House of Representatives
14 September 1939

15th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 548

LEADER OF THE COUNTRY PARTY

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I desire to inform the House that I have resigned from the position of Leader of the Country party. I take this opportunity to congratulate my successor, to whom I offer my best wishes for a long and successful term of office. I thank honorable members of all parties for the courtesy and assistance they have extended to me throughout the nineteen years that I have had the honour to lead this party.

Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON (Barker).I wish to inform the House that I have been elected Leader of the Australian Country party. While I do not by any means suggest that I shall be able to do the things that my predecessor has done during his political’ career, I shall try, while I hold this position, to do the best I can.

Mr CURTIN:
leader of thu Opposition · Fremantle

by leave - I thought the Prime Minister might rise to say something on this subject, but as Leader of the Opposition I wish to express my regret for personal reasons, and quite regardless of recent political events, that the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has retired from the position of Leader of the Country party, in which he has been able to play a very conspicuous part in the deliberations of this House and in the service of Australia. “Whatever I may think about the Country party and its policies - I feel that on some occasions it is due to ourselves, and also to the country, that we should refer to our official relations - the right honorable member for Cowper has held the position which he is now vacating for more than nineteen years and I do not think I should allow the occasion to pass without saying that we have had, throughout those years, the utmost courtesy from him in cnr official relations. I feel that I can speak for my predecessors in this respect. The right honorable gentleman is terminating his period of office without leaving behind him any ill-will so far as I am concerned. I have admiration for the great work that he has done. His own supporters will be the best judges of the value of his services to the Country party, but I think it can be said that his work in this Parliament has been indeed notable.

I now take the opportunity to congratulate his successor upon his elevation to the position of leadership. I assure the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that, apart from the occasions when I suspect it will be my duty to oppose him most strenuously, I shall extend to him. to the utmost of my ability, the same consideration and courtesy that I have always endeavoured to extend to his predecessor.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · UAP

by leave - I had thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) was rising to ask a question. However, I take this opportunity to associate myself with his remarks. Honorable members ave well aware that my own relations with the former leader of tho Country party (Sir Earle Page ) have been affected of late by certain incidents to which I need not refer; but I have been in this Parliament long enough, and was in Cabinet long enough, with the right honorable gentleman to realize that he has in fact rendered very great public service to Australia, and particularly to its rural industries. I should be blinded indeed by other events if I did not recognize clearly that this is so, and if I did not say so unhesitatingly. I do not think that any man can serve Australia, particularly as the leader of a great political party, for a great number of years, without placing the public under obligations to him. These are matters which we are a little inclined to forget from time to time, but they show the creditable capacity of the country for securing self-sacrificing public service.

I also associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to the new Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron). Like .myself, he has most of his difficulties in front of him, but he will, no doubt, attack them with the vigour and competence that we are accustomed to expect from him.

page 549

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT POOL

Mr SCULLY:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer to an announcement that has been made that the Australian Wheat Pool that has recently been formed will acquire all the wheat grown in Australia and that it is contemplated that an advance of ls. a bushel will be made to each farmer as soon as the pool acquires his harvest. I ask the Prime Minister whether, taking into consideration the financial position of the wheat-growers, he will sec that a maximum first payment of possibly not. less than 2s. a bushel is made to the fanners?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– That matter is under consideration at present by the Minister for Commerce and a pronouncement will be made shortly.

Later:

Mr SCULLY:

– With reference to the recent establishment of a Commonwealth wheat pool, in which the greater portion of the representation is given to members of major speculating firms, both Australian and international, will the Minister representing the Minister foi Commerce recommend the advisability of adding to that control board representatives of the wheat-growing unions of the various States of the Commonwealth, and also of other wheat-growing organizations, in order to establish a. better balance of representation ?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Minister for Health · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– It is quite incorrect to suggest that the board is not fully representative of the interests which the honorable member for Gwydir purports to serve. All interests are represented, and certainly the growers have their full proportion of representation.

page 550

QUESTION

FLAX INDUSTRY

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I am in receipt of a letter from a representative of ‘ the flax industry of Queensland asking me to inquire from the Prime Minister whether Australia’s flax fibre is likely to be controlled by the Government during this war, as was the case during the last World War. Is the right honorable gentleman able to give me any information on this subject?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I shall look into the matter and reply to the honorable gentleman’s question as soon as possible.

page 550

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIRMAIL SURCHARGE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– A constituent of mine has written me a letter concerning the increase of surcharge on airmail for overseas. My friend intimated that the increase was from 5d. to ls. 6d. a halfounce and that it represented an. advance of 260 per cent. He suggests that this looks like profiteering. In view of the declared intention of the Government, to prevent profiteering by either public companies or private persons, I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether he will make an inquiry into this increased surcharge. It certainly looks like profiteering.

Mr HARRISON:
Minister for Repatriation · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I refer the honorable member to a question which was answered by me on this subject in the House last week following a statement made by the Prime Minister, who pointed out that the increased surcharge was necessary because of the restricted air-mail service now operating between. Australia and England. He added that it was intended to discourage an undue increase of overseas airmail matter as larger mails obviously could not be carried in consequence of the restricted service.

page 550

QUESTION

TINNED PLATE

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether Cabinet has considered the report of the Tariff Board on the proposed establishment of the tinned plate industry? If so, has any* decision been reached and when will the report be tabled?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The report is stall under consideration, but I hope that it will be possible to table it at an early date.

page 550

QUESTION

RELEASE OF INTERNEE

Mr CURTIN:

– Is it a fact that the Prime Minister took some action which resulted in a telegram being received by the Second Military District, Sydney,, from Army Head-quarters, Melbourne, on the 5th September, to the effect that the Prime Minister directed that So-and-so - I have mentioned the name of the person to the Prime Minister - was to be released from internment immediately?1 Is it a fact that at the time this order was received the man’s dossier had not been, called for, was still in Sydney, and had never been seen by the Prime Minister, or the Minister for Defence, and that the dossier was called for two or three days later and sent to Melbourne? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister had thus ordered the release of this man allegedly known to the military and the police or a dangerous enemy agent, without having troubled, in advance, to see what the evidence was ? If the answer to the question, or to some parts of it, is affirmative, will the Prime Minister tell the House why the order was sent without the dossier having been seen?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– The Leader of the Opposition was good enough to mention the name of this internee to me. The position is, that after this man had been interned, I received a telegram from the company, of which he was, I think, managing director. That company is a very large concern with the nationality of a friendly power, and, as I had actually met this man once or twice and knew this big concern very well, I indicated to the Minister for Defence that inquiries should be made to see whether any mistake had been made. That was the only action I took. I gave no order. I understand an inquiry was put in hand, and that, for a time at least, the internee was released from internment, but as to what happened subsequently I cannot speak. All that I did in the matter -was to suggest an inquiry, having regard to the nationality of the firm with which the man was connected, and the possibility that a mistake had been made. Perhaps my colleague, the Minister for Defence, can throw some light on what happened subsequently.

Mr Curtin:

– Was the man reinterned?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP

– Supplementing what the Prime Ministerhas said, on the receipt of a telegram, I asked that inquiries be made to substantiate the nationality, in the first place, of the individual concerned, in Order that the dossier might be examined.I understand that the individual was released and that he was subsequently reinterned and is now in an internment camp.

page 551

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA

Site of Proposed New Capital

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I ask the Minister in charge of External Territories whether. a site has been selected for the proposed new capital of New Guinea?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio administering External Territories · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– No. I direct the attention of the honorable member to the report on that matter which was tabled a couple of days ago.

page 551

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister been invited to a demonstration of pensioners at Sydney Domain on the 24th September next with a view to the increase of the invalid and old-age pension to £1 10s. a week? Does the Government intend to increase pensions to that amount this year?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– The answer to the first part of the honorable gentleman’s question is “ no “ ; and the answer to the second part of the honorable gentleman’s question is “no”.

page 551

QUESTION

STOCKS OF GOODS

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– What action has been taken by the Minister for Trade and Customs to keep a check on firms which are refusing to supply orders on the ground that goods are not in stock?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Any complaints of that character, if they are forwarded to the Commonwealth Price Commissioner, will be fully investigated.

page 551

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRONOUNCEMENTS

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the press report correct that the Prime Minister intends to give a national broadcast concerning the Government’s policy in connexion with the Militia Forces? If it be correct does the right honorable gentleman not think that he owes it to this Parliament to make such a statement to this House in the first place?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– My practice on these matters has been that if there is some statement that can be made when the House is sitting, I make it in the House. If the statement relates to matters, the complete preparation of which is not possible when the House is sitting, and if the matter concerned is one of urgency, my policy has been to broadcast it. I propose to continue that practice.

page 552

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CARS

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it still the policy of this Government to bring about the complete manufacture of motor vehicles in Australia ?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Yes.

page 552

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs indicate whether the Tariff Board reports on crown wheels, piston rings and motor parts and wireless valves will be tabled and dealt with before Parliament goes into recess?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I am not able to give a specific answer in respect of all the items mentioned by the honorable gentleman, but the intention of the Government is that all reports that have been received to date will be tabled before Parliament goes into recess.

Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– The annual report of the Tariff Board recommends that the Government should give some consideration to some more expeditious methods of Healing with Tariff Board reports. As some of those reports have been in hand for more than six months, will the Government investigate the practice prevailing in Great Britain, namely, the use of an import duties advisory committee, so that there will be quicker handling of reports?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The Govern- ment has under consideration the suggestion of the honorable gentleman.

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister furnish a report showing, for the last seven years, the number of Tariff Board reports which have not been presented, and the number of reports that have been in the hands of the Government for at least six months before being presented?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I shall endeavour to obtain the information sought by the honorable member and forward it to him.

page 552

QUESTION

OVERTIME IN DOCKYARDS

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that overtime is being extensively worked on naval contracts at Garden Island and other shipbuilding yards? Will the Minister for Defence take into consideration the vast number of men in the shipbuilding industry who are unemployed, and if he cannot influence other dockyards, will he see that overtime at Garden Island is eliminated with a view to giving employment to some of those unemployed?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– Yes.

page 552

QUESTION

FIRE AT DARWIN

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior any information as to the cause of the disastrous fire which occurred at Darwin yesterday? What damage resulted?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I have no information, but inquiries are being made and I shall let the honorable member know the result as soon as it comes to hand.

page 552

QUESTION

BRITAIN’S PURCHASE OF PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– Before any contracts for the sale of primary products are completed, will the Prime Minister seek approval by representatives of the various primary industries concerned of the proposed prices?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– In connexion with all such proposed sales, the Government has conferred with bodies of a representative kind where they exist. Where such bodies do not already exist, the Government has created them, for example, the wool committee and the wheat committee. No steps will be taken without reference to those bodies.

Mr McHUGH:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I understand that the Government has announced that the Australian wool clip will probably be taken over by the British Government. I fully realize the necessity for supplying the British Government’s requirements to the full, but according to the press this morning an English broker is reported to have said that Japan has protested against the whole of the Australian wool clip going to Great Britain, and brokers in England have stated that arrangements would be made for a portion of the wool clip to be diverted to Japan. Does the Prime Minister regard it as Ms prerogative to say that the wool shall be diverted to Japan or that of British merchants?

Mr MENZIES:

– The Government of Australia, acting on the advice of the committee it has Bet up to deal with wool, will deal with this matter on behalf of Australia and will take into account all those considerations referred to by the honorable member. They have already been under discusssion and, in due course, a statement will be made in relation to the matter.

Mr POLLARD:

– In the event of representatives of primary producing interests disagreeing with the proposed contract sale price of primary products to the British Government, is it the intention of the Government to effect sales on a basis not agreed upon by the producing interests concerned?

Mr MENZIES:

– That question, I suggest, is quite hypothetical. These committees are already in existence, and, so far, they have found no difficulty in arriving at a common view. If on any occasion a majority view has to be obtained, then that is a consideration that the Government will take into account.

page 553

QUESTION

GUARDING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Defence consider the question of restricting to unemployed returned soldiers guard work on Government properties ?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– It is hoped that the guarding of vulnerable points will shortly be taken over by membersof the “ B “ class reserve provided by returned soldiers.

page 553

QUESTION

WAR NEWS

Mr PRICE:

– Has the Minister for

Information any war news to report other than that which appears in the press from time to time?

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Minister for External Affairs · HENTY, VICTORIA · UAP

– I have not yet had sufficient time to set up an information organization. As soon as the organization is in workingorder I shall endeavour to give honorable members the latest information as soon as possible.

page 553

QUESTION

OVERDUE SHIPPING

Radio Messages

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Will the PostmasterGeneral take immediate steps to request the shipping companies to make provision for overdue ships to send a radio message to the Australian broadcasting stations as soon as they reach port in order that the fears of those who may have friends or relatives on board, and the people generally, may be set at rest?

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– I shall give consideration to the suggestion made by the honorable member and advise him later of the result of my investigations.

page 553

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY FORCES

RetrenchedOfficers - Command Organization.

Mr WHITE:

– Now that war has broken out will the decision regarding officers who have been retrenched from the permanent forces, including two officers of the Military Board, be altered ? Does the Government intend to proceed with the new command organization and make the suggested promotion of certain lieutenant-colonels to lieutenant-generals as mentioned in. the press?

Mr STREET:
UAP

– It is the intention of the Government to proceed with that command system. The latter part of the honorable member’s question is based entirely on erroneous information.

page 553

QUESTION

CO-ORDINATION OF TAXATION

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the heavy increase of taxation which will be necessary to meet the commitments of the Commonwealth, does the Commonwealth Government intend to confer with the State governments with a view to arriving at some co-ordination in taxation measures so as to ensure that the incidence of taxation will be equitably distributed throughout Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I took the opportunity of the presence of the State Premiers at Canberra last Saturday to have some general discussion with them about that matter, and I have since been in communication with some of them in relation to it.

page 554

QUESTION

FORMATION OF COALITION GOVERNMENT

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– It has been stated for a long while that the former leader of the Country party, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) prevented the formation of a coalition Government. Now that the right honorable gentleman has resigned his leadership, what are the prospects of the formation of such a government, and what is the position now in respect of the Prime Minister’s demand that in the event of a coalition government being formed, he shall have the right to select his own Ministers?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I regret that I cannot really throw any light on that problem.

page 554

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF WAR NEWS

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It is noticeable that, at the conclusion of broadcasts of war news by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s A class stations, the public is notified that the broadcasts are by the courtesy of the Associated Press. Has the Associated Press any proprietary right over the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts, and does the Australian Broadcasting Commission pay any fees for that courtesy?

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– The Associated Press and other press organizations have definite cable rights for which they have paid. These cables are used under the censorship regulations by the British Broadcasting Corporation and their use in Australia is precluded without some arrangements being made with the press organizations concerned. Early next week a conference will take place in Melbourne of representatives of all interested parties including newspapers, the Australian Broadcasting Commisssion, censors and the Minister for Information. The whole matter will be gone into very thoroughly in order that arrangements may be made to give the maximum cable news to the people of Australia.

Later:

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I think that the Postmaster-General has misunderstood my question. I was referring to the re- broadcasting of broadcasts from the British Broadcasting Corporation stations, not to the broadcasting of cable news.

Mr HARRISON:
UAP

– As I pointed out, the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts are, in the main, those that come here as cable news, but if the honorable member will put his question on the notice-paper, I shall have further inquiries made.

page 554

QUESTION

LAND MORTGAGE BANK

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– Last week I asked the Prime Minister if he could state whether or not the Government was able to give an assurance that it proposed to proceed with the establishment of a land mortgage bank. The right honorable gentleman intimated, in reply, that he would make a full statement on the matter on Tuesday of this week. I ask him now if he is in a position to inform honorable members of the Government’s intentions?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– I am sorry to say that I am unable to make a statement to-day. The matter has been under discussion and, as the honorable member realizes, there are many considerations involved. I shall make a statement at the earliest opportunity.

page 554

QUESTION

MILITIA FORCES

Mr WHITE:

-With reference to the statement made by the Prime Minister that members of the Common-wealth Public Service serving in the Militia Forces would be paid the difference between their militia pay and their civil pay, I should like to know whether or not that applies to temporary employees, as well as permanent employees, in the Public Service?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– The statement which I made refers only to permanent civil servants, and applies to the first sixteen days of militia training. If the honorable member would like the further aspect of the matter looked into, I shall do so.

page 554

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr PRICE:

– Last week I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider the imposition of a 1 per cent, turnover tax instead of the proposed increase of the sales tax by 1 per cent. I should like to know what the result of his inquiries were ?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– As I indicated to the honorable member at the time, inquiries were immediately instituted, but as yet I have no information on the matter. When the information is received I shall pass it on to the honorable member.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1939.

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from the 12th September (vide page 396) on motion by Mr. Spender -

That the bills be now read a second time.

Mr CURTIN:
Leader of the Opposition · Fremantle

– I understand that the Minister is anxious to have the Sales Tax Bill No. 1 of this legislative series passed by this House to-day for departmental and revenue reasons, and also to ensure that there will be a legal authority to give effect to the budget statement that an extra 1 per cent tax on sales is required. In the course of the speech which I made on the budget I said that the Opposition was in agreement that increased revenue would have to be obtained, and approved of the method adopted by the Government in dealing with the sales tax field. For that reason I am disposed to allow this measure to have a rapid passage. I point out, however, that from the 1st July, 1932, until the end of the last financial year, the sales tax yielded a total of £61,300,000 whereas for the same period income tax yielded £67,2?4,000. In round figures income tax yielded only £5,800,000 more than sales tax in the same period. It is true that the Labour party originated the sales tax. It was a form of indirect taxation instituted in order to make good the great falling off in another field of indirect taxation, namely, the yield from customs revenue. In 1930-31, the year in which sales tax was first imposed, the situation was such that the ordinary indirect taxation revenue of the Commonwealth had fallen tremendously, and, in order to make good the deficiency, a tax on sales of goods was devised. It was part of the emergency necessities of the time. There has been a great deal of criticism against the Labour party for instituting the sales tax, but in no year since then, notwithstanding the enormous improvement of the economic position of Australia, has any successive Treasurer seen his way clear to abolish the sales tax.

Sir Charles Marr:

– It has been reduced.

Mr CURTIN:

– Yes, it was reduced from 6 per cent. to 5 per cent. which was the rate operating from 1933 until 1936. It was then further reduced to 4 per cent., but subsequently the Government restored the rate to 5 per cent., and now it is proposed that it should be 6 per cent. For the portion of the year 1930-31 in which sales tax was in operation the yield was less than £3,500,000. In the next full year it was £8,400,000. It. remained at that figure, withall the varying changes of the rate, until last year when it was £9,300,000. It can be said therefore that the rate of tax was so fixed by the Treasurers to yield an amount of approximately £9,000,000 each year. The Government did not care what the rate was so long as that amount was collected. It is estimated that, for the current financial year, the tax will return £11,120,000.I can acquiesce in the declaration that increased revenue is necessary. I cannot see any part of the tax field open to the Commonwealth in which we may expect a reduction. On the contrary, we may expect increased burdens in practically all directions. I am not surprised, therefore, that the Government proposes to increase the sales tax by 1 per cent., and, with this addition, the tax should provide a greater yield than in any previous year since it was instituted.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- I agree that it is necessary to increase taxation in order to finance the country through this period of emergency. I am disappointed, however, that the Government is proposing once again to increase the sales tax. This tax, though perhaps easy to collect from the point of view of the department, is a costly and irksome tax for the business community, and with this proposed increase it will become even more irksome. Last week-end, when I saw that it was proposed to increase the sales tax, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) whether it would not be advisable to substitute a turnover tax for the sales tax. It would be an easy tax to collect, and I believe that the business community would support the innovation. I hope that the Prime Minister will, in the near future, be able to inform us how much it would be possible to collect by means of a turnover tax. The Government should give serious consideration to my suggestion before further increasing the sales tax.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Leader of the Country Party · Barker

– We heard the explanation of these bills from the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Spender) the other day. We fully realize that the Government must have the money, and, in the circumstances, I am not offering any opposition to the bill.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I take it that the exemptions at present in force will continue.

Mr Spender:

– Yes, with the exception, possibly, of two items having to do with munitions and the supply of uniforms to the public. They will be dealt with by special legislation to be introduced next week.

Mr JOLLY:

– There was some reference to the application of Australian currency to the invoices of imported goods.

Mr Spender:

– That is covered by another bill which is to be introduced.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In committee:

The bills.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I should like to know why it is necessary to have nine bills dealing with the same subject.

Mr SPENDER:
Assistant Treasurer · Warringah · UAP

– The answer is that advice has been received that this is the only constitutional method of imposing a tax such as this. I do not state that as my opinion, but that is the opinion of the Government. The bills deal with different subject matters of taxation, and, consequently, a different tax bill is required for each.

Bills agreed to and reported from committee without amendment; report adopted.

Bills read a third time.

page 556

BUDGET 1939-40

In Committee of Supply:

Consideration resumed from the 13th September (vide page 524), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the first item in the estimates under Division 1 - The Senate - namely, “Salaries and Allowances, £8,040,” be agreed to.

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- The budget now before the committee is notable in two directions - it is a wartime budget, and it is the first Commonwealth budget to touch the £100,000,000 mark. As a matter of fact, the budget is for £102,000,000. As the Treasurer (Mr. Menzies) pointed out, the budget was introduced in a time of grave crisis in the history of this country, as it is in the history of all countries that hold their freedom sacred. We can understand the difficulties experienced by the Treasurer in introducing such a budget, and honorable members experience a similar difficulty in addressing themselves to it, seeing that it will have to be readjusted almost immediately to meet the altered conditions. Exactly what lies ahead, none can say at the moment. We pray for a short war, and an early peace which will bring honour all round, but we cannot afford to take any risks, and thus must, continue our preparations to meet any contingency that may arise. It seems to me that if ever there was a time for the formation of a national government - a government which would be truly representative of all sections of the people - that time is now; but the Labour party, which may be said to represent approximately one-half of the people of this country, has decided to stand aloof, preferring to act as a sort of watchdog over the Government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), as if it should be watched over and spurredon in this time of national crisis. To me, the attitude of the Labour party is indefensible. Failing a national government in the widest sense of the term, we must look to the two government parties for a coalition. Such a combination would, no doubt, be thoroughly national in its outlook, and all of its endeavours would be directed to placing this country on a sound defence footing. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has indicated that he will give general support to any action taken by the Government in this crisis. I point out, however, that whole-hearted support is necessary, and that would be given if the Labour party were to share in the government of the country at this critical time. At such a time as the present, it is not watchdogs that are needed but men who are prepared to sink political and personal outlook and unite in meeting the onslaughts of what we may describe as “ the mad dog of Europe “. In the first week of the war, emergency legislation - the Trading with the Enemy Act and the National Security Act - was brought down for the purpose of prosecuting the war to the best of our ability. That legislation has its counterpart in the United Kingdom, and is based on similar legislation which was found necessary during the last great war, although improvement has been effected in the light of the experience of that conflict and the knowledge since gained. It is hard to find any reason for opposition to it, unless it be merely for the sake of opposing it. I say this, not with bitterness but with regret: we cannot afford to display any bitterness. For that reason, we suggest that the Opposition would play a better role at this period if it were to leave to the people outside the function of a watchdog, and accept the responsibility of taking an active part in framing legislation.

Under the proposals brought down in the budget, taxation is to be increased by approximately £6,000,000. The total estimated revenue is £101,940,000, but according to the Treasurer that will hardly meet the nation’s needs. For this year alone, the estimated defence expenditure is £33,000,000. That is an enormous sum to have to raise. One awaits with a certain degree of interest the further Estimates which, I understand, will be brought down by the Treasurer next week.

In the matter of defence, one does not desire at this time to be unduly critical of the Defence Department. The Minister in charge of that department has a very big task to perform, and it is generally recognized throughout the country that he is discharging his responsibilities remarkably well. Although one realizes that the department is working at top pressure, one must refer to the dissatisfaction that exists in various parts of Australia by reason of the undue delay in supplying uniforms to the Militia. There are in Sydney militiamen who enlisted eight months ago and are still without complete uniforms. I should like to know the reason for this undue delay. Surely, there are manufacturers in Australia who are prepared and able to supply the necessary outfits. It would appear that it is not so much men as material and equipment that are needed, because it is gratifying to know that thousands of men are rushing to join the forces. There must be the necessary organization to deal with those who are joining up. The Government should get a move on, and put all hands to the task of providing this urgently-needed equipment. The organization of men is well advanced, largely due to the fact that in the latter months of last year a splendid recruiting campaign was inaugurated by the right honorable the Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes), to whom full marks must be given for the excellent national work that he did on that occasion. One hears a good deal of talk about the necessity to conscript both wealth and man-power. I do not believe that there is any necessity to do either of those things. Every man of fighting age should be properly trained, and that cannot be done at once. There is no need to conscript, because the manhood of Australia is rushing to join the forces in thousands, severely taxing the capacity of the defence authorities to provide an adequate number of instructors. Wealth is in the same category; there will be no shrinking from the patriotic duty with which the country is confronted. As for profiteers to whom reference has been made during the course of the debate, they are not representative of the people as a whole. Wherever found, they should be rooted out and treated according to their deserts. The Government has lost no time in passing legislation to prevent profiteering of all kinds, and on that, account is to be commended. The steps that have already been taken will have a salutary effect. When we are asking the taxpayers to shoulder heavier burdens than have ever been shouldered before, wc must see that they are not exploited by unpatriotic speculators in whatever field these may operate. The attitude adopted by the various chambers of commerce and chambers of manufactures throughout Australia is appreciated. They are observing the slogan “ Carry on “ impressed upon them in the message given to the nation by the Prime Minister. All sorts of business dislocation and other difficulties are inevitable, but until we know exactly where wc stand, and can make whatever re-adjustments are needed, it is necessary for business enterprises to be conducted without the dismissal of employees and with the minimum of inconvenience and hardship to our citizens. 1 wish to express my admiration of the attitude adopted by our chambers of commerce and chambers of manufactures, as well as other public and private bodies throughout Australia, because of this appeal.

Sales taxation is referred to in the budget and I take this opportunity to make one or two observations in connexion with it. The Treasurer stated that only one-third of the commodities of Australia are at present subjected to this impost. Previous governments have given a great deal of consideration to the sales tax, and in the course of the years, h great many of the foodstuffs and health supplies of this country have .been exempt from the tax. These two items constitute a very large proportion of the goods now exempt from the tax. Previous governments have, in my opinion, adopted the correct attitude in this regard. I suggest that, the Government should hesitate before it re-imposes the sales tax on any of the foodstuffs or health supplies at present exempt from it.

Recently the president of the Associated Chamber of Manufactures, Mr. Holden, stated that the Government could count on the loyal support and co-operation of every manufacturer in this country without, regard to the subject of profit-making. It is a fine thing that manufacturers generally are offering their services to the

Government in various ways in order to help it in its conduct of public affairs. It was the habit of some honorable members opposite, not long ago, to throw gibes at manufacturers whose establishments had been selected by the Ministry for Supply and Development as the location of defence annexes, but I am glad to notice that we do not hear those gibes now, for credit is being given where credit is due. Nothing has been more gratifying or more astonishing than -the rapidity of the development of our manufacturing industries since the last war. This has led. to a considerable increase of employment and has greatly expanded the market for our primary products, which have been sold at enhanced prices compared with those that would have ruled in other circumstances. This development is also of great importance in contributing to Australia’s self-containment in this crisis. To-day something in the neighbourhood of 550,000 persons are being employed in our secondary industries. With the further expansion that the war will make necessary - for wo shall have to depend upon ourselves more than ever before - we may expect this figure to rise considerably in the near future. When the war is happily over, be it long or short, I believe that we shall see a big revival of industry with a consequent substantial increase of the number of people coming to Australia. This, in its turn, will involve big investments of capital, particularly in manufacturing industries, and it will help to spread the burden of taxation. We are fighting to-day, not only for ourselves, but also for posterity. We are fighting in order that we may hand on unimpaired to those who come after us the blessing of freedom, liberty and all that is associated with our free and democratic institutions.

It would be quite impossible for the people of this generation to meet all the expenses of the war. For this reason we should do everything possible to make the country well worth living in. If that is done, we shall attract to our shores many thousands of desirable people after the war ends, who will become taxpayers and help to share the burdens of government. In the meantime we must do our best to provide the amount of revenue which the Government finds it necessary to raise. The proposed increase by 10 per cent, of the tax on incomes from personal exertion and property has become necessary. The proposal to increase the rate of company tax to ls. 7.8d. in the £1, an increase of 6d. is also necessary. This will mean a considerable diminution of the profits of many companies and in some cases it will undoubtedly press very heavily on the shareholders, but it is a case of “ Needs must when the devil drives “, and without doubt a m’ad devil is driving in Europe to-day. It is also proposed to subject to company tax the dividends received by absentee holding companies from companies operating in Australia. The Government considers it is not unreasonable that these companies should contribute to the cost of defending and developing Australia. The reason is a sound enough one, but I should like to have some more information as to the incidence of the tax. No doubt the Assistant Treasurer will be able to furnish this. The proposal seems to me to savour of double taxation, which has lately been engaging the attention of a special committee set up by the League of Nations.

Mr Spender:

– That subject will be dealt with in a special bill to be introduced later.

Mr JENNINGS:

– It is an international subject of the first importance. I remind the Assistant Treasurer that double taxation has been a source of much trouble in Australia for many years past, and I suppose it will continue to trouble us so long as we have Commonwealth and State governments operating in the same fields of taxation. We should not forget, however, that these absentee holding companies are probably being taxed up to the hilt already in the United Kingdom. A different position arises in respect of such companies domiciled in the United States of America or in some other countries. The Assistant Treasurer should furnish us with more specific information concerning who would be called upon to pay this tax, for it is a matter of very great importance to our business community. Questions that arise are: Who would pay the tax? Will the absentee in England, for instance, pay this company rate of tax from the dividends derived from his

Australian companies? Will the tax be paid by the companies - and by them I mean the shareholders in Australia? I have no doubt, in view of the Assistant Treasurer’s interjection, that he will give the necessary information on these questions to honorable members.

It is not necessary to traverse the Treasurer’s speech in detail, nor is it desirable to do so, in’ view of the more or less tentative character of the budget. In general, I think the budget can be taken as representing a very fair attempt to meet a very difficult and, in some ways, a problematical situation.

There is one matter, however, to which I finally wish to refer. It relates to aliens. During the last year, some thousands of aliens have arrived in this country. For the most part they are refugees from the wrath of Hitler, and their feelings may be gauged from the desire they have expressed to enlist in our fighting forces. We have been told that every possible precaution has been taken, and that a number of persons - how many we do not know - have already been placed where they can do no harm. We cannot afford to take risks, but at the same time we do not wish to be guilty of harsh treatment generally in respect of aliens, most of whom, after all, are people of good types and, no doubt, will in time become excellent citizens of Australia, which is, no doubt, the freest country on earth. Let us keep it free! Let there be no mistake about -where -Australia stands in relation to the war ! The Prime Minister has correctly expressed the views of the Australian people and has stated the position clearly by telling us that when Britain is at war Australia is at war. We have accepted that position by ourselves declaring war on Germany. That attitude indicates, without any doubt, the feeling of our people. The Prime Minister has given a splendid lead to the nation. The fight will be stern and relentless, but at whatever cost we must win it. To that end we must be prepared for sacrifices. In the words of Kipling, written in the days of the last great war -

No easy hopes or lies

Will bring us to our goal,

But iron sacrifice

Of body, will, and soul.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- It is deplorable that within the comparatively short span of 25 years the world is again in the throes of another war. This grave world condition imposes additional financial burdens upon the Commonwealth and State Governments, and upon the people of Australia generally. Bearing that in mind we realize that this is simply a tentative budget and that we can expect some sharp variations of it before the end of the financial year. This is a period, unfortunately, during which hardships will be suffered by many sections of the people, particularly by those who have no margins- - I mean people who are on the bread line and are either in intermittent work or altogether unemployed.

In consequence of the world position I take it that we have ‘before us a budget that is very different from the budget that would have been presented had the war not occurred. “We were told that the war that broke out on the 4th August, 1914, was a war to end war. Millions of people firmly believed that so much sacrifice, so much valour, and so much grief could not fail to purchase peace for the world, but we have been sadly disillusioned. The last great war cost the world 7,000,000 lives, and they were not the lives of the aged and infirm but of the very flower of our manhood. The financial cost of the last war has been variously estimated at between £40,000,000,000 and £70,000,000,000. The cost to Australia of the last war was 60,000 dead, 166,000 wounded and approximately £881,000,000. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that we were all struck with horror when we learned that another war had occurred. Many statesmen, actuated by the very best of motives, believed that the last war would teach an aggressor nation that it could not take by force what other nations were not willing to give. They also believed that in future international arbitration would be applied to settle the differences between nations just as our law courts are used to settle differences between individuals. A further gesture of idealism resulted in the establishment of the League of Nations. The league was, however, crippled in its infancy because President Wilson, of the United

States of America, its chief protagonist, was prevented by the American realists from affiliating his people with the league. Ever since then the league, while express sing a fine idealism, has lacked jurisdiction over aggressor nations. Unfortunately it stands to-day to the discredit of 20th century civilization that a dictatorship nation has resorted again to force and thrown the world into the vortex of war. Germany, by its invasion of Poland, has precipitated the world into another titanic struggle, the result of which it is difficult to foresee. England and France were in honour bound to fulfil their pledges to Poland. We, in Australia, are part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I believe that it is in the best interests of Australia that we should remain within this Commonwealth. But participation in the privileges of partnership in the British Commonwealth of Nations entails responsibilities. The Labour party stands for the honoring of those responsibilities in the manner consistent with its platform. I therefore wholeheartedly support the declaration of my leader -

Wc shall make our contribution to the defence of this country and to the maintenance of the integrity of the British Commonwealth of Nations in the way in which we can best give that assistance.

Although we have not a surplus of manpower in Australia, but, unfortunately, a shortage, we can say with truth we have a surplus of foodstuffs and raw materials. I was glad to read in- the press this morning of the very favorable response given to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) that after making the provision that we ought to make for satisfying the needs of our own people we should make in this budget provision for the expenditure of £1,000,000 for the purchase of food supplies to be offered immediately as a gift to the people of Great Britain. That suggestion was placed before a number of representative men in Sydney yesterday, I observed in the press. It is interesting to read the comments with regard thereto.

According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph to-day, the State secretary of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial

League of Australia, Mr. Black, said in reference to the suggestion -

It would appear to be a very practical way of helping Britain to shoulder Iter war burden, while the president of the Chamber of Manufactures, Mr. J. Gordon Jones, said -

An excellent suggestion; it would be a very popular gesture.

The secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, Mr. King, said -

The gift would be a great help to Britain: humane treatment must be given to women and children, who will be the first to suffer from food shortage; there is a surplus here.

Sir Samuel Walder, a former Lord Mayor of Sydney, and now an alderman and commercial leader, said -

The gift would be a very fine contribution, and a wonderful gesture from Australia, especially when we realize the enormous amount of food England will require.

I sincerely hope that that suggestion has not fallen on deaf ears, and that the Government will give it the sympathetic consideration that it deserves. I believe the fact that there has been a great; development of secondary industries in Australia since the last war will help this country very substantially to. play its part in the present struggle and tocarry on without suffering serious dislocation of trade and business.

Some criticism was offered by the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Jennings) of the Labour party for not taking portfolios in a national government, but I would say to the honorable gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated that federal Labour would co-operate in every legitimate effort for the defence of Australia, and in the doing of our part in accordance with the platform of the Australian’ Labour party. It was not necessary for the Government to hand out portfolios and emoluments of office to induce the Opposition to do its part. I would remind the honorable member that in Great Britain the Labour Opposition clearly set out its attitude, and stated definitely that it did not intend to take portfolios in the National Government. I do not think one member of the Government would rise in his place and criticize ‘ the attitude of the Labour party in the British Parliament.

1.21 ]

I am not unmindful of the difficult position in which the Government finds itself. Its responsibilities have greatly increased, and it has many pressing problems with which to deal. One of the most important will be the marketing of Australia’s primary products. In view of the contemplated sale of those products to the United Kingdom, it is well that we should be conversant with the events that occurred in the past when similar sales were effected, and, while I do not wish to make it appear that I would take any unfair advantage of the purchase by the British Government of foodstuffs, raw materials or primary products at the present time, the Government should realize that we owe a debt to a large section of the primary producers in Australia, who in the last war sold their products to Britain at prices much below world market prices; furthermore that many thousands of primary producers have, for the last couple of -years, been producing at a loss. .1 urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to take into consideration the bad times that those primary producers have had in the last two or three years when deciding on prices that should be paid in this crisis for their exportable products. I want the Government to give an assurance, before completing agreements with the British Government, that it will give due consideration to the cost of production and the losses already incurred by many sections of primary producers in selling at prices below the cost of production. They cannot go on producing at a loss. The proposed price for wheat announced by the Prime Minister, 3s. 4d. f.o.r. at ports for wheat for the United Kingdom, would mean an average price of 2s. yd. a bushel at country sidings which would be inadequate and below the cost of production. The Royal Commission on. the Wheat, Flour and Bread Industries submitted a report on the 13th March, 1935, in which it found that the then cost of production of wheat was 3s. 6d. a bushel f.o.r. ports. The royal commission said . that that was a fair average. I would remind the Government, however, that the cost of production has substantially increased since 1935. It is well to bear in mind what the wheat prices are in many of the

European countries to-day. In Italy there is a fixed price equivalent to 8s. 4d. a bushel sterling for soft wheat and 9s. 2d. for hard wheat. The latter price is equivalent to lis. 5d. a bushel lin Australian currency.

Mr Spender:

– That is part of the war provisions.

Mr FORDE:

– No. These prices are prices which ruled before this war broke out. In Greece the price is 7s. 7£d. sterling or 9s. 4d. Australian. In Poland there is a guaranteed price equivalent to 4s. 10 1/2 d. a bushel sterling or 6s. Australian. In Roumania there is a guaranteed minimum price of 3s. 3d. sterling or 4s. Id. Australian. In Jugoslavia it is 5s. Id. sterling or 6s. 6d. Australian. None of those prices are prices which are ruling as the result of this war. However, as I said at the outset, I realize the difficulties that confront the Government and all I ask is that the Government take all of these factors into consideration and give an assurance that no injustice will be done to the Australian producers.

It is well, also, that we should keep in mind that during the last war the British Government contracted to purchase the Australian wool clip from 1916-17 until 1919-20 at ls. 3id. per lb. The wool was sold in London at 6s. and an arrangement was made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth that half of the profits on wool sold for purposes other than military were to go to Australia. Out of those sales Great Britain’s profit was £35,000,000. In addition it got its naval and military wool requirements at quarter value. I am not saying that we should not assist; do not misunderstand me: I believe that we should assist and that we should all make sacrifices, but we should remember the splendid spirit displayed by the primary producers during the last war in making goods available through government management at prices which were very much lower than world parity.

According to the budget statement of the 16th September, 1920, the payment made for Australian wool under the imperial contract amounted to £159,000,000. Had Australia received 6s. per lb. Australia’s wool cheque would have been approximately $735,000,000 instead of £159,000,000 - a difference to Australia of over £500,000,000, or more than our total war debt.

I do not maintain that the graziers should have got world prices, but I maintain that a higher price should have been agreed upon in the contract agreement. Australian primary producers did what the Canadian producers refused to do.

I should like to refer to what the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), our war-time Prime Minister, said in 1919.

Referring to the wool sales in 1919, the right honorable gentleman stated -

Millions have been lost to this country over wool alone.

At another time he said -

Had I known before what I know now, 1 should never have sold the wool other than for the period of the war.

The agreement lasted for four years which terminated at the end of 1919-20.

I revert to wheat. Mr. Lough, M.P., in the House of Commons on the 24th July, 1917, said-

I asked my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller, whether he had not bought a great deal of cheap wheat, and he said, “ Yes “. I said to him, “ Where is it “ ? and he replied, “ In Australia “.

Mr. Prothero, President of the British Board of Agriculture, speaking in the House of Commons, also said -

We have made in times past an appeal to Australia to send us their wheat at a lower price than they would get in the world’s market, because we are their own kith and kin, and they have done so.

In the House of Commons on the 4th August, 1922, Sir Newton Moore asked a question about the contracts for the purchase of Australian wheat. Sir W. M. Thompson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, said that the Government contracts for the purchase of Australian wheat from 1916-17 to 1919- 20 amounted to 5,000,000 tons. The contracts were delivered full subject to the crude allowance of 58,000 tons for loss and damage. The cost a bushel averaged 5s. 2d. f.o.b. in Australia. The average price of wheat purchased elsewhere during the same period was 9s. 3d. f.o.b. in the country of origin.

Now dealing with the question of the meat industry, which affects very largely my own State of Queensland which grazes half the cattle of Australia and exports more meat than any other State, the Sydney Morning Herald of the 27th March, 1919, reported that -

Had Australia obtained for her meat of high quality the same price as America received for hers of low quality, namely 150 per cent. more, about 13d. instead of 5d., the position in Australia to-day would be vastly better.

It was pointed out in this article that millions of pounds were made out of Australian meat that was shipped overseas. I am not critical of concessions being made. As I said previously it is the duty of everyone to make sacrifices, and when the Australian wheat-growers were getting 5s. 2d. a bushel f.o.b. they wore satisfied ; but wheat-growers of other countries were getting 9s. 3d. a bushel. That article has enabled us to keep in true perspective the part played and the sacrifices made by the primary producers during the last war, and it gives us some idea of what is a reasonable price to pay them for their products now that new agreements are being entered into by the Government. It is well that the Government should profit by its experiences during the last war, as well as in the immediate past.

In regard to cheese, Mr. G. R. Roberts, the British Food Controller, stated that the British Government was losing101/2d. per lb. on home-produced cheese, but that the loss would be met by the profit? on imported cheese. Our butter averaged 1s. 6d. per lb. while, according to the Australian press of the 15th November, 1919, Australian butter was bringing from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per lb. in London. It will be seen that for all of our primary products we received far less than any other country in the world. Our primary producers sacrificed millions of pounds during the last war. When determining what is a fair price in agreements entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the British Government that fact should not be overlooked. During the last war Australia was also able to play its part in supplying the British Government with electrolytic copper. Although Great Britain was purchasing electrolytic copper in the United States of America for £163 a ton it paid to Australian producers only £108 a ton. In times of crisis such sacrifices are willingly made by Australian producers to help the British Government because, as I have said, although we have not a surplus of man-power we have a surplus of foodstuffs and raw materials. I firmly believe that the British Government has no desire to drive an unreasonably hard bargain with the Australian Government in regard to the sale of primary products. Before coming to a decision with regard to prices the Government should, however, confer with representatives of all primary industries, and obtain their points of view in regard to them.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The industries will see to that.

Mr FORDE:

– I sincerely hope so. They failed to do so on the last occasion. I know of certain representatives, or alleged representatives, of primary producers, however, who, had they not had their time so seriously taken up over the last few days in internecine warfare, would probably have said more on the floor of this chamber in regard to this important subject. As a representative of a very large primary producing State, and of a large primary producing electorate, I remind the Government that it should take all the factors I have mentioned into consideration before coming to a decision as to prices.

I wish to say a word or two with regard to agents’ fees. I hope that the Commonwealth will see that there is not a repetition of the unreasonable charges imposed by agents for handling wheat during the last war. The Melbourne Age of the 23rd May, 1918, published the following statement by the South Australian Wheat Commission: -

The South Australian Wheat Commission has been the means of bringing to light some illuminating figures concerning the actual sums paid during the past three years to the Wheat Pool Agents. The figures relate to the payments in only one State - South Australia - but they cover firms who operate in several States, and they are so large as to suggest the necessity for further analysis to show -

1 ) How much of the money paid represents commission netted by the agents; and

How much represents payments by the agents for work performed in receiving, stacking and forwarding wheat to seaboard.

From the forwarding to the Wheat Pool to the 30th April, 1918, the agents in South Australia were paid over £1,000,000 according to the evidence of Mr. G. G. Nicholls, the manager for the pool in the State named, given in Adelaide on Monday last. In 1015-16, £445,274 was paid; in 1916-17, £490,788; and in 1917-18, £151,223; making the total for the three seasons £1,087,285.

Mr Nock:

– On how many bushels?

Mr FORDE:

– Those were the total amounts paid to agents for the period mentioned. When it is establishing the Australian Wheat Board the Government should see that agents’ costs are cut to the minimum and that the board undertakes a large amount of the work previously done by many of these agents who during the last war received colossal sums for their services. For instance, John Darling and Sons received in agents’ fees £74,000 in 1915-16, £78,000 in 1916-17, and £23,000 in 1917-18; and Dreyfus and Company during the same years received £40,000, £57,000, and £16,000 respectively.

Mr Nock:

– The greater part of those amounts was paid out in wages.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) may adopt the role of defender of the wheat merchants if he likes. Whenever the Labour party has endeavoured to establish a compulsory Commonwealth wheat pool it has always been up against firms like John Darling and Sons, Dreyfus and Company, James Bell and Company, and Dalgety and Company, who offer no serious objection to pools established by a conservative government because they believe that such a government will wink its eye at their actions. For too long have these firms battened on the wheat producers of Australia. The Government should take every possible step to limit the opportunity for greed and rapacity on the part of exploiting agents.

Other matters of importance are the high freight rates that will have to be paid between Australia and Great Britain, and the shortage of shipping space, which will impose a great handicap on Australia’s primary producers. We know that when the last war broke out there was a serious shortage of shipping space and, to meet the difficulty, the

Labour Government, early in 1916 inaugurated the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, which brought about a saving to the primary producers of this country of many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mr Barnard:

– That Line was subsequently given away by a government of which the present Government is the lineal descendant.

Mr FORDE:

– That is so ; the BrucePage Government sold the Line for £1,900,000, of which £500,000 has never been recovered. The Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers gave employment to a large number of Australian seamen ; its boats were victualled in Australia ; repairs were carried out here ; and as some of the ships were built at Cockatoo Island Dockyard opportunities were provided for the employment and training of a large number of Australian artisans. A Labour government purchased fifteen vessels for £2,000,000 in 1916 ; by 1921 profits enabled the management to write the capital value down to nil, whilst having in hand a. profit amounting to £1,699,000. In addition to those fifteen vessels, the Government secured several seized enemy ships and placed them in commission. The operations of the whole fleet for the five years 1916-21 resulted in a profit of £4,826,000. Shortly after the Line was established, its boats were carrying Australian wheat to London at £7 10s. a ton when British owners were charging £13 a ton and more. For verification of those figures I refer honorable members to Hansard of the 10th July, 1923, page 868. The Line claimed that the reduction of freight charges saved Australia over £2,000,000 a year from 1923 until it was disposed of, besides having prevented increases of rates before that year, particularly during the war period. Time and again London ship-owners cabled the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers seeking an agreement to increase freight charges, but on each occasion the request was refused and freights were kept down to a reasonable level. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which reported on the activities of the Australian Commonwealth Line of

Steamers, referred to the invaluable service it had rendered to Australia during the war years, and the immediate post- war years, and the influence it had had in bringing about the reduction of freight rates. The Line was also responsible for speeding up the service between Australia and the United Kingdom. Shortly after Mr. Bruce became Prime Minister he attended the Imperial Conference in 1923. Whilst in England he said-

The Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers is there. You can fight it. Wipe it off the seas if you arc fit to do it.

He went on to say that he could talk at great length of the Line’s great activities in the past and of its glorious future. Subsequently, however, pressure was brought to bear upon him, with the result that he disposed of the Line, making the extraordinarily bad bargain to which I have referred. Since the sale of the Line, the primary producers have from time to time complained about excessive freight charges imposed by the Conference Lines for the carriage of goods between Australia and Great Britain. A couple of years ago, the primary producers contended that the wheat-growers were being robbed of millions of pounds a year owing to excessive freight charges. At the primary producers federal conference, held in Sydney in 1936, Mr. J. P. Abbott declared that the Commonwealth Government had let the primary producers down. He said -

We have approached the Prime Minister and Sir Earle Page, and have been handed on to Mr. Thorby, and taken from Minister to Minister, and the ship-owners. Our only method is to show the public the injustice which is being done.

The primary producers were entirely in the hands of the rapacious shipping companies. They found that governments seemed quite impotent to give them the redress to which they were entitled. I emphasize the wonderful part played by the Labour party’s Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers during the last war, when it was operated in the interests of the primary producers of this country, bringing about reduced freights, and affording cargo space which otherwise would not have been available. Because control subsequently passed to a government which was opposed to State ownership of public utilities, the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers was sold shortly after it began to show a slight loss. That government overlooked the wonderful part played by the Line during the last war, and during the immediate post-war years. What would have happened if our Australian railways had been sold to private enterprise, merely because they began to operate at a loss? There would not now be one railway under government control, and the primary producers would either have no rail facilities at all, or these facilities would be provided at much higher rates than exist to-day.

In dealing with this budget, the Government should bear in mind a number of factors. One is that for some time unemployment has been increasing in this country, and another is the fact that defence expenditure will not take the place of normal expenditure from loans on works which are now being carried out by the States and affording widespread employment - such works as road construction, water conservation and irrigation, sewerage, and so on. It would be a bad thing for Australia if there were a steep diminution of the loan money that is arranged by the Commonwealth Government for the States to carry out these essential works. For a number of years the State governments have had to curtail their loan activities owing to the attitude adopted by the Loan Council. During the four financial years from 1935-36 to 1938-39, they asked the Loan Council for £101,500,000 for public works, but received only £78,000,000. By receiving £23,000,000 ‘ less than they asked for. there had to be some curtailment of their long-range programme for the expansion and development of the respective States.

A perusal of the budget reveals that the revenue from direct taxation in the years 1931-32 and 1937-38 was approximately the same. Income tax last year yielded about the same amount as it did in 1931-32, but indirect taxation increased by £2-6,000,000. That means that total taxation has increased by £26,000,000.’ In view of the exigencies of the financial position, and the grave situation- that confronts Australia to-day, we do not offer any opposition to the increasing of the sales tax, but that does not mean that we connive at the Government’s policy of placing the burden of taxation upon the masses of the people instead of upon the wealthy sections of the community. On one occasion, when speaking on the obligation of rich citizens to pay more in connexion with defence, the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), now Minister for External Affairs, said that it was for the rich man more than any other that the last war was fought, because he had so much at stake, and the rich man should contribute more heavily towards the cost of the war. At that time, the honorable member was sitting on the back benches of this House, and was free to express his own opinion on questions such as that. He then made many speeches that will go down in history. To-day, he is a member of the Government and I hope that he will use his influence to see that the rich people of Australia pay a much larger share of the cost of this war than they did towards the cost of the last war. During the last war, many people grew fabulously rich at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, and then the Government went to them, cap in hand, to ask them to invest their spare money in government loans, for which they received rates of interest ranging up to 6 per cent. Those people made no sacrifice comparable to the sacrifice made by the masses of the working people of Australia, who now find that, as the result of this huge increase of indirect taxation by £26,000,000, the prices of their every-day commodities have gone up, whilst the basic wage is still the same with a reduced purchasing power. There is always a lag in the increase of wages by comparison with the increase of prices, and it is here that we aTe ou.it to impress upon the Government that we shall keep constant guard against the profiteering that is sure to go on in this war as it did in the last. The responsibility to check profiteering rests with the Government, but the Opposition will give every assistance to place on the statute-book whatever legislation is necessary to bring to book unscrupulous individuals who seek to grow wealthy at the expense of the people generally at a time when so much sacrifice and suffering is prevalent among millions of people throughout the world.

Whilst Australia must, of necessity, finance its war obligations, at the same time it must not overlook its social and economic obligations to the people; it must constantly endeavour to minimize the hardships imposed upon the masses. The Federal Government should use to a much greater degree the credit resources of the nation in financing reproductive public works and certain defence works. There is no doubt that now that war has broken out, many thousands of people throughout Australia, who have no margin of savings to act as a buffer, will find themselves thrown on the unemployment market, and it will be a cold and cheerless world with no one prepared to help them. It is the responsibility of the Government, in co-operation with the State governments, to see that money is found to employ these people. We . cannot overlook the fact that, active as the State governments have been during the last five years in carrying out works programmes and so creating employment, with the whittling down of loan money in accordance with the announcement by the Prime Minister at the recent Premiers Conference, they will be unable to continue their essential works at the previous years’ volume. To-day, there are 150,000 people out of work and unless something is done, that number will be increased to 200,000 within the next few months. I therefore appeal to the Government to see that this matter is not overlooked.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerLeader of the Country party

– No man at this stage can foresee the scope or the duration of the war. We all hope that it will be confined to its present limits, but the interests of three great Powers of the world may involve the intervention of any one of them, or all of them, before we go very far. In such circumstances, Australia’s position will be affected both in the military and in the economic sense. All honorable members will agree that there is no charity in international affairs to-day, and that the impelling motive is self-interest, whetted by opportunity.

I believe that all honorable members will agree that local security is still the first principle of war, and that that will aPply to Australia in this conflict just as in any other circumstances. Australia’s first duty is to Australia - to place it in a position whereby it need not fear attack, and might be able to inform the United Kingdom that during this conflict Australia would not require any military help from Great Britain. Australia’s second duty is to have on tap armed forces capable of intervening in any of the theatres of war which might extend from Egypt to Hong Kong, according to the way in which the conflict happens to develop. Australia’s third duty is to maintain supplies of foodstuffs and munitions to Great Britain and our Allies in any theatre of war in which they happen to be needed. I speak of intervention. May I point out that intervention of Italy against us might require the presence in Egypt, Palestine or the Bed Sea area of troops supplied by the Commonwealth. Should Russia happen to come into the war against us, it might be necessary for the Commonwealth to undertake some action to defend the north-west frontier of India, and also to guard against a thrust towards the oilfields of Iran, on which the British Navy is vitally dependent for supplies. Such a thrust might have such vital consequences and European conditions might be such that it would be necessary for us to intervene in that area. In addition, we have one inescapable responsibility, that is, the security of Singapore. This is not the first occasion upon which I have raised this matter. When I entered Parliament five years ago, I raised it with the then Minister for Defence. The reply sent to me, which was distinguished by a large amount of blue sealing wax on the outside, and no common-sense inside, would be illuminating if published to-day. We also have some responsibility for the safety of the British and French Pacific possessions which lie in our neighbourhood, particularly as the French nation is involved in the same conflict as we are.

Many problems confront the Government in regard to civil defence, which is a matter for Commonwealth initiative, but for State action. An assurance by the Government on this point would be helpful. I do not know the degree to which organization for civil defence in States other than my own has been carried, but I am fairly familiar with what has been done in South Australia, and I take this opportunity to pay a high tribute to the officer who was seconded from tlie State Government service to organize this work. A huge range of activities is involved in civil defence. It is not merely a matter of air raid precautions. Fire fighting, evacuation of congested areas or areas threatened with attack, casualty services, power, light, police and transport all come under the heading of civil defence. Economic organization is imperative for local supplies, and to maintain a stream of foodstuffs and munitions to the United Kingdom and the allies. Australia should become an arsenal, a universal military provider to the British possessions east of Suez. I was interested to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) on this point. We are not unmindful of the history of the last war as it affected the export industries. So far as my party is concerned, we are determined to give a fair deal, and to get a fair deal for the primary producers during the period of this war. The whole of the organization for the storing, handling and marketing of primary produce overseas was the work of the gentleman whose place I now occupy. Wool, wheat, dairy produce, fruit, wine - all of these industries owe him a debt which cannot easily be measured in cash.

I am of the opinion that Australia should have under arms a considerable force of men. We must accept the position with which we are faced. I believe that if we were to put men through a period of compulsory training for six months in batches of about 100,000 we should achieve two things: We should have a considerable force to guard us against aggression during the war, and this would be achieved with less economic disturbance than would be occasioned by the plan proposed by the Government. The proposal to train batches of Militia for periods of sixteen days at a time to which reference has been made by the Minister is not likely to give the best results. It would be very disturbing to industry, and it is doubtful whether the results achieved would be commensurate with the cost. Moreover, I am afraid that a high proportion of those supposed to be undergoing training are, in fact, engaged in some form of guard duty, and that the amount of actual military training they receive is small indeed.

Mr Street:

– They are being relieved of that guard duty as quickly as possible.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– If the scheme I have suggested were adopted it would enable us to intervene in any theatre of war that was considered necessary. The very existence of such a force, demonstrating as it would the determination of the people of this country to prepare for the worst, would, I believe, be very helpful in restricting the area of hostilities in certain quarters not so very remote from us. To my mind, there has been a most regrettable air of unreality about the proceedings of this House since Parliament met last week. No one would think, judging from the proceedings of this Parliament, that Australia is engaged in what may yet be a life and death struggle. No one can foresee the course or duration of the war. Time lost by the Government now can never be made up. We have been given no intimation, so far, of any definite military plan for the defence of Australia. This is regrettable, and I hope it will not be long before this defect is remedied. A comprehensive policy for security at home, and for intervention abroad, if necessary, is urgently needed. We must have a government that is prepared resolutely and ruthlessly to carry out such a policy.

Mr Brennan:

– Ruthlessly ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Yes, I say ruthlessly. War is ruthless. Those who are not prepared to enter it on those terms had better keep out. For home defence a policy of universal military training is essential; there should be no equivocation in regard to that. It is a great pity that this policy was not adopted in the immediate past. If it had, many of the difficulties now confronting us might not have arisen. For overseas operations we should maintain the voluntary principle of service. I am still attached to the military forces, and I am quite prepared to go to any part of the world on service whenever it is considered necessary that our citizens should be sent. I ask for no special consideration, and I do not think that any other honorable member of this House would, in the circumstances, do less than I am prepared to do. In the meantime, we can only hope that we shall shortly have a more definite pronouncement in regard to the defence proposals of the Government than we have had up to the present.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- This committee is called upon to consider the budget very shortly after the commencement of a war which, as we all know, may yet develop into the most serious struggle in which the British Empire has been engaged for 100 years. The budget was prepared in anticipation of peace, and it is necessarily unrelated, to a great degree, to the conditions which now obtain. The Treasurer (Mr. Menzies) made that much clear when he said that we could expect supplementary taxation proposals to be brought down in the near future. I propose to await those war-time taxation proposals before offering criticism, but I make the general observation that I hope that there will be a proper spread of taxation; that the principle will be maintained that those who have most shall be called upon to pay the most. I also hope that a fair balance will be maintained between direct and indirect taxation. I listened to both the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointing out that indirect taxation has increased tremendously during the last eight or nine years in relation to direct taxation. That is a matter for regret. There has, unfortunately, been a steep and continuous increase of indirect taxation, which is borne substantially by the masses of people, while scarcely any increase has taken place in direct taxation levied by this Parliament. We know, of course, that during the same period there has been a steep and continuous rise in the direct taxation imposed by the other six governments. I hope that a proper balance will also be preserved between expenditure out of revenue and from loan for war purposes. We have to decide in what proportion we shall pay for the war now, and the proportion that posterity should pay. The opinion is held by many Australians that it is possible, through the instrumentality of the Commonwealth Bank, to draw to a much greater degree than is done now on what is called the national credit. I heartily subscribe to that doctrine in principle, but I do not believe that it can be applied to the degree that the Opposition, and many members of the public, appear to think possible. I do not believe that there is an unlimited supply to be drawn upon.

Mr Ward:

– How should the limit be determined ?

Mr McEWEN:

– That is a pertinent question, but I do not think that we, as laymen, are qualified to answer it any more than laymen would be qualified to answer a question involving some abstruse scientific principle. I believe that, generally, members of the Opposition feel that there is a much more substantial well of untapped wealth to be drawn upon from this source than my colleagues or I believe there is. I have explained my view in reply to the pertinent interjection of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). I repeat, that I would not associate myself with those who believe that it is impossible to draw anything from this source of national credit. I feel that the Government should have at its disposal, and should use, the advice of those who, by their life training, are best competent to advise on this subject, and that, upon such advice being given, the Government should act.

I pass the general financial subject by repeating my attitude towards it: I think that the war-time taxation proposals of the Government should be introduced at as early a date as possible, and that there should be as equitable a spread of taxation as is possible between the various sections of the community. Concurrently, there should be certain proposals which will have as their intention the spread over a reasonable period of time of the general cost of the conflict in which we are engaged.

The point must be very noticeable to all honorable members who are participating in parliamentary proceedings on the commencement of a most serious war, that very little information has been placed before the Parliament with respect to the immediate military proposals of the Government. We hear of financial proposals, of proposals for dealing with certain aspects relating to the protection of civil property, of very necessary proposals to ensure price control and to prevent profiteering, and of proposals for the storage and disposal of primary products, but we hear very little of the immediate military proposals of the Government, confronted though this country is with the very real possibility of having to fight at home for the defence of its own land. There is too great a tendency on the part of the people of this country, and I think that they are encouraged by the attitude of the Govern ment, to believe that we have no immediate necessity to make great military preparations against the possibility of having to defend our country within its own borders. I believe that the changes of relations that take place between the various nations of the world, the sudden, unforeseen, and unpredictable relations that we have seen in the last few weeks, should bring vividly before us a realization of the fact that there could be overnight a change of relations between this country and certain other foreign countries which might confront us with the almost immediate necessity to defend our own country. To that end, the people of Australia are entitled to hear from the Government something more than financial proposals, something more than proposals which have to do with the protection of property and the disposal of products. We should expect to hear of some real and effective proposals for the military defence of our country.

I consider that the greatest obligation of citizenship of any man is the obligation to be trained, prepared and ready to fight to defend his land within its own borders. To that end, the Government should lose no time whatever in re-proclaiming compulsory military service inAustralia.I am amazed to find, in this, the second week of war, that Australia is drivelling along with a small volunteer force, and apparently is not intending to re-proclaim that system of compulsory universal training which, on the occasion of the last great war, provided us with some assurance that we had within our own borders a body of partially-trained and equipped men who could immediately be put into the. field to defend our own country. I am quite aware of the difficulties which the heads of the military services have raised with regard to the training of the men who would be called up under a system of compulsory universal military training. Whilst I would not dispute that there are severe complications associated with the introduction of compulsory universal military training, I say that war is war, and that we cannot be fobbed off with any story from the military experts to the effect that trained men are not available to train our manhood. If we were confronted next week with au attack by an enemy country whose shores are lapped by the same ocean as laps the shores of this country - and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, because these things develop and break between nations so quickly - we would not tolerate for one moment the story that it was impossible to put men in training because trained men were not available to train them. There are in this country thousands of experienced ex-soldiers who are quite capable of giving preliminary, elementary training in warfare, and of instilling discipline into bodies of men, which is the very first step in preparing them for actual warfare. I believe that if this Government were as earnest as it should be, it would lose no time whatever in taking the formal step of re-proclaiming compulsory universal military service for the home defence of this country, and that then it would not tolerate any advice given to it by its experts to the effect that it is impossible to find men capable of training Australian manhood for the defence of their’ own land. I am not one of those who believe that compulsion should be applied in connexion with the raising of troops for overseas service which might at any time be sent from Australia. I really believe that the mind of the Australian people was sufficiently clarified on this issue during the last war for one to be able to say with reasonable assurance and accuracy that there could not be found to-day one man occupying an important place in the public life of Australia who would advocate compulsory military service for Australians abroad. In my opinion, that is an accurate statement of the position. I think that it is a crystallization of the public mind, brought about by the conscription referendum campaigns of the last war. For my part, I accept that willingly as being a proper policy for this country. On the other hand, I believe that the ultimate fate of Australia may well be decided without one shot being fired within the borders of this country. A land, 3,000,000 square miles in area, with so sparse a population as we have - a mere 7,000,000 people - is entirely incapable of the utmost efforts of its manhood and its resources which would be necessary ultimately to ensure its own protection against attack by a powerful and populous military aggressor. That drives me to the conclusion that, irrespective of any necessity with which we may be confronted immediately to defend our own country, our fate could well be sealed by the defeat of Great Britain abroad. To that end, if the time should arise when we were able to feel, by a clarification of the relations between the various nations - which is not apparent to-day - that it would be safe for this country to permit some of its own sons to participate in the defence of the British Empire abroad, we should be willing to permit men to volunteer for that service. Those who volunteered should be facilitated to go abroad to fight for the defence of the British Empire, with which I am positive is wrapped up the ultimate fate of this country. In case there should be any misapprehension of my attitude, I may say that in existing circumstances I do not regard it as safe to permit any man to leave this country to fight, overseas.

Mr Beasley:

– Does the honorable member expect any clarification while the struggle is proceeding?

Mr McEWEN:

– I do. I share the belief of those who anticipate that this war will be spread over a number of years - possibly three years, probably longer.

Neither a layman like myself, nor an expert, can pronounce with any assurance an opinion on that point, but I give it as my personal opinion that I expect the struggle to last for a period of years ; and I do not believe that it will continue for years without other nations Incoming involved. During the last war we saw the progressive involvement of nation after nation. That will probably prove to be the course of events in the present war, and it is that belief which brings me to the conclusion that eventually there probably will be such a clarification of international relations as will permit us to decide whether or not it is safe for Australians to go abroad to fight for the defence of their Empire, and in doing so, for the defence of their own country. I hope that, in the plans for the defence of this nation, there will be the closest, the most continuous, and the most harmonious co-operation between the seven governments of Australia. Contemplating the matter of defence, which is the most vital and intimate issue to-day, we are immediately confronted with the complications that are associated with inefficient government action, just as we ave confronted with the complications of our federal system when any important and vital issue arises. When we examine those things which should be done to place this country in a real state of defence, we immediately realize that no one government has within itself either the power or the opportunity to make all decisions; we realize that Australia is probably singled out as the country which, above all others in the world, is saddled with the most inefficient system of government that we could possibly have, a system under which this nation is governed by a set of seven parliaments and seven governments, no single one of which has the sovereign right to deal even with this vital matter of defence. . Among the many issues involved in what I am now saying is the most vital one of transport.

Mr Frost:

– Does the honorable member think that the Government has not the courage to deal with these things?

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not think any such thing. There are constitutional obstacles which inevitably establish an inherent inefficiency in the Government of Australia by reason of the federal system with which we are saddled. I hope that the exigencies of war which we have to face may have at least one good result in causing our people to realize that Australia cannot afford to continue the intolerably inefficient system of government bequeathed to us by those who contrived this thing which we call the Commonwealth Constitution. I hope that we shall emerge from the terrors and dangers of war with a more efficient system of government than we have to-day. This is not a criticism levelled at this Government or any one of the State governments. It is a criticism of our federal system.

As I propose to take the opportunity afforded by the detailed discussion of the Estimates under departmental headings to deal with certain items affecting the departments, I shall not refer to those matters at the moment.

I must, however, touch one issue upon which I have tried, without success, to elicit some information from the Prime Minister, by questions which I have asked to-day and also in the previous sessional period. It has relation to the financial difficulty which confronts the people engaged in our land industries. We are at the commencement of a war in which I feel sure the material side will loom much more largely than it has in any previous war. This war will inevitably be more costly in money than any previous war. Already the Government of the United Kingdom, anticipating very severe destruction of civil property and very heavy loss of civil life, has announced its intention of assuming obligations to pay compensation in respect of civilians killed in air raids, and also to pay pensions to civilians and dependants of civilians who suffer in consequence of air raids. This, of course, will be in addition to obligations that must inevitably be incurred in respect of members of the various arms of the forces. For this reason, I say that the money cost of this war, and the obligations that will follow in its aftermath, will be of such staggering proportions as to be impossible of comparison to any previous expenditure of money. That being so, I consider that it will be unlikely that the prevailing money system will emerge at the conclusion of the war in the form in which we know it to-day. That, I believe, is a reasonable conclusion. I have no doubt that people who lend money will be thinking similar thoughts. The value of money will probably be altered seriously during the progress of the expenditure on this war. People who customarily lend money on fixed security for a fixed term at a fixed rate of interest will without doubt be asking themselves whether their money will continue to have its present value. Progressive doubts must arise in their minds concerning the future. Consequently, I believe there will be a progressive contraction in the lending of money, by either public institutions or private persons, for fixed periods, particularly on mortgage. I should suspect that, having these thoughts in mind, those connected with our banking and financial institutions, would probably prefer to embark upon a policy of making their overdraft advances for investment of a more liquid character, compared with the more fixed and frozen investments to which they have been accustomed, particularly in respect of land. This is likely to have a very serious affect upon those engaged in our farming and pastoral industries, who lean heavily upon borrowed money in order to maintain their operations. These people may, in the not distant future, be confronted with very serious difficulties in securing loans for a fixed period of years on fixed conditions. On this account, I consider that- it will be very necessary for the Government to proceed, without delay, with a bona fide proposal that was introduced by the Government of which I was a member for the establishment of a Government mortgage bank, as a branch of the Commonwealth Bank, for the purpose of making loans for a period of years at reasonable rates of interest. That proposal still appears on the noticepaper. I have endeavoured to obtain an assurance from the Prime Minister that the Government intends to proceed with the proposal.

The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Scully) is apparently trying to indicate, by interjection, some criticism of this proposal. I shall not engage in controversy with him at the moment. I have not heard of any proposal yet submitted to this, or any other, Parliament which has been above criticism. Although this proposal is one to which I was a party in its earlier stages, I do not pretend to say it is above criticism. I shall say, however, that the principle embodied in it, which provides for the establishment by the Government of the nation of some institution to lend money to those whose avocations necessitate them leaning upon borrowed money, is sound. I am prepared to debate that issue, but I am also prepared to be influenced by the opinions of honorable members of this committee upon it. I should be the last one in the world to say that the proposal is perfect, but its merits should be considered. I consider that its underlying and fundamental principle is sound and that immediate necessity exists for embodying it in legislation. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will not permit Parliament to go into recess on this occasion without taking some steps to bring into being a government financial institution for the purpose I have indicated. The difficulties to which I have referred will, during the next few years, strike at the very roots of the security of the tenure of their land by our primary producers, the particular section of the community which I was sent to this Parliament to represent. It is futile for us to discuss the prices to be paid year after year for the products of the land, the methods of transport, disposal and storage of their products that should be adopted, and which we have been discussing of late, unless we first assure the security of these people in the tenure of these properties. We must ensure that the sources of money that have been available to our primary producers for generations to enable them to carry on their work, shall not be allowed to dry up. These matters should be seen in their proper perspective. I trust that the Government will deal promptly with this issue.

I conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will not delay long in proposing to this Parliament some immediate measures for the defence of our country which are commensurate with the needs of the situation.

Progress reported.

page 573

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1939

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9); Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjust ment) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2) ; Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10) ; Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 4) ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 3). *in Committee of Ways and Means:* {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP .- I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933 -1939 as so amended. That in this Resolution " Customs Tariff Proposals " means the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 3rd May, 1939 ; and 8th September, 1939. [Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 3.)] That, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1939 be amended as follows: - by omitting " 161 (b) (1) " and "161 (b) (2) ". by omitting " 176 (f) " and inserting in "its stead " 176 (f) (1) ". by omitting " 179 (d) (3) (a) ". by omitting "359 (g) (1) " and inserting in its stead "359 (g) (1) (b) ". by omitting''359 (g) (5) ". [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedules to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938 bo amended as hereunder set out and that on and after the fifteenthday of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938 as so amended. [ Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10.) ] (1.) That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1939, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty -nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs bo collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1939 as so amended. (2.) That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1.) of this Resolution, the Governor-General may, from time to time by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation. (3.) That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation. (4.) That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph (2.) of this Resolution may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly. (5.) That in this Resolution, unless the contrary intention appears - " Customs Tariff Proposals " means the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 3rd May, 1939 : 8th September, 1939 ; and 14th September, 1939 (other than these Proposals). " Proclamation " means a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette :* " the Intermediate Tariff " means the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to this Resolution in the column headed " Intermediate Tariff ", in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used. {: .page-start } page 580 {:#debate-27} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-27-0} #### THE SCHEDULE By adding a now Prefatory Note (13) as follows: - " (13) Unless the tariff otherwise expressly provides, or the Minister otherwise directs, the term " artificial silk " shall include synthetic fibres produced from substances having either a cellulose or casein base." [Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 4.)] That, on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act 1933-1939 as proposed to be amended by the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the fourteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty -nine (other than these Proposals), be further amended as follows: - by omitting "58 (c) ". by omitting " 98 " and inserting in its stead "98 (a) " and "98 (b)". by omitting " 105 (f) (1) " and " 105 (f) (2)". by omitting " 176 (i) ". by adding before "177(a)(1)" the following:-" 176 (p) ". by omitting " 178 (d) (1) ". by omitting "219 (a) ". by omitting "326". by omitting "390 (a) (1) " and inserting in its stead "390 (a) (1) (a) ". by omitting "392 (a)(4)", "392 (a) (5) ", "392 (c) " and "392 (e) ". by omitting " 433 ". [Customs Tariff (Canadian Pre ference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the fourteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine (other than these Proposals), be further amended as hereunder set out and that on and after the fifteenth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-1938 as so amended. The resolutions I have just moved amend the customs tariff and provide for consequential amendments of the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act and the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference). The customs tariff proposals, of which there are two, affect 107 sets of duties, and are based upon recommendations contained in 37 reports of the Tariff Board. Increases are proposed in the case of fourteen sets of duty under the British preferential tariff, 22 under the intermediate tariff and 24 under the general tariff. Reductions of duty are made in 25 sets of duty under the British preferential tariff, 36 under the intermediate tariff and 29 under the general tariff. The remainder of the items making up the total of 107 are brought into the schedule either for drafting purposes or to clear up minor anomalies. It is possible that honorable members will not gather the purport of the two separate customs tariff proposals, numbered 9 and 10 respectively, and I shall therefore explain. Proposal No. 9 amends a previous tariff proposal at present awaiting discussion. The earlier tariff proposal contained increases of the general tariff duties made by the previous Government consequent upon the lifting of the trade diversion restrictions in order to safeguard capital investment incurred as a direct result of those restrictions. At that time it was made clear that these increased duties would be subject to review by the Tariff Board. The amendments now included in proposal No. 9 are made as the result of the board's recommendations. Proposal No. 10 covers other subjects upon which the Tariff Board has submitted reports. Explanatory statements have been circulated for the convenience of the committee, and, whilst these contain the essence of the amendments, I feel it is incumbent upon me to offer some explanation, however brief, of some of the major amendments contained in the schedules. Taking first proposals No. 9, which amend the tariff proposals that followed the lifting of the trade diversion restrictions, probably the most important item is refrigerators. In this case the Tariff Board recommended a reversion to the ad valorem foreign rate of 75 per cent. on refrigerators and assembled parts. In view of the large amount of capital invested and the extensive employment given in this industry and the fact that importations from foreign sources are showing a tendency to increase, the Government has decided to maintain the present fixed rates with an alternative ad valorem rate of 75 per cent. The net effect of the Government's proposals on refrigerators is a reduction of 10 per cent. ad valorem under the British preferential tariff on unassembled parts. A slight increase is proposed of the general tariff on gears for motor vehicles. In the light of the board's report on this subject the Government takes the view that the capital investments made under cover of the trade diversion policy should be fully protected. Increases are proposed on the large kinds of engine-driven lawnmowers, irrespective of origin and in the foreign rates on the smaller kinds. Cheap foreign lawnmowers of the hand type have offered some competition to Australian manufacturers, and the Government has decided, on the recommendation of the Tariff Board, to increase the foreign rates. Of the other items in the schedule, increases are proposed on brake and transmission linings from Canadian and foreign sources and shock absorbers, whilst the duties are reduced on fractional horse-power motors, electrolytic condensers, motor car door locks, eoi] springs, and on lawnmowers of types other than those to which I have already referred. The tariff position with respect to electric fans remains practically unchanged. I now come to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 10, the larger of the two. Reductions of duties are proposed on wool tops, woollen yarns and woollen piece goods. This question was the subject of intensive study by the Tariff Board. In its report the board has definitely indicated that the woollen manufacturing industry should be able to function with much lower protection than at present, and that under the duties now proposed imported cloths will still land at costs higher than Australian manufacturers' selling prices of comparable materials. The industry should therefore be able to compete under the lower duties. Other branches of the textile field are covered in this schedule. The recent establishment of mills for the spinning of cotton condenser and cotton coconada yarns for use in towel manufacture has resulted in a recommendation by the Tariff Board for the imposition of protective duties on those yarns. Correspondingly, an increase is made of the duties on towels, partly to offset the higher duties on condenser yarns which are used largely in coloured towels and partly with a view to enabling Australian towel manufacturers to secure a greater share of the market for white towels. The duties on yarns for the manufacture of cordage and twines are practically unaltered, but there is a reduction of the British preferential tariff rates on cotton yarns n.e.i. which are used principally in knitting and weaving. There has been a revival of flax production in Australia due largely to the interest displayed by local spinners of flax yarn. The Tariff Board has therefore recommended a widening of the range of flax yarns and threads that are subject to protective duties. Slight reductions are made, however, of the jute yarns duties. Some lines new to Australian secondary industry are granted tariff protection. They are.water bore casings, tap wrenches and certain types of stocks. Water bore casings are now being produced at Newcastle, whilst tap wrenches and stocks are made at Maryborough, Victoria. Protective duties are now imposed on tractor tyres and tubes and on tractor wheels and wheel centres whether imported with tractors or separately. Other lines included in the tariff proposals include petrol pumps on which there is virtually no duty alteration, whilst reductions of duty, most of them small, are made on internal combustion engines, exceeding 50 horse-power, belting, and cordage. Two items which call for special mention are glucose and cornflour. The Tariff Board has stated quite frankly that the high measure of protection granted on these products has been used by local manufacturers to support unjustifiably high levels of costs and selling prices. Accordingly, the duties on importations have been reduced. In conclusion, I feel that I have tabled a schedule of duties which will preserve a reasonable balance in industry. On the one hand, provision has been made for increased duties to new industries and to industries which aTe going through their teething stage. On the other, protection has been reduced in the ease of some long-established industries which supply practically the whole of the local market and on others which are taking undue advantage of the tariff. I regard it as a maxim that industries which have been assisted by high tariffs in their early years of production should have acquired a standard of efficiency over the years to allow them to function successfully under much lower protection when fully established. About industries which are taking undue advantage of the tariff, I say, emphatically, that this Government will not countenance a state of affairs which permits of one industry, under cover of tariff protection, loading up the costs of dependent industry or living costs gener- ally It is proposed to give the committee an early opportunity to discuss these tariff proposals item by item, and in the meantime I shall table the various reports of the Tariff Board for the information of honorable members. {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I hope during these sittings of Parliament. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- But we are supposed to adjourn at the end of next week. Will it be possible for the debate to occur before then? {: .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- -I am hopeful, but I cannot give an undertaking. Progress reported. SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1939. Bills returned from the Senate without requests. {: .page-start } page 594 {:#debate-28} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-28-0} #### BUDGET 1939-40 *In committee:* (Consideration resumed from page 572). {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-KZX} ##### Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936 -- This budget, which provides for the expenditure of more than £100,000,000, is an historic document. The principal item of expenditure will be for the defence of this country-£34,000,000 as against £14,000,000 last year, a tremendous increase - but the Labour party is in full accord with the Government in expending that amount of money in order to protect Australia. Unfortunately, the situation is such that that amount of £34,000,000 must be merely the first instalment of what it will be necessary for us to expend before this year is finished on our defence. The Labour party have no objection to that expenditure, because it realizes that it is necessary for whatever government that isin power in days such as these to have adequate re sources upon which to draw to meet the circumstances. The Labour party's objection is against the method the Government is adopting for the raising of the additional revenue that is needed to cope with the situation. The honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Hutchinson)** the other night directed a tirade of abuse against the Labour party's defence policy. The honorable gentleman has no knowledge of the great part the Labour party has played in providing for the defence of this country. A reference to history will show the honorable gentleman that it is to the Labour party that credit is due for the first defence legislation passed in this Parliament. That legislation was strenuously and bitterly opposed by the party to which the honorable member belongs, and I do not doubt that, had he been a member of Parliament in those days, he would have been in the forefront of those who attacked Labour for what it was doing. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Holt: -- I think that the honorable member for Brisbane will find that the early defence legislation went through without a division. {: .speaker-KZX} ##### Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936 -- If the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Holt)** refers to *Hansard,* he will find that practically all of the defence legislation put through Parliament by the Fisher Labour Government was opposed. The Opposition tried to make out, for instance, that it was useless for the Labour Government to make provision for an Australian navy. It derided the projected navy as a mosquito fleet. The honorable member for Deakin endeavoured by inference to make the people believe that because the Fisher Government took certain action during the last war the Labour party in those days was vastly different from the Labour party to-day. I say definitely that throughout the years there has been no change in Labour's policy. When the widow of the late **Mr. Andrew** Fisher arrived in Australia a few weeks ago the Tory press, in a desire to gain cheap anti-Labour propaganda, endeavoured to get her to say that the Labour party has changed since the days when her late husband had led it with such distinction. **Mrs. Fisher,** however, replied that the party to-day is the same as when her husband led it, except, perhaps, that it has progressed with the times. Labour has no apologies to make for its defence policy. Notwithstanding the fact that during the last elections our friends -opposite were successful in hoodwinking the people into the belief that Labour's defence policy was a policy of isolation, it is becoming more and more apparent each day that the Government is adopting it as its own. Labour's defence policy has been accepted and endorsed by the people of Australia, and when the next appeal is made to the people they will unhesitatingly endorse it. We have no objection to the Government's proposals to raise sufficient funds to prosecute Australia's share in this war; but we have very strong objections to the method by which the money is to be raised. In order to help to finance our war commitments, certain increases of taxes are proposed; but once again we find that the heaviest burdens are to be placed upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it. Income tax, which is paid by a large section of the community, is to be increased by 10 per cent., and sales tax, which everybody, rich and poor alike, has to pay, is increased by 1 per cent. But what of the wealthy land-owners? Despite the fact that during the last 5 or 6 years this Government and its immediate predecessors have remitted to" their wealthy supporters land tax amounting to many millions of pounds, no attempt is now being made to exact from these people their just contributions to the national revenues. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** and the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Makin)** submitted tables showing that land tax representing a huge amount of money has been remitted to a very small number of people. Land tax is a direct tax which is imposed on the least number of people. Having regard to the exemption of unimproved land to the value of £5,000, it will be seen that very few small farmers and shop-keepers are called upon to pay it. Land tax is collected mainly from the owners of big city properties such as banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions. It is to them that the Government should now turn in seeking to enlarge its revenues. As they have the most at stake they should be compelled to contribute very generously to wards the defence of their country when it is in danger. It is estimated that invalid and old-age pensions will cost an additional £708,000 this year. I believe that if the Government did justice to the aged and infirm people in the community it would have to double that amount. Every member of this Parliament is approached almost daily by unfortunate people seeking pensions. It is high time that the provisions of the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act were liberalized. It should be the right of any person whose state of -health renders him unemployable to secure an invalid pension. As the act now stands, an invalid pension is not granted unless the applicant can prove that he is permanently and totally incapacitated. In other words, before a person is entitled to draw the invalid pension he must be as helpless as a child. Provision should be made foi' all those who are incapable of earning their living regardless of the cost. In the same way the conditions governing the granting of war and service pensions should be liberalized. During the last sittings of this Parliament the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. White)** endeavoured to have discussed, on the day set aside for private business, a motion to deal with anomalies under the Repatriation Act. Unfortunately, because of the endofthesession rush of business at the time he was prevented from doing so. The matter was later discussed during the debate on the Supply Bill, and on that occasion I had an opportunity to voice my own opinion and to give a concrete illustration of how, as the result of the way in which the act was being administered and of the methods adopted by the medical referees, returned soldiers, or widows of deceased returned soldiers, have been unable to secure pensions to which they are entitled. I have before me a long letter from a returned soldiers' organization in Queensland complaining most bitterly about the way in which returned soldier applicants for pensions are treated. It states that, in many instances, claims have been flatly refused, and difficulties have been placed in the way of applicants in their endeavour to prove their eligibility for pensions. I hope that the Government will take this matter up ai the earliest possible date, aud see if something cannot be done towards liberalizing the provisions of the act. I am sure that the returned soldiers' organizations in every State will be able to provide concrete examples of the rejection of worthy applications. I honestly believe that since this Government came into power, there has been a tendency to refuse or cancel invalid and old-age pensions at every possible opportunity; because every pension which is refused or cancelled means a saving to the revenue. There are many ways in which the necessary money could be provided to give these unfortunate people the pensions to which they are justly entitled. In his budget speech, the Treasurer stated that unemployment had decreased considerably during the last few years, but he also said that unemployment had increased during the last twelve months at least, from 8.5 per cent, to 9.4 per cent. These figures are probably correct so far as trade union returns are concerned, but I believe I am right in saying that the percentage of unemployed in Australia today . is twice as high, because trade union figures cover only portion of the unemployed. I feel sure that there are many honorable members in this chamber who can bear me out when I say that there are several trade unions which do not supply the Commonwealth Statistician with any employment figures whatsoever. No doubt, those unions show a greater percentage of unemployed in their membership than others, because they include seasonal workers. I repeat that the proportion of unemployment in Australia is actually much higher than the percentage given by the Treasurer. Unfortunately, tlie unemployment problem is increasing every day. During this week some honorable members have dealt with the position of certain industries such as wool, hides, and various others, the condition of which is such that many employees are being dismissed. I had brought under my notice one such case yesterday. I received very little satisfaction from the Prime Minister when I brought the matter up in this chamber, and although I know that the right honorable gentleman was not able to give a direct answer to my question, the infor- ma tion which he did give was not at all encouraging. It is also a fact that the unemployment figures given by the Treasurer did not take into account the many thousands of youths- 50,000 or 60,000 leave school every year - who are unable to secure employment. Many of them have never had a day's work in their lives. Why were not these people included in the figures submitted by the Treasurer? If the Government is sincere and really desires to do its duty to the people of Australia, it should do something to assist the unfortunate unemployed and the workers generally, because, after all, if the security of the Commonwealth were threatened to-morrow, it would be to these people that the Government would look for assistance. If this Government does not provide the unemployed with jobs, how can it expect to call upon them to give their services in the defence of the country? There are many ways in which the Government could obtain the finance necessary to assist the unemployed, but I do not intend to go into the financial aspect of this question because it has been thoroughly discussed in this chamber on various occasions, even during this debate. Finding the finance is the Government's' job, but I submit that, if money can be found for defence purposes, then it should be found either to put these men into fulltime employment, or at least to provide them with the wherewithal to live, instead of allowing them to be dependent on charity as they are to-day. I should like to say a few words with respect to the position of the waterside workers. Some months ago several honorable members on this side of the chamber, including myself, brought forward a complaint regarding the treatment meted out to waterside workers in various ports of Australia. I appreciate, and the waterside workers appreciate, the action that the Government took in having an inquiry made into the conditions on the waterfront. I had an opportunity to take a fairly prominent part in the investigations carried out at Brisbane, and I have before me the report of the present Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. John Lawson)** who as Parliamentary Secretary was deputed to make the inquiries. I shall deal only with one or two clauses - of that report, and 1 am pleased to see that the right honorable the Attorney-General **(Mr. Hughes)** is present because the investigation was taken up by his department. The right honorable gentleman was good enough to let me have a copy of the report. The Transport Workers Act has been a burn.ing question ever since it. was brought into force on the Australian waterfront. 1 have said in the past, and I say again, nhat it is one of the most iniquitous statutes ever foisted upon the people of Australia. Notwithstanding that, the waterside workers have loyally carried out their duties under very trying circumstances. In Brisbane there is what is known as a licensing system and also a disc system. Only men who possess waterfront discs are permitted to go into the pick-up shed in order to secure work. They complained about that, but I notice that although the Minister for Trade and Customs has dealt with the matter in his report, he has made no specific recommendation. My own opinion is that the licensing system is being utilized by the Shipowners Joint Council in Brisbane contrary to the best interests of men engaged on the waterfront. Although there is only work for 1,400 nien at the port of Brisbane, 3,279 licences have been issued. Only 1,400 men possess discs, and the other unfortunate people holding only licences, are expected by the shipowners to be available whenever there is a surplus of work. The time has arrived when this system of issuing licences and discs should be abolished. The men have to pay ls. for their licences, and, though the shipowners will not admit it, they are led to believe that if they get a licence they will be given work. But that is not the case. Many of those who hold licences have never obtained a job at all. At the port of Brisbane, there are still 270 federation men who have been refused discs, and I have been closely associated with them for many years. The majority of them 1 know personally. They are conscientious, loyal, and good citizens, men who always did their work to the satisfaction of the shipowners before the unfortunate strike of 1928. Not one of those men has ever been able to get a disc. On the other hand, I know that men who had never previously worked on the wharf received discs three days after getting their licences. Some of them have been in the country only eight or nine months and can scarcely speak a word of English. That is a disgraceful state of affairs. Iu some instances, men have paid the last ls. they possessed for a licence in the hope of geting a few hours' work. Then they have stood outside for hours and hours hoping to get a call, but no work is ever offered to them. By far too many licences have boon issued for the Port of BrisbaneThere is work for only 1,400 men, but no fewer than 3,279 licences have been issued. In paragraph 100 of his report the present Minister for Trade and Customs stated : - >Waterside workers and their leaders have admitted that they inside a grave mistake in 1928. But they ask, "Is it just that the punishment should be continued indefinitely? Arc they to be penalized for all time because of what happened in 1928?" They suggest that waterside workers and their employers might now get. together and work out among themselves a system of control on the waterfront which will be effective and mutually satisfactu rj . My belief is that the Transport Worker." Act, which the majority of waterside workers have always deeply and bitterly resented, need not to bc im integral part of such a scheme. Paragraph 110 is as follows: - 1 have sufficient confidence in the common sense of waterside workers generally and their leaders to believe that *thu* application of the Transport Workers Act to the ports to which it now applies might bc withdrawn without the dire results feared by employers of this class of labour. My suggestion, however, would be that the Transport Workers Act should not be- repealed, but rather that it should be suspended so that its provisions could by Executive -Act be reimposed at any time should circumstances indicate the desirability of such action being taken. While that recommendation is not completely satisfactory - nothing less than the repeal of the Transport Workers Act would satisfy either myself or the men - it would be a step in thu right direction. 1 hope that the Government, through the AttorneyGeneral, will at least give the recommended system a trial. I am certain that if the act were repealed, or even suspended, the men would loyally abide by the award, and would do their work even more satisfactorily in the future than they did in the past. The Government would have nothing to regret. The men would appreciate even the suspension of the act, if the Government cannot see its way to repeal it altogether. The issue of licences should be stopped, and work given to the men on their merits. If it were left to the stevedores to pick the men, every one of those to whom I have referred would, I am certain, get fairly regular employment. Under the award, union officials are permitted to board ships in port for the purpose of interviewing members of their organizations. I am given to understand that, during the last few weeks, the Defence Department has issued regulations prohibiting the union officials from boarding ships. The officials in Brisbane are men of high repute and undoubted integrity, and there is no justification for preventing them, even at a time like this, from boarding ships for the purpose of carrying out their duties in accordance with a decree of the Arbitration Court. I hope that the AttorneyGeneral will make a note of what I have said in this regard, and also in regard to the recommendations of the Minister for Trade and Customs in regard to waterside conditions. *Sitting suspended from 6.10 to 8 p.m.* {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN:
Kalgoorlie .- I desire first to protest against the failure of the Commonwealth to co-operate with the States in giving assistance to the wheat-growing industry. Never in the history of wheat-growing has the price of wheat been so low as it is at the present time. A couple of weeks ago, the present Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** held his first meeting with the representatives of the States in Melbourne. The right honorable gentleman then advanced an entirely new proposal.For the first time in the history of Commonwealth assistance to the wheat industry, he insisted that the States should provide £1,500,000 whilst the Commonwealth provided £2,000,000. The States are in the anomalous position that whilst they have wide powers under their constitutions, the Commonwealth holds the purse strings; therefore, they have no real power, but have to come cap in hand to the Commonwealth and under the Financial Agreement accept what the Commonwealth Treasurer cares to offer, or go without. The States have been in a particularly precarious position, because the bulk of the revenue of Australiais obtained by the Commonwealth through customs and excise collections. {: .speaker-KEM} ##### Mr Fairbairn: -- Did not the Premier of Western Australia agree to the arrangement? {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN: -- At the time, it suited him to agree, because Western Australia was to receive a little more than it otherwise would have been able to obtain. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr. Fairbairn)** is aware that the amount was fixed, and that it would remain static no matter how the population might increase. It was a sort of confidence trick. This shows that the present Commonwealth Government is not prepared to help any business in this country except big business. The position of the wheatgrowing industry represents the greatest single' industrial problem in Australia to-day. The price received by the growers is about 75 per cent. below the cost of production. The price at the siding to-day is about1s. 8d. in Western Australia, and about 2s. 2d. in New South Wales. The Premier of Victoria stood up for his rights, and was not prepared to place an insupportable burden on his State. It is to his eternal credit that he did so. The Commonwealth, holding the purse strings, was in the position of the wealthy pampered boy who, in a game of cricket on the village green, owns the stumps, the bat and the balls with which the game is played. Becoming offended, he pulls up the stumps, walks away from the cricket field, and refuses to play. The Prime Minister, in my opinion, displayed detachment from the real problem which faces this country. Five years ago, 70,000 persons were engaged in the wheatgrowing industry. To-day, the number is 60,000. The industry in Western Australia has lost from 2,000 to 3,000 persons who had devoted their lives to felling trees and making the land productive, living in almost abject poverty, with very little nourishment to sustain them. The life of a well-kept Australian aboriginal in an Australian mission is one of luxury compared with theirs. I make bold to say that no man outside the growers in the eastern States who have large areas of land that are worked on the share system can possibly make a living out of the industry. Even with Great Britain at war, no problem other than that of unemployment is equal to this. With an adequate return, the wheatgrowing industry would largely increase the -volume of employment among those who are now unable to obtain it. We ask the people to go into and open up the back country. How can we expect them to stay there without social amenities and with no possible chance of making a decent living unless we assist them in their hour of need? This is the most critical period in the history of the industry. If Germany can see fit to pay 12s. a bushel, and France and Italy 9s. a bushel, and the United States of America and Canada can assist their growers, why should the Commonwealth throw the Australian grower .to the wolves, and say, as a member of the Country party said before the tea adjournment, " So far as I am concerned in this war - and that is the only thing that he can see - I believe in conscription and compulsory universal training ". He would force into the military camps these very people who are prevented from making a living on the lands of this country. Wo have not sufficient self-respect to stand up for our rights as our predecessors did on several occasions. For years, with the exception of the year 1937-38, this industry has been completely eclipsed. What are the proposals of the Prime Minister? He said to the Premiers in Melbourne, *"I* am prepared to find £2,000,000 to assist the industry". Vet. it was proposed to expend £20,000,000 - next month the amount will he raised to £30,000,000, and in the following month to £40,000,000- for the prosecution of a war that may never touch these shores, and let the greatest exporting industry, with the exception of wool, and om.' of the only three which export, go down because we are tied to some fetish of the Prime Minister's. We found fault with the former Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons),** but thi? is the first gentleman holding that office who has refused wholeheartedly to assist an industry when it is at the lowest ebb in its history. I shall place the facts before the farmers of Western Australia. Why is it that this Parliament is coming into disfavour all over Australia? It arises from the fact that the social needs of the people are not being considered. News arrived to-day of the defeat in his late electorate of Irwin, Western Australia, of an ex-minister who stood in the Country party interest - a good man in his way - by a man who was branded as an Independent. I find no fault with that particular ex-minister. Such a result ought to be regarded as a warning. We have to recognize that since the early days of federation no social services have been granted to the people of this country. A minister was specially appointed to deal with national insurance, but nothing on those lines has been or is being done. I am not blaming the Minister for Social Services **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** ; he is hogtied and will never be able to do anything. It is all very well for him to write to the press and say " When I get to Canberra I shall have something to say in Cabinet". What he has had to say in Cabinet I do not know, but outside he is as dumb as an oyster; he could not be otherwise. Sixteen of the supposedly backward countries of the world to-day provide national insurance for the benefit of their old people. {: #subdebate-28-0-s2 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
UAP -- The honorable member voted against it. {: #subdebate-28-0-s3 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- -I am glad that I have got under the Minister's skin. I hope that what I am saying will make him wake up, and that, instead of bluffing the people, he will try to do something for them. If this Government will not take action, we should form another Government which will give consideration to the provision of social services for the people. It was said that we had to discard national insurance because we had not the money to put it into operation. There was no war at that time, yet we proposed to expend £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 a year for defence purposes. That provision has now been raised to £40,000,000; yet we cannot have national insurance to help the industrial soldiers of this country, who are consequently obliged to go on the dole. The wheat-growers of Australia are entitled to a fair deal. They will not be satisfied by being told merely that their wheat has been sold to Great Britain. On the previous occasion during the last war it was disposed of in that way, at about half the price ruling in other parts of the world. The farmers desire to know the price that they will receive for their wheat, but the Government says to them, in effect, " Open your mouth and shut your eyes and see what we shall send you ". The Government proposes to cut the price to the farmers down to 3s. 4d. a bushel at ports. If. that be a fair price, why did the party opposite impose the flour tax on the workers on the basis of the price of 5s. 2d. a bushel at Williamstown?, The Prime Minister said, "We will sell our goods to Great Britain, but we must make sure that we do not put on too high a price ". I. am now given to understand that the wheat of the farmers has been sold for 3s. 4d. a bushel, or Yd. a bushel less than the cost of production. Even at this early stage of the war there are indications of profiteering on every hand. I recently received the following letter from the business manager of a newspaper published in Kalgoorlie - >We enclose herewith a circular issued by the Association of Wholesale Paper Merchants of Western Australia and a copy of a letter from one of its members which should prove quite enlightening. > >We understand that it is the Commonwealth Government's intention to control actions such as this, and we would be pleased to have your reply after you have placed the matter before the proper authorities. ( Copy ofLetter. ) Dear **Sir,** We acknowledge with thanks receipt of your stock order No. 712 for navy linen and bank mill extra strong, and while we are pleased to receive such a nice order we regret that present stocks do not enable us to supply all of the quantities immediately. We have gone through our stock position very carefully and can supply the following. . . . We are reserving these quantities until we receive your reply to this letter, as prices have advanced considerably since you bought two months ago, and we would like your approval before proceeding with the order. To-day's rates are as follows: - Tinted Navy Linen, 113/8 d. per lb. (previous price, 9d. per lb.); White Navy Linen, 103/4d. per lb. (previous price, 81/2d. per lb. ) ; Bank Mill Extra Strong, 1/6 per lb. (previous price, 1/21/3 per lb.). We are carrying normal supplies only at present, and during the last few days we have been absolutely" raided " for local stock : consequently, it has been necessary for us to ' increase prices to cover to-day's replacement value, and this step has been taken by all merchants throughout the Commonwealth. You should receive in to-day's mail a circular which was posted yesterday cancelling all price lists and explaining to-day's position. This will give you some indication of the way things are with us here in Perth. {: type="A" start="P"} 0. S.- Since dictating this letter instructions have arrived from head office to increase Navy Linen, both white and tinted, to 1/- per lb., and Bank Mill Extra Strong to1/81/2 per lb. The circular issued by the Association of Wholesale Paper Merchants of Western Australia states, *inter alia -* >The new paper mill at Burnie has already increased prices of their products by approximately one-third, and are now requiring three to four months for delivery of orders. I now turn to a report of a meeting of the company associated with the Burnie Pulp and Paper Mills, which reads as follows - >Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Limited of Burnie (Tasmania) has increased the prices of its products since the outbreak of war in Europe to the level to which the company ad-' vised the Tariff Board it was intended to lift them if the protective duty applied for was granted. > >Announcing this at the annual meeting of shareholders to-day, the chairman said it was estimated that the increased price would give shareholders a reasonable return on capital, and enable provisions to be made for reserves and amortisation. , . . . In a recent four-weekly period the company had obtained a daily output of finished paper of about 40 tons, which should rise to 60 tons as soon as the auxiliary plant had been run in. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- The prices have been reduced as the result of the Government's proclamation. {: #subdebate-28-0-s4 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN: -- I know that the honorable member is brave, but he will find that he cannot control the actions of the Government. In Great Britain thousands of tons of wheat are being bought from Rumania, and wheat is also" being purchased from Winnipeg at 3s. 91/2d. a bushel, which is barely a payable price. In Chicago the price is 5s. l1/2d. a bushel. I desire to know why the Prime Minister has adopted such a cheese-paring policy as to fix the price to the Australian farmers at 3s. 4d. a bushel. Surely Australia should not be thrown to the wolves because this country is at war. Such action is not likely to increase the patriotism of the people. We have no desire to exploit the British public, as is shown by the fact that, under our tariff, preferential rates are granted to Great Britain ; but we contend that it is a poor rule that does not work both ways. I make no apology for referring to an injustice that has been done to Western Australia. Care should be taken that the people are not exploited by the big men for whom the present Government stands, and to whom it must go for the funds needed for its election campaigns. We should also see that the workers, whether in the factories, in the mines or on the farms, are not exploited. A compulsory wheat pool is now to be established. As long ago as 1930, the Labour party propounded a policy for the setting up of a compulsory wheat pool, but its proposals were rejected, the Country party claiming that it would be necessary to obtain agreement amongst all of the States with regard to the matter. When **Mr. Parker** Moloney called representatives of the farmers together in Canberra in 1930, the Labour Government's proposals were not put into operation because they did not suit the wheatbuyers, who rig the market to get a rake-off. There is no representative of the Wheat-growers Union on the Wheat Board. Who are the members? The chairman is **Mr. Olive** Macpherson, who is appointed by the Government. He is a director of the National Bank of Australia. **Mr. H.** G. Darling is a wheatbuyer and the head of the National Union, which is the spearhead of the United Australia party. He is also one of the heads of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Louis Dreyfus and Company are also traders in wheat. Then there is **Mr. J.** S. Teasdale. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- He is a Western Australian. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN: -- I do not say anything against him. The farmers in Western Australia sometimes like to sell their wheat in the open market, but **Mr. Teasdale** will see that a certain, quantity goes to the wheat pools in Western Australia. He is backing the wrong horse, for he is associated with the Country party, one of whose candidates was defeated at an election in Western Australia yesterday. The man we should have had to represent the Western Australian wheatgrowers, and whose name I suggested to the Government, was **Mr. Powell,** the secretary of the Wheat-growers Union. We should also have had the secretary of the Wheat-growers Union of South Australia on the board. I shall, however, leave it for the Labour representatives for South Australia. - they are men who may be trusted - and the representatives of the Victorian Country party to say what they think about the men who have been appointed as the representatives of the wheat-growers in those States. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- What i» wrong with **Mr. Field?** {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr GREEN: -- Perhaps the honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** will be able to vouch for him, but even if he doe3 so, I shall still have to make my own inquiries 1 The plain fact is that the wheatgrowers' organizations are not represented . as they should be on this board. " Big business " is well represented. When " big business " says to this Government . " March ", the Government marches, and when it says " Halt ", the Government halts. 1 hope that the Country party will join with the Labour party in protesting to the Prime Minister against the injustice of the deal that the wheat-growers of this country are receiving. I do not wish to issue a threat, but the Country party is prepared to sit down on this issue because each is asking, " Whose turn will it be next to be taken into the Ministry ? " I am reminded of a story that I once heard. A fellow married a very fine-looking woman.. Some time afterwards her sister came to live in the home. She also was a fine-looking woman, but much younger. The two were much alike. This man's friend said to him on one occasion : " I do not know how you can discriminate between the two ". The man replied : " I do not try ". Personally I find it difficult to discriminate between the United Australia party and the' Country party. I wish now to deal with the banana industry of Western Australia, which has also been most, shabbily treated by this Government. After many trials and experiments, extending from 1918 to 192&, during which many failures were experienced, the banana industry has been established in Western Australia. Along the banks of the Gascoyne River, near Carnarvon, where it empties into SharkBay, a distance of about 700 miles north of Perth, we now have 50 familes engaged in growing bananas. That country has only an 8-in. rainfall, and the industry requires to be thoroughly well organized on scientific lines to have any assurance of success. For many years the people of Western Australia depended upon bananas imported from Java, for it was too costly and unsatisfactory to bring bananas from Queensland or New South Wales. The bananas of Java are grown principally by native labour on a wage of 71/2d. a day. Admittedly the soil and climate of Java are admirably suited for the production of this fruit. Even now more than half of the bananas required in Western Australia are being obtained from Java, and are competing on most unequal conditions with the local product. However, the people of Western Australia are now also able to enjoy bananas grown in their own State. In 1937-38, we produced 26.500 cases of bananas and imported 31,000 centals from Java. As Java take goods from Australia valued at only one-sixth of the value of the goods we import from that country, the people of Western Australia decided that, as the competition from Java was fierce, it was desirable that they should reduce the imports from that country. Western Australia is the only State which has had to pay duty on bananas. The large quantities of this fruit grown in Queensland and New South Wales are sufficient to supply the needs of the eastern States. In order to ascertain the exact position in regard to the payment of duty on bananas I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, upon notice, on 31st May the following questions : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the duty and sales tax on bananas collected in Western Australia for the year 1937-38 was £16,319, and for the rest of the Commonwealth only the infinitesimal amount of £2 ? 1. Is it a fact that the State of Western Australia is, under great difficulties, making strenuous efforts to supply its own requirements of this commodity? 2. If so, will the Commonwealth Government earmark this £16,319 and hand it over to that State in order to equip the growers with special pumping plants and other necessary machinery, and to provide funds to devote the necessary scientific inquiry into the special problems connected with banana-growing in Western Australia; with the final view in mind of making the State independent of outside sources? He informed me that the Minister for Commerce had supplied him with the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Import duty and primage on bananas entering Western Australia in 1937-38 amounted to approximately £16,319, and in other States to approximately £2. Sales tax collected on bananas in Western Australia in that year was approximately £1,600. No sales tax was collected in other States. 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Government has no official information in regard to the progress made in the development of this industry in Western Australia, and has not received any request from Western Australia for financial assistance in connexion therewith. Those figures show clearly the unfair position in which Western Australia finds itself. I have no doubt that the £2 mentioned relates merely to an experimental shipment imported for some reason or other. In the last twelve years the people of Western Australia have paid £136,303 in customs duties on bananas. We, therefore, thought it was a fair thing to take steps to expand our industry so that imports of bananas would be unnecessary. For that reason I asked that the money now being paid in customs duty should be earmarked to enable the Western Australian industry to be developed on the most scientific lines possible. Moreover, our people desired their fruit to be grown by white labour under Australian conditions. It was impossible for the Government of Western Australia to finance fully the industry, and as even under the existing conditions it was leading to the development of country thai could scarcely be used for any other purpose, we thought it a fair thing to invite the Commonwealth Government to grant the concession which I have indicated. We desire to establish another group of 60 planters with their families in the Gascoyne area. This would result in providing employment for probably 1,000 people. The locality not only has a rainfall of only about eight inches but it also has other disadvantages. Rain falls so irregularly that sometimes drought conditions exist for long periods. That *the* industry has been established at all, is a high testimony to the characteristic pertinacity of the people of the inland. The Gascoyne River has a. watershed that is probably as extensive as that of the Darling River, but the rainstorms that feed the river occur hundreds of miles away, and the water rapidly sinks through the river bed into subterranean courses. On an average the rain floods the river over its banks and round the town of Carnarvon only once a year. The banana growers there have, consequently, found it necessary to erect windmills. Recently petrol and oil-driven pumps have been installed to lift water from the river bed for irrigation purposes. Another difficulty that the growers have had to combat is the high winds that prevail in that latitude for a great part of the year. To overcome this adversity the planters have erected brush fences to a height of twelve feet or so around their plantations. I ' requested the Commonwealth Government to make available the whole of the customs duty collected in respect of bananas imported into "Western Australia but **Mr. Wise,** the State Minister for Agriculture, was more modest and asked for only 25 per cent, of it. The reply made by the Minister for Commerce was not only foolish, it was also inaccurate in that it stated that the Commonwealth Government had received no official information in respect of this industry, nor any request from Western Australia for assistance. I have on many occasions referred to the matter in this Parliament. Fortunately, I can furnish other evidence that requests have been made from the State Government for assistance. There is on the departmental file a long letter from the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture to the present Minister for Supply and Development **(Mr. Casey)** under date the 4th January, 1938. This makes a definite request for assistance. I shall not read it all, but I direct the attention of honorable members to the following paragraphs : - >The State government has endeavoured to provide relief to the growers in assisting them to establish this industry by way of concessions in haulage and handling costs, spending money in locating subterranean water channels in the river bed, provision of suitable trucks for transport from the goods shed to the jetty, and by advances to growers from the Treasury to assist them in financing their activities. Transport has been and will be a very difficult problem in forwarding this crop to the market of Perth, and the State government has spent over £5,000 per annum in recent years in making a traffickable road to the nearest point of the railway to enable the settlers to have an outlet when boats are infrequent. > >In making a request to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth for an annual grant of some of the money collected by way of duty, this Government feels that the money would be allocated to this industry in the interests of the whole of the Commonwealth. I would point out that the production of the Carnarvon fruit has meant no diminution of the amount imported, as the lowering of the price of the commodity has resulted in a much greater consumption within the State of this important fruit. I would earnestly ask your Government to give consideration to granting annually a sum to enable growers to make adequate provision for water supplies in the river bed and on the banks of the river, and for financing units suitable for lifting the water to the level of the cultivated areas. This could be done on a grant of a specific sum or, say, 25 per cent, of the amount collected, to be distributed ' amongst the growers or by the payment of a bounty on production in a way similar to the assistance given to many other primary industries. It might be that an arrangement could be made to distribute the money on the basis of a formula as has been the case with amounts distributed in the eastern States. > >As the State government has advanced several thousands from the Treasury .on loan and in other directions to assist this industry in the western State, federal assistance would not only be a splendid gesture of confidence but a contribution to the lasting success in the establishment of a primary product which is at present imported to the extent of 30,000 centals per annum. I again request the Government to give sympathetic consideration to these submissions. I shall deal with certain other matters when the details of the Estimates are under consideration. The Government may be assured that we shall do our utmost to obtain redress of our grievances. It will be of little use to charge honorable members of this party with disloyalty. The people know where we stand. Even though many far-reaching regulations have already been gazetted under the terms of the National Security Act, we are determined to travel through the country and tell the people the truth. {: #subdebate-28-0-s5 .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK:
Riverina .- This budget may truly be called the preliminary. We are accustomed to supplementaries, but we have been informed by the Treasurer **(Mr. Menzies)** that we may, on this occasion, look for another substantial war budget in the near future, and that it will provide for further heavy increases of taxation in order to provide money for the defence of Australia. It would be futile, therefore, to spend much time dealing with the tax proposals of this budget. Obviously, these measures are necessary, as will also be the supplementary taxation measures to be introduced later. I was very pleased that the Treasurer, when submitting his figures to us, did not attempt to mislead us or the people at large. He did not tell us that it would be possible to obtain from some well of gold, or the printing of notes, the money that was needed for defence purposes. He made it quite clear that, whatever the war cost, it would have to be paid for now or at some future time. Posterity, he said, could be expected to meet some of the cost, for governments were justified in spreading over a period of years the repayments of expense* incurred in providing public services, defence and otherwise. The main and vital factor dealt with in this budget is defence. The people of Australia are beginning to realize that the wheels of our defence machinery are moving too slowly. I have no doubt whatever as to the sincerity, capacity or energy of the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Street).** I believe that the Defence Department desires to do everything possible to ensure the safety of this country. But, the wheel* seem to be clogged. There is a public demand that defence activities should be speeded up. We must all realize, as the result of the recruiting effort last year, when 70,000 men volunteered, that our people have indicated their willingness to provide adequate man-power; Thousands more are prepared to join the colours and enter upon a course of training. But the Government did not take any action to encourage their enthusiasm ; they were told that their services were not required. That was an unfortunate mistake, seeing that we then anticipated what has since transpired. One of the first obligations of any government is the defence of its territory and people. No stone should be left unturned to that end, and in this crisis what has to be done should be done quickly for no one can foresee how soon we shall need these men. It has been said frequently in this House that to send untrained men to meet trained soldiers is to commit murder. Yet how many men have we got in camp ? Lieutenant-General Squires, the expert who was brought here to advise us, said that a standing army should be established as soon as possible. It has not been done. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- I suggest that the honorable member wait for about another 24 hours before offering further criticism along that line. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- I am pleased to have that hint from the Minister. When men volunteered, and many even offered to provide their own horses and go into training, the Defence Department replied that it had not sufficient men to train them. But throughout Australia large numbers of returned soldiers were, and still are, prepared to go into camp, and take a. refresher course to modernize their present knowledge, and then tak, on the job of training men in country districts. Their offers were refused. These are the things we regret. Some of the enthusiasm that existed at the time of the recruiting campaign has died, anr! if. will need to be revived. Even now, if the Government would only announce that it is prepared to take all healthy volunteers and arrange for their training and supply the uniform and equipment, there would be a speedy response from the men of Australia. About twelve months ago I referred to offers made by men in country districts to form mechanized units. These men are used to tractors and used to horses, and could be trained for this work much more rapidly, and probably would show greater efficiency, than .many of the youths from in and around the cities and suburbs. Yet, because . of the cost of supplying the necessary military equipment, their offers too were refused, notwithstanding that returned soldiers of high standing had offered to accept the responsibility of supervising their training and caring for the plant provided. The Government should not miss any chance to obtain the services of such men. I have here the plan of a fine pavilion which a pastoral and agricultural society is prepared to erect in a country town where 90 young men offered to join the Militia, but were refused because more than the required number had then enrolled. The committee controlling the local showground is prepared to extend its pavilion to 127 feet by 100 feet, to provide kitchen and special rooms in which military equipment could be locked, and also to allow the Defence Department the use of fourteen acres of land adjacent to the rifle range, for all except about two days each year when it will require the property for the annua] show - provided that the department will take a lease of the property for ten years at £120 per annum. The department replied that premises at present rented in that town are sufficient for the require ments of the existing troop of 35, and this is the town in which the offer of 90 volunteers was refused. I regard that as sheer lack of vision and business capacity by the Defence Department. {: .speaker-KLC} ##### Mr Mahoney: -- Who owns the building? {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- It has not yet been erected. The committee is prepared to erect it, and to allow the Defence Department to use it, excepting on the two days of their show for the whole year without incurring any capital outlay or liability for repairs, interest or depreciation. Even on the show days two lock-up rooms would be still available. I regard that as. a splendid offer, and I suggest that, even now, the Defence Department should review the matter in the light of the fact that this country is now at war, and may need the services of every man available. I do not know whether the action taken to safeguard bridges on main roads is a genuine defence effort, or a mockery. Men are standing at the ends of a bridge with nothing in their hands to protect either themselves or the structure from attack. Insome instances the guards are armed with pick-handles. Yet I understand that these men are supposed to be " training ". {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- To what bridge does the honorable gentleman refer ? Mr.NOCK. - I refer to many bridges on the main roads in New South Wales. I have not yet seen any suggestion that action is being taken to organize protection against fire caused by air raids in country districts. In 1926 a fire which was started bya spark from a train. burned property worth £500,000 in one day in the western district of New South Wales. Two lives were lost and two other persons were so severely burned that they had to remain in hospital for months. Were an enemy aeroplane to come from a ship in the Pacific Ocean in December and drop phosphorus in the wheat areas, as members of the Industrial Workers of the World are reported to have done some years ago, the countryside could be swept by fire. It would be worth while for the Defence Department to take precautionary measures for the control of fires caused in this way. I now turn to the general policy of the Government. By what a government does not do as often as by what it does, is its policy to be judged. The sympathy ' of the Government with rural industries has not been made particularly evident. It is not long since the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** speaking in one of the capital cities, said that the farmers of Australia would find a friend in the Government. He said that he believed that the man on the land should not have a lower standard of living than the man who worked in the factory, and that, his Government intended to put the wheat industry on a stable basis. He promised a stabilized price for wheat so that the wheat-growers would not have to come each year and seek Government assistance. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- Did he not try to redeem that promise.? {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- I shall show in what way he did so. The offer of the Prime Minister was that the Commonwealth Government would provide up to £2,000,000 per annum on condition that the States provided a further £1,500,000 each year so that up to £3, 500,000 would be available to assist the industry. That was equivalent to approximately6d.a bushel on 140,000,000 bushels, or about 5d. a bushel on the anticipated crop for the coming season. There was however, a string attached to the offer fortheright honorable gentleman said that when the price of wheat exceeded a certain amount - Ithink it was 3s. 6d. a bushel - half of the surplus was to be retained by the Government as aset-off against thecontributions made. I am iu favour of an equalization scheme based on a period of ten years, but when we study the figures for the last ten years, we realize what the offer of the Prime Minister really amounts to. The last nine years have been the worst in the history of the wheat industry in Australia, for the average price at Williamstown for export wheat has been 3s. 3d. a bushel. Had the Flour Tax Act been in operation for that period, the average return for those nine years would have been 3s. 7d. a bushel at ports. That price would have given an average of 3s. a bushel to the farmers. The aggregate cheque would have been £247,000,000, while the proposal of the Prime Minister, if spread over a similar period on the basis of similar yields and prices, and with the flour tax in operation, would have given to the farmers £237,000,000, namely £10,000,000 less. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- The Premiers of four States strongly supported the Commonwealth Government's proposal. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- That does not alter the facts. The figures of yields and prices which I have cited have been taken from the *Commonwealth Year Book.* Although most farmers and I personally desire a stabilization scheme, there is an obligation on the Government to accept some of the risk. The proposal of the Prime Minister meant that the Commonwealth would accept no risk, but would throw it all on the farmers. However, the position which existed at the time of the conference does not exist to-day. With, the declaration of war; the Government has determined, wisely, I think, that it- will - be necessary for the whole of the Australian wheat crop to be taken over and marketed through a compulsory wheat pool. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Green)** has just, complained that no representative of the organized wheatgrowers had been appointed to the board. He read out the name of **Mr. Field,** but evidently he does not know that **Mr. Field** is the president of the Federated Wheatgrowers of Australia, including Western Australia. **Mr. Teasdale,** of Western Australia, is also the president of a- bod* affiliated with this same organization. {: .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr Green: -- I accept the honorable member's statement; the Government has chosen a good man. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- The second indication of the Government's sympathy with rural industries being casual is shown in connexion with the sales tax on flour. In June last, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce what amount per bushel of wheat the sales tax on flour represented, and what the total would be when added to the market price of wheat. The answers supplied were 2s. Id. and 4s. 7fd. at port. Honorable members know that representatives of all the States and of the Commonwealth agreed that the home-consumption price for wheat should be 5s. 2d. a bushel f.o.r. at Williamstown, Victoria. Every State agreed that the flour tax should represent the difference be'twee'n the market price of wheat and 5s. 2d. f.o.r. Williamstown. But during the whole of the period in which the tax has been in operation that tax has been very much short of what it should have been and could have been without raising the price agreed upon for city and suburban bread, viz., 6d. a loaf delivered and 5£d. over the counter. The answer supplied by the Department of Commerce through the honorable member for Parramatta **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** was that the tax and the market price of wheat on the same day represented 4s. 7fd. on rails Williamstown instead of 5s. 2d. - a discrepancy of 6id. a bushel. The" result is that the fund for providing the bounty has received about £1 a ton - £650,000 for the year - less than the farmers were promised when the flour tax was imposed. While the validity of the flour tax was under challenge in the High Court this matter was not raised because no one knew the position, but, now that the High Court has upheld the tax, the Government, if it has real sympathy with the wheat-growers, should speedily remove all defects. Let me now deal with the tariff of 4$d. a gallon on diesel oil as imposed by this budget. If there be one obligation on the government of an exporting country it is not to place needless burdens on those who grow the products the sale of which provides overseas credits and maintains our solvency. Where diesel oil is used on tractors on farms the fuel should be exempt from excise. I do not claim exemption for the huge diesel trucks which use our roads - not even for the vehicles which carry the wool and wheat to the railways. The users of petrol-driven vehicles have to pay substantially for the construction and maintenance of highways and I see no reason why the users of diesel vehicles who use the roads should not also contribute. But I point out that in New Zealand even petrol used in the process of primary production is exempt from tax. It would be too difficult for the Government to exempt the petrol used on farms, because there would be no means of deciding whether or not the fuel was being used in farm machinery or the farmer's motor car. That difficulty, however, does not arise where diesel tractors are concerned because the fuel is only used in their tractors. There is no tariff on power kerosene and diesel fuel for tractors should also be free of the impost. My next point concerns the vaccine, produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which is used by farmers and graziers for the protection of stock, from entero toxaemia and other diseases. Until recently pasture protection boards were treated as wholesale distributors of this vaccine, but when some of them were prepared for cash to supply stockowners at wholesale rates, involving a rebate of 221/2 per cent., those boards, as the result of a protest from other distributors who were losing business, commission and profits, were threatened with a discontinuance of supplies unless they discontinued the practice. I ask the Government to take action to show real sympathy and ensure that the Pasture Protection Boards are! unhindered in this effort to assist in the reduction of costs of production. Surely the Government should be interested in any attempt to reduce production costs in industries which are definitely selling at a loss. I now approach & matter to which L have made reference before, but persistency often gets results. The Commonwealth Government owns 51 per cent. of the shares in the Commonwealth Oil Refineries, and surely a majority shareholder can dictate policy. A. primary producers' co-operative buying organization had an arrangement with a company which imported petrol and power kerosene by which they were treated as wholesale distributors. For cash this company took full truck lots of power kerosene for its members at a saving of £25 a truckload. What happened then? The major oil companies told the company that was providing these supplies through its Sydney organization that unless it discontinued it would be subjected to competition with cut prices on petrol. The result can well be imagined by honorable members. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- When was that action taken? {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- Within the last four months. I have correspondence from the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Perkins)** saying that the matter had been investigated. I have also interviewed the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs, **Mr. Abbott,** who is one of the directors of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. All we ask is that this organization which is paying cash should be supplied at wholesale rates so that the farmers can get their power kerosene at the lowest price possible provided the company is prepared to pay cash on delivery. There seems, however, to be more interest in securing the commission for distributors than in enabling the primary producers to reduce their costs. Here is an opportunity for the Government to do a real service at no financial cost to itself. For two years we have been awaiting the institution of the proposed long-term mortgage section of the Commonwealth Bank. I urge again that the Government do all that is possible to expedite the inauguration so that it may commence to function. I realize that with scarcity of finance and as the result of the Government's difficulties in the present situation, it will not be possible for a mortgage bank to be 100 per cent. efficient for the time being, but let us get it established. Once the mortgage bank starts operations it will be some competition with the private banks. If it can lend on the security of land for long terms at reasonable rates it will give the graziers and farmers security and they will know that they will not be called upon at short notice to meet overdrafts or mortgages. Furthermore, the lower rates of interest that would be charged by such a bank should have an influence on the rates charged by the other institutions. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- What is wrong with the private banks? The honorable member is always defending them. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- I have no control over the private banks, but this Parliament has authority over the Commonwealth Bank. This Government could have legislation passed at any time to set up the mortgage section and I urge that action be expedited. Few people recognize the heavy costs which press on the primary producers as the direct result of the tariff. Let me give one instance : There has been a wise effort among primary producers to conserve ensilage. I know of one case where the luxuriant pasture was gathered and placed in pits for storage. For every truckload a gallon of petrol was used. Twelve truckloads were carted a day with the result that the farmer had to pay 7s.6d. a day in petrol duty. {: .speaker-KQB} ##### Mr Scully: -- If he had used horses it would have cost him nothing. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- And he would not have been able to do half as much. I hope that the Government will take notice of the practical suggestions for the reduction of costs in primary production that I have placed before the committee. It will be judged by its action. The honorable member for Wakefield **(Mr. McHugh)** recommended that in the forthcoming supplementary budget provision should be made for an increase of the land tax. The land tax was instituted for the purpose of breaking up big estates. {: .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr McHugh: -- And it has not failed to do so. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- It has failed. The land tax is a tax upon capital, one class of capital. It is not a tax upon the factory machinery, which is the factory man's capital, but it is a tax on the land in the country, which is the primary producers' capital. Moreover, the land tax applies regardless of whether or not there is a mortgage on property. It does not. matter whether the property is mortgaged up to 90 per cent. of its value, which is probably far in excess of the unimproved capital value. If the value of the property is more than £5,000, it is taxed, and, in some instances, the tax represents over 2d. per lb., nearly 25 per cent. of the value of the wool produced. The Government would be unwise if it added to the land tax, because in the country the tax is added to the cost of production and in the city it is passed on in overhead charges in the costs of manufacture. {: .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr McHugh: -- Pastoral lessees pay no tax at all. Two-thirds of the land tax is paid by city interests. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr NOCK: -- I am aware of the fact that the farmer whose property is valued at less than £5,000 does not pay the federal land tax, but I point out that in South Australia there is a State land tax of which the honorable member for Wakefield is well aware. The matter with which I finally wish to deal concerns the sale of Australian products in mass as the result of the war. The honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** has already reminded honorable members that during the last war Australian wheat was sold at 4s. 9d. on rail and 5s. 2d. including all expenses on ships to the British Government which was then paying 9s. 3d. a bushel in other countries. The Australian producers do not ask for more than a fair deal, but they do submit that one section of the community should not be called upon to provide charity even to Great Britain. If Australia as a whole wants to send a present of £1,000,000 worth of goods to Britain as the result of a vote by this Parliament that is all right because all will share. But if a particular product is commandeered in that way, and disposed of to Great Britain at half of the price Great Britain would have to pay other countries for that commodity, the producers of that particular commodity, and they alone, are asked to subsidize Great Britain. The authorities appointed to handle the disposal of these products should do their utmost to secure for the producers a fair and reasonable deal. It should be provided that the price of tlie commodity be reviewed from time to time according to fluctuations in world prices or alternatively provision should be made for an annual review of the prices. Such conditions could be embodied in all of these agreements, even though they may be for the whole of the period of the war and six months after. Another condition which could be provided, similar to that which operated in connexion with wool in 1914, would be that half of the profit made in the disposal of products left on hand after the war should be rebated to the producers. I suggest, furthermore, that should Great Britain sell to Japan or any other country any wool taken under the proposed arrangement during the period of the war, half of the profit on such sales should be rebated to the producers. I support the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** in urging that special care should be exercised in determining commissions and handling charges. However, the figures submitted by the honorable member were not quite fair. He said that in the last war a certain firm had been paid £74,000 commission, and another £147,000. That statement was misleading, because those amounts represent, not merely commissions, but also all the costs incurred by agents, such as wages for lumpers, coverage, protection against weather and mice, insurance charges and also stacking and handling costs. I have had some, experience in the handling of wheat in South Australia. At that time the handling or agency charge was Id. a bushel with free storage for twelve months. To-day, at the silos in New South "Wales, in addition to railage, there is a handling charge of lid. a bushel, and as from the 1st April the storage charge has been £d. a month. On wheat in storage for six months, these charges would amount to 4£d. a bushel, which is a heavy impost with the price of wheat at ls. 6d. a bushel. Another point in the marketing of these commodities arises in. respect of the fluctuation of the value of currencies. At the present rate of exchange, £100 Australian is equivalent to only £80 in London, whilst £100 in London is equivalent to £125 here. Should this war last as long as the last one, a grave danger exists that the returns to the producers of these commodities will decrease as our rate of currency fluctuates adversely in relation to sterling. These are matters in which steps should be taken to protect our producers as far as possible in all the arrangements made for the disposal of our products. In conclusion, I desire to express my satisfaction that it is the intention of this Government to give effect to the decision of its predecessor to remove the surcharge on interstate telegrams as soon as possible. {: #subdebate-28-0-s6 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- Before addressing myself generally to the budget, I propose to offer a few comments on the attitude adopted in this discussion by honorable members of the alleged Country party, which in my view could be better likened to a gang of mercenaries who are prepared to sell their support to the highest bidder. Since he has been a member of this Parliament, the honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** to my knowledge has not previously made a speech which could be described as critical of the Government. It is only since the Government has ousted the Country party from the Ministry, and the honorable member himself has lost his fee as one of the Government Whips, that he has become a stern critic of the Government. What is it that the honorable member asks for on behalf pf the particular interests whose case he has just presented? His new leader, the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron),** spoke this afternoon about the unreality of discussions in this Parliament. He said that, judging by debates here, one would be led to believe that this country was not engaged in a war. I point out, however, that the honorable gentleman has been absent from debates in this chamber continuously for the last 48 hours. He was elsewhere with his colleagues wrangling over the leadership of the Country party, and disputing as to who of their number should be asked to accept office in the proposed coalition government. To-night the honorable member for Riverina, on the pretext of assisting the wheat-growers, asks the Government to do certain things. No doubt in his own mind, the honorable member's requests seem very moderate. He asks that no tax be levied on diesel oil used by the primary producers. He wants power kerosene supplied to them at wholesale prices. Then he asks that land tax be abolished. {: .speaker-K4X} ##### Mr Nock: -- I did not. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The honorable member also asks that handling costs in the marketing of primary products be considerably reduced. I point out that the very interests on whose behalf he has spoken to-night were responsible for the abolition of awards enjoyed by workers employed in the rural industries of New South Wales. Now he asks the Government to do all of these things for this section of the community. Perhaps he thinks he is not asking for very much. He asks for a guaranteed price for wheat, and at the same time suggests that the flour tax should be increased in order to raise the revenue necessary to enable the Government to provide that price. Furthermore, he suggests that the Government should establish a mortgage bank. This champion of private enterprise, who on all previous occasions has opposed any suggestion that the Government should embark on anything savouring of government interference with, private enterprise; now, when the private banks desire to unload some doubtful mortgages, declares that the Commonwealth Bank must lie asked to come to the assistance of the growers. He asks that a mort gage bank be established, but does not. suggest that it should be given a monopoly of mortgage business. His proposal is that this bank should take over only the bad mortgages, that it should carry the more risky and doubtful mortgages, and, in addition, that it -should do so at reduced rates of interest. If the honorable gentleman is sincere in his desire to assist the wheat-growers, he must realize the necessity for some improvement of the present financial system. With the exception that he has suggested the establishment of a mortgage bank, he has made no proposal in that direction. No scheme of assistance to wheat-growers will be of any use unless some action be taken to relieve them of their burden of debt. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** admitted that (here was a growing opinion in this country in favour of a change in the monetary system. The great majority of our peopleare resolved to defend this country against aggression, but, at the same time, many will be greatly disappointed when they learn that this Government proposes to finance this war in the same way as the last war was financed. Every honorable member knows that Australia has been in difficulties ever since the last war principally because of the burdens which were placed on the people under that system. Consequently, in recent years there has been a growing demand for financial reform in this country. Whilst admitting that fact, however, the Prime Minister attempted to dismiss the subject by ridiculing any suggestion that any other system would give better service to the people. He said - >I have been increasingly conscious of late of the growth of a tendency in the minds of many people which may be put in this way - ' there is a hidden spring of wealth somewhere. It is called the credit of the community. All you have to do is to tap it. Honorable members who have spoken in this debate in support of the Government have admitted that the Commonwealth Bank can come to the assistance of the Government to-day by- releasing credit. Some of them have said that there is a limit to that accommodation. I agree with them on that point. But in my opinion the limit is not reached until our complete resources of man-power, materials and equipment are being fully utilized. But let us see what the Minister for Supply and Development **(Mr. Casey)** had to say on this matter a little while ago when he was Treasurer. . It is remarkable that whilst honorable members opposite now declare that there is no limit to the amount of money available for defence in the present war, they have always contended that sufficient money could not bp found to give effect to proposals made by the Opposition for the extension of social services. The Minister for Supply and Development is reported under the heading " Money Will be Found in the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 87th October, 1938, as follows: - >Let mc state at once and as definitely as can that money has been found for defence, money is being found for defence, and money will *be* found for defence - just as much and just as fast as it is wanted. Let me state too, just as definitely and unequivocally that the Commonwealth Bank Board does riot stand in the way of raising money for defence and would be swept out of the way if it attempted to do so. When I have been asked how much money is available for defence, I have consistently said that it is not the proper approach to the position. The proper statement of the case is: what is it necessary to do to ensure the security of Australia? And I have always replied that whatever money is necessary for . this purpose, will be found promptly and without question. I repeat as I have stated publicly before, that since I have been Federal Treasurer the Defence Department has in effect written its own ticket in matters of finance. In view of the contention of honorable members opposite that the accommodation which can be made available to the Government through the Commonwealth Bank is strictly limited, how was the ex-Treasurer able to give an undertaking last year to the people of this country that if the Commonwealth Bank Board were to stand in the way of raising money for defence, the Government would sweep the board out of existence, and compel it to make available all of the money which the Government required for that purpose? Let us see exactly how the last war was financed under the system which honorable members opposite have championed in this debate. Let us examine the so-called orthodox method of finance. The Treasury - loaned cash to the private banks at certain rates of interest. The banks lent that money to customers at increased rates of interest and the customers lent it back to the Treasury for war purposes at still higher rates of interest. That is exactly how the last war was financed, and it will be the method by which this war will be financed. Because of the control which the Commonwealth Bank Board exercises over financial policy in Australia the development of this country has -been retarded. During the last five years the State governments have been refused financial accommodation to the extent of £23,000,000 which they wanted for necessary State works'. They were told that there was no money available. In my opinion, there should be only one limit to the capacity of governments to carry out defence or developmental works. The only limiting factors should be man power, materials, and equipment. How can it be said that the Government is adequately providing for the defence of the country when, in New South Wales alone, there are 70,000 unemployed men who are, through no fault of their own, taking no part at all in the national effort? Honorable members opposite say that because of the burden of our defence programme all other activities must be stopped. I believe, however, that so long as the carrying out of our defence programme does not entail the transfer of labour now engaged elsewhere, but only the absorption of unemployed men and materials, it' will not impose any additional burden on the community, provided the operations are financed in a proper way. How should we approach this question? The best way is to remember that financial arrangements have no other purpose than to facilitate the employment of men, equipment, and materials upon useful enterprises. The day has gone by when a government 'was justified in saying that though a certain public work was desirable it could not be carried out because there was no money. All we should ask ourselves is whether there is sufficient man-power available, and whether we have the material and equipment to do the job. Provided those things are available, the Commonwealth Bank should provide the necessary financial accommodation, whether the work be for defence or development. On the subject of finance, the Prime Minister made this statement - >Consequently, what any central bank has to do in any country is to adjust its credit policy to what it believes to be the economic circumstances of the moment, always keeping in mind the position of the trading banks, the position of the credit facilities in the community, the degree to which there may be unemployment over what might be described as an irreducible minimum, and the extent to which prices are moving up or down. It is rather significant that he should have placed the needs of the trading banks first. The Prime Minister is a word-spinner, and I should like to know just what he meant by the expression " irreducible minimum ". I should say that the irreducible minimum is when every man physically able to work is fully employed. Only those persons should be unemployed who, because of infirmity or for some other reason, are unable to work. We have not reached that stage yet. I would also point out to the Prime Minister that the Commonwealth Bank was not in the first place intended to be a central bank. Because the private banks had been levying toll on the community, and it was necessary to provide some protection for the people, a Labour government instituted the Commonwealth Bank, which was to be a people's bank designed eventually to supplant them in every phase of banking operations. But this Government, or to be correct, previous governments of a similar political colour, stepped in and, by an amendment of the Commonwealth Bank Act, turned the Common wealth Bank into a central bank, whose function was to prop up the private banks. The Prime Minister went on - >The position of course is that exactly the same kind of limitation exists upon the power of the Commonwealth Bank to inject credit into the financial structure as exists in relation to its power to print notes and make them legal tender. When the point of prudence is passed, then prices and costs are increased, and the value of money in circulation is diminished. As a matter of fact, credit infusions cause prices to rise only when they are continued beyond the point when every able-bodied man is fully employed. Then if there are further injections of credit, prices rise because of increased competition for the available manpower and resources; but if credit injections are used only to bring about the employment of idle man-power and the use of idle resources, they do not have the effect of increasing prices. A little later the Prime Minister said - >It is, of course, well known that at whatever earlier point the limit of central bank action is reached, it is undoubtedly reached when the resources both of man-power and material are as fully engaged as practicable. With the latter portion of the statementI agree. That, admittedly, is the limit, but we have not reached it yet. The Prime Minister said that we could not proceed with our programme for improving social services because all the money available was required for defence. This was said in. order to make a cushion for the Minister for Social Services **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** to fall on - the Minister who had threatened to resign if the Government did not take steps to introduce immediately a system of national insurance. We are still waiting for the Minister to carry out his threat. Finally, the Prime Minister stated - >It would be mere folly for us to pretend that, spending as we are now, spending, with all the possibilities that reside in relation to our economy both external and internal,we can consider these problems in quite the same light as that in which we might have considered them before. I have here an article published in the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 21st March last, on the subject of national insurance. It states - >Australia is spending £30,000,000 per annum on all phases of defence out of a national income of not less than £750,000,000, that is 4 per cent. Can the country do this and at the same time proceed with a major measure of social reform like national insurance! To throw some light on this matter, it is necessary to get behind the veil of money which seems toobscure our visionso often on economic problems. There is a world of difference between the problem of defence and the problem of national insurance. In defence we have to embark upon a big enterprise involving the use of labour and resources to build factories, make ammunitions, build ships, and so on. It is a matter of diverting menand resources from the normal developmental activities to the more pressing needs of national defence. With national insurance, the problem is one of organizing on a different basis our medical and health servicesand our provision for old age. As national insurance will not draw upon the labour and resources required for defence, it can hardly be argued on this ground that we cannot afford both. {: .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart: -- The honorable member himself voted to defeat the National Insurance Bill. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I voted against the scheme proposed by the Government because it was placing the burden of old-age and invalid pensions on the workers instead of on the community as a whole. I said that the Labour party believed in social legislation to ensure that those who are unable to provide for themselves should be provided for out of general revenue, so that through the taxes, the wealthy sections of the community would contribute towards the cost. The statement I have just quoted was not made by a member of the Labour party, but by Professor Copland, who has been appointed Economic Advisor to the Government. I ask the Government whether it proposes to be guided in regard to social services by what Professor Copland stated in that article? Does the Government propose to accept his assurance that there is no reason why it cannot go on with its defence programme and its social service programme at one and the same time? In his budget speech, the Prime Minister said that the history of war was a history of credit expansion, whilst post-war history had always been a record of economic crisis and suffering. I admit that that has been our experience in the past, but how hopeless is the future of our people if we have nothing to look forward to but a repetition of that, experience in the future. The honorable member for Indi **(Mr. McEwen)** has assured us that this war is going to cost even more than did the last one. If tha Government intends to finance this war in the same way as it did the last, one, we can imagine what will happen when it finishes. We know what the , workers have suffered as the result of conditions brought about by the last war. It appears that the workers must always lose whether their country wins « war or loses it. If we win, those who are fortunate enough to be alive at the end of the war, will be compelled to live in poverty and degradation in order that the country may go on paying toll to the super-patriots who lent their money during the war at high rates of interest. On tlie other hand, if we lose the war, the people may lose a measure of civil liberty, but beyond that what have they to lose? The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** said the other night that we must prepare' for a. long war; that we should not be misled by suggestions that the German people would revolt agains! Hitler; that, they all were behind Hitler, because he had given them work. I disagree with the honorable member. I believe that the German people will revolt against Hitler if an opportunity presents itself, because he has destroyed their civil liberties, but the honorable member effectively destroyed his own argument that the unemployed workers should rush to defend our free institutions against, the attack of the enemy, when one ' of the liberties that they are asked to defend is the freedom to slowly starve to death on an insufficient food ration. In New South Wales there are at present 70,000 persons unemployed, 48,000 of whom have, been certified as ablebodied. What has been done by this Government and other governments of the same political complexion to assist these unfortunate men? All they have done has been to offer a mere pittance in the form of food relief or the. dole. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr Drakeford: -- A similar position exists in other States. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I can speak more definitely concerning New South Wales, but I know that similar conditions prevail through out the Commonwealth. Moreover, in the metropolitan area of Sydney during the financial year 193S-39 no fewer than 3,470 eviction orders were issued. Notwithstanding this state of affairs, honorable members opposite say that in view of the international situation we must put everything aside in order to ensure the safety of the Empire. The honorable member for Riverina **(Mr. Nock)** complained because the Commonwealth Government had declined an offer by an agricultural society in ;i country town, to lease its property to the Commonwealth Government for a period of years at a. rental of £125 per annum as a training centre. ! should like to know whether that society ever offered the pavilion on the property which it, does not use for 363 days a year free of cost to house the unemployed. Had any attempt been made by the unfortunate homeless to use it as a shelter, they would have been prosecuted for trespassing. T<> show the deplorable conditions which exist in the Commonwealth, I may stale that of 1,550 bouses which were » inspected tit Erskineville, S82 were without a bath. These disabilities, according *u>* smile honorable members opposite, cannot be removed because sufficient funds ure not available, but. thy workers who are expected to submit to. such conditions are the first, who will be called upon to risk their lives in the. defence of their country. A conference of health inspectors in New South Wales declared that the houses available at rents allowed by arbitration and industrial courts are, for the most part, unfit for human habitation. The *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 22nd March, 1937, stated that the over-crowding and slum conditions in that year were worse than they were in 1913, and that in many instances two or more persons were occupying single rooms in which all the cooking was done on a gas ring. In 1919 the problem of providing adequate housing for the people was considered, and a royal commission appointed by the Commonwealth Government recommended the Government of the day to proceed at once with a housing scheme. Some years later the right honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page),** who was then the Commonwealth Treasurer, undertook to provide £20,000,000 to give effect to the finding of the royal commission; but the Government did not make the money available. I do not suggest, however, that this Government has not done anything with respect to housing. I direct the attention of honorable members to the lavish manner in which public money has been expended to provide accommodation for the Duke and Duchess of Kent who, until recently, proposed to reside in the Australian Capital Territory. Since the Commonwealth acquired the homestead at Yarralumla som'e years ago and decided to convert it into a residence for the Governor-General, approximately £100,000 has been expended on the house and grounds. When honorable members on this side of the chamber have informed the Government of the slum conditions which exist at the Causeway and Molonglo, and have asked that reasonable accommodation be provided for those who are compelled to live there, they have been informed that no funds are available. I have been advised that £3,233 has been expended on panelling with polished Queensland maple, the entrance hall and three rooms at Yarralumla. When the expensive panelling had been placed in position the Duchess of Kent advised the Government that she preferred the rooms to be white. The Government then directed that all the expensive polished Queensland maple should be enamelled white, thus incurring additional and unnecessary expense. I' am not blaming these people because they are not responsible. I blame the Government, the members of which are probably looking for favours from the Royal couple before whose feet they will fall. We have also read in the newspapers that £50 a pair is being paid for sheets for the Royal household. This extravagance is not confined to the Duke and Duchess, because unnecessary expenditure is being incurred on residences to be occupied by numerous understrappers, including deputy secretaries, deputy deputy secretaries and other supernumeraries too numerous to mention. In this' orgy of spending, one of these offsiders to the present Governor-General took advantage of the opportunity to refurnish the premises which he occupies and purchased curtains at fifteen guineas a pair. This expenditure was incurred, not on the residence of the GovernorGeneral designate, but in the cottage occupied by one who was to be a member of his staff. Also an expert home furnisher has been brought from Melbourne from time to time to advise how the Governor-'General's residence should be furnished. One of the recommendations for which the Government had to pay a high price was that flower boxes should surround the building and should be planted with yellow flowers so that the reflection from them in the light of the setting sun would tone in with the yellow curtains. A new telephone system of eight exchange lines and 43 extensions with ivory-coloured receivers has been installed. All this is being done while the Government says most definitely that there is no money available to provide homes for hundreds of workers in the Australian Capital Territory. I have never visited Yarralumla, but I should imagine that the accommodation available there before the alterations were commenced should have been suitable for any one occupying the position of Governor-General. While the Government is wasting money in this direction, it is interesting to note what is happening .in regard to schools and hospitals. In the Sydney *Sun* of the 6th July of this year, the following paragraph appeared: - Crumbling School. A wall of the main class-room at La Perouse Public School is in danger of collapsing, .and is regarded as a menace to .the lives of the 190 pupils and teachers. It has already fallen once. The crumbling wall is typical of the dilapidated conditions of the school. The only equipment possessed by one of the teachers is a wobbly, wire-bound chair. This was lent to the school by a nearby resident of Happy Valley. She has no table and no press for her belongings and papers. Her portable weatherboard class-room has not been painted and several windows are broken. In wet weather, deep puddles form in a moat-like ditch around this room. In wet weather, pupils and teachers alike lunch together in the class-rooms. Borers infest the wood-work of the main two rooms. Last year an inspector thought one part looked particularly rotten. He had a kick at it, and his foot went right through. That relates to schools. In the matter of hospitals, the following paragraph was published in the *Sydney Morning Herald of the* 10th July:- >NoBeds for Children. > >The demand for beds has been so great in the last few weeks that it had been necessary to house one small child in a clothes basket and another child in a packing case. Another patient occupied the bed of a nurse who was off duty because of sickness. The board would proceed with the erection of a new nurses' home, and extensions and additions to the hospital to cost £18,000 as soon as the Hospital's Commission could make the money available. > >In the same newspaper on the 24th August, this report appeared - >Patients Lie onfloor. *Lithgow Hospital's Plight.* Overcrowded wards and lack of funds have produced a desperate position at Lithgow Hospital. A six-year-old boy has to sleep on the floor in a linen press.The secretary. **Dr. W.** A. Carroll, said that patients were being discharged prematurely to make room for others. That is indicative of the conditions operating in regard to health services. In the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 26th August, this statement was published : - >Deplorable conditions for patients and staffs existed in many hospitals, said **Mr. W.** A. Lewis, a member of the Hospitals Commission. Many hospitals were over-crowded, and equipment was sadly out of date. In fact, crude -such as the sterilization of instruments in a kerosene stove. > >In some instances water was sterilized over kitchen stoves and taken to operating theatres in jugs. This Government is telling the people that it is doing everything possible to provide for their welfare so that they may be able to make this country worth defending. If that is the best the Government can do after years of office, the sooner another Government takes its place the better for the Australian people. {: .speaker-JLZ} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Hospitals are nota responsibility of the Commonwealth. {: #subdebate-28-0-s7 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I am glad that the honorable member has made that interjection. Hospitals are a responsibility of the Commonwealth in this respect : The State Governments were unable to obtain from the Loan Council £23,000,000 of the amount of loan money asked for during the last five years, and therefore the Commonwealth Government is directly responsible for the manner in which this national work has been neglected. In regard to pulmonary tuberculosis, **Mr. H.** G. Wallace, who is in charge of that section of the New South Wales Board of Health, dealing with that disease, said - >It is more than ridiculous that the Government expects a T.B. sufferer to provide for himself with a pension of only £1 weekly. > >There is also a shortage of beds in hospitals. This shortage meant that people suffering from T.B. were accommodated too late. In the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 4th March last, the following paragraph appeared : - >Medical science can cure tuberculosis in its early stages, but thousands of sufferers cannot afford to be early cases. > > **Dr. H.** W. Palmer was medical superintendent of Waterfall Sanatorium for over SO years. Every attempt made in this State to solve the tuberculosis problem has been defeated by the financial position of the patient. The Government has failed to provide for his family, and has omitted to ensure that, after the disease has been arrested, he can live under conditions which will make a relapse unlikely. 50 per cent. of invalid pensions granted to women in Now South Wales between the ages of 25 and 30 years (the childbearing ages) are for tuberculosis. Tuberculosis kills more people between the ages of 15 and 45 years than any other complaint. In 1934 Australia's Medical Congress on Tuberculosis recommended to the Commonwealth Government that - > >Any breadwinner suffering from tuberculosis should be paid the minimum wage provided he underwent treatment; such payments to continue while he was receiving medical aid. The Tuberculosis Board of Control also made a similar recommendation in December, 1934. and pointed out to the Commonwealth Government - >That the amount paid under the Invalid and Old-Age Pension Act was insufficient for a home witha case of tuberculosis. The attention of theCommonwealth Government was also drawn to the fact that before a person can receive an invalid pension he must be certified as permanently incapacitated. In every case of tuberculosis there is at least some hope of cure. An amendment of the act so far as it related to tuberculosis was requested. That was in 1934, and this Government has not taken any action to give effect to the finding. Regarding malnutrition among children, **Mr. Drummond,** the Minister for Education in New South Wales, stated in his annual report - >The children of unemployed and other parents whose economic circumstances were unfavorable for various reasons showed a definitely higher incidence of notifiable cases of malnutrition varying from 3 per cent.to 10 per cent. It was noted also that the groups with a lowered rate of consumption of milk had a higher incidence of malnutrition. I suggest that members of the Country party might consider the provision of milk for the unfortunate children of this country whose parents are unable to provide it for them. Before those honorable members reach the stage of looking for additional markets in which they might place our surplus primary production, or of making generous offers in other quarters, they might first inquire in their own country, as to whether their own people are getting a sufficiency of the different commodities of which a surplus is produced. I understand that one council in Victoria has become so generous in respect of the unemployed youth that it has issued to them the statement, "If you don khaki, if you join the defence forces, we are prepared to allow you to receive from the Commonwealth Government as much as you can by way of military pay, and we shall continue to give you your 16s. a fortnight food relief". I should like to know why this council was not just as magnanimous before the war started. Was not the need of these unemployed youths as urgent before the war as it is now? Let us examine the position with respect to the unemployed youth. The Commonwealth Government made available in one year the sum of £100,000, with the idea of providing a solution of the unemployed youth prob lem. The Assistant Minister **(Mr. Holt)** attended a conference in Melbourne, at which it was decided that there should be a further inquiry with respect to this matter. Here is the exact situation, as it is described in a report, of the New South Wales Employment Council - >Young men between 18 years and 30 years comprise a disconcerting proportion of the increasing number of unemployed. Many industries employ an excessive proportion of youth labour. In such cases a great majority of juveniles are discharged (to be replaced by younger boys) at the ages of 18, 10, 20 or 21. It is found that this process alone results in a continuous inflow of young men to the ranks of the unemployed at the rate of at least 1,500 a year. **Dr. Roland** Wilson, the Commonwealth Statistician, says that 40.79 per cent. of factory employees are under 21 years of age and 16.25 per cent. under sixteen years of age; that in New South Wales, 40 per cent. of female factory employees are minors, and 13.5 per cent. are under sixteen years of age. **Mr. Hawkins,** the late Minister for Labour and Industry in New South Wales, made the following statement on one occasion: - >If the tendency in modern industry is to introduce automatic machinery which does not require skilled adults to operate it, the proportion of juveniles in industry will increase. Positions available for adult workers in that case will become fewer each year. The inquiries of the Employment Council in the last eighteen months showed that many hundreds of youths were discharged from employment on reaching 21 ... . The Government was aware that in many manufacturing firms boys were employed until they had reached the age of 20 or 21 years, when their services were dispensed with, and they were replaced by younger lads. This was also true of retail and mercantile firms. A further report by the New South Wales Employment Council contained this passage - >At least 65 per cent. of the boys employed in factories are governed by Federal awards ....... 11 firms manufacturing metal stampings employed..... 65 adults and 164 male juniors. Nine firms manufacturing wireless sets employed..... 06 adult males and 335 male juniors. Three firms manufacturing canisters employed .... 72 adult males and 219 male juniors. Seven firms manufacturing bolts, nuts, screws, rivets and springs employed 59 adult males and 204 male juniors. A large proportion of the juniors so employed were under 18 years of age and in some firms most of the juniors were under 16 years of age. That is the position with respect to youth employment in this country to-day. There is no need for any further inquiry. If the Government wants to act, it has sufficient data available to it; but the fact is, that it is merely pretending that it is going to deal with these problems. The honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** in particular, and other Government members, have said that the Government would like to do all of these things, but that there is no money available to enable them to be done. As I stated earlier, it is my opinion that the Government, by utilizing the powers of the Commonwealth Bank, could make the necessary money available. I am not alone in holding that opinion. The Commonwealth Bank Board itself has made certain recommendations to the Government in the matter of the expansion of credit. Its views are to be found in the following paragraph, which was published on the 7th July, 1939:- >The Commonwealth Bank issued yesterday a memorandum dealing with expansion of credit by means of central bank loans, which was submitted to the Federal Government last March. > >It states that..... when there is not general unemployment, loans by the central bank will cause prices to rise..... when there is general unemployment a loan by the central bank can be advantageous for bringing into use unemployed resources in men and equipment..... When there is not general unemployment loans by the central bank can be no help for defence or any other purpose. They cannot cause any new production. They can only compete with existing money for the resources which are already being used ...... We shall have more defence works but so much less consumption goods or ordinary capital goods Our standard of living will be lowered just as if the money were being raised by taxation. But if it were raised by taxation it is probable that the loss would be borneby those best able to afford it ..... . The business of the central bank is to regulate the supply of money, to increase it when it is short and reduce it when it is excessive and when it is tending to cause over-competition for the resources available in men and equipment. Increasing the supply can be done by making direct loans to the Government. There are necessary works waiting to be carried out all over Australia, and the necessary man-power, materials, and equipment are available, but the Government has declined to act, simply because it is neither more nor less than the political mouthpiece of the private banking institutions of this country. Dealing with these matters, the Prime Minister scoffed at the findings of the Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems, and attempted to cast ridicule upon them. He referred to some of their propositions as "impracticable schemes". I shall show why, in his opinion, they are impracticable, and shall prove the truth of what I have said with respect to the power which the private banking institutions have to influence government policy. The *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 31st March, 1938, published the following under the heading " **Mr. Casey's** Meeting with Bankers " - >The Federal Treasurer, **Mr. Casey,** said last night that the meeting of bankers over which he presided in Sydney on Tuesday and yesterday, had been very useful. There had been a very frank exchange of views, but obviously he could not divulge the nature of the discussions. The conference was arranged to discuss the Report and Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Banking, with the object of assisting the Federal Ministry in framing amending banking legislation. The same newspaper published the following on the 7th April, 1938, under the heading " Banking Bill " - >The Federal Cabinet has agreed to compromise on certain of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Banking to meet objections by the private banks to the form of the new Banking Bill. When the Government framed its original banking legislation it first called a meeting of the private banks, and it presented its proposals to them so that they might make their suggestions. The Government had to submit meekly to the requirements of the private bankers. The Dominion of New Zealand has found from experience what it means for a country to be in the power of private financiers. When the Government of that dominion was proceeding with a policy of social reform, and introducing legislation to improve the living standards of the people, the Minister for Finance, **Mr. Nash,** had occasion to go to England with regard to a conversion loan and the raising of new finance. New Zealand required a loan for defence purposes, and I should have thought that Britain would have been prepared to render assistance to the Dominion Government for that purpose on any terms. But what happened when **Mr. Nash** reached London? The answer is furnished by the following paragraph which appeared in the *Sydney Morning Herald* of the 8th Junelast: - {: .page-start } page 618 {:#debate-29} ### CREDITS FOR ALLIES {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Britain's Huge Task Requests alreadymade to Britain for armament credits by the four guaranteed states - Poland, Turkey, Roumania and Greece - far exceed the £60,000,000 that the British Government has allotted for the purpose. Wellinformed observers believe that the New Zealand Minister for Finance, **Mr. Nash,** will now have to fight hard for the£ 6,000,000 that he is seeking. Any export credit guarantees granted other than on commercial grounds to Empire countries must come from the additional £50,000,000 now authorized, but most of this has already been ear-marked for Poland and other non-aggression powers. That was the position that faced **Mr. Nash.** The Commonwealth Government some little time ago floated, in London, a loan of £6,000,000. The rate of interest was 4 per cent., and the price of issue £98 10s. The Prime Minister, in apologizing for the adverse terms, said that the Government had gone on the market at a difficult period, and that, in the circumstances, the terms received were very favorable. The cash and conversion loan floated during the year amounted in all to . £71,600,000, representing £67,600,000 for conversion and £4,000,000 cash. In this instance, £5,650,000 was subscribed, by the Commonwealth Bank, exclusive of the amount which the bank already held in the existing loan and which it converted. Therefore, it was due entirely to the intervention of the Commonwealth Bank that this loan could be said by the Government to have been successfully floated. If the bank can at all times come to the assistance of the country when loans are undersubscribed, it can do the same when the Government needs finance for the purpose of carrying out defence and developmental works. The reason why this Government does not wish to use the hank for the. benefit of the people is that it desires to protect the interests of the private banks. The loan expenditure in 1938-39 amounted to £4,000,000, and for 1939-40 it is estimated at £23,000,000. This is only a preliminary estimate, and we do not know what the expenditure may be before the year has passed. The Prime Minister has attempted to make the people believe that the financial position is not so serious as it might appear to be. He said that we must take into account the favorable position of the sinking fund. In 1938-39, the sinking fund payments amounted to £11,000,000, and it is estimated that in 1939-40 they will total £11,672,000. But the net result of all of these financial operations of the Government, in which it claims to have been successful, is that the national debt has been increased by £20,000,000 making the total to-day nearly £1,300,000,000. Should the war last for the period anticipated by the' Government, it is hard to visualize what burden of debt this country may have to carry. I warn the Labour party that, when the war is over, there is one thing that the present Government, if it is still in office, will insist upon. It will say, " We must honour our obligations ". The most important obligation, in the view of the Government, will be the meeting of interest payments in respect of debt commitments. When these burdens became too great some years ago, the Premiers plan was adopted and under it the people were asked to manage with loss wages, food, and clothing and poorer living conditions, so that budgets might be balanced and the interest bill paid. The same argument was applied to invalid and old-age pensions and repatriation benefits. I predict that, after this war, unless a vital alteration of the economic structure occurs, we shall still see workers in Britain, Germany and Australia, who have lost arms and legs, out of employment and unable to get pensions from the Government, because they will be told that their countries cannot afford to pay them. Yet the Prime Minister declared that the result of the Government's financial operations could be described as a great triumph! If members of the Ministry, and particularly members of the Country party, consider that my criticism of the private banks is not based on facts and logic, I suggest that they look up the speeches of the ex-leader of the Country party **(Sir** Earle Page), who, when referring to the private banking corporations during the last war, said - >They are mindful of their own interests. They have no such regard for the public welfare, as is undoubtedly required; If the members of this Parliament wish to do the right thing, I shall tell them what should be done. It is said that we are all in this war, but I pointed out in an earlier speech that we are not all in it for the same reasons. Some honorable gentlemen opposite, although they talk about the need for defending the free institutions and liberties of the people, would take away those liberties at the first opportunity. They want to see Hitler defeated because Germany has again become a power in the commercial world and a rival of British imperialism. But the Labour party desires to see Hitler defeated because of what he has done to take away the liberties of the German people, and because of what he would do to destroy the civil rights of the people of other countries. If this Parliament desires the war to be carried to a successful conclusion, and to do the right thing by the people, it must alter the present financial proposals, and provide, not for "sane, orthodox finance", but for the defence requirements of the nation to be met without increasing the present debt burden. {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-L1L} ##### Mr WILSON:
Wimmera .- We have listened to a very informative discourse from the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** on national finance. The exhaustive manner in which he has dealt with the subject has left very little for me to say on certain points with which I had intended to deal. Any attempt by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** or any other person of prominence in Australia to substantiate the view that orthodox financial methods must be maintained is bound to fail. We cannot get away from the fact that the present system of finance has outlived its usefulness. It must be replaced by a more humane system which is capable of meeting existing conditions. In this connexion I direct attention to the following pertinent remarks made on this subject very many years ago by Abraham Lin coln, when he was President of the United States of America: - >Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of national government. Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not, and should not, borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work and public enterprise. The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums in interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing oi all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can, and will, be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power. Abraham Lincoln has long since passed from this earth, and he passed from it by the hand of the assassin. There was a time, not so very long ago, when it was almost heresy for any person to make a pronouncement of that sort, but there is a. gr eat movement,, not only in Australia but also throughout the civilized world, to bring the people to realize that the system of finance which we now call orthodox has, in fact, resulted from the usurping of powers that should belong to the GroWn. The system must be changed if the people are truly to inherit the earth and enjoy the fruits thereof. I do not. intend, at this stage of the debate, to make an exhaustive examination of this vital subject, although it is of supreme significance. The Prime Minister has told us. and through us the people of Australia, in effect, that our present system of finance, must not be adjusted to meet the exigencies of this situation but rather that the people must be bent to meet the exigencies of what are known as orthodox methods of finance. I do not. object to people making profits in certain directions, nor do I object to their prosperity, but the profits must not all go to one class and the prosperity must not be one-sided. We have lived under a (me-sided economy for too long, and conditions must be altered. 1 wish now to make some reference to the proposals of the Government respecting wheat. We are not yet clear as to the real nature of the policy that is to be put into operation. In fact, all we know at present is that an Australian Wheat Board has been appointed to control not only the wheat crop for the coming season, but also our existing stocks of wheat, and to provide for the marketing of it. When 1 read the report on this subject in the newspapers this morning, I was amazed beyond words at the personnel of the board selected by the Government to put, its plan into operation. T am appalled, also, that the Government should show so little respect for the real wheat-growers as to appoint to this board men who have, for many years, been associated with the interests that have exploited the wheat-growers. Obviously it is the intention of the Government to put this board in complete control.- No member of the Government, apparently, is to have any say in the matter whatsoever. The wheat control scheme that was in operation from 1915 until after the end of the last war, while not perfect by any means, had at least some elements of democracy in itv'' Bui; this one has none. The federal body at that time consisted of the State Ministers of Agriculture with the Prime Minister as chairman, and it was undoubtedly responsible to the various parliaments. The Prime Minister and also the Ministers of Agriculture were directly answerable to their respective parliaments, which consequently had some opportunity to express an opinion on the policy of the board. The personnel of the board which the Commonwealth has just appointed is such as to make it clear that the Government has 'actually handed over the control of our wheat industry to men who for many years past have exploited the farmers. These men will now be able to do what they like, and they will be answerable to no one but themselves. The chairman of the Board, **Mr. Olive** McPherson, who is the nominee of the Commonwealth Government, was the chairman of the Closer Settlement Commission of Victoria, and we may therefore expect a repetition of the experiences of the Victorian people in connexion with that board. The Victorian Government, whenever it was faced with criticism concerning closer settlement, sheltered itself behind the chairman of the board and said that the Government, having given tha board full authority, could hot interfere. All complaints were met with that answer. I fear that that is likely to happen in connexion with the wheat industry, .but I sincerely hope that the members of this Parliament will insist that it will be avoided. The interest of the Government in this debate is remarkable: the only representative of the Government party in the chamber is the Assistant Minister **(Mr. Spender)** at the table. Not one member of the Country party is sufficiently interested in this matter of vital importance to the wheat-growers of Australia to be present while I am speaking. In addition to **Mr. McPherson,** there is **Mr. H.** G. Darling, of John Darling and Son, a firm which has been dealing in wheat for many years, and has become wealthy largely because of its association with the wheat industry. **Mr. Darling** is also associated with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and is a director of the National Bank of Australia. He is, or was until recently, chairman of the National Union - that estimable body which provides the sinews of war for the party which is in control of the Commonwealth to-day. There is also a representative of the firm of Louis Dreyfus and Company, a foreign company which has been trading in this country for many years-. Another member is **Mr. R.** 0. Tilt, a representative of the Victorian Wheat-growers Corporation, which has not, so far as T know, the support of the majority of the wheat-growers of that State. I speak subject to correction, but T believe that that body received only about 45.000 bushels into its voluntary pool last, year, and has recently merged into what amounts tn practically an ordinary wheat trading concern. Another member is **Mr. J.** S. Teesdale, of Western Australia - an estimable person, hut to my personal knowledge he has not th<" confidence of the Wheat-growers Union of Western Australia, which is the industrial body that is representative of most of the wheat-growers of that State. We come next to **Mr. Walker,** of the Lindley Walker Wheat Company Limited, which has been in the wheat business for many years. I have no special knowledge of that firm, but I take it that its representative is not unlike the other gentlemen whom I have mentioned. Another member is **Mr. E.** Hamblin, of the New South Wales Farmers and GraziersCooperative Company Limited. I know nothing of him, or the association to which he belongs. Other members are **Mr. Field** and **Mr. Clarke.** I know **Mr. Field.** Of all the men on the board, he is, in my opinion, the only one who might be regarded as representative of the growers' organizations. The appointment of this board is the most appalling act of the Government in regard to the primary industries of this country. I do not complain of the ability of these men to handle and sell wheat, but when it comes to framing a policy and fixing prices, I say it is imperative that there shall be a greater representation of growers on the board. {: .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr McHugh: -- How many real farmers are on it? {: .speaker-L1L} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I know of only one. The wheat-growers of Australia are highly organized. In my State, there are about 8,000 wheat-growers in the Wheatgrowers Association, and I know that the organizations of wheat-growers in Western Australia and New South Wales also are strong. I am convinced that they will not accept this board without a spirited protest. Before long there will be some reactions. I come now to a brief review of the methods which were applied to the control of wheat during the war of 1914-18. On that occasion there was a federal board which was presided over by the then Prime Minister **(Mr. Hughes).** That board was entrusted with the following duties : - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. to settle questions relating to the general policy to be pursued in handling and marketing wheat; 1. to fix the amounts to be advanced to growers; 2. to make the necessary financial arrangements ; 3. to make all overseas sales of wheat ; 4. to fix prices at which sales were made to millers, both for local consumption and for export; 5. to charter, through the chartering agents, freight for overseas contracts, and to apportion shipping amongst the States; 6. to arrange for the conversion of wheat purchases into flour purchases. To the best of my knowledge the State Boards were nominated by the States, but the present Government has laid it down that, with the exception of one member on each, it is to determine who shall be on the State committees as well. If the Government does no better job with the State committees than it has done with the Australian Wheat Board, I say, " Heaven help the wheat-growers !" On the former occasion the State bodies were required - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to handle and care for the wheat; 1. to provide depots, materials, storages and treatment plants; 2. to make payment to the growers, and pay all expenses incidental to the handling, such as rail freight, &c. 3. to make sales of wheat within the State to the trade and flourmillers ; 4. to make all shipping arrangements, including the preparation of documents ; make advances against freights; collect chartering commission, and effect insurance ; 5. to adjust liens and legal encumbranceson crops; 6. to arrange contracts with millers for purchases of flour for the Australian Wheat Board, and provide storages. In those days there was a fairly effective organization and a fairly efficient administration; but as the control was largely of an experimental nature in this country, mistakes were made. The experience then gained in the conduct of pools in the various States should enable us on this occasion to establish a much more efficient scheme. There is also the question of freights. As honorable members know, freight was at a premium during the period of the last war. The enemy's submarine campaign had taken heavy toll of shipping. Australia being far removed from the markets of Europe, we were at a great disadvantage in the marketing of wheat and other primary products. The people on the American continent had a great advantage in that they were able to market their wheat and other products much more easily than we could. The distance was less and the convoy system, when it was eventually introduced, was fairly effective. It is gratifying to look back and remember that at that time we had a Prime Minister in the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes),** who, whatever his shortcomings, was not lacking in courage or initiative. When he saw the position regarding freights and the difficulty of securing ships, he seized the opportunity to establish our own fleet of merchant vessels, which eventually numbered 54'. If it had not been for his action, this country would have suffered very greatly. Huge stocks would have accumulated and gone to waste because of the difficulty of storing. The unfortunate part is that a subsequent government foolishly disposed of these ships - almost gave them away - at bargain prices. If we had them today, they would be an immense advantage because when the submarine campaign begins . to take its toll, we shall feel repercussions in Australia. I am concerned that the wheat-growers shall receive a fair deal. One honorable member referred to-night to the fact that Britain buys much of its requirements in other than dominion markets. Nevertheless, in time of stress we are expected, and are prepared, to make sacrifices in the Empire's cause. I believe however, that we have not received *quid pro . quo* in respect of the trade preferences that we have given to British manufacturers. We have placed tariffs against foreign goods, American motor vehicles, for example, and, as the result, the British manufacturers have been able to send their goods here and receive more than payable prices. The sweeping away of the small preference of 3d. a bushel on Australian wheat in the United Kingdom market when the Ottawa. Agreement and the Anglo-American Trade Agreement were reviewed, showed ingratitude on the part of Great Britain. I hope, therefore, that in the formulation of policy this Government or the boards which have been set up, if they are to be given full power, will remember these facts, and will ensure that business methods are used in spite of the fact that we are at war. I do not know whether it is official, but it has been suggested in the press, that wheat-growers will receive as a first advance ls. a bushel. That would ' be a miserable pittance and quite useless to the farmers. In view of world conditions, the minimum advance should be 2s. 6d. a bushel. The wheat-growers are still looking to their representatives . in this Parliament to obtain what they have been asking for, that is a guaranteed minimum price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.r. No one can say that wheat can bc profitably grown for less than that. I do not wish to join issue with some honorable members of the Opposition who have complained about the " avariciousness " of the primary producers, beyond saying that such a charge is baseless. The primary producers are long suffering and in the main they have had a raw deal from the rest of the community. The whole of that argument has been traversed on many occasions previously when we have been discussing the question of wheat bounties, and I do not intend to go over the ground again. I do suggest, however, that if honorable members of the Opposition go into the country districts and have heart-to-heart talks with the farmers they will be disillusioned and will not again talk about the prosperity of those people. The royal commission which inquired into the wheat industry some years ago reported that the industry was in debt to the amount of about £150,000,000. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- That royal commission also reported that 30 per cent, of the' wheat-growers could produce wheat at 2s. 9d. a bushel. {: .speaker-L1L} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I doubt the correctness of that statement, but from my personal knowledge of the wheat industry I can say that the position of the farmers to-day is infinitely worse than it was when that royal commission sat. If the wheat industry is worth anything to the country, and if we desire to maintain it as an exporting industry in order to help in the service of overseas debts, it is about time that the Government gave up talking about being unable to find a few million pounds with which to put this industry on its feet. I support the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition *(Ma:* Curtin) that we should make a gesture by a gift of foodstuffs to the people of Great Britain. It is an" excellent idea and £1,000,000 will be neither here nor there in the vast amount of money that this Government will have to expend and find- for found it will be, as the previous speaker said - in the course of this war. I see no better way -of early displaying our sympathy with Great Britain. Coming back to the question of actual armed participation in this conflict, I am in agreement with honorable members who have indicated that the best contribution that we can make is to put Australia in the position of being able to defend itself in eventualities which may quite likely occur in this part of the world. I do not think that, for a long time, at any rate, there will be any call foi- fighting men to go to the other side of the world in order to join in the conflict in which the Empire is engaged. In that respect I have a great deal in common with the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan),** and with the sentiments which be expressed in his magnificent speech last night. I abhor war. War achieves nothing and solves no problem, but rather aggravates the problems which it sets out to solve. Eventually the combatants in the present war must meet around the conference table in an endeavour to negotiate peace. I hope that such an opportunity will present itself very soon, and that we shall be able to conclude a peace honorable to the British people. Although I represent an electorate which is mainly agricultural, I realize that I have a responsibility to every section of the community. I remind the Government of its responsibility to the unemployed. To-day unemployment is just as rampant in country districts as it is in the cities. It is accompanied by the same evils wherever it prevails. It is nothing short of a crime that in a young country like Australia, which possesses an abundance of everything necessary to provide a high standard of living, we should admit failure to solve this problem. No problem confronts this country to-day which is not capable of a solution, provided that it is tackled determinedly. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr Drakeford: -- It will not be solved by a United Australia party government. {: .speaker-L1L} ##### Mr WILSON: -- It can be solved by any government which possesses the courage and the will to do it. Those who have studied this matter realize that finance is the root of the difficulty. That aspect was admirably explained by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** So long as we subscribe to the idea that the present system of finance is sacrosanct, we shall fail to solve the problem of unemployment. We shall solve it, however, if we realize that humanity is more important than finance. All of us approve of the Government's intention to prevent profiteering. We trust that it will prove its sincerity by taking the most effective and stringent measures to carry out its promise in that respect. If it does so, it can rest assured of the co-operation of all sections, not only of this Parliament, but also of the community. Human nature being what it is, we realize that in a time of crisis like the present, there are people who accept every opportunity to exploit their fellows. I plead with the Government to do something on behalf of the unemployed youth of this country. I know of many young men who, owing to the depression, have never had a real chance to establish themselves as useful citizens. Our manhood is being undermined because of the inability of many to obtain employment and earn a competence for themselves. Here again we realize the necessity for monetary reform. I admit that the Government has not been entirely unconscious of its duty to our unemployed youths, but the assistance which it has so far provided has been totally inadequate. No doubt we shall have a similar experience in this war to that in 1914-18. In a time of war a job is always available for any man who can carry a gun. Unfortunately, however, in a time of peace the same men are not given any opportunity to become useful citizens. I commend the Governuent for its promotion of our secondary industries. Unlike some of my colleagues who represent country electorates, I have no fault to find with the Government's policy of developing our secondary industries as much as possible, provided always that such industries are established on a reasonably economic basis, and are able to maintain themselves without placing any undue burden on the community. However, the Government has failed to provide for the production of fuel oil from coal and shale. I was informed recently on good authority that only limited reserves of oil are available in Australia, and that should imports of petrol and fuel oil be interrupted the wheels of industry would be stopped within a very short time. That is a serious danger. The Government cannot say that it has not been warned in this respect. During the short period I have been a member of this Parliament, I have heard the matter discussed repeatedly, and have, myself, raised it on several occasions. I trust that the stress of present circumstances will induce the Government to encourage the production of fuel oil in this country. The Government has also failed to give as much encouragement as it might have given to the ship-building industry. Earlier in my speech I referred to the shortage of ships for the transport of our produce overseas. Here again, we have lost a glorious opportunity to develop an essential secondary industry. Ship-building could have been established on a firm basis many years ago. Had that been done, it would probably be one of our exporting industries to-day. I recall that an attempt was made to establish the industry immediately after the last war, when a number of very good vessels were launched in this country. However, that industry has been allowed to 'languish, with the result that now a considerable time would be required to re-establish it. Nevertheless, we should go ahead in that direction. We cannot call ourselves a self-contained nation until we build our own ships. There is nothing to prevent us from doing so. We have the essential basic industries and also sufficient skilled workmen. Our iron and steel industry is unrivalled in any other part of the world. I have always regretted that that industry was not nationalized. I say that after having given the matter serious thought. In particular, armaments and munitions should be manufactured in State factories, or, if in private factories, they should be made at cost. No profits should be allowed. Other honorable members have referred to the position of the wheat industry, and I desire now to say something about the wool industry, which also is to be taken under governmental control during the war. A committee has been appointed to handle wool exports, and, in the appointment of it, we notice the application of the same vicious principle as was applied to the Australian Wheat Board. First we have **Mr. A.** F. Bell, who is to be chairman. He is also chairman of directors of Robert Harper and Company, a member of the Commonwealth Bank Board, and a member of the Dried Fruits Board. The other members of the committee are - >Executive member - > >W. Yeo, who was Chief accountant of the Central Wool Committee, which operated during the last war. > >Representatives of growers - > >P. Abbott, president, Woolgrowers Council. > >T. Boyd, vice-president, Woolgrowers Council. > >A. N. Cole, representative of small growers. > >Representatives of brokers - > >N. Young, chairman, Woolselling Brokers in Australia. > >NT. J. Carson, chairman, Victorian Woolselling Brokers. > >S. Cheadle, chairman, South Australian Woolselling Brokers. > >Representative of wool-buyers - > >R. McGregor, wool-buyer, Sydney. > >Representative of manufacturers - {:#subdebate-29-1} #### F.C. Laycock, South Melbourne, Victoria **Mr. Cole** is stated to be the representative of the small growers. He is their only representative, and he may be a bona fide one for all I know, but he is a stranger to me. This committee will have control of Australia's greatest industry, and my complaint is that it is overloaded with the representatives of commercial interests. I make my protest now against the constitution of the committee. I am informed that the small growers produce more th an half of the total wool clip of Australia. The gentlemen who are alleged to be representing the growers are the very men who let the growers down in the past, particularly with regard to the trade diversion policy. The small growers do not know whether they can trust them. In Victoria, there are organizations of wheat-growers and woolgrowers, and there are similar bodies in Western Australia and probably in the other States. The committee has been simply presented to us by the Government without any consultation with the growers' organizations. So far as we can judge, it appears to be the policy of the Government, in financing these marketing projects, as well as in financing the prosecution of the war, to adhere in general to orthodox methods of finance. I hope that it will, at any rate, come part of the way with those of us who maintain that it should take steps to raise money at the lowest possible rate of interest. At the present time, treasury-bills to the value of about £80,000,000 are in circulation in Australia. It is possible to raise money in this way much cheaper than it can be raised by straight-out loans. The system of raising money by treasury-bills is particularly appropriate when it comes to financing the marketing of primary produce, because the bills canbe liquidated as the proceeds of sales come to hand. If there is an open market for the bills, the money will probably be raised at an extremely low rate of interest. {: #subdebate-29-1-s0 .speaker-L1L} ##### Mr WILSON: -- Perhaps it was arranged that it should be a failure.I am in agreement with those who say we should make the fullest use of the Commonwealth Bank, an institution which is backed by the resources of the entire country. Those who say that they do not understand what is meant by the national credit do not want to understand. The national credit is the foundation upon which the private banks are based to-day. They are using the national credit, and charging their customers interest for it. During the last war, the Bank of England very soon discovered that it was not equal to the task of providing in the orthodox way all the finance necessary, and an act was passed giving it authority to issue £400,000,000. The same procedure was followed there as in this country. Although this was free money, created against the national credit, it was lent at interest by the bank, even to the British Government itself, for the prosecution of the war. Let us see what we can do with the Commonwealth Bank. Let us do something to remove this intolerable load of interest. The story that we can raise money in only two ways - by borrowing and by taxing the people - is just a fairy tale. We can never develop or defend this country properlyso long as we try to " carry out that idea. I trust that even this Government, conservative though it may be, will explore the possibilities of this proposal and bring it into operation for the benefit of the people. I shall conclude by reading a poem entitled *Lament of the Commonwealth Bank.* It. is as follows : - >A hand-maiden, where once I ruled > >A Queen from sea to sea! > >No' task too vile to set me to. > >Who strove to make you free. > >God! Did I once stand upright from > >My frightful servitude, > >And wear upon my beaten brow > >The crown of nationhood? > >As in a dream I see them pass, > >My deeds of long ago, > >My bright Homes, filled with happiness. > >In peace and comfort glow. > >My Credit flows in running streams > >To help you in your need; > >It saves you fromthe usurer's grip, > >And private banker's' greed. > >When Ruin turns his grim face on > >Your primal industries > >My Ships steam swift, and carry forth > >Your produce overseas. > >I turn my eyes from whatI did > >To what I had decreed - > >A nation freed from want and debt, > >When no man dwelt in need. " Come, grind this people to the dust > >I bend in slavery ; > >But once I was a nation's Queen. > >And - almost - made it free! Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 626 {:#debate-30} ### ADJOURNMENT RifleRange Area at Halifax: Grazing Rights - Wheat : Purchase Price - Wire Netting Acquisition - Public Service: Employment of returned soldiers. Motion (by **Mr. Street)** proposed- >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert . -I desire to raise a matter which is of considerable importance to the persons concerned. I have received from the president of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, Herbert River Sub-branch, Ingham, correspondence which I shall read to the House. The first letter, dated the18th July, 1939, was written by **Mr. A.** Percival, Commonwealth Surveyor-General, to Messrs. Roberts, Leu and North, solicitors, of Townsville, who applied for the grazing rights over an area of land attached to the Halifax Rifle Range on behalf of one Victor Treveton. It reads - >With reference to your communication of the 21st June, 1939, offering£6 per annum on behalf of **Mr. Victor** Treveton for grazing rights over the rifle range area at Halifax. Queensland, I desire to inform you that such offer is declined. I might odd that the area has been let. **Mr. George** Groundwater, the president to whomI have referred, wrote to me as follows: - >Dear **Mr. Martens.** > >I enclose herewith a copy of a letter that I have written to the State branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia. The latter portion of this letter dealing with the Halifax Rifle Range is a matterI would like your assistance in.. > >You will find attacheda copy ofa reply received to the application which may be a guide to yon. and if you can do anything to throw light on this matter and give us some reason why our member should be held out, we will appreciate same. > >Thanking you. > >Your faithfully. > >Geo. Groundwater, > >President. The letter that **Mr. Groundwater** wrote to the secretary of the State Branch of the Returned Sailors andSoldiers Im perial League of Australia in Brisbane, was as follows : - >My members are most emphatic that some action should be taken or at least an inquiry made into unjust treatment of a Digger in our district by the Commonwealth Government through the rifle range administration. > >Victor Treveton, No. 7,316, 5th Field Engineers, enlisted for active service in the Great War, 1914-18, and sailed from Australia on the 1st April, 1916. He returned after the armistice, got married and now has a wife and four children and resides in Halifax, northern Queensland.He has again enlisted in the local Militia and has been in training for some time now. Note particularly that he has given some of the best years of his life for the protection of the Empire and he again unselfish!)' offers for service to Australia and the Empire. > >This manhas carried on as a labourer since the armistice and eventually acquired a few head of cows and conducts a small dairying business . . . > >The Halifax rifle range has a fair area of grazing lands on it and these areas are leased to people for grazing purposes. Treveton has about 40 head of cattle earning his living by dairying. He needs grazing areas and tendered for the rifle range paddock - one other person tendered, so I am told - one Tento, an Italian cane-farmer. I am also led to believe that the rental offered by Tento was no greater than that offered by Treveton. > >Tento is a cane-farmer, cuts 2,000 tons of cane per year, owns a horse paddock and also three (3) horses. He keeps his horses in his own horse paddock (freehold lands). His farm consists of an area of about 128 acres freehold and 33 acres special lease and he its considered a wealthy man - Why should he not be wealthy too! He remained in Australia while Treveton fought for it. He still intends to remain in Australia while Treveton helps to win the next war. Tento is not in the local Militia - that is by the way. The fact remains that Tento was given a lease of the rifle range paddock whilst Treveton, a returned soldier, trying his best to maintain a wife and family - actually struggling - is ignored. Tento does not even use the paddock. The gate is off and it is open. That is a fact. > >It is evident on the information supplied to us that the Commonwealth Government has preferred an Italian (naturalized) to an Australianborn returned soldier, and, moreover instead of helping the returned soldier, as it promised to do, is specially going around to victimize one. There must be some sound reasons why a soldier could not get this lease. The British community in this district are asking the sub-branch questions and pertinent ones at that. Why are we tolerating such treatment? Why is a returned soldier specially held out from the privilege of something that he helped to win for the nation? > >Promises galore were made when young Treveton - a boy of sixteen - enlisted and we all know the oath he took, and the crime of it all we now know how the Commonwealth Military authorities appreciate his young life's services. The result of this, treatment is going to eventually create a deep impression on the people of this district.. We do most earnestly desire that you take this matter up with the authorities. Treveton's stock can starve (so can his wife and kids apparently) and an area that the lessee does not wish to use is wasting. It points clearly to us that forces are at work to wreck Treveton I am appealing to all quarters in. this matter until satisfaction and justice has Deen reached . . . I have no knowledge of the facts, other than is conveyed by that letter, but I contend that an inquiry is warranted. If the rent offered by this young man was the same as that offered by the Italian, preference should be given to the Australian. The Government has always claimed to have adhered to the policy of preference to returned soldiers'. Surely Treveton is entitled to preference over a man who is not a native of this country but is only a naturalized subject, and is not an ex-soldier either of his native country or of Australia. I sincerely trust that some action will be taken to clear the matter up. {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr MCHUGH:
Wakefield .- I enter a further emphatic protest against the attitude of the Government towards primary industries generally, and specifically towards the wheat industry. Honorable members who sit on this side of the House, particularly those who represent country districts, appeal to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** to assist the wheat industry. We want to give the Government all the support that we can in promoting the welfare of this country. The wheat industry has never in its history been in a worse position than that in which it is now placed. The wheat-growers are to-day living under conditions which are far from being as good as are those made possible by the basic wage, and in many cases they are definitely insolvent. Fully appreciating the fact that the country is at war, the Opposition claims that the industry should not be sacrificed because of the present difficulties of the nation. The Prime Minister states that under the Commonwealth pool the first payment to the growers shall be ls. a bushel, but, as the cost of production is nearly 4s. a bushel, I submit that the first payment should be at least 2s. a bushel. Australia cannot afford to sacrifice such an important industry. A similar position arises with regard to meat, wool, fruit, wine and all dairy products. If the marketing of these products is to be. administered through pools, the Opposition claims that the pools should be set up after consultation with the representatives of the growers engaged in those industries. We have been told that the existing boards are dominated by commercial interests and are not *as* representative as they should be of the primary producers. The boards should have a predominance of representatives of the growers. The honorable member for Wimmera has indicated the lessons, to be learned as the result of the operation of pools during the last war, and I hope that the .benefit of those lessons will not be lost. Even if the wheatfarmers received 4s. a bushel for the next five years, the industry would not become solvent. Its debts now amount to £140,000,000, and, if the price of wheat increased, the benefit of it should go, not to the commercial interests, but to the producers themselves to enable them to meet their obligations. {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-KK7} ##### Mr JENNINGS:
Watson .- It has been stated that the Ministry for Supply and Development has acquired the stock of galvanized wire netting in Australia. I have been advised by the Randwick municipal authorities that the Coogee shark-proof enclosure, which is patronized annually by hundreds of thousands of surfers, requires reconstruction annually, and that this work, which is. due to he done now, has been held up because supplies of netting are not available. The revenue derived from surfers who use this enclosure is devoted. I understand, to the improvement of the Coogee beach. I urge that the requisite quantity of netting be made available to the local authorities. {: #debate-30-s3 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .- I again bring under the notice of the Government the interpretation placed by the Public Service Board upon subsection 9 of section 84 of the Public Service Act. It would appear that no satisfaction is to be obtained by means of questions asked through ordinary channels. I brought this matter up in June last on behalf of many men employed in the Public Service - mostly linemen in the Postmaster-General's Department. The Parliament carried an amendment to the act. for the special purpose of providing a degree of security for returned soldiers who had certain periods of service of a casual nature in government departments. On reading the debate on the amending legislation, and the assurance given by Ministers in both branches of the lexis.lature when the bill was introduced, I find that it was made to appear that provided these returned soldiers had been engaged continuously as casual workers for two years they would be entitled to permanent employment. This did not involve the raising of their status, because the bill provided that they should have permanent appointments in positions similar to those they had been occupying; consequently no great expenditure on the part of the Government was involved. After the bill had been passed, the Public Service Board decided that these permanent appointments could be made only as desired by the board. The position is that these men have not been appointed unless positions have been specially created by the board. The provision of the act might bear the interpretation that the board is putting on it, but. I am quite sure, after reading the speeches of Government spokesmen and of other honorable members on the issue when it was before this Parliament, that tha.t was not the real intention. It was desired that these men should be given a position of security provided they had the two qualifications of two years of casual employment in the Public Service, and a satisfactory report by their chief officer as to their work. When I brought this matter up last June, I was assured by the Prime Minister that it would be investigated. Later I raised it on the motion for the adjournment of the House, and spoke upon it at some length. After a lapse of four months I asked a question on the subject yesterday. To-day T received a reply from the Prime Minister to the following effect : - >As indicated by me yesterday, this mutter has *formed* the subject of an investigation. Owing, however, to the pressure of other business, it has riot been possible for the Govern- ment to deal with it finally. It is, however, being kept under notice and will be considered at the first available opportunity. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr Martens: -- Tha t will be " any old time ". {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- That is so. The act was amended in December. 1936, and the unsatisfactory interpretation that is being given to it was brought under notice several months ago. The circular which these men have issued contains the following paragraph: - >It is apparent that the majority of the men at present holding the qualifications referred to will never be appointed to the permanent staff owing to there not being sufficient created permanent positions for their appointment, or that they will reach 51 years of age at a not far distant date. A few months may make all the difference, to these men for they are returned soldiers who must of necessity be in midd'le life or approaching 51 years of age. They are being kept in an insecure temporary situation, whereas they were promised a degree of permanency. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr Archie Cameron: -- While I was Postmaster-General, I put more than 200 of these men on the permanent staff. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** did an excellent job in that connexion. If 200 of these men could be appointed to permanent positions in one department, it should be possible to provide positions for all who need them in other departments. We are not asking that the status of the men should be increased, but merely that the real intentions of the provisions of the law shall be applied to them. The Government says that its attention is being occupied by more serious matters. I wonder what it will think if a time comes when it has to ask more men to enlist for the war while so many of the men who served in the last war are still unprovided for. The Government has not fulfilled its promises to these men, and it should do so. We are asking not only for the fulfilment of our own desire, but also that the act, which was amended nearly two years ago, shall be put into force. I hope the Prime Minister's attention will again be directed to this subject. {: #debate-30-s4 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Assistant Minister for Supply and Development · Fawkner · UAP -- The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Jennings)** referred to difficulties which the Rand wick Council is experiencing in securing supplies of wire netting, and suggested that they were due to theDepartment of Supply having commandeered all available wire netting. I have no knowledge of any such acquisition by the department, and I think it unlikely that such action has been taken. {: .speaker-KK7} ##### Mr Jennings: -- That is the explanation that was made to me. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- I assure the honorable member that his representations will be brought under the notice of the Minister for Supply and Development. I shall furnish him with such information as is available on the subject. {: #debate-30-s5 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr STREET:
Minister for Defence · Corangamite · UAP -- *in reply* - I am not familiar with the details of the matter relating to the leasing of the Halifax rifle range for grazing purposes, referred to by the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Martens),** but I. shall discuss the subject with the Minister for the Interior and obtain information as to the exact position. If the facts are as stated by the honorable member, and a returned soldier offered the same rent as is now being received, I agree that he has grounds for complaint. I shall see that the representations of the honorable member for Wakefield **(Mr. McHugh)** are brought under the notice of the Cabinet as such, although I must differ from the honorable gentleman when he says that the cost of production of wheat is 4s. a bushel. The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** referred to the interpretation that is being given to section 84 (9) of the Public Service Act. I regret that the Government has not yet been able to deal with this matter, but I shall bring it under the notice of the Prime Minister to-morrow, for I appreciate the importance of the time factor, and the consequent necessity to deal with the subject as early as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.37 p.m. {: .page-start } page 629 {:#debate-31} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers toquestions were circulated: -* Canberra : Hotels and Boarding Houses. {: #debate-31-s0 .speaker-KXY} ##### Mr Perkins:
UAP -- The information is being obtained. {: #debate-31-s1 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr Street:
UAP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The total amount expended by the Commonwealth on defence works including munitions supply works in each State for theyear 1938-39 was- These amounts do not include works expenditure on armament annexes, which was charged to a composite vote covering plant, materials an<l experimental work now under the control of the Department of Supply and Development. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Overseas Fruit Shipments {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr Price: e asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice -* What provision has been made to ensure refrigerated space in overseas vessels for apples and pears in the coming season? {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP -- The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer. - The whole question of overseas shipping space, including provision for apples and pears, is under close review. {:#subdebate-31-1} #### River Murray Barrages {: #subdebate-31-1-s0 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr Price: e asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he ascertain whether the construction work in connexion with the river Murray barrages has been completed? 1. If the barrages have been completed, to what extent did they withstand the recent heavy storm conditions? {: #subdebate-31-1-s1 .speaker-KXY} ##### Mr Perkins:
UAP -- The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The construction of the whole of the five barrages has not yet been completed, but they are in an advanced stage and it is anticipated that they will be completed and brought into operation early in 1940. 1. All of the works have satisfactorily withstood the recent heavy storm conditions. {:#subdebate-31-2} #### Export Statistics {: #subdebate-31-2-s0 .speaker-KRH} ##### Mr McHugh: h asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* What were the export figures of (a) manufactured goods, and (6) all other goods, for the last financial year? {: #subdebate-31-2-s1 .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- Total merchandise exports from Australia for the year ended the 30th June, 1939, were valued at £A..120,750,000. Of that figure it has been estimated that manufactured goods (i.e., secondary goods, or goods made in factories) amounted to £A.31,818,000. This sum includes butter, cheese, flour, wine and wool tops (all factory produced), of which the total values were £A.19,400,000. {:#subdebate-31-3} #### Banana Industry {: #subdebate-31-3-s0 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr Green: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the honorable member for Kalgoorlie was informed on the 31st May last, by the Minister that, in relation to the banana industry, " the Government . . . has not received any request from Western Australia for financial assistance"? 1. Is it a fact that letters were addressed by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture of Western Australia (the Honorable F. J. Wise) on the 4th January, and the 18th February, 1938, to the then Commonwealth Treasurer, asking that 25 per cent, of the duty collected on bananas entering the State, which is not. paid in any other State, should be devoted to assisting this new industry in Western Australia ? 2. Is it a fact that, prior to those dates, the State Minister referred to had an' interviewin Canberra with the Treasurer and explained at length the position of the industry in Western Australia? 3. In view of the foregoing, will the Minister propose to Cabinet the desirability of setting aside 25 per cent, of the duty collected each year in Western Australia, so as to enable growers to make adequate provision for water supplies^ and to finance the purchase of units suitable for lifting the water to the level of the cultivated areas? {: #subdebate-31-3-s1 .speaker-KV7} ##### Sir Frederick Stewart:
UAP -- The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The letter of the 4th January, 1938, w»» received by the Treasurer, but there is no record of that of the 18th February, 1938. 2. It is understood that the interview referred to did take place. 3. It is not at present .proposed to review the decision set out in the Treasurer's letter to the Western Australian Minister for Lands and Agriculture, dated the 10th February, 1938. {:#subdebate-31-4} #### Rail Transport: Preparations for Emergencies {: #subdebate-31-4-s0 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr Drakeford: d asked the Minister for Defence, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the War Railway Council met during the last three months ? 1. If so, has consideration been given to the. matter of the Commonwealth control of railways in case of emergency conditions arising? 2. If the councilhas not met within the period mentioned, when will it be nailed together ? 3. Will he see that the matter of the Commonwealth controlling rail transport for emergency purposesis given early consideration? {: #subdebate-31-4-s1 .speaker-KVN} ##### Mr Street:
UAP -- The answers to the hon orable member's questions arc as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 2.Provision for the control of railwaysby the Commonwealth Government in time of national emergencyhas been made. The plan andarrangements incidental thereto are in- cluded inthe Commonwealth *War Book.* The plan was considered and approved by the War Railway Council. 1. Future meetings of the War Railway Council will be arranged as may be necessary. Precise dates have not been determined. In the interim, the Defence Department maintains constant touch with the members' individually. 2. See answer to No. 2. {: #subdebate-31-4-s2 .speaker-KXY} ##### Mr Perkins:
UAP s. - On the 13th September, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Curtin)** asked the following question, *upon notice -* >Will the Minister supply a statement giving a list of officers, in order of seniority, employed in the Immigration Branch, and showing the actual salaries and allowances each officer receives? The Minister for the Interior has now supplied the following information : - >The following officers listed in order of seniority are employed in the Immigration B ranch - The list includes one officer on loan to the Defence Department for liaison purposes and three officers (marked *) on loan from the Postmaster-General's Department (1) and the Electoral Branch (2). The list does not include six officers transferred temporarily since the outbreak of war to other departments or branches, one officer, **Mr. R.** H. Wheeler, on duty in London, and **Mr. A.** L. Nutt, who has been appointed to the immigration Branch hut has not yet commencedduty. ReturnedSoldiersandthePublic Service. {: #subdebate-31-4-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
UAP -- Yesterday the honorable member for Dalley (Mr.Rosevear) asked me a question, *without notice,* regarding a matter raised during the parliamentary sittings earlier this year concerning the interpretation which was being placed upon section 84(9)c of the Commonwealth Public Service Act under which returned soldiers may be appointed without examination to positions in the Fourth Division. As indicated by me yesterday, this matter has formed the subject of an investigation. Owing, however, to. the pressure of other business, it has not been possible for the Government to deal with it finally. It is, however, being kept under notice and will be considered at the first available opportunity. {:#subdebate-31-5} #### Australian Broadcasting Commission : Publicationof Journal {: #subdebate-31-5-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr Harrison:
UAP n. - On the 13th September, the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Jennings)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it the intention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to proceed with the publication of the projected weekly radio journal ? 1. If so, has the commission reasonable assurances from its printing contractor that sufficient stocks of paper are held to ensure supplies at a price which will, in view of the expected heavy increase of the cost of paper in the near future, enable production of the journal at a cost that will not impose an excessive burden on the revenue received from listeners' licence- fees? 2. Is it the intention of the post office to distribute the publication free, thus saving the commission considerable cost at the expense of the general public I 3. If not, will the commission have to comply with the same post office regulations as apply to private enterprise in producing a newspaper? 4. Is it the intention of the post office to make available to the commission, a list of all holders of listeners' licences? 5. If newsprint prices do increase substantially, canthe journal be produced without loss? I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following answers to his inquiries: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes.The commission is assured that there will be a reasonable continuity of paper supply. No one, of course, is in a position to say how long the war. will lost, what interruptions to supply may occur from causes beyond the control of purchasers, or what increases of prices may occur. In this respect the commission isin much the same position as most other business enterprisesin Australia, and, like these, it will have to adapt its policy to whatever situations may arise. 2. The matter is still under consideration. 3. See answer to question No. 3. 4. No. 5. This is a matter of degree. The answer depends upon the circulation of the paper, the extent of the increase, variations of other costs, and the price at which the journal can he sold. See answer to question No, 2. The commission, however, does not anticipate that such increase of the price of paper as may occur will prevent the journal from becoming selfsupporting after a reasonable period forestablishment has elapsed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 14 September 1939, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1939/19390914_reps_15_161/>.