16th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. M. Nairn) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 382
– I desire to inform the House that I have received fromhis Excellency, the Governor-General, the following communication in connexion with the Address-in-Reply : -
I desire to acquaint you that the AddressinReply at the Opening of the Sixteenth Parliament was duly laid before His Majesty the King, and I am commanded to convey to you and to honorable members His Majesty’s sincere appreciation of the loyal assurances to which your address gives expression.
Gowrie,
Governor-G eneral . 28th March, 1941.
page 382
– Will the Minister for the Navy state whether the press report is correct that the Department of the Navy intends to recruit SO women for the Signalling Service ? If the report be true, will these women receive pay equal to that of male signallers? Before a final decision is reached, will the Advisory War Council be given an opportunity to review the principle involved in the appointment of women to this service!
– I have heard of no such proposal as that to which the honorable member has referred.
page 382
– Will the Minister for the Navy state whether the report in the press to-day, regarding the brilliant exploits of the British navy in the Mediterranean, is correct? It is said that Italian warships, other than those known to have been sunk, have been destroyed. Can the Minister furnish the House with the latest information regarding the battle, and state whether any vessels of the Royal Australian Navy took part in this memorable engagement?
– I can give no information’ on the subject offhand, but I shall ascertain the facts, and furnish a reply to the honorable member later.
page 382
Purchase op Military Equipment: Camps in Tasmania.
– Referring to the serious charges contained in the report of the Auditor-General, in connexion with the disregard of the Contract Board by certain military officers in placing orders and in the irregular purchase of goods, resulting in heavy losses and overpayment, can the Acting Prime Minister state whether any action has been taken to prevent a continuation of this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will he also say whether an effective system has been introduced to check the cost-plus on work carried out in annexes?
– My attention has been directed to the subject-matter of the honorable member’s question. I have called for a. report with regard to it, and appropriate action will be taken.
– I draw the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to that portion of the report of the AuditorGeneral which relates to the Contract Board, particularly the concluding paragraph that deals with the supply of groceries to military camps in Tasmania. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to this report, and has any action now been taken by the Contract Board, or the appropriate authorities, to prevent a recurrence of such an irregularity?
– -My attention has been directed to that matter, and proper and expeditious action has been taken to remedy it.
page 383
Mr. CURTIN the Acting Prime Minister state whether the Government has given consideration to a request that has been made for assistance in the establishment of the power alcohol industry in Western Australia, particularly by the distillation of wheat? If so, what decision has been reached ?
– The Committee on Power Alcohol has produced an interim report, and the claims of Western Australia for the erection of a distillery for the manufacture of power alcohol from wheat will receive the consideration of the Government.
page 383
Mr.MULCAHY. - Has the Minister for the Army seen the report in the press with regard to the case of Sapper Manton, who was, wounded at Tobruk, and will the Minister explain why his department did not notify the relatives of this soldier that he had been wounded?
– I noticed the press references to which the honorable member has referred, and have called for a report with regard to the matter. So far as I have been able to ascertain, only in exceptional cases has there been failure to notify relatives of casualties. It will be readily appreciated that in the early stages of the campaign there must be a small percentage of such cases; to date the proportion has been negligible. When the report comes to hand, I shall consider what can be done to ensure that in all cases the next of kin and relatives are informed of casualties.
page 383
– Has the attention of the Minister for the Army been drawn to a report in the Grenfell Observer, of March the 28th, to. the following effect: -
A returned soldier, recently repatriated shell-shocked and discharged, was found destitute in Junee. The man, who had been a convoy driver in the Middle East tor 244 days, was discharged from the Army in Melbourne. He was unable to secure work, and was given a railway pass to Albury. From there he went to Wagga, where his money ran out, and he walked to Junee: Junee patriotic committees have provided the man with £2 3s. 7d. to enable him to travel to Lithgow, where he hopes to secure work.
When a man has received an honorable discharge from the Army, will the Minister consider keeping him on the pay-roll until he is repatriated into industry?
Mr.SPENDER- I have not noticed the report referred to by the honorable member, but only this morning I signed a lengthy minute dealing with this very problem. It. is my desire, if it be achieved, to ensure that no man who has been incapacitated as the result of war service shall be discharged from the Army until his pension rights have been established, or he is completely restored to health.
page 383
– Has the Minister for Labour and Industry given consideration to the establishment of a port committee at Brisbane? If so, what decision has been reached?
– I have considered the matter. The general policy of appointing port committees has not yet been fully laid down.
page 383
– In connexion with the scheme for the purchase of fat lambs by the Government, will the Minister for Commerce announce the minimum prices before auctions commence, thus avoiding the trouble “which occurred during the last year or two because of the failure to do this?
– I have called a meeting of the Australian Meat Board for next Thursday, when the matter of minimum prices will be discussed.
page 384
– Will the Acting Prime Minister state whether it is a fact that, in a broadcast address to the electors of Queensland last week, he said that’ there would be greater co-operation between Queensland and the Commonwealth if a United Australia party-United Country party government were elected in Queensland? How does he reconcile this address with his plea for national unity and the abandonment of party politics? Is he aware that the Forgan Smith Labour Government achieved a sweeping victory in that State last Saturday, and that the leader of the United Australia party was defeated in a “ blue-ribbon “ conservative constituency ? In view of the fact that the electors of Queensland took no notice of his advice, does the Acting Prime Minister intend to resign as member for Darling Downs in this Parliament?
– I did say that there would be greater co-operation in Queensland between that State and the Commonwealth if a United Australia partyUnited Country party government were returned. I emphasize that I did not say that unity did not exist at present. I do not propose to be drawn into a controversy now on the matter of Queensland politics. The people of that State were asked for their decision; they have given it, and we can now get on with the job.
– The Acting Prime Minister does not intend to resign?
– No.
page 384
– Early last week I asked the Minister for the Army whether certain high Army officers had visited the previous employers of Major Rigney seeking credentials for him. The Minister promised to look into the matter, and furnish a reply to me. What progress has he made with his investigations, and when may I expect a reply?
– I am not able to give a reply now, but I shall endeavour to do so to-morrow.
page 384
– On the 20th March last the following notice appeared in Commonwealth Gazette No. 55 : - (1701) Requisition No. 12477. - Champagne for India £51211s. 8d., B. Seppelt & Sons Ltd., Melbourne; £1418 10s. S. Smith & Sons, Angaston, South Australia.
Is this wine to be regarded as a perquisite in addition to the already very high remuneration which Sir Bertram Stevens is receiving?
– I do not know, but I am very pleased that we are in a position to export champagne from Australia, and thus assist our general economy.
page 384
– It is reported in the press to-day that the Minister for Commerce contemplates setting up a board to control the tobacco industry, the board to consist of a representative of the growers, one of the brokers and one of the manufacturers, with an independent chairman. Will the Minister for Commerce alter the constitution of the board so as to have three representatives of the growers, one from each of the major tobacco-growing States ?
– The proposed constitution of the board was unanimously recommended to the Government by a conference of growers, brokers and manufacturers which met in Canberra a few days ago.
page 384
– Has the Acting Prime Minister received a reply from the Premier of New South Wales intimating whether he is prepared to co-operate with the Man-power and Resources Survey Committee by allowing State officers to appear before the committee to give evidence? If not, will the Acting Prime Minister take steps before the House goes into recess to clothe the committee with power to call witnesses before it? Will he table the correspondence which has passed between him and the Premier of New South Wales on this subject?
– I do not know of any communications between myself and the Premier of New South Wales which would call for a reply along the lines indicated by the honorable member. I have received no official intimation that obstruction of any kind is being practised.
– Has the Acting Prime Minister written to the Premier of New South Wales on the subject?
– No.
– In view of the statements of the chairman of the committee a fortnight ago that hebrought this matter unofficially under the notice of the Acting Prime Minister, and his further statement on Wednesday last that the Acting Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Mair on the subject, does the honorable gentleman still adhere to the reply he has just given? If not, will he indicate whether he has had any communication with Mr. Mair on the subject?
– I stated explicitly that I have had no official communication on this subject. However, I shall look up the file on the matter, and, if necessary, take adequate action upon the representations of the chairman of the chairman of the committee.
page 385
– Is it a fact that the Postmaster-General is considering discontinuing the publication of the A.B.G. Weekly? Rather than do this, will he consider allowing the paper to compete with other publications for advertisements, and will he revise the cost of management so as to put it on the same basis as other journals of the kind?
– The reply to the first part of the honorable member’s question is in the affirmative; as to the second part, I shall bring that matter before the Postmaster-General.
page 385
– Now that the State elections in South Australia and Queensland have been disposed of, will the Government bring down legislation with a view to establishing uniformity of taxation between the Commonwealth and the States?
– That is a matter entirely for the States. They have been invited to submit proposals or observations in regard to establishing uniformity of taxation throughout the Commonwealth.
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT OF Mb. JAMES YATES.
– In view of the Treasurer’s unsatisfactory reply to a question which I asked last week relating to the circumstances in which the taxation assessment and fine of James Yates was reduced by £42,000, will the honorable gentleman, in the public interest, now tell the House first, whether Mr. L. O. Martin, then Minister for Justice and now Minister for Works and Local Government in New South Wales, received a cheque from Yates for £4,200 in respect of representations which he made on the matter to the Treasurer; and, secondly, what matters were taken into consideration in allowing the reduction?
– My answer to the honorable member was not unsatisfactory. It may have appeared to him to be so, because I did not violate the secrecy provisions of the income tax law by disclosing information concerning the private affairs of the taxpayer involved.
page 385
– Has the Acting Prime Minister seen the report in the press that the Government of New South Wales has failed to give legislative effect to the findings of the royal commission presided over by Mr. Justice Ferguson in favour of a scheme for the payment of pensions to miners in that State at the age of 60 years? Is he aware that because of the State Government’s failure in this respect an industrial upheaval in New South Wales is imminent? Will he urge the Government of New South Wales to implement the findings of the commission, in order that harmony in the mining industry may be restored ?
– Yesterday I conferred on this matter with the Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Mair) who promised to confer immediately with other coal-mining States with a view to finding a remedy.
page 386
– I ask the Minister for Air whether it is correct that members of the Royal Australian Air Force who have gone to Canada under the Empire air training scheme have, immediately upon disembarkation, passed under the regulations of the Royal Canadian Air Force, and ceased to be controlled by the Commonwealth Government?
– No members of Australia’s fighting services ever pass out of the control of the Commonwealth Government. If the honorable member will place his question on the noticepaper, I shall be glad to furnish a detailed reply.
page 386
– In view of the fact that the Minister for the Army recently inspected defence works at Newcastle, following a similar inspection toy the Acting Prime Minister, can he say if the Government has yet come to a decision as to whether the numerous unemployed in that district should be employed on work which is now being carried out by military trainees ?
– During the weekend I inspected the defences at Newcastle and Port Stephens, and had a long discussion with the officer commanding that area. The primary consideration in the matter is, of course, the defence of the Commonwealth. However, the degree to which the unemployed can be used in the work referred to by the honorable member will be investigated.
page 386
– Will the Acting Prime Minister be ina position to make an announcementbefore the Easter adjournment with regard to the proposed appointment of an Australian Minister to China?
– That will depend entirely upon circumstances.
page 386
– In answer to a question which I asked some time ago, the Acting Prime Minister promised that the Government would give consideration to the advisability of continuing work on the erection of the King George V. memorial in front of Parliament House, Canberra. Has the Government given consideration to that matter ? Will an opportunity be afforded to the House this session to discuss the advisability of continuing work on that monument or transferring it to a more appropriate site in accordance with the Griffin plan?
– Far more urgent matters of national importance have precluded the Government from giving consideration to that matter.
page 386
– Will the Minister for Air give favorable consideration to the use of numbers of existing private aeronautical engineering schools in addition to thosealready at the disposal of the Government?
– I am not aware that any issue has arisen in respect of the matter mentioned by the honorable member. I shall give consideration to his request.
page 386
Motion (by Mr. Fadden) agreed to -
That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.
page 386
– Is the present response to the recruiting campaign for the Australian Imperial Force up to Government expectations? If not, will the Minister state what steps it intends to take to speed up recruiting?
– The flow of recruits during the last month has not been fully up to requirements. The matter is engaging my attention, and the honorable member may rest assured that the requisite number of recruits will come forward.
page 386
– With regard to the proposals mooted some time ago for the storing of three months’ supply of foodstuffs, termed iron rations, there is a demand for further information by storekeepers and business people generally as to what kinds of goods are to be stored and whether financial assistance will be provided for that purpose?
– Both in the statement I made and in the regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the various States, the items proposed to be stored have been set out in detail. Financial arrangements are being made for this purpose by the various State committees in active consultation with wholesalers, retailers, and banks.
page 387
– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been directed to a statement made in the Senate by Senator Amour with reference to Mr. E. M. R. Lewis, who is acting as personal secretary to Sir Bertram Stevens, leader of the Australian delegation to Delhi? If so, will the honorable gentleman indicate what action the Government proposes to take in connexion with this officer?
– I have not seen the statement referred to by the honorable member. If he will bring it before me, I shall consider it.
page 387
– When can I expect further information with regard to the establishment of a wool appraisement centre at Townsville?
– The matter is being discussed between the Central Wool Committee and myself.
page 387
– Has the Minister for Health observed reports appearing in a section of the press regarding the widespread practice among millers of extracting the gluten and vital nutriment from flour, disposing of it to pastrycooks for the making of high-class pastry, and selling the lower grade flour to bakers for making bread for the poorer sections of the community? Will the honorable gentleman take steps to prohibit the con tinuance of this practice as has been done in Great Britain and other countries?
– My attention has not been , drawn to the reports referred to by the honorable gentleman. If he will give me the appropriate references I shall have the matter investigated.
page 387
Reconstruction of Marginal Areas
– Will the Minister for Commerce, during the recess, prepare a report for presentation to the House during the next period of the session, dealing with the manner in which certain moneys allotted for marginal areas reconstruction are being expended, and ascertain, particularly, whether certain States are allotting to the persons concerned sufficient areas of land to enable them to carry on, which was the intention of the Commonwealth when the grants for this purpose were made?
– I shall communicate with all the States and see if I can get the information in time to make it available to the honorable member.
page 387
Motion (by Mr. Anthony) - by leave -proposed -
That Standing Order No. 70 - eleven o’clock rule - be suspended for the remainder of this week.
– When asking for the suspension of a standing order such as this the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden) is under some obligation to tell the House, if he can, what new business the Government has in mind. Certain rather important measures are now awaiting our consideration, in particular the Child Endowment Bill and the Australian Broadcasting Commission Bill. It is only fair that the honorable gentleman should acquaint the House of what new business is in prospect so that, during the few hours of this week in which they will not be sitting, they may devote their thoughts to the subjects of the legislation to be introduced.
– It is difficult to know what the honorable member is getting at. This is simply a machinery motion which it is customary to move at this stage of a sessional period. Whether new business will be brought forward will depend on circumstances beyond the control of the Government. Further, the Government cannot know what changes of the international situation may take place which will necessitate the taking of certain steps by this Parliament. Naturally, we want to be prepared for such an emergency.
.- I oppose the motion. Honorable members have spent a great part of the last fortnight listening to addresses by Cabinet Ministers at secret meetings of senators and members. Whilst those addresses were informative, we have not yet had an opportunity to ask ‘questions relating to the information we received at those secret meetings.
– Honorable members may exercise that right next Monday.
– The honorable gentleman promised last week that a secret meeting would be held at which senators and members would be given an opportunity to question Ministers.
– The adjournment of the House was moved by a member of the Government for that purpose on Tuesday of last week, but the debate was of such long duration that the holding of the secret meeting became impossible.
– Last Thursday, having despaired of the Government fulfilling its promise that a secret meeting would be held, I made certain statements in this House; I now findthat almost the whole of my speech has been excised from Hansard. The House has now before it a very important piece of social legislation, namely, the Child Endowment Bill. I understand that we are to be asked to sit all night to-night in order that that measure may be readily disposed of, and that at the end of this week the Government proposes to rush into recess, probably until May or J une.
– Do not believe it!
– I am likely to believe anything after what has happened in this House during the last two weeks. Mem bers of the Opposition have gone out of their way to assist the Government; surely it is not too much to ask that the Government will adhere to its promise to give them an opportunity to question Ministers on the important matters which have arisen during the secret meetings. I wish to discuss the very pressing subject of the absorption of the unemployed in my electorate, but I cannot do so in open Parliament without having my speech consored because the work to which I propose to put them is in relation to the defence of Newcastle. I therefore urge the Government to lose no time in convening another secret meeting of senators and members. Why should we be asked to rush important legislation through the House at this time? It is said that we are to have a lengthy adjournment at Easter. I should, of course, like the House to be in recess during the New South Wales State election so that I might have an opportunity to “ clean up “ some of the political friends of this Government.
– The honorable gentleman regards that as more important than the work of the National Parliament?
– Of course it is if this Parliament is going to repeat the performance of the last fortnight. I say if the present United Australia party Government in New South Walesbe thrown out of office the new Government will bring pressure to bear on the Commonwealth Government to ensure a more equitable distribution of defence expenditure in the future in order to absorb the unemployed in that State. I oppose the motion, and I appeal to the Government not to disregard the rights of honorable members to question Ministers on matters of importance arising out of the secret meetings held during the last couple of weeks. Although private members may be regarded as only the common herd, many of them are just as intelligent and efficient as Ministers. By refusing to continue the secret meetings, the Government has not played the game with honorable members. It promised to allow them to discuss matters of national importance which vitally affect the defences of the country. Now, it does not propose to honour that undertaking.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 389
– In common with invalid and old-age pensioners generally, a number of blind persons recently received an additional ls. a week. Is the Minister for Social Services aware that after a few weeks, the pension payable to those blind persons was reduced by 6d. a week? What explanation of the reduction has the honorable gentleman to offer?
Sir FREDERICK STEWART.Presumably the honorable member refers to inmates of institutions.
– No. The blind persons concerned work in various institutions.
– If they be inmates of institutions, legislation which was passed by Parliament recently decreed that the increase of pension was to be divided equally between the pensioner and the institute.
– Will the Treasurer inform the House how the index number, which governs the fluctuations of invalid and old-age pensions, is computed? To what extent must the cost of living increase before pensioners receive an additional 6d. a week? As commodity prices have soared since the outbreak of war, will the honorable gentleman anticipate a declaration in the near future of an increase of pension, by agreeing to the payment in advance of an extra 6d. a week?
– As a result of the increase of the cost of living and the recent budget compromise, pensioners will receive an increase of 6d. a week in the very near future. The question deals with a most complicated matter, and if the honorable member will place it on the notice-paper, I shall supply additional information to him later.
page 389
– Will the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Prime Minister intends to return to Australia during 1941? Can the honorable gentleman offer any explanation of the continued and prolonged absence of the Prime Minister from the Commonwealth during this period of crisis? Can he also indicate whether that absence is interfering in any way with Australia’s prosecution of the war effort to its utmost capacity?
– As I am not clairvoyant, I do not know what is in the mind of the Prime Minister regarding the date of his return. As to the implication that his absence is detrimental to the war effort of Australia, I desire to inform the honorable member that the Prime Minister’s mission to Great Britain has been of material advantage not only to Australia and the British Empire, hut also to democracy generally.
page 389
Personnel of Royal Commission
– Will the Minister for the Army confirm, or deny, the accuracy of the report which appeared in a remote part of this morning’s press, that the royal commission to inquire into bread contracts is holding its preliminary meeting in Sydney to-day? Will he announce the personnel of the royal commission so that honorable members may discuss it?
– I do not know what arrangements have been made by the royal commission regarding its meetings ; that matter comes under the direction of the Attorney.General. The commission having issued, it is no longer the concern of the Department of the Army, and the question of legal representation is not for me to decide.
– Will the AttorneyGeneral announce the personnel of the royal commission?
– At the moment, I am not in possession of any of the information which the honorable member desires, but I shall ascertain the facts and inform him later.
– The Minister for the Army stated that the Attorney-General had the information.
– He is not clairvoyant, either.
– In view of the confusion that exists in the mind of the Minister for the Army and the AttorneyGeneral, will the Acting Prime Minister ascertain, before the House adjourns this evening, the personnel of the royal commission?
-I shall certainly obtain that information for the honorable member.
page 390
Bill received from the Senate and (on motion by Mr. Collins) read a first time.
page 390
Debate resumed from the 27th March (vide page 346), on motion by Mr. Anthony -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- This bill is mainly a machinery measure setting out the general practice by which the proposed pay-roll tax is to be collected. The tax will be imposed upon employers, and is expected to yield £9,000,000. That money will go into Consolidated Revenue andbe used as a part of the total annual outlay of £13,000,000 required in order to make a weekly payment of5s. in respect of 1,000,000 children in the Commonwealth, under the proposed child endowment scheme. Having regard to the present circumstances, the Government has decided that the proposed payroll tax is the best way, and in fact the only way to enable the Consolidated Revenue Fund to bear the burden of that £13,000,000. “When introducing the measure the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Anthony) made the Government’s attitude quite clear by saying that the payroll tax was “ the most logical and indeed the only available means of raising the necessary finance “. Whatever views the Opposition may hold of the general principles of taxation, we believe that as the Government has said that this is the only way in which child allowances can be paid to mothers in Australia at the present time, we should not oppose it. It it true, of course, that there can be criticism of any proposed system of taxation. There has never been a tax imposed by this Parliament that has not been, to some degree, open to the charge of being somewhat anomalous. It is also true, I think, that there is no tax which will not bear upon every person in the community.
This pay-roll tax is a direct tax upon employers.
– Upon industry.
– Upon employers. It is definitely a21/2 per cent. tax upon employers whose pay-roll exceeds £20 a week. That is the nature of the tax. It does not tax those who pay less than £20 a week in wages or salaries. Therefore it is a direct tax upon the employer.
– Will this tax pay the whole of the endowment?
– No. Thisbill proposes to raise £9,000,000, by means of a tax on all employers whose pay-roll exceeds £20 a week or £1,040 per annum. The question that arises is whether or not other means of raising this money are available to the Government. An impost of £9,000,000 is very substantial, and the Opposition takes this view of the situation : The Assistant Treasurer has, in effect, intimated to Parliament, and therefore to the country, that, having obtained all available information, and the best possible advice, the Government has decided that this measure represents the only way in which the money for the child endowment scheme can be made available. The Opposition is more concerned with making payments to the mothers of Australia in respect of the 1,000,000 children who are part of the family structure, than with a dispute or discussion as to whether or not the proposed tax conforms to the principles of perfect equity. That is our position. We do not have to justify this tax. We simply take the view that as we have agreed to the establishment of a child endowment scheme, we see no reason why we, as an Opposition, should fail to support the Government’s methods of raising the necessary money. Our main concern is the use that is to be made of the money.
– In other words, the end justifies the means?
– The means have been chosen by the honorable gentleman’s party, and by the Government which he supports.
– And the Leader of the Opposition accepts them.
– We shall notoppose them. That is quite clear. The Assistant Treasurer’s statement was most decisive. He saidit is “ . . . the only available means of raising the necessary finance “. I take it that he used that language in the light of the existing circumstances of the country, and of all the ‘Other obligations upon the Treasury, and after an exhaustive survey of the possibilities of raising revenue by other means. We on this side hope that we are realists; although we hold the highest ideals, we are not devoid of commonsense. The commonsense view in this situation is that if we oppose this tax there may be no child endowment scheme. We consider that in choosing between what may be the special claims .of the employers in respect of the proposed tax and the special claims of those whom this tax is intended to benefit, the more important social and national advantage lies in the direction of imposing the tax and devoting its proceeds to sustaining and improving family life in this country. On balance, therefore, our decision is to allow the tax to be imposed upon employers in the way proposed by the Government. Saving many years ago faced the question of special taxation, I agree that special taxes, by their nature, are undesirable, but I realize that it is not ‘novel for the ‘Commonwealth Parliament to impose special taxation. The Labour party has had to accept, for instance, a special tax imposed on the workers in order to assist the wheatgrowers of Australia to obtain a reasonable price for their product. The bill proposes the imposition of a special tax on employers so that many consumers of wheat may obtain additional means to buy the manufactured products of wheat. It is arguable from certain angles that upon industry devolves the responsibility for the welfare and subsistence of those whom industry employs, and naturally, they include the children of the workers. In 1929 Mrs. F. M. Muscio and I made the following statement in our minority report of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment or Family Allowances -
The right of men and women to live obviously implies much more than the mere right of their own personal subsistence. The normal life includes the reproduction of the species; it postulates the right of marriage and the coming of children. When industry is said to have an obligation to pay enough to its workers to enable them to continue working and maintain reasonable health and wellbeing, there is involved the well-being of the worker’s natural state which is not that of himself alone, but includes hie wife and their dependent children. Furthermore, industry has not only an obligation to pay a living wage to the worker to include the normal family conditions of the worker as being merged in his own being - it has uo other source of supply from which to draw the continuous flow of its labour agent. The provision, therefore, of children to grow up and replace the worn out units in the labour army, is an economic necessity, and should be included in full current “ cost of production “ just as surely as replacement charges for other producing agents. The worker’s normal life cannot be separated from the life of his wife and children.
In other words, the maintenance of the worker’s wife and children is a matter with which the employer should be concerned, as such, apart altogether from the national and social aspects of this matter. The employer must employ men and women. He makes depreciation of his factory building and machinery .a charge against the running cost of his industry. To the degree to which they become worn put he sets aside so much of the realized profits of his production in order that the buildings and plant may be kept operating continuously. What of his labour force? Is there not .an obligation upon him to provide for the continuation and replacement of the human agency necessary to carry on his current enterprise. Surely worn-out men should be replaced. The replacement -of worn-out coal-miners is surely an obligation on the coal industry. All the fine points about principles of taxation that each of us may hold in the abstract are threatened when applied to reality. In the first period of the current session the Commonwealth Parliament passed the War-time (Company) Tax Bill imposing a tax on the earnings of companies, which was estimated to yield £7,000,000 a year,. A professional man earning, say, £50,000 a year, who is not a shareholder in a company, is not subject to the tax. Unless an income-earner is a shareholder in a company, he makes no contribution to the sum of .£7,000,000 which this tax is to raise each year for the purposes of the war. Many members of this Parliament, when members of a State legislature, did not hesitate to support legislation imposing special taxes on wages for the purpose of unemployment relief. Under that form of taxation, those -working, no matter how low their wages, are taxed to provide wages for the workless. Special taxes have become, not only part of the history of Governments in Australia, but in certain circumstances they have presented themselves as the only available way in which a Treasurer in a given situation could carry through a national undertaking or give effect to a definite programme. Although the Labour party holds to the principle that taxation should be based on ability to pay, we must take into account, particularly in a period of great emergency, the question: what constitutes ability to pay? This Parliament has decided at different stages in the history of the Commonwealth that certain sections of the people or certain functions in the community are better able to make a special contribution to the Consolidated Revenue than is the nation as a whole capable of carrying a common obligation. Many years ago the Commonwealth Parliament imposed ,an entertainments tax. The public revenue was considered to be so urgently in need of replenishment that Parliament imposed the tax on all who attended places of public entertainment. Those who did not attend picture theatres, race meetings, or football matches, for example, did not pay the tax. By all of these special taxes Governments have drawn revenue from the people for important national undertakings.
– Are not all these taxes paid out of profits?
– No. Does the honorable member suggest that the wage-earner getting £3 or £4 a week pays the financial emergency tax in “Western Australia, or the unemployment relief tax in New South “Wales out of his profits? Certainly not. I congratulate the Ministry on the sturdiness with which it has held social objectives up as a banner, despite the amount of hesitation, fear and even opposition which it has apparently experienced somewhere in the precincts of this chamber. What Ministers are now doing is a powerful contribution towards the capacity of the men and women of this country to bring to the great cause for which they are fighting the greatest degree of physical fitness in order that they may see it through successfully. It is far more important that the family life of this nation should be maintained at the highest point to which we can get it than it is to be finicky about the methods of taxation that the Government is using in order to give effect to its proposals.
– Do not forget that when the next budget is brought down.
– I shall not forget it. Do not gibe at me. All that I did during the most recent discussion on the question of taxation was to endeavour to lift off the lowest paid classes in this community burdens which it was proposed to impose upon them.
– On the principle of ability to pay.
– On the principle that no person in Australia receiving less than £200 a year is in a position to contribute anything in order that the Government may carry on its every-day obligations. I stand to that. But the honorable gentleman argues that this plan cannot be given effect - that is his real state of mind - because, he says, the £9,000,000 to be paid by the employers is an unjust burden. Well, if the employers of Australia cannot find £9,000,000, the capacity of the employees of Australia to furnish that amount is certainly less. If, therefore, the Government excludes the employers, because of what the honorable gentleman says and then excludes the employees, because of what honorable gentlemen on this side of the chamber would say, it is good-bye to child endowment. The Opposition will not allow this opportunity that has come to Parliament to implement a plan of child endowment to have “ good-bye “ said to it in those circumstances. We shall, therefore, allow this legislation to pass.
– I am glad that the measure for the introduction of child endowment has, as stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), the endorsement of the whole of the Opposition. The plan should, therefore, receive the unanimous approval of Parliament. The only argument at this stage is, as was also stated by the Leader of the Opposition, about the means by which the money to finance child endowment will be raised. I noted with a certain amount of pleasure the a ttack made by the Leader of the Opposition on the proposal to compel employers to pay the proposed tax, but I am surprised that the honorable gentleman endorsed the provision that the tax shall be levied on only some employers. This is a differentiating tax, because it excludes certain professional persons who do not pay wages, but who, perhaps, are in the best position to pay.
– We pick them up with the income tax.
SirCHARLES MARR. - The employer who will now be compelled to pay this additional tax is also caught by income tax. Can the Opposition tell me that any. tax which is placed on the employer is not passed on to the employee?
– Then what is the honorable member worrying about?
– I am not worrying at all, but I am surprised that there should be differentiation. I have my file certain evidence which has been brought to me in regard to employers who are already taking action to reduce their pay-roll below £20 a week in order to escape the tax.
– Who are they?
– Some of them are in the honorable member’s constituency. I also have evidence about refugees who have departed from the wages system in the clothing industry by paying piece rates and compelling their employees to take their work home.
– They will not escape, because piece-work payments are included.
– If , the amount paid does not exceed £20 a week the tax does not apply. The cost of” child endowment should be met from Consolidated Revenue to which everybody contributes.
– What if the money is not there?
– If it is not there, the Government has the means to get it there by imposing a tax common to everybody in the country. I am not an employer of labour, and, therefore, as I shall not be compelled to pay, I am not speaking personally, but any tax for the purpose of child endowment, with which every honorable member agrees, should be a general tax. The Leader of the Opposition said that certain people paid entertainments tax. They are the people who patronize entertainments. People who do not use petrol do not pay the tax on petrol. This is the first tax ever imposed in this country that departs from the principle that those who benefit should pay. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who interjects, should give the Government credit for being the first to introduce a scheme of child endowment in Australia. He should not be annoyed because a nonLabour Government has once more taken the lead in social legislation.
Mr.Beasley. - This is not the first Government to introduce child endowment.
– Of course, the Bruce Administration applied a scheme of child endowment to the Commonwealth Public Service.
– A State Government implemented a scheme.
– But that was long after the Bruce Government had put into operation a plan which applied to all Commonwealth public servants.
– That Government, imposed a tax on all its officers, irrespective of whether or not they benefited from the scheme.
– Order! There is too much interruption. I appeal to honorable members to allow the debate to proceed in orderly fashion.
– By interjection or otherwise, every honorable member present has expressed support of child endowment. The only debatable point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is as to the means of obtaining the money with which to finance the scheme. I am opposing the proposal to differentiate between classes of employers by excluding certain of them from the incidence of the tax. If this is to be a tax on employers, let every employer be taxed. If a man employs a maid, or a gardener, at his private house he should be obliged to pay tax. If there are to be benefits for employees, and if this House decides that the employing class shall contribute twothirds of the funds for those benefits, all employers should be made to share the burden.
– Would not the honorable member’s proposal cause the small shopkeepers to pass on the amount of their taxes to their customers?
– Many small shopkeepers do not earn even the equivalent of the basic wage, and consequently they do not employ anybody. But, if a small shopkeeper did employ an assistant, he would have to pass on his share of the tax. It does not matter how an employer is taxed, he must pass his tax on to his customers. Everybody knows that the man depicted in the daily press as “ Percy Public “ pays all taxes.
– If everybody pays, why does the honorable gentleman complain ?
– The honorable member seems to think that the employers will not pass on the tax if it be imposed on a differential basis. He is wrong; of course they will pass it on. The Government should make the tax common to all employers. I would favour making this a general taxation measure, so that child endowment would be payable out of Consolidated Revenue, but I shall not insist on the point as it seems to be the wish of the House, judging by the tone of the interjections, that employers should bear the greater weight of the burden. Nevertheless, I maintain that there should be no differentiation between different classes of employers. All of them should be called upon to contribute according to the amount of wages they pay.
– The Country party will not like that.
– I do not care about that; I want to satisfy my own conscience in this matter. If I employed two persons and had a pay-roll of less than £20 a week, I maintain that I should be taxed in respect of that pay-roll. Every honorable member is aware that the more industry is taxed, the more unemployment is created.
– The same old story !
– lnc! us trywill not stand upsetting.
– Industry is now taxed more than ever .before, and it is employing more men than it has ever employed before.
– That is because of the cost-plus system. Unfortunately, we are involved in a war which obliges the Government to give work to private enterprise, as well as to munition establishments, upon compulsory term3. I would disagree entirely with that system in peace time. Consolidated Revenue should be made to pay for the child endowment scheme so that every body would share the burden ; but, if the majority of the tax is to be made applicable to employers, then all employers should be obliged to contribute to it.
– I listened with great attention to the secondreading speech made by the Assistant Minister (Mr. Anthony) and also to the remarks this afternoon of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin). I congratulate the Government on having prepared j scheme about which there is unanimity of opinion amongst honorable members. As one who has studied social problems for many years, I am a strong supporter of child endowment. I believe that it will be a good thing for the nation. But before we implement the scheme, we must consider it from all points of view. At the moment we are discussing the problem of financing it. I should have preferred to have dealt first with the scheme of child endowment itself, so that the House might have had the benefit of a general debate upon the subject. However, I am in accord with those who believe that the necessary expenditure should be made from general revenue. I am totally opposed to financing the scheme by means of a tax upon industry. In my opinion a pay-roll tax is not equitable, and therefore I am opposed to the principle of this bill. Parliament has passed many measures of a supposedly temporary character. The Government has told us that the bill now before the House is only an expedient intended to carry on the child endowment scheme for the time being. I do not like this line of action. From day to day regulations are issued and special returns requested, and by various means industry is being harassed. Employers are being requested to furnish so many returns that they have been obliged to engage considerably more clerical assistance than would otherwise have been necessary. This should not be so in a time of war. I could deal with many aspects of this subject, and shall probably do so at the committee stage of the bill; but for the moment I content myself by declaring my antagonism to the proposed pay-roll tax. I do not think that this method of finance should be adopted in connexion with child endowment. Some other means of raising the necessary funds could and should be found.
.- I look upon the introduction of the bill to provide for a scheme of child endowment as the beginning of one of the most notable advances in social legislation that we have had for some time, and I am proud to be associated with a government responsible for it. But whilst I regard child endowment as absolutely necessary, I must declare my opposition to such an inequitable method of financing it as the proposed pay-roll tax. Such a tax will seriously affect the section of the community which is already the hardest hit of all our people. I have in mind, of course, persons with an income ranging between £400 and, say, £900 a year. I suppose that the employers of labour in our provincial cities and country towns who may be said to be within this income range give employment to probably half the people earning wages in those localities. Yet they will be required to contribute, in a most disproportionate degree, to this tax.
– The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) said that the tax would be passed on.
– Even so, the situation will be unsatisfactory. Any taxation necessary for the purposes of the child endowment scheme should be spread as evenly as possible over the whole community. I strongly favour the enactment of a child endowment scheme, and I shall not vote against even the proposed payroll tax if I consider that by so doing I shall jeopardize the scheme; but I insist that the Government could have found a more satisfactory method of financing it. Any financial burden involved in the provision of a social service of such importance as child endowment should be borne equitably by all the people.
– I have always been strongly in favour of social services for the amelioration of the conditions of the people, and have advo cated child endowment not only in this Parliament and on the hustings, but also in the conventions of the United Australia party. I am happy, therefore, to be a supporter of the Government which is introducing this desirable reform. I believed’ in, and supported, child endowment for many years prior to my election to this Parliament. Every honorable member on this side of the chamber, I am sure, is favorable to the establishment of a permanent system of child endowment for Australia. I particularly desire that the system thatwe may adopt shall be of such a character as to ensure its permanence as a part of the social structure of the nation. For that reason I propose to offer some suggestions for the consideration of the Government. In the first place, I do not think that the Government’s scheme is sufficiently farreaching. I should like the Government to undertake, as a complementary measure, a scheme for the eradication of slums, and the establishment of a nationwide housing plan.
-What about widows pensions ?
– Whilst I am in favour of widows’ pensions, I shall offer my own suggestions. It is of paramount importance, in my opinion, that a nation-wide scheme for the eradication of slums and the provision of adequate housing shall be put into operation simultaneously with the child endowment scheme. If the nation is to obtain the maximum benefit from child endowment, it is necessary to ensure that children shall be born in decent and healthy surroundings. Slum areas are notorious for their heavy infant mortality. I strongly advocate that the Commonwealth Government shall follow the example of the Government of the United Kingdom, and of governments in other parts of the world, and undertake, in a comprehensive way, the eradication of slum dwellings. Everything possible should be done to provide improved health standards for the people. One of the greatest needs of the present day is a sanitary and stimulating home environment for the mass of the people. I therefore ask the Government to include in its immediate social programme, not only child endowment, but also plans for slum eradication and adequate Lousing. We should make a nation-wide attack on slum areas.
– The question has been raised by honorable members of the Opposition as to whether, seeing that the bill before the House is a machinery measure, it is proper to permit, at this stage, a general discussion of the subject of child endowment. If I am requested to give a ruling, I shall rule that the present discussion must be limited to the bill now before the House.
– I rise to order. I desire a ruling as to whether honorable members may make passing reference to the general subject of child endowment. Personally, I wish to make brief passing reference to it and also to offer some alternative suggestions for the consideration of the Government.
– It is desirable that the scope of the debate shall be clearly denned. As the terms of the bill now before the House are limited to the financing of the Government’s scheme >f child endowment, I ask honorable members to confine their remarks to that issue. The Leader of the Opposition, who began the debate this afternoon, limited his remarks in that way.
– And he cramped our style very much !
– I desire to know, Mr. Speaker, whether, because the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to adopt a certain attitude in debating this issue, every other honorable member is to be required to conform to his example, and follow a .similar line of discussion ?
– The Leader of the Opposition took the correct line of approach, for he confined his remarks strictly to the matter before the Chair. If the principal measure involved in the introduction of the Government’s scheme of child endowment had been submitted to the House first this afternoon, I had intended to suggest that the debate should proceed on the general issues, but as the bill before honorable members is merely the machinery measure, it does not provide the opportunity for a full discussion of the whole subject. I must, therefore, ask honorable members to confine their remarks, for the time being, to the bill before them. I can only depart from that attitude with the consent of the House. The House has, however, made it plain that it will not agree unanimously to a general discussion of child endowment, and therefore I rule that the debate must be limited to the provisions of this bill.
– I regret that the usual procedure is not being followed in this instance. I had hoped to explain why I am an enthusiastic supporter of child endowment, but because of the limitation placed upon me by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I must pass on to make other observations. I am strongly opposed to the Government’s proposals for financing this scheme. It is expected that the payment of 5s. a week in respect of every child, excluding the first, in a. family, will cost £13,000,000 a year. Towards the raising of that sum a payroll tax at the rate of 2£ per cent, on the amount in excess of £20 a week is expected to produce £9,000,000. The removal of the income tax deductions in respect of each child after the first will provide another £2,000,000, leaving only £2,000,000 to come out of general revenue. In my opinion, a pay-roll tax for this purpose is unwise, unjust and unsound. lt is unsound because the Government proposes that the tax shall be temporary. I believe that so important a social service as child endowment should not bo financed by means which are temporary; it should be placed on a permanent; financial basis. I object to the pay-roll tax for the further reason that it does not take into consideration the ability of an industry to pay it. An industry may make no profit whatever, yet it will have to pay this tax. This burden will fall heavily on new industries and those oldestablished industries which are struggling to carry on in these difficult times. In some instances, the tax may so affect: a struggling industry as to put it out of existence, in which event there will be no pay-roll to tax, but instead, more unemployed workers in Australia. The basis of the proposed tax is unsound; a true basis would be the ability of an industry to pay it. I cite the opinion of thethe Minister for the Interior (Senator Foll), as reported in the Courier-Mail of the 29th March-
The Commonwealth Government’s propositi to finance the cost of child endowment from n. tax on pay-rolls is, in the personal opinion of the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Information (Senator H. S. Foll) a purely temporary method.
He said this to a deputation of businessmen who waited upon him yesterday to express thu views of those Queensland employers most concerned by the proposal.
– .Can the honorable member vouch for the accuracy of the report ?
– I know the journalists of Queensland and have a high regard for them. The report continues -
Senator Foll said that in general principles he entirely agreed with the opinion that thu cost of child endowment, which was :i social service that extended benefits to every section of the community, should be borne by the whole of the community and not by one particular section.
Some better basis for child endowment than a tax which a member of the Cabinet says is temporary and is borne by one section of the committee should be found.
– The Treasury does not regard it as temporary.
– Child endowment is a social service like the maternity allowance and the invalid and old-age pension, yet, unlike them, it is not to be financed out of general revenue. If the pay-roll tax is to be related to the basic wage, it. should be limited to those people whose income is affected by the basic wage.
– Does the honorable member suggest a means test?
– We stand behind the speech of our leader.
– I believe that this Parliament is fast becoming a mere recording machine for the views and opinions expressed by the Leader of the Opposition at meetings of the War Advisory Council. I regret that that is so. I am amazed at the docility and complacency of honorable gentlemen opposite, who blindly follow their leader, instead of expressing their own views. I am particularly astonished that the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) should so willingly accept dictation by the Leader of the Opposition. Democracy will fail in this country unless the representatives of the people in this House have the courage to express the views that they themselves hold. I object to the pay-roll tax for the further reason that whilst many producers will be able to pass it on, others will not be able to do so, and because it will add to the cost of public utilities and commodities required by the people. There will also be duplication of the tax because manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers will each, in turn, seek to pass it on. I object to the tax because, owing to the fixation of prices under war-time conditions and other conditions beyond the control of the primary producers, they would not be in a position to pass it on. Honorable gentlemen opposite appear to have no regard for the interests of the primary producers in this matter. Many taxpayers with large incomes, such as professional men, business executives, real estate agents and others, would escape substantial payments under the pay-roll tax, because the earning of their income does not involve the employment of much labour.
In reply to the statement that the proposed pay-roll tax is to be temporary, I remind honorable members of the eloquent speeches made in this chamber by Mr. Theodore when he was Treasurer in the Scullin Government. He definitely stated that the sales tax would be a temporary measure, but, under that tax, the total collections, including those for the present financial year, amount to £10o,S>S6,000. I have no doubt that the proposed pay-roll tax, although described as temporary, will prove to be as permanent as the sales tax has been. Another temporary tax was that introduced by the late Sir Henry Gullett in the form of a special duty on motor chassis and parts, for the purpose of providing a bounty for the encouragement of the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia. Already, £1,500,000 has been collected under that temporary measure. It will be admitted that, but for the licensing of imports, the amount collected would have been much greater. A third so-called temporary tax is that imposed by the governments of the States for the purpose of providing unemployment relief. That tax was imposed when the unemployment figure stood at about 30 per cent. To-day, it has fortunately fallen to about 5 per cent., yet the tax is still in operation. In some of the States the present collections under it are larger than they were when the unemployment figure was 30 per cent.
Nobody in the Commonwealth should be able to speak with greater assurance regarding the futility of a pay-roll tax than the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Mair, who has had to finance child endowment in his State, the only State in the Commonwealth that has established a child endowment scheme. Here are the views of Mr. Mair -
If a national endowment plan is to be successful, it should be a national charge, and not a levy or burden on industry and employment. The State Government can speak authoritatively on family endowment, as New South Wales is the only State that has provided this magnificent social service. Originally there was a tax, payable by employers, to sustain the funds for endowment, but this taxation proved disastrous, as it discouraged employment. Why should an employer be called upon to pay on additional charge when he gives employment, and why should an investor earning income from government securities and giving no direct employment be free of tax? The New South Wales Government had substantial reasons for removing the burden of the family endowment tax from industry. Small employers were forced into the position of running their businesses at a loss and still being called upon to pay tax because they continued to keep their employees at work. Surely such a principle is unsound and will cause dismissals from employment at a time when it is very necessary to have full employment. One of the most important objectives that we should strive for is to prevent the cost of living from increasing. If an endowment tax is levied on industry it will certainly go into business costs and will find its wayinto commodity prices, increasing them.
Mr. McKell, the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, recently declared -
Under the Federal Government’s proposal, the industry which has the greatest number of employees will have to meet the greatest charges, whether it is profitable or not. On the other hand, the industry which employs few, but makes a high profit, will make a comparatively small contribution.
I have received a number of telegrams and letters of protest from organizations throughout Queensland, but I have time to quote only the following communication from the Queensland Chamber of Manufacturers : -
We are gravely perturbed that the Government apparently still contemplates financing child endowment by a pay-roll tax. Excessive State taxation has for nearly a decade scared off new capital for industrial expansion. Because of lack of available plants, Queensland could not undertake its share of war work. The new State basic wage is the highest in the Commonwealth. The expansion of industry is essential for the prosecution of the war and the post-war reconstruction. Can you help us towards spreading the cost of child endowment over the whole community?
Reference is made in that telegram to the fact that the basic wage awarded recently by the Queensland Arbitration Court is the highest in the Commonwealth. Regarding that matter, I desire to make my position perfectly clear. I have always favoured the payment of the highest wage that industry can afford, with the sole reservation that, if the wage is to be effective, it must have general application throughout the Commonwealth. There would then be fair competition between the States, and every State would prosper.
I desire child endowment tobe a permanent part of our social system, but it should be established on a sound and enduring basis. I am amazed at the docility of honorable gentlemen opposite who, because their leader is a member of the Advisory War Council, and supports the Government’s proposals in this matter, are dumb and unable to express their own views. They should have sufficient courage to express the views that they individually hold. Had there been a prior discussion on this matter, a payroll tax would not have been proposed as part of the method by which child endowment should be financed. We are passing through difficult times, in which new industries may fail to show a profit at the outset; therefore, this Parliament ought to face up to the realities of the situation with regard to child endowment. I strongly support the introduction of the principle, but I urge the Government to cast aside its proposal to finance the scheme partly by means of a pay roll tax. It should obtain the necessary funds from general revenue for this and all other social services.
.- There appears to be a mistaken notion in some quarters, on a quite insufficient ground, that some kind of embargo has been placed upon members of the Opposition against discussing this matter at all. Of course, I need hardly say that that is entirely wrong. It is quite open to members of this House to offer any observations they care to make on the principles of this measure. It is to be regretted that the Parliament was not first given an opportunity to express its view on the principle of child endowment. Had the principle been first submitted to us in a substantive measure, I think that the Parliament, by a large majority, would have wholeheartedly endorsed it. I think we could then have proceeded with open and analytical minds to the discussion of the methods by which the money should be raised for the purpose of giving effect to that decision. I realize, of course, that it is quite impossible to discuss any tax measure apart from the purpose for which the money is being raised, unless, of course, it is merely for general revenue. If the money is being raised for a special purpose, as in this case, it is impossible intelligently to discuss the method of raising it without reference to the purpose to which the money is to be applied. That is little more than a truism, and it serves to emphasize the regret I feel over the order in which these measures have been presented to the Parliament. However, that is not m.y responsibility; it is the responsibility of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition has correctly quoted the Assistant Minister (Mr. Anthony), who introduced the bill, as having said that this is the only method available to the Government for raising the necessary money. The Leader pf the Opposition does not endorse that view, but accepts it as coming from those responsible for the public finance of the country, from the representative of a Government of which he is not a member, and for whose conduct he is not responsible. He does not accept it as being, the best method, nor do I accept it as being the best or the only method. Therefore, I regret that we have not had, from the Government, a more sober and considered analysis of the question as to the most equitable and just method of raising the money needed. I think that the discussion has been inadequate, and I cannot help feeling that the Government, through its single representative who has addressed himself to the question, has not fully examined all the available avenues of finance. It might very well be said that I, as a representative of the working class in an industrial electorate, should not concern myself with the fact that it is proposed to establish this fund from moneys to be paid by industrial magnates who employ large numbers of persons, and have a large wages bill. I reject that narrow view. It is obvious that this is a sectional tax, and as such presents objectionable features to my mind. If the Government has not itself exhaustively examined the alternatives, I do not consider that that relieves me, at least, of the necessity for calling attention to the fact. I do not intend to oppose the bill mainly because, although this is to be a sectional tax, the obligation resting upon employers of wage-earners is of such a character, and the impost is so distributed between those who are employers and those who are earning large incomes, that I am prepared to waive my objection in favour of my strong desire that no serious obstacle should be placed in the way of child endowment. The tax on those who are not employers will bear a fair proportion to the benefit which those tax-payers .will receive. Certain persons, it is true, with large incomes will bear no part of this tax. They may actually benefit from it.
– They cannot do that. Any one with an income of over £700 a year will lose more than he will gain because he will lose the allowance in respect of dependants.
– That comes under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, under this taxation measure, there is some proportion, at least, between the tax on those who are not employers, but are earners of income, and the benefit which they will receive. I cannot ignore the fact that the rise which we expect, or did “ expect, in the basic wage, would probably have constituted a greater impost on industry than this measure will impose, upon any reasonable expectation of what the court would grant. Certainly, I strongly hold the view that the basic wage should, on the facts and. in equity, be substantially increased. I do not believe that the method proposed for raising the money is the best, but I accept it because, although it may be in some respects unjust, there are about it certain compensatory features. I do not accept it merely because it is an impost on a class of persons who do not, as a rule, vote for me, and whose direct representative I cannot claim to be. I think there is a duty resting upon every individual member of this House to examine conscientiously the incidence of taxation in order to see whether it is fair, not to see whether more taxation is imposed on his political opponents than on his political friends.
Mr.SPOONER (Robertson) [5.15]. - I believe that, as the debate proceeds, the House will begin to get this tax into proper perspective. We must take our cue from the speech of the Assistant Minister who said that the pay-roll tax is the only way to finance child endowment. That is the Government’s responsibility. The Government inferentially goes further and says “not only is the pay-roll tax the only way to finance the scheme, but also it is being introduced before the Child Endowment Rill itself to make sure that i t will be carried “. At this stage, all honorable members who are supporters of the principle of child endowment have to be realists. They must accept the position that the Government in charge of the finances of the country says that there is only one way in which to finance child endowment, and if there is no pay-roll tax, then there will be no child endowment. I find myself in accord with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin). It may be known to some honorable members that I am no supporter of the principle of a pay-roll tax, but if it is a question of deciding between the dropping of child endowment and proceeding with the pay-roll tax for the finding of nine-thirteenths of the cost of the scheme, then I do not propose to vote against the bill to introduce the tax. I propose to support, the bill, but that does not prevent me from expressing the opinion that the money mightbe found in a better way. I hope that I am not unfair in saying that the Leader of the Opposition, in his endorsement of the bill, did not show any glowing enthusiasm for it. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) went a little further. I shall go further still. I feel sure that were honorable members asked to vote on this measure quite detached from any scheme of child endowment, it would be given an entirely different reception.
However, we must be realists, and face the position as we find it. Last December, in this House, I had an opportunity to support remarks made by the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), who. in speaking on an income taxation measure, expressed the hope that a child endowment scheme would be introduced and that it might be partly financed by the abandonment of the concessional deduction in respect of children underthe age of sixteen. I supported that suggestion, because on previous occasions in public I had expressed the view that an all-Australian child endowment scheme was a very necessary social reform. I am not likely, therefore, to display antagonism towards this bill, particularly when I know that in the Government’s view child endowment at this juncture can be financed only in the way now proposed. However, I regret that the bill does not call for any contribution towards child endowment from many who are in receipt of high professional incomes, or from those whose incomes are derived from rents and dividends.
– Will they not contribute towards the scheme through income tax?
– Consolidated Revenue will provide two-thirteenths of the cost of the scheme. To that degree all classes of income will contribute. However, if the pay-roll tax is to provide nine-thirteenths of the cost, and if a specific charge is to be made upon those who will lose the benefit of concessional deductions for children, after the first child, up to the age of sixteen years, certain persons will be called upon to contribute twice towards the cost of child endowment. I agree with the proposal to abandon those concessional deductions. However, I have just indicated only one anomaly. Others will become apparent when this legislation is administered. For instance, unprofitable as well as profitable industries must contribute towards the cost of this scheme. Businesses which are flourishing are able to take care of themselves; but Parliament has some responsibility towards those industries which are not yet thoroughly established, or have not passed their teething period.
– Would not those industries be obliged to pay any increase of the basic wage?
– I am not discussing that aspect of the matter. I am now considering whether child endowment should be financed by a pay-roll tax, or by all-round contributions to Consolidated Revenue. In the latter case, incomes of all classes would contribute towards the cost of the scheme; but businesses not yet successfully launched, or which are being run at a loss, will be obliged to pay the pay-roll tax. I am not in complete agreement with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that a. pay-roll tax is a tax upon employers. I do not think that this states the position fully. In respect of a pay-roll tax, the obligation to pay the tax rests primarily upon the employer, but that docs not mean that the employer alone pays the tax. In. some cases he can pass it on to the consumer; in other cases he cannot do so. The primary producer, for example, is not able to pass on such a tax. Therefore, in the ultimate analysis, the pay-roll tax is a tax on some employers, and to the degree that other employers are able to pass it on, it is a tax on the consumers.
– Does not the passingon argument apply to any income tax?
– Ido not think so. If it were possible to pass on income tax, industry would now be able to anticipate the Government’s additional requirements at the end of the current financial year. But income tax is an appropriation out of profit. It is not payable unless incomes or profits are earned. I do not think, for example, that the Prices Commissioner - although I am not anticipating what he might think of a pay-roll tax - would for one moment consider an application that prices should be raised to offset income tax. However, I anticipate that he might give very serious consideration to a proposal that there should be passed on in the prices of goods a. tax on wages; and this is a tax of 21/2 per cent. on wages. Such a taxbecomes an element of the cost of production. The point, I emphasize is that the incidence of a, pay-roll tax may be unfair; whilst some employers will be able to pass it on. others will not, be able to do so. In addition, it has an unhealthy effect upon some industries which, owing to their stage of development, are not able to bear it. That is all I propose to say at this juncture with regard to the payroll tax.
I regard all proposals dealing with the Government’s finances which are introduced half-way through the financial year as being disturbing to industry generally and to our taxation system as a whole i f they tend to upset the anticipated financial requirements of the current year. I do not accept the proposition that this money cannot be found from Consolidated Revenue which can be supplemented from all available sources to finance the cost of child endowment. The Government, then, should consider whether it should impose a specific tax, with all its anomalies, or use the general revenue of the country to finance what is obviously a social service. Any disturbance of our finances half-way through the financial year cannot but have an unfavorable effect upon economic and business conditions generally. However, I repeat that we must be realists. I cannot recall whether the Assistant Minister said that this tax was intended to be a temporary tax.
– No.
– Undoubtedly this measure will be passed ; I can only hope, therefore, that it will lead to a more comprehensive survey of the whole ofthe Government’s finances in order that the cost of the war and social services shall be equitably distributed over all sections of the community. I support the bill in the hope that during the current financial year, or, at least, before the next budget is introduced, a committee of this House will be appointed to devise a comprehensive plan for the equitable distribution of the cost of these services next year.
.- Originally I was hostile to the principle of the pay-roll tax, but after a careful analysis of the Government’s present financial position and the commitments which it must meet next year, I agree that, at this juncture, it has no alternative to the introduction of a pay-roll tax in order to finance its child endowment proposals. Honorable members generally donot appear to be aware that, in fact, industry will be called upon to pay only half of this tax. An amount of £2,000,000 will be raised by the abolition of statutory exemptions in respect of children under the age of sixteen years; and an additional £2,000,000 will be provided from general revenue. At the same time the State governments will be responsible for paying £2,500,000 of this tax. That accounts for £6,500,000 of the amount required to finance the scheme. Industry, therefore, will be directly responsible for only half of the total cost. I have made a very careful examination of the Government’s present financial position with a view to ascertaining whether it would not be possible to finance the scheme from Consolidated Revenue. Of the revenue estimated for the current year income tax will provide £51,000,000, and indirect taxes £74,000,000. From which of those sources is increased revenue obtainable? Every thoughtful pri’son will agree that we have little hope of increasing the present rates of customs duty. That would involve a reduction of imports. In addition, the rate of sales tax is now very high. Assuming that the Government decided to raise £2,000,000. by increasing the rate of sales tax, an amount of £11,000,000 would have to he raised through direct taxation. That would necessitate an increase of over 25 per cent, of the present rates of income tax. After the Government has raised the revenue it anticipates to secure from income tax this year, and allowance has been made for increases of present rates of income tax, because such increases will have to be made if the Government is to be enabled to meet its commitments next year,, and after allowing also for Government borrowings in Australia to the limit of the country’s capacity, a deficiency of many millions of pounds would still have to be made good. In the absence of a proposal such as that in the bill now before us the Government would have to finance its child endowment scheme out of thin air. That is not at all satisfactory. When we introduce a new system of social services, we should be prepared to say definitely how we intend to finance it. The Government is doing the right thing in coming before the Parliament and the people with a definite indication of how it intends to finance this child endowment scheme. It has been suggested in some quarters that we should defer the financing of this new governmental expenditure until the budget for next year is prepared. Had we done that we would have had to borrow the money or impose on the taxpayers a burden which they would not be able to bear. It has been said that many taxpayers will escape liability to contribute to the child endowment scheme. That is not so. I have already indicated that more than one-half of the funds required to finance the scheme will be provided out of income tax collected either by the Commonwealth or the States. There are one or two suggestions I should like to make in connexion with this bill. In the first place, is it proposed that this new tax shall be an allowable deduction for income tax purposes? As the tax is in the nature of a direct charge on industry and is in the same category as wages, that point is very important. If the tax be allowed as a deduction from income for taxation purposes the criticism that it would create hardship, in that those making losses will have to pay it, falls to the ground. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the position of a person who has entered into a contract unaware of the possibility of the imposition of this tax. Will he be regarded as being in the same position as another who signs a contract containing a clause by which the contract price may be varied in accordance with variations of the basie wage? This is an important point and should be carefully considered.
– Would not such a contractor have already made some provision for variations of the basic wage which did not eventuate.
– No. The honorable member argues that if there had been an increase of the basic wage such a contractor would have had to put up with it. I am considering the case of a person who has signed a contract containing a clause which provides for variations of the contract price in accordance with the rise or fall of the basic wage.
– -Such a provision is not contained in all contracts.
– Most contracts include a provision of that kind. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) drew attention to the need for uniformity in our industrial and arbitration system. It is impossible under present conditions to have inserted in awards provision for men with large families. That is the main reason for the introduction of this bill. I agree that the proposed tax will entail some sacrifice on the part of persons who have to pay it; but their sacrifice will be as nothing compared to the anguish of soul of a mother with a large family and small income endeavouring to make both ends meet. For that reason I support the bill.
– It is a trite saying that empty vessels make the most sound. This bill should have passed its second-reading stage within ten minutes of the conclusion of the address of the Leader of the Opposition. To-day, however, the Opposition is the government of this country. The passing of this bill and its cognate measure, the Child Endowment Bill, is dependent, not only on the goodwill and co-operation of the Opposition,but also on its determination to see it through. Irrespective of what Government members may say, we do not intend to allow the Government to escape its responsibilities to those who are to benefit under the Child Endowment Bill. The Government need waste no time in debating this bill ; the Opposition wants to place it and the complementary bills on the statute-book. We do not agree that these measures constitute the best that the Government could do - there is room for much improvement in both of them - but we regard them as representing at least some contribution towards the social needs of the community. Honorable members opposite would do the Government and the people of this country a better service if they refrained from further debating the hill.
– The honorable member for Watson has told the truth. We on this side of the House know the position. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) spoke on this measure this afternoon, he did not praise it with faint damns or damn it with faint praise. He was like the father of an illegitimate child, saying to the mother, “Here it is; devise ways and means of keeping it - whether by recourse to the wash-tub or worse. It is yours; look after it. I am going ‘bush’, but sooner or later I shall come back and will want to know how the youngster is getting on “. In this instance the Government is the mother. Honorable members on this side of the House know there is no government in this country to-day, just as we know that there is no Opposition. We know, further, that our parliamentary system of government is suffering as a result.
– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the bill.
– You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) to make remarks along these lines. He has it coming to him.
– The Chair listened very carefully to the speech of the honorable member for Watson. The honorable member for Barker is going beyond an adequate reply.
– Grave differences of opinion exist among honorable members regarding the financing of the proposed child endowment scheme. The debate on this bill is limited to a discussion of the method adopted by the Government to finance the scheme. The proposals of the Opposition for putting this bill into effect have seen many changes. At first it was suggested that we should pass the Child Endowment Bill and not worry about finance until next year. Having delivered themselves of that most ingenious and disarming suggestion, members of the Opposition now state that they will put the financial proposals through first, and discuss the implementation of the scheme afterwards. Without further reference to the impotence of the Government in this regard, and sincerely thanking the honorable member for Watson for saying what the country ought to know about the state of affairs in this Parliament, let us get down to the essentials of the bill. A proposal such as that now before us could never be discussed properly in watertight compartments. Government cannot be divorced from finance ; yet that is what we are trying to do to-day.Although we endeavoured to agree upon the method of financing the child endowment scheme, not one member of the Opposition has yet said that the method proposed in this bill is the right one. It does not suit the Opposition at present to say what is right and what is wrong, because honorable members opposite are carefully preparing their’ heads for the crown which they hope to wear about two months hence. Before we impose a tax of this sort, we should consider its effect upon certain branches of industry. Further, this tax is being imposed to provide child endowment which -many people in this community do not want and have never asked for. When the Government went to the country last year, the Prime Minister’s policy speech contained no reference to a child endowment scheme.
– The Prime Minister spoke of a new order.
– The honorable member knows as well as I do that all this talk about a new order is only so much t03h and nonsense. The world does not progress by leaps and bounds. The institution of reforms is a rather slow and painful process. I am suspicious of reforms which spring up overnight like mushrooms after rain. I prefer to plant acorns rather than mushrooms. When one plants mushrooms one gets a very early crop, but the crop lives for but a little while and dies. When one plants an acorn, one has to wait a long time for results, but in the long run one gets a sturdy tree that lives through the ages. It is, or, at any rate, it should be, the aim of every one to endeavour to keep down costs. How can industry keep down costs if taxes be imposed on wages in the way proposed in this bill? Two classes of people will be called upon to pay the proposed tax. .Many organizations such as co-operative agricultural companies which will be obliged to pay the tax, will not be able to pass it on, because the prices of the commodities which they handle are determined by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner. Another big section which cannot bc overlooked, will be able to pass on the tax by increasing the prices of their goods. They will add the amount represented by the taxto the cost of conducting their establishments producing their goods or providing certain services. As the result, the general community will ultimately pay that portion of the tax. In this instance, the honorable member for Watson has told the truth. To employ Mr. Winston Churchill’s observation in reference to Yugoslavia’s volte face last week, I declare that it is time .that this Government found its soul.
.- Never in my experience as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament has any principle been endorsed with such cordiality and unanimity as has the principle of child endowment. But if honorable members were to express what is in their minds, they would declare unhesitatingly that the proposal to finance the scheme partly by means of a pay-roll tax is unjustified, because such an impost is inequitable. Every speaker to date has admitted that the pay-roll is not a reliable guide to an employer’s income or profits. In addition, those who are subject to this impost will be compelled to pay twice, because a portion of their income tax payments will be devoted to defraying the cost of child endowment. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) asserted that he accepted the proposal because the Government is responsible for financing the scheme, and some honorable members on this side of the House agreed with his statement. It is a novel contention, and is a peculiar one to emanate from the Opposition. Honorable members opposite did not adopt that attitude toward the national insurance legislation.
This bill has placed Parliament in a mo3t extraordinary position. Though honorable members are overwhelmingly opposed to this form of financing child endowment, Parliament is prepared to accept it because the Government declared that the scheme can be financed in no other way. That means, in effect, that Parliament, which is ultimately responsible for the scheme, has no voice in its preparation and design. The method by which the Government intends to finance child endowment is the only point that can cause a division of opinion among honorable members and among the public. The people will desire to know the attitude adopted by individual members towards this legislation. Although few of them will accept the Government’s statement that child endowment can be financed no other way - personally I do not - the majority are willing to support the bill because they desire the introduction of this social reform.
– For three or four hours yesterday members of the Opposition discussed the attitude that they would adopt, as a party, towards the Government’s proposals to introduce the payment of child endowment, and now they are endeavouring to prevent honorable members on this side of the chamber from discussing the measure. The public and the press expect us to debate the legislation thoroughly, and if we allow it to pass without dissection, we shall be unfair to our constituents. Metaphorically speaking, the bill is a gun which the Government is aiming at us and I do not like the lock, stock or barrel. As I am a representative of a country constituency, the way of escape has been made simple for me; I can make myself popular with a large section of my constituents, since many of them who in other circumstances would pay the tax, are now exempt, but it would be cowardly of me to take the easy way. My sympathy lies as much with the employer, whose weekly payments of wages amount to £21, as with the employer whose wage-sheet does not exceed £19. Although I am not an employer, I contend that I should be liable to pay the tax.
– The honorable member will pay the tax.
– We should be taxed directly. This half-hearted scheme is not a social reform. Whilst T propose to make further comments upon the Government’s proposals when the Child Endowment Bill is debated, I decided to speak at this juncture in order to record my opposition to the method of financing the proposal.
– in reply - The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) declared that the Opposition is, in effect, the real Government of the country.
– No. He declared that the Opposition was also non-existent.
– I remind the honorable member for Barker that the present constitution of the House was decided by the electors, and honorable members have to make the best of the situation. In co-operation with all sections of the House, the Government is endeavouring to do that. Apparently, the honorable member for Barker would like to see the Opposition in office, harassed by the United Australia party and the United Country party until its life became unbearable. Honorable members have a responsibility to Australia, and must endeavour in this period of crisis, to govern smoothly and efficiently, even though in strength the Government and the Opposition are so even. The Government is glad to acknowledge the co-operation which it has received in these very trying circumstances from the Opposition.
– Will the Assistant Minister reply to the honorable member for Watson now?
– The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) is new to Parliament, and has something to learn. The Government, after giving consideration to various suggestions for raising the money required to finance child endowment, came to the conclusion that the pay-roll tax was the only possible means. The contention of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) that there should be other means of financing the scheme represented my own views at the outset; but after an exhaustive examination of every proposal, supported by information from the Treasury and the Taxation Department, the Government reluctantly decided that there was no alternative to the adoption of the pay-roll tax. The honorable member for Lilley asked whether payments by employers toward child endowment would be allowed as deductions in the computation of their income tax. I inform the honorable member that the Government intends to allow such payments as deductions, and if the act does not make that provision at present, the introduction of suitable amending legislation will be considered.
– If that be the case the Assistant Minister should be careful that not a farthing of it is passed on to the community.
– The Government is mindful of that, and will carefully examine the position. Regarding contracts which were mentioned by the honorable member for Lilley, I remind the House that child endowment will not operate until the 1st July, 1941, so that not a great number of contracts will be affected. At the same time, I shall give consideration to the possibility that he mentioned.
– Is the Assistant Minister sure that the scheme will operate from the 1st July?
– That is the intention of the Government. If my prophecy be not fulfilled, it will be the fault of Parliament. The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) referred to the matter of exemptions. In reply, I state this simple fact, that if there were no exemptions, approximately 230,000 employers would be affected, but the exemptions reduce that number to 35,000. The cost of collecting the tax from the 200,000 employers who have been exempted would absorb an appreciable part of their contributions. That is the justification for the decision of the Government to grant those exemptions. Some honorable members contended that persons who derived their income from dividends and rents would not contribute to child endowment, but those people now pay a super tax on income derived from property, which exceeds the tax upon income from personal exertion by 25 per cent. Therefore, a differential tax is applied to that class of person. There is also a difference between a Commonwealth-wide tax, imposed on pay rolls, and a State tax, such as that which existed in New South Wales. A State tax is open to certain objections. For one thing, a manufacturer who is subject to the tax in one State has difficulty in competing with a manufacturer of similar goods in another State where the tax does not apply.
– Was the child endowment tax in New South Wales made an allowable deduction in the computation of income tax?
– I cannot say that.
– If this is the only way in which ?13,000,000 can be found, where is the Government going to find money when war demands become greater and greater in the future?
– The Government has in mind the fact that war demands will become greater and greater, and considers that whatever fields of taxation remain should be reserved for legitimate war purposes. It is fully realized that more money will have to be found from time to time. To the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), who suggested that this may be a temporary measure, I say that we hope that all of our taxation will not continue at its present severe level, and that the time will come when it will be possible to lighten the load. However, I do not hold out hope to employers that this tax will be imposed for only a short time. Such a suggestion would be misleading. The word “ temporary “ is capable of many interpretations.
It is not necessary for me to deal with this measure any further at this stage. I have replied to most of the points raised by honorable members in the course of the second-reading debate. I sincerely hope that the House will give speedy passage to this very important measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Bill agreed to.
-(Mr. Prowse).The question is - That the bill be reported without amendment.
– On the question of the financing of this scheme–
– I rise to a point of order. One motion has already been declared carried. What is the question now before the Chair?
– I am now putting the second motion, namely -
That the bill be reported without amendment.
– If tactics like that are to be resorted to then I also can employ tactics.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill reported without amendment.
Motion (by Mr. Anthony) proposed -
That the report be adopted.
– I rise to protest against the handling of business in this manner. I did not hear the questions put in committee nor did I record a vote.
.- I also protest against the manner in which this bill was passed through the committee stage.
– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the House cannot take cognizance of anything that took place in committee, other than the report furnished by the Chairman of Committees, namely, that the committee had agreed to the bill without amendment. The question to which the honorable member must address himself at this stage is whether the report should or should not be adopted.
– The Leader of the Opposition has correctly stated the position.
– I object to the report being adopted because of the manner in which the bill was put through the committee stage. I desired to move an amendment, but I had no opportunity to do so. The object of my amendment was to obviate the necessity for employers to make out monthly returns. That is quite unnecessary and I hope that when the bill is before the Senate, the Government will consider the wisdom of my suggestion. In some States to-day an extraordinary number of returns has to be filled in, and much additional work is entailed by stamp systems, &c. Money is urgently required for the expansion and development of business-
– The honorable member is not in order. The question before the Houseis that the report be adopted.
– In discussing the question of whether this report should be adopted, I contend that the Government, which should control this Parliament, should not permit tactics which prevent its own supporters from speaking.
– I again rise to a point of order. The honorable member is reflecting on what took place in committee.
– He is endeavouring to show cause why the report should not be adopted. He is doing so by suggesting that a vote was taken without giving honorable members an opportunity to speak to the question before the Chair.
– I cherish my privilege as a member of this House. Amid the hullabaloo and shouting carried on by members of the Opposition, we were unable to hear what was happening. That is not the proper way in which to conduct the business of this Parliament.
Sitting suspended from 6.16 to8 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was discusing the circumstances in which the bill was reported to the House. I move -
That the bill be now recommitted to a committee of the whole House for the reconsideration of clause 18.
Standing Order 181 states -
On the motion for the adoption of the report, the bill may, on motion, be recommitted, either in whole or in part; in which case, if amendments be made and the bill be reported, a subsequent date shall be fixed for taking the report into consideration and moving its adoption, and the bill, as reported with the amendment, shall in the meantime be printed; but if no amendments have been made the report may bo at once adopted.
My object in moving for the recommittal of the bill is to move an amendment in clause 18, which provides inter alia -
Every employer who is registered or required to bo registered in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section shall, within seven days after the close of each month, furnish to the commissioner, in accordance with the form and in the manner prescribed, a return of all wages paid or payable by him in respect of that month or in respect of each pay period of less than one month ending in that month, as the case may be:
If the bill is recommitted I propose to move that, in clause 18, the “word “ month “ first appearing be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ three months “.
– The honorable member wants to sabotage the bill.
– Certainly not. Already those in charge of industry are required under the authority of acts of Parliament to make about twenty returns periodically. I do not want industry to be burdened by being compelled to make pay-roll tax returns every month. Therefore, I suggest that the returns under this bill he made every three months. I have advocated child endowment throughout my political life, and I want the scheme to operate efficiently with the least possible irritation to industry.
– I have two grounds of objection to the recommittal of the bill. The first is to the recommittal itself, because Standing Order 181 states that if an amendment be made in a bill after recommittal and the bill be reported “a subsequent date shall be fixed for taking the report into consideration and moving its adoption “. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) proposes to move an amendment if the bill is recommitted.
– The bill could be recommitted forthwith, and any suggested amendment considered in a few minutes. Then the Standing Orders could be suspended to allow the report to be taken into consideration.
– The House is governed by the Standing Orders which can be suspended only ‘by the House. I cannot undertake to state that a motion submitted for the suspension of standing orders would be agreed to. The proposal submitted by the honorable member for Moreton would involve delay in the consideration of the bill, which has already been reported to the House from the committee. My next point of objection is that I shall oppose the recommittal of the bill because I do not intend to support the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Moreton. I arn opposed to it because I consider it essential for the effective operation of the measure that pay-roll tax returns should be made by employers within seven days after the close of each month. Otherwise a large amount of revenue would probably be lost to the Treasury. I.’n that event the sum which the Government estimates will be raised by the Payroll Tax Bill will not he raised and consequently the burden cast on other sources of revenue to the Treasury will be greatly .increased. If employers were permitted to furnish returns quarterly instead of monthly there would be considerable delay in the Treasury obtaining returns from employers of periodical or casual labour, of which there is a great deal in Australia. The Treasury would have to wait months to obtain returns from employers of casual la-bour and it would not be able to enforce submission of the returns quarterly. We have had experience of sub-contractors, whose number is legion in Australia, evading payment of their employees although they have received payment on their subcontracts. Great difficulty would be encountered in ensuring that the main purpose of the bill would be accomplished if there were any relaxation of the conditions which the Treasury regards as imperative in order to make certain that employers will contribute towards the fund necessary to give effect to the child endowment scheme. If employers could wait three months before making a return, the time lag between the payment of wages and the submission of the return would be dangerous. Moreover, any economy to be gained by the employer is not worth considering. It is very seldom that more than a month elapses before wages are paid. The usual practice ia to pay wages weekly; in some cases, payment is made fortnightly, but monthly payment of wages is rare. All that tho employer is required to do under the terms of the bill is to furnish a return to the Treasury each month of the amount of wages paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly. As there would be no gain to the country or to employers by making the change proposed by the honorable member for Moreton, I shall vote against the recommittal of the bill.
– The Government is not prepared. to support a motion for the recommittal of the .bill, but it is prepared to have consideration given in the Senate to the question raised by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has pointed out adequately, and the taxation authorities have advised the Government, that in the event of employers being permitted to make pay-roll tax returns quarterly instead of monthly the door would be opened to a great amount of evasion by employers and consequent loss of revenue to the Treasury. Other returns of a similar nature are required to be made monthly, examples being those relating to the sales tax and the wages taxes. The obligation to make the pay-roll tax returns monthly will not place an unduly heavy burden on employers. If the honorable member for More ton is concerned about the possibility of causing irritation to small employers, I would point out that clause 19 of the bill provides that the Commissioner of Taxation may exempt an employer from furnishing monthly returns if he can establish the fact that he does not pay in wages a total sum of more than £1,040 in a year. There is not much prospect of the Government accepting the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Moreton even if the bill is recommitted, but I can give him an undertaking that the Government will have the subject-matter of the proposed amendment considered when the bill is in the Senate.
– I think that the bill should be recommitted for consideration as a whole. It was a travesty on our parliamentary proceedings when its 70 clauses received no consideration in committee.
– On a point of order, I submit that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was not in order in stating that it was a travesty on our proceedings that the 70 clauses of the bill received no consideration in committee. Mr. Speaker Watt and Mr. Speaker Makin have both made it clear in rulings, that the House has no authority over proceedings in committee, unless the Chairman of Committees reports to the House for the Speaker’s ruling, a. question that the committee has authorized him to report.
– It is true that the committee is master of its own proceedings. On a motion to recommit a bill the honorable member submitting the motion is entitled to give special reasons why it should be recommitted, such as misunderstanding, error or insufficient consideration.
– It is necessary for the House to be informed of what happened in committee. It is necessary that the bill be recommitted to discuss not only a proposed amendment to clause18,but also all the other clauses. The proper procedure is for the bill to be recommitted. After the call for a division was withdrawn I tried to get across from the Opposition side to which I had gone to cast my vote, but I had insufficient time to do so. I was not able to hear what the Chairman of Committees said. I do not know whether he said anything. If he did he may, for all I know, not have dealt with the bill.
– On a point of order. A motion has been moved to recommit the bill for the consideration of a specific clause. No reference, therefore, may be made to anything except the desirability or undesirability to refer the bill to the committee to consider that clause.
– That is right.
– Can I move an amendment?
– Not at this stage.
– I desire to point out how the House came to find itself in this position.
– The honorable member is not entitled to do so.
– For all I know the Chairman of Committees may havebeen reading the death sentence or, what is more likely in view of what has occurred before and after the dinner adjournment, the marriage service.
– He may have been declaring a divorce between the honorable member and the Government.
– The proper thing for the House to do is to recommit the bill so that every clause may be considered separately, so that every amendment may be considered separately, so that it may be discussed clause by clause, line by line, or, if necessary, word by word. To suggest that the committee gave any consideration to or had any opportunity to give consideration to the various clauses in committee or to consider amendments which honorable members may have had in mind is absolutely wrong.
– I rise to order. The honorable member is giving an entirely wrong account of what took place in committee. First of all he is not authorized to give any account of what occurred in committee. The only personso authorized is the Chairman of Committees.
– Put the Chairman in the chair again and hear what he has to say.
– I am as reliable a criterion of what took place as is the honorable gentleman, but I have no right to say what occurred.
– A motion to recommit the bill has been moved. There is no need to suggest any amendment of any clause. A motion can be moved that the bill be recommitted for the purpose of considering the bill as a whole.
Opposition Members. - But that is not the motion.
– The need to take that course is urgent. I, in common with other honorable members, had no opportunity to do anything in committee. I doubt whether the motion that the bill be reported was even put. I did not hear it. I had not even returned to my place. This bill, consisting of 70 clauses, went through committee in absolute confusion.
– I direct attention to the fact that the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) has been discussing something that occurred in committee, which forms no part of the report that was made from committee. In that circumstance, he is not entitled to traverse or discuss any part of the proceedings in committee. I respectfully contend that in this discussion honorable members may not go beyond the ambit of the motion moved by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis).
– I refer the House to May, who states that : “ The bill may be recommitted as often as the House may think fit “.
– The motion is to recommit the bill for the reconsideration of clause 18.
– The motion is to recommit the bill for a specific purpose. The following occurred in the House in 1.903 : -
At the report stage of the Seat of Government Bill, Mr. Speaker said that it was in order to argue that the report should not be adopted, or should be returned to the committee for further consideration, or to discuss any other matter . . . which was relative to the motion.
I rule that it is relevant to the motion to state the circumstances in which the bill was reported.
– Neither the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) nor the honorable member for
Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) is entitled to do that. The Chairman of Committees is charged with representing the proceedings’ of the committee to the House. They cannot be reported by any other person.
.- During this acrimonious debate, I have had a discussion with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden). I am prepared to accept his promise and personal assurance to me that my representations will receive most serious consideration in the Senate. I ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion - by leave - withdrawn.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Report adopted.
Motion (by Mr. Anthony) - by leave - proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
.- A few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) described as unfair the tax provided for in this bill. Instancing its unfairness, he cited a barrister, earning £15,000 a year and employing little or no labour, who would be absolutely immune from the tax. The Sydney Morning Herald, in a leading article, gave prominence to what he then said. Yet to-day, mistakenly, I am sure, he accepted the view of the Government that this tax is the only means by which to finance child endowment. It is nice to have a docile Opposition. It is nice to have an Opposition purring contentedly like a lot of cats at everything that the Government says on finance. I was under the impression that one of the great barriers against a national government in this country was disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on financial matters, but I am now told through the Leader of the Opposition that his supporters accept blindly whatever the Government says on finance.
– No!
– Yes. The only qualification offered by the Leader of the Opposition was that his party would not have to justify the tax. In other words, the honorable gentleman, like Charles James Fox, looks forward to years and years of opposition. He says that he will not have to justify this tax. No doubt he is correct. No doubt his party will not be in power and have to decide the fate of this tax. With only that qualification the Opposition accepts the tenets of finance laid down by the Government. I hope that, when the next budget is under consideration, I shall have the privilege of reminding the Leader of the Opposition of what he has said and of hearing him say, “ That is correct. I accept the advice of the Government on financial matters “.
The Government claims that this tax provides the only way in which to finance child endowment. I do not accept that contention. The tax is inequitable. It is unfair. It is a sectional tax. It taxes one particular section for one reason, and for only one reason, namely, because the employers are in the minority. In the opinion of the Government, to be an employer is a crime, and in mitigation of that crime the employer must subject himself to any impost to meet any expediency. The Opposition is to blame even more than the Government for this state of affairs. A pay-roll tax is to be adopted because it provides an easy way to obtain the money and because it is popular. The number of employers is limited; there is a big section of the people in the public services and in the learned professions who will not be taxed at all. There are also thousands of people in Sydney and Melbourne and in every other capital city who derive their income not by employing labour but by drawing dividends, rents and so on. The pay-roll tax is the popular way to raise this money, but it is a rotten way. It does not possess one sound principle md if this bill is all that the Government and the Opposition can do to give a guide to the people in these times, this House can no longer expect to maintain their high regard. Although the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and certain other concerns have experienced increased prosperity as the result of the war, there are other enterprises in Australia, controlled by importers and primary producers, which have been hard hit. I know of one firm in Melbourne which made a loss last year and expects to make another loss this year. Because it was running at a loss that firm had to dispense with a large number of its employees. The effect of this tax on that firm will be an additional burden of £400 or £500 a. year. In such circumstances it will be forced to dispense with even more hands. This bill is tantamount to a demand that employers dispense with labour. In view of the mistakes which have been committed by the Government and the Opposition, we should not pass the third reading of this measure without discussion.
I take the Assistant Minister (Mr. Anthony) to task on another matter. He said, “ Well, we have to find the £13,000,000. The only way in which we can find it, or the greater portion of it, is by taxing the employer “.
– The honorable member is misquoting me.
– The Minister said, “ We have to obtain £13,000,000 in additional revenue, and in order to do so we must descend to taxing the employer. It does not matter whether it is for social services or for anything else that the money is required, but we must find £13,000,000”. He stated that the Government could not find the money unless it adopted the expedient of taxing the employers. I objected and asked whether this meant that, if further money were required for war purposes, the Government would have to secure it from the employers, so that more and more taxes would be placed on that section of the community as the need for funds increased. The system is open to severe criticism. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) stated that the unemployment tax was imposed for a specific purpose. That is true. But will any honorable member say that it is still levied for a specific purpose? I do not believe so. The fact is that the unemployment tax is to-day collected for all sorts of purposes far removed from its original purpose. Is there any guarantee that this expedient - this tax that must, be imposed because there is no other way of raising £13,000,000 for child endowment - will not remain in existence? I say that it will become permanent. The demand for funds for war-time necessities will continue to grow, and as it does so this easy method of taxing a few people who cannot defend themselves politically, will continue to be employed. I hope that at this stage the bill will be given the consideration that it deserves. I am prepared to give the people a child endowment scheme based on right principles; but unfortunately neither the Government nor the Opposition will do that.
– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the proceedings during the consideration of this measure. I was surprised that it was brought forward before the Child Endowment Bill. The procedure savours very much of putting the cart before the horse; it means that the House will first, approve a method of obtaining funds, and then consider what should be done with the money. That is a reversal of the ordinary procedure of this Parliament, as every honorable member must know. I have been forcibly impressed with the attitude of honorable members opposite who, whilst they have declined to make speeches on the bill, have done their level best to prevent honorable members on this side of the House from being heard. Nevertheless the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) received a very good hearing from honorable members on this side of the House, and, indeed, a very silent hearing from his colleagues opposite. When the hill reached the committee stage, apparently before some honorable members from this side of the Chamber had regained their seats, and in the midst of deafening clamour, it was asserted that the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Prowse) had put the question that the bill be taken as a whole, and that the bill had passed through the committee stage. I say, as other honorable members have said, that if the chairman of committees did put the question, we were unaware that he did so. Not until the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Evatt) put a direct question to the chairman did that honorable gentleman appear to recall that he had put the question.
– That is a reflection on the Chairman of Committees.
– This is not a measure on which general views on child endowment should he voiced, and I do not propose to put my views before the House now. I wish to say, even if the noise which comes from the Opposition side of the chamber is intended to silence me, that people are looking to this Parliament from all over Australia to-day, and they will say to themselves, and rightly so, that this bill would be of considerable importance to the nation in any circumstances ; hut it is of considerably more importance now when the nation can ill-afford to spare £137000,0(^0. The bill occupies 25 pages of printed matter, and it was passed, after a stifled division, through committee - if it were passed at all - and accepted then by honorable members opposite in their haste to have it agreed to without any discussion, although honorable members on this side of the House made it perfectly clear that they had something to say about its proposals.
– Mr. Speaker, this is a grave reflection on the committee.
– The honorable member is perhaps exceeding the limits of fair debate.
Mr. Curtin. - With deep regret I rise to order. However much 1 feel disposed to let the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) say what I am glad to hear him say, I submit that the practice of this Parliament must be preserved ; these reflections upon the Chairman of Committees, and the committee itself, are outrageous.
– I imagine that what I have been saying has been in order.
-The honorable member has come perilously close to the limit.
– I should not like to sit in my place without confirming what the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) said a few minutes ago. This country is at war-
– Who told the honorable member that?
– These ribald remarks are most unbecoming to honorable members and must cease.
– No one who did not actually witness the proceedings in this House this afternoon could believe that such things could happen in this National Parliament. I say this without fear of successful contradiction. This stifling of discussion on a most importantbill will not help in any sense to win the war. Apparently the idea was that there should be a minimum of discussion so that those honorable members not in agreement with the general principles of the bill should not have a chance to oppose it. In common with a number of other honorable members, I am opposed to the idea of domination by numbers and by noise. We are sent here as representatives of a free people, and we are entitled to express our views on the bills introduced, whether we do so at the second reading, committee, or third reading stage, without being interrupted by noise from honorable members opposite, and “ without fear or favour “.
– I have no intention of opposing the motion for the third reading of the bill, but I desire to point out again - I had no chance to do so at the committee stage - that mistakes have been made in the drafting of this legislation. In my remarks on the motion for the second reading of the bill I said that the Government was mistaken in the methods that it proposed for raising the necessary money. I stated that the proposed tax would be a purely sectional tax, involving differentiation between various classes of industry. Since this afternoon I have investigated statistics, and have found that, of 230,000 employers in Australia, 200,000 will be exempt under the provisions of this bill.
– I stated that this afternoon.
– That merely bears out my previous statement; only 30,000 employers will be called upon to pay this tax. I have also received from a number of important organizations some very strenuous objections to this proposed sectional tax. They include the following telegrams : -
Be proposed pay-roll tax has it been considered that persons with government and other contracts made in all good faith at fixed prices with no anticipation of such a direct tax loading on wages have to suffer this imposition. Employers with highly-skilled labour willbe heavily penalized.
John Heine.
Child Endowment Bill Electrical Manufac- turers’ Association New South Wales while approving principle child endowment strongly protests method financing by pay-roll tax. Such method would be heavy direct load on industries performing contracts in which no relief would be available to meet) this charge as large volume contracts on fixed prices.
Palmer, President.
This organization whilst supporting the principle of family endowment strongly urges method of financing should not be limited to tax on pay rolls and requests your opposition to such a tax. We arefirmly convinced from experience in this State that the only equitable and just principle is that the cost of family endowment should fall upon the community generally.
Chamber of Manufacturers of New South Wales.
While not opposing principle of family endowment strongly object to suggested method of financingthe project by taxing the employers pay roll and request you as our member to give your best support to this objection.
Managing Director, Columbia Graphophone Australia Proprietary Limited.
Whilst agreeing to the principle of family endowment we strongly disagree with proposed method of taxing pay roll. We consider that the whole community should share in the cost.
Sterling Varnish Company, Huntley-street, Alexandria.
Regarding pay-roll tax for family endowment we suggest that consideration should be given to thefollowing points. One, injustice of sectional taxation which burdens section Providing employment and exempts rentier class who makes little contribution to employment. Two, definite provision should be made in act to ensure that the Prices Commissioner must approve of this tax being included as part of the costs of goods in order that price controlled goods shall be on the same basis as goods whose prices are not controlled.
Those telegrams have reached me since I spoke on this bill this afternoon.
I have no wish to repeat anything that I said at that time. I consider that the situation in which we find ourselves is most unfortunate, though I do not cast any aspersions upon, or blame, the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Prowse) for what has happened. A mistake was undoubtedly made at the committee stage of the bill. When the call for the division was withdrawn, and as members were recrossing the floor to their place, I understand that the Chairman of Committees made the inquiry: “Is it the desire of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole ? “ Certain honorable members of the Opposition have since told me that they heard his observation, but neither I nor a number of my colleagues on this side of the committee heard what was said. It was in these circumstances that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) endeavoured to secure the recommittal of the bill in order that certain of its provisions might be discussed. His effort did not succeed.
I do not desire to stone-wall the measure. I give the Opposition credit for its keenness and enthusiasm in respect of social services and, in particular, at the moment, child endowment; but I expect similar credit to be given to honorable members on this side of the chamber. I believe that all of my colleagues are in favour of child endowment, but we are not in agreement concerning the means by which the Government proposes to raise the money necessary to meet the expenses of the scheme. This is the first occasion in my 22 years’ experience as a member of this Parliament upon which I have known the Opposition to be practically silent on a taxing bill. One Opposition member said to me during the suspension of the sitting for dinner : “ If we had not wanted the bill, you would not have put that across us and so got the measure through so quickly “.
– The honorable member is disappointed.
– I am not disappointed, I am delighted that the parents of Australia are to receive some benefit under a measure of this description even though it may not be great. I desire that still further social services shall be provided. I regard this bill as historic - in fact, one of the most historic measures to be passed by this Parliament; but I hope that the day is not distant when we shall also pass a measure to provide pensions for widows, for such persons deserve the support of the nation. My only regret about this measure is that it was rushed through the committee so quickly that we were not given the opportunity to make it more effective. I support the motion for the third reading.
– I am not aware of a measure involving such important changes of the social fabric, and alterations of the financial and taxing structure of the nation ever being passed through a parliament, so quickly and with so little consideration as this measure is being passed. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) delivered a short, but impassioned, address on this bill this afternoon and then, like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of all responsibility. He said that the financial clauses of the bill were no concern of the Opposition. His attitude to-day was in striking contrast with the attitude that he adopted in respect of a certain measure last December. On that occasion, he held, as it were, a sixchambered revolver at the head of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), and said in effect : “ Either you do as we wish or we shall shoot every bullet”. In other words the honorable gentleman and his party were at that time, greatly concerned about how certain revenue was to be raised. I find it difficult to reconcile his attitude on that occasion with his statement this afternoon that the Opposition had no responsibility at all in connexion with the financial basis of the child endowment scheme. Although the Opposition comprises almost 50 per cent, of the membership of this Parliament the honorable gentleman declared that the financial policy of the Parliament in respect to child endowment was no concern of Labour. He said that it was the Government’s responsibility. This is in keeping with the attitude of the Opposition to the Government ever since the last election. Its members have been quite prepared to tender advice that they have not been willing to carry into effect. Such a state of affairs must bring retribution in its train in the future.
– The honorable member need not worry about that, for he will not be here after the next elections.
– I shall be here all right to keep my eye on honorable gentlemen opposite. This measure is an instalment of the Government’s child endowment scheme which reached this Parliament out of the blue. It was not asked for and was unwanted. It is quite clear from statements made by certain Ministers and honorable members in this House that little time or attention has been given to the details of the child endowment scheme, but certain important details of it will undoubtedly thrust themselves upon the notice of the Government before the scheme has been in operation very long, perhaps even before the end of this year. We shall then witness the spectacle of Ministers requesting the Parliament to remedy the defects of the scheme.
The Opposition has suddenly evinced an overwhelming desire for silence. They wish the hill to be passed quickly. Their attitude is in marked contrast with that of the last few days. I have in mind particularly the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) at the moment. We all remember the interesting debate of a few days ago concerning negligence and fraud, and I remind the House that when the time for voting came, the honorable member for East Sydney neglected to vote. I do not think that even the Italian navy could have caught him had it been here, so great was his speed in retiring in order that he might relieve himself of the responsibility of recording his vote.
One most important point in this measure that could have been debated at the committee stage, had time been available, related to the great changes in the social structure of the nation of which this bill is the forerunner. The significance of this measure in relation to the basic wage, for example, should certainly have received some attention, and in due course it will have to be given attention. In my view the changes that will be caused in our financial structure by the passing of this bill and its complementary measures will be so great that their reverberations will touch every person who is in receipt of the basic wage. Under the provisions of this bill it is estimated by the Government that £9,000,000 will be expended. I am not a betting man, and never have been, but I should like to have the benefit of the difference between the amount that will be raised under this bill and the £9,000,000 which it is estimated will be raised from the pay-roll tax in the first year of the operation of the scheme. Industry is to be taxed to provide this money, but it must also be remembered that the same industry is already being taxed to provide a basic wage which is payable to single men though it is computed on the needs of a man with a wife and one child. It is well known that the basic wage is paid to many single workmen who have no dependants. The plain fact is that the Government has paid very little attention to logic in the framing of this measure and the complementary bills which we shall later have to consider. There are certain limits beyond which it is impossible to go in the taxing of industry. Certain principles may be altered easily enough, but, if they are altered, certain consequences must inevitably follow. Hitherto it has been the practice in this country for the Arbitration Court, which is an independent tribunal, to fix the amount of the basic wage. In doing so it has taken cognizance of the needs of a man who has to support a wife and one child. That system is now to be changed. The old system was based, to a large degree at any rate, on what return the worker should give for his labour, but that principle is now being altered. Hereafter, the principle will be not “ to each according to what he gives “ but “to each according to what he needs”. My complaint, at the moment, is that honorable members generally are not giving the consideration that they should give to such a far-reaching change. This measure will be passed because the members of the Government and the Opposition are hand-in-glove, hut there arc many factors which should be taken into consideration before such a measure as this is passed. We should clearly recognize that we are embarking upon a definitely socialistic course. If the new principle to which I have referred is to be adopted the members of the Government, and also my colleagues on this side of the chamber, should realize clearly that there are limits beyond which they will not be able to go. I compliment the Opposition upon its good fortune in having on the treasury bench a government which is prepared to go thus far, but I fear that our King Canute at the table will find himself in the same position as the King Canute of long ago. He may attempt to wave back the Labour Opposition, but he will find that they will not obey him. He may find not only that his feet will get wet but that he himself will be in danger of drowning in the flood.
– in reply - A good deal that has been said in the debate on this motion was said during the debate on the second reading of the bill, and it is, therefore, not necessary for me to reply at any length. I must refer, however, to the impassioned declaration of the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) that under the provisions of this bill an impost of £13,000,000 will be placed upon the employers of the nation.
– I did not say that.
– The honorable gentleman said it clearly. I tried to interrupt him on several occasions to correct his figures, but . I merely succeeded in causing him to repeat them. The fact is that of the £13,000,000 that it is estimated will bo required for the purposes of the child endowment scheme, the State governments will provide approximately £2,217,000 through their pay-roll tax. Every penny of that amount will probably be raised through taxes on incomes. That is the class of tax which certain honorable gentlemen are suggesting should be applied in order to raise the whole of the money needed. The sum of £2,500,000 will accrue to Commonwealth revenue by reason of the discontinuance of the exemption of £50 for income tax in respect of children. This is a direct tax on the section of the community who previously had the advantage of this exemption, and it is not entirely composed of employers. Of the £13,000,000 which will be required, only £6,783,000, or just about one half, will be found by means of the tax on pay-rolls. It should be generally agreed that the employers, particularly large employers, are in a position to carry this additional burden, on top of a total Commonwealth wage bill of £425,000,000. It would be albsurd to suggest that the extra burden would seriously disrupt industry, and have all the effects suggested by some honorable members.
The honorable member for Deakin made a plea on behalf of the primary industries and those other industries which could not pass on this tax. That is a very justifiable plea, and one the significance of which I, as a representative of a rural constituency, appre ciate; but the £1,040 exemption leaves out probably 90 per cent. of rural employers, and many other small employers as well. Therefore, very few of those engaged in primary industries will be called upon to pay this tax, which admittedly cannot be passed on by those industries. There are definite indications that the best way by which the money required for this scheme can be raised is by means of a pay-roll tax. In reply to the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), I point out that we are not now discussing the Child Endowment Bill, but only a taxation measure. The historical matters which the honorable member would like to discuss could be more appropriately dealt with when the Child Endowment Bill is before the House. I submit that the third reading of this bill might well be passed without further delay.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
page 416
In Committee of Ways and Means: (Consideration resumed from the 27th March(vide page 346), on motion by Mr. Anthony -
. That a tax at the rate of Two pounds ten shillings per centum be imposed on all wages paid or payable by any employer in respect of any period of time occurring after the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and forty-one.
That the taxbe paid by the employer who pays or is liable to pay the wages.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported.
Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.
Ordered -
That Mr. Anthony and Mr. Collins do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.
Bill brought up by Mr.Anthony, and read a first and second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- Clause 3 provides for the imposition of a tax at the rate of £2 10s. per cent. on all wages paid or payable by any employer in respect of any period of time occurring after the 30th June, 1941. I wish tobe clear that, it is unnecessary
It is necessary to deal with the problem of family allowances, regardless of the wage determined by any arbitral authority. “Whether the authority should fix the basic wage high or low, so long as it took into account the family which is accepted as the standard, or determined upon some special unit of its own selection, so long would it happen that families whose members were larger than the standard or the average would suffer some disadvantage in their own households. Therefore, what we are faced with is not the problem of the minimum wage, or what is the status of labour as a class, but what is the degree of disparity between the family life of this country, as we find it in many instances, and that of the standard or average family in receipt of the wage which the courts or other authorities declare to be the minimum. So there is no relevant connexion between wage-fixingas such and a system of family allowances.
– This measure should include the first child.
Mr.CURTIN.- It includes the second, third, fourth and fifth. The general theory is that the wage takes into account a family of a certain size, and a dispute has arisen about that. The view we took twelve years ago was that, disregarding all the theories advanced throughout Australia at that time, the wage was such that at the best it could be regarded as providing for a. family in which there were only two children. The theory was that the Commonwealth court had fixed a wage allowing for three children. The minority on the royal commission came to the conclusion that at that time the court acted realistically, and not upon the theory laid down many years before, and selected the statistical average number of children for the married worker, which was approximately two. An investigation conducted by the court in Western Australia resulted in the determination of two children as the average number. A similar decision was reached in New South Wales some time prior to that by Mr. Justice Heydon, but since then the Commonwealth court, and certain other instrumentalities which fix wages, have disregarded the average or standard family as the basis on which they declare to refer in this clause to exemptions. I take it that it is sufficient to deal with the exemptions in another measure.
– The bill the third reading of which was carried a few moments ago makes adequate provision for all exemptions.
Bill agreed to and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 417
Secondreading.
Debate resumed from the 27th March (vide page 342), on motion by Mr. Holt -
That the bill be now read a secondtime.
– I can confidently approach the discussion of this bill now that we have passed a measure providing for the financing of the obligations contemplated under it. It would have been very difficult to have ensured that the proposal set out would be operative on the 1st July next unless the House had indicated in the most conclusive way that it was prepared to take therequisite other steps to provide the money which has to be found in order that the contemplated payments may be made. I am tempted, because of my share of the investigation of this problem in Australia, to review shortly the history of child endowment, and some of the more important developments that have marked the emergence of this proposal to the present stage of a bill which the House is asked to pass; but so much has been said, and well said, by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) in his speech on the second reading of the bill a few days ago that my remarks would be largely a repetition of his. I should like to pay a tribute to my colleague, Mrs. Muscio, who with me subscribed to the minority report; of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment which was set up in 1927 and which presented its report to the Commonwealth Government in 1929. To-day, one derives a good deal of satisfaction from the fact that, although upon that occasion I was outvoted, the supporters of the measure are to-day in the majority. the basic wage. In 1931, the Commonwealth court disregarded the needs of the family, and computed the wage upon what it declared to be the capacity of the national income. Thus there was a 10 per cent, cut in real wages, and the justification which the court set out for that decision was not that families had changed in number, but that the economic structure of the country had so affected conditions that no longer could the court fix wages on the basis of the needs of the family. It took into account the new principle of the capacity of the country. The late Mr. Justice Higgins said that certain industries which could not pay the standard wage which he fixed as the minimum, having regard to needs, ought not to exist. He meant that they were parasitical, and were getting their life-blood out of low standards compulsorily imposed upon the workers and upon the families of workers. There has been a great deal of parasitism in the industrial development of this and every other country in the world. If to-day employers as a class are called upon to carry a special burden in support of the family life of the country, let it be well borne in mind that generation after generation of workers has made great sacrifices in order that employers may be able to carry on industry. Thus the wheel turns.
There is no relevant relationship between the wages fixed by arbitral authorities in Australia and a system of family allowances. Judge Beeby said quite recently that the wage now operative met the requirements of a family with one child ; if there were two children there was hardship, and if there were more than two, there was actual suffering. That cannot be denied. It is clear that something must be done nationally, in order to equate the disabilities of larger families to the standard accepted conventionally, or declared juridically, as the average or standard family. It was implied by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) that by this arrangement we are providing for children a source of income which should free the wage of having to provide for their maintenance. I refuse to accept that argument. I say that endowment is not a full provision for the maintenance of the child, and I am not silly enough to believe that the first child will receive no benefit from this plan, even though the payment begins with the second child. The money is to he expended by the mother, and, therefore, all the children will share in the improved spending capacity of the family. Thus, though we have selected the second child as a starting point, the use to which the money is put will help to raise the status of the family, as such, in Australia. Where there is but one child, no alteration will take place, but the existing standard will not be impaired. Where there is more than one child, the family will be able, as a result of this subvention to its resources, to live according to the standard fixed and accepted for a family in which there is only one child. Thus, we shall have some corrective of the glaring social anomaly of a large family experiencing privation and making sacrifices which would not have been necessary if the family were not so large. We ought not to regard it as economically inevitable that there must be hardship if there are two, three or more children in a family. It will be urged that the mothers will not spend this money wisely, and that it would be better, as is also said in the case of maternity allowances, to give the money in kind by having more dental clinics, schools of domestic economy, and schools in which to teach girls mothercraft, and the like. I submit that, while all those things are eminently desirable, they are available, to the extent that they exist, to all children. The one-child family can share those services equally with the family in which there are two, three or four children. There is no special provision in such services for the larger family as against the smaller one. Furthermore, it is generally the case that the larger family has to go without boots, and often without sufficient clothing or proper food, disabilities from which the smaller family does not suffer. As a result of that deficiency in boots aud clothing and food, there exists a greater demand for dental clinics, and there is a greater strain on hospital accommodation. On this phase of the subject Mrs. Muscio and myself stated -
The provision of stout boots and warm clothing, for example, may reduce the need for medical attention. Ability to pay the rent for a decent house, to buy the foods needed for building up young bodies and the clothing needed to protect thom, keeps away physical ills as well as the psychological ills of undue strain and anxiety to the father and mother, which strike at the very roots o£ family wellbeing.
There is no device which can be regarded as an adequate substitute for actual cash in the mother’s hands, for she,, better than any agent of the State, is able to use what resources are available to the best advantage of the children. She knows best what food and clothing to provide for them. If she has not the money to purchase those necessaries, it is idle to place at her disposal a beautifully constructed health-centre, or to provide schools of domestic economy for the education of her girls. It is far better to give her the means to feed and clothe her children, and thus relieve her of anxiety in that direction. If she is a constant prey to anxiety, her own health will suffer, and this in turn will be reflected in the health of her children. Therefore, this scheme represents much more than a mere subvention of money, much more than the transfer of £13,000,000 from the employers to the employees ; it is a scheme for putting £13,000,000 to much better use than would have been possible if the money had not been so transferred. On that point, there is a great wealth of testimony.
With this hill we are, for the first time in the history of this country - except for the Maternity Allowance Act - writing into the statute-book our realization of the national significance of family life. That is not a mere platitude - that means something. There never has been any doubt of the value of the services, infinite in variety and extent, which the family renders to the nation. Primarily, it is the source of national continuance; it has supplied the human material indispensible for the production of the means of subsistence ; it provides for the replacement of the old and the dead, and is the sole guarantee for the redemption, in the future, of those obligations which previous and present generations have found it desirable to incur in order to enjoy the fullest obtainable measures of security, comfort and civilization. At the present time, we find ourselves engaged in the most terrible war ever known. Vast sums are being expended in the defence of the country against external aggression. Great liabilities are being incurred, and we are passing a great proportion of those liabilities on to those who come after us. We are incurring this expense primarily to protect ourselves, but also conscientiously to hand the country on to those who come after us. Because the national burden will thus be larger than it would otherwise have been, the only guarantee for the redemption of our obligations in the future is to ensure the existence of a fit and physically virile population to sustain the burden which will be the legacy of future difficult times. Therefore, every contribution we can make to the improvement of the health and welfare of the children now growing up is a definite contribution to the stability of the national structure in the years to come.
Although improvements can, no doubt, be suggested, I feel that we ought to accept this bill. I note that the Labour Advisory Council in Melbourne stated during the week-end that the scheme had imperfections, and I daresay even the Minister will admit the truth of that. For my part, I should like to see the first child in the family of a widow eligible for benefits under the scheme, but I know that it would ‘be merely fooling with the necessities of that family to provide 5s. for a child. The primary need there would be to make an allowance to the widow in addition to an endowment for the child. I hope that some day, and as early as possible, a system of allowances to widows with dependent children will be introduced. Then, I should like the Minister to consider, at some time to come, the wisdom of fixing the rate for the fifth, sixth and seventh children at a figure higher than for the second, third and fourth. I do not want any one to assume that this Will have any effect upon the birth-rate. I do not believe that assistance of this sort to families has anything to do with the birth-rate. In my opinion the birth-rate is determined more by considerations of family habit, and general economic, social and world conditions. Nevertheless, it would be a worthwhile thing to do, having regard to the primary purpose, which is to ease the disability which must be suffered by the large family regardless of the wage standard.
It is proposed in the bill to fix the age of dependency at sixteen years. That is in accordance with the recommendation made by Mrs. Muscio and myself. The gravest consequences have flowed from the assumption that dependency ceased at fourteen years, which is the age for the termination of primary education. That has led too much to the throwing of boys and girls into blind alley occupations. The average age of males on marriage in Australia is 29. When the first child reaches the age of 14 years the father is about 40 or more; but when the second and third children reach the age of 14 the father is nearly 50 years of age, and, therefore, has just about passed the zenith of his capacity to work. If he be an unskilled labourer, or a semi-skilled tradesman, the uncertainty of his own employment becomes greater because of the advancing labour army behind him which is younger and fitter. And his competitive ability is then not so great as it was. lie is being outdistanced. Unless employment be abundant, as is now the case, his periods of employment become mot’o intermittent and, therefore, the urge to send 1,is children to work after they have reached their fourteenth year is always present. Thus,, however, brilliant a boy may be, he is unable to continue at High School, not because his talents do not warrant it, but merely because he has to be used as an auxiliary to the family income. In this way the country loses a vast fund of potential ability, and we are forced to the conclusion that a professional career, in practice, is, for the most part, open only to the children of well-to-do parents. I say that knowing quite well the number of bursaries which are now made available, and the great, number of working-class boys and girls who have gone on to the university. Despite that fact we have, because of our inability to give this opportunity to all boys and girls from fourteen, to sixteen years of age, lost a great part of what would otherwise be a large reservoir. Consequently, the proposal to pay child endowment in respect of children up to the age of sixteen years is splendid. It represents an improvement on some of the. schemes operating in other countries. ] also accept with pleasure that part of the bill which contemplates that this payment shall not be used to reduce any other benefit which is now operative. It would, be wrong if some benefit now applicable to certain sections of the community were cancelled, and this benefit substituted for it. I say, particularly to the State Governments, that whatever aid they are at present giving this proposal is not to be used by them as a substitute for that aid. It is being put forward in order to improve family life and to augment the various aids which are already beinggiven to its maintenance.
– The honorable gentleman, excludes, of course, the New South Wales endowment scheme.
– Yes; that scheme is similar to this. This proposal extends the same benefit in a greater number of ways. I also gladly applaud the principle that there shall be no means test applied in respect of this scheme. Mrs. Muscio and I suggested in our report a limit of income. We were faced with the fact that the Commonwealth’s resources wen’ said to be depleted ; we were on the verge of an economic depression. Furthermore, a great amount of evidence was produced by employers and taxpayers’ associations in an endeavour to show that the country could not afford even a modest plan of child endowment. I have never known a. time in the history of this, or of any other country, when the issue was faced that a tax should be imposed for social purposes, or a wage should be increased, that you could not get a wealth of evidence from the employers that, if the tax were imposed or the wage increased, the whole industrial fabric would collapse. They have been extraordinarily fertile in prophesying evil as the result of any improvement of the standard of life for the masses. Consequently, they do not frighten me to-day when they say that this tax of £6,000,000 on themselves will produce industrial chaos, or will be unjust or unfair. An extra ls. a day in wages, which they could, quite easily have been called upon by a decree of the Commonwealth court to pay, would have been a sectional burden in that the whole of the community would not have had to pay it. Only the employers would have had topay it; but it would have cost them verymuch more than the tax of 2^ per cent, on their pay-rolls, which has just been passed by this House. So the charges made by the honorable members for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) and Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) as to where I stand in that respect leaves my withers entirely unwrung. The employers can afford to pay that £6,000,000, and they can afford it for no better purpose than that for which the Government intends to use it. The general principle of the bill is one which for years in Australia has had almost unanimous public support. There has been a great deal of controversy as to the way in which child, endowment should be applied, but outside the New South Wales scheme and this scheme, no specific legislative proposals as to how it should be applied have been made. This is the first proposal on a national basis to be made the subject of legislation. Tlie bill brings into its scope 1,000,000 of the 1,S00,000 children in Australia under the age of sixteen years. The 800,000 children who are excluded belong to either one-child families, or are the first in larger families. The bill will apply to 1,000,000 children who belong to “>00,000 families in Australia. Therefore, it can be regarded as nation-wide in its scope. It provides for the family which, in present circumstances, has the hardest path to follow. It. covers, furthermore, the misfortunes of seasonal occupation and intermittent unemployment which are the regular routine conditions of labour. We have in this device, at least, the first continuous assurance of income regardless of what happens to the father. This allowance will continue whether the father suffers unemployment or not. It would be a mistake to regard this legislation as other than a subvention. It is an aid to family standards ; it is not a provision for family standards. Men will, still have to work. Upon the man who works devolves, properly, the major responsibility for the maintenance of his wife and children. This is not an easement of the primary obligation devolving upon him. Rather is it an incentive to him to do his best so that by his own exertion he can provide for them as well as he humanly can. In peace, or war, the worker is exposed to a variety of hazards which it is beyond his capacity to control, unci as the result he cannot make that provision for his family which he would otherwise make. Thus the obligation of the nation, through its legislature, to make provision for his family is an obligation which should have been met a long time ago.
This is one of a series of social services which the Commonwealth Parliament must, in the years to come, regard as being more and more obligatory on the National Parliament, and less and less to be left to the States, to initiate. Every social service which a State initiates imposes a particular hurden on the taxpayers of that State. It places them at a disadvantage in comparison with residents of other States in industrial development, and in competition with other States. Therefore, the only fair way to levy the taxpayers of Australia is by a Commonwealth-wide scheme, whether it be for widows’ pensions, or family allowances. Indeed, that applies io the great mass of social services. I accept with satisfaction the principle which was stated by the Minister in his speech several days ago that the use of inoney in. social services and the promotion of human welfare is as legitimate it use of money as is its investment in land, factories or in any other material asset. This nation consists of not, only physical, but al.=o human, values. For too long wc have failed to appreciate that human values have a paramount claim upon us, and. indeed, are more important economically than material values. In any case all of us, as a nation, are now facing thi’ great; ordeal of surviving the war. We are, of necessity, brought closer together by the fact that we share the one fate; be it victory, I pray; but if it be defeat, it will none the less be the one fate for all the citizens of this country. To th« degree that this merging of each individual in the fate of the nation has been forced upon us by the state of the world, and to the degree that that brings n.« nearer to each other than has hitherto been the case, I hope that that approximation, between the Opposition and Ministers, to which the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) referred this afternoon - and it is only because, of an accidental fit of temperament that he is not one of them - shall, in this country, give to the children who are now being born, and the youth and mothers of Australia, the assurance that their needs at any rate shall be placed beyond the hazards of political controversy, and that no future Government will deal with this legislation which we are now passing except to widen and improve it. We shall not retrace this step; no economic burden which this scheme imposes shall be regarded as insuperable. If economic trouble in the immediate future, or in years to come, should involve something being dispensed with, then there are a number of other economies which this country can afford to make with greater regard for the welfare of our citizens than any economy at the expense of legislation of this kind.
.-I desire to draw the attention of the Minister for Labour and National Services (Mr. Holt) to one or two features of the report of the Royal Commission on Child Endowment and Family Allowances, which sat in 1929. The commission sought the advice of such eminent legal gentlemen as Sir Edward Mitchell, K.C., Mr. Owen Dixon, K.C., and Dr. Evatt, K.C., now the honorable member for Barton. Pages 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the report reveal that considerable doubt existed as to the constitutional right of the Commonwealth Parliament to pass legislation to give effect to a child endowment scheme. I am enthusiastically in favour of child endowment, but I do not want the risk of unconstitutionality to pass unnoticed. Therefore, I should like an assurancefrom the Minister that the Commonwealth has power to give effect to this measure. Speaking in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly on the New South Wales child endowment legislation and replying to a statement made by Mr. S. M. Bruce at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers in 1927 that child endowment could only be dealt with nationally and by cooperation betweenthe Commonwealth and the States, Dr. Evatt said -
So far as federal legislation is concerned, I think Mr. Bruce is right. I do not think the Commonwealth Parliament could of its own motion pass a law of this nature. It has no power to legislate with respect to pensions with the exception of invalidity and old-age pensions; therefore, legislation on the part of the State parliaments will be needed.
. As I read the Constitution, one way in which the scheme can be made a national scheme covering the whole Commonwealth is for the States to refer the question to the Federal Parliament.
At that stage Mr. Arkins said -
Do I understand you to say that Mr. Bruce could not move in this direction?
–
I do not think he could of his own motion, buthe could give money to the States. . . . Recently, the High “Court in the Roads case decided that, although the Common wealth Parliament cannot make a direct allowance in respect of the main roads of the Commonwealth, it can pass a law giving money to the States to carry out such a scheme. Similarly, it has power to pass a law allocating money to the State parliaments so that the States can proceed with child endowment according to their several constitutions.
In paragraph 543 of the royal commission’s report, the following statement appears : -
But if, … a Commonwealth scheme be proposed, then, in our opinion, conditions precedent to its establishment should be -
That the Commonwealth Parliament should have first obtained full and exclusive power -
to establish and control child endow ment.
I fully appreciate that, during the continuance of the war and; for twelve months thereafter, the Commonwealth has sufficient power under the National Security Act and the regulations framed under it, to pass legislation such as this. We should be perfectly certain, however, that the Parliament does not rely on that power alone. If there be any doubt on that point, we should immediately ask the States to pass the necessary legislation before introducing complementary legislation in this Parliament, or, alternatively ask the States to hand over to the Commonwealth full power to organize and control a national scheme of child endowment. I am sure that the Minister has considered the risks inherent in legislation of this kind, but I should like an assurance from him that he is satisfied beyond doubt that the Commonwealth has the necessary power to proceed with it. I have been happy to be associated with the initiation of a child endowment scheme. I should like to see associated with this proposal a national undertaking for the eradication of slums and a national health insurance scheme providing for hospital, medical and dental treatment for a man, his wife, and family. I trust that these schemes will be given a prominent place in the new order which we hope to establish and that at the appropriate time the Parliament will pass the necessary legislation to give effect to them.
– Many honorable members on this side of the House are just as enthusiastic about child endowment as a theory as are honorable members opposite; hut very many people in this country are not satisfied that this is a suitable time for the introduction of such a proposal. The benefits of any scheme such as this depend entirely on what may be the outcome of the war. This is not a time for advantages to be gained by, or distributed to,- sections of the community except those which, in the general interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, should be supported’. One of the difficulties associated with the provision of benefits of this kind is that we never seem to do things on a scale comparable with other parts of the world. I remember referring to that aspect of our problem when the National Insurance legislation was debated in the Parliament a few years ago. I then moved an amendment which sought to reduce the qualifying income from £365 to £315, which was approximately the figure adopted in Great Britain, plus 25 per cent, exchange. My purpose was to bring about some degree of equality with other parts of the Empire. However, my amendment was not carried and, finally, the National Insurance legislation was dropped and has remained in abeyance ever since. We are not by any means certain that that will not be the fate of the child endowment scheme. If the bill now before us be passed our war effort will not be increased one iota; on the contrary, it will bc reduced. How can we expend a large sum of money on a child endowment scheme without reducing the amount available for war purposes? I come now to the question of the propriety of the scheme; whether child endowment in itself is desirable. I do not believe that anybody in Australia would assent to the proposition that a married man with dependent children should not be paid more than a bachelor, and conversely, there are a great many people in this country who would not assent to the proposition that a bachelor’s standard should be on the basis of the needs of a man, his wife and either one, two or three children. Those honorable members who are so keen on this scheme have so far completely evaded that point. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) has dealt fairly effectively with the constitutionality of this legislation. It is possible that during the war this bill and the measure that preceded it may have constitutional backing; but it is evident from the legal opinions of the eminent lawyers mentioned by the honorable member for Moreton that in time of peace its constitutionality is, to say the least, doubtful.
Apart from the passage of war legislation, has anything occurred since those opinions were stated which has radically altered the position? To assist it in its deliberations the royal commission sought the assistance of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), among others. I ask the honorable member frankly is he certain that this bill would be upheld if its constitutionality were challenged in the courts?
– I have expressed the opinion that it could not be successfully challenged because there would not he a proper plaintiff to challenge it.
– Whatever we do about the bill will not determine that point.
– But it is material that we should consider it.
– The honorable member will recall that, during the war, our powers are tremendously extended by the conception that the High Court takes of our defence powers.
– The honorable member for Moreton mentioned that point. We should carefully consider whether there is any chance of this legislation being held invalid. I venture the opinion that the majority report of the royal commission weighs against this bill being valid. In paragraph 34 of the majority report we find the following statement : -
It would, in our opinion, be calamitous for a Commonwealth Government to introduce a scheme of child endowment, unless the validity of the necessary legislation whs beyond dispute.
The majority opinion was that there was no power vested in the Commonwealth to bring in a child endowment scheme except, first, by referendum under section 128 of the Constitution - and that has not been done; secondly, by a reference by the States under paragraph xxxvii of section 51 of the Constitution - and that has not been made; or thirdly, in an indirect way by handing over the funds collected by the Commonwealth for distribution by the States, as was done under theFederal Aid Roads Act - and that is not intended. It is obvious, I think, that the man in the street will be extremely doubtful of the validity of this bill. The Maternity Allowance legislation is also of doubtful constitutionality, but. nobody has been sufficiently directly affected by it to test it in the courts. Can anybody suggest, however, that in due season nobody will he sufficiently interested to test the validity of the bill now before us? Even while I have been a member of Parliament, the legislature has passed many bills and agreed to many regulations, a large number of which were subsequently declared invalid. It would he calamitous, as the majority report says, if the High Court held this legislation to be unconstitutional.
– It would be equally calamitous not to pass the bill on the offchance that it mightbe declared invalid.
Mr.DUNCAN-HUGHES- Is the honorable member for Barton prepared to take the risk?
– Yes.
– A lamentable position will be created if we take the risk and the act is held to be ultra, vires.
The interesting speech which the Minister for Labour and National Service delivered when moving the second reading of the bill contained citations from Mr. J. M. Keynes. That economist is a university lecturer whose career I have followed for many years. Without speaking disparagingly of him, I think that he is regarded as being brilliant, rather than sound. His advice has not been followed by the British Treasury during the present war.
– It is regrettable that his recommendations regarding the economic consequences of the Treaty of Versailles were not followed.
– It is very easy, after the event, to say that something else should have been done. It would be easy for me to ask other honorable members why they did not foresee this war; I foresaw it; but that does not help us very much. When the Minister jumped back historically to William. Pitt, he was on sounder ground. The Assistant Minister (Mr. Anthony) and he both emphasized that it was desirable to increase the size of families in Australia. About this subject a good deal of misconception exists. As one form of encouragement, the Government instituted the maternity allowance, which, it might not be realized, has cost the country to date £15,250,000 and at least £370,000 to administer. Would any one claim that the payment of maternity allowances has resulted in the increase of the number or size of families in the Commonwealth?
– It has reduced maternal mortality.
– I am well aware that the Minister and the Assistant Minister did not wish to overstress that point; but they used it to support their contention that it was desirable to increase families, and that the possible result of the bill would be to achieve that objective. In my opinion, it is not likely to have such a result. In practically every European country, the decline of the birth-rate has been on a similar scale. That fact is not generally realized.
– Are we not more concerned with the position in Australia than in other countries?
– HUGHES. - Everything is relative. It is useless to assert that we are going to pieces, if every other country is going to pieces in exactly the same way. For the benefit of honorable memberswho have not, delved into the subject, I shall cite some countries in which the birth-rate compares with our own. I obtained my information from Whitaker’^ Almanac, which is usually accurate. The statistics of birth-rate for each 1,000 of population are: Australia 17.4, New Zealand 17.3 Belgium, 15.3, Canada 20.21, Czechoslovakia 17.9, Denmark 18.0, England and Wales 15.9, Finland 18.0, France 14.7, Germany 18. S, the Netherlands 20.3, Norway 14.6, Scotland 17.6, Sweden 14.3, Switzerland 15.9 and the United States of America 17. The statistics for Germany surprised me; they are not much better than our own. From those figures it is useless to lament the falling away of the birthrate in the Commonwealth, when a similar decline is occurring in practically every European country and also in the United States of America. Countries in which the decline is less marked include Russia 44.1, Spain 26.3, Italy 22.9, Portugal 28.4, and outside Europe, Japan 31 and Egypt 42.9. The conclusion which I draw from thi? information is that it is futile to declare that we must improve the birthrate in Australia because we are going backwards since the decline is proceeding relatively at the same speed as in various European country and also in the United hers examine the figures critically they will notice that the birthrate in countries with a democratic form of government tends to go down more than in countries with other forms of government. When the Minister spoke about producing new families, he forgot that migration is another method of securing population for this country. Many people, including members of the Labour party, do not desire to foster migration.
– The objection of the Labour party is based upon the lack of employment for people who are already resident in Australia.
– That position is based, to some extent, upon the fact that wages paid in Australia are relatively so much higher than they are in other parts of the world.
– The honorable member is opposed to the rate of wages paid in Australia?
– The attitude of the Opposition to migration has not been helpful during the last 20 years.
– No more so than the attitude adopted by the honorable member.
– My attitude has been based upon the knowledge that for years we have needed a greater population. In my opinion, expressed when this House sat in another capital, we ought to have in this country more people of substantially our own type, particularly persons from the Western countries of Europe, including Italy.
– Are we not likely to attract those people if the standards in Australia are higher than the standards in their own countries?
– Yes ; but we should still attract them without the Australian standard being quite so high as it is.
– The honora’ble member says that the present standard of living is too high.
– I have not said anything of the kind. What I do say is that it would be better for every body to have three-quarters of a loaf than for some to have a whole loaf and others none at all. Another reason why I am not in favour of this hill is that it was not a plank in the election platform propounded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), nor, in my own inferior way, was it a part of my platform. I was asked about this matter during the election campaign, and my reply to the electors was probably similar to what I have said to-night, namely, that at present the country cannot afford these additional social services. Social services in Australia are already on a very high scale.
– I should like to see the honorable member living on the basic wage for a while.
– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) would be much more effective in this House if he were to refrain from personalities. During my political career I have found that personalities do not carry weight with the general public. If the honorable member has a case to support, I am prepared to listen to him. 1 am always prepared to hear arguments advanced by those who are opposed to me politically.
– The honorable member is trying to kick the man who is down.
– In the majority report of the royal commission the total annual expenditure of the Australian community on welfare services and organized charities, &c., was given as £27,000,000. There was a further expenditure, the report stated, of nearly £10,000,000 under the heading of education, science and art. The report then gave other details of expenditure on social services, and finally, in paragraph 709, gave the total Commonwealth and State expenditure on welfare services, pensions and education as approximately £37,000,000 a year. Since thenwe have added about £10,000,000 a year for pensions, and (apart from the £13,000,000 added by this measure) the annual total must pass the £50,000,000 mark. That is getting very close to the value of the whole of our wool exports, which is our main form of new income. I do not wish to overstress the matter, but I should like to make it quite clear that our social services are already on a very high scale indeed, and it will probably be impossible for them to be maintained just as it will be impossible for the income of anybody, whether he be rich, moderately rich, or poor, to be maintained. I do not hesitate to repeat what I said throughout my election campaign.: I said that in my opinion we are in for a very bad time and that the standard of living of all ofus is bound to come down. I see no possible alternative; and therefore I do not approve of steps designed to put certain sections of the community, not necessarily in immediate need, on a preferential basis to others. I am sure that is also the view of a good many of my electors who are thoroughly in favour of making personal sacrifices. Of course it is very easy to talk of equality of sacrifice, but that was certainly the idea in the minds of electors of varying standards of means, in the State which I represent.
– Many other electors holdentirely different views.
– Certainly, and I should not even go so far as to say that they are wrong. Such views are purely matters of opinion, and I give my opinion for what it is worth. I may be wrong and the others may be right, but I still claim the right to express my opinion which is not given hastily, but after some consideration. Speaking of election platforms, we all know of many instances in which members of parliament have promised a great deal at election time and who have failed to honour their promises, but I have heard of no instance such as this in which we are doing something which we have not promised to do.
– It is a welcome change.
– That may be so, but the action which is now being taken is quite definitely not a part of my policy, and I would prefer such action to be taken by the Labour party whosepolicy I believe it to be.
– We are doing our best.
– If a national government were in power, well and good, but this is a different matter. A national government would naturally consider the whole question and arrive at a compromise, but I at least am not enamoured of the task of pulling chestnuts out of the fire for those who hold points of view entirely different from mine. Conversely, I do not think that they would be pleased to have the job of pulling my chestnuts out of the fire.
– It is certainly not the policy of the honorable member to do as he suggests.
– Exactly. I do not think such a policy unreasonable. It is based on history which is more than can be said of some policies.
– But surely we have passed that stage.
– History never passes. History too has a habit of repeating itself with monotonous and crushing effect.
– In any case, we are always making it.
– I cannot construe what has been described to me as so many historical moments. So many historical bills have been carried and so many historical deeds have been done that the word has come to have no particular significance. This scheme is very illogical. Perhaps that is not surprising when it is considered that the first step taken in the fixing of the basic wage was in itself illogical. Among the illogical features of this measure is the fact that a great many persons will not be able to pass on the tax, whilst there are others who can and who will pass it on. The Government cannot prevent them from doing so. There are many others including primary producers who will not be able to pass it on. Fortunately a large majority of that section of the community is to be excluded from the operations of this legislation.
– Does the honorable member object to their exclusion?
– I am in favour of their exclusion. It is one of the reasons why I consider the pay-roll tax is the better method of financing the scheme. It is also illogical that well-to-do people who do not employ much, or any, labour will escape payment of the tax. Then there is the case of the country man who has two sons, he is not on the basic wage, and so he will receive no child endowment for the first-born son. Further, the question of conflict with State wage-fixing tribunals must be considered. The industrial court in Queensland has now increased the basic wage in that State by 5s. a week, at a time when the Commonwealth Parliament is dealing with this analogous if not similar problem of child endowment. These considerations show that there is no logical reasoning expressed by the bill. Then the question of finance must be considered. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Evatt) has stated that the scheme of child endowment embodied in the bill is only a beginning - with an amount of £13,000,000 to be distributed annually! What appeared to me to be a striking statement appeared in yesterday’s issue of the Canberra Times -
Mr. Curtin is expected to urge the party to-day not to risk postponing the passage of tile bill through Parliament because in the event of a grave turn in the international situation another opportunity to secure an important piece of social legislation like child endowment may not occur again for a long time.
The introduction of the scheme now is a form of gambling on the future safety of Australia. The present, when Australian economy might be on the verge of collapse, is not the time to scramble for benefits. Real unity in Australia cannot be obtained when special benefits are being conferred on different sections of the people. It is clear that, as a consequence of the increasing dearth of shipping, we are to experience the greatest difficulty in shipping our primary products overseas. It might be retorted, “ Why bother about primary products?” My answer would be that they represent nineteentwentieths of our exports ; only about 5 per. cent, of our exports are of secondary production. The primary producers have been bringing into Australia the new money which has enabled this country to progress, and surely if any section is to obtain special benefits, their interests must be considered as their claims become more urgent. Different sections will apply to the Government for assistance as the situation becomes graver, and the wisest policy in the interests of Australia would be to satisfy those whose need is the most pressing. My remark that the first reason why I opposed the bill which preceded this at the present juncture is because we are at war was greeted with some laughter. Many people do not seem to have the slightest notion that this country is at war. One has only to walk along the main streets of our principal cities to gain the impression that many people do not realize that our existence as a nation is being saved by a few thousands of our own men and the great might of the British Empire. The present is not the time when we should do anything to reduce our war effort. The more sectional benefits are granted, the more certain it will be that the eyes of our people will turn towards themselves and they will neglect to look beyond Australia and take heed of the tremendous events occurring overseas. I do not suppose many Australians feel that we need to study the attitude of the United States of America to gain a valuable lesson, because that country is not at war. However, we should take to heart the words of President Roosevelt, uttered in his broadcast address on the 16th March last, and ask ourselves whether we are acting according to his convictions. He said -
The urgency is now . . . But now the time element is of supreme importance . . . Here in Washington we are thinking in terms of speed and speed now.
Even in Washington, the capital of the United States of America, which has the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on the west, and friendly Canada on the north, they are thinking of speed.
– So are we. Speed up the bill.
– I shall complete my quotation from President Roosevelt’s address before I reply to the interjection -
A half-hearted effort on our part will lend to failure. This is no part-time job. Concepts of business as usual and normalcy must lie forgotten until the task is finished. This is an all-out effort, and nothing short of an all-out effort will win.
The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) may laugh. I recall one occasion when I was speaking in the Senate on these lines and a Minister laughed. I said, “ It is easy for the Minister to laugh now, but if war is declared none of us will laugh “. I was wrong, because many people are still laughing with the Hun at our gates. We must take to heart the words of President Roosevelt, “ Nothing short of an all-out effort will win “. No matter how sound is the principle of child endowment, and I think that most of us agree that a man with children should receive a higher wage than one without children, I cannot regard this bill as an all-out effort to win or to increase our chance of winning the war.
– The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) directed to me some questions which I endeavoured to answer across the chamber. I know that answers given in that way are capable of being misunderstood and I do not want to bc misunderstood. The honorable gentleman referred to a number of questions to which several lawyers were invited by a royal commission on child endowment in 1928 to give answers. I answered those questions and, although I have not refreshed my memory by looking at. the commission’s report and the opinions I gave, I fancy that the view expressed by Mr. Justice Owen Dixon, who was then at the bar, was in agreement with my view. I have heard for the first time the quotations from the speech made in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Evatt), but as a statement of what the Constitution provides what he said then was unimpeachable. With possible qualifications, it is equally unimpeachable now. I think that the Commonwealth Parliament definitely has no more constitutional authority to pass a measure providing for child endowment or family allowances than it had constitutional authority to provide for maternity allowances. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) said that the maternity allowances legislation was not challenged and he seems to regard that as entirely an accident. In my view it was not an accident. There is nowhere in Australia any means of obtaining the court’s decision as to the validity of an act of Parliament except as an incident to litigation. There must be a plaintiff and a defendant. There must be a party who bases his claim upon the questioned act or a party who bases his defence upon that act. To decide whether that claim or that defence is well founded the court may be compelled to consider and decide whether the questioned act is valid or invalid. Only in this way can the legislation of the Commonwealth be challenged and that principle applies to this legislation now proposed. My view is that the only authorities who could challenge this legislation would be the State governments of Australia on the ground that the Commonwealth Parliament, having appropriated this money for purposes over which it has no legisla-ti ve power, has admitted that it was surplus revenue which belonged to the States. Political considerations would deter the State governments from attacking the Commonwealth scheme of child endowment. The State governments are responsible to the very people whom the scheme seeks to benefit. Honorable members will remember how the Federal Aid Roads legislation was challenged on that basis. The Commonwealth Parliament passed legislation which provided that money should be given for the purpose of enabling the
States under Commonwealth direction and on conditions prescribed by the Commonwealth to build roads. The States said that it was quite true that they wanted to build roads, but that they wanted their own governments to have the credit, and that they did not want to do the work on conditions prescribed by the Commonwealth. They claimed that the Commonwealth, by using money in that way, had admitted that it was their money. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave an opinion which was supported by Mr. Fullagar, K.C., to that effect and I heard that opinion read to the Victorian Legislative Assembly by the Premier, Mr. John Allan. Notwithstanding that opinion, the High Court decided that the Commonwealth could give money to the States on any conditions that it thought fit. Of course, that is the position to which the honorable member for Barton referred in his speech in the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales. It was a speech probably in support of the view that, instead of the Commonwealth entering this sphere independently, it should assist the State of New South Wales in the work which it was already doing in that direction. I know that at least one of the States had been advised that the Commonwealth Parliament has not the constitutional power to pass this legislation applying the principle I have stated, I should think that the only parts of the legislation which could be successfully attacked in court by persons having competent rights to attack are the penal provisions, clause 24, for instance. If the validity of that provision were challenged in court the decision might be that the Commonwealth Parliament had no power to pass this legislation at all and therefore the clause was bad. In the opinion I gave to the royal commission I suggested a way round that difficulty which ! do not propose to discuss now. I should think, however, that in war time, having regard to the Commonwealth’s enlarged powers, it would be very unlikely that even that could be challenged successfully, l t seems to me entirely wrong to regard the Constitution as the sword of Damocles which, in terrorem, prevents the Commonwealth from doing anything at all. The American attitude is different. In the United States of America legislation invalidated ‘by the Supreme Court is passed again and again until after a few years the majority of judges against it becomes a minority. For instance, legislation for the prevention of child labour was brought up time after time until the majority went with the administration. The Constitution has, after all, a meaning which expands with the growth of the community and the growing needs of the community. The most striking instance of that is this - I have cited it before - In 1915 when the Labour Conference outside and the Labour Caucus and the Government had resolved to put to the country proposals rejected in 1911 and 1913 for the expansion of Commonwealth powers, my predecessor, the late Mr. Anstey, incurred a great deal of obloquy by contending that there was no need to alter the Constitution, because in time of war any government possessed the powers proposed to be sought. He was no lawyer and his opinion was scouted not only by the Prime Minister but also by the then Prime Minister’s legal advisers. Sir Robert Garran, I think, advised that the High Court would hold any attempt by the Commonwealth to regulate prices under its war powers as invalid, but, nevertheless, in the next year or two, the High Court held that it was valid. A former member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) told me the story. He asked Sir Robert Garran, “ What about your opinion of 1915?” and’ Sir Robert Garran replied, “That was in 1915, and the High Court would not have decided that way in 1915 “. That is the real thing. We have to remember that the Constitution is not something the meaning of which was definitely stereotyped in 1900 for good and all. It is designed for a growing community with everchanging needs and desires, and it expands from time to time as the community whose vesture it is expands.
.- I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this measure. There is no need for me to reiterate the speeches of the Minister for Labour and National Services (Mr. Holt) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), because they very fully covered the history of the movement for child endowment and the case for its introduction on the present basis. I do, however, intend to make one or two other observations arising particularly out of some general remarks that have been made. I contest the statement that this is not an opportune time for the introduction of child endowment. I do not agree that the introduction of child endowment should be deferred until the termination of the war. If we are sincere in the statements that we make about what we are pleased to call a new social order to come after the war, then this is the time for some instalment to be made in respect of those promises. We should not hesitate to give effect to at least child endowment at this stage. I regard the introduction of an Australiawide scheme of child endowment as an indication of an evolutionary social outlook not only in Australia but also throughout the world. If Australia is to take its place among the greater nations it is fitting that it should display its political courage in the introduction of a scheme of this description.
I am pleased that this bill does not include provisions which I regard as blemishes in other social service measures at present operative in this country. With the possible exception of the maternity allowance, child endowment will probably be the first complete social service of this nation. The blemishes to which I have referred, relate principally to the establishment of poverty standards. Most of the existing social services are not provided as the inherent right of the people, but are dependent upon the outcome of some form of inquisition. I have no desire to reflect adversely upon those responsible for the administration, but I am glad that such disfigurements are not to be found in this scheme and I hope that they will not mar the additional social services which I trust will follow in the train of this one.
– Including widows’ pensions.
– In the administration of certain social services already in operation in the Commonwealth perfectly genuine cases have been ruled out on technicalities although the applicants have been morally entitled to the advantages which they have claimed. I trust that restrictive rules and regulations will be kept to a minimum in connexion with this legislation. This scheme is to be applicable in respect of every child under the age of sixteen years after the first. That removes one of the disadvantages of the child endowment scheme of New South Wales.
The comprehensive character of this new service is shown clearly by the fact that whereas it is estimated that an expenditure of £13,000,000 will be involved in the first year of its operation, the annual expenditure under the scheme in operation in New South Wales is only about £1,300,000. Statistics indicate that in population, income, and otherwise, New South Wales constitutes approximately 40 per cent. of Australia. On that basis the expenditure under this scheme in New South Wales will amount to approximately £5,200,000 per annum. The New South Wales scheme is very limited in character, and is, in fact, only applicable to extremely necessitous cases.
– The scope of the scheme was greatly reduced after its introduction.
– That is so. I tinderstand that when the New South Wales scheme was originally introduced it was intended that its benefits would belong to those whose earnings mould with the fluctuations of the basic wage, but some years later its (benefits were greatly reduced. Under the Commonwealth scheme now to be put into operation, the mothers in New South Wales will receive about £4,000,000 more than the amount at present payable to them under the New South Wales scheme.
The Government is to be commended for having introduced what is a true child endowment scheme without any restrictions as to family income. I am glad too that this is to be a social service and not an adjunct to the basic wage system. I regard this as a sound principle, the advantages of which will be clearly realized. in the near future. Australia is as fully justified in making this investment in humanity at present, as it is in making investments of other descriptions. Past investments by the State governments in respect of education and health have returned substantial dividends, and I believe that this Commonwealth investment in humanity will also return dividends of immense value to the nation. I trust that the bill will receive the unanimous approval of honorable members, for, in my opinion, it will yield benefits to the nation as a whole, the extent of which it is impossible for us at present to conceive.
I have no desire to enter the field of constitutional controversy. In fact, I wish to keep entirely clear of it. Yet I express the hope that in the not distant future the Commonwealth Parliament will find ways and means to put into operation child welfare measures to supplement its child endowment scheme. I also look forward to the day when the Commonwealth Government will accept responsibility for a nation-wide scheme of pensions for widows. This National Parliament should also, in due course, undertake fuller responsibility in respect of housing and employment. These things may not all come at once, hut the step in the right direction which the Government is now taking must inevitably lead to further advances.
The administration of this scheme should be simplified and decentralized to the greatest possible degree. As post offices under the control of the Commonwealth Government are to be found in every part of Australia, I hope that the Government will use these facilities in connexion with child endowment. It is also desirable that the details of the scheme shall be so drafted as to make unnecessary on the part of the people either lengthy correspondence or a wide knowledge of administrative details. The administration of the scheme should be designed on simple lines. I have had a good lead of experience of child endowment in New South Wales and I know that many difficulties can arise through lengthy correspondence.
– Is the honorable member suggesting that postmasters should be gazetted as special magistrates?
– Not necessarily. I merely suggest that it would be wise for the Government to make officers available at post offices in numerous centres throughout the country to deal specially with inquiries and applications in respect of child endowment. I trust also that child endowment payments will be made by cheque. Our post offices offer a convenient method of delivering cheques to persons entitled to child endowment payments. It should not be necessary for people to call at post offices in order to collect their payments. Under the child endowment scheme of New South Wales cheques are posted fortnightly to persons entitled to the payments, and the scheme has proved remarkably successful. Only a minimum of clerical work is necessary. The cheques are prepared on machines and one girl is able to issue many thousands of cheques in a day. No administrative difficulties should be encountered in operating a cheque scheme through the post offices.
– Why not money orders ?
– I have no objection to payment by means of money orders, but cheques are safer and easier in some respects. I hope that the recipients will not he obliged to line up at post offices or elsewhere in order to receive the money.
I again congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this scheme, which, I am sure, is a real contribution towards the job which must be done by Australia during the currency of this war and afterwards. If we fail in this task, it may be said of us with justification that we were not. sincere in Our statement that those who are fighting for us in this war, as well as those who suffer anxiety and privation, will be treated better than those who took part in the last war.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Abbott) adjourned.
page 431
Abbco Bread Company - Munition Annexes - -FREE School Books - Legal Expenses for Appellant Internees - Department of Information : Officers’ ‘ SALARIES - Australian Imperial Force Enlistments - Advertising Contracts1 - Royal Australian Air Force: Leave fob Western Australian Trainees - Apple and Pear Acquisition Scheme : Proposed Joint Committee - Defence Contracts in New South Wales - Income Tax Assessment of Mr. James Yates.
– I move -
That the House do now adjourn.
Pursuant to a request made to-day by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) I desire to inform the House that a commission dated the 28th March, 1941, was issued to the Honorable Allan Victor Maxwell, a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, appointing him to be a commissioner to inquire into and report upon the contract or contracts with Abbco Bread Company Proprietary Limited for the supply of bread to the Department of the Army, and, in particular, the following matters: -
Mr. J. W. Shand, instructed by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, has been appointed counsel to assist the commission. The commission held a preliminary sitting to-day.
.- This afternoon we were treated to a remarkable spectacle in this House. In the first place, I asked a question of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Spender) concerning the business transactions of his department, which, I think, in all seriousness, ought to have commanded the Minister’s attention. He ought to have been so interested as to be able to answer the question addressed to him.
– Does the honorable member recall the question asked by him ?
– Perfectly ; and the Minister will remember the remarks I intend to make longer than I shall remember the question asked by me. Despite the fact that the officers under his charge are in a particularly difficult position with regard to this royal commission, the Minister knew nothing of what was happening. I then asked the Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) the same question. I wanted to know whether the commission was sitting, and what was its personnel. The Attorney-General, to whom I was politely referred by the Minister for the Army, informed me that he knew nothing about the commission. Yet the commission sat to-day in Sydney, and held a preliminary investigation ! The Attorney-General is responsible for the appointment of a commission that met to-day, yet he said that he knew nothing about it. We now discover, on the statement by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr.Fadden), that the commission was appointed on the 28th March, but the Attorney-General who is in charge of the department responsible for the appointment of the commission, knows nothing about it three days later. That, 1 think, is sufficient toopen the eyes of the people of Australia as to the general administration of this Government. One Minister whose officers are seriously involved in the inquiry knows nothing about the commission, and another Minister whose responsibility it is to deal with the legal formalities of the matter knows nothing about the commission three days after its appointment!
I do not wish to again go over ground that I covered last week, but I reiterate that the constitution of the commission which sat in New South Wales, and which had very restricted terms of reference, is precisely the same commission as will conduct the Commonwealth investigation. Again I say, despite all challenges made here and in the press, that nobody represented the public interest at the meetings of the New South Wales commission. Owing to the manner in which certain evidence was presented to the commissioner, he was not in a position to come to a decision that would adequately meet the situation. Yet we now find that exactly the same commissioner has been appointed by the Commonwealth Government. Despite any arguments which the Minister for the Army or the Attorney-General may submit, the fact cannot be denied that, because the case was not presented to the commissioner in New South Wales in its entirety, it is quite conceivable that, with regard to the other section of the bread scandal that has now to be investigated, the commissioner will find himself in a difficult position because of the decision already reached by him. I have not challenged the honesty or legal ability of Mr. Justice Maxwell.
– The honorable member did question his honesty once.
– Nothing of the kind.
– The honorable member should read in Hansard what he said last week.
– The only man whose actions I criticized was the Minister’s personal friend, Mr. Shand. I repeat that, if Mr. Shand had searchingly presented the case in the public interest, it is possible that Mr. justice Maxwell would not have come to the conclusion reached by him. I did not in any way reflect upon either the character or legal ability of Mr. Justice Maxwell, but for the reasons which I had already stated, and which I repeat to-night, I think it was bad taste on the part of the Government to ask Mr. Justice Maxwell to take on what is, perhaps, the most important part of the inquiry after it knew that there had been presented to him only half of the ease in the State inquiry. That Mr. Shand should be appointed to assist the Commissioner after his performance in the State case is even more reprehensible, if the Government really wants to get to the bottom of this business. I doubt, however, whether it does. I say to the Minister for the Army that he ought not to take the attitude he does when questions are asked regarding the conduct of certain persons in the Army. He ought not to presume that, because honorable members suggest that there is something wrong in the administration of the Army, they are making a personal attack on him. He ought not to come to this chamber with statements prepared by high administrative officers as answers to members’ questions, and put them over here as if he were responsible for them, without ever questioning their accuracy beforehand.
– To what statements does the honorable member refer?
– I refer to the statement prepared by the chief inspector that a certain contractor had fallen down on the job. The Minister first put that statement forward as if it were his own, but when he was challenged on portions of his comments, he crawled out by saying that it was not his statement at all, but the report of one of his officers. If honorable members of this House and of the Senate were to put before Parliament collectively the information in their possession regarding the general administration of the Department of the Army the Minister would be. in a very serious position. I advise him in the most friendly way not to treat every inquiry as if it were hostile, and not to accept unchallenged the reports of his administrative officers, but to go into matters a little more deeply. Despite the fact that thousands of men in the Army are prepared to sacrifice their lives in defence of the country, there are others connected with the Army in vital positions who are not fit to hold their jobs. The Minister is standing to-day over a cesspit of corruption, and when the framework of defence which he has built for his own officers collapses, as it will, he will collapse with them. I am only asking for a reasonable investigation. Since this matter was first raised in the House, a good many people have come forward with information. One person has placed in my possession a fifteen-page statement, which. I do not propose to read to the House, but I shall give to honorable members the gist of it.
– Can it not be placed before the Commissioner?
– It may be placed before the Commissioner if the person concerned is given proper legal representation. On the 23rd October, 1939, the statement alleges, McLeod Brothers, who were then in control of the Abbco Bread Company Proprietary Limited, for a consideration of £1, gave an option of purchase over their business to a certain agent in Sydney, the .price quoted being £24,000, the option to expire within one calendar month. So anxious were McLeod Brothers, who have been the defendants in the short-weight bread case, to sell the bakery, and the flour-mill as well, for £24,000, that they actually undertook to pay the person who effected the introduction to the prospective purchaser the sum of £500 for his services should the sale be effected. On the 21st October, the person holding the option was given an agency document to proceed to Melbourne to interview certain government officials. First he interviewed the Prime Minister’s private secretary, and then on the 24th October, he was passed on to Mr. Hayter, secretary to the Minister for the Army. Later he was passed on to a Mr. Pedlar, and ultimately Colonel Morris took him to Mr. Massey, who informed him that he had been already supplied with details of his proposition by the Prime Minister’s Department. When this person met Mr. Massey, who apparently is head of the Department of Supply, he told Mr. Massey that, if it purchased McLeod’s interests, the Commonwealth Government could save 30 per cent, on the cost of bread by cutting down transport costs, and by utilizing the by-products such as semolina, bran and pollard. Mr. Massey asked what price he was prepared to quote for the supply of bread for the Army, and the agent quoted 3s. 6d. a dozen. On the 26th October, Mr. Massey told the agent that he had been instructed to proceed to Sydney to interview the principals. On the 6th November, Mr. Massey went to Sydney, and there saw one of the McLeod brothers. The parties met at Asbestos House, in, York-street, where
Mr. Massey introduced Mr. White, the Controller of the Naval Supply Board. The parties inspected the bakery and the flour mills, and it is alleged that Massey, who was the principal negotiator on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, said that he was very pleased and would place a favorable report before the Government.
– That was before the fine was imposed on the Abbco company?
– This happened on the 6th November, 1939. A difficulty then arose. Other interests were anxious to be “ in “ on the deal. When it was discovered that the gentleman who held the option was going to make a “ chop “ out of it, apparently the solicitor acting on behalf of McLeod Brothers and the firm’s accountants became interested. Mr. Massey was pressing the negotiator to supply all of the documents, including the deeds, associated with the business, but, strangely, every effort this man made to obtain the documents was sabotaged. He suspected collusion between the solicitor, the accountant and McLeod Brothers, to prevent him from obtaining them, until such time as his option had expired. Ultimately, they stalled him off until the day before the option expired, and even then refused to hand over the documents, so that the Government had then to negotiate with McLeod Brothers for the purchase of the bakery and flour mills. Next, they went into conference with Massey and White oh the terms of purchase by the Commonwealth. [Leave to continue given.] McLeod Brothers, who, originally, were so anxious to dispose of their bakery and flour mills that they were prepared to pay £500 for a mere introduction to a purchaser, suddenly went cold on the deal. But immediately after the negotiations for the sale of the plant for £24,000 fell through, McLeod Brothers secured the Government bread contract. Every body knows now just what happened with regard to the supply of bread to the Commonwealth under that contract. This revelation discloses a fresh aspect of the matter. I am not pleading the case of the gentleman who was interested in this matter as the holder of the option, because he, like any other speculator, was in the deal for what he could get out of it. But when it is apparent that corrupt practices of this kind in the supply of material to the Army and other Defence departments are going on, it is up to the Commonwealth to use anybody and any method to “ clean up “ those who are responsible for such practices. That is my only concern in repeating this man’s story. I hold no particular brief for him. He was out to buy as cheaply as possible from McLeod Brothers, and to sell to the Commonwealth at as high a figure as he could get. He was holding, for one month, an option of purchase on the very small deposit of £1. However, his statement gives rise to speculation as to why McLeod Brothers, who were so anxious to sell, suddenly broke off negotiations, and preferred to take a Government contract for the supply of bread. It may he that the royal commission appointed by this Government will discover why the bread contract was more profitable than the sale of the business. That is a matter in which the Government and the commission should be interested. I have seen an alleged copy of an agreement signed by McLeod to give this man half of the profits from the sale of bread to the Army, providing that the contract lasted for six months. McLeod Brothers double-crossed this gentleman in respect of not only the sale, but also the promise to give him 50 per cent, of the profits made under the Army contract. I understand that he has taken legal proceedings in order to recover what he considers to be his share of the profits under that contract. That aspect of the matter also should be investigated.
– Will it not be considered by the royal commission?
– I am wondering whether it will be.
– If it does not already come within the Commissioner’s terms of reference, the honorable gentleman may rest assured that the terms of reference will be extended to include that aspect.
– I hope that that will be done. These people were prepared to sell their business for £24,000, and were so anxious to do so that they were prepared to give £500 to the mere introducer of a purchaser, yet when government officials had actually gone to Sydney to complete the sale something went wrong. The sale was not effected, and, apparently, McLeod Brothers thought it better to supply bread under their army contract. In view of the circumstances in which the commission appointed by the Government of New South Wales carried out its investigation, I repeat that the Commonwealth Government would have shown better taste had it appointed some other judge as a royal commissioner to investigate this matter. From communications which I have received since this matter was raised in the House, I find that a considerable body of opinion outside, consisting not of irresponsibles, but including many members of the legal profession, is not satisfied that at the last commission Mr. Shand was appearing in the public interest to assist the commissioner to the best of his ability. I believe that the White contract is the kernel of the matter. Because of the importance of that contract, the methods by which it was gained, and the circumstances in which it was finalized and carried out, I believe that the Government should provide legal representation for White in order that the matter may be investigated (thoroughly^ It is no new thing, I understand, for legal representation to be provided by the Commonwealth in such circumstances. That course was followed in connexion with other inquiries, including the investigation into the contract for additions to the Sydney General Post Office. I do not know whether White is in a position to afford adequate legal representation in order to ensure that the letting and losing of his contract will foe properly investigated. But I think that any persons who can throw light on this matter, regardless of who they are - and I hold no brief for any one - ought to be in the position that when they appear before the commission their case will be properly presented; and if they are not adequately represented by the gentleman who is supposed to be assisting the commission in the public interest, they should be provided with legal representation in order to ensure that, at least from their point of view, the whole matter will be sifted to the bottom.
– In view of the remarks just made by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), it is appropriate to ask- honorable members to cast their minds back over the short history of the appointment of this royal commission. “When the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) pressed for the appointment of a commission, he was told, by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden), I think, that his request would be considered. Then, shortly afterwards, I believe, I stated to the House that I had been in touch with the Attorney-General of New South Wales with a view to making Mr. Justice Maxwell available as a royal commissioner to inquire into the matter. My recollection is that it was at that time, or very shortly afterwards, that the honorable member for Dalley suggested that Mr. Justice Maxwell should not be granted this commission until after he had expressed his findings in respect of the commission given to him by the State. I fell in with that suggestion, and when the draft terms of reference of the commission were determined, I adumbrated them in this House some time last week. I then indicated that the Government desired the fullest inquiry into the matter. It is idle for any honorable member to say that the Government regards the criticism which has been directed against the Abbco bread contract as reflecting personally upon any Minister, or that any Minister adopts a attitude of hostility because his department has been criticized. So far as I am concerned, all of these facts relate to a period long before I took over the administration of the Department of the Army. The Government invited the Leader of the Opposition to assist it in drafting and completing the terms of reference, and subsequently the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition were incorporated in the commission issued- to Mr. Justice Maxwell. If the matter to which the honorable member for Dalley has referred is not covered by them they will be extended. There is no desire to shield any one. The allegations are of prime concern to the Government. I admit that there may be many causes of complaint in respect of the Department of the Army, just as there are in any other big department in time of war ; but I assure honorable members that if any one is responsible for an improper act or negligent conduct, the commission will be invited to indicate to the Government and to the people who those persons are, and I promise that they will be dealt with.
Let me indicate the basis of the suggestions made in respect of this commission. It is said, first, that the appointment of Mr. Justice Maxwell is, in the circumstances, an unfortunate one, and that his judgment may be prejudiced by what has already taken place. On examination, that criticism appears to be of as much value as the allegation made by the honorable member against the counsel who appeared for the Crown, whom I acknowledge as a friend and one who, whilst I was at the bar, earned a reputation for integrity, honour and ability. I have made it quite plain that I would defend him just as I would defend anybody else who, in my judgment, rightly bore that reputation. Naturally, the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Evatt) supported the view I expressed regarding Mr. Shand.
– Certainly, that is correct.
– I am no more concerned about the opinion of the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Evatt) of a lawyer than I am about that of the Minister. All lawyers are members of one big union.
– I want to examine what the honorable member said in the light of the facts. The suggestion made by the honorable member for Dalley was that Mr. Shand deliberately refrained from revealing a portion of a document. I think I am correct in saying that the transcript shows that the whole of the letter was tendered, and. that the whole of the letter appears in it.
– Being tendered is different from being emphasized.
– It is obvious that the honorable member knows very little about proceedings at law. First, the allegation is made that a portion of the document was suppressed.
– I said that one-half of it was suppressed.
– The cold fact is that the whole document was tendered to the commission. The honorable member uses the plea that the learned judge, a man trained in testing evidence, did not notice the document, and that counsel charged with the responsibility of seeing that the public interest was served, deliberately failed to refer to it. I say with great respect that the very fact that an honorable member bases his charge on such flimsy grounds shows how little reliance can be placed upon his allegations. The honorable member apparently does not like being told these things. He has challenged the integrity of the man charged with the responsibility of representing the public interest. It is easy to make such allegations in this chamber, but it is a different thing to make them outside, where there would be ways of testing what inquiry he made before he made his allegations. Upon this flimsy fabric the honorable member built up the charge against this man. What this Parliament is concerned with is the allegation that the Government has appointed to this commission a man who will not represent the public interest. I say with respect that when it is shown that the charge has no foundation, it follows that this counsel who bears a reputation for integrity and ability at the bar may be safely charged with the conduct of assisting the commission. I think the House will be satisfied that the man who has been chosen to assist the commission is one whose reputation and ability are such as to enable him to sift every piece of evidence that comes before him.
– Why was Mr. Shand appointed a second time?
– I should imagine it was because he is a counsel of great ability, an outstanding member of the New South Wales bar.
– But there are others.
– Of course. Apparently the suggestion now is that because a man is chosen there is something sinister about the choice.
– Who chooses counsel, the royal commissioner?
– Acting on the advice of its officers, the Government chooses counsel.
– Neither the Minister for the Army nor the Attorney-General (Mr. Hughes) knew what choice had been made when I questioned them on the subject this morning.
– The honorable member asked about the personnel of the commission. Mr. Justice Maxwell’s name was referred to last week. The issue of royal commissions is under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. Apparently the charge now is that the findings of this commission will be a whitewash just as it has been so irresponsibly alleged the findings of the first commission were. That of course involves a charge against counsel which I submit is groundless and, secondly, it involves a suggestion that the judge who sat upon the first commission cannot properly and impartially discharge his functions upon the Commonwealth commission.
– These are serious charges.
– They are, and when charges of this description are made one expects them to be supported by substantial evidence. Let us examine the basis of this particular charge. The fact is that the commission, which issued to Mr. Justice Maxwell, was solely concerned with whether a Minister of the Crown in New South Wales had been guilty of improper conduct in reducing the fine. That involved a review of matters such as what was placed before the Minister, whose advice was tendered to him, and what was said by those who discussed it with him. The inquiry did not purport to go into the merits of the subjects covered by the commission issued by the Commonwealth Government. The royal commissioner had before him the depositions of the court when the Abbco Bread Company Proprietary Limited was fined, the various documents on the file at the time and the matter to which I have made reference.
– And a balance-sheet of the Abbco Bread Company Proprietary Limited.
– I think that was before the Minister.
– How old was the balance-sheet ?
– I am not concerned with that.
– That is the point about Mr. Shand.
– Permit me to develop my view. The judge had a very restricted investigation. It was limited to the suggestion of improper conduct on the part of the Minister. The judge was not concerned with any of the details which are the subject of the present inquiry. How, in the light of that, a finding by him that the Minister was not guilty of improper conduct can in any way prejudice his impartiality in respect of this matter, I am entirely at a loss to understand. I believe that impartial members also will be at a loss to understand it.
– Does the Minister believe that a royal commissioner who justified the reduction of a fine from £1,400 to £500 is capable of finding afterwards that fraud occurred?
– All these matters are related.
– I cannot understand that proposition. In the first place, the judge did not say, so far as my knowledge extends, in his finding, that the reduction of the fine to £500 was the correct thing to do. He was concerned with a more specific issue, as to whether the Minister, in reducing the fine, was guilty of improper conduct. If the honorable member for Dalley fails to realize the distinction, I cannot assist him. To suggest that, in those circumstances, the judge who was mentioned to the House a week ago as the royal commissioner to inquire into this matter, having dealt with this limited State commission, is not capable of impartially approaching the problems put before him under the terms of the new commission, is completely to disregard the qualities of judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
– It is a matter of opinion.
– No doubt. But the general opinion of honorable members and of the public will support the proposition that I have stated.
– The people have not much faith in royal commissions.
– If that be so, it is hardly worth while to appoint a royal commission. There is no system of inquiry which will ever satisfy the minds of some people, because one always finds that if a commission submits a report not in accordance with the report which is desired by certain parties, it is said that the whole thing is a frame up and there is something sinister about it. That is precisely the charge made by the honorable member for Dalley.
In addition, it was stated that I, personally, had to crawl out of a statement that R. J. White and Company had fallen down on their contract.
– So the Minister did.
– The honorable member, who always pretends to have an exact knowledge of what otherssaid in the House, stated that I had declared that R. J. White and Company had fallen down on their contract. I denied that. I said that if the honorable member referred to Hansard, he would see that I said that R. J. White and Company had discontinued their contract for reasons which were at the time unknown to me. I added that he was attributing to me what had been stated by the Inspector-General of Administration in his report. My recollection was more exact, in respect of it, than was that of the honorable member for Dalley. [Leave to continue given.] Now the suggestion is that, because the InspectorGeneral of Administration made a statement in his report, it was obligatory on me to express my opinion of it. First, I tabled the report. Then, as the result of questions asked by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall), I was requested to read the report. I did so. Having read the report, I resumed my seat. Apparently the suggestion is that, while reading the report, I should have interpolated my views about any matter contained therein, even if I had no knowledge of the facts to enable me to determine whether the views expressed were correct.
– The Minister “put it over “ at the expense of the House.
– I resent that statement very much, because all that any Minister does when he tables a report, is to lay it upon the table. It is the report, not of the Minister, but of the person who was charged with making it.
– The subject-matter of the report might constitute a reply to a question, and a Minister might “ put it over “ as his reply.
– It may very often be that, in other circumstances, something else takes place. I am concerned only with what I did on that occasion. To suggest that I passed over this report as my own, or that I gave countenance to anything in it, is to state something which is completely false and not in accordance with the facts. The Minister tables a report, which is read, and there the matter ends. The charge made against me by the honorable member for Dalley has been proved to be unfounded, so the honorable member., rather than I, did the “ crawling out ‘”. Hence it gets back to what is known as “passing the buck”.
From the beginning, the Government has made its attitude plain. The terms of the commission are exceedingly wide. I undertake that nothing which may emerge, touching upon bread contracts or the incidental matters which have been referred to in the House, will be prevented from being investigated by the terms of the commission, which can be at any time added to and enlarged. As to the specific matter raised by the honorable member for Dalley, if the terms of reference be not sufficiently wide to enable the subject to be dealt with at present, they will be enlarged.
.- Last week and again this afternoon I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) to investigate the case of the income tax assessment of Mr. J. Yates who was finally assessed at £220,000, which sum was reduced by £42,000, following representations made to the then Treasurer by Mr. L. Martin, then Minister for Justice in New South Wales and now Minister for Works and Local Government. The facts are that James Yates, a glace kid manufacturer of Newtown,, Sydney, was making fraudulent income tax returns, particularly under sub-item D of Item 1 which comes under the heading of “ stock bought “. Inquiries made by the Taxation Department revealed that the stock which Yates had described in his return as “ stock bought “ consisted, of houses, flats and shops. The department assessed Yates for the full amount for which he was liable, in addition to a fine, the total amount being £220,000. A portion of that sum was paid, but apparently the department did not regard it as sufficient because a High Court writ was issued for the outstanding balance of £95,000 and in settlement of the claim a further amount was paid to the department leaving the balance owing £42,000. Yates had an old-established firm of ‘ respected solicitors in Sydney, Gale and Gale, acting for him and they made representations to the department for reduction of the balance claimed. When they were unsuccessful Yates employed a firm of accountants. Their representations to the department were also unsuccessful. Yates was then recommended to interview Mr. Martin. Yates did so, and Mr. Martin undertook to make representations on the express condition that he would receive 10 per cent, of any proportion of the outstanding balance that the department waived. Mr. Martin, who was a Minister of the Crown in New South Wales “ ditched “ his ministerial business and went to Canberra to interview the then Treasurer, who, I think, was Mr. Casey. Assurances having been given him by the Treasurer, he returned to Sydney and endeavoured to induce Yates to agree to pay him 15 per cent, of the amount by which the outstanding balance was reduced. At that time Mr. Martin was aware that £42,000 was to be written off by the department. It is apparent that Mr. Martin, who is a solicitor, could not have been acting as Yates’s solicitor because according to the ethics of the legal profession one solicitor cannot act for a client for whom another solicitor is already acting. If Mr. Martin were acting as Yates’s solicitor the question arises as to whether the sum of £4,200 which he was paid by cheque by Yates represented a fee commensurate with the amount of work he did for Yates. On the departmental file there was a notation, which Mr. Martin could not have failed to note, that this was one of the worst cases of fraud since the Abrahams case in Melbourne. I have endeavoured in fairness to the Treasurer to induce him to acquaint the House with the facts of the case. It is a scandal of the first magnitude and calls for the closest investigation. I have given the Treasurer some of the facts and it is incumbent on him to investigate their accuracy. I invite him to institute an investigation of the matter. Men who are held in the highest repute and esteem in Sydney and are seised of the facts of the case, will gladly give evidence. If the Ministry respects public honesty, it cannot fail to establish the inquiry I have sought.
.- I bring under notice of the Minister for Air (Mr. McEwen) the case of men who enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force from Western Australia and were sent to the eastern States for training. After spending six or eight months training, a number of them have been transferred to the Geraldton air station, but have not been given leave in Western Australia. They have only had a few hours’ leave between trains. Many of the men have wives and children in Western Australia. One man who has three children left his farm to enlist and, after training for eight months and three days in the eastern States, was transferred to Geraldton and had only 22 hours of leave to visit his home, 180 miles distant from Perth. My request is that these men be given leave at the first opportunity and, because of the great distances between Geraldton and their homes, in some instances 600 miles, they be granted free railway passes to enable them to visit their homes. My remarks apply with equal force to men who have been training in the eastern States for the last eight months. I am aware that Air Force men from Western Australia were given ten days’ ‘ leave last Christmas, but because of the tremendous distance between the eastern States and Western Australia and the passenger congestion on the transAustralian railway during the holiday season, they could not secure seats on the trains and, consequently, had to spend their leave in the eastern States. The families of many of these men have not seen them for eight months, even though they have been transferred to Western Australia.
– I am not familiar with the cases of the Air Force men referred to by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Marwick), but I shall have inquiries made to ascertain if it is possible to grant leave at an early date to men who have been transferred to Western Australia after spending a considerable period of training in the eastern States. The honorable member expressed the hope that the men would be given pre-embarkation leave to visit their homes. I would point out that every Air Force man is given pre-embarkation leave adequate to visit his home and free railway warrants are issued. In view of the different travel concessions granted to service men by the State railway departments, the Government has considered the possibility of establishing a uniform system of free rail travel to enable these men to return periodically to their homes without paying railway fares. I think it will be possible for the Government to announce at an early date that such a system has been arranged. Since the outbreak of war, it has been the custom of the Commonwealth Government to provide free rail travel for service men on the Commonwealth railways. Free rail travel was provided to the extent of a special train and such other additional accommodation as could be provided on the normal train service to enable Western Australians to return to their home State for Christmas. With respect to the men who have gone to Geraldton I shall look into the circumstances and if it is possible, as I think it will be, I shall do what is requested.
.- On Thursday last I moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the operations of the Apple and Pear Marketing Board. After I had indicated my reasons and a few other honorable members had supported the setting up of such a committee, the Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Anthony), with some reluctance, undertook to arrange for the holding of some form of inquiry into the operations of the board. After receiving that assurance, honorable members who intended to -speak in support of and vote for my motion indicated their willingness to allow the debate to he adjourned. Subsequently the Assistant Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Frost), and I had an informal discussion. I do not think that I am unfair to the Assistant Minister when I express my belief that he promised the four of us that he would to-day, or, in his own words, on the next day of sitting, indicate to Parliament the form of inquiry that he was prepared to set up. I approached the Assistant Minister to-day and he informed me that he would make an announcement at the end of the week. Iobject to the delay which the Assistant Minister apparently is deliberately causing. If this inquiry is to be of value it is essential that almost immediate arrangements be made for it to get under way. The season is in progress and it is essential that the committee of inquiry should see the crop being handled. I hope that the Assistant Minister will now give an indication of his intention and tell the House why he did not honour the promise he gave on Thursday. If he persists in his apparent attempt to delay action, I shall believe that an inquiryis even more essential than I first thought it was. I shall be inclined to think that influences are at work to encourage the Assistant Minister to delay an inquiry. I urge him, in view of all that has transpired about the apple and pear industry, to take immediate action to honour his promise. It is too late now to honour it in full, but he should inform the House of what form the inquiry will take.
– The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) was most unfair in the statements he made. In the House on Thursday I indicated both to him and to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) that I was prepared to accept in principle the substance of his motion with certain variations as to the number of members to be appointed and as to the kind of committee to be set up. In private conversation afterwards I informed the honorable member, the Leader of the Opposition, and the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Frost) that I should make a statement this week, but, to my recollection, I did not say “ this day “.
– My recollection is that the Assistant Minister did.
– It is a matter of recollections and my recollection, which is good, is that I said that I would make a statement this week. In any case I fail to see that the matter is so urgent as to necessitate dealing with it to the exclusion of everything else. Ministers have been busy in the preparation of child endowment legislation, the taxing provisions of which it was my responsibility to pilot through this chamber. The honorable member’s complaint shows an utter lack of consideration for men who are discharging ministerial duties. The setting up of an inquiry has to be approved by Cabinet, as the honorable member, having had ministerial experience, should know. It is impossible to drop other matters. I again give an assurance that a statement will be made this week. I hope to be able to indicate in that statement the personnel and the time of inquiry. I told the honorable member that to-day, and I should have imagined that that should have satisfied anybody.
.- I notified my intention to move the adjournment of the House to-day in order to discuss the allocation of contracts by the Ministry of Munitions, but certain developments rendered it unnecessary for me to proceed with that motion at this stage. In addition it was desired to pass speedily the child endowment legislation. On the day after I notified you, Mr.Speaker, that I intended to move the adjournment the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph : -
page 441
Moke Work tor New South Wales Promised by Minister.
The Supply Minister (Senator McBride) to-night promised New South Wales a new deal in the placing of war contracts.
In a special statement to New South Wales industrialists through the Daily Telegraph, Senator McBride said: “I can assure them the Commonwealth will make increasing use of their capacity to carry out such contracts “.
Official Commonwealth figures show that war orders have caused only 12.6 per cent. increase in New South Wales factory employment, as against a. 16.9 per cent. increase in Victoria. “We are conducting an exhaustive investigation of the industrial capacity of Australia with the object of utilizing every possible factory,” said Senator McBride. “Another investigation is being carried out to ascertain whether the Commonwealth can assist smaller factories by supplying additional machinery and tools.
As the war programme is stepped up, every factory which can produce war goods will be pressed into the Commonwealth’s new scheme.
More and more orders for clothing and similar goods, which are coming in for Empire troops in the Pacific zone, will mean increased production in Australia.
In the early days of the war New South Wales did not receive as many contracts as Victoria, but that lag is being made up quickly.
As we had to obtain goods quickly at first, we had to go to the factories that could produce them without delay.
Our present inquiries are enabling us to evolve a scheme for a. better balance in letting contracts.
When this scheme begins to operate fully, New South Wales factories will be working at the highest possible pressure.
We do not intend to allow a lopsided growth of industry in Australia.
Our aim is to see that a balanced economy is achieved, so that every section of Australian industry is built up sufficiently to enable the greatest speed possible in fulfilling orders.
The Government is fully aware of these problems, and our experts ure investigating every phase to assist us to solve them.”
The article continued -
The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) is investigating in England the system evolved by the British Government to speed up war production and press all industrials into the war effort.
The Minister expects that his report will revolutionize the present war production plan in Australia and lead to sweeping readjustments in the Commonwealth industrial structure.
Those observations would have supported the arguments that I had intended to advance in support of my case, but in view of the admissions made and of the assurances given it is unnecessary for me to proceed further at this moment.
An added reason why I did not proceed with my motion was that the Minister for Munitions (‘Senator McBride) to-day announced that it had been decided to establish an extensive group of Commonwealth Government explosive factories in New South Wales to be located near Sydney, the operations of which would include the large scale manufacture of several types of explosives. The Minister stated that the proposed expenditure would amount to several millions of pounds and that employment would be provided for thousands of additional workers when the factories were in opera- lion. He also said that immediate action was being taken to acquire the land and to begin building operations. I’ understand that one of the factories is to be located in my electorate. This will have the effect of relieving the unemployment position. The necessity to devote attention to that matter was one of the main reasons why I had intended to move for the adjournment of the House. I desired to discover the bottle-neck which was hindering our war production.
Information has also been conveyed to me that the Purcell Engineering Company, which was one of the organizations in New South Wales, and in my electorate, that had suffered severely through the discrimination in the placing of war orders in favour of the southern States as against New South Wales, would receive substantial orders in the near future, thus enabling the company to operate its plant to the fullest capacity and to provide work for several hundred more employees. The Purcell Engineering Company manufactures lathes of the type required in our munition industries. Such lathes are the very foundation of the successful production of munitions. I remind honorable members that the Minister for Munitions stated towards the end of last year -
Before a plane can bc made, a shell turned, or a gun cast, there must be designed and constructed the machine to make it. This is the joh of the tool-maker, the man who makes the machines which makes the machines.
Machines of the kind produced by the Purcell Engineering Company, namely, lathes, are, in my view, the nearest to human beings of all machines, because they can be used to reproduce themselves. They are designed for both constructive and destructive purposes. I would prefer to see them used for constructive purposes, but it happens that they are required at the moment for destructive purposes. I am sorry that the Department of Munitions did not discover, shortly after the outbreak of the war, that the Purcell Engineering Company, which is the pioneer tool-making organization of New South Wales, was able to render outstanding assistance in connexion with the nation’s war effort. However, I am prepared to accept the assurance given by the Government that this company will now be given satisfactory contracts and that New South Wales will, in the future, receive its proper share of war work. If I find, later, that these assurances are not being honoured, I shall return to the attack with renewed vigour. .
I am quite satisfied that the difficulties to which I have directed attention have been due to the centralization of the service departments in Melbourne. But for that fact, our war effort could have been “ whipped up “ long ago. It is unfortunately true that our main business departments and also the Board of Business administration are located in Melbourne. It is true, too, that all of the members of the Board of Business Administration, and also all of the business managers of the several service departments, are resident in Melbourne: I invite honorable members to examine a newspaper sheet which I hold in my hand, showing on one-half of it the photographs of various persons holding executive positions in connexion with the war effort, all of whom reside in Melbourne, and showing on the other half of it a blank. This indicates that the States other than Victoria have been completely overlooked in this whole matter. That Victoria has received more than its fair share of war work is also demonstrated by the low unemployment returns furnished by trade union organizations in that State, compared with those furnished from New ‘South Wales. The respective figures are 4.’3 per cent, and 8.5 per cent. Defence expenditure in Victoria over a certain period totalled £27 14s. lOd. a head of the population, compared with the New South Wales total of only £19 Os. 7d. The unemployment position in New South Wales has been directly affected by the centralization of the service ‘ departments in Victoria. Official figures published in Canberra recently show that 14,000 workers (mostly skilled men) have been diverted from Queensland and New South Wales to the southern States in recent months.
In replying to a deputation that waited upon him in January of this year, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) stated-
The problem of unemployment is one, in the form in which we find it in New South Wales at the present time, which is a challenge to the resourcefulness of the Government and its statesmanship. It cannot be claimed that we have achieved a maximum war effort while we have thousands of able-bodied mcn and women who are capable and willing to assist, but to date have been denied the opportunity because we have not been able to make work available to them. The problem, obviously, is not insuperable when we discover that unemployment in Victoria has been reduced to 5.9 pcT cent, as compared with 9.8 per cent, in this State. I myself have received a large number of letters containing requests for employment and from these it is evident that men in New South Wales are rinding great difficulty in being absorbed into employment. It has been a matter of significance to me that the great majority of these requests have come from people in New South Wales. I realized that it was clearly established that there should be a slack taken up in this State if the maximum industrial effort and defence effort of which this State is capable is to be achieved.
Our nation will not be able to develop its maximum war effort until the whole of the service departments are located in Canberra, and the Government administrative work is performed here. I hope that honorable members generally will give their attention to this subject in the not distant future with the object of rectifying the position.
I had intended to speak at some length on the financing of munition annexes. On Thursday last, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Munitions certain questions on this subject, and he informed me that 83 annexes had been authorized so far, involving the Commonwealth in a very large outlay. The expenditure by the Commonwealth upon individual annexes had ranged from nothing in two cases to £980,000 in respect of an aero-engine factory. I was also informed that in several cases the Commonwealth Government had provided the land, buildings and plant of the annexe, although, generally speaking, the Government provided only the plant. In some cases the firms concerned had been granted loans to enable them to provide the necessary land and buildings. Such loans were to be repaid over a period of years. In my view, the Government could have provided the money necessary for this purpose by means of credits issued through the Commonwealth Bank, or it could have guaranteed contractors’ overdrafts. It should have been possible for the Government to assist many small manufacturers employing from five or six to as many as 200 hands. Had a carefully arranged plan been prepared with this end in view, it would have been practicable to harness very many of our smaller factories to the war effort, as, in fact, has been done in Great Britain. The Government should not have assisted big firms to the exclusion of small ones. I shall not say more on these matters at the moment, except that I have received communications from 40 different firms protesting against the manner in which the Government has favoured large firms to the exclusion of small ones. These firms, I have been assured, could all have assisted the war effort in a substantial way had they been provided with credit facilities for the purpose and given sufficient orders.
– I have written to the Minister for the Army (Mr. Spender) requesting that provision be made for the granting of free school books and school requisites for the children of members of the fighting forces. In the last letter that I received from the Minister I was informed that he was about to place this matter before Cabinet. I now direct the attention of the Minister to the attitude of the Government of Victoria to my proposal. In the case of one school in my constituency, the names of a number of soldiers’ children were sent in as those of children needing and desiring free books and school requisites, which are provided in some instances in Victoria. The instruction given by the Education Department in that State is as follows: -
With reference to the undermentioned applications, I have to inform you that, as the pupils referred to do not fulfil the conditions of the regulation in regard to special aptitude and promise, such application cannot bc granted.
The position is that the service of free books and school requisites is made available in Victoria only to children who show special aptitude and promise, and that this service has been refused in some cases to soldiers’ children. The children of soldiers are generally the children of the men whose earnings have been diminished by their enlistment, and I would urge upon the Minister the necessity for coming to some arrangement with the State authorities by which the children of soldiers generally should be given free books and school requisites, at any rate where the pay of the parent is that of a private or a non-commissioned officer.
– Does the honorable member confine his request to children attending primary schools, or does he wish it extended to pupils of technical and secondary schools?
– I should be content at first to confine my request to the primary schools. To-day I asked the Minister for the Army if free legal aid could be provided for those internees who were unable to employ counsel in connexion with their appeals to the tribunals set up to hear them. I understand that the only internees who can avail themselves of the services of these tribunals are those who are wealthy enough to pay for the assistance of counsel.
– That is not correct.
– In any case, I urge the Government to provide free legal aid for persons who are not able to pay for it. Seeing that under the National Security Regulations summary prosecutions can be launched, involving high penalties, some consideration should be given to my suggestion that the principles set out in section 69 of the Judiciary Act should be extended beyond indictable offences. A man who is committed for trial, and is unable to meet the expense of legal assistance, can, under that provision, be given free legal aid. Persons who are charged with offences under the National Security Regulations are sometimes unable to pay for the assistance of counsel, and I hope that this matter will receive sympathetic consideration by the Minister and the Attorney-General’s Department.
– A week or so ago I asked to be informed of the names, official designations, salaries and dates of appointment of those officers of the Department of Information who are in receipt of salaries of £500 or more per annum, and I trust that the information will be furnished to me before the conclusion of the present sittings. The Department of Information is not being administered to my satisfaction, or to that of a number of other members. An advertisement which appeared in the Melbourne Herald last week began with these words -
page 445
Eligible Recruits for the A.I.F. are Needed Immediately.
Join the A.I.F. - See the world and keep war out of Australia.
Soldiers of the Australian Imperial Force are serving in England, Egypt, Palestine, Libya, Malaya and . . .
Mr. FADDEN (Darling Downs).in reply - I am convinced that the Minister for Information (Senator Foll) will have an effective reply to the allegations of the honorable member, who will be surprised, and perhaps relieved, to find that he is under a misapprehension in regard to advertising contracts, and that the Minister is doing everything possible to safeguard the interests of the nation.
The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein) has been persistent in urging me to violate the secrecy provisions of the taxation law. As the honorable gentleman is a legal man I am surprised that he has not, apparently, read section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, or if he has done so that he would urge me as a responsible Minister to break that provision. It was well for the honorable member that he was not asked to answer any question dealing with taxation law when he sat for his examination for admission to the bar. For his edification, therefore, I shall read section 16 of the act - (.1.) For the purposes of this section, officer “ means a person who is or has been appointed or employed by the Commonwealth or by a State, and who by reason of that appointment or employment, or in the course of that employment, may acquire or has acquired information respecting the affairs of any other person, disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this act or of any previous law of the Commonwealth relating to Income Tax. (2.) Subject to this section, an officer shall not either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of any duty as an officer, and either whilehe is, or after, he ceases to be an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any such information so acquired by him. (3.) An officer shall not be required to produce in Court any return, assessment or notice of assessment, or to divulge or communicate to any Court any matter or tiling coming under his notice in the performance of his duties as an officer, except when it is necessary to do so for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act or of any previous law of the Commonwealth relating to Income Tax.
Officers of the Taxation Department should not, and will not, divulge even to meas Treasurer any information that comes into their possession by virtue of their office.
– So long as that provision remains in the act it will be carried out.
– Does that mean that any scoundrel who breaks the law is protected ?
– If he be protected, he is protected not by the Government but by the law. I was asked to table the papers in connexion with the case which the honorable member has mentioned, that is, to divulge the private affairs of the man involved. The honorable member also stated that the file of this particular tax-payer bears a note to the effect that this case is worse than the Abrahams case. If such a note appears on that file, I want to know what officer of the Taxation Department violated the secrecy provisions of the act by divulging that information. I also desire to know the source of the information which the honorable member has disclosed to-night; and why he, a responsible member of the community, and particularly a legal man, should encourage violation of the secrecy provisions of the taxation law.
– Even if it be for the purpose of exposing gross fraud?
– The law must be carried out; the revision of the law is another matter altogether.
Mr.Calwell. - What about the honorable member’s allegations?
– As has been shown here to-night, many allegations are made in this House. At the same time many of the allegations havebeen unfounded. I am not saying that the allegations made by the honorable member are unfounded; but his allegations have nothing to do with the Taxation Department, or with me as Treasurer. They concern a private transaction alleged to have ‘been made between Mr. L. O. Martin and the taxpayer mentioned. That is entirely a private matter. However, should it be shown that that transaction involved violation of the secrecy provisions of the taxation law it would be the responsibility of the department to investigate it.
– So, in the course of the department’s normal business, it wipes off £42,000 of a fine imposed on a taxpayer ?
– The Taxation Department is entirely controlled by the Taxation Commissioner; it isbeyond political control. As Treasurer I have nothing whatsoever to do with the remission of taxes. However, I refute any allegations that any member of this Government, or the previous Treasurer, to whom the honorable member also referred, has ever attempted to influence the Commissioner to remit portion of a taxpayer’s fine. The taxation law is administered solely by the Taxation Commissioner, who is hound to carry out the law enacted by this Parliament. Until such time as the law is amended, he must act in conformity with its provisions.
– Will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to modify the section which he has just read?
– No. Perhaps the honorable gentleman is prepared to throw his taxation returns upon the table of this House, but if the private affairs of any citizen could be bandied about in public as the honorable member requests, chaos would result. Successive governments have seen the wisdom of retaining the secrecy provisions of the taxation law.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 447
The following papers were presented : -
Designs Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1941, No.67.
Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Defence purposes - Tatura, Victoria (4).
Supply and Development Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1941, No. 65.
The House adjourned at. 12.37 a.m. ( Wednesday ) .
page 447
The following answers to questions were circulated: -
d asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
– A considerable number of companies and individuals is supplying fuel and fodder to numerous military camps in Victoria. To answer the honorable member’s questions in the form he has requested would involve many pages of detailed statements. I have certain statements, however, covering in some detail the subject-matter of the honorable member’s inquiry, and am prepared to submit the papers to him for his perusal.
Railways.
d asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
Mr.Ward asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -
n. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
s. - The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : - 1 and 2. The Commonwealth paid some portion of the legal expenses incurred by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner in defending himself against certain charges brought against him in his capacity as Commonwealth Railways Commissioner by certain of his subordinate officers. The claim of the commissioner’s legal advisers for costs was £2.477 7s.1d. and, by arrangement, these costs were taxed. The amount allowed on taxation was £1,306 4s.1d. and of this amount £816 7s. 6d. was paid by the Commonwealth.
Oil from Shale: Glen Davis Project.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply and Development, upon notice -
r. - The Minister for Supply and Development has supplied the following answers : -
War Industries : Co-operation of Employers and Employees.
asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -
With a view to creating in all war industries greater harmony and efficiency and a real spirit of co-operation, will he. invoke the National Security Act to provide that the employees in such industries shall have the right (a) to representation, through their own nominees, on the directorate of the respective companies concerned, and (b) a share in the pro fits of their industry?
t. - The Government is very willing to consider suggestions that would strengthen the real spirit of co-operation in war industries, but it does not believe that co-operation could be imposed by the use of the National Security Act in the manner suggested.
asked the Minister for
Commerce, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
r. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
n asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -
n asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice -
What provision is made by the Government to provide for the effective representation before appeal tribunals of appellant internees who are unable to pay for legal aid?
– No provision is made by the Government for the representation before aliens’ tribunals of appellant internees who are unable to pay for legal aid.
y asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -
In view of the repeated assurances from the Prime Minister and other Ministers that Australian Infantry Forces would not be sent to the European section of the war zones, can the Acting Prime Minister assure honorable members that, before any change takes place in the Government’s policy in relation to the disposition of Australian troops, Parliament will be consulted?
– I am not aware of any assurances of the nature suggested by the honorable member having been given. The arrangement between the Commonwealth Government and the British Government is that Australian troops will not be placed in any theatre of war without reference to the Commonwealth Government.
Sugar Industry : Assistance in Production of Munitions.
r. - On the 27th March the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked, without notice, whether there are any prospects of the sugar mills being utilized during the slack season for the production of munitions; also whether any investigations of the possibilities of so utilizing these mills had been made, and if not, would an investigation be undertaken ?
The Minister for Munitions has furnished the following reply: -
The production of munitions in general must be organized on a basis which will ensure a continued and intensive effort. It will therefore be obvious that an industry which can only be made available at intervals, dictated by seasonal production demands, &c, would not be capable of affording material assistance in the desired direction. The field in which the engineering resources of the sugar industry could be utilized, therefore, appears to be in the direction of contracts for specific requirements which are dealt with mainly by public tenders by the Contract Board which is located at the Victoria Barracks, Petrie-terrace, Brisbane. The agency of the Department of Munitions in Brisbane, which is charged with the organization of industry, particularly in regard to munitions production, is the Board of Area Management, located at Ministry of Munitions, 341-343 Queen -street, Brisbane, and it is suggested that if representatives of the sugar industry could arrange to represent their claims, and furnish full particulars to the secretary of the Board of Area Management, the proposal could be dealt with on the spot. In order that the secretary, Board of Area Management, will be in a position to discuss matters with representatives of the sugar industry, I am arranging for a. copy of this question and reply to be forwarded for consideration by such board.
Production of Copper.
r. - On the 14th March the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) and the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) asked, without notice, whether, in view of the shortage of copper in Australia, and the fact that there are several copper mines which could he re-opened with Government assistance, the Minister for Supply and Development will state what is being done by the Government to encourage the production of copper in Australia?
The Minister for Supply and Development has furnished the following reply:-
There is no shortage ofbar and ingot copper in Australia. Large security stocks are held both for defence and civil purposes. African supplies have been received and are continuing through British control and at lower prices than the United States of America is paying for South American copper. In consequence the average cost in Australia to consumers of copper is relatively low. Production has been increased in Australia also, but it was impossible in the time available to get, from the re-opening of old minus, the supplies now being received from Africa. Any proposals for the re-opening of old mines to increase Australian production will be considered if submitted to the Department of Supply and Development, with adequate information on capital requirements supportedby technical data. An; such increase would be welcome for its own sake and to conserve sterling exchange. A plan to promote further increases in production isnow being consideredby the department in conjunction with the Prices Commissioner.
Shortages of copper wire and other copper products are due to shortages of fabricating capacity for civil supply in the face of urgent defence priorities. Fabricating capacity has been extended and is being extended further, but the demands for defence purposes are increasing also, and civil supply has to he rationed. Essential services are supplied with their actual needs, but demands for stocks of fabricated supplies and demands for nonessential purposes cannot at present be satisfied.
Meat Supplies for Naval Station.
s. - On the 27th March the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) asked, without notice, whether the Minister for the Navy could state whether it was a fact that, contrary to the regulations, meat is being imported from outside the Australian Capital Territory for the use of the staff attached to the Naval Wireless Station at Canberra ?
I now inform the honorable member that the regulations referred to apply only to meat brought into the Territory for purposes of re-sale or for carrying on business. The Naval Wireless Station, therefore, does not come under the provisions of this regulation, and I am informed by the Health Department that the importation of meat, for use at the station, from outside the Australian Capital Territory would not constitute an infringement of the regulations. In any case, the method of purchasing meat for the use of the naval staff is one which concerns the personnel themselves, not the department, as under the system of messing in force at the station the men are in a position similar to that of private individuals, and make their own arrangements for obtaining supplies.
Non-Commissioned Officers. Training School, Geelong.
r. - On the 26th March the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Dedman) asked the following question, without notice: -
On the6th March I protested to the Minister for the Army against a proposal to transfer the Non-Commissioned Officers Training School at Geelong to a property belonging to the Fairbairn family on the Ballarat road near Fyansford. I now ask the honorable gentleman whether the Government has yet decided to avoid such a wasteful expenditure of public money by retaining the school at Geelong?
I now inform the honorable member that on investigation it has been ascertained that there are good and substantial reasons for removing the Command Training School from Fyansford, Geelong, to Lara, approximately -twenty miles from Geelong. The site at Fyansford is an old factory which has been condemned for winter accommodation owing to dampness, as a result of experience last year. The expenditure already incurred on the existing site will not be wasted, as the various huts, kitchen and conveniences will be transferred to the new site at Lara, which, at a small cost, affords much more habitable quarters and facilities, is surrounded by an excellent training area and, in view of unlimited scope for tactical training, is suitable in every way for this school. The expenditure involved in establishing the training school at Lara will not be any greater than the cost that would be necessary to improve the accommodation at Fyansford.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 April 1941, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1941/19410401_reps_16_166/>.