Senate
7 December 1933

13th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 13th Parliament
  3. 1933

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J.Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 5902

QUESTION

PRICE OF BREAD

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Senate been drawn to a statement published in the Canberra Times of to-day’s date, that a royal commission to inquire into the wheatgrowing, milling, and baking industries is to be appointed by the Commonwealth Government, and that the personnel, to consist of three members, will be decided at a meeting of the Cabinet to be held in Melbourne next week? If so, can the right honorable gentleman say if the personnel will include a member of this chamber?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The Government is not accountable for irresponsible statements made by newspapers. If and when the Prime Minister has a statement to make on the subject, it will be made in Parliament. So far as I am aware, the right honorable gentleman has made no statement such as was reported.

page 5903

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING

Relay Station in Western Australia.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has a contract yet been let for the erection of the new broadcasting relay station, approved for the Katanning-Wagin districts of Western Australia?
  2. When is it anticipated that this new station will he opened for broadcasting?
Senator McLACHLAN:
Minister in charge of Development and Scientific and Industrial Research · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer: -

  1. A contract has not yet been placed for the station in question, but the tenders are being examined with a view to placing the order as soon as possible.
  2. It is not practicable to say at this stage when the new station will be available for service.

page 5903

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOSPITAL

Resident Medical Superintendent

Senator DUNN:

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

  1. Is it a fact that there is no resident medical officer in the Canberra Hospital?
  2. Does not the population of a city like Canberra, approximately 9,000 persons, warrant a medical officer being in residence in the abovementioned hospital; if not, why not?
Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer : -

  1. There is a permanent medical superintendent.
  2. The Public Service Board is at present inquiring into the hospital administration. Upon receipt of its report the matter will be considered.

page 5903

QUESTION

SECONDARY INDUSTRIES

Senator DUNN:

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

  1. What has been the money value during the year 1932-33 of Australian production of each of the following Australian-made items : - Glass, plate and ornamental; glass bottles; woodturning; cutlery; galvanized iron; tinsmithing; nails; wire-working; gas fittings and gas meters; electrical apparatus; lamps and fittings; sewing machines; blankets and woollens; knitted fabrics; clothing (waterproof) ; dressmaking and millinery; furs; hats and caps; musical instruments; brooms and brushes; arms and explosives; chemicals; paints and varnishes; jewellery; matches; carbide; rubber goods; umbrellas, papermaking; boxes, bags, &c. ; soaps and candles; cement; brass and copper; stoves and ovens; biscuits; confectionery; boots and shoes; clothing and tailoring; shirts and ties; ropes and cordage; furniture; inks and polishes; tents and tarpaulins; beer; -wines; spirits; tobacco; sawn timbers; agricultural implements; ironwork; steel work; engineering products; railway carriages; shipbuilding; leather goods?
  2. What are the money values in Australian currency of any of the abovementioned items imported into Australia from the following countries: - England, Scotland, Japan, United States of America, France, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Russia, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, during the year 1932-33?
Senator McLACHLAN:
UAP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has not yet supplied the answers to the honorable senator’s questions, but I understand that the required information is to be found in the statistical register.

page 5903

QUESTION

COTTON PRODUCTION

page 5903

PUBLIC SERVICE.

Junior Rates of Wages. Senator DUNN asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that there are 900 adults engaged in the Commonwealth Public Service who are only paid junior rates of wages?

If so, is this not a direct negative of the Government’s policy of arbitration?

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, does the Government intend to right the position; if not, why not?

Yes, but the number will be reduced as the Government has decided that as from 7th December the adult wage shall be paid to all such employees who are 23 years of age or over. It is already paid to all adults in junior positions who are married! 2 and 3. The circumstances in which the adults in question are paid junior rates of wages have already been fully explained in the Senate. See Hansard Nos. 14 and 16 of 1932.

page 5904

PETROL, BREAD AND FLOUR PRICES

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON.Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible, to Senator Dunn, with reference to the price of petrol in New Zealand, the production cost in Australia of flour, and the selling prices of bread and flour in Australia.

page 5904

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Assistance to Growers

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON.- - Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible, to Senator Duncan-Hughes with reference to the amount applied by the various States under the Financial Relief Act, 1932, towards the needs of individual wheat-growers on the basis of necessitousness.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government received a telegram from the State Country party of Western Australia protesting against the proposed differential treatment between taxpayers and non-taxpayers, proposed in the Wheat-growers Relief Bill now before Parliament?
  2. If so, what action has been taken in reply to that telegram ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.The right honorable the Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

  1. I have been unable to learn of the receipt of such a telegram from the body mentioned.
  2. See answer to I.

page 5904

QUESTION

YORKSHIRE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY

Japanese Competition

Senator DUNN:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a press report appearing in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 1st December, 1933, to the effect that a correspondent of the Yorkshire Post states

    1. that the existence of the “Yorkshire woollen industry will soon be threatened by the everincreasing dumpingofJapanese goods, which no tariff can stop; (b) Japanese men’s socks, in beautiful fancy designs, are selling at 7s. 9d. per dozen, compared with 14s. for British;
    2. tweeds and lightweight fancy worsteds are being produced at 30 per cent. below British costs ?

  2. What preventive measures, if any, has the Government taken to prevent dumping of Japanese textiles into Australia in view of the above report?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON. The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answer: -

  1. The report appearing in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of the 1st December, 1933, has been brought to the notice of the Minister for Commerce, and the department has been watching the progress made by Japan in securing increasing markets for many of her manufactures, including woollen goods, in the various countries of the world. It is understood that the British Government has investigated the alleged “ dumping “ of Japanese woollen goods into the United Kingdom, and the effects upon the Yorkshire woollen industry, andwill take corrective action, if deemed necessary.
  2. In any instance where a prima facie case of dumping is made out, the matter will be referred to the Tariff Board for public inquiry and report under the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act.

page 5904

IMMIGRATION BILL 1933

Motion (by Senator Sir George

Pearce) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Immigration Act 1901- 1932.

Bill brought up by Senator Sir George Pearce and read a first time.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

page 5904

DESIGNS BILL 1933

Motion (by Senator McLachlan) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend section 26 of the Designs Act 1906-1932.

Bill brought up by Senator McLachLAN and read a first time.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

page 5905

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1933

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[11.14].- I move-

That the bill bc now read a second time. The primary object of this measure is to amend the Commonwealth Public Service Act to enable a limited number of university graduates to be appointed to the Commonwealth Public Service without examination.

The Public Service Board of Commissioners has recently reported to the Government that the future efficiency of the Service will be impaired by the cessation in recent years of the recruitment of youths of the desired class, and the Government has concurred in the proposal of the board to resume the former practice, pursuant to a basic principle of the act, of appointing youths as clerks, and at the same time to preserve the exercise of the special provisions in the act relating to returned soldiers. The recruiting of graduates as clerks has been under consideration for several years, and after consultation with the Public Service Board, the Government is of the opinion that it is most desirable that the entry into the service of men possessing the special educational qualifications acquired by university training should be encouraged, and, therefore, that provision should now be made to permit of the admission of graduates other than by way of prescribed competitive examinations, the number of such appointments to be limited with due regard to the number of youths available as a result of the examinations.

The standard of the entrance examination to the Commonwealth Public Service has recently been raised. This action reflects the desire of the Government to secure to the taxpayers of Australia a high standard of public service by the appointment of junior officers, some of whom will subsequently be the administrative heads of the Service.

It is intended that the university graduates who may be appointed to the Public Service under this provision shall be appointed to junior clerical positions. Section 47 of the Public Service Act provides that no appointment of persons from outside the Service shall be made by the Governor-General until the Board certifies that there is no officer available in the Commonwealth Service who is capable of filling the position. A copy of all recommendations, reports and certificates under this section must be laid before both Houses of .the Parliament. In view of this provision, it is, and will continue to be incumbent upon the Public Service Board to consider the claims of officers already in the Service, who by their training and experience are eligible for higher positions to which they naturally aspire.

The university graduates will be required to serve the customary period of probation, and will not receive preferential recognition for higher positions, but must be considered for promotion on their demonstrated efficiency in relation to other officers of the Service in the manner prescribed by section 50 of the Public Service Act.

The measure provides that 10 per cent, shall be the maximum proportion of university graduates who may be appointed in relation to any one examination, and gives a desirable elasticity should it be found that a less proportion is warranted by the circumstances.

The additional provision in the bill is to widen the right of appeal against punishment. At present the minimum punishment against which an appeal may he lodged is a fine exceeding £2. Loss of salary during suspension is, in effect, a punishment, but is not so regarded in the existing provision. The Government takes the view that it is reasonable that, if a fine does not exceed £2, but the amount of salary lost during suspension, plus a fine, exceeds £2, an officer should have the right of appeal. That provision is in the interests of the officer. At present, if an officer is fined £2, he has the right of appeal, but if he is fined less than £2, he has no right of appeal, but he may, in addition to the fine, have been suspended for several weeks, and have lost £6 or £7 in salary. Under this provision, the loss of salary will be taken into consideration in assessing the fine.

As to the other provision in the. bill, I do not know whether honorable senators are aware of the serious position that has arisen in the Public Service as the result of several causes. One of the chief contributing causes has been the just practice of preference to returned soldiers, the effect of which has been that since the war, the entry of youths into the Service has almost stopped, and we are now tending towards a Service in which there are very few youths. It is obvious that if such a practice is continued, we shall eventually have a Service of almost entirely elderly men. Every one should agree that, while preserving, as we shall do under the bill, the rights of returned soldiers in the Service, the time has arrived when, in the interests of efficiency, we should again recruit youths. In connexion with the recruitment of youths, the question of admitting a certain percentage of university graduates arises. The standard for entry to the Public Service, both as to age and education, is comparatively low, and if that is continued, we shall have a Service composed entirely of men whose educational standing is not beyond that of the leaving certificate.

Senator Sir ALTER Kingsmill:

– And they cannot be promoted.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That is so, because their educational qualifications are not high. One objection to permitting the entry of university graduates in years past has been that a university education was not available except to the sons of wealthy parents. That time has now gone. If a youth has the brains, a university education is now open to him.

Senator Dooley:

– There are certain limitations to that.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– There are limitations to everything, but broadly, my statement is correct. The University of Western Australia is practically free. I think the same statement applies to the Queensland University also. Obviously, by the time a young man has graduated at a university, it is impossible to ask him to come to a

Public Service examination to compete with youths of sixteen years for positions of cadets in the clerical branches of the Public Service. The matter has been considered for some time between the Public Service Board and the Government. It is felt that the time has arrived when provision should be made to permit of the appointment of university graduates not exceeding in number 10 per cent, of the total admitted. This will bring in men with higher educational qualifications,’ and will, I feel sure, have the result eventually of raising the standard of efficiency in the Service. The other 90 per cent, will be obtained through competitive examinations at the lower age and with the somewhat lower standard of education. There is nothing in the bill but the two provisions that I have explained.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

– Although the bill has been capably explained by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce), there are one or two aspects of it that make me a little suspicious. The bill seems to be very far-reaching. The Public Service is already very efficient, as far as I know it. Its high efficiency was obtained hitherto by allowing any individual who had the ambition to be a public servant, and the necessary qualifications to sit for examination. Young people admitted to the Service obtained in the Service the training necessary to qualify them for higher positions. The men who occupy responsible positions in the Service must have had a long experience, must possess outstanding qualifications, and must be gifted with natural ability. It was said of Napoleon’s army that every soldier had a marshal’s baton in his knapsack. Similarly, the recruits to the Public Service, starting at the lowest rung, may rise to the highest. A service trained in that way could scarcely be improved on. To introduce another system under which persons would be admitted who had escaped all the training in junior positions would not be satisfactory. They would have been trained in an entirelydifferent walk of life.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Many young men graduate at 21 years of age, and sometimes younger.

Senator BARNES:

– And up to that age they have been trained in a different walk of life. They have not been climbing up the rungs of the ladder in the Public Service, and have thus missed some of the experience necessary to qualify them to occupy the top rung. I do not know that this bill is urgent or that it is necessary for the Senate to pass it this session. It might be better to let the idea contained in the bill, as well as the Public Service, grow a little more slowly. The Minister has not convinced me that the bill should be passed this session.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I should have said that an examination will be held towards the end of this month, and that we are anxious that the bill should be in operation by then.

Senator BARNES:

– The university graduates will be admitted without examination, and placed ahead of men who have not had, through no fault of their own, an opportunity to receive a university education. It is of no use. saying ‘ that the universities are free. Theoretically they may be, but there are, nevertheless, tens of thousands of people who would like to go through a university course, and have the ability to assimilate it, but whose personal circumstances prevent them from taking advantage of what is called a “ free “ university. It is not right to place a man ahead of others who have given ten or fifteen years’ service, merely because he can do some educational tricks which, at the best, are not of much use in the Public Service. There does not appear to be any urgent necessity to pass the bill now, and to be on the safe side, I shall vote against it.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

.- This bill, which has been sprung on us to-day, is another instance of the inadvisableness of rushing bills through before honorable senators have an opportunity to study them. I regret that on this occasion I cannot agree with my leader (Senator Barnes). Clause 2 reads-

After section thirty-six of the principal act the following section is inserted: - 36a. - (1.) Where, in accordance with a notice under section thirty-four of this act, the board holds an entrance examination of candidates for appointment to the Third Division of the Public Service, and, in the notice of that examination, states the number of such appointments proposed, to bc made, persons who are at the date of the examination, graduates of an Australian University may apply to the board, within such period as is prescribed, for appointment to that division.

These men have not passed through a preliminary course of training in the Public Service, and have no more experience of the Public Service than that possessed by a university graduate. This bill merely provides that 10 per cent, of the young men not over 25 years of age who have passed certain university examinations shall have an opportunity to enter the Public Service. They will have passed a more difficult educational standard than the extrance examination referred to in clause 2. The suggestion tha’t this bill will play into the hands of the children of well-to-do parents is unfounded. The majority of the young men and women in our universities to-day are the sons and daughters of humble parents and entered the universities as the result of scholarships which they had won. The Leader of the Opposition said a university education cannot be obtained free. I have no experience of universities -in States other than Queensland. I have in mind one case - that of a grandson of mine - whose parents could not have afforded to give him a university education; but he was able to enter the university through winning a scholarship. He is actually receiving remuneration at the university, not for work done, but because of an allowance made to him for gaining the scholarship. The amount paid to him more than covers his fees. I hope that my leader will give this matter further consideration before he decides to vote against the bill. There is another, and a better, ground for not supporting this bill, and that is the inadequate time allowed to study it. Had Parliament been called together earlier, proper consideration could have been given to the Estimates and other important matters. I shall support the bill because I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [‘11.35]. - It has long been the proud boast of Australia that it is a land of equality of opportunity. Progress in that direction is yearly becoming more rapid. This bill is evidence thereof. The entrance examination to the Commonwealth Public Service is of a purely educational nature. The persons to whom this bill applies, and who may be added to the Public Service because of it, have already passed examinations ten times as difficult as the entrance examination which ordinary aspirants to the Public Service have to pass. When I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, evidence tendered to the committee showed that every encouragement was given to public servants to take up university courses. Opportunities are given to students to attend lectures, and every reasonable facility is offered for the adjustment of their working hours.

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The universities themselves axe most liberal.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– It is most desirable that we should recruit to the Federal Public Service men capable pf qualifying for the senior positions. That qualification is not gained merely by a satisfactory performance of the routine work of the Service. A man who has his nose to the grindstone throughout the year may not have the qualifications to fit him for the higher positions. Those who show special fitness are given every opportunity to make good. This bill is a step in. the right direction. It is most essential that, when the occasion arises, there shall be men in the Public Service fitted to take up the duties of heads and sub-heads of departments. That the present outlook is somewhat obscure is due chiefly to the policy of preference to returned soldiers. I do not wish it to be thought that I am opposed to that policy, but it cannot be gainsaid that it has had a serious effect on the Public Service. An admixture of youths possessing a knowledge of human nature and of literature - qualifications,, which are essential for the carrying out of the higher duties of the Public Service - is now necessary. The future of the Service is being threatened because of the stoppage of the recruitment of suitable youths. Every step in the direction outlined in this bill will add to the effectiveness of the Public Service in the future.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South Wales

– I shall oppose the bill because I see in it a danger of injustice being done to those youths who have joined the Service within the last ten years.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– No youths have joined the Service within the last ten years.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am concerned with those youths who, within the last ten years, have joined the Service as telegraph messengers, and have since qualified for appointment to higher grades. They have had to pass a special telegraphist’s examination which the university student will not have to pass if this bill becomes law. I do not say that a university student should not be appointed to a clerical position as, say, a postal assistant.

Senator Collings:

– They cannot get jobs as telegraphists until they qualify for them.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Many of these boys have studied hard in order to become telegraphists.

Senator Collings:

– Any person seeking appointment as a telegraphist must have the necessary technical qualifications.

Senator DOOLEY:

– This bill provides that 10 per cent, of the university students who pass an examination of a certain standard may be appointed ‘ to the Public Service without examination. Honorable senators should note that they will be appointed to Grade III, ahead of boys who have been in the Service for as long as ten. years, and have been seeking appointments. Youths appointed to the Public Service do not receive promotion to higher grades until they have passed qualifying tests. Many of the boys who joined the Postal Department during the last ten years have spent their spare time and money in ‘fitting themselves for higher positions. They have made greater sacrifices than have the young men who have passed through the university.

Senator Reid:

– The university graduates passed the standard of the entrance examination years ago.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Although they have passed certain educational tests, they have not qualified as telegraphists.

Senator Reid:

– Does the honorable senator think that the university students who seek appointment to the Public Service want to become telegraphists?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Why should a lad who has trained himself for higher positions be blocked by others who would regard the position of telegraphist as beneath them? Youths who joined the Public Service have to progress to higher positions step by step, and it is not right that others, merely because they have been to a university, should have preference over them. They should all be placed on the same footing, and treated according to their ability to do the work required of them. The Public Service of the Commonwealth has earned a good reputation, and there is no reason why the method of recruiting which has been adopted in the past should “be discontinued. Senator Kingsmill wants to introduce men from outside the Service to responsible positions in the departments. Every applicant should be required to qualify for appointment in the same. way. I shall oppose the bill.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– The introduction of the measure at this late stage of the session is most unfortunate, because a general consultation on the provisions of “the bill is required to enable us to ascertain its effect. All honorable senators must be in favour of education, per se. I did not receive enough of it when I was a boy, but I am glad that the working classes produce as many university graduates as come from other sections of the community. In recent years representatives of the workers have succeeded in the higher branches of education. I understand that ‘the object of the bill is to give an opportunity to young graduates, whether born of rich or poor parents, to enter the Public Service and qualify for the higher positions.

Senator Hoare:

– Pure snobbery !

Senator MacDONALD:

– I do not think so. Some students have the ability, power of application, and physical strength to work hard, and at the same time pass university examinations, and become even Masters of Arts and Doctors of Law, and they should get the reward of their labour and merit. This bill, presumably, gives a chance to the sons of workers who have obtained university degrees and have educational qualifications higher than those of ordinary members of the Public Service, to obtain some of the higher positions.

Reference has been made to the claims of returned soldiers, and I admit that they are entitled to every consideration that Australia can give them. A mar* can do no nobler thing than offer hislife in the service of his country. But on his return he should not be placed! in a position which leads to his rendering dis-service to his country. The period of study usually required for matriculation is four and one-half years. Great perseverance and physical strength are required by a student who graduates in three years. Very few appointments have been made to the Service in recent years, and unless they occur at a more rapid rate, the standard of the Service will suffer before many years have elapsed. I understand that appointments contemplated under the bill will not be to the .positions of mechanics, but to posts which will lead to the higher grades of the Service. I hope that- recruiting will be extended, and that opportunities will be given to those young persons whose parents , have undertaken, at heavy personal sacrifice, to give .them an advanced education. I do not see eye to eye with those who consider that this bill will encourage snobbery. I have nol detected that characteristic in welleducated individuals particularly.

Senator Hoare:

– The honorable senator must know that we have much of it.

Senator Collings:

– It is becoming gradually less noticeable as the sons and daughters of members of the workingclass are obtaining university degrees.

Senator MacDONALD:

– That is true. The Labour movement does not frown upon those possessing high educational qualifications. In Queensland one of the leaders of Labour was a Master of Art9 and a Bachelor of Law. Education has a refining influence. During the last 30 years, the sons and daughters of the workers have enjoyed increased opportunities for educational advancement. Any member of the Public Sei-vice who starts on the lowest rung of the ladder has an opportunity, if he possesses the necessary ability, to rise to the highest position. I am inclined to give the bill general support, unless I find that I have been misled as to its object.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– “Whatever may ‘be the merits or demerits of admitting university graduates, without further examination, to 10 per cent, of the positions available in the Third Division of the Public Service, I hope that honorable senators will recognize that .the bill involves a good deal more than that. It can be dealt with more effectively in committee than at this stage. I should like to know if an expression of opinion has been sought by the Government from .the Public Service organizations regarding the provisions of the bill.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– The Service generally favours the latter portion of the measure, which relates to fines. i

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I presume that the provisions of clause 3, which modify the conditions relating to punishment, would -receive the support of the Service, but ,the subject of the appointment of university graduates might have been referred to the Public Service Association for an expression of its opinion. It is a loyal organization, the members of which over a very long period have rendered valuable service to the Commonwealth. When proposals to alter the basis of the constitution of the Commonwealth Public Service are under consideration the views of Public Service organizations should be sought. If I receive a reasonable assurance from the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) that that has been done, any doubt in my mind as to the value of this measure will be dispelled. But dispite that doubt I feel disposed to give the proposal a trial, because I believe that it will open up -an avenue for the entry into the Public Service of sons, and daughters, too, of working class parents, who, during the years of depression, have spent hard-earned money in obtaining a university education for their children, only to find that after they have graduated employment is not available. That applies to the children of wealthy parents less than to the children of the working class, for as a rule the fathers of students who pass through our leading pu’blic schools and universities are associated with commercial and other organizations which provide opportunities for them to place their children in employment. The children of the workers have no such opportunity. I know at least of twelve such students in South Australia who are in the position I have just mentioned. Only a fortnight ago I witnessed the sorry spectacle of a young man 21 or 22 years of age who had graduated at the Adelaide University, and who at every examination for which he sat was either at the top or very near to it. That young man’s father has always earned his living with a pick and shovel, and twelve months after the son left the university I saw him working on the pipe line with a pick and shovel.

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– Under this bill that man would have a chance to enter the Commonwealth Public Service.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Exactly. For these reasons I feel disposed to test the principle and see how it will work in practice. I support the second reading of the bill.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

. I deprecate the introduction of the bill at such short notice. It is true that the Leader of the Government gave us the opportunity to adjourn the debate on the second reading until a later hour, but I understand that the Government wishes to proceed with it. The struggle for employment is becoming more intense, and the position of those already in the Public Service should he considered. When juniors enter the. employ of the Commonwealth Public Service they are under the impression that, subject to good behaviour, and the possession of the necessary qualifications, they will have opportunities of promotion. It is now proposed that young men from the universities may enter the Service and possibly diminish the prospects of such promotion. It may be all right to encourage graduates to enter the Service, but we should first consider those already there. We have been informed that when appointments to the Service are proposed, 10 per cent, of the positions shall be reserved for university graduates. What will be the position if the number of applicants is three or four times greater than the number of positions available ? I suppose a selection will be made by the Public Service Board. This will open the way to favouritism, and render possible a good deal of wirepulling. After listening to the debate, I may be convinced as to whether or not this bill should be passed in its present form, but I feel that I should oppose it, because we need time to obtain the opinion of certain Public Service organizations on the subject. Industrial labour organizations are consulted when the rights of their members are at stake, and the Public Service organizations should be consulted in this instance. If a measure were introduced to permit certain persons to enter professions without undergoing an examination there would be strong objection. In fairness to the thousands of public servants who have entered the employ of the Commonwealth on the understanding that they would have an opportunity to work their way to the top, further consideration of this measure should be delayed. I understand from the remarks made by Senator MacDonald that on entering the Service appointees are placed in the third division, and, according to clause 3 of the bill, they will be entitled to receive the maximum salary.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If they were 21 or 22 years of age, they would not start at a salary of £80 or £90 a year.

Senator BROWN:

– What are the minimium and maximum rates paid in the third division?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The minimum rate in the third division is about £150 or £160, and the appointees would commence at about that salary.

Senator MacDonald:

– The maximum salary would be about £340.

Senator BROWN:

– Does clause 3 mean that they could receive more than the minimum salary?

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Yes.

Senator BROWN:

– They could be appointed at the maximum salary over men who had been in the Service for years. While I have sympathy with uni versity graduates who cannot find employment, we must also study the interests of youths who entered the Service at fourteen years of age, and who are entitled to promotion.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The university graduate mentioned by Senator O’Halloran, who is over twenty years of age, would receive more than £150.

Senator BROWN:

– I regret that any university student should be compelled to undertake work such as that mentioned by Senator O’Halloran. Professional men in Queensland are engaged on relief work. We have to decide whether we should permit university graduates to enter the Public Service, and ignore the rights of those who have been in it for many years, and who are entitled to promotion. I am open to conviction, but, at this moment, I am not inclined to support’ the bill in its present form.

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not like this measure. We should have received some information from the organizations representing the Commonwealth Public Service before being asked to discuss it. I feel that an injustice will be done to those already in the Service if this measure is passed. Senator O’Halloran contends that if 10 per cent. of the appointments to the Service are reserved for university graduates, remunerative and suitable employment will be provided for some of the children of workers who have passed through a university. I take the opposite view. I think -that greater opportunities for children of the workers would be provided if we adhered to the policy now in operation. I believe that if this measure becomes operative and applications are called, hundreds of young men who have graduated at a university will be seeking employment in the Commonwealth Public Service owing to the fact that during the depression professional avenues have been closed to them. Young solicitors and others will be only too pleased to accept positions to thedetriment of those already in the Service, who are anxiously awaiting promotion. I presume that applications will be submitted to the Public Service Board which will recommend appointments. We . need not be surprised if vacant positions are allotted to the favoured few before even the claims of applicants who have not a university training behind them receive consideration. The Public Service Board might as well put up the notice, “ No outsider need apply.” I do not like the bill. It would be much better to stick to the old principle. What is wrong with it? ‘Successful applicants, even if they have had the advantage of university education, should start at the bottom rung of the ladder with other entrants to the Public Service, and work their way up. What influence has been brought to bear to induce the Government to bring this measure forward? Apparently, some people outside have been pulling strings. Opportunities in the medical and legal professions and other avocations requiring higher educational qualifications are becoming fewer, so university students who set out with the idea of entering one or other of the professions are now turning their attention to the Public Service. The innovation will work unfairly as regards applicants who have not had the advantage of the higher educational training. Senator O’Halloran was quite wrong. This proposal will not be of advantage to sons of the workers. iSenator MacDonald. - The honorable senator has a jaundiced view of the whole matter.

Senator HOARE:

– I am sorry that Senator MacDonald has suddenly become so annoyed at what I am saying. I know what I am talking about. A friend of mine who lives not far from my home in Adelaide, until recently had two boys at school. They had reached the age when they were to be passed on to the high school, and though both are clever lads, the father was obliged to take them away because, so he told me, he was unable to buy the books which they required, and because the snobbery evidenced by- other students was so damnable that he would not allow his boys to continue at that school.

Senator MacDonald:

– Does not the honorable senator believe in ability and brains ?

Senator HOARE:

– Of course I do. Senator MacDonald. - The honorable senator is merely a Labour “ wowser.”

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator HOARE:

– What has happened to Senator MacDonald? Why is he so perturbed? Have I said anything to offend him? He has told us of the position in Queensland. I reply by telling him that in South Australia it is now impossible for the children of workers to acquire a higher education because of the increase of fees, parents being required to pay £10 a year for children attending the technical or high schools. Believing that this bill will do an injustice to the children of the workers, I shall have to vote against it. I approve of the latter portion of the measure, and if the second reading is carried, I hope that we may be able to insert, in committee, some amendments that will make it more acceptable.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I confess that I do not possess a very intimate knowledge of the Public Service, but I can quite understand why university graduates should not be re quired to sit for the entrance examination. But all applicants for technical positions in the Service should be called upon to face the examiners, and, in that respect, be on a level with other applicants who have not had the advantage of a university education.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Students applying for appointment to the architectural branch of the Public Works Department will be tested as to their professional knowledge, as will applicants for admission to the engineering branch of the Postal Department, or any other technical branch of the Public Service.

Senator RAE:

– That is quite satisfactory. What I fear is that, if there are two sources of supply, as it were, to the Public Service, there will be the danger that students possessing the higher qualifications may, because of the “snobbery” inherent in human nature, receive more favorable consideration from those above them than will be given to the ordinary recruit to the Service. I am not one of those who feel jealous or envious of persons who have had a better education that it was possible for me to acquire, but I do know, from experience, that there is a good deal of snobbery in a big proportion of the human race. For that reason I am afraid that this hill “will open the door for special consideration to be given to certain members of the Public Service, not solely on their merits, or supposed merits as university students, but because of their higher social status. I have had direct evidence of this snobbery among educated people. Many years ago a number of State children -were farmed out to the residents of the district in which I was living, and I know definitely that the local school teachers showed a distinct bias against them. They were punished more severely than other children for similar offences - a most terrible iniquity, in my opinion, on the part of teachers who should have been above such despicable conduct. I should like to see the measure postponed, so that honorable senators could give it a little more deliberate consideration. This is not by any means a party matter. No one appreciates more than I do the value of a university training which, I know, widens a man’s outlook and gives greater scope for the exercise of his ability, but it does not follow that another man without education, as the word is popularly understood, is mentally his inferior. Apart ‘ from those who are not capable mentally of taking advantage of a university education, there are many who cannot do so, because of their financial circumstances. Many of us have never had the opportunity to obtain sufficient book education even to enter on a university course. The benefits of a university education are largely the special prerogative of the prosperous class. Only a small percentage of- the working classes can avail themselves of the opportunity.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [12.32].- I am glad that this bill has received so much consideration, and I should like to say a few words in reply to allay the fears of some honorable senators that it may provide for the surreptitious entry into the Public Service of persons who are not qualified, but who are able to exercise social influence. I should like honorable senators, especially those on the Opposition benches, to take their minds back to two events in the history of the Australian Labour Party. I speak of them now, because I had a personal acquaintance with them. Honorable senators opposite will remember that we founded the Royal Australian Naval College and the Royal Australian Military College. In those colleges there were two different sets of entrants - boys of fourteen and young men of eighteen years of age. Other qualifications besides educational attainments were required of them, it was a Labour Government that laid down the conditions of entry into those colleges. I was the Minister at the time. For the Naval College we provided that there should be an educational and medical examination, and we also provided that there should be a selection committee which, after a number of the boys had passed the medical and educational examinations, should test them by personal examination as to their ‘nimbleness of wit and general knowledge. The committee selected those considered most likely to make good naval officers. Members of the Labour party of that time were very doubtful about the method. I had to fight hard to persuade them that it would work out all right. The proof of the pudding is in the eating thereof. The occupations of the parents of the boys, and the schools the boys had attended had to be stated. I had the results published, and they showed that the great majority of the ‘boys who entered the college under those conditions were the sons of working men. Yet it was said that because we had selection by naval officers, the sons of working men would be passed out, and that only the sons of wealthy people would, be selected. It did not work out that way.

Now I come to the Military College. There, too, we wanted not only educational attainments, but also physical fitness and qualities of alertness and general ability. So there also we had the educational examination, the medical examination, and selection by a committee. The results there have been exactly the same as at the Naval College. If honorable senators will look at the lists published each year after the examinations have taken place, they will find that the majority of the boys who are successful receive” their education in State schools, and are the sons of working men and working women. That has been the experience for many years.

Senator Dooley:

– Why not leave it at that in the Public Service t

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That is not the system in the Public Service. There has been no entrance of youths for many years. Under the old system, we held examinations of youths to fill the lowest-paid positions for which the salaries are now £90 a yea, and were formerly £75 to £S0 a year. Boys of sixteen or seventeen years were admitted to the Public Service as the result of examinations of intermediate standard. There was no selection afterwards; but those at the top of the examination lists were passed in. What is the change proposed to be made? If honorable senators will look at the bill, they will see that it applies only where the Public Service Commissioner is calling for applications for positions. At the December examination, there will be about 100 positions to be filled, all in the lower grade of the clerical division. Of those positions, none will carry a salary of more than *£B0O and the great majority will carry salaries of £95. A few of the salaries will be from £150 to £160. The Public Service’ Commissioner has called for applications, and applicants will sit for an examination of about the “ leaving “ standard. If this bill is not passed, all the positions will be filled by youths who have not had the chance to demonstrate whether they possess those qualities for a higher education which would be disclosed by capacity to graduate at a university. If the bill is passed, the same system will still apply for at least 90 out of the 100 positions. But the remainder may be reserved for university graduates. The age limit in. the bill is 25 yea’rs. Those ten men must have graduated recently at an Australian university. That is to say, they must not only have passed the examination provided for the 90 others, but must have passed other examinations since. Not more than 10 per cent, of the positions will be set aside for ‘ them. Senator Rae fears that social influence will be used in selecting them. It is proposed that in each State, as is done for the Naval and Military Colleges, a selection committee will be appointed. The committee will consist of the Public Service Inspector of the State, a representative of the university, and a representative of the Public Service. That committee will look into the qualifications, and examine the educational history of applicants. It will send in a report placing them in their order of merit. That, however, does not finalize the business. The reports from the various States will come to the Public Service Board, which, from the collective reports, will select 10 per cent, of the applicants for the positions to which they can ba allotted. They cannot be top positions. They will bo junior positions for men who have reached the age possibly of 25 years, and who will probably be appointed at a commencing salary equivalent’ to the basic wage of £174. After appointment, the young men will have to take their chance for promotion and increment with the rest of the public servants. I cannot see that there is any room for social influence, or anything of that’ kind. By scholarships, the universities are open even to the children of poor parents. In every State, the sons of working men are going through the universities because of the liberal scholarships and exhibitions which are available. It is certainly not intended by the Government that social influence shall be allowed to operate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause .1 agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m. Clause 2 -

After section thirty-six of the principal act the following section is inserted:-*- “ 36a. - (1.) Where, in accordance with a notice under section thirty-four of this act, the board holds an entrance examination of candidates for appointment to the Third Division of the Public Service, and, in the notice of that examination, states the number of such appointments proposed to be made, persons who are at the date of the examination, graduates of an Australian university may apply to the board, within such ‘period as is prescribed, for appointment to that division. (2.) Any person applying under this section for appointment to the Third Division of the Public Service, who is not more than twenty-five years of age shall, during such period as is prescribed, be eligible for appointment to any of the positions proposed to be filled by successful candidates at the examination and the board may appoint that person to that division without examination:

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the word “without” sub-section 2. proposed new section 36A ho left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ provided lie passes the necessary “.

If this amendment is adopted, special privileges will not be available to any persons when appointments to the Public Service are made. Under the proposed new sub-section, as at present drafted, persons possessing the necessary qualification, but who have not graduated at a university, would be excluded. If that objection were removed, the measure would be more acceptable to honorable senators on this side of the chamber, and the amendment, if adopted, would not interfere with the intention of the Government.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [2.17]. - The clause would be meaningless if the amendment were adopted. Proposed new sub-section 2 reads -

Any person applying under this section for appointment to thu Third Division of the Public Service, who is not more than 2’5 years of age shall, during such period as is prescribed, bo eligible for appointment to any of the positions proposed to be filled by successful candidates at the examination- “ The examination “ means the examination for youths of sixteen to eighteen years of age - and the board may appoint that person to that division-

If the amendment is accepted, the subsection will conclude - provided they pass the necessary examination.

What is “the necessary examination?” If this amendment is adopted we might as well delete the whole proposed new subsection. If the necessary examination is the examination for which the youths sit, obviously, this” amendment is unnecessary.

Senator MacDonald:

– By raising the age to 25 years, special privileges will be given to university graduates as compared with other applicants.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Graduates will be eligible to apply for 10 per cent, of the vacancies to be advertised.

Senator Dunn:

– As I have a prior amendment, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will temporarily withdraw his amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn . Senator DUNN (New South Wales) [2.26].- I move-

That after the word “University”, subsection 1, proposed new sub-section 30a, the words ‘”’ public schools graduates of State high schools and denominational high schools “ he inserted.

If this amendment is adopted, it will give the scholars at public schools, State high schools, and denominational high schools, an opportunity to apply for any vacancies in the Commonwealth Public Service. I have a nephew whose father was a returned soldier, and is now deceased. The boy won a scholarship, but owing to the serious illness of his mother, was compelled to leave _ college and obtain work. His school master said that he possessed exceptional ability, and that he should have continued his studies at a university. That lad is precluded from taking any advantage of this, measure in its present form. Appointments should not be confined to university graduates.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [2.28] . - The youth- mentioned by Senator Dunn would be eligible to apply for one of the 1,100 positions to be advertised. The amendment is meaningless, because a student has to obtain a university degree before he becomes a graduate. There are no graduates of public schools, State high schools and denominational high schools, but scholars attending such schools can apply for positions other than those to be made available to graduates.

Senator Dooley:

– What is the age limit for these applicants?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Twentyone years of age. In the circumstances I have mentioned I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the amendment.

Senator MacDONALD (Queensland) 2. 30]. - After some delay we have obtained from the Minister an admission that those who put labour power into the acquirement of knowledge, other than actual graduates, must, if they wish to enter the Public Service, pass the examination before they attain the age of 21 years. To them this- is a serious matter. Senator Dunn’s amendment will, if carried, give those who have had a secondary school education the right to sit for the examination until they are 25 years of age. At the present time, even brilliant youths who have secured the leaving or, as we call it in Queensland, the senior certificate, may not’ sit for examination after they reach the age of 21 years. At the second-reading stage of the bill we were more or less consulting with one another and exchanging ideas with a view to ascertaining the intention of the bill, In its present form the clause would give to actual graduates a definite advantage over first, second or third year university students and, as regards Queensland, an advantage oyer fourth year science students. AH these students deserve consideration. Many who have done the third year in arts have not for various reasons been able to complete the course, but I dare say there are many, over the age of 21 years, who would be glad of the opportunity to sit for the examination. If the clause is amended as now proposed, it will be possible for all s’tudents of secondary and technical schools, as well as those who have spent some years at the university, an equal chance with graduates. This is only fair, because a final university pass is not necessarily the distinguishing mark of outstanding ability. Although I have not had the advantage of a university training, I have done a good deal of secondary work, and have followed the fortunes of fellow students who have passed through the universities. It would be distinctly unfair if students who had done, say, three or four years of the engineering or science courses, were to be excluded from sitting for the examination because they were over 21 years of age. We on this side of the Senate stand for the reward of labour whether in education, business or any other walk of life. To restrict this quota of admissions to the Public Service to those who have a final pass in any of the faculties would be unfair. If the committee does not accept Senator Dunn’s amendment, it should, at least, pass the amendment moved by Senator Barnes, but subsequently withdrawn temporarily. Under the bill as it stands, men who have to their credit a degree will have four years in which to be included among the 10 per cent, of graduate entrants. Those who have passed through the higher and technical schools should have the same chance as students holding the university pass. Many university students doing their course would like a year’s work at £150 a year to help them to qualify for the final pass. I hope that the Minister will see the unfairness of allowing only university graduates to be placed in such an advantageous position over university students and others.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– We, on this side of the chamber, believe that it is unwise and dangerous, in ordinary circumstances, to leave the road open for any privileged section of the community to enter the Public Service through any other than the ordinary door. ‘ Therefore, we feel that the amendment moved by Senator Barnes would, if accepted, take us as far as we ought to go in that direction. The only advantage which university students would then have over other applicants for admission to the Public Service would be that they would not be debarred because of the four years difference in age. To that extent, and with that amendment, we are in agreement with the bill. Senator Dunn proposes to enlarge the circle too extensively. The scholars in the schools to which he refers have an opportunity to sit for the Public Service examination when they pass the leaving examination.

Senator BRENNAN:
VICTORIA

– More than that. Many of the schools specially coach for the Public Service examination.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am in sympathy with the sentiment of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) when he said the desire was to take into the Public Service a small percentage of young men up to 25 years of age who have already passed a very severe examination. I am prepared to go as far as the bill proposes, with the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition; hut I am not prepared to open the door wider to those sections of the community which already have the opportunity of entrance. The university graduates to which the bill refers have not had an opportunity to enter the Service, because there has been a hiatus in the period between examinations. The proposal from this side will make the bill fair to all concerned, and will do what the Government desires within the Public Service.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– I cannot follow the reasoning of Senator Callings. If it is a matter of age, why is there need for any distinction? If the age is extended for one section it should be extended for all. I can understand the desire to get an infusion of highly educated new stock into the Public Service ; but I cannot see why age, rather than ability should be the determining factor.

Question - That the amendment (Senator Dunn’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 5

NOES: 26

Majority

21

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [2.54]. - Before the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) moves the3 amendment he has indicated, I draw his attention to its inevitable effect, which I do not think he has realized. If we pit university graduates up to 25 years of age against youths of sixteen and seventeen in a competitive examination, the university graduates will get the whole 100 positions. The amendment which has been indicated refers to “ examination “, which, in the bill, means the primary examination for youths of sixteen to 21 years.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I move -

That the word “ without,” sub-section 2, proposed new section 36a be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words, “provided he passes the necessary “.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– I do not agree that, under the amendment, university graduates would get 100 per cent, of the positions. The amendment proposes to give them the right to sit for the examination; but I take it that the appointments would still be restricted to 10 per cent. Experience does not prove that university graduates will defeat all others. By doing higher work, the university graduate may have obliterated much of the more elementary knowledge necessary to enable him to pass the examination prescribed under the bill. A man skilled in the higher mathematics may have difficulty in deciding whether 5 and 4 .make 7 or 9, because his mind has been so much occupied in higher calculations and work. Amendment negatived. Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon.

Herbert Hays.) Ayes . . . . . . 22

Noes . . . . 9

Majority

13

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to. Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted. Bill read a third time.

page 5918

FRUIT GROWERS RELIEF BILL 1933

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 5918

EXTRADITION BILL 1933

Second Reading. Senator MCLACHLAN (South Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.7].- I moveThat the bill be now read a second time.

The Extradition Act 1903 makes provision for carrying into effect within the Commonwealth the surrender of fugitive criminals who are or are suspected of being within, the Commonwealth, and for facilitating the execution in relation to the Commonwealth of the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1895 of the United Kingdom. The Extradition Acts 1870 to 1895 were amended in 1906 and 1932. In 1906, “ bribery “ was added to the list of extradition crimes, and, in 1932, “ traffic in dangerous drugs”. Also, since the passing of the Commonwealth Extradition Act 1903, Papua and Norfolk Island have become territories of the Commonwealth; but as the references in the act to the Commonwealth are not wide enough to include territories outside the Commonwealth, the act is not applicable to those territories. Consequently, those places may become havens of refuge for fugitive criminals. It is desirable that the Commonwealth act should be amended to bring it into line with the imperial acts as regards the list of extradition crimes, and to make operative in Papua and Norfolk Island the procedure adopted for the Commonwealth in relation to the surrender >f fugitive criminals. The bill amends the Commonwealth act accordingly. It makes no provision for New Guinea or Nauru, as those territories are not “ British possessions “ within the meaning of the imperial acts. The Extradition Ordinance 1927-1933 of New Guinea adopts, with certain modifications, the imperial acts as a law of the territory, and similar action is being taken with “aspect to Nauru.

Question resolved in. the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

Section five of the principal act is amended -

6 ) by inserting, after the word “ State,” (first occurring), the words “or any magistrate of any territory of the Commonwealth (not including any territory governed by the Commonwealth under a mandate),”.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

.- I moveThat the words “ any magistrate “, paragraph (6) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ a judge and jury “.

I realise the necessity for keeping undesirable characters out of the territories of the Commonwealth, and also that a member of the working class who is suspected of having committed an offence is in a most serious position. From time to time we hear of cases, of alleged political offenders being deported to other countries. Members of the Labour party do not desire that criminals, or undesirable persons of any kind, shall he free to come and go in the territories of the Commonwealth; but, as representatives of the workers and the poorer sections of the community, we wish at all times to preserve the right of suspected persons to a fair trial. Throughout the British Empire there are many excellent judges and magistrates, whose only desire is to administer justice, without fear or favour; but occasionally a magistrate shows bias, particularly when a political offence is alleged to have been committed. My amendment should be acceptable to Senator Brennan, and other members of the legal profession.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The Extradition Acts do not apply to political prisoners. The preliminary proceedings only are referred to in this clause.

Question - That the amendment (Senator Dunn’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 2

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5919

IMMIGRATION BILL 1933

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[3.25].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The objects of the measure are not to introduce any new policy, but merely to overcome certain technical difficulties by amending section 8a of the act to provide that the amendment of 1932 shall date as from the commencement of the section, that is from the 2nd December, 1920, and by inserting a new section, 14d, to provide power to take and enforce the securities for compliance with the provisions of the act and regulations. Section 8a was first inserted in the act in 1920. It provided power for the Minister to issue a deportation order in cases where he was satisfied that, within three years after arrival in Australia, a person who was not born in Australia had been convicted of a criminal offence, or had become a charge on the State. The section had effect from the 2nd December, 1920. Section8a was amended in 1932 to increase the period within which action for deportation can be taken against an immigrant to five years instead of three years. It was intended that the 1932 amendment should apply to any immigrant who had come to Australia since December, 1920, and the Crown Law authorities hold that the amendment did so apply. Certain shipping companies, however, acting on legal advice, have contended that the 1932 amendment cannot be retrospectively applied. In a number of cases affected by the amendment it has been considered desirable to issue deportation orders against criminals or persons mentally or physically diseased whom, all will agree, it would be of distinct advantage to this country to . be rid. It is therefore desired to place beyond doubt that the 1932 amendment shall apply to immigrants who arrived in Australia since the date on which section . 8a was inserted in the act. This is the sole object of clause 2.

Section 14d is a new section to provide power to take and enforce bonds for compliance with the provisions of the act and regulations. A number of bonds are in use which are not specifically provided for in the act, as it was understood until quite recently that they were legally enforceable under common law. The Crown Law authorities, however, have advised that, in view of a High Court decision - I refer to The Commonwealth versus Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, 31 C.L.R.. 421 - securities of the kind in question, if not authorized by or under the act, would be void and unenforceable.

These are the securities given by the persons responsible for the return of certain persons to their own country. Sometimes a coloured person escapes from his ship, hut, before the penalties are enforced, the steamship company has to enter into a bond pending the discovery and apprehension of the man with a view to deportation.

Some of the bonds cannot be enforced, and this proposed new section is to make it clear that they will be enforceable. It is, therefore, urgently essential that the necessary authority should be provided under the act, not only to take securities in future, but also to validate those which have already been taken or enforced prior to the commencement of the proposed new section. The amendments have been rendered necessary by the disclosure of certain legal weaknesses which this measure is designed to remove.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 5920

DESIGNS BILL 1938

Second Reading

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Section 26 of the Designs Act relates to the period for which a design is registered. The initial period of registration is five years, but, upon payment of extension fees, the registration may be renewed for two periods each of five years. Subsections 2a and 2b of section 26 provide that where extensions of registration are desired for. a second or third period of five years application must be made within the prescribed time which is any time before the expiration of the five years. In practice, it has been found that extensions of the time for lodging applications are sometimes necessary, but under the present law it is not permissible to grant such extensions after the expiry of the current period of registration. In the case of patents and trade marks, extensions of time, after the expiration of the original period, are allowed for the payment of renewal fees, and in England an extension of three mouths is allowed in respect of designs. It is therefore proposed so to amend the principal act as to permit regulations to be made to fix a time subsequent to the date of the expiration of the current periods of registration.

Senator DUNN (New South “Wales)

Executive Council (Senator McLachlan) state the procedure under the existing: law when Australian designs are used by unscrupulous traders in other countries. Is an officer of the Designs. Department entitled to register a design on behalf of any applicant? Tinned, fruits were once shipped to eastern countries in tins bearing labels on which the Ibis, which is a sacred bird in the east was portrayed. The injudicious use of such labels has a serious effect upon a section of our eastern trade.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– The subject mentioned by the honorable senator is not covered by this amending bill, which merely provides for an extension of the time allowable for re-registrations. Certain matters are still beyond our jurisdiction, but international negotiations are proceeding, and,- when completed, a measure of protection against abuses such as those to which the honorable senator has referred may be afforded.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 5920

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1933

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP

[3.42]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is designed to remedy defects in the Income Tax Assessment Act which have recently come under notice and which affect revenue in important directions; to remove the unjust tax now chargeable to Australian companies upon interest paid to absentee holders upon debentures raised outside Australia; and also to meet misunderstandings that have arisen regarding the scope of certain sections. The more important features of the bill . are those which relate to -

  1. the ascertainment of the rate of tax in certain circumstances so as to make the law as intended and interpreted from its inception quite clear and beyond question.

    1. The removal from Australian companies of their present liability to pay tax upon interest paid to absentee debenture holders under contracts not subject to Australian law.

  2. The provision of the flat general exemption of £250 in regard to the special further income tax of 6 per cent.

As regards a, the amendment does no more than express more clearly the intention of the averaging provisions of the law in accordance with which the department has made its calculations of the rate of tax ever since. these provisions were introduced. This is the only basis which produces an equitable result and prevents discrimination between taxpayers.

Proposal b, may be considered practically the only substantial amendment of the act. The Income Tax Assessment Act aims at taxing absentee debenture holders on the debenture interest, but inasmuch as the debenture holder, not being a resident of Australia, is outside the jurisdiction of the Australian courts in respect of actions for the recovery of income tax where the absentees have no assets in Australia, it was necessary for Parliament to seek to obtain payment of the tax at the source before the company paid away the interest.

Accordingly, companies, in addition to being liable for the ordinary tax payable by a company on its profits are required to pay income tax on the debenture interest paid to absentees, and the rate of tax was fixed by Parliament at the same rate at that which is payable by a company on its profits. In all of these cases the company is debarred by the laws of the ex-Australian country, usually Great Britain, in which the debentures are raised, from making any deduction from the debenture interest to recoup the company the tax chargeable to it. The company is forced to bear the tax itself. Thus the tax is, in effect, a tax on the company’s expenditure by way of interest. This is contrary to the spirit of the income tax law which seeks to tax income only in the hands of the real owner of the income wherever this is possible. In view of the doubt as to the liability of a debenture holder to be taxed on his debenture interest - the contention is that the interest is derived from a source outside Australia because the de benture contract is entered into outside Australia - there is the fullest justification for relieving companies now burdened with this tax where they cannot pass it on to the absentee holders.

In regard to c, the bill merely re-enacts section 6 (2) of the Financial Relief Act- 1932. That section provided a special general exemption for use in calculating, the taxable income upon which the special further income tax on property income was payable. The special general exemption is £250 in all cases without diminution.

The other provisions of the bill may be summarized as follows: -

Clause 3 - the income of State savings banks is exempt from tax because such banks are State instrumentalities. There are two banks in Tasmania which perform the same service as the State banks in other States, but as they are not actually State instrumentalities it is desirable to make provision to exempt their income.

Clause 6 corrects a defect in the amending act of last year so as to give the full benefit , as intended by that amendment, to taxpayers in regard to credit amendments of their assessments.

Clause 7 merely makes it clear that the commissioner or his deputy is not required to attend a court personally to give evidence of the actual making of any assessment which may be the subject of appeal to the court.

Clause 8 requires the Board of Review to give its reasons for any decision so that an appeal may be lodged if necessary should the decision involve a point of law.

The bill has passed the House of Representatives, and I commend it to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Senator Dunn:

– Did I understand the Minister to say that the amendment of the law now proposed will exempt nonresident debenture-holders from liability to taxation?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:

– We cannot tax them. The Government has endeavoured to secure revenue from them by taxing the interest due to them in the hands of the company, and the company has been paying the tax; but, as the debenture-holders are outside the jurisdiction of Australia, the company cannot properly make a deduction. There is a contract as between an Australian company and absentee debenture-holders, and, as I have already explained, the company has no means of recovering the amount of tax which is levied on the interest paid by it to its absentee debenture-holders.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section 14 of the principal act is amended -

by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the following paragraph: - “and (ii) the income of a Savings Bank controlled by trustees and conducted exclusively for the benefit of de.posi.ters.”

Amendment (by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) agreed to -

That the words “ controlled by trustees and “ be left out.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Taxation of companies).

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales’

– Oan the Minister tell the committee what is the estimated loss of revenue due to the amendment of the law as regards absentee debenture-holders?

Senator Sir Harry Lawson:

– I have not the figures available; but I am advised that the amount is not large.

Senator HARDY:

– Assuming that involved Australian currency and sterling were at par, would not the alteration in the law induce a company seeking a debenture issue to the amount of, say, £500,000, to place it on the English market because of the higher return?

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP

[3.56]. - I do not think that is likely to be the effect of the amendment. It might be to the interest of an Australian company desiring to extend its industry to import capital, in which case it would probably prefer to place the debenture issue on the London market instead of the domestic market.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (References to board.)

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– This clause provides, in proposed new sub-section 4a that, when so requested, the Board of Review shall, when giving its decisions, state in writing its reasons, both of law and fact. What is the reason for the alteration? The Commonwealth is fortunate in having on this board, highly capable and efficient gentlemen in whose judgment the people have implicit faith. Why should they be required to give in writing the reasons for their decisions? I say this because I recall a wise remark attributed to a celebrated judge that many sound judgments had been spoiled by poor reasons.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [3.59]. - The amendment will require the Board of Review to state its reasons in writing, only when requested to do so, the reason being that when a question of law is involved, there is the right of appeal by either the department or the taxpayer.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- Like Senator Johnston, I view this clause with much alarm. In the past, when a taxpayer has gone to the Board of Review or a court, and has won, the Commissioner has usually taken, the dispute to the High Court or the Privy Council, in an effort to prevent the taxpayer from getting the benefit of the decision. It seems to be the practice to take the taxpayer to court after court until his money is exhausted, and he has to give in. The Commissioner has the whole resources of the Commonwealth behind him, and he can keep on appealing until the taxpayer is compelled to allow the department to have its own way. This is not fair to the taxpayers, and the Board of Review should be the final court of appeal from the Commissioner.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [4.2]. - The Commissioner of Taxation has never taken a case to the Privy Council.

Senator Grant:

– Taxpayers have taken cases to the Privy Council.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON.That is another matter; but I am officially advised that the Commissioner has never taken a case to the Privy Council. This provision is to ascertain whether a question oi law is involved in a decision. No one wants to be unduly harsh to the taxpayer. There is no appeal on a question of fact.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I am in agreement with Senator Johnston in this matter. The Board of Review is not necessarily of any great legal eminence, and it could very easily make a legal error in a ruling. Every one who has had anything to do with law knows that judgments which commend themselves to the general public and reasonable-minded man as being in essence fair, have often been upset because of an indiscretion in wording. I do not imagine for a moment that the Government or the Commissioner of Taxation wishes to take advantage of the Board of Review.

Senator Collings:

– The clause merely says, “ Where, during the hearing of a review, the Commissioner or taxpayer so requests “.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– It gives a power which may be used in every appeal, at the option of either side. Members of the Board of Review make their decisions, not as expert lawyers, but as sensible men of the world, and it ought not to be possible to upset their decisions on what is generally called a legal quibble. The Minister has made it clear’ that there is no appeal on a question of fact.

Senator McLachlan:

– In a taxation measure should not the parties be given the benefit of the law?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– If there is not to be an appeal on questions of fact, why has the board to state its reasons, not only on points of law, but also on points of fact? I have not heard of any dissatisfaction with the rulings of the board, and it is very doubtful whether this alteration is wise.

Senator McLachlan:

– In a case in which I appeared for the taxpayer, and the decision went against him, the board would not state its reasons. He, therefore could not find out whether the decision was given on the law or on the facts, and he could get no redress.

Senator Sir Harry Lawson:

– The clause is for the benefit of either party.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I take it that the clause is intended to ‘be put into force only on rare occasions, and that there is no desire to bring it into general use so that the unfortunate board will have to safeguard its legal position so far a3 it can.

Senator Sir Harry Lawson:

– I can give the honorable senator an assurance that this clause will not be used as an instrument of oppression. The commissioner will ask for the information only when there is an essential reason for doing so.

Senator COLLINGS (Queensland) ‘4.8]. - I hesitate to involve myself in a discussion of a very subtle question which is obviously of great interest to the legal profession. But I want to enter my protest against the mental density of honorable senators opposite who are either unable to understand the meaning of a simply-worded clause, and the explanation of it given by the Minister, or who see some ulterior purpose in providing that, if either of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision of the Board of Review, he should be able to obtain on request, a statement in writing of the reasons for the board’s decision. If the board is of such a calibre that it cannot set down in clear and unmistakable English the reasons for its findings, it ought to get , out, and neither the commissioner nor the taxpayers should be subjected to the pains and penalty that “ it could inflict. I am interested from the taxpayers’ rather than from the commissioners’ point of view. The Minister has pointed out that if a taxpayer cannot obtain a statement of the reasons for a finding, he has no means of redress. I cannot understand the density of honorable senators on the other side when the meaning of the clause is so obvious to a mere layman.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I should like to explain my density a little further. The clause says -

Where, during the hearing of a review, the commissioner or the taxpayer so requests, the board shall, when giving its decision on the review, state in writing its reasons, both of law and of fact, for the decision including the particular terms of the act which have been considered by the board in arriving at the decision.

Senator Collings seems to suppose that the application will be made by a dissatisfied party after a decision has been given. That will not be so. The application must be made before the decision is given.

Senator Collings:

– The application cau be made if either party is dissatisfied.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– A party may be dissatisfied with the demeanour of the board, or he may think that he has a poor. case and will be likely to lose’ it. The clause means that, while the hearing is in progress, the request has to be made for the board to set out the reasons for its decision. I make no suggestion against anybody, but does not the clause make it likely that one or both will, as a matter of form, put in an application at each hearing that the reasons for the decision shall be set out.

Senator Collings:

– And why not?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Because, although the Board of Review is not a legal court, it- is likely to be tripped up on legal points.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Motion (by Senator Sir Harry Lawson) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I hope that when this bill is printed in the statutes it will be consolidated with the rest of the Income Tax Assessment Acts. Since the principal act, which is printed in volume 28, was passed, the law has been three times amended. It is customary to consolidate the acts every few years. The Income Tax Assessment Acts are particularly difficult to follow, unless consolidated, and an undue amount of work is involved in studying the original act and a number of amendments comprising, in all, perhaps eleven or twelve pages.

Senator McLachlan:

– The Government hopes that a complete consolidation of the taxation laws will be prepared in the not-distant future.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [4.16]. - The Income Tax Assessment Acts have been consolidated up to 1932, and it isexpected that this amendment will also be consolidated with the principal act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 5924

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1933

Second Radiing

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the ExecutiveCouncil · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will probably think that an amendment of the bankruptcy law is always before the Senate. The matters with which this bill deals areonly a portion of a major measure which the Government had hoped to introduce but, ‘being urgent have been embodied in a special measure.

The most important provision in the bill is clause 2, relating to the relief of debtors under certain State acts. The States concerned conferred with the Government with a view to the Bankruptcy Act being amended to facilitate the operation- of their acts. The Government intimated its willingness to assist in the matter, and requested the States to indicate what amendments they considered were necessary to achieve their objects. After conferences and lengthy negotiations, clause 2 was drafted, and it is considered that it will meet the requirements of the States. Its object is to prevent debtors and creditors from availing themselves of the Bankruptcy Act to upset the arrangements made by the States in cases in which the Bankruptcy Court satisfies itself that such arrangements operating under the s various debtors’ relief acts of the States are in the best interests of the parties concerned. The clause deals with cases in which either a creditor or the debtor himself seeks to invoke the aid of the Bankruptcy Court to set aside an arrangement under the State law. Such creditor or debtor will, at the time of his application for an order of sequestration, be required to disclose that the debtor is a person in respect of whose affairs an arrangement is in operation. The Registrar of the Bankruptcy Court will thereupon notify the State authority concerned of the application, and that authority may ask the court to refuse the application and prohibit further bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the debtor’s estate. That is a legal device which had to be resorted to. Once the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court is invoked, it overrides certain provisions under State laws which have been passed for the purpose of conferring relief upon debtors, especially farmers. Arrangements made under some of the State acts are of such a nature that they come within the definition of “Deed of Arrangement “ given in section 190 of the Bankruptcy Act. In consequence, sub-clause 5 of clause 2 is designed to provide that State arrangements shall not be voided for non-compliance with the special provisions of the Bankruptcy Act relating to deeds of arrangement in those cases in which the Bankruptcy Court has indicated that, in its opinion, such arrangements are beneficial.

Clause 3 has been inserted to remove doubts which have arisen as to the position of certain property of bankrupts. “With regard to paragraph a of that clause, it was intended by the 1932 act to provide that if a trustee were prepared to pay off the encumbrance on any property of the bankrupt which is subject to a bill of sale or other lien, he could acquire it for the benefit of creditors generally, and paragraph iv. was introduced” into section 91 of the principal act for that purpose. The unrestricted words “ Except as provided in .this section “ in paragraph e of the section have been held by the court to operate so that property over which a bill of sale or mortgage has been given by the bankrupt, “but which remains in his possession, passes to the trustee upon sequestration by virtue of paragraph iii. of the section as being property of which he is the “ reputed “ owner. This deprives holders of bills of sale and mortgagees of their security. The amendment proposed by paragraph a will remedy this defect. It will be noted that the proposed amendment is to be made retrospective to the date of the 1932 act, provision being made that any judgment of the court in the matter in the meantime shall not be interfered with. Paragraph 6 of clause 3 meets a position that has been referred to judicially. At present, it is possible, by registering a document purporting to be a bill of sale, and keeping it registered, to provide that the property which is referred to in such document would not be available to the creditors in a bankruptcy, although the document was not really a valid bill of sale.

Paragraph c of clause 3 makes a similar provision regarding assignments of book debts.

Clause 4 which relates to the transfer of trusteeships, is designed to meet an extraordinary case which has arisen - that of a trustee of a large number of estates who desires to resign his office of trustee - and to meet future cases of a similar character. The clause will empower the court, in order to obviate trouble and expense to creditors, in special circumstances, to transfer the trusteeship of all the estates concerned to, a person who is now registered as qualified to act as trustee, and whose previous connexion with the retiring trustee will assure that there will be little dislocation of the continuity of administration of the estates. I commend the bill to the Senate, because it provides for relief from a difficult position which has arisen between the Commonwealth and the States in regard to the relief of debtors, particularly farmers, and will enable the court to do by one order what otherwise would necessitate the appointment of scores of trustees.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I am glad that this legislation has been introduced, and I hope that it will be assented to before Christmas. Western Australia has its Farmers Debts Adjustment Act, of which hundreds of farmers in that State have taken advantage. Similar legislation exists in the other States. I understand that, in a few cases, action has been taken under the federal bankruptcy laws to override the beneficial State legislation; and even where that has not been done, various associations of farmers have obtained legal advice that if any one liked to upset the arrangement, he had power under the federal act to do so. It speaks well for creditors generally that, having the legal power to do these things, they have not taken advantage of it. Representations have been made from time to time to the Commonwealth Government to pass legislation of this kind.

Senator McLachlan:

– The drafting of this bill has been most difficult.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am glad that the Government has made this attempt to deal with the difficulties which have arisen, and to ensure to farmers and other debtors the protection of the beneficial State laws. Only this week I received a communication from the Bankruptcy Trustees Association of Western Australia, asking that they should have restored to them the right which they previously enjoyed under the State bankruptcy legislation to convene meetings of creditors on behalf of their clients. There was a good deal of controversy on this subject, which is still a live one with public trustees, most of whom are chartered accountants, or men holding responsible positions in some other capacity. I see no reason why these trustees should not again enjoy the privilege of convening meetings of creditors. There is nothing in our legislation to prevent bankrupt debtors from employing solicitors. I do not suggest that the right to choose either a solicitor or a public trustee should ‘be limited in any way. I merely ask the Minister to let the debtor in bankruptcy have the right to decide whether he will employ a trustee and a solicitor, or merely a trustee. The federal law provides that he must employ a solicitor. But there seems no valid reason for such a provision. I hope that the Minister will restore the former position, particularly as it gives a debtor in bankruptcy the liberty to please himself, and not to become involved in heavier legal costs than are necessary. I am not insensible of the fact that the legal profession is capably represented on the ministerial bench. I trust that the Minister will deal with every request on its merits.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP

– In my second-reading speech I indicated that this was only a temporary measure to give immediate relief. Other important matters could not be embodied in this bill, which is limited to the insertion of two new sections in, and the amendment of one section of, the principal act. The other matters are being investigated by a parliamentary committee on bankruptcy, which has not yet concluded its labours. Another bill in connexion with which the honorable senator’s amendment to section 157 was considered had to be withdrawn, owing to differences of opinion among members of the legal profession regarding its construction, but the matter has not been overlooked.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee: Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Senator DUNN (New South Wales) [4.33].- I move-

That the following new clause be inserted: - 4 (2) Nothing in this act shall apply to trade union officials in respect of their calling as trustees of trade union funds and effects deemed to be the property of a registered trade union.

Occasionally, trade unions have been made bankrupt because verdicts have been given against them for taking part in strikes. I do not regard any strike as illegal, because men do not leave their jobs in large numbers without just cause.

Senator McLachlan:

– This act does not apply to trade unions or friendly societies. The honorable senator’s proposal would be more appropriate to a bill to amend the Companies Act.

Senator DUNN:

– I see no reason why we should not break new ground. On referring to clause 4, I notice that subsection 3 of proposed new sub-section 130a provides - “Any person to whom the office of trustee of any estate is so transferred shall, for all the purposes of this act, become and be deemed to be the trustee of the estate in lieu of the person from whom the office was transferred, who shall he deemed to have resigned that office.”

I submit that the. trustees of trade unions are covered by the provisions of that sub-section.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee is dealing with a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act, 1924-1932, and its object is to amend certain sections and to insert new sections; but the honorable senator proposes to introduce a matter which is not relevant to the bill. It is not even consistent with the title of the bill. I, therefore, rule that the proposed new clause is out of order.

Senator Rae:

– Sometimes Ministers introduce new matter and amend the title of a bill accordingly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Only when an original measure is under consideration. This bill merely provides for amendments of the principal act.

Title.

Amendment (by Senator McLachlan) agreed to -

That the words “ sections ninety-one and one hundred and ninety-three” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ section ninety-one.”

Question - That the title, as amended, be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 2

Majority . . . . 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5927

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Naval Defence Act - Regulations amended -

Statutory Rules 1933, No. 130.

New Guinea Act - Ordinances of 1933 -

No. 32- Native Labour (No. 3).

No. 33- Police Force.

No. 35 - Natives Taxes (No. 2).

No. 36 - District Courts.

No. 37- Appropriation (No. 3) 1932-1933.

Papua Act - Ordinances of 1933 -

No. 2 - Ordinance Interpretation.

No. 3- Light Dues.

No. 4- Gold-field Reward.

No. 5 - Native Suitors.

No. 8- Customs Tariff.

Customs Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 129.

Nauru Island Agreement Act - Ordinance No. 10 of 1933 - Capitation Tax.

Norfolk Island Act- Ordinances of 1933 -

No. 6 - Exportation of Fruit.

No. 7- Rabbits.

No. 8 - Electrical Wiring.

Taxation - First Report of the Royal Commission, dated 28th August, 1933.

page 5927

DAIRY PRODUCE BILL 1933

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
e rn Australia - Minister for Defence · West · UAP

4.49] . - I declare that this bill is urgent, and move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Question put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 12

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · West ern Australia · UAP

[4.55]. - I now move -

That the time allotted in connexion with the consideration of the remainder of the bill be as follows: -

The second reading of the bill - 2 hours.

The committee stage of the bill - 30 minutes.

The remaining stages of the bill - 10 minutes.

If the Senate agrees to this motion, which must be carried by an absolute majority, I am agreeable to submit another motion to suspend those Standing Orders which would prevent the limitation of speeches on the second reading to twenty minutes instead of one hour, and thus enable a greater number of honorable senators to speak at that ‘ stage. During the last few days, two or three honorable senators have monopolized the whole of the time. This motion must be carried by an absolute majority, and, in view of the circumstances, I trust that it will have the support of the Senate.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

.- I regret that the Government finds it necessary to apply the guillotine at this stage. The members of the ‘Country party are anxious that there should be no unreasonable obstruction of Government business, and throughout the session, we have assisted Ministers. It is extraordinary that, notwithstanding the length of the present session the Senate has adjourned for two or three days at a time during the last few weeks. On one occasion we assembled on a Tuesday and immediately after dinner adjourned until the following Thursday. On two previous occasions the Senate adjourned for a fortnight, when it should have been discussing some of the measures which the Government now proposes to rush through. During the last two or three days bills affecting taxpayers, public servants, and other sections of the community have been under consideration and there has been no suggestion of restricting debate. Now that we are about to consider the three most important bills of the session, all of which affect the great primary industries of this country, the “guillotine “ is to be applied. This chamber has yet to consider the Dairy Produce Bill, the Dried Fruits Bill* and the Wheat Growers Relief Bill. Are we to understand that all these measure are to be subject to the “guillotine”? Are honorable senators, who* represent thousands of primary producers all over Australia, not to be permitted to give these important measures . the attention they deserve? Particularly because the Senate represents the States, it. should have ample time for the full consideration of all bills. We are anxious to assist the Government to conduct the business in a reasonable way, and are willing to return next week, and the week after, if necessary, in order to render some assistance to those great primary industries whose interests are seriously concerned in the legislation I have mentioned. If this motion is carried the Dairy Produce Bill cannot receive detailed attention. The most important of the three measures mentioned, the Wheat Growers Relief Bill, has been considered by the Government for three months. During that time it has apparently found it impossible to decide upon its policy to assist the wheat-growers. At first it was to impose a sales tax on flour; then it decided to obtain funds from the Commonwealth Bank with which to make a payment to the farmers. Finally it returned to a sales tax on flour. The opinions of the people, particularly in the less populous States such as Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, can be more effectively expressed in this chamber. Why are we to be restricted in the manner proposed ? The Government, which has been three months in deciding upon a policy to assist the wheat-growers, has now submitted a bill to place on them the stigma of mendicancy and expects the Senate to pass the measure in three hours. We have every reason to feel disappointed with the action of the Government. Unlimited time has been allowed for the discussion of measures affecting city interests,- but the guillotine is to be applied immediately, bills are introduced affecting the great primary industries of this country. The Senate, as the custodian of the weaker States, would be failing in its duty if it did not strenuously resist this attempt by the Government to curtail discussion on the proposals referred to. Honorable senators on this side desire to have a full debate of the proposal to assist the wheat farmers, and, when the bill is in committee, to bring forward amendments, but apparently that opportunity will be denied to us.

Senator Brennan:

– What is the use of labouring the subject ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I intend to labour it to the full extent allowed by the Standing Orders.

Senator Brennan:

– The honorable senator has a good case. Why spoil it?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I have a good case. Honorable senators representing distant States have, on numerous occasions, arrived in Canberra on a Tuesday morning, only to find that there was not sufficient business to keep them fully occupied. Not long ago, after sitting for three days, the Senate was adjourned for a fortnight. Later, after four or five sittings, it was adjourned for thirteen days, and that was not sufficient time to enable us to return to our homes. The measures about to be brought before the Senate cannot be discussed intelligently under the shadow of “the guillotine “. We should be failing in our ‘duty, as the representatives of the weaker States, if we did not insist on having ample opportunity to consider every aspect of the proposals to be brought before us. Legislation of such an important character should be dealt with properly. Every, honorable senator should have the right to exercise to the full his privileges under the Standing Orders, and should have an opportunity to submit amendments when the bill is in committee. The Government’s action will disfranchise the smaller States, because it will prevent their representatives from expressing their views concerning this important legislation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator BARNES:
Victoria

.- I also protest against the Government bringing into operation “ the guillotine “ so as to limit the time allowed for the discussion of this bill and . other legislation which, we understand, will be before this chamber shortly. Time after time we have been called together only to find that business has not been dealt with elsewhere, and, consequently, there has been nothing for us to do. Then when measures of vital importance to the primary producers come before us - measures which require the gravest consideration - we are told that only two hours will be available for the second-reading stage of the bill. Imagine passing in so limited a time a measure involving the payment of £3,000,000 to a section of the primary producers. It is impossible to deal with the bill adequately in committee in the 30 minutes to be allowed for that stage of the bill. I cannot imagine that any honorable senators, regardless of their views on other questions, would tolerate such treatment. With others, I desire to get away as quickly as possible, but the measures to be brought before us are of such vital concern to a large section of the people that we should all be willing to remain in Canberra until they are disposed of in a deliberate fashion. The Minister introducing the bill will require practically one-half of the time allowed for the second-reading stage to explain its principles, and I feel sure that the deputy leader of “my party (Senator O’Halloran), who is conversant with all phases of the wheat industry, will find it difficult to express his views in the short time that will be allowed to him. I hope that the motion will not be carried.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I am sorry that I cannot support the motion, because I feel that an attempt is being made to use the Standing Orders in a way that was never contemplated. I disagree with the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) when he says that the Wheat Acquisition Bill is an urgent bill. In no sense can it be regarded as urgent, in that the country calls for its passage to-day or to-morrow instead of, say, next week. As Senator Johnston and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) have said, it is an extremely important measure, and one which the Senate should have ample opportunity to consider. But I do not join with those honorable senators in their censure of the Government for having brought forward other measures last week in order to keep this chamber occupied. Nor do I join in their censure of the Minister in regard to the difficulties encountered in bringing various bills before the Senate. Nevertheless, I agree that this chamber should have full opportunity to consider all the legislation brought before it. I foresee a difficulty if we adopt the motion for the application of the “ guillotine.” The Leader of the Senate has promised that, if we carry the motion, and if the Senate is agreeable, he will move for the suspension of the StandingOrders so as to limit the speeches on. the second reading to twenty minutes. But if every hoonrable senator takes his full time, only six members of this chamber can speak to the bill. I assume that they will be the Minister introducing the bill, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes), “Senator Johnston, as the leader of another party, and perhaps also Senator Dunn, who will probably claim the right to be heard. There will then be an opportunity for only two other honorable senators, and I can imagine the feeling of the many honorable gentlemen who will rise simultaneously to catch the President’s eye and their envy of those who get the call. If the motion is carried, and if the right honorable gentleman moves a motion to limit the duration of speeches, it must be carried by ari absolute majority of the Senate. Can he command that majority? If he cannot, we shall experience the application of the “ guillotine “ without those alleviating features which the right honorable the Leader of the Senate has promised us.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If honorable senators agree to the application of the “guillotine,” they will carry the motion for the limitation of the speeches unless they wish to stultify themselves.

Senator BRENNAN:

– There are honorable senators whose actions are dictated, by lines of policy which none of us can understand. Very often steps are taken in certain ways merely to embarrass the Government. But I see the danger that, while we may carry the motion to apply the “guillotine,” the Leader of the .Senate may not be able to command an absolute majority of the Senate, which is necessary to carry a motion to suspend the Standing Orders. I am sorry that I cannot support the motion.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– This is the most wretched act of an inglorious parliamentary session, and, as such, it merits the condemnation of every honorable senator who desires to discharge the obligations which his State expected him to fulfil when it sent him to this chamber. For weeks past, the Senate has been humbugged and harassed by the incompe tence of the Government, which could not for a long time make up its mind to do anything. “When it did get half-way towards a definite decision, a side wind caught it in some sort of alley-way and caused it to change its course again. Only as recently as last Wednesday week the Leader of the Government, speaking after weeks of delay, said that the Government had enough business to last until the rising of Parliament. After that the Senate declared a holiday. During the past two days, when two of the most important measures have been on the notice-paper, and honorable senators have been prepared to discuss them at any time, the Government has persistently side-stepped a discussion of them by re-arranging the items on the noticepaper. In the interval we have filled in time with measures whose appearance in this chamber had been deliberately delayed by the Government. To-day we have dealt with a series of bills which had not to be initiated in the other chamber. Surely it has been known to the Government for a long time that these amendments of the law were necessary. Some of the amendments we have made to-day follow on legal decisions given months ago. During the days when this chamber had nothing to do, because of the delay in the House of Representatives, could we not have been employed in discussing the measures which are now considered urgent, so that time at the end of the session would not be so drastically curtailed? I join with Senator Johnston,- as one who has some knowledge of the conditions of the primary producers, and of what they are suffering as a result of circumstances beyond their control, in lodging a protest against the motion. It is not much encouragement to the harassed fruit-grower, dairy-farmer, or wheat-grower to read in to-morrow morning’s newspapers that the Senate, which is supposed particularly to represent his interests, was so little concerned that 30 out of 36 senators were effectively gagged by the Government. I lodge an emphatic protest against this procedure.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [5.19]. - I am a strong believer in the efficacy and, when the terms are equitable, the fairness of the guillotine ; but I must say that, although I have supported it in the past, I am disappointed to know that only two hours is to- be allowed for the secondreading debate on this bill.

Senator Dunn:

– The honorable senator is beginning to hedge.

Senator Sir WALTER GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– KINGSMILL. - 1 am neither hedging nor ditching.

Senator Dunn:

– Is the honorable senator’s selection ballot in danger in the West?

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– The honorable senator had better perhaps look nearer home, although he is very assiduously working and is making all the speeches he can. This point has nothing to do with the motion, and I shall not further pursue it. I regard two hours as insufficient for the second-reading debate.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator can move an amendment.

Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL:

– I certainly will. I thought that that might destroy the whole motion. The guillotine and an amendment of the Standing Orders are badly needed in this chamber. The necessity for shortening debates is shown by the advantage taken of the Standing Order relating to the first-reading debate on money bills, when we can rely on seven or seven and a half hours of speeches from about five members of the Opposition. Those speeches are usually quite irrelevant, as the Standing Order invites them to be. I hope, therefore, that the. right honorable the Leader of the House will agree to allow four hours for the second-reading debate. I am not sure that there is any urgency for the adjournment of Parliament. Why does this end-of-session hysteria take such a firm hold of this Parliament? Members can get home to the States by Christmas, even the far-away ones, if we sit next week. I suggest that that might be the best way out of the difficulty. The motion suggests undue haste due to the end- of the session hysteria usual in this Parliament. I am very sorry indeed that I . am not in a position to speak very feelingly on this matter, because, unfortunately, I am convalescing from a serious illness, and can- not .attend at all times meetings of the Senate. Thus, perhaps, it may be considered that I am partly out of court. The Government should consider two possible courses - first, whether it is possible to conduct these deliberations at a length which is more in keeping with the importance of the subject; and, secondly, if that is not so, whether it is absolutely necessary to prorogue or adjourn Parliament this week.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister, for Defence) [5.21]. - I ask the leave of the Senate to amend the motion to make it read “ three hours “ instead of “ two hours “ for the second reading.

Leave granted.

Motion amended accordingly.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– No honorable senator will be surprised to hear me once again protest against the method employed in supplying this chamber with the work which we are paid to do. I have over and over again said that I would use every opportunity to protest, and that I would exhaust all forms of the Senate, to make my protest’ as effective as possible. I am entirely opposed to the procedure now suggested. I am not concerned whether the time allowed is three, four, or six hours. I am opposed entirely to a procedure which takes away from any member his right under the Standing Orders to debate, in his own way -and to the best of his ability, every subject that comes before us. My protest is not confined to the last week or two. It is very unsatisfactory to senators who come from distant States to arrive here and find that there is no work ready for them. We sit for half an hour and then adjourn for a day or a day and a half. But my point is that we were not called together in anything like reasonable time. We adjourned last December, and were not called back until June. Parliament should have re-assembled long before that. Had that been done, this unseemly haste would not have been necessary. I do not pose as one who does not appreciate a holiday. I made arrangements to start my holidays on Saturday next, spending some of them here, and the balance in my own state. My holidays, however, have nothing to do with the proposition. We are not sent here by the people to take holidays, but to do the work of the country, for which we are, in my opinion, underpaid.

Senator Hardy:

– The honorable senator has got another £75.

Senator COLLINGS:

-I hare not got another £75. Members of this Parliament have received back a portion of what was taken from us, and we had considerable trouble to get it. Under the proposal now before us, there is no chance of giving to important bills anything like decent or honest consideration. If it is true, as Senator Kingsmill said, that members’ privileges are abused, under the Standing Orders, and that we make speeches that . are irrelevant, the President or Chairman can take the matter in hand. We have to sit here day after day, and night after night, while members are allowed to “ get away with it “. I am not suggesting that I may not be included amongst the sinners Senator Kingsmill has in mind. It is the business of the President or Chairman to see that senators do not make irrelevant speeches, that they do not repeat themselves, and that they do not monopolize most of the time1 of this chamber.

Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill:

– The Standing Order invites them to be irrelevant.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Then let us amend that Standing Order. The serious feature of what is now proposed is that it makes the carrying on of Parliament constitutionally impossible. By what we are proposing to do, we shall encourage, very definitely and deliberately, those who do not believe in constitutional government. We are hastening the time when a majority of the people will declare in favour of a dictatorship, rather than continue the farce which we are making of business in this chamber.

Senator Hardy:

– The dictatorship will not be before its time.

Senator COLLINGS:

– We all know that Senator Hardy has Cromwellian aspirations. I believe, with every bit of sincerity and energy I have, that constitutional government is - the only thing worth preserving, and that when it disappears everything worth while in human existence will .disappear with it. I do not want to see that happen. I plead with the Minister not to persist with this proposal. If he does, he will find that members on this side of the chamber will exhaust every means at their disposal to defeat him. If he forces the proposal through, some of us will be qualified to be thrown out. I promise him that I shall go to the limit in my endeavours to prevent him from succeeding.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I wish to help the Government with its business, but there is one aspect of the matter that has not been touched on this afternoon. Why is it that suddenly these important measures, the Dairy Produce Bill and the Dried Fruits Bill, become so very urgent ? Yesterday afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Barnes) was ready to go on with them, and expected to go on with them, but for its own reasons the Government asked him to apply for the adjournment of the debate. It was known this morning that a great deal of interest is being taken in this matter, because of the comments in the press ; but, instead of going on with the principal business on the noticepaper, we proceeded to discuss a number of unimportant matters.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Most of the bills dealt with this morning had not been to the House of Representatives. The Dairy Produce Bill and the Dried Fruits Bill have come to us from the other chamber.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– The people throughout the country are interested in these measures, which contain provisions that were warmly debated in the other chamber. An attempt is now being made to prevent the Senate from discussing fully the various aspects of these important subjects. I hope that the Senate will not agree to curtail debate on the bills which are of vital concern to the primary producers.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– When I agreed to support the application of the “ guillotine “, I was under the impression that it would not be opposed by the members of the Country party.

Senator Elliott:

– There was not any understanding to that effect.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I do not’ claim that there was an understanding.

Earlier in the day there waa a qualified understanding; but it waa subsequently withdrawn. ,

Senator E B Johnston:

– There was not a qualified understanding.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It was not a definite understanding.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I am concerned only with my own understanding of the position. I was under the definite impression that the Country party did not object to the application of the “ guillotine “, and I thought that, if the party which claims to represent the primary producers was of that opinion, there was no reason why I should object to it. That belief probably affected my decision. Had I known that the members of the Country party would object, I might not have so readily agreed. I intend to support the Government in this matter. It is not my concern to inquire how the mistake arose; but I express the hope that, as the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) has seen fit to make the time for the second reading three hours, instead of two hours, he will lengthen the time for the committee stage to not less than one hour.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– Like other honorable senators, I feel that I must walk to the drum and give my testimony. Although I shall not support the Government in its attempt to apply the “ guillotine I am astonished that “brother” Senator Johnston should say that Ministers were willing to give plenty of time to the discussion of measures affecting metropolitan areas. One would think that Senators Johnston and Hardy were the only custodians of the rights of the primary producers of Australia. I remind them that the Labour party is just as much the custodian of those interests as Ls the Country party. When the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) rose to move his motion, he distinctly mentioned a period of two hours. Both Senator Kingsmill and Senator Brennan were found supporting the Government. The former sat in his place like an idol in a joss house, and the dear doctor of laws from Victoria was like a blackfellows’s dog with fleas on his stomach.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator DUNN:

– I withdraw the expression. The Government has no more slavish camp follower than the learned doctor, of laws from Victoria. He heard the Leader of the Senate say that only two hours would be allowed for the secondreading debate. I shall not support the application of, the guillotine, especially when I see the “ backing and filling “ which has taken place. >

Senator Brennan:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that I “backed and filled”?

Senator DUNN:

– The honorable senator did so when he supported the motion. If he will refer to the Hansard report to-morrow, he will see his name recorded in the division.

Senator Brennan:

– Which division ?

Senator DUNN:

– The division on the motion of urgency. The honorable senator is not so stupid as not to know which division I mean.

The PRESIDENT:

-J. warn Senator Dunn against the use of objectionable terms. I suggest that this is a question which lends itself to sub-division. The proposal of the Leader of the Senate is to increase the time of the second-reading stage to three hours. That might suit some honorable senators, hut the proposed allotment of time to the other stages might not.

Senator REID:
Queensland

.- Honorable senators opposite speak of pre? serving their rights and privileges, but how often have honorable senators had. to sit here and listen to a lot of useless and irrelevant talk from the Opposition benches ? Although they know that their talking will not influence votes, they keep on talking.

Senator Collings:

– If the honorable senator is correct, that was the time for the application of the guillotine.

Senator REID:

– Senator Collings said that the motion moved by the Leader of the Senate would tend to injure Parliament in the eyes of the public. I take the opposite view. If the electors of the Commonwealth were to enter this chamber and observe what goes on, they would set to work to re-organize the parliamentary institution. I do not stand for undue haste in dealing with legislation. This is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, but, except in committee, talking does not accomplish much.

Senator Hardy:

– What will the wheatgrowers and dairymen think of. the attempt to bludgeon through the Senate legislation which vitally affects them ?

Senator REID:

– The proper place for discussion is in committee.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Only half an hour is to be devoted to the committee stage.

Senator REID:

– I object to the way in which the Senate is expected to give way to the House of Representatives. Towards the end of every session there is a rush, and the Senate always suffers. Apparently, honorable members in the other chamber have decided to adjourn this week. Even if we sent the measures back for further consideration, and forced the other House to sit another week, the same trouble would arise with the next Parliament. There are more new members in the present House of Representatives than in any parliament for many years past.

Senator O’Halloran:

– That is largely the cause of the trouble.

Senator REID:

– The legislation of the country cannot be dealt with properly in long continuous sittings at the end of a session. A more orderly conduct of the business of Parliament should be possible. During my parliamentary life I have done my share of talking; but I have learned the wisdom of remaining silent. I have no hesitation in voting for the application of the “guillotine.” In my opinion, twenty minutes is ample for a second-reading speech, and five or ten minutes for each speech in committee. The pages of Hansard are filled with a lot of political propaganda, in which members of both the Country and Labour parties indulge. I do not blame the Opposition, but I do object to the time of Parliament being devoted to speeches which are merely propaganda.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator holds the long-distance record for a speech in the Queensland Parliament.

Senator REID:

– I have become wiser since then; and that is why I usually remain silent. It is high time the rights of the majority in this chamber were safeguarded. We are likely to have an allnight sitting ; yet some honorable senators spoke for three hours yesterday on a matter that might well have been disposed of in a quarter . of an hour. If the Senate ‘ had been summoned eight months ago, the flood of talk would not yet have abated. Even in years when Parliament has been called together three months earlier than usual, no improvement has been noticeable in the rate of progress. Nevertheless, I regret that it has been necessary to- apply the “ guillotine” when measures of special interest to the primary producers are under consideration. The dairymen and the wheatgrowers are not at all interested in what honorable senators have to say on the bills relating to their industries, so long as the measures are passed expeditiously, and they receive the benefits which are to be conferred under them.

Senator Hardy:

– But a reasonable amount of discussion might well improve the basis on which the proposed relief is to be granted.

Senator REID:

– It is a mistake to suppose that the Hansard speeches of honorable senators are widely read, and the press reports are necessarily brief.

Senator Hardy:

– Is the honorable senator prepared to sit in the Senate next week, and give proper consideration to the bills yet to be dealt with?

Senator REID:

– I am quite willing to do that; but I do not believe that the continuation of the sittings next week would alter the position in the slightest degree. We should hear nothing but useless talk and propaganda.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– At one time, Senator Reid belonged to the Labour party, but he changed his views. He may eventually become a Labour man again, because apparently he believes in the abolition of the Senate. If the abbreviation of the speeches made in this chamber is desirable, at what point is the reduction to end? Personally, I think that ample time should be allowed for discussion of the important bills that have yet to be. considered. While some honorable senators advocate general discussions on the measures brought before us from time to time, others prefer to deal with them in detail at the committee stage. Senator Reid falls within the latter category.

Senator REID:

– An honorable senator should be able to deal with the principles of a bill without talking for an hour and a half.

Senator BROWN:

– Differences of opinion will necessarily be found in an assembly of 36 men. If the Government prevents a reasonable amount of discussion on the second reading of the bills providing for assistance to the dried fruits, dairying and wheat industries, it will virtually set up a dictatorship. Members of the Opposition claim that they have the right to discuss fully matters of national importance.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– Honorable senators should ask themselves whether the important measures that are to be ‘placed before us can be adequately considered if the “guillotine” is applied. The bills relating to wheat, dried fruits, and particularly dairy produce, are of paramount importance to the primary producers. Repeatedly the present Government has declared that it believes in fostering primary production, and in encouraging the export industries: but immediately measures of vital moment to those industries are submitted, including a proposal to grant £3,000,000 to assist the wheat-growers-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Tho time allotted for the consideration of this motion has expired.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J”. Lynch.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 14

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to. Suspension of Standing Order 407a.

Motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) proposed -

In any debate in the Senate - 20 minutes.

In any debate in committee - 5 minutes.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [6.0]. - I appeal to those honorable senators who voted against the Government on the guillotine to support this motion, which, if carried, will allow nine honorable senators the full time mentioned in the motion to speak on the second reading of the bill. Representatives of the different political parties in this chamber will thus have an opportunity to participate in th© debate. The speeches delivered on the motion which has just been carried show that twenty minutes will give them a fair opportunity.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- I move as an amendment to the motion -

That the figure “20” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the figure “15”.

If this amendment is carried a greater number of honorable senators will be able to participate in the debate.

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– I shall accept that amendment.

Motion amended accordingly.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– I cannot support the motion moved by the Leader of the Senate-

Senator Sampson:

– Then vote against it.

Senator HARDY:

– I object to being bludgeoned in this way, particularly when the interests of the primary producers are at stake. It appears that certain measures are to be declared urgent to enable honorable senators to leave Canberra to-morrow night, but there is no reason why we should not continue our work here next week and the following week if necessary. During the day, numerous measures were dealt with, but there was no suggestion of restricting debate; but when an important measure such as the Dairy Produce Bill comes before the Senate, the time for debate is limited. I understand that when the bill is in committee the Minister proposes to move a vital amendment, and if that is so he should afford honorable senators an opportunity to debate it.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Only half an hour is to be devoted to the committee stage.

Senator HARDY:

– Yes. As this measure is to be disposed of in this wayI suppose that a similar motion will be submitted when the Wheat Growers Relief Bill and the Dried Fruits Bill are before us. The introduction of the former has been delayed owing to the inability of the Government to formulate a policy to assist the wheat-growers. During recent weeks the newspapers have contained numerous references to this subject, and the Government has changed its policy almost daily. It required about three months to determine the manner in which it would ^assist the wheat-growers, and now that its policy has been embodied in legislation it expects the Senate to pass the bill in three hours. I object to the tactics which the Government has adopted in this instance. It is doing every thing in its power to prevent the primary producers, whom it has always professed to be anxious to help, from receiving justice.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- I do not agree with the opinions expressed by Senator Hardy with respect to this motion. I opposed the application of the “ guillotine “, but now that the time to discuss the bill has been definitely limited, I think that we should support this motion to enable a greater number of honorable senators to speak on behalf of those engaged in the dairying industry. I understand that a similar motion will be submitted when the Wheat Growers Relief Bill and the Dried Fruits Bill are introduced. Now that the Government has adopted this method of disposing of important business, it must carry the responsibility of its action which the primary producers will interpret in their own way. ‘ If this motion is not agreed to only three honorable senators occupying their full time would be able to. discuss the bill on the second reading, but if it is agreed to nine honorable senators will have an opportunity to state, if only briefly, their views. That will give an opportunity for a wider expression of opinion ; I should like to hear the views of as many honorable senators as is possible during the limited time. The responsibility upon the Government is heavy, and its action in limiting discussion on these important measures affecting the primary producers will be broadcast throughout Australia. I intend to support the motion.

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

– The number of senators who will be able to speak if the motion is agreed to is of little consequence ; the vote when the division is taken mli be of more importance. It does not matter very much whether 3 or 23 speak on the second reading because the result will be the same when a vote is taken. I am opposed to the application of the “ guillotine “. I dissent from the opinion expressed that a good deal of time is wasted in discussing irrelevant subjects. Those who complain are usually guilty. The views of honorable senators bore those who listen. No doubt we all suffer in listening to opinions which, because we do not agree with them, we regard as rubbish; but as the other fellow thinks the same about us, one cancels the . other. . I do not think that it is the desire of the Government to prevent members of the Country party from speaking on this bill and others of a similar nature, as suggested by Senator Johnston and Senator Hardy. It is restricting debate because it had not a comprehensive policy to assist primary producers; it could not introduce the bills mentioned until it had formulated a policy. In the first place, it was said that a sales tax was to be imposed upon flour, later it was published in the newspapers that the Commonwealth Bank was to advance £2,500,000, and then another proposal was discussed, which was a cross between the two. Eventually that was abandoned. The Government’s policy to provide assistance to the wheat industry should have been embodied in the budget. It is characteristic of all governments of which I have any knowledge that they waste time in the early part of a session, and then rush important, measures through in a day or two before the session terminates.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator RAE:

– Ever since I first sat in Parliament either as a member or as a visitor, the waste of time in the early part of the session, and the rush at the end of the session, have taken place, and similar complaints have been made at the end of every session. “We are unfortunate in that it is not within the power of this chamber or the Government to know how long a bill will take to pass the House of Representatives. If a bill is delayed in its passage through that chamber, its receipt here is delayed. Steps could have been taken this session, however, to mitigate that by bringing forward earlier the legislation which we. have been rushing through in the last few days. The best thing we could would be to adopt the principle of the two Houses meeting together to discuss measures, and then voting ‘separately. That would enable us to know the views of another place, and them to know our views. I deprecate the suggestion by Senator Johnston and others that there is a deliberate attempt to stifle the discussion of what are called country interests, or that the Government is pandering to metropolitan interests. I am unable to see that there are two separate sets of interests. The interests of the two may differ to some extent, but they are interdependent. The country could not do without the city any more than the city could do without the country. I am not prepared to cut up the time allotted for the second-reading debate. “We must confess that very few changes in the votes are made by ‘ the debates. Every member of ‘the Senate knows now how he will vote on every bill to come forward. So, whether the time is given to one member or cut up among twenty, the result will not be effected. The “guillotine” should never be resorted to unless there has been long and persistent obstruction of Government business. Although some members on this side may be taunted with having during this session spoken too much against the Government, or with having called for divisions unnecessarily, “ I challenge any one to say that there has been anything in the nature of stonewalling. I should like to go home, but I am prepared to stay here another week, or longer if necessary, to give adequate discussion to necessary legislation. This attempt to stifle discussion by applying the guillotine at this stage is most deplorable.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. ( President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 10

Majority

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - There being less than an absolute majority of senators voting in favour of the motion, I declare it negatived.

AYES

NOES

Second Reading

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP

[8.11] . - I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

This bill provides for the regulation of the transfer of butter and cheese from one State to another, and is on similar lines to the Dried Fruits Act which was passed by the. Commonwealth Parliament in 1928. Its main object is to ensure to all producers of butter and cheese a fair share, and not more than a fair share, of the advantages and disadvantages of selling within Australia and overseas. Five years ago Australia exported 45,000 tons of butter. During the year ended the 30th June last, this ‘ total had more than doubled, reaching the high figure of nearly 101,000 tons, of which no less than 93,700 tons was sent to the United Kingdom. The value to Australia of this export trade last year was £9,270,000. Great Britain is the principal purchaser of our dairy products. Indeed, apart from a valuable market for some 6,000 tons in the East, the United Kingdom represents practically the only outlet for our exportable surplus. Year- ‘by year we have been sending greatly increased quantities to that market.

At the same time increasing quantities of New Zealand and Danish butters were being placed on the British market. In these circumstances a fall in prices- in the United Kingdom was inevitable. The present price of Australian butter on the British market is in the region of only 70s. per cwt., which, when the 25- per cent, difference in exchange between English and Australian currencies, and the Paterson plan bounty of 3d. per lb. are added, gies the Australian producer a gross return of ls. Id. per lb. From this, all transport and other charges must be deducted. For some years past, a voluntary scheme known as the Paterson plan, which was designed to assist in ensuring a more remunerative price for butter sold in Australia, has been in operation. Under this plan a levy is paid on all butter manufactured, and from the fund thus created a bounty is paid on all butter exported.

The existence of a bounty on exported butter brings about an automatic increase in the local price, and the dairying industry has profited considerably from this enhanced price. When the Paterson scheme commenced, the export of butter amounted to only one- third of the total Australian production, and the levy of lid. per lb. then in operation was more than sufficient to pay a bounty of from 3d. to 4d. per lb. on the export proportion. The extraordinary growth of our export trade to over 50 per cent, of the total production meant that an increase of’ funds was necessary to pay the same bounty on the greatly increased overseas trade. Consequently, it became necessary either to reduce the rate of bounty or to increase the rate of levy. As a matter of fact both were done, and for the last four years the levy has been paid at the rate of lid. per lb., while at one stage during that period the rate of bounty was as low as 2id. per lb., but is now 3d. per lb.

In ‘view of the voluntary nature of the Paterson scheme, it has been found difficult by the dairying industry to sustain it. During the past few months there has been an increasing tendency on the part of factories to break away from the scheme, and the industry claims that another section of producers - that is, the people who make butter on farms - is not making any contribution towards the stabilization plan. These persons, with the factories which have broken away from the plan, are reaping the full benefits of the improved conditions made, possible by means of the Paterson plan. In consequence of these circumstances, and because of the large amount of butter being exported, the scheme is rapidly losing its effectiveness. The question of introducing State and Federal measures on the lines of the existing dried fruits legislation was first discussed at- a conference of Ministers for Agriculture held in May last, and in the following month the matter was further discussed at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers at which the Commonwealth Government agreed that it would fully consider any proposal for the introduction of federal enabling legislation in the event of the adoption by the States of marketing measures in respect of butter. The States of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, which, in the aggregate, produce approximately 90 per cent, and 80 per cent, of the total output of butter and cheese respectively in Australia, have either enacted or are in the process of enacting legislation under which a board will be established in each of those States to regulate the intra-state marketing of butter and cheese.

One of the principal provisions in each of the State measures empowers the respective State Ministers in conjunction with the proposed boards, to determine the quantities of butter and cheese which may be sold on the home market. The States, however, are not empowered to regulate the interstate transfer of goods, and without such regulation it would not be possible to ensure that the balance of the butter and cheese in excess of that determined for home consumption shall be exported overseas. To meet this position, it is essential that there shall be Commonwealth legislation which will prohibit interstate trade in butter and cheese except under licence, which licence will only be granted on the condition that the licensee shall comply with export quotas fixed by the Minister for Commerce. These export quotas will be determined on the recommendation of prescribed authorities appointed by the Commonwealth. In those States where boards are established under State legislation, it is proposed to appoint those boards as prescribed authorities. The system of export quotas prevents price cutting on the Australian market, and assures that the producer shall take his fair share of the less remunerative export markets; in other words, it assures that the burden of export is equally shared. The Government has given much consideration to the proposal to apply a system of control to’ the dairying industry in relation to interstate trade which will not necessarily involve any increase of the price to the Australian consumer in excess of the additional cost at present brought about by the operation of -the Paterson plan. The. Government believes that it is necessary in the interests of the industry that those engaged in it should be protected by legislation against the possibility of glutted home markets and consequent adverse realizations. The provisions of the bill are not to be brought into operation until a date to be fixed by proclamation. In this connexion, the Government has decided that the pro clamation shall not be issued until appropriate steps have been taken to protect the consumers against any unreasonable increase of the local price above London parity. A clause to this end has already been inserted in the bill which is now before the Victorian Parliament. The bill provides that a poll of the producers shall be taken within six months after, the commencement of the act to decide whether the legislation shall continue to operate. Notwithstanding the assurances given to the Government by representatives of the industry that a majority of the producers are favorably disposed towards marketing legislation of this nature, it is considered desirable that the producers should be given the opportunity of expressing their mind on the matter.

The bill, which has been in the hands of honorable senators for some time, is selfexplanatory. Clause 3 provides for the taking of a poll; clause 4 contains the definitions. The rest of the measure has been, based on the dried fruits legislation which has already received the imprimatur of this chamber.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– I welcome the bill, and will give it my wholehearted support; but I cannot allow this occasion to pass without giving some consideration to the merits of the scheme which is proposed to implement and the general condition of the dairying industry of Australia to-day as the result of conditions which have existed for a number of years. Before proceeding to consider these general principles, I must express my amazement at the way in which the present conservativeminded government, which professes to abhor everything of a socialistic nature, is prepared to accept the principles of socialism when it suits its purpose to do so. The principles incorporated in this bill are those for which we on this side have been fighting since the Labour party came into existence, and which are anathematized by the occupants of the ministerial benches at election time. It is pleasing to me that circumstances are removing the barriers which hamper the progress of both producers and workers. This advance raises within me the hope that those .better times which ‘ we on this side visualized when we first identified ourselves with the policy of the Labour party, and have fought for ever since, are not so distant as immediate circumstances would lead some to believe. As the Minister explained, the action taken by this Parliament is largely the result of a conference of Ministers of Agriculture held early this year, and of a later conference of Premiers which affirmed the desirability of taking steps along such lines. After our experience of the legislation to control the dried fruits industry, there should be no hesitation in accepting a similar form of control for the dairying industry. The legislation for the control of the dried fruits industry has been singularly successful, and I predict that the ‘control of the dairying industry proposed in this measure will be beneficial to producers and consumers of butter alike. One of the reasons for my support of this proposal is that it really makes for the end of the Paterson butter scheme as we know it to-day. I believe that in some parts of Australia, notably, in Queensland, the manufacture pf butter is a truly, cooperative activity: In Victoria and New South “Wales, there is a fair measure of co-operation, but in South Australia, the making of butter is either left entirely to private enterprise, or is placed in the hands of co-operative organizations, one of which has been accused of having been run more as a limited liability company than as a truly co-operative concern. For some time, there have been grave’ misgivings as to whether the producers of butter in. South Australia are getting the benefit they should from the higher price of butter in that State. .Some gentlemen prominently connected -with the industry say that the producers of butter in South Australia are not getting 50 per cent, of the benefit of the higher prices of butter in that State. So far as figures can be relied on, they undoubtedly support that view. The difficulties have been accentuated by the action of the South Australian Government in curtailing the operation of the government butter factory at Port Adelaide, which was established by a Labour government many years ago to protect the dairy farmers from exploitation by private butter factories. As the years passed, various Tory governments in that State sought to destroy the factory, and now I understand its discontinuance is only a matter of months. I do not know what attitude the Premier of South Australia adopted at the conference, but he has expressed some opposition to the proposals of the Commonwealth Government as outlined in this bill. I hope that his opposition will not prevent the Commonwealth from taking whatever steps it can in the interests of the dairying industry. I believe that effective steps can be taken, with the co-operation of the marketing organizations of the States, to ensure that the benefits of this legislation shall be conferred on the primary producers of South Australia. Although I know that South Australia does not compare with New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland as a producer of butter, the dairying industry is of great importance to that State. It ‘is particularly important because of the great decline of the price of wheat in recent years, which has forced the growers to look to dairying and other small-farm operations to stave off the day when they may be forced into the insolvency court. One of the tragedies of recent years is that these men, who deny themselves and their families butter, cream and milk, on their own tables, have been at the mercy of the exploiting associations in South Australia. As this proposal embodies the only principles which can be adopted to protect both the producer and the consumer from this form of exploitation, it will receive my support.

The butter production in South Australia last year amounted to 17,663,000 lb. An increase or decrease of the price of butter by Id. per lb. represents about £73,000 to the farmers engaged in its production. For a useful comparison we must take the figures of pre-war days. At that time the State Butter Factory in South Australia did its best work, for it was the largest manufacturer of butter. It is necessary to ascertain the gross and net returns, and1 compare the manufacturing and other charges of those days with the present costs. A comparison discloses an astounding position. In prewar years, the practice of butter factories was to charge a flat rate of Id. per lb. for manufacturing butter from cream supplied by the dairy-farmers. In addition, a commission of 5 per cent, for selling and overhead costs was charged, and the only additional cost which the farmers had to meet was the average freight from the farm to the factory. Taking the average for the whole State, this charge worked out at about lid. per lb. The average can of cream in those days contained 5 gallons, and I believe that cans of that size are still used. Each yields about 25 lb. of butter, when cream is run through the separator at the thickness which is most desirable for the production of butter of good quality. Taking the market price of the butter at ls. per lb., each 5-gallon can of cream gave a return of 25s. for the 25 lb. of butter. The manufacturing charge for each can amounted to 2s. Id., freight and cartage cost 3s.’ lid., and commission ls. 3d., a total of 6s. 5½d., leaving a net return to the producer of 18s. 6½d. Comparing the pre-war figures with those operating to-day, we find that the present manufacturing charge is 2½d. per lb., or 5s. 2½d. a can. I have allowed for rail charges and cartage at the ruling rate, which is slightly higher than the pre-war charge, but for comparative purposes I have put down the average price at the pre-war figure of ls. per lb., therefore, the can of cream returns 25s. worth of butter. Freight, &c, amount to 3s. lid., which makes the total deduction from the return 8s. 4d., and thus leaves a net return to the producer of 16s. 8d. Compared with the pre-war return of 18s. 6£d., the producer receives ls. 10-Jd. a can less for his butter. If I had taken the actual figures for the purpose of this comparison, a smaller return would be shown. ‘This is why honorable senators from South Australia desire to see that the producers of butter are not sweated, in order that an unduly cheap product may be marketed or exorbitant profits made by the privately-owned factories.

Senator Brennan:

– Did the private companies oust the State institution from the field?

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Government institution was placed at a disadvantage first by a Liberal government in 1927 by the introduction of preferential railway rates.

That government put a ring round the government butter factory, and charged about twice as much to carry cream inside that ring as it charged outside it. This action was assisted, of course, by the operation of the Paterson butter scheme. The privately-owned factories fixed the levy, and the manner of its distribution. They secured their own profits first and the figures that I have quoted abundantly prove the contention of many capable men in the trade that out of the total levy paid by the people of South Australia under the Paterson scheme, approximately 50 per cent, went in increased profits to the privately-owned factories. That is one of the reasons why the scheme broke down in my State. The farmers grew tired of the small returns received by them and the charges levied for manufacturing the butter. They then began making it on their own farms, and sending it to the stores for distribution within the State. A policy such as that, if carried sufficiently far, would, of course, defeat its; own object. Eventually the over-supplied market and the competition from the eastern States forced the price down to a ruinous level. Another factor that operated against the Paterson scheme was that its effect, in many cases, was destroyed through the sale of butter at low prices in London. It has been pointed but to me that those responsible for the export of butter from South Australia, instead of holding out for the higher price that the favourable exchange rate should have made possible, used portion of the exchange advantage to undersell their competitors on the London market. This probably had a detrimental effect on the selling prices of Australian butter.

I presume that the operation of this bill, providing as it does for organized marketing control, will have the effect of eliminating competition of that kind. We may look forward to better organization on the selling side, and improved returns to the producer, whilst the consumers, who will be charged an Australian price for butter will know that they are assisting the dairy-farmers of this country. I welcome this measure most heartily. As a result of it, those engaged in the dairying industry should receive better prices than they have had pf late years ; but a fair’ return will be assured to the manufacturers. The price received by the farmers will he consistent with the Australian conditions for which the Labour party has always stood.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- As I am probably the only dairy-farmer in this chamber, I propose to speak briefly upon this important measure. I am deeply interested in the development of the latent resources of this country, and particularly in our export trade. I congratulate the Government upon introducing this measure in its present form. Honorable senators will agree that clause 5 is the most important provision; it is identical with a section in similar legislation already enacted by this Parliament. The first measure of this description was that to control the export of dried fruits, which was passed in 1928. That measure has been in operation for over five years’, and has given great satisfaction to those engaged in that industry, which has been enabled to ascend from the depths of despair to a pinnacle of prosperity. In fact, it is one of the most prosperous exporting industries in Australia to-day. When the bill to provide assistance to those engaged in the dried fruits industry was introduced the people concerned were unable to meet their obligations. They were searching for persons to buy their blocks, but they could not find any buyers ; to-day the block-holders will not sell their properties. Clause 3 is another important provision, and I am glad that, in the poll to be taken, a bare majority has been provided for in the bill as it now stands. I trust that the Government will not press its amendment requiring a majority of 60 per cent. The Minister who introduced the bill mentioned that the United Kingdom is the main outlet for our exports of dairy produce, particularly butter. He is quite right, and I am glad that he is watching that important market. The Minister also mentioned the Danish competition in that market; but, if he had .proceeded a little further in dealing with that aspect _ of the subject, he would have realized the absolute need for the Government to assist those engaged in the dairying industry to manage their own affairs. Pro bably the main cause ofl, the reduced, prices obtained for Australian butter as compared with the prices of the Danish product, was that disorganized selling has been operating against organized buying. If this measure will not do anything else it will prevent that. As the result of its operation we shall have organized selling operating against organized buying, and Australian butter should realize a higher price in the London market. The tendency in Australia is to concentrate upon Tooley-street, and to overlook the need for creating goodwill with the actual consumers in the United Kingdom and stimulating the demand for Australian butter. E.o.b. selling in competition with c.i.f. and consignment operations has a tendency to depress prices. The passage of this measure will have the effect pf bringing home to those engaged in the industry the necessity to act in closer co-operation with the consumers in the great United Kingdom market. The Danish producers keep in close touch with the consumers, and organize extensive publicity and activity on the port of selling organizations, and Australia must adopt a similar policy. Honorable senators should welcome the opportunity to give the assistance proposed to this important Australian industry. Owing to the slackness of marketing operations and the competition between f.o.b. and consignment sales in October and November of last year, the price of the Australian product decreased while that of Denmark was maintained at a price of 37s. per cwt. higher.

Senator Grant:

– Our Dairy Produce Export Control Board has its representative in London.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– More than that is needed. I shall not illustrate the advantages to be derived from this legislation by dealing in detail with the dried fruits industry. This is not an experiment; we know that a similar measure has been the means of making that industry prosperous. Although I congratulate the Government upon deciding to provide for a bare majority in the poll which will eventually be taken, I would have been quite satisfied had no provision been made for a poll at all. I do not consider that a poll is necessary because there is nothing of an experimental nature in the scheme. A poll must be taken, but I am glad to find that the act will be proclaimed and become operative and that the poll will be taken six months later. A simple majority will be quite sufficient, particularly when we . consider the difficulties associated with taking polls of this description. The referendum originated in Switzerland, and eventually the Swiss people, after successive failures to get an affirmative vote, decided to take a referendum on the abolition of the referendum, but even on that issue they could not get the requisite affirmative majority.

Senator Grant:

– Why should not provision be made for taking a poll immediately?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– That would only mean postponing the decision. In view of past experience, organized control is sure to be endorsed by an overwhelming majority.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does the honorable senator think that there is anything to fear from a poll if the scheme is likely to prove so satisfactory?

Senator ELLIOTT:

– I am glad to hear that the Minister agrees that the advantages of the measure are so great that it is hardly necessary to have a poll.

Senator Grant:

– The Minister did not say that.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– At any rate, I have dealt adequately with the interjection. The advantages to be derived from the enactment of this legislation are so great that it is hardly necessary to occupy much time in discussing its provisions. Although the Government was defeated in its attempt to limit the speeches on the second reading of the bill to twenty minutes, I shall not take advantage of the opportunity I now have to speak for an hour. The case in support of the bill is so strong that it does not need any advocates. I trust that the measure ‘will be passed in its present form, and, if it is, I can assure honorable senators that my colleagues in the dairying industry will be delighted. I am also convinced that the Government will receive the thanks of thousands of people throughout Australia. The enactment of this legislation will place the dairying industry on a sound basis, and will give butter exporters a wonderful opportunity to take advantages of the benefits awaiting them in the British market. I shall do all in my power to assist the bill to have a speedy passage.

Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland

– It is not my intention to mislead honorable senators by saying that I am a dairy-farmer, although at one time I was engaged in a capitalistic enterprise as part owner of 30 cows and 200 sheep. I join with “ newspaper editor, dairy farmer, dried fruits “ Senator Elliott in congratulating the Government upon the introduction of this bill, which is in accordance with one of the planks- of the Labour party’s platform. It is sectional socialism, and in this instance will benefit those engaged in dairy-farming. ‘Some may call it co-operation ; but it is actually socialism. There are several features of this legislation upon which I should like to comment. I am” glad that in connexion with the poll provision has been made for a bare majority. Clause 5 is the principal provision in the bill; under it the export of butter from Australia will be controlled. It is preferable to the Paterson scheme, which was one of voluntary co-operation. During the depression, the organization became somewhat weakened, but now that we are giving the scheme a further measure of legislative sanction it is necessary that we should safeguard the producer in this formal union. The business of butter production in Australia calls for close governmental supervision in relation to, not only prices charged for butter and cheese, but also expenditure in connexion with buildings and the provision made for plant and equipment. Clause 5 provides for the licensing of prescribed authorities for the purpose of regulating interstate trade in dairy produce. This clearly shows that the nation is taking charge of the butter industry.

Senator Brennan:

– That is so.

Senator MacDONALD:

– I am glad to have the confirmation of so high a legal authority as the honorable senator. In this matter he and I think alike, and, therefore, we may regard ourselves as at least two of The Three Tailors of Tooley- street - Tooley-street .being the London locality of the bulk of the transactions in butter.

Probably some honorable members will remember that last year I brought to the notice of the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce (Senator MacLachlan) the report of a royal commission concerning secret commissions that were paid in the industry in Queensland. That State is the second largest butter producer of all the Australian States, and contributes 60 per cent, of the exports of butter and cheese. Practically the whole of that export trade is from the Darling Downs district. As I have said, I brought before the Minister last year the matter of secret commissions that were being paid by co-operative factories and other producers. I mentioned also that a royal commissioner appointed by the Queensland Government, which had taken a very serious view of the facts that were disclosed during his inquiry about £30,000 in secret commissions being paid to certain Queensland co-operative factory managers and directors. So far as my own inquiries are concerned, I was not. and am not, in any way interested in any Queensland company, factory or machinery firm. My sole purpose was to uncover the facts relating to these secret commissions and to ascertain whether or not the practice was widespread in Australia. It seemed to me that if similar practices prevailed in the other States the amount paid away in secret commissions would be in the vicinity of £100,000, or possibly £200,000. The Minister did not give me a specific answer, but directed me to the report of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board, but, I may add, I got no satisfaction. I assumed however, that the Commonwealth Government itself was, at the time, making enquiries into the matter, and that the Minister’s somewhat evasive answer could be left for the time as perhaps necessary to prevent the leakage of information regarding the Government’s intentions. Accordingly, I let the matter drop for the time being, in the hope that later I would be able to mention it -again, and obtain more specific information. It is obvious that if the practice of paying secret commissions is general in an in- dustry which has ample protection, the cost involved must be added to the prices charged to consumers. As representatives of the public, we have a right to know exactly how this business of butter production in Australia is being managed. The same may be said of the sugar industry, the dried fruits industry, and, in fact, of any industry over which we have established governmental supervision. I hope that the Minister will, before long, be in a position to give me a more satisfactory reply about the matter.

I congratulate the Government upon this step to semi-nationalize the dairying industry. This branch of farming is expanding so rapidly that we cannot afford to let the dairymen down. We must, by legislative enactments, see that they get a fair return for their products. The eighth annual report of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board for the year ended the 30th June, 1933, states that requests were made to the oversea shipping companies for a reduction of freights. In support of its application, the board’s report referred to the serious position of the dairyman in Australia, and pointed out that prices had fallen considerably since the agreement with the shipowners had been entered into, and that, on the other hand, the business of the shipowners had very materially improved, vessels on the outward voyage carrying considerably more cargo than formerly. Finally, the report stated that the board considered that the freight reductions were not satisfactory, and that the shipowners had given no sound reason for the rates from New Zealand being so much lower than those from Australia. Freights from Australia on butter are £8 14s. 8d. per ton, and from New Zealand, £7 5s. 4d. As the difference in exchange between the two countries was then only 3 per cent. - Australian exchange on London at that time being 18 per cent., and New Zealand 15 per cent. - the difference in freight on butter was roughly 15 per cent.

This unfair treatment of Australian butter producers in respect of overseas freights clearly shows the need for a Commonwealth shipping line.. The maintenance of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers was at one time on the platform of the Victorian Country party. There is definite need, at the present time, for competition with overseas shipping companies by the establishment of a government line of steamships.

Queensland, as I have stated, is largely interested in the dairying industry. The annual show of dairy produce in Brisbane is, I believe, the finest south of the Line. It must be a revelation to people from the southern States who attend it for the first time. Queensland’s .butter exports last year amounted to 32,807 ‘tons, as compared with 35,072 tons from Victoria, and 17,000 tons from New South Wales. This industry is very important to us, and we want to do the best by it, and by the consumer. A reduction of shipping charges and the cutting out of secret commissions in connexion with the equipment of butter factories will help both the farmer and the consumer. I support the second reading of the bill.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I am whole-heartedly opposed to the bill. To put it in plain English, I am frightened of it. It is a most dangerous measure. I could not discover whether Senator Elliott was discussing the Dried Fruits Bill or the Dairy Produce Bill, or whether he proposed to feed his cows on raisins and currants. The one thing that seemed intelligible in his speech was that he welcomed the bill because it would give to the producer control of the marketing of his products, but to my mind it is the absolute negation of the contention of Senator Elliott. I am quite satisfied that it will take from the butter producers of the Commonwealth the absolute right to determine how, when, where, and at what prices their export butter shall be sold. It will have a very detrimental influence on the industry generally.

I had the opportunity recently to talk with a gentleman who was sent to England last year to investigate this matter on behalf of the board. After my conversations with him, I believe absolutely that the present state of the market overseas has been very largely brought about by the operations of the board. The bill means the complete abolition of f.o.b. and c.i.f. and e. selling of butter. The board, for a good while past, has been endeavouring to bring this about. Its contention is that all butter should be sold on consignment, and it has indirectly effected that by fixing, .an Australian price above the London price, thus practically putting a stop to f.o.b. and c.i.f. and e. sales. We, on this side of the chamber, have maintained, for as long as I can remember, that there should be absolute freedom of trade, that the channels of trade ought not to be cluttered up and dammed by governmental regulation and interference. The mess will be worse under the bill than it is at present. It is- impossible for any organization in Australia, or anywhere else, to control world’s markets. London is the world’s principal market for butter and every other commodity. How a control board operating in Australia can have any appreciable effect on a market of that magnitude passes my comprehension. Any one who believes it is a super-optimist. Our contribution to that great market is comparatively small, and its effect is almost negligible. I have found it very interesting to read some extracts from the debate that took place in the House of Representatives in 1924. As reported on page 4620 of volume 109 of Hansard, Mr. Fenton said -

I should like the Prime Minister to say definitely whether the board will have the power under this bill to compel factories to export a portion of their butter whether or not they so desire.

To that Mr. Bruce replied -

The board will not have any such power.

Later, on page 4635, Mr. Bruce said -

The honorable member for Richmond asks that the board shall be given complete control, but the Government cannot accept his suggestion. Nor does the Government intend that the board shall have partial control. Our proposal is that the board shall lay down the terms and conditions under which licences to export shall be issued, and when licences have been issued by the Minister there will be nothing to prevent export through the ordinary channels.

Later on the same page, Mr. Bruce said -

It lias never been contemplated that the board should have the power to specify the quantity to be exported or the places to which it shall go.

On page 4722 of the same volume of Hansard Senator Wilson, the Honorary Minister, is reported as having said -

We do not wish to interfere in any way with trade and commerce.

This hill will interfere absolutely with trade and commerce in a most arbitrary and autocratic way. Later on Senator Wilson again said, as reported on page 4725-

There will be no interference with those who are doing a legitimate butter business on the other side of the world. Rather will that business be encouraged.

I may be reminded that those statements were made a long while ago; but, although nine years have elapsed since, I am old-fashioned enough to maintain that they still hold good. Catch phrases and slogans sound well. Our great slogan, when I first came into the Senate seven years ago, was “ orderly marketing.” It was said that, if only we could have orderly marketing we would have good prices, and that trade, commerce and primary and secondary industries would be profitable. We had a sample of orderly marketing of butter two years ago, and New Zealand still remembers the very bitter lesson. The idea is, I suppose, to feed the market in an orderly manner, dribbling the commodity in from time to time. That was tried with another great commodity - wheat - in 1928, with disastrous results from which the world is still suffering to-day. If a commodity is held back and placed in cool store, or anywhere else, the_ world knows it is there, and knows that it must come into the market sooner or later. The fact that it is in cool store is taken into the calculation. Thus we get back to the old law - which some persons maintain is a fallacy - of supply and demand. This bill, notwithstanding the’ blessings and glowing panegyrics of my dairying senator friend from Toorak, will not help in the least. On the contrary, it is quite conceivable that it will do a tremendous amount of harm. If this proposal is sound and logical, let us go the whole hog, and embrace socialization. ‘This bill will hamper the industry, and will not help the producer or the dairyman. I personally am very disappointed - I will not say disheartened - that a government of which I am a supporter should bring in a bill of this nature. It is full of- pitfalls. I hope that an amendment which I intended to move, but which will be moved on behalf -of the Government, that a 60 per cent. majority should be required at the poll, will be adopted. Something more than a bare majority is necessary. We need to get the real pulse of the industry as a whole. I could go on at great length with this question of freedom of trade and f.o.b. marketing; but why should I labour it? I cannot support this bill at all. It is on absolutely wrong lines, and is contrary to everything I stand for in respect of trade, commerce and industry. . I believe in freedom of trade. As this bill does not provide for such freedom I shall vote against its second reading.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– I view this measure with distaste. If I could defeat it I would. The only thing in its favour is that, as governments have taken a hand in almost everybody’s business, it will have to take a hand in that of the rural producer. They have prescribed the wages which shall be paid to one lot of men, and have restricted the working hours of’ others; they have told men what they must eat and where they must sleep, and have imposed various other restrictions, all of which in the long run place a burden on the rural producer. Now the rural producer claims” his quid pro quo, and asks for his share of the plums which are being distributed. I have a tempered welcome for this bill, also, because it brings us nearer to the completion of that great circle which, when completed, will mean that everybody will be living on everybody else. When the primary producer gets something in the nature of a- quid pro quo, and the circle is complete, the people may decide that, instead of living on one another, they will get back to nature, and shake off the bonds that bind them. I am afraid, however, that the trend is rather towards the fastening of more bonds upon ourselves. If I were to seek for reasons for opposing this bill, I would look first to the reasons which Senator O’Halloran finds for supporting it. The very reasons which makes it attractive to him are those which cause me to oppose it. Apparently, the honorable senator glories in the introduction of this kind of legislation, for in it he sees the closer approach of that day when the means of production, distribution, and exchange will be socialized. The honorable senator rejoices at the introduction of this bill) because it enables him to say, “ I told you so ; at last you are coming to our way of thinking “. It is no wonder that the honorable senator rejoices. But the things which gladden the heart of Senator O’Halloran fill me with mistrust and misgiving. I shall not say, as Senator Sampson did, that this measure contains many pitfalls. Rather will I say that it opens before us the broad road that leads to that happy state which causes Senator O’Halloran to rejoice.

Senator Hardy:

– “Would the honorable senator describe the “ N.I.R.A.” of the United States of America as an experiment in socialism.

Senator BRENNAN:

– It is socialism of some kind, but regarding it I prefer to adopt the Asquithian attitude of “ wait and see “.

Senator Crawford:

– Without it there would have been a revolution in the United States of America.

Senator BRENNAN:

– And there will probably be a revolution with it. Senator O’Halloran sees in this bill something which will be for the good of both the producer and the consumer. I can understand that he does desire to go to the consumers of South Australia and tell them that, although this measure is designed .to raise the price of butter, it is of advantage to them.

Senator O’Halloran:

– The Paterson butter scheme raised the price of butter. Senator BRENNAN. - On an appropriate occasion we shall probably find Senator O’Halloran telling the electors of South Australia that legislation of this kind introduced by the Lyons Government was the cause of the increased price of bread. Senator Elliott comes forward with his catchcry, “ organized marketing “ or “ disorganized selling against organized buying.” How did the world advance to its present position? Call it disorganized marketing if you like, but I prefer to call it individual enterprise, under which every man is at liberty to sell his produce as he thinks best, so long as he does not trespass on the liberties of others.

Senator Hardy:

– Does not a simple majority control the nation?

Senator BRENNAN:

– I ;am afraid that it does not.

Senator Hardy:

– But the honorable senator would object if a minority of the electors of Victoria said that he had not been elected to the Senate.

Senator BRENNAN:

– A mere chance majority of one may be obtained as the result of the vote of an imbecile or other person of low intelligence. That is not the question here; it is whether a bare chance majority of 51 per cent, of the voters can claim the right to deprive the 49 per cent, minority of their God-given right to dispose of their own property in their own way.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– A bare majority might establish a monopolistic undertaking.

Senator BRENNAN:

– These are hard times for the primary producer. A grievous burden has been laid upon him. It is a time when he is inclined to listen to any political nostrum. But some of these nostrums violate every principle that I hold dear.

Another reason for my opposition to this bill is that in my opinion it is based upon error - that error is indicated by clauses 5, 6 and 7. The only way in which the scheme can operate is by the Commonwealth coming to the aid of the States, because the States cannot interfere with the freedom of interstate trade and commerce. I am not prepared to believe that when section 92 of the Constitution was passed - a section which it is said is couched in layman’s language - it did not mean what it said. Section 92 of the Constitution reads -

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation shall bo absolutely free.

Senator Hardy:

– There have been many restrictions since then.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Thai provision of the Constitution according to judgments delivered on many occasions, and on a variety of subjects, bound Commonwealth and State alike. When ultimately it was held that the provisions of section 92 were addressed to the States, and not to the Commonwealth, legislation similar to that now before us was immediately introduced. I tell the Leader of the Senate that there are clear indications that the day is not far distant when section 92 of the Constitution will be read as the present Chief Justice of the High Court has said throughout, that it should be read - as addressed alike to Commonwealth and States. If that day comes, then this bill falls. But in the meantime, whatever the Government may see fit to do, I cannot, whatever be the judicial opinion on the subject, profess to see in section 92 anything but what its plain words say is in it and what the people of Australia believed was in it when they enacted it. I have strong objection to the Socialist element eating its way among the sturdy people of this country.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– Senator Brennan opposes this bill apparently because it is warmly supported by Senator O’Halloran. What matters it from which political quarter support of the measure may come, so long as it benefits those who need help? The dairymen are in urgent need of assistance, and they will have to decide the fate of this legislation. Palatial residences have been built in South Australia by the members of firms such as Sandford and Company, Brice and Company, and Wilcox and Company, who have exploited the dairyman for years. They have not received his cream and manufactured it into butter out of love for him, but because they have been able to make a handsome profit for themselves. Some of them have raked off huge fortunes.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– How many of them have done that?

Senator HOARE:

– Quite a number. I know one man who left £83,000. If these manufacturers found butter-making profitable, it should pay the dairy farmers to place their products on the market by an organization of their own without interference by the middlemen of King William-street, Adelaide, Bourke-street, Melbourne, and Sussex-street, Sydney, who have exploited the dairy farmers. The introduction of this bill is due to the failure of the Paterson scheme. I am not aware of any dairymen in South Australia who now favour it. They consider that it cost them too much. Had the scheme proved satisfactory, it would have been in operation to-day. Senator Brennan said that we on this .side would not tell the people that this measure would increase the price of butter. We have already informed the people that by placing a duty of 6d. per lb. on butter, the consumers would have, to pay an additional £4,000,000. I am under the impression that the scheme provided for by this bill will cost the consumers less than was paid by them under the’ Paterson scheme. The figures ‘quoted hy Senator O’Halloran show that the dairy farmer was better off prior to the adoption of this scheme than after its inauguration. The Government is to be congratulated on bringing down this measure, and I have every confidence that it will help the man on the land. I know dairymen who have informed me that their income is not more than £2 a week. Every day is a working day in their industry, and they are employed for long hours. If these men cannot obtain a decent living after working many’ hours daily for seven days every week, their conditions should be so altered that they could at least obtain the basic wage. Of course, they are entitled to a great deal more than that.

During the last five years, the exportable butter surplus of Australia has increased by 56,000 tons per annum, and New Zealand has increased its exports by 40,000 tons per annum. Of the 96,000 tons of increased exports from Australia and New Zealand, Great Britain has re,ceived about 90,000 tons. Denmark has added to its production enormously. The Australian output has been increased as the result of the improvement of dairy herds. Some years ago, when I had a dairy farm, any old cow was considered good enough, and at that time, the Australian dairy herds were probably the worst in the world. New Zealand, however, did much to improve its herds; it concentrated on . two main breeds and kept them pure. Australian dairymen have now realized that a well-bred cow is no more costly to keep than a mongrel; but it gives infinitely better returns. If the dairy farmers of this country understand their business, they will accept the proposal outlined in this bill most eagerly, for I believe that it will confer one of the greatest benefits ever given to the industry. I wish the dairy farmers all the success that they deserve.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- I intend to oppose the second reading of this bill, because it involves the socialization of industry. The less governments have to do with this industry, the better it will be for all parties, including the dairyfarmers. The Paterson scheme has, on the whole, worked fairly well, but when we consider what has been attempted by sales on an f.o.b. and c.i.f. basis we find that Australian stocks havebeen accumulating on the London market where they are practically unsaleable while New Zealand has been securing at least 75 per cent, of the trade. New Zealand was prepared to meet existing marketing conditions while the export control board, operating on behalf of Australia, was keeping up prices to a prohibitive degree which prevented the sale of the Australian product. In 1931 proposals were made for the restriction of sales of export butter before it left Australia. These proposals were exhaustively considered by those controlling butter factories throughout the Commonwealth, and the vote in New South Wales showed that by a majority of 21, they were in favour of freedom of trade. At a conference of co-operative and proprietary companies held in Melbourne it was unanimously decided that there should be no interference with the existing method of trading. The board having before it facts submitted by some members who had been to London that year rejected the proposal for restriction by twelve votes to one after a discussion which lasted two or three days. During last year, two members of the Export Control Board, Mr. Osborne and Mr. Powell, of Tasmania, went to London to investigate matters Mr. Osborne’s report was widely circulated, although owing to ill-health, his investigations lasted only a few weeks. Mr. Powell not only travelled extensively through Great Britain, but also visited various continental countries from which butter was being exported to Great Britain Mr. Fowell submitted a report to the board on the subject of the sales in the following terms : -

Nothing has been disclosed to me during my inquiries which would lead me to believe that it would be advantageous to the Commonwealth or our board to pass any drastic regulations prohibiting business other than on a consignment basis. I admit that there are a very few advocates for that cause, but I am not of opinion that in all .cases their counsel is altogether unbiased. The details I gathered all tend in one direction, namely, that the freer the channels of trade are the better it is from a general business point of view.

That is the opinion expressed by a member of the board set up by the butter industry for the stabilization of prices in Australia and for export purposes.

Senator Rae:

– Did that gentleman make any inquiries as to the methods adopted by exporting continental countries ?

Senator GRANT:

– He investigated all those subjects, and I have quoted his unbiased opinion on his return to Australia. His statement continued -

In some instances butter and cheese bought on a f.o.b. and c.i.f. basis have had a decided strengthening effect upon the market, whereas in other cases, the opposite has been the result, but generally speaking neither very much harm nor very much good may be claimed. At the same time consideration has to be given to the great advantage it is to both buyers and sellers at certain times to be free to negotiate business on a definite basis when either one or both find it advisable or necessary to do bo. The new regulation virtually prohibits the selling of butter before it leaves Australia.

The regulation brought in by the board is to the effect that it shall control sales in Australia on an f.o.b. or c.i.f. basis, but sales are not now conducted in that way owing to the fact that the board keeps f.o.b. and c.i.f. quotations higher than English, market prices. Australian exporters now! do not receive any inquiries for butter, because the board’s price is known in England and buyers know that they can purchase” the New Zealand product at a lower price and consequently are not interested in the Australian commodity. The result is that Australian butter is accumulating in London, while the New Zealand butter is being sold freely. The regulation virtually prohibits the selling of butter before it leaves Australia. It is amazing to find that, in considering this measure, no consideration is given to the consumer. When a bill which is shortly to come before the Senate is under discussion, honorable senators opposite will be loud in their denunciation of the proposal to impose a tax which, will have the effect of increasing the price to the public of another important commodity, namely, bread. Of course, we can legally raise the price in Australia by artificial means, as is done in the case of sugar, although not to the same extent, but such artificial means are responsible for increasing the cost of living. I hare quoted Mr. Powell’s report somewhat extensively, because he is a member of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board and had the privilege of receiving first-hand information on the subject during his visit to England last year. The control of this product in the manner suggested is not in the best interests of Australia. The most serious deterrent to improve prices in Lond,on is not the butter which is sold f.o.b., but the weak holder in London of consignment butter, and the export board, although in possession of the full facts, from the low consignment prices returned by certain houses has never taken action under licensing regulations. I think I have said sufficient to show why I am justified in opposing the second reading >f this bill.

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– I should like the Minister to explain what is meant by “ prescribed authority “ which appears in the bill. Is the prescribed authority to be the Department of Commerce, a State Department of Agriculture, or a department which the Minister for Commerce proposes to establish? Senator Elliott, who has had the privilege of twice visiting Great Britain during recent years, and who claims to be a dairy-farmer, complimented the Government upon the introduction of this bill. I was surprised to learn that the honorable senator is a producer of butter-fat, and glad that he is actively engaged in primary production. It is regrettable that the honorable senator did not give us more information concerning his wanderings overseas, more particularly with respect to the production of butter in Denmark. In order to impose some check upon Danish imports into Great Britain, the British Government decided upon a form of tariff protection, but the Danish Government immediately replied by deflating the krone, so that Danish producers would still have an opportunity to exploit the British market. When Japan found that its overseas trading activities were meeting with some opposition, the value of the yen was depreciated. The Minister for Commerce, referring to overseas markets, stated that there was a further considerable decline of prices for v dominion produce on the London market this season, due chiefly to the abnormal arrivals from Australia, New Zealand, and foreign countries. This notwithstanding the fact that, prior to the Ottawa Conference, the nationalist press of Australia indulged in its usual patriotic bleating, and assured the people that the salvation of the primary producers would be found at Ottawa; that, following the conferences representative of all Empire countries, including those from Great Britain, prosperity for the Empire would be in sight. This political “ bunk “ was, of course, indulged in merely to mislead the people. The facts are that Ottawa has not fulfilled expectations, and the lot of our primary producers has not been improved. The Minister for Commerce stated that the imports of butter into Great Britain- from all sources last year was 443,074 tons, of which 131,741 tons was imported from Denmark, 100,546 tons from Australia, 116,931 tons from New Zealand, 18,334 tons from the Irish Free State, 8,982 tons from Finland, 9,007 tons from Sweden, 13,35’5 tons from the Argentine, and 27,103 tons from other countries. We were not informed what countries are included in the term “ other countries,” but I notice that Soviet Russia - that country which has been the bugbear of the United Australia Party politicians, and of the Nationalist press of Australia, that country which repudiated £400,000,000 of debts owing to Great Britain - exported to the Mother Country no less than 18.3’55 tons. As I hare said, the Ottawa Conference resolutions meant nothing to the primary producers of Australia. Since the agreements were made the position of our farmers, and particularly our dairymen, has been steadily growing worse. So’ much so that, not so long ago, the then Resident Minister (Mr. Bruce), who now occupies the position of High Commissioner for Australia in London, following conferences with members of the British Cabinet, urgently appealed to the Commonwealth Government to arrange for the restriction of ! butter exports from Australia, in order to stabilize and increase prices in the- Mother Country. At the present time there are about 27,000 tons of butter in cold storage in London.

Senator Sir Harry Lawson:

– What has this to do with the bill?

Senator DUNN:

– The honorable senator does not like the truth, and does not like to be reminded of the ineptitude of this Government and its failure to help the primary producers. The Minister for Commerce also referred to overseas freights, and spoke of the assistance which this bill will give to Australian dairy-farmers. Not so long ago the Government had an opportunity to do a real service to our primary producers in this connexion. As honorable senators will doubtless recall, representatives of the Blue Star Line of Steamships were in Australia a few months ago, and made application to join the Overseas Transport Association. The advent of an additional competitor for the transport of Australia’s exports did not suit the combine, which sought to exclude the Blue Star Line, and would have been successful but for the pressure brought to bear by Labour senators. As a result of our efforts vessels of the Blue Star Line will now engage in the Australian export trade, and incidentally will be carrying dairying produce to the London market. Senator MacDonald, earlier in the evening, mentioned the sale, by a former Nationalist Government of the Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers, pointing out that, if these vessels had not been sold, the Australian dairy-farmers would have been in a much better position to-day than they are. No one can deny that, immediately following the sale of the vessels, freights on produce were increased, to the detriment of Australian primary producers.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– As I may not have an opportunity to speak in committee, I :shall briefly outline my reasons for voting against the second reading of the bill. As I see it, no one can approach this question without the deepest consideration for the lamentable condition of what is perhaps, in the truest sense, the most necessitous and hardest worked class in the Commonwealth. That is what I believe the dairy-farmer to be. No class in Australia works longer hours, or gets less reward for its work. The dairy-farmer has to work his children, boys and girls, at what would be regarded in any other circumstances as a grossly sweated wage. Practically all they receive is their keep. As this Parliament has adopted the principle of grants on account of necessitousness, I say, without -any cynicism or desire to be satirical, that no class is more in need of it than the dairy-farmer. One can approach this subject with only one object, namely, that of discovering what can be done for the real benefit of the dairy farmer. I was in the House of Representatives when the original Dairy Produce Export Control Board was created, and I have followed its history from time to time since. I do not care much for boards of control. Some of them have done excellent work. I do not suggest that members of this board have not, in their own way, done hard and good work. I should say, and I think it is the general opinion, that of all control boards, the Dried Fruits Export Control Board has most justified its existence. But when Senator Elliott suggests that the Dairy Produce Export Control Board has not had an opportunity in nine years of existence to advertise and push its wares on the other side of the world, I feel inclined to say that if that is so, the best thing it can do, is to get out, and let some one else come in with more initiative and ability. I am not, however, sure that Senator Elliott is right : I think the board has done much to push its wares on the other side of the world. But the question arises of whether the producer is the best person to market his own produce. My opinion definitely is that he is not. Just as primary production demands the undivided attention of the expert, so is marketing a specialized business.

Senator Collings:

– Farmers do not market their produce. They employ managers.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

-That is perfectly true, but this is a board elected by a certain qualified number of producers. It is constantly stated to the producers that those who are to represent them really belong to their own class and have none of those undesirable qualifications which it is sought to associate with the middleman. But after all, the middleman is merely trying to do his business, and get his profits, in the same way as those gentlemen who sit on the boards of control. We have to decide which method is the more profitable to the producer. I have always held the view that marketing through experts, who have been occupied in the one branch of business all their lives, is more profitable than for farmers to sell through a board composed of persons like himself.

Senator Collings:

– Is the honorable senator advocating private enterprise?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Of course I am for private enterprise.

Senator Collings:

– Private enterprise is the thief who is strangling industry to-day.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Private enterprise is the only method by which we have made progress in the past, and it is the only method by which we can make progress in the future.

Sen’ator Collings. - It is a nice sort of progress when every industry is in ruins.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That may be, but let the honorable senator compare the present situation in Great Britain and Australia with conditions in other countries, and see if he can discover evidence of the break-down of private enterprise. He will find that other countries, which have resorted to socialization schemes, are, if anything, going down, whereas Great Britain and Australia are building up. That is due to the fact that the British people - using the words in their widest sense - have qualities which show at their best when private enterprise, properly restricted, is allowed play. It is only by that system that we have arrived where we are, and only by it can prosper in the future.

I have to consider whether it is wise to increase the powers of the Board of Control to the extent of practically excluding all other enterprise, for that is substantially what the bill’, means. I have to consider whether, in the long run, the bill will be for thebenefit of the unfortunate dairy farmer. In my judgment it will not, and that for me is the determining factor. For that reason, I shall vote against the bill. I have little faith in boards of control. They almost invariably have an exaggerated opinion of their own weight. They do not stand personally to lose anything, and they set their judgment against the judgment of the world. They lose sales. I make no attack upon the personnel of these boards. I am quite prepared to admit that there are, no doubt, on these boards gentlemen who work very long hours, and have done good work. I do not disparage that work; but are they the only people who should be considered, and will their operations be best for the large number of producers who are in difficult circumstances. I would not trust this board with monopolistic control. Although it controls 23 per cent, of the butter output of Australia which is sold abroad, that quantity represents only 7 per cent, of the butter sold in Great Britain. That is almost a negligible amount. Any attempt by a board controlling such a small proportion of the market to dictate terms must lead to disaster. I am not convinced by what has been done in the last nine years, that the men on the board should be given very widely extended powers. If honorable senators read the literature distributed to them, they will know that the board has tended to become tyrannical in its rulings. One feature of the bill I would change is the provision for a bare majority. I have little doubt that the bill will be carried; but I regretfully feel that it will not be a success. I do not want to mislead my constituents or any one else. I prefer to vote with a small number against the bill and be right, than to vote for it with a large number and be wrong. In regard to the poll I find on reference to Hansard of nine years ago, which is sometimes a good thing to do, that I moved in the House of Representatives, when the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill was before it, that the following words should be added to clause 2, which provided for a majority vote: -

Such a majority to consist of not less than 60 per centum of the producers voting.

I must have had prescience that, nine years later, a genius would advocate 50 per cent, as against 60 per cent. I shall have the greatest satisfaction in being consistent with my vote of nine years ago by voting for a 60 per cent, majority. I was fortified, moreover, by many good reasons. One reason is that in an ordinary limited liability company, the shareholders vote according to their share holdings, and not according to their numbers. Another reason is that in the Commonwealth Constitution it is provided that proposed alterations must be agreed to not only by a majority of the electors, but also by a majority of the States. In that democratic instrument, a simple majority is not allowed to rule. These are very excellent reasons why, in this bill, which will make a very radical change, the principle of a simple majority should not be applied.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– Senator Duncan-Hughes has adopted an exceedingly unreasonable attitude. I can understand friends of the primary producers being anxious to improve the bill, but they should not try to defeat it. No class of producer is more deserving of assistance than is the dairyfarmer. I have every sympathy with both employer and employee in this industry, because their conditions of work more closely resemble slavery than do those in any other industry with which I am acquainted. This bill places within the reach of dairy-farmers a measure of relief to which they are entitled, and greater assistance than they have previously enjoyed. I am surprised that every honorable senator has not wel- corned it with open arms. The primary producers in every State are clamouring for help along the lines adopted in this bill. I hope that the measure will be passed by an overwhelming majority.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [10.50]. - I stated in my second-reading speech that the prescribed authorities in the States that have passed legislation on this subject will be the boards set up under the

State acts, and in those States where such legislation has not been carried, it will be necessary for the Commonwealth to create the prescribed authorities. Senator Brennan referred to section 92 of the Constitution. The proposal in this bill is similar to the dried fruits legislation, which was based on the last’ interpretation of section 92 by the High Court. While that decision stands, the Government must act on the assumption that it is the law of the land. The primary responsibility for this legislation rests on the States, and the aid of the Commonwealth is sought merely to implement what the States have done, and to deal with the matter of interstate trade, which is beyond the competence of the States. I do not regard the bill as an instalment of socialism, but merely as an attempt, by exercising a certain measure of control, to provide stability in the markets, and give justice to those engaged in the industry.

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

19

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 - >

Unless, at a poll of producers held in the prescribed manner within six months from the commencement of this act, a majority of the producers voting at the poll are in favour of the continued operation of thiB act, this act shall cease to have effect . . .

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[10.56].- I move-

That the words “ a majority “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ sixty per centum. “

This legislation should he brought into force when a substantial majority of those in the industry desire this form of control. The measure will undoubtedly provide for control and regulation of trade in this particular industry, and I suggest that it is extremely undesirable that there should be frequent changes of control or regulation. If a bare majority were able to bring into operations this form of control, there would be a discontented minority, almost as strong as the majority, and an agitation would be commenced at once for a reversal of the vote. If a 60 per cent, majority is registered, it will be recognized that a considerable majority of those engaged in the industry desire this form of control, and stability ‘is more likely to be obtained.

Senator Collings:

– Make it 75 per cent., and increase the difficulty of introducing the scheme.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– My amendment provides for a proportion nearer 50 per cent, than 75 per cent.

Senator Elliott:

– Does the experience of the Dried Fruits Export Control Act justify this change ?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I would not say that, but I think that the circumstances of this industry are very different from those of the dried fruits industry at the time when its marketing legislation was passed. At that time that industry was extremely disorganized, and a’ction of this kind was necessary to save it. The report ‘on which the reorganization was based was not over popular in the industry, but it was generally recognized that some action had to be taken. The circumstances then obtaining do not exist in this instance. . I have a vivid recollection of what occurred. The industry was in a bad. way. Commonwealth and State Governments had advanced considerable sums of money to save it from extinction. They were anxious that the industry should be organized in order that they would get some return for the, money advanced. Those arguments do not apply to this industry, because the Government has not advanced any money to it. It was very desirable from the view-point of the Government that the poll should be made acceptable to the industry to tempt it to accept what to many was an objectionable interference with their interests. It was necessary to eliminate a number of the packing-sheds, the multiplication of which had increased production costs. There was strong opposition to the industry being brought under the act, but that was done on the recommendation of the Development and Migration Commission, and it really saved the industry. The act not merely established a form of control, but also eliminated wasteful methods. The Government, as it were, gave to the industry a sugar-coated pill, and its action was justified by the result. The dairying industry is well organized, and does not employ wasteful methods in production or in marketing.

Senator Brennan:

– And no government money is involved.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is so. I am quite prepared to accept the charge of inconsistency, knowing that the conditions are totally dissimilar. If honorable senators say that those in the industry want this form of control, there is no need to object to a 60 per cent. poll.

Senator Hardy:

– If that is so, why worry about a poll at all?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– If only 50 per cent, of those concerned agree to come under this form of control, the statement that there is an overwhelming demand for control in this form will be shown to be inaccurate. If the honorable senator has any foundation for the views he has expressed, “ he should not object to a substantial majority being required.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– I hope that the committee will not accept the amendment moved by the Minister (Senator Pearce), and I regret that the Government is attempting to re-insert the provision in the bill which the House of Representatives by a large majority decided to eliminate. The vote in this chamber should be a reflection of that cast in another place on the same principle. I feel inclined to withdraw some of the congratulations I showered upon the Government for introducing this measure. The attempt to make it possible for 40 per cent, of those engaged in the industry to destroy the principle of organized marketing of dairy produce indicates a half-hearted belief on the part of the Government in the principles embodied in the scheme. I hope that honorable senators who, only a few moments ago, when the second reading was carried by 23 votes to 4, affirmed the principle of organized marketing will not run the risk of destroying their vote by supporting the amendment. Why should those who do not believe in the scheme have a greater voting strength than those who do? The Minis,ter made a most amazing statement ‘ when he said that no government money is invested in this industry. Commonwealth money may not be invested, but large sums of State money, at least in South Australia, are invested in it. In that State large irrigation settlements have been established on the river Murray, and, owing to the low prices prevailing, together with a disastrous flood a few years ago, the dairymen have been placed in a serious position. If that money is to be recovered, the organization of the industry to ensure efficiency is absolutely essential. There are other areas in South Australia where producers have been assisted by the State Bank and other financial institutions’ to purchase dairy cows and improve their holdings. As representatives of the people, we must conserve their rights,, particularly when they are controlled by a State authority exercising functions for the time being on behalf of the Commonwealth.

Senator HARDY:
New South Wales

– I heartily support the views expressed by Senator O’Halloran. When the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) moved this amendment, it became evident to me why this measure was considered before the Dried Fruits Export Control Bill. Had that measure been taken first the Minister would have been deprived of a good deal of the ammunition he used. In the Dried Fruits Act of 1928 there is a precedent which cannot be ignored. It is easy to institute a comparison between the two industries, and to say that one is organized and the other is not. The fact’ that large quantities of dairy produce is being sold from door to door in country towns shows the unreliability of the Minister’s statement. I cannot understand why an attempt should be made to amend the bill to provide for a 60 per cent, majority. On what formula has this percentage been adopted ? It is most undemocratic; such a basis is never employed in our commercial, economic, or political life. If the Minister when standing for re-election to this chamber were defeated by 41 votes out of a total of 100 he would, of course, object. Senator Duncan-Hughes mentioned the constitutional aspect of the subject, but on all constitutional and political questions a bare majority is sufficient. In the recent elections for the New South Wales Legislative Council a simple majority was sufficient. Does the Minister suggest that 41 producers should exercise more power than 59, or that in a poll of 200 voters if 119 vote for a proposal and 81 against it, the 81 should be able to impose their will on the 119? A bare majority is the test. This principle has been adopted by the Government in other legislation such as the Dairy Produce, the Dried Fruits, and -the Canned Fruits Export Control Acts, as well as in legislation to control the wine industry. The Government now wishes to alter it. Apparently Ministers see the signs of changes that will be made in connexion with another industry. I am wondering’ if the Government is taking action in respect of this bill in the hope that it will establish a precedent to be followed in connexion with the wheat industry. When this measure and another bill were being discussed in the House of Representatives the Government was defeated on this issue.

Senator BRENNAN (Victoria) (11.18]. - I wish to say a word or two in the hope that I may be able to enlighten Senator Hardy upon the point concerning which he sought information. The honorable gentleman mentioned that members of this Parliament were elected on a simple majority. That is so, for the very good reason that, in an election for Parliament, two persons having equal rights to a seat, may contest an election. The one who gets a bare majority of the votes is certainly entitled to the seat against the one whose votes represent less than a majority.

Senator Hoare:

– But the same principle applies.

Senator BRENNAN:

– No. The poll provided for in this bill relates to persons carrying on a business under a right which they have inherited through the generations, namely, the right of every person to conduct his own business in his own way. In this measure it is sought to take away that right, and for that reason, we ought to consider very seriously before we’ approve such a deprivation as is now contemplated. The legislation will come into force without the industry being consulted, but the people concerned will have an opportunity to say whether or not they approve of a continuation of this invasion of their personal liberty. If the amendment is carried, the position will be that if 60 per cent, of the persons voting decide in favour of the legislation, it will continue indefinitely. The point at issue is not whether there shall be majority or minority rule, but whether a small majority of producers has the right to rule, not themselves, but some other persons. They have not that right.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– It is a piece of .political impertinence on the part of the Government to move te insert in the clause a provision requiring an affirmative vote of 60 per cent, of voters at a poll to decide whether this legislation shall continue. Senator Brennan, as the unofficial mouthpiece of the Government, has just told us what he thinks about the clause. He entirely overlooks the fact that, on nearly every sitting day, issues are decided in this chamber by a majority vote. The Government has produced no evidence that would justify honorable senators in voting for the amendment.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– In submitting the proposed amendment, the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) dwelt upon the calamity of having a discontented minority. It would be a far greater calamity if, in this industry, there were a discontented majority. Senator Brennan spoke of the proposed amendment as providing for rule by a small majority. The majority required is three to two. Is that a small majority?

Senator Brennan:

– It is when the issue :to be decided is the invasion of personal liberty._

Senator CRAWFORD:

– Every law interferes more or less with the liberty of the individual.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays:
TASMANIA

– The time allotted for proceedings in committee having expired, I must put the amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Sir George Pearce’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon.. Herbert Hays.)

  1. 15

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses 3 to 7, and title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 5957

DRIED FRUITS BILL 1933

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 6th December (vide page 5583), on motion by Senator ;Sir Harry Lawson -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

.- The purpose of the bill, I understand, is to bring under control certain classes of dried fruits not controlled to-day, and to provide for a poll of the growers engaged in the production of these fruits. The South Australian branch of the Australian Dried Fruits Association has written to honorable senators strongly urging them to support this bill. When I remember the success that has attended the marketing of dried vinefruits under a similar control, I have no hesitation in urging the acceptance of this till.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

– I recommend Senator Dunn, who is persistent with his interjections, to visit Mildura and learn the facts of the dried fruits industry for himself. Mildura settlers arc now in a fair state of prosperity. A visit to that district would be a great object-lesson to him. The Minister who introduced the bill has a good knowledge of the industry, and I feel sure that he would not do anything to injure it. It may, perhaps, interest and encourage the Government if I give the views of some of the leading people in the dried tree-fruits industry. Yesterday I received the following telegram from the leader of the industry in Mildura: -

Dried Tree Fruits Marketing ‘ Bill industry requests your support bill as passed Represen- tatives. We consider as three State Parliaments have already passed tree-fruit legislation last session and federal act only consolidates position. Poll was unnecessary and certainly that sixty majority only attempt to make position more difficult for growers wishing organize.

Winterbottom.

Mr. Winterbottom is looked upon as head of the industry in the Mildura district, if not in Victoria and Australia. Mr. Howie, of the Dried Fruits Association, telegraphed as follows: -

Dried Fruits Bill. Reason that industry prefers simple majority is that voting list spread very wide and includes numerous growers of small quantities not dependent on this line. These growers have same voice as large producers.

Other telegrams from interested persons are on similar lines. All state that they will welcome the passing of the bill as introduced to the House. According to the Empire Marketing Board, return No. 69, dated June, 1933, prunes, plums, and apricots that went into the United Kingdom in that year amounted to 456,236 cwt. although Australia sent only 418 cwt. Those figures give some idea of the possibilities of the industry, which we should do nothing to hinder and everything to encourage by passing this bill as quickly as possible. Other dried fruits, such as apples, peaches, pears and fruit salads were imported in that year into the United Kingdom to the total weight of 58,595 cwt. Of that quantity only 2,757 cwt. was sent from Australia. Other figures could be given which would emphasize to honorable senators the tremendous possibilities of this industry. Once again I congratulate the Government on having brought the bill forward at this time so that this season’s fruit can be dealt with. As -the fruit-picking season will commence next month, it is very necessary that this bill should be made law with as little delay as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definition).

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I move -

That the words “ and apples “ be added to the clause.

New South Wales grows quite a lot of fruit and dries various varieties, including apples.

Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP

. [11.43]. - The Government cannot accept the amendment. The dried tree-fruits specified in the bill have been put in at the request of the growers. There has been no suggestion from any section that apples should be included. It would be foolish to insert such an amendment without making full inquiry as to its effect and incidence.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted. Bill read a third time.

page 5958

WHEAT GROWERS RELIEF BILL 1933

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[11.47]. - I declare this bill urgent, and move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Motion put. The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 13

Majority . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion agreed to.

Allotment of Time. Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [11.53].- I moveThat the .time allotted in connexion with the consideration of the bill be as follows: - («.) The second reading of the bill - four hours, (ft) The committee stages of the hill - one hour.

This will allow four hours for the discussion of the principles of the bill, and I would again suggest the advisability of suspending Standing Order No. 407a, in order to limit each speaker to twenty minutes, because in four hours practically every honorable senator wishing to discuss the bill could do so. If the Standing Order were not suspended, four honorable senators will be able to speak for an hour each, and others will be deprived of an opportunity to participate in the debate.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– I shall oppose this motion, as I think I said some hours ago, when I agreed to support the application of the guillotine to the Dairy Produce Bill, I did so because it was clearly understood that it would not be applied on the second reading of this bill.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I also oppose the motion. I am surprised that the vote on the last two motions has not taught the Government that it should not gag the members of this Senate, particularly with regard to consideration of the most important bill to be dealt with this session - one which affects the interests of the largest employing section in the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Does the honorable senator wish to block the passage of the bill?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No ; certainly not. We wish to amend it; but the Government has taken action that will prevent the elected representatives of the people from submitting amendments which they wish to move in committee. I am surprised that the Government should try to gag us on this bill. First we dealt with the Dairy Produce Bill, and then the Dried Fruits Bill. Three or four hours were spent in discussing the former, in respect of which the Government imposed the guillotine; but the latter measure, regarding which we were merely requested to exercise tact, was put through in ten minutes.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That was not a measure of the same class as the Wheat Growers Relief Bill.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– These measures relate to three primary industries, and the Government is applying the gag to the most important bill, which involves the expenditure of £3,000,000, to be derived from different sources. During the last month the Government has changed its mind with monotonous regularity every few days as to the sources from which the money to be expended in assisting the wheatgrowers is to be financed.

Senator Sir Harry Lawson:

– The honorable senator has said that with monotonous regularity almost every halfhour.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I shall occupy a good deal of time in the next three months saying that, and a few other things about the Government’s wheat policy. It will be said in “Western Australia, where the Minister will not have to listen to it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Is the honorable senator annoyed with the Government for helping the wheatgrowers.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I protest against discrimination between different classes of wheat-growers. When I have an opportunity in Western Australia to express my views, to which the Minister in charge of this bill objects, I shall not be gagged, or restricted by the rules of parliamentary debate. He may gag me here, but not there. The motion for the application of the gag has been carried, but not by a 60 per cent, majority. I am glad that the Standing Orders do not contain the undemocratic law sought to be inflicted by this Government on the unfortunate dairymen and fruit-growers. The motion which the Minister has now submitted is unnecessary. On all sorts of “ tin pot “ legislation we have been permitted to exercise fully our rights of debate, but when the wheat bill comes before the Senate we are gagged by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). iSenator Sampson. - I rise to a point of order. Is Senator Johnston in order in speaking of legislation enacted by this Parliament as “ tin pot.”

The PRESIDENT:

– The expression is unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I withdraw it and substitute “ tin-plate “ legislation. Recently tin-plate legislation has been under discussion in this chamber and no restrictions were imposed upon our right to discuss it fully. ‘

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight until 12.30 a.m. (Friday). ‘

Friday, 8 December 1955

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917; UAP from 1931

– PEARCE - I ask leave of the Senate to withdraw the motion.

Leave granted.

Motion - by leaVE - withdrawn. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Bill on motion (by Senator Sir George Pearce) read a first time.

The PRESIDENT:

– The records of the Senate furnish precedents for cognate bills being discussed simultaneously.

Second Reading

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP

[12.35 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to provide financial assistance to the States in the giving of relief to wheat-growers. I remind honorable senators of the principal reasons for the seriously depressed prices of wheat over the past few years :

First, there has been continued expansion of production in the principal exporting countries, and assistance from governments which has enabled growers to remain in production, who, owing to reduced returns, would have otherwise gone out of wheat-f arming. The statistics of Australian production illustrate this point -

Secondly, there has been a growing policy in Europe of imposing high duties and import quotas with high internal prices, thus bringing about increased production at home and reduction of imports. For example, in 1928-29, with an import duty of 2s. 6d. per cwt., Germany produced 123,000,000 bushels, and imported 78,000,000 bushels. In 1931-32, the duty had been increased to 12s. 6d. per cwt. Production in that year was 184,000,000 bushels, and imports 23,000,000. The price of wheat in Germany in recent years has been as high as 14s. 6d. a bushel, English currency.

Thirdly, as a result of the factors already mentioned, huge stocks have accumulated in North America. On the 1st August last, these stocks amounted to 440,000,000 bushels in excess of the normal carry-over.

So serious has the world position of the wheat industry become that proposals were made and ultimately adopted under which exports from the various countries were to be restricted to agreed limitations. I refer to the International Wheat Agreement, the details of which have already been explained to honorable senators, and need not be again traversed in connexion with the present bill. As one of the principal exporting countries, Australia has suffered severely by the serious fall of wheat prices, and for the past two seasons, the Commonwealth Government has found it necessary to come to the assistance of the industry. In 1931-32, the assistance took the form of a bounty on all wheat sold from the crop of that year. The rate of bounty was 4½d. per bushel, and the total expenditure was £3,414,000. In 1932-33, a special grant of £2,000,000 was made to wheatgrowers through the State Governments. This assistance was gener-ally allocated by , the States to individual growers on the proportion of the acreage sown to wheat, though certain sums were set aside to assist growers who were in necessitous circumstances. New South Wales also utilized a portion of the sum provided to off set charges on freight. When the budget for 1933-34 was being framed no provision was made for special assistance to wheatgrowers, for two reasons. First, because the general relief afforded to industry under the tax remission proposals embodied in the budget; and secondly, because of the anticipation of a rise of world prices following upon the international agreement.

It is probably too soon for the effects of reduced taxation to be reflected in the costs of primary products; the beneficial effects will, no doubt, be realized later. The average export price of Australian wheat in Australian currency in recent years has been -

While the international agreement was being negotiated, and during the speculative operations which took place in the United States at the same time, there was a rise of prices. In May last the price was 2s. 11¾d., and it rose steadily until in September it reached 3s. 5d: Honorable senators should remember that during the month in which that rise occurred the Government was framing its budget. Since September the price has declined, and at present it is about 2s. 7d. a bushel f.o.b. Australian ports. Advices received from the High Commissioner’s Office in London suggest that immediate price prospects are difficult to forecast. Keen competition for the relatively small import market available, principally on the part of Russia and Danubia, has caused the recent weakness. Recent comment in informed circles suggests the probability of the market firming, but the prospects must, it is feared, be classed as uncertain. The -hopes of higher prices which it was thought would follow the international agreement have not, therefore, been realized, so far. This does not mean, however, that the agreement has been fruitless. Prices would almost certainly have declined still more had not the heavy surpluses in the United

States of America and Canada been kept off the market. Costs of production of wheat in Australia are difficult to arrive at. This is due to the varying conditions due to locality and to the different yields per acre. Various authorities have made estimates on the subject, but the Government does not feel justified in basing action on the figures available. The Government is, however, satisfied that, at current world prices, the industry is being carried on at a loss, and that generally growers are not receiving an adequate return for their labours. That being so, consideration has been given to the matter of granting further financial help, and the bill before the Senate embodies the Government’s proposals. The Government has fully realized the need for some help to the wheat industry. Australia is more than ever dependent upon its export industries, and in this respect wheat production, and the welfare of the industry, are of the highest national importance. After the fullest investigation and inquiry, it was decided that, on the basis of present prices, the expenditure of £3,000,000 was justified, and that the wheat-growers of Australia should be assisted to that amount.

The financing of £3,000,000 in present circumstances is not easy, and the Government has given much consideration to this phase of the matter. Broadly speaking, there are three sources of finance possible - (1) by borrowing; (2) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund this year, supplemented by special taxation; (3) by an increased charge in the homeconsumption price of wheat and/or flour.

I propose to deal first with the possibility of borrowing the money. When approximately £3,500,000 was provided for the wheat bounty in 1931, the finance was arranged by borrowing the full amount. There was no special condition about repayment, but the present provision is being made on the basis of repayment in fifteen years, which will involve an annual charge of about £300,000 for interest- and sinking fund for that period.

In normal circumstances, loan fund moneys should be used only for works of a reproductive character. A departure from this principle is justifiable only on the grounds of serious financial emer gency or special circumstances of a nonrecurring character. The financing of the wheat bounty in 1931 from loan moneys was a measure of emergency, but the financing of bounties of this nature from loan fund as a matter of practice is not sound policy. The Government, therefore, is not prepared, even if it were practicable to do so, to finance the whole of the assistance this year by borrowing.

As to the second method, the budget for this year contemplates a deficit of £1,176,000. For the first four months, the transactions show an excess of receipts of £3,500,000, but this figure is no indication of the trend of the year’s finance. Concessions announced in the budget will cost £6,652,000, almost the whole of which will be reflected in the remaining months of the year. Moreover, expenditure in the first four months was below the average for the year, as is invariably the case. It is too early yet to make any definite forecast as to whether there will be an improvement of the budget position. Some improvement is hoped for, but it is quite out of the question to look for an improvement of a magnitude which would enable us to provide the whole of the finance required for assistance to wheat-growers.

Thirdly, I set out the position with regard to the proposals for an increased price for home consumption. Many representations on behalf of wheatgrowers have been made both in this chamber and outside, to provide for assistance by some scheme which involves an increase of the home-consumption price, either by a pool or some similar arrangement, or by a sales tax on flour. In discussions which have taken place on the subject of the form wheat assistance should take, the creation of a compulsory Australia pool has found support. I donot desire to traverse the whole of the objections to such an organization, but I do desire to emphasize one outstanding fact - that its operation must necessarily have the effect of increasing the price of bread to the Australian consumer.

One of the avowed reasons for a compulsory wheat pool is that it would enable an “ Australian “ price to be fixed, that is, a price for wheat consumed in Australia which would not be influenced by prices ruling abroad. The price of wheat in Australia, and, of course, flour, would thus be artificially raised above world parity. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not using that argument against the fixation of a local price for flour, but I have heard those who attack the Government for the means it is employing to raise a considerable portion of the funds by a tax on flour appeal to the political passions of people living in industrial areas, by arguing that a flour tax will mean an increase of the price of bread. When the tariff is under discussion they do not point out that sometimes the home price of articles manufactured under protection is artificially increased. To be consistent those who live in industrial suburbs, and find employment in factories as the result of the protection given to the industries employing them, cannot deny to farmers the right to fix a home price for the article which they produce.

It is admitted by all that present world prices are unsatisfactory. This, of course, is the cause of our present difficulties. It follows, therefore, that the first act of a pool administration would be to raise the price of wheat consumed in Australia to an extent that would give an adequate return to the grower over all his wheat locally consumed and exported. As the proportion of export to local consumption this year is more than three to one, it will be seen that a substantial increase bf the price of the proportion consumed in Australia would be necessary to give a reasonable all round return to total production. As production increased, this position would obviously become accentuated.

The present price of Australian wheat is about 2s. 2d. a bushel at country station sidings. I understand that it has dropped slightly in the last few days. If, for example, it were decided that an increase to 3s. a bushel for the total marketable crop was required, it would be necessary to raise local prices to about 5s. a bushel. This would add approximately £6 15s. a ton to the price of flour consumed locally, and in turn would increase the price of bread by more than Id. per 2-lb. loaf. These figures are approximate and are conservative, but they clearly illustrate the point that the intro- duction of a compulsory pool on the lines advocated, and the fixation of a local price independently of world parity, would have the same effect in raising the price of -bread as would the imposition of a flour tax.

It is clear, therefore, that if the whole of tho assistance were provided by increasing the home consumption price in some way, the full subsidy would be passed on in the form of an increased price for bread. I do not wish it to be thought that I am advocating that a tax on flour should be a permanent feature of our legislation. I think, probably, it would be preferable to have some method by which the home price of flour could be fixed in the same way as an Australian price is fixed for other articles produced in this country. But there is this disadvantage about that proposal that wheat is not used solely for manufacture into flour. It is used largely in the poultry industry. Consequently, a sales tax on flour, which would have the effect of increasing the Australian price of wheat, would be a burden on that industry. It is inevitable that some of the assistance should be provided in this manner, but the Government is not prepared to find the whole amount by an increase of the home consumption price.

After full consideration of the position from all aspects, the Government proposes that the assistance should be financed to the extent of approximately half by a flour tax, the remaining half to be provided from other special taxation and from the budgets of 1933-34 and 1934-35. The special taxation it is proposed to impose is as follows : -

  1. Flour tax £4 5s. a ton up to 30th

June, 1934, which is estimated to produce, £1,600,000.

  1. Increased customs duty of 6d. per lb. on tobacco which came into operation on the 25th November, and is estimated to realize, this year, £130,000.
  2. The budget proposal relating to special tax on property income to be modified so that the tax will be 6 per cent, instead of 5 per cent. The increased revenue to be derived is estimated at £200,000.

The total amount to be provided by special taxation this financial year is, therefore, £1,950,000, and the balance to be provided from the budgets of 1933-34 and - 1934-35 is £1,050,000.

To enable payments to be made to wheat-growers’ as early as possible, it will be necessary to obtain temporary accommodation until revenue moneys become available. The authority of the Loan Council has, therefore, been obtained to permit of the money being raised by Treasury-bills subject to repayment from revenue of £1,950,000, or thereabouts, not later than the 30th June, 1934, “the balance of £1,050,000 to be repaid from revenue not later than the 30th June, 1935. The Commonwealth Bank has agreed to provide finance on these conditions.

The estimated amount of flour consumed in Australia is 650,000 tons a year. On this basis, the tax of £4 5s. a ton is estimated to realize about £1,600,000 up to the 30th June, next. The tax will cease to operate on that date. If the course of events in the next seven months shows a sufficient and substantial improvement of the general budget revenue, the flour tax will be removed before the 30th June next.

Criticism is being directed against the Government’s proposal to impose this tax on the ground that it will be felt mainly by those on the basic wage. I would point out that many of those who have indulged in this criticism have themselves advocated in this House a fair return to the wheat-grower by an increase of the home consumption price of wheat. If the assistance to the wheat-grower is wholly financed by such a scheme, the full amount would be passed on in the form of an increase of the price of bread. The Government proposal involves passing on to the consumer only half of the assistance, the other half being found from special taxation and the budget.

There are many precedents since the depression for the imposition of a flour tax. In New South Wales the Lang Government introduced flour acquisi- tion legislation in 1931 which had the effect of placing an impost of £2 15s. a ton on flour, which was later reduced by, I think, the Stevens Government, to £1 10s. a ton. That money was not handed over to the farmers; it was loaned to them at substantial rates of interest. The United Kingdom has a form of flour tax to provide a fund for the payment of a guaranteed price of 5s. lid. a bushel to British wheat-growers. Other importing countries, for example, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Holland and Switzerland have adopted schemes for raising the internal prices of wheat and flour. The plans of the United States for the rehabilitation of the wheat industry include a processing tax, the proceeds of which are devoted to payments to growers to reduce their acreage.

As I have already stated, the Government proposals would pass on to the consumer only half of the amount of assistance that is to be provided; that is to say, the consumer will still be benefiting as compared with the price of wheat under normal conditions.

Before leaving the subject of the influence of the flour tax upon the price of bread, it is interesting to note the prices ruling in .other countries. The average price of the 2-lb. loaf in Australia - other than New South Wales - is 3f d. In the United Kingdom the price at present is 4fd. with provision for adjustment by id. for every 32s. rise or fall of the price of flour. The New Zealand price is 5d. per 2-lb. loaf. In Canada the price is approximately 6d. per 2 lb. These rates are expressed in Australian currency.

While purchasing power varies somewhat in the different countries, the fact is clear that Australian consumers, even with that further small addition to bread prices which the flour tax will bring about, will be purchasing their bread at a lesser price than will the people of almost any other country.

It- will be necessary to bring down a tax bill concerning the proposed taxation. As Tasmania produces very little wheat, it has been decided to make a special rebate to that State to offset the flour tax. Payment will be at the rate of £7,500 a month, which is based on the estimated consumption of flour at the rate of the proposed tax of £4 5s. per ton. Payments will be made at this rate to the Government of Tasmania for the period for. which the flour tax operates. The bill, therefore, contains a clause making the necessary provision for this payment.

The amount of £3,000,000 will be distributed to the States as follows: -

This allocation to the States is made on the ‘basis of the acreage sown to wheat. As was provided last year, the States are required to apply the sum made available to them so as to provide for the needs of individual wheat-growers, but not directly or indirectly upon the basis of the quantity of wheat produced by individual wheat-growers. Apart from these conditions, an important departure has been made this year from the principles under which payments were made to growers in former years.

As a condition of the grant, the State Governments are required to confine the financial assistance to those growers who did not receive taxable income during the financial year ended June, 1933. In adopting this principle, the Government felt that it was anomalous to make payments out of public funds to persons who were really not in financial difficulties. It is known that many who have received Government assistance in the past have not needed it. Either they were farming wheat under more favoured conditions than others or they had incomes from other sources.

The object of the Government is to assist those who are really in need of assistance, and it considers that a man who is in a position to pay federal income tax has not a just claim for financial help from the public purse. Hence the provision to eliminate them from the provisions of the bill. It is realized, however, that since June, 1933, some people have suffered reverses, and it is likely that there are many, who, though they are subject to tax in respect of their earnings during 1932-33, might not be similarly circumstanced in respect of the current year. -The Government, therefore, proposes to meet these growers by permitting them to claim on the grounds that though they received income at a taxable amount in 1932-33, they have since suffered reverses to an extent justifying their receipt of financial help from the Government. A special formwill be prescribed to admit of these persons lodging their claims.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– The introduction of this bill at this late hour of the session, and at a time when a considerable quantity of wheat in Australia has already been harvested and marketed, is the culmination of a long period of indecision by the Government. ‘It represents the end of the great wheat wobble of 1933. It is the climax of a tragicomedy so far as the wheat-producing industry is concerned, and it is in keeping with .the whole sorry mis-management of the business that the Government, after taking two months to make up its mind should finally endeavour to rush this bill through the Senate to-night without giving honorable -senators an opportunity fully to consider it. The right honorable the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) says that the Government ‘does not jump to conclusions. For two months the Government was jumping at everything. First, it jumped at a sales tax, then at a loan, then at a sales tax again, and ultimately at a hybrid combination .of loan, sales tax, and other kinds of taxation. It is only a few weeks since we were assured that, as a result of the international wheat agreement, all the difficulties of the wheat industry would be dispelled overnight. This bill is the tombstone of that iniquitous arrangement, and on it is written large a record of tragic failure. We are told that Australia has benefited from the agreement but every one who reads the newspapers knows that Australia has not benefited. Instead of benefiting Australia, the agreement has handed over to America a valuable Eastern market formerly supplied by Australia.

Senator Badman:

– Canada complains of Australia taking its markets.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Of course it does. The present Government is more concerned with conditions in Canada and the United States of America than with the condition of the people of this country. One thing that has characterized the Government’s occupancy of the treasury benches is its concern for the other nations of the world, and its lack of capacity to do anything really constructive for the people of Australia. The Leader of the Senate assures us that the needs of the farmers were not overlooked when the recent budget was being framed. Where in that budget is there any indication that consideration would be given to the wheat-growers? There is not a line, not a reference to the matter. The plain fact .is that, in its anxiety to make remissions of taxation totalling £7,500,000 a year to the interests which are responsible for the election df Government supporters to this Parliament, it forget all about the wheatgrowers ; but there was no excuse for forgetting while the budget was under discussion. The party to which I have the honour to belong, recognizing the serious condition of the wheat-farmers and the urgency of giving them relief, moved in another place that the budget should be re-cast so that, among other things, adequate provision could be made for the relief of wheat-growers. Members of the Government were then pinning their faith to the international wheat agreement. It is now shown that their faith was sadly misplaced. The introduction of this bill, carrying with it as a corelated measure the re-imposition of some of the taxation remitted in the budget, is striking testimony to the soundness of the policy advocated by the Opposition when the budget was under discussion.

I cordially agree with one section of the speech of the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce). 1 refer to his first few sentences in which he set out in clear and unmistakable language the desperate position of the wheat-farmers. Every honorable senator is, or should be, cognizant of that position. I know from bitter personal experience how difficult it is to make ends meet from the proceeds of primary production, especially wheat production. Astounding figures were recently published by the State Auditor-General in South Australia, who showed that the condition of 3,000 farmers in that State, who are under Debt Adjustment or Drought Relief Act control, had become steadily worse during the last three years. When we realize that these 3,000 farmers are approximately 25 per cent, of the total number of farmers in the State, we may be able to visualize how serious the position of the wheat-growing industry is. If every one of those 3 000 farmers - who are under control, who are forced to live frugally because they have to account for every penny they spend, and who are forced to keep proper books of accounts and to have a proper audit of their transactions made at the end of the year - has drifted farther into insolvency each year, does it not follow that the other 9,000 wheatfarmers also have drifted in the same direction? That is the condition of the agricultural industry throughout Australia. It is not a new condition. Il has prevailed for four years. It existed prior to the present Government taking office. The party to which I belong tried to remedy it in the only practical and just manner. This Government, if it .stays long enough to make up its mind on such an important subject, will be compelled to take similar action. When we proposed that a system of orderly marketing of wheat should be inaugurated, the Leader of the Senate and his colleagues were vociferous in their opposition, and ultimately brought about the defeat of the measure. I cannot forget that they were joined in that opposition by members of the Country party, who must accept some of the responsibility for the failure of this chamber to pass the legislation. I cordially support the present bill, but I vigorously oppose the provisions of the co-related measure for the imposition of a flour tax. Bread is a more important article in the workers’ food basket than it is on the table of the welltodo section. The poorer the worker is the more important an article of diet is bread to him and his family. A tax on flour imposes a greater burden on the poorer than on the wealthy classes.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Would not that be the result of fixing a home price for wheat?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– There is a great difference between a straight out tax oh flour and a home price for wheat, based on a system of orderly marketing under a compulsory pool. A flour tax will do a great disservice to the farmers. The raising of a certain sum of money for relief in this clumsy way must make it more difficult to place the wheatgrowers once again on a stable basis. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) accused the Opposition of promulgating a scheme for a compulsory pool, with a local price for wheat, designed to increase the return to the farmers on all the wheat grown in Australia. He said that the effect of this would be exactly the same as that of the Government proposal, except that the plan of the Opposition would cost the consumers more than would that of the Government. I not only dispute that assertion, but I shall produce authentic figures to prove its inaccuracy. The Government proposes to place a sales tax of £4 5s. a ton on flour, to operate for a period of approximately seven months. The Government’s own spokesmen have admitted that this would lead to an increase of Id. in the price of a 2-lb. loaf of bread, and the increases which have already taken place have confirmed that anticipation.

Senator Guthrie:

– The honorable senator does not consider that a fair increase ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Of course not, but the Government had no power to prevent it. When its leader forecast that increase, he knew that the Government was powerless. As 1,352 2-lb. loaves can be made from one ton of flour, the amount paid by the people at Id. a loaf is £5 10s. a ton, leaving a rake-off to the baker or the miller of 25s. on every ton of flour.

Senator Badman:

– That is a gift to the baker for collecting the tax.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The baker and the miller will probably share the rake-off between them, as they always do. The average quantity of flour used for the five years from 1926 to 1931, which are the latest years for which the official figures are available, was 646,823 tons per annum, and £4 5s. a ton would represent an annual tax amounting to £2,748,998 if the tax were applied for a whole year; £229,082 a month or £1,603,574 for the seven months for which the tax” is to be applied. But how much will the community pay to provide this money? A tax of Id. on a 2-lb. loaf represents £5 10s. a ton, or £3,557,526 for the full period of twelve months ; £296,460 a month, or £2,075,220 for the seven months for which the tax will operate. Thus in seven months the millers or the bakers, or both, will get an additional £471,646 as the result of the incompetence of the Government in imposing the tax in this way. This action is one of the most contrary to the people’s interests ever taken by any government.

It is proposed that £225,000 shall be raised by increasing the import duty on tobacco by 6d. per lb. Tobacco is usually purchased by smokers in 1-oz. or 2-oz. packets or tins, and the additional tax can be passed on only at the rate of ½d or Id. per oz. This tax will be passed on, I understand, at the rate of -J-d. per oz., or 8d. per lb.; but Australian smokers will pay £300,000 in the next twelve months for the privilege of contributing £225,000 in taxes for the benefit of the wheat-growers. A rake-off of £75,000 is provided for the benefit of somebody, but certainly not the needy farmers of Australia. I am pleased to know that the Government did not increase -taxes on other articles of this kind, in order to make up the balance of £3,000,000 required to assist the wheatgrowers. In the next twelve months the people of Australia will have to pay £600,000 more than the farmers will get from that form of taxation to provide this particular part of the relief covered by the bill. It would probably cost the people £5,000,000 to provide the £3,000,000 by means of these taxes. Therefore, I am glad that the people will be spared that terrific impost in these troublous times. The effect of the Government’s proposal will be to increase the local price of wheat to the consumer through the tax on flour, which is to be passed on by millers and bakers at the rate of1d. per 2-lb loaf. The added cost to the consumer of1d. per loaf is £5 10s. a ton of flour; it takes 48 bushels of wheat to grist 1 ton of flour. This wheat also provides 432 lb. of bran and a similar quantity of pollard, but these articles are not affected by the flour tax, and can be left out of consideration. The whole of the additional £5 10s. per ton is to be borne by the flour which is gristed from 48 bushels of wheat, and this works out at 2s. 3½d. a bushel of the wheat consumed in Australia. If we add that 2s. 3½d. a bushel to the average market price to-day of approximately 2s. 6d. a bushel f.o.b., we get a total of 4s. 9½d. a bushel. That is the real result of this Government’s scheme. Suppose that the Labour party’s scheme had been adopted, and a local price of 4s. 9½d. a bushel had been fixed. Approximately 33,000,000 bushels are required for home consumption in Australia, and about 5,000,000 for feed purposes, making a total local consumption of 38,000,000 bushels, which, at 4s. 9½d. a bushel, would amount to £9,025,000. It is estimated that the total production of wheat in Australia this year will be 150,000,000 bushels ; of that quantity 15,000,000 will be required for seed and other farm uses, leaving 135,000,000 bushels available for sale. If we deduct from the . 135,000,000 bushels the 38,000,000 bushels for local sale, 97,000,000 bushels will remain for export. If the average price realized for that 97,000,000 bushels sold for export is 2s. 6d. a bushel, the total amount realized will be £12,125,000. If we add £9,025,000 from the local price, we get a return for the whole crop sold by the farmer of approximately £12,150,000, which represents an average price of 3s. 0½d. a bushel, or considerably more than the wheat-growers will get under the Government’s scheme. That can be done without increasing the cost of bread by stabilizing the price for local consumption. I have tabulated some figures derived from three sources. Those relating to flour and bran prices are taken from current reports in the daily press of South Australia. The average prices for wheat over a period are taken from the Commonwealth and State statistical reports, and the bread prices from the report of the price-fixing tribunal. All the figures relate to South Australia. The table is as follows: -

The bread prices quoted by the Minister are absolutely valueless, because he did not state whether they were cash over the counter or for delivery. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- They were for cash over the counter. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN: -- In all my figures, the prices are for bread and flour sold under exactly similar conditions. It is a true comparison in that respect. I shall show now how the millers benefit - These are facts which the Government will not consider, but which should be studied in considering any scheme for the stabilization of the wheat industry, and which should cover the wheat from the farm through the mill and bakehouse to the consumer's breakfast table. The wheat industry can be stabilized by making provision for greater efficiency, instead of imposing a tax on the poorer section of the community. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- What control would a pool have over millers ? {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN: -- There would be a standard price for wheat, and the State authorities with power to fix the price of flour would be forced by public opinion to do so. They would also fix the prices of flour, bran, and pollard. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- Cannot the State authorities do that? {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN: -- No, because they do not know what this Government is doing. The Vice-President of the Executive Council must know that the State Governments, with the exception of Queensland and Western Australia, are of the same political complexion as is the Commonwealth Government. The right honorable gentleman was pleased that the Government had not taxed poultry or pig feed. Is that something to be proud of? Under this proposal the Government is taxing the food of children but is exempting food for poultry and pigs! I have received scores of telegrams and letters from people living in all parts of South Australia protesting against the sales tax on flour, and I should not be doing my duty if I did not mention in this debate the widespread dissatisfaction in that State with the Government's proposal. Even at this late hour the Ministry should withdraw this scheme to raise £1,600,000 by means of a sales tax on flour for the assistance of the farmers. It has no mandate from the people to impose this tax. This Government was returned on its promise to restore prosperity. What has it done? It has imposed a new form of taxation, the effect of which will be to increase the price of bread by1d. per 2-lb. loaf. In other words it is levying a direct tax on the average household of from1s. 6d. to 2s. a week. Owing to the system under which wages in industry are fixed, the increased cost of living, due to this form of taxation, cannot be translated into legislation for the benefit of the workers. I appeal to the Government in the light of facts which are absolutely irrefutable, to withdraw this proposal and provide the money necessary for the assistance of the wheat-farmers by the reimposition of taxation which recently it remitted to the wealthy people of this country. I also urge it to appoint immediately a committee of inquiry to investigate the possibilities of economies in the wheat industry, so that long before this time next year we may have before us legislation for the orderly marketing of the Australian wheat crop, thereby ensuring to growers a fair price for their production and, at the same time, putting the industry on a satisfactory basis, so that it will meet, not only the immediate, but also the future needs of the nation. {: #subdebate-21-1-s2 .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria -- **Senator O'Halloran** has made a very interesting contribution to the debate, and has furnished us with a considerable amount of interesting information concerning the proposal now before the Senate. I agree with a good deal of what the honorable gentleman said. I was amazed that the Government did not, in its budget proposals, make provision for the relief of the wheat-growers, because every one has known, for many months now, how desperate is their plight, and how discouraging is the outlook. The Government having made a faulty start in not having made prc- vision in its budget for this relief has been faced with a very difficult task since then, and it has now come down with a proposal to provide £3,000,000 for the relief of necessitous wheat-growers. All things considered, I regard the proposal to raise one half of the money by means of a sales tax on flour as equitable. As regards the increased price of bread due to the imposition of the flour tax, all I need say is that the effect on the consumer will be the same as if, instead of imposing the sales tax, the Government were to fix a homeconsumption price for wheat. I am glad that the Ministry has recognized the importance of the industry by making provision for the relief of 73,000 growers who have been having such a bad time during the last few years. But I should like to see adopted a definite policy for the stabilization df the wheat industry, instead of proposals being brought forward from year to year to assist it by means of grants which are somewhat grudgingly given. The growers must sell in the open market over twothirds of their production, so that even if they receive 4s. 6d. a bushel for that portion of the crop required for home consumption, the price which the balance of the crop will realize in the world's market will not return to them an all-over price equal to the actual cost of production. Although Labour senators and some members of the United Australia party take strong objection to a sales tax on flour, they approve of a home consumption price for wheat. As a grower I would favour a home consumption price instead of sales tax: but, as 1 have explained, the result, so far as the public is concerned, would be the same. Both proposals will mean an increase of the price for wheat required for home consumption, and, as we all know increased prices are passed on to the consuming public. I would, however, point out that when wheat was 7s. a bushel, bread was no dearer then than it is to-day, with wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel f.o.b. It should be noted also that wheat prices quoted ' by most people are not prices on the farm, but are .f.o.b. Consequently, the unfortunate producer does not get anything like the price quoted. The average deduction in Australia between Bea-board and farm is fully 6d. a bushel. In the Riverina, on properties in which I am interested, the difference is 7d. a bushel, so that we cannot obtain 2s. a bushel on the farm for our wheat at present. On the 1st of this month some share-farmers in my district sold all their matured last season's wheat in bags, delivered, for ls. 10$d. Yet, they are charged exorbitantly high prices for bread by profiteering bakers. Honorable senators will, no doubt, be surprised to learn that these people are paying ls. per 4-lb. loaf, and within the last few days th»* Riverina bakers notified the public that the price would be increased by 2d. per 4-lb. loaf, although the poor unfortunate wheatgrower is getting only ls. 10fd. a bushel for the wheat. I cabled a day or two ago to one of the largest firms in New Zealand for information concerning "he price of wheat, flour and bread in the dominion. To-day I received a reply advising me that wheat there is 4s. 6d. a bushel at country railway stations) flour is £13 10s. a ton net, and bread, 8d. to 9d. per 4-lb. loaf. Some years ago the Auditor-General in New South Wales, in an official report upon the State bakery, stated that, although wheat was then 8s. a bushel, the bakery working with a faulty plant, was able to sell bread "at 5£d. per 2-lb. loaf, and show a profit of 8 per cent. The disparity between the returns received by the wheat-grower, who frequently works the round of the clock, and has only a few hours for sleep, and the prices charged for bread in New South Wales, is altogether too great. Yet I have read complaints lately that the operative bakers are now getting only £5 3s. a week, and carters only £4 2s. 6d. a week ! Although the wages now being paid in the baking industry are considerably lower than they were some years ago, the wheat-grower does not get anything like the amount received in wages by an operative baker or a bread carter, and while the price of wheat has fallen by one-half in the last few years, the price of bread to the consumer has not been decreased. I do not know of any wheatfarmer who for years past has received as much for his hard and continuous labour as the boy who drives a baker's cart. I have shown that the employees in the trade are on a good wicket. What of the millers? They have a "ring." They meet together almost daily. It is immaterial to them what the price of wheat is, because they fix the price of flour, bran, and pollard. In the town where I live an honest baker supplied good bread to the people at Id. to 2d. a loaf below the price charged by other bakers. He assured me that there was a good profit in it at the price. The millers refused to supply him with flour, and he was obliged to cease business. That has been done in many towns. I do not say that all bakers are making fortunes. I know that many of them have difficulties to contend with ; but most of them are doing fairly well. Their methods are generally extravagant. Uneconomical methods of distributing bread and other foods to the people is one of the things that I should like to see attended to in Australia. The man who right throughout has been butchered is the farmer who does most of the work. He was exhorted to grow more wheat and save Australia. Year after year the wheatgrowers have had to sell their wheat at more than ls. a bushel below production cost. We know that the man on the land who works long hours and produces the real wealth of the country is handicapped in his production cost by the effects of the policy of high protection, which also contributes to high railage 'freights. Although wheat is being sold in Sydney at 2s. 6d., farmers in the Riverina receive only ls. lid., as railage costs 7d. Such a return . cannot show a profit. . No government in Australia can do much to alter world prices, but this Government could ensure by legislation that the portion of ' the crop which is consumed in this country is sold at a price that will enable the industry to carry on. The causes of the collapse of wheat prices during the last three years are many. One of the principal was the attempt to hoard wheat in North America. There has been a huge carry-over of wheat in Canada and the United States of America. That is where wool has scored as against wheat. There was no carryover, and no hoarding of wool, so that when there was a shrinkage of production, the price went up in obedience to the law of supply and demand. Prices of wool have improved since last year by 75 per cent, to 80 per cent. The consuming countries of Europe - Belgium, France, Germany and Italy - have considered it wise to protect their growers of primary products by the imposition of very high import duties. That has led to a greatly increased acreage being devoted to wheat production. The world supply of wheat in 1920 was 2,896,000,000 bushels. In 1930, ten years later, it had nearly doubled; and from 1930 to 1933 the average was 4,600,000,000 bushels. The world's wheat stocks carried over for eight years averaged 1,000,000,000 bushels. I seriously doubt whether this supposed surplus of wheat really exists as wheat. Is it not likely to be represented largely by scrip held for wheat that has been traded in, and may not some of it be only the husks of wheat ? It is an established fact that in most countries, except in very dry areas, it is difficult to keep wheat for more than twelve months without its being seriously attacked by weevils. A well-known authority on wheat has' put this suggestion to me, and his opinion is that the supposed huge carry-over stocks do not really exist, and that, in the event of an improvement of consumption .and a shortage in the world's crops, there might' be a brighter outlook for wheat prices. On the other hand, European countries are growing more than their own requirements of wheat, and they and the Mother Country were our principal customers. It is difficult, in view of the position in those countries, to imagine why there will be any material increase of prices. The figures relating to world production of wheat are very interesting. The three European countries that used to buy large quantities of our wheat have enormously increased their production through the sympathy and assistance given to the wheat-growing industry by their governments. In France, Germany and Italy, in the period from 1909 to 1913, the average production of Wheat was 641,000,000 bushels per annum. In 1931-33, that figure has risen to 846,000,000 bushels. The total consumption of wheat in those countries is 820,000,000 bushels per annum. Therefore, it will be seen that those three countries have this year produced 26,000,000 bushels more wheat than they can consume. Australia has lost them as customers, which is a serious thing, indeed. What kind of treatment is given to the wheat-grower in those countries? In Germany the import duty on Australian wheat is 25 marks per 100 kilos. At the par rate of exchange in British currency, that is 6s. 8d. a bushel, and in Australian currency 8s. 4d. a bushel. At the current rate of exchange the duty on Australian wheat in Australian currency imported into Germany is 12s. 2d. a bushel. In France the duty is 160 francs per 100 kilos. At the par rate of exchange that is 7s. 0?d. in sterling, and 8s. 9½d. in Australian currency. At the current rate of exchange, the duty on Australian wheat entering* France is no less than 12s. lOd. a bushel, or twice as much as the Australian farmer gets for a bag. In. Italy the duty is 75 lire per 100 kilos, equivalent to 8s. Id. a bushel in Australian currency. What is Australia's position? From 1909 to 1914 Australia occupied sixth position among the wheatexporting countries of the world, with an average of 55,000,000 bushels, or 8.2 per cent, of the total exports of wheat.- From 1924 to 1929 the Australian average increased to 96,000,000 bushels, and this country rose to fourth place among the wheat-exporting countries, with a percentage of 12.1. In 1933, Australia advanced to second position, with net exports of 157,000,000 bushels. The poor unfortunate men on the land were called upon by the Federal Prime Minister and State Ministers to " Grow more wheat and save Australia." They put their hands to the plough. They toiled with their muscles and their brains - for they are very expert - and contributed materially to the national wealth. They were spurred on and overworked like the proverbial willing horse, and while they were creating wealth for the nation they were creating poverty for themselves and their families. The more land they cultivated and the more wheat they grew the poorer they became. Those of us who endeavour to settle men on the land on the share system, know that not only have the land-owners been impoverishing themselves, but the men working the farms are more heavily in debt to the storekeepers and anybody else who is willing to lend them anything. In 1932-33, through the efforts of the wheat-growers, Australia rose to the proud position of second largest wheatexporting country in the world, as the following figures will show: - Australia has risen from a humble position as a wheat-exporting country to that of the second largest, chiefly as the result of the " grow more wheat " campaign. Only three years ago, the Prime Minister of Australia, most of the State Ministers, and most members of this Senate, exhorted the farmers to grow more wheat, but now they are told by the International Wheat Conference and the Government that they should grow less wheat; consequently, the farmers do not know what to do. I remember when representatives of the Lang Government promised the farmer 7s. 6d. a bushel, and the Scullin Government promised them 4s. a bushel ; but we sold our wheat in that year at ls. 6d. a bushel, or at less than one-half the cost of production. I defy anybody in any part of Australia, and on any soil, to produce, bag, and cart wheat to a railway siding at less than 3s. a bushel, no matter how efficient he may be; yet I have heard it said that wheat-growing was a good proposition if one has a high yield, and obtains 2s. a bushel. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator Badman: -- lt is not likely to go up in view pf the world's surplus today. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- I am not sure on that point. Wheat cannot be stored even in Australia for over a year in silos, without being attacked by weevils. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator Badman: -- At the world conference, it was stated that the production was 400,000,000 bushels more than was required. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- I do not know that the carry-over was all fit for human consumption. I take exception to the practice of the press, and of the Government in only quoting the f.o.b. price of wheat instead of the price which the farmer actually receives in the country. The price of 2s. 7d. does not look so bad, but I have never yet read a quotation in a Melbourne newspaper showing that- a farmer cannot get 2s. a bushel. The officials should have known long ago that the crop this year will not reach anything like 200,000,000 bushels. I do not think that it will amount to 150,000,000 bushels. Drought conditions have been experienced in most parts of Aus tralia, but recently abnormal rains amounting in some localities to seven or eight inches, have wrought havoc in the crops; consequently, the yields will be poor, and the price is wretched. Now the Government proposes this dole, which is to be restricted to destitute wheatfarmers. If a farmer has been efficient and lucky, or has received an income from any source other than wheat-growing, he cannot participate in the relief grant. He must practically prove himself to be an insolvent. The proposed grant is not sufficient, seeing that it has to be distributed among about 73,000 growers. Last year they sold their wheat for £8,000,000 less than the cost of production, and they will have to do so again this year. No material increase of the price of bread, because of the imposition of the sales tax on flour, is justified, particularly when we consider the prices of wheat, flour, and bread in countries like Great Britain and New Zealand, and bear in mind the price of bread in Australia when wheat was fetching 8s. a bushel. Yet what will happen is exactly what **Senator O'Halloran** has indicated. Not only will the bakers increase their price to the consumer to a greater extent than the tax on flour justifies, but a further rakeoff will be taken by the millers and the bakers, and the farmer will not get the benefit to which he is entitled. The Government proposes to raise the £3.000,000 by the fairest methods available and better than obtaining the whole amount by a sales tax on flour, but I think that in distributing the burden, the Government has acted wisely. We must admit that a tax on flour is not a good way to raise money. The workers spend a larger proportion of their wages in the purchase of bread than is spent by the wealthy. The increase of the price of bread is particularly burdensome to the man receiving the basic wage or a lower sum, especially if he has a large family. There is no justification for a material increase of the price of bread. A bushel of wheat costing 2s. 6d. will produce 210 lb. of flour, for which the baker pays lis. 8d., and that flour is sufficient to make 140 2-lb. loaves of bread which at 4d. a loaf costs 47s. A 2-ib. loaf of. bread contains Id. worth of wheat or flour. The pollard and the bran pay for the gristing. A flour tax of £4 5s. a ton should not be offered as an excuse for a substantial increase of the price of bread. The maximum increase should not be greater than l£d. on a 4-lb. loaf. Take wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel. I have said that Id. worth of wheat is sufficient to make a 2-lb. loaf of bread. If we allow *id.* for delivery costs and millers' profits, *id* for wages, fd. for sales tax and lid. for minor sundries such as firewood, overhead costs and profits, the total cost of the 2-lb. loaf is not more than 4d. If millers and bakers exploit the people by incresing the price of a 2-lb. loaf of bread to 6d. or 7d., action should be taken by the State authorities to prevent the people from being bled. There is an enormous disparity between the price which the wheat-grower receives for his wheat and that which the consumer pays for his bread. Investigation has shown that it costs a 1¼d. to deliver each 2-lb. loaf which is more than growers receive for the wheat in a loaf of bread. Honorable senators opposite will strongly oppose the alleged additional penalty to be placed upon the shoulders of the worker, as the result of the imposition of a sales tax of £4 5s. a ton on flour. It is only necessary to divide the population of 6,500,000 into the £1,600,000 to be raised by the sales tax, to find that the amount is only 4s. lOd. per head per annum. There is not much in the suggestion of honorable senators opposite that this is a brutal and cruel tax upon certain unfortunate consumers. For the average Australian family of 3.25, the tax amounts to 15s. 8£d. per annum. For each individual it represents slightly over one-eighth of a penny a day. Let us study the , position with respect to sugar on the same basis. To supplement the incomes of 8,000 sugargrowers, as compared with 72,000 wheatgrowers, the 6,500,000 people in Australiapay £5,000,000 per annum; yet there is all this agitation because an additional £1.600,000 is to be raised on bread. The assistance given by the people of Australia to a producer of sugar, which is as necessary in the family larder as is bread, works out at £625 per annum, whereas the assistance to be afforded to the wheat-grower, even on an expenditure of £3,000,000, amounts to only £41 13s. Why such a differentiation? Why should we give a miserable £41 13s. to each wheat-grower, when, under the sugar agreement provision has been made tq give the sugar producers an average of £625 per head per annum? There has not been an iniquitous suggestion that the sugar producers shall not receive financial assistance if in receipt of a taxable income. I know of a man whose income from sugar is £10,000 a year. When Governments are paying bounties to manufacturers of galvanized iron, and similar commodities, or are imposing customs duties in the interests of those controlling secondary industries, is it ever said that such concessions will not be paid to those who are in receipt of a taxable income? Yet, when we come to the producers of real wealth, this iniquitous provision is inserted. Many wheat-growers who may have a taxable income of only £1, will be deprived of assistance. I am totally opposed to this differentiation against primary producers; I do not think that there is a precedent for this iniquitous condition in any other legislation in the world. It appears to be a blow at a few members of this Parliament, who in past years have made a profit out of growing wheat. I have yet to learn of any wheat-growers who have made a profit during recent years. There is an urgent need for a thorough investigation of the wheat-growing, milling and baking industries. There is something radically wrong when a farmer receives less than 2s. for wheat at country sidings^ and, in the same town, has to pay ls. for a 4-lb. loaf of bread. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- What is the remedy? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- A thorough investigation should be conducted by an impartial board consisting of able men, on which the producers and the consumers should be represented. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: *- Does* the honorable senator think that that would solve the difficulty? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- No ; but such an investigation would disclose the truth. Regardless of the area which a wheat-grower may be working, the rainfall or other conditions associated with the production of wheat, there is not one who can deliver wheat in sacks at country railway sidings at less than 3s. a bushel. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- Does the honorable senator believe in fixing the price for local consumption ? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- Yes, a homeconsumption price has to be fixed. An inquiry such as I have suggested would disclose that the millers have formed a ring, and are making undue profits. There is too great a discrepancy between the price paid to the farmers by the millers and the price the baker has to pay for his flour. The cost of gristing wheat is met by the proceeds of the sale of offal. I think it would be an easy matter to prove that the difference between the £7 10s. a ton which a baker pays for his flour and the price which he charges a consumer for bread is too great. I hope that the Government will appoint a"' royal commission, on which the producers and the consumers will be represented. The price of bread to-day with wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel, is practically the same as when wheat was 6s. or 7s. a bushel. Bread is more costly in Australia with wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel in Sydney and Melbourne than it is in New Zealand, where the farmers are receiving 4s. 6d. a bushel at country sidings. I sent the following cable to the head office of Dalgety and Company in New Zealand: - >Kindly cable prices of wheat, flour, and bread. The reply was - >Net price to- the farmer country railway stations 4s. 6d. a bushel, flour net £10 10s. per ton, bread 8d. to 9d. a 4-lb. loaf. I know of bakers who were charging 5d. for the 4-lb. loaf. Another baker charged 4d., and immediately his sup plies of flour were stopped. That sort of thing must be discontinued. It is almost a criminal action. Anybody who knows anything about the wheat industry knew months ago that the wheat-growers were in a hopeless position through seasonal conditions, and the world price of wheat. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Months ago, the honorable senator did not know what the harvest would be. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- Of course I knew. Anybody who knows anything about wheat-growing, knows long before the harvest what the yield is likely to be. He knows whether drought has withered the crop, and, generally speaking, what he may reasonably expect from it. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Did the honorable member know the price the farmer would get for it? {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- We knew that it would be a hopeless price. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- If was 3s. 9d. a bushel in September. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- Yes, at the seaboard. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- And the price was going up all the time. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- It continued at 3s. for about an hour in the Riverina, because, when I sent a wire intimating that I would accept 3s. a bushel for my wheat, the reply was " Oh no. We rang up Sydney and learned that the price has been reduced to 2s. 8d. a bushel ". Had the Government looked ahead, it would have made some provision in the budget for alleviating the position. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Obviously, the honorable senator did not know. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE: -- That provision has, I regret to say, come now in the form of a dole, and a pretty miserable dole to 73,000 wheat-growers in Australia. However, half a loaf is better than no bread, and we are thankful to accept it, even though those who had a taxable income of even £1 last year are not to participate in it. Motion (by **Senator E.** B. Johnston) negatived - >That the debate be now adjourned. {: #subdebate-21-1-s3 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON:
"Western Australia -- I protest against having to address myself to so important a subject at such an early hour of the morning, especially as the present sitting has been a very protracted one. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- We cannot get away to-morrow, no matter how much we try. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- We have been sitting since 11 o'clock this morning, and our legislative labours have now become a test of physical endurance. It is simply legislation by exhaustion. This is the fourth consecutive year in which we have been considering how we can best aid the wheat industry. As everybody is aware, Australia, is positively dependent upon its wheat industry. It occupies a high place amongst the wheat exporting countries of the world. Our wheat ranks second only in value to wool, and provides more direct employment than does any other Australian industry. In proof of this assertion, I quote from *Jobson's Investment Digest* tables showing the production of wheat and its f.o.b. price during the last few years : - >The following tables show Australia's position in the world as a producer and exporter respectively : - Australia's exports have latterly exceeded those from its southern hemisphere competitor, Argentine, and the fact that while Australia's production is only a little more than 4 per cent., her proportion of exports is now 25 per cent, of the world's total, shows conclusively how much Australia depends on the export wheat trade for the maintenance of the national income and internal employment. For this reason Australia is vitally concerned in the world scheme for the restriction of production and export, and of all the nations she probably can least afford to agree to any drastic curtailments of one of her main sources of wealth. The following table set out the approximate average export value per bushel f.o.b. and the total value of wheat production during the past several years. The drop in both is most marked: - The value of wheat in Australia, as in all the other main exporting countries, is much below production costs, and it was with the object of raising prices to payable levels that the agreement at the Economic Conference was entered into. Broadly, the agreement, which is to remain in force for two years, is a general reduction of 15 per cent, based on the 1931-33 period - the northern hemisphere countries to effect this curtailment of areas to be sown for the ensuing crops, and the southern hemisphere countries, where crops had already been sown, by restricting exports. The quotas finally decided upon were as follows: - 1933-34, Canada, 200,000,000 bushels; Argentine, 110,000,000 bushels, Australia, 105,000,000 bushels.; Danubian countries, 54,000,000 bushels; the United States of America, 47,000,000 bushels; other exporters, 45,000,000 bushels. Total, 562,000,000 bushels. For the year 1934-35, Canada, 263,000,000 bushels; Argentine, 154,000,000 bushels; Australia, 150,000,000 bushels; the United States of America, 84,000,000 bushels; Danubean, 50,000,000 bushels; other exporters, 45,000,000 bushels. Total, 746,000,000 bushels. Australia entered into that agreement most reluctantly, and **Mr. Bruce,** who has been remarkably accurate in gauging- both. -Australian and world conditions, rightly described the policy of a restriction of exports as " a policy of despair ". I have seen our action in joining in that policy described as a " policy of shame ". At any rate Australia was either bluffed or bullied into accepting the agreement. Ever since we entered into the agreement the price of wheat has' been steadily going down. The agreement has not had the desired effect of increasing the price of wheat. If there had been no such arrangement we should have been better off. We have been in the fortunate position of not having amassed any large wheat surplus in our own country. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- How can the honorable senator say that our prices would have been higher? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Our wheat is of the highest quality, and I believe we should have been better off if we had not entered into that wheat agreement. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- What argument can the honorable senator advance in support of his statement? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Since the 25th August last year, when the agreement was signed, no results have accrued from it. I do not anticipate any good results from it. The point affecting the Australian wheat-grower is that the Governmont has entered into the. agreement, thereby restricting our exports of wheat and throwing upon this Parliament a greater obligation to come *to* the assistance of the industry. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- The Government entered into the agreement behind the back of Parliament. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Yes. No such restrictions have ever before been placed on the export of wheat from Australia. Both the present Government and a previous government of a different political colour, have assisted the industry without discrimination, and it is amazing that for the first time in our history an entirely different policy should have been adopted in regard to assistance to wheat-growers. I would remind the Senate of what has been dona by the Commonwealth for the wheat-grower reluctantly, half-heartedly and ti If fidently during the last three harvests. In 1930-31 the Scullin Administration conducted its famous " Grow More Wheat " campaign, and promised the farmers at least 4s. a bushel at country railway sidings. I recollect that one could not get letters through the post office without having the inscription put on them " Grow more Wheat ; and on the wireless at night one probably heard a broadcast from **Mr. Scullin** or **Mr. Hogan,** or somebody else who took part in that campaign, which was inaugurated by **Mr. Scullin,** urging the farmers to " grow more wheat ". The wheat-farmers of Australia responded to that national call magnificently. In that year 18,200,000 acres were sown to wheat in Australia, and a record crop in the history of the Commonwealth was harvested. But it did not produce a record price. It was worth only about £28,000,000, whereas, in some previous years, more than £42,000,000 was received for a much smaller crop. The farmers were promised 4s. a bushel for that year's harvest, but actually they received less than 2s. a bushel at country sidings. Naturally, there was indignation at the failure of the Government to fulfil its promise, but I do it the justice of saying that that was not due to a lack of desire to treat the farmers fairly." Parliament was in session late in the harvest, and passed a Government bill' guaranteeing 3s. a bushel f.o.-b. for the whole production, but the farmers did not get one penny from the Government. For the first time within my knowledge a definite legislative undertaking of the Federal Parliament to assist an industry was dishonoured. This year the farmers are to be given assistance under a system of discrimination that has never previously been adopted in Government proposals to assist industries. The Scullin Government was still in power when the 1930-31 crop was ready to be harvested and I commend it for its action in granting a bounty of 4--d. a bushel on that year's production without any restriction. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- It borrowed the money and let another government pay for it. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Can the honorable senator tell me of any payment made by the Federal Government that has been expended to better purpose than - the bounty paid by the Scullin Government in 1930-31 i That Government recognized the farmers' need, and, although I was not a supporter of it, I give it full credit for having assisted the wheat industry in that year on a national basis and without discrimination. **Senator Reid** has just reminded me that the Scullin Government borrowed the money with which to pay that bounty. Only a fortnight ago we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** rushing off to Melbourne to consult with the authorities of the Commonwealth Bank with a view to borrowing money for a similar purpose this year. Subsequently, the right honorable gentleman thought better of the proposal and he has now brought down a scheme under which £3,700,000 is to be provided this year. Last year this Government made a grant of £2,000,000 to wheat-farmers. It provided the money out of revenue and distributed it to the industry on a national basis. Some portion of the amount was reserved for the assistance of necessitous farmers and a few thousands pounds was set aside for the assistance of other primary producers by way of -a bounty on the purchase of fertilizers. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937 -lings. - One man who made £8,000 on his crop got his -"cut" out of the bounty. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- I do not know of any wheat-grower who produced wheat last year except at a loss, but the other day I read a statement to the effect that one man drew £4,000 out of the fund provided by the Scullin Government to pay a bounty of 4Jd. a bushel. I think I know that man. He is a wellknown resident of the Wubin district in Western Australia, and sacrificed a large income from other properties which he has since lost as a result of his entry into the wheat-growing industry. A few years ago his ambition was to become the biggest wheat-grower in the world, and I believe he had from 20,000 to 30,000 acres under cultivation for wheat; but, like many others,' he has suffered in the depression and now his wealth is represented by mortgages on wheat farms, his other assets having disappeared. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- Do not forget that six Australian Governments of different views came to the conclusion that the distribution of financial assistance on the acreage basis was the fairest method. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- And they were right. The grant last year was distributed on an acreage basis, wheat-growers receiving about 2s. 6d. an acre for all wheat-fields cropped. That principle is not contained in this bill. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator Badman: -- The honorable senator ought to be a member of the Cabinet. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator Et B JOHNSTON: -- I belong to a party that stands by its principles. An offer was made to our party to join the Government, but we had sufficient strength of mind to say that unless our tariff policy was incorporated in the policy of the Government we would take no part in the administration. As a sort of hostage to fortune we stipulated that if we joined a composite government the portfolio of Minister for Trade and Customs should be given to a member of the Country party. That would have ensured a low tariff policy which, we believe, would be in the interests of the primary producers. This bill does not propose to give any assistance to the whole of the wheat industry. The Government should have acceded- to the request of representatives of wheat-growers unions and associations, primary producers associations and farmers and settlers associations which waited on the Prime Minister as a deputation a few weeks ago in Canberra, and asked that the wheat-growers should be granted assistance as an industry. As I listened to the Prime Minister replying to the deputation, I thought that he was going to comply with the request, and that he would agree to impose a sales tax of £6 >a ton on flour. I did not anticipate that in any assistance to be given to wheat-farmers, discrimination would be shown. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- Does the honorable senator believe in giving money to wealthy people ? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- I believe in assisting the wheat industry as an industry. During the last few weeks the honorable gentleman and his colleagues in the Labour party have given consistent support to the Government's tariff proposals to grant assistance to the richest industries in this country. The request put before the Prime Minister by the deputation of representatives of wheat-growers a few weeks ago was a simple one. They asked the Government to guarantee 3s. a bushel at sidings for all wheat produced this year. We have been told a lot about the restoration of confidence and prosperity budgets. The best way to restore confidence and prosperity would be to guarantee 3s. a bushel at sidings for wheat. Even at this late hour I would ask the Government to adopt that policy as desired by the Primary Producers Association of Western ' Australia, the Federal Wheat Growers Union, and other organizations of producers. It is the action that any government with any regard for the solvency of the wheat-growers would have taken. Why the present Government has not done so is beyond my comprehension. The Government has decided to give £3,000,000 on the lines proposed in the bill. I give the Government a measure of credit, although it has provided the money reluctantly, and given only half a loaf. The original proposal was to give nothing this year, and the £3,000,000 has been found as a result of pressure applied by the Country party. The money is being obtained from various sources of taxation, including a flour tax. **Senator O'Halloran,** in his informative speech, redoubled my conviction that it would be preferable to make the tax £5 10s. a ton, which would mean no greater increase than a penny in the price of bread. The bill introduces a new principle of granting assistance to an Australian industry. The assistance is limited to wheat-growers who, last year, had no taxable income. Members of the Country party say that, in a year like this, when all wheat is produced at a loss, the assistance should be granted as a right to all wheat-growers, and not as a dole to mendicants. Some secondary industries have been given tremendous assistance during this session of Parliament: The Broken Hill Proprietary Limited, with its iron and steel bounty, is an example. All its products are most 'highly protected under the tariff. Was any inquiry made to ascertain that the shareholders of this com- pany did not have taxable incomes? I wonder whether the Government will reconsider the thrice-considered question of galvanized iron before Parliament adjourns. Will the Government, if it finds that Lysaghts Limited has a taxable income of more than £1 a year, withdraw the tariff protection of £4 10s. a ton, so generously restored to the industry hy the Senate at the third time of asking, or is such action reserved only for the wheat-growers? Between 1926 and 1931, nearly £500,000 was paid to the iron and steel industries, although the company concerned is one of the richest in the Commonwealth, and has very big financial reserves. For many years, a bounty of £4 10s. a ton on galvanized iron was distributed in hard cash by the Common.wealtlh Government. An amount of £750,000 has been paid on cotton and cotton-yarn without discrimination between the rich and the poor persons engaged in the industry.- The tariff protection given to various secondary industries is largely paid for by the wheatgrowers. It Seems that the richer and more powerful a secondary industry is, the more assistance it is given by the Government. A manufacturer of agricultural machinery died a few years ago leaving an estate valued at more than. £2,000,000, one of the greatest fortunes ever amassed in Australia. He made that money largely out of an efficient, well-conducted business carried on with wheat farmers, and it was possible for him to make it because a benevolent Commonwealth Government imposed prohibitive customs duties. It was never suggested that the tariff protection should be withdrawn because he had a taxable income. The fact that he was a millionaire did not prevent him from writing his own ticket for tariff protection. The large wealthy rubber manufacturers have placed nearly £1,000,000 out of profits to their reserves in the last few years. These rich companies have never been refused increased protection because some of the wealthiest taxpayers in Australia are to be found among their shareholders. There was a revenue duty of 4d. a lb. on raw rubber, but, a few months, ago it was reduced to 2d., thereby, on the authority of the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Senator McLachlan),** presenting the rubber companies with relief from taxation amounting to £225,000 per annum. It is true that since that time the companies have made a reduction - the second - of *1* per cent, in the price of tires. I should say that the companies were doing very well when £225,000 of duty was remitted to them, and they passed on only *7$* per cent, to their customers. The sugar manufacturers and the shareholders share in the huge profits in that industry under the sugar agreement, and the embargo. No objection seems to be taken to the continuance of that system, because among the shareholders are some of the wealthiest citizens. Only in regard to the wheat industry has the *Government* practised the discrimination proposed in this bill. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- The sugar industry is stabilized. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- It is protected, and I wish to see the wheat industry stabilized, assisted and protected, and the right given to charge an Australian price. The discrimination now being shown against wheat-growers with any taxable income is the meanest and most contemptible action taken by any Australian Government since federation. It is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Federal Constitution, section 53, sub-section 3 of which provides that the Commonwealth shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to " bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth." "Uniform throughout the Commonealt'h " means uniform throughout the industry without discrimination. The Government has avoided its obligations to assist the wheat-growers without discrimination by the subterfuge of a grant to the States to be distributed on the basis of mendicancy. The real spirit of the Federal Constitution has been prostituted. I should like to know the reason for this change in government policy in the last year. Is it because of the change in the personnel of the Ministry, or because of the retirement of **Mr. Bruce** from the Cabinet? Last year the wheat-growers were ' assisted without discrimination. When lower prices previl for wheat, why does the Government reduce its assistance to a dole to mendicants ? The growers are much worse off now than they were a year ago. The majority of the settlers have no money with which to repair their properties, and the outlook in the wheat districts is most distressing. In considering matters of vital interest to the rural community, Ministers are at a great disadvantage in another chamber through not having one colleague whose occupation- lies mainly in the rural area. The resignation from the Ministry of the honorable member for Wakefield **(Mr. Hawker)** was a great loss to the farmers of Australia. A majority of members in this Parliament represent city constituencies, and this makes the Government a metropolitan-minded Ministry. Any ministerial knowledge of rural affairs is mainly centred in the Senate. The Leader of the Government described himself as a farmer on his nomination paper for the .last election. I should like to know who is responsible for this discriminatory proposal against the wheat industry. A feeling prevails that " we have government of the cities by the cities, and perhaps that is why the dole is handed out to the wheat-growers, whereas in the national interests they should be assisted on an Australia-wide basis. The Government acted wisely in deciding to raise by taxation, and not by loan, the meagre financial assistance to be granted. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- What about the restriction of wheat-growing on unsuitable areas in the future? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- The Westralian Farmers Limited submitted an excellent plan to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** in that regard. I was a member of a deputation that put complete details in his hands, and we were satisfied with the reception which he gave us. The Government made no provision in the budget for granting assistance to the wheat-growers, so it is clear that no such assistance was intended this year. If the No. 2 Wheat Marketing Bill of the Scullin Government had been passed two years ago, legislative machinery would have been provided for fixing the Australian price of wheat consumed in this country, i and other members of the Country party supported that bill, but 't was defeated by the United Australia party senators, who wanted a flour tax. A tax or £7 4s. a ton was proposed by Professor Perkins, and I am sorry the Government is now prepared to propose a tax of' only £4 5s. a ton, and that for a very limited period. What is the truth about a flour tax? First, it is vi.tally necessary to maintain a national industry; secondly, it means granting a measure of justice to an industry which, in the past, has been taxed unmercifully, in the interests of secondary industries; thirdly, the price of flour is an inconsiderable factor in the price of bread, and the doubling of the price of home-consumption flour will justify only a slight advance of bread prices. The first two propositions call for no elaboration. The third is easily proved. A tax of £6 a ton would give to the wheat-growers an amount equal to 6d. a bushel on the whole crop, or 4s. 6d. a bushel for the quantity consumed in Australia. In other words, it would provide a bounty equal to approximately 6s. an acre on the area harvested. Such a tax would not justify an increase of more than £d. a loaf. This statement is fully borne out by evidence prepared in New South Wales which sets out that when flour was £15 iTs. 4d. a ton bread was only id. dearer than to-day, when it is £9 a ton; that when wheat and flour fell 50 per cent, in 1920, bread was reduced by only a fraction of a penny; that only oneseventh of the price paid for a loaf goes to the farmer, the balance being swallowed up by bakers' labour and handling costs. Although I think that a tax on flour is necessary, the Federal Government has, apparently, made an attempt to avoid its introduction, and the Opposition will use it as political ammunition at the next general election. A tax on flour to assist the wheat-growing industry should be imposed for a longer period and at a higher rate. The party responsible for its introduction may lose a few votes in metropolitan electorates. It will be the fault of the Federal Government if the wheat-growers refuse to produce for export next year, as some of them are threatening to do. The following telegram was sent to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** by the president of the Australian Wheat-growers Federation **Mr. I.** G. Boyle:- >Wheat-growers disgusted their plight being made stamping ground for political moves and counter moves. Industry cannot continue without substantial Commonwealth help. Fourpence per bushel quite inadequate. We appeal to your Government to carry out promise made at Canberra. If reasonable aid not given farmers determined grow only enough wheat for home market coming year. A telegram such as that addressed to the Prime Minister deserves the utmost consideration of the Government, which will have to bear the responsibility if this threat is carried into effect. {: #subdebate-21-1-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The honorable senator has exhausted his time. {: #subdebate-21-1-s5 .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN:
South Australia -- I do not intend to criticize the Government harshly for introducing this measure; but I think it is to be blamed for the delay which has occurred in bringing it before Parliament. We have to take the measure as it is, and discuss it from the varying angles of interest ; we have also to compare the position of the wheat-growers to-day with their position in previous years, and consider what is likely to happen to them in the future. Australia expects a harvest of 150,000,000 bushels or 60,000,000 bushels less than the production last year. We have also to consider how the reduced production will effect, not only the income of individual farmers, but also the income of the nation. A decline of 50,000,000 bushels of wheat at 2s. 5d. a bushel means that the farmers will receive £6,000,000 less than in 1933. If we add to that the further loss of 5d. a bushel, owing to the lower price on, say, 140,000,000 bushels of wheat marketed, the income of the industry is further reduced by £3,000,000, making a total reduction below the income of 1932 of £9,000,000. In addition to the loss which the farmers will incur, we must take into account the amount of money that would be in circulation had a 'better price been obtained. The low price for this season's harvest will mean a loss to the whole community. I venture to say that but for the fact that the price of wool has been the means of increasing our national income no amount which this Government might provide or attempt to provide would be sufficient to offset the loss sustained owing to harvesting a smaller crop at a lower price. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- The rise in wool will give a stimulus to the artificial silk industry. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN: -- That may be so, but in view of previous experience, I do not think that that is likely. Apart from the relief provided in 1932, Australia was about £11,000,000 better off in the matter of wheat production than it is in 1933; but if we reduce that amount by £3,000,000, which is the relief the Government proposes to afford this year on the present season's crop, we find that there is still a loss of £8,000,000 to the wheat-producers as compared with 1932-33. The figures in the Auditor-General's report for South Australia reveal some interesting facts in respect of the condition of the wheat-growers in that State. I have seen the relief reports for every State, but in South Australia for the year 1933-34, 2,997 persons were approved to receive relief from the Government. In 1931- 32, the figures were 3,459, and in 1932- 33, 2,698. It will be seen that this year the number of recipients is increased notwithstanding therelief given to the farmers. The whole of the relief afforded has been accounted for by the Government inasmuch as it has retained the cart-notes of farmers' wheat and wool as at the 30th April. The position is actually worse in South Australia than in any other State, but the figures do not reveal the true position of the wheat-growers. The unpaid relief in 1931 was £47,551, and in 1932, £183,161. The position of the wheat-growers, not only in South Australia, but also in the other States, will be hopeless unless substantial relief is given. The overdrafts of farmers who still have an equity in their properties are increasing, hut the position of those who have no equity at all is intolerable. "Why has the wheat-grower been placed in such a position? {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- Why? {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN: -- Statistics show that throughout the world over 900,000,000 bushels of wheat is available, and only 550,000,000 bushels is required. Many European countries to which Australia previously sent considerable shipments are growing wheat to meet their own requirements, and no longer purchase from Australia, the Argentine or Canada. Importing countries have been compelled to keep their people on the land in order to provide the food for home requirements. We have placed embargoes on European goods, and we cannot blame other countries if they place embargoes on our exports. Power farming is largely responsible for the huge carry-over. It is estimated that 30,000,000 acres of wheat is now being used for the production of grain instead of fodder. Because of the advent of the tractor, that 30,000,000 acres of wheat would be harvested for grain to purchase fuel, whereas formerly the area would have been utilized for the production of fodder for horses. Taking a conservative yield of ten bushels to the acre, this means that the world is to-day producing 300,000,000 bushels of wheat more than it produced prior to the introduction of the tractor. It is calculated that each tractor requires a financial return of 1,000 bushels of wheat each year to pay for its fuel and upkeep. That 300,000,000 additional bushels of wheat tends to keep down the price of this staple; by the operation of the law of supply and demand, that price is bound to decline. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- Over-production always creates a buyer's market. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN: -- There have been cases in which over-production has been known to save the position. Year, after year, the farmer has prepared, and continues to prepare, for the future, hoping that the price of wheat will rise to repay him for his expenditure. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- Has the honorable senator any remedy for the situation? {: #subdebate-21-1-s6 .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP -- I shall state my remedy if the honorable senator will wait a little while. The Government of this country, when it was preparing its budget, must have known that the wheat position was serious. **Senator Pearce,** in his address to-night, intimated that the Government did not feel justified in attempting to sound the wheat position when the budget was being prepared. I have obtained the prices that were ruling for wheat on the 1st September and the 1st October of this year, prior to the introduction of the budget. On 1st September, the average price of Australian wheat was 3s. 0½d. a bushel, and on 1st October, it was 2s. Did. a bushel. For the months of October and November last year, the price of wheat was 2s. lOd. a bushel, so that its price this year is just about the same as that of last year. Why was so much relief from taxation granted in other directions without taking into consideration the possibility of the wheat-growers requiring assistance? Either the Government overlooked this matter, or it thought that a good budget, affording much relief from taxation, would meet with such strong approval by the people that a high price for wheat would be forthcoming. I do not suggest that the Government does not deserve praise for its splendid work in the remission of taxation. Since the depression hit the world, the Government has done much to restore confidence in Australia. No Government has done more. But it might have done better still for the producers had it taken into account the parlous position of the wheat industry. A London newspaper, in a sub-leader of the 14th September, commenting on the year's crops, said - >With the security now afforded by the wheat act, growers can feel happier in the Assurance that the cash return will at any rate cover the cost of production, and in most oases, leave a fair margin of profit on the crop. At the end of the first year's operation of the act, arable farmers have indeed good reason to appreciate the work of the Wheat Commission. In the official statement recently published, it was reported that the total income of the wheat fund during the cereal year ended July, 1931, was £4,784,000, which was collected by quota payments spread over 92,100,000 cwt. of Hour. From this fund, the commission have made provision for deficiency payments to farmers on 4,533,000 qrs. of homegrown wheat. It is to the commission's credit that the administrative expenses amount to no more than 3d. a qr., and farmers benefit by deficiency payments of a fraction of Id. less than 20s. a qr. Thus, the average market price of 24s. 2d. a qr. is made up to nearly the full standard price of 45s. a qr. laid down in the wheat act. That shows clearly that even in Britain, where the farmers do not play such a big part in maintaining the country as "they do in Australia, they are, neverthe- less, being considered. Yet, in England, only about 1,500,000 acres is being cropped. The assistance rendered to the industry there, is, therefore, almost equivalent to £1 an acre, whereas in Australia the wheat-growers are only being granted assistance to the value of £3,000,000 on 15,000,000 acres of crop. As pointed out last week by one of the Canadian authorities, it is a case of the survival of the fittest, lt is plain that Australia must help the industry to survive, and although under high protective tariffs, European nations are providing for the needs of their own people, they are growing wheat under uneconomic conditions which must eventually break down. Any country which survives the existing depression, and has kept its wheat-growers on the land, will benefit largely by the enhanced price which will later ensue. In proposing a flour sales tax to raise the money that is required for the relief of our wheat-growers, the Government has taken the right step. I do not agree with members of the Opposition who argue that a fixed Australian price cannot be better than a flour sales tax. A tax of £4 5s. a ton on flour represents on the home-consumed wheat of Australia, an increase of ls. 10½d. a bushel. If we add that to the present price it will bring tha price of wheat about 3s. 10½d. per bushel. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'Halloran: -- But the consumer will pay more than £4 5s. per ton. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN: -- I shall refer to that aspect of the matter presently. The Government made a mistake in not levying a tax equivalent to that which the baker will charge by way of addition to the cost of each loaf of bread that he sells. Had Ministers taken into account, the fact that from 1,350 to 1,360 loaves of bread are made from a ton of flour, they would have realized that an increase of Id. a loaf would be equivalent to about £5 13s. 4d. a ton, so that the baker would not then be receiving the rake off that he is getting under present conditions. **Senator O'Halloran** pointed out the position very clearly. The 25s. difference between the flour tax of £4 5s. a ton, and the tax which should have been imposed to increase the price of the 4-lb. loaf by Id. will be in the nature of a gift. In New South Wales, however, it will mean an increase of only *id.* per 2-lb. loaf. In the other States it will be equivalent to an increase of Id. upon the 2-lb. loaf - an increase which is unjustified. The Government, by a pricefixing commission, should prevent the master bakers from charging more than the equivalent of the tax of £4 5s. a ton. But the Government made a mistake in not proposing a sales tax of £5 10s. a ton. From figures supplied by the Master Bakers Association in Adelaide, I find that an increase of £2 a ton in the cost of flour means an increase of .035d. for a 2-lb. loaf of bread. If we work up to the £4 5s. increase, we shall find that the increased price of the 2-lb. loaf will be 74d. It has already been announced in the daily press that the master bakers of Adelaide have raised their price by Id. a loaf, which means that they are making an extra profit of £d. a loaf. If we take into account the quantity of flour consumed in South Australia alone, namely, 32,000 tons a year, it seems that the bakers there will get a free gift of £40,000. The Government is not justfwd in making such a present, and incidentally penalizing other sections of the community. Another point upon which I desire to touch, is the discriminatory provision in the bill. I maintain that government action in discriminating between one man who paid income tax last year and another man who did not, is highly reprehensible. The Government has made' a huge mistake. How can it determine whether this man or that man made his money from wheatgrowing or dairying or from dealing in sheep or wool? If he has made his taxable income from sources other than wheat, he is condemned by the Government to continue growing wheat at a loss. If there is anything calculated to throw the wheat industry out of gear,- it is this discrimination between one wheat-grower and another. When the Government grants tariff protection to any industry in Australia, it does not restrict it to industries which are not making a profit. With wheat at 2s. 6d. a bushel, a farmer cannot show a profit 1 unless his average" production is 35 bushels an acre. Figures supplied last week in *Land,* a New South Wales journal devoted to the interests of rural industries, showed that with wheat at {: type="1" start="33"} 0. 0½d. a farmer would require to average 30 bushels an acre to make his business pay. An average return of 21 bushels an acre shows a loss. As the average production in Australia for the last three years, has been approximately twelve bushels an acre, it will readily be understood that wheat-farming during that, period has been carried on at a loss. To improve the position of wheat-growers, I have always advocated an Australian price for home consumed wheat. There is no other way out of the difficulty. A sales tax on flour is not palatable even to wheat-growers; neither is a bounty. The average farmer does not like to -be pauperized, and certainly he objects to discriminatory legislation. The only satisfactory method is to stabilize the industry and by some method of control fix the Australian price at a level that will give the average efficient farmer a chance to carry on at a profit. The governments of Australia should work out a plan whereby it will be possible to fix an Australian price for marketable wheat and thus hold out some hope to the wheatgrowers. {: #subdebate-21-1-s7 .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland -- This bill is by no means satisfactory to honorable senators of the Opposition. As members of the Australian Labour Party, we believe that wheat-growing, like every other industry, should be properly organized and stabilized on a basis which would ensure a satisfactory return to every person engaged in it. Although we intend to support the bill, we shall have something to say about some of its provisions when it is in committee, particularly concerning the method proposed for raising the money for the assistance of growers. We are under no delusion as to where the wheat-farmer stands in this connexion. The average wheat-grower does not believe in State interference with his industry except when it is in a desperate plight as at present. When prices are high the last thing the wheat-farmer wishes to see is Government interference with his business. I make this statement so that those who to-day are such perfervid champions of State interference, which in other words means a measure of socialization of industry, should understand that we see through their trick. We believe in affording to every worth-while primary and secondary industry the fullest measure of protection - by this I do not mean only protection through the tariff - and encouragement to place it on a sound basis. No nation can be prosperous unless those engaged in its primary industries are contented and thriving. A Labour government in Queensland and the Scullin Administration in the federal arena realized their obligations to the full, and although the members of the Scullin Administration are now in opposition in this Parliament, they still hold the same opinion about our primary industries. Queensland does not yet produce enough wheat to satisfy the local demand, but the industry is, nevertheless, an important one. The following is the official view of the industry taken by the Queensland Labour Government: - >The major difficulties encountered in the commercial production of wheat in Queensland are the comparatively short growing season and the danger of rust infestation. Rust has been responsible in the past for very heavy losses in Queensland wheat-fields, and the local industry has been enabled to obtain its present position of importance only by the cultivation of varieties of wheat which resist or escape rust attack, and which when planted early to take advantage of the winter rains will not conic out into head until the danger of frost has passed, and which will mature before the advent of the wet season. > >Many of the wheats popularly grown in the southern States are quite unsuited for the particular conditions obtaining in Queensland, and consequently it has been found necessary to breed up special varieties to suit our purpose. > >This work has been carried out for a period of over 20 years at the Roma State Farm, which institution has been responsible for the evolution of a large percentage of the varieties of wheat now in general cultivation. > >Of the total area of 260,468 acres planted with wheat in the 1931-32 season, 60,172 acres or approximately 23 per cent, were planted with Queensland-bred varieties of which there are some 20 odd in general cultivation. > >The production *of* one new variety entails a vast amount of work in cross-breeding .and the testing and observation of the numerous strains (running into thousands) from each cross, before the majority of them can be eliminated as definitely unsuitable. Only those strains which show from the exhaustive tests to which they are subjected that they have the desired characteristics, are released from the wheat-breeding farm. We know that this great industry must eventually come to the labour ideal and, if it is to expand and provide for those engaged in it a decent living, it must be stabilized and organized. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- Would the honorable senator say that the Broken Hill Proprietary Limited would be more successful under government control? {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS: -- Because I know that private enterprise in the conduct of industry, which in other words means the capitalistic conduct of society, has everywhere ended in tragic and ghastly failure - the world is strewn with the wreckage of private enterprise^ - and that wherever failure has occurred it has been minimized only by governmental interference, I am convinced that only governments can do the job properly. An important phase of , this part of my argument is that the Government is the authority which should set about the business of organizing the wheat industry. There should be no further delay. It is essential that the tragic failure of the industry should be corrected before the next season. I am aware of the difficulties incidental to the discussion of important legislation of this nature at this unusual hour, and after such a strenuous sitting, and if I may be permitted to digress I should like to say that this process of legislation by exhaustion is positively cruel to the *Hansard* staff. The reporters whose business it is to record the debates of this Parliament cannot leave the chamber except to go about their business, and unlike members of Parliament, they have no opportunity to get relief. This is something of which we should be ashamed. {: .speaker-JRW} ##### Senator Crawford: -- There should be no reporting after midnight. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS: -- I am at a less to understand the Government's absolute indifference to the future of the wheat industry. No mention of proposals to assist wheat-growers appeared in the- " prosperity " budget which, we were told, was such a remarkable document. The Leader of the Senate **(Senator- _ Pearce)** has tried to explain the omission. Seeing that the market conditions weresomewhat unstable, and that these were-. indications of an impending improvement in prices, the Government decided to follow a policy of masterly inactivity. Evidently the temporary buoyancy of the market was caused by gambling in stock. In view of the seriousness t of the wheat position, the Government should not have distributed its surplus as it did. From that surplus a sufficient sum should have been earmarked to give relief to the wheat-growers. Much could be done by providing orderly marketing for this industry. Members on this side are sometimes twitted with being too lavish in their criticism, and too sparing in making constructive suggestions. I shall try to submit a constructive suggestion. In 1920, the Labour party in Queensland passed the "Wheat Pool Act, under which the first compulsory pool was formed in that State. That act was a distinct step towards the encouragement of complete co-operation. The spirit of the act is co-operation between the board, the growers, and the railway authorities, through which the harvest is handled systematically and expeditiously in local and foreign markets. After the first year's operations, the Government took a referendum of all wheatgrowers on the question of whether the pool should be continued, and 97£ per cent, of the growers who voted recorded their opinion in favour of continuation. In October, 1924, the Government took another referendum, with the result that, out of 2,730 growers voting, 2,116 voted for a continuation of the pool for the 1925, 1926, and 1927 wheat crops; 117 voted for continuation for two years, and 177 voted for one year. Only 320 were against continuation of the pool. The wheat pool was accordingly extended for a further period of three years until 1927. A proclamation was issued on the 24th April, 1928, extending the pool for a further five years, that is, until the season 1932-33, with a proviso that a request for a poll on the question of such extension might be made before the 1st June, 1928. This request was not made, and the pool was extended accordingly. The Government guaranteed the pool's overdraft .in 1925-26 up to £225,000; in 1926-27, up to £71,000, and it financed the pool up to £47,742 to enable it to build grain sheds. There can be no gain saying that under the provisions of the "Wheat Pool Act, a system of organized marketing has become possible, and, as .a result, it is significant that from the time the pooling system was initiated the wheat-grower in Queensland has received a higher return for his wheat than has the grower in any other State of the Commonwealth. "We ought all to sympathize with the Government in its difficulties in connexion with this matter. Members on this side wish to register their most emphatic protest against the flour tax. I am not now suggesting that members of any other party are not just as interested as we are in the welfare of the worker. I have never suggested that, but I have said that, although they are full of sympathy, that is about as far as they go. The methods they adopt never help the workers. The flour tax must be paid by the consumers of bread, who are the class that we, on this side, represent. No one can deny that the tax must affect the workers very much more seriously than any other section of the community. There is a fund of evidence available as to the inequity and non-necessity of this tax. The *Canberra Times* of the 25th November had this to say about the flour tax - >Much more concern appears to be exhibited for the effects of saving the wheat industry than the effects either of leaving it to perish or imposing on posterity the burden of the assistance to be given now. The imposition of a flour tax is being seized upon as an evil, because an increase in the price of bread is threatened. It has yet to be shown that the threatened increase in the price of bread is either justifiable or inevitable. The price of bread has not fallen in proportion to the fall in costs of production and the price of raw material. There is, therefore, no valid reason why it should respond so sensitively to an increase in the cost of flour to the bakers. The issue to be determined is, therefore, not whether a flour tax should be imposed to assist the producers of wheat, but whether the community should be bilked by the bakers in the process. I entirely agree with that, and, if the Government will guarantee that no increase of the price of bread will be allowed, we shall be willing to pass the flour tax. The Government says that it has net the power to do that. This National Parliament, if it has not the power to protect the people against the rapacity of private hucksters in bread, should obtain the power to do the job. That would be something worth while, of which the Government could be justly proud. The *Canberra Times,* from which I have quoted, can not be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to be friendly to the Labour party. The Sydney *Sun* of the 13 th October, in an article on the wheat problem, said *inter alia -* >Since the Government has interfered in the marketing of wheat, and agreed to restriction of export, it seems certainly the duty of the Government to find some way out of the difficulty. Here I should like to emphasize the disastrous and fatal mistake made by the Government when it agreed to restrict the export from this country of one of our greatest products, upon which we depend for a necessary overseas trade surplus. The *Sun* dealt with other phases of the matter, and finished by saying - >Wheat farming, like making boots or brewing beer, must give some sort of reasonable livelihood or nobody will be able to afford tot do it. An analysis of the position in Queensland reveals some interesting facts relating to millers' profits. In January, 1929, with wheat at 6s. 7d. a bushel, flour was £12 5s. a ton. In January, 1931, wheat was 4:8. 2£d. a bushel, that is 2s. 4£d. lower than the January, 1929, price. But what was the price of flour fixed by the millers? It was _ £12 10s. a ton, 5s. more than the price of flour in January, 1929, when wheat was 2s. 4£d. a bushel dearer. As 2s. 4-Jd. for wheat is equivalent to £6 6s. a ton for flour, the price of flour in January, 1931, therefore, should have been £6 6s. lower than it was actually, fixed. In July, 1930, wheat was 4s. 4d. and flour £11 5s. To-day, wheat is 3s. 10d., that is, 6d. cheaper, but flour is £11 12s., or 7s. a ton dearer, which really means, with cheaper wheat, an increase of £1 14s. a ton. In November, 1930, wheat was 3s. 8£d. and flour £9 10s.; but now, with wheat at 3s. 10d., flour is £11 12s. a ton. Theoretically, the farmer was to get 4s. 2-Jd. a bushel for f.a.q. wheat, but owing to an arrangement the millers got control of the grading and very little of the crop was graded as f.a.q. ; it seems that it was mostly graded as of second and third qualities, and, of course was purchased at the lower rates, and the grower is a sadder but wiser man. While this is going on the consumption of bread has dropped 10 per cent., owing to the poverty of the people, who hunger for bread, while the millers pocket their rakeoff. I shall conclude, as I began, by saying that we on this side believe that nothing satisfactory can result from further tinkering with this problem. We shall support the second reading of the bill because we believe that it is much better than nothing, but the growers are entitled to more than this apology for relief which is now offered. The Government should evolve a scheme for the definite organization of the industry from the grower to consumer, and stabilize it on a basis that will bring the possibility of justice to the grower, the miller, and the consumer, as well as to the men who do the work of the grower and the miller The example of the great sugar industry might well be followed. Unless the Government takes prompt action, I fear that it will he faced with the same problem again next season, and the industry will never be free of fear of the necessity for again coming, cap in hand, to the Government for this most unsatisfactory measure of relief. No greater task could be undertaken by a government than the stabilization of this great industry, and if the problem were- solved, that achievement would go a long way in the direction of rehabilitating this Government in the eves of the electors. {: #subdebate-21-1-s8 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia -- I agree with **Senator Collings** that this problem must be regarded in the light of the needs, not of one year, but of a term of years. I am not at all certain that a long-range view of the matter has not been taken by the Government, although it is careful to qualify its present action by saying that it will remove the flour tax at the middle of next year. That may or may not come to pass. In my view, the wheat problem threatens to be with us for several years, and, whether we like it or not, we may as well face up to that fact. The situation with regard to wool' is entirely different, because there is no carry-over to consider. In the case of wheat no considerable increase of the price can be expected for several years. I do not blame the Government for the agreement reached at the International Wheat Conference. I think that **Mr. Bruce** and the Government tried to avoid coming to that arrangement, but they were practically forced into it. It seems to me generally that the limiting factor should be the lack of demand for wheat owing to over-supply, rather than an artificial arrangement. It is rather inhuman, when so many people are in need of bread, but have no chance to eat it and have to take a cheaper substitute, that we should be taking steps to restrict the supply. Even if the price is to drop, it seems that the reasonable and human thing is to allow the lack of demand gradually to regulate the supply, just as the difference between exports and imports can be regulated by exchange. The Government, without referring the matter to the wheatgrower, having come to an international agreement which limits the export trade, must accept some responsibility for interfering with the ordinary methods of sale and export. No mention of any payment to wheat-farmers was made in the budget. I drew attention to this fact on the 24th October, three weeks after the budget speech had been delivered. I remarked - >I draw attention to the absence of any provision for payment to the wheat-farmers. He would be a bold man who, in view of the > >S resent position of the wheat industry, would declare that the growers of Australia will be able to carry on throughout the year without any assistance from the Commonwealth. These arc important omissions from the- budget speech. I am not certain that the Government did not do right in taking a risk in this matter, although now, unfortunately, we know that the farmers must be helped financially. Various schools of thought have made different proposals regarding the wheat industry. First there is the suggestion for a compulsory pool. It seems to me that half our present troubles in regard to wheat are due to the fact that pools in North America held up tremendous stores of wheat, with a view to getting the price which they thought they should receive. It seems the height of absurdity for any sane man to suggest that we should adopt a compulsory pool in Australia to rectify the trouble caused largely by pools elsewhere. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The pools in Canada were not compulsory. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- But those pools were in a more dominating position than pools in Australia could occupy. They used their weight to force up the prices for the farmers' wheat. Nothing is more certain to lead to disaster than attempts to control the price of bread. Nobody has ever been able to continue to do that successfully. The efforts of any man or pool who attempts to corner bread must inevitably end in disaster. There is also the proposal to pay a fixed price for home consumption. I ' say quite frankly to my friends in the Country party that I am not in favour of a' fixed price, because the farmers are in a minority. If a price is fixed against the majority, there may come a day - it has already come in Russia - when the majority may fix prices against the minority, and when they will be forced to sell their grain at an unprofitable price. I do not wish to put the farmer in the position of trying to get an artificial price. Of the three systems which have been recommended to the Government for the financing of assistance to the wheat-growers, I prefer a flour tax; it appears to be the soundest and fairest, because the burden is most widely spread. If we are to have tariffs and bounties cluttering up the whole economic machine, I can see no reason why wheat should be debarred. The Government has chosen tha right course by adopting a sales tax on flour. I have no complaints against it, because it will cause the proposed remission of property tax to be reduced. I am not grumbling concerning the additional excise on tobacco. Revenue has to be obtained in some way. I congratulate the Government upon refraining from financing this obligation by loading the country with heavy debt to be paid by future generations'. This grant will be wiped out by the flour tax, and that is another reason why it should be supported. The reasons why I think the Government should assist the wheat industry are these: First, the international wheat agreement has played ducks and drakes with the farmers' chances of export. Secondly, we have professional testimony that the tariff load on the wheat-grower is from 4£d. to 5d. a bushel. That impost was not quite offset by the Scullin bounty of two years ago, or by the relief given last year by the present Government, and it will not be equalled by this year's relief. Yet the tariff burden is continuous. If it is reduced, the reduction is so slow as . to be hardly noticeable. The tariff burden has to be considered as a factor which justifies the wheat-farmer in saying that there must be some compensation, just .as the smaller States make their claims for similar reasons. My third reason is the value to Australia of the wheat industry, not only, as an exporter, but also as a taxpayer. It follows, therefore, that if assistance is to be given to this industry, it should be given on an industry basis - either on production or acreage. Of course, considering the matter purely from the logical and economic view-points, the only attitude that any economist would adopt would be that the grant must be on a basis of production - that it is to the interest of Australia that the maximum production should take place, and that the Government should encourage the industry to that end. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator Brown: -- "What is the honorable senator's definition of maximum? Li it as much as a country can produce? {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- The nation should aim at the maximum of production. Most people say that there are other factors to be considered besides the economic. On a strictly humanitarian basis we must take into account the unfortunate man who had a bad season, or suffered from fire in his crop. I believe that the general trend of opinion throughout Australia is towards an acreage basis, on the ground that it covers both sides. It helps the man who happens to lose his crop; it does not mean /that he will lose the government assistance as well as his crop. Conversely, the man who successfully produces is not cut out from benefits given to the industry. I cannot for a moment condone, support, or encourage any principle by which money, and particularly an amount of £3,000,000, which the Government has done so well to produce, would be distributed upon a basis of necessitiousness. Not even the Scullin Government's scheme two years; ago proposed that; then the relief was afforded on the basis of - production. There is no limit to the difficulties with, which we would be beset if relief were afforded according to necessity. Eoiinstance, in clause 5, these words appear, " by providing for the needs of individual wheat-growers." What do those words mean? I suggest that they mean that the greater the lack of funds, the greater the need; therefore, the poorer the man and the greater his failure, the larger the amount of grant which should be paid to him. That would be an absurdity. The more inefficient and unsuccessful a man was, the more he would benefit from this measure. Clause 6, paragraph 6, reads - >A wheat-grower shall not he entitled toreceive assistance under this act unless - {: type="1" start="6"} 0. having derived such income he pro duces evidence to the satisfaction of a State authority that there arecircumstances by reason of which it is just that he should receivesuch assistance. Who on earth can say that it is just? Every man who applies will be convinced that it is just that he should receive assistance. The State authorities, no doubt, will take different views; but they will have to decide whether assistance of an individual is " just " or not. In regard to what is a legal matter, the Government is providing for an official to exercise a moral judgment. That will not satisfy any one. The clause quoted is one of the most loosely - I am not disparaging the draftsman - and ineffectively-worded provisions I have ever seen in a bill of such importance. Why has the test of necessitousness been introduced in this bill? In no other legislation of the kind is a man deprived of protection on account of the fact that he is wealthy. {: .speaker-KOJ} ##### Senator Herbert Hays: -- Is not the bill to encourage the production of wheat ? {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- It should be. We cannot afford to make a necessitous grant unless the industry *is* not of sufficient importance to justify assistance to keep it going in its entirety. We cannot give charitable grants to necessitous persons to the amount of £3,000,000 a year. If wheat-growing deserves consideration on such a scale, surely it must be as an industry which the Government is justified in keeping going. I can see no justification for a grant on a basis of individual necessity. I mentioned that the Scullin Government's grant was based on production. Last year this Government provided £2,000,000, and there was a good deal of discussion at the time as to whether payment should be made on a basis of necessitousness. Eventually it was worded in general terms, which enabled the State Governments to decide in what way it should be distributed. I have taken the trouble to find out to what extent the States adopted the necessitous basis. There were six different State Governments with different shades of opinion, and not one favoured that basis. Only three Governments - Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia - assisted farmers because they were necessitous. The total amount distributed to such cases was £95,000 out of £2,000,000, which is about one-twentieth of the amount granted. Is it to be suggested that the State Governments were wrong, and that the money should have been used for necessitous cases? In Queensland, nearly £14,000 was distributed on an acreage basis. In Western Australia, £51,000 was expended, and in South Australia, £30,000. The point that interests me is this: I cannot see that the Government can make grants in this way on a charitable basis. If it is to be done at all, it must be on the basis of right, on the value of the industry as a whole to the community. No purpose is served by treating certain persons as " tall poppies." I understand that the Government proposes to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the conditions that obtain in the wheat industry. Most of us know where the trouble lies. I hold very definitely that the Government ought to lay it down that, in future, it will not grant any assistance to wheat-growers unless it is satisfied that the land on which they are settled is suitable for the purpose for which it is being used, and also perhaps that the farmers themselves are competent to make a success of their enterprise. In order to ascertain this knowledge, the annual farming returns for the last five years should be inspected. In my own State there is land in cultivation which is quite unfitted for the purpose to which it is being put. Instead of extending uneconomic wheat production, the Government should be reducing it. It should say to the men who are upon uneconomic land, " We are not going to assist farmers who cannot make a success of their industry. Unless you have a reasonable prospect of success you must not expect us to come to your assistance." {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- It makes no difference. Let them drown. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- The honorable senator knows perfectly well that there are men on the land who are incompetent. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- That is where the organization of the industry would come in. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- I am not talking of 99 per cent, or possibly even of 1 per cent, of the men upon the land. But there are men there who are unsteady, who will not work, and who are not good farmers, whilst on the contrary, there are men there who are good from all these stand-points, but are upon uneconomic land which they cannot hope to make profitable. A man who has gone upon land on his own initiative and has not been able to make a success of farming, ought not to be able to look to the Government for financial help. Perhaps an exception should be made where the farmer was settled by the Government. It is of no use to throw good money after money which has been lost. Nor it is the duty of the Commonwealth to do that. Our duty is to see that good land is kept in production. The section of the community to which I am referring may not be numerically strong, but nevertheless it does exist. Unless action is taken in the direction I have suggested, we are only postponing the day of reckoning because, eventually, these men must go out and the people from whom they have borrowed will then have bigger losses to face. The Government should have coupled with this bill a warning that, unless land is suitable for cultivation, and the man upon it is efficient, no further assistance to him will be forthcoming. **Senator Johnston** has told us that a body of competent farmers has gone into this matter and nas made certain suggestions to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons).** I favour a body of highly qualified practical men being asked to determine what lands are suitable for wheat-growing. "When we receive an answer to that question we shall have a basis upon which we can work. I do not much support these royal commission^ of highly intellectual professors, whereas I am certain that from practical men we should get something which would be of real value to us. Of course, some of the men who are engaged in the wheat industry will eventually turn their attention to wool-growing because it is, at the moment, more profitable. As a result we may get some alleviation to the present trouble in regard to the excess wheat production. As the production of wool increases, there will probably be a gradual fall of the price of that commodity. That, however, need not worry us very much. If wool remains at a reasonable price it will help to stabilize itself as against the price of substitutes which otherwise might successfully compete with it. Although I have criticized the manner in which this money is to be distributed and suggested that the Government should have made it clearer that it is looking far beyond the next six months, I concede that the way in which it has faced this problem merits hearty approbation. Had I been obliged to decide the question, I should probably have selected a sales tax on flour as the best of the three major possibilities. In all probability an attempt to adopt other methods would have had the effect of increasing the price of bread still more. These considerations, then,, do not prevent me from expressing pleasure that the Government has adopted the sound course. The way it has raised the money generally has been sound. My criticism, in fact, does not detract from the general merit of its performance, and I shall give the bill my support. {: #subdebate-21-1-s9 .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN:
Queensland -- I protest once more against the stupid business of talking all night to honorable senators who are asleep. There are more honorable senators in the chamber now than there have been during the past four hours. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- There is one cure for that - do not talk. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I again wish to express my opposition to the stupidity of the whole business. I am informed by the oldest parliamentarians that Parliament could not complete its business without some all-night sittings. A passage in *Hamlet,* has stuck in my memory for the last twenty years - "What a piece of work is nian! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a God! The beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!" [f Shakespeare had been a politician, and had sat all night listening to one or two honorable senators, he would never have written that passage - he would have written something quite different. Personally, I do not quite agree with Shakespeare. Nor do I quite agree with some of the views of **Senator Duncan-Hughes** although I have a great admiration for him. He possesses certain principles, and he stands np for them. He expresses himself cogently and pleasantly. Before he resumed his seat he said that there were many farmers in Australia who were working on uneconomic land. From the *Bulletin* I extract the following passage, which is appropos of his remarks: - >The position of the growers is had everywhere except in Queensland - which raises about enough wheat for its own consumption and is permitted to block imports from other States, in spite of the Constitution - but it is worst in South Australia. There the Government spoon-feeds so-called growers who have scarcely produced anything for several years except an addition to the mortgage. In a case quoted by the Auditor-General, a settler whose net proceeds during six years had been £50, and whose best harvest went 2£ bushels to the acre, succeeded in owing the Government £3,028. The average crop value of Australian wheat land is about £1 10s. per acre per annum. This man has accumulated relief liabilities alone of £4 3s. (id. an acre. His total output of 2,000 bushels in six years has cost more than £2 a bushel to raise. I hope that **Senator Duncan-Hughes** was listening while I read that paragraph, because, as **Senator Collings** has told honorable senators, he and I and other members of the Labour party are anxious to organize this industry so that all those engaged in it will secure an adequate return for their labour. I agree with **Senator Duncan-Hughes** that' we should do something practical, and I take this occasion -'to remind honorable senators that throughout the whole of this debate not one word has been said about the future of the industry. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the government which has to meet a difficult situation. The price of wheat is so low that many growers are in the bankruptcy court, and the private banking institutions have foreclosed on their properties. But our objection is that the situation, which has arisen in the industry, cannot be dealt with satisfactorily by temporary expedients, such as have been resorted to in recent years. The Labour party desires to see the business of wheat production put on a firm and sound basis. Every farmer who produces wheat of marketable quality should be recouped for his labour. The price-fixing system in operation in Queensland gives entire satisfaction. It is within the realm of possibility to organize the wheat industry on a nationwide basis, thus ensuring to every grower a return commensurate with the energy which ho puts into his occupation. It was gratifying to me to-night to know that apparently some honorable senators who, hitherto, have been bitter opponents of the socialization of industry, are becoming converts to the views which we have been promulgating for so many years. **Senator Johnston** looked upon our proposals in a more kindly eye to-night, as also did **Senator Guthrie.** Both honorable gentlemen now believe in a stabilization of the wheat industry, and a guaranteed price for the grower. If a man is to be at the beck and call of those who desire his services, why should he not have an adequate return ? I firmly believe that, within a few years, every man and woman who is willing to render service to the community will be assured of a decent livelihood. When we require soldiers, we are prepared to pay for them. Is there any reason why we should not also have a standing industrial army available for the fluctuating needs of industry? I believe in regulating prices for the wheat-growers, and also the prices paid for flour and bread. If, for instance, under an organization which I have in mind, it were shown that 4d. was a reasonable price for a loaf of bread, it should be sold for that figure. Any one selling it at below that price would be breaking the law. Among members of industrial organizations, the man who sells his labour for less than the recognized union rate is properly termed a " scab ". I hold that the man who sells commodities for less than what is regarded as a reasonable price, is scabbing on the rest of the trading community. In Brisbane, the competition between bakers is so keen that, although the fixed price is 4½d. a loaf, some bakers are selling as .- - as at 3d. a loaf, and, in order to make a profit, they have to break the law. They cheat their customers, and underpay and overwork their employees. What is happening in the baking trade there is evidence of the rottenness of the competitive system under private enterprise. There are more prosecutions in Brisbane against bakers for breaking the law than against any other section of the trading community. **Senator Guthrie** has stated that millers are taking an undue profit out of the production of flour. This would be impossible if our productive and distributive forces were properly organized. The interests of all sections of the community, and particularly those of the consumer, would, under such a system, be adequately safeguarded. **Senator McLachlan** . says that we should arrange -with Providence to provide regular crops. We know very well that the seasons change. Sometimes there is an over-supply of wheat, and sometimes the crops fail, but that is no reason why this intelligent community in .Australia should not make an earnest effort to overcome its difficulties. If there is a shortage, the people must go short, but the man who grows the wheat should have a return per bushel greater at such times than in times of plenty. That could be done quite well in an organized society. I am afraid that I must agree with **Senator Hardy** that it is almost hopeless to expect any satisfactory result from this Parliament. The idea seems to be that we cannot do anything because God sometimes sends rain, and sometimes does not. Because we cannot order Providence, that is no reason why we should not strive to feed, clothe, and shelter our people. **Senator Pearce** predicted that among the arguments that would be adduced on this side would be that against penalizing the poor. We certainly say that this legislation is penalizing the poor, for it penalizes the consumers of bread. I am strongly in favour of assisting wheat-growers in the same way as I was in favour of assisting fruitgrowers; but is it fair to place the tax on the man who is least able to bear it? I have three children who can eat more than I can, and our average weekly consumption of bread is about twenty loaves. We are in the fortunate position of being able to buy other commodities too. A worker with the same family will use" about 24 loaves a week, the higher price of which, as a result of the flour tax, will increase his cost of living by about 2s. a week. The married man with children will be penalized more than the single man who pays board. The man with an income of £5,000 a year will hardly be penalized at all. It has been said by one honorable senator that the tax will be continued beyond the period covered by the bill. Probably it will, because once a tax is placed on the community, it is rarely taken off again. Most members of the Country party come from the middle classes. They are not really working farmers, and they view the matter in a different way from Labour members. They do not always state the whole facts to Parliament. Labour is penalized because it cannot get the truth stated to the farming community. {: .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator Rae: -- Members of the Country party look at' themselves in distorted mirrors. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- Their supporters must look at. them through distorted glasses. Country party representatives are certainly not the true friends of the wheat-farmers. **Senator Duncan-Hughes** cannot be a true friend of the wheat-farmer when he believes in the competitive struggle of private enterprise, and the policy of " the devil take the hindmost." The views of Labour senators on the wheat problem will not reach the farmers of Australia. Most of the country newspapers are biased against Labour. I am looking forward to the time when it will be mandatory for the newspapers to print reasonably the views of all parties. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- Does the honorable senator think that publishing speeches will benefit the wheat-farmer? {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- I do not favour the publication of speeches, but there is no reason why a *resume* of the policy of each party concerning major issues should not be published. I would be against the continuance of *Hansard* except that it is keeping men in jobs. _ I would abolish it, if I could do so without injuring the *Hansard* staff. If we could pension them off and let them have a good time in God's fresh air, instead of compelling them to report our speeches in this place, it would be much better. The Government has failed miserably to deal with the wheat situation. It has merely temporized with it, and if there is a surplus next year, the country will then be in the same position as it is in to-day. Whether under Labour, Tory, Fascist, or any other political rule, I firmly believe that this and every other country must, in the future, organize industry. When the farmers understand the fundamental nature of the problem, they will organize to gain the largest amount possible for the commodities they produce. While they are pitting themselves against one another, and while they are sweating their families, there is not much hope for them. I believe in industrial organization and industrial control, and I feel sure that if the Government pf the country did its best to see that industry was efficiently organized, it could ensure to the producer the best obtainable prices. There would . then be an end to the misery we see to-day. {: #subdebate-21-1-s10 .speaker-K0S} ##### Senator PLAIN:
Victoria -- Ever since the Scullin Government appealed to the farmers to grow more wheat - an appeal which was responded to with determination and zeal - many of the farmers have, unfortunately, mortgaged their future to comply with the request. There is not the least doubt that the people of this country benefited by the action of the farmers, but what a legacy the policy of " grow more wheat " has left ! Despair has seized the farmers, and markets are continuing to tumble. Instead of farmers becoming better able to meet their commitments, they are being driven still nearer to the insolvency court. Instead of meeting the position as other governments have done, by a guaranteed price, this Government insisted on bringing forward a relief bill which is humiliating to the individual who seeks its protection. Most of the wheat-importing countries in Europe have made up the fall of prices by increasing tariffs and giving to the farmers a payable price for their wheat. I strongly object to the nature of this bill. The position of the farmer is desperate, and some temporary relief must be given. Every other industry receives a bounty, varying from 10 per cent, to 50 per cent., to assist it in time of need, but, when the farmers ask for a reasonable share of such protection so that they and their families may enjoy some of the benefits which the manufacturers experience, this Government asks them to accept relief in the despicable form proposed in the bill. T intend to advise the farmers to establish an Organization of their own, and to give particular attention to demanding a minimum price to be guaranteed by the States ; that price should not be less than 4s. a bushel. This bill will do more than anything else to encourage the farmers to organize. This Government gives the manufacturers all the protection they demand, and yet, when the unforunate farmers ask for similar protection, they are afforded what is termed relief upon most humiliating conditions. This Government expects the farmer to go down on his bended knees and beg for assistance because of his unfortunate position. I detest the name of the bill. These men are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Every honorable senator is prepared to give the manufacturers reasonable protection. The manufacturers could not live without the assistance of the farmers, but, when the farmers in turn ask for reasonable protection, it is denied them. Although I resent some of the conditions attaching to the assistance to be given, I shall support the bill in the hope that it will give some relief to a very deserving section of the community. {: #subdebate-21-1-s11 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE:
South Australia -- **Senator Duncan-Hughes,** who is a very fair-minded man, stated what he considers should be done to assist the farmers. I know that there is truth in a good deal of what the honorable senator said. It is absolute folly, however, to attempt to assist wheat-growers in South Australia who are living outside Goyder's line of rainfall. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Is Eyre's Peninsula outside Goyder's line of rainfall ? Some of the best crops are obtained there. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- A portion of it is. We should do all in our power to keep deserving farmers on the land, but, unfortunately, many of them are burdened with interest, their farms are over-capitalized, and many who thought they were going to make fortunes have mortgages that will never be paid off. Some years ago, the farmers were asked to grow more wheat, and the response they made was wonderful. This appeal was made in order to assist in meeting our overseas commitments, and to increase land development. The position of the farmers is not likely to improve until we have a fixed price for homeconsumption. Prior to the last general election the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons),** and those who supported him, journeyed throughout- Australia asking farmers, industrialists and others to support their policy. Hoardings in every capital city were plastered with posters bearing the words " Leave it to Lyons, " and " Work for the workless. " Those who read those posters thought that employment would be available to all, and did not think for a moment that their position would remain as hopeless as it then was. It was not long before they were asked to assist the wheat-growers. The Government reduced taxation to the amount of £7,500,000, but, shortly afterwards, found that it would be necessary to reimpose certain taxation in order to afford relief to the wheat-growers. Millions of pounds of taxation previously paid by wealthy land-owners was remitted. Some honorable senators who voted against a reduction of their parliamentary allowance received, I suppose, remissions of taxation amounting to at least £1,000 a year. The Government is now imposing a sales tax on flour, and thus placing a further heavy burden on the backs of the unfortunate workers. What will it mean to the people ? In the average home, such as my own, the weekly expenditure on bread will be increased by ls. 2d. Fortunately I am able to bear the additional impost, brit there are thousands of others to whom the burden will be excessive. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator Badman: -- What would happen if the price of wheat went up to 5s. ? Would not the price of bread also increase ? {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- When the price of wheat was much higher than it is to-day, the price of bread was about the same. Somebody is getting a rake-off somewhere. No 'Government should take from the poor to give to the poor. Let us rather take from the rich to give to the poor because the poor we have always with us. We should not tax men who are struggling even more desperately than is the man on the land. There are people who are worse off than the necessitous farmer. I am convinced that there is no farmer in Australia who desires to be assisted financially at the expense of the wageearner. In spite of what **Senator Guthrie** has said, with the exception of **Senator Badman,** I have not met a farmer who i3 in favour of this tax. It is the worker who will pay most of it, because, unfortunately, bread is a more .important item of diet to him than to anybody else. People in a better position do not eat the same quantity of bread because they can afford to purchase other foods. It is largely due to the war that this calamity has been brought about. In 1915-16, more than 12,000,000 acres of wheat was sown, largely in consequence of the war. . Then, in 1919-20, the area under wheat fell to a little over 6,000,000 acres - about half of that in 1915-16. The government of the day, evidently realizing the seriousness of the position, and being anxious to increase the production of wheat, guaranteed the farmer a price for it. As a result, in 1920-21, the area under wheat cultivation increased to 9,000,000 acres. From that time onwards, there was a steady progressive increase so that in 1929-30, the area under crop was nearly 15,000,000 acres. During the year 1930, the price of wheat fell to about half the average price for the previous ten years, the rate in December, 1930, being about 2s. 7d. a bushel. The governments of the day, both Federal and State, realizing the seriousness of the position in which Australia was placed owing to the collapse of world prices, urged the farmers to grow more wheat so as to increase exports and maintain national solvency. Again the farmers responded to the call made upon them, and in 1930-31, seeded more than 18,000,000 acres, an increase of 21 per cent, over the acreage of the previous year. The farmer, it will be noted, responded nobly to the call made to him. He endeavoured to produce more wheat. The trouble under which we are at present labouring can, to a large extent, be laid at the door of the scientists who have invented machinery, which enables the farmer to cultivate double his former acreage in about the same time. Consequently, the world has doubled its output of wheat, its markets have been flooded, and overproduction has brought about a serious result. In 1931, **Mr. E.** A. McLarty, managing trustee of the Agricultural Bank, Perth, stated in evidence before the royal commission on Western Australian disabilities that the total indebtedness of the farmers of that State was over £30,000,000. His figures showed that they owed to the agricultural and associated banks £26,500,000. The causes of this indebtedness, said **Mr. McLarty,** were *(a)* excessive credit, *(b)* extravagance by farmers in buying cars and tractors, (c) high interest rates, *(d)* taxation, (e) over-capitalization, (/) high handling charges, and (,9) indiscriminate lending to farmers. The Auditor-General of South Australia, who has during the past two years made a thorough investigation of the wheat problem in that State, said in his last report - >Many of the settlers appear to have no reasonable hope of recovery with their existing capital liability. Then the Honorable T. White, prior to becoming Minister for Trade and Customs, stated - >The first problem to consider is the overcapitalization of land. He then went on to say that the Government should deal with this aspect of the question. Another burden of the farmers to-day is the high interest charges. When the Premiers plan was brought into existence, its purpose was, amongst other things, to bring about a reduction of interest charges throughout Australia. From time to time the banks have put forward all sorts of excuses as to why they cannot make the reductions which they should make. The cursed system of interest is dragging them down to misery and despair. Something should be done to help them. The farmers have not the ability to pay, and never will have. Why not free them from their indebtedness, and allow them to continue their operations? I come now to what **Senator Duncan-Hughes** said in reference to the men outback who are endeavouring to grow wheat on uneconomic land. These men should be told, that if they persist in producing wheat outside the line of rainfall, they must put up with the consequences. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- That is a State affair; we have nothing to do with it. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- This bill is a federal measure, but it also applies to the States. We cannot continue to help people who, through no fault of their own and largely because of the conditions that obtain in the districts in which they live, cannot help themselves. I hope that the bill will help the farmers, but I submit that it embodies a wrong principle. I cannot understand the Government saying that it should apply only till the 30th June next. What does the Government intend to do afterwards? I suppose it thinks that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. My own view is that we should do something of a more permanent nature for the wheat-growers. We should extend assistance to them over a period of years. **Senator Sir** GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [6.29 a.m.]. - Most curious calculations have been made by a number of honorable senators. I wonder how they would like them to be applied to their own business. They argue that because there is to he a tax of £4 5s. a ton on flour, the only factor which can be taken into account in calculating the price of bread, is that particular sum. Upon that basis of reasoning the baker should sell his bread for not more than the cost of flour, wages, flour tax, water, and other charges to which he is subjected. Apparently he should make no profit.Obviously, the baker must charge his profit upon all the capital he has put into his business. Every business man does that. Yet **Senator Badman, Senator O'Halloran** and others, argued as if the master baker is not entitled to make any profit on the capital ho has put into his business. The fact is that there is no business which is conducted on those lines. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'Halloran: -- This is clear proof that the Government desires to give the master bakers a rake off. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE: -- If the honorable senators were speaking from lack of knowledge, I pity them. But I can only assume that they were endeavouring to make people believe that, in some way, bakers carried on their' business in a manner totally different from that of any other trade. The Government, in fixing the amount of tax at £4 5s. a ton, acted on the advice of competent authorities, who stated that, after allowing for the ordinary rate of profit on capital, the increase of the price of bread should be only1d. on a 2-lb. loaf. I therefore suggest that those honorable senators who have criticized the proposal from this aspect should revise their calculations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. Clause 6 - >A wheat-grower shall not be entitled to receive assistance under this act unless - > >during theyear ended on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, he derived no taxable income; or {: #subdebate-21-1-s12 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia -- I move - >That paragraph (a), clause 6, be left out. I am moving this amendment in accord ance with the policy of the Federal Wheat-growers Unions of the Commonwealth and the Primary Producers Association of Western Australia, and I wish to intimate that, in the unlikely event of the desired relief being granted by the removal of this discriminatory paragraph from the clause. I, as a wheat-grower, would not make any claim consequent on the carrying of this amendment which I submit at the request of people interested. There has been a good deal of comment in Canberra on the fact that some members of the Country party are wheat-growers. Objection to the Government's policy of discrimination has been taken by the Country party in Western Australia, and its political organizations. I have received telegrams from those bodies protesting against the differential treatment between wheat-growers having a taxable income and those wheat-growers having no taxable income. Wheat-growers in Queensland receive higher prices than are obtained in the other States. Consequently, ii larger proportion of the growers there have taxable incomes. The amount to be allotted to Queensland wheatgrowers is £76,455, and as it is to be distributed on an acreage basis, the amount payable to growers will be substantially greater than to growers in the other States. Necessitous farmers in Victoria will receive a larger measure of relief on an acreage basis than those in Western Australia and South Australia. This discrimination between growers will inflict injustice and lead to confusion. The Government should increase the total amount to be distributed by extending the term of the sales tax. Has the Ministry considered the difficulties which the operation of this discriminatory paragraph will cause between wheat-growers in the different States? The assistance should not be limited to those who are indigent. This could be avoided by continuing the sales tax on flour for a longer period, and by giving assistance to all growers as was done last year. {: #subdebate-21-1-s13 .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator HARDY:
New South Wales -- I support the remarks of **Senator Johnston,** and also protest against the discriminatory principle contained in paragraph *a.* I did not speak to the motion for the second reading of the bill, because other honorable senators covered the ground, and I knew that the Government wished to get the bill through as quickly as possible. I must, however, take this opportunity to affirm that the relief should be distributed on a more equitable basis. Any one who has a nontaxable income under the federal authority is entitled to relief under this bill. **Senator Johnston** has referred to the nontaxable securities held in Australia. The budget papers disclose that this class of security amounts to £65,724,000. Holders of these securities may be engaged in wheat production, and with other wheatgrowers, be eligible for relief under this bill. The clause says that any one possessing a taxable income shall not participate. Therefore, if a man was fortunate enough to win a State lottery, which is exempt from federal taxation, he would be legally entitled to apply for relief. I should like the Minister to say whether any wealthy bondholder, who is engaged in wheat production, could participate in the relief. {: .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator Grant: -- Practically all bonds are taxable now. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator HARDY: -- I beg to contradict the honorable senator. There are £65,724,000 worth of bonds in Australia that are not taxable by the federal authority. Let me take another supposititious case. Suppose a wheatfarmer had sold a farm on terms, ' and had used the deposit and as much cash as he could get to purchase property on terms. Let us suppose that the income from the farm is at the rate of £300 a year. How would he use the money? He would use it, no doubt, to pay off the instalments due on the property. Many such people have been forced to repossess their, farms, and are either just breaking square or making losses; they are in receipt of taxable income from property of £300, but may be in absolutely necessitous circumstances. I admit that such a person can apply to the authorities, ' but do we want to encourage the principle of mendicancy in an export industry like wheat growing? Presuming that a man engaged in wheat production has made £300, and used it for the purchase of capital equipment, how would that be regarded by the State authorities? It would not come under the heading " Repairs and Renewals ", and as a purchase, it would become taxable. The man may have no liquid assets, and may even be unable to buy seeds and manure. Yet he would immediately be put out of court. The Federal Government says to the wheat-farmer, " Those who are broke come along. To those of you who' are efficient and managing to mab ends meet, we shall give you nothing, 'but you must keep on producing ". {: #subdebate-21-1-s14 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- It is unfortunate that this bill contains a clause of this description. I am afraid that in some quarters too much heat has been shown. Some individuals may have made speculations that have proved profitable, and, at the same time, may be engaged in farming. What ground is there for penalizing them? Any person with a sense of the fitness of things must realize that more settlement in the country, and more prosperity for the man in the country, mean a better foundation for the industrial activities of the nation. If the wheat-growers are not financially sound, it is quite clear that the foundations of the commercial and financial structure of the nation are in a very shaky condition. When a citizen goes out of his way to put money into a farm what right have we to come to him and say, " You are going to be penalized ? " I remember when in this Parliament instalments of the protective policy were being handed out from time to time. Was there any suspicion of an attempt to penalize a man because he was successful in industry? Under this bill, the man who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is an unwanted citizen. There are men in subordinate positions like workshop foremen who have put money into farm lands, and are looking forward to the time when they can settle on their farms. This clause will penalize them. Belief is supposed to be given to those who have not been the most desirable members of society. I remember that a wealthy man from New South Wales haunted Parliament morning, noon, and night while the tariff was under consideration. Upon every commodity he was manufacturing and selling a duty was being imposed, and he was getting relief to that extent. He remained at Parliament until he got what he wanted. He died worth many millions of pounds. Was there any suggestion of not giving him the benefit of the duties because he possessed a credit balance at the bank? If that condition was not imposed then, why is it mentioned now? Those who risk their *money* are liable to he punished for engaging in reproductive work. A man with a composite income may have shares in a gold mine, a business, and an unprofitable farm. The clause would single that man out as an unworthy citizen in the eye of the law. It has been estimated that the Western Australian wheat farmers are £30,000,000 to the bad. Conditions are similar in South Australia and the other States. In Western Australia, 1,200 farms have been abandoned, and some of those who backed the farmers financially will not get any relief under this clause. The worthy man who is only waiting for the time when his family will go out into the world and he can settle on his farm, will be cut out. Is that called fair play? It is absolute nonsense. Such men will get nothing unless they plead their cases as mendicants, and then they may or may not get a favorable verdict. That is their reward for opening up this country. Professors Giblin and Brigden, when they were called to give evidence before the Royal Commission, on the Constitution, made a statement to the effect that the burden of the protective policy of the country on the wheat industry was not less than 14 per cent, of the total value of production in this industry. Now the Government has proposed to penalize a section of the wheatgrowers. I understand that the total annual value of the wheat production of the Commonwealth ranges from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000. As 14 per cent, is roughly one-seventh, it may be said that about £5,000,000 per annum is contributed by the wheat-growers for the maintenance of Australia's protective tariff, and as it is now proposed to hand back a mere £3;000,000 to the wheat-growers, they can hardly be regarded as mendicants. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- That is not a .bad dividend, because all the community is contributing to the cost of the tariff. {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- The farmers look for a fair return for their labour, and, if that is denied them, the inevitable result will be the desertion of farm lands. If the farmers do not receive more sympathetic treatment than has been meted out to them in the past, about one-third of them will walk off their holdings, march into the cities, and demand em.ployment. My advice to the committee is to delete the provision which differentiates between farmers in varying circumstances. They should not be called upon to expose themselves to ridicule in obtaining the assistance to which they are justly entitled. {: #subdebate-21-1-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-21-1-s16 .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator HARDY:
New South Wales -- This clause is likely to result in a decrease of the total production of wheat'. A share-farmer may have an agreement for twelve months, at the end of which he may have no taxable income, in which case he may be granted relief under this bill ; but why should we discriminate between this individual and a man who provides land on which share farming operations are conducted? A share-farmer who owns land, and who cannot obtain relief, has no incentive to continue wheat production. Although he may have sustained heavy losses, if he has taxable income, he cannot participate in this relief; but we desire as many farmers as possible to continue in production, in order to assist in building up Australia's trade balances overseas. A retired farmer may have purchased property in a country town from which he derives a taxable income, and circumstances may have necessitated his re-possessing his farm and re-engaging in wheat production; but to avail himself of the benefit of this bill, he would have to show that he had no taxable income. {: #subdebate-21-1-s17 .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE:
New South Wales -- 'Some opinions have been expressed in regard to this provision which seem to show a lack of logic. It is said that to prove that he is in necessitous circumstances, a farmer -must humiliate himself by exposing all his financial dealings and showing that he has no taxable income. **Senator Hardy** remarked that in tariff matters, no distinction is made between the wealthy and the poor, but I point out that tariff protection is granted, not to the individual, but to the industry. The protection of the tariff is given only to those industries that require it. The assistance is refused to those industries which are well established, and therefore do not require legislative support. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator Badman: -- What manufacturing industry in Australia has no protection? {: .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE: -- However lamely the principle may be carried out, that is the theory on which protection is advocated, and the same principle should operate in the granting of relief to the wheatgrowers. Notwithstanding all that is said about farmers being in a deplorable state there are some in fairly prosperous circumstances. Only recently I read in the *Sydney Homing Herald* an account of the prizes awarded to certain farmers by various agricultural societies for the excellence of their exhibits. The names of quite a number of successful farmers were mentioned. Of course there are some in financial difficulties. The names I read were of typical wheat-growers from Orange, Narromine, Peak Hill and other places. It also gave their wheat yields, and stated that notwithstanding the low prices prevailing this year, they had conducted their operations at a profit. I am not saying that there are not any who need relief, but in spite of all the disadvantages many farmers are in a sound financial position. It would be scandalous to allow them to raid the Treasury. If a farmer- is fairly sound financially, he can stand a fluctuation of prices. A frugal man can prepare for bad seasons. Those who are not in necessitous circumstances have no justifiable claim for relief. There is only a limited amount to be distributed, and if those who do not need it participate there will not be sufficient to pay those who actually require the money. {: #subdebate-21-1-s18 .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland -- It is time that **Senator Lynch** and others were prevented from so continually exaggerating the alleged frightful condition of the farmers of this country. During my secondreading . speech, I said that the members of the Labour party would support this bill because we know that the wheat-farmers deserve the help that is to be given to them, but when a demand is made that it shall be paid to persons with taxable incomes I want to submit a reason why it should not be paid. Recently I received the following letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Invalid and Old-age Pensions, in Brisbane: - >With reference to your personal representations regarding the above-named I have to advise that he was examined by the Commonwealth medical referee at Howard, who certified that after full and careful examination he is of the opinion that **Mr.** Stovold is not permanently incapacitated for work within the need of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. **Mr. Stovold** is 58 years of age and is suffering from loss of his left leg above the knee, also rheumatism and chronic dyspepsia. Although his disability is such as to constitute a severe handicap it is not such as to render him permanently incapacitated for work, and it is regretted that in the circumstances payment of an invalid and old-age pension cannot be approved. I quote that letter to show there is no injustice in claiming that financial relief should not be given to a person who has a taxable income when a man of 58 years of age who has lost a leg and is suffering from' chronic dyspepsia and rheumatism cannot get an invalid pension. Are Ave to pay a tax on flour to provide an amount to be distributed among wheat-growers who have a taxable income? Question - That the words proposed to be left out be left out (Senator E. B. Johnston's amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. AYES: 0 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Herbert Hays.) Ayes . . . . 6 Noes . . . . 19 Majority Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 7 to 13 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. *Sitting suspended from 7.SS to 9.S0 a.m.* {: .page-start } page 5999 {:#debate-22} ### FLOUR TAX BILL (No. 1) 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-22-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [9.33 a.m.]. - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This is largely a machinery bill to implement the Wheat-growers Relief Bill which was discussed all last night, and has now passed its third reading. Two other flour tax bills are necessary to give effect to the scheme of relief that has been already approved. {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
South Australia -- I can scarcely agree with the Assistant Minister **('Senator Lawson)** that this is largely a machinery measure, which is complementary to the bill that we passed a couple of hours ago. We have all along affirmed that our support of the Wheat-growers Relief Bill did not imply support of the imposition of a sales tax on flour. We have submitted alternative schemes to the Government. I regret that it is practically impossible to draft an effective amendment to the measure while keeping within constitutional limits. I again appeal to the Government as I did last night, to withdraw the flour tax proposals and to reimpose a portion of the £7,500,000 of taxes which was remitted under the recent budget proposals. The money that would thus be saved to the Treasury could be utilized to finance the whole amount required by the wheat-growers. **Senator Pearce** has charged **Senator Badman** and myself with having amused ourselves by preparing our own sets of figures and endeavouring to persuade people to believe that they were authentic. He added that in fixing the flour tax at £4 5s., the Government had acted on the advice of persons accustomed to auditing business accounts who had said that after allowing for the ordinary rate of profit on capital, the increase of the price of bread should be only1d. on the 2-lb. loaf of bread. The Minister stated that we had failed to realize that there were factors in the price of bread other than those we had enumerated. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- I said that the honorable senator failed to see that every trader added his profits to the entire capital that he put into his business. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN: -- Evidently the Government considers that the difference between the amount it will collect on flour and the sum which the community will pay, is a fair margin for the millers and bakers to receive as the result of the imposition of this tax. The principal ingredients of wheat are flour, water, a little potato, and yeast, and to these labour is applied. All these things were provided under existing conditions, before the tax on flour was proposed, and the bakers were then selling bread at a profit. An additional charge of1d. on every 2-lb. loaf of bread would be equivalent to 25s. a ton, so that the Government will collect £500,000, and the community will pay £1,600,000. This extra profit of1d. a loaf represents a return to the master bakers of 27 per cent. These are the " simple Simons " who ask us to pass this legislation in the belief that it is an ordinary business practice. I hope that honorable senators will oppose the bill and thus indicate to the Government that the money to finance wheat-growers should be provided from other sources which are available. {: #subdebate-22-0-s2 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia -- I feel sure that Ministers will be interested to hear the following telegram from **Mr. Boyle, president** of the Wheat-growers Union of Western Australia, and federal president of the Australian Wheat-growers Union. It is in the latter capacity that he forwards this wire - >Australian Wheat-growers Federation protest against making Commonwealth wheat grant discriminatory. Denying bounty to wheat-growers with taxable federal income unjust and calculated to penalize successful efforts. Many wheat-growers deprived of bounty are in bad financial position. Please let us know exactly on what basis the Government proposes to distribute bounty as there is nothing but confusion over here. That is the type of bouquet that the wheat-growers of the federal organization have for the Commonwealth Government and its wheat policy. I venture to say that these compliments will be followed, whenever the opportunity offers, by eggs of a mature age. {: #subdebate-22-0-s3 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- Like **Senator O'Halloran,** I am somewhat amused by the bill which has been brought forward by the Government. It is nothing more nor less than crazy legislation by a crazy Government. I am satisfied that the Government has gone crazy, and that, instead of taking a firm hold of the political administration, it has permitted itself to be stampeded. To ask Labour members to become a party to a measure like this is nothing more nor less than colossal political impertinence and hide. Under the bill a majority of the people are to be penalized by being called upon to provide the additional money, which has to be paid to the farmers. We all feel keenly that every assistance should be given to wheatfarmers. Farmers in certain sheltered industries, including the butter industry, are given a considerable measure of protection; but in the second greatest primary industry there is no effective protection. The Government, by falling down on the job, and by refusing to go to the bank board and declaring in no uncertain manner that the people demand a greater measure of assistance, is penalizing the 500,000 men and women who are living on the dole. The Commonwealth Government, which is the political custodian of the nation, would not listen to **Mr. Beasley** in another place, or to Labour members of the Senate, in their advocacy of a standard price of 3s. 6d. a bushel for wheat. The burden of the rotten capitalistic system is breaking the back of every man, woman, and child in this great nation. But when honorable senators on this side, representing the people of Australia, try to tell the Government how it can find the money needed for the service of the people, the Government turns a deaf ear to us. If **Mr. Fisher,** the former great Labour Prime Minister, who inaugurated the Commonwealth Bank, could rise, from the grave he would be astounded at the Government's failure to pursue forward policies which were well denned even in his day. I would rather have my left hand cut off at the wrist, and allow my blood to flow into the gutters and sewers of Canberra, than assist the Government to pass this legislation. The only way to save the wheatgrowers is to have orderly marketing and price stabilization, so that the grower will receive a profitable price irrespective of world prices. That is what the Labour party offers to the wheat-farmers. Is there anything wrong with socialization, which guarantees to the sugar-growers and the butter producers a profitable price? "We have offered the same to the wheat-growers. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator Hardy: -- Did not **Mr. Lang** offer 7s. 6d. ? {: #subdebate-22-0-s4 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP -- **Mr. Lang** did not offer 7s. 6d. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- He never had 7s. 6d. to offer! {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill: -- That would not deter him. {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- **Mr. Lang** offered to New South Wales farmers the right to control their own industry. The price of 7s. 6d. was created in the bitter turmoil, of press criticism hy certain editors who. were standing behind the United Australia party and the Country party. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator Hardy: -- Did not **Mr. Scullin** guarantee 4s. 6d. ? {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I am not concerned with- what **Mr. Scullin** offered. I will say this for **Mr. Scullin,** that, when he was Prime Minister, he tried to do right by the farmers. The Labour party was not cowardly at that time. It did not vacillate in its policy. Its followers did not crawl on their political " guts " because of criticism by the Country party or anybody else. The Labour Government was prepared to do the right thing by the farmers. I say definitely and clearly, and I do not care whether it is broadcast or not, that **Senator Rae** and I stand definitely and clearly, without apologies, for the socialization of the Commonwealth Bank - the people's bank - which has been plundered and robbed by this and every other Nationalist Government. We stand for a fair deal to the farmer, and we declare, without apology, that if the Government had any " guts " it would make the Commonwealth Bank give a fair deal to the farmers. Instead, the Government penalizes the workers. The attitude of the Government is cowardly and vacillating, not only to the farmers, but also to the great mass of the people. Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. ( Acting President - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.) 19 7 12 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee : ** Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - The Flour Tax Assessment Act 1933 shall, with the exception of sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 and sub-sections (2) (3) (4) and (6) of section 15 of that act, be incorporated and read aB one with this act. Amendment (by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) agreed to - > That the House of Representatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out the words " thirteen and fourteen and sub-sections (2) (3) (4) and (5) of section 15", with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words "and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 13." Clause agreed to, subject to a request. Clause 3 (Imposition of Tax). {: #debate-22-s0 .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN:
South Australia -- During the discussion on the Wheat Bill, at an early hour this morning, the Leader of the Senate **(Senator Pearce)** suggested that **Senator O'Halloran** and I, when dealing with - the increased price of bread due to the imposition of the sales tax on flour, had not studied the position. I have before me a table, prepared by Messrs. E. L. Mitton and H. C. Thomas, chartered accountants, Adelaide, dated the 20th September, 1933, giving information based on twenty returns of costs for one week supplied by the master bakers of Adelaide. This shows that, with flour at £7 10s. a ton, the cost of producing bread is, at the bakehouse door, 2.55d. per 2-lb. loaf; with flour at £8 10s., it is 2.72d.; and with flour at £9 10s. it is 2.9d. The cost of producing and delivering bread, with flour at £7 10s. a ton, is 3.51d. ; with flour at £8 10s. it is 3.69d.; and with flour at £9 10s. it is 3.86d. This return is based on the use by twenty bakers of 115 tons of flour weekly. In each case it will be noted that an increase of £1 a ton in the cost of flour means an increase of .175d. in the cost of a 2-lb. loaf of bread, and an increase of £2 a ton for flour means an increase of .35d. On these figures a sales tax on flour of £4 5s. a ton means an increase of .74d. in the cost of a 3-lb loaf of bread, so that by increasing the price of bread by Id. per 2-lb. loaf, the master bakers of Adelaide are getting a "rake-off" of one farthing a loaf, which, in the aggregate, will amount to about £300,000 a year. I did not confer with **Senator O'Halloran** in the presentation of my figures last night, and I was surprised to hear the honorable senator state his case in terms almost identical with my own. The return pre- pared by these chartered accountants of Adelaide shows that a sales tax of £5 10s. could have been imposed without there being any justification whatever for a further advance than Id. per 2-lb. loaf and the additional tax would have made all the difference to the wheat-farmers. In the Adelaide *Advertiser* of the 0th December, an article dealing with this subject, stated that a leading baker had explained that the price of bread usually rose or fell with every variation of £2 15s. a ton in the cost of flour. {: #debate-22-s1 .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator HARDY:
New South Wales -- This clause provides for the imposition of a flour tax at the rate of £4 5s. upon each ton of flour manufactured in Australia by any person and sold by him on or after the 4th day of December, or sold before the 4th December, but delivered by him after that date. It has occurred to me that if a baker had bought flour before the 4th December, but had arranged for delivery after that date the miller would be justified in claiming that he had sold flour, but had not delivered it. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- That position is met by a provision in the Sale of Goods Act. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator HARDY: -- Can the Minister say what is happening with regard to stocks of flour purchased by bakers before the 4th December? {: .speaker-KTX} ##### Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP -- There is another measure dealing with that matter. Motion. (by **Senator Dunn)** put - >That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the clause. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator this How. Herbert Hats.) 18 11 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Bequest negatived. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with a request; report adopted. {: .page-start } page 6003 {:#debate-23} ### FLOUR TAX BILL (No. 2) 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [10.22 a.m.]. - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The bill which the Senate has just passed, this measure and another shortly to be introduced are complementary to each other. Flour Tax Bill (No. 1) imposes a tax on millers' flour, Flour Tax Bill (No. 2) on stock-holders' flour, and Flour Tax Bill (No. 3) on importations of flour. Under the Constitution a taxation measure must not relate to more than one subject, and it is necessary to introduce three separate bills. I suggest that the vote just taken on Flour Tax Bill (No. 1) 1933 be regarded as a test vote. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. {: .page-start } page 6003 {:#debate-24} ### FLOUR TAX BILL (No. 3) 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. - Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [10.26 a.m.]. - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This measure provides for the imposition of a tax on importations of flour. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to. Schedule. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia -- I have received a request concerning the tax paid on flour used by pastrycooks. Before I had been communicated with, I read of their case in a Melbourne newspaper, and it appeared to me that this tax is likely to press somewhat heavily upon pastrycooks, who will have difficulty in passing it on. Can the Minister say if it is possible to make any provision for them? {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [10.29 a.m.]. - This bill provides for a tax on importations of flour, and does not affect pastry in any way. The position of pastrycooks was sympathetically considered by the Government, and an attempt was made to exempt from the tax the flour used by them, but it was found to be impracticable. Schedule agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6003 {:#debate-25} ### FLOUR TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [10.32 a.m.]. - I move - > That the bill be now read a second time. The bill provides machinery for the calculation and collection of the flour tax' on all substances resulting from the crushing, grinding and gristing of wheat or from the sifting or screening of such substances or produced by any combination of those processes, and upon any mixtures of the substances so produced as well as upon self-raising flour. There is an over-riding provision authorizing the GovernorGeneral, by proclamation, to bring into the taxable field, so that tax may be collected upon it, any substance not presently known in commercial circles, which may, by manipulation of any of the products already mentioned, be formed so that a new product might be claimed to be outside the literal terms of the act, although it would be within the spirit of the act. These provisions have already been found necessary owing to practices adopted in the flour trade since the announcement of the flour tax, for the express purpose of avoiding the tax. Certain conditional exemptions are set out in clause 15. The conditions expressed in the clause are essential to the due protection of the revenue and for the limitation of the exemptions to the specified fields. Tax will be paid by millers on all their sales and deliveries made on or after the 4th December, 1933, and up to the 30th June, 1934, unless an earlier terminating date is proclaimed by the Governor-General. The tax will also be payable on all stocks of flour as defined, except millers' stocks, which are not specifically exempted, which were on hand or in transit to purchasers on the 4th December last. The tax will be payable by millers upon the lodging of monthly returns of their sales and deliveries. Tax will be payable on stocks on hand on the 4th December, either by one lump sum on the 21st December, or by instalments as follows : - Where 20 per cent, of the tax exceeds £5, payment will be made by monthly instalments of 20 per cent, of the tax. In all other cases the monthly instalments will be £5, except where the unpaid balance is less than £5 when the instalment will be the amount of the unpaid balance. All payments will commence on the 21st December, and will be made on the 21st day of each succeeding month. Severe penalties are provided lor any evasion or attempted evasion of lb. a . tax. The tax will be administered oy the *Commissioner of Taxation, subject* to interpretations by the courts. The bill is divided into seven parts, and most of the provisions are purely of a machinery nature. Clause 15 deals with certain exemptions, and remissions and refunds are provided for in the case of articles containing flour sold +o public benevolent institutions and other bodies of that character. The machinery of the Bales tax administration will be used for the collection of the tax. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 28 agreed to. Clause 29 (False pretence as to tax an offence.) {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- I notice that in this clause a penalty of £100 is provided. The penalty in most instances is £100, and I should like the Minister to state why that amount is almost invariably chosen. Elsewhere I notice the following: - " Penalty : five hundred pounds or imprisonment for six months, or both." In a previous debate about the penalties prescribed in bills, **Senator Brennan** supported the opinion expressed by members of the Labour party, that the penalty of £100 or six months imprisonment should not be inserted as a matter of course. {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir Harry Lawson: -- The penalty of £100 is the maximum punishment, and it is provided for an offence which is worse than tax evasion, for it amounts to fraud. Clause agreed to. Clauses 30 to 35 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6004 {:#debate-26} ### WHEAT ACQUISITION BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill read a first time. Second Beading. {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [10.44 a.m.]. - I move - That the bil] be now read a second time. I have already explained the terms of the international wheat agreement, and the steps proposed to ensure that Australia's undertaking to regulate itsexports will be honoured in the event of such action being found necessary. Let me briefly recall to honorable senators the circumstances leading up to the- agreement. At conferences of wheatexporting and importing countries held in London, subsequent to the Economic Conference, long and serious consideration was given to the difficulties associated with the wheat industry - heavy production, abnormal carry-over in some countries, with resultant low world prices. Eventually, the conclusion was reached that the heavy accumulations of stocks in North America, combined with the new crops in prospect, rendered some restrictive policy necessary, and after prolonged negotiation an agreement covering two seasons, by which exporting countries were limited to certain fixed quantities, was arrived at. To that agreement Australia eventually subscribed. For the two years during which the agreement is to remain in force, Australia will have the right to export a total of 255,000,000 bushels of wheat in terms of flour and grain- 105,000,000 bushels in' .1933-34, and 150,000,000 bushels in 1934-35. Until the extent of the 1933-34 harvest is definitely known, it will not be possible to gauge accurately the surplus which it will be necessary temporarily to withhold from export. At present the total coming harvest is variously estimated at from 157,000,000 to 165,000,000 bushels. Should the maximum forecast of 165,000,000 bushels be realized, the proportion to be held back from export until the 1st August, 1934, will be from 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 bushels. When the actual temporarily unexportable surplus has been determined it is proposed to impose on each exporter, as a condition of export, the obligation to purchase from farmers or, if he cannot purchase, to hold on behalf of farmers, for deferred export, such proportion of wheat received by him as may lae necessary. The, extent of this proportion will, of course, depend on the amount of the unexportable surplus. It is possible that growers may not be able to sell all their wheat under these conditions. In that event, the Government has undertaken to intervene at any time, and to purchase from farmers the unexportable surplus of wheat which they have not been able to dispose of through the ordinary channels. Any such purchases will be made at world's parity price at the time of purchase. Growers will thus be assured of an outlet for the whole of their 1933-34 crop should this bill be agreed to. Any wheat which the Government may purchase will, of course, be available for export immediately after the 31st July, 1934. That means that the financial outlay will commence to be' recouped at a relatively early period. The Commonwealth Bank has been approached, and it has agreed to finance such transactions as the Government will be required to enter into under thi3 proposed legislation. It is now not expected that the harvest will be as great as was anticipated some weeks ago, in which event the volume of wheat which the Government will be required to deal" with will probably be small. Whether the quantity be great or small, however, growers will know that they will not be embarrassed in the slightest degree by reason of the operation of the international wheat agreement. It is reasonable to assume that, had the agreement not been concluded, the price of wheat, though now too low, would have been still lower. With the assistance of the Government, rendered possible by the valuable co-operation of the Commonwealth Bank, the Australian wheat-grower will secure the benefits of the agreement without being embarrassed by its restrictive provisions. The bill before the Senate is designed to authorize the Government to purchase the surplus wheat of the 1933-34 season which the grower is unable to dispose of through the ordinary trade channels. The method by which this surplus wiE be ascertained is set out, in clause 4. The bill requires the Commonwealth Statistician to ascertain and to publish in the *Gazette* the surplus wheat which the Government may purchase. The method by which he shall ascertain this surplus is also set out in the bill. Briefly, he will estimate the production for 1933-34 and deduct from such production the quantity required for Australian consumption, plus 105,000,000 bushels, representing the Australian export quota under the international wheat agreement for the year ending the 31st August, 1934. The remainder, if any, will be the surplus which may be purchased by the Government. The wheat will be purchased at world parity, and may be disposed of after the 31st July, 1934. The method of ascertaining the world parity price is to be prescribed by regulation. Owing to the serious decline of production this year, it is probable that only a small quantity of wheat will have to be bought by the Government. This is one of a trinity of measures which have been introduced to deal with the wheat problem. The other two are those providing for a grant to wheatgrowers, and imposition of a sales tax on flour. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator Hardy: -- Where would the Government store 50,000,000 bushels of wheat ? {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON: -- It is not likely that the Government will have to buy that quantity, but it is not beyond the wit of the Government to meet that situation should it arise. {: #debate-26-s1 .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN:
South Australia . -Clause 5 provides that - >The price which shall be paid by the Com- monwealth for any wheat purchased by it under this act shall be the world parity price of wheat at the date of purchase. While clause 6 authorizes the Commonwealth to sell after the 31st July, 1934, any wheat purchased by it, I should like to know on what date the Government proposes to purchase the wheat. The carry-over of wheat is generally announced on the 31st July of each year. In my opinion, the Government could not purchase wheat before that date. {: #debate-26-s2 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- This bill is another result of the World Economic Conference attended by **Mr. Bruce,** the present High Commissioner in London. From time to time, Labour senators have sought to ascertain the mind of the Government in regard to wheat, but without success. **Senator O'Halloran** endeavoured to find out what had taken place behind secret doors in London, but was unable to obtain any satisfaction. The Government of the United States of America has broken its pledge, and. is now paying a subsidy to American wheat-farmers to enable them to exploit the far Eastern markets of China, Japan and other countries, in the hope that its surplus wheat may find a sale there. {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir Harry Lawson: -- The international wheat agreement is designed to prevent that very thing. {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I am pleased to hear that. **Senator Hardy** interjected just now, " Where would the Government store 50,000,000 bushels of wheat"? I suggest that if the Government has any conception of the needs of the workers, it will seek to store the wheat in the stomachs of the people who are now hungry because of its maladministration. **Senator Sir HARRY** LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [10.55 a.m.]. - In reply to **Senator Badman,** I point out that the bill provides that the Statistician shall declare the quantity of surplus wheat. At any time subsequently, the Government may buy that surplus. The Statistician will not be able to declare the surplus until the approach of the end of the harvest, when he may make an announcement with a reasonable degree of accuracy. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator Hardy: -Clause 7 provides that the world parity price of wheat, on any date, shall be ascertained in such manner as is prescribed. Can the Minister give the Senate any indication of the basis on which world parity price will be determined ? **Senator Sir HARRY** LAWSON.The Government will use such means as are available to it to ascertain the world parity price of wheat, and will pay accordingly. At the moment, I cannot say exactly what machinery is likely to be used, but the honorable senator may rest assured -that the action of the Government in this connexion will be fair. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (World parity price). {: #debate-26-s3 .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN:
South Australia -- This clause reads - >The world parity price of wheat on any date shall, for the purposes of this act, be ascertained in such manner as is prescribed. There is no prescription in the bill. {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir Harry Lawson: -- Clause 10 provides for the making of regulations to cover all matters required by this legislation. {: .speaker-JNM} ##### Senator BADMAN: -- As this legislation will affect a great number of farmers, I suggest that the Government should consult more than one wheattrading firm. I have it on good authority that a certain firm in one of the cities of Australia has been given the privilege of announcing the price of wheat daily, through the " A " class broadcasting station of that State, and that another firm which receives the same cables has stated that the broadcast announcement always give the lowest quotation mentioned in the cable. I hope that in regulating the price of wheat, more than one firm, or co-operative concern, dealing with wheat will be consulted. **Senator Sir HARRY** LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [11.0 a.m.]. - I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to **Senator Hardy's** inquiry in his second-reading speech. The representations just made by the honorable senator will be brought under the notice of the Minister for Commerce **(Mr. Stewart)** and fully considered. Clause agreed to. Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6007 {:#debate-27} ### SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9.) Bills received from the House of Representatives. {: #debate-27-s0 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP [11.5 a.m.]. - I move - >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Sales Tax Assessment Bills Nos. 1 to 9 being put in one motion, at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole. The object of the motion is to make it unnecessary for the Senate to go in and out of committee on each bill. The procedure now recommended to honorable senators was adopted in another place. Question resolved in the affirmative, there being an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators present, and no dissentient voice. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bills (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [11.6 a.m.]. - I move - >That the bills be now read a second time. Stated in general terms, the purpose of these bills is as follows : - >Bill No. 1, clauses 2 and 3 - To remove a number of serious difficulties with which registered retailers arc faced; > >Clauses 6 and 8 - To tighten up the machinery for the collection and recovery of sales tax from defaulters; > >Bill No. 1, clauses 4, *7a* and 7c and 9, bills Nos. 2, 3, C, and 7, clause *jb* - To ensure that certain provisions of the law shall operate in accordance with the intention of Parliament; > >Bill No. 1, clause 8 - To prevent vendors from passing on as sales tax amounts in excess of the tax payable by them: > >Bill No.. 5, clauses 2 and 4- To adopt certain points of customs procedure; > >Bill No. 1, clause 5, 7b and corresponding provisions of other bills - To remedy a few anomalies and drafting defects of a more or less minor nature. Retailers' difficulties are the subject of clauses 2 and 3 of bill No. 1, the provisions of which are the result of conferences held, with the cognizance of the Government, between retailers' representatives and officials of the Taxation Department. The proposed amendments are considered desirable, both by representative retailers and by the Commissioner of Taxation, and are put forward as the solution of problems which have been shown to be practically insoluble under the provisions of the existing law. The effect of the amendments will be that retailers who, generally speaking, pay tax or have tax passed on to them when they import or purchase their stocks - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. will not have to account for further tax or establish claims for rebates of tax already paid when they make, out of their tax-paid retail stocks, such classes of sales as sales to employees at a discount, cash order and accommodation sales, sales of building materials and sales to dressmakers and tailors; 1. will, when they manufacture goods out of tax-paid stocks have to pay further tax only on an amount equivalent to the sum of the wages paid in manufacturing those goods and 20 per cent. of those wages. I shall not go into further detail at this stage, but will be glad to answer any questions that honorable senators may ask when the committee stage of each bill is reached. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. *In committee:* Bill No. 1- Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Definitions). {: #subdebate-27-0-s1 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I ask the Minister for an explanation of paragraphs *a* and *e* of this clause which apparently provide for the exemption of - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the sale by a retailer to his employees of goods at a discount from the retail selling price; and 1. the sale by a retailer, whether for cash or on credit, andwhether at a discount from the retail selling price or not, of goods of a kind used in the manufacture of and wrought into or attached to clothes for human wear, if the sale is made to a person whose principal business isthe making up of articles of human wear to the orders of individual customers; and Retailers have not been subject to sales tax hitherto, so I ask why there is need to provide' exemption for goods sold by a retailer at a discount to his employees. I take it that the meaning of paragraph *e* is that if a retailer registered as a sales tax payer disposes of any goods to a manufacturer or trader the sale will be exempt from sales taxation. {: #subdebate-27-0-s2 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [11.12 a.m.]. - Last year, it was provided that sales at discount were to beregarded as wholesale sales, and paragraph *a* is intended to make it clear that sales by retailers to employees at a discount are not to be regarded as wholesale sales. The meaning of paragraph *e* is as the honorable senator has said. All the provisions of this clause have been the subject of lengthy negotiations between the persons concerned and the Taxation office, and it is desired that they be included in the principal act to remove anomalies and ensure smooth working. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 to 9 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bills (Nos. 2 to 9) agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6008 {:#debate-28} ### COPYRIGHT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator McLachlan),** read a first time. {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP -- Imove - >That the bill be now read a second time. From time to time, honorable senators have brought before the Government, disputes arising out of the performance in public of musical works and of records. A royal commission was appointed by the Government to inquire into the matter, and the commission recommended the appointment of a tribunal to determine such disputes. The Commonwealth is a member of the International Copyright Union, and is bound by the Copyright Convention. The matter of establishing a tribunal on the lines suggested by the commission is, on account of its international repercussions, difficult, and the purpose of the present bill is to provide means for voluntary arbitration in disputes regarding performing right. The bill is designed to avoid, if possible, the raising of certain difficult and controversial questions, and provides useful machinery which, it is hoped, the parties will utilize. If the parties are not prepared to do that, the Government will have no alternative but to consider the matter from another point of view. The principles underlying the bill have been approved by the principal parties interested in the subject, and it is hoped that the establishment of a tribunal on the lines set out in the bill will satisfactorily settle the perennial question of performing right. Question resolved in the affirmative Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Glauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 (Voluntary arbitration in disputes concerning public performance of works). {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia -- This is an important measure, and honorable senators have not had an opportunity to read it. There is just one matter about which I desire to be perfectly clear. I take it that, by passing this bill, we are not taking sides as between any company owning performing rights and anybody else, but are simply providing for the reference of any dispute to an arbitration tribunal. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- That is the exact position. It is a voluntary arbitration to which, we are informed, both sides will submit. If they do not, we shall have to do something else. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6009 {:#debate-29} ### COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD AGREEMENT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. . Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir George** Pearce), read a first time. {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Westem Australia · UAP [11.26 a.m.]. - I move That the bill be now read a second time. The bill is introduced for the purpose of ratifying the agreement made on the 3rd February. 1933, between Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Company Limited, the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board and the Commonwealth of Australia, in relation to the leasing of Cockatoo Island Dockyard to the company. By the Commonwealth Shipping Act 1933, all property at the dockyard was transferred to and vested in the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board, and, subject to the consent of the Trea surer of the Commonwealth, the board was given power to dispose of any of the property acquired by or vested in the board in pursuance of the act. The board has power under the Shipping Act to grant a lease of any of its property, including the dockyard. Clauses 4 and 11 of the lease, the form of which is comprised in the agreement, however, impose financial obligations on the Commonwealth Government in certain circumstances, and, accordingly, it has been necessary to join the Commonwealth Government as a party to the agreement. In clause 4 of the lease, it is provided that, should the Commonwealth Government fail to entrust Government work to the lessee to the value of £40,000 per annum during any of the first three years of the lease, the Commonwealth will contribute towards the loss, if any, sustained by the lessee in that year in the ratio of £1 in £2 of that loss. The contribution in any one year shall not exceed £16,666, but no contribution shall be payable if the overhead expenditure of the establishment in that year is less than £22,500. Under clause 11 of the lease, the agreements on the part of the board are made binding on the Commonwealth, and the latter is made responsible for the observance and performance of the agreements, whether or not the board is capable of carrying them out. As the agreement contemplates the expenditure of money by the Commonwealth, and as the agreement is not authorized under any existing Commonwealth act, it is necessary that the agreement be approved by an act of the Commonwealth Parliament. The bill provides for approval of the agreement, and for the appropriation of such amount as is necessary to meet any liability of the Commonwealth arising under the agreement. Honorable senators will recollect that previously there was a loss on this dockyard amounting to £50,000 or £60,000 per annum. Under the lease, should there not be sufficient work to keep the dockyard fully employed, our highest loss will be £16,000. There was one factor which militated against the success of the dockyard. Under the Bunnerong judgment of the High Court, it was held that while worked by the Commonwealth the dockyard could not undertake other than Commonwealth or State Government work. That prevented it from taking any private work. That was a serious limitation of the activities of the dockyard and militated against its success. Under the lease now before honorable senators, the company will be able to take on other than governmental work. I understand that the dockyard is already forging ahead, and is getting work which the yard could not have undertaken while it was under government control. It is probable that the amount of naval work which the Commonwealth will *be able to place in the* way of the company will render it unnecessary for the Commonwealth to make any contribution under the provision to which I have referred. At the same time, the Commonwealth will always be able to resume control of the yard in the event of war or other national emergency. **Senator** DUNN (New South Wales) 1 11.31 a.m.]. - I enter my formal protest against the leasing of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. I know that the Government has a majority, and can force the measure through the Senate. I have worked at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard as an artisan. I know what a very fine engineering establishment it is, and I protest against the action of the Government in handing over this bulwark of our national defence to a private company. It is true that provision has been made for resuming control in the event of war, but the Government should never have handed over an establishment worth £2,000,000 for a consideration no greater than one would have had to give a few years ago for a prosperous hotel or a fishandchips shop. The dockyard is splendidly equipped with the most modern machinery. There are three slips, and every requisite for the construction of ships, and the whole lot has been disposed of for a rental of £1,000 a year. The efficiency of the yard has been proved, not only in the construction of naval cruisers, but also in the construction of those two vessels, the *Fordsdale* and the *Ferndale,* for the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line. The workmanship in those vessels was a revelation to Lloyd's surveyor. However, they, in common with the other units of the Australian Commonwealth Shipping Line, were disposed of for a mere pittance to the political friends of a Nationalist Government. This agreement bears on behalf of the company the signature of a person named Bell, and another named Davis. **Mr. Bell** is a member of the firm of "Bell and Fraser, which made such a success of its timber business at Rozelle that it became bankrupt. **Mr. Davis** is chairman of directors of the Davis Gelatine Company, whose factory is at Botany. He is a prominent Nationalist, and is no doubt a contributor to the funds of that party. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- The honorable senator is making an unworthy suggestion. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I am not. This is, in -effect, a political agreement. Let us get away from this business of kissing each other, and admit frankly that the leasing of the dock was a reward for political services rendered. I do not blame Ministers for that; it was part of the political game. The fact remains that **Mr. Davis** and **Mr. Bell,** who signed this agreement, are supporters of the Nationalist party. The Leader of the Senate **(Senator Pearce)** has been on Cockatoo Island dozens of times, and knows it probably as well as I do. I have seen him there myself, when he visited the place as Minister for Defence, while I worked at my machine in greasy overalls. It was unfortunate that the High Court ruled that the dockyard could not legally undertake the work of supplying turbine machinery for the Bunnerong power house, especially as it was so well equipped to do the work. I do not wish to get into grips with you, **Mr. President,** so near the festive season, but I was going to say that it is a pity that an arrangement of this kind, so inimical to the interests of the Commonwealth, can be forced through Parliament with the help of the Government's brutal majority {: #subdebate-29-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I shall not say it, because it would be out of order; but it is regrettable that the Government, by its party organization, is so able to influence its servile and slavish foi- lowers as to force this measure through Parliament. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE (Western Australia - Minister for Defence) [11.38 a.m.]. - I cannot allow the statement of **Senator Dunn** to go without challenge. He said that certain of " the directors of the company to which the dockyard had been leased were prominent Nationalists, and he suggested that they were given the lease for that reason. That is an unworthy suggestion. The fact is that the Government advertised in the newspapers, not only in Australia, but also in England for tenders for the lease of the dockyard. There was nothing underhand about that. Certain tenders were received, including that of this company. Its tender was considered to offer the most advantageous terms to the Commonwealth. Other firms could have competed if they so desired, so that there is nothing to sustain the charge that this was a political deal. {: .speaker-KNZ} ##### Senator Hardy: -- By this deal, the Commonwealth has avoided a loss of £57,000 a year. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE.That is so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- As the Leader of the Government has taken exception to the statement that the Government was actuated by an improper motive iri leasing the dockyard, I ask **Senator Dunn** to withdraw his statement. {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator Dunn: -- I withdraw it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 6011 {:#debate-30} ### TARIFF BOARD BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Represen tatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator McLachlan)** read a first time. Second READING {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP -- I move - >That the hill be now read a second time. This is a bill for the purpose of increasing the salary of the Chairman of the Tariff Board, making it equal to the salary for the time being payable to the Comptroller-General of Customs. At the present time, the Chairman's salary is £1,600 per annum; but, of course, it is subject to the reductions under the Financial Emergency Act 1931-33. This bill will have the effect of increasing the present Chairman's gross salary from £1,600 to £1,750, subject to the financial emergency reduction. The responsibility and importance of the position of Chairman of the Tariff Board have increased during recent years, more especially since the consummation of the Ottawa agreement. The Government, therefore, is of the opinion that the remuneration paid to the Chairman of the board should be the same as that paid to the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs. . {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- While I appreciate the fact that the chairman of the Tariff Board, who is a fellow wage-plug, is to receive an increase of wages, an action which always has my support, I record my protest against recent reports by the Tariff Board, which mete out unduly harsh treatment 'to Australian industries. {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland .. - If I am in order I should like to ask the Minister whether any further attention has been given to my request that the salaries of the Deputy Comptroller, and his principal officers should receive consideration. The last information which I received was that they were about to be reclassified. **Senator McLACHLAN** (South Australia - Vice-President of the Executive Council [11.47 a.m.]. - The Treasury has the task of devising ways and means to finance the staffing of this department, and I understand that the matter to which **Senator Collings** has referred is receiving consideration. I do not think that **Senator Dunn** is justified in claiming that the Tariff Board is not doing good work. If he would peruse its reports he would have to acknowledge that they are wellreasoned documents designed to put Australian industries upon the. most satisfactory basis. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through the remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 6012 {:#debate-31} ### REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE **Senator BRENNAN** brought up the second report from Regulations and Ordinances Committee, dated 7th December, 1933. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 6012 {:#debate-32} ### SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion of **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [11.50 a.m.]. - - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This measure provides for a grant of £1,150,000 from the Consolidated Revenue fund to the State of South Australia. Special assistance to South Australia dates from 1929. when, following recommendations made by a royal commission, Parliament approved of a grant of £1,000,000 spread over three years. In the year 1930-31, when Australia was in the trough of the depression, the action of the other States in foregoing their right to grants from the Commonwealth permitted further special assistance totalling £850,000 to be granted to South Australia. Since that year, this State has made three requests for special assistance, each approximately £2,000,000 a year, but, guided by the report submitted by the Public Accounts Committee, the grant approved by Parliament for 1931-32 was only £1,000,000. A similar amount was approved for 1932-33. The Premier of South Australia has indicated that the increased grant will be used to reduce railway freights on goods produced or used by the primary producer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee :* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - >Subject to this act, there shall be payable, for the purposes of financial assistance to the State of South Australia, during the year commencing on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, the > >Bum of One million one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- I move - >That the words " for the sole purpose of the relief of unemployment " be added to the clause. The sum of £1,500,000 is to be made available out of Consolidated Revenue for the purpose of providing financial assistance to the State of South Australia, and I cannot be a party to the provision of that relief without stating my opinion that, particularly in view of the class of man who is now Premier of South Australia,- the Commonwealth Parliament should give some direction as to the manner in which the grant is to be expended. Personally, I believe that the unemployed of that State have not had ft f £11 1* dea] {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [11.55 a.m.]. - It is but right that I should say that the Commonwealth Government has never imposed conditions governing these grants. Further, about £3,000,000 is being made available by the Loan Council and from the revenue of South Australia for the specific purpose of relieving unemployment in that State. {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
South Australia -- I desire to make clear the position of the party which, temporarily, I have the honour to lead. The efforts that have been made for months past by my colleagues and myself to have relief provided for unemployment in the various States are sufficient guarantee of our bona fides in that regard. We cannot support the amendment. First, as the Assistant Treasurer **(Senator Lawson)** has rightly pointed out, the Commonwealth Government should not attempt to impose conditions to govern the expenditure of money provided as compensation to a State for disabilities suffered by it under federation. Further, if **Senator Dunn's** amendment were carried it would have no effect, for already something like £3,000,000 has been made available for the relief of unemployment in South Australia, £2,2 00,000 having been provided from loan funds and £800,000 from revenue. It is obvious that if the Commonwealth Government were to instruct the Government of South Australia to expend this £1,150,000 on the relief of unemployment the Loan Council would have to reduce the quota allotted to that State; consequently, the unemployed in South Australia would be no better off, while its taxpayers would have an additional burden placed on their shoulders. The matter would not rest there. At present the State Government has before the Arbitration Court a case for the reduction of salaries of State school teachers, which it claims is a just and reasonable action in view of the bad financial position of the State. Anything which would increase the budget deficiency of South Australia would strengthen the case of the Government for a reduction of the salaries of school teachers, and it is well known that if it succeeded in that direction application would immediately be lodged with the court for similar reductions of the salaries of police and State railways employees. I shall not be a party to any action which would facilitate a move along those lines, and for that reason I shall vote against the amendment. {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931 -- I have listened carefully to the remarks of **Senator O'Halloran,** and without having any wish to embarrass him, his party, or the State which he represents, it seems to me that it is time that we should agree to an amendment of this kind, if only as an intimation that we consider that unemployment should be more drastically dealt with than it has been hitherto. I shall support the amendment. {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE:
South Australia .- The Premier .of South Australia, **Mr. Butler,** has already budgeted for expenditure in connexion with certain public works, and if this amendment were carried, **Mr. Butler** would need to alter the whole of his works programme, and wo should destroy the very object that we have in view. If **Mr. Butler** were forced to expend this sum of £1,500,000 solely for the relief of unemployment, certain public works, which are now being undertaken, would have to be discontinued.. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'Halloran: -- Those works cannot be financed by a vote under the Loan Council ; they must be financed out of grants similar to this. {: .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- Exactly. The representatives of South Australia in this chamber know the conditions of their own State better than **Senator Dunn** does, and if this amendment were carried, the employment given in one direction would displace men in other directions, and more harm than good would result. **Senator Sir WALTER** KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [12.3] . - It seems to me that if this grant were made subject to conditions, the Commonwealth would be acting unconstitutionally. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- The amendment, if carried, would make the grant subject to conditions. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Sir WALTER KINGSMILL: -- Exactly. It seems to me that if we control the spending of the grant, and confine it to certain purposes, we shall be interfering with the autonomy of the States. That is a point to be considered, and if we decide that the amendment would interfere with the autonomy of the State of South Australia, that is an additional reason for rejecting it. Question - That the words proposed to be added be so added (Senator Dunn's amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator the Hon. Herbert Hays.) 27 25 AYES: 0 NOES: 0 Majority AYES NOES Question so- resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6014 {:#debate-33} ### WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [12.11]. - I move - >That thebill be now read a second time. This bill provides for a grant of £600,000 to Western Australia. For many years, that State has received a measure of assistance from the Commonwealth, but a special grant as such was not made until 1926, when legislation covering the payment of £300,000 a year for five years, was enacted. In recent years, Western Australia has claimed a grant of £1,000,000 a year. For 1931-32, the previous grant of £300,000 was continued, while for last year, the Parliament approved of an increased grant of £500,000. The proposed grant is thus £100,000 more than the amount voted last year. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - >Subject to this act, there shall be payable, for the purposes of financial assistance to the State of Western Australia, during the year commencing on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, the sum of six hundred thousand pounds. {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales .- I move- >That the words " for the sole purpose of the relief of unemployment" be added to the clause. The sum of £600,000 is being allotted by the Commonwealth Government to Western Australia notwithstanding the fact that the people of that State recently carried a referendum with the object of approaching the Imperial authorities for permission to secede from the Australian federation, and to me it seems strange that the Government of that State should now come cap in hand to the Commonwealth Government for assistance. This Government believes in law and order, and yet it is giving assistance to rebels. {: #subdebate-33-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- I ask the honorable senator to substitute some other word for " rebels." {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- This Government is assisting a State Government elected by secessionists who wish to break away from the Australian federation which was inaugurated about 33 years ago as a result of the popular vote of the people. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B Johnston: -- The honorable senator is rough on **Mr. Collier.** {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -I am not greatly concerned about **Mr. Collier, Mr. Butler,** or **Senator Johnston.** The point that I have to decide is, whether I as a Labour senator should vote to grant £600,000 to a State whose public men have said that they will fight to the last ditch against the Government of the Commonwealth. For all that I know, this money might be expended on the purchase of armaments for an assault upon Canberra, or on defying the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth in other ways. When responsible Ministers of the Federal Government, led by the right honorable the Leader of theSenate **(Senator Pearce),** who was accompanied by his lieutenant, my dear friend, **Senator Kingsmill,** attempted to address a public gathering in Western Australia, they were absolutely intimidated and decorated with the order of the " raspberry ". Yet the representatives of that State have the impertinence to ask from the Commonwealth a grant which may be used to carry on propaganda work in favour of secession ! As a matter of fact, the Privy Council has before it a petition by Western Australia, praying that it be permitted to secede from the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B Johnston: -- Sent by a Labour government. {: #subdebate-33-0-s3 .speaker-KOJ} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon Herbert Hays: -- Order! I ask **Senator** Dunn not to be led away by interjections. I also ask honorable senators not to interject. {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I request you, sir, to protect me from the insults of this political rebel from Western Australia, **Senator Johnston.** I realize, of course, the position that he occupies. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable senator must not make personal remarks. {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I am not making personal remarks, except to say that **Senator Johnston** takes his instructions from the half-witted editor of . the Perth *Sunday Times.* Not one penny of this grant should be expended on a legal difference of opinion between the Governments of Western Australia and the Commonwealth. While arguments are proceeding as to which of the two Governments is right and which wrong, attention is diverted from the plight of the unemployed. I am prepared to allow the question to be decided on the voices, because the fate of the last amendment convinced me that the Government has the necessary majority to secure the passage of its measures. But had I my way, I would not allow any portion of the grant to be swallowed up in legal costs in a constitutional dog-fight. The whole of the money should be devoted to the relief of unemployment. {: #subdebate-33-0-s4 .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE:
New South Wales -- I wish to refer to the point that was raised by **Senator Kingsmill** on the previous measure, that it is unconstitutional to specify the purposes to which grants to the States "should be devoted. It appears to me that it cannot be unconstitutional to lay down the conditions upon which a grant shall be made. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill: -- The Constitution says that we may make conditions; that is not the point. In a disabilities grant, conditions cannot be laid down. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- Having established a disability and voted a grant, there can be no directions as to how the expenditure shall be applied. {: .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE: -- Conditions were laid down in the case of the wheat bounty. If it is done in one case, why can it not be done in another? The title of the bill shows that this measure is for the pur pose of granting financial assistance to the State; no mention is made of disabilities. {: .speaker-KPQ} ##### Senator Sir Walter Kingsmill: -- The grant is the result of an investigation by a disabilities commission. . {: .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE: -- We know that it is for that purpose. I contend, however, that there is no worse disability than the unemployment of those who are anxious to work and earn wages with which to purchase the necessaries of life. There would be no departure from the spirit of the act if the grant were devoted to that purpose. I point out that this Parliament made strenuous efforts to control the expenditure by the Lang Government of its own revenues. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable senator is going beyond the scope of the bill. {: .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE: -- I am merely pointing out that, if the Commonwealth can interfere with the locally-raised revenues of a State, its power to dictate the manner in which Commonwealth revenues shall be distributed is infinitely greater. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4 agreed te. Preamble and title agreed t&. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6015 {:#debate-34} ### TASMANIA GRANT BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [12.26]. - I move - >That tlie bill bc now read a second time. This measure provides for a grant of £130,000 to Tasmania. The Tasmania Grant Act, 1929, appropriated the sum of £250,000 per annum for five years. That amount is, therefore, available under that act for 1933-34, and, with the amount which it is now proposed to appropriate, namely, £130,000, will bring the total grant for this year to £380,000. The total grant now proposed is £50,000 more than the total amount made available by way of grants to Tasmania last year, namely, £330,000. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 - >Subject to this act there shall be payable for the purposes of financial assistance to the State of Tasmania, during the year commencing on .the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, in addition to the amount payable during that year, under the Tasmania Grant Act 1929, the sum of one hundred and thirty thousand pounds. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales .- I move- >That the words " for the sole purpose of the relief of unemployment" be added to the clause. The sum of £130,000 is to be granted to the delightful little island of Tasmania, which, I believe, may be aptly described as a portion of God's garden. An additional amount is available to it under a measure passed in 1929. I have exhausted quite a lot of my time and patience in checking up from the industrial records what the Tasmanian Government has done to develop the Latrobe shale-fields and the soft coal-field at Katamarang. The Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Senator McLachlan)** has promised honorable senators at different times a full dress debate on the extraction of oil from s'hale and coal. We have no conception of what progress has been made in Tasmania in this direction. I feel keenly the disabilities of that State, due to its severance from the mainland. I believe, however, that provision for its unemployed should take precedence of every other claim for assistance out of the sum granted. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to. Preamble and title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6016 {:#debate-35} ### INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1933 Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill. {: .page-start } page 6016 {:#debate-36} ### BANKRUPTCY BILL 1933 Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill. {: .page-start } page 6016 {:#debate-37} ### BILLS RETURNED PROM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment : - Extradition Bill 1933. Designs Bill 1933. Immigration Bill 1933. Commonwealth Public Service Bill 1933. {: .page-start } page 6016 {:#debate-38} ### TRADE COMMISSIONERS BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [12.35]. - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is to enable the GovernorGeneral to appoint trade commissioners and assistant trade commissioners on terms and with tenures of office to be agreed upon, and to protect the rights of any public servants who may be appointed to such positions. The future well-being of the Commonwealth depends largely upon consolidating and extending the export of our products to markets already established, and of obtaining a footing in overseas countries where Australian products have not penetrated to an extent comparable with the goods of other countries. In arriving at the decision that an Australian trade commissioner service should be established, the Government was influenced by the fact that practically all other nations of the world have established commercial services to assist in the development and stimulation of trade. Australia's present overseas representation is confined to the Australian Trade Commissioner in Canada, the High Commissioner's Office, London, and an agent in Paris who is under the control of the High Commissioner's Office. The office of the CommissionerGeneral in New York is also available in connexion with trade matters in the United States of America. In other countries Australia has to rely on the service of officers of the British Trade Commissioner Service; but the .stage has been reached where it has become wellnigh impossible for those officers to deal with the voluminous correspondence on trade matters which is being received, not only from Australia, but also from some of the other dominions. The Government is of the opinion that the only efficient and satisfactory method of commercial representation abroad is the establishment of our own trade commissioner service. The conference ' on Eastern trade, convened by the Minister for Commerce **(Mr. Stewart),** and held in Sydney early in the year, recommended that the principle of -official representation in the East be approved by the Commonwealth Government. As a result of a further recommendation by the conference, State advisory committees, representative of various commercial interests, and a Federal Advisory Committee on Eastern Trade, were set up. These committees have supported the proposal to appoint trade representatives in the East. An officer of the Department of Commerce, who recently visited the East, and surveyed the markets there, strongly recommended the immediate appointment of trade commissioners.^ This bill has been introduced in order to extend the principle of oversea trade representation. It is proposed to send two commissioners to the East - one to Batavia, and one to either Shanghai or Hong Kong - and one commissioner to New Zealand. Geographically, the East is the natural market for Australian products. We already have a trade of considerable value and volume with some of the countries of the East, but it is considered that, if our exporters and potential exporters are *to* retain the existing trade, and secure an increased share of the available markets, they must bo in possession of the fullest information in regard to not only the potentialities, but also the peculiarities of these markets. The recent trade negotiations with New Zealand illustrate the pressing need for the appointment of an Australian trade commissioner in that dominion. New Zealand is a large importer of many classes of Australian manufactured goods, as well as certain primary products. Australia is New Zealand's third largest supplier, but the adverse corporate attitude of New Zealand towards Australia is a source of danger to this trade. Two recent examples were the embargo against Australian fruit and vegetables, and the feeling against the diversion of trade from the United Kingdom to Australia. In his report to the Government, **Senator Massy-Greene** - the leader of the Australian Trade Delegation - stresses', the necessity for adequate and continuous Australian representation in New Zealand, as the dominion is Australia's most important near market. The bill provides for appointments, not only in the centres mentioned, but also in those other overseas countries where our trade prospects are encouraging. The Government has considered whether trade commissioners should be selected from the commercial world or from the ranks of the Public Service. It is proposed to select the first appointees from the commercial world. An assistant trade commissioner will be attached to each office, and these men will be recruited from the Commonwealth Public Service. They will undergo a period of training with the trade commissioner, and, at a later stage, will be eligible for appointment as trade commissioners. Australia cannot afford to miss opportunities for trade through lack of adequate representation in oversea markets. Such representation must be of a permanent nature if it is to yield the best results for Australia. The duties of the representatives will be in commercial, trading, and financial spheres, and will also embrace the general interests of the Commonwealth in the countries in which they are located. Exporters will be enabled to secure information which will place them in a position to exploit fully the possibilities of particular markets. The service which trade commissioners will render will be for the benefit of the Australian exporter, and should stimulate and advance Australia's export trade. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN:
New South Wales -- This bill contains a mass of stupidity. The PEESIDENT. - Order ! {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- I withdraw the term, **Mr. President,** and say that it contains a mass of confused and unintelligible words. As a Christmas box, it is an insult to the intelligence of honorable senators, and, if agreed to, will cost the taxpayers of Australia tens of thousands of pounds. What is the use of sending trade commissioners to Eastern .countries unless they have a thorough knowledge of the languages of the Oriental people with whom they will be expected to deal? Will they have to march about the markets of Shanghai or Hong Kong or other Eastern cities saying to the representatives of trading interests there, " You savee butter ; you savee lamb ; you savee this, that, or the other ", or will they be accompanied by interpreters who at times will be Chinese, at other times Japanese, and on other occasions men who speak other languages? In my soldiering days, I used to walk about the wazir districts of Cairo with an AngloEgyptian dictionary under my arm saying to the natives whom I met, " You savee this ; me no savee that ". I see in this bill no proposal that the men to be appointed shall undertake a university course in foreign languages. On my recent visit to New Guinea, I met **Senator Sampson,** and found that, apart from his politics, he was quite a good companion. Our trade with the Mandated Territory is not satisfactory. It is now proposed to send trade commissioners to the East and New Zealand. I suppose that the Minister responsible for these brain-waves walked into the Cabinet room with a wet towel around his head. *Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.* {: .speaker-JYB} ##### Senator DUNN: -- The policy of the Government of the United States of America has been to place promising young men in universities to study foreign languages and then put them in the front of the march of American commercialism to help their country to take its place in the sun. Let us turn for a moment to the case of Great Britain. We shall probably all agree that the British Consular Service is one of the finest in the world. This is partly because of Great Britain's policy of selecting brilliant young men for special tuition at various universities in the different languages of the world. When those young men are subsequently appointed to the Consular Service they do their part to assist British trade and commerce in the countries to which they go. A similar policy was followed by Germany in pre-war days. I also point out that one of the biggest bug-bears in the world to-day is Japanese commercialism. I suppose there is not a country of any importance that has not resident in it brilliant and active young Japanese who are doing their best to advance the trade of Japan. I can support this policy of the Government only because it will be the means of providing work for a few people. The Government has started in a small way by adopting a cadet system in respect of the Mandated Territory of- New Guinea. Young, men are sent to that territory to master "pidgen English," a knowledge of which is absolutely necessary if they are to make their way to the hinterlands of the various islands in that group. Japan, China, Siam and the Dutch East Indies have been mentioned as countries to which Australian trade commissioners may be sent, but it appears that in consequence of the peace treaty and various trade treaties that have been made with Soviet Russia it may be advisable soon to send an Australian trade representative to Russia. Vladivostock is nearer to Australia than many European ports, and provides good openings for trade in machinery and other goods. I should like an assurance from the Minister that early in the new year he will place before his colleagues a proposal that brilliant young men in the Commonwealth Public Service be sent to various universities, especially for the study of languages so that they may be able to represent Australia and Australian trade in other parts of the world. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia -- To the object underlying this bill, namely, the stimulation of trade between Australia and other countries, would be one of the last to object. Our relations with other countries may be through diplomatic or commercial channels. As this bill' deals only with the commercial aspect of the subject I shall confine my remarks to it. I regret that the measure was not submitted to the Senate some time ago, for it appears that the proposal has been under the consideration of the Government for some time. Had the bill been introduced earlier, instead of at the last minute, we should have been able to speak to it after some preparation. Australia several year ago had a gentleman acting as trade commissioner in China. I remember this very well, because when I first became a member of this Parliament I was bombarded with letters from him. It seems that, having fallen foul of the Commonwealth authorities, he had been dismissed from his office, and he retaliated by approaching members of Parliament, and, I suppose, Ministers of the Cabinet. The correspondence that passed between him and the Government seems to have consisted principally of mutual reviling. When this bill was introduced, I looked up the circumstances of that case. The person concerned was a **Mr. Little.** I have no desire to disparage him in any way, for I gather that he was a gentleman of good character and ability. A. reference to page 680 of volume 106 of *Hansard* will show that the late **Sir Austin** Chapman, who was then Minister for Trade and Customs, was asked a series of questions regarding **Mr. Little.** It was intimated in reply that **Mr. Little** had spent two years in China as our trade commissioner there, had received £7,838 18s. 9d. in salary, and had incurred an additional outlay of £11,309 14s. 7d. for staff, officers, and all other expenses; so that the office cost Australia almost £20,000 in the two years. In reply to another question on the subject, **Sir Austin** Chapman referred to the financial results of **Mr. Little's** work in the following words: - >The test of such work can only be seen in the trade returns, which show the following results for the year before he was appointed, and the last year of his appointment: - 1020-21- £ Exports to China from It will 'be seen therefore that in the two years our exports to China dropped by £50,000, and our imports' from China by £160,000. That seems to be a very unsatisfactory result for the expenditure of about £20,000. If the dismissal of a gentleman like **Mr. Little** resulted in such a heavy bombardment of members of Parliament with correspondence, I tremble to think of what would happen if several unsatisfactory or unsuccessful trade commissioners were dismissed. One wonders, in the light of that experience, whether it is desirable to extend the system of trade commissioners as proposed in this bill. The measure is drafted in the widest- possible, and most generous, terms. It provides that - >The Governor-General may appoint one or more Trade Commissioners and Assistant Trade Commissioners of the Commonwealth who shall . . . hold office for such periods and upon such conditions as the GovernorGeneral may determine. It is also provided that the persons appointed " shall be paid such salaries, allowances and expenses as the GovernorGeneral determines ", and " shall not be removed from office except by the GovernorGeneral on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity." Every one who has had any experience in these matter knows that it is unlikely that a person will have been guilty of misbehaviour, and that it will be extraordinarily difficult to prove that an officer is incapable. The Minister mentioned that four or five trade commissioners might be appointed. We can all agree without a moment's hesitation that it is desirable to appoint a trade commissioner in New Zealand. One should have been established there long ago. I have never met **Mr. Voss,** the Australian Commercial Agent in Paris, but I understand he has done extremely good work, and has impressed favorably those who have come into contact with him. It might, therefore, be desirable that he should be given the status of a trade commissioner. I was informed months ago privately, and I have seen it since confirmed in the press, that the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney, the Chamber of Manufactures in Sydney, and I think the Taxpayers Association in Sydney, had intimated that they did not want any of these commissioners sent hy the Government, and that, they preferred to open up and develop trade with the East in their own way. If that is correct, it must surely weigh with the Government, which could hardly ignore a recommendation by the principal commercial people in the greatest trading city of Australia. {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator MCLACHLAN:
UAP -- There are two factions, though, one for and one against. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- I do not wish in any way to cramp our chances of opening up trade in the East, though I am not so sanguine as some people appear to be. I would suggest that we are hardly likely to do good in the future by sending prominent commercial men, or men well up in years, to Eastern countries as complete strangers. This point was well put by **Senator Dunn.** What he said was perfectly sound. We must all recognize that a man aged 50, going from Australia, or from another British dominion to an Eastern country for the first time in his life, is bound to be lost from the start. I think we ought to have, not only in the East, but also in the world at large, a few young men selected from the Public Service, attached to the British Consuls-General. They would be in the nature of liaison officers, and would be carefully coached in local conditions. They would be moved about regularly and returned to Australia from time to time. From such a service we would derive more benefit than from sending senior men with elaborate staffs, who would cost a great deal of money, and would probably yield little, if any result. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE:
New South Wales -- **Senator Duncan-Hughes** has referred to several matters which were in my mind. I am inclined to oppose this bill, not because I disbelieve in the policy of opening up trade and doing everything that may be necessary to that end. I am not opposed to appointing agents for the purpose of developing Australian trade, but I would call attention to the fact that the Government is proving entirely false to its own policy, which is the encouragement of private enterprise. Members of the Government have always told us that private enterprise can do everything better than the State can do it. Surely, while the commercial life of the country is run by private enterprise, those engaged in commercial pursuits should be as well suited as any one to choose their representatives in foreign lands. In the Australian community, although it is almost entirely British, there is a sprinkling of persons with a knowledge of various foreign languages, who would be able to render good service to those employing them. Such bodies as those referred to by **Senator DuncanHughes,** and voluntary organizations of that kind, would, one would think, be the best fitted to choose trade agents for foreign lands. It is strange that the political party, which sticks loyally to private enterprise, is abandoning its own creed. The salaries and terms of appointment of agents are important considerations. It is proposed to give to the agents the status of judges. They may not be removed unless they -can be convicted of incapacity or misbehaviour. There is "no mention of any limitation of the amount to be expended. The number of agents and their remuneration, and expenses, are to be left to the Government to decide. I admit that it would be practically impossible to fix an exact amount, because one agent would be more costly than another; but we should decide how much money the Government should be allowed to play with. We may fairly claim that this bill is not in accordance with the principles advocated by the Government and its followers generally, and that there are two or three things in connexion with it which may lead to costly blunders, some of which may not be altogether avoidable. **Senator Sir WALTER** KINGSMILL (Western Australia) [2.42].- The few words I have to say on this matter are the result of about three months' experience in part of the territory about to be invaded by Australian trade commissioners. I allude to the Dutch East Indies, and the Malay Peninsula. In 1917 I' took a private trip to those parts, and the Government was good enough to invite me to look into trade possibilities. It was an entirely honorary position, but it gave me so much more ready access to the commercial life of the country, because of the introductions I had from the Government, that I was very glad to accept the offer. It proved most interesting work. That trip created uncertainty in my mind, not in regard to the personnel of the proposed commissioners, but as to whether the sending of trade commissioners was the best way to do the business. From my own experience and knowledge, I should say that it is not the best way. Any one who studies local conditions in the Orient must be driven to that conclusion. A person sent there as trade commissioner must have some knowledge - and the more extensive the better - of the make-up, mental and commercial, of the people with whom he is about to deal. He will encounter in leading positions men of ' a race which is very wrongly .looked down upon in Australia. The high-class Chinese are, in mentality, in commercial probity, and in every other way, at least the equal of Australian citizens. They are very strict in their business dealings. They do not tolerate more than one failure. If goods are not up to sample, or if there is any evidence that such a thing is likely to occur, business relationships terminate very quickly. I have often thought that the Americans, who are our principal rivals in those regions, have struck the best note. I do not think that they have any commercial representatives there. They take steps to ensure the regular supply of goods, which is an essential part of the contract, to the localities with which they are trading, and what money they do expend is employed in subsidizing freights. It was principally through the subsidizing of American freight that Australia lost the flour trade which is now coming back in south-eastern Asia. Prices f.o.b. America, and f.o.b. Australia, were much the same, but subsidies gave the trade to the Americans. Again, I do not know whether the project has been considered of inviting representatives from those countries to visit Australia, instead of our sending delegations and commissioners from here to them. That policy would be very much cheaper, and, I think, much more effective. There is undoubtedly a very great volume of trade to be done. Upon my return I presented my report to Parliament, and although it was widely read, apparently with approval, nothing very much was done, probably for the reason that there was not a regular shipping service to the countries to be served. Furthermore, the goods were not always up to standard, and, as I have said, people who trade with those countries get only one chance. If they make only one mistake they lose the business because there are always many others ready to take the trade. Hence it comes about that nearly all the goods that one sees in those countries are of American or Japanese origin, although commodities of superior quality might very well be supplied from Australia. This is particularly true of flour and also, I think, of beer, of which, incidentally, I am not a judge, but my impression was that Japanese and American beer was thin and of a quality unsuitable for full-blooded people. I am sorry that the bill has been brought up at this late stage in the session, because we have not the time to consider all the aspects of the Government's proposal. I do not know the reason for the urgency. What I would do were I in authority, would be to send a member of the Government to those countries to obtain first-hand information about the prospects of improving our trade relations with them. During my tour of twelve weeks, I saw a lot and interviewed a large number of the leading men. The fact must be realized that any delegate sent from Australia will have to deal with men of a race which, although not' highly esteemed in this country, takes a leading part in the commercial world there. Perhaps our prejudice is one of the results of our insularity. There are so many aspects of the. proposal, so many facets to be examined,, that I think the Government wo.u-ldl be wise to allow the Senate moretime for its consideration. If t]ie bill were postponed until we reassemble next year, and if in the meantime inquiries were made so that theSenate could be furnished with more information than is available to it at present, we should be in a better position to decide as to the wisdom or otherwise of-' the course now proposed. At present I see a number of difficulties. First of all we should consider whether the method proposed for the encouragement of trade is the best that could be devised. In my; opinion it is not. If we come to the conclusion that it is the best method, an immense number of details will have to be settled in connexion with the appointments. I shall not oppose the bill, but I think the Government is taking a step in the dark. This proposal should have very much more consideration than the Senate or the House of Representatives has been able to give to it. {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania .- The bill is a very important one indeed. We all agree with the statement made from time to time that Australia particularly needs at the present a more extensive market for its produce. I take it that the object of the Government in bringing this measure before the Senate is to establish a service by which that may be made possible. But the proposal has to be considered from many angles. It would be unwise to come to any decision in regard to a matter of such vital importance to Australia until preliminary and fairly full inquiry had been made. I am not suggesting that a committee should be appointed to investigate this matter, but I think that, with the information already at our disposal, it would be extremely injudicious for the Commonwealth to commit itself to heavy expenditure which might result in no gain to us. I have taken a great deal of interest in our trade relations with other countries ever since I have been a member of Parliament, and I well remember the expenditure some years ago of thousands of pounds for the purpose of fostering trade with other countries; but so far as I can recollect no tangible benefits to Australia resulted from the efforts then made, simply because either the wrong men were appointed to the positions created or a proper plan for the development of the trade had not been formulated. A little while ago I discussed this matter with a gentleman who had been connected with the commercial life of India for many years. He assured me that there were wonderful opportunities for the fostering of trade between Australia and India in some of our commodities, one of which especially is very important to Australia, but he said that before we could hope to secure . this trade, we must be closely in touch with the commercial interests in India. Indian traders, he said, were very keen indeed, and anxious to develop their export trade; in return they would be prepared to buy from Australia. The bill provides for the appointment of trade commissioners, but does not prescribe the period of the appointments. Personally, I would prefer that the bill be postponed for the time being. I do not know that we can look forward with any degree of certainty to any advantage accruing to Australia unless we appoint as trade commissioners men who have had lengthy experience with the business people of the countries with which negotiations are to be - opened up, and have also proved by their success in private business their fitness for the work. I am aware that the Public Service contains many excellent officers, and that Australia has many capable business men, but this is not an ordinary business matter ; one of the first essentials is an understanding of the mentality of the business men in the countries with which we hope to do more trade. Unless that is understood we cannot hope for any good results to Australia from this proposal. **Senator Kingsmill** gave us the benefit of his experiences when he had an opportunity to visit the Dutch East Indies. His contribution to the debate was a valuable one. The warning issued by **Senator Duncan-Hughes** should be heeded. I do not feel disposed to support the measure, because it would commit Australia to very heavy expenditure without due regard having been paid to all the conditions that are necessary to success. The suggestion made by **Senator Kingsmill** that Australia should invite representatives from the countries mentioned to visit Australia is an excellent one. If it were adopted and approved by the countries concerned their representatives who visited Australia would obtain first-hand knowledge of the commodities which we can supply. That procedure would be less expensive, and it might pave the way to the appointment of trade commissioners at a later stage when a complete general scheme had been formulated. I consider that the Government would be unwise to press the measure on the Senate, because of the limited time available to members of this chamber, for the consideration of some very important aspects of the proposal. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP [2.57]. - The statement has been made that America has no trade representatives in the countries with which we are proposing to improve our trade -relations. That is not so. That country has its representatives at Batavia, Singapore and Shanghai. There seems to be an idea that the Government has brought forward this proposal without having first given it careful consideration. It is desirable that I should correct that impression. Because of the pressure of time, my colleague, **Senator Lawson,** who introduced this bill, did not deal fully with the proposal contained in it, and .did not inform the Senate that the Government had given to it a very great deal of consideration, after full inquiries had been made. In February, 1933, a conference was held in Sydney of representatives of the Commonwealth and State Governments, chambers of commerce and chambers of manufactures, shipping interests, and others engaged in trade with eastern countries. That conference adopted a resolution recommending the Commonwealth Government to appoint official trade representatives in the East. Following the conference, State advisory committees, composed of representatives of the State Governments and various commercial interests were set up. By these committees support of the proposal was expressed, but not unanimously. At a recent meeting of the federal committee, on which are representatives of the State committees, a resolution was passed supporting the immediate appointment of trade commissioners in Batavia and Shanghai. Other countries are fully alive to the need for direct trade representation in eastern countries, and Australia can no longer afford to lag behind. . In Batavia, for instance, there are located government trade representatives, excluding consular services, of Great Britain, Canada, the United States of America, Japan, France, Germany and China, and South Africa is now considering the appointment of a representative. The trade between, the Netherlands East Indies and Australia is already both valuable and extensive. The British ConsulGeneral, the British Commercial Agent, and the Canadian Trade Commissioner in Batavia have expressed the opinion that Australian trade interests in the Netherlands East Indies warrant the appointment of an official trade representative. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- If the Senate had been supplied with this information earlier in the debate there might not have been such a prolonged discussion of the proposal. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE. - I know the high opinion which honorable senators have of the 'judgment and breadth of vision of **Senator MassyGreene.** On his return from New Zealand he informed the Government that he was extremely perturbed at finding the hostile feeling existing there towards Australia, which, had developed largely as the result of trade differences. Honorable senators know what has been done by countries making trade reprisals. **Senator Massy-Greene** expressed the opinion that, if we had had an efficient trade representative in New Zealand we would have acted differently, and that possibly we might have been able to influence New Zealand in certain directions. Unfortunately, our trade relations with that dominion have been allowed to get into a most unhappy condition, but the visit to New Zealand of **Senator Massy-Greene** has been the means of improving the relations between the two countries. As Minister for Defence, I have noticed the benefits of the drawing together of the two dominions, particularly with respect to defence. {: .speaker-KN7} ##### Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA · NAT; UAP from 1931 -- That is very important. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE.It is. We cannot always obtain the services of such an efficient gentleman as **Senator Massy-Greene,** but we should have a representative in New Zealand to advise us of developments, and to inform us of the effect of some of our activities upon the trade of the dominion and upon its people. We often act without . considering the consequence of our action. Let me give one illustration which was brought -under the notice of the Cabinet. Honorable senators are aware, I am sure, of the friction that is developing all over the world owing to the growth of extreme nationalism in matters of trade. That is developing more in the East than anywhere else. Quite accidentally the Government was able to obtain information concerning propaganda against Australia in an important Eastern country which was doing a considerable amount of damage to the Commonwealth. Although we obtained the information quite accidentally we acted upon it. We established communication with the Government of the country concerned and supplied it with facts, expressed a desire for friendly relationships, and stated quite frankly what we were doing. We have since received through official channels from the people and commercial interests in that country, a most appreciative message of our action in that regard. This has decidedly nullified the propaganda against Australia and earlier misrepresentation has been entirely corrected. Had we had an efficient trade representative in that country, we would have been advised of developments in their early stages. Action is sometimes taken quite honestly, and, thinking only of the situation in Australia, we do not see the possible repercussion in other countries. With a trade representative in such countries, we could obtain information rapidly and possibly, avoid friction. I am sure that honorable senators will agree that the main causes of friction between nations, which are becoming more and more pronounced, are in relation to trade. The value of an adequate representation has been demonstrated in the Dominion of Canada. It has been said that one of our representatives in the East was a failure; but **Mr. Macgregor,** our representative in Canada, is one of our successful agents. He has done excellent work. {: .speaker-K2L} ##### Senator Reid: -- Remember where he came from. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE.Yes, he came from Queensland. **Mr. Macgregor** was not appointed by this administration but by the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator Duncan-Hughes: -- It is easier to qualify in Canada than in the East. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE: -- I daresay that it is, but nevertheless our impression, which is supported by practical results, is that **Mr. Macgregor** has done good work in Canada with respect to reciprocal trade. He has advised us of any friction that has been developing, and such information has been most valuable to the Government. His work has, I think, brought practical results to Australia. The Dominion of New Zealand which has a smaller population and less trade than the Commonwealth, has its trade representatives all. over the world. South Africa also has its representatives. These countries musthave good reasons for establishing representation in other countries. They are not represented merely because it is dignified to do so. I suggest to honorable senators that the East offers a valuable market that we cannot afford to neglect. I can assure honorable senators that the Government did not come to this decision hurriedly. So far as I am personally concerned I confess that, as a result of previous experience with trade representatives in the East, I was prejudiced, but I have since been convinced by the data and the information that has come under my notice, largely from official sources, that it is essential that we should have these representatives, and I appeal to honorable senators to support the second reading of the bill. {: #subdebate-38-0-s7 .speaker-KS9} ##### Senator MacDONALD:
Queensland -- Even if this bill is not passed, the Government has the power to appoint trade representatives if it so desires. Itsintroduction is an open admission of the failure of private enterprise. We have had a confession from the Leader of the Senate **(Senator Pearce)** that injury has been done to Australia in certain other countries, because of insufficient propaganda on behalf of our products.. Although we have business and social relationships with New Zealand, as: we have with the East and othercountries, we have been informed by theMinister that prior to the visit of SenatorMassyGreene to that dominion there* was a feeling of antagonism on the part" of its people towards Australia. That is an admission that our present system-, is defective, and I am pleased to learnthat arrangements are being made forAustralia to be represented in certainimportant' trade centres. At present, theCommonwealth has a High Commissioner vin London, and most of the States have Agents-General who act as trade commissioners. We have had a CommissionerGeneral in the United States of America for many years. In fact some of our most -eminent citizens have represented Australia in that country. Some thought it hardly necessary to appoint a trade representative in Canada owing to that country's proximity to the United States of America, but the Minister has assured us that **Mr. Macgregor** is rendering splendid service to Australia. At different periods, we have had representatives in the East, but we have not had a trade commissioner or even a tourist representative in New Zealand. That seems to be a short-sighted policy. I am glad that this measure has been introduced, and I trust that those appointed will be able t'o render better service to this country than blundering private enterprise which has made a sorry mess of our trade relationships with other countries. I hope that the bill will be carried on the voices, if only "because it will afford an opportunity to show private enterprise how to conductits own business. {: #subdebate-38-0-s8 .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator GRANT:
Tasmania .- I should like to mention one or two matters in connexion with our proposed overseas representation. **Senator MacDonald** referred to the blundering attempt made by private enterprise, but, in 1928-29, "blundering private enterprise " as he describes it, did business, with the East to the value of £27,363,000, which, after all, is a fairly good achievement. I am convinced that the more we leave the development of trade between the Commonwealth and other countries to private enterprise, the better it will be for Australia. I do not intend to oppose the bill, although I regret that it has been brought before the Senate at such short notice. This subject has been under consideration for some time, as for some months reports concerning our representation in other countries have appeared in the press. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- The delay was due to our negotiations with the Federal and State committees. {: .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I am glad to have that explanation, because I have seen repeated references in the newspapers to the appointment of trade delegates to the East. I have made two trips to Eastern countries, and have visited Yokohama, Kobe, Singapore, and Java. I believe that a great deal more could be done to stimulate trade between Australia and Eastern countries, but we must not attempt to interfere with natural trade conditions. Like **Senator DuncanHughes,** I am disappointed with the terms of appointment of these gentlemen. Sub-clause 2 of clause 4 provides - >A person to whom this section applies shall be paid such salary allowances and expenses as the Government generally determines. That is an elastic provision. We have known of many instances in which unnecessary expense has been incurred in the matter of allowances. We have a good idea of the salaries to be paid, but something more definite should be provided with respect to allowances. The Government should also have stated the maximum number of appointments to be made under the bill, the language of which is most indefinite. The Government may appoint from one to 100 if it so desires. If this measure is enacted, a future government could appoint a trade commissioner in practically every part of the world. {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- The honorable senator thinks that every other government but this Government will go mad. {: .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I know of one government in Australia that did go mad. Clause 5 provides - >A trade commissioner or an assistant trade commissioner to whom the last preceding section applies shall not be removed from office except by the Governor-General on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. What would happen if the Commonwealth decided to discontinue its representation in one of the countries concerned ? {: .speaker-K7P} ##### Senator Collings: -- If the honorable senator will study the bill, he will see that appointments are to be made from the Public Service. {: .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator GRANT: -- I know what I am saying, and I do not need any assistance from **Senator Collings.** I can follow a bill as well as the honorable senator can. If the persons appointed are not public servants, and the office at, say, Shanghai is closed, what will become of our representative there? It seems that his services could not be dispensed with unless misbehaviour and incapacity were proved against him, and, as members of the legal profession are well aware, such proof would be difficult unless the misconduct were most glaring. These appointments will be practically for life. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE: -- Clause 3 states that the appointments will be only " for such periods and upon such conditions as the Governor-General determines. " {: .speaker-KMK} ##### Senator GRANT: -- The measure seems capable of improvement in this direction. I have refreshed my memory in regard to the valuable report which was submitted by **Mr. H.** W. Gepp on trade between Australia and the Far East. One of his recommendations was that pending the appointment of permanent full-time representatives of the Commonwealth in China and J apan arrangements might be made by the Department of Commerce with suitable individuals or firms situated at Shanghai or Tokyo to act for the time being as trade correspondents. I intend to support the second reading of the bilk although I am not confident that much good will result from it. Question resolved in tho affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee :* Clauses 1 and 2 passed. Clause 3 (Appointment of Trade Commissioners and Assistant Trade Commissioners). {: #subdebate-38-0-s9 .speaker-K1Z} ##### Senator RAE:
New South Wales -- A hurried glance at this clause suggests that the commissioners will have practically the status of Supreme Court judges. It will be impossible to remove them from their positions except for proved incapacity. Power should be given to close an office, if necessary, and to dispense with the services of a commissioner who may have failed to do what was expected of him. {: #subdebate-38-0-s10 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [3.19]. - The success of the appointments will depend on the qualifications of the officers chosen for these positions. We must make these posts reasonably attractive, and a certain security of tenure must be given. As my colleague **(Senator Pearce),** has pointed out the commissioners are to be appointed "for such period and upon such conditions as the Governor-General determines ". The Government will have to answer to Parliament for the appointments made. Clause agreed to. Clauses 4 to 12 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6026 {:#debate-39} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following bills reported : - Migrant Settlement Agreement Bill 1933. ' Appropriation Bill 1933-1934. {: .page-start } page 6026 {:#debate-40} ### FLOUR TAX BILL (No. 1) 1933 Bill returned from the House of Representatives, with a message intimating that it had made the amendment requested by the Senate in this bill. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 6026 {:#debate-41} ### INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1933 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion of **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP [3.29]. - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. I regret that this measure has been brought before honorable senators at this late stage of the session. It is technical and complex, but I shall endeavour to give a clear exposition of its meaning, and the effect of the proposed alterations of the law. Honorable senators are aware that by a recent amending bill the pension, after the 4th October, 1932, was made a charge upon the pensioner's property. Many difficulties arose in connection with pensioners' dealings in real estate. The pensioner had to sign a white card, which, he thought, transferred his property to the Government, although actually it did not. Any one dealing with real estate, the property of a pensioner, had to make inquiries from the Commissioner. The hill dispenses with' that requirement. If the Senate agrees to the measure, with its liberal provisions, it will go a long way to removing the charge against the estates of pensioners and in many cases will actually do so. The bill does not limit the right of a pensioner to deal with his property ; but, if he sells it, the proceeds will be included among his assets when the rate of his pension is being determined. As honorable senators know, a person becomes ineligible for a pension if he owns property valued at more than £400. There is also a provision that, if the pensioner deals -with his property during his life, he must notify the Commissioner, and if the transaction is otherwise than bona fide or for value, his estate will be assessed at the real value of the property - not at the amount which may be mentioned in the transfer. If he gives the property away, he will not be able to say that he has disposed of his estate; but if he transfers it in a bona fide transaction, he will not be hurt except to the extent that the cash proceeds will be reckoned as part of his estate in assessing his pension. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE: -- What becomes of a pensioner's property in the event of his death ? If a pensioner dies, the amount of pension paid to him from the date fixed in this bill will remain a debt due to the Government. Under the old law, the Commonwealth charge took precedence over all debts and liabilities, except encumbrances on real estate which were entered into before the 12th October, 1932, or with the consent of the Commissioner after that date. The bill substitutes the 31st December, 1932, for the 12th October, 1932. The amount of pension paid after the 31st December, 1932, will now remain a debt payable at the pensioner's death, out of his estate to the Commonwealth. There are other liberal exemptions. For instance, the personal affects of a pensioner to the value of £50, and funeral and mortuary benefits received from friendly societies, will be exempt from liability for Commonwealth debt. A pensioner's property, which, under his will, passes to a near relative, will, in cases in which the beneficiary is also a pensioner, or is in necessitous circumstances, or resides in the home of the pensioner as a member of his family, be similarly exempt. That preserves the sentiment attaching to the family home. {: .speaker-K2Z} ##### Senator Brennan: -- Will a pensioner's property be dealt with in a similar way in the event of intestacy? {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON: -- No provision is made for such cases, because the Government believes that, if a pensioner is not sufficiently interested in his near relatives to will his property to them, it is not the business of any government to do so. Of course, the hardship clauses would apply in cases of intestacy. For instance, if a pensioner neglects to make a will, and his son or daughter is in need, the Commissioner has a discretionary power to overlook the omission to make a will. But, if a distant relative, who had not done anything for the pensioner during Hb life, submitted a claim, the debt due to the Commonwealth would have precedence over it. In other cases in which a beneficiary under a pensioner's will had contributed towards the pension, twice the amount of such contributions will be deducted from the debt due to the Commonwealth when determining the extent to which his interest is affected by the satisfaction of a debt due to the Commonwealth. A pensioner may deal freely with his land so long as such dealings are bona fide and for value; but he must give the Commissioner notice of such dealings. The title of the land is not affected by this legislation; but any person who acquires property from a pensioner other than bona fide and for value will be liable for the payment of the debt due to the Commonwealth to the extent to which he has not given value, for the property. Those are the main provisions of the bill, and honorable senators will, I think, agree that they confer liberal concessions. The bill safeguards the interest of all who have any just claim on -a pensioner's estate, while preserving the right of the Commonwealth to precedence over strangers or wealthy relatives. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. Clause 3 - (1.) Section 52d of the principal act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead : - 52d. . . . " (3.) If the Commissioner is satisfied that any pensioner has transferred or mortgaged any land, or any estate or interest therein, otherwise than bona fide 'and for value, the Commissioner shall review the rate of pension granted to the pensioner, and the value of the land transferred or mortgaged, or of the estate or interest of the pensioner therein, as the case may be, after deducting therefrom any sum actually received by the pensioner in consideration of the transfer or mortgage and taken into account for the purpose of determining the rate of his pension, shall be deemed to be included in the net capital value of the accumulated property of the pensioner." {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
South Australia -- I allowed the second reading to pass without comment, because the bill does liberalize the provisions of the existing legislation to an extent which is welcomed by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. We regret, however, that the Government did not repeal entirely the sections enabling the Commonwealth to levy claims against the property of pensioners. In order that the law may be still further liberalized, I move - >That the following proviso be added to subsection (3.) of proposed new section 52d: - " Provided that the Commissioner shall not review the rate of pension during such time as the pensioner remains in residence in any house which he has so transferred or mortgaged." The proviso is a necessary safeguard to prevent cases of hardship. As a rule, pensioners are not acquainted with the details of the law regarding the disposal of their property, and may sometimes break its letter unintentionally. **Senator Sir HARRY** LAWSON (Victoria - Assistant Treasurer) [3.42]. - I urge the honorable senator not to press his amendment. I assure him that the Commissioner is not likely to act arbitrarily. Pensioners who are not acquainted with the details of land transactions, are dealt with generously. If we stop to debate the amendment, we may imperil the passage of this measure through Parliament. {: #subdebate-41-0-s3 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- In view of the* Minister's assurance, I ask leave to withdraw 'my amendment. Amendment - *by leave* - withdrawn. {: #subdebate-41-0-s4 .speaker-KOZ} ##### Senator HOARE:
South Australia -- Should a husband and wife, each, of whom has been in receipt of a full pension from the beginning of this year,, decide to sell their property, could the department compel them to repay thewhole of the money paid to them by way of pension after the 31st December, 1932?' {: #subdebate-41-0-s5 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir "HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [3.44]. - No.. A pensioner will be free to sell his property bona fide and for value, but in such cases he must notify the Commissioner.. If he converts his home into cash, the proceeds will be included in his assetsfor the purpose of determining the rateof pension. Clause agreed to. Clause 4- >Section fifty-two B of the principal act isrepealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - "52e. - (1.) Upon the death of any person who, at any time after the twelfth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, was in receipt of a pension . . . there shall be repayable to the Commonwealth an amount ascertained in accordance with theprovisions of this section. " (3.) Tlie amount of pension repayableunder this section shall be a debt due to the Commonwealth, and shall be recoverable by theCommissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction. Amendment (by **Senator Sir Harry** Lawson) agreed to - >That after the word " Commonwealth ", subsection (1) proposed new section 52e, thewords " out of the estate of the pensioner " be inserted. {: #subdebate-41-0-s6 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
South Australia -- The proposed new subsection 3 states that " the amount ofension repayable under this section shall e a debt due to the Commonwealth, and shall be recoverable by the Commissioner in any court of competent jurisdiction ". This matter has already been debated, and I now simply register my protest and appeal to the committee to reject the provision. I move - >That sub-section 3, proposed new section 52c, be left out. {: .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir Harry Lawson: -- As the rejection of this proposed new sub-section would destroy the whole basis of the measure, the Government cannot accept it. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. *Sitting suspended from 8.50 to 4.80 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 6029 {:#debate-42} ### INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1933 Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill. {: .page-start } page 6029 {:#debate-43} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by **Senator Sir George** Pearce - *by leave* - proposed - >That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the determination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. {: #debate-43-s0 .speaker-K2Z} ##### Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria -- This seems a formal motion, but I am sorry that it indicates that we are continuing with the old principle that has been established in this Parliament of having never-ending sessions. I had hoped that following the consolidation of the tariff, we would be able to revert to annual sessions. To me it is quite clear that the Constitution contemplates that' there should be a close of the session in every year. I cannot understand why it is necessary, on this occasion, to adjourn until we are called together again. I thought that all the business of the session had been disposed of, and that there would be a prorogation instead of a mere adjournment until we are summoned by the President to reassemble. Apparently the Government has found this course necessary, and I regret that it is so. We should start new sessions every year. {: #debate-43-s1 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP [4.34]. - I can assure **Senator Brennan** and other honorable senators that the Government shares his view. Up to the last moment, we had hoped to be able to end this session, but a week or two ago, we were obliged to introduce new customs duties on tobacco in order to provide portion of the revenue necessary under the measure' to grant relief to wheat-farmers, and it would take some time to get that proposal through both Houses. Also, there were certain tariff negotiations in progress, which, we had hoped, would be completed in time to enable us to close this' session in the manner contemplated by the Constitution. It is probable, however, that this would have necessitated sitting for another week or longer. We kept the door open, as it were, hoping until the last minute that we should be able to close the session, but the tariff business had not progressed far enough to enable us to prorogue Parliament. The motion now before the Senate is necessary to safeguard the revenue. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 6029 {:#debate-44} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator Sir George** PEARCE) proposed - >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter. {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia -- I hope that this motion means what it purports to mean, and that the next day of meeting will be determined by you, **Mr. President.** I recollect correspondence that was published in the Western Australian press between you and the Government in connexion with the re-assembling of the Senate in October last. You telegraphed to the Government suggesting that, in view of the very unsatisfactory train service from Western Australia to Canberra, the Senate should meet on Thursday, the 5th October, but the Government, in its reply to you, stated that it would be more convenient to the Ministry for the Senate to meet on Wednesday, the 4th October. The day of meeting makes a difference to honorable senators from Western Australia only. Because of the unsatisfactory train service, travellers from Western Australia arrive in Canberra on a Sunday or a Thursday. When the Senate is asked to reassemble on a Wednesday, members from Western Australia have to leave their homes three and a half days earlier. Representatives of other mainland States have the benefit of a daily train service to Canberra. I am aware that, in fixing the date for the re-assembling of Parliament, the Government has to consider the interests of members from ali States. I also remind honorable senators that, -following the re-assembly of Parliament in October, there were two adjournments of the Senate, one for fourteen, and the other for thirteen days, but on neither occasion was the adjournment of sufficient length to permit senators from Western Australia to return to their homes. Had they done so, they would have arrived in Perth on a Friday morning, and, if they wished to return in time to attend the next sitting of the Senate, would have been obliged to leave Perth again on the Saturday night. I do not expect the Government to do more than give reasonable consideration to the representations of members from Western Australia with regard to the next day of meeting, but I suggest to the Leader of the Senate that the decision should rest with the President. On the last occasion, you, sir, acted quite properly in meeting the Government's wishes; but I hope that next time, the Government will, if possible, strain a point and make its wishes in the matter coincide with the wishes of senators from Western Australia. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- I shall bear in mind the matter mentioned by the honorable senator. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I think it was explained that, in fixing the day for the re-assembling of the Senate on the 4th October, the Government had regard to an important meeting that had been called. Question resolved in the affirmative. ADJOURNMENT. FREE Issue of Coal from Naval Stocks - Ammunition for Rifle Clubs - Valedictory. {: #debate-44-s2 .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · UAP [4.41]. - I move - >That the Senate do now adjourn. There are two matters which I should mention to the Senate. The Auditor-General. has, I understand, expressed the opinion in one of his reports that when gifts are made by the Government, Parliament should be informed. On the 26th May, 1933, I informed honorable senators that certain free issues of coal from federal stocks in New South Wales, controlled by the Prime Minister's Department, had been made available for the relief of distress in the Newcastle district, that approval had been given for further issues of this coal, and that Parliament would be advised from time to time as to the issues made. In accordance with that promise I now inform honorable senators that the total free issue of such coal, approved to the 30th September, 1933, was 3,300 tons, and that the quantity actually issued to that date was 2,936 tons. I also inform honorable senators that, to assist the activities of rifle associations and clubs, approval was given by the Government for the free issue of ammunition to such associations and clubs. During the year 1932-33 the total issues amounted to 797,606 rounds. Approval has been given to make further free issues of ammunition during 1933-34, and Par-, liament will be advised from time to time as to the issues that are made. . I take this opportunity to thank you, **Mr. President,** and the Chairman of Committees **(Senator Herbert Hays),** as the presiding officers of the Senate, for the way in which you have presided over its sittings, and the courtesy which you have, at all times, extended to honorable senators. ' I also express appreciation of the very courteous and efficient way in which the officers of the Senate have carried out their duties, especially during the last week or two. They have been under very heavy strain, and we all recognize that they have done excellent work. I am afraid that we have subjected the *Hansard* staff to a very heavy strain, but notwithstanding the pressure put upon them they have discharged their duties with their usual efficiency. They have had a very high standard set for them in the past, and I think they are living up to it. I extend to them our thanks for their efficient work in reporting the debates of the Senate. As to the Senate staff, I think we have good reason to congratulate ourselves upon the high level of efficiency and courtesy of the attendants who also display considerable intelligence in their work. I express regret that two members of the Senate, Senators Carroll and Foll, are, at the moment, indisposed, but I am sure that other honorable senators will join with me in hoping that they will soon be restored to good health. I desire, on behalf of the Government, to extend to you, **Mr. President,** to the Chairman of Committees, to honorable senators generally, to the officers of the Senate, to *Mansard,* and to the Senate staff, the compliments of the season. I trust that, when we meet again in the New Year, our .ranks will be unbroken and that we shall be able to approach our legislative duties Avith renewed health and vigour. {: #debate-44-s3 .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'HALLORAN:
South Australia -- In the unavoidable absence of the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Barnes),** I endorse, on behalf of my colleagues of the Labour party, the felicitations just expressed by the Leader of the Senate. I support what has been said in such an admirable way as to the manner in which you, sir, and the Chairman of Committees have discharged the onerous duties attached to your high offices. The officers of the House deserve the praise which has been bestowed on them by the Leader of the Senate. To the staff of the chamber honorable senators are grateful for their courteous and efficient service. The work of ' the *Hansard* staff has been unduly, arduous during the last two or three days, and I suggest that the Ministers in this chamber should use their influence with their colleagues to prevent the work of reporting from being made more difficult by the new practice of the House of Representatives of suspending its sittings for only half an hour for meals. I feel sure that the Government did not realize for a moment that in thus curtailing the mealtime it was imposing an unfair burden upon the *Hansard* staff, including the typists. No doubt Ministers thought that they were expediting the despatch of business, and meeting the convenience of members of both chambers, but in view of the importance and strenuousness of the task of providing an accurate report of the proceedings in this Parliament, I believe that the members of both Houses would prefer to sit an hour or two longer, at the sacrifice perhaps of a little less rest, so that the *Hansard* staff might have a longer respite at meal time. I join very heartily in the good wishes which have been extended to honorable senators, and particularly do I endorse the hope expressed by the Leader of- the Senate that the health of **Senator Foll** and **Senator Carroll,** who now are unfortunately slightly indisposed, will be soon' restored so that they may join in the festivities of the approaching Christmas season. {: #debate-44-s4 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia -- On behalf of the members of the Country party, I associate myself with the congratulations which have been extended to you, sir, at the conclusion of this short session. It has been the sort of session which we are beginning to regard as normal, as it has consisted largely of adjournments in its early portion owing to lack of business, and overwork for members and officials alike as its termination approached. I desire, sir, to thank you and the Chairman of Committees for the courteous manner in which you have presided over our deliberations. I should, perhaps, have been better pleased had more been achieved in certain directions, but the Government has been able to carry out its own sweet will, irrespective of the wishes of Country party senators. We appreciate the courtesy we have received from other honorable senators, particularly the Leader of the Senate, and his colleagues* To you, sir, and to the members of the United Australian party, and the two official Labour parties in this chamber, we convey sincere good wishes for the approaching festive season. In these wishes we include the officials of the House and the *Hansard* staff for whose efficient help and unfailing, courtesy at all times we are grateful. {: #debate-44-s5 .speaker-K2Z} ##### Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria -- I associate myself with everything that has been -said by the Leader of the Senate, but I should like to say a word concerning the *Hansard* staff. As a former pressman, I sympathize with the reporters, because of the heavy duty which has been thrust upon them. We have now been sitting continuously for I know not how long; we have, foi the moment, lost count of time. It seems a matter of no importance whether the next proof number of the parliamentary debates is ready for us to-morrow, the next day, or even next Monday, and, I suggest that you, sir, having control of *Hansard,* at least so far as this branch of the legislature is concerned, should make it clear that the publication of the debates of the last few days is not a matter of urgency. Judging entirely by my own condition, I am sure that the strain upon the *Hansard* ' staff must have been enormous, and I suggest that the transcription of the notes may well be deferred until the members of the reporting staff have been rested. {: #debate-44-s6 .speaker-KOJ} ##### Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania -- I should like to acknowledge the kindly references that have been made to me as Chairman of Committees. Senators representing Tasmania are deeply interested in the establishment of the paper pulp industry in that State. This matter has been before this and previous governments for many years, and I am sure that the Government is anxious that this, industry should be established. Can the Minister for Development give any information that would encourage us in the belief that there is some prospect of the industry being established in Tasmania at an early date? {: #debate-44-s7 .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator MCLACHLAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · UAP -- The Government has been watching with sympathetic interest the negotiations which have been proceeding for some time between Derwent Valley Proprietary Limited, Paper Makers Limited, Tasmanian Paper Proprietary Limited, and Australian Paper Manufacturers Limited, in connexion with proposals for establishing the paper industry in Tasmania. The Commonwealth Government's interest is, first, to assist the Tasmanian Government, which is directly and mainly concerned, as far as possible; and, secondly, to encourage by all reasonable means in its power negotiations which will lead in due course to the inauguration of a new industry providing considerable regular employment. The negotiations between the companies concerned, the Government of Tasmania, and certain of these companies have proceeded continuously for several months past. Difficulty has been experienced in reaching finality owing to the uncertainty of the economic future, the difficulties of providing under present circumstances for the eventualities of the future, and, to a considerable extent, the recent record low price level of newsprint in Australia. It must be realized that considerable sums of money - more than £300,000 - have been expended during recent years by the companies I have mentioned towards the development of the paper industry from Australian hardwoods, and expenditure still continues. Therefore, it is obvious that the companies will use every endeavour to bring their investigations to a profitable issue. The Government is satisfied from inquiries which have been made, that the difficulties which have delayed the completion of agreements for cooperation, and for the expenditure of further large sums of money for developmental and testing work are real, and are caused to a considerable extent by present prices and future uncertainties. In fulfilment of a promise made a few days ago in reply to a question by **Senator Dunn** that I would make a statement on the subject of shale oil, I am now able to say that **Mr. Robert** W. Nelson, the chairman of the Newnes Investigation Committee, which is investigating the economic possibilities of the production of motor spirit and other oils from the high-grade shales of the Newnes-Capertee area by means of the plant already available at Newnes with such alterations and additions of plant as may be necessary - which investigations are being carried out under the joint instructions and at the joint expense of the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales - has advised the Minister of Mines of New South Wales, and myself, as representatives of the Commonwealth, as follows : - >Since the return of **Mr. L.** J. Rogers early in November from his visit overseas, your committee has given constant attention to the completion of its report. Since the committee commenced its investigations in February last, the price of the principal article of value which would he produced by the proposed industry, namely, motor spirit, has been reduced from 2s. to ls. 5d., or 7d. per gallon. This reduction is equivalent to a reduction in the income of the proposed enterprise of approximately £150,000 annually on a total capitalisation of between £400,000 and £500,000. From this fact, it will be appreciated that many problems, both technical and financial, have assumed an importance much greater than would have been the case had the price remained in the vicinity of 2s. per gallon, and has rendered the work of your committee in certain directions considerably more difficult and detailed than was anticipated. In view of the problems - technical, financial and marketing details of which are now appreciated fully since the return of **Mr. Rogers** from overseas with the latest information, conferences have been arranged and will be held during the next two" or three weeks with the managing director and staff of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited in Melbourne, and with senior technical and business representatives of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited of Great Britain, and Imperial Chemical Industries (Australasia) Limited. Two scientists and technical experts, **Dr. H.** W. Strong and **Mr. H.** Somerset, who are both Australians, and are members of the staff of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, arrive in Australia from overseas early in December, and have kindly been made available by Imperial Chemical' Industries for consultation and advice. Following upon these conferences, and the completion of any work rendered necessary thereby, your committee will submit its report at the earliest possible moment. {: #debate-44-s8 .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia -- Is the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce yet in a position to make a statement on the important subject of barley, and, indeed, as to the whole of the negotiations between the High Commissioner, acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the Government of Belgium ? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B Johnston: -- Including the subject of meat. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES: -- Yes, but others can speak with more authority on that subject than I can. A fortnight or more has now elapsed since the High Commissioner visited Belgium in regard to this matter, and we had definite reason to expect that, before to-day, a statement would have been made to us about the negotiations. The delay that has occurred suggests that the problem is a difficult one, or at least emphasizes its importance. I hope that, before the Senate rises, we shall hear a statement on this subject. {: #debate-44-s9 .speaker-KQZ} ##### Senator Sir HARRY LAWSON:
Assistant Treasurer · Victoria · UAP [5.1]. - I should have great pleasure in making a statement to the Senate about this matter, and in giving the honorable senator the information he seeks, if it were possible; but I cannot do so. The Government is not master of the situation. I can assure the honorable senator that it is in daily communication, by both telephone and cablegram, with the High Commissioner, and is giving the matter its closest attention. I regret that replies to a series of questions asked by **Senator Elliott** were not made available until to-day. The officers of the various departments have been working at very high pressure. On the 28th November, **Senator Elliott** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce the following questions,upon *notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Department of Commerce taking any steps to combat the economic invasion of Australian and Empire markets by Japan? 1. Is it a fact that claims are made by the Japanese Imperial Treasury that, amongst other gains, Japan exported 14,000,000 square yards of cotton textiles to Australia in 1930 36,000,000 -square yards in 1932, and almost 30,000,000 square yards for the first six months of this year? 2. Is it a fact that the Japanese standard of living and the level of special services is low, and that the highest recorded wage in any trade in Japan is 5s. per. day, and the lowest recorded 7id. per day? 3. Is it a fact that men spinners get 14s. 7d. per week, and men bleachers get 12s. 8d. per week? 4. Is it a fact that between 1914 and 1930 the number of Japanese factories increased from 17,000 to 31,000; factory workers increased from 850,000 to 2,000,000, and the value of factory output rose from 780,000,000 yen to 8.000,000,000 yen, and that in ten years her national income increased by 600 per cent.? The honorable senator was advised that the information would be obtained. The Minister for Commerce has now supplied the following answer: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No action has been taken by the department to combat the- exports of Japanese goods to Empire markets, and the department is not aware of any specific instances where markets for Australian exports have been lost to Japan. Statistical information available indicates that, during the year ended the 30th June, 1933, Australia's export trade showed a considerable increase both in volume and value when compared with the two previous years, which indicates that those Australian industries engaged in export trade have not suffered any loss of trade as the result of Japan's latest effort to capture a greater share of the world's markets. The recorded value of Japanese imports into Australia during 1932-33 - £3,530,300 British currency - waa higher than in the two previous years, but is still some millions of pounds lower than the highest value of imports into Australia from Japan recorded during 1918-19. The expansion of Japanese exports to Australia is a matter which_comes under the purview of the Department of Trade and Customs, and the honorable the Minister for that department has informed me that his department is carefully watching the position. 1. According to official Japanese trade statistics, the quantities of cotton textiles exported to Australia during 1930, 1931 and 1932 were -1930, 13,335,000 square yards; 1931, 20,934.000 square yards; 1932, 30,023,000 square yards. The figures for the first six months of the current year arc not available. 3 and 4. No official information is available concerning the figures mentioned; but, from unofficial publications, it has been ascertained that they are approximately correct. 2. According to the *Japan Times Year-Book,* the increase in the number of factories indicated represents the expansion made between 1914 and 1930, but the number of factories in Japan ait the present time is 59,887, 48,822 of which are worked by motor power. The number of persons employed in the factories of the manufacturing industries. at the present time is 2,000,600, 1,077,000 of whom are engaged in the textile industry. Tlie increase from 850,000 in 1914 to the present-day figure of 2,0G6,G0O is approximately correct. No. information is available regarding the factory output from 780,000,000 to 8,000,000,000 yen. nor is a reliable estimate available of the increase that has taken place in the last ten y.ears in the national income. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P.** J. Lynch). - I am grateful to the Leader of the Senate **(Senator Pearce)** and the leaders of the respective parties for their generous remarks in regard to myself. As I said on a previous occasion, whatever success distinguishes the discharge of my duties in this chamber, is due largely to the indefatigable labours and loyal cooperation of my first lieutenant, the Chairman of Committees. The time that has elapsed since I made that remark has reinforced my conviction in that regard. The fact that with extraordinary rapidity bills have been dealt with at this sitting relating to a variety of subjects, ranging from the appointment of trade commissioners in the Orient, and decisions made in the House of Commons at Ottawa, to the acquisition of a doubtful piece of coral formation off the north-western coast of Western Australia, shows that the members of this chamber cannot justly be charged with employing " the government stroke ". At some stages the business was transacted with such speed that the writing-pads might well have been caught up with the bills and passed with them. I think that we have reason to be pleased with the work that the Senate has performed this session; of the character of that work I may not speak, for obvious reasons. I try as best I can to uphold the traditions of the Senate, and I hope that the day will never come when this chamber will consider itself above just and merited public criticism. The Senate has been subjected to unfavorable comment at times, but so have other bodies. I recall that **Mr. Augustine** Birrell related in his reminiscences that when walking to the House of Commons on a hot summer evening he met a dandified friend, who asked him, " Where are you rushing to ?" " I am going to the House of Commons," **Mr. Birrell** replied. "What?" said the dandy, " Is that thing going still ?" . If the Mother of Parliaments, the citadel of human liberty in the Old Land, does not escape the slings and darts of criticism, how can the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Commonwealth be free from it? The festive season approaches. No period of the year is so important to mankind as Christmastide. It is then that a Christian community is most responsive to the message, " On earth peace, goodwill toward men," and people of divergent and uncompromising views are brought together in a common camp which is permeated by the spirit of universal goodwill. At such a season members of this Parliament, too, can well forget their political differences and join in wishing each other well. I agree heartily' with all that has been said about the service rendered by the parliamentary staffs. I particularly mention the attendants in the refreshmentrooms, who minister to our creature wants and are as assiduous, sympathetic,, and courteous in the discharge of their duties as are the officers of other departments. We are fortunate in the efficient and willing service we receive from all the staffs that are associated with the work of this Parliament. If their example of zeal, fidelity, and thoroughness were followed in other quarters, it would be all to the good of the community. I extend to my fellow senators and all members of the parliamentary staffs my best wishes for a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year, made happier, I hope, by the fact that our country is emerging so triumphantly from the dark valley of depression. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 5.9 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 December 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1933/19331207_senate_13_143/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant