Senate
12 May 1938

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1938

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

page 1124

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act - Report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ended 30th June, 1937.

Customs Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1938, No. 40.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1938, No. 38.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at - Jandakot Agricultural Area, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

Maylands, Western Australia -For Defence purposes.

Northern Territory - Report on Administration for the year ended 30th June, 1937.

page 1124

QUESTION

POSTAL WORKERS

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the PostmasterGeneral aware that serious disaffection exists among postal workers in Sydney, particularly in the Bexley district, because men are forced to work alone in manholes containing gas, in which accidents have previously occurred; and will he take steps to rectify the existing state of affairs without delay?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The honorable senator was good enough to mention this matter to me earlier. An inquiry was held yesterday into the complaint, and I am taking steps to secure information on the subject.

page 1124

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Housing Accommodation

Senator ASHLEY:

– In view of the acute shortage of houses in Canberra, and the revolting effect of the recent eviction order, can the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior say why the Government has not accelerated its housing policy by introducing the system of day labour for the erection of Government buildings?

Senator MacDONALD:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for the Interior, and will furnish a reply at an early date.

The PRESIDENT:

– For the information of Senator Ashley I point out that it is out of order for an honorable senator to express an opinion when asking questions.

page 1125

QUESTION

IMPERIAL EX-SERVICE MEW

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. Has it been reported to the Government that Imperial ex-service men now resident in considerable numbers in Australia, receive, in comparison with ex-members of the Australian Imperial Force, very indifferent attention, especially in regard to the acceptance and adequate treatment of disabilities believed by ex-sailors or ex-soldiers to be the outcome of their war service?
  2. Is it a fact that complaints in these respects are numerous?
  3. Has the Government, after inquiry through the Repatriation Commission, felt justified in making to the British Government clear and definite representations upon the subject?
Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Imperial ex-service men now resident in Australia receive exactly the same benefits by way of pension and medical treatment as are available to similar ex-service men resident in England or any other dominion.
  2. Complaints have been made by such exservice men based on a comparison of benefits available under the Australian act to exmembers of the Australian Imperial Force.
  3. It is not within the province of this Government to make representations to the Government of any other country in connexion with domestic legislative matters particularly and solely the concern of that other country.

page 1125

QUESTION

PERTH TO KALGOORLIE RAILWAY

Senator COLLETT:

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

  1. Is the Government aware of the true importance to the Commonwealth of the tourist traffic to and within its bounds?
  2. If so, and with a view to fostering the same, will it initiate action in the direction of bringing the comfort and conveniences of the railway journey between Perth and Kalgoorlie up to the standard obtaining on the other main lines of the Commonwealth and States?
  3. To that end will it enter into negotiations with the Government of Western Australia for the provision of a train-de-luxe, to run on the Perth-Kalgoorlie route, and also offer a substantial grant towards the cost of same?
Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for the Interior has supplied the following answers : - “

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. The proposals will receive consideration.

page 1125

QUESTION

TIN PRICES

Senator J B HAYES:
TASMANIA

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

In order to assist the tin-mining industry and to “stabilize the price of tin, will he request the Tariff Board to make an inquiry into the practicability and desirability of establishing a home-consumption price for tin, so that the price may be fixed at a payable level in keeping with Australian costs of production?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answer : -

It is not considered that the matter of fixation of prices of Australian products, or any other products, is one coming within the function of the Tariff Board.

page 1125

QUESTION

FARMERS’ DEBT ADJUSTMENT

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing .the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government decided that the grant to the States for farmers’ debt adjustment for 1038-39 is to be reduced to £2,000,000 as compared with £2,500,000 provided for this purpose in 1937-38?
  2. If so, what is the reason for the proposed reduction of £500,000, and can it be avoided?
  3. How is the grant to be allocated amongst the various States?
Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Treasurer has furnished the following answers : -

  1. Of the amount approved by the Loan Council to be raised for the loan programmes of all governments for 1938-39, the sum of £2,000,000 has been allocated to the Commonwealth for grants to the States for farmers’ debt adjustment.
  2. This amount could not have been increased without a corresponding reduction of the amounts allocated to the State governments for ordinary loan works programmes.
  3. The allocation of the amount of £2,000,000 amongst the various States has not yet been determined.
Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How much of the sum of £12,000,000 voted by Parliament for farmers’ debt adjustment has been actually paid to the States for this purpose?
  2. Why was this amount not paid within three years, as promised in 1934?
  3. How much has been paid to each State, so far, for farmers’ debt adjustment?
  4. When may the balances of the £12,000,000 be expected by the State governments?
Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. £4.103,000.
  2. The Commonwealth Government has made available to the States such amounts as it has been possible for the Loan Council, by unanimous consent, to make available to the Commonwealth Government for farmers’ debt adjustment from moneys raised for loan purposes.
  1. In the coming financial year, £2,000,000 will be paid to the States, but the payment of further grants is contingent upon the amount of loan money made available by the Loan Council for the purpose.

page 1126

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1938

In committee:

Consideration resumed from the 11th. May (vide page 1058).

Postponed clause18 -

1 ) The Commission shall inquire into and report to the Governor-General upon -

any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Constitution relating to interstate commerce.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I move -

That after paragraph (b) the following new paragraph bo inserted - (ba) the effect and operation of any Tariff Act or other law or regulation of the Commonwealth on primary industries, revenue, manufactures or trade and commerce in any State or States.

In my second-reading speech I said that if this bill is to be of any value to the weaker States the proposed Inter-State Commission should have the power - indeed the duty - to review the effect of Commonwealth legislation, not only on the public finances, but also on the primary and other industries and manufactures of any State or States. From the point of view of the weaker

States, that would appear to be the main reason for creating an Inter-State Commission at all. The tariff has imposed heavy burdens not only upon the essentially primary producing States, but also upon the primary producers of all the States. It has affected the primary producers of New South Wales and Queensland to almost as great an extent as the producers of Western Australia, although in the more populous States, in which secondary industries have been built up by the tariff, the primary producers have the benefit of a bigger local market. 1 desire that the proposed tribunal shall be of real value to the weaker States, particularly to the primary producers in those States, and therefore it should be in a position to recommend adequate relief, not only to State governments, but also to the primary producers themselves, and, indeed, to all sufferers from the tariff or other Commonwealth laws or regulations. In a big country like Australia, containing many and varied industries, it is only natural that some of the laws of the Commonwealth will operate harshly against certain industries and, possibly, against some States. It is to meet that position that I seek to vest the Inter-State Commission with these powers. I recall that the first Royal Commission appointed by the Bruce-Page Government to inquire into the disabilities of Western Australia under federation - and not, as is sometimes claimed, to recommend grants to that State - recommended that for 25 years fiscal autonomy should be given to Western Australia, with a proviso that that State should not impose against the eastern States any higher duty than it imposed against Great Britain and the rest of the world. That recommendation was never given effect. Mr. Entwistle, of South Australia who was one of the three commissioners, submitted a minority report in which he recommended that Western Australia should be allowed to secede from the Commonwealth. He thought that that would be the best way out of the difficulty. I am anxious that the Inter-State Commission shall have the same power as that royal commission and the first Inter-State Commission had to inquire into the disabilities of Western Australia resulting from Commonwealth legislation.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

[11.17 j. - Last night I asked the committee to agree to the postponement of this and the two succeeding clauses in order to give me an opportunity to confer with the Prime Minister (Air. Lyons) concerning the statement made by Senator Johnston as to the promise given during the last election campaign to certain representatives of Western Australia. Apparently there has been some misunderstanding in the matter, because the promise given by the Prime Minister to the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) was slightly different from that which the honorable senator conveyed to the committee last evening. I conferred with the Prime Minister and the honorable member for Perth, and I think that t lie points raised are met in an amendment which I propose to move. The honorable member for Perth also regards the amendment as satisfactory. He intended to move an amendment to insert in paragraph a, after the word “ preferences the word “ disabilities”, but that does not appear to me or to the draftsman the appropriate place for such an alteration. Although the Commonwealth Grants Commission has dealt with “ disabilities “ of the States, the dominant note in its reports has been the “ needs “ of the States. As stated by the representatives of the weaker States, a continuance of that would be most unfortunate for them, and they feel that regard should be had to the “ disutilities” of applicant States. The amendment I propose to move is to insert after sub-clause 1, a new sub-clause 2 -

The commission may in connexion with any inquiry into any application or matter relating to any State which is dealt with by the commission in pursuance of sub-section ] of this section, take into consideration any disability of that State alleged to result from the operation of any provision of the Constitution or of any law thereunder.

That should be sufficiently comprehensive to meet the position and will, I think, cover the point raised by the honorable member for Perth in respect of disabilities. lt should also meet with the approval of Senator Johnston and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment; if he does not, I shall have to oppose it.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.20J. - Yesterday Senator Johnston made a definite statement in which I as a ministerial candidate at the last general election am particularly interested. The honorable senator said that the Prime Minister had authorized ministerial candidates in Western Australia at the last general election, to say that the Government would accept Senator Johnston’s amendment.

Senator E B Johnston:

– I said that the honorable member for Perth said that the Prime Minister would accept an amendment on those lines.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The honorable senator intimated that it was his amendment.

Senator E B Johnston:

– No.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I arn interested, because Senator Johnston was speaking, not on the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Perth, but on his own amendment, which is in print. I am quite sure that honorable senators believe that Senator Johnston said that the Prime Minister had promised, through ministerial candidates, to accept his amendment. If the honorable senator did not say that, what was the meaning of his statement? 1 know that the Prime Minister informed the honorable member for Perth that he was prepared to accept the amendment which that honorable member proposed to move in the House of Representatives.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– In another form.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That is immaterial. I am interested in Senator Johnston’s statement, because it would seem most peculiar if the Prime Minister had informed other ministerial candidates that he was willing to accept Senator Johnston’s amendment concerning the tariff, and had not informed me, seeing that at that time I was a Minister in his own government. I now understand the Leader of the Senate to say that the Prime Minister accepted in some form the amendment to be moved by the honorable member for Perth, and not the amendment of Senator Johnston relating to the tariff.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Perhaps it is only fair to say that I did not confer with the Prime Minister on the subject. I heard the speech of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) at an election meeting and I believed that to all intents and purposes his amendment was the same as mine.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The amendment of the honorable member for Perth had nothing to do with the tariff.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– It would appear that there is at least something in what Senator Johnston says if the Government is prepared to go so far towards meeting his wishes as is indicated in the proposed amendment read by the Leader of the Senate. Such an amendment should have been evolved long ago. Without disparaging in any sense the valuable work done by the Commonwealth. Grants Commission at a relatively small cost, I am of the opinion that for some years the weakness of its deliberations has been the tendency of the commission to come back to “ needs “ and to ignore “ disabilities”. My opinion, which with qualifications is the opinion of the State which I represent and is the opinion in Western Australia, is that the only factor which would justify the commission going into such detail is the actual disability suffered by a State as a result of federation. The needs are an easy matter which can be realized by anyone. Yet the commission has throughout said that it is not going ‘ to assess the disabilities because in its opinion it is not possible to . assess them. An attempt has been made, with some degree of success, by special bodies appointed both in Western Australia and in South Australia to come to some form of conclusion in regard to disabilities.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– They could not agree on the formula.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I do not care whether there is or is not agreement on the formula, but the assessment of disabilities was one of the commission’s duties and was one of the main factors that should have governed its decisions. This proposed amendment - I do not think it is perfect - provides that the commission may take into consideration certain things, but it does not provide that it shall. Then it proceeds in what seems to be not a very sound form of drafting to say “ any disability of that State alleged to result from the operation of any provision of the Constitution or of any law thereunder.” It is to take into account any disability alleged to result, instead of any disability resulting from the operations of any provision of the Constitution. The words “ alleged to result “ import a suggestion that the disabilities are only an allegation and do not exist.

Senator Crawford:

– How would the commission know that there was a disability until it had made inquiries ; a disability would be only alleged until it had been proved.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– It would take an alleged disability into consideration and weigh the evidence.

Senator Lynch:

– When it found the allegation proved.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes. The amendment should read : “ The commission may take into consideration any disability of that State resulting from the operation of “ any provisions of the Constitution of the Commonwealth law . . Surely that is as clear as a pikestaff. Is it suggested that any allegation shall be ruled out?

Senator Crawford:

– It must be investigated, and evidence taken.

Senator Brennan:

– The honorable senator has gone to the other extreme. To say there is a disability is to assume that a disability exists. I agree with what the honorable senator has said concerning the word “ alleged “, but his suggestion goes too far.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– It is merely a matter of drafting. The amendment which the Minister proposes to move does, however, go a long way towards meeting the point raised by Senator Johnston and is a definite improvement.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– The amendment forecast hy the Minister certainly goes some distance towards what I had in mind in proposing my amendment, but I suggest that my amendment puts the position far more clearly and goes further in meeting the claims of the smaller States. Therefore, if given the oppor- tunity, I intend to take my amendment to a division. If it be not accepted by the committee, I* shall show my appreciation of the reasonableness of the Government by accepting the alternative amendment which the Leader of the Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) has indicated.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I appreciate the Government’s willingness to recognize some justification for Senator Johnston’s proposal. I point out, however, that grievances and disabilities of the States can arise from causes other than the operation of laws or regulations. We can recall several instances in the past when the government of the day completely disregarded existing laws. In effect, it made new laws simply by a stroke of the pen in the cabinet-room. I refer particularly to the action taken during the war in respect of the disposal of gold. The Cabinet of the day, as an emergency measure, decided that no gold should be exported. To a great extent, that action was justified, but what I am now concerned with was the incidence of the procedure it adopted. Those engaged in the production of gold were compelled to sell their product at the old price, -which had been fixed by a convention with other nations. Of course, it may be said that that was done in the national interest, but, none the less, our gold producers were penalized.

Senator E B Johnston:

– They were robbed !

Senator LYNCH:

– Robbery is not too strong a term to use in that connexion, especially when we remember that Mr. Maughan, secretary of the Kalgoorlie Chamber of Mines, calculated that the gold producers had lost £2,000,000 as the result of Cabinet’s action. The point I emphasize is that this edict was not effectuated in the ordinary way. If, like the producers of wheat, wool and fruit, our gold producers in this instance had been allowed the benefit of prices ruling on a free market, they would have been £2,000,000 richer. As Western Australia produces 15. per cent, of the gold yield of Australia, that State was robbed to the extent of £1,500,000. Another instance was the suspension of compulsory military training by a mere edict of the Executive. No appeal was made to Parliament ; Cabinet acted entirely on its own. We must give careful attention to this aspect of the matter if we desire to ensure that the liberties of the people shall be fully protected, and whilst accepting the amendment forecast by the Minister as a morsel of redress, I should like a more comprehensive provision to permit of inquiry even into edicts of the Cabinet, which, equally as much as laws or regulations, can jeopardize the interests of a large section of the people, as happened in connexion with the gold restrictions.

Senator MacDonald:

– There will not be another Avar.

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope not; but I should prefer a war at any time to the loss of my liberty. That has been the sentiment of leaders of nations through the ages. Therefore, in view of the past practice, to which I have referred, we should accept this opportunity to ensure that no future government will be able to go behind the back of Parliament in order to rob any section of the community of its due. Of course, when governments act in such a way, the attitude adopted by most people is, “ Well, it is the Government ; why kick up a row ?” However, we should now sound a stern warning to future governments against such transgressions.

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

– I do not think that Senator Lynch was quite correct in saying in respect of the instances he gave that what Cabinet did was not done under a law. The requisition of gold was effectuated by a regulation passed under the War Precautions Act, at a time when, perhaps, in the history of this democratic nation, something in the nature of a dictatorship was considered justified. Under our system of government, many things are done which re-act harshly on the people, and would not be approved by the people if they had an opportunity to pass prior judgment on such matters.

I fear that the wording of the amendment forecast by the Leader of the Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) will not quite carry out the good intentions of the Government. Clause 18 provides that the commission shall inquire and report. The amendment forecast by the Minister proposes merely to give the commission power to take into consideration certain other matters, and a lawyer, coldly considering the language of the act, might construe that to mean that the commission need not inquire into such matters. For that reason, I think there is a chance that the proposed amendment as now framed might fail to achieve its objective, and I suggest that the word “ inquire “ shouldbe repeated. If this is not done the commission may, perhaps, excuse itself of actually holding an inquiry, and prefer to rule an. applicant State out of court merely by showing that it had taken into consideration the particular matters to which the Minister’s proposed amendment refers, and in that respect, possibly, it might be held that the commission had complied with its obligations under this measure.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Sampson:
TASMANIA

– At the moment the committee is considering Senator Johnston’s amendment; that forecast by the Minister has not yet been moved.

Senator UPPILL:
South Australia

– I desire to obtain certain information from the Minister regarding his proposed amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator may ask his question when the Minister’s amendment is before the committee.

Senator UPPILL:

– I am inclined to support Senator Johnston’s amendment, but as the Minister proposes to move an amendment I should like him to furnish certain information I require in order to enable me to make up my mind on Senator Johnston’s amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The committee is discussing Senator Johnston’s amendment and the honorable senator should seek the information when the Minister’s amendment is moved.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria

– It appears to me that we shall be sowing seeds of discord between the Tariff Board and the proposed Inter-State Commission, if either the amendment moved by Senator Johnston or that, foreshadowed by the Minister be carried. The Tariff Board has been in existence for a number of years and only recently we were furnished with information setting out the work that it had done. I think that the consensus of public opinion is that the Board has performed excel lent work, not only in recommending rates of duty, but also in keeping Parliament and the people supplied with information bearing on the general effect of tariff policy.

Senator McLeay:

– Its work is three years behind.

Senator BRENNAN:

– The Tariff Board Act, under which the Tariff Board was constituted, provides ample power for it to undertake the work which Senator Johnston suggests should be carried out by the proposed Inter-State Commission. If honorable senators will examine section 15 of that act they will see that it invests the board with many powers. For instance, paragraph (h) of sub-section 1 empowers the Minister to refer to the board for inquiry and report -

Any question whether amanufacturer is taking undue advantage of the protection afforded him by the tariff, and in particular in regard to -

Charging unnecessarily high prices for his goods; or

Acting in restraint of trade to the detriment of the public; or

Acting in a manner which results in unnecessarily high prices being charged to the consumer for his goods,-

Under the terms of sub-section 2 the Minister may refer to the board for inquiry and report -

  1. The general effect of the working of the customs tariff and the excise tariff, in relation to the primary and secondary industries of the Commonwealth ;

That power ought to remove Senator Johnston’s obsession concerning the injustice suffered by the primary producing industries. Then paragraph b provides that the board may inquire and report on -

The fiscal and industrial effects of the customs laws of the Commonwealth.

A later section gives the board power, on its own initiative, to inquire into and report upon any of the matters referred to in sub-section 2 of section 15. Senator Johnston is seeking to bring within the province of the proposed Inter-State Commission the very matters which are now provided for in section 15 of the Tariff Board Act. Senator McLeay remarked that the Tariff Board is three years behind with its work. I should say that if all the powers which Senator Johnston suggests were placed within the domain of the proposed Inter-State Commission it would get ten years behind with its work. I ask the Government to consider whether the additional powers, which Senator Johnston suggests should be given to the proposed Inter-State Commission, are not already vested in the Tariff Board and are being carried out in a proper manner by it. If the view is taken by the Government that the proposed Inter-State Commission could deal more effectively with these matters than the Tariff Board, the proper course would be to repeal section 15 of the Tariff Board Act. It is not a good policy to set up two tribunals charged with the duty of inquiring into the same matters. I suggest that what Senator Johnston desires to achieve by his amendment is already adequately provided for in the Tariff Board Act, and I shall probably make the same suggestion when the amendment foreshadowed by the Minister is moved.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– There would be no need to worry if we were to proceed on the assumption that the Tariff Board is infallible, but we must examine the effects of recommendations of the Tariff Board in the past, because the best guide to the future is the past. One result of ths Tariff Board’s recommendations that I recall is the placing of a 40 per cent, duty on mining machinery imported into Western Australia. In another instance, the Tariff Board recommended heavy duties for the protection of the softgoods industry. An employer in that industry recently returned from a trip abroad and advocated that the 40-hour week should be introduced in Australia, but at the time that he made that proposal, he had been directly interested in an application to the Tariff Board to recommend an increase of the duties protecting his industry. Either he or his colleagues did not know what they were talking about when * they misled the Tariff Board or he was wholly unjustified in advocating a 40- hour week in an industry which he declared was unprofitable unless it received a bounty in the shape of a stiff protective duty. I asked him to explain how wheat and wool, which are the life blood of this country, could be produced profitably with a 40-hour week in general operation. It is obvious that the 40-hour week can be introduced in certain industries only at the expense of and by burdening other industries. The Tariff Board has made, and can make in the future, grievous mistakes and because of that it would be wise to provide some counter-balancing authority which could either prevent or redress such mistakes.

Senator Brennan:

– Is the Inter-State Commission to be a sort of court of appeal from the Tariff Board?

Senator LYNCH:

– I do not care whether it is regarded as a court of appeal or not; what I want is a counterbalance to the Tariff Board. The manufacturer in the softgoods industry who advocated the 40-hour week and who was directly concerned in an application to the Tariff Board for increased duties, had only a backyard industry in comparison with the other great industries of this country. What - would be the position of Western Australia in the event of the 40-hour week being introduced in a large number of industries? That State could not afford to bear the burden of a 40-hour week. Western Australia depends mainly on the produce of its soil and farmers there are trying to grow wheat on light lands at which farmers in the eastern States would scoff. The Government of that State finds it very difficult now to make ends meet. Evidence that Western Australia is not an opulent State is to be found in the fact that it has dropped behind the other States in subscriptions to Australian loans, and the reason is simply that it has no surplus money. The patriotism of its people cannot be questioned, for, when they were called upon to face the great test of war, Western Australia stood in the van of all the States in the supply of both men and materials. Yet this is the State which has been asked to support increases of the tariff. High customs duties are maintained only at the expense of mcn who Iia vo to win their living from the soil. Tu many cases, duties have been increased at the behest of men who have made fortunes out of the industries so protected. There was one large manufacturer in Melbourne who sat in the gallery for many days when Parliament discussed the tariff and watched closely the treatment of every item in the tariff schedule in which he was interested. That man was a millionaire four times over when he died. He supplied the raw materials out of which implements essential to the increased productivity of this country were made, and his fortune was founded on the high customs duties which protected his interests. Another man became a millionaire in less than the normal span of life by the same means. In the face of all this, some honorable senators suggest that not an atom of blame should rest on Tariff Boards. My reply is that “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Tariff Boards have made recommendations which were not in the best interests of this country and some corrective on them should be provided in the law. I regard the amendment before the chair as a necessary safeguard. Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that,in the event of action being taken by the Government similar to that taken during the war in relation to the gold-mining industry, the people who are exploited will have an opportunity to get redress? Incidentally, I should like Senator Pearce to give me the number of the regulation under which the sale of gold was controlled.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– How can the honorable senator expect me to do that at a moment’s notice ?

Senator LYNCH:

– If the right honorable gentleman can do so later, I shall be grateful and if I am proved to be in error I shall withdraw and apologize. I want to be sure that adequate provision is made in the law to prevent action by governments that would injure a section of the people.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– Senator Lynch appears to be under some misapprehension as to my attitude. If I have an opportunity, I shall vote for my amendment, because its acceptance will ensure some measure of justice to Western Australia. Failing the adoption of my amendment, I shall accept the half loaf which the Minister has offered.

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

– I also had the impression that Senator E. B. Johnston had decided to accept the Minister’s proposal. If that is not his intention, I shall vote for his amendment. If it be defeated, I sincerely hope that the Minister will give effect to his promise.

Question put -

That the amendment (Senator E. B. John ston’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Sampson.)

AYES: 13

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES (South Australia [12.6]. - I move -

That after paragraph (f) the following new paragraph be inserted: - (fa) any matters relating to any agreement, whether existing or proposed, between the Commonwealth and any of the States or any persons or associations of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, relating to the purchase and disposal of the Australian sugar crop and to the importation of sugar, including any embargo thereon; and

It is not my intention to speak at length in support of my amendment, because I said all that was necessary in my secondreading speech. I would, however, again direct the attention of the committee to the following statement which appears on page 202 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution -

It was suggested in evidence before this commission, that the position of three States dependent on grants from the Commonwealth Government, and the position of the State of Queensland, of which a large section of the population is dependent on the price of sugar fixed from time to time by agreement between the Commonwealth and State governments, and of other States claiming bounties and concessions, point to the advisability of appointing some independent body which will advise on such applications . . .

On page 250 referring to the appointment of an Inter-State Commission, the report states -

The same permanent body should, we think, inquire into and report on such transactions as the agreement between the Governments of the Commonwealth, and of the State of Queensland relating to the purchase and disposal of the sugar crop and the embargo on imported raw sugar, and inquire into and report on proposed bounties, and the effect of the Navigation Act on the various States.

When reading this valuable document some time ago, I came across this reference to sugar and it seemed to me to be eminently fair. The commission, which was representative of widdy differing views, came to the conclusion, though not unanimously apparently, that since the smaller States were receiving assistance from the Commonwealth in the form of grants which were the subject of review by an independent body, so also should there be some review of the benefits received by Queensland in connexion with the purchase of the sugar crop. I see no reason why there should not be an open examination of the claims of the sugar industry, followed by a report which all may read, from an impartial body as to whether the agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments should be extended or varied. My colleague, Senator McBride, is of the same opinion, and has asked the Government Whip to furnish him with a pair in any divisions that may be taken in connexion with this matter. There is a general feeling in the southern States that the sugar industry is in a privileged position. We are familiar with the procedure. An agreement is reached between the Governments of the Commonwealth, the State of Queensland and the sugar industry, and Parliament is expected to ratify it.

Twice in the last six years an agreement has been placed before us for acceptance. We have not been given any real opportunity to vary it. It would be much more satisfactory if a report were furnished by some independent tribunal, such as the proposed Inter-State Commission, before the Government decided what its policy was to be. I am not greatly in favour of attempts to ascertain public opinion by means of a referendum, although sometimes the results are what I think they ought to be. I do think, however, that if a referendum were held on my amendment on the sugar question, five of the six States would favour it.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Obviously, the amendment moved by Senator Duncan-Hughes has been prompted by the recommendations of the tribunal to which he referred, and which made a searching investigation into a number of subjects, and inquired particularly into the sugar industry. The first point I wish to make is that, if an inquiry is to be made into the sugar industry the proper body to undertake it is the Tariff Board. The second point is that no other industry in Australia has been investigated so often as has the sugar industry. On one occasion I myself enquired into it, and although the inquiry was somewhat unwelcome to the producers of sugar they treated me with the greatest courtesy, notwithstanding that as a result of the inquiry the price of sugar was reduced. In 1911, and again in 1920, a royal commission inquired into the industry. In 1922, the Tariff Board made an investigation. In that year the Joint Committee of Public Accounts also probed the industry. In 1924 the Common.wealth Sugar Tribunal inquired into it, and in 1931 the Commonwealth Sugar Inquiry Committee undertook an investigation. If we consider the prices charged for all commodities since pre-war days, we shall find that whereas food prices generally have increased by over 50 per cent., the price of sugar has been raised only by about 33 per cent. With the exception of butter which, to an extent, enjoys the same class of protection as is given to sugar, the percentage increase is lower in respect of sugar than in respect of other foods. Anyone who desires an inquiry into this industry may apply to the Tariff Board for it. The method by which the Australian sugar industry is protected is adopted in other countries desiring to be as self-contained as possible. There is another important factor associated with the sugar industry which is well known to honorable senators. Why has the sugar industry been singled out for inquiry by the Inter-State Commission? Probably other industries enjoy privileges equal to those extended to the sugar industry. The implication is that the price of sugar is too high.

In my opinion it would be unwise to ask the Inter-State Commission to perform the functions of the Tariff Board. The latter body is more directly interested in subjects of this nature, and is more competent to inquire into the incidence of any embargo placed on sugar than the Inter-State Commission can bc. I regret that I cannot accept the honorable senator’s amendment.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I regret that Senator DuncanHughes has moved his amendment, although I am not afraid that, even if agreed to, it would injure the sugar industry. Some years ago, when a bill relating to the sugar agreement was before the Senate, the honorable senator in supporting the measure, said that he could not see any difference between an embargo on imports and duties .so high that they prevented imports. I regard this amendment as a hostile gesture against a great State and a great industry by an estimable gentleman who is soon to retire from the Senate. Were it not that the honorable senator’s speech was practically his swan song, it would probably have been couched in more general terms, and made more applicable to industry generally. I remind the honorable senator that in his own State there is an industry- I refer to General Motors-Holden’s Limited - which last year employed 30,000 workers and made a profit of over £1,000,000. No such profits are made in the sugar industry; and why it has been selected for special mention in this bill is beyond my comprehension, unless it be that it is confined almost solely to one State. Time after time, the protection given to the sugar industry has been used as a weapon to secure special consideration for the claims of other States. It is strange that on this occasion, as well as the last time that this Parliament discussed the subject, the attack against the sugar agreement, and the price of sugar came principally from the richest men in this Parliament, and particularly from the hereditary rich. Notwithstanding that any burden which the agreement imposes upon the people of Australia falls chiefly upon families in receipt of small incomes, there has never been a complaint from organized labour about the price charged for sugar. That the protection given to sugar imposes no burden on other industries is evident from the fact that those concerns which use large quantities of sugar as raw material are among the most prosperous businesses in Australia. For instance, the profits of Henry Jones and Company, jam manufacturers, amounted to £134,4S3 in 1934.

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

– Will the honorable senator mention also the profits made by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I leave that to Senator Grant. But I again remind him that that company makes only a portion of its profits in Australia. At the close of the war it made a profit of over £7,000,000 on one deal in Java sugar. At the time, the Commonwealth Government was advised to buy sugar at the price paid for it by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, but it refused to do so. The profits of Henry Jones and Company, which in 1934 were equal to 9.4 per cent, of its capital, rose steadily until 1937, when they reached 14 per cent, of the company’s capital. The percentage of their capital represented by the profits made in 1937 by other concerns which use sugar as a raw material were : - Brooke’s Lemos Limited, 18 per cent.; Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, Australasia Limited, 10.7 per cent. ; Carlton and United Breweries Limited, 15.5 per cent.; Cascade Brewery Company Limited, Tasmania, 13.8 per cent.; and the Swan Brewery Company Limited of Western Australia, 25.2 per cent. We do not hear of those companies complaining of the price of sugar. They could not do so, in the face of such huge profits. Again, the fruit-canning companies in the Goulburn valley, Victoria, which also use largo quantities of sugar, do not complain of its price. They are doing very well, and they are good friends of the sugar industry. I am amazed that this proposal should come from Senator Duncan-Hughes, who is one of the most likeable men in this Parliament. Obviously, he has been moved by others to take the action he has taken to-day. As I have said, his amendment, even if carried, cannot hurt the sugar industry, but it must be regarded as a hostile gesture. I have been engaged in the sugar industry for 40 years, and I am able to tell the Senate that there are thousands of growers of sugar cane who are in no better position to-day than they were when they commenced operations. I admit that they have been able to live in the meantime. If the amendment be accepted by the legislature, I estimate that probably ten years will elapse before the commission will be able to undertake an investigation of the industry. It is a mistake to overload the bill. Any subject may be referred to the commission by the Governor-General in Council which, in practice, means the Government of the day. As a matter of fact a previous InterState Commission inquired into the Sugar industry, and without such an inquiry being made mandatory, as suggested by Senator Duncan-Hughes, the proposed commission will have power to make such investigations as it thinks necessary. The representatives of Queensland in this chamber have never adopted a hostile attitude towards proposals submitted for the benefit of industries in other States, and have reason to expect some help in return. There is always a good deal of talk about the sugar industry, but it is still thriving, and its production last year was greater than it has ever been. I trust that the amendment will not be agreed to, and that the clause will be allowed to remain in its present form.

Senator ABBOTT (New South Wales) [12.34J. - We have been informed by leading legal gentlemen in this chamber, including Senator Brennan and Senator Duncan-Hughes, that Parliament has the right to determine the powers to be conferred upon the Inter-State Commission, and that it is the responsibility of every honorable senator to satisfy himself as to what powers it should possess. A little while ago I supported a proposal which, if agreed to, would have meant that some of the industries which the members of the Country party represent, would have been subjected to a full inquiry. Senator Crawford should not think that the people in the southern States are hostile to Queensland, but they have a certain amount of logic on their side when they say that those engaged in the industry should not object to an investigation1 if there is nothing to hide. The views which I expressed when I strongly supported an extension of the sugar agreement have not changed. Notwithstanding what Senator Duncan-Hughes has said, I acquit him of any hostility to Queensland or to the sugar industry, the continuance of which has a very important bearing on the development and defence of the northern part of Australia. As the present sugar agreement does not expire until 1941 there is no urgency for an inquiry into the industry, more particularly as a closer investigation has been made into it than into any other industry in the Commonwealth. There is no sound reason why it should be mandatory upon the commission to conduct an investigation of its operations. I do not feel disposed to provide the commission with this specific power, and I trust that other honorable senators will adopt a similar attitude.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:
” cm Australia · West

[12.40]. - Having been a member of governments that have had to consider renewal of the sugar agreement from time to time I can say quite frankly that had an. Inter-State Commission been in existence when such agreements were about to be reviewed, Cabinet would have been only too glad to have referred them to such a body. I do not propose to support the amendment because in the sub-clause following that which Senator Duncan-Hughes proposes to amend there is the following paragraph : -

The commission shall inquire into and report to the Governor-General upon -

any other matters, whether related to any matter specified in the preceding paragraphs of this section or not, which the GovernorGeneral refers to the commission.

That paragraph provides sufficient power to enable the Government to refer a renewal of the sugar agreement to the Enter-State Commission should it see fit. The question then arises as to whether the Inter-State Commission or the Tariff Board is the proper body to which such an inquiry should be delegated, because tariff questions and prohibitions are involved. I prefer to leave the Government free to act as it thinks fit. Whatever government is in power will be glad to feel that its decision will be buttressed by the recommendations of an independent commission. Such an independent inquiry will be sound political strategy. There has always been a difference of opinion concerning the sugar industry, and any government wishing to do the right thing and at the same time be able to tell the public that it has done the right thing, will have an inquiry conducted and in that way protect itself. Such a matter would be referred to some authority, but the Government will have to decide which is the proper body to deal with it. The sugar industry is of great importance to Australia and operates under an agreement, but it is quite possible that within the next few years other primary industries may be operating under somewhat similar agreements. The tendency throughout the world is for governments and primary production to be linked up J Even in conservative England the Government of that country is entering into agreements with .producers of various commodities. If it is contended that the Inter-State Commission should inquire into the sugar industry, why should it not conduct investigations into other industries? Why single out one industry when the bill gives to the Government a general power to refer any matter to the Commission?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I believe that the fullest possible investigation should be made into certain industries, but in view of the amendment which the Minister (Senator A. J. McLachlan) proposes to move, I do not think it necessary to mention specifically the sugar industry. If the people in the southern States think that they are being unfairly treated under the present agreement and representations are made to the proper authorities an investigation can be conducted. It would be an advantage if every member of Parliament visited that portion of Queensland in which sugar is produced, as I did some time ago. I can assure honorable senators that I returned with an impression totally different from that which I had before I made the visit. There may be controversy in some of the States concerning the retail price of sugar, but I do not propose to do anything which will interfere with the successful operations of the sugar industry. If it should be found between the passing of the bill and the date on which the present agreement expires, that an inquiry should be conducted there is sufficient power in the bill to ena’ble the commission to make an investigation. Senator Duncan-Hughes, who, I am sure, is not hostile to Queensland, has moved an amendment which he believes to be necessary, but on this occasion I cannot support him.

Sitting suspended from 12.i-5 to 2.15.

Senator UPPILL:
South Australia

– I support the amendment. I cannot agree with Senator Crawford’s suggestion that Senator Duncan-Hughes displayed hostility towards the sugar industry. Furthermore, I disapprove of his suggestion that my colleague from South Australia was discourteous, because, of all members of this chamber, he is the most careful in that respect. I am surprised at Senator Crawford’s outburst. Apparently, he does not favour an investigation of the sugar industry.

Senator Crawford:

– I definitely said that I would welcome such an investigation.

Senator UPPILL:

– The honorable senator said that, but I. suspect that he rather resented the proposal. As a representative of a wheat-growing State, I am of opinion that very often an industry has something to gain through investigations of this kind, and who knows but what the sugar industry in Queensland may stand to reap some benefit from an inquiry? I favour the suggestion that that industry should be investigated, mainly on the ground that it receives more assistance from the Commonwealth than does any other industry. An investigation might prove that it really needs all of that assistance. In any case, the Commonwealth Government should take steps to inquire into the position of every industry to which it gives assistance. It may he said, for instance, that, owing to the assistance given to this industry, the Government of Queensland has no incentive to see that it is placed on a more economic basis. I am not saying that that is actually the ease, but I do suggest that an investigation might have the effect of placing the industry on a more secure foundation. The same argument applies in respect of the wheat industry. The wheat-growing States have received generous grants from the Commonwealth, and the public are entitled to be shown that full value is obtained for that money. There is a tendency on the part of some State governments to accept grants from the Commonwealth and utilize them to avoid their full share of liabilities towards their primary industries, particularly when such industries are carried on in unsuitable areas. For these reasons, I support the amendment moved by Senator Duncan-Hughes. The amendment forecast by the Minister offers no likelihood that any inquiry will be made into the sugar industry, although it is one of the most liberally assisted in the Commonwealth.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

.- Whilst I believe that, ultimately, the sugar industry should be investigated by the Inter-State Commission, I do not think there is any necessity to provide specifically in this measure for such an inquiry; for that reason, I cannot support the amendment. Under clause 20 of the bill, it appears to me that the commission is given power to deal with this particular industry should representations to that end be made to it by a State. For this reason I fail to see the necessity for the amendment. It has been stated that the sugar industry receives more assistance than any other industry in the Commonwealth. That may be so; but I point out that the sugar industry is unique, in that it is playing a part in our economic life that no other industry plays. Consumers in certain States feel that they are being forced to pay too high a price for sugar; but, when they pay their 4d. per lb., they should remember that they are contributing in a special way towards the development of a part of Australia in which no other industry could be established with equal advantage. They are also contributing towards the more effective defence of Australia, because the sugar industry provides a means of populating a very fertile area in the far north. Then, again, consumers of sugar help by paying the present price to safeguard the principle of a White Australia. Because of these facts, I believe that the present price of sugar, although it is, perhaps, in excess of what it might be, is justified. For the same reasons, the sugar industry must he considered as in a class apart from other industries. Although I believe that the industry must be protected at all costs, I should like eventually to see the Inter-State Commission inquire into it, as there are certain aspects about which I should like to have more knowledge. I mention particularly assigned lands. There may be some virtues about this particular system, but perhaps there are also unfavorable aspects of it which could be remedied through an inquiry. And I do not think there is any tribunal better qualified to conduct such an inquiry than the Inter-State Commission. The present sugar agreement, of course, cannot be upset. It will remain in force for another three years. I suggest that the most opportune time to investigate the industry would be just prior to the termination of this agreement. I cannot see any reason, however, why any industry should the specifically mentioned in this bill as subject to inquiry. If we provide for an investigation of the sugar industry, what is to prevent any honorable senator from moving foi- inquiries into other industries? The measure satisfies me as it stands ; I cannot support the amendment.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- [ cannot understand why those honorable senators who speak for the sugar industry in this chamber always seek to baulk any inquiry into it. Whenever any inquiry has been made it has not been made with the approval of those honorable senators. In fact, such inquiries have been instituted in the face of bitter opposition on their part.

Senator Crawford:

– That is not correct.

Senator GRANT:

– The honorable senator mentioned the profits made by various companies, but he did not give the profits or the dividends of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, which, in my opinion, is one of the biggest monopolies in. Australia-

Senator Crawford:

– It is not a monopoly.

Senator GRANT:

– In view of the fact that the company i3 a party with the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government to the agreement, it is, if not actually a monopoly, as close to a monopoly as any business of which I have knowledge. The Inter-State Commission will be given practically unlimited powers of investigation. It will be constituted for at least seven years, and during that period it cannot be interfered with by the Government in any way. It will thus be a continuing body, and as such would be able to hold the scales fairly balanced as between the sugar industry and the consumers of sugar. I do not say that the present price of sugar is too high. The industry should be protected, but there are ways of obtaining protection other than through an embargo. Why should not the sugar industry be treated in this respect in the same way

B3 every other industry. I do not think that the present embargo can be justified.

Senator Courtice:

– The price is fixed by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator GRANT:

– It is not fixed by the Commonwealth Government, but in consultation with the Commonwealth Government. The present price is probably reasonable. I am not in a position to say whether it is or not; but an investigation of the industry would settle that point. Reports are made frequently that a large number of foreigners are employed in the industry. It is well known that foreigners are entering Queensland in large numbers, and recently the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) furnished information in the other House concerning the number of Italians who had entered Queensland. The sugar industry deserves well of Australia, but there is no reason why it should not be investigated by a competent authority. Senator Duncan-Hughes quoted from page 250 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, and I should like to supplement his quotation by reading the following extract from the same page of the report : -

The advantage of the establishment of such a body for these purposes would, we think, be twofold. There would be a tribunal in existence equipped with a knowledge of Australian conditions and of the working of the federation, and the claims of necessitous States would no longer afford an opening to the benevolence <>r the opportunism of political parties.

I am not opposed to the suggestion that some body like the proposed Inter-State Commission should investigate the sugar industry instead of the investigation being carried out by a body specially set up for that purpose. The practice now is to appoint royal commissions to inquire into specific subjects and those only, and experience shows that, in many cases, the reports of such commissions are pigeonholed by the government of the day. I cannot understand why there is an outcry from the sugar industry whenever a demand is made for more information concerning its workings.

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I assure Senator Grant that there i3 no outcry in Queensland when ah investigation of the sugar industry is suggested. The bill deals with important principles, and, unless more adequate reasons are presented. I cannot appreciate why any industry, be it motor-body building, sugar, or wheat-growing, should be singled out for investigation by the proposed InterState Commission. The powers and duties of the commission as set out in the bill are very wide, and it will have power to investigate matters of great national importance. 1 consider that the work of the commission would be stultified if certain industries were singled out for inclusion in the bill as subjects for investigation by the commission. As Senator Dein pointed out. if the Government asked the Inter-State Commission to investigate thu motor-body building industry, the wheat-growing industry or the sugar industry, there is no doubt that the commission would do so. If Senator Duncan-Hughes merely desired tha: large industries of this sort should be investigated by the commission, he would not have added to his amendment the words, “ the purchase and disposal of the Australian sugar crop “. I think that there are many other industries which would be assisted if they were investigated by the Inter-State Commission. Senator Crawford did not protest when it was suggested that the sugar industry should be investigated. He pointed out that it had been investigated on more occasions than any other industry in Australia, and he said that he was prepared to agree that any industry in Queensland should be subject to the fullest, inquiry. In view of the great part the sugar industry has played in the development of the tropical north, there is no justification for casting a slur upon it by singling it out for investigation by the TnterState Commission. Senator DuncanHughes must be aware that the powers to be vested in the proposed commission are sufficiently wide to enable it to investigate the sugar industry or any other industry. T think it was unfortunate that the honorable senator should have raised a discussion on this particular subject by moving the amendment.

Senator COURTICE (Queensland) r2.40].- The Leader of the Senate f Senator A. J. McLachlan), Senator Foll, and others have pointed out clearly that there is ample provision in the bill for the proposed Inter-State Commission to investigate the sugar industry and any other matter relating to trade and commerce in Australia. I am certain that Senator Duncan-Hughes is aware of that. I do not know whether he thinks that the sugar industry would try to dodge an inquiry by the proposed commission.

I can assure him that the industry would not burke investigation. I cannot understand the honorable senator’s reason for moving the amendment, lt appears to be based on prejudice and the false notion that the sugar industry is obtaining from Australia some benefit to which it is not entitled. I could speak at length on the benefits of the sugar industry to Australia, but I think that the discussion on the amendment should be confined to the question whether that industry should be specifically included in the terms of the bill as a subject for investigation by the proposed commission. I should welcome the fullest investigation of the industry, and 1 believe that such inquiry would be in the best interests of Australia and the industry. Undoubtedly, the sugar industry has been of great benefit to Australia. Some honorable senators may point out that the sugar-growers obtain a high price for their product, but I direct attention to the fact that the average price of sugar in 41 European countries’ is nearly 5d. per lb., or nearly Id. per lb. more than the price in Australia, and Queensland is the only country in which cane sugar is produced by white labour. Even in New Zealand, where all the sugar consumed is produced by black labour, the consumers pay 3Jd. per lb. During the war, sugar was sold in Australia at 5d. per lb. If Australia had had to import sugar, consumers would have had to pay ls. per lb. There is one important principle associated with the sugar agreement which could be well applied to other industries. The price of sugar to Australian consumers is fixed practically by Hie Commonwealth Government, because it imposes the embargo on imported sugar. If that principle of fixation of price were applied to other industries, Australia would benefit considerably. The amendment appears to suggest that the sugar industry in Australia enjoys an advantage over the other primary industries, but T cannot accept that view. I am certain that the industry would emerge more satisfactorily from an investigation than it did at any period in the past. There are between 8,000 and 9,000 cane-growers engaged in the industry, and they are very little better off than the primary producers in the other States.

I hope that the committee will not accept the amendment. I remind Senator DuncanHughes and any other honorable senators who intend to support him, that millions of pounds has been expended on the development of the Northern Territory which supports only a few hundred white people, whereas the tropical part of north Queensland produces immense quantities of sugar, all grown by white labour, for the use of Australian citizens. The settlement of thousands of Australians in north Queensland is the best guarantee we could have for the defence of that part of the Commonwealth. Contrary to the general impression, a considerable number of those engaged in the industry are not in a strong financial position. I should be very pleased to exchange my small investment in it for some of the investments held by Senator Duncan-Hughes in other industries. I would welcome investigation into the conduct of any Australian industry, and I believe the time is coming when circumstances will necessitate this course. “We take the view, however, that the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that it will be rejected. .

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
South Australia

– Apparently, in submitting my amendment I have laid myself open to the charge of being hostile to the sugar industry, as Senator Crawford has suggested, or of having cast a slur upon those engaged in it, according to Senator Foll. Surely it is unnecessary for me to point out again that I am simply following the course recommended by the royal commission which inquired into the working of the Constitution nine years ago. My amendment is, so to speak, the one suggested by that body. Does any one believe that the royal commission was hostile to the sugar industry, or that its members wished to cast a slur upon the growers? One honorable senator even said that T had thrown a spanner into the works. If I have been guilty of this offence, all I can say is that it has taken the spanner a long time to get into the works, because, as I have shown, my amendment is on the lines recommended by the royal commission nine years ago. Last year during my absence the Senate discussed the earlier bill for the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission. I cannot say that if I had been present then I should have submitted this amendment because, as I have told the committee, it was not until I was studying the recommendations of the royal commission some months ago that I was struck by its recommendation relating to the sugar industry.

Senator Foll:

– Does the honorable senator imply that the royal commission recommended the amendment which he has submitted?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Of course it did, though, perhaps, not in the precise language which I have used. I have already read to the committee the recommendation of the royal commission on this point. Senator James McLachlan and Senator Dein have said that the terms of reference in the bill are sufficiently wide to enable the Inter-State Commission to inquire into the sugar industry. Possibly they are right ; but what guarantee have we that the commission will make such an investigation ?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Any State may ask the commission to make an inquiry.

Senator Collings:

– If by carrying the amendment we make mandatory an inquiry by the Inter-State Commission into the sugar industry, to be consistent we should insert provisions containing specific reference to other matters.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I have already indicated that if any other honorable senator moved that the payment of bounties should be a subject of inquiry, I would support such an amendment.

Senator Foll:

– That would make the bill farcical.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I do not know that it would. In. any case the total of bounties paid by the Commonwealth is by no means so heavy a load on the people of Australia as is the concession given to the sugar industry by the agreement.

Senator Collings:

– We deny that.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Very well; we shall retain our own opinions. I believe that many other forms of financial assistance to the States should be inquired into, but I have taken the sugar industry first because the Royal Commission placed that first in the list of recommendations.

Senator Foll:

– Since that report was issued there has been an investigation of the sugar industry.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That was in 1931. In the last 20 years there have been several investigations of the sugar industry by different bodies instead of, as would be the case if my amendment were accepted, by one independent tribunal which, by inquiries from time to time, could bring its knowledge of the industry up to date. The fact that there has been no inquiry into the sugar industry for seven years suggests that those engaged in it are satisfied with the conditions under the present arrangements.

Senator Collings:

– Section 101 of the Commonwealth Constitution limits the range of inquiry, so the honorable senator’s amendment would not be in order.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I have read that section very carefully and I fail to see how anybody can suggest that an inquiry such as I have proposed could be divorced from the trade and commerce powers. Senator Crawford said that I would not be taking this stand if the question at issue were the profit made by General-Motors Holden’s. My reply to him is that I have just supported Senator Johnston’s amendment to authorize the new Inter-State Commission to inquire into the incidence of the tariff. Last year also I voted against the proposed increases of the tariff which would have benefited General-Motors Holden’s and similar industrial enterprises. I do not know what more the honorable gentleman expects me to do. Senator Pearce has questioned whether this subject would be referred to the Inter-State Commission or to the Tariff Board. If there is any doubt as to which body should make such investigation, that constitutes, in my opinion, another reason why the committee should, by carrying my amendment, specify the Inter-State Commission as the proper authority.

Senator Dein:

– Would the acceptance of the amendment mean that the commission would make an investigation on its own initiative?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– The present sugar agreement will remain in force until 1941. My amendment authorizes the commission to make an investigation into any agreement “ whether existing or proposed.” This would suggest that there would be an investigation before 1941 - there would be ample time, because the commission would not be overloaded - and a report could be furnished to Parliament before a fresh agreement was submitted.

Question put -

That the amendment (Senator Duncan -

Hughes’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator Sampson.)

AYES: 8

NOES: 18

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I move-

That after sub-clause 1 the following new sub-clause be inserted - “(1a) In connexion with any inquiry into any application or matter relating to any State which is dealt with by the commission in pursuance of sub-section ( 1 ) of this section, the commission may, in addition to any other matters which it deems relevant, take into consideration any disability of that State alleged to result from the operation of any provision of the Constitution or of any law thereunder.”.

I do not think that I need repeat the arguments which I used this morning in favour of such an amendment. It meets the point raised by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) and gives all that Senator Johnston could reasonably hope for. It was suggested - and I thought that the suggestion was worthy of consideration - that, instead of the word “may”, the word “shall” should be used. On consideration, however, “ shall “ was thought to be inappropriate, because Mr. Nairn desired that the amendment should apply to every paragraph of subsection 1. There are some provisions to which it would not properly apply, but the whole of them are so interwoven that it would be difficult to discriminate between them. This morning, when I attempted to apply to some of those paragraphs the provisions of the amendment as proposed to be modified by the substitution of the word “shall” for “may”, I found that the word “ shall “ is clearly not applicable to some of the inquiries which may be made - for instance paragraphb relating to “ any alleged contravention of the provisions of the Constitution relating to interstate commerce “. If a matter is relevant, and if an allegation is made by a State, effect could be given to it. The amendment widens the scope of the clause and may be of benefit to the bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia)[3.7]. - When this amendment was forecast by the Minister earlier to-day Senator Lynch said that it did not go far enough, because it dealt only with laws of the Commonwealth. He went on to explain that on one occasion, action was taken to prevent the export of gold from Australia without the authority of any law. He challenged me to state the legislation under which that action was taken. I could not answer him offhand, but I have since looked the matter up, and I now find that the Customs Act of 1901- 1910 authorizes the Governor-General, by proclamation, to restrict or prohibit the export of goods capable of being used for any purpose of war. The Commonwealth Year-Book No. 9 of 1915, gives on pages 1144 and 1145, a list of goods, the export of which was restricted except by permission. Among the items on the first line of page 1145 is “gold.” Section 5, paragraph h of the War Precautions Act of 1914, gives power to prevent money or goods from being sent out of Australia, except under conditions approved by the Minister. Senator Lynch contended that the operation of that provision was an interference with the free market for gold. That may be; but at the time Australia was at war, and a free market for gold might have meant that gold would get into the hands of an enemy. Regulation 64b under the War Precautions Act of 1915, made it an offence to remit money from the Commonwealth without the written consent of the Minister, if sent to an enemy subject. With a free market for gold, it is impossible to say where gold sent from Australia would go. That action was taken under the authority conferred by the Customs Act and regulations under the War Precautions Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing and sessional orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1142

PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES ADJUSTMENT BILL 1938

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and sessional orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill deals with three matters. Briefly, these relate to : First, the removal of the last of the reductions imposed by the financial emergency legislation upon the parliamentary salaries and allowances of Ministers and members; secondly, provision of a special allowance for the Prime Minister; and, thirdly, the removal -of the reduction of parliamentary allowances payable to Ministers and holders of parliamentary offices.

With regard to the first proposal, honorable senators are, no doubt, aware of the circumstances in which the reduction was originally made. The Government of the day stated that the reductions would be restored as the financial circumstances of the Commonwealth permitted. Reductions in respect of Commonwealth officers other than those which were due to the automatic adjustments in respect of variations of the cost of living were restored in 1936. The Commonwealth salary reductions then remaining were those applicable to members of Parliament and Ministers. The Government feels that there is no longer any warrant for the retention of these reductions, and proposes accordingly the repeal of the relevant sections of the Financial Emergency Act. lt is also proposed to provide for the removal of the existing 1 per cent, reduction of Ministers’ salaries. The bill also has a provision for the grant of a special allowance of £1,500 a year to the Prime Minister. Honorable senators will, I feel sure, agree that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, whoever he might be, should be in a position to discharge his duties and responsibilities, official and otherwise, in a manner worthy of that high office.

The third amendment relates to the parliamentary allowances of Ministers and holders of parliamentary offices. It is not, perhaps, generally known that Ministers do not draw the ordinary parliamentary allowance paid to members and honorably senators. When a member attains ministerial rank his ordinary parliamentary allowance is reduced by £200 a year. It is proposed to end this practice, as regards both Ministers and holders of parliamentary offices, such as the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chairman of Committees. The Government feels that the amount paid to Ministers is inadequate, having regard to their responsibilities, and believes that the present proposal will be accepted as reasonable. The responsibilities of Ministers are constantly increasing, and their tasks make it impossible, and, indeed, improper, for them to limit their expenditure in ways that are possible to most other sections of the community. The full remuneration of a federal Minister to-day is not more - indeed, I believe it to be less - than it was 20 and 30 years ago. Meanwhile, the cost of living has increased very considerably. A salary of £2,000 a year to-day is the approximate equivalent of £1,150 in the early years of federation.

As the bill provides for the gency of the last of the financial emergency reductions of salaries, it becomes necessary to consider the question of the existing limitation of State taxes on salaries and allowances which were reduced under the original Financial Emergency Act. When the act was passed in 1931, it was felt that it would not be reasonable to subject the salaries of Ministers, members of Parliament and Commonwealth oifieers generally to a heavy percentage reduction averaging 20 per cent, and, in addition, to permit those salaries to be subjected to possibly abnormal rates of State taxes. Provision was accordingly made in that act for the GovernorGeneral to be empowered to prescribe maximum rat?s of taxes which could be imposed by State Parliaments on those salaries and allowances. If Parliament approves the present proposals, thus removing the last of the reductions of parliamentary salaries and allowances imposed as an emergency measure, there would appear to be no further justification for relieving Ministers, members of Parliament, and officers generally, from the full effects of State taxation. Provision is, therefore, made in the bill for the repeal of section 19 of the original act. When the Financial Emergency Act was passed in 1931, provision was also made that in cases where persons in receipt of remuneration from the Commonwealth voluntarily relinquished any portions of thpi’r salaries, the amounts so relinquished would be exempted from both Commonwealth and State taxation. The bill provides for the repeal of this section as an amendment consequential to the repeal of section 19. It is necessary that the clauses repealing the taxation sections of the original act should coincide with the commencement of a financial year for taxation assessment purposes, and it is, therefore, proposed in the bill that the repeal of sections 19 and 20, which relate to taxation, shall come into operation on the 1st July, 1938. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland”

– Although the members of the Opposition believe that the restoration of members’ allowances should have been made earlier, we believe that the Government is acting wisely, and that the proposed increase of the Prime Minister’s allowance is fully justified. The occupant of that office, whoever he may be, is entitled to be paid such salary and allowances as will enable him to fill the position with dignity, and also to be independent of any outside source of income. That condition should also apply to every member of Parliament, including members of the Cabinet, all of whom should be paid an allowance sufficiently high to enable them to be independent. If that were done they should be debarred from receiving income from any other source. I have always accepted with great satisfaction any partial restoration of parliamentary allowance which has been made, and have voiced my dissatisfaction because a complete restoration has not been made .earlier. In order to clear up misapprehension in the mind of the public, perhaps I should say that, although the remaining £50 of members’ allowance is being restored, we shall not actually receive that amount, because of the fact that certain taxes which had been remitted will now have to be paid. Members of Parliament or public servants should not be a privileged class in matters of this kind, and I am glad that the position is now being clarified. In view of the unfair use which the press invariably makes of any restoration such as this - it takes every opportunity to brins Parliament into disrepute. - it should be stated most definitely that members of Parliament are merely having their allowances restored and not increased. I believe that I am correct in saying that the public believes that the members of this Parliament receive not only their parliamentary allowance., but also free board and lodging while in Canberra, and that, in addition to free rail transport, all other forms of transport are available without cost. I am always prepared, as doubtless are other honorable senators, to take what is coming in that respect, but I know that, owing to themisrepresentation in which the press indulges, there is a good deal of misconception. Such misrepresentation is a distinct disservice to Parliament and those who serve it, and every time a disservice is done to the institution of Parliament some other form of government is encouraged. The members of the Opposition welcome the bill, because we believe that the restoration of members’ salaries could and should have been made before.

Senator . Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.30]. - I take thisopportunity to say something to thepeople of Australia who have an idea that members of Parliament are overpaid. I have been a member of this Parliament for the last 37 years, and I have been particularly fortunate, from the point of view of those people who think that a Minister receives a munificent salary, in that I have been for 25 years of that time a Minister. I have lived a sober life and, I think, an industrious life, but I have not made a competence.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– To be consistent with the opposition I have shown in this chamber since the depression to these repeated increases-

Senator Collings:

– This is not an increase.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Well, I oppose this restoration.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator can afford to.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I gave a pledge to the electors of Western Australia that I would oppose these restorations until all emergency taxes were removed, and I intend to honour that pledge fully. I am aware that two or three honorable senators are “ out of step with Patsy” in this direction, hut at the same time I do not choose to remain silent on a measure of which I do not approve. The elections are just over, but, in perusing the policy speeches of the leaders of all parties, I found no indication that any of them proposed to take this action. Consequently, it cannot be said that the opinion of the people -was sought on this matter.

Senator Collings:

– Has the honorable senator forgotten that this measure honours a promise that was made in connexion with the financial emergency legislation that these reductions would be restored immediately the financial situation permitted?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The present financial situation does not prevent this Government from collecting over £12,000,000 a year in respect of sales tax and primage, which were only two of the special classes of taxes levied in order to meet our financial difficulties during the depression. The present is not opportune to make these restorations, particularly’ when we find our primary industries in a parlous position. I regret that the Government which I support should take steps to bring down this proposal at a time when our primary producers are suffering as the result of drought, low prices, poor crops and restricted markets, and, at the same time, are making repeated requests for the remission of taxes. Under the heading, “Seek Tax Relief, Drought Victims’ Plea “ the Sydney Daily Telegraph of yesterday’s date reported -

Federal and State Governments are being petitioned to suspend taxes in the drought areas.

Public meetings to further the plan are being organized in western centres.

North-western graziers intend to act similarly.

Land and income taxes are mentioned.

Country storekeepers were backing the land-holders in one of the worst crises in 40 years, a Sydney wool house representative said yesterday.

Western district’ storekeepers alone had piled up book debts of £1,000,000 in the last year, lie said.

Wheat is being rushed to starving sheep in 6brae districts.

Merchants are supplying orders from bagged stacks at country stations.

In the event of a dry winter much of the State’s 10,000,000 bushels of unshipped wheat will be used as fodder.

A re-appearance of grasshoppers has added to farmers’ worries at Gilgandra. Tlie grasshoppers have attacked wheat germinated by recent storms.

That is unfortunately typical of the conditions now existing in many parts of Australia, particularly areas which have only a light rainfall.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - How does the honorable senator connect his remarks with the question under discussion?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I submit that when many of the people whom I represent in this chamber are facing an exceedingly dark prospect - the pastoralists throughout Australia have lost millions of sheep to the detriment of the national income - it is to be regretted that the Government should choose to introduce a measure of this kind. The wheat industry’ is in a parlous condition and needs assistance more than Federal members and Ministers.

Senator Collings:

– How far would the money involved in this measure go towards solving their problems?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I admit that it would not go very far, but the Government has many other demands upon it. Only to-day I was informed in reply to a question, that the £12,000,000 promised in respect of debt relief to the farmers could not be granted because that money could not be made available without unduly restricting the loan moneys required by the States for loan works. The amount involved in this measure may not be very large, but I suggest that at this particular time, the Government might have been expected to set a better example. The Minister stated that most of the reductions made under the financial emergency legislation had been restored. I heard Mr. Hawker say in the House of Representatives that the reductions made in respect of the mothers and widows of certain returned soldiers had not yet ‘been restored. If that be so I hope that those restorations will be made before this measure is agreed to. In any case the taxpayers are still being asked to bear the burden of sales tax and primage which the Government apparently has no intention of abandoning, although these taxes were levied as part of the emergency measures taken during the depression, when the salaries of members of Parliament and public servants were reduced. I have been informed by the Treasury that the collections of primage and sales tax since 1934 have been as follows: -

The taxpayers are not only being exploited to the extent of over £12,000,000 annually in respect of primage and sales tax, but also have to face heavy taxation in respect of defence. I am in favour of adequate allowances being paid to efficient Ministers when the Commonwealth is in a better position to afford it. At the same time, however, I must repeat that the present is most inopportune for the introduction of legislation of this kind.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– As I have said before, I was elected on the understanding that I would oppose any increases of the salaries of members of Parliament, and I have, with discomfort to myself, repeated that, view on the floor of the Senate. I have no intention of going back on any promise which I made to my constituents. in the House of Representatives my friend. Mr. Hawker, stood to his word to the extent of leaving the Ministry of which he was a member because he would not break his undertaking to his constituents on this subject. The point raised by Senator E. B. Johnston that emergency restorations generally should be made before restorations of this kind are made should be carefully considered. I know that it has been raised in the House of Representatives, and I understand that an undertaking has been given that something will be done in that direction. It is not proper, however, that when steps are being taken to make restorations in respect of the salaries of members of Parliament and public servants, exception should be made in respect of the reductions imposed on the dependants of incapacitated soldiers.

SenatorFoll. - Those reductions were restored by the regulation which I tabled in the Senate yesterday.

SenatorDUNCAN-HUGHES. - Does the Minister assure me that restorations have been made in respect of those persons who were included in sections 42 and 43 of the Financial Emergency Act?

Senator Foll:

– I shall explain the matter later.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I am informed that that is not so. I understand that some of these people were dependants of officers, and were formerly paid on a graduated scale, according to the rank held by their husbands or sons, as the case might be, and that at a soldiers’ conference it was suggested that it would be desirable that allowances in respect of these dependants should be paid on a flat rate. I do not think that that is fair. These dependants, with other sections of the community, of course, have to make great sacrifices in times of stress. I do not think that any question of differentiation should arise. The amount involved is not large and the Government ought not to impose any loss on these people by bringing into force a totally different basis for the payment of their allowances.

SenatorCollings. - The honorable senator considers that the widows of officers are entitled to a larger pension than are the widows of privates?

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– Yes.

Senator Collings:

– That is a vicious principle in this country.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

-HUGHES.- If the honorable senator holds that view, he should be in favour of the principle that all members of Parliament, whether Ministers or private members, and whether Federal or State, should receive the same rate of salary. It is a principle generally adopted that a larger remuneration should be paid for special qualifications. If certain dependants receive a larger living allowance because of the rank that was held by the persons on whom they were dependent, the allowance should be restored to the amount that they received prior to the reduction under the financial emergency legislation.

The persons affected are dependants of deceased soldiers, and they are mostly women. I contend that the deductions should be restored on the same principle as was applied to the restorations of the salaries of Ministers and senior members of the Public Service. The alteration was keenly contested in another place, and I understand that the Government gave some undertaking that some action would be taken to rectify the position.

Senator COLLETT (Western Australia) 3.46 J. - I agree to a large extent with the remarks of Senator Johnston and Senator Duncan-Hughes. The Government has a rather clumsy way of dealing with certain matters, and this one is a good example. The measure places private members in an invidious position, having regard to the fact that so much of emergency taxes is still levied on the people. From what I have seen of the work done by Ministers, I think that the proposed increase of their allowances has been delayed too long. I hold the view, too, that the proposed adjustment of the allowance to the Prime Minister is long overdue. Private members are not in quite the same position as are the Prime Minister and Ministers. Private members should place themselves in the same position as the citizens of the Commonwealth, and full restoration of members’ salaries should be made in conformity with the financial emergency restorations made to the general public. I consider that the question of restoration of members’ salaries might have been postponed until a later date, when the people would be better able to realize what Parliament has done to assist towards the rehabilitation of Australia; then the people would be more inclined to agree graciously to the restoration. I intend to vote against the bill for the reason.5 that I! have given.

Senator GRANT:
Tasmania

.- I should like to learn whether it is the intention of ihe Minister to force the bill through this afternoon.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

-McLachlan. - There will be no forcing through of the bill.

Senator GRANT:

– I use the term “forcing” because the Minister has already moved the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable the bill to be passed through all its stages at this sitting. If that is not forcing the bill through, 1 do not understand English. Honorable senators knew very little about the contents of the bill until it was explained only half an hour ago. In ordinary circumstances the debate would have been adjourned after the Minister had made his second-reading speech and honorable senators would then have had ample opportunity to examine the bill. The Minister said that it provides for the removal of practically the last of the cuts made under the financial emergency legislation. I dispute that statement. 1 admit that wages and salaries have been restored, but the restorations made up to the present do not cover all the people who were forced by the Commonwealth Government to suffer reductions of income under tlie financial emergency legislation - for instance, those who had to accept 22£ per cent, reduction of interest have not had restored to them in any shape or form the amount of income of which they were deprived. Further, the Government collected huge sums under the sales tax and the primage duty. Those emergency taxes are still in operation. We must realize that 66 per cent, of the last loan which Australia floated in London was left in the hands of the underwriters - a result which shows that there is little possibility of Australia obtaining additional loan money in Great Britain. Before the end of this year the Government will be faced with the task of redeeming or renewing £S0, 000,000 of loan money; it will not be an easy one, and the Government will find it difficult to put, up a good case for the renewal if at the same time they impose extra taxes for defence and increased salaries to Ministers and members. I agree with those honorable senators who consider that it is unjust to pass a bill providing for the restoration of the full allowances of members. I think that the proposed increase of the allowance to the Prime Minister is justified, because we do not expect the gentleman who holds that high office to dip into his own pocket to uphold the dignity of the position. 7 think that honorable senators agree, too. that Ministers are not too well paid for the work that they are called upon to perform. Senators on the Opposition side have contended that certain matters should not be dealt with in this chamber until the Senate is re-constituted after the 30th June next. My view is that the restoration of members’ salaries is a matter which might well be postponed until the next financial year; then we shall learn when the budget is brought down, the total amount of expenditure contemplated and the taxation revenue required for defence and other purposes. The proposal for the restoration of members’ salaries has been introduced in a dying Senate.

Senator Collings:

– There will be the same number of senators in the new Senate, as there are in the present Senate.

Senator GRANT:

– I think I have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) contend that certain matters should not be brought forward in this chamber until the new Senate is constituted after the 30th June next.

Senator Collings:

– I was referring to a different matter, and it was not one of dealing honestly by members of this Parliament.

Senator GRANT:

– I think that members of this Parliament have been honestly dealt with. The press has quoted the number of days on which the Senate has met, and I think our record of sittings during the last four or five years is not high.

Senator Collings:

– That is the fault of the honorable senator’s Government.

Senator GRANT:

– It is not my government, and I think the Leader of the Opposition has voted with the Government on more occasions than I have on tariff matters. Perhaps the Government would not care to claim me as a hard and fast supporter.

Senator Collings:

– You would not have been elected at the last election if you had made that statement to the electors of your State.

Senator GRANT:

– I told my electors the truth and they trusted me to do the best I could for the State I represent. I have made it clear on many occasions that I shall support any proposal which is for the good of the Commonwealth and the State I represent, no matter whether the proposal is brought forward by the Government or the Opposition. I object to the bill being forced through all stages this afternoon; ample opportunity should be given to honorable senators to examine it thoroughly. The bill is not intelligible until the provisions of theFinancial Emergency Acts, which it affects, are examined, and the effect of this measure on them is studied. All that we know at the present time is that the bill provides for a restoration of £50 a year to the salaries of members of this Parliament, a higher allowance for the Prime Minister, an addition to the allowances of Ministers, and an adjustment of the incidence of taxation on members of Parliament and Commonwealth public servants. In the circumstances, I am opposed to the second reading of the bill and I shall vote against it.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- I am pleased to have the assurance of the Minister for Repatriation (SenatorFoll) that the 20 per cent. by which the living allowances granted to soldiers’ widows under the financial emergency legislation was reduced, is to be restored.

SenatorFoll. - The regulation restoring the allowances was published in the Commonwealth Gazette yesterday.

Senator BRAND:

– That statement clears my conscience in supporting the bill. All I desire to point out is that in 1931 representatives of all the ex-service soldiers’ associations met in Canberra at the request of the then Government to examine the Repatriation Act, and one of the recommendations was that there should be one scale of pensions for the widows of officers, non-commissioned officers and men.

SenatorFOLL (Queensland - Minister for Repatriation) [3.59]. - Supplementing my interjection. I desire to point out that I explained yesterday when I tabled certain regulations, that they repealed the regulations which authorized the 20 per cent. cut of the living allowances paid to widows of deceased soldiers. These are the last living allowances to be restored and there are now no living allowances subject to financial emergency cuts. The regulations provide for the restoration of the 20 per cent. cut to: (1) the widowed mother of a deceased soldier; (2) the re-married widow of a deceased soldier who has again been widowed; and (3) the widow and children of a soldier who died within three years of his discharge. There was no interference, under the financial emergency legislation, with widows’” pensions which were granted to the parents of deceased soldiers irrespective of their financial position. To-day the Repatriation Department is paying these pensions if the income of dependent parents is not in excess of 32s. 6d. each. I direct the attention of Senator Duncan-Hughes to the fact that some years ago, when the financial emergency legislation was in operation, the Government passed a measure providing for the payment of service pensions. That was & step in the’ right direction and was much appreciated by those who were in need of assistance. The additional burden on the budget due to the payment of these pensions is approximately £400,000 a year. Some reference has been made to preferential payments for widows of officers and non-commissioned officers. Some soldiers were wounded in the early stages of the war and became permanently and totally incapacitated. As they were denied the opportunity to graduate from the ranks, the Government felt that payment of pensions to widows on a flat rate basis, as recommended by the conference of representatives of returned soldier organizations, was the more equitable arrangement.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– in reply - The Government has no desire to rush the bill through, but its purpose is so clear that further explanation of its principles should not be necessary. As regards the proposed increased allowance to the Prime Minister, all I need say is that I have been associated with Prime Ministers for many years, sometimes as a member of the Opposition, but more frequently as a supporter or colleague, and I know that there is a feeling throughout the Commonwealth that the treatment meted out to the Prime Minister of Australia is somewhat niggardly when compared with allowances paid in some of the sister dominions. There is no need to comment on the additional allowance for Ministers. There has been a suggestion that members of Parliament should not accept the restoration of salaries to which they are entitled. This is no new proposal. It was discussed towards the end of last year, but action was deferred with a viewto formulating the scheme for the establishment of’ a superannuation fund to which members might contribute the balance of the salary restoration due to them. It was felt that in this way they could provide against the day when they might be defeated at an election or, in the event of death, leave provision for their widows. I put it to Senator Grant and other honorable senators who may share his views on this point, that sometimes the plight of a member of Parliament, at the close of his career as a representative of the people, is extremely pathetic. An examination of the budget and estimates will reveal the assistance which the Government sometimes considers necessary for the dependants of former members of this Parliament, some of whom were distinguished for the services which they had rendered to this country but who died in indigent circumstances. The proposal to establish a superannuation fund was referred to all parties in this Parliament, but so far no acceptable plan has been evolved. I understand from Mr. Curtin, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, that representations will be made to the Government to deal with this restoration scheme in a particular way, but we shall have to deal with it on general principles. I feel sure that the Treasurer will find it difficult to prepare a scheme that will be acceptable to all parties.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1149

QUESTION

UNDESIRABLE LITERATURE

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · UAP

– by leave - Yesterday, Senator Abbott asked a question relating to the importation of undesirable literature. I now desire to make a statement on the subject for the information of honorable senators.

Following upon strong agitation by a large section of the community, and vigorous protests by various public and religious bodies, the Government has given consideration to the prevention of the importation into the Commonwealth of certain literature of an undesirable character. The literature to which I refer is that in which crime and criminal activities are featured, and which gives undue emphasis to matters of sex. It is recognized that there are many reputable publications in which crime, and even horrors, are judiciously presented, and which have definite literary and intellectual merit. To these no exception can be taken. Certain publications which have no literary or intellectual value, and which obviously are published in order to cater for those seeking to satisfy depraved tastes for morbidity, sadism, sensuality, te, are, however, being imported into Australia. These books are usually published in luridly attractive covers, and frequently a table of contents is printed on the cover. Frequently, this includes a title or titles of a suggestive nature. The books are retailed at prices as low as 3d. and 4d. a copy.

The Customs Act prohibits the importation of blasphemous, indecent or obscene works or articles, and it has been the practice for many years, in pursuance of its provisions, to refuse delivery of publications which* come definitely within that category. Large numbers of the publications typical of those now in question have been examined by officers of the department, and it has been found that, whilst some of them could be classed as obscene or indecent within the meaning of the existing prohibition, many of them, although of an undesirable character, could not be so classed. A similar view was expressed by the members of the Literature Censorship Board, by whom a number of copies were examined. Honorable senators will, I am sure, agree that literature of the type of that now referred to cannot but have a harmful effect upon the community, particularly upon young folk and- adolescents. In supporting representations made by him for a ban on its importation, the Premier of New South Wales instanced the fact that a large number of these publications were found among the effects of a young man recently found guilty of murder. The Literature Censorship Board has expressed the opinion that certain of thepublica’tions reviewed by it, whilst not within the existing prohibition, areinjurious.

After the fullest consideration, theGovernment has decided that, in theinterests of the community, the sale of” undesirable literature of the type underconsideration should be prevented, and to this end approval has been given tothe issue of a regulation under section 52.9 of the Customs Act, prohibiting the importation of literature which, in the opinion of the Minister for Tradeand Customs, unduly emphasizes matters of sex or crime, or is calculated to encourage depravity, whether by words orby picture, or partly by words and partly by picture. It should be stated that thereis no intention to interfere with reputabledetective or crime stories which have definite literary merit.

page 1150

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator MoLeay) - by leave. - -agreed to -

That len vo of absence for one month be- “ranted to Senator Cox on account of ill health.

That, leave of absence for one month be “ grunted to Senators Hardy and Sir Walter

Massy-Greene on account of urgent private business.

That leave of absence for one month be granted to Senator McBride on account of absence from Australia.

page 1150

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I move -

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.

I give an undertaking that honorable senators will not be summoned back to Canberra within a fortnight from yesterday. The period which may elapse before they will be recalled may be longer. It will depend on the rate at which the other branch of the legislature deals with the legislation before it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1151

ADJOURNMENT

Postal Workers at Bex ley - InterState Commission Bill - Censorship of Proposed Broadcast- Royal Military College, Duntroon - Wartime Restriction of Export of Gold - Invalid Pensions of Incapacitated Persons.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. Imove -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

This morning, Senator Ashley referred to disaffection among postal workersin the Bexley district of Sydney because men were called upon to work alone in manholes which contained gas. As promised,I instituted inquiries, but as they had to pass through the usual channels, I have not yet obtained a report. I shall, however, furnish a reply to the honorable senator by letter when I receive a report, which I expect will be within a day or two.

When the Inter-State Commission Bill was before the Senate last night a number of honorable senators desired to know the effect of the words “ directly or indirectly interested”, in clause 16. I gave the matter consideration, and came to the conclusion that no objection could be taken to their inclusion, but some doubt regarding them exists in the mind of the Solicitor-General. I shall have the matter fully investigated before the bill is dealt with in the House of Representatives.

Senator Brennan referred to the decision of the Privy Council in relation to the Colonial Sugar Refining Company. No doubt the honorable senator is well aware that, in order to overcome the difficulty of empowering a royal commission to summon witnesses, specific legislation has been passed in several cases in the past. I shall have this matter also inquired into, with a view to ensuring that, in a measure so important as the InterState Commission Bill, no difficulty of this nature will be likely to arise in the future.

I promised Senator Brown to secure a copy of the speech which Judge Foster proposed to broadcast recently through the A class stations. Honorable senators will find copies of the speech in their lockers.

Senator FOLL:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · UAP

– This morning Senator Collett asked a series of questions, to which I promised to obtain replies. The honorable senator asked -

  1. Is it a fact thatthe Royal Military College at Duntroon is still so deficient in accommodation and requisite furniture that considerable inconvenience is thereby caused, and even to-day a number of cadets are housed in old and unsuitable buildings?
  2. Will the Minister indicate the works or furniture for the Royal Military College, for which financial provision was made by Parliament during the year1937-38, that have not yet been completed commenced or provided?
  3. What are the causes of the delay, if any? 4.Generally in connexion with buildings required by the Defence Department, is it a fact that the letting of contracts for their erection is delayed by reason of the Minister’s desire to first personally examine details of their design and construction?

The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers: - 1.No. The decision to increase the number of cadets at the college entailed the provision of additional accommodation, and, pending the provision of a new cadets’ block, the tender for whichhas been accepted, it was decided to house a small number of cadets temporarily in the old hospital block. Except that this block is beyond the range of the ordinary steam -heating facilities, the accommodation provided is of a reasonable standard for temporary use.

  1. Owing to the rise in building costs at Canberra the amount involved for new works projects at the Military College during the year1937-38 willnotbe sufficient to provide for the whole of the items originally contemplated. All essential services will however, be proceeded with. These comprise the erection of a new cadets’ block provision for an additional officers’ quarters. furniture requirements new boiler road work and improvements to grounds and existing quarters. Certain non-essential items such as a clocktnwer. squash courts, additional tennis courts, improvements to the water service and the oracling and planting of grounds have been deferred for financial reasons. 3.No undue delay has taken place. 4.No.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - Before submitting the motion to the Senate, I wish to refer to some remarks which I made when the Inter-State Commission Bill was in committee. It may be that I did not make my meaning perfectly clear, but I intended to say that the producers of gold in this country were prohibited from sending gold . overseas, where they would have obtained a higher price than they received in Australia. I stated that that prohibition was the result of a Cabinet decision. Senator Pearce then said that the matter was dealt with by regulation. I had the temerity to contradict him, and I offered to . withdraw my statement if he could show that the prohibition was effected by means of a regulation. Subsequently, when I was absent from the chamber, the right honorable gentleman replied to my remarks. He has been good enough to place in my hands a transcript of his speech, in which he said -

When this amendment was forecast by the Minister earlier to-day, Senator Lynch said that it did not go far enough, because it dealt only with laws of the Commonwealth. He went on to explain that on one occasion action was taken to prevent the export of gold from Australia without the authority of any law. He challenged rae to state the legislation under which that action was taken. I could not answer him offhand, but I have since Looked the matter up, and I now find that the Customs Act of 1901-1910 authorizes the Governor-General by proclamation to restrict or prohibit the export of goods capable of being used for any purpose of war. The Commonwealth Year-Book, No. 9 of 1915, gives, on pages 1144 and 1145, a list of goods the export of which was restricted except by permission. Among the items on the first line of page 1145 is “gold”. Section 5, .paragraph (fi.) of the Wai- Precautions Act of 1914 gives power to prevent money or goods from being sent out of Australia except under conditions approved by the Minister. Senator Lynch contended ‘ that the operation of that provision was an interference with the free market for gold. That may be, but at the time Australia was at war, and a free market for gold might have meant that gold would get into the hands of an enemy. Regulation 04 (6) under the War Precautions Act of 1915 made it an offence to remit money from the Commonwealth without the written consent of the Minister if sent to an enemy subject. With a free market for gold it is impossible to say where gold sent from Australia would go. That action was taken under the authority conferred by the Customs Act and regulations under the War Precautions Act.

Of course if gold were exported in wartime it would naturally find its way to other countries; no one would suggest anything to the contrary. But the words “ if sent to an enemy subject “ appear in regulation 64 b, which was the only regulation quoted by the honorable senator. From the import and effect of those words there can be no dissent. I do not dissent, but what I wanted the honorable senator to show me - and I understood him to say that he could - was a regulation prohibiting the export of gold to countries other than enemy countries, and there getting the enhanced price which the producers could not get in Australia. Apparently, the honorable senator so far has been unable to do this, but if he does so, I shall withdraw what I said in respect of restriction of the export of gold by mere decision of the Cabinet. At present I see nothing that I should withdraw.

Senator COLLINGS:
Queensland

– I regret that I have to take this opportunity to bring under the notice of the Government a matter in connexion with which I have utilized every other channel open to me in order to obtain justice. I rarely bring departmental matters under the notice of Ministers in this chamber, but in this instance I feel that I am more than justified in doing so. I have been impelled to move in this matter owing to the action of the Pensions Department in cancelling the invalid pension of Alexander G. Duncan, of Russellstreet, Rocklea, Brisbane, whose pension has been cancelled because he has been deemed by the department to be not permanently and totally incapacitated. A person cannot receive an invalid pension if a medical officer has certified that he is not permanently and totally incapacitated for work. There should be’ more sympathetic consideration in cases where there can be no possible doubt as to the incapacity of the pensioner. The department admits that Duncan is suffering a great disability, but it contends that it is not total incapacitation. I interviewed this man, who is, and has been, suffering for many years from osteo-myelitis, and I can assure honorable senators that if he were brought into this chamber there is not one who would not agree that his pension should not be cancelled. One leg is stiff at both knee and hip joints. There are discharging sinuses which recur in the hip. I have never seen anything like them, and although the leg which originally was most affected is not now so bad, the other leg is in such a state that it makes his general condition much worse than before. These discharges are likely to recur at any time in different parts of a leg or thigh. There is absolutely no form of employment for which this man is fitted, and although he admits that he is able to potter about for an hour or so, any further effort is quite impossible for some time thereafter. No employer would offer work to a man who will have to rest every time he does an hour’s work. Work for more than a few widely spaced intervals in any one day would be quite impossible. The department admits the seriousness and permanence of the disability, but it will not admit total disability. Such a decision is quite incomprehensible to any one who has seen him. I arranged for him to have a personal interview with the Deputy Commissioner so that his condition could be seen. . The matter was then referred to Canberra, but the officials here shielded themselves behind the law. I am blaming not them, but the law. The officials in Canberra endorsed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner that the pension should he cancelled. This unfortunate person, cannot, because of the stiffness of his joints, even stoop down to put on his boots. The joints in both legs and thighs are affected, and wherever a sinus occurs, it results in his limbs taking on an almost inhuman shape. He admits, quite freely, that he could, say, .potter around this chamber for an hour and flick the dust off the furniture, but he would have to rest for some time before he would be able to even stand up again. I trust that the Minister will have this case reviewed, and that some one other than the Deputy Commissioner will be asked to interpret the law more liberally, so that this man may be entitled to a pension. I feel very strongly upon this matter, because from my personal interview and investigations, I know that he is permanently and totally incapacitated.

Senator Uppill:

– Has he a doctor’s certificate ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Tes, to the effect that he is suffering from a serious disability, that is permanent, but not total. This is the worst case that I have personally investigated, and, after having seen the man, I was upset for the rest of the day. His position is due entirely to the ridiculous interpretation of “ permanent and total incapacity “. I trust that the Minister will arrange for the closest possible investigation to ‘be made, and that Duncan will again be paid the pension of which he has been deprived.

Senator ASHLEY:
3STew South Wales

– I support the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) that more sympathetic and liberal treatment should be shown to persons who are permanently and totally incapacitated. A case, similar to that mentioned, has been brought under ray notice ; it is that of a girl whose limbs are withered. A few years ago her mother, her only parent, sent her to learn sewing, but after having served an apprenticeship of two or three years, she found that she could not use a sewing machine; yet her pension was cancelled as it was contended by the department that she was able to keep herself. It is the responsibility of doctors who examine applicants for pensions .to certify that they are permanently and totally incapacitated, but where the sufferers are almost totally incapacitated, it is quite impossible for them to earn their living. Until such time as the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act is amended to enable persons who are almost totally incapacitated . to receive a pension, complaints will be made. I trust that the Minister will put the case mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, and that which I have just brought under his notice before the Department, and that action will be taken to enable these unfortunate invalids to receive the pension.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. - in reply. - I realize that the Loader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) would not have brought this matter under the notice of the Senate had it not been regarded by him as a particularly hard case. I understand that he proposes to supply me with the name and address of the person concerned, and if Senator Ashley will also do the same in respect of the case’ he mentioned, I shall suggest that a full investigation be made by the Minister in both instances. Apparently, they are sad cases that require some attention.

In regard to the discussion that has proceeded between two such distinguished members of this chamber as you, Mr. President and Senator Pearce, I draw the attention of the combatants to the fact that the shipment of gold must have been prohibited by some one. You, sir, want to know under what, law or regulation, export of gold was prohibited. I should imagine that those who suffered by the transaction would naturally have taken appropriate action for damages against the Government had its action been illegal. I can only come to that conclusion, because events in regard to this matter are ‘beyond my political memory. However, there must have been some law, whether in the form of a proclamation, regulation or act of Parliament, to enable the export, of gold to bc prohibited. If that were not the case, the producers affected would have had grounds for legal proceedings, and undoubtedly would have taken such action.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.4G p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 May 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1938/19380512_senate_15_155/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant