View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
8 August 1923

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- INSULIN FOR DIABETES
QUESTION
- WOOL TOPS CONTRACT
QUESTION
- HEALTH OF THE WORKERS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
CUSTOMS BILL
QUESTION
- BUDGET, 1923-24

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2261

QUESTION

INSULIN FOR DIABETES

Supply to Tasmania

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health see that a supply of insulin for the cure of diabetes is made available to the hospitals in Tasmania?

SenatorWILSON. - I recently replied to a similar question put by another honorable senator from Tasmania, and I then stated that at the earliest possible moment the Department would supply insulin to the Tasmanian hospitals.

page 2261

QUESTION

WOOL TOPS CONTRACT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Sid the Commonwealth Government enter into a contract with the Colonial Combing, Spin ning,and Weaving Company Limited to enable that company to secure large quantities of wool at appraised prices under the Imperial purchase scheme?
Is he aware whether the various wool organisations in the Commonwealth protested against the contract, and pointed out that serious loss would follow?
Was a promise made by a previous Government that Australian wool-growers would be. allowed the sameshare of profitin the manufacture of wool-tops as if they formed part of the wool sold to the Imperial Government?
If bo, is he aware whether the amount due to the growers, according to that promise, amounts to approximately £398,000 plus interest; and is the Government prepared to honour the promise made?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The answers are as follow : - 1, 2, and 3. Yes.

The amount payable under the ex-Prime Minister’s promise has not yet been settled. When this has been ascertained to the satisfaction of the Government, the question of payment will be immediately considered.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

What does the Government intend to do in the matter of consideration that might be due to the Australian wool-growers in connexion with wool supplied to the Colonial Combing, Spinning, and Weaving Company Limited at appraised prices under the Imperial Purchase Scheme?

Senator PEARCE:

– The Prime Minister states that the matter is at present under consideration.

page 2261

QUESTION

HEALTH OF THE WORKERS

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Are any data being collected by any Department of the Commonwealth showing -
1. The effect of occupation on the health of the workers;
2. Death rate in occupation;
3. Sickness in occupation;
4. Accident in occupation?

Senator WILSON:

– The Department of Health is gradually collecting such information, but it may be some time before sufficient information is available to justify reliable deductions. Tie work, however, is regarded as of considerable importance, and it is steadily proceeding,

page 2262

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Employmentof half-castegirls

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Homo and Territories, upon notice -

On what conditions are half-caste girls allotted as servants to Government officials and other residents of the Northern Territory?
Is any agreement made as to the remuneration paid to these domestic servants?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The answer is as follows : - 1 and 2. The conditions under which aboriginals and haft-castes may be employed in the Northern Territory areprescribed by the Aboriginal’s Ordinance No. 9 of 1918 and regulations thereunder, which were published in the Commonwealth Gazette of 29th May, 1919. Amongst other things, it is provided that no personshall employ or continue to employ any aboriginal native or female half-caste unless he is the holder of a licence under the Ordinance. Applicants for licences in country districts undertake to pay the prescribed rate of wages, and to provide food, clothing, Ac, as prescribed. Applicants for licences in town districts, of which there are four for the purposes of the Ordinance, ‘undertake to enter into an agreement with each of their employees, such agreement covering wages, food, clothing, &c., and being executed in the presence of the local Protector of Aboriginals.

page 2262

CUSTOMS BILL

Motion (by Senator Pearce) proposed -

That take report he adopted.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– In keeping with the promise made yesterday to Senator Elliott, I submitted his amendment on clause 35 to the Crown Law Department, which sees no objection to it. In order to meet the wishes of the Senate, I move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause35.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I presume that the Minister now proposes to do what honorable senators wished him to agree to yesterday.

Senator Pearce:

– We had no opportunity yesterday of ascertaining what would be the effect of the amendment which was hurriedly sprung upon us.

Senator GARDINER:

– Evidently the Government and their supporters are satisfied that the argument submitted from this side of the Senate yesterday was sound, and I congratulate the Minister (Senator Wilson) on the course he has adopted. I am glad that the departmental officers for once are in accord with the opinion of honorable senators..

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 35 -

Section 256 of the principal Act is repealed, and the following section insertedin its stead: - “ (4) Sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to -

an averment of the intent of the defendant; or

) proceedings for an indictable offence or an offence directly punishable by imprisonment.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the words “Sub-section (1),” subclause 4, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “The foregoing provisions,”

I spoke on this amendment yesterday, and I withdrew it at the request of the Minister (Senator Wilson), who desired to consult the Crown Law authorities. The honorable senator has now intimated that the Government is prepared to adopt the alteration.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am somewhat at a loss to appreciate just how the amendment will affect the sub-clause. I doubt whether the Government are not going further than honorable senators desire by applying the averment to criminal prosecutions.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

-Brookman. - No.

Senator Elliott:

– I shall make that matter clear.

Senator GARDINER:

– If that is not the intention why remove words that are quite clear? Sub-clause 2 provides -

This section shall apply to any matter so averred although: -

evidence in support or rebuttal of the matter averred, or of any other matter, is given by witnesses; or

the matter averred is a mixed question of law and fact, but in that case the averment shall be prima facie evidence of the fact only.

Is it the intention of the honorable senator to connect that sub-clause with the provision relating to indictable offences? I am really in doubt, and I do not want the amendment to be adopted unless it is clear and definite.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- If Senator Gardiner will refer to the clause, he will see that sub-clause 4 reads -

Sub-section 1 of this section shall not apply to -

an averment of the intent of the defendant ; or

proceedings for an indictable offence or an offence directly punishable by imprisonment.

I desire to make it perfectly clear that sub-clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall not apply in the case of serious indictable offences, and I have therefore moved to omit from sub-clause 4 the words “ Sub-section 1,” and to insert in lieu thereof the words, “ The foregoing provisions.” It would seem on the face of it that only subsection 1 was not to apply to serious offences. Sub-clauses 2 and 3 are so dependent on sub-clause 1 that the effect, I think, would be the same even if the amendment were not agreed to. To make assurance doubly sure, I have moved for the deletion of certain ambiguous words and the insertion of others, so that there can be no doubt that the preceding sub-clauses will not apply in the case of serious offences.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– By a very simple method Senator Elliott has given effect to the contention of honorable senators on this side. The wording was so ambiguous that there was a danger that the averment of an official would be sufficient in prosecutions for serious offences. The object of the amendment is, I understand, to make it clear that sub-sections 1, 2, and 3 shall not apply in such cases, and I take no exception even at this late hour to the Committee doing what I desired yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with a further amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; reports adopted. .

Bill read a third time.

page 2263

QUESTION

BUDGET, 1923-24

Debate resumed from 26th July (vide page 1615), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the Estimates and Budget-papers 1923- 24 be printed.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I desire to take this opportunity to refer briefly to the position which has arisen at Canberra. I have always taken a very keen interest in the establishment of aFederal Capital, and particularly in the proposed new Houses of Parliament. I have perused the report of the Public Works Committee, and nave generally kept in close touch with the whole situation. This branch of the Legislature should take definite action in regard, to the proposed provisional Houses of Parliament at Canberra. When the plans of the proposed structure were first placed before the Committee it was so dissatisfied with the design and arrangement of the accommodation that it recommended thirty-two distinct alterations. This conveys the impression that the Committee was entirely dissatisfied with the plans of the proposed building as submitted to it by the officials of the Department of Works and Railways. In the preparation of the plan originally submitted to the Committee, the location of the Senate chamber and of the House of Representatives was not sufficiently considered. The Committee was dissatisfied with the arrangement, and it recommended an alteration in each case. It is a striking coincidence that the gentlemen who draw these plans treat members of Parliament in a manner different from that in which they treat the permanent officers of Parliament. I quite realize that in many countries Parliament has grown up very slowly and in great fear, and its meetings have been held in what might almost be termed dungeons. Any one who visits the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and many other Houses of Parliament cannot but be struck by the great precautions which in the past have been taken to protect members of Parliament, apparently, from the people outside. Surely, if the need for such precautions ever existed, it has passed in Australia. Yet we find that the proposed House at Canberra contains a replica of the chamber in which we are now deliberating. Every honorable senator knows that a very small quantity of fresh air is permitted to enter this chamber. The condition of the air in the chamber has frequently engaged the attention of expert officers. At the present time a considerable number of honorable senators are indisposed. I do not say that their indisposition is due to the quality of the air in the chamber, but there can be no doubt that it has an injurious effect upon their health. The same thing applies to members of another place. The proposed Senate chamber at Canberra which was suggested by the officers of the Department of Works and Railways did not, except at a great height, come into direct contact with the open air. In the first place, it was surrounded by a high’ wall. On two sides of the Senate chamber was a foot corridor, abutting at one end on what might be termed the Queen’s Hall, and at the other end on a long passage. Mark the difference in the accommodation suggested for the officers attached to Parliament. In absolutely every case, so far as I have been able to ascertain, there is direct natural lighting from at least one side of their rooms. That is as it should be. If honorable senators study public buildings in which are housed the permanent officers of the Departments, they will see that proper precautions have been taken to insure to those officers a plentiful supply of fresh air and natural light. At one time in this chamber a horrible contraption in the shape of a huge chandelier was suspended from the roof which seriously injured the eyesight of a number of honorable senators. Finally it was removed - to the advantage, I am sure, of every honorable senator. In Parliament House honorable senators will find that telephones are attached to the walls; whereas the permanent officers have table telephones. This is only a detail, but it indicates the different treatment meted out by permanent officers to members of Parliament. So long as members tolerate that kind of thing, it will probably be good enough for them. I enter my protest against the proposal, which I understand has been approved by another place, for the erection of a provisional Parliament House at Canberra. Originally it was intended to have no fresh air admitted to the chamber except at a very great height. Following upon representations made to officers of the Department of Works and Railways by the Public Works Committee, a revised plan was submitted. From information gained at second hand, I believe that it was intended to bodily remove the Senate chamber so that at least one end of it would abut on the open. When I brought the matter under the notice of the Senate last night, Senator Pearce drew my attention to the plan embodied in the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, with which I was already quite familiar. I was under the impression that that plan had been further amended. Inquiry to-day convinced me that the revised plan shows the building which it is proposed to erect. I invite the attention of honorable senators to the plan numbered 3. A slight alteration had to be made in regard to the Senate chamber; a door has been placed on each side, abutting on a small verandah, but no fresh air or natural light will be admitted to the chamber.

Senator Gardiner:

– How can fresh air be separated from draughts?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Easily. Apart from the gaols of the country, I do not know of any public building in which the windows have been placed, as in this case, at a height of 14 or 15- feet. Windows at that height are entirely out of place. What is proposed by these astute gentlemen ? With the exception of the chamber, very nearly all of the rooms will be open to the fresh air on at least one side. I feel deeply in the matter, because in the occupation which I followed many years ago it was most difficult to induce the employers to provide what I regard as suitable accommodation. Many of the men employed, even when they had suitable accommodation, seemed to be inclined to do things which, to my mind, were injurious to their health. As a result, many scores of them have joined the great majority. They died for the want of sufficient fresh air suitably supplied. In the revised plan it is proposed to provide access from each side of the Senate by means of covered lobbies to small verandahs. On one side is a reception hall, and between the open air and the Senate are found an officers’ lavatory, a small area, the ‘senators’ lavatory, a covered-in corridor, the Committee room, and the verandah. All these rooms, lavatories, and areas should be transferred to another position. The Senate chamber should be moved so that one side of it would communicate direct with the fresh air. The work of the Senate could then be done more satisfactorily than we can hope to do it in the absence of a supply of fresh air.

Senator Lynch:

– Why does the honorable senator concern himself so much about the Senate? Does he not intend to abolish it?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should not abolish the Senate.

Senator Lynch:

– It is on the platform of the honorable senator’s party.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is so. The abolition of the Senate would take some time, and probably, in the opinion of the best-informed men of this country, it would be much more advantageous to abolish the other branch of the Legislature, and increase the usefulness of the Senate. That is my view, but it does not correspond with the views of my party. Sometimes my party makes a mistake, and it may be right or wrong on that question. Having shut out the fresh air from the Senate chamber, it is proposed to install a complicated piece of machinery, worth £12,000, to pump in fresh air and extract foul air. It seems to me to be an operation that ought not to be countenanced for one moment. I am not quite sure what the Senate’s powers are in this matter; but I think it should make representations in the right quarter so as to have the proposed new temporary chamber erected to an up-to-date and healthy design. The days have vanished when we need fear that great crowds of people will menace the lives of members assembled in a Parliament.

Senator Gardiner:

– Those days may come again.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think they will. There does not appear to be any justification for the perpetuation of this antediluvian, old-world foolish idea of excluding fresh air, and asking honorable senators to deliberate in any but the’ best possible conditions. It is “up to “ this country to develop some ideas of its own. I know that some people will supply original ideas only with reluctance, and they are liable to copy, wherever they can, the actions of other countries. The conditions that prevail in one country are not always suitable for another. The housing accommodation in many parts of the Commonwealth is not suitable for the prevailing climate. Any one who goes into the tropical or semi-tropical parts of Australia will notice that the styles of homes in Great Britain and Northern Europe have entirely disappeared. The homes in those parts of Australia are surrounded to a large extent with wide, comfortable verandahs, and are in every way more suitable, more healthy, and better than those provided in the northern hemisphere. As we come further south into New South Wales and Victoria, and to the still colder region of Southern Tasmania, the wide verandahs and other conveniences disappear. It must be remembered that Canberra is only about 2,000 feet above sea level, and that the climate is almost the same as that of Sydney. It is warmer than Melbourne, and much warmer than Tasmania. The style of home adopted in Tasmania and many parts of Victoria is out-of-date for Canberra. This Chamber ought to take deliberate and decided action so as to insure that this branch of the Federal Parliament shall meet at Canberra under the best possible conditions. It cannot do that if we are confronted with a £12,000 machine for pumping in fresh air and extracting foul air. All that expenditure is quite unnecessary, and will only lead to trouble. I make these remarks because I feel sure that honorable senators have not looked closely into the matter. Otherwise, they would not have remained quiet while another place approved of such a proposal. As to whether we should have a temporary Parliament House at Canberra, or the nucleus of a permanent one, I may say at once that I am in favour of a temporary one. I realize that some difficulties will confront us if we have a temporary Parliament House; but I am of opinion that a temporary building would suffice for a considerable period - probably fifty or sixty years. I am entirely opposed to the idea of having the building on the side of a hill. That would be an outrage of the first order. It has been suggested that instead of erecting it on a fiat, the side of a hill should be excavated, and the building constructed there. If that were done the top of the building would be almost on a level with the surrounding country.

That would be a huge blunder, and ought not to be countenanced for a moment. Surely it should be possible to erect the Parliament House at Canberra on a vite that would permit of all the rooms being on the one level. I hope that whatever else is done there will be no occasion to excavate into the side of a hill and place practically one-fourth of the building below the ground level. It has always struck me as peculiar that our builders or architects should burrow 10 or 12 feet below a street level for the purpose of making a cellar or basement. It would almost pay them to build up from the street level a distance of about 10 feet and provide cellars, if they must have them, with good natural lighting and fresh air. Apparently proper attention has not been given to this matter in connexion with the proposed Parliamentary buildings at Canberra. I hope that another site will be found for the temporary building. I would prefer a start being made upon the nucleus of the permanent structure, but plans and specifications have not yet been drawn, and if competitive designs are invited, it will not be possible to proceed with that work for two and a half or three years. In the circumstances’, I think it better to proceed with the erection of the temporary building. I believe, nothwithstanding what may be said to the contrary, that the temporary Houses of Parliament may be completed within two or two and a half years.

Senator Foll:

– Experts say that if we made a start on v the permanent buildings it would only postpone the removal of Parliament to Canberra by about a year.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I doubt if the plans could be. prepared and tenders obtained for the nucleus of permanent Houses of Parliament in less than three and a half years. In the circumstances, I favour the erection of a temporary building. I regret that for some reason the arrangements made for the turning of the first sod on Saturday next have been cancelled, but I hope the ceremony will take place at an early date.

Senator Foll:

– What is the honorable senator’s view with regard to competitive designs for the Houses of Parliament?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I presume that world-wide designs will be invited for the permanent building, and, that, as in the case of the lay-out of the Capital, the successful competitor will obtain the premium on the erection of the building.

I hope that the proposed accommodation for the Senate at Canberra will not be provided in accordance with the revised plans.

There are a number of other matters to which I should like to refer. When Federation was accomplished, the States retained their sovereign rights and delegated certain powers, about thirty-nine in all, to the Federal Parliament. Quite a different procedure was adopted in both Canada and South Africa. The Union of South Africa assumed control of all the utilities of Government, and relegated certain powers to Provincial Councils. Canada did likewise. In Australia, the State Parliaments were reluctant to relinquish their sovereign powers, and, as a result, there has been a sharp conflict of authority in regard to certain matters. Among the subjects that have not been dealt with, so far, by the Commonwealth Parliament, are those relating to marriage, divorce, and matrimonial causes. As a result, a great number of people are suffering acutely. I realize, of course, that there are very great difficulties in the way, and that powerful influences are at work to prevent this Parliament from legislating in that direction for a number of years; but the sooner we do so and challenge the opposition the better it will be. During the war, other matters of more urgent importance had to be dealt with, but this question should engage the attention of the Parliament upon the return of the Prime Minister from London.

National insurance is a subject that might well be considered by the Commonwealth Parliament, and I should like to see a Commonwealth insurance office established. A number of private institutions appear to be preparing to conduct very extensive business, and, knowing the excellent work that has been done by the Labour Government in Queensland in the matter of insurance and workmen’s compensation, I believe that this Parliament should, at the earliest possible moment, be asked to consider a scheme of national insurance.

I am glad that the matter of bankruptcy has been taken up in the Senate

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honorable senator may not discuss that matter now, since a measure relating to it is on the notice-paper.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I intended merely to make a passing reference to it. There are other important subjects that should, in the near future, engage our attention.

In response to very urgent appeals, the Government has decided to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The system of invalid and old-age pensions has been brought into operation very slowly. I’ believe that the Reid Government, in New South Wales-, many years ago, suffered defeat because of its attitude on this subject, but finally a measure dealing with it found its way upon the statutebooks of that State. At a later date - I think in 1909-10 - the matter was taken up by the Commonwealth. The old-age pension, first granted, amounted to 20s. a fortnight. In 1916-17, the payment was increased to 25s. a fortnight, and in 1919-20, to 30s. a fortnight. The Government now proposes again to increase the amount, and while its action ought to be supported, I think it should have gone further than it has decided to go. After 30th September it is intended to fix the payment at 35s. a fortnight, and a great number of deserving people warmly approve of that decision. I have no doubt that the Government and its supporters had a caucus meeting, and that a greater payment than 35s. cannot be expected at present. A pensioner is permitted to earn 20s. a fortnight, and it is proposed to allow him to earn up to 25s. a fortnight. Assuming that he can find a job, it will mean that the maximum amount a person in receipt of the full pension can receive will be 60s. a fortnight. It will thus be possible for a married couple to receive an income up to £6 a fortnight. This is a step in- the right direction. Whenever the Act has been amended it has been liberalized. The Government is confronted to-day with a very substantial expenditure in connexion with the maternity allowance, war pensions, and other payments, but I have no fear for the future of Australia, and I think that the Government are proceeding on safe lines in this respect.

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator Hoare:

– The honorable sena- - tor does not believe that.

Senator DUNCAN:

– I do believe it. With taxation at its present level, it is impossible for the position to be different. If statistics are of any value in enabling us to arrive at the true position, these statistics show that wealth is being more evenly distributed, and that the great masses of the people are improving their position. It would be a hopeless situation if, after all these years of concentrated human effort, not by one party, but by many parties, we had not succeeded in bettering the general position of the masses. Even my honorable friends opposite will not suggest that the most Tory Government Australia has known did not - under pressure, maybe - do something for the workers. The position of the masses has been improved to a greater degree in this than in any other country.

There is in the Budget sufficient to provide honorable senators with food for thought and discussion. The Commonwealth is a huge business concern. It ought to be run as such - not in the hardhearted way in which an ordinary business is run, but with a proper regard for all sections of the community, consistent with the necessity to keep the . country financially on an even keel. The Budget is the balance-sheet issued each year to the shareholders, the people of Australia. Members of Parliament, I suppose, occupy the position of’ a Board of Directors. From the balance-sheet we ought to be able to discover which branches of the Government’s activities are paying and which are not. We ought to be able to take any department, more particularly the trading departments, and discover from the Budget what those departments have cost during the year, what they have made, and whether they disclose a credit balance. In New Zealand, as the result of an alteration made quite recently, the Budget is presented in that way. Every department submits a separate balancesheet, which is audited by the AuditorGeneral. The various trading departments of the Dominion issue a balancesheet embodying a profit-and-loss account and a statement of income and expendi’ture, signed by the head of the department and audited by the AuditorGeneral. Any one who takes up the New Zealand balance-sheet can see at a glance the position of any department.

Senator Thompson:

– How is the State Insurance Department working in New Zealand ?

Senator DUNCAN:

– I cannot say from memory.

Senator Thompson:

– The opinion seems to be held by. honorable senators opposite that Queensland is the only place which carries on State insurance.

Senator DUNCAN:

– That is an entirely wrong idea. For years there has been in Australia a growing recognition of the necessity for adopting such a course as I have suggested. It is felt that there is an increasing tendency for Governments to interfere more and more with industry, and to trade to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.

The Country party was more vociferous than any other party in urging the desirability of presenting a clear statement of accounts. It threatened Governments which did not do so, and stated that it would not be satisfied until its ideas were given effect to. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) is the Leader of the Country party. He was foremost in his criticism of past Budgets, because they were not presented in this way. He has had his opportunity, and it is regrettable that in the preparation of this Budget he did not observe the principles which he formerly enunciated. This Budget has been presented in the same old style ; if anything, it is worse than previous Budgets. It is not possible for the average man or woman to determine the actual position of the Government. I take exception, not only to the form in which the Budget has been presented, but also to the figures which purport to show the receipts and expenditure and the balance at the end of the year. I admit that the finances have been administered in a properly conservative way, but there have not been those remarkable reductions which we were inclined to believe would follow the replacement of the late Government by this Administration. The actual decrease in expenditure for the year was only £386,000, which is not worth mentioning. The surplus disclosed amounted to a little over £1,020,000. It has been pointed out that that was not the actual surplus. As a matter of fact, it should have been very much greater, since large sums which were voted for specific purposes were not expended. It was impossible to expend some of those votes, because the necessary legislation had not been passed by Parliament. Those items are included as expenditure, although they have not been expended, and as a consequence the actual surplus is very much less than that set out in the Budget

A decrease in Customs receipts is expected this year. Before I come to that may I say that a large surplus is not necessarily a good thing. If due to careful and wise administration, it is all right, but if it results from over-taxation of the community, then it is all wrong. The Government should not take more out of the community in the way of taxation than is required. It is no use building up surpluses to play with in the future. I do not know why the Government expects a decrease in Customs receipts this year, and I do not believe there will be a decrease. In other countries, particularly in those that, felt the war severely, there is a growing realization of the necessity for expanding their export trade. If they can readjust themselves so as to resume their normal, or even fifty per cent, of their normal, activities, they must export .large quantities of goods. Per head of its population, Australia is one of the best buying countries in the world. The people of Australia can afford to buy more per head than the people of any other country, not excepting the United States of America. The countries that need an export trade will look to Australia as a field for their exportable products. It is more than likely that they will be prepared to export cheaply for the next two or three years, and that being so, I cannot agree that there is likely to be any very great decrease , in Customs revenue. There is therefore no necessity to consider an increase in taxation. One of the complaints I have to make against the Budget is that it does not propose to decrease taxation to the extent that it should. Indeed, judging by .the utterances of a Minister, there is a fear that taxation may be increased in the near future. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr, Austin Chapman) went to Sydney a little while ago and spoke at a dinner of the Commercial Travellers’ Association. He said he “ hoped “ there would be no necessity to increase taxation. While the people of this country are looking for a decrease in taxation, and expecting it in view of the Budget proposals, the Minister for Customs merely “hopes” that there will be no necessity to add to it.

Senator Pearce:

– What is the cost of that maintenance?

Senator NEEDHAM:

– About 10s. 6d. Roughly, 50 per cent, of the inmates, a great number of whom are qualified for an invalid pension or old-age pension, are debarred from receiving the pension. These men are placed in an invidious position compared with the men for whom the Commonwealth pays maintenance. Inmates who’ are transferred from the Wooroloo Consumptive Sanatorium, which is a proclaimed institution under the Pensions Act, are permanently debarred from a pension if they were resident in the Wooroloo Sanatorium immediately prior to their admission to the Old

– That would depend upon the cost of maintaining them in the respective institutions. I have already stated that the proposed increase of 2s. 6d. a week is inadequate.

In the Budget speech the following paragraph appears : -

The question of the disposal of this surplus has been very carefully considered by the Government, which feels that there is no necessity to apply the whole of it in redemption of the public debt, because definite arrangements have been made for an adequate sinking fund. It is proposed that it shallbe dealt with in the following way: -

Senator NEEDHAM:

– The honorable senator was not in this Parliament in 1915-16, when this matter was debated without his assistance or the support of the Nationalist party, to which he belongs. In spite of the opposition of a section in Parliament, with which the honorable senator is associated, war pensions and invalid and old-age pensions arc now regarded as being quite distinct. A perusal of Hansard will prove that what I am saying is correct.

Another paragraph in the Budget speech reads -

There were not any notable differences between the amounts of revenue estimated and the actual collections, except in the case of Customs and Excise, which yielded more than £5,000,000 above the estimate, and above the receipts from that source in the previous year.

– We should manufacture all we require, and also be able to export a certain quantity. If we handled the materials at our disposal, we should be able to do that. We could then export to other countries.

I understand that it is proposed that the Taxation Department of the Commonwealth shall be transferred to the States. What action is it proposed to take in regard to the Commonwealth taxation officers, male and female, who will be retrenched ? Will due regard be paid to their term of service with the Commonwealth ? Will they receive any compensation for the accrued rights that they may lose ? Will compensation be paid to the families of the officers who will be affected ? I have received representations from returned soldiers, many of whom will be placed in a rather awkward position. These men have been for some time in the Commonwealth Taxation Department, and they will not be fitted to go on the labour market and compete with the average man.

I desire to bring under the notice of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) a superannuation matter affecting the widows of five officers in Western Australia. I have received from the secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Telegraphists’ Union a letter of which the following is a paragraph: -

In a general sense the Superannuation Act provides (section 38) that where an employee, having ten years service, dies between 31st December, 1920, and 5th January, 1923, a pension is payable to his widow and children. This applies in all States. However, later on (sections 51 to 58) the Act makes special provision for employees with pension rights, apart from, and existing prior to, the Superannuation Act, to transfer or convert their rights, or to come under the Act for the limited purpose of a pension for their widows and children.

This part of the Act was evidently designed to prevent employees being entitled to two pensions upon retirement, and it was thought wise that persons with pension rights already in existence must convert same, or only come under the Superannuation Act under certain conditions.

Further on the letter states -

However, section 51, which was designed to prevent payment of two pensions to one person, has had the effect of nullifying section 38 as far as officers with previously existing rights are concerned, and has affected widows and families of some of our late members (who had long and meritorious service) in an adverse manner, simply because the employees died before they had an opportunity of coming under the provision of the Superannuation Act.

The officers referred to were Messrs. P. McKnight, A. J. Besley, telegraphist; D. W. Thomas, clerical assistant; W. F. Cole, telegraphist: and G. P. Marks, clerical assistant. The letter points out - Had these officers not been entitled to a pension under a Western Australian State Act, their widows and children would have received the benefits, but, as it is, their dependants get nothing.

Representations have been made, and we are informed it is proposed to amend the Act in the direction desired. As there are only five such cases - and there can never be any more, seeing that the time limit has expired - we trust that you will use every endeavour . - . to see that justice is done.

J The president of the Superannuation Fund Management Board (Mr. F. Eoss), replying to the secretary of this organization, stated -

I agree with you in the view that the widow of an employee with pension rights who receives no consideration in respect of the death of her husband, should receive the same treatment as .the widow of an employee without pension rights who dies in the Service.

The matter has not been lost sight of, and the question of amending the Act in the direction desired is now under consideration.

I wrote to the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) on this matter, and I have received the following reply: -

Referring to previous correspondence in connexion with request for compensation for the widows of five officers who recently died in Western Australia, namely, P. McKnight, A. J. Besley, W. F Cole, D. W. Thomas, and G. F. Marks, I desire to inform you that the Treasurer thinks that the benefits of the superannuation law should not be extended at present.

– In that respect, I am as proud as is the honorable senator.

Senator GUTHRIE:

- Senator McDougall did not show that pride in his speech. He painted a picture which would condemn this country as a sorry land in which to live. Facts and figures, on the contrary, show that the Commonwealth of Australia is extraordinarily prosperous. There are hundreds of thousands of ex-service men in England, Ireland, and Scotland who are available to-day to help us to develop and defend this country. In 1.908, according to the Commonwealth Y ear-Book, the total production of this country amounted to £164,934,000, and in 1920- 21, it had increased to £402,208,000. The imports in 1913, prior to the war, were valued at £79,750,000, and in 1921- 22, at £101,064,000. On the other hand, we exported in 1913, goods to the value of £78,572,000, which consisted mostly of primary products. In 1921-22, that figure jumped to £127,923,000. The value of the goods manufactured in Australia increased from £28,905,000 in 1910, to £68,655,000 in 1920-21. The best and fairest indication of the prosperity of a country is the Savings Bank deposits of its people. In this connexion we find, as Senator Duncan has shown, that a very large percentage of the population of Australia has Savings Bank accounts. In the year 1901, which is little more than twenty years ago, the deposits in the Savings Banks of Australia amounted to £30,883,000, whereas in 1922 which is the last year for which figures are available, they had increased to £162.273,000. It must be remembered that those who use the Savings Banks are mostly of the working class. Savings Banks deposits in 1901, amounted to £8 3s. per head of the population, and last year to £28 2s.10d. per head. That figure does not represent the average deposits of the depositors in the Savings Banks, but the Savings Bank deposits averaged over the total population of the Commonwealth. I find that in the year 1912, the deposits in the banks of issue were over £84,000,000, the Savings Banks deposits were £66,000,000, and the total deposits and investments in war savings certificates were £216,763,000. For the past year they were £413,903,000, which was nearly double the amount ten years previously. The savings of the people of Australia in the last ten years, despite the war, and owing largely to the fact that a National Government has been in power, increased by 100 per cent.

Senator Needham referred to an alleged land monopoly in this country, and other honorable senators opposite have made similar allegations. Those statements are, of course, nonsense, because the facts are that less than 10 per cent, of the total area of Australia is alienated, and of the 718,000 existing estates only 12,182 pay the whole of the land tax. Senator Grant is in favour of abolishing the exemption. Farmers are exempt from land tax upon valuations up to £5,000. We, on this side, believe that it is better to collect the tax from the largest owners. I shall read a letter to the press of Melbourne in which I am taken to task for saying, in my speech on the AddressinReply, that only 10 per cent, of the land was alienated. In this letter the writer states that, according to the official Year-Book for 1922, the land alienated and in process of alienation is not as much as 10 per cent, of our spacious national real estate, and that a stock-taking would show that, of a total area of 1,903,000,000 acres,the land alienated and in process of alienation was 173,000,000 acres, or less than 10 per cent. Considering the enormous size of Australia, and the fertility of its soil, that statement proves that there is any quantity of land available for immigrants, as well as for our own people.

Senator Pearce:

– The Premier of

– Because of the misgovernment and mismanagement of the Labour Government which is in power there. Honorable senators opposite have suggested that the workers of Australia are not well off. They are, in fact, better off, in proportion to the cost of living, than the people of any other country. I think it was Senator Needham who said people worked forty-eight hours a week for what he called a “paltry average wage of £4 14s. 6d.” The facts are, that in 1914 the average hours worked in Australia were 48.87 per man per week, and the average wage paid was £2 15s. 7d. Statistics for the year 1921 show that the average number of hours worked by the people of Australia had dropped in that year to 46.22 per week - I do not say that I deplore that reduction - and that the average wages had increased to £4 14s. 6d., which compares very favorably with the wages paid in any other country. If that average were maintained, and we could insure that everybody would be employed, the workers should be satisfied.

Nothing has contributed to the increase in the cost of living so much as the policy of strikes, ca’ canny, and “go slow.” Naturally, if, in the building of a house, bricklayers decide to lay only a certain number of bricks per day, the cost of the building must be appreciably increased to the owner, whether he be a man of means or a worker who has saved sufficient to build a home for himself or a house from which he hopes, in his old age, to derive revenue from rent by way of interest on his savings. To meet this increased cost the owner must demand as very much higher rent if he is to get even the moderate return of 5 per cent. Nothing is damaging this country so much as is the pernicious policy of encouraging industrial strife. Unfortunately, the workers are being misled by paid agitators, who realize that their comfortable billets at £5 or £6 per week will be endangered if conditions approximating to industrial peace are allowed to prevail in Australia. Thus, they persist in fomenting trouble, and incidentally they are largely responsible for keeping up the high cost of living to the workers. In the consideration of this problem I want to be quite fair. I admit that, owing to the unfavorable seasonal conditions, the cost of meat, par;ticularly in the southern States, is deplorably high. We have experienced a very bad season. The rain did not come until May or June, and as we cannot hope to fatten bullocks, or even sheep, for many months after rain falls, we have had to import from New Zealand - a course which every one must deplore, especially in view of the fact that in the northern half of Australia cattle are saleable only at a price that does not cover the cost of production. Owing to the tick pest in Queensland, there is an embargo upon the importation of live-stock from the northern State, and so we have to look elsewhere for our immediate needs.

Senator McDougall, in the course of his remarks upon land settlement, declared that the land purchased for the settlement of immigrants or returned soldiers cost £8 per acre. I have taken the trouble to examine the Y ear-Book on this point, and I find that the 3,895,849 acres of freehold land purchased by the various Governments of Australia cost, on the average, £3 16s. per acre. That is much below the figure quoted by the honorable senator. Even in Victoria - the smallest and most closely populated State, where land is much higher than elsewhere in the Commonwealth - the average cost of all land, including city lands, bought for repatriation of our soldiers- and for closer settlement purposes generally, is £7 per acre. That is high enough, but, in the circumstances, it cannot be des.scribed as exorbitant. I do not want to see the price of land increased through Government re-purchases for the settlement of either immigrants, or Australian citizens, f agree that before we encourage immigration for land development we should make land available for our own people; hut I maintain that an abundance of good Crown lands is available for the settlement of not only our own people, but also thousands from overseas. What is possible has been well demonstrated in the mallee country of Victoria. The farmers there are as prosperous, on the average, as are producers in any other part of the Commonwealth. Thirty years ago that portion of Victoria, speaking generally, was regarded as absolutely useless ; but, as a result of a policy of water conservation and distribution, the_use of fertilizers, and modern methods of cultivation, it is now one of our most important wheat belts. The Wimmera United Water Trust has no less than 6,000 miles of water channels for the distribution of water throughout the northwestern corner of this State. What has been done there is an example of what is possible in almost any other part of Australia.

I agree with honorable senators opposite, that it is useless to encourage immigrants to take up land unless we have a comprehensive and sound land settlement policy to insure their success. We can afford to spend a vast sum of money on such reproductive works as the construction of railways and roads, the conserva- ti on and distribution of water, and the establishment of postal, ‘ telegraphic, and telephonic facilities to malco ‘ life in the country worth living. I hope that a great deal of attention will be given to this matter in the future. The statistical returns concerning production, earnings per head of population, deposits per head and gross totals of deposits in our Savings Banks, reveal a condition of prosperity that is absolutely astounding.

Australia is essentially a country for primary production. We are capable of producing immense quantities of raw products required by the rest of the world. Chief amongst these is wool. Honorable senators opposite, who so often declare for the policy of “ bursting up “ our sheep walks, and who so often decry the wool industry of the Commonwealth, will no doubt be surprised to know that at the present time over 80,000 families are engaged in the industry, and that in value our exports of wool contribute very materially to the total of exports. The actual figures, which are truly illuminating, are as follows: -

– But the balance of trade this year has turned against us. Owing to climatic conditions, the intrinsic value per pound of the wool-clip will not be equal to what it was last year. We had a dry season up to a certain period, and, owing to the excess of rain that fell subsequently, the area under wheat will be less than the acreage sown in 1922. In Victoria it is estimated that the area under crop is from 33 to 40 per cent less than it was last year, and the crops prospects, unfortunately, are not very good. Although a lot is said about the season being a good one, it should be realized that the rain came too late. There will be a splendid growth of herbage and grass, and an abundant supply of water, but the fact remains that there will be a decrease in the production of wool, meat, and wheat, and consequently a shrinkage in our exports. The wheat market, moreover, is not as good to-day as it has been, therefore I foresee a very serious falling off in the value of Australian exports generally during the coming year. There will be less wool, less wheat, and less meat sent abroad.

Honorable senators have heard much stupid talk about “ bursting up “ the sheep-walks, and also about the “ beef barons.” Concerning this matterI desire to quote from a speech delivered by a well-known Labour parliamentarian from Queensland.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator is devoting a lot of attention to Labour.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The remarks I am about to quote are perfectly true. Their author comes from Queensland, and knows what he is talking about. In reference to the cattle industry, he states -

Many of the properties have not paid working expenses during the last three or four years. With regard to the smaller men, they are in a very impecuniousposition. They have not got tie security the others hold, and consequently cannot get loans. In my travels through central Queensland many of them have asked me to try to get the opossum season opened, so that they could catch opossums for a living. Others have asked me to use my influence to get them a job, so that they could earn something to keep their homes together. That is the position of manymen in the cattle industry, not only in Queensland, but also in other parts of Australia. . . . Travelling amongst them, one realizes that to-day many of them are practically bankrupt. Even those in a large way of business are not making working expenses. They have large overdrafts. . . .

– I always listen with a great deal of pleasure to Senator Guthrie, and I hope he will pardon me if I say that I think that some day he may become a statesman. But he has yet to devise a policy that will square with his selfish idea that, in the general scheme of things, every other country but Australia must make sacrifices. For instance, it seemed to me that he was keener about a policy that would keep out British woollen goods - because they are likely to compete with industries in which he is interested - than on any other question.

Senator Guthrie:

– Because they are being dumped in this country.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course they are. The honorable senator is interested in keeping British ships away from our ports. I wonder if he can explain how, if that were done, we should get ships to take away our wool and other products to other centres of the world. The sooner we realize that this

Empire of ours cannot be held together by a policy of flag-flapping the better. The trade of the Empire belongs to the Empire. It is interwoven. We must get rid of the idea that Australia must have all the kernels and the British people all the husks. We must realize that every section of the community can produce something that is required by people in other parts of the world, and that trade should flow along its natural channels. What does he say with regard to our fruit producers? I do not wish to misrepresent the honorable senator, but if I understand him rightly, one of his remedies for our present troubles is that Britain should pay more for her dried fruits in order to’ give us a preference - that she should shut out the dried fruits from other countries. The honorable senator affects to believe that we give Great Britain a preference. I do not know how he, as an intelligent man, can entertain such a belief. In what way do we give Great Britain a preference? On the very woollen goods which the honorable senator says are being dumped by British manufacturers on the Australian market, we impose a duty of 40 per cent. We give Britain a preference by imposing a penalty of £40 on every £100 worth of woollen goods she sends to Australia.

Senator Payne:

– The penalty is on the users here.

Senator GARDINER:

– Of course, the user pays. I am under no misapprehension in that regard; but does not such an impost interfere with Britain’s trade with us? Senator Guthrie, and, indeed, all honorable senators opposite, are, so far as mere words go, enthusiastic supporters of Empire. They will, if necessary, die for the Empire, but they will not trade on an equal footing with the rest of the Empire. Without the existence of a high Tariff, trade with the Empire would interfere with their banking accounts and their businesses. They are prepared to do anything for the Empire, but they will not trade with it on an equal footing.

Senator Guthrie:

– We are Britain’s best customers.

Senator GARDINER:

– Exactly, but we make the other people pay. Our idea of British competition is that it shall be burdened to the extent of, at least, a 40 per cent. Tariff. If we are to work in harmony with the rest of the Empire, we’ should not impose a trade barrier. The two things are not compatible. We want either one thing or the other. I speak as a Labour man. On this question of preference, I do not want the British workingman to come here and share our unemployment. 1 take the view that the whole of our competitive system is wrong. It gives the best results to the most unscrupulous. The high-water mark of our love of Empire would be reached if we demonstrated practically our desire to trade with Britain even in the things that we produce ourselves. I have no desire to place any additional burden on her starving millions in order that our primary producers may market their products to greater advantage. We speak of all our magnificent opportunities, and we invite immigrants to come and share them with us ; nevertheless, we want the British people to give us preference in regard to the marketing of ‘ our butter and other products. Notwithstanding that in climate, soil, and in other respects, we have opportunities undreamed of by the people of Great Britain or in European countries, we say that we cannot compete with them unless we put up a barrier to give our people the necessary trade protection. Britain has given us a very real preference. She has permitted our wheat producers to market their products without any fine in the shape of Tariff duties, and we, in return, show’ our love of Empire by imposing on articles that she produces a duty of 40 per cent. Then, forgetting all this, honorable senators opposite rise in their places from, time to time and talk about Empire preference I This system of production for profit has failed utterly. All this talk about Empire preference merely covers our own shortcomings, and prevents a consideration of the real cause and the application of the real remedy.

– I wish that I could think that the growers would get the benefit of that bounty. The people have to pay from 8d. to ls. 6d. per lb. for beef, and I fail to understand why their money should be used to enable beef to be exported. In the long run we shall have such a scientific system of helping one another that the hat will be passed round on behalf of every man, woman, and child in the community; and it will be done by the anti-Socialist section.

When the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) was appointed to the Cabinet the man on the land declared, “ At last the interests of the primary producers are to be safeguarded.” The country-man’s Treasurer has produced a most interesting Budget, but so far as I can see there is not a single’ sentence in it to give effect to the , promises made by the Treasurer in his pre-election speeches.

Senator Ogden:

– What about the remission of duty on sulphur. Is not ‘that one little sop?

Senator GARDINER:

– The Tariff Board, I think, has been dealing with that matter; but, as far as the Budget goes, the country-man’s representatives in the Ministry propose to do nothing until Parliament meets again.

Senator Payne:

– What about the creation of a sinking fund to pay off the national debt.

Senator GARDINER:

– Will that help the man in the country? Will it make two bushels of wheat grow where only one grew previously? The farmer is thinking seriously that he has been deceived by this composite Government that has been swallowed by the old Nationalist party. On the 12th October, 1922, Dr. Earle Page said-

Promises have been made of constitutional amendments, but those promises have not been honoured by the Government. The Treasurer’s statement of last year referred to this matter, and pointed out that constitutional amendment was the only way to attain real relief from taxation and undue expenditure; yet there is no mention of this reform in the Budget of this year. Nor is there any attempt by the Government to submit constitutional amendments to a referendum at the forthcoming elections, although there was a definite understanding to that effect.

That is what the present Treasurer had to say about Mr. Bruce’s Budget in 1922. The Treasurer now comes along with a Budget which should include constitutional amendments to enable two new State Parliaments to be created. The district that the Treasurer represents was to have one of the new State Parliaments. Perhaps he has now reached the height of his ambition, and there is not the same necessity for new States. I have heard that as there are only three representatives of the Country party in the present Ministry - I refer to the Treasurer, and Messrs. Stewart and Gibson - and as they are satisfied with their Ministerial positions, nothing else matters. All that I can say is that never was there a more favorable opportunity than the present for a Convention to deal with the subject of the formation of new States. After the present session terminates there will be a considerable recess during which the whole matter could be discussed by any Convention called into existence. If advantage were taken of that opportunity it would be possible, when Parliament meets again next year, to give effect to what the Treasurer and his colleagues once claimed to be of the utmost importance to Australia. Speaking on another oc casion concerning the Country party, the present Treasurer said-

It will fight for a reduction of duties on the staple necessities of the producer and for the admission of implements and tools of trade free of duty when made within the British Empire.

I suppose that during the recess the Treasurer will tell the people of the Northern Rivers district of New South “Wales that he has put up a splendid fight on their behalf. The people generally must have wonderful faith in a gentleman who can attach “Dr.” to his name; but an ordinary man such as I am does not possess the same faith in the University- trained men. Soma imagine that a University training gives a man unbounded ability, but if such is the case I am sure that in this instance it has not been displayed in Parliament.

Senator Guthrie:

– The people know the honorable senator. He has been here long enough.

Senator GARDINER:

– And it is because the people know me that I am here. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), when speaking on the 12th October last, said -

This shows of what little value the protective Tariff of this Government apparentlyis. The collection of nearly £1.500,000 worth of additional duty through the Customs Department is due to causes which are not advantageous to Australia.

They are not. Is the honorable gentleman, now that he is Treasurer, going to alter the causes? What is he doing in the matter? Probably he now thinks that because his colleague in the Senate, Senator Wilson, is going to England, and Parliament is going into a long recess, the country can wait for all these matters, the settlement of which he considered of such urgency and importance prior to the elections.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Is not all this an argument in favour of the abolition of Hansard

Senator GARDINER:

– It is a strong argument in favour of the removal of such men - men who directly deceive the people - from the public life of the country. Some think we are living in prosperous times ; but we have never been in a more serious position than we are in at present. The greatest injury that could possibly happen to Australia is the loss of confidence which should exist between constituents and their representatives.

That lossis more serious when an honorable member is elevated from the position of a private member to that of a member oft the Ministry, and his so-called principles areat once thrown overboard.

Senator Thompson:

– Is he a free lance?

Senator GARDINER:

– The Treasure is not a free lance. He is responsible to a majority in the Cabinet, at a party meeting, or in Caucus ; but that will not relieve him and his supporters from the demand of their constituents that they shall adhere to their principles and do as the people; wish. The work of this Parliament has been hurried. A number of measures have been thrownbef oreus.not for consideration, but merely to enable the Government to go into recess this month, and to allow their supporters to return to their constituents and say, “ We have passed a number of Bills. The Honorary Minister (Senator Wilson), also moved the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill- an effort that required a good deal of exertion on his part,, and we passed’ a Customs Bill which was simply a machinery measure:” They will not tell the people: that, in the Customs Bill an attempt was made to violate a longstanding principle of British justice; and that they endeavoured to pass in that measure A provision: which meant that a man would be held to be guilty until he could prove his innocence. The Government supporters’ will’ point with pride to a long list of legislation passed in. ten or twelve weeks, and say that there was no occasion for Parliament to sit during the hot summer months. They will also say that the Empire was calling the Prime Minister to confer with British Ministers on Imperial and trade questions. This is the Empire for which they say they will fight and die. They will die for it rather than trade with, it! Under their policy, if we trade with the British Empire the British manufacturers must pay a penalty before any business can be done. Of course, I know Senator Payne and others will say that it is not the British manufacturer, but it is the Australian user of British goods who pays the difference. I candidly admit that. But there is a Tariff barrier preventing trade between Australia and Great Britain. In thiswonderful composite Government, one half of the members are pulling in one Way and the other half is not game to pull at all. The Bruce section is dragging the Page section wherever it likes. The Page section we were told by. . the Treasurer would , pass out of the alliance with its forces intact. I have not the exact quotation, but it was to that effect. The Treasurer said that it was an alliance between the Nationalists and the Country party, but that a composite Government had been formed from which the Country party should any disagreement arise could withdraw its division intact. During this year we have had the extraordinary exhibition of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) governing the Commonwealth, although not once has a majority of the representatives in another place met in the room of his parity. The members necessary to form that majority have met in a separate room; they have not yet attended the meetings of the Nationalist party.I trust that the Prime Minister will inform the British people of this innovation so successfully carried out and in a way that was never dreamt of on that side of the world.

I wish now tot refer to a statement by Senator Duncan published in the Sydney Morning Herald, on the 7th of this month. It is headed. “ White Australia - Labour Senators?’ Attitude,” and reads -

The refusalof the Federated Seamen’s Union to affiliate with the Australian Labour party showed that the seamen had good reason to doubt thebona fides of the Labour party, said Senator Duncaro yesterday. During the past week, said. Senator Duncan, there had been an attempt by Labour senators to nullify that portion of the Navigation Act which prevented British ships carrying, in some cases, coloured crews from enjoying the coastal provisions of the Act, but. it had beendefeated by Nationalist senators, fortunately for the Australian seamen and the principle of a White Australia.

I do not mind giving in the Senate as much as I can and taking as much in return, but , I strongly object to misrepresentation in the public press.. I do not think that any honorable senator, irrespective of the side of the Chamber on which he sits, will say that that is a fair report of what occurred in this Chamber last week. What occurred was this: Senator Ogden submitted a motion dealing with the position in which Tasmania was placed owing to Certain provisions of the Navigation Act. As Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, I rose to speak to the motion, but, unfortunately, did not catch the eye of the President, and the debate was adjourned on the motion of Senator DrakeBrockman. Had I been given an opportunity to speak to the motion, I should have stated that the members of my party would strongly oppose it. The statement that Labour senators supported the proposition is false and misleading. I am prepared to give and take with others, but I strongly object to statements such as are being published in the press, particularly when they put the position so unfairly. The position should have been stated in a perfectly clear and intelligent manner. Senator Duncan ‘ knows as well as I do, that Senator Ogden is not in favour of black labour being employed on British ships. If such statements were allowed to pass unchallenged, our deliberations would be reduced below the customary high standard. I have sent the following telegram to the Sydney Morning Herald: -

Attention has been directed to a false and misleading statement attributed to Senator Duncan, appearing in your issue of 7th inst.. viz., that there had been an attempt by Labour senators to nullify that portion of the Navigation Act which prevented British ships carrying, in some cases, coloured crews. Labour senators never attempted anything of the kind; and, on behalf of the party. I give the statement a most emphatic denial.

As regards the attitude of the Nationalists, if my memory serves me aright, I think the only Nationalist who spoke was Senator Payne, and he supported the motion. I am prepared to let it stand at that.

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– No vote was taken on the motion.

Senator Foll:

– Has the Sydney. Morning Herald published the honorable senator’s telegram?

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Elliott:

– Has thehonorable gentlemanany scheme in mindat present ?

Senator GARDINER:

– My scheme is simple. It postulates that no man willing to work shall have to look for it, but thatthose who have work to do shall look for him and fetch him. We have plenty of work crying out to be done,but we are doing everything possible to find the other fellow to do it. Let us suppose that there are 1,000 men in Bourke-street, Melbourne, willing to work. Let ussuppose that we have an intelligent Government, which wants to develop this ‘undeveloped country, and to do work which will furnish a return, perhaps not tomorrow, but in the course of a few years. Surely we couldevolve a scheme toemploy these people for that work.Surely it would bea saving to the community to employ them. There is something wrong, not only in this country, but in Great Britain, the United States of America, andelsewhere, when these are 11 percent, ofthepopulation unemployed. Unemployment is an awful economic waste. There are many ways in which those men could be usefully employed in this young country; and if they were usefully employed,no objection would be raised bythe Labour party to our brothers from Great Britain being brought here. Wehave no ill-feeling against the (Britisher. What we complain of is that glowing picturesof Australia are drawn in Britain, but when the immigrant comes here, the promises made to him are not fulfilled. Some of the new arrivals becomestowaways in order to get backto their native land. If we could onlydevisea method by which men who are willingto work would have work togo to, I venture to say that we would deserve wellofourday andgeneration, and this

Parliament would go down to history as Shegreatest Parliament that ever sat. It isdifficultto imagine, with theprosperity of the people increased by the earnings of the 151 per cent, now unemployed, where development “would begin and end. The Nationalistparty is not bent on doing that, but on keeping in existence the present system by which a few men become wealthy. Subsequent speakers from the other side will probably point to a few men who have drawn prizes in -this gamble, and have risen from the lowest rung ofthe ladder to thehighest. These men areto be found in thePublic Service andin the business life of the community. In Sydney there are thousands of men who, withverylittleadvantage in theirearly childhood, are now big busi- ness men.

Senator Kingsmill:

– One ofthe f eaturesofoursystemis that a man may be a worker to-dayanda capitalisttomorrow.

SenatorGARDINER.- That is one of theprizesa man may draw.

SenatorGUTHRIE. - There isequality ofopportunity.

SenatorGARDINER. - Yes it islike the scrambleforlolliesat aSunday school picnic- -thetrongest : get the largestfrstfull.If it is mostthe strongest,then, it is themost ‘unscrupulous. Some men have risenby resort tomeans from whichothers wouldshrink. I donot say that as a generalcon- demnationof the wealthyclass, because

I recognisethat the easiest andstraightest road to prosperity in business as straightforward and honest dealing. At the same time, it cannot be denied that when a man has made money - as many do-by most dishonorable methods, if he invests it wisely, it earns from the workers interest for all time.

I have said, perhaps, not whatI wanted to say, but what came into -my mind after I rose to speak. I have said, as I always say, what I believe in. I lookupon the Budget as a blank-Page” Budget. It is a complete blank page, as far as progress isconcerned. It throws over allthe aspirations of the Country partyandthe New States party.It is simply a declaration that for the next -twelve months, as far as they and their party are concerned, Parliament will do-nothing,. We shallthen be so close to the general election that there will beno time to do anything. With these words, I leave theBudget. I can promisethe Minister thatthe details of the Estimates, when we come to them, will receivecloser scrutiny.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I should not have commenced my contribution to this debate in the -manner ‘I now intend to adopt but forSenator Gardiner’s direct reference to myself. Pointing his finger at mehe suggested that I was prepared to do anythingI could to assist wealthy people to ‘become wealthier in Australia.

SenatorGardiner. - I think the honorable senator is a good representative man of that class.

Senator PAYNE:

– Perhaps when the honorable senator has heard what Ihave to sayin refutation of the charge he may change his mind. To attempt to get at (the root cause of unemployment inAustralia, we might very well sit here all night and all day to-morrow. I intend, inthe time at my disposal, to advance some of the reasons why this bright and sunny land of Australia is notfree from atrouble that is common to the older countries of the world. It appears to one that one of the main reasons is that industries, which ought to havebeen established on a sound basis, have not been able, as the result of a mistaken policy on the part of those engaged in them, to continue profitably owing to the continued diminution of output. We hadsuch , an instance but a short time ago at Newcastle. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company’s steel works there were closed down for many months mainly because of this diminution of output from week to week. The management being unable to meet the competition of the imported article, were forced to close the works, and hundreds of men were thrown out of employment. I have no doubt that the same contributing causes are at work in connexion with many large industrial concerns in our metropolitan areas. The future development of Australia depends on the continued expansion of her primary and secondary industries; but, unfortunately, the army of. unskilled labourers is year by year growing in size, while, on the other hand, the skilled artisans who play so important a part in our secondary industries are becoming fewer. This state of affairs in .the industrial arena is, in my opinion, one of the chief factors in our unemployment problem. Those primarily responsible for it sure trade unionists who, many years ago, combined to make the skilled trades a close corporation and to demand what wages they pleased.

Senator Needham:

– They did not succeed in getting such wages.

Senator PAYNE:

– No, because no industry can stand unreasonable wage demands. If wages are too high, the. industry must go to the wall. The object originally was, as I have said, to create a close corporation for the especial benefit of a limited number of skilled artisans. Those men forgot, however, that the time would come when they would have growing lads of their own, who had’ just as much right as their fathers had to adopt a skilled trade as a calling. These lads were debarred through the operation of the policy limiting the number of apprentices to be employed in skilled trades.

– They are prepared to do that. In view of the present position, is it any wonder that unskilled men among immigrants now arriving in Australia are finding it difficult to secure employment in our cities? I am confident, however, that if we approach this problem in the right spirit, we shall eventually find .a way out of our present difficulty.

We have been ‘ hearing .a good deal about the preference which we should show to Great Britain and which Britain should show to Australia. Notwithstanding that in our Customs Tariff Act the duties against articles of British manufacture are fairly high, yet the schedule, as a whole, gives substantial preference to Great Britain. Senator Gardiner would have us believe that, because there is a duty on British goods, we are not giving any preference to Great Britain. That, of course, is an erroneous conclusion. Let me refer honorable senators to one item in the schedule, namely, that relating to cotton textiles. I forget, how many mil- lion pounds’ worth of manufactured cotton goods were, imported last year. It is important ,to note that they came in duty free from Great Britain, whereas there- is a duty of 15 per cent, on such goods imported from the United States of America. I remind honorable senators that this is one of the biggest items in the Tariff list, and, if it does not give substantial preference to Great Britain, I do not know what preference is. It must not be forgotten that, from a manufacturing point of view, Australia is a comparatively young nation. British industries are firmly established, whereas Australia is just at the beginning of her career as a manufacturing country. How could we possibly evolve a Tariff to fit in with our necessities as a manufacturing country if we admitted duty free the bulk of the goods that would compete with our industries? We could not, of course, hope to compete with the manufacturers of the Mother Country. We must first build up our industries. I am not, by any means, a prohibitionist. I do not believe in the erection of a Tariff wall over which competitors from other countries could not possibly climb. That policy would be directly responsible for the establishment in Australia of jelly-fish, spineless manufacturing industries, devoid of initiative and resource. When our industries, are firmly established, we may then consider the revision of our Tariff schedule in respect of competitive manufactured goods from other countries, and perhaps without fear that the competition will be disastrous to our own industries.

I desire to remove a misconception that has arisen in the course of the debate. Senator Needham referred to the proposed increase of the allowance to old-age and invalid pensioners. Speaking of the allowance made to the inmates of benevolent institutions, he made what appeared to be a reasonable suggestion, namely, that those people should receive the difference between the cost of their upkeep and the amount of the pension. If the actual cost of their maintenance was, for instance, 12s. 6d., and the pension 17s. Cd. per week, the honorable senator suggested that the inmate should receive 5s. I happen to know a good deal , about the administration of benevolent institutions in Tasmania. I find that in 1914 the average cost of main tenance per head at the Newtown charitable institution at Hobart, and at an allied institution at Launceston, was £37” per annum, or approximately 14s. 6d. per week. In 1921-22 - the last year for which: statistics have been published - the average cost had, however, increased to £66 per annum, or about 25s. a week. That disposes of the suggestion of Senator Needham that there should be a balance available for the men and women in such institutions who happen to be in the same category as old-age pensioners. The proposal in the Budget is that, irrespective of what it costs to keep a person in a benevolent institution, he shall receive an allowance of 3s. a week for pocket money. That puts a totally different complexion on the whole matter, and I am glad that the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) finds himself in such a happy financial position that he is able, not only to increase the pension from 15s. to 17s. 6d. per week, but also to increase the weekly allowance of these inmates from 2s. to 3s. a week. I am sure that With the attention the inmates receive in such institutions, they will be quite as well off as, if not better off, than the average pensioner outside with a larger income. The increased cost of maintenance in. these institutions has been mainly brought about by the fact that the barracklike buildings have been transformed, and wardsmen have been replaced by nurses. This has made a great deal of difference to the comfort of the inmates, and the diet provided is on a much more liberal scale than it was a few years ago.

– I do not’ think, so: I prefer to think that, the, average, prosperity of the. peoples has., reached a.- point never attained previously since- the establishment of Federation. There is. a wonderful increase in the deposits’ in the Savings” Banks, and’ in the number of depositors. One , is forced’ to’ the con-: elusion that the prosperity of th’e people, is astounding. My’ only fear is that their prosperity may increase to such an extent that instead, of being, a blessing it may become a curse.

It should be gratifying to the Treasurer to know that there is an accumulated “surplus of £7,428,574. It is not always’ a good thing, for a Government to. have, a. balance on the credit side, but- it is. certainly more desirable than having, to. face a huge deficit. I do not agree with, the methods, proposed for the disposal of portion of the surplus. - 1 am in favour of using some of it,, as the- Government propose, to* increase- the invalid, and old-age pensions;, and I also agree to-‘ provision being made for a. sinking fund, and the paying off o£ the gratuity bonds.

Senator Elliott:

– Do- you’ favour the reserve’ for defence ?

Senator PAYNE:

– That is all” right;. ‘ but I- disagree’ with the- retention of the amount of £2’,475i726’ to- meet’- con’.tingencies. I have always- contended’ that’ iti is not the duty.’ of’ Parliament, the Government’, or- the Treasurer ‘ to* impose more* taxation om the’ people’ than is necessary-‘ to– meet- current obligations: Money- unnecessarily withdrawn from the > people- might, be utilized to greater advantage in developing’ our industries. That would) provide increased employment and bring- in- its train a- greater, measurer o&i prosperity,. .Thee time has arrived- when the Government should reduce-, direct- taxation- which, during- recent- years, has., necessarily been, heavy, because- until as- year, ago: enormous expenditure, was being met. out? of revenue. To-da.9, we. are in a) different, position. Out loan indebtedness: bass been funded, and we have’ provided f op an adequate “sinking” fund in order to redeem- our national debt- within a– specified period. This is’ an opportunity to afford’ relief to- a* large- number of people who- have hitherto* met’ their obligations: Last year an amending- Income Tax Act! provided1 for a’ reduction’ equal to 10 per cent. the original income tax was’ increased from- time to- time until it eventually returned 6’0 or’ 70 per- cent, more* than* the original- amount, received”- from1 that- source- - and1 a»- further 10 per cent, reduction could now be ma’de without unduly” impoverishing our finances’. In– 19-21-22 there were 759,1’7-1 income taxpayers’ in- the Commonwealth who- contributed’ £14’,575,871. ©f; that number of taxpayers, 84X,(f75 ‘ paid £1’,190;442> so that 218,’000> of the total number of taxpayers contributed the enormous* sum’ of £13;385,429: Last year, 5’41,000- taxpayers’- were entirely relieved from the’ payment of direct taxation,, so that; a- comparatively’ small number were called’ upon . to- pay income1 tax: The Treasurer anticipates’ receiving £T3’,0’0,,000 in income taxation this1 year, and’- we can readily see -that it. will’ bV an enormous burden on’ the few- remaining income taxpayers.- If a. reduction of 10 per cent, were made’ from the, £13,000,000’ anticipated: iti- Would! be- equal, to £1, 300,000.If that amount were diverted into industrial channels instead of remaining in the Treasury,, where it cannot be effectively handled this year, it would provide additional employment andgenerally assist in promoting prosperity.

Reference has been made to the loss incurred by the Commonwealth in connexion with the fruit industry and I indorse all that has been said in regard to the possibility of overcoming the existing difficulty by effectively organizing distribution and thus minimizing expenditure. Those engaged in the fruit-growing industry, unfortunately, are not adept at organization. A few years ago when there was an enormous crop of apples, the Victorian growers arranged to supply householders throughout Melbourne and the metropolitan areas with graded fruit at certain prices.Delivery was made to householders on specified days. The distribution was so well organized that a large quantity of apples which would otherwise have rotted were readily sold at good prices, and this helped the growers to tide over the period of temporary difficulty. Organization of that character is commendable, and I have frequently told the growers in Tasmania that they should adopt a similar policy.

Senator Hoare:

– The system of distribution is defective.

Senator PAYNE:

– Yes. The average householder has very little opportunity ofsecuring good quality fruit at a reasonable price.There should be no difficulty in arranging for supplies of case and half -case lots on receipt of cash with the order. Reference has also been made to the quality of certain exports which it is said wereof an inferior quality, badly packed, and unfavorably commented upon by purchasers in other countries, with the. result that the trade has received a setback from Which it will take some time to recover. Certain business people in New South Wales and in other States have thus lost the opportunity of establishing a permanent business connexion with Java. The goods exported were not up to standard.

Senator Hoare:

– Who was responsible? Wasit the canning companies?

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not referring to fruit. In this instance the merchants were responsible, because the goods were not up to standard.

I am glad that the Government have sufficient money at their disposal to enable them to take an active interest in thesupply of wire netting to the various States.

Senator Hoare:

– Is that not Socialism?

Senator PAYNE:

– No. An effort isbeing made, as far as possible, toprotectthe interestsof farmers and pastoral- ists whose crops and grass are threatened with rabbits and other vermin. The average man on the land hasnot the opportunity of purchasing his requirements in wire netting, and no doubt the action of theGovernment in this direction will toe appreciated . When the Appropriation Bill is in Committee, due attention will, I trust, be given to the various items of departmental expenditure, and I shall reserve any further comments I have to make until that stage is reached. I sincerely trust that the Treasurer’s estimates will be realized.. If the measures proposed to be submitted,are approved by Parliament, I have not the slightest doubt that Australia will continue to prosper, and that industries throughout Australia will recover from the setback they have received during recent years.

Debate (on motionby Senator Graham) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at10.15 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 August 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1923/19230808_senate_9_104/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 8 August 1923

QUESTION

INSULIN FOR DIABETES

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

QUESTION

WOOL TOPS CONTRACT

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:

QUESTION

HEALTH OF THE WORKERS

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA

Senator WILSON:

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:NAT

CUSTOMS BILL

Senator WILSON:South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator Pearce:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator ELLIOTT:Victoria

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator Elliott:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator ELLIOTT:Victoria

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

QUESTION

BUDGET, 1923-24

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Gardiner:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Lynch:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Lynch:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Gardiner:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Foll:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Foll:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:QUEENSLAND

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McHugh:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McHugh:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Needham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Hoare:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Crawford:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senate
8 August 1923

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator MCDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia