitled to the benefits of an insurance scheme. For that reason, I believe that the clause should be postponed so that the Treasurer and his actuaries may give the matter further consideration. It is claimed that the scheme, as it now stands, will affect 1,850,000 persons. Are we to assume that, if the number who actually come under it is, say, only 1,400,000 the scheme will be actuarially unsound, and will break down? If that is so, then the inclusion of these additional groups of persons, as suggested by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, would help to make the scheme financially sound.

Question put -

That the clause be postponed (Mr. Hollo- way’s amendment) .

The committee divided. (Ch airman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 34

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1965

ADJOURNMENT

National Insurance Legislation

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– In an answer which he gave to a question asked by me yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), in effect, challenged my veracity. I asked the right honorable gentleman whether he had made a statement, reported in the press, that he would not put through the National Health and Pensions Insurance Billuntil the senators-elect had taken their seats. The Prime Minister replied that he did not make that statement.I now draw his attention to the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald of the 28th January, 1938, published a report of an interview with him concerning the mortgage bank and health insurance proposals. The right honorable gentleman concluded that interview by saying -

No effort would be made to rush either measure through before the new senators assumed office. Both measures were so important that the Ministry believed that every section of both Houses should have an opportunity of expressing its views.

In view of that report, I submit, my question was warranted, and I was justified in inferring from theright honorable gentleman’s statement, as reported in the press, that there was no intention to put this legislation through this chamber until the senators-elect took their seats.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

. -in reply - The honorable gentleman has just made a statement which is not in line with the question he asked. He has quoted my words that no effort would be made to rush legislation through this chamber, and that each chamber was entitled to an opportunity to discuss this legislation fully.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The right honorable gentleman said the new senators.

Mr LYONS:

– I did not say the new senators.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Well, why refer to them?

Mr LYONS:

– I said both chambers. In order to make the position clear I shall read the question asked yesterday by the honorable member. It was as follows -

Does the Prime Minister adhere to his statement that on no consideration will he allow legislation like the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill to be disposed of before the meeting of the reconstituted Senate after the election?

I repeat now that I never made such a statement. My reply to the honorable member was what I said to the press - that no effort would be made to force any legislation through and that every opportunity would be given for the discussion of this particular measure. That opportunity is being given now. Parliament was called together to deal with legislation ; legislation has not been rushed, nor was the assembling of Parliament rushed either. The statement I made to the press was that no effort would be made to rush through either of the measures mentioned before the new senators assumed office. I repeat that we are not attempting to rush legislation through. The Senate, as it is at present constituted, remains until the 30th June, and it is there to deal with legislation. Further than that we have launched legislation in the Senate as now constituted, and a bill which has already passed the Senate is awaiting consideration in this chamber. I challenge any unbiased person to interpret my statement to mean that I was going to hold up legislation here until the senators-elect took their seats. That is absolutely a biased interpretation of my statement. The honorable member is concerned at the possibility of this bill passing through this chamber and going to the present Senate. In the normal course of events, it will go there. The Government will make no special effort to force it through before the Senate is reconstituted, but, if an attempt be made to prolong discussion here unnecessarily, my undertaking will be withdrawn. I say, advisedly, that while the Government does not intend to prevent full and complete discussion of the bill, it is prepared to prevent any attempt at stone-walling in order to delay the sending of the bill to the Senate in the ordinary course of events. I repeat what I said yesterday, that I made no such statement as was included in the question of the honorable member. The quotation from the press makes that clear.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1966

QUESTION

ANSWERS TOQUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Defence: Placingof Orders with Railway Workshops.

With reference to the undertaking given to the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) by the Prime Minister earlier in these sittings regarding the placing of trial orders for defence requirements with State railway workshops, have any orders been so placed, and, if so, what is the extent of those orders?

The Government’s programme of industrial organization for an emergency includes the provision of armament annexes at selected establishments. Inquiries as to the assistance which might be forthcoming from railway workshops are nearing completion, and, as soon as finality is reached, the whole question of munition manufacture will be the subject of reports from the Advisory Panel of Industrialists, and also departmental experts. The Government, on receipt of these reports and after a decision thereon, will announce the action it proposes to take.

Tasmanian Paper Project: Tariff Board Report

Has he received the report of the Tariff Board on the Tasmanian paper project?
When will the report be tabled?
Can he indicate whether the report favours the undertaking?

Yes.
I am not yet in a position to state when the report will be tabled.
It is not the practice to divulge the nature of the Tariff Board’s recommendation prior to the Government reaching a decision on the matter.

Importation of Motor Boats

How many motor boats known as “ Criss Craft “ have been imported into Australia during the past twelve months?
How many motor boats of all descriptions have been imported?
What rate of duty was paid on ‘such craft ?
Is the present rate of duty sufficient to protect this industry in Australia?

Wireless Broadcasting : Listeners’ LicenceFee.

In view of the big surplus disclosed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s report and balance-sheet, will the Government make a recommendation to the commission that listeners’ licence fees be substantially reduced?

The question of broadcast listeners’ licence fees does not directly concern the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is, however, unlikely that any change will bemade in the fee at present.

In thescheme of national insurance, is it a fact that the lapsed contributions, particularly of single women on marriage, will help to provide the stability of a compulsory fund, and, if so, to what likely extent?
Willhe supplythe House with the British figures showing to what extent the Compulsory Fund is enhanced by the lapsed contributions of women and the lapsed contributions of men as against the total figures of men and women in the scheme?

Mr.Casey. - As the National Insurance Bill is before the Parliament, I think it is more appropriate that questions in this regard should be discussed on the measure.

Canberra : Building Plan - Australian War Memorial - Housing

How many alterations have been made in the layout of the city of Canberra and environs since the 19th November, 1925, showing (a) number yearly, (b) date gazetted, and (c) date laid on the table of the House?

Has the Australian War Memorial at Mount Ainslie, Canberra, been built as originally planned and to a correct alignment, or is it a fact that it hasbeen built with one endfacing Parliament House instead of the front of the building facing Parliament House?

The building has been laid out on the axial line from Capitol Hill passing through the centre of Parliament House to Mount Ainslie in accordance with the scheme recommended by the Public Works Committee and adopted by Parliament. The front of the building faces Parliament House.

What number of (a) permanent officials, and (b) other persons, in Canberra have applied to the department and are waiting forhouses to be built?
What is the location of the available building blocks in Canberra?
What conditions are imposed in making building blocks available?
What is the rental price of the blocks?
What is the term of leases?

The information desired by the honorable member is as follows: - 1. (a) 23; (b) 302. Probably an additional 80 houses will be required to meet the transfer of the Base Records, Department of Defence, to Canberra, and alsoto provide for the personnel of the national insurance.

The location of the available building blocks in Canberraon which houses can be immediately constructed, comprise the Ainslie subdivision, principally to the north and east of Wakefield Gardens - 131 blocks,15 blocks in Reid and Braddon, 153 blocks east of Captain Cook-crescent and south of Canberraavenue in the subdivision of Griffith, 20 blocks in Collins Park, and 39 blocks in the Deakin subdivision. Other areas adjacent to Ainslie and in the Turner and Kingston suburbs are being developed for residential purposes.
Building blocks are made available to the public under the City Area Leases Ordinance 1936. The document of lease provides that the lessee must commence the erection of a residence (with the necessary and usualout-buildings and fences) complying with the building covenant for the block, within a specified time. The buildings and out-buildings must be in accordance with the building regulations.
The rental price of the blocks is governed by their valuation. The assessed value is controlled by the location, condition and size. Under the City Area Leases Ordinance5 per cent. of the assessed valuation (reduced to 4 per cent. until the 30th June, 1941) is the basis of rental.
The term of the lease under the Ci ty Area Leases Ordinance 1936 is for99 years. The rental is subject to re-appraisement every twenty years. The lessee has tenant rights in the improvements on the block.

Federal Capital Territory

What was the total expenditure on the Federal Capital Territory, exclusive of Jervis Bay, to the 20th June, 1937, under the following headings.: - (a) Lands; (b) engineering works; (c) architectural works; (d) other capital expenditure; and (e) maintenance and administration?
What were the total receipts to the 30th June, 1937, and what was the total net expenditure?
What was the expenditure on the Federal Territory at Jervis Bay up to the date mentioned ?
What is the estimated value of the accumulated assets of the Federal Capital Territory?

The information desired by the honorable member is as follows : - 1 . (a) £905,247 4s.11d.; (b) £3,900,033 6s. 10d.; (c) £4,581,9511s. 8d.; (d) £1,172,694 4s.6d.; total, £10,619,925 17s.11d.; (c) f 7,535, 764 19s.5d.; grand total, £18,155,690 17s. 4d.

(a). Total receipts to the 30th June. 1937, £3,180,546 10s. 4d.; (b) total net expenditure to the 30th June, 1937, £14,975,144 7s.
£365,000.
£10,500,000.

Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited: Applications for Employment

House adjourned at 11.41 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 June 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380608_reps_15_156/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 8 June 1938

QUESTION

SUBSIDIZED SHIPPING IN THE PACIFIC

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

QUESTION

ASSISTANT TRADE COMMISSIONERS IN THE EAST

Mr STREET:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

TRANS-TASMAN AIR-MAIL SERVICE

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr THORBY:Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR-MAIL SERVICE

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THORBY:CP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

OTTAWA AGREEMENT REVISION

Mr ROSEVEAR:DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

TASMANIAN APPLE TRADE

Mr FROST:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

QUESTION

PORTFOLIO OF POSTMASTERGENERAL

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McCALL:

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr McCALL:

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYED AT DARWIN

Mr McEWEN:Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

SHIPPING SERVICE TO THE FAR EAST

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

QUESTION

SENATOR SIR GEORGE PEARCE

Mr BEASLEY:

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

OFFER OF AEROPLANE

Mr JENNINGS:WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

CANBERRA HIGH . SCHOOL

Mr McEWEN:CP

Sir CHARLES MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:

Sir CHARLES MARR:

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir CHARLES MARR:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

POSTAL FINANCE

Mr HARRISON:

Mr PERKINS:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:

QUESTION

FLYING SCHOOL AT BRISBANE

Mr JOLLY:LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr THORBY:CP

QUESTION

MIGRATION POLICY

Sir HENRY GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

FORMAL MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT

Mr STACEY:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF PEDIGREED STOCK

House of Representatives
8 June 1938

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr THORBY:
CP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FROST:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr THORBY:
CP

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro- Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Eden · UAP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin