Senate
11 December 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL
QUESTION
- ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS
QUESTION
- CANBERRA BATHS
QUESTION
- IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
QUESTION
- B.A.W.R.A
QUESTION
- MR. P. E. COLEMAN, M.P
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE
QUESTION
- CARBIDE PRODUCTION
WIRELESS BROADCASTING COMPANIES
- Claim for Compensation
QUESTION
- PRIMARY PRODUCTS
QUESTION
- WHEAT AND WOOL INDUSTRIES
QUESTION
- PRIMARY INDUSTRIES
QUESTION
- SALES TAX
QUESTION
- MILITIA FORCES
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT
- City Area Leases Regulations: Motion to Disallow No. 9
CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL
- Second Reading
REPRESENTATION BILL
- Second Reading
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILLS
SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Third Reading
INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1930
- Second Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
- Second Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
- Second Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1930
AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL
- Second Reading
GOLD BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
PAPERS
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Commonwealth Bank: Case of Mr. Mark B. Young - Commonwealth Wireless Service : Welfare Board

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

page 1281

CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL

Is it a fact that the report of the select committee on the Central Reserve Bank Bill was only circulated yesterday, and that, as stated by Senator Rae, honorable senators have not had full opportunity to study it? Is he aware of the great importance of the measure and of the undesirability of having it hurriedly dealt with? Will the Government consider the advisability of postponing further consideration of the bill till the reassembling of Parliament next year?

SenatorBARNES. - The Government proposes to push on with the Central Reserve Bank Bill and have it passed if possible.

page 1281

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the fact that the Senate has almost unanimously resolved that substantial help should be given to the wheat-growers of Australia, I shouldlike to know what action the Government proposes to take?

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– I am expecting a statement to be made during the day on the matter referred to by the honorable senator. Senator Daly’s absence from the chamber at the moment is due to the fact that he is now in consultation with the Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons).

” B “-CLASSRADIO STATIONS.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should like to know if any further information has been secured by the Government in regard to the objections which have been offered to the regulations affecting “ B “-class radio stations, and, if not, whether the Assistant Minister will read an article appearing in the Canberra Times this morning relating to the matter?

Senator BARNES:

– I shall read the article.

page 1281

QUESTION

CANBERRA BATHS

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Assistant Minister explain why the estimated cost of constructing the Canberra Baths is being exceeded by £500?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The detailed estimates show that the work is being done under the estimate.

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -

What annual revenue is expected tobe received from the public baths, when completed, at Canberra ?

Senator BARNES:

– As indicated in the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, there is little likelihood, in the early stages, that the revenue received will cover interest and maintenance charges, but with the growth of population and increased patronage of the pool, this matter may be expected to adjust itself.

page 1281

QUESTION

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs,upon notice -

Is it correct that during the last few months the value of exports has been practically the same as the value of imports?
If so, will the Government consider the advisability of removing, at an early date, tariff embargoes and prohibitory tariffs recently imposed, and allowing the rate of exchange to operate normally?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

Excluding bullion, the imports for the past four months have exceeded exports by £1,598,747.
The Government is carefully watching and considering the exchange position, and its relation to the import embargoes and the tariff.

page 1282

QUESTION

B.A.W.R.A

Decision of Privy Council

Senator CHAPMAN:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, as a result of the decision of the Privy Council to discuss the appeal by the Victorian State Commissioner of Taxes, the Federal Commissioner of Taxation had notified the liquidators of “Bawra” of his intention not to proceed further with the appeals to the High Court of Australia from the judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Victoria, which was in favour of the liquidators?
Does the Government know when the appeal by the Victorian State Commissioner of Taxes will be discussed by the Privy Council ?
Is it a fact that the Federal Commissioner of Taxation intends to proceed with the appeals from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria, in respect of taxation on moneys held in trust by Sir John Higgins, and that the appeals will be heard before the High Court of Australia?
Can the Government do anything to facilitate an early hearing of the appeals by the Federal Commissioner of Taxation to the High Court of Australia?
Does not the Government consider that there is dire necessity for the distribution of these moneys among wool and wheat-growers?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

The Privy Council recently dismissed the appeal of the Victorian State Commissioner of Taxes against the decision of the State Supreme Court regarding the liability of “ Bawra “ to State income taxes. In consequence of that decision of the Privy Council, counsel for the Federal Commissioner of Taxation advised that the High Court would be bound to allow the appeal of the public officer of “ Bawra “ against the assessment of that organization for federal income tax. The Crown Law Department also advised the Commissioner to the same effect. The Commissioner of Taxation, having read the reasons for the judgment of the Privy Council,was satisfied that the High Court would be bound to act in the manner advised and therefore de cided to allow the appeal by the public officer of “ Bawra “ against the federal assessment, and the public officer was notified accordingly by the Crown Solicitor.
The appeal by the Victorian State Commissioner of Taxes to the Privy Council was discussed by that body several months ago Judgment was recently delivered by the Privy Council against the State Commissioner of’ Taxes. 3 and 4. These appeals were proceeded with before the High Court, sitting in Sydney, on 1st to 3rd December, 1930. The High Court decided the appeals in favour of Sir John Higgins, as trustee. The only point at issue in the appeals was the rate at which Sir John. Higgins, as trustee, should be assessed for income tax.
I understand the moneys will shortly be distributed.

page 1282

QUESTION

MR. P. E. COLEMAN, M.P

Attendance at International Labour Conference - Inquiry into Administration of Australia House.

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Did the honorable member for Reid leave Australia for the purpose of attending the International Labour Conference at Geneva on behalf of the Commonwealth?
Did the honorable member forReid attend the meetings of the Mandates Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth?
Has a member of Parliament been sent from the Commonwealth at the expense of the Commonwealth on any previous occasion for the purpose of attending an International Labour Conference or a meeting of the Mandates Commission?
Has it been the practice, up to the present year, for the High Commissioner or one of his officers to attend the International Labour Conference and the meetings of the Mandates Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth?
Did the honorable member for Reid subsequently attend the League of Nations Assembly?
Was the honorable member for Reid then appointed to make an inquiry intothe administration of Australia House?
Has the honorable member for Reid had any, and, if so, what administrative experience?
What expenses have been incurred by the Commonwealth on account of the journeys of the honorable member for Reid?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

The purposes for which the honorable member for Reid left Australia were to act as Government Delegate at the Internationa) Labour Conference, to represent the Government before the Permanent Mandates Commission, to act as one of the Australian represen tatives at the League of Nations Assembly, and to investigate and report upon the organization of Australia House and its related activities.
Yes.
Senator R. S. Guthrie was sent from Australia at the expense of the Commonwealth to attend the second session of the International Labour Conference held at Geneva in 1920. No member of Parliament has on any occasion before this year attended a meeting of the Mandates Commission.
The Commonwealth Government was represented at the International Labour Conference by an official from Australia in 1923. In 1926 an official was sent from Australia to assist the High Commissioner in connexion with the examination by the Mandates Commission of the reports to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of the Mandated Territories. Otherwise, it has been the practice for the High Commissioner in London to represent the Commonwealth at meetings of the International Labour Conference and the Permanent Mandates Commission. It is, however, pointed out that both those bodies have expressed particular satisfaction at the attendance before them of members of Parliament or officers connected with the administration of the Mandated Territories.
Yes.
See answer to No. 1. An inquiry into the organization of Australia House was conducted by the honorable member for Reid prior to his attendance at the League of Nations Assembly. 7.I would refer the honorable senator to the statement of the Prime Minister on the 9th July, 1930(Hansard, page 3870), in which he indicated that the honorable member for Reid had been asked to conduct the inquiry in his capacity as chairman of the joint Committee of Public Accounts.
The amount brought to account todate is £840.

page 1283

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Captain Conway’s Appointment

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Why was the appointment of Captain Conway as D.A.A.G., Australian Imperial Force, cancelled?
Is it a fact that a Royal Commission on Administration reported that the transfer of Captain Conway from D.A.A.G., Australian Imperial Force, was not in the best interests of the Service?
Was Captain Conway mentioned in orders for specially meritorious service during the war, and were other officers given accelerated promotion for similar service during the war?
, Was the promotion of Captain Conway blocked, and were officers who had not rendered specially meritorious service promoted over him?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers are -

Special temporary appointments of officers of the Permanent and Citizen Forces for duty in Australia, during the war, were made from time to time, and such appointments were terminated when the necessity for them no longer existed. Captain Conway’s temporary appointment as D.A.A.G. (Australian Imperial Force), in New South Wales, was terminated on his transfer to Queensland.
The information is not at present available, but will be supplied when obtained. 3 and 4. For special meritorious service in Australia, during the war, a number of officers were in 1917 promoted to honorary and brevet rank only, and a number of others received a mention. Captain Conway was among those who received a mention. Captain Conway received no further promotion in his corps, as he did not qualify by examination and had no war service. He was accordingly superseded by the promotion of officers who were qualified and had served on active service.

page 1283

QUESTION

CARBIDE PRODUCTION

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether local production of carbide is sufficient to provide for the total requirements of the Commonwealth ?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The plant in Australia is understood to be capable of producing more than the whole of the Australian requirements of carbide.

page 1283

WIRELESS BROADCASTING COMPANIES

Claim for Compensation

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the

Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Has the Public Accounts Committee made its report on the claims for compensation put forward by certain broadcasting companies against the Federal Government?
Has any recommendation for payment of compensation to these companies been made by the committee?
If so, for what amount?
Will the report, if any, be made available to honorable senators?
What decision has the Government come to in this matter?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

No. The committee made a request to the Prime Minister that it should be relieved of the obligation of completing its investigations. 2, 3, and 4. See answer to No. 1.
No decision has been arrived at.

page 1284

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Prices - Tariffs

Senator CHAPMAN:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What has been the average fall in the prices of primary products since the first prohibitory tariff or first list of embargoes became operative?
What has been the average rise or fall in all items included in prohibitory tariffs or embargoes?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

I am not aware which tariff the honorable senator regards as the first prohibitory tariff. A list of average prices on primary products at the time of and since the prohibition of importation of certain imports will he prepared and handed to the honorable senator.
It would be quite impracticable to compile a return on the lines indicated.

page 1284

QUESTION

WHEAT AND WOOL INDUSTRIES

Senator CHAPMAN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government consider the advisability of appointing a commission of, say, five economists to confer and inquire into the causes of the present position of the wheat and wool industries, and advise this Parliament as to their ideas of suggested remedies?
Is it hot correct that the “Big Five”, recently appointed by the late Government to inquire into the effects of the tariff, have already gone a long way on this inquiry, hut that recent happenings were not taken into consideration when they made their report to the late Government?
Will the Government consider the advisability of including Professor Melville, of South Australia, in that commission, if formed, as he lives in South Australia, a primary producing State?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The Government does not consider that any good purpose would be served by the appointment of a commission on the lines suggested.

page 1284

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

French Dutieson Wheat and Butter - Flour Tax

Senator CHAPMAN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Is the Government aware whether Mr. Gutman stated that France would require 12,000,000 bushels of Australian wheat this season if Australia was not penalized by a duty of 7s. a bushel on its wheat?
Is it correct that the usual French import duty on wheat is 3s. 6d. a bushel, but that a double rate was imposed on Australian wheat in retaliation for the excessive duties imposed by Australia on French perfumes, toilet soaps, textiles, millinery and other goods?
What is the duty imposed by France on Australian butter?
Will the Government have exhaustive inquiries made as to whether our primary producers are being penalized by other countries because of our tariff policy?
Will the Government lay on the table of the Senate any information they may have on this matter?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

No.
The information received was that France had placed on Australian wheat, a duty equal to three times the ordinary tariff duty. A later announcement was to the effect that the ordinary tariff duty had been raised to the equivalent of 3s.6d. per bushel. It was alleged that the trebled duty on Australian wheat was imposed in retaliation against the Australian tariff duties on French goods.
The latest information available indicates that the French duty on Australian butter is equivalent to 49s. per cwt.
This matter has been the subject of investigation for some time. Excepting the action taken by France, there is no evidence that any country has penalized Australian primary products because of the Australian tariff policy. In some foreign countries, Australia does not receive as favorable -tariff terms as many other competing countries. This disadvantage is due to the fact “that the Commonwealth has no commercial treaty with those foreign countries. The matter is receiving consideration.
This course is not practicable at present. The particulars above, represent the substance of the information available.

Senator CHAPMAN:

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

Is it a fact that at a large meeting of the South Australian Wheat Growers Protection Association, a resolution was passed urging the Federal Government to use every available means at their disposal to secure for growers at least 3s. 4d. net per bushel for wheat, and suggesting that a home price, obtained by a flour tax, and an open market for exchange, are the most practicable methods of achieving the desired objective?
Is it a fact that the meeting stressed the opinion that, failing the desired assistance, many farmers will be forced off their holdings, and next year’s acreage will perforce be reduced by at least 50 per cent?

Senator DALY (through Senator Barnes). - The representations have been brought under the noticeof the Government, and proposals to deal with the matter will probably be announced to-day.

page 1285

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Anomalies - Productsof Municipal Quarries

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is it the intention ofthe Government to take steps during the present sitting to honour the pledge of the Commissioner of Taxation of the loth September last, that no time would he lost in altering the position created In’ anomalies and difficulties arising under the Sales Tax Act?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The Government is not aware of any such pledge given by the Commissioner of Taxation. Information is now being collected by the Commissioner of Taxation in connexion with the subject in order that it may be considered fully u pon the return to Australia of the Prime Minister. No present action is proposed other than that dealt with in the bills now before the Senate.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Commissioner of Taxationhas demanded payment of sales tax in the following circumstances, viz., where a municipal council is operating a. quarry for the purpose solely of obtaining stone or blue metal for use in the formation or maintenance of roads in its municipal district, and no sale is made to any other party?
Under what provision of the Sales Tax Acts1930 is the demand for tax being made?
In view of the need for encouraging councils to relieve unemployment, will the Treasurer introduce an amendment freeing such operation from taxation?

Senator DALY (through Senator Barnes). - The answers are -

Yes.
Under the provisions of the Sales Tax Assessment Act No. 1 of 1930.
This question is already receiving consideration.

page 1285

QUESTION

MILITIA FORCES

Senator SAMPSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following questions, upon notice -

What was the establishment of each infantry battalion in the Commonwealth Militia as laid down at 30th September, 1930?
What was the actual strength of each infantry battalion in the Commonwealth Militia us at 30th September,1930?
What plans, if any, has the Minister for stimulating recruiting in the infantry arm?
Is it correct that the Government, on the score of economy, has decided to abandon camps of continuous training during 1931 ?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers are - 1 and 2 -

Taking into consideration the greater number required for the infantry, its strength does not compare unfavorably with other arms. The percentage of strength to establishment of infantry is 77 per cent., whereas the total percentage of all arms is 80 per cent. Every effort is being made to stimulate recruiting in all arms of the Military Forces.
No.

page 1286

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

City Area Leases Regulations: Motion to Disallow No. 9

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I move -

That regulation 9 of the City Area Leases Regulations, made on 20th October, 1930, under the Seat of Government (Administration) Ordinance, 1930, and the City Area Leases Ordinance, 1924-29 of the Territory for the Seat of Government be disallowed.

Regulation 9 of the City Area Leases Regulations reads -

After regulation 8 of the City Area Leases Regulations the following regulation is “inserted : - “ 9. Any lessee who commits a breach of any covenant contained in his lease, which is to the following effect, namely: -

That he will use the leased land only for a certain purpose specified in the lease;

That he will not, without the previous approval in writing of the Minister, erect any building on the leased land, or make any structural alterations in any building erected on the leased land ; or

That he will permit any person or persons authorized in writing by the Minister in that behalf to enter (upon production of such authority) upon the leased land at all reasonable times and in any reasonable manner and inspect the land and buildings, erections and improvements thereon, shall, if the covenant is one in respect of which no action for breach can be taken under the lease, be liable, upon conviction, to a penalty not exceeding Five pounds, or, where the breach is a continuing breach, to a penalty not exceeding Five pounds for every day during which the breach continues.”.

I have carefully studied this regulation, and although I have had a legal training, I find myself incapable of giving it a definite meaning. It is not fair to place on a tenant, who has no such training, the responsibility of interpreting such a regulation. If there has been a breach of a covenant of a lease, surely action of some kind can be taken to enforce it. Otherwise the lease is a mere juggling of words. A covenant is an agreement under seal, and obviously the court should enforce it in the usual way, either by granting an injunction or giving damages, or something of that nature. Apparently, that is not intended, because the regulation includes the words, “ If the covenant is one in respect of which no action for breach can be taken under the lease.” I cannot conceive of such a situation arising. If there is a covenant, obviously, there must be a remedy for any breach thereof. Some court would have to give a meaning to it.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is not the regulation merely the addition of another covenant to those already entered into?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– The only way of enforcing an obligation under a covenant is to bring an action of some kind. I do not see how a covenant can be an enforceable agreement that is of any value at all, unless it can be the subject of an action. And, in that case, the remedy is entirely a civil action. To give this regulation any meaning a civil proceeding would have to be converted into a criminal action, the lessee prosecuted and if convicted, punished by a fine. Each tenant in the city area of the Territory for the Seat of Government has entered into an agreement which is binding on him for 99 years. It is impossible for him to obtain financial assistance from any banking institution or trustee company ; unless he can finance himself, he is practically at a dead end. What is his position if, in addition to that disability, a provision is to be inserted in his lease to which no one can give any definite meaning? He cannot surrender his lease until its full period has elapsed without losing all he has expended on the property. In the past Parliament has been careful to preserve the rights of people with whom it has entered into contracts. When dealing with legislation it has always avoided doing anything which might invalidate contracts entered into by a previous government with companies or individuals. In this amendment additional obligations are being imposed on lessees. If this practice is permitted where will it stop? Certainly, such a state of affairs was never contemplated by any lessee who accepted a lease at any of the sales which have been held.

There is a further objection to this procedure. If the regulation be not disallowed by the Senate, the interpretation of these regulations, which at present is the function of a High Court judge, will be cast upon a police magistrate, who may not have had the necessary legal training to enable him to arrive at a just decision.

In my experience a title to land is a matter which is always reserved to the higher courts.

Senator Ogden:

– Is forfeiture of the lease the penalty for a breach of other covenants ?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– A breach of covenant of a lease may result in an action for damages or for an injunction; it depends on the court. Should the controlling authority attempt to forfeit the lease the court may restrain it from doing so. Apparently, that is the stumbling block. The Government is afraid to take action to forfeit a lease for fear that the High Court would say, “No, this is not a breach of a covenant which justifies the forfeiture of the lease.” It is going to cast the responsibility on an unfortunate police magistrate, who is to be asked to fine the man £5 or £5 a day if he has erected a building or structure of some kind and so is continuing to offend from day to day. The decision of the police magistrate may have substantial effects as, if he decided that there has been a breach of covenant, the authorities may forfeit the man’s lease, although it may have upon it a building worth thousands of pounds.

Senator Guthrie:

– What is the object ?

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Heaven only knows. It is for this Senate to ascertain the object.

Senator Ogden:

– There must be some specific case with which the authorities had to deal.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I have endeavoured to gather from the department what it is aiming at, but have been unable to obtain a definite reason. There is another objection to this procedure. I have never heard of a breach of an agreement being treated as a criminal offence. I can quite imagine what an outcry there would be from supporters of the Government if, say, the Victorian Parliament passed legislation that permitted the launching of a criminal action against a tenant for a breach of covenant. Why should there be a reversal of the usual treatment in the Federal Capital Territory, simply because the Government happens to be the landlord? In the States the tendency has been to protect the rights of the tenant. Despite any provision contained in his lease, a lessee, for example, may remove the fixtures connected with his business, which he may have erected in the buildings or on the leasehold. Moreover, if the lease provides that a tenant cannot assign his lease without the written consent of his landlord, it is implied by statute that that consent cannot be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld.

Senator McLachlan:

– That does not apply to this ‘case. The class of breach is limited to the provisions of paragraphs a, b and c.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I am merely citing that incidentally, to demonstrate how State legislation lightens the obligations of the tenant, as against those of the landlord. Here, the unfortunate tenant is to be treated as a criminal if he departs from a covenant of his lease. I protest against what is actually a breach of faith on the part of the Government with the unfortunate people who have been decoyed into buying leases in the Federal Capital Territory and erecting buildings on them.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I do not know whether Senator H. E. Elliott expects the Government to allow any person who has entered into an agreement with it to repudiate his obligations. His remarks convey to me some such suggestion. The power to make these regulations is given in paragraph g of section 22 (1) of the City Area Leases Ordinance 1924-1929. This paragraph was specifically inserted in the section by Ordinance No. 5 of 1926, which was made by the Bruce-Page Government. In the lease document there are certain conditions which the lessee covenants to observe. In respect of some of these conditions no penalties are inflicted for non-observance. Unless penalties are inflicted, the conditions are useless.

It is presumed that a lessee is willing to observe the conditions of his lease, and, as a matter of fact, he undertakesto observe them. The infliction of penalties will, therefore, not affect any lessee who complies with his undertaking to observe the conditions. The lease provides that for major breaches the lease shall be determined. It is considered that the infliction of a small fine for minor breaches is much more reasonable than determining the lease. Paragraph a of regulation 9 corresponds with paragraph f of the lease document. Paragraph b of regulation 9 corresponds with paragraph e of the lease document. Paragraph c of regulation 9 - the power to enter, is conferred by regulation 4.

The objects of the regulations made under the City Areas Leases Ordinance 1924-1929 on the 20th October, 1930, by the Minister for Home Affairs are -

To provide a penalty for a breach of the three covenants of any lease issued under the provisions of the City Leases Ordinance with regard to which no action can be taken under the lease.
To deter lessees from using the lease land for any purpose not provided for, in the interests of other lessees, and for the purpose of maintaining the established principles regarding zone and town planning.
To deter a lessee from erecting unsightly structures or other buildings contrary to the provisions of the building regulations which do not authorize in certain areas the erection of any building having external walls of any material other than brick, stone, concrete or the like, in pursuance of the Canberra building regulations, which specially prohibit the use of material which in the opinion of the proper authority, is faulty,or unsuitable to be used in any building.
To protect the interests of lessees themselves, and to enable action to be taken where there are sufficient grounds for action as a result of a complaint regarding the danger of a reduction in the standard and quality of buildings in the same sub-division.
To enforce, if necessary, the provisions of the Canberra building regulations which prohibit the construction of a building of an inferior description in the principal business and resident al centres of the city.

It seems to me that the regulations are warranted, and eminently reasonable and fair. The necessity for their existence is obvious. All laws have to be administered by some authority, and I am confident that neither these regulations nor the supervising authority seek to harass lease-holders in the Federal Capital Territory.

Debate (on motion by Senator Daly) adjourned.

page 1288

CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL

Second Reading

Order of the day called on for the resumption of the debate from the 10th December (vide page 1217), on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLachlan) adjourned.

Resumption of Debate.

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour of the day.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I am not sure, Mr. President, if this motion is open to discussion.

The PRESIDENT (Senator W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Yes. Certain motions which have come before the Senate are not open to debate. Standing Order 431 reads: -

The following motions are not open to debate, shall be moved without argument or opinion offered, and shall be forthwith put by the President from the Chair, and the vote taken : -

Reference is made to Standing Orders Nos. 72, 74, 189, 281, 379, 421, 429 and 440. These Standing Orders also refer to motions which must be put without debate, but apparently they do not apply to the motion now before the Chair, namely, the time to be fixed for the resumption of the debate. Accordingly, this motion must be treated as an ordinary motion which may be debated. I remind honorable senators, however, that in the discussion on it, they must confine themselves to the time to be fixed for the resumption of the debate, and must not refer to the merits or demerits of the Central Reserve Bank Bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.45]. - I move -

That the words “ a later hour of the day “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ the first Thursday after the Senate re-assembles in 1931”.

I am loth to interfere with the placing of business by the Government but I think that, on this occasion, my amendment is warranted, because its purpose is to afford the Senate an opportunity to give to the bill that consideration which its importance demands. When the bill came before the Senate some months ago, this chamber considered it ofsuch consequence as to refer it to a select committee. That committee went to considerable trouble to obtain evidence and data relating to central banking in other countries, and its report was only made available to honorable senators yesterday. We have been sitting long hours dealing with a mass of technical legislation such as income tax bills and other measures, so that we have not had time to consider the report. It is unreasonable to expect the Senate to deal with a measure of such importance at this late stage in the session. Only last night the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) intimated that it was the intention of the Government to close Parliament to-morrow night. That leaves us only two days for the consideration of a number of important measures, including the one now before us. Haste in the passing of legislation is at all times to be deprecated. It is particularly undesirable in the consideration of a bill relating to central banking. “We should not be justified in passing this measure in the short space of time now remaining before the Senate rises. The report mentions certain alleged fundamental defects in the hill. These should be thoroughly examined before the Senate passes it. Surely the Leader of the Senate recognizes that we are justified in taking time to thoroughly consider the report of the select committee to discover whether its objections to some of the provisions in the bill can be sustained. I asked a question on this subject to-day, in order to give the Government an opportunity to fix a date for the resumption of the debate after the re-assembly of Parliament next year, and the answer given was that the Government intended to put the measure through. In view of these facts, I ask the Senate to carry my amendment. The action of the Government to-day leaves no other course open to me. If the debate is resumed at a later hour of the day with the object of passing the bill before the Senate rises, we shall not have time to study the report and give adequate consideration to the many technical provisions in the bill.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I appeal to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) not to press his amendment. The Government is anxious to pass this measure. It had a full discussion in another place, and has been before the Senate for the last three months.

Senator Reid:

– The report has not.

Senator DUNN:

– That is not the fault of the Government.

Senator Guthrie:

– We received it only yesterday.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honorable senators to allow Senator Dunn to speak without interruption.

Senator DUNN:

– All that I desire to do is to appeal earnestly to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) to allow the debate on the bill to proceed. There is in the minds of Ministers considerable doubt as to whether the measure is not to be slowly strangled as a result of something that has been decided by the caucuses of Country and Nationalist parties during the last few days.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I do not think that this question should be considered in any party spirit. Having secured the adjournment of the debate yesterday, I spent whatever time was at my disposal during the night and this morning in examining the report of the honorable senators who have so efficiently carried out their duties as a select committee, and I realized what an amazing amount of time was actually required, not only to read the committee’s report, but also to thoroughly digest the criticism and points made by various eminent witnesses who were called to give evidence. There is no occasion for the Government to exhibit any feeling in regard to the matter. There is in existence overseas - I believe it is already in print in London - a momentous report referred to by Senator Colebatch yesterday. It deals with matters relating to the credit of central reserve banks and the restoration of the economic and financial position of the world generally. Furthermore, there is now sitting in New York a conference of leading bankers of the world upon the currency question - a matter with which central banking is closely allied. A certain section of the unthinking may imagine that a central reserve bank is something that can be dealt with by a wave of the hand, but I am at a great disability in speaking on this bill, or in dealing with it as it should be dealt with without the assistance of the conclusions to which these eminent men overseas have’ come. I feel that the Government should not pursue its policy of hostility to inquiry which has been so manifest throughout the whole of the discussion on this bill. It was hostile to the reference of the matter to a select committee. It showed its hostility by withdrawing ministerial senators from the personnel of the committee, and in refusing to the committee facilities which on every decent ground should have been afforded to it to enable it to make its inquiry, and again at the last moment in not facilitating the securing of further evidence which the committee desired, and which it had to obtain under rather difficult circumstances. The Government will get the bill all right. Whether the Government desires it ©r not, Parliament must re-assemble shortly after the new year, and it is only fair to honorable senators to allow them to co-ordinate their facts and their thoughts on the matter. I speak feelingly on the subject, having already devoted so much time to it since the adjournment last night. I ‘am quite convinced that I have not had sufficient opportunity to deal with the matter as it should be dealt with, although I was in the fortunate position of having been supplied with a rough proof of the committee’s report earlier than yesterday.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

.- The Senate would stultify itself if it endeavoured to proceed immediately to the discussion of the report of the Select Committee on the Central Reserve Bank Bill. When it referred the bill to a select committee it was exercising its peculiar function as a house of ‘review. Having before it a technical and complex subject in regard to which expert evidence and information were required, it thought it wise to appoint a select committee as its agent to obtain that evidence and that information. The information has now been obtained, not only for the benefit of honorable senators and Parliament generally, but also so that it may be circulated widely among the people, and so that the public may be duly educated and informed upon this intricate and technical subject. We have had the report presented to us - without undue delay, I may’ add, on the part of the select committee - and honorable senators have admitted, in the course of debate, that they have not had an opportunity to peruse it, to say nothing of making a careful examination of the recommendations or the evidence contained in it. If, owing to the pressure of time, honorable senators are laboring under that difficulty, how much more does that disability affect the. community generally ? The report has been circulated in Canberra, but it is sought for in various parts of the Commonwealth, and I venture to say that there are cities of Australia which have not yet received copies of it. If we are to function as a house of review we should look at this matter carefully, impartially and judicially. We cannot possibly do so in the closing hours of a session. Although Senator Daly has told us that it is proposed to rise for the Christmas adjournment to-morrow, we have fourteen measures already on the business paper for our consideration, and if Dame Rumour is Correct there are two more important bills yet to be received. To endeavour to deal with a matter of this importance in the closing hours of a session, without ‘being given a reasonable opportunity for the consideration which the amendment seeks to give, would bring contumely and contempt upon the Senate as part of the legislative machinery of the Commonwealth. Delay for the purpose of fair consideration is abundantly justified. To do otherwise would be to ‘bring disrespect upon the chamber. If honorable senators endeavoured to rush this matter through without proper consideration, they would bring deserved criticism upon their shoulders. I support the amendment.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

, - I admire the ingenious arguments put forward by Senator Lawson for further delay. He says that this chamber should function as a house of review. Frequently it has, without very much review, rejected measures of even more immediate importance than the one now under consideration. My reading of the Constitution is that the Senate is a chamber for the protection of State rights. That, however, is by the way. Prom the beginning the Opposition has shown every desire to delay the Central Reserve Bank Bill without having the courage to kill it straight out as, no doubt, it would like to do. For some occult reason, it prefers to play the cat and mouse game - delaying it, bringing it forward, pushing it back, and then tempting it forward again so as to swallow it. Honorable senators must have been aware of the lengthy debate that took place on this bill in another place, where it originated.* Its provisions were debated by the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber when it first came to us for our acceptance, and yesterday Senator Colebatch set out at great length not only the salient points in favour of the bill, but also the criticism directed against it as a result of the findings of the select committee. It is idle, therefore, to suppose that honorable senators are not fairly well acquainted with all that can be said for and against this legislation. I admit that honorable senators can keep on repeating each other’s arguments; but the salientpoints for and against the measure have already been , advanced. If honorable senators dislike the bill, why do they not reject it entirely? I protest against this policy of continuous delay. According to Senator McLachlan, some weighty document, prepared somewhere overseas, has not yet reached Australia. I do not know of what value it is likely to be. The probability is thai never in our lifetimes shall we read or hear the last word to be said on finance. Possibly by the time we have digested the work to which Senator McLachlan has referred, there will be some other weighty books or documents emanating from some other source, and we shall have to wait until the Greek Kalends before we hear the last word on finance, gold reserves, or other topics associated with high finance. . .The honorable senator’s appeal is simply another device to shelve the hi1!, instead of dealing with it in the light of what honorable senators already profess to know about finance. I protest against this policy of continuous delay when I know that the real design is to slaughter the measure.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This debate supplies still another illustration of how the point of view always indicates the attitude. A coster’s son once said to his father in London, “ You are. a mighty big man in our kitchen, hut you are a small man in St. Paul’s Cathedral.” Senator Rae is evidently influenced by the measure of importance he attaches to the Central Reserve Bank Bill. I do not need to remind him that much more important measures have been passed through this Parliament that did not take days, or weeks, or months, but took years to pass.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Take the Navigation Act, for instance.

Senator LYNCH:

– That was one I had in mind to mention. The need to place the seamen on our coast on a proper and civilized footing-

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I must ask the honorable senator not to deal with the merits of other measures.

Senator LYNCH:

– Surely the time devoted to their “ consideration is inci-dental to this debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes; but their merits or demerits have nothing to do with the question now before the Chair.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I trust that the Senate will agree to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce). I am anxious to assist in the establishment of a central reserve bank in Australia on the best possible lines. I, too, have not had an opportunity to study the report of the select committee, but I hope to do so when the present sittings of the Senate terminate. Senator Dooley has indicated that in his opinion there is very little in the report that would not be acceptable to the Government. In the concluding days of the present sittings, it is impossible for Ministers to give a report of such importance the consideration which is absolutely necessary before they can make up their minds upon the issue involved. Surely from the view-point of the Government, as well as that of honorable senators, it is desirable that sufficient consideration should be given to the report of the committee, which I believe has given its most earnest attention to the subject. If the consideration of the measure is postponed over the Christmas vacation the Government should have no difficulty in determining whether it agrees or disagrees with the recommendations of the committee. No one can deny the tremendous importance of the subject, which if hastily considered may result in action being taken which may be most detrimental to the country. A . great responsibility rests upon every member of the Senate, and upon the members of the Government to see that a false step is not taken. In the circumstances it seems only common sense to postpone the consideration of the bill until the sittings of the Senate are resumed next year. If that were done, the Government would have time to make up its mind on the issues raised in the committee’s report, and I venture to say the passage of the bill, and the establishment of a central reserve bank on sound lines, would be facilitated.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I favour the establishment of a central reserve bank in Australia, and realize the importance of the bill which has been introduced for its creation. The’ very importance of this matter is a reason why we should inform our minds, from the best evidence obtainable in the world, before we hastily decide one way or the other. I have read a portion of the voluminous report of the select committee, which only reached us yesterday. So far as I have gone with my reading, the report appears to be a capable and carefully prepared document; but I have not yet had time even to complete the reading of it, let alone to digest the evidence. Moreover, it has been shown that very shortly further information, containing the opinions of the leading economists and financiers of the world, will be made available to us. Therefore, in the interests of the people of Australia, we should not proceed hastily, and rus this measure through before the Christmas adjournment. It is because I desire to give the subject the most careful consideration, in the interests of the electors, that I shall support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce).

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I hope that the Senate will support the Government’s proposal and reject the amendment. Those honorable senators who have spoken have admitted the value of a central reserve bank, and the important part it could play in the national life of this country. The Government is most desirous of proceeding immediately with its banking policy. I freely confess that until the Central Reserve Bank Bill and consequential amendments to our banking ‘ legislation “have been placed on the statute-book the Government will be hamstrung. This bill has been before us for a considerable time. It is useless for the Opposition to say that the Government adjourned the Senate over the day on which “the select committee should have presented its report. Just as the Opposition is prepared to meet the convenience of the Government, so is the Government prepared to reciprocate.

Honorable senators knew well that although the report might have been tabled on the Thursday, it would not have been dealt with that day. When I made a statement regarding the legislation with which the Government desired the Senate to deal before it rose for the Christmas adjournment, I had in mind particularly the CentralReserve Bank Bill. I submit that the Government is entitled to have its banking legislation dealt with before we adjourn. I admit that it is my duty, as Leader of the Senate, to meet the convenience of honorable senators by fixing the date for the commencement of the vacation early enough to enable them to reach their homes for Christmas; but it is wrong for honorable senators opposite to say that the Government allowed only two days for the discussion of this important measure. Honorable senators know that only -a few days ago I was informed in rather’ -forcible language that if the Senate satbeyond to-morrow there was a grave danger of its being counted out forwantofa quorum. In view of the Government’s minority in this chamber, I had to pay heed to those remarks. We, on thisside, are prepared to sit the whole of next week. In doing so, we should make no very great personal sacrifice, because we could all reach our homes within a couple of days. Seeing that Opposition members practically refused to sit beyond to-morrow, they should not attempt to throw the blame on the Government for not sitting later. The Government is desirous that the Senate should remain sitting until its legislative programme has been disposed of. The Central Reserve Bank Bill is one of the items of that legislation which it hoped would be disposed of before Christmas. I still hope that honorable senators will agree to postpone the consideration of this measure until a later hour to-day. If they are not agreeable to do that, I am prepared to meet their convenience by moving, later, that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow. I repeat that the Government is particularly desirous of having this measure passed, because it regards the establishment of a central reserve bank as an important step towards the fulfilment of its financial policy.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Sir George Pearce’s) amendment) - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 1294

REPRESENTATION BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 10th December (vide page 1220), on motion by Senator Barnes -

That the bill be now road a second time. .

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (West ern Australia) [4.34]. - I do not propose to oppose this bill, for I understand that its passing will not authorize any alteration in the present representation of the various States in the House of Representatives, nor will it prevent a redistribution within a State if that is thought necessary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill read a third time.

page 1295

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 1a.)

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

There are nine of these bills, and they all remedy technical defects in the Sales Tax Assessments Acts, which embody novel legislation. The nature of the amendments, which do not relate to the matter of principle, can, I think, bestbe explained in committee. Shortly stated, the objects of the several amending Sales Tax Assessment Bills, are -

To ensure that the tax will apply, as intended, to transactions taking place on or after the 1st August, 1930, and prior to the commencement of the act, that is the 18th August, 1930 ;
To alter the definition of “ manufacturer “ to include tailors and dressmakers who make up articles of clothing from materials supplied by their customers.
To limit the exemption, which is at present unlimited, of goods sold by retailers who are mainly engaged in making up goods to the order of individual customers; and
To omit from Sales Tax Assessment Act No. 3, a redundant and anomalous provision, section 6d, which was left in by oversight.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [4.40]. - Through the courtesy of the Minister I was enabled to peruse his notes on this measure, and I have also examined this and the other eight sales tax bills. As a result, I find myself in general sympathy with the action that the Government is taking. It is only fair to point out to my colleagues, Senators Glasgow and Payne, that under this amending legislation it will be impossible for a tailor, by selling madetoorder suits, to evade payment of the sales tax.

Senator Sampson:

– Did he not previously pay on the cloth that he used?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.He did, and under this amendment he will also pay on the cost of labour involved in making the suit. It is said that there are two things which are both certain and unpopular - taxation and death. If our governments have to continue to increase our taxation much further it will be debatable which of the two is the more unpleasant. I offer no objection to the measure.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I have just received a copy of the bill, and I find it difficult to gather what it is all about. Some most extraordinary situations have arisen under the operation of the principal act. I asked a question to-day with regard to one of them, where a municipal council operating a quarry for the sole purpose of obtaining metal from it for use in the formation or maintenance of roads in its municipal district, had been assessed for sales tax on the produce of the quarry-

Senator Daly:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that honorable senators cannot enter into a general discussion on sales tax legislation when dealing with a bill which is, by its title, limited to the amendment of specific sections of the principal act.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I uphold the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) as I did last night. The parent act is not subject to general discussion on a bill which deals only with sections 3 and 17, sub-section 1 of section 18 and paragraph d of section 20 of that act.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– Clause 3 of the bill deals with the definition of “ manuf acturer “ and it appears to bear on the subject raised by me. Apparently the council to which I have referred is being treated as a manufacturer of goods for its own use, for I can see no other way in which the tax could operate. It therefore seems to me that the bill has a bearing on the matter mentioned by me.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator desires to disagree with my ruling he will have to do so at once, and in writing.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I do not wish formally to disagree with your ruling, sir, but it seems to me that I am being prevented from discussing a contemplated amendment which is within the scope of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

– I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to defer consideration of this clause with a view to amending the definition of “manufacturer”, so that it will not be held to include a council under the circumstances to which I have referred. I am sure that when the principal act was drafted it was not contemplated for a moment that, where no sales tax applied to a transaction, a fictitious sale would be created in the manner that I have described. When a council quarries its own material for use on its roads there is no sale, but the taxation Commissioner is demanding payment of a sales tax on such activities, as was admitted in the answer to my question on the subject. Surely that is an improper application of the provisions of the measure. The Minister said that the matter was receiving consideration. I appeal to him to deal with it now or so to amend the definition that it will not in future apply to cases such as I have cited.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I cannot consent to the postponement of this clause. There are thousands of cases in which no actual sales are made in the ordinary sense of the term, but which come under the operation of the sales tax legislation. A manufacturer making an engine for use in his own plant would have to pay tax on it, which is on all fours with the transaction referred to by Senator H. E. Elliott.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I understand that the Minister promised that the Government would consider any anomalies when it introduces legislation to amend the Sales Tax Act, on the return of the Prime Minister to Australia. I am prepared to accept that assurance.

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

. - This is the question that I asked this afternoon -

Is it a fact that the Commisioner of Taxation has demanded payment of sales tax in the following circumstances, viz., where a municipal council is operating a quarry for the purpose solely of obtaining stone or blue metal for use in the formation or maintenance of roads in its municipal district, and no sale is made to any other party?
Under what provision of the Sales Tax Acts 1930 is the demand for tax being made?
In view of the need for encouraging councils to relieve unemployment, will the Treasurer introduce an amendment freeing such operation from taxation?

The reply of the Minister was - “ This question is already receiving consideration “. Now is the time to deal with the matter. That is why I ask that the clause be postponed.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill read a third time.

page 1296

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 2a).

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Sales tax).

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I should like an explanation from the Minister as to the meaning of this clause. What will be its effect on the provisions in section 3 of the principal act?

Senator Barnes:

– Its purpose is to ensure that the tax shall apply, as intended, to all sales taking place on, or after, the 1st of August, 1930.

Senator PAYNE:

– I am not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. Are we to understand that the tax will be retrospective ?

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– It is a precautionary measure to give effect to the intention of Parliament that all goods in existence at the time of the passing of the act, whether manufactured before or after the commencement of the act, shall be liable to the tax.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill read a third time.

page 1297

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 3a).

Second Reading

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Exemptions).

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- Will the Minister explain the meaning of the amendments in this clause?

Senator Barnes:

– They are intended to rectify certain anomalies in section 6 d. due to an oversight.

Senator PAYNE:

– I should like the Minister to explain particularly the meaning of paragraph c which omits paragraph d of section 6.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– The honorable senator will remember that these sales tax measures were dealt with in the dying hours of the last portion of this session. Each of the original sales tax assessment bills, as introduced into Parliament last session, contained a provision corresponding to the provision which it is now proposed to excise. During the passage of the bills, it was decided to replace each of these provisions, including what is now section 6 d of Act No. 3, by an amendment of clause 73 of Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 1). Amendments were prepared for that purpose and, except in the case of Sales Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3), were duly passed. The omission in the case of this bill was an inadvertent consequence of the extremely rapid passage of the bills during the closing moments of the session by the committee of the Senate. The provision in paragraph d of section 6 is unnecessary. Moreover, it has been found to be detrimental to the revenue.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill read a third time.

page 1297

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILLS

(Nos. 4a to 8a).

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bills passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1297

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 9a).

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-

That the bill be now read a. second time.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Barnes) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- We have been called upon to deal with quite a number of these bills each of which is almost a replica of the others. This duplication of legislation seems to me to be a waste of time and expense, and it is not too early to urge a consolidation of these bills. As the matter now stands it is difficult to follow various ramifications of our sales taxation. If honorable senators had been able to secure copies of the Sales Tax Assessment Acts it is possible that injustice might have been avoided in many instances. I hope that the Government will accept my suggestion so that when we meet next year, we shall have an opportunity to deal with a comprehensive Sales Tax Bill.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– There is a legal difficulty in the way of having a comprehensive Sales Tax Act. This matter gave the Government the greatest concern, and the opinion of the most eminent counsel in Australia was taken when it was found that it was absolutely essential to legislate in this way. I assure the honorable senator that a legal difficulty prevents the Government from giving effect to what would otherwise be an admirable suggestion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1298

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1930

Second Reading

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

I have been in conference with Senator McLachlan with reference to a rather contentious amendment which he desires to move to this bill. I have also been in consultation with the Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) and the taxation officials in order to prevent the necessity to report progress when the committee stage is reached. These deliberations have not been concluded, but I am hopeful that a solution will be found that will enable us to give some measure of relief to the particular class of persons concerning whom Senator McLachlan has made representations. In these circumstances, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1298

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Northern Australia Act 1926 was enacted with a view to the inauguration of a developmental policy in which, it was hoped, the co-operation of Queensland and Western Australia would be obtained. A commission with specific powers in regard to railways, roads, telegraphic and telephonic communication, water supplies and ports and harbours, was created. Western Australia and Queensland have stood ‘aloof, and there is no indication that either of these States is inclined to participate in any scheme which would, in effect, be the creation of a northern State embracing the Northern Territory and the northern portions of Queensland and Western Australia. The activities of the commission have, therefore, of necessity, been confined to the territory, and consist mainly of preliminary surveys in connexion with roads and railways.

It is known to all that we have not the means to commence the construction of these works or even the means to continue such preparatory investigations, and, because of lack of funds, the commission cannot function. It is apparent, therefore, that the commission must be abolished and the cost of its maintenance saved. The necessity which compels us to defer the exploitation of the highly fertile areas which exist in the territory is regretted ; but that undertaking must await more prosperous times. It is estimated that the abolition of the commission will result in a saving of at least £8,000 per annum in administrative costs. If this sum can still be allocated to the territory, it will be spent in the development of the pastoral industry, the most pressing needs being the provision of wells, bores and dips. In view of the prevalence of buffalo fly and tick, increased dip facilities would be of great benefit.

Consequent upon the abolition of the commission it is proposed to restore the scheme of administration similar to that in operation prior to 1926. There will be an administrator at Darwin and a deputy administrator at Alice Springs. These officers will have the assistance of an advisory council as the Government Residents of North Australia and Central Australia now have. The new scheme provides for one council instead of two, and the members of the council will be elective. Under the present system, two members are appointed by the Minister and two are elected by the residents in the particular territory. An innovation is the power given to the council to make ordinances - which is a pronounced advancement toward self-government in matters of local concern. It will be observed that the power is safeguarded in such a way as to prevent any abuse of power. The railways in the territory will bethe responsibility of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner, and other public works such as roads, telegraph aud telephone lines, water, boring, &c, will be allocated to the Works Department. Under the Northern Australia Act the Northern Territory was divided into the Territories of Central Australia and North . Australia, and duplication of legislation resulted. These objectionable features will vanish on the repeal of the Northern Australia Act, which is provided for in clause 3 of the bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [5.2S]. - This is another instalment of what might be termed the North Australia tragedy. As a former Minister for Home Affairs, I had experience in administering the Northern Territory under the very system to which the Government now proposes to revert. In moving the second reading of the bill, the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) spoke of dispensing with duplication, but this clearly provides for a reversion to the old system of duplication. The honorable gentleman said that it would lead to savings, but the only saving will be in the cost of the -commission itself. The Government is reverting to .a system nf administration which has already been demonstrated to be the most costly and inefficient in Australia. Four or five departments, which will be located in Canberra, are to administer the whole of the affairs of the territory with which, for the. most part, they have no local knowledge,- and of which they know very little. Some of the’ things that occurred under the system which was dispensed with by the Government, of which I was a member, would have been farcical if they were, not so tragic. Necessary work in the Northern Territory was undertaken by different departments. One section of the Department of Home Affairs dealt with land matters. If a river crossing were proposed, the Lands Department had to be satisfied that it was necessary. In such a case, an inspector of the Lands Department would visit the territory, and report. On his return, an inspector representing the Works Department would proceed to’ the locality to determine the nature of the work to be undertaken. I invite honorable senators to consider what this travelling means. The Northern Territory cannot be reached by train, arid in visiting many portions of it camel and horse teams have to be used. Weeks are sometimes occupied in reaching the district where a work is to be carried out. After a works inspector had visited the territory, he would return to Melbourne and report as to what should be done, and if approval were given to the scheme, would prepare his plans. Then others would have to be sent out to put in the crossing. Duplication of that kind was always going on* under the system to which the Government now proposes to revert.

When occupying the position of Minister for Home Affairs, I realized the difficulty of administering a territory which I had never seen, and which is not comparable with any other part of Australia. I, therefore, decided to visit the Northern Territory. I did not make my headquarters at Darwin and form my conclusions regarding the country, as so many others have done, on what I saw there. I travelled through the greater part of the hinterland, and eventually entered the lower portion of Queensland. I had. previously been to Oodnadatta, which is not in the Northern Territory, but from that point one gains some idea of the conditions of the southern areas. After making a thorough investigation into the whole of the circumstances, I realised that if the Government was to grapple with what was indeed a serious problem, the administrative work would have to be done on the spot. I recognized that the territory was so vast - a point that is not appreciated by many - that some form of local administration was essential.

There are actually four- separate districts - north, south, east, and west - each of which has its distinct problems, that require to be dealt with separately. The first extends for 200 miles south of Darwin, and is not comparable with any other portion of the Northern Territory. It is in the tropics; but it is not tropical in the sense that Java is tropical. It has not the fertile soil of Java, and! production cannot be undertaken in that portion as it can in Java or, say, in Cairns, although some river patches are very fertile. There is a tremendous rainfall of up to 60 inches a year, which falls in from four to six months, and in thi.?. area, with the exception of the country along the river banks, the ground during the dry season is absolutely dry, and is baked almost like a brick. In Java, of course, rain falls throughout the year, and consequently the soil does not become baked. Tropical agriculture is an impossibility in much of the country for 200 miles south of Darwin, with the exception of a few favoured places along the rivers.

Another district, which is really the central portion of the Northern Territory, although it is riot in the centre of Australia, comprises the eastern and western provinces. The eastern district embraces the Barkly Tableland, “and comprises magnificent cattle country, and possibly is capable of carrying sheep. That has to be demonstrated.

Senator Guthrie:

– That has been successfully demonstrated.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– f. mean that it has yet to be demonstrated that it can carry sheep profitably. The evidence seems to show that it can. Although it may be arguable whether sheep-farming can , be profitably carried on in the Barkly Tableland, it is undoubtedly splendid cattle country. The line of development of that district is not from Darwin or Adelaide, but Queensland, or possibly Borooloola, a port in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Senator McLachlan:

– Or Port Augusta.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No ; that would be impossible. The propinquity of the Victoria River district to Wyndham, in Western Australia, means that its interests are with Wyndham, not Darwin. The district is cut off from Darwin by a number of big rivers. It would cost millions of pounds to connect that district with Darwin by rail. In my opinion, the idea of developing the Victoria River district from Port Augusta, Queensland or Darwin, is stupid in the extreme. That country can be developed only through Wyndham or along the Victoria River. These three distinct districts should be developed according to their geographical requirements.

We come now to Central Australia - the district lying immediately north and south of the Macdonnell ranges.

That the geographical outlet for that district is Port Augusta, not Darwin, has been demonstrated in the last year. As a result of the extension of the railway from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs, cattle and sheep development is progressing in Central Australia as never before. Last year £90,000 was paid in freight on cattle on that line, notwithstanding that there are two breaks of gauge before reaching Adelaide, and that the seasonal conditions were not favorable. A profitable trade in cattle has been possible in Central Australia for the first time, owing to the construction of that line.

The Government’s proposal is that these four districts shall be administered from Canberra by officers, many of whom have not seen them. The late Government appointed a commission and gave it certain powers. It is true that that commission has not been able to do much in the way of developing the territory; but that is not its fault. Obviously, a territory cannot be developed without money; and since the appointment of the commission, the money market has been so adverse that the funds necessary to open up the country have not been available. The scheme which the late Government inaugurated has consequently not been so successful as was anticipated; but I repeat that the fault does not lie with the commission. Now the commission is to be abolished because it has not developed the country to the extent that was expected. The Government claims that its abolition will mean a saving of the salaries and travelling expenses of the members of the commission, amounting to £8,000 a year. Speaking from my experience as a Minister, I venture to predict that, under the Government’s proposal, the travelling expenses of the administration will exceed £8,000; and there will be Jess efficient administration. The members of the commission are on the spot. If they decide that a crossing over a river shall be made, they send out a gang of men to pave it. They do not first send out inspector after inspector to make examinations. The direct system has proved satisfactory.

This bill has a peculiar history. It was introduced to abolish the. commission, repeal the North Australia Act, and do away with the advisory council in North and Central Australia. But Mr. Nelson, the honorable member for the Northern Territory in another place, came on the scene and gave the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Blakeley) such an uncomfortable time that the Government decided to reinstate departmental management from Canberra and to appoint an advisory council for the whole territory. Do honorable senators know that if they vote for this bill, they will vote for the establishment of an advisory council of four members - one from each of four districts? The advisory council is to meet not merely once or twicea year; it will meet as often as its members themselves decide. It is true that they are not to be paid any salaries for their services; but they will be allowed travelling expenses. I shall give the Senate an indication of the expense connected with travelling in that country. I went through the Northern Territory in a Ford motor car. Before the trip could be undertaken, camel teams had to be sent out with supplies of petrol. When I got back I inquired the cost of the petrol used on the trip, and found that, although petrol generally was much cheaper then than it is now, as much as 12s. a gallon was paid for it. I point these things out in order that honorable senators may vote with their eyes open. If they vote for the bill, they will vote to administer the territory from Canberra, with the assistance of an advisory council empowered only to make recommendations. That council will meet not less than twice yearly, but probably much more frequently. I leave it to honorable senators to imagine what their travelling expenses will be. The bill provides that the Administrator shall summon a meeting of the advisory council whenever he is requested by two members to do so. The council will be elected on an adult suffrage. Do honorable senators imagine that any pastoralist say, at Alice Springs, who is endeavouring to make a living by rearing cattle, will take three months off from his station duties in order to attend a meeting of the advisory council at Darwin ? I ask them to reflect on the constitution of the advisory council. The only persons who will be elected to it will be men seeking jobs; they will make a living by drawing travelling expenses while travelling to and from meetings. No one else could afford to accept a seat on the council. I repeat that, with the establishment of an advisory council, the travelling expenses of its members will more than eat up the £8,000 per annum which the present commission is costing, and, in addition, there will be less efficiency. Yet that is what the bill provides.

Apparently, a number of government supporters enjoyed the trouncing that the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) gave the Minister. The advisory council proposed in the bill is the outcome of Mr. Nelson’s criticism.

Senator Daly:

– The Opposition in another place applauded Mr. Nelson.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.An Opposition generally does applaud when a Minister is having a bad time.

– 1 include horse-raising. If the Government concentrated along these lines, agriculture would follow naturally in the more settler] areas. I believe that the Department of Home Affairs has learned that lesson, and that it will not repeat the mistakes of the past in that regard. The personnel of the North Australia Commission was very wisely chosen. Mr. Horsburgh had an extensive experience in Queensland in a managerial capacity, particularly in connexion with the mining industry. He is highly respected, has considerable force’ of character, and is well-known for his capacity to get the best possible out of the men under his control. Mr. Horsburgh is the chairman of the commission. Mr. Hobler is one of the best railway engineers that the Commonwealth Railway Department ever had. He was, as an employee of the Queensland Government, in charge of the railways that were built so successfully into the interior of Queensland. He knows the territory well. Mr. Easton, the third member of the commission, was previously in the Queensland Lands Department, and has had much experience in the pastoral development of North and North-western Australia. All three are hard-headed, practical men whose energies have been devoted to the solution of problems similar to those which face the Northern Territory. In my Ministerial capacity, I conferred with these men, and I have never met a trio so devoid of office frills. Not one is a man of extravagant ideas. They do work themselves that other departmental heads would want a secretary and a typewriter to do. They are used to out-back life. Yet the Government proposes to dispense with the services of these men who are doing the job on the spot, and to hand over the administration of that vast territory, which is bigger than some of our States, to the Department of Home Affairs, which is located at Canberra. I have the highest respect for the officers of the Department of Home Affairs. They are as capable as any officers in any other government department in Australia. But they are no more fitted to administer that territory and assist its development than they are of pioneering aviation to the moon. It is not their job; they were not selected or trained for it.

I am so keenly interested in the development of North Australia that I am perhaps encroaching unduly on the time of honorable senators. I urge that this is not a party question. I read the speech that was made in another place by Mr. Nelson, who probably knows the territory better than any other man in the Commonwealth Parliament. He spoke of the work of the commission in the highest terms, and opposed this bill. Mr. Nelson certainly hasa bee in his bonnet as to the advisory council, a scheme which, I think, is not worth a snap of the fingers. I think we should first encourage the people to that area; and they will go to the territory only when it is possible for them to live comfortably and thrive there. The inhabitants already have a voice in the administration of the territory, as there are two advisory councils in the localities in which they are actually living. The proposed advisory council will be right out of their ken. What does the man living at Alice Springs know or care of Darwin? He knows no more about it than he doesof Canberra - and that is precious little. The Government proposes to make the seat of the Administrator at Darwin, and that of his deputy at Alice Springs. Under the present scheme, the Administrator for Central Australia resided there. It is really merely a change of name. I cannot see that the proposed elective council will be as valuable as the one that now exists. Mr. Nelson complained that he was not asked for an opinion. I believe that if he were asked he would say, “Let the present conditions continue”. And that is my advice to the Senate and to the Government. I do not think that the Government will save £8,000 by the new plan. Bather, I believe it will lose that amount and more in pursuing it.

Senator Rae:

– What effect has the opening of the railway to Alice Springs had on the development of the territory?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.A very important one.

Senator Cooper:

– It has collected £90,000 in freights alone since it was opened.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I refer Senator Rae to the third annual report of the Northern Territory Commission, which sets out the quantity of live stock carried over the line during the past year. Its purpose is particularly to carry cattle. I met a man in a comparatively small way, for his holding is only about 100 square miles - a small cattle station in those parts - who told me that at the time he had on his run fat cattle which, if he could get them to the Adelaide market as they were then, would be. worth from £15 to £18 a head. Instead, he had to drove them to the head of the line, which was then Oodnadatta, have them railed over the narrow gauge railway to Terowie, on which they were bumped about for two days, and then transferred to the broad gauge railway en route to Adelaide. During the journey they were starved and without water, except when being transhipped, so that when they reached Adelaide, instead of being “ fats “, they were “ stores.” He got £3 a head for them, but the man who bought them sent them out to the sewerage farm at Isling- ion, and, a few weeks later, sold them as fat cattle. This man tells me that, even with the break of gauge, he can travel his stock 200 miles to Alice Springs and bring them down by rail to Adelaide, where they realize as much as £18 a head, whereas, in former years, he could not expect to get more than £3 a head for them. That is what the railway means to those people in Central Australia. Mr. Nelson, the honorable member for the Northern Territory in another place, the other day mentioned that one man had lately taken up a big tract of country near Alice Springs, on which he was spending £20,000, and was giving employment to fifteen men, who formerly were among the unemployed in Adelaide. This developmental work is going on in the Alice Springs district, even under unfavorable seasonal conditions, simply because the railway facilities make it possible for the station-owners to develop their properties and market their stock.

I know that, if I vote against this bill, my action will be misconstrued. It will be assumed that .1 opposed it simply because it was brought forward by this Government. I can, however, assure the Leader of the Senate that I have not approached any honorable senator on this side with the request to vote against the measure; but personally I feel that I cannot support it, because I believe it is a tragic mistake. It will not effect, any saving whatever. On the contrary, it will be a step backwards in our scheme for the development of the Northern Territory. I think it quite possible that conditions may improve, possibly in a year or so, when we may have money to spend on developmental works on the lines indicated in the commission’s reports. I remind the Senate that the commission does not talk about the need for expenditure of millions of pounds. On the contrary, the modesty of its proposals is almost pathetic. It refers, for instance, to the possibility of developing tropical agriculture on the rivers, and I find that tlie magnificent sum of £2,000 is set apart for that purpose in an area of country 200 miles from north to south and between 400 and 500 miles from east to west. The commission points out that, even under the unfavorable conditions experienced in recent years, 45 people aro doing very well at growing peanuts, and it is gratifying to know that Northern Territory peanuts are bringing the highest prices in the Australian market. Some of these settlers have been drawn from the ranks of the unemployed. Instead of being content to remain on the dole, they took up land on the Adelaide River and, I understand, are making a good living. It seems to me that there is a good prospect of further developing this industry; but its possibilities are not to be compared with the prospects of the cattle industry. According to the commission’s report, the number of cattle and sheep in North Australia on the 31st December, 192S. was 676,428 and 354 respectively, while the number of cattle in Central Austral in at the same date was 92,223 and sheep 7,281. Referring to the value of the railway facilities to cattle-owners, the com-‘ mission makes this comment -

As an indication of the value of reasonable transport it is pointed out that between the 5th August, 1029, when the railway extension from Oodnadatta to Alice Springs was opened for public traffic, and the 24th October, 1929, 0,718 fat cattle were railed from Alice Springs to the Adelaide markets, and sold at an average of about £16 10s. per head.

The commission adds that, so far as North Australia is concerned, the number of live stock marketed within the territory is negligible, due to lack of population. The sales oversea, in the Philippine Islands, during the year totalled 6,808. In another portion of its report the commission states that the freight paid on the transport of cattle since the line to Alice Springs was opened totalled £90,000, and that this year it was anticipated that the revenue would be approximately £100,000. I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision, and I suggest that the bill, be withdrawn. If it is pressed to a division I feel that I must vote against it, but I assure the Leader of the Senate that I am not actuated by any party spirit. I am opposed to the bill simply because I regard the proposal as a waste of money.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I was interested in the speech delivered by the right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), because no man in Australian public life has given such close attention as he has to the development of the Northern Territory. I was glad to note, also, that he approached the discussion of this bill in a. non-party spirit. With most of his statements I am in cordial agreement, and I can speak from many years of experience of the territory. I regard this bill as a retrograde step. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The Northern Territory, as we all know, has had a very chequered career. Repeated attempts at development have been attendedby failure, but the proposition is by no means hopeless. Some people have been successful, and I have no doubt that, as time goes on, that immense area, much of it fertile, healthy country, will be profitably occupied. The absence of transport facilities is one of the stumbling blocks to its successful development, and because of its isolated position, its problems are so often overlooked by the administration. The Leader of the Opposition was quite right when he said that this huge area could be divided into four separate sections. I have had a long experience of the territory, and I have an intimate knowledge of that portion of it which is known as the Barkly Tableland in which is to be found the best land in the Northern Territory. My father pioneered that country 50 years ago. He took sheep, cattle and horses from the south-eastern district of South Australia right through the continent, and also travelled sheep from Bourke, in New South Wales, to the Rankine and Herbert rivers on the Barkly Tableland. The pioneers had to face extraordinary hardships and expend a large amount of capital, and his was an uphill fight for 30 or 40 years. Eventually he made a success of the venture ; but legislation with regard to wages, and the difficulties of transport, finally forced us to abandon sheep, and we disposed of 60,000 merinos and devoted our attention to cattle and horses.” While the people on the land in the territory - and I regard them as the real people - always worked magnificently, I cannot say the same of the residents of Darwin, which now is to be the administrative centre. It is no more a part of the real Northern Territory than Canberra can be considered as being in any way connected with Manitoba, in Canada.

Private business taking precedence after 8 p.m.,

Ordered -

That Orders of the Day, Bounty on Gold Production; Export of Manufactured Goods; and Beam Wireless Penny-a-Word Messages be postponed.

page 1306

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

– That is so.

Senator Rae:

– Would the honorable senator favour a removal of the capital, say, to Alice Springs?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Although Alice Springs is in Central Australia, I think that it would be better to make it the capital of the Northern Territory, because the people living there, or close by, would know something of the industries of the northern part of Australia. The principal industry is that of breeding cattle. It is a wonderful cattle country. Cattle breed prolifically and fatten readily. It is also good country for breeding horses, and, as I have already said, provided the cost of transport and production can be reduced, sheep can be successfully raised on the Barkly Tableland, but there is absolutely no inducement for anybody to develop a sheep station - a costly undertaking anywhere in Australia to-day.

Look at the tragedy of Vestey’s at Darwin! Vestey’s spent £1,000,000 on the erection of meat works. To-day, because of industrial troubles,’ those works are lying idle, and rotting. Although the hours of work were short, and the wages very high, the men would not get on with the job. There was strike after strike. I think that Darwin is about the worst centre that could be chosen for the administration of the territory. It certainly makes a good back door to the Commonwealth for aviators, but that is about the end of its usefulness. Frightful blunders have been made by administrators who have not been practical men. It was useless to send men to the territory who knew only about botanic gardens in Sydney and Melbourne, but nothing about the development of huge areas in their pioneering stages. That is work that only the practical, hard-working, brave pioneer can undertake successfully. I have already said that very few of our pioneer -pastoralists have weathered the storm. The history of the development of all the States is that very few of the original pioneers have overcome the great difficulties and hardships they had to encounter.

Senator Pearce has had a very practical knowledge of the administration of the Northern Territory. No man in this Parliament -knows more about the territory than he does. He has visited .nearly every portion of it. During his regime practical assistance was given to cattle and other stock-owners by the putting clown of bores to provide water along stock routes. Over the vast area of the Northern Territory there is an almost unlimited supply’ of sub-artesian water.

Artesian water has not been found, though we bored to a depth of 2,000 feet; but at depths ranging from 200 to 300 feet an unlimited supply of subartesian water can be obtained. At first this water was raised by pumping engines, and later pumped by windmills 24 feet in diameter into surface storage tanks. Iron storage tanks were first used, but when it was found that they were too expensive, arid that their holding capacity was insufficient, enormous surface excavations of an area of about ten times that of this chamber and of shallow depth were constructed. The administration of the Northern Territory should be in the hands of practical men similar to the real pioneers who have done so much to develop the back country, and not of loafers such as are to be found in large numbers in Darwin. I believe that there is a larger proportion of loafers in Darwin than in any other part of Australia. I am afraid it will be impossible to satisfactorily administer the Northern Territory from Canberra, where the officials will be ignorant of and quite out of touch with the requirements of that part of Australia. The persons elected to the proposed advisory council will not be of the right type to .in any way assist its development. For the reasons given, I shall vote against the second reading of the bill.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator DALY:

– Until Parliament makes other provision, the advisory council may make ordinances.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Would it be empowered to alter the lands ordinances?

Senator DALY:

– I should say so. But I remind the honorable senator that an ordinance is inoperative until it has been approved by the Governor-General. Under clause 3, the ordinance would have to come before Cabinet, and if approved it would have to be gazetted, after which it would lie on the table of both Houses of Parliament for 30 days and would be open to disallowance. The council might have power to alter the land laws; but whatever it did would have to be submitted to Parliament. Its powers would not exceed those of the North Australia Commission. With the establishment of the advisory council the Government would probably delegate some of its powers to that body. The Government is not so much concerned with the appointment of an advisory council as with the fact that the commission is doing nothing. Just as Parliament may destroy the commission and save £8,000 a year, so Parliament can re-establish it, or adopt some other form of government if it feels disposed to do so. But until that time arrives, I urge that, however much honorable senators may associate the Government with extravagance, it is their duty to encourage every attempt it makes to effect a legitimate saving in expenditure.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Daly) in the desire to save everything possible, particularly having regard to his statement that there is at present no opportunity to engage in any developmental work in the territory. Having been associated with some people who hope to develop the Barkly Tableland, I appreciate to the full the reasons given by the honorable senator. But I cannot follow his reasoning with regard to setting up the proposed advisory council. If he came forward with a proposal to abolish the commission at present operating in the territory, and to substitute another for it, I should be with him, notwithstanding that it would be contrary to the policy of the previous Government. Instead, the Government introduced in another place a bill that would practically have accomplished what I have indicated, and then added to it all this cumbersome machinery at the plea of the honorable member representing the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson). That is done at a time when the Government admits that there is no developmental work in the territory. What is the object of setting up this complicated machine, that will operate only with the greatest possible difficulty? People in the Federal Parliament seem to lose sight of the vast distances that will have to be travelled by these councillors in order to attend council meetings.

Replying to Senator Greene, I draw the honorable senator’s attention to proposed new section 4l, which defines the powers of the council apart from the making of ordinances, which will probably not be effective, as, even if they are “ OK’d “ by the Department of Home Affairs, they will be censored by this

Parliament. The proposed sub-section reads -

The council shall advise the Administrator in respect of any matter arising at any meeting of the council or submitted by the Administrator to such meetings.

Those are very onerous duties, indeed, and they are the only definite duties that the council has to perform, because the next provision reads -

The council may report upon -

the necessity for undertakingany public work in the territory or concerning the continuance of any public work already undertaken: and

upon the rates charged for fares or freights in respect of the carriage of passengers or goods upon any railway within the territory. (3.) Any report made under this section shall be transmitted to the Administrator who shall forthwith forward it to the Minister. (4.) In any case any members of the council may require that the grounds of advice or opinion which he gives upon any questionbe recorded at length.

That is the gesture of economy that the Minister would have us believe the Government is making with regard to the administration of the Northern Territory! I shall accept the repeal of the previous act; but I am not going to accept something that is mere “ eyewash,” something that is purely political strategy; something . which, on the face of it, bears the evidence of absolute unreality. This advisory council is worth nothing, and it will do nothing. The Minister has stated that the reason for the repeal of existing legislation is that there is nothing for the present commission to operate on. I suggest that, at such a time as this, the Minister should withdraw the clause providing for this advisory council that can accomplish nothing; that must incur tremendous travelling expenses, meet at least twice in any one year, and can do nothing when it assembles. It is mere idle nonsense to suggest that this body will perform any practical function. Let us cast it out. I am not opposed to the rest of the measure. If the Government says that, as a matter of high policy, it can effect a saving by getting rid of a commission, let it do so by all means, particularly as there is nothing for such a body to operate on.

I do not think that this is a time to make a speech upon the Northern Territory, although it seems to me to Iia ve been very unhappily and unfortunately managed, with no regard for the requirements of the vast area which is contained within its four corners. The Minister put it rather strongly that the Opposition is opposing the endeavour of the Government to economize. I am not only prepared to approve all the economy that the Government asked for originally in this matter; in addition, I propose that the honorable senator should effect a further saving by eliminating this useless body which the Government desires to bring into being.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I propose to vote for the second reading of this bill. I am very much in accord with Senator McLachlan with regard to the advisory council, which, I think, would be utterly useless. Et might even be very mischievous, and i venture to suggest that if there is one mau who would be pleased if the provision for the council were struck out it is the Minister who has to control the territory.

I want to give credit to Senator Pearce, who was the Minister primarily responsible for the system of government at present in existence in the territory, for setting to work, as I believe no other man has done for quite a long time, to try to tackle the problem of the .Northern Territory. The right honorable senator designed its existing system of government, to a very great extent in close cooperation with people who had interests in the territory, and, although they did not altogether see eye to eye with him in the form of administration that he set up, they knew that his action was governed by a desire to help the Government and to develop the territory. Unfortunately for the honorable senator and Australia, at the time when this administration was set up the nation was entering upon a period of financial stringency. The commission was handicapped from the outset.

A good deal has been said in the course of this debate about the alleged impossibility of attracting capital to the Northern Territory at present. I do not think that it is impossible. I know that there is an excellent possibility of attracting capital there, but it can be done only if the Government is prepared to do that which the capitalist requires; give him what he regards aa suitable security for the money that he proposes to invest, and an opportunity to get some of it back. No one is going to put money into the territory after the hideous failures of the past unless he has some assurance that he has a reasonable chance of eventually coming out on top. Men will not put money into the Northern Territory unless they have necessary encouragement. There is only one way in which to afford that encouragement, and that is by giving them security of tenure for a sufficient time to enable them adequately to develop the country which they take up. Anybody who has had any experience in the interior of Australia, knows perfectly well that there is only one way in which it is possible to make the best use of country of this nature, and that is by gradually and steadily making provision for water conservation and facilities for stocking it, and fencing it. To do that one. must have a long lease, without the possibility of resumption. I believe that one of the reasons which have thwarted every effort to develop the Northern Territory is that we have tried to move too rapidly. We have given leases for, perhaps, 30 years, with resumption conditions, which mean that the country will gradually be taken from the original lessees. The Northern Territory will never be developed by that means. I do not believe that the leases should be for less than 40 years. The areas must be big and the rentals satisfactorily low. The Government may say, “We are not prepared to give such a lease, or to give security of tenure for the whole of the lease.” The capitalist replies. “Very well, I do not want it.” That is the end of the story. Nothing is done. And so things go on year after year, decade after decade, and we get no further with the development of the territory.

The greater part of the Northern Territory is in very much the same position as was Australia in the early days, and we have to treat it in exactly the same way as Australia was dealt with at that time. If that is done, we shall have no difficulty in encouraging capital to it even now.

Ihavehad a close association with the territory for a number of years in the capacity of chairman of the Northern Territory Pastoral Lessees Association, whose members are intimately associated with the development of that area. I have not had practical experience in the territory myself, but all with whom I am associated say precisely the same thing: that the Government must make the country available on long lease, with security of tenure for the whole period. Only on those conditions will the area be developed. The process willbe slow, but it willbe certain.The granting of the leases must, of course, be accompanied by strict improvement and stocking conditions. If that is done, when we are all gone and those who follow us see the result of our work, it might be possible for them to contemplate dealing with some portions of the Northern Territory, at all events, along lines similar to those which have been followed in the development of Queensland, New South “Wales and elsewhere.

I cannot see the use at the moment of keeping this commission in the territory, however good may be the personnel. These gentlemen are simply twiddling their thumbs, as there is nothing for them to do. Consequently, it is better, for the time being at all events, to revert to the old system, which I admit has its drawbacks. As for this advisory council, I do not propose to vote for it when we go into committee.

– What can the council do?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– It will be capable of advising on any matter connected with the people or the development of the territory, on land settlement and land administration, the opening up of stock routes and the provision of water along those routes. In a word, it will ad vise on all questions necessary to be considered in the development of this vast territory, which is under the control of the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Much of the work which the honorable senator has mentioned could be best done by surveyors.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Would the honorable senator have men with no knowledge of the requirements of the Northern Territory sent up from the south with their theodolites and chains, and told to put down a series of bores in a certain direction, or would he rather seek the advice of men who have spent years in the north? In my opinion, it is only by taking advantage of the advice of the men for whom honorable senators profess to be solicitous, and by giving them an opportunity to present it to this Parliament, so that members of this Parliament may be influenced by it, that we can hope to bring about a successful development of the north. These men are doing the real work of development. I know some of them who have stuck it out for twenty years, and are still without adequate reward. For the greater part of the year they live with the saddle for their pillow, and God’s great canopy as their roof. An advisory council, as proposed by the board, would bring such as these into touch with the Government, and enable them to make articulate what they desire the Government to do for them.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS (South Australia) [9.25] . - The discussion to-night reminds me of discussions that took place in another Parliament House a good many years ago, when the interests of the residents of the Northern Territory were supposed to be fairly well looked after by all members of Parliament. I am referring to the days before the Northern Territory had a representative of its own in this Parliament. Every member thought that he could speak effectively for the territory. For my own part, I thought that I had some slight personal interest in that part of Australia, because I had visited it four times in twenty years. One thing that struck me more forcibly than anything else upon my visits, was that on each occasion I found that a new system of control had been set up. The people of the territory were most emphatic in their condemnation of the experimental methods of administration that were being tried on them. At one time administration would be in the hands of government officials; at another time a commission would be entrusted with the control of the affairs of the territory. Both systems were equally condemned by the people of the territory, but in that regard, so far as fault-finding is concerned, the’ most excellent fault-finding people on the face of the earth are to be found at Darwin.

Senator Lynch:

– That seems to be the only thing that a lot of them are good for.

SenatorSir JOHN NEWLANDS.They do not seem to need any assistance in airing their grievances. I have not been to the territory since the present commission has been in control, but I know the commissioners personally, and I believe that they are very capable men. This bill now proposes to abolish their position. Why is it that the Commonwealth Government is always trying out experiments on semi-developed country or on handfuls of people? Darwin is an unfortunate choice for such experiments. Its people have no sympathy with their fellow residents of the territory. They are townsfolk and not country folk. To get an idea of the terri tory, one needs to imagine New South

Wales with about 30 or 40 white men in it taking any interest in public affairs, and the rest of the population a mixture of Chinese, Afghans, coolies, South Sea Islanders and people of other nonEuropean races. Persons resident in Darwin are incapable, of satisfactorily administering the Northern Territory.

Senator Rae:

– They will not be responsible for the appointment of the four councillors.

Senator Sir JOHN NEWLANDS.Perhaps, ,…… Some of the residents of Darwin have, at times adopted most unusual tactics, and in one instance, when dissatisfied with the action of those in authority, forced them to leave the territory. On another occasion, when industrial trouble was brewing, the Government resident informed some men that if a c’ertain truck was moved he would train a machine gun which he had in his garden upon them and if they persisted would order it to be fired. The firm action taken on that occasion had a verymarked effect upon the men, who did not then dare to disobey his orders. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I travelled extensively through the Northern Territory in connexion with the construction of the north-south railway. Some of the men from whom evidence was taken were station-owners, and I vividly recall the primitive conditions under which a settler, his wife and two daughters were living in the vicinity of -Alice Springs. The only structure they possessed to protect them from the weather consisted of a hut with sides of bark and a roof of boughs. Last year I had the pleasure of meeting that man in Adelaide, and he informed me that he had brought down by rail 200 head of bullocks, which he had sold in the Adelaide market at a satisfactory price. It is men of that type, many of whom are 200 miles from a neighbour, that the Government should endeavour to assist. Under the policy adopted by the previous Government, a genuine attempt was being made to improve their conditions, and if more money had been available, additional facilities would have been provided to encourage further settlement. Those in authority should be in close touch with the people and not hundreds of miles away, as will be the case under this proposal. I realize the necessity, for economy;’ but the Government’s proposal, in this instance, will not effect any saving; it will, I contend, seriously retard the development of the Northern Territory. In the interests of the people of the Northern Territory, whom we should endeavour to assist, I shall oppose the bill.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– It is only natural that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), who was a member of the government which appointed the North Australia Commission, should oppose this measure. In fact, the commission can be regarded as his baby which he feels it his duty to protect. The present form of control in the Northern Territory has been in operation for six years, but has proved so costly and ineffective that the Government considers that a change should be made. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) said that under the old system it was necessary for an inspector of the. Lands Department to travel from Melbourne to the territory when a crossing was required, and that he was followed by an inspector from the Works Department, and later by workmen to undertake’ the job. That is exactly what is happening to-day. Although it is proposed to dispense with the North Australia Commission, which is costing practically £8,000 a year, that sum will be expended in sinking wells and bores and constructing cattle dips along the stock routes for the benefit of those engaged in the pastoral industry.

Senator Guthrie:

– Has any guarantee been given that the money will be spent in that way?

Senator BARNES:

– I gave the Senate that assurance when moving the second reading of the bill. Honorable senators opposite contend that the Northern Territory cannot be developed by an administrator ; but they should remember that he will have the assistance of an advisory council consisting of four elected councillors, representative of four districts, each of whom will have a close knowledge of the requirements of the portion he represents. Such a system should be more effective than the present. As the elected members of the advisory council will possess the necessary local knowledge they will be able to advise the administrator, who will be in constant touch with the Minister, and he will eventually decide what action shall be taken. Senator Greene said that there did not appear to be any need to retain the commission if money was not available for developmental work. It is useless to spend money on a costly commission when more effective administration can be obtained at less cost, and the savings used in development.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– What will the advisory council cost?

Senator BARNES:

– The members of the advisory council will be paid reasonable travelling expenses. They will meet at least twice a year, probably oftener.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– In addition, there will be the cost of the election.

Senator BARNES:

– That will not amount to a great sum, as the number of electors is small. The advisory council will consist of four councillors and the Administrator, as against three commissioners and two advisory councils as at present. The total salary and expenses of the present administration amount to about £13,000 per annum. Some of the officers of the commission will probably be transferred to the Works Department, making the saving about £8,000 a year. In 1929-30 the salaries and travelling expenses of the three commissioners, a secretary, and a clerk, amounted to £8,000. Local councillors will understand the needs of the district better than any other person could possibly do. The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) in another place, whom the Leader of the Opposition said knew more about the Northern Territory that any other member of Parliament, says that this measure is infinitely better than any measure for the control of the territory which has preceded it. What stronger argument in support of the bill could be advanced? In view of that commendation from an accepted authority, why should persons with no knowledge of the territory urge that the bill should be rejected? I hope that his advice will be followed, and that the bill will have a speedy passage through the Senate.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 20

NOES: 8

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended by inserting before the definition of “the Territory”, the following definitions: - “ ‘ the Council ‘ means the Advisory Council constituted under ‘this Act; “.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– This clause contains a definition of “ the council.” As a test vote on the desirability or otherwise of establishing an advisory council will probably take place on clause 5,I suggest that it be postponed.

Senator Barnes:

– This is merely a machinery clause; what is wrong with it?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Thereis nothing wrong with it. If the Minister so desires, the clause could be passed now and, if necessary, recommitted later. I suggest, however, that the present is as appropriate a time as any for the Senate to decide whether or not there shall be an advisory council. As the Minister appears to be unwilling to postpone the clause, I move -

Thatthe words “ ‘ the council ‘ means the advisory council constituted under this Act “ be left out.

– The Honorary Minister (Senator Barnes) said a little while ago that the £8,000 will not be saved, as it will be expended in developing the territory.

Senator DALY:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that, if the Government could profitably spend £8,000 in the territory, that would not be a saving to the taxpayers of the community? The honorable senator knows that it is not a question of the money that we borrow, hut of the way in which we spend it. I have listened to many a lecture by Senator Colebatch on that point. I entirely agree with Senator McLachlan that if it. is the. intention of the Senate not to countenance the appointment of a council of any kind, it would be better to decide the issue immediately and not further waste the time ofthe Opposition or of the Government.

SenatorRAE (New South Wales) [10.13]. - I trust that honorable senators will not reject the proposal to elect an advisory council. Senator Herbert Hays said that my remarks were worse than stupid.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I didnot say that. I referred to the bill.

SenatorRAE. The honorable senator said something that meant precisely what I have indicated. He particularly directed himself to an exposition of the opportunities that such a council would have to ventilate the grievances of extremists Some people have stigmatized the people of Darwin as being almost “ untouchables “. They are entitled to that opinion. This bill concerns the inhabitants of Darwin only indirectly. It particularly concerns the settlers of the Northern Territory, and provides thai that area shall be divided into four electorates, each of which shall elect one member to the advisory council. It is but fair that these pioneers, who have been referred to as the real men of the community, should have an opportunity to state their pressing needs to someone who can voice them to a council which can pass them on to the Government.

Senator Herbert Hays:

-Is there any evidence that the settlers want such a council as this?

SenatorRAE. - I spoke to Mr. Nelson, who represents the Northern Territory in another place, and he said that, while the proposal was not perfect, it was a great advance on anything previously formulated for the administration of the territory. If that is his view, we should accept it.

Senator Carroll:

– He is not the only authority.

Senator RAE:

– The Leader of the Opposition said, a little while ago, that the honorable member for the Northern Territory was the best authority in this Parliament upon the conditions in that part of Australia. What more undemocratic proposal could be made than that these hardy pioneers should be deprived of . the only direct means they are ever likely to have to state their most pressing needs or grievances?

Senator Herbert Hays:

– They have their federal member in another place.

SenatorRAE. - If he were to travel only once a year through his electoral division, he would spend the whole of the allowance which he receives.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– He knows the country and the people.

Senator RAE:

– It is impossible for any man to be fully conversant with the needs of the people scattered over such a vast area. The members of an advisory council would havefirst-hand and an intimate knowledge of all that was happening in their respective areas. Consequently they would be able to give the Administrator sound advice, based on local knowledge. The alternative is to make the Administrator a despot within the ambit of his power, because he will have noopportunity to come directly in contact with the people and become acquainted with their needs. If this proposal is defeated, the Senate will be doing an injustice to those settlers whom Senator Lynch so eloquently described as the real men in the Northern Territory. I agree that they deserve all the assistance which we can give to them.

Progress reported.

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 p.m.

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That Standing Order No. 68 be suspended until the 18th December instant for the purpose of enabling new business to be taken after half-past ten o’clock at night.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I understood that the usual procedure was to give notice of a motion to suspend Standing Order No. 68, or to obtain leave of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

The proposed advisory council, in addition to advising the administrator, will also be in a position to advise the member for the Northern Territory.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The citizens of the Northern Territory will form themselves into committeesif they are left alone.

Senator BARNES:

– Possibly, but so far they have not done it. The Government is anxious to provide them with some means by which they can keep their representative and the administration well informed as to local requirements. In this respect the Government is merely doing what other governments have done. I give every credit to Senator Pearce for his administration of the territory. He was an enthusiast and was not afraid to spend a few pounds, because he knew that the resources of the territory justified expenditure in their development. The present administration is just as anxious to follow his example, and I hope that honorable senators will give us the opportunity to put this experiment into operation.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator McLachlan’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Plain.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 7

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1324

INCOME TAX BILL (No. 2) 1930

Secondreading.

Debate resumed from page 1298.

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

– I subscribe to the view expressed by honorable senators opposite that a consideration of income tax measures is always approached with a certain amount of regret. In expressing my regret at the necessity for the introduction of this bill, I remind honorable senators that they cannot expect the Government to grant much relief by way of amendments. 1 have had several conferences to-day with the Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) and Senator McLachlanon a vital matter of principle, and am pleased to say that a compromise has been reached which should insure the speedy passage of the measure, which provides for the following additional income taxation : - (1.) An amendment of the increase made last session in the rate of tax on income from personal exertion. The increase then made amounted to 10 per cent. of the rates applicable to assessments for the previous financial year 1929-30, and it applied where the total taxable income of the taxpayer exceeded £500. This bill proposes that the 10 per cent. increase then imposed shall be increased to 15 per cent. The effect of the proposal will therefore be that where any person has a taxable income of more than £500, the rate of tax on his income from personal exertion in the assessment for the current financial year 1930-31 will be 15 per cent. higher than it would have been if the rates for the preceding financial year 1929-30 had continued in force. This provision is contained in clause 2 of the bill. (2.) An additional tax on all taxable income from property of 7 per cent. of that taxable income, that is, an additional tax of1s. 6d. in the £1 on all taxable income from property. During the last session of Parliament, the rate of tax applicable to income from property in assessments for the last financial year, 1929-30, was increased by 15 per cent. where the total taxable income exceeds £500 for the purposes of assessments for the current financial year. That increase remains in force, and the tax of1s. 6d. in the £1 provided for by this clause will be additional. The further tax proposed by this clause will apply to all income from interest, dividends, rents and royalties’, whether derived by a company or by an individual, and whether derived from property or from personal exertion within the meaning of the definitions in the Assessment Act. It will also apply to any income derived by any person in the course of carrying on a business, if that income is of such a class that it would be income from property in the hands of any person who was not in business. This may be exemplified in the case of income derived by way of interest. It is not intended to disturb the existing definitions of “ income from personal exertion “ and “income from property “ for the purposes of the assessment of tax imposed by any provisions other than those proposed by this clause. These provisions are contained in clause 3 of the bill which inserts new section 7a in the principal act.

Sub-section 2 of the new section provides for the elimination of double taxation as between companies and shareholders. In other words, if income from property is subject to the super tax in the hands of a company, the super tax will not again be chargeable on that income in the hands of any other person, whether that person has a direct shareholding interest in that company, or has an indirect interest in that company through the medium of one or more holding companies. As shareholders are thus exempt from super tax on dividends paid out of property income on whicha company pays the super tax, it is necessary to provide that they shall not be entitled to a rebate of the super tax paid by the company. Otherwise the imposition of the super tax would be nullified. A provision to prevent this rebate is contained in sub-section 3 of the proposed section 7a.

As the proposed super tax is at a fixed rate per £1 on certain classes of income, and as it is intended that the tax shall apply to the actual income derived from those sources during the financial year preceding that for which the tax is payable, it is necessary to exclude the operation of the averaging provisions of the

Assessment Act. Those provisions are capable of application only where -

tax is imposed at a graduated rate; and
the rate of tax on each £1 of taxable income is the rate of tax applicable to the total taxable income from all sources.

Sub-section 4 of proposed section 7a will have the effect of excluding the operation of the averaging provisions.

The Government has agreed to accept an amendment of the bill by Senator McLachlan, which will exempt shareholders of any company from super tax on any income distributed to them by that company during the financial year, 1929-30, out of income derived by that company in any prior financial year in the form of dividends. The principal object of the amendment is to place trading companies which distribute their profits through the medium of a holding company in the same position as trading companies which distribute their profits directly to their individual shareholders. The existence of a holding company, which may be a mere channel through which a trading company distributes its profits to the persons interested, has, in many cases, the effect of making the profits of two years - in the form of dividends to the holding company and the shareholders of the holding company - subject to the super tax in the first year to which the super tax applies, namely, 1930-31. Such a position does not arise where there is no holding company, that is, where the individuals interested are direct shareholders of the trading company. In the latter case the super tax for 1930-31 would be charged only on dividends received by the shareholders in 1929-30 out of the profits of the previous year.

As the bill stands, therefore, persons whose interests in a trading company are held through the medium of a holding company are at a distinct disadvantage in the first year of the super tax, as compared with individuals with direct share interests in the trading company. That this anomalous disadvantage exists to a serious extent has been demonstrated by reference to a number of actual cases. The amendment which the Government proposes to accept will effectively remove the anomaly; but I stress the point that its removal may result in a loss of taxation of anything up to £100,000. The Government has set outto get a certain amount of taxation by means of this proposal, and I appeal to honorable senators to view the measure in that light. If the Senate makes a request which will have the effect of relieving a certain class of taxpayer from the payment of taxes, the Government will be forced to shift the burden to the shoulders of other taxpayers. Every possibility has been explored with a view to making the revenue equal the expenditure. I hope that the Senate will not press the Government for any further exemptions, but will pass the hill in its present form, with the exception that I give an undertaking that, in committee, I shall accept the amendment foreshadowed by Senator McLachlan.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– The second reading of this hill furnishes an opportunity to draw attention to the claims of a company which has exhibited a generous spirit towards those who have had dealings with it. I refer to the Midland Railway Company of Western Australia, which sells land and collects a certain percentage of the purchase money from the purchaser, leaving the balance tobe repaid over an extended period up to fifteen years, with interest at the rate of 4 per cent. On behalf of that company I appeal to the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition has previously referred to this company, and showed how severely it has been dealt with at the hands of the Federal and State income tax authorities. This company charges its clients 4 per cent. on the outstanding balance of the purchase money, which is sometimes 90 per cent. of the value of the land. Although nominally the rate of interest charged by the company is 4 per cent., in practice it works out at £3 13s. per cent. This further additional tax of7½ per cent. would bring down the rate of interest to about £3 8s. per cent. Out of that amount the company will have to pay a further State tax, which will reduce its interest earnings to about 3 per cent. on the outstanding balance payable on the land. Some years ago, when the Government of Western Australia was in financial difficulties, it persuaded this company to construct a railway about 300 miles long. In the early stages of its existence, the company became financially embarrassed. Nevertheless, it carried out its contract, and obtained a grant- of land in payment for building the railway. As the years slipped by the company’s relations with its clients were almost the same as those of a government or a local -governing authority. I bought a piece of land from the company, but I have long since transferred by responsibility to other agencies. I know, however, that it has 500 contracts running, and that both in respect of the construction of the. railway and its dealings with the land,, it has been losing money for years. ; .Indeed, it has been unable to meet* its ‘interest commitments. Lately, how.ever, owing. to careful management, conditions have improved, with the result that those who bought land from the company-have benefited. Those of us who Bought’ land from that company were placed’.- for years at a disadvantage as compared ‘ with the lot of Crown tenants nearby. - For instance, we had to find our own water. If we applied to the State Water Board for assistance, we were told that that body existed, but not . for us. The Government would not construct roads for us, and, consequently, we had to cut our own tracks. The Agricultural Bank was established in the time of Sir John Forrest, but it would not assist the Midland settler. Consistently other State instrumentalities refused them assistance. Notwithstanding that withholding of assistance by the State, almost as soon as I had bought my land, even before a camp had been pitched, I received a demand from the Taxation Department for payment of land tax. Crown tenants in the same district were exempt from taxation for periods up to five years. The only attention the Midland settler got from the State was a series of demands for the payment’ of taxes. I have said before, arid I now repeat, that the company has treated its clients’ fairly, even indulgently. “ It treated leniently every man who was’ a’’ trier. Land which the company’ sold for 4s. an acre soon went up to 10s. or 12s. ah acre, notwithstanding that a reserve was placed on it.. Considering the proximity of the land to the railways, the land sold by the company was a- cheap as relatively situated Crown land, while the quality was better. In respect of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the land, the company is hard hit by this bill. I want to relieve the company of the burden of the tax of ls. 6d. in the £1. If the screw is put on by both Federal and State Governments settlers who purchased land from the company will not be able to approach it for assistance as in the past. It will be unable to assist them. If the Government presses for this tax it will not really be pressing the company, but the men who go to the company for the concessions which others nearly always succeeded in getting from the State. The company has always treated its clients fairly; it has charged them a low rate of interest and assisted them in other ways. Something should now be clone to show the company that the Government appreciates its live and let live policy. I appeal to the Government on its behalf. In committee, I propose to move an amendment to exempt this class of taxpayer from the tax of ls. 6d. in the £1.

Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) [11.11). - The introduction of’ this bill provides an opportunity to discuss the heavy imposts upon those who derive incomes from property. Honorable senators will remember that the Minister in charge of the bill stated that there is- to be a 15 per cent, increase in the rate of tax on incomes of £500 and over derived from personal exertion. There is also to be an additional tax of ls. 6d. in the £1 on all income from property. If honorable senators will refer to the schedule exhibited yesterday, they will see that a person with a net income of £350 from property now pays only £1 in taxes. Under the proposal in this bill the same person will be called upon to pay £21 12s., or an increase of over 2,000 per cent. 1 do not think that the Minister responsible for framing this legislation realizes how cruel it is. A person with an income of £500, derived from personal exertion, .pays the same tax as last year, plus an increase of 15 per cent. A man with an income .of £150 less from property, instead of paying about £3 10s. as he would under the personal exertion provision, will be called upon to pay £21 12s., because his income is derived from property. At present, a person with an income of £500 from property pays £5 17s. 8d. income tax.Under this bill he will pay £45 19s. 5d., an increase of over 700 per cent. Seeing that these increases represent a standard increase of 15 per cent, with an enormous addition of1s. 6d. in the £1, in the case of income from property the Minister should realize the unfairness of the proposal. I consider that every honorable senator should take the opportunity to protest against this excessive taxation of a very deserving class who have only small incomes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

After section seven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “7a. - (1.) In addition to any tax (including additional tax, super-tax and further tax) payable under the preceding provisions of this Act, there shall be payable upon the taxable income derived by any person -

by way of interest, dividends, rents or royalties, whether derived from personal exertion or from property : and

in the course of carrying on a business, where the income is of such a class that, if derived otherwise than in the course of carrying on a business, it would be income from property, a further tax of seven and one-half per centum of the amount of that taxable income.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– I have already demonstrated the iniquity of the additional imposition of 7½ per cent. on these people, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not make an attempt to have the rate reduced. I am aware that the Government needs money, but it does not appear to me to be right to victimize the section of the community for which I have been fighting during the discussion of this hill. In an endeavour to grant them some relief, I move -

That the House ofRepresentatives be requested to amend sub-section 1, proposed new section 7a, by leaving out the words “ seven and one-half “ with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ five “.

I think that the Minister might well acceptthat request for submission to anotherplace.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– Whilst my colleagues in the Ministry, and I would be only too pleased if such a request could beaccepted, it is impossible, in the circumstances, for that to be done. This bill is part and parcel of the Government’s financial proposals, and the taxation percentages have been reduced to the absolute minimum. It is no use my holding out false hopes to the Senate. I hope that the Senate will not embarrass the Government by pressing the request.

Request negatived.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– The Minister in charge of the bill has already explained that the request that I shall proffer was ultimately accepted by the Government after a very arduous battle with the Treasurer. It seems to me that it is a very simple act of justice. I move -

That the House ofRepresentatives be requested to amend proposed new section 7a by inserting the following new sub-section : - 2a. This section shall not applytoincome which is assessable for the financial year beginning on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and thirty under the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (b) of section 16 of the Income Tax Act 1922- 1930 if that income is distributed out of income which was assessable income of a company under those provisions for any prior financial year.

Request agreed to.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

.- I move-

That the House of Representativesbe requested to amend proposed new section 7a by inserting therein the following sub-section : - 2aa. This section shall not apply to interest at a rate not exceeding 4 per centum per annum on unpaid purchase money under a contract for the sale of land acquired by the purchaser exclusively for the purposes of cultivation.

AYES: 7

NOES: 16

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Request negatived.

Clause agreed to subject to a request.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with a request.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended and report adopted.

page 1329

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

By an amendment of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act made in 1929, two classes of bodies known respectively as the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and War Pensions Assessment Appeal Tribunals were created. The first decides appeals from the Repatriation Commission by ex-soldiers as to whether or not the ex-soldier is suffering from a war disability; the second hears and decides appeals against the rate of pension granted by the commission. If an ex-soldier applies for a pension, the commission may hold that he suffers from a war disability, but one so negligible that, in the opinion of the commission, he is not entitled to a pension. In such a case, the ex-soldier is out of court. He cannot appeal to the Entitlement Tribunal because the commission has conceded everything that that tribunal could grant him, and since he has not been given a pension, he is not entitled to appeal to the Assessment Tribunal on the ground of the inadequacy of his pension. On the other hand, it may be that an ex-soldier applies to the commission, and on his application being refused goes to the Entitlement Tribunal. If that tribunal decides that he has a war disability, the matter goes back to the commission for determination of the pension. If the commission decides that the injury is so negligible that he cannot be granted a pension, the original position is arrived at and the ex-soldier cannot reach the Assessment Appeal Tribunal. The effect of the proposed amendment is that in both these cases the ex-soldier will be able to bring his case before the Assessment Appeal Tribunal. The justice of this proposal is so patent that it is unnecessary to labour the point, and I feel sure that the measure will meet with the cordial endorsement of every member of this chamber. 1 am sure that all honorable senators desire to afford every facility to ex-soldiers to exhaust every means to bring their claims before the proper authority. I receive many communications from various organizations that are interested in the welfare of returned soldiers. I send these on to the commission with every confidence, but sometimes I am grievously disappointed at the result. I would go a long way to give the boys a chance to secure some compensation for what they are suffering as the result of war service. I commend the bill to the consideration of honorable senators.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland) [11.43]. - The purpose of the bill is to enable returned soldiers who are prevented from getting a hearing to bring their appeals before the proper tribunal. Many young men upon their return to Australia after the war, although suffering disabilities, did not submit claims to the commission. Consequently, they have been prevented from appealing to the Assessment Tribunal. This proposed amendment to the act will afford them the necessary facilities to present their claims. I feel sure that honorable senators will give the bill their most sympathetic consideration.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I congratulate the Government on having introduced this bill. It rights a matter which returned soldiers have been endeavouring to have adjusted. If a man goes before the commission from the Entitlement Board, and the commission may consider his disability to be negligible, he will get no pension, and cannot go on to the Assessment Board, although the Entitlement Board may have said that he is entitled to a pension because of a war disability.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendmentor debate.

Report adopted.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 11.51 p.m. to 12.55 a.m.

Friday, 12 December 1930

page 1329

GOLD BOUNTY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended, and bill (on motion by Senator Daly) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

At this early hour of the morning I do not propose to attempt to emphasize the necessity of this measure, or to justify it on any ground of principle, other than that, in supporting the payment of a bounty on the production of gold, I shall adopt the able arguments advanced in this chamber by Senator Lynch and Senator McLachlan in the debate on motions on the subject which they have submitted to this chamber. I submit that the Government is justified, not only in bringing forward a bill to provide assistance to the gold-mining industry, but also in adopting the form of assistance provided in the bill. The Government realizes the importance of stimulating this industry, which can add considerably to the value of our national wealth and alleviate unemployment. Briefly, the bill provides for -

The payment of bounty of £1 Australian currency for each ounce fine of gold produced in excess of the average number of fine ounces of gold produced annually during the years 1928-29-30. The bounty will be payable for a period of ten years as from 1st January, 1931.
The administration of the act will be carried outby the Trade and Customs Department which administers other bounty acts, and, therefore, no extra staff will be employed. The department will also work in close touch with the State Departments of Mines.

Perhaps I should explain that an ounce fine is equivalent to 24 carat and a standard ounce is equivalent to 22 carat, the values respectively being £4 4s. 11.45d. and £3 17s. 10.5d. Under this bill the Commonwealth Government will not be under any liability until the average production for three years ending 31st December, 1930- approximately 486,000 oz. - has been exceeded. Therein lies the incentive to increase production. The extended term of ten years has been selected in order to give stability to the industry, and to encourage capital investment. If a shorter period were stipulated the economic attraction would not be present. Mining companies will have to install large quantities of expensive machinery, and if a shorter period than ten years were fixed their opportunities for a return on capital investment would be obliterated. Honorable senators may disagree with the Government’s proposals on certain minor points; but they can be more conveniently discussed in committee.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– When I recall the immense value which the gold-mining industry has been to Australia, I do not feel disposed to go to the extent of opposing the bill; but it seems to me that certain of its aspects cut right across the grain of economics. This is particularly so when we realize the financial stringency which the Commonwealth is now experiencing. I recognize that the intention of the Government and of honorable senators, and certain members of another place, who have submitted a similar proposal is to stimulate the production of gold in Australia. It cannot be denied that an increase in the production of gold at this period would be of great benefit to Australia, and provided the increase was sufficiently large it would materially assist in removing some of our present financial difficulties. But in studying the subject from the standpoint of the necessity to stimulate production, we must realize that we may be adopting a policy which may lead us into difficulty, as it is possible that the Commonwealth may be unable to maintain payments for ten years, as provided in this measure. I have no objection whatever to lending some aid to the gold-mining industry; but it appears to me that the period provided in the bill is too long. The Minister (Senator Daly) said that that period had been stipulated in order to protect mining companies which might invest considerable capital to extend their plants, in an endeavour to increase production.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator supported the bounty on cotton for a similar period.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Yes. We can contemplate with some degree ofcertainty the possible development of the cotton in- dustry, because we know what area of country is more or less suitable for its production. We can also estimate, to some extent, the world’s demand for that commodity, what production is likely to be, and the possibilities of its profitable marketing. But in the matter of gold the position is entirely different. I am not one of those who believe that further rich discoveries of gold will not be made.

Senator Thompson:

– They will come again.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Yes. In prospecting for gold, the surface of this country has yet only been scratched. It is only reasonable to assume that other rich gold deposits will be discovered. What would be the position if, as a result of this ‘ measure, another Kalgoorlie or another Golden Mile were discovered? Iu that case the production of gold in Australia, instead of being increased only slightly as is contemplated in this measure, would be increased enormously, o and the country would be committed to the payment of the bounty for a period of ten years. In the circumstances which I have suggested, the government of the day would be unable to withdraw the bounty, for its withdrawal would be regarded as a breach of faith with tlie people who had put their money into the gold-mining industry. Those who had invested capital from which they were getting poor returns would feel that they were entitled to a continuance of the bounty, while those in the happy position of receiving good returns for comparatively low expenditure would still claim the bounty.

Senator E B Johnston:

– It has taken five years to bring one gold-mine in Western Australia into production.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– 1 am aware of that. If this proposal were limited to the payment of a bounty on gold produced from low-grade ores, I should not object to a period of ten years. But it covers a wider field than that, and, therefore, I consider that ten years is too long. Five years is a sufficiently lengthy period for us to contemplate under this measure. The granting of a bounty for that period would produce all the results that would b» likely to accrue from a period of ten years,), and,, the country would not be committed to the same extent, [f the period were made five years, it would be possible to review the situation at the expiration of that term. We should then be able to see whether the bounty was economically sound, and could decide whether it should be retained, modified, or discontinued. Without desiring to oppose the measure, I feel that the Senate would be wise to reduce the period during which the bounty shall be payable to five years. If that were done..,the bill would be more acceptable to me.

Senator THOMPSON (Queensland j [1.8 a.m.]. - I shall not detain the Senate long in explaining my attitude on this question. It will be within the remembrance of honorable senators that on the previous occasions when this matter has been discussed, I have opposed a gold bounty on the whole of the gold production of the country. But the proposition before us, and the times in which we live, are different, and, therefore, I have modified my views. The present proposal differs from those which preceded it, inasmuch as it will encourage new gold production, reduce unemployment, and improve the unfavorable exchange position. Thus it will assist us in our present unsatisfactory financial state. As has been said, the granting of a gold bounty will encourage the introduction of new capital into Australia Both the late Government and that now in office has favoured the granting of bounties- in other directions, and I do not see why the same principle should not be applied to the production of gold. There is the disadvantage which I have stressed on previous occasions that gold is a wasting asset; every ounce of the metal which is taken from the earth makes the mine or deposit so much poorer. Against that disadvantage we may set the stabilized value of gold and compare it with the varying values of primary industries ‘whose production we have been subsidizing, and there are also the new mines that will be opened up. The proposal is of great importance to Australia, and of special importance to Queensland, of which State I am one of the representatives in the Senate. In order to indicate the interest taken in the subject of the gold bounty, I propose to read three or four telegrams, which show the possibilities of the industry in Queensland. The first telegram is from the chairman of directors of the Billy Hughes Gold Company, and reads -

Gold bounty bill would be means re-opening this company’s mines at Normanby, via Bowen.

The second telegram is from the Minnie Moxham gold mme. It states -

This mine barely paying working expenses present price gold. Passing bill will give the impetus gold-mining this district.

The Palmer River Gold Company has telegraphed as follows: -

Gold bounty bill means my company can work large dredging and hydraulic sluicing areas present doubtful payable. Already installed one dredger cost £40,000. Starting soon rain falls. Estimated return least 100 ounces week.

A number of companies operating in Queensland have sent the following telegram -

Gold bonus will be a strong incentive to rehabilitate gold-mining which is absolutely essential to recover Australia’s prosperity. Furthermore, some of companies below named are at present negotiating for overseas capital in large way to develop gold mines in north and thereby open up large areas at present unoccupied.

That telegram is signed by the Palmer Development Company Limited, the Peninsula Gold Exploration Syndicate, the Mulgrave Gold-fields, and the Mother Lode Gold Mines Limited. I am not personally acquainted with these companies, but I propose to refer also to a mine with which I have had an almost lifetime connexion- that at Mount Morgan. As I am no longer connected with it, I can speak the more freely. 1 am assured on the best authority that the effect of passing this bill would be to increase the number of men employed in the mine from 30 to between 300 and 400. Those men will be employed in the treatment of 670,000 tons of ore averaging from 5 to 7 dwt. of gold to the ton. At the lower estimate of 5 dwt. that represents 175,000 ounces of fine gold, the value being about £700,000. I am assured that that production will be the almost immediate consequence of the assistance which the passing of this bill wilh render to that company. There is a prospect that the granting of a bounty will assist in developing the large gold resources which are known to exist in the Mount Morgan mine, viz., as the 3,000,000 tons of copper-gold ore, .valued at from £16,000,000 to £77,000,000. Foi some time negotiations have been proceeding with the United States of America in relation to a better system of treating this low-grade ore than in the past. Encouraging reports have been received as to the possibility of dealing with this immense body of ore. The recovery of this mass of wealth would be spread over a period of probably eight to ten years. Hitherto, it has not been possible to produce the gold at a profit, but now there is a chance of that being done. The’ passing of this bill will enable the 670,000 tons of ore, which I have mentioned, to be utilized to the benefit of the nation. Like Senator Duncan, I fear that the period for which the bounty is to operate is too long. Another Mount Morgan, another Golden Mile, or another Charters Towers might be found. In such a case the bounty would be a millstone round the neck of any government in office.

Senator McLachlan:

– We should be glad to pay the bounty.

Senator THOMPSON:

– No government would be able to pay £1 an ounce on such large quantities of gold. There would likely be no exchange advantage then as there is now ; I “hope that there would be no serious financial trouble.

Senator Daly:

Senator Guthrie:

– Not by the wheatgrowers.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– Surely we can have some sense of proportion. Surely we do not want to be thinking of wheat all the time. I trust that before this season concludes some measure willbe placed before us which will give some relief to the wheat-growers. I am prepared to say that the wheat industry and the mining industry are the two industries above all which have been hampered and burdened by the protection policy of Australia.

Senator Thompson:

– Also the wool industry.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– Economists who have studied the matter very closely declare that the primary industries which have to bear the cost of tariff protection and bounties to other industries, a cost which they cannot pass on, are taxed to the extent of 9 per cent. of the value of their total output. But. obviously, the percentage does not rest evenly at 9 per cent. among all the primary producing interests, and these economists declare that it rests most heavily on those whose production costs are chiefly made up of labour. For that reason, mining and wheat-growing suffer more heavily from this policy than wool-growing and cattle grazing. I admit that wool-growing and cattle grazing are too heavily penalized, but the burden reaches its maximum on mining and wheat-growing in which labour forms the largest percentage in the cost of production.

Senator O’Halloran:

– And it applies to gold-mining more than to any other form of mining.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Quite so. An estimate made some two and a half years ago was that the increased cost imposed upon mining, particularly gold-mining, and upon wheatgrowing, as the result of the Australian tariff policy, was no less than 14 per cent. of the total value of their output. The figure has since been increased by further tariffs. On the 9 per cent. basis alone, since federation, the Western Australian gold-mines have been penalized to the extent of over £10,000,000 sterling to support the tariff policy of Australia. A few moments ago, Senator H. E. Elliott asked what Victorian industry was “ bonused “. I challenge him to tell me of one secondary industry in. Victoria that is not bonused. Every Kalgoorlie mine, which has had to erect machinery, has had to pay a greatly exaggerated price for it in order that factories in and about Melbourne may carry on and pay to their employees wages greatly in excess of those the Kalgoorlie miner is able to earn. The cost to Western Australia, to-day, of the sugar bounty, is quite £500,000 a year. If we double our gold production in Western Australia, which is quite unlikely, we shall get about £400,000 a year in bounty. It will not return to us the annual excess cost which we have to pay for our sugar in order that men may be employed on the sugar fields of Queensland at wages approximately double those which are earned in the Kalgoorlie mines. Then there is the iron and steel products bounty under which the average wage paid to the worker in the manufacture of galvanized iron is £6 5s. a week, which is certainly 50per cent. over the average wage paid to the Kalgoorlie miner who has to find the money for the payment of the bounty on galvanized iron.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– That is in the steel works. The honorable senator has not considered the wages paid in the supply of the raw materials used in the manufacture of steel.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.The fact is that on the ground that the makers of galvanized iron have to pay their men £6 5s. a week, they have to be paid a bounty by, among others, the mineowners and farmers whose employees have to take a wage considerably below that figure.

Twelve months ago, when a bill was before the Senate to amend the Commonwealth Bank Act, I submitted an amendment that the gold mined after the passing of the bill should not be purchased except at’ its full value in the world’s market. What support did Western Australian’ senators get for that proposal ? None from Queensland senators, who were taking a sugar bounty, and were afterwards to get a cotton bounty, and none from New South Wales senators who supported a bounty on galvanized iron. The only support for our proposal was received from Senator H. E. Elliott and Senator Lawson. What has been the result? For a long time after the exchange was arbitrarily pegged at £6 10s. we were receiving for our gold a premium of £5 15s. per £100, and the outside exchange was then something up to £9.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– But the other primary producers were in the same position.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Today, when the exchange is arbitrarily fixed at £9, gold is taken from the miner, and he is allowed £7 15s. per £100 for it, whereas the seller of meat is getting as much as £14 exchange for his meat.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– He is getting nothing of the sort.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.Within the last few days, as much as £14 has been paid for exchange, and a meat operator got it.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– The shipping company takes its share.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:

– I do not know who takes it or gets it, but the meat purchaser got the advantage of that exchange rate. If the gold-miner were free to sell his gold, and get the full rate of the exchange, he could to-day get nearly £5 per £100 more than he is allowed to get.

Senator Guthrie:

– Are not all primary producers in the same position?

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.No. Gold is the only primary product that the Government has seized. I admit at once that the policy of pegging the exchange has prejudiced all primary producers, but in the case of gold, not only is the exchange pegged, but the gold is seized and compelled to go through a particular channel, whereas, in the case of other primary products, although the individual may be in the same plight as the gold-miner, the trade in those products is not compelled to be at a disadvantage through the pegging of the exchange.

Senator McLachlan:

-The gold producer cannot do what the meat purchaser did.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH.No. On this one matter of exchange alone, the gold producer has been prejudiced to a far greater extent during the last few years than he is likely to be recompensed by this gold bounty. If any honorable senator can show me how injustices of that kind can be removed, I shall be found with those opposing the measure. At the same time, if bounties are to be granted to other industries, I cannot see anything that specially offends economic principles in granting a bounty on the production of gold. It has been laid down by the best of authorities that if bounties are to be granted or prohibitive duties imposed for the protection of industry, they should be afforded only to those that can approach reasonably near the cost of production in other countries. That was the conclusion arrived at by the Australian Economic Committee. Notwithstanding this the Government is paying a bounty on sugar, cotton, galvanized iron and other commodities that have not a dog’s chance of competing with similar commodities produced in other countries. We have been told that it is utterly uneconomic to pay a bounty on gold, although it is known that, with very little assistance, we shall be able to produce it at a rate comparable with that of other countries. In the case of galvanized iron the bounty paid is equivalent to £350 a year per man employed, while in this case, even if the bounty were paid upon the actual gold produced, it would be equivalent to about only £70 per man per year. Since a bounty is to be paid only on the excess of production over the average of the last three years, it is highly improbable that the amount per man per year will exceed £20. While I agree with those who say that the payment of bounties is entirely uneconomic and should be abolished, I cannot agree with those who contend that a bounty should be paid on other commodities and gold excluded. Senator E. B. Johnston referred to the need for goldin Great Britain. But that is only half the case ; its need the world over will be demonstrated during the next ten years. Yesterday I quoted a short extract from the interim report of the Gold Delegation of the Financial Committee to the League of Nations. I now wish to quote the following paragraph from the same authority : -

The present production of gold in the world amounts to about 400.000,000 dollars per annum, and is likely to rise slightly above that figure during the next three or four years. On the other hand, both the official or semiofficial estimates of probable production in the course of the next ten years, and the unofficial estimates received by us from Mr. Joseph Kitchin, a recognized authority on precious metal statistics, suggest that a decline is to be expected thereafter.

Following upon a further decline in gold production, we are likely to be faced with additional economic difficulties. Whatever we may think we may dismiss from our minds any fear of a large production of gold in Australia causing us any embarrassment. If any honorable senator can show me any other means by which even partial justice can be done to an industry that has been bled white by the burdens placed upon it in consequence of the protection afforded to other industries, I shall vote against the bill, but, if that cannot be done, I shall support it.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– I have waited so long for a measure of this description that I should be failing in my duty if I did not congratulate the Government upon its introduction. The only fault I have to find with the bill is the title, which reads : “ To provide for the payment of a bounty on the production of gold . . . “ In my opinion this is not a bounty, but only compensation for damages suffered.

Senator Daly:

– That is included in the words “ and for other purposes “, which the honorable senator did not quote.

Senator CARROLL:

– Although I do not wish to detain the Senate at this early hour in the morning, I desire to express my pleasure at the introduction of this measure, and at the generous support which it is receiving, particularly from those honorable senators representing States that are not likely to receive the. -benefit which Western Australia anticipates. I am also glad to notice that a larger number of honorable senators appear to be anxious to support Western Australian interests. I am sure, the Western Australian people will appreciate this small measure of assistance and the manner in which it has been received by the Senate. I support the bill.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW (Queensland) [2.7 a.m.]. - At the outset 1 should like- to refer to a statement by Senator Lynch that this is the first instance in which a government has given assistance to the gold-mining industry. I do not think that the honorable senator intended to mislead the Senate, but he, apparently, overlooked the fact that the late Government relieved those engaged in the gold-mining industry of the necessity to pay income tax on their profits. On the recommendation of the Disabilities Commission, that Government also made a financial grant to that State on the understanding that the industries which had suffered as a result of federal policy would benefit,- and the gold-mining industry received £180,000 as a first contribution. I admit quite freely that for a number of ‘years the gold-mining industry has experienced great difficulties, not only as a result of our fiscal policy, but in consequence of the fact that since the war world prices of various commodities have increased considerably, thus adding to the cost of production, while the price of gold has remained stationary. But, as wholesale prices are falling, the cost of production will necessarily decrease, and, even without a bounty, the gold-mining industry should again come into its own. As the costs of production are decreasing the payment of this bounty does not appear to be necessary.

Senator Lynch:

– Would the honorable senator apply the same argument to the sugar industry?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.If the disabilities imposed on the sugar industry since the inception of federation were removed-

Senator Daly:

– Is the honorable senator referring to the White Australia policy ?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Yes. The sugar industry is compensated to some extent for the disabilities it suffers under our White Australia policy; but, while the present conditions are imposed, the industry must be protected. We cannot maintain a high standard of living in Australia, and, at the same time, produce a commodity in competition with other countries employing the cheapest labour in the world. For many years, when the gold-mining industry was profitable and able to pay very high wages, the pastoral and other industries could not afford to pay one-half of the wages ruling in the mining industry. As I mentioned earlier, for some years the prices of our main products were high, and, as a consequence, the cost of producing them rose. On the other hand, the price of gold has remained stationary, but its cost of production rose in sympathy with the increase in the cost of producing other commodities, with the result that the industry has been in a depressed condition. Now, however, since commodity prices have fallen, the cost of production should fall, and there should be a correspondi ng fall in the cost of producing gold. That being so, I feel that it will again become a prosperous industry withoutthe assistance of a bounty. For the reasons stated, I do not consider the payment of a bounty necessary, and I, therefore, intend to oppose the bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [2.13 a.m.]. - I am in favour of the measure, and, as I understand that a majority of honorable senators will support it, I shall content myself by saying that I shall also do so.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I do not propose to record a silent vote on this measure. It is interesting to note that no honorable senator has endeavoured to defend the bill on economic grounds. All the sophistry in the world cannot conceal the fact that those seeking a gold bonus are asking the general taxpayer to support an industry that cannot support itself. A bounty on gold was declined by the previous Administration, and was also emphatically rejected by the Present Prime Minister. Political considerations have, however, triumphed over those objections. Senator Colebatch asked what was the alternative to a goldbounty. The alternative is to remove the restrictions which have been hampering the industryfor a number of years. We should remove the heavy duties on mining machinery. Preposterous award rates for miners have also had their ill effects. All of us have sinned at some time or other with regard to embargoes and bounties. Dog does not eat dog. I shall not, therefore, stand up in a self-righteous manner and condemn those who support this bill. But I am glad that no honorable senator has tried to defend the bill on economic grounds, because it cannot be done. Those hundreds of thousands of tons of gold-bearing ore of which the supporters of this bounty speak so freely might better be left under the surface if the winning of gold costs more than the gold is worth. I oppose the bill.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– As one who has taken an interest in the subject from another stand-point, I feel that even at this late hour I should say a few words. Gold is different from any other commodity which has been assisted by the granting of bounties. It is a commodity against which no country erects a tariff barrier: it is a commodity, moreover, which will enable us to discharge our liabilities overseas. I have heard a great deal about the uneconomic character of a gold bounty, but I have yet to find a man who can say how, apart from gold, we are going to meet our commitments overseas in view of the low prices prevailing for our two chief primary products, wheat and wool.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Will a bounty on gold lead to immense production ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It will lead to the stabilization of our sinking funds in respect of our overseas obligations, without which this country will pay through the nose when the time comes to convert loans. It is because I take a serious view of the present economic position and of our overseas indebtedness that I have wholeheartedly advocated the granting of assistance to the gold-mining industry. This bill is not all that could be desired, but it is a step in the right direction. With Senator Colebatch, I believe that an increased production of gold is a world necessity. I am concerned, first, with maintaining Australia’s good name, and, secondly, with assisting the Mother Country to meet her obligations to her friends across the water. Mr. H.

Gepp, an eminent authority on mining, says that one of the outstanding needs of the country is an increased production of gold. The gold delegation of the finance committee of the League of Nations admits that there is a shortage of gold throughout the world, a shortage which would be much more serious than it is, but for the economies in the use of gold which various nations have effected. The price of gold fluctuates but little ; its value is assured, and the granting of a bounty on its production is, therefore, justified.

Senator Guthrie:

– Are not enormous quantities of gold locked up in the United States of America?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– How that gold will be brought to this country I do not know, unless there is some international arrangement. I welcome the measure, because I feel that it will put Australia in a stronger economic position with regard to her overseas liabilities than she is in to-day.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– There are many aspects of this subject, one of the most important being the further employment which the granting of a gold bounty will provide. In. these serious times we are justified in supporting almost any measure which will provide work for the unemployed. I am concerned, however, to know where the money to provide the bounty is coming from. Will it come from the producers of wool, wheat, and meat, who are already experiencing a difficult time? Bounties have been granted to stimulate production in various industries, although there is no world shortage of the commodities produced. In the case of gold there is, however, a world shortage. The granting of this bounty should increase Australia’s gold production, and provide an incentive for companies to re-open mines which have been abandoned as unprofitable. There is every indication that fresh capital will be forthcoming to assist in a search for further gold. That capital will provide employment for many men now seeking work. I am glad that Western Australia will benefit from the granting of this bounty. Western Australia, which produces six-sevenths of Australia’s gold, has suffered a good deal, because of federation, so that the grant ing of a bounty on gold is something in the nature of a quid pro quo. In all the States large sums of money are being expended on works which are not truly reproductive, in order to provide work for the unemployed. This bounty will provide employment of a profitable nature for men now in receipt of the dole. Queensland should benefit largely from this legislation. There are numerous mines in that State, especially in the north and north-west which have had to go out of production because of the high cost of winning the gold. Statistics show that the yield of gold in Queensland has declined during the last year. The yield for the ten months ended the 31st October, 1930, was 4,755 fine ounces, valued at £20,197, compared with 5,70S fine ounces valued at £24,246 in the corresponding period of 1929. The decreased production was 953 fine ounces valued at £4,049. There were no dividends declared during the ten months ended the 31st December, 1930, and none during the corresponding ten months of 1929. Those figures are indicative of the unremunerative condition of the gold industry. I should like an assurance that, if this bounty is granted, it will not be absorbed in the payment of extra wages to miners. If that occurs we shall revert to our present position, and the money will be wasted, as it has been in connexion with other bounties which have been absorbed by demands for higher rates of pay.

Senator Daly:

– Can the honorable senator name one of those industries?

Senator COOPER:

– I think the galvanized iron industry is one. A guarantee was given to carry on for twelve months under certain conditions; but within ten months the industry found it impossible to comply with those conditions. However, that is by the way. I have outlined the reason why I shall support the bill.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– I intend to vote for the bill, for many reasons, one being that it has become the custom in Australia to assist all other industries with the exception of our two greatest - wool and wheat. The wool industry is by far the most important in Australia, both as regards the wealth it produces and the employment that it affords. At the present time, the crying need in Australia is to find work for our people, of whom over 20 per cent. are out of employment. This bounty will assist in that direction. As a result of the stimulation that will be given by this bonus, a great many now unemployed will develop old mining fields, and endeavour to locate new ones. The project will not cost the country any great amount of money, because, very wisely and fairly, the Government will pay the bounty only on the excess above the average production for the last three years. I agree with Senator Colebatch and others that the gold industry has suffered by our high protection policy, perhaps even more than the wheat and wool industries. Also, gold is suffering more than any other commodity through the pegging of the exchange.

A great deal has been said about Western Australia by honorable senators who represent the State. As a humble Victorian, I point out that in gold production, as in everything else, my State has led the way. Statistics prove that Victoria is responsible for just on half the total of the gold produced in the Commonwealth. And the gold-mines of that State are by no means worked out. There is room for development, and the granting of this bonus might result in the re-opening of such mines as the New Langi Logan at Ararat, as well as others. There is a vast area of goldbearing country which could not be worked in the immediate past, because the cost of production was just too high for the price which the commodity brought. Economists and geologists have Assured me that, if production costs could be substantially brought down, sufficient mineral wealth could be extracted in the Commonwealth to pay our national debt. I consider that the project put forward by this Government is worthy of support; but our main trouble is that production costs are too high.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– There is only one aspect of the matter that I desire to deal with before the bill goes into committee, and that is the suggestion that the payment of the bounty should be for five instead of ten years. I remind the Senate that this particular proposal was a compromise between thegold-mining industry and the. Government, and the terms of the bill are clearly the terms of the compromise. Instead of giving a bonus upon the total production of gold, the Government compromised with the industry, and agreed to pay a bonus based upon a certain production of gold, known as the excess production. In good faith the Government agreed with the contention of the industry that, if it were to be resuscitated it was necessary to inaugurate a working plan of at least ten years. I urge honorable senators not to press the Government to cut that term down when we go into committee on the bill. Such an action would practically amount to a repudiation of the terms of the agreement arrived at between the gold-mining industry and the Government, which resulted in the drafting of this bill.

Question. - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 3

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I desire to draw the attention of the Senate to an omission in the drafting of the measure. After the discussion which occurred in another place the Government feels that there should be a definition of the word “mine.” which appears repeatedly throughout the bill. I, therefore, move -

That after the definition “ licensed gold buyer” the following definition be inserted: - “ Mine “ includes any place, pit, shaft, drive, level or other excavation, bore, drift, gutter, lead, vein, lode, or reef wherein or whereby any operation for, or in connexion with, mining purposes is carried on.

That definition has been drawn up by the Crown Law officers, and coincides with the definition that appears in the mining acts of the Commonwealth.

Senator Thompson:

– Will that cover alluvial finds on the surface beds of creeks ?

Senator DALY:

– I am instructed by the crown law authorities to say that it will.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18- (6.) if-

the Chief Judge or a Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration has not declared, in accordance with subsection (1.) of this section, what conditions of employment and rates of wages are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of gold; and
there are not in force in the locality where the gold is produced, any standard conditions and rates relating to the labour employed in the production of gold prescribed by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or by an industrial authority of a State, or contained in an industrial agreement registered under any law of the Commonwealth or a State, the Minister may appoint an authority or authorities for determining, for the purposes of this section, conditions of employment and rates of wages which are fair and reasonable for labour employed in the production of gold, and any authority so appointed shall be deemed to be a Commonwealth authority within the meaning of sub-section (1.) of this Section.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [2.48 a.m.]. - I move -

That sub-clause 6 be left out.

– Exactly. Ifwe reject sub-clause 6 another place will send it back to us, and I feel sure that the Senate would not then insist upon its amendment. The wiser course is to allow the clause to pass in its present form.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

.- With the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) I do not like this provision, but I cannot conceive that it will ever be necessary for the Minister to appoint an authority or authorities to determine the conditions of employment or rates of wages for labour in the industry, because already Federal or State awards are operating. Therefore, I do not propose to hold up the bill by voting for the amendment.

Question - That the sub-clause proposed to be left out, be left out (Senator Sir George Pearce’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 4

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1344

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Central Australia - Report by the Government Resident on the Administration of the Territory for the year ended 30th June, 1930.

Norfolk Island - Report for the year ended 30th June, 1930.

page 1344

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Daly) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn til) this day at 2.30 p.m.

page 1344

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth Bank: Case of Mr. Mark B. Young - Commonwealth Wireless Service : Welfare Board

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I desire to bring once more under the notice of Ministers, the case of Mr. Mark B. Young, who was a leading official in the Commonwealth Bank, and seven years ago was virtually disrated and discharged without any charge being laid against him. Ever since, he has been seeking to get an independent inquiry. Mr. Young writes -

I have, it seems, no legal cause of action, but I am unshakably of the opinion thatI have a strong moral and equitable claim upon the Commonwealth for compensation for wrong that I have suffered in consequence of improper deprivation of employment, brought about by the unjust exercise of autocratic powers - temporarily held, and soon thereafter to be withdrawn - by an official of the bank.

He then goes on to say that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) on the 9th of October, 1924, said-

I say that if there is truth in the statement which Mr. Young makes, there is justification for inquiry. I have been impressed by hie statement, for the reason that I have known Mr. Young for over twenty years. I have known him personally and as the managerof a bank with which I. did business for something like ten years. If among many men I know I were seeking men of honour and integrity, I should select Mark Young as one of them. If my impression of him is wrong. I have been greatly deceived in him. In banking circles, I have heard him spoken of in the highest terms, and in my experience of him I have found him upright and honorable … I demand, in the name of justice, that Mr. Young should be given a chance to prove the statements he is prepared to make … In fairness to this man, an inquiry must now be given. . . . There never was a more reasonable claim put before Parliament.

The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) on the same occasion, said -

Facts which raised a probable presumption of the truth of the charges which Mr. Young has made have been brought under my notice.

The facts were in the nature of enmity shown by some in high places who intrigued to get him out of his position. He was not, as I stated, the other night, Chief Inspector for New South “Wales, he was Chief Inspector for the whole of Australia. Mr. Maxwell went on to say -

Mr. Young has absolute and implicit faith in the merits of his case . . . One would have thought that Mr. Kell would be pleased to attend but the conclusion I have reached from his refusal is that he is aware of the case which Mr. Young has to make against him, and knows that he cannot meet it . . .

He was asked to attend before the Prime Minister. Speaking of the bank, Mr. Maxwell went on to say -

When specific charges are made in regard to its efficient management, it ia essential that independent investigation should be made, say, by a commission or some similar independent tribunal which should report to (the Prime

Minister….. I trust .that in the interests not only of Mr. Young, but also the bank, the Prime Minister will grant the inquiry.

Hero is what Mr. Brennan said–

I submit the view that despite what the Prime Minister has said the honorable member for Perth and tho honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Whitsitt) have made out a good case for inquiry … I suggest that it is unbecoming for the Government to attempt to coerce this aggrieved ex-officer of the bank to go before a tribunal, which he has again and again argued as unsuited to hear and decide upon the subject-matter of his complaints.

Mr. Whitsitt, the then member for Darwin, speaking in connexion with the registers of loan moneys concerning war loans, which had got into a state of muddle, said -

The officer responsible for that register was evidently unable to keep his books properly, and must have been negligent in the performance of his duty. He and not the inspector should have been suspended or disrated.

Mr. Young comments

Mr. Whitsitt was referring to the condition of the war loon registers at the various capitals, and it may surprise the Government

146)

to learn that while I remedied the loose and scandalous condition that prevailed, the officer who, as I can prove, should have prevented such a dangerous and reprehensible state of affairs existing, is still in the service and promoted to high office.

Mr. Scullin, Mr. Brennan and Mr. Fenton all expressed similar sentiments. Mr. Scullin demanded an inquiry and said that no case with a superior claim had ever been placed before Parliament. It is unthinkable that members of the present Ministry, who expressed those- sentiments when in Opposition, would go back on them now that they are in power. Mr. Young thinks that he has the right to an independent inquiry. He is not satisfied to go before a board composed of those who showed at the outset that they were more or less prejudiced against him and some of whom are supposed to have taken an active part in getting him shifted. In the circumstances, therefore, it is imperative, if right is ever to be done in this case, that it should bo done without any further delay. I ask Senator Daly to consider that Mr. Young is getting up in years. He has been for seven years trying to get justice. He has never ceased urging his claim to an independent inquiry. The files no doubt will show that a tremendous amount of correspondence has passed between him and Sir Robert Gibson and the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce). Justice delayed is justice denied, according to a very old British axiom, and it is inconceivable that, after seven years of effort on Mr. Young’s part to secure justice, those who believed that his case merited inquiry, should not promise to have an inquiry at the earliest possible date.

I shall be glad if the Minister will state the intention of the Government with respect to this matter.

Senator HOARE:
South .Australia

.- On the 17th July, I submitted the following questions to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral : -

Is it the intention of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited to establish a welfare board, in connexion with its administration of the ‘Commonwealth wireless service!
What will be the functions of the proposed welfare board?
Who will be the superintendent of such board ?
What will be his duties in connexion therewith?
When will he be appointed to such position?
What was his previous position?
What will be the term of his new appointment?
Who will pay his salary, and what will be the amount of same?
Did he recently, on behalf of Amalgamated Wireless. (Australasia) Limited, in the Arbitration Court, oppose the claims of the marine section of the Radiotelegraphists Institute of Australasia?
Was a previous attempt to establish a welfare board by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, rejected?
If so, what was the reason for such rejection ?
Who rejected the previous scheme, and why?
Is the present proposed scheme the same as the one previously proposed?
Has the establishment of a proposed welfare board by Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited the approval of the present Government?

Only a few of the questions were answered, and then in a most evasive and unsatisfactory manner, although, I believe, that the company was able to satisfactorily answer all of them if it so desired. Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General again bring them under the notice of the company in an endeavour to obtain definite replies?

Senator DALY:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

– I am not unacquainted with the case of Mr. Young, which has been brought under my notice by Senator Rae. I assure the honorable senator that the Government will do whatever possible to secure an inquiry; but the difficulty is that the Government has no control over the Commonwealth Bank. I shall, however, bring the honorable senator’s protest under the notice of the Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons), who may decide to bring it before the board.

I am sure that the Minister representing the Postmaster-General will endeavour to obtain the information desired by Senator Hoare.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.19 a.m. (Friday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 December 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19301211_senate_12_127/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 December 1930

CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT-GROWERS

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:

QUESTION

CANBERRA BATHS

Senator REID:QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:ALP

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA

Senator BARNES:

QUESTION

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Senator CHAPMAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

B.A.W.R.A

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

MR. P. E. COLEMAN, M.P

Senator SAMPSON:TASMANIA

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN IMPERIAL FORCE

Senator DUNN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

CARBIDE PRODUCTION

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

WIRELESS BROADCASTING COMPANIES

Claim for Compensation

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT AND WOOL INDUSTRIES

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

Senator CHAPMAN:

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator CHAPMAN:

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

MILITIA FORCES

Senator SAMPSON:

Senator BARNES:ALP

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT

City Area Leases Regulations: Motion to Disallow No. 9

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator McLachlan:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Ogden:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Guthrie:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator Ogden:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator McLachlan:

Senator H E ELLIOTT:VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

CENTRAL RESERVE BANK BILL

Second Reading

The PRESIDENT (Senator W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DUNN:New South Wales

Senator Reid:

Senator DUNN:

Senate
11 December 1930

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator H E ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVicePresident of the Executive Council · ALP

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP