House of Representatives
20 May 1942

16th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. M. Nairn) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1389

TASMANIA!*” WAR INDUSTRIES

REPORT of COMMITTEE Mr. BARNARD. - Has the Minister for Munitions read the report of the Tasmanian War Industries Committee, recently presented to the Prime Minister? If so, has he been able to give consideration to the recommendation of the committee in relation to the strengthening of the Board of Area Management in Tasmania?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have read the report, including the observations of the committee in relation to the facilities available in Tasmania for engagement in certain classes of work that may help the war effort. The report states than there should be a liaison officer to co-ordinate the operations of the Boards of Area Management in Tasmania and Victoria, in order that any work that cannot be undertaken in Victoria may be distributed among the smaller engineering shops and garages in Tasmania. This is considered desirable because there are in Tasmania very few large co-ordinating firms undertaking contracts, with the result that the smaller engineering concerns have not an opportunity to make certain parts of munitions as subcontractors. If the Board of Area Management in Tasmania considers that there ought to be liaison between it and the Board of Area Management in Victoria, I shall have no objection to that being effected. It is primarily the duty and responsibility of the Board of Area Management to move in the matter.

page 1389

QUESTION

REGULATION OF LIQUOR SUPPLIES

Mr SPOONER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has power to relax in certain circumstances the regulations with respect to the rationing of liquor supplies. Close to a town in the northern end of my electorate a large military establishment as recently been set up, with the result that a very large number of men is now looking to the hotels of the town for their liquor requirements. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs ascertain whether the ten hotelkeepers of that town sent to the Collector of Customs a statement of their case on the 27th April, and a telegram on the loth May, to neither of which, so far, have they received a reply, with the result that a very large number of soldiers cannot obtain supplies of liquor?

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Development · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware, personally, that, because of the influx of soldiers, war workers, or additional waterfront employees, many districts have been unable, because of the rationing of liquor supplies, to meet current needs. I am sorry that a reply has not been made to the representations referred to by the honorable member, and shall ask the Minister for Trade and Customs to give immediate attention to the matter.

page 1389

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FOOD CONTROL COUNCIL

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister fo: Supply and Development whether the recently established Australian Food Control Council will deal with not only the distribution of supplies hut also the production of essential foodstuffs? If so, what action h;is been taken by the Government so as to ensure that primary producers, who are vitally concerned in the production of foodstuffs, shall he represented on the council? If such producers have not been given direct representation on the council, will the Minister consider inviting producers’ organizations throughout the Commonwealth to nominate a representative ?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The Food Control Council had its origin in the needs of the fighting forces. The Government then realized the impossibility of meeting those needs without affecting the civilian population. It was ascertained that neither section could he adequately provided for unless matters in relation to production were examined. In order that production might be linked to supply, the Minister for Commerce was requested to act on the council as its deputy chairman ; thus his department was brought into close relationship with it. As only the services have representation, the members of the council are drawn from the different departments concerned.- Representation along the lines mentioned by the honorable member is a subject that might well be dealt with through the different advisory bodies that operate under the respective Ministers for Agriculture in the States. From that source we hope to obtain the advice which the honorable member desires to have. It might be well if I were to put that proposition to the Ministers for Agriculture.

page 1390

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF REPATRIATION

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Repatriation given further consideration to the appointment of a select committee, recommended from time to time by honorable members, to overhaul the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act and bring the administration into line with the conditions that prevail as the result of the present war, in order that it may deal with not only pensions but also the employment and absorption of returned soldiers in civil life, housing, &c. ?

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · FRANKLIN, TASMANIA · ALP

– The Repatriation Department is giving consideration to the matter.

page 1390

QUESTION

DENGUE FEVER

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the statement published in to-day’s Sydney press, attributed to Lieutenant-Colonel Meyers, Deputy Director of Army Hygiene, that unless precautionary measures be taken immediately, there will be real danger of dengue fever occurring in Sydney and its environs? If so, will the honorable gentleman state what steps are being taken in the interests of the civilian population, as distinct from what, is being done by the Army Medical Service?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Health · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This morning, in Canberra, I attended the opening of the National Health and Medical Research Council. This subject has a prominent place on the agenda ro be considered by it. I understand that to-day ways and means arc being considered for giving help to all the authorities associated with attempts to check and eradicate this fever a? rapidly as possible.

page 1390

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BRIEFS

Mr FALSTEIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Acting Attorney-General say to what degree, if any, the Crown in the Commonwealth has adopted the practice of the Crown in the State of New South Wales, of delivering briefs to members of the Bar on the basis that counsel who does the work receives one-half of the fee, the remaining one-half being received by another member of the Bar, nominated by the Crown, who is serving in an active capacity with the fighting forces? If no such arrangement is at present in operation, will th* honorable gentleman consider its immediate adoption?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The Crown in the Commonwealth has not evolved any such scheme. I shall ask the Attorney-General in New South Wales to furnish to the Commonwealth his ideas upon the subject. When these are received, the matter will be considered.

page 1390

QUESTION

MILITARY CLOTHING

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Supply and Development read an article in the latest issue of Smith’s Weekly, in which it is stated that recently three leading companies Were given orders for military underwear valued at approximately £200,000? If so, will he inform the House whether the statement is accurate, and whether, as stated in the report, no tenders were called, although upwards of twenty other mills are making precisely the same class of garments? Has the Department of Supply and Development notified all other firms that previously tendered for military underwear that it has been decided with regret that no further orders will be given in respect of summer requirements?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The statement that tenders were not called for the clothing might conceivably be due to the fact that fixed prices are arrived at by a costing process, and, in pursuance of that policy, orders are issued to various firms; but I shall be pleased to obtain full particular.5 regarding the matter.

page 1390

TEA RATIONING

Internees - Patients in Hospitals -

Travelling Soldiers

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and

Customs yet received a reply to the question I asked on the 29th April last as to whether the tea ration granted to persons in internment camps is 2 oz. a week as compared with 1 oz. a weak for private citizens generally?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– I regret that an answer to the question has not been forwarded. I shall inquire into the reason for the delay, and let the honorable member have a reply at an early date.

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I have received a communication this morning to the effect that, owing to tea rationing, patients in hospitals will be unable to partake of afternoon tea. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs seek to have th<; restrictions made as light as possible in respect of patients in hospitals and similar institutions?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes, I shall bring that matter to the Minister for Trade and Customs; but T am sure that the honorable member appreciates the difficulties with which the Government is confronted in meeting the wishes of the public generally with respect to supplies of tea. This is an imported commodity, but the Minister agrees that it is desirable that tea be made available to those who need it most.

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Women voluntary workers in country districts meet trains day and night in order to provide travelling troops with refreshments consisting of tea, hot pies, and sandwiches. Now that tea has been rationed, will the Minister for the Array endeavour to ensure that supplies shall be made available to these women in order that they may be able to continue this generous service to the fighting services? ,Mr. FORDE. - The Government greatly appreciates the self-sacrificing efforts of large numbers of women on behalf of our soldiers. Sympathetic consideration will be given immediately to the honorable member’s suggestion.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Some time ago T made representations to the Minister for Trade and Customs on behalf of the Maryborough branch of the Country Women’s Association, 100 of whose members are engaged in making camouflage nets, and also on behalf of other bodies engaged in war work, request ing that supplies of tea be made available for their refreshment when engaged in such work. The Minister then promised to inquire into the matter. As considerable uneasiness is being caused by the delay in this matter, I ask whether the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs can now give me a reply ?

Mr BEASLEY:

– I take it that the honorable member requests that special supplies of tea be made available to these organizations beyond the ration which their members receive otherwise. It appears that the Minister for Trade and Customs has laid it down that organizations of this kind must be in existence for twelve months before they can qualify for special supplies of tea over and above the general ration. When I answered a question by the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) on this subject yesterday, I said that I would favorably represent the request to the Minister for Trade and Customs.

page 1391

QUESTION

MAN-POWER

Register of Seasonal Workers

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– .Will the Minister for Labour and National Service make a full statement to the House to-morrow, or in the near future, concerning a register of seasonal workers, which, it is said, is now being compiled? Will the -Minister outline the Government’s man-power plans in relation to rural industries generally, and its proposals for the creation of a Women’s Land Army?

Mr WARD:
Minister for Labour and National Service · EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall he pleased to make a statement on those matters as soon as possible.

page 1391

QUESTION

MR. BRIAN PENTON

Proposed Lecture Tour of United States of America

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government has .been asked to facilitate a lecture tour of the United States of America by Mr. Brian Penton, editor of the Sydney Daily Telegraph! Before any action is taken in the matter, will the right honorable gentleman ascertain whether Mr. Penton has ever had any lecturing experience, here or elsewhere; whether he was formerly in partnership with Mr. P. R. Stephensen, of the Australia First Movement, who has since been interned ; whether Mr. Penton’s flat has been searched by the military intelligence police since Japan declared war; whether he sought to flee the country in 1934 to evade debts, “was arrested, and placed in Long Bay prison; whether, in 1936, on his return to Australia, he published an indecent libel against a distinguished Sydney author, who was awarded substantial damages; whether Mr. Penton published indecent pictures when he was living in England, and also, as a director of the Fanfrolico Press, published books which were regularly banned as indecent by the American customs authorities; and whether, as a working journalist in the Federal and State parliamentary galleries, he hasbeen denounced for malicious and lying reports and comment by members of both Parliaments?

Mr.CURTIN. - I have no biographical particulars with respect to Mr. Brian Penton. An intimation has been made to me that he intends to make a lecturing tour of the United States of America as the result of negotiations that have passed between himself and the promoters of the lecturing tour. I know that as a matter of general information. The Government has no official participation in the lecturing tour. It is not sponsoring the tour, and it is not prohibiting it.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether one Penton, the editor of the DailyTelegraph, recently indicated to the Minister that he desired to join the Australian Imperial Force, and whether, when he was informed that special arrangements had been made for him to be drafted to a commando unit, he hastily declined the invitation? Is Penton of military age? Could not his services be better utilized in the fighting services than in making a lecture tour of the United States of America?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am not aware of Mr. Penton’s age, or of any offer he has made to join the Australian Imperial Force. That is a matter between him and the recruiting officers.

page 1392

QUESTION

BAN ON HORSE RACING

Report by Government Whip.

Mr BADMAN:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether, as reported in the Adelaide Stock and Station Journal, of the 6th May last, the Government Whip, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan), visited South Australia in order to find out why conditions in that State were so different from those in other States that horse racing had to be banned in South Australia, although it could be permitted in other States? If the report be correct, to whom did the honorable member furnish a report on his visit, and how was such visit connected with the furthering of the war effort?

Mr.CURTIN. - I am not in a position to say whether it was stated in a certain newspaper that the honorable member for Griffith had visited Adelaide for the purpose mentioned. The honorable member informed me that he intended to pay a visit to that city, and I see no reason why he should not visit any part of Australia that he thought proper. That is allI have to say on the matter.

page 1392

QUESTION

HOUR OF MEETING

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– I move -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 10.30 a.m.

I have submitted this motion in accordance with the arrangement I intimated to honorable members last week that the House would be asked to sit this week from Tuesday to Thursday. The intention of the Government is that next week the House shall resume on Wednesday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1392

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Service in Forward Positions -

Officers’ Training Schools

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– In view of the somewhat conflicting official statements with regard to youths of the age of about eighteen years being required to serve in what are described by the military authorities as forward operational areas, will the Minister for the Army give an assurance to the House that the policy of the Government remains unchanged, and that young men of that age, with or without experience of military service, will not be employed in forward operations?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The policy of the Government is to send well-trained men to these outposts. Sometimes commanding officers have received instructions to transfer whole battalions or brigades regardless of the age of the men comprising them, it being presumed that they have received adequate training. I gave a direction some months ago that, as far as practicable, no young men of eighteen years of age should be sent to forward operational stations, and I shall take steps to ensure that, so far as i3 humanly possible, this direction shall be followed.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I ask the Minister for the Army ‘what steps may be taken by non-commissioned members of the forces to qualify for training in an officers’ school ? Is this matter still determined on the “old school tie;’ basis?

Mr FORDE:

– Officers’ training schools are conducted in each State; and it is left to the commanding officer of units to recommend what men should be sent to them. Any young man who desires to become an officer may consult his commanding officer on the matter, when his claims for entry into the officers’ training school in his area will be considered.

page 1393

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Mr COLLINS:

-I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that, when the daily distribution of bread and meat was abolished, the men engaged in the distributing trade, together with their wives, were paid an allowance until such time as other employment could he obtained ? Is it a fact that, as a result of thu rationing of clothing, hundreds of shop assistants some of them with families to support, and others contributing to the family purse, have lost, or are about to lose, their positions ? If so, will they also be granted an allowance until they find other suitable employment?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The Government has decided to make grants to persons who lose their employment as a direct result of government policy. I shall be glad to supply the honorable member with the details of the arrangement as soon as possible.

page 1393

QUESTION

PRODUCTION OF BASE METALS

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Supply and Development received a report from Mr. Malcolm Newman regarding the adequacy or otherwise of existing smelting, concentrating and refining plants for the handling of ores of base metals needed for war industries? If so, can he inform the House whether the report states -

  1. existing plants cannot handle ores such as tin, wolfram, copper, lead, &c. ;
  2. that transport facilities are not available to carry ores from new fields to existing plants; and
  3. that no single existing plant can treat the composite ores offering.

Will the Minister consider a proposal for the establishment of a suitable plant for smelting or concentrating ores at places where sufficient quantities of ore are available?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The honorable member has raised this matter on two previous occasions, and I arranged that he should have an opportunity to discuss it with the Director of Mineral Production. Apparently he has done so, because he asks me whether I have received a report from the director. I have not received the report so far, but it must bo remembered that the director has been fairly busy travelling in various States, which probably accounts for the delay. The honorable member asks whether treatment plants will be erected near the places where the ores are available. The problem is to obtain the necessary equipment, which would have to be imported from the United States of America.

Mr BREEN:

– That is not so.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Perhaps this is not a suitable place in which to debate that point. However, in connexion with machinery generally for the production of minerals, our only source of supply is the United States of America, and we are unable to obtain what we want because the available shipping space between the United States of America and Australia is being used for another purpose. The Government is doing everything possible to overcome the difficulty, and I give the honorable member an undertaking that his representations will receive full consideration.

page 1394

QUESTION

ENEMY NEWS BROADCASTS

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Information how it is that Berlin, Tokyo and Rome are able to report immediately such items of Australian news as the Prime Minister’s declaration against illegal strikes, the protest of the Leader of the Opposition against the clothing regulations, and Sir Keith Murdoch’s article on the Battle of the Coral Sea? Is the enemy picking up this information from broadcasts, or is it being cabled to neutral countries and getting to the enemy in that way, or is there a leakage through secret wireless stations in Australia?

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
Minister Assisting the Postmaster-General · BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am unable to answer the honorable member’s question offhand, but I shall have inquiries made, and furnish a reply as soon as possible.

page 1394

QUESTION

FOSTARS SHOES PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Mr MORGAN:

Can the Acting Attorney-General say when the report will be tabled regarding the recent failure of the prosecution in respect of the 30 charges against Fostars Shoes Proprietary Limited, and the position of certain officials prominently associated with the prosecution?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The report was handed to me yesterday just as I was about to enter the House. A part of the honorable member’s inquiries concerns the Minister for the Army, and I asked that the answers be redrafted in order that they might be referred to him for his consideration. I propose to lay the report on the table of the Library so that honorable members may peruse it.

page 1394

QUESTION

SECRET MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENT

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Having regard to the fact that it is some weeks since the Government took honorable members into its confidence regarding the war situation generally, and Australia’s war activities in particular, I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to have a. secret sitting of the Parliament before the next recess ?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I shall give consideration to the matter.

page 1394

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr FALSTEIN:

– Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the practice of the Sydney Daily Telegraph of refusing to mention the name of the Minister for Labour and National Service in its news reports? Has he noticed in this morning’s issue of the Daily Telegraph that, in a list of nine persons who attended a conference with the Prime Minister yesterday on the coal industry, the newspaper mentioned every person by title and name except the Minister for Labour and National Service, who is referred to merely as “ the Labour Minister “ ? Does the Prime Minister think that the Daily Telegraph’s suggestion that Mr. Ward is the Labour Minister, and its implication that he is the only Labour Minister, might cause bad feeling among the other Labour Ministers of the Government? Can the Prime Minister say whether Mr. Ward’s name is being withheld from publication in the Daily Telegraph for security reasons, or whether this action is merely the latest, most petty and most childish method adopted by the Daily Telegraph to attack Mr. Ward?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I suppose the Daily Telegraph will be greatly annoyed, but I have not the faintest idea what it published this morning. I have not read it. As to what it publishes, or fails to publish, that is a matter entirely between the paper and its readers. I am not going to exercise any coercion whatsoever over the Daily Telegraph. It is subject to censorship in respect of matters affecting national security, but it is not subject to political interference of any sort. I am positive that neither the Daily Telegraph nor any other newspaper can do anything which will cause the Minister for Labour and National Service to lose any sleep.

page 1394

QUESTION

STANDARDIZATION OF BREAD

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Health, in the absence of the Minister for War Organization of Industry, if it is a fact, as reported in the press, that the Department of War Organization of Industry has finalized plans under which two varieties of bread will be made in future, namely, a white loaf and a brown loaf, of 60 parts of wholemeal to 40 parts of wheaten white flour? Was the Department of Health consulted in order to ensure that the standardized varieties of bread shall contain essential vitamins and food values?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– My department was consulted in this matter. Tie Australian Food Council met in Sydney last week, and is still considering the matter. Dr. F. W. Clements, Department of Health, represents the Commonwealth on that body.

page 1395

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA FIRST MOVEMENT

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Army whether charges have yet been formulated against internees who were members of what is known as the Australia First Movement? If so, when is it anticipated that these persons will be brought to trial ? If charges have not been formulated against them, what is the reason for the delay?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

-This matter has been handled by the Attorney-General’s Department, and action has been taken against certain members of the Australia First Movement in Western Australia. Other members of the movement in another State were interned. I am not aware that any prosecution has yet been launched against them. If they feel that they have been wrongly interned they may appeal to the tribunal which has been set up for that purpose. The chairman of the tribunal makes a recommendation to the Minister whether in his opinion the appellants should be released.

Mr SPENDER:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Why have not these other people been prosecuted!! I remind the Minister of the statement which he made to the House when these persons were interned. A considerable period has elapsed since that time.

Mr FORDE:

– When these persons were interned, both the Prime Minister and I said that the Solicitor-General was examining the papers, and that some time would elapse before that work would be completed, and prosecutions launched. We also said that action would be in accordance with recommendations made by the Solicitor-General.

Mr SPENDER:

– Does that mean that no members of the Australia First Movement who has been interned other than those in Western Australia will be prosecuted ?

Mr FORDE:

– I cannot say. This matter is being handled by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Is the real reason why members of the Australia First Movement in other States besides Western Australia have not been brought to trial the flimsiness of the evidence against them- Mr. SPEAKER.- Order ! This is developing into a cross-examination which is contrary to the rules of the House.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Well, I shall have to get at the facts in another way. I ask the Minister for the Army whether the comments of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sir Frederick Jordan, about the application of the internment regulations and the difficulty experienced by people once they have been interned by ministerial direction in obtaining release are the real reasons why the Minister invites the members of the Australia First Movement to go before a tribunal where they will have no chance?

Mr FORDE:

– The regulations under which internments are made have been in operation since the outbreak of war. People are interned in Australia when, in the opinion of military intelligence, there is evidence of subversive activity. Whether they are members of the Australia First Movement, enemy aliens, naturalized British subjects or Australian-born subjects, persons who are interned are entitled to lodge objections to internment. Objections are heard by special tribunals. Enemy aliens appear before one kind of tribunal and British subjects before another kind of tribunal which is invariably presided over by a judge of a Supreme Court. After having heard an objection, the tribunal recommends to the Minister for the Army either the continued internment or the release of the person concerned. Certain interned members of the Australia First Movement in Western Australia have been prosecuted. I shall confer with the Solicitor-General in order to ascertain whether in his opinion there is sufficient evidence to justify the prosecution of other members of the movement. The overwhelming majority of the many people interned in Australia have not been prosecuted at the instance of the Commonwealth Government. The military intelligence officers and security officers, on whose recommendation people are interned, are specialists in their work. They make their recommendations according to the information they have been able to obtain. The Government, whether it be this Government or any other, does not intern people for political reasons.

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the serious allegations made in this House about the Australia First Movement, will the Acting Attorney-‘General confer with the Solicitor General. in order to ascertain why prosecutions have not been launched against members of that movement in New South “Wales in the same way as they have been launched against its members in Western Australia, and inform the House of the result as soon as he can?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– The Minister for the Army has already answered several questions on this matter. When this matter was first raised some weeks ago, the Minister for the Army, quite right on the evidence in his possession, made a statement. Arising out of that evidence legal action has been taken against those to whom his remarks were directed. It cannot be inferred that he has general evidence involving people other than those who have already been brought before the court.

Mr SPENDER:

– The Prime Minister directed attention to the charges made and said that the law would be invoked and that the people referred to would be charged before the court.

Mr FORDE:

– But he did not say that all members of the Australia First Movement who had been interned would be charged.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Honorable members seem to be distorting the facts. I am surprised that the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) with his high legal training would expect the SolicitorGeneral to take action unless evidence justified it.

Mr Hughes:

– The requirement in the last war was that, if the Minister was satisfied as to a person’s subversive activity, that person was interned.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Yes, and that is what is happening now. Some members of the Australia First Movement in Western Australia were prosecuted, because the Minister thought that he had evidence warranting more than internment. The House must appreciate that the action promised by the Minister has been taken.

Mr CALWELL:

– In view of the fact that during the last war, persons alleged to be members of the Industrial Workers of the World were imprisoned, and were subsequently granted a public inquiry presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court to determine the validity of the charges originally laid against them, I ask the Attorney-General whether the Government will act similarly in regard to members of the Australia First Movement and give to them the earliest possible opportunity to answer before a justice of the Supreme Court the charges made against them?

Mr BEASLEY:

– I am sure that the honorable gentleman would not hold me responsible for what happened in this country during the last war. However, I repeat that I think this matter is being distorted. The Minister for the Army has said that he has taken steps on the advice of military intelligence to intern certain people in New South Wales. The law provides for the setting up of tribunals to hear appeals by persons who consider that they have been wrongly interned.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– What chance have they of receiving justice?

Mr BEASLEY:

– They have the same chance as any one else who lodges an appeal. In some instances appeals have already been lodged, and the cases will be heard in due course.

Mr Hughes:

– Two courses are open to them; they can appeal to an appeal board, 01 they can apply for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

Mr BEASLEY:

– There are other aspects of this subject, but as four people have been charged, it does not seem proper that Ministers should supply the details asked for by honorable members, thereby probably prejudicing the cases before the court. Until such time as the cases now before the court have been dealt with honorable members should exercise patience and allow the law to take its course.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Will the Acting Attorney-General prepare a statement setting out why it is thought advisable that certain people who have been charged with treason, with a desire to aid the enemy, and with conspiring to murder certain people in this community, should not face their trial in an ordinary criminal court, instead of having their cases heard by an internees tribunal the membership of which is not generally known, and evidence “before which is not given in public?

Mr BEASLEY:

– The honorable member’s question is not based on sound premises. The Minister for the Army did not make a sweeping statement involving every member of the Australia First Movement.

Mr McEwen:

– But the objective of the movement was what the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has pointed out.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The Minister fox the Army said that he had certain evidence, and he indicated to the House the nature of the evidence. The facts in his possession applied only to certain persons, and not necessarily to every member of the Australia First Movement. Against those persons in respect of whom evidence was available charges have been laid.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Is a person who, in the judgment of the Minister, is guilty of the crimes which have been mentioned to be tried by an aliens tribunal or an internees tribunal, or is the practice of requiring them to face their trial before an ordinary criminal court to remain in cold storage for the time being?

Mr BEASLEY:

– Those persons against whom there is evidence of treasonable acts are being dealt with in accordance with the ordinary processes of the law. Other suspected persons who have been interned will be dealt with by either an aliens tribunal or an internees tribunal. The Government is following the strict course of the law, and persons found guilty will be punished.

page 1397

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

RETIRED Mixers - Prime Minister’s Consultation with Parties.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Yesterday, I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he could indicate the number of miners retired from the coal industry in New South Wales on pension who had responded to the urgent appeal made by him and the chairman of the Coal Commission to return to work in the mines. Is the Minister yet able to give that information?

Mr WARD:
ALP

– The information is being obtained, and I hope to be able to make it available at an early date.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the negotiations for a settlement of the troubles on the coal-fields? What is the general position in the coalmining industry to-day?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I ‘ have had a long consultation with officers of the Coal Minors Federation. I regard the interview as being highly valuable. Last evening, I had a consultation with representatives of .a certain section of the employers. That interview also was most useful. However, the representatives of the employers as a whole have not yet had an opportunity to see me. I am very anxious that they should do so. I hoped that they would be here to-morrow, which was the earliest date I thought practicable to see them, but, at their request, I have arranged to see them on Friday. The position to-day is that two mines are not working, one because of excessive dust in the drives, and the other because of some dispute about a sick man. That is not as perfect as we should like it, but it is much better than it has been for a long while.

page 1397

QUESTION

STATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Mr JOLLY:

– Can the Treasurer state whether it will be possible to make available to honorable members the statement setting out the estimated revenues, and expenditures of the State governments in the current year, on which the formula included in the uniform taxation proposals is based? I understand that this information is available in the Taxation

Department. It would be of great value to honorable members.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall ask whether it is possible to supply the information asked for by the honorable gentleman.

page 1398

QUESTION

BICYCLE PARTS

Mr COLLINS:

– Is it a fact that no further supplies of tyres and other parts for bicycles are to be made available to the public? If so, will the Minister make special provision to meet the needs of country child:-°n who have to travel to school by mc;::ii of bicycles?

Mr BEASLEY:
ALP

– It is ; correct to say that the Government has decided that the supply of bicycle tyre- ami tubes to the public shall be discontinued, but it is true that the issue of these articles is being policed strictly. The control of supplies is more difficult in respect of bicycle parts than in respect of parts for motor cars; the latter are registered ami the use to which they are put can more easily be determined. The position in regard to supplies of rubber is indeed serious to all of the allied nations, and honorable members may rest assured that whatever restrictions may be imposed will be imposed only because there will be no alternative.

page 1398

GIFT DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1942

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th May (vide page 929), on motion (by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.There are few things in this bill to which I take exception. The measure seeks to amend the Gift Duty Act 1941, which was introduced into this Parliament in December last. It appears that in the administration of that legislation the need for certain amendments has arisen. The most important amendment relates to the effect of the existing legislation upon transactions which were completed as between the donor and the donee before the commencement of the act. When the original bill was before the Parliament, the Government admitted the principle that transactions which had been completed as between the donor and the donee before the date on which the intention to introduce such a measure was announced, would not be subject to gift duty. The measure then introduced and amended was thought to meet that situation, but subsequent events have shown that it did not do so. The present bill has been drafted in order to overcome that defect. The Government has referred this bill to the same committee of members of all parties as considered the original measure. As to the effectiveness of this amendment, I rely upon the legal member of the Opposition party on the committee who was satisfied that the amendment would accomplish what it is designed to achieve. That being so, the bill serves a useful purpose in clearing a way any doubt that may have adversely .Tot-ted transactions which were not in1.-iide.vi to be taxed by the Gift Duty Assessment Act when it was passed last December. It would be unjust, and I do not think that the Govern.men . so intended, that transactions which had been completely satisfied before that date should subsequently become subject to gift duty.

The bill makes another important amendment in dealing with the valuations, which are placed upon shares in private companies for purposes of gift duty. A similar amendment is contained in the Estate Duty Bill 1942. The amendment has a background that indicate.the need for some alteration. Honorable members may be aware that, the method of valuing shares in public companies presents very few difficulties to the commissioners who administer the Estate Duty Act. and it i.~ expected that the valuation of such shares will present few difficulties to the authority who is charged with the administration of the Gift Duty Act. Public companies are listed upon stock exchanges, which have been able to assess the valuations of the shares, taking into account the various influences which go to make up a fair valuation. Stock exchanges have not been slow to recognize the earning capacity of shares in certain public companies, and have taken into account the nature of the undertaking, the assets, their realizability and other influences which affect the financial position of the company. They have not overlooked such factors as whether the company is amply capitalized, and if it is not, whether that might result in the company (being unable to stand the strain of special emergencies and weather any storm that might overtake it. As the result of long experience, stock exchanges have evolved accurate and reliable indicators of valuation, and do not fail to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the values of shares in public companies. For that reason, the valuation of such shares does not present many serious difficulties to the commissioners who are charged with the administration of the estate duty legislation, and other legislation such as the Gift Duty Act.

When we come to the affairs of private companies, the position is altogether different, because they are not listed on stock exchanges. In many cases, the shares are held by a comparatively few people and the articles of association contain restrictive clauses which make the transfer of shares, if not difficult, at least subject to onerous conditions. Sometimes the articles of association embody conditions which give to a governing director control over the appropriation of the company’s income, and cause the company to disclose net earning* that are sub-normal. I mention those matters because evidently administrative difficulties have been found, and will be found in future, in placing valuations upon shares in private companies which are the subject of gilts or, in relation to other legislation, which are assets in a deceased estate. The Government has ?ought a way in which to overcome the difficulty. Clause 8 of this bill provides the machinery lor a commissioner to arrive at a valuation in a manner similar to that which would be followed by those who are responsible for arriving at the valuations of shares when they are the subject of stock exchange registrations. For that reason, I am entirely in agreement with proposed new paragraphs d and e of section 3 3 of the principal act. I regard the proposed new paragraph / as unnecessary, as the Commissioner may well rely upon proposed new paragraphs d and e. Paragraph / empowers the Commissioner to use an alternative method of computation of assets and liabilities, namely, the assumption that the company was being voluntarily wound up on the date that the gift was made. In its present form, that paragraph grants to the Commissioner an unfettered discretion to adopt that method of valuation if he so chooses, and to decide the amount that the shareholder would receive from the company if it were being wound up voluntarily. That paragraph, which was the subject of consideration by the allparty committee to which the Government referred the bill, will be amended. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has already circulated proposed amendments that provide, in respect of clause S, for an appeal against the Commissioner’s discretion and decision. Paragraph f, being unnecessary and redundant, should not have been included in the bill, but the Government deems it advisable to insert the provision and has agreed to improve the position by inserting in clause 8 a condition that any valuation by, and any discretion of the Commissioner, shall be subject to appeal.

Mr Jolly:

– To whom will the appeal be made?

Mr SPOONER:

– The appeal is to the Land Valuation Board in respect of valuations, and to the Income Tax Court of Appeal in respect of financial matters.

Mr Spender:

– On matters of law, the appeal would be to the High Court?

Mr SPOONER:

– Yes. I agree with the bill, although I consider that the alternative method of valuation should not have been included. The Commissioner will find it difficult to apply this clause; and if he does apply it, he may find it capable of doing an injustice to the donor or the donee. In other cases where he may seek to apply it, he may find that it will ricochet against himself, and that is not advisable. It is not right that there should be any unfavorable or favorable operation of the provision. However, the right of appeal will assist to stabilize the position. This provision is contained in similar legislation in Queensland and New South Wales, and I think that I am correct in saying that it has been used seldom and with very great caution. The necessity for that will be .recognized by honorable members. As the Government has agreed to provide the right of appeal, I am prepared to accept the bill, and the amendments that the Treasurer has circulated. The bill does not introduce into the act any other new principles, and I have no objection to k.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- The honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner), quite properly, has said that clause 5 was approved in its present draft by the special committee which dealt with this matter. It will be remembered that when the Gift Duty Assessment Bill was previously before this House, I pointed out that there are many incomplete gifts which it was not the intention of the Government to pick up, but which would be picked up by the legislation as then framed. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) .”.greed to consider that point, and the present measure is the result. The honorable member for Robertson has said that he has been assured by the legal member of the committee that the difficulty has been met. Alt-hough I have very great respect for that legal member, I entirely disagree with his view. Many gifts, such as a gift of shares, are complete in law when the assignment or transfer has been signed by the transferor. It is important to stress that it is not necessary for the transferor to divest himself of the legal title in respect of the gift. It is still possible for him - I use the word “ possible “ because it appears in the clause - to pre lire registration of it. Take as a further example the transfer of land, which requires registration before the title in it passes. The donor may, if he so chooses, have the transaction registered. It is possible for him to divest himself of his interest in the property, but it is not necessary to do so in order to enable the gift to take effect.

Before drawing attention to the terms of the clause, I consider it advisable to refer to a classical decision in this matter - Awning v. Anning (1907), 4 C.L.R., at page 1057. The Chief Justice, delivering a judgment in which the court concurred, stated -

The question therefore arises, and must be answered with respect to each class of property described in the deed, whether the donor did everything which, according to the nature of the property, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and make the gift binding upon himself. I think that the words “ necessary to be done “, as used by Turner L.J. in Milroy v. Lord (1), mean necessary to be done by the donor. Thus, in the case of shares in a company which are only transferable by an instrument of transfer lodged with the company, I think that the donor lias done all that is necessary on his part as soon as he has executed the transfer. So, in the case of a gift of land held under the acts regulating the transfer of land by registration, I think that a gift would be complete on execution of the instrument of transfer and delivery of it to the donee. If, however, anything remains to be done by the donor, in the absence of which the donee cannot establish his title to the property as against a third person, the gift is imperfect, and in the absence of consideration the court will not aid the donee as against the donor. I apologize for reading that statement, of law; but it is important to ascertain whether this clause, as framed, accomplishes what the Government has in mind. The clause reads -

Provided that this sub-section shall nol operate to make subject to gift duty any gift of property where the Commissioner is satisfied that the donor hud, prior to the commencement of this act, done everything which it was necessary- using the exact words used in all the authorities - and possible for him to do to divest himself of the property.

It seems quite clear that, in respect of a trail-!’ of land requiring registration to pass the title; a transfer of shares, the title not passing until the transfer is registered by the company; and the withdrawal of money from a savings bank, which does not pass until the money has been handed over, although the gift is complete when f,r withdrawal slip, together with the deposit book, has been handed to the donee to be taken to the bank; there are three things possible to ! e i1 one li v the donor, hut not necessary to Li doin’ in order to make the gift effective.

Mr MORGAN:

– Would it not be a matter of the doij. doing the rest?

Mr SPENDER:

– The donee, of course, does it. It is because the donor has done all that is necessary to be done, that the law says that it is a perfectly good gift. But the clause says that the donor must do both what is necessary to be done and what is possible for him to do. My objection is to the inclusion of the words “ and possible for him to do “. These words must be given some meaning. The words are not “ or possible ‘”.

  1. feel certain that the result will be to exclude many transactions which the Government has in mind and intends to except, and leave open to considerable doubt in any particular case, having regard to the nature of the property dealt with, what is possible to be done by the donor to divest himself of the property.
Mr BRENNAN:

– If the donor hands over the documents, how is it possible for him to do anything further in order to make the title perfect?

Mr SPENDER:

– He could, before the document was handed over to the donee. Whether or not it is a gift which escapes the impost must be determined according to the provisions of this clause, by whether the donor has done not only what is necessary, but also what is possible. Because of the addition of the words “ and possible it seems to me that difficulties are likely to arise. I understand the point which the honorable member is putting. The point should be and would be completely met by the words “ what was necessary to be done “. I am satisfied that the addition of the words “ and possible” will lead only to confusion, and exclude some of the cases which the Treasurer has in mind, and which should come under the provisions of this clause.

Mr Brennan:

– I suggest that it is not possible for the donor to do anything further if he hands over the documents, as one does in a transfer of land, or a transfer of shares in a company.

Mr SPENDER:

– Obviously, when that has been done it is not possible for him to do anything further, apart from reclaiming, or, in respect of a transfer of shares, going to the company and ensuring that the transfer, when presented, will be accepted by the directors of the company. There are many other instances that could be debated if one had the nature of the property under consideration. I suggest to the Treasurer that the wording of the clause should be altered, so as to read “ everything which was necessary to be done to divest himself of all beneficial interest in the property, the subject of the gift “. That would place the matter beyond doubt. I apprehend that, if the matter be not dealt with in that or some similar way, this provision will be a fruitful cause of litigation

Quite apart from the substance of that argument, there is a second matter to which I desire to draw attention If the Commissioner were not satisfied, then, although he might not be able to support his contention in a court of law, I think that no appeal from that conclusion would lie under this measure. Although it might be clearly established before a court of law that no duty was payable, the essential condition would be that before advantage could be taken of the clause, the Commissioner must be satisfied. If the law were to provide that it shall be open to the donor to challenge before a proper tribunal the contention that a gift has not. been effected and completed before the commencement of the act, payment of the rebate should not be dependent upon the view of the Commissioner. I deprecate the tendency in all taxation measures to throw as great a burden as possible on the taxpayer, and to preclude him from challenging what in point of fact he should be entitled to challenge, namely, whether his obligation to pay, as alleged by the Commissioner, is properly imposed or not. I am glad that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) is in the chamber, because I think that this is a matter of importance to which members with legal training might give consideration. The words “where the Commissioner is satisfied that” rob the clause of a great deal of its value, because, if the Commissioner says that he is not satisfied, that disposes of the matter and there is no right of appeal.

No reference has been made by the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) to clause 7 of the bill, and J understand that none was made by the special committee. The clause states: -

Clause Id of the principal act is amended by omitting the words “ that property is also included in the estate of a deceased person “, and inserting in their stead the words “ the donor dies and that property is also included in his estate “.

That is substantially merely an alteration of verbiage. I draw the attention of the Government to a matter that is germane to this clause. Section 8 of the Estate Duty Act provides that, if property passes from a deceased person, either by gift made during the lifetime of the donor or by a settlement made before or after the commencement of the act within one year before his or her decease, such property is to be included in the dutiable estate of that person. Under clause 3 of the Estate Duty Assessment Bill the period of one year has been increased to three years. Gifts are now subject to Commonwealth gift duty, and it is now proposed that a gift duty and also an estate duty shall bo imposed in respect of a single disposition of property. In other words, when the gift is made it is subject to the gift duty, and, if the donor dies within three years of making the gift, it is then subject to the estate duty. T!he object of this clause is to provide that a rebate be made. It is obvious that the Government does not desire, and I do not think this House would desire, the imposition of two levies upon a single transaction. Section 15 of the principal act, which is proposed to be amended, provides -

Where a gift of .property is liable to gift duty and that property is also included in the estate of a deceased person for the purposes of the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914-1040, the Commissioner may grant a rebate of the amount of gift duty payable in respect of that gift or so much of that gift duty as is equal to the amount by which the estate duty is increased by reason of the inclusion of that property, whichever is the lesser amount.

I do not know why the word “ may “ is used, if it be intended that the rebate should be made because of the death. ,Mr. Menzies. - There could be no other circumstance.

Mr SPENDER:

– I think not. If the word “ may “ is included, the implication is that in certain circumstances the rebate will be made and, in certain other circumstances, it will not. Since, in point of fact, the amount of gift duty is substantially the same as the amount of estate duty, it seems to me that, when we are dealing with this matter in committee, the word “ may “ should be altered to “ shall “, unless it can be shown by the Treasurer that in certain cases the rebate should not be granted. I draw the attention of the committee to section 178 of the Administration and Probate Act 1928 of Victoria -

Any person paying the duty payable under this act upon property comprised in a settlement or deed of gift may deduct the amount of the duty paid in respect of such property by virtue of the Stamps Ac- 1928 notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section seventy-eight of the said act.

The word “may” is employed in thai section, but in an entirely different context. Therefore, I suggest that there is justification for altering the word “ may “ in section 15 of the Gift Duty Assessment Act to “ shall “. Unless it be altered we shall vest in the Commissioner the right to say whether a rebate shall be made in the case of a double levy.

Mr Brennan:

– An option is given in section 15 of the principal act which seems to justify the use of the word “may”.

Mr SPENDER:

– I fail to see that. There may be circumstances in which a rebate should be refused, but I have yet to learn what those circumstances are. I agree with what was said by the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) regarding paragraph / of clause S. I believe it to be quite wrong to have alternative methods of valuation in respect of shares. The normal, longstanding practice is for the personal representative to appoint recognized valuators, and to submit their valuation to the income tax commissioner in the case of the Commonwealth or, in the case of a State, to the commissioner of stamps. Under this bill, the taxing authority is to have power to disregard the valuation so made, and to say that the shares shall be valued upon what the holder would receive if the company were voluntarily wound up at the date upon which the gif,t was made. Paragraph / was not included among the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Taxation, as were paragraphs d and e. Parliament should adhere closely to the principle of a fixed method for determining what -an impost shall be, and for that reason, paragraph / should be omitted.

Mr Menzies:

– The taxpayer should be able to know his liability.

Mr SPENDER:

– Precisely. We know the difficulties of the taxation branch, but we represent the people, and it is a primary rule that the taxpayer’s obligations shall be . precisely defined. It should not be left to the discretion of the taxing authority. I cannot reconcile myself with the principle embodied in paragraphs d and e even though it has the approval of the Royal Commission on Taxation. Those paragraphs are as follows : -

  1. No regard shall, in determining the value of any such shares or stock, be had to any provision in the memorandum or articles of association or rules of the company whereby or whereunder the value of the shares or stock of a deceased or other member is to be determined; and (/) Where a gift includes any shares or stock in any company the shares or stock of which are not or is not quoted in the official list of any Stock Exchange, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything contained in the last two preceding paragraphs, adopt as the value of any such shares or stock such sum as in the opinion of the Commissioner, the holder thereof would receive in the event of the company being voluntarily wound up on the date when the gift was made.

Lt appears to me that those factors, which are specifically excluded in paragraph c, must necessarily bs taken into consideration when determining the value of shares. In the case of leasehold land over which the lessee holds an option of purchase, that option constitutes an essential ingredient of the value of the lease. In the same way, if a property be subject to an easement or right-of-way or rent charge, those limitations upon the complete enjoyment of the property must be taken into consideration in determining its value. In the ease of shares, however, because of the difficulties inherent in arriving at a valuation, the Government is seeking to exclude relevant factors. If there be conditions which prevent the holder of shares from selling to more than a limited number of people or from selling them how and when he pleases, or which give an option over them to some person, then those shares cannot have the same value as other shares in respect of which no such conditions are imposed. We are inclined to go too far in seeking to overcome the difficulties of the taxing authority. The Treasurer, no doubt, will point out that the Government has the support of the Royal Commission on Taxation in this regard, and there the matter will probably rest, hut I felt it my duty to express my views on the subject.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- It would appear that the suggestion made by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) in regard to the wording of clause 5 contains some merit. However, we must consider whether by merely deleting the words “ and possible “ we shall not make the position worse, and throw a greater obligation upon the donor. I understand that this provision is intended to meet cases where certain formalities were entered into before the principal act came into operation, but for certain reasons, such as stamping, &c, the transaction was not completed. If the words “ and possible “ be deleted, it might mean that the transaction must be carried through to actual registration.

Mr Spender:

– I said “ everything which was necessary to he done to divest himself of all beneficial interest in the property “.

Mr MORGAN:

– In respect of a Torrens title, for instance, divesting does not take place until the transaction is registered. It seems to me that the clause is inaptly worded. I suggest that it be provided that the donor be obliged to do everything necessary and usual for him to do to divest himself of the property. The Commissioner will know whether any action taken by a donor is in accordance with the usual practice. Then the donee can go on with the stamping and registration. Anything required in regard to registration can be done by the donor; but that is not the usual practice. All that the donor needs to do is to carry out the usual formalities, such as the completion and execution of the document. Therefore, I suggest that the clause be amended to provide that the donor shall have done everything necessary and usual for him to do to divest himself of the property. That suggestion, I think, will conform with the submission made by the honorable member for Warringah.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I wish to refer to the provision dealing with the shares of companies other than companies listed on the Stock Exchange. I disapprove of the provision to give to the Commissioner the alternative of valuing the shares on the basis of what the holder would receive if the company were voluntarily wound up at the time at which the gift was made. From my experiencein dealing with companies of this kind, such a provision will lead to much argument. In such cases the assets may or may not be worth more than the value at which they are shown in the balance-sheet. However, the shares have no value so far as any future profits are concerned. I understand that provision has been made for appeal in order to protect the taxpayer. However, officials of the Treasury will experience great difficulty in arriving at an equitable valuation of the shares on the basis of a voluntary winding up. That provision will lead to a great deal of argument and confusion.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

[4.141. - in reply - I do not profess to be able to debate the legal points raised by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). However, some of the proposals in the bill are the result of experience gained from the operation of the last amending act. I know that the special committee of senators and members which considered this bill, which was composed of representatives of both sides of the House, spent some hours dealing with this proposal, and another proposal which will be brought before the House later. At the moment, I feel disposed to adhere to the recommendations of that committee. I undertake to have examined the suggestions made by the honorable member for Warringah, the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly), and the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner), because it is possible that in legislation of this character we may have to proceed to some degree by the process of trial and error in order to ensure that the intentions of both the Government and the Parliament shall be carried out. At this juncture I do not feel disposed to accept amendments; but I undertake to have the points raised examined very carefully.

Mr Menzies:

– Before the bill is finally dealt with in the Senate?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– No; not at this stage, but at a later date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (When gift deemed to be made).

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

.-.I shall not take up the time of the committee in repeating what has been said by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) ; but the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has indicated that at some future time the representations made by that honorable member will be considered. That is very vague, if I may say so. The two points that were made in respect of this clause by the honorable member are not points that depend upon experience in the working of this bill. They are points of drafting, and of immediate and clear result. Whether the satisfaction of the Commissioner should be the test is a question which involves considerations of drafting and intention, and is not a question of experience. Any amendment in respect of the words “ and possible “ is also purely a matter of drafting. I had hoped that the Treasurer was going to indicate that after the bill had left this committee, and before it was finally dealt with in the Senate, he would have the matter looked into by his advisers with a view to having an amendment prepared on the lines suggested , by the honorable member for Warringah.

Mr Chifley:

– I am prepared to do that. I shall refer the matter to the special committee.

Mr MENZIES:

– If the Treasurer is prepared to have the matters raised by the honorable member for Warringah examined before the bill is finally dealt with in the Senate, I am satisfied.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Rebate where estate duty payable).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- Will the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) give the same undertaking in respect of the suggestion I made earlier in regard to this clause, as he has given with regard to my suggestions on. clause 5, that is, that the word “ shall “ be inserted in place of “may”?

Mr Chifley:

– Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 -

Section 18 of the principal act is amended -

by omitting front paragraph (c) the word “and” (last occurring); and

by omitting paragraph (d) and inserting in its stead the following paragraphs: - ” (d) the value of shares or stock in any company, whether incorporated in Australia or elsewhere, shall be determined upon the assumption that, on the date when the gift was made, the memorandum and articles of association or rules of the company satisfied the requirements prescribed by the committee or governing authority of the stock exchange at the place where the share or stock register is situate, for the purpose of enabling that company to be placed on the current official list of that stock exchange;

no regard shall, in determining the value of any such shares or stock, be had to any provision in the memorandum or articles of association or rules of the company whereby or whereunder the value of the shares or stock of a deceased or other member is to be determined; and (/) where a gift includes any shares or stock in any company the shares or stock of which are not or is not quoted in the official list of any stock exchange, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything contained in the last two preceding paragraphs, adopt as the value of any such shares or stock such sum as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the holder thereof would receive in the event of the company being voluntarily wound up on the date when the gift was made.”.

Section proposed to be amendnd -

For the purpose of computing the value of a gift -

no deduction shall be allowed encumbrance or liability ; and

where a gift includes any shares or stock in any company the shares or stock of which are not or is not quoted in the official list of any stock exchange, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, adopt as the value of any such shares or slock such sum as the holder thereof would receive in the event of the company being voluntarily wound up on the date when the giftwas made.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That paragraphs (a) and (6) of the clause he left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following: - ” (a) by inserting at the end of paragraph (b ) the word ‘ and ‘ ;

by omitting from paragraph (c) the word ‘ and ‘ (last occurring) ;

by omitting paragraph(d); and

by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections : - (2. ) Where the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is necessary that the following provisions should apply for the purpose of computing the value of a gift for the purposes of this act, the following provisions shall apply: -

The value of shares or stock in any company, whether incorporated in Australia or elsewhere, shall be determined upon the assumption that, on the date when the gift was made, the memorandum and articles of association or rules of the company satisfied the requirements prescribed by the committee or governing authority of the stock exchange at the place where the share or stock register is situate. for the purpose of enabling that company to be placed on the current’ official list of that stock exchange ;

No regard shall, in determining the value of any such shares or stock, be had to any provision in the memorandum or articles of association or rules of the company whereby or whereunder the value of the shares or stock of a deceased or other member is to be determined; and

Where a gift includes any shares or stock in any company the shares or stock of which are not or is not quoted in the official list of any stock exchange, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything contained in the last two preceding paragraphs, adopt as the value of any such shares or stock such sum as the holder thereof would receive in the event of the company being voluntarily wound up on the date when the gift was made. (3.) Any board or court having jurisdiction to determine, for the purposes of this act, the value of any shares or stock to which the last preceding sub-section applies, may substitute its own opinion for. or use its own discretion in lieu of, any opinion or discretion of the Commissioner under that sub-section.’ “.

The proposed amendments are for the purpose of giving expression to the views of the special committee which considered the clauses of the bill, that the new provisions introduced into the principal act by this clause should be made discretionary and not mandatory.In order to give effect to this it has been necessary to give to the Commissioner a discretion in the application of the provisions and then to make the exercise of that discretion by the Commissioner specifically subject to review by the Valuation Board and the court. It was necessary to include the court in this special provision as normally a court refuses to substitute its opinion for that of the Commissioner, unless it is, as in this case, given specific power to do so by legislation.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Objections and appeals).

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I should like to know the reason for this clause. I know that it limits for many good reasons the right of appeal. Sometimes, however, an assessment may be so small as to occasion a taxpayer no worry. He accordingly will not appeal. Will the effect of this clause be to prevent him from appealing against an amended assessment where the principle of assessment is the same as for the original assessment but the amount has been greatly increased?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I shall look into that. That was not the intention.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1406

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1942

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th May (vide page 931), on motion by Mr. Chifley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- One of the principal purposes of this bill to amend the Estate Duty Assessment Act, is to deal with problems arising in relation to the estates of deceased service men. T raised this problem on behalf of the Opposition when the principal act was under consideration towards the end of last year. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) promised to look into the matter and, if necessary, introduce amending legislation. This bill is th.e fruit of that promise. We pointed out on that occasion that, as the legislation stood, there was an exemption of £5,000 in respect of the estate of a member of the fighting services who was killed in the course of duty, but that, if the value of an estate exceeded £5,000 by only £1, the whole duty applicable to the estate would be collected. The Government has met our wishes to a degree by providing that the first £5,000 of value of an estate shall be free of duty, but that does not entirely satisfy. A man does not realize his normal expectation of life when he dies on active service, and the Treasury receives duty on his estate years earlier than would normally be the case. This problem was met in the last war by Parliament providing that no duty would be payable on the estates of persons killed on active service. The British Government exempts from duty the first £5,000 of value of a deceased service man’s estate and deals with the remainder in accordance with a formula which ought to be adopted by the Commonwealth Government. If a man’s expectation of life is shortened by, say, twenty years, the duty is levied on the amount which on compound interest at 3 per cent, would, after twenty years yield the amount of the present value of the estate. That is a logical and fair approach, to the problem. I understand that the Treasury has only two objections to the British practice, first, that it would involve some loss of revenue, and, secondly, that administrative difficulties would arise. As to the first objection, there could be little loss of revenue because very few service men would have estates to the value of £5,000. We have come to a sorry pass if in order to finance our war effort we have to rely on imposing duty on the estates of deceased soldiers. As to the second objection, little administrative difficulty could arise because of the fewness of the cases that would occur. The Treasury has devised a similar formula for dealing with life assurance policies in favour of widows on which the premiums had been paid by the husbands. There would be many more cases involving assurance policies than cases of ordinary estates. I impress upon the Treasurer the wisdom and equity of the scheme which has worked with success in Great Britain, and should on a proper view be equally meritorious and equally applicable in this country.

One defect of the bill is the omission of any provision dealing with civilians who may be killed as the result of war operations. In Great Britain, legislation passed in 1941 extended the relief available in the case of men of the services to civilians generally. That problem has not yet assumed any considerable dimensions in Australia, because so far we in this country have been fortunate in that civilians generally have escaped injury from enemy action, and, consequently, no great hardship has arisen. But on the assumption that our future in this respect will not be so happy. I submit that we should follow the British practice and apply a similar formula in respect of civilians who may be killed by enemy action in this country.

Cases of multiple deaths among civilians should be provided for. The bill makes provision for the multiple deaths of members of the services. Should one of two brothers die as the result of war service and his estate pass to the other, who also dies as a result of war service, there is no duplication of estate duty. In that respect we have adopted the British practice; but Great Britain had also before the war made special provision to meet cases of multiple deaths among civilians. The British law provides that should the succeeding death occur within twelve months of the first death, there shall be a remission of duty do the degree of 50 per cent. Should the succeeding death occur in the second year following the first death, the remission is 40 per cent. ; should the second death occur in the third, fourth or fifth year, the remission of duty is 30 per cent., 20 per cent., and 10 per cent, respectively. Honorable members who have had to act as trustees or executors of estates will be aware of the difficult problems of administration which arise when an estate of any considerable size has to be dealt with for probate purposes. Where that problem has to be faced for a second time in a space of a few years the difficulties become much greater. That situation has been mot in Great Britain in the manner that I have indicated, but no similar approach to the problem has been made in Australia. In that respect our legislation is incomplete. I emphasize these matters at this stage because of the change which has taken place during recent years in the rates of duty applicable to deceased estates. They did not have the same importance in pre-war years, because the rate of duty on deceased estates for federal purposes remained constant for a number of years, with the result that the average revenue from this source remained at about £1,500,000 per annum. In either 1940 or 1941, when the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) was Treasurer of the Commonwealth, the rate of duty on deceased estates was raised sufficiently to increase the revenue from that source to approximately £2,350,000. Legislation introduced by the present Treasurer to give effect to his latest budget proposals will, it is expected, bring to the Treasury another £650,000 annually from that source. Thus, it will be seen that in a period of about two years the estimated annual collections from estate duty have doubled. I ask honorable members to reflect on this situation, because if they do so they will find that these increases of duty represent heavy inroads upon the values of deceased estates. Honorable members will probably be astonished to learn that if the rates of estate duty which apply in the most heavily taxed Australian State are added to the estate duty imposed by the Commonwealth, the total collection from a deceased estate in this country is much greater than in Great Britain. I admit that, that fact astonished me, as I had always thought that estate duties in Great Britain were much heavier than in Australia. An estate of £30.000 in Great Britain would be subject to duty amounting to £3,900 compared with £5,522 for a similar estate in the highest taxed Australian State. The disparity is even more striking in respect of estates of higher value. The collection by the British Treasury from an estate of £100,000 would be £25,700, whereas in Australia it may reach £38,980. Some honorable members may think that, even with those deductions, the beneficiaries of a big estate can still be regarded as fortunate, but if we examine the situation as a practical problem of administration, itwill be seen that considerable hardship may arise when exactions are made on that scale.

Mr MENZIES:

– In many instances, there are few. if any, liquid assets.

Mr HOLT:

– That is so. Most large estates consist of property which, moreover, may carry a substantial debt by way of mortgage or lien of some kind. An estate consisting of a city business may he worth some hundreds of thousands of pounds on paper, but that value will be represented by fixed assets, raw materials, partly manufactured stock, book debts, and so on. If such a business were suddenly called upon to find two-fifths of its value for estate duty, it might easily be crippled, not only during the lifetime of the immediate beneficiaries, but for all time.

Mr Beck:

– That has happened already in many instances.

Mr HOLT:

– That is so. Possibly, this Parliament has not given to this matter the consideration that it deserves. During the last couple of years, the collections from this source for Commonwealth purposes have been practically doubled. I repeat that the Treasurer should regard this scale of taxation purely as a war-time imposition, which should be relieved as early as practicable when peace returns.

Mr Prowse:

– It happens only once.

Mr HOLT:

– That is so. In the case of estates which have to be realized in the period of the war, great hardship can be caused, and I agree with the implication contained in the interjection of. the honorable’ member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) that it is debatable whether even the stress of war-time finance justifies the continuance of the present heavy rates. The Treasurer should give earnest consideration to the problem of the civilian, and to the special problem of the service men. At present, no proper provision does exist in respect of succeeding deaths. .

The bill contains a number of amendments, based, I am informed, on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Taxation, which presented its report on matters relating to estate duty in 1934. Those recommendations have not previously been put in legislative form, and the Government has taken this opportunity to incorporate them in the act. “Whilst the Opposition does not resist any amendments which come within that category, I direct attention to one important provision, namely, that assurance policies which are made payable to the wife of the deceased shall, if the deceased has actually paid the premiums, form a part of his estate for purposes of calculating the duty. Some rather important consequences can flow from that amendment. When making provision either by will or other disposition, many husbands have taken into consideration the fact that a substantial life assurance policy will operate in favour of their wives. If a policy is to form a part of the estate and to carry the duty applicable to it, the provision that they made for their wives will be substantially less than they estimated.

Mr Beck:

– Is this a new departure?

Mr HOLT:

– Yes, in federal legislation. It will have serious consequences for many husbands who have made their arrangements on the assumption that in the event of their demise the total amount of the assurance policy will be available to the wives. One of the great advantages of a life assurance policy drawn in favour of the wife is that a certain amount of cash will be readily available to her upon the death of . the husband. If an estate be at all involved, it is often difficult to apportion from the estate ready money which can be available for the immediate needs of the widow and her family. The effect of this amendment will be to tie up for a considerable time the money which is normally available under the life assurance policy. If it be practicable, the Treasurer should provide for the exemption of a specified sum of £250 or £500 for the immediate use of the widow. Otherwise, the very provision which the husband has made in order to ensure that the widow will have ready cash in the months while the estate is being settled will be defeated.

Mr BECK:

– Will life assurance companies, under this amendment, be obliged to withhold payment until probate is obtained ?

Mr HOLT:

– I do not know how the Treasurer proposes to arrange for that. An estate of £100,000 might include a life assurance policy for £20,000. The total duty payable on the estate will be nearly £40,000. If the wife were paid the £20,000 under the life assurance policy, she might be able to dispose of it, or invest it unwisely. Any one of a number of things could happen to the money in the period during which the duty was being calculated and collected by the

Taxation Department. For that reason, I assume that the same restriction would be placed upon dealing with that money as that which would normally apply to any other asset of the estate. If the money were withheld, the object that th<* husband had in making provision for his wife to have ready cash immediately after his demise would be defeated. I ask the Treasurer to enlighten the House upon this matter. In the absence of any advice from him to date, I suggest that he should examine the possibility of exempting a portion of the proceeds of a life assurance policy in order to provide for the immediate needs of the widow. I understand that some formula has been evolved so that premiums which were paid prior to the enactment of this legislation will not be taken into account when the Taxation Department calculates the value of the estate for taxable purposes. But that does not deal with the point to which I have directed attention.

Mr Prowse:

– -Does the honorable member mean that the legislation will not have a retrospective effect?

Mr HOLT:

– That appears to be the intention of the Treasurer; all future premiums paid by the husband upon a life assurance policy drawn in favour of his wife will be regarded as being a part of his estate.

Mr PROWSE:

– What about the policy moneys that have accumulated over the years !

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– The accrued interest will not be subject to this provision.

Mr HOLT:

– The bonus payments?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Anything that has accrued, including premiums that have already been paid and bonuses, will not be subject to this provision.

Mr HOLT:

– I assume, from the interjection of the right honorable gentleman, that only premiums which are paid will form a part of the estate.

Mr Scullin:

– That has net been made retrospective.

Mr HOLT:

– On a policy for £1.000, a man might pay premiums totalling £200 before his death. The sum of £1,000 would form a part of the es:ate, subject to the provision relating to the prior payment of premiums. If the accrued bonuses totalled £250, they would not form a part of the estate.

Mr SCULLIN:

– They would not be subject to the taxing provision in this measure.

Mr HOLT:

– The surplus would be available to the widow?

Mr SCULLIN:

– Yes; and this measure will not cause the life assurance company to withhold payment to the widow of the amount due to her.

Mr HOLT:

– I repeat to the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) the problem that could arise in “a substantial estate of say, £100,000. It would be quite usual for the husband to insure his life for £20,000 in favour of his wife. At prevailing rates, nearly £40,000 would be payable in duty on an estate of £100,000. If the widow had the £20,000 paid to her immediately, and dissipated it before collection of tax could be made, the remaining £80,000 in the estate would have to bear the whole of the duty. That might operate very seriously against some of the other beneficiaries. I appreciate that it may not be easy to deal with these particular points as we proceed; but I ask the Treasurer to consider thenand, if he can do so, enlighten the House on them when he replies at the conclusion of the debate.

I again emphasize the view of the Opposition that, whilst recognizing that the Treasurer has investigated the problem placed before him during the last budget session, and has brought down a proposal which certainly effects improvement, at the same time it is to be regretted that he has not seen fit to adopt in its entirety the British scheme, which we regard ‘ as very much fairer. I can only repeat that the objections indicated to me as being those that have operated against the British scheme have not, in my view, sufficient weight to justify the discarding of the much fairer and more reasonable provisions in respect of those who are taking the risk of an untimely death and thus prejudicing the prospects of their estates and their beneficiaries. I ask the Treasurer again to take note of the very genuine representations that have been made to him in this matter, because in our opinion they are deserving of the sympathy and consideration, not only of the Government, but also of all sections of this House.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– Like the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), in the main I shall devote my time to clause 4, which relates to the estate duty that is payable in respect of the estates of members of the services, and to the rather wide questions which, I think, arise from the present state of war.

When this matter was raised by the honorable member for Fawkner last November, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) said that he had not had time to consider the representations that had been made; but he was good enough to promise to have them investigated, and, if possible, to bring down an amending bill. He now proposes in this bill to alter, the law in such a way that, instead of estates of under £5,000 being exempt, and estates of over that amount being fully hit, there is to be straight-out exemption of all estates, however large, to an amount of. £5,000. The honorable gentleman has also incorporated in sub-clause 2 of clause 4 a provision to meet the rather lamentable position that arises when an estate, owing to two consecutive deaths within a short space of time, becomes twice dutiable. Further - and this in my view is the right and handsome thing to do - the alterations are to apply from the commencement of the present war. I agree with the contentions of the honorable member for Fawkner. although he might have gone further. A fair test seems to be what was done in the last great war and what is being done in this war with respect to men who lose their lives, as members of the Navy, the Army, or the Air Force. In the last war, the following exemptions were made in respect of men who were at war, during their lives, and the estates of men who were killed while on war service : No duty whatever was levied by the Commonwealth against the estates of men who were killed in the field; they were completely exempt. In addition, from 1915 onwards, anybody who served in the field was completely relieved of federal income tax in respect of personal exertion income; and, from the time of its introduction in 1917-18, no war-time profits tax was levied against them. Those three exemptions one may describe as major exemptions; there is no half-heartedness about them. The law of the Commonwealth was, in fact, much more liberal than the then existing law in Great Britain.

What is the position in this war ? Our law is much less liberal than that of Great Britain, although the British Act remains substantially as it was in relation to the fighting services. All that Australia has done to exempt, in any sense, persons who are serving in the forces in this war, has been done, first, by the act of 1940, which is now being amended. The exemption for which provision was made in that act related only to such estates as were of a value of less than £5,000. It is not generous to say that, if a man happens to have, say, £10,000 or more, he shall be taxed on the full amount at precisely the same rates as if he was not a member of any of the fighting services, as if he had remained in Australia during the whole period of the war, and had not done a hand’s turn for his country. One must congratulate the Treasurer upon having taken steps to remove that reproach at least. There is another, and, I consider, a very meagre, parsimonious provision, which the Parliament made in 1940. It was, in effect, that the pay and allowances of troops enlisted for overseas service should be exempt from income tax only from the time of their departure from Australia. That is to say, the exemption applies, as regards the Army, solely to the Australian Imperial Force; and, even so, does not apply to a man who has volunteered for service overseas, but is not sent out of Australia. That is the law as it now stands.

There appears <to have been almost a complete lack of consideration of the property of those serving overseas, or in any branch of the fighting services, in the present war. I have dealt with the claim to consideration of those who are serving in one of the branches of the fighting services, and I shall return to it; but, turning aside for the moment, what of the great number of persons who are taking risks as volunteers in connexion with civil defence, and what of civilians who are killed as the result of enemy ration? They are not provided for in this bill, nor are their estates to be immune from Commonwealth taxation. If a man happens to be an air .raid precautions warden, a fire-fig!hter or a person neutralizing or extracting fuses from bombs- - a particularly hazardous occupation - and is killed, the Commonwealth, under the present law, will have no option but to descend on his estate for everything that it can get. What of the great number of women now serving in a semiofficial capacity? Nurses, members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment, and women engaged in work associated with the three fighting services are spread throughout Australia and beyond the Commonwealth. The risks they run are frequently infinitely greater than those of many regular soldiers who are retained for service in Australia. Provision is made under War Injuries Compensation and Civil Defence Volunteers Regulations for compensation for war injuries sustained by such persons, but that is a minor payment, the general idea being that consideration shall be shown, mainly by pension, to the cicumstances of persons who have little or no means, in the event of injury or death. I shall read a portion of a letter which I have received from the president of the Taxpayers Association of New South Wales. I do so, not because I think that the views of that gentleman will strengthen my case in the eyes of the Minister, but because I consider that what he has writtenis very fair. He states -

It is the opinion of ray association that the concession proposed should be extended in the following directions -

by granting to members of the fight-‘ ing forces who die as a result of active service an unconditional and complete exemption from estate duty;

by extending some exemption to civilians whose death arises from enemy action.

In regard to members of the forces it is felt that the sacrifice made by the person who gives his life in defence of his country is such that it is inappropriate to levy any duly upon his estate. The State of New South Wales allows an unconditional exemption in these cases and during the last war an outright exemption was allowed by the Commonwealth.

So New South Wales has set an example to the Commonwealth Parliament in this respect. In a subsequent place my correspondent writes -

In regard to civilians who may lose their lives as a result of enemy action we would suggest that the same principle of “ windfall revenue” applies. If hostilities reach our shores it is not unlikely that there will be a heavy death-roll amongst the civilian population, with the result that the Government would stand to collect duties perhaps many years before such estates fall to be charged.

There is also the position of civilians engaged in “ front line “ activities as for exable air raid wardens, ambulance drivers, Red Cross officials and the like who, while facing the hazards of war. are not covered by the amendment proposed.

It is almost inevitable that this matter will be brought to the attention of the Government again before long through the pressure of events. Personally, I agree with the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) that some provision should be made for civil defence volunteers and others who have been, or may be, killed. A recent air raid on Darwin resulted in the death of civilians. They were killed by enemy action. Millions of us who are not in Darwin have hitherto escaped, but is it to be suggested that civilians in Darwin arc to be wiped out of existence without the Commonwealth recognizing in any way the misfortune which they suffered ? If they happen to be well to do, is the Commonwealth to out in and get as much (revenue as possible because of their lamentable death, which in some cases was caused by the fact that they were doing something for their country? That would be quite unreasonable.

I agree with the last speaker that the practice in Great Britain is very fair. This proposal is on similar lines, but we could properly go farther and adopt the provision in the British measure which has regard to the expectation of life. That provision was put into operation in Great Britain throughout the last war, and is still a part of the British law. That suggests at least that it has been found to work reasonably and equitably. In Great Britain estate duty is not imposed on estates up to the value of £5,000. Beyond that value the expectation of life is calculated, and there is a corresponding deduction from the duty that would ordinarily have been paid. The honorable member for Fawkner gave to the House some interesting figures on this matter in November last. He pointed out that the normal duty payable in respect of an estate of £10,000 in Australia would be £300, whereas, if calculated on the British method, the duty would be only £40. On a £20,000 estate, the duty in Australia would he £1,200 and in England £239, whilst on a £50,000 estate the duty in Australia would be £6,000, and in England £1,435. I believe that a man is none the less worthy of consideration because he happens to have more money than the average citizen. Presumably, it is no easier for a wealthy man to give up his life than it is for a poor man. The deceased’s family is entitled to some consideration from the fact that he has given his life for his country, and this consideration should weigh all the more in Australia where we still have, in theory, and partly in fact, the voluntary system of recruiting. For my part, I believe in conscription. I do not believe that the voluntary system can be fairly applied, but it is our policy at the moment, and surely it is unwise to discourage men, whether rich or poor, from offering their services. Is this war any less important to Australia than was the last war? The conditions which, during the last war, applied to the members of our fighting services on duty overseas are beginning to apply more and more to the men now serving in Australia. Perhaps the Treasurer will be able to give reasons for treating our fighting men more meanly in this war than was done in the last war, but I can see no reason for it. It may he argued that our commitments are greater now because more men are serving, and that we cannot afford to be generous, but such an argument would not come well from a Government, which has just introduced legislation to extend great social benefits to a great many people who, no matter how deserving, cannot possibly have as strong a claim on our consideration as have the members of the fighting forces. Therefore, I intend, when the bill is in committee, to move an amendment to provide that the expectation of life, section of the English act be incorporated in this measure.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I protest against the provision in this bill for including in the estate of a deceased person for the purpose of assessing estate duties moneys received under a life insurance policy. Governments have always encouraged co-operative insurance companies such as the Australian Mutual Provident Society, and insurance can vassers have induced people to take out policies on the understanding that estate duties will not be levied on the proceeds of such policies. Thousands of men in Australia have taken out whole-life policies because they could not afford to pay the premiums on endowment policies. I cannot conceive of a more Christian act than that of the man who continues to pay premiums all his life on a policy from which he has no hope of ever benefiting himself, but which he takes out entirely for the benefit of his family. The Government, by this provision, is striking a blow at the devotion of such men, and’ detracting from the value of what they have done.

Mr Chifley:

– Nothing of the sort. Our purpose is to prevent cheating.

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– A man takes out a whole-life insurance policy to make provision for his family in the event of his death. If I understand this measure correctly, the money received upon such an insurance policy is to be added to the deceased person’s estate, and a big “ wad ‘’ taken out of it in the form of estate duty. If that is not the meaning, perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) will explain what is intended.

Mr CHIFLEY:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-r.iFi.ey. - This represents the combined wisdom of the special committee on taxation.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- This measure was discussed in Parliament last session, and many honorable members objected to the Government’s proposal to levy duty on the estates of members of the fighting forces who died on active service. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) promised to reconsider the position, but the measure is still harsh and inequitable, showing a lack of appreciation of the volunteers who sacrifice their lives in the defence of their country. The Government has not shown the regard for widows and dependants of deceased soldiers that was shown in the last war. Clause 4 of the bill provides exemption only up to £5,000. It reads as follows: -

Section 0 of the principal act is repealed n.nd the following section inserted in its stead d - “ D. - (I.) For the purpose of determining the value for duty of the estate of a member of the Naval. Military or Air Forces of the. Commonwealth, or of any part of the King’s dominions, or of any ally of Great Britain who, during the present war in which His Majesty is engaged, or within one year after its termination, dies on active service or as a result of injuries received or disease contracted on active service, there shall he deducted in respect of such part of the estate as passes to the widow, children, grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces of the deceased, a sum of £5,000, or where the value of that part is less than £5,000, an amount equal to the value of that part. (2.) Where any property in respect of which a deduction has been allowed under the last preceding sub-section later forms the whole or part of the estate of some other such member so dying, there shall be excluded from the estate of that other member so much of that property as passes to the widow, children. grand-children, parents, brothers. sisters, nephews or nieces of the other member.”.

During the last war, the estate of any member of the forces who died in those circumstances was exempt from probate duty. The members of our fighting forces in Great Britain were, in those circumstances, also exempt. I strongly urge the Treasurer to reconsider this provision. I fail to understand why the conditions applying in the last war should now be altered in any way. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has pointed out that the original Estate Duty Bill was introduced in 1914 by the then Treasurer, Mr. Andrew Fisher. On that occasion, Mr. Fisher said -

We might reasonably consider the point as to whether the estates of persons who are fighting the battles of this country should be taxed. I think that they should be exempted. They are taking exceptional risks on the battlefield while we are stopping at home. Whereas those who remain at home should be called upon to bear the full tax, those who are at the front should, in my opinion, be exempted.

At the committee stage of the bill, the following provision was inserted to meet the point: -

Nothing in this act shall apply to the estate of any person who, during the present war or within one year after its termination, dies on active service or as a result of injuries received or disease contracted on active service with the military or naval forces of the Commonwealth or any part of the King’s dominions.

The Government has now very definitely departed from the principles which were then enunciated by Mr. Fisher. I again urge the Treasurer to give this matter further consideration. If he cannot see his way clear to retain in full the benefits that were extended to members of our fighting forces in 1914-18, he should at least give them more favorable treatment than is proposed in this measure. I admit that Great Britain also has departed from the provisions which it applied to members of its fighting forces during the last war. However, the present British provisions are very much more liberal than those contained in this bill. When our young men are about to enlist in the fighting services, and while they are on active service, they are very concerned as to what may become of their wives and dependants if, in defending their country, they should be called upon to make the supreme sacrifice. I admit that we are now obliged to find unprecedented millions in order to meet our war commitments. But, surely, we can win this war, and provide sufficient supplies of munitions, food and clothing for our fighting forces, and meet all of our other financial obligations, without asking the soldier who dies fighting in the front line to contribute to the cost of -the war in this way. This measure does not treat the members of our fighting forces as sympathetically as they deserve. Unfortunately, in many cases, more than one member of the same family makes the supreme sacrifice. I ask the Treasurer to provide that, in such cases, the duty payable on the second death shall, as is done under the British legislation, be reduced as follows: -

In this matter I support the arguments advanced by the honorable member for Fawkner, and the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes). It has been stated that the objections to adopting the British proposal are: first, loss of revenue; and. secondly, difficulties of administration. We must be in a very sorry plight to put forward the first objection. The total amount involved is not more than a few hundred thousand pounds. This loss, I suggest, could very easily be made good in other directions. With respect to the second objection, I am sure that officials of the Taxation Department are capable of overcoming any administrative difficulties that might arise. I have always held our Public Service in the highest regard. I have no doubt that our taxation officials are equally as efficient, if not more so, than the public servants of Great Britain. Great Britain has overcome these alleged a dminitr ative difficulties, because this provision has operated in that country for some time. I can see no reason, therefore, why such an objection should be allowed to stand in our way.

I deplore the omission from this measure of certain personnel associated with our war effort, all classes of whom are entitled to the limited concessions granted in the bill. I refer to members of the various women’s organizations such as the “Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, and the Women’s Australian Auxiliary Air Force, and women’s organizations associated with the Army. I also ask for the inclusion of members of the Australian Nursing Service, who have already done wonderful work in this war, and the Voluntary Aid Detachments, who have gone overseas to assist them. These provisions should also be applied to all sections of air raid precautions workers. Should the occasion arise, these workers will render valuable service in the defence of this country. I repeat that an unanswerable case has been made out for a more liberal and sympathetic consideration of estates of deceased members of our fighting forces under this measure.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

. - I support the remarks made by honorable members on this side of the House. I take exception, not to what has been provided in this bill, but to what has been omitted. The principle of levying estate duty on men and women who have died as the result of enemy action is entirely wrong. The Government should not benefit financially as the result of deaths on active service. Money should not be taken from families that have already suffered the loss of, perhaps, the bread-winner. It is undeniable that under the terms of this legislation, the Government will derive more income from estate duty than it would in time of peace, because casualties have been and will be heavy. If the Government wants more income from estate duty the proper way in which to get it is by rais- ing the rate, not by including within the scope of the duty the families of people who have lost their lives as the result of enemy action. The estates of members of the fighting services should be totally and unconditionally exempt from estate duty, but, if that is not possible, the Government should adopt the British method, which, I understand, is on these lines: - The estate of a man killed by enemy action should be regarded for the purpose of calculation of duty as one not to be charged estate duty until the completion of his normal expectation of life. The amount of estate duty would be levied on an amount equal to the present value of the estate calculated at compound rate at 3 per cent over the period of the expectation of life. In other words, on the assumption that a 20-year-old man killed by enemy action had an expectation of life of another 20 years, and left an estate valued at £20,000, the estate duty would be levied on such an amount as at 3 per cent. compound interest would amount in 20 years to £20,000, the value of the estate. That is the equitable thing to do. It would give to the Treasury a reasonable amount of money. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) does not look sympathetic, but I suggest that he should give further consideration to the proposal. I can see no reason why the estates of civilians killed by enemy action should not be treated similarly to the estates of soldiers killed by enemy action. Civilians no less than soldiers have a normal expectation of life, and, if that expectation of life is shortened by enemy action, their estates should be treated for duty purposes similarly to the estates of soldiers. I do not think that the Treasury would lose much. At any rate, if it is not possible to extend to the estates of deceased soldiers total exemption from estate duty, the principle of expectation of life should be applied to whatever balance remains over the exemption of £5,000.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I do not intend to say a great deal at this stage, because the most important discussion will take place in committee; but I take this opportunity to point out that there is a vital difference between the attendance in this House to-day, when we are discussing estate duty, aud yesterday and last week, when widows’ pensions and other pensions were under consideration. I do not expect more than one Minister to be present, but the presence of only two members of the Labour party is a clear indication of what may be expected from some of our friends opposite when the new order has steam up and gets going.

Mr MARWICK:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– They are interested only in one side of the new order.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Tim difficulty is that there is only one side to the new order. So far as estate duties are concerned, I have always held the view, from the time I entered politics - first in the State sphere - that the Government has a perfect right, within limits, to levy all sorts of taxes on a man from the time he is born until he dies; but T also consider that one of the most indefensible forms of taxation is that which steps in when a man is no longer interested and says that out of what he has left, governments shall take a certain amount. I believe that is the most immoral form of taxation that one could impose. I say that not in any partisan sense, as the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) will realize; my criticism relates to estate duties generally and not to any matter contained in this bill.

Mr Holt:

– It is confiscation, not taxation.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It is a capital levy. It cannot truthfully be called anything else. It is a levy made on capital passing from the man who owned it to those to whom he has bequeathed it. This bill ha3 very interesting facetsfrom whichever point it is viewed. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) raised important points which, might well be taken into consideration by the committee in a serious fashion, and not by a committee so indifferent as the present attendance in. the House. The first question which must be taken up is what is the attitude of this Commonwealth towards the imposition pf estate duty on the estates of men who voluntarily answer the Government’s appeal to go on active service and who lose their lives on that service. I say that such estates should be dealt with in a separate category. It is entirely wrong morally and indefensible politi cally to tax the estate of a man who met his death on voluntary active service.

The second category includes those members of the community who, in times of war, are called up for the defence of their country. They should be treated differently from persons who volunteer to serve overseas and are killed. The third category includes civilians who are killed as the result of enemy action. In the past, it ‘has been customary to refer to such deaths as having been caused by acts of God, but now it would probably be more correct to say that they are caused by acts of the Son of Heaven in Tokyo. I admit that the Treasurer has done something to meet these different cases in fulfilment of the promise which he gave when the principal act was before this House last November. Of the Treasurer it can always be said that if he gives an undertaking to do a certain thing or to take a certain matter into consideration he will do so, generally with some result. I realize the difficulties confronting him, as does every honorable member on this side. We appreciate the energy with which he administers the most difficult and distasteful portfolio that any man can hold in time of war - the portfolio which involves the extraction’ of money from the people. This Parliament is entitled to lay down certain principles in connexion with the raising of money by means of a duty on deceased estates, but the details are matters for the committee stage rather than for the second reading. It is my intention to support the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Wakefield, and I hope that it will receive from the committee the consideration that it deserves. The ‘Government will probably argue that its proposals have been dictated by necessity; but whatever arguments may have been advanced last November, shortly after the present Government took office, have largely been vitiated by the Government’s own acts since then. When I see millions of pounds being distributed in all sorts of ways by the Government on its own initiative, I cannot concede on the score of necessity what otherwise I might have conceded. Indeed, in other circumstances, the Government might justly have demanded things which now, because of its actions in various directions, may reasonably be withheld.

Estate duties are levied by State parliaments, as well as by this Parliament. In view of the Government’s proposals in respect of uniform income taxation, I ask the Treasurer to say whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to treat estate duties in the same manner as the Government expects to act in connexion with income tax.

Mr Chifley:

– No.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I thank the Treasurer for that assurance.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

in reply - “When a previous bill was before the Parliament last year, the question of granting some further concessions in respect of the estates of deceased soldiers was raised, and I promised to consider the matter with a view to bringing in later any amendments found to be desirable. In fulfilment of that promise the present bill is before the House. In this connexion, I remind honorable members opposite that they had ample opportunity when the parties to which they belong were in office to do the things which they now urge me to do. That remark applies particularly to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) who was a member of a former Cabinet.

Mr Holt:

– The earlier bill was put through somewhat hurriedly.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Nevertheless, the fact remains that previous governments bad the opportunity to do the things which its members, now sitting in Opposition, suggest should be done. I mention this matter because from the remarks of some honorable members opposite it would appear that no such opportunity had ever been available to them. Evidently, the honorable member for Fawkner was unable to convince his colleagues in the Cabinet that the things which he now advocates ought to have been done.

Mr Holt:

– To my knowledge, the matter was never considered.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That is an admission that the matter was not regarded as sufficiently important to be raised when the earlier measure was before the Parliament.

Mr Holt:

– It was not under the notice of members.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Members are supposed to make an intelligent study of the legislation placed before them.

Mr Holt:

– At the moment, only two members of the Labour party, in addition to the Minister, are in the chamber.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am speaking not of the supporters of the present Government, but of the supporters of the previous Government, of which the honorable member for Fawkner was a member. I assume that when that Government contemplated introducing legislation it submitted its proposals to the members of the parties forming the Government.

Mr Holt:

– It never came before them.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I assume that the proposed legislation was submitted to the Cabinet, in which event the points now raised must have escaped the attention of about nineteen men.

Mr Holt:

– Yes.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– After that, the measure came into the House, but these matters still escaped notice. Even the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) did not then see the points which he has raised to-day. A study of the columns of Hansard would probably show that not one member who lias advocated amendments to-day spoke in a similar strain when in Opposition.

Mr Ryan:

– Some of us were not here when the previous bill was before the House.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I, like the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan), was not here then, and so I too am acquitted.

Mr Francis:

– The Minister now has his chance.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am pointing out that members now in Opposition also had their chance. Last November, I promised to give favorable consideration to the suggestions of the honorable member for Fawkner, to whom I give credit for raising these matters. I submit that the present bill goes a long way to meet the objections raised by the honorable member for Fawkner last year. The other matters which have been raised to-day, and. which involve a wide extension of concessions, were not raised then.

Mr HOLT:

– The necessity to make provision for civilians was raised.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– So far as I recollect, the inclusion of civilians in thi3 legislation was not previously mentioned. All that I can promise now is to examine the proposals that have been submitted. At this stage, I am not prepared to accept a series of amendments. For two and a half hours, the special committee considered various proposals and this series of machinery amendments represents the combined wisdom of that body. Its decision was unanimous.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Who are the members of the committee?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The Government representatives are Senator Courtice, the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), and myself. The Opposition representatives are the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fadden), the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), the honorable member for Robertson (M!r. Spooner), and Senator Spicer. I should add that the right honorable member for Kooyong was unable to attend the meeting of the committee when ‘ this subject was discussed. As this bill was introduced on the 6th May, honorable members have had ample time to submit to the committee for consideration any amendments that they had in mind. Unfortunately, they neglected to do so. They seem to take no interest in the matter until the bill is before the House, and then they proceed to find fault with it. I admit that sometimes I have been guilty of that.

Mr Holt:

– Amendments were pressed for yesterday in the Widows’ Pensions Bill.”

Mr CHIFLEY:

– That matter was not referred to a committee.

Mr Barnard:

– Was the decision of the Taxation Special Committee unanimous?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Yes.

Mr Holt:

– I understand that the representatives of the Opposition pressed for the adoption of the scheme based on the expectation of life.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I admit that the proposal was discussed. Whilst I do not profess to have a profound knowledge, of this subject, the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) is as well informed upon it as is any honorable member. If the Taxation Spe cial Committee is to be of value and to save the time of the House, honorable members should avail themselves of the opportunity to refer their suggestions to it instead of waiting until the bill is under consideration. I am aware that the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has been giving the matter consideration, but he knew that the measure had been referred to the committee.

Mr Holt:

– ‘My advice is that the representatives of the Opposition pressed for the adoption of the scheme that I advocated.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– My answer is that the report of the committee was unanimous.

Mr Prowse:

– A little explanation would assist lay members of the House.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Very well. People have used the business of life assurance for the purpose of deliberately evading the payment of estate duty. The honorable member may rest assured that the amendment will not affect payments that have been made prior to the enactment of the legislation. If life assurance policies are taken out in such a way as to result in an evasion of the payment of estate duty-

Mr Prowse:

– Who is to determine whether it is an evasion?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Provision will be made for that in the legislation.

Mr Francis:

– Will the Treasure accept the foreshadowed amendment?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– No. The Government has not had an opportunity to consider it, and I ask the Opposition not to press it. The matter was not considered by the previous government.

Mr Holt:

– I submitted the matter to the Treasurer some time ago.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Why did not the honorable member submit it to the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies or the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) ?

Mr Menzies:

– Put me in charge of the Government, and I shall consider it.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Why did not the honorable member for Fawkner submit the amendment to the previous Treasurer ? I shall bring to the notice of the Government the proposals of honorable members relating to the estates of service men, but I ask honorable members not to urge me to grant so many concessions that, in the final analysis, no one will pay estate duty. Honorable members might well claim that by congregating in this chamber to discuss the business of the country they are exposed to great danger. The same request for consideration could be advanced by munitions workers.

Mr Holt:

– That is so in Great Britain.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I am not prepared at this stage to grant further exemptions, and honorable members, having regard to the past history of this matter, should not expect me to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In. committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section eight of the principal act is amended -

  1. by omitting from paragraphs (a) and

    1. of sub-section (4.) the words “one year” and inserting in their stead the words “ three years”;
    2. by inserting after paragraph (e) of sub-section (4.) the word and paragraph: “ ; or (f) being money payable to any person under a policy of assurance on the life of the deceased where the whole of the premiums has been paid by or on behalf of the deceased, or, where part only of the premiums has been paid by or on behalf of the deceased, such portion of any money so payable as bears to the whole of that money the same proportion as the part of the premiums paid by or on behalf of the deceased bears to the total premiums paid?’; and
  2. by inserting in sub-section (5.), before the words “ to a fund “ the words “ as or “.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

.- I move-

That in paragraph (b ) the words “ any person”, proposed new paragraph (f) of subsection (4.), be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “, or to any person in trust for. the widow, widower, children, grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces of the deceased “.

That in paragraph (6) the word “and” (second occurring) be left out.

That after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph be inserted: - “ (ba) by inserting after sub-section (4.) the following subsection : - (4a.) Where a policy of assurance on the life of the deceased was in existence at the commencement of paragraph (f) of the last preceding sub-section, in ascertaining the money payable under that policy for the purposes of that paragraph there shall be deducted from the money actually payable an amount equal to the amount which, if invested at the date of that commencement and accumulated at three per centum per annum compound interest with yearly rests, would have produced, as at the date of death, an amount equal to the money actually payable.’”.

The first amendment gives effect to the decision of the committee to limit the durability of money payable on a policy of assurance on the life of the deceased, to the money so payable to the family and close relatives of the deceased. The committee considered that the limitation is necessary because it is not uncommon to find policies of assurance payable to strangers to cover interests which those strangers have in the life of the deceased. Creditors or partners, for instance, have an interest in the life of a person, and seek to protect that interest by taking out a policy of assurance upon his life. The second amendment is merely incidental to the previous and the subsequent one. The third amendment gives effect to the opinion of the committee that the application of the provision in the bill to life assurance policies should not retrospectively apply to policies of assurance taken out before the commencement of the act. It was considered that where such arrangements had been made under the law as it existed at that time, it would be inequitable to upset them by now taking what might be a substantial portion of the policy moneys in duty. It was therefore decided to exempt from the application of the section the present value of such policies. This is done by allowing a deduction from the actual proceeds of the policy at the date of death of an amount which is calculated to represent the value of the policy at the date of the commencement of this bill.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- It is quite usual for a husband to pay the premiums on a policy which is to operate after his death in favour of his wife or some other member of his family. In the past, such a policy has not been subject to estate duty, and the money has been immediately available for the needs of the beneficiary. The Government now proposes that, if the husband paid the premiums, the policy shall form a part of his estate for purposes of estate duty. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has described this long-established practice as a process of cheating on the part of the husband, and as an evasion of estate duty. That was a totally unfair and improper way to describe transactions of a kind which have been carried out regularly throughout Australia for many years with great benefit to thousands of families. Those transactions have been a direct encouragement to thrift and an incentive to provide for the security of families. In my opinion the Government is taking a retrograde step in this matter. The Treasury may benefit by a few thousand pounds in the immediate present, but the whole community will suffer ultimately. Transactions of the kind in question have been attractive to husbands who desired to make some provision, by means of the payment of a regular premium, in order to secure for their widows an amount of money which would be immediately available for necessary purposes. To describe this process as cheating and evasion is extremely unjust, for, as I have indicated, it is in fact an attempt to provide wives with adequate funds immediately following the death of their breadwinners. I say without fear of contradiction that thousands of men have taken out policies for this purpose in mutual and co-operative life assurance societies who would otherwise not have done so. I regret that the Government has adopted a procedure which will discourage such action in the future. There is neither cheating nor evasion in this process. I fear that the effect of these amendments will be to cause the less responsible and less honorable members of the community to adopt methods of evasion. Possibly wives will be asked to provide for the payment of these premiums out of their own allowances, or they may be given extra housekeeping money with which to pay the premiums. In either case a retrograde step will have been taken. The adoption of these amendments will undoubtedly strike a blow at institutions which have been of incalculable benefit to the people of the Commonwealth. The practice of assuring for the purpose of providing ready money for the payment of estate duty is desirable in my opinion and should be encouraged.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section nine of the principal act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - “9. - (1.) For the purpose of determining the value for duty of the estate of a member of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth, or of any part of the King’s dominions, or of any ally of Great Britain who, during the present war in which His Majesty is engaged, or within one year after its termination, dies on active service or as a result of injuries received or disease contracted on active service, there shall be deducted in respect of such part of the estate as passes to the widow, children, grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces of the deceased, a sum of Five thousand pounds, or where the value of that part is less than Five thousand pounds, an amount equal to the value of that part. “ (2.) Where any property in respect of which a deduction has been allowed under the last preceding sub-section later forms the whole or part of the estate of some other such member so dying, there shall be excluded from the estate of that other member so much of that property as passes to the widow, children, grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces of the other member.”.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I move -

That in proposed new sub-section (1.) of new section nine the words, “ For the purpose of determining the value for duty “, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ From the value “.

That in proposed new sub-section (1.) of new section nine the words “ one year “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof tho words “ three years “.

The first of these is a machinery amendment to correct a difficulty that might have arisen in the interpretation of the new provision which is being inserted in the act in respect of the estates of deceased members of the forces.

As to the second amendment, the special committee considered that it was not reasonable to confine the exemption granted to members of the forces to such members as may die after the termination of the war to a period of one year after that termination. It considered that the period should be extended to three years. This amendment extends the period accordingly.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
“Wakefield

– I move-

That after proposed new sub-section (1.) of new section nine the following new sub-section lie inserted: - ,: (1a.) From the duty payable on any estate from which a deduction is made in accordance with sub-section ( 1 . ) of this section there shall be deducted so much of the duties leviable in respect of the remainder of the estate as exceeds the sum which, if accumulated at compound interest at the rate of three per centum per annum from the date of death with halfyearly rests would, at the expiration of the period of the normal expectation of life of a person of the age of the deceased at the time of death (calculated in accordance with the Australian Life Tables published by the Commonwealth Statistician) amount to the whole of the duties so leviable.”.

The amendment is stated in highly technical language, but I submit it to honorable members in the form in which it appears in the English act, re-drafted by the Solicitor-General’s staff, with only slight variations to bring it into line with our bill. The purpose of the amendment is to apply to Australia a provision which has been in force in Great Britain for the last 28 years. Tho effect of the amendment briefly is to provide that, in respect of the amount in excess of the first £5.000 of the value of an estate, the tax due shall be calculated by deducting from the amount for which the estate would ordinarily be taxed by the amount by which it would be taxed based on a calculation of the expectation of life of the deceased. I discussed this aspect in my second-reading speech, and pointed out that, in my view, it was only reasonable that if a man were killed in the prime of life his estate should not be treated for estate duty as though he had lived for the length of time which, on an actuarial basis, he might have expected to live. The expectation of life in Australia is higher than it is in Great Britain. I consider that it is not reasonable that the estate of a man who dies, say, 50 years earlier than he might have been expected to die should be treated as though lie had lived the full term that he might have been expected to live. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) had a few words to say about the introduction of amendments of this nature at the present stage. I point out to him this is the first opportunity we have had this year to move amendments of this description.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The amendments could have been foreshadowed.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– This one was foreshadowed in my second-reading speech. Moreover, the honorable memmer for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) made a similar proposal of this description in this House on the 26th November last, when he said -

I suggest that the Government might consider the propriety of including such a provision in the Commonwealth law on this subject.

It is now claimed that the matter is sprung on the Government at the last minute.

Mr Chifley:

– As a matter of fact, it was considered and rejected by the special committee.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That surely does not prevent any honorable member from expressing his views?

Mr Chifley:

– I admit that it does not.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– So far as I know, and without disparaging any other honorable member, the honorable member for Fawkner has taken more interest in this matter than has been taken by all the other Opposition members of the committee combined. He is perfectly entitled and, if I may say so, amply competent, to express his view. I need not elaborate the point. The amendment, with the slightest variation, in order to bring it into line with Australian conditions, follows the provision in the British Act, which has been in existence for 28 years. It has been altered and amended by an officer of the Solicitor-General’s staff. It is exceedingly complicated, I admit; it i3 rather the work of an accountant than of a lawyer or a parliamentarian. But it has served the purpose of ensuring that the age of a man who loses his life, and his expectation of life, shall be taken into account in reducing the tax he would normally have to pay.

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

.- In supporting the amendment, I agree with the remarks of the honorable members for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) and Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron). The proposed exemption of £5,000 is inadequate. The point that I stress is that a great deal has happened financially since this branch of the legislature considered an exemption of £5,000 last November. The Government has reduced interest to a maximum rate of 4 per cent. That will mean that the value of a large number of estates of men who die on active service will be reduced by one-third. If it be desired that the matter shall he placed on a basis equivalent to that which existed when it was discussed last November, the exemption ought to be at least £7,500. The Government has reduced interest rates at a time when costs are soaring, the basic wage is rising, and pensions are being frequently raised in order to keep pace with other increases. At an interest rate of 4 per cent., a maximum exemption of £5,000 would represent only £200 a year, which is less than the basic wage in any State. The Government proposes that, if a poor devil volunteers and gives his life for his country, the exemption in respect of his estate shall be an amount which, at current rates of interest, would return less than the basic wage. The exemption is altogether inadequate. This Parliament and nation ought to show that generosity which our forefathers showed in the great war, or at least that generosity which British statesmen, and not Australian politicians, are showing at the present time.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I support the amendment submitted by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes). I gave my reasons for my attitude in speaking on the motion for the second reading of the bill. I do not accept, and I believe that other members of the Opposition do not accept, the suggestion that, because a proposal has been considered by a committee representative of all parties, members of this chamber should abide by the recommendations of . that committee. Some members of the Opposition have strong objection, to committees of this kind sitting at all, and do not consider that that is the proper and best way to conduct public business. One of the worst instances of parliamentary work being delegated to a committee was afforded by the appointment of a committee to consider the uniform taxation scheme.

Mr Chifley:

– That committee was not appointed by the Parliament.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No government may take it for granted that because the Opposition was represented on a committee that discussed a certain matter, the committee’s recommendations should be accepted. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Wakefield is well worthy of acceptance by honorable members generally, and will find support in the country. In view of the heavy and novel disbursements of revenue by this Parliament in the last fortnight, the Government is likely to find itself up against a dead end with regard to finance. The Commonwealth is drifting, willy nilly, slowly but surely towards grave financial difficulties as the result of recent legislation. The amendment provides for an act of justice to those members of the fighting forces who, having volunteered to give their services to their country, lose their lives.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– I shall refer again to the position that arose with regard to this proposal when the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) was closely associated with a previous government.

Mr Archie CAMERON:

– I was not in the Cabinet when the budget was framed.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– But the honorable member was associated with a party that supported the then government. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) was a member of the Cabinet. I remind the committee of the extraordinarily strange silence of members of the Opposition, including the honorable member for Barker, when a previous government dealt with the exemption of members of the fighting services from estate duty. The provision made by that government was that on estates having a value for estate duty not exceeding £5,000, no estate duty should be payable; that on estates not exceeding £10,000 the duty should be £300; that on estates of £20,000 the duty should be £1,200; and that on estates of £50.000. the duty should be £6,000. The proposal that I have put to the committee on behalf of the Government is that upon esta tes having a value for estate duty not exceeding £5,000 no duty shall be payable, but that on estates not exceeding £10,000 the duty should be £150, as compared with the previous government’s proposal for a duty of £300. As to estates up to the value of £20,000, the previous Government proposed a duty of £1,200, whilst the duty proposed by the present Government is only £665.

Mr Francis:

– That is based on amendments which the Opposition urged the Government to accept.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Certain representations were made by the honorable member for Fawkner, and in compliance with the promise given, I am proposing that the provisions introduced by the previous government be liberalized. I regard this as a generous proposal.

Mr Holt:

– Generous to us, or to the members of the fighting services?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It is generous to the members of the fighting services. In respect of estates of a value for estate duty not exceeding £50,000, the previous government proposed that the duty should be £6,000, but under the present Government’s proposal the amount of duty is to be only £4,950. The present bill provides that if a member of the fighting services died within three years after the conclusion of the war, the exemption would still operate, whereas the amendment of the law proposed by the previous government was that the exemption should apply for only twelve months after the conclusion of the war. Honorable members opposite should think well over the facts that I have presented. Under a. proposed amendment circulated by the honorable member for Boothby (Dr. Price) no estate duty is suggested on estates not exceeding £5,000, and only £40 is proposed to be collected on estates valued at £10,000, whilst on a £20,000 estate the proposed duty is £249.

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Those are not my proposals.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– I desire honorable members to know what happened with regard to the previous government’s proposals for amendments of the law when it had a large majority in both branches of the legislature. Members of the Opposition were strangely silent at that time. The honorable member for Boothby has proposed that on an estate valued at £50,000, the duty payable should be £1,435. Despite what has been said by the honorable member for Barker regarding the work of committees representative of the parties on both sides of the chamber, I consider that they render valuable service, and unanimous findings by such committees have always been accepted by the present Government. It is regrettable that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) was unable to attend the meetings of the committee which considered this matter. 1 resent the attempt by the honorable member for Barker to deprecate the work of committees representative of all parties in this Parliament, because they bring together men who are anxious to reach a solution, having regard to the views of all parties.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I deeply regret that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), rather than face up to the issue presented by the amendment, has sought to draw a red herring across the trail by accusing the Opposition of lack of interest in the subject-matter of this bill when it held ministerial office. From his long parliamentary experience, he must know that, in the preparation of budget legislation, points are frequently overlooked, and a later Parliament is called upon to rectify the mistakes. One of the useful functions performed by an Opposition, both in time of war and in time of peace, is to bring legislative anomalies to the notice of the Government. It is not sufficient for the Treasurer to say that the Opposition should have dealt more completely with this matter when it was in power. I have no doubt that when, with a twist of political destiny, the Treasurer again finds himself on the Opposition side, he will be able to point to many legislative measures brought down by his Government to which it will be possible for him to suggest amendments. I have in mind four bills in respect of uniform taxation and other bills providing new social services. The Opposition is quite entitled to offer suggestions for the improvement of the law. When I brought this matter before the Parliament during the last budget session in November last, I remarked -

I think it only fair to state that the relevant provision in our act was hastily drafted and introduced, and was not given the consideration by the House that its importance deserved. In moving the second reading of the bill, the then Treasurer, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) made passing reference to it, and the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) merely noted the observation that had been made. The subject was not debated.

On reference to Hansard, it will be seen that the measure was considered at a very late hour at a period when r,he Government was trying to get its budget legislation passed before the parliamentary recess. It is no answer to say that we could have done it at that time and did not. The Treasurer has giver: no definite reply to the arguments advanced in favour of the amendment. Certainly, he said that this bill was an improvement on the bill brought down during the last budget session. We agree, but we maintain that we have made out a case for still better treatment, and have justified our argument that the system which operated with justice in Great Britain during the last war, and which is still in operation there, should be adopted here also. I said before that only two possible objections to the amendment have been suggested to me. The first is that a certain amount of revenue would be lost, and the second is that the system which we propose might be difficult to administer. I think that we have successfully disposed of both arguments. Certainly the Treasurer did not refer to them in his reply. I regret that he has not recognized the justice of our case. Two other points were raised to which the Treasurer has given no reply. From the estates of deceased civilians, whose deaths are due to war causes, the Treasurer will, in effect, reap a windfall for the year in which the deaths occur. The Opposition suggests that here, again, the system in operation in Great Britain should be adopted in Australia, and that regard should be had to the expectation of life of the person killed, when working out the rate of estate duty properly applicable. I emphasize the fact that the matter of estate duties is of tremendous importance to the parties concerned. It is not just a matter of pay ing out of a large estate a lump sum which is readily available. Large estates are usually in the form, of a business in being, or of a landed property that is being worked. The payment of a large sum, running into tens of thousands of pounds in cash out of such an estate, may bankrupt it. The other point has to do with multiple deaths occurring in respect of the same estate. Where two deaths occur within a very short time of each other, a business or landed property included in the estate may be bankrupted because of the sudden heavy demands made upon it for estate duty. I ask the Treasurer to consider the adoption of the British system in which there is an abatement of duty if the second death occurs within five years of the first, ranging from 50 per cent, if the death occurs in the first year to 10 per cent, if it occurs in the fifth year.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- 1 agree with the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) .that, in the levying of estate duties, regard should be had to the principles of justice and equity, but I maintain that the Government has recognized those principles in framing this measure. It has for many years been recognized that, upon the death of a citizen, part of his estate should go to the public revenue. I recognize that the payment of estate duties sometimes causes embarrassment to persons administering a deceased person’s estate, but that is no reason why an estate of £50,000 should pay in estate duty only £1,435. which would be the case if the amendment of the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. DuncanHughes) were agreed to. The honorable member is always quite honest in his approach to matters of this kind, for which I give him due credit. He represents the wealthy section of the community, and wants it to be protected. If he can persuade honorable members that £1,435 is a fair contribution from a £50,000 estate-

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– A deceased soldier’s estate.

Mr BARNARD:

– It does not matter whose estate it is. This Government is doing more for the dependants of deceased soldiers than the last Government did. If anything, the provision in this bill errs on the side of generosity.

Mr Guy:

– Does the honorable member suggest that the Government is being too generous to the soldiers?

Mr BARNARD:

– Honorable members opposite are trying to make out that they are concerned in the welfare of the soldiers and their dependants. The fact is that, when they had the opportunity, they did very little for the soldiers. This Government is helping the soldiers and their dependants by increasing pay and allowances, and in this measure no injustice is being inflicted on any one.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) gave three reasons for not accepting the amendment. The first was that the amount which would he levied on the estate of deceased soldiers if the amendment were agreed to would be ridiculously small. I do not regard that as a valid objection. The whole object of the amendment is that the amount should be small. I think that the estate of deceased soldiers should be exempt altogether from estate duty. The honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard), in discussing this measure, referred only to large estates, but we want to place all soldiers’ estates on the same level, whether large or small. “We believe that a soldier’s estate of £6,000 should be treated in the same way as a soldier’s estate of £60,000. That is the principle on which the amendment is based. The Treasurer also said that the Government which was in power when this bill was first brought in failed to give effect to the principles which we are now advocating. I have no responsibility for what was done then; I was not here at that time, and neither were the other honorable members who have spoken in favour of the amendment. The Treasurer further stated that the proposal embodied in the amendment was considered by the special committee on taxation, and turned down. I believe that joint committees of members of both Houses have rendered very useful service from time to time. They have been instrumental in ironing out a number of difficulties, and I hope that they will continue to do good work, but that is no reason why this amendment should not be accepted. Joint committees are no more infallible than is the Government or this committee. When a mistake is made by a committee or a government, the matter should be reconsidered and judged on its merits. It is never too late to correct a wrong.

Mr. FRANCIS (Moreton) [8.991.The proposals which we are now discussing were before this Parliament six or seven months ago. On that occasion, certain proposals were put forward by honorable members on this side of the chamber, and the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) undertook to examine them and, if he were convinced of their justice, to bring in a bill in which they would be embodied. He has chicled us to-night because we have proposed a further amendment designed to give special consideration in respect of estates of members of the fighting forces. He said that we ourselves should have made such provision long ago. The Treasurer’s proposal is but a pious proposition. It is six or seven months since we discussed this matter previously. After examining the proposition, and considering representations made in the direction we now propose, and also representations made at a recent meeting of the special committee, the Treasurer now brings down not six amendments, but six pages of amendments. In such circumstances, can he seriously say that the proposal we now make in order to benefit members of the fighting forces must be disregarded because the Government has not had time to consider it? It is very seldom that six pages of amendments are proposed by the Minister in charge of a measure such as this. The Opposition asks that the estate of a man who voluntarily enlists in the fighting services and is killed in action, or dies as a result of war service, within three years shall not be subject to estate duty. The imposition of estate duty obviously depletes the estate to the disadvantage of the soldier’s widow and dependants. The Treasurer has accepted our proposal that estates up to a value of £5,000 should be exempted from duty. The Opposition has achieved that much in this debate. I again urge the Treasurer to go a step further and liberalize the provision in respect of the expectation of life of members of the forces for the purposes of assessing estate duty. It can reasonably be presumed that a member of the forces who is killed on active service at, say, the age of 22, or 23 or 24, would normally live to an age of 60 or 65. We ask that exemption from duty be provided in respect of an amount calculated at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum, compound interest over the term of normal expectation of life. That provision is embodied in the British act. That is the effect of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. DuncanHughes). I contend that it is a reasonable compromise on the proposal submitted by the Treasurer. I note with pleasure that the Treasurer has accepted the Opposition’s suggestion to reduce the rate of duty payable on the death of a second member of the forces in the same family. The proposals we now submit are equally, if not more important than those which the Treasurer has already agreed to. I renew the request which I made this afternoon that the benefits of this measure be applied to members of women’s war organizations, such as, the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force Service, the Australian Women’s Army Service, the Australian Army Nursing Service and the Voluntary Aid Detachments, who are performing war service in which they may lose their life. I also urge the inclusion of members of all air raid precautions organizations who are directly concerned with civilian defence. These proposals are just as important as the six pages of amendments standing in the name of the Treasurer. Most of them were discussed when this matter was last debated in this Parliament. All of them are equitable. I am certain that the public of Australia would appreciate their adoption by the Government on behalf of the widows and dependants of members of our forces who make the supreme sacrifice.

Mr FALSTEIN:
Watson

.- It is remarkable that honorable members opposite should propose an amendment which is patently intended to benefit persons having large estates.

Mr Ryan:

– Why?

Mr FALSTEIN:

– The amendment moved by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) proposes that in addition to the exemption limit of ?5,000 already granted in respect of the estate of a person who dies on war service, exemption should also be granted to an amount calculated at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum, compound interest for the period of normal expectation of life according to tables compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician. It is obvious that the majority of members of the fighting services do not own estates of a value greater than ?5,000. Indeed, how many of them would own estates valued at more than ?1,000? It is very patent that generally the value of estates of members of the fighting services would not exceed the exemption limit of ?5,000. That being so, why should an additional exemption be provided in respect of a sum computed at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum, compound interest for the normal period of expectation of life? How many members of our fighting services would qualify for such exemption? On the other hand, such a provision might operate unfairly to the advantage of estates up to a value of ?100,000. That could be the case should the owner of a very large estate be killed on active service at a comparatively youthful age. The Treasurer’s proposal definitely expresses the Government’s appreciation of the services being rendered by volunteers serving in the front line. I am under no illusion that very many civilians will perform service in this war equivalent to service in the front line.

Mr Holt:

– We propose that civilians be included.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– The Opposition’s amendment would defeat its own purpose. The Treasurer’s proposal definitely makes a distinction in favour of those persons who actually bear arms, as compared with civilians. I do not think that any honorable member opposite would suggest that no distinction should be made between men who da the actual fighting in the front, line and civilians.

Mr Holt:

– Has the honorable member studied the British practice?

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I am not concerned with the British practice. What this Parliament is concerned about is the best practice to be adopted in respect of Australians serving in this war.

Mr Holt:

– The honorable member knows what a Labour government did in the last war.

Mr FALSTEIN:

– I know that the Government of which the honorable member was a member did nothing in this war. The Treasurer’s proposal adequately expresses the Government’s appreciation of the distinction to be made between men actually serving in the front line and civilians who may become casualties but who are actually in the rear. The amendment moved by the honorable member for Wakefield is dearly designed to advantage members of the fighting forces who have large estates. In my opinion such persons should not be so advantaged. As one who is about to enter upon training for service in an air crew, and as one who may possibly be the subject of this particular provision, I am satisfied that the bill makes adequate provision in this respect.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– It is regrettable that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has not dealt with the merits of my amendment. Instead, he concentrated on the class of people whose (.’.-. talus may be assessed. He dealt almost solely with’ an estate valued at £50,000. I. also ‘mentioned that class of case. So -far as I am personally concerned, I agree with the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan). I am of opinion that all estates should be free of duty, provided that the owner lose his life as the result of service in the fighting forces. That principle was applied in the .last war. Why should it not be applied on this occasion? Is this war of less importance than the last war? Is it further away from our shores than was the war of 1914-1S? However, my present proposal is not to exempt all such estates entirely. It represents a compromise and ensures that the Government shall obtain considerable revenue from the larger estates. The British law which makes provision along these lines has been in existence for 2S years. I also point out that the law of New South Wales completely exempts from estate duty the estate of any man who loses his life on active service. The Treasurer contended that my amendment represents a benefit solely in respect of a big taxpayer. My proposal, however, must be read in conjunction with the provision in the hill that estates up to a value of £5,000 are to be completely exempt. It is only in respect of estates exceeding that value that a qualified form of duty is to be levied. We have not incorporated in this measure all of the provisions of the British act, and I point out that the British act of 1914 has a further provision giving such estates the benefit of the most favorable of two. different methods of assessment.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act this Parliament makes no distinction between soldiers in the payment of pensions in respect of injuries or disabilities suffered as a result of active service. The same pension is payable irrespective of whether a man has nothing or is worth £100,000. It should ,be difficult for any government to say that what a man killed on active service leaves to his widow and children shall be taxed. The Government is fully entitled to say to a soldier who returns from war that it will tax his income at such and such a rate, or, perhaps, even impose a capital levy on it, for some people have talked about a capital. levy and some day such a levy may be practical politics in .this country. The Treasurer has said quite truthfully that I was a member of a government during this war; but I have never been Treasurer, and was not in the Government when its budget was presented. All Ministers know perfectly well that after conducting their departments they have not a great deal of time in which to tell the Treasurer how he should frame his budget and what taxes he ought to impose. If- an error, oversight, or injustice has been done through some act of omission on the part of the men who were Ministers in governments formed by this side, there is no logical justification in attempting to perpetuate that error, oversight, or injustice. The Treasurer referred to the generosity shown to people affected, by this bill. I am not concerned about generosity, but I am concerned about justice, and I believe that the amendment of the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) is just and should be acceptable to this committee and to the Commonwealth. T shall therefore support it.

Mr. BRENNAN (Batman) [9.48 J.- It is quite evident that the argument of honorable gentlemen opposite is directed to the interests of the rich and that it has little or no relevance to the common soldier. The exemption of £5,000 completely cuts out the vast army of men who, if they lose their life in this war, in the worldly sense, lose everything. A great deal has already been done in this legislation on behalf of the numerically insignificant officer class. The exemption of £5,000, it must be remembered, means the exemption of £5,000 net after deducting all of the imposts and obligations which may be attached to an estate. The first £5,000 of the value of an estate is exempted regardless of whether the estate be worth £50,000 or £100,000. I desire to indicate what Parliament’s attitude lias always been towards what E may describe as the “ officer class for whom honorable members of the Opposition are manifesting extraordinary concern. Parliament has always recognized the claims of the dependants of deceased officers by granting to them pensions and allowances based on the salary which was paid to those officers when they were alive, with the result that their pensions and allowances have always been almost, infinitely greater than those payable to the widows and dependants of private soldiers. I myself have never been prepared to admit that the loss of the life of a soldier is any less a loss than the loss of the life of an officer, but Parliament has taken the attitude that it is, and based its pensions legislation accordingly. So great is the solicitude of honorable gentlemen opposite for the wealthy that they would incorporate in Commonwealth legislation something which evidently is a part of British legislation. The British Parliament traditionally has always been much more class conscious than, Providence be praised, this Parliament has ever been.

Mr Holt:

– The Labour Government in New South Wales entirely exempts from duty the estates of deceased soldiers.

Mr BRENNAN:

– I am not familiar with what the Parliament of New South Wales has done in that regard, and whatever it lias done will not affect my judgment of the merits of the matter. We should get on with the interests of the common people and the common soldiers of this country before we devote any further time to the class, the protection of whose interests appear to be the main business of honorable gentlemen opposite.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
1 give to the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley · Parkes [S.5SJ.

all credit for having introduced this legislation in order to carry out his promise to the Opposition that if he found that its contentions were borne out he would amend the Estate Duty Assessment Act which we passed last year. 1 look upon the Treasurer as a most fair-minded man. He gives consideration to every case put to him.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– What has he promised tt> the honorable member?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– He ha*, promised and granted to me what I can never expect to receive from the honorable member for Batman.

Mr Holt:

– Courtesy?

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– No, the honorable member for Batman has always been courteous to me, but, when he was a Minister, no representation that I made to him ever bore fruit. But the Treasurer gives fair consideration to every case submitted to him. It is regrettable that political turmoil should arise out of a discussion in this National Parliament of such a matter as the death of men on active service and the treatment of their women folk. I regard it as indecent that honorable members of tho Opposition should be accused of representing only one class in the community when they propose amendments to legislation placed before them. In the last war many wealthy men refused to accept promotion from the ranks so that those less fortunate than themselves in civil life could be appointed to the higher positions. Among them were many men whom I am proud to call my friends. Unfortunately, there arc in the community many people who regard the present war situation with complacencyThey say, in effect, “Let George do the job. We will wave flags when others go off to fight and we will be the first to welcome them when they return “. This bill provides an opportunity to do something for the dependants of men who lose their life in the service of their country. There was a time when every man who served in the volunteer forces of his country was granted a piece of land as his right. The Treasurer said this afternoon that he was prepared to have a full investigation made of the matters that have been raised. We cannot ask him to do more at the moment, but I am confident that when the investigation is made he will accede to the request of the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes). The proposals ‘before us do not contain any provision to meet the needs of women who are doing important and valuable work for their country.

Mr Chifley:

– That is not quite correct. I cannot allow the honorable member to mislead himself.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The subject before us is too big to become a matter for party political wrangling. We should recognize in our legislation that no man can do more than offer his life for others, t am content with the promise of the Treasurer to investigate these matters further, for I believe that when he has done so he will be found in agreement with the honorable member for Wakefield.

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · Macquarie · ALP

– Earlier to-day the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) referred to the necessity to make provision for the multiple deaths of civilians killed as the result of enemy action. I am prepared to examine that subject. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) raised certain questions regarding women who may he killed as the result of enemy action. The position is that any member of a women’s auxiliary force which forms part of the defence forces of the

Commonwealth comes under these proposals, and will be treated the same as a soldier. That is the interpretation which has been adopted by the Taxation Department. I shall have to examine the position as to women who are members of organizations which are not part of the defence forces of the Commonwealth.

Mr Francis:

– Are war nurses covered ?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– Yes.

Mr Francis:

– What is the position of members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment?

Mr CHIFLEY:

– It all depends on whether that organization forms part of the defence forces.

Mr Francis:

– There are 200 members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment overseas.

Mr CHIFLEY:

– The interpretation which has been accepted is that members of women’s auxiliary organizations which form part of the defence forces come under the provisions relating to soldiers; but that does not mean that every woman who engages in war work is covered. I shall look into the several matters which have been raised.

Question put -

That the new sub-section proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Duncan-Hughes’s amendment) .

The committee divided. (The ChairmanAyes Noes

. . 11

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority -Mr. Prowse .. 19 . . 30

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to-

That the following new sub-section be added to proposed new section S: - “‘(3.) Where the question as to whether such a member has or has not died as a result of injuries received or disease contracted on active service has been finally determined for the purposes of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-1941 by an authority constituted under that act, the certificate by that authority that that member has or has not so died shall, for the purposes of this act, be conclusive evidence that the member has or has not so died, as the case may be.’ “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 -

After section sixteen of the principal act the following section is inserted: - “ 16a. For the purpose of assessing the value for duty of an estate for the purposes of this act -

where the estate, includes any shares or stock in any company the shares or stock of which are not or is not quoted in the official list of any stock exchange, the Commissioner may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything contained in the last two preceding paragraphs, adopt as the value of any such shares or stock such sum as, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the holder thereof would receive in the event oi the company being voluntarily wound up on the date of death.”.

Amendments (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to-

That in proposed new section 16a the words “ For the purpose of assessing the value for duty of an estate for the purposes of this act “ he left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ Where the Commissioner is of the opinion that it is necessary that the following provisions should apply for the purpose of assessing the value for duty of an estate for the purposes of this act, the following provisions shall apply: - “.

That in paragraph (o) of proposed new section 16a the words “ , in the opinion of the Commissioner,” be left out.

That at the end of proposed new section IGa the following new sub-section be added: - “‘(2.) Any board or court having jurisdiction to determine, for the purposes of this act, the value of any shares or stock to which the last preceding sub-section applies, may substitute its own opinion for, or use its own discretion in lieu of, any opinion or discretion of the Commissioner under that sub-section.’”.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 -

Section eighteen a of the principal act is amended– (a.) by omitting paragraphs (») and (6) of sub-section (1.) and inserting in their stead the following paragraphs: - “ (a) where the whole of the estate passes to the widow, children or grand-children of the deceased -

where no part of the estate passes to the widow, children or grand-children of the deceased - “ and (ft) by omitting from paragraph (c) the words “by will, intestacy, gift inter vivos or settlement “.

Amendments (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That in proposed new paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 . ) of section 1 8a, after the word “ passes “, the following words be inserted : “ by will, intestacy, gift inter vivos, settlement or right of survivorship “.

That in proposed new paragraph (h) of sub-section (1.) of section 18a, after the word “ estate “ the word “ so “ be inserted.

That in paragraph ( 6 ) of the clause all the words after “paragraph (c) “be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “of subjection (1.) the words ‘or settlement’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘, settlement or right of survivorship ‘ “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 -

Section 24 of the principal act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the following proviso: - “Provided that, where the assessment is an amended assessment, the administrator shall have no further right of objection than he would have had if the amendment had not been made, except to the extent to which by reason of the amendment a fresh liability in respect of any particular is imposed on him or an existing liability in respect of any particular is increased.”.

Amendment (by Mr. CHIFLEY) agreed to-

That clause 8 be left out with a new to insert in lieu thereof the following’ new clause :– “ 8. Part V. of the principal act is repealed and the following part inserted in its stead: -

Provided that, where the assessment is an amended assessment, an administrator shall have //0 further right i f objection than he would have had if .the amendment had not been made, except to the extent to which, by reason of the amendment, a fresh liability in respect of any particular is imposed on him or an existing liability in respect of any particular is increased. (2.) The Commissioner shall consider the objection and may wither disallow it or allow it either wholly or in part. (3.) The Commissioner shall give to the objector written notice of his decision on the objection. (4.) If the objector is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner lie may, within thirty days after the service by post of notice of that decision - [a) in writing, request the Commissioner -

Provided that upon good cause shown, the Valuation Board may, within the prescribed time, re-open the matter and review the value assigned to the property in the assessment. (C.) The objector may, within thirty days after the Valuation Board’s decision, request the Commissioner, in writing, to refer his objection, so far as it relates to grounds not dealt with by the Valuation Board, to a Board of Review or to the High Court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth. (7.) The Commissioner or the objector may, within thirty days after the date of the Valuation Board’s decision, appeal to the High Court from any decision of the Valuation Board in this connexion, which, in the opinion of the High Court, involves a question of law, and the Valuation Board shall refer to the High Court any question of law arising before the Valuation Board, and the decision of the High Court shall be final and conclusive.

Provided that upon good cause shown, the Board of Review may, within the prescribed time, re-open the matter and review the assessment. (U.) For the purpose of reviewing the assessment, a Board of Review shall have all the powers and functions of the Commissioner in making assessments, determinations and decisions under this Act, and such assessments, determinations and decisions of a Board of Review and its decisions upon review, shall for all purposes (except for the purpose of objections thereto and review thereof and appeals therefrom) be deemed to be assessments, determinations or decisions of the Commissioner :

Provided that a Board of Review shall not reduce or increase any value assigned in the assessment to any property, but shall accept us final the value assigned to the property by the Commissioner, or, where the value “ has been reduced or increased by a Valuation Hoard, by the Valuation Board. (7.) The objector may, within thirty days after th« decision of the Board of Review, request the Commissioner, in writing, to refer his objection, so far as it relates to the value assigned to any property in the assessment, to a Valuation Board. (8.) Where a Board of Review has reviewed any assessment and given any decision thereon and the value assigned to any property in that assessment is subsequently reduced or increased by a Valuation Board, the Commissioner shall vary the assessment to give effect to the decision of the Valuation Board. (!). ) The Commissioner or the objector may, within thirty days after the decision of a Board of Review, appeal to the High Court from any decision of the Board of Review in this connexion which, in the opinion of the High Court, involves a question of law, and t he board shall refer to the High Court any question of law arising before the Board of Review, and the decision of the High Court -hall be final and conclusive.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 9 - (1.) The amendments effected by sections three, five and six of this act shall apply to the estates of all persons dying on or after the date of the commencement of this act. (2.) The amendment effected by section four of this act shall apply to the estates of all such members so dying on or after the third day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty -nine. (3.) The amendment effected by section seven of this act shall apply to all assessments issued on or after the date of the commencement of this act. (4.) The amendment effected by section eight of this act shall apply to all amendments made on or after the date of the commencement of this act to assessments.

Amendments (by Mr. Chifley) agreed lo-

That in sub-clause (2) after the words “thirty-nine” the following words be added : - “ , and any assessment made prior to the commencement of this act may, in order to give effect to thai amendment, be amended notwithstanding anything contained in section twenty of the principal act as amended by this net.”.

That in sub-clause (3) the words “amendment effected by section seven “, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ amendments effected by sections seven and eight “.

That sub-clause (4) be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 2a.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

Thatthe following new clause be inserted after clause 2 : - “2a. Section three of the principal act is amended -

by inserting after the definition of Assistant Commissioner ‘ the following definition: -

Board of Review ‘ means a Board of Review constituted under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 or under that Act as amended;’; and

by adding at the end thereof the following definition : -

Valuation Board “’ means a Valuation Board constituted under the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1927 or under that act as amended.’ “.

New clause 8a.

Motion (by Mr. Chifley) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted after clause 8: - “8a. Section thirty-five of the principal act is amended by omitting the words ‘ devised or bequeathed or passes by gift inter vivos or settlement for religious scientific charitable or public educational purposes ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘exempt from estate duty by sub-section (5) of section eight of this act.’”.

Title agreed to.

Rill reported with amendments; report by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1432

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

Motion to Disallow Regulations

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

.- I move -

That the National Security (Employment of Women) Regulations under the National Security Act, made by Statutory Rules 1942, No. 146, be disallowed.

This statutory rule deals with certain aspects of the employment of women in time of war. I am not proposing to discuss the general question as to whether and to what extent women should be employed in the course of war, because in point of fact, I have no criticism to offer of the policy which has been pursued of bringing women more and more into the service of the country for war purposes. It is not only inevitable at a time like this, but also a good thing that every body in the community - man or woman - should learn a sense of responsibility for what is going to happen to the country. As the spokesman of the Opposition for this purpose, I want to direct my attention to the question not of whether women should be employed and how they should be paid for that employment, but of whether this statutory rule, which sets up a special tribunal to deal with the wages and conditions of women workers, should be approved.

This statutory rule, I submit, cuts right across the general principle of arbitration for which this Parliament has stood for many years, and the principle of adherence to arbitration for which the Opposition parties have stood in season and out of season for a very long time. What is done under the regulations contained in the statutory rule is worth examination. In the first place, regulation 5 provides that the Minister may appoint a Womens Employment Board, and then it proceeds to deal with the personnel of that body. I shall return to that in a moment, because it is a matter of some importance. The Minister may appoint a Women’s Employment Board, and the board, by a subsequent regulation, is given certain authorities in connexion with this matter. What are those authorities? Regulation 6 provides that where an employer, because of a shortage or impending shortage of male labour, desires to employ females on work for which the rate of payment for male employees has been determined by any industrial award and for which a rate of payment for female employees less than the rate for male employees has not been so determined, he may make application to the board. In other words, if a person wishes to employ a woman at a rate less than that prescribed for a man, he shall under the conditions set out in this regulation, apply to the board for permission. I pause to draw the attention of the Minister to this point. A person who makes any such application - that is an employer - shall forthwith furnish one copy thereof to the secretary of the department, and one copy to such organization or to each of such organizations of employees as the chairman of the board specifies. In other words, provision is made for an employer who makes such application to give notice to unions, but not to organizations of employers. The trade union movement generally may be told about this. It may organize itself, approach the tribunal and ask for representation; but the employer, unless he chooses by some private arrangement to tell somebody else, has no means of notifying associations or organizations of employers. That is a small matter, but I mention it in passing.

Provision is also made for the manner in which the board shall deal with the matter. It is to determine the character of the work to be done, whether females may be employed, and the wages and conditions that shall be applicable to that particular prospective female employee. Sub-regulation 5 of regulation 6 provides that in deciding the percentage of the rate of payment for males to be paid to females the board shall take into account the efficiency of females in the performance of the work and any other special factors which may be likely to affect the productivity of their work in relation to that of males. I pause here to point out that the board is not told that it shall take into account the family obligations of the female employee. It is merely told that it must take into account her volume of production and her efficiency. There may be very many cases in which that is a very proper test; but I direct the attention of honorable members to the fact that for very many years, the basic wage has been determined on a family or social principle. When the Harvester standard was established in this country by the late Mr. Justice Higgins, he did so on the basis of a man, his wife, and three children. It is quite true that since then, there has been a slight increase of real wages, then a marked reduction during the economic depression, to be followed by two or three stages in which wages were restored on a. new basis. The result was that, in effect, the basicwage earner is getting to-day what the Harvester standard sought to give to him. Whether it is statistically correct to say that the average workman has a wife and three children is not the point. I suppose that on the average, the basic-wage earner has a wife and a fraction of a child, or a child and a fraction. But the truth remains that we have fixed basic wages in Australia on the principle of the social or family responsibility of the basic-wage earner. That, I would have thought, was a matter which should be considered by tribunals dealing with the wages of a worker. It is not for me to say what answer they should give. It is not for anybody in this House to say what answer they should give. But that that is a material factor to be taken into account is not only my opinion; it is also the settled practice of the Arbitration Court for a great number of years.

The regulation then proceeds, because the draftsman has recognized that one cannot in all circumstances prescribe the same wages for a woman as for a man, that the percentage to be paid to a female shall not be less than 60 per cent, nor more than 100 per cent, of the rate of payment determined for adult males employed on similar work. The comment which need be made at this stage is this-

Mr James:

– Females should get the same rate as males if they do the same work.

Mr MENZIES:

– I understand that a great number of current awards of the Arbitration Court dealing with the wages paid to women provide that females shall be paid 54 per cent, of the male wage. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, or whether it is too high or too low. I am not in a position to say. But I know that as the result of the prescription of 60 per cent., these regulations definitely operate so as to alter the percentages which have already been prescribed by industrial tribunals.

Mr Rosevear:

– According to the reasoning of the right honorable gentleman, it would be impossible for females to give equal work for equal pay.

Mr MENZIES:

– It would not; but if a woman were doing the job of a basicwage earner and received the basic wage, the honorable member would have some difficulty in justifying the payment to her of the same basic wage as that received by the male, because the male worker’s wage is determined upon family responsibilities. Some payments have the basic wage as an ingredient. Others are payments for skill, or production, or what-you-will. In those cases, if the test is skill or production, that test ought to be applied equally irrespective of the sex of the worker. A great deal of work in this country is done ‘by people on the basic wage. For many years, the basic wage has been designed to provide for a man with responsibility as a social unit.

Mr Rosevear:

– But in practice, bachelors are paid the basic wage.

Mr MENZIES:

– Quite so.

Mr Rosevear:

– And if bachelors, why not spinsters?

Mr MENZIES:

– A bachelor is paid the basic wage because a bachelor, in the normal order of things, looks forward to becoming a husband and the head of a family. The basic wage has been paid to bachelors because of that fact.

The only other point of detail I shall mention is that this special tribunal will make decisions in relation to various industries, and those decisions will operate irrespective of the fact that they may be utterly inconsistent with decision made by the Arbitration Court. Within the limits of its jurisdiction, this special tribunal has been given an over-riding authority in relation to the employment of women.

So far, I have referred to matters of detail, which might provoke considerable argument, but they have been matters which this Parliament is not called upon to determine. This Parliament is, however, called upon to determine two large questions of principle which lie right at the root of the structure of this special tribunal. The first of these is that the Government has set up a special tribunal to deal, not with a special industry, as, for example, the coal-mining industry, for which a special tribunal has been established, or for some subdivision of an industry, but with a class of worker to be found in any one of a hundred different industries. If it be sound to setup a special tribunal to deal with and regulate the employment of women, would it not be equally sound to set up a similar tribunal to deal with juvenile workers, or certain other classes of workers? Yet, if that procedure were followed, the whole basis of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court would be undermined. I say with gravity, and deep consideration, that the setting up of this special tribunal is thoroughly unsound. The Arbitration Court has exercised important functions over a long period of years, and it has discharged them sometimes to the satisfaction of one party, and sometimes to the satisfaction of another. But who will say that, on the whole, the arbitration system of this country has not been beneficial to the wage-earners? I am quite sure that it has been beneficial to them. The Arbitration Court has been able to deal with the vast and comprehensive problems that have come before it because it has been able to deal with industry as a whole. When it has had to deal with the apprenticeship system, for example, it has been able to regard the subject in its relation to all industries. Similarly, when, it has been required to deal with the problem of the employment of women, it has been able to apply broad principles to many industries. So we have had some uniformity in practice. But now the Government is saying : “ The Arbitration Court is to have no jurisdiction in relation to female workers. For the future, it is to deal only with male workers.’” For, obviously, this is the first step to that end.

Mr Sheehan:

– The purpose of the Government is to simplify procedure.

Mr MENZIES:

– A matter is not simplified by splitting it up under two or three headings, and allowing one tribunal to deal with one aspect and another with another. That is the way to complexity, not to simplicity.

Mr BRENNAN:

– Is it not clear that this authority has been set np because of the increased employment of women under the abnormal conditions of war?

Mr MENZIES:

– I direct the attention of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) to regulation 6 which refers to “ a shortage or impending shortage of male labour “ and provides that an employer who desires to employ females must make an application to the board, setting out the nature of the work he desires to have done. Quite obviously, this new authority will have to deal with a wide variety of callings. I criticize the regulations on the ground that they deal with a situation which is not limited in any way, and because they remove from the Arbitration Court a large part of its authority.

Mr Rosevear:

– No doubt the basis of the decisions of the Women’s Employment Board will be the findings of th” Arbitration Court.

Mr MENZIES:

– We do not know that. In fact, the contrary is provided for, because, whereas the court has prescribed that the base rates of pay for women shall he 54 per cent, of those applicable to men, these regulations provide that the special tribunal may fix the base rates, but they shall not be less than 60 per cent, nor more than 100 per cent, of the rates applicable to men. The establishment of this board undoubtedly implies a subtraction from the functions of the Arbitration Court.

The second major principle that T criticize has relation to the constitution of the board. I invite the earnest attention of honorable gentlemen opposite to this point. In particular, I call the attention of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) to it. Subregulation 2 of regulation 5 provides -

The board shall consist of a chairman, one special representative of employers and one special representative of employees, and, in addition, two other members to be appointed from time to time (according to the subject-matter to be dealt with by the board), one of whom shall represent an employers’ organization, and the other an employees’ organization.

Let us deal first with the core of the board. At first sight, it may seem to be quite fair to provide that a direct representative of the employers and of employees shall be appointed to act with an impartial chairman, because an impartial chairman should be able to make up his mind as between the interested parties. The chairman of the board is Judge Foster, of the County Court of Victoria.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– And a good man, too !

Mr MENZIES:

– I believe that he will do his best to be impartial. The representative of the employees is, I understand, mv friend Mr. Wallis, of the Clothing Trades Union, for whom I have the warmest regard. I have known him for many years. His views on the subject of the employment of women in industry are as well known as the views of any individual could be known. I do not imagine that Mr. Wallis will be expected to maintain a judicial attitude on the problems that will come before the hoard, because for many years he has been a foremost advocate of the very ideas underlying these regulations. But what about the representative of the employers? The Government has appointed to represent the employers a woman named Cashman whose acquaintance I have not the honour to possess. I understand that for a number of years she served’ zealously and, I have no doubt, efficiently, as an official of the Printing Industry Employees Union, and that in a short intervening period until her appointment as a member of this board, she served as an industrial officer in the Munitions Department. If we were engaged just for the good of our health in fun and games, I could admire what the Minister has done, and say: “ Well, it is a piece of impudence that rises so high that it becomes magnificent and, in fact, almost admirable “. But these are not days when wc are engaged in fun and games, and we have to face the fact that a union official has been calmly appointed to represent the employers. Of course, I know that we shall be told that there was some to and fro between the Minister and certain bodies of employers. No doubt it was said that the employers intended to challenge these regulations. Possibly, representative employers said : “‘We shall get in touch with the Prime Minister, for we do not intend to make a nomination”. If the employers had declined to make a nomination and the Minister had said : “ All right, if you do not care to exercise the right I have conferred upon you to make a nomination, I shall make a nomination myself there may have been some force in what has been done. Some other honorable member will deal with that aspect of the subject. On such facts, I should not be inclined to become heated over the matter’. But for the Minister to come along and say: “Because the Chamber of Manufactures, or some other authority, has not made a nomination, I shall appoint a union official as the representative of the employers “ may be put on a par with, let us say, the appointment of my friendly constituent, Archbishop Mannix, to represent the Protestant Federation at some theological gathering.

Mr. Pollard. - Is not what has been done in this case in line with the appointment of Judge Drake-Brockman to the Arbitration Court Bench?

Mr MENZIES:

– I hope that my amiable friend from Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) will not begin cross-examining me on what some other people have done. I cannot accept responsibility for the actions of other people. 1 am reminded frequently enough that I have sufficient responsibilities of my own without fathering those of other people. This is a serious matter. If we are to have industrial satisfaction in this country, not only the employees, but also the employers, must believe that they are being given a fair deal. I have listened in this House week after week to impassioned appeals by the honorable member for Hunter on behalf of the coal-miners whom he represents. I always listen to the honorable mem!ber’s utterances with respect. I ask the honorable member what the coalminers would say if, on the Central Coal Reference Board, a person from among the directors of J. and A. Brown and Abermain Seaham Collieries Limited «vas chosen as a representative of the employees? The honorable gentleman would doubtless say that it was a monstrosity, and it would be a monstrosity. In fact, it would be more than a monstrosity. It would- be exactly what the honorable member for Hunter would call it if he were asked to describe it. Here are regulations which go out to the people of Australia as representing what the Government would have us believe is its notion of fair play in the exercise of very far-reaching executive powers. Not, only must a regulation, of itself, be fairly conceived, composed and expressed, but, it must also be fairly exercised. On this occasion, what has taken place is merely making an impudent farce of the powers which, indirectly, this Parliament has conferred upon the Executive by its having authorized the making of regulations of this kind. Employers, forsooth, are to go before this tribunal and apparently gaze unabashed into the eyes of the chairman and the secretary of the Clothing Trades Union, and the ex-assistant secretary of the Printing Industry Employees Union of Australia, and say: “ We come here for justice, to a tribunal that has been specially conceived as one that will give to both sides an equal opportunity to be heard and to receive fair judgment”. In. the somewhat mixed industrial history of this country, this i-.> not only the most impudent, it is also essentially the most unjust, thing that ha? ever been done. I am staggered, not at its having been done by the Minister for Labour and National Service - because his antipathy to the Arbitration Court is well known; as I have had occasion to say before, I always give to him the fullest credit for being completely consistent at all times in that respect - but. as the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) and other Ministers who have a sense of the great importance of fair play, and who know that there cannot be industrial justice unless there is some balance in the tribunals that are set up, sitting back so quietly, and apparently remaining content at an appointment of this kind being ma.hunder regulations which, in the other respects I have been discussing, are open to the most severe criticism. Those arc my two points.

Mr Brennan:

– Does this part of the right honorable gentleman’s argument constitute ‘any reason why the regulations should be disallowed?

Mr MENZIES:

– It does. I do not know whether my friend is putting a point of order to me, or putting one indirectly to the Chair.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– I am putting it to the right honorable gentleman.

Mr MENZIES:

– I point out to the honorable gentleman that a very good test of any law is to determine what may be done under it; and a very good way «f determining what may be done under it is to ask what has been done under it. I stand on both of those grounds, and on both I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr WARD:
Minister for Labour and National Service · East Sydney · ALP

– I think it will be agreed by any who care to look at this matter impartially that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) has made the best case that he could make in the circumstances. But I would also say that, if what he has submitted to this House is the sole argument that can be advanced by him for the disallowance of these regulations, I can well understand why his career as an eminent, lawyer has been studded with, so many glorious failures. The right honorable gentleman is completely unrealistic. When this Government assumed office last October, it discovered that many things which might have been done had not been done. Australia is in a critical situation; but, as the result of the activities of the present Government, the situation is less critical to-day than it was when the Government assumed office, simply because the country is in a much better position to meet a crisis. The Government found itself faced with the problem that was caused by greater demands being made in respect of man-power for the services and for industry. Consequently, there was greater need for the introduction of larger numbers of women into all branches of industry. This gave rise to difficulties for the present Administration, as it would have done for any other administration; because, in having women introduced into sections of industry in which they had not previously been employed, it found itself faced with the necessity to confer with the respective trade unions, which naturally would not have co-operated unless they had been given certain guarantees, and in consequence the best results could not have been achieved. One of the matters that quite rightly troubled the trade unions was, that many captains of industry were anxious to secure the engagement of larger numbers of women for the simple reason that they regarded female labour as a reservoir from which they might draw cheap labour; they wanted the women, if they could secure their services at what are termed women’s rates. Thus, a special problem was created for the Government. I am not here to examine the various reasons for the interminable delays that have occurred in the determination of matters that have been submitted to the Arbitration Court from time to time. It was necessary to dispose of these problems as rapidly as possible, because obviously the unions would have become very suspicious in regard to what was intended if decisions were delayed for twelve months or longer, as had happened in connexion with certain matters that had been submitted to existing tribunals. Therefore, the Government decided to set up a special tribunal to deal with a special problem. The tribunal established was no more than what may be termed a wages board. There are wages boards in Victoria, but the right honorable member for Kooyong does not argue that on that account the rights or the functions of the Arbitration Court are infringed.

Mr Holt:

– Wages boards do not deal with important matters of principle.

Mr WARD:

– They deal with the fixation of wages and the determination of industrial problems, which are matters that would ordinarily be submitted to the Arbitration Court for decision. That is all that this particular tribunal is to do. Anticipating one of the arguments that may be advanced in reply to my contention that delay will thus be obviated, namely, because of the regulations pegging wages the Arbitration Court will not be so busy as it has been previously, may I say to honorable members opposite that, despite the fact that wages were pegged as at the 10th February last, except under certain special conditions, the time in which the Arbitration Court may deal with the matters it then had before it has already had to be extended. The regulations first provided that those matters should be disposed of by the l3t May. An extension to the 1st June has already been made and, judging by the reports that have been received, it will be necessary to grant a further extension by many more months. Some of the Arbitration Court judges are busily engaged in other activities. Chief Judge Piper has been given the very important appointment of chairman of the Stevedoring Industry Commission. Judge Drake-Brockman is chairman of the Centra] Coal Reference Board. Already there has been considerable complaint in regard to the delays occasioned on that board. It can therefore be realized that the argument that the Arbitration Court is quite competent and able to deal with these matters expeditiously will not bear examination. The Government therefore determined to establish a special tribunal to deal with thi3 special problem.

Let us examine the remarks of the right honorable member for Kooyong. Carrying his argument to its logical conclusion, it would not be possible for women, no matter what their efficiency or productive capacity might be compared with men, to obtain the same rate of pay in any industry in which they had displaced men. The right honorable member merely proposes to give to the employers the right to introduce cheap labour into their different industries. The aim of the Government is to obtain greater production, but not by allowing the employers to exploit the situation by displacing males with female labour simply because it can be obtained at a cheaper rate. The argument that women should not receive the same pay as men, will not bear examination. The right honorable member for Kooyong spoke of the family responsibilities of a man compared with those of a woman. In his own profession, a woman charges fees equal to those charged by a man. That i3 the position also in the medical profession, and in many branches of industry, such as the boot trade, and the transport services. Women have been introduced into the transport services of Melbourne at the male rate of pay. Nobody in this Parliament has suggested that it is wrong to give to those women the full male rate. Because it was discovered that women were quite competent to do the work involved, no objection was raised by the employers or by any honorable member of this House to their being placed on an equal basis, in regard to wages and conditions, with the men whom they had displaced.

Mr Menzies:

– If the proposition of the honorable gentleman be that in all circumstances, whatever the nature of the work, women shall receive the same pay as men, why do the regulations provide that they shall get not less than 60 per cent, of the male rate?.

Mr WARD:

– The proposition is not, and I have not argued, that in all circumstances the pay shall be equal. There are many factors which, the Government recognizes shall be taken into account when determining what wages shall be paid. But it says that, where it can be shown that the efficiency and productive capacity of the woman is equal to that of the man, she shall receive the same rate of pay as the man whom she displaces. The right honorable member argues that that should not be done; that, in determining the basic wage, heed must be taken of the responsibility of the man and that therefore, no matter what may be the efficiency or the productive capacity of the woman, she must not receive the same rate of pay as the man. The Government does not accept that view. It lays down that this tribunal may fix a rate between 60 per cent, and 100 per cent, of the prevailing male rate.

Let us examine the composition of the tribunal, against which a great deal of criticism has been levelled. The regulations provide, first, that there shall be a judge as chairman. The Government selected Judge Foster, a County Court Judge in the State of Victoria. The right honorable member for Kooyong evidently is displeased because of that selection. The words that he used were, that Judge Foster will do bis best to be impartial. Doubtless he had in mind the questions that were directed to a Minister in the Senate in regard to the past activities of Judge Foster.

Mr Menzies:

– I tell the Minister at once that I was unaware that any such questions had been put.

Mr WARD:

– Doubtless the right honorable member would be aware that Judge Foster was an unsuccessful Labour candidate at general elections held in the year 1917. No doubt, because he had been in some way associated with the Labour party he then became “ unsuitable “ for selection as a chairman of any tribunal, although as the right honorable gentleman said, he would “ do his best “ to be impartial. Judge Foster has occupied a position on the Bench for many years, and, as far as I can ascertain, has filled that position with distinction.

Now I turn to the other two special representatives mentioned. Emphasis was laid on the word “ special “. The right honorable gentleman said that the selection of the employers’ representative was the greatest piece of impudence that he had ever known. I suggest that lawyers could far outdo me in impudence. When it was decided that a tribunal should be established, I, as Minister, was obliged to confer with the representative organizations covering employers and employees. In the case of the employers, communications were directed to the chambers of manufactures and the chambers of commerce. Every body was aware of the urgency of the matter and the need for speedy action. The chambers of manufactures communicated with the Government, and, after offering various reasons why they did not wish this tribunal to be established, asked the Government to reconsider the matter and declined to make any nomination at all. That indicated that they did not wish to sec the tribunal established. The chambers of commerce, after criticizing the whole scheme, eventually nominated Mr. Johnstone. That nomination was very grudgingly forwarded to the Government. I had also communicated with the Department of Munitions. There is nothing unusual in that fact, because that department is the largest single employer of female labour in this country. Therefore, the Government will be affected to a greater degree by the decisions of this tribunal than will any other employer. I understood that, when the Government set out with a plan for an all-in war effort, it was concerned only with getting results, and was not concerned with protecting the rights and privileges of individuals or sections of individuals. When I received the nomination of Miss Cashman I inquired regarding her qualifications, and, on finding that they were satisfactory, I selected her as the representative of the employers.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– -Who nominated her?

Mr WARD:

– The Ministry of Munitions. Why is objection raised to the appointment of Miss Cashman? It is said that she has been prominently associated with the trade union movement, and has been an employee of the Government.

Mr Holt:

– Has she ever been an employer ?

Mr WARD:

– She is now working for the Department of Munitions, which is the largest employer of women in the Commonwealth. What honorable members opposite arc troubled about is, not that Miss Cashman has had vast experience in the trade union movement, but that she might be prepared to deal fairly and impartially with the matters to be referred to the tribunal, and might favour a decision which would give to women in industry fair and just treat ment. Now let us consider the qualifications of Mr. Johnstone for the position of representative of the employers. He became a member of the management committee of the Boot Trade Union in 1900. He was a delegate to the Labour Council in 1904. He became secretary of the union in 1905, and remained in that position until the 12th July, 1921. He was an official of the union for a longer period than that for which Miss Cashman was connected with the printing trade. We now find out why objection was raised to the appointment of Miss Cashman.

Mr Harrison:

– He then saw the light.

Mr WARD:

– If Miss Cashman bad cared to ally herself to some exploiting manufacture)-, as did the honorable member for Went worth before he became a member of this Parliament, she would have been regarded by honorable gentlemen opposite as an acceptable representative. After leaving the union, Mr. Johnstone opened a retail boot shop, and then became manager of a factory. Shortly afterwards, he became secretary of the Boot, Shoe and Allied Trades Association, and is still secretary of that body. He has prepared three awards, one for the Boot Manufacturers Association, the second for the Wood Last and Heel Manufacturers Association, and the third for the Bespoke Bootmaking and Retailing Association. He is required to adhere to an agreement that any female labourers taken on to perform any work done by a male must receive the full male award rates, irrespective of age and experience. That is provided in the boot trade award.

Mr Harrison:

– Why was. there a scare about appointing this board?

Mr WARD:

– I was not scared. The fact is that I was not scared of the criticism of the Opposition, and therefore I selected as the employer’s representative a person whom I consider to be best qualified for the position.’ In this care I chose Miss Cashman. The right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) made a great deal of capital of what he termed political appointments. On this tribunal it is provided that there shall be additional representatives having special experience with regard to particular matters that may be presented for the consideration of the tribunal. In that respect the tribunal will have an advantage as compared with the Arbitration Court. A judge of the Arbitration Court may have special knowledge with regard to particular phases of industry, but this tribunal can have the additional advantage of the advice of special representatives of the employers and employees to assist it when dealing with special cases. The right honorable member for Kooyong owes his position in this Parliament to a political appointment. Sir John Latham, whom he succeeded as member for Kooyong, was elevated to the High Court Bench as the result of a political appointment. If I were the right honorable member for Kooyong, I should hesitate to argue about political appointments.

I am not at all disturbed because of the poor case that has been submitted in support of this motion, but I point out to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) that he himself had something to say with regard to the employment of women in industry when he was Minister for Labour and National Service. He held very pronounced views on the subject. He was of opinion that, no matter how much they did, nor how efficiently they did it, women should never receive the same pay as men. He said as much in his submission to the Cabinet of which he was a member - and I ask honorable members opposite not to question me too closely as to how I obtained this information, but the fact is that I have here a submission to Cabinet by the honorable member for Fawkner himself. I shall not weary the House by reading the whole of it, because, like the speeches of honorable members opposite, it is interesting only in parts. It is as follows-

Mr Holt:

– Is the Minister in order in divulging publicly in the House the contents of a confidential document presented to a Cabinet, the members of which are sworn to secrecy? I submit that the Minister is violating the oath of secrecy by proxy, as it were, in divulging the contents of such a document.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon W M Nairn:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister state the nature of the document from which he proposes to quote? Is it such a document as the honorable member for Fawkner has described ?

Mr WARD:

– I shall not press the matter. I am quite satisfied to have the admission of the honorable member for Fawkner that it contains everything 1 have said it does, and that the honorable member did, in fact, make the recommendation to the Cabinet that I have imputed to him.

Mr Fadden:

– I submit that the Minister has no right to make a statement of that kind.

Mr WARD:

– I was not quoting from the document. I merely stated that, in his submission to Cabinet, the honorable member for Fawkner indicated-

Mr Fadden:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Any confidential document submited to Cabinet, as this one apparently was, must, in the public interest, remain entirely confidential. The document itself must not be quoted, nor its contents be referred to.

Mr Brennan:

– I rise to a point of order. I once had the honour to belong to a government, and confidential communications between the then Prime Minister and Ministers of his Cabinet, having been by somebody purloined, became a matter for public discussion. They were discussed in this House, and no one challenged the propriety of that discussion. So far as I know, there is no precedent for a declaration from the Chair that a Minister may not say in this chamber that some previous Minister made a submission in certain terms to a Cabinet. With great respect, sir, I submit that it is not a part of your function to censor honorable members as to the propriety of how they acquire information.

Mr Menzies:

– The honorable member’s point is that there is no standing order against dishonesty.

Mr Brennan:

– Since the right honorable member challenges me, I point out that there is no standing order even against dishonesty, but I am not arguing the case on that basis. I am arguing it on the basis that there is no standing order - I invite you to quote it if there is - which forbids a Minister of the Crown to state in this House what a previous Minister submitted to Cabinet. It may very well be, and I have no doubt that in this case it is so, that the information comes to the Minister in a perfectly legitimate way; but no matter how the information may be obtained, it does not come within the province of the Chair to pass judgment upon the matter. It is entirely for the Minister, himself , knowing tho history of the document which he proposes to quote, to decide whether or not he should divulge its contents. In this case, since I presume that the Minister considers that the contents of the document are germane to the matter under discussion, there is, I submit, no standing order against his disclosing them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Objection was taken when the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) indicated that he proposed to disclose the contents of a confidential document submitted to Cabinet by a member of a previous administration. I was prepared to uphold the objection, but the Minister anticipated me by saying that he did not propose to quote from the document. If it be improper to read the document itself in the Blouse, then it is no less improper to divulge its contents. The Minister is debarred from making the document itself public, and also from revealing its contents. As for the case cited by the honorable member for Batman, when certain documents were quoted in the course of a debate in this House, I point out that the contents of those documents had previously been published in the press.

Mr WARD:

– I do not propose to refer to tho document again, but I take exception to the suggestion that there was anything dishonest in the manner in which the document came into my possession. As a matter of fact, I am not too clear myself how I got it; I think I just discovered it among my papers. I did not intend to introduce personalities into this discussion, but if imputations of dishonesty are made, may I say that I have not £1 invested in any undertaking that might benefit as the result of any decision made in this House. I have not any money invested in anything. But I have recently been doing some research, and I have discovered that when some honorable mem bers made .pleas in this Parliament for an impartial decision, they were talking with their tongues in their cheeks. It will be necessary to cite only one or two instances to prove my point, and perhaps it is just a coincidence that some of tho names are the same as those of people whom I know.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Has an attack been made on the honesty of .the Minister for Labour and National Service? Has his honesty been impugned? If any such imputations have been made, I ask thai, they be withdrawn.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · LANG LAB; ALP from 1936; ALP (N-C) from 1940; ALP from 1941

– Let the Minister have a “ crack back “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– He may have a “ crack back “ if he has been attacked.

Mr WARD:

– Despite the fact that no one has volunteered to withdraw the imputation, I think it will be agreed that an imputation of dishonesty was contained in some of the interjections made when I proposed to quote from a Cabinet document. Dishonesty has been suggested against the people who have been appointed to this tribunal, and against Judge Poster, who has been selected as the chairman.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If I had noted such suggestions, I should have immediately called upon the honorable member making them to withdraw them.

Mr WARD:

– The suggestion has also been made that Miss Cashman will not approach these problems in an honest manner, but will be biased. When people impute dishonest motives to other persons, it is appropriate to examine their own motives.

Mr SPEAKER:

– No imputation of dishonesty has been made against Miss Cashman. It has been suggested that she may not be impartial.

Mr WARD:

– I am unable to discuss the difference between dishonesty and partiality, but, probably, the right honorable member for Kooyong may give me his professional opinion on that point later. Honorable members who impute improper motives to members of a tribunal leave themselves open to the suspicion that they themselves may be materially interested in the personnel of the tribunal. I have made a cursory glance through the list of shareholders of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and its subsidiaries. I say a cursory glance, because these days I am a very busy man. However, that company and its subsidiaries will be greatly interested in the personnel of this board and its decisions ; because certain of its subsidiaries are already employing increasing numbers of women. Glancing through the list of shareholders of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited I found the following entries : -

A.W. Fadden and A. E. Hannaford, investors,c/o A. W. Fadden and Hogan and Company, Sturt-street, Townsville - 328 shares.

Mr Fadden:

– The shares mentioned by the Minister are held by me as trustee for the estate of Hannaford. I have been misrepresented.

Mr WARD:

– Other shareholders shown were -

Ada Hughes, c/o Trustees Executives, Collins-street, Melbourne - 1,968 shares.

Lady Eleanor Latham, Washington-street, Toorak, Victoria -656 shares.

Rosa Menzies,c/o Blake and Riggall, William-street, Melbourne - 1,230 shares.

I do not know whether that lady is related to the right honorable member for Kooyong.

Mr Menzies:

– No relation of mine, I am afraid.

Mr WARD:

– Other shareholders were -

Jean W. Spender, C Fairfax-road, Bellevue Hill, New South Wales - 492 shares.

Emily M. Marr, The Grove, Roseville, New Sou th Wales - 400 shares.

Warwick Fairfax, 2,460 shares.

Vincent Fairfax, 2,624 shares.

Australian Consolidated Industries -

Jean Maud Spender.9 Fairfax-road,

Bellevue Hill, New South Wales- 400 shares.

That is as far as my examination has gone up to date; but if honorable gentlemen are interested, I shall continue it later.

The right honorable member for Kooyong said - and this appears to be the only point of any consequence he made - that there would be greater uniformity between the decisions of the Arbitration Court as compared with the decisions of the board. He seemed to think that was such a virtue that we should stick solely to the Arbitration Court, and refrain from appointing this tribunal. Actually, the Arbitration

Court has given many conflicting decisions. No one can argue that it has displayed a very great degree of uniformity in its decisions. Some of the difficulties which have arisen in industry have been caused by anomalies created by decisions of the Arbitration Court; and it is very likely that this tribunal which will deal with this special problem will be able to achieve a greater degreeof uniformity in its decisions. I emphasize that point, because, as I have indicated the members of this tribunal possesspecial knowledge of the particular industries with which they will deal.

Why are these regulations challenged before the tribunal has really begun to function? It has just been established. No one is yet able to judge its worth. However, we know that if the Opposition renders the tribunal ineffective, it will immediately create difficulties for the Government and the country, because the large trade unions interested in the work of the major industries would immediately withdraw, to some degree, their approval of the introduction of larger numbers of women in industry. This would create delay, and hinder the Government’s programme of munitions production. If honorable members opposite really mean what they say, and sincerely desire that we make a maximum war effort, they should not use as an argument for the abolition of the board some objection which they have to persons appointed to the board before the board has actually been tested. At the same time, they will compel the Government to commence its negotiations all over again. Is it not more important to the country in its present crisis to speed up munitions production, and achieve maximum production in industry generally? This can be done only by introducing women in industry. This system, if it be given a chance, will prove most effective. It will give to the Government the production which it is most anxious to obtain. Consequently, honorable members would be well advised to reject the argument submitted by the right honorable member for Kooyong, and vote against his motion for the disallowance of these regulations.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

. -I do not propose to argue whether equal pay for equal work should be paid to female employees, or whether the basic wage struck for a man, his wife and one child, and payable to bachelors, should also be paid to spinsters. I shall discuss whether this board has been fairly constituted, and whether it represents the interests that it is supposed to represent. It is about time that we placed on record how boards of this kind can be blatantly rigged by Ministers who are definitely biased, or who endeavour, by regulation, to introduce planks of their party platform.

Mr BLACKBURN:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– Blatantly rigged!

Mr HARRISON:

– I shall produce evidence to show that that is rather an understatement of the position. It is as well that the House should know the facts concerning the appointment of this board. They are very interesting, and are set out in correspondence between the secretary of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Wilkins, the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service, Dr. Roland Wilson, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin). On the 25th March, the secretary of the department wrote to Mr. Wilkins - .1 enclose herewith a copy of the National Security (Employment of Women) Regulations, from which you will observe that the Minister is required to consult with the appropriate employers’ organizations before appointing the special representative of employers to serve on the Women’s Employment Board. 1 should be glad if your organization would consider this matter with a view to making a nomination at the earliest possible date. I understand that the Central Council of Employers of Australia, the Graziers’ Federal Council and other bodies of employers are affiliated with your organization. No doubt you will wish to consider their views before making the nomination.

I ask the House to note that. The letter continues -

I am writing in similar terms to the secretary, Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, with which is affiliated the Metal Trades Employers’ Association of New South Wales.

If the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures could agree to nominate the same person, it would be of considerable advantage and would enable us to get the board established with a minimum of delay.

Time is needed to communicate with all the organizations affiliated with an Australiawide body such as the Associated Chambers of Commerce. The letter was received on the 27th March. Since employers’ organizations cover the whole Commonwealth it was impossible to give an immediate reply. Consequently, the federal secretary of the Central Council of Employers telephoned to the Secretary of the Department of Labour and National Service informing him of the probable delay and asking for a short postponement of the appointment; but, if the Minister felt that the need was so urgent, a hurried nomination would be made. No such indication was given by the Department of Labour and National Service. If this matter was so urgent, the employers should have been informed and they would then have hurried to make a nomination. On the contrary, they were given to understand that there was no urgency. On the 11th April, Mr. Wilkins wrote to Dr. Wilson as follows: -

In reply to the invitation from the Minister for Labour and National Service dated 25th March, relative to the nomination of an employers’ special representative for appointment to the Women’s Employment Board, I am now directed to advise that the Associated Chamber of Commerce of Australia, the Central Council of Employers of Australia, and tho Graziers’ Federal Council of Australia, while objecting to the principle involved in the constitution of the Women’s Employment Board, have decided in view of the Minister’s specific request, to nominate Mr. D. R. Johnstone, secretary of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers and Allied Trades Association, 12 O’Connell-street, Sydney, for this position.

The objection of the above organizations to the constitution of the Women’s Employment Board is based on the fundamental fact that the board’s operation and jurisdiction will conflict and usurp the functions of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration in dealing with the terms and conditions of women’s employment. It is therefore requested that this objection be communicated to the Minister for Labour and National Service.

That letter was not even acknowledged, and on the 16th April, the names of those who had been appointed to the hoard were published.

Mr WARD:
ALP

– Prompt work.

Mr HARRISON:

– So prompt as to be regarded as sharp practice. Much more ably than I could, the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) has dealt with the qualifications and affiliations of the people appointed, and I have no desire to go over the same ground. It was obvious, however, that the right honorable member for Kooyong got under the skin of the Minister for Labour and National Service. At any rate the nomination of Mr. Johnstone was refused because he knew his job. On the 13th April, Mr. Wilkins wrote to the Prime Minister objecting to the newly constituted “Women’s Employment Board. The letter also directed attention to the fact - . . . that the established arbitration system is fully able to determine any aspect of women’s employment, and the judicial capacity and wide experience of its judges covering all industries, is more competent to resolve these matters than any such additional authority as the proposed board.

For these reasons, my organizations respectfully request that further consideration of this matter be made by the Government before any irrevocable departure from the existing industrial arbitration system is implemented.

That letter was not answered. Honorable members will agree that, in view of the fact that the employers not only accepted the invitation to nominate a representative, but also made a nomination before the personnel of the board was announced, the Minister was grossly unfair. Moreover, the Government displayed its intention to carry out Labour’s industrial policy by means of war-time regulations by appointing a board which is obviously biased in favour of the Labour party’s policy because it consists of people picked directly from the ranks of Labour supporters. Quite obviously, the board i3 usurping the powers of the Arbitration Court. It is intimidating the employers in such a way that notwithstanding awards prescribed by the Arbitration Court they will have to subscribe to whatever decisions it makes. All this had its genesis in the Industrial Relations Council, which was appointed at the end of last year. The newspapers featured the fact that the employers’ representatives walked out of that council. Honorable members will recollect that questions about the Industrial Relations Council were asked in this House, but to this moment the facts have not been disclosed to the Parliament. The Industrial Relations Council was constituted as the result of a conference held in Canberra on the 27th and 28th December, 1941. That conference was attended by Arbitration Court judges and industrial commissioners. According to statements made at the conference, it was not the intention of the Government, when appointing the council, to interfere in any way with the functions of the Arbitration Court. Judge Piper, who was present, put that matter beyond all reasonable doubt. Addressing the conference, he said, “ I am not clear at the moment as to the relations between the proposed new council and the court. Will the proposed council be an advisory board?” The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) replied -

It is proposed that the council should advise the Government on all labour matters, but will not interfere with the normal jurisdiction of the court or of the commissioners. It may recommend to the Government what should be done to improve the existing machinery. It may ask that more commissioners be appointed. It will be an adjunct to the executive power, but it will not settle disputes.

The Minister for Supply and Development (Mr. Beasley) elaborated that point when he said -

It i3 fundamental that we approve the policy of arbitration and that the representatives of the court should understand that there is no desire on the part of the Government to usurp the function of the court or to interfere with the arbitration machinery. Gather is it a desire to give to the court a closer knowledge of what war-time production means to both employers and employees. It would be a mistake to attempt to adjust these things arbitrarily.

It will be agreed that that statement was one of government policy, and should have been accepted as such. I shall nottraverse the sorry attempt on the part of the chairman of the council, Sir William Webb, to commit that body to biased judgments, hut I shall mention some actions which should convince the House that the chairman of the council was biased in his judgments. The council consisted of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees, but the vote of the chairman would decide any issue in respect of which the voting was equal. The chairman was a man appointed by the Government, a man, moreover, who, in the course of his observations, proved that he was biased in favour of the Labour party’s industrial policy. He gave to representatives of employers the impression that the council was merely a sham - something brought into existence to implement the Government’s industrial policy under the guise of an independent tribunal. I draw attention to a statement made by the Minister for War Organization of Industry (Mr. Dedman), who was present at the conference. He pointed out that it was Cabinet’s idea that, owing to the complicated nature of this subject, and its varying incidence in different trades, the question of pay and conditions of employment should be a matter for the Arbitration Court. He went on to point out that the main difficulty was that if women were granted the same pay as men in the munitions industry, there would soon be a demand for equal pay in all other industries. He said that it was estimated that such a policy would involve an extra £50,000,000 per annum. He went on to say that, apart from the difficulty of financing such a scheme, it would create enormous purchasing power which, in turn, would cause a great demand for civilian goods and have a highly inflationary effect. I do not want to say anything in regard to his latter observation, but I draw attention to his statement in regard to government policy. On the subject of male rates of pay for female labour, employers pointed out that as the basic wage was the amount to be paid to a man with a wife and one child, obviously the payment to be made to females was a matter for the Arbitration Court to determine. The representatives of employees said that they did not want to go to the court. They said that the practice had been for (he remuneration of females to be fixed at 54 per cent, of the rate paid to males. They believed that the court, having a full knowledge of the facts and being unbiased, would make just decisions. However, it was not the desire of the Government to have an unbiased report or an unbiased award. Its intention was to rig the court so that only one decision could be made. The Government has effectively rigged the court so that, only one decision can be made. Obviously, the desire of the unions was to get the court’s decision on the subject of the remuneration of females set aside, although they had agreed to take their case before the court. Arbitration is one of the basic principles underlying our industrial system. That policy Has been subscribed to by all parties and by the .Labour party when the award is in con formity with its idea; otherwise it immediately seeks for means to circumvent the decision of the court. It was abundantly clear that the employees did not wish to go into the court. They preferred to obtain an award by back-door methods - by appointing a rigged board to implement, the policy of the Government, and in provide that there should be no apnea’ Those are the facts. On three occasions the Minister stressed that it was Cabinet’s decision that these matters should be referred to the Arbitration Court. After some discussion as to the remuneration of females Mr. Clarey moved and Mr. Croft seconded the following motion : -

That in each of the applications before the conference, viz.. Lysaght’s, master butchers ami licensed victuallers (and in other later applications) the Department of Labour and National Service should hold conferences of employers and employees to discuss the terms for the entry of women into the industry concerned.

On the motion of Mr. Perry, seconded by Mr. Heine, the following amendment was moved on behalf of the employers : -

That the proposals of Cabinet in relation u> the conditions of employment of women in war-time, as explained fully by the Minister for War Organization of Industry, Mr. J. J. Dedman, be endorsed, and that in the opinion of this Council the subject is one that on account of the numerous varying aspects which are involved must necessarily be dealt with by an arbitration court in accordance with the different circumstances prevailing in particular industries.

The employers were definitely concerned with implementing government policy, and not as the Minister accused them, with obtaining cheap female labour. The chairman should have been impartial, but contrary to all rules of procedure he made no attempt to put the amendment before he put the motion to the meeting. At the specific request of the employers’ representatives, a vote was taken on the amendment submitted by Mr. Perry. On the casting vote of the chairman, it was rejected.

Mr Blackburn:

– Is not Sir William Webb the Chief Justice of Queensland?

Mr HARRISON:

– Yes.

Mr Blackburn:

– Then is he not a man of unbiased judgment?

Mr HARRISON:

– I shall give additional information for the purpose of showing that the chairman was definitely biased. Had he not been biased, this Labour Government would not have appointed him to the position of chairman.

Mr Rosevear:

– I direct your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the honorable member for Wentworth has reflected upon the judiciary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! The honorable member must not reflect upon the judiciary.

Mr HARRISON:

– I bow to your ruling, sir; but I shall give the facts, and leave the House to draw its own conclusion. The council had been summoned to advise the Government on industrial matters, but its members found that the board was to supersede the Arbitration ‘Court and take action that would violate established industrial principles. When the representatives of the employers realized that the vote of the chairman would be cast one way and one way only, they walked out of the meeting, which was then adjourned sine die.

The House should be told about another item on the agenda, which related to preference to unionists. It did not. appear on the original agenda, but was introduced subsequently in a surreptitious manner. Mr. Clarey stated that he wanted to make it clear that his intention was to secure, not preference for unionists, but compulsory unionism, and he asked that the agenda should be altered accordingly. The representatives of the employers protested, and asked who was responsible for the appearance of the item on the agenda, as it had not. been placed on the agenda in December. The Minister for Labour and National Service, who was present, stated that the Government had given that instruction. After some discussion this unbiased chairman stated in open council that further discussion would be useless, because he intended to vote for compulsory unionism.

Mr Rosevear:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr HARRISON:

– He stated that compulsory unionism was in force in Queensland. He did not wish to hear the view3 of the representatives of the employers, because his mind was made up. The chairman would not have been appointed if he had not seen the light, and recognized the alleged excellence of compulsory unionism. The Industrial Relations Council was rigged in much the same way as the Women’s Employment Board, which the Government appointed under Statutory Rule No. 146. The representatives of the employers asked for an adjournment to enable them to submit the matter to their organizations, but the chairman, running true to form, refused to grant it. Consequently, the council was divided.

On the agenda of the council was an item relating to the fixation of remuneration for females. That is now covered by this statutory rule. It was thought at the time that the Industrial Relations Council would shoulder the responsibility of the Government which, incidentally, has a habit of shelving sticky subjects. As we know, the meeting of the council broke up before a decision was reached, and the Government was obliged to resort to other means in order to put its scheme into operation. The Government did not take the proper course of appointing a board consisting of a representative of the employers and a representative of the employees, with an impartial judge as chairman. First, it appointed a judge of the Victorian County Court, who had formerly sought election to Parliament as a supporter of the Labour party and who was appointed to the County Court Bench by a Labour government. The representative of the employees is Mr. Wallis, of the Clothing Trades Union, who knows everything that is to be known about the Labour movement. Not satisfied with ensuring that the Labour party would have a majority on the board, the Government then appointed as the representative of the employers a women named Cashman, who is known to be biased in favour of the Labour party. That she does not know the problems of the employers did not disturb the Government. The Industrial Relations Council did, in fact, consist of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees, and trouble arose when the representatives of the employers discovered that the chairman was prepared to vote one way only. The Government determined to avoid any difficulty regarding the functioning of the Womens Employment Board by ensuring that every member of that body had Labour leanings. For the reasons I have given, f shall vote for the disallowance of these regulations.

Mr Holloway:

– Until this moment the honorable gentleman has scarcely mentioned the regulations.

Mr HARRISON:

– No doubt the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Holloway) dislikes my resume of the history of this matter. If the Industrial Relations Council had functioned as the Government intended it to function, we should probably not have heard of these regulations; but when that council ceased to function the Government had to find some other means to realize its aspirations. The setting up of this board not only supersedes the Arbitration Court in certain spheres, but actually establishes a body more powerful than the court. Regulation 10 provides -

During the currency of any decision of the board no provision of any award, order or determination made by an industrial authority dealing with the subject-matter dealt with by the decision or any variation thereof and inconsistent with the decision or variation, and no decision or determination of any authorty of the Commonwealth or a State with respect to female employees of the Commonwealth or State inconsistent with the decision of the board or any variation thereof, shall he effective.

It is hard to imagine a more comprehensive provision. A body wielding such authority is undoubtedly more powerful than the Arbitration Court. In the exigencies of war, honorable members generally agree that boards with extraordinary powers must be established, but the Opposition, resents the appointment of biased bodies, which represent only one section of the people. No doubt, this board will be instructed to make decisions in accordance with the desires of the Minister for Labour and National Service, to whom the members owe their appointment. In fact, the board will be a cypher. The Government is perpetuating the bias shown in the appointment of the Industrial Relations Council, and, in doing so, it has violated all the ethics of fair play.

Mr Holloway:

– The chairman of the Womens Employment Board is one of the most highly respected judges in Victoria. Moreover, the employers selected their own representative. I object to the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) repeating such insulting suggestions as that the Government has “ rigged “ this board.

Mr Pollard:

– The honorable gentleman is also reflecting upon the judiciary

Mr HARRISON:

– The Minister for Social Services may know something about his own department, but evidently he knows nothing about the Department of Labour and National Service, or he would not have said that the employers had appointed their own representative to this board. The Minister for Labour and National Service has told us that the employers nominated Mr. Johnstone. He also gave us the reasons why he would not consent to Mr. Johnstone’s appointment, and why he appointed Miss Cashman. [ Extension of time granted.] 1 wish to make it perfectly clear that the employers did not nominate Miss Cashman. They nominated Mr. Johnstone, but that gentleman was not acceptable to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Miss Cashman was the nominee of the Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin). That honorable gentleman is not an employer of labour in the usually accepted sense of the word. I am sorry that the Minister for Social Service should have attempted to “ slip something across I repeat that the Government appointed the Womens Employment Board because of the collapse of the Industrial Relations Council and of the necessity to do something to- meet the situation that arose in consequence. If the chairman of the Industrial Relations Council had been reasonable, and not a man with a single-track mind, the council would have had a reasonable chance of success, for it was composed of equal numbers of representatives of the employers and the employees with a chairman. The Womens Employment Board is composed wholly of employees’ representatives.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Rosevear) adjourned.

page 1448

ADJOURNMENT

Non-Essential Industries - Mr. Brian

Penton : Lecture Tour in the United States of America - Repatriation Legislation - Munitions Production - Gold-mining Industry.

Motion (by Mr. Curtis) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn

Mr FALSTEIN:
Watson

.- I bring to the notice of the Government a matter which is at present engaging the attention of the Department of “War Organization of Industry. I refer to the closing down of 61 non-essential industries in New South Wales and Queensland. I should not object to the most stringent rationalization of nonessential industries, but I object strongly to the total prohibition of such industries. Every honorable member will agree, I believe, that, owing to age, or infirmity, or other disabilities, some persons engaged in some industries are incapable of working in other industries or of being taught to work in them. This undoubtedly applies to a residue of the employees in the 61 non-essential industries that have been prohibited in New South Wales and Queensland. Of necessity, therefore, such persons must be thrown on the industrial scrap heap. I do not believe that this is the policy of the Government. If it be so, the policy has been adopted quite recently. I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) that the great majority of supporters of the Australian Labour party outside this Parliament, who are vitally concerned in securing the return to Parliament of Labour members, do not approve of such a policy. They favour reasonable treatment of people employed in all industries. I invite the attention of the Prime Minister to the particular difficulties of persons engaged in the jewellery industry. I agree that the business of a jeweller at this time is non-essential. But this particular firm, in order to show its bona fides, endeavoured to obtain from the Department of Munitions and the Department of Aircraft Production work for its plant and its skilled operatives; that is to say, those of its men who could be usefully employed. Such work was not forthcoming. The following letter. dated the 17th April, was written by the Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron), to whom my representations in respect of this firm were passed bythe Minister for Munitions (Mr. Makin) : -

As a result of your letters the attention of the Aircraft Spares Section of this department lias been specially drawn to the possibility of using the works of Messrs. Philip Brady & Sons, manufacturing jewellers of Randwick, for the manufacture of small parts for aircraft and consideration will be given to the firm when further orders are being placed for parts capable of being produced with the capacity available.

Subsequently, this same gentleman advised me that the firm should get in touch with Ernest Kuenzli and Company, which had contracts for the manufacture of certain small parts. When I passed that letter on to Philip Brady and Sons, that firm replied -

Yesterday afternoon, we interviewed Mr. Ernest Kuenzli of Ernest Kuenzli & Co. and he informed us that he was quite capable of handling all the department’s requirements on these instrument projects and there was nothing we could do to assist him.

That was after all other channels for the utilization of this plant had been exhausted. A further letter from Philip Brady and Sons reads -

We wish to bring under your notice that our originalman-power has been depleted by 14 men - in that regard the firm has no complaint to make -

Our remaining staff includes Mr. P. Brady, senior, who is 73 years of age ; foreman, suffering from chronic duodenal ulcer; setter, 60 years of age; boy, 15 years of age.

The letter goes on to state -

Owing to the efforts of the secretary of the Jewellers Union, which is affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers’ Union, it has been ascertained that this type of labour has been refused work by various munitions works in Sydney. Illness, deformities and general incapacitation were the reasons for these men from this trade being rejected by these works.

I have exhausted these two possibilities: There might have been work in connexion with the war effort,’ in which the plant of this firm could have been utilized, but it is evident from the letter of the Minister for Aircraft Production that such is not the case. I have also exhausted the possibility of the personal services of the men who are left in this particular firm being engaged in any way, in assisting the war effort.

One other argument could be advanced against this firm and other firms engaged in non-essential industries being allowed to continue with their skeleton staffs ; that is, that the product they produce is not one which, in the public interest, for the safety of this country, or for some other reason associated with national economy, it is desirable that they should be allowed to continue to produce. Whether the Minister for War Organization of Industry does or does not close down such non-essential industries, the fact is that persons who want articles of the classes being produced by them, will have them. In that regard, it is interesting to note that the writer of this letter says -

Jewellery to the people who use it is no more a luxury than beer is to people who drink it.

He goes on to say that Britain has had the same problems, and has decided that the trade may continue with skeleton staffs. Not only do I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the particular aspects of this matter to which I have referred, but I also say to him that, at the very time when the Department of War Organization of Industry was engaged in negotiations with this trade and other trades in order to formulate a scheme that would be acceptable to each particular trade, the Minister for W.ir Organization of Industry announced that, as from the 22nd of this month, such industries were to be prohibited from continuing to produce. I believe that the right honorable gentleman appreciates that such firms, non-essential though they may be for the time at least, have obligations that will have to be fulfilled at the termination of the war, to apprentices and other persons who in normal times arc dependent on the industry for their livelihood. I believe that the right honorable gentleman is sufficiently fair-minded to say to this House that he will cause a review to be made of the scheme for the prohibition of the production of nonessential goods, with the object of having them rationalized. That is all that can be required by the Commonwealth. The right honorable gentleman will readily appreciate that one man, 73 years of age, who is suffering from chronic duodenal ulcers, another 60 years of age, and a boy fifteen years of age, cannot serve any useful purpose, when it has been substantiated that their services would be of no avail in any capacity in assisting the war effort. I impress upon the right honorable gentleman that the purpose of my remarks is, not to deal only with the claims of this firm or of the jewellery trade, but to make an appeal to the Government in respect of nonessential industries that are prohibited to-day or mav be prohibited in future, and to say that no situation can occur in which the demands of man-power will be so great that any persons who are unable, by reason of age, infirmity or other disability, to pursue some other calling, will have to be taken from their usual occupations and put on the dole An urgent telegram that I have receive-! from this firm reads -

Are aware we can do repair work and maintenance. Our production has already dropped 80 per cent, owing operation of man-power act. Can see no reason why balance male employees aged and medically unfit who arc incapable of army or defence production should he debarred from following their usual occupation. If man-power act is exploited logically to its full limits the only personnel left in this and similar shops to do production work will be aged and medically unfit. This is our only aim and would appreciate reconsideration by Minister based on these facts. Our experience that amount available of legitimate repair work only would not be sufficient to give these men even a reasonable weekly income. Some not adaptable to repair work for instance setters and mounters who constitute bulk of these few men left in trade. Figures supplied to Ifould’s Department will substantiate our argument.

I resume my seat, making an earnest plea on behalf of many old and infirm persons, who ought to be allowed to follow their usual occupations, and who cannot be taken out of those occupations advantageously to either national economy or Australia’s effective prosecution of the war.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– It, has come to my knowledge to-day that, in reply to a question asked by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), the Prim© Minister (Mr. Curtin who is Acting Minister for External Affairs, gave certain information to the House with regard to a proposed lecturing tour of the United States of America by a well-knownSydney journalist. The right honorable gentleman said that the Government had no views to express on the matter, and would not prevent the tour. I submit for the consideration of the right honorable gentleman chat Australia’s foreign relations in time of war, and particularly during a war of the kind in which we are now engaged, are of the utmost importance, and that any unauthorized person lecturing abroad at present might not represent the views of the Commonwealth Government. At the present stage the relations between Australia and the United States of America are of extreme importance, and, therefore, I contend that the Government should not permit any unauthorized person to convey to the people of the United States of America impressions of the policy and intentions of the Government of this country, regardless of what government may happen to be in power. I suggest that the Prime Minister should review what he said this afternoon in reply to the honorable member for Melbourne. It may be necessary for Cabinet to decide whether individual Australians travelling abroad should be allowed to express their views on various matters without regard to the effect that they might have on the relations between Australia and other countries, and upon thegeneral status that may be acquired by Australia among the nations of the world.

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– How is this person to be financed?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I do not know. I am not concerned about that.

I now submit the matter to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) for consideration from another aspect. I believe that the journalist in question is in a reserved occupation, and holds a certain exemption on that account. Every honorable member of this chamber must have persons in his electorate who are in reserved occupations, and thousands of electors have been called up for various forms of service. Once it is proved that a person is no longer required to carry out the duties that entitle him to reserved occupation status, there is only one thing for the Government to do, and that is to tell him to go on the unreserved list and carry out his duty as an ordinary citizen of this country. That prin ciple should be applied to all citizens, irrespective of their social position, wealth or rank. In this war, we have none too much to play with, and the point that I have raised might well be taken into consideration by the Minister for Labour and National Service, since he has already made certain remarks in this chamber regarding the newspaper with which the Sydney journalist referred to is connected. It is grossly unfair that persons highly placed in the journalistic world should be allowed to go abroad, while others are required to remain in Australia and comply with the obligations cast upon them to serve their country. I ask that the law be administered without fear or favour.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- Last week, I referred to the case of a returned soldier in my electorate named Percy Holmes. To-day, I received a letter from the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), in which he states -

I desire to refer to the ease of Mr. Percy Holmes, formerly N.99013, Corporal, School of Engineers, and now of Price-street, Merrylands. You will recollect having made representations to me regarding Mr. Holmes, and also referred to the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House on the 7th May last.

I am pleased to be able to say that, consequent upon regulations promulgated recently, the injuries sustained by the member whilst serving at the School of Military Engineering, Liverpool, have been accepted as a departmental responsibility.

I appreciate the promptness with which the Minister has attended to the matter, and I congratulate him on the fact that he has recently reconstituted the War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal. In view of the personnel of that body, I trust that appeals by returned soldiers will receive a much more favorable hearing than in the past. Nevertheless, many other matters relating to the administration of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act require attention. I received a letter to-day from Mr. Percy Holmes, which shows that the regulations already promulgated are not sufficient to meet all the needs of returned soldiers. My correspondent states -

Price-street Merrylands, 18th May, 1942.

Dear Mr. Morgan,

Many thanks for your letters and what you have tried to do for me, but I don’t appear to be getting anywhere. Since I received your last letter, I received a letter from Lieutenant Cutler, V.C., saying that my pension claim was still being considered in Melbourne, so that I have made no further claim. Myself, wife and two young children are receiving food relief, which is pretty rotten for a man who has given nearly six years of his life soldiering for Australia. In desperation last Saturday, 1 went to try and join the Army again, but they sent for my Medical Board papers and I was declared medically unfit. I am paying off a war services home, but how I am going to keep up the payments, I do not know; also, ray furniture.

When I helped to return the present Government to office, I expected better things, but please do not think that I am complaining about what you personally have tried to do. I do not appear to have much chance of obtaining suitable employment, as 1 cannot do hard work and standing is out of the question on account of my foot. I went to Lithgow and got a definite promise of a good job at the Orange munitions factory at £9 10s. a week for 60 hours, but I could not do it on account of my foot, they said. I first made my claim on the 23rd January, 1942, and it is now the IS th May, 1942, and I have made no progress at all. I would thank you if you can push the claim to a successful result.

Mr. Holmes had to wait for three months after his discharge before he received a civilian suit, and no sustenance allowance was granted to him. He received no pension despite his disablement, and finally he was put back on the dole.

Mr MORGAN:

– On the ground that his disability was not due to war service. He was injured in an accident to a military truck in which he was travelling on military duties with 22 other soldiers and which overturned between Liverpool and Casula. In that respect the department has been very tardy. At first the man’s application was refused, but now, in accordance with a regulation promulgated last week, he will receive a pension.

Mr Curtin:

– On the facts, he has been eligible for a pension for about a week.

Mr MORGAN:

– Even the regulation does not go very far. It extends the benefits of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act to certain specified persons, but I cannot see how the act can be amended by a regulation of that kind. . The National Security Act, under which this regulation was issued, was designed to deal with a state of emergency, and should not have been invoked to deal” with returned soldiers.

Mr Curtin:

– The regulation was gazetted to meet an immediate problem, and in the hope that it would be possible to frame amending legislation later.

Mr MORGAN:

– I maintain that a select committee should be appointed to consider existing repatriation legislation, and to suggest amendments for the removal of anomalies. It should also be empowered to inquire into the administration of the act, which has been far from satisfactory.

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The honorable member would surely not make the Minister for Repatriation the judge as to whether a man was, or was not, entitled to a pension ?

Mr MORGAN:

– No. It is a matter for a select committee of the House, which would consider various cases in order to see whether they should come under the provisions of the act. In the current issue of Smith’s Weekly the following article appears: -

What is a returned soldier?

Federal Government’s reluctance, or inability, to make up its mind on this question is leading up to a situation which, in other circumstances, would be Gilbertian. As it is. however, it is nothing short of tragic.

What is a Returned Soldier j Lop-sided Act should be Amended.

Men who have been at battle stations for months, who have been under enemy fire in Australian territory; men who fought at Rabaul - these cannot be classed as returned soldiers because of a lop-sided piece of legislation endorsed to meet the war of 1914-18 and never amended.

To a growing number of servicemen discharged honorably after a year, two years’ service. Government says blandly: “You are - you are not!”

And men are left to scratch their heads and wonder what it is all about - banded a volunteer’s badge, deprived of all rights and privileges the term “ returned from active service “ justly carries.

By proclamation on the 15th of last month, all persons subject to military law serving in Australia, or the Commonwealth territories, were declared to be on “ active service.” There was no definition, however, of what “ active service “ meant, and Defence Authorities are relying upon the regulations of 1914-18 which, for some strange reason, remain still on the Statute.

Proclamation was made under National Security Regulations. Ordinarily, it would seem, it would require very little effort to give it its obvious effect. Military, however, take the 1914-18 legislation as binding, even where it affects men discharged since the proclamation was made. An Army spokesman explained to Smith’s “ that it was not the military’s job to interpret what a government meant, but merely to carry out what it ordered.

Proclamation, therefore, gets returned, discharged fighting men exactly nowhere.

Lads who fought the battle for Rabaul, who trekked into the New Britain jungle to escape and serve again, for instance, cannot claim consideration as returned soldiers, because they have not served abroad

Nor can the men who give the Japs hell from Darwin. “ Smith’s “ has abundant proof that their treatment has been the cause of considerabledistress both among the men and their dependants. They consider they have been insulted.

Here are three typical instances of what is happening under archaic regulations which the Government insists must be enforced.

The article goes on to cite instances similar to the one which I have just mentioned. This matter should not he left to departmental officials, but should be inquired into by a select committee. Che Minister said that he was considering the matter in conjunction with officials of the department, but that i& not satisfactory because the administrative acts of those officials might also need to be inquired into. This man was offered work in a munitions factory, but though the wages were good, he could not take the job because of his disability. He should be given light duties until his health is restored. As a returned soldier from the last war, he was in possession of a war service home, on which he was obliged to make payments. He has not been given a sustenance allowance, and has had to accept relief for himself and his family from the State. He should not be forced into the position of accepting charitable relief from the State authorities. He has also been paying off the cost of his furniture, and I submit that the moratorium should apply, not only to men on active service, but also to men who have been discharged from the Army. This man necessarily got behind in his payments, and when that happens it is apt to undermine a man’s health.

On a previous occasion I referred to the matter of the production of munitions. I asked the Prime Minister why the Board of Area Management in Sydney lacked authority to make payments. The Prime Minister’s reply was satisfactory as far as it went, but I understand that all items of capital expenditure must still be referred to Mr. Nixon, the Director of Finance, of Melbourne, who has been very ill for the last five or six weeks.

Mr Curtin:

– That is not correct.

Mr MORGAN:

– I have been given that information on reliable authority.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Prowse:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– About five or six weeks ago I and Mr. Paul Jones, M.L.C., of Melbourne, made representations to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward) with regard to tb e gold mines at Wood’s Point and Gaffney’s Creek. The position in that area is different from that in many other gold-mining areas in Australia. Those mines are situated in veritable bush country, and around them have sprung up fair-sized townships. That at Wood’s Point consists of stores, butchers’ shops and bakers’ shops, an hotel and a hospital. Gaffney’s Creek township is much smaller. In view of the complete cessation of the rather small tourist traffic resulting from petrol rationing, the whole investment in these towns, should the mines be closed down, will vanish completely. This matter is of importance to the residents of those districts, and in all the area from Mansfield to Wood’s Point. I received an acknowledgment of the representations I made from the Minister, but I ask now whether he has given further consideration to the matter, and whether he can make an announcement to-night?

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

in reply - With regard to the views which have been expressed by the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Falstein), I can only say that I shall take up with the Minister for War Organization of Industry (Mr. Dedman) the matter that he has mentioned. That is also my answer to the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson). The problem as to what use shall be made of the gold-mines at Wood’s Point and Gaffney’s Creek is related to the treatment of the goldmining industry as a whole. It is true that a small town such as Gaffney’s Creek would be dependent upon the local gold-mine; but that is also true of a number of small gold-mining towns in Australia.

I shall look at the matter raised by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) in the light in which he has put it to me. I do not know very much about the circumstances of the case; but I know that the gentleman referred to has been publishing a number of articles in American newspapers and magazines. I am told that they have had an excellent reception in the United States of America, and, as a consequence, some persons in that country expressed their willingness to finance a lecture tour by the author of the articles. I understand that the proprietors of the newspaper of which he is editor, agreed to release him for the purpose of making the tour. I am not in a position to say whether the lecturer would be supporting all the views that would be held by the Commonwealth Government. The newspaper of which he is editor does not support all the views held by this Government. Indeed, it has singled out certain of my colleagues for very severe criticism, and a great deal of unfair treatment. That has to be considered. But the Government has never expected that newspaper editors in Australia should support it willy-nilly, before it would extend to them the ordinary rights of an Australian citizen. Some time ago Sir Keith Murdoch paid a visit to the United States of America and the United Kingdom. He is the editor of an evening newspaper in Melbourne. This gentleman is the editor of a morning newspaper in Sydney. It is not for me to judge whether the proprietors of those newspapers have made the best appointments. That is for them to say. I shall not identify the Commonwealth Government in any way with a political decision which would take away from any Australian his rights as a citizen. I understand that this gentleman would not be called up in the Army even if he ceased r,o be the editor of the paper on which he is now employed, and thereby lost the protection which he now enjoys because of the importance of his position.

Mr Calwell:

– Why?

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1934; ALP from 1936

– Because of his age and conjugal condition. That is the information which has been given to me.

With regard to the other aspects of the case, I say to the honorable member for Barker that nothing could be worse from the viewpoint of the relationship between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the United States of America than for this Government to take the responsibility of authorizing a lecture tour, or a campaign through certain newspapers.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I do not suggest that the Government should authorize such a campaign.

Mr CURTIN:

- ‘No; and I shall not do so. In that case I should have to take the responsibility of approving everything a person said, or wrote. The only judgment the Government allows to be exercised on its behalf in matters of opinion is the judgment exercised by the censor. That relates exclusively to matters of national security. I have said that on many occasions, and I repeat it now. I do not know whether this proposed lecture tour will be a success, or a failure. I am quite certain that it cannot alter American opinion of the Commonwealth, because I know that at this moment, thanks to the work already done by the official representative of’ the Government, the reputation of Australia in the United States of America and the United Kingdom has never been higher than it is at present.

Mr CALWELL:

– Does the right honorable gentleman think it is wise to incur unnecessary risks?

Mr. Curtin. I do not think that I am incurring risks. Australian citizens have gone to the United States of America within the last year. Many of them have delivered lectures in that country. I do not think that the question which the honorable member for Barker has raised involves the problem for the Government which he seems to visualize. However, I shall study the matter. I am quite conscious of the importance of preserving a proper relationship between Australia and the United States of America. I am happy to say that at present the relationship is that which the Commonwealth desires.

The facts which the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) has indicated in respect of the repatriation claim which was rejected by the commission on the ground that the claimant did not suffer disability as the result of war service-

Mr Morgan:

– It was the usual stereotyped reply.

Mr CURTIN:

– It was not a stereotyped reply. It was the answer which the commission gave, having regard to the law and the facts.

Mr Morgan:

– The claim has since been admitted.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is because circumstances have changed. It is perfectly correct, as the honorable gentleman has said, that the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act was framed to deal with returned soldiers who served in the last war, and in theatres of war distant from Australia. The circumstances to-day are not identical with those which then, existed. The Govern- in en t is concerned with the present situation; and I shall bring the matter before Cabinet. However, I feel that our repatriation legislation ought to be above party disputation. It ought to be agreed upon by the Parliament for the benefit of those who serve this country. A parliamentary committee ‘ would be a very appropriate body to review the present position and to make recommendations to the Government. I shall place the appointment of a committee for that purpose before my colleagues and the decision will be announced very shortly. I shall have another look at the matter concerning munitions production which was mentioned by the honorable member for Reid.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1454

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired - For Defence purposes -

Amberley, Queensland.

Sale. Victoria.

Tatura. Victoria.

For Postal purposes - Moggill, Queensland.

War Service Homes Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1942, No. 226.

House adjourned at 11.60 p.m.

page 1454

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Clothes Rationing

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

n asked the Minister for War Organization of Industry, upon notice -

  1. Will he inform the House of the identity of the individual stated to be one of his economists who gave the interview in Melbourne to the Sydney Daily Telegraph concerning clothes rationing, which was published in that newspaper on Monday last?
  2. Upon whose authority did this unnamed economist act in giving this interview, and upon what information did he base his statement that the department suspected that shops had not really sold their quotas?
  3. In view of this statement and others concerning rationing made by persons associated with his department, will he indicate to the House upon whom the public can rely for authentic information regarding the position?

Mr. Dedman__ The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. I am having inquiries made regarding the alleged interview by the Sydney Daily Telegraph, and will advise the honorable member of the result as early as possible.

  1. Official announcements regarding rationing will be made by or on behalf of the responsible Minister.

Department oy WA.a Organization or Industry.

Mr Rosevear:

asked the Minister for War Organization of Industry, upon notice -

  1. What are the name’s, ages, and previous occupations of the whole staff of the department’s head office in Sydney?
  2. How many of these people are exempt or have been exempted from military service, and for what reasons?
Mr Dedman:
Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

n. - I do not think it desirable that the details asked for by the honorable member should be made public, but Ishall be pleased to make the information available to him personally if he will get in touch with me.

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice -

  1. What is the estimated annual cost of pensions to women with dependent children whose husbands are serving sentences of imprisonment of not less than one year?
  2. What is the estimated annual cost of pensions to women with one or more children under sixteen years of age, whose husbands are invalid pensioners?
Mr Holloway:
ALP

y. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions areas. follows : -

  1. £27,000.
  2. £688,350.

Members of Parliament : Fees and Travelling Expenses

Mr Curtin:
ALP

n.- On the 13th May, 1942, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) asked me the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. Or. what basis are (a) fees, and (5) travelling expenses paid to honorable members who are -

    1. assisting Ministers of State,
    1. conducting inquiries or engaged on missions entrusted to them by Ministers or others, and

    2. engaged as members of the Australian Advisory War Council?

  2. How many honorable members are so employed or remunerated, or compensated?
  3. How many honorable senators as under 2 above?
  4. How many are allotted private secretaries o r other personal assistance, and at what cost?
  5. What funds have been disbursed under 1, i. 3 and 4 since the Government assumed office.

I am now in a position to furnish the following information : - 1. (i) No fees are paid to honorable members enumerated under (a), (6) and (c), with the exception of members of the Joint Works Committee who receive the following fees for attendance at meetings of the committee: -

Chairman - £2 for each sitting. - Other members - £1 10s. for each sitting, (ii) Travelling expenses are paid to honorable members employed as set out in (a), (6) and (c) under the following general conditions : -

When absent from their home on such business except in Canberra on days when Parliament is sitting.

On an hourly basis.

When transport provided includes subsistence quarter rates only are paid.

The allowance is paid at the following rotes : -

Members assisting Ministers of State - £2 2s. a day.

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works - Chairman and members - £1 a day.

Joint parliamentary committees - Chairman - £2 10s. a day. Members - £2 2s. a day.

Man-power . and Resources Survey Committee - Chairman and members - £2 10s. a day.

Chairman, War Damage Commission - £2 12s. 6d. a day.

Non-government members of the Australian Advisory War Council - £2 12s. 6d. a day.

The numbers shown are in respect of honorable members so employed or remunerated or compensated since 7th October, 1941 -

  1. (These members also served on joint parliamentary committees and are included in the number shown under (6).)

  2. (Of the number of members shown seven served on more than one committee including four on the Public Works Committee.)

The numbers shown are in respect of senators so employed or remunerated or compensated since 7th October, 1941 -

  1. (These senators also served on joint parliamentary committees and are included in the number shown under(b ) . )

  2. (Of the number of senators shown two served on both the Public Works Committee and another committee.) (c). Nil.

Not including those non-Government members of the Australian Advisory War Council who as leaders of patties are provided with private secretaries and other personal staff, three members of the Australian Advisory War Council are allotted personal assistance. Private secretaries and typists so employed, respectively receive salary of £477 to £542 and £177 to £209 per annum, and travelling expenses at Public Service rates.

Funds disbursed since 7th October, 1941.. in relation to questions 2, 3 and 4 above, amount to - 2. (a) £317 9s. 10d.; (a) £1,982 2s. 3d.; and (c) £424 18s. 8d. 3. (a) £48 Is.; (b) £1,079 17s.11d.; and (c) Nil.

Salaries of private secretaries and typists - £873 0b. 5d. Travelling allowance to private secretaries and typists - £104 15s. 8d.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 May 1942, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1942/19420520_reps_16_171/>.