Senate
14 May 1942

16th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 16th Parliament
  3. 1942

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

page 1189

QUESTION

BLACK-OUT AND BROWN-OUT REGULATIONS

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the risks attendant on the use of the approaches to Parliament House on dark nights, will the Minister for the Interior consider the installation of a modified system of lighting?

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– It would be most ungracious on my part to say that I would not consider any suggestion by the honorable senator with regard to that matter, but, if he desires to know whether the black-out and brown-out regulations now in operation are to be relaxed to any degree, the answer is in the negative.

page 1189

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the important statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Representatives in connexion with the coal-mining industry, will the Leader of the Senate see that statements of this kind are also made in the Senate, which has rights equal to those of the House of Representatives, or does the Minister propose that, with regard to matters of

Government policy, the Senate shall act merely as a rubber stamp in order to record caucus decisions?

Senator COLLINGS:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has mixed up with a perfectly proper question remarks which are merely an expression of his own opinion. On matters that are of such a nature that they require consideration in this chamber I shall always see that an opportunity is afforded to repeat in the Senate any statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives. The statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday regarding the coal-mining industry was of such great importance that it was made by the appropriate Minister at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place. In my opinion, there is not the slightest reason why the statement should be repeated in the Senate. I have not asked for the Prime Minister’s statement and I do not intend to do so.

Senator McLEAY:

– Will the Leader of the Senate state how the Government reconciles the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, that the restrictions under Statutory Rule No. 168 will be imposed upon the coal-miners on strike unless theyreturn to work immediately, with the fact that the Minister for Labour and National Service called a compulsory conference of mine-owners and miners for 11 a.m. to-day?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The Government has not attempted at any time to reconcile any statement made by the Prime Minister, because it knows before such statements are made that they are about to be made, and there is no need for any reconciliation.

page 1190

QUESTION

NATIONAL SECURITY REGULATIONS

Senator COLLINGS:
ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well that this question has been asked previously and that I have given a considered reply to it. The answer appeared in Hansard.

page 1190

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Deferred Pay - Pensions

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government recently instituted the system of deferred pay for the permanent members of the Australian Military Forces?
  2. Is it the intention to apply the same system of deferred pay to employees in the government-owned munition factories?
  3. If the system has been introduced, will the Government allow such deductions to be a set-off against Federal and State income tax?
Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · ALP

– -The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. In cases where the drawing rate of a member of the forces is reduced as a result of the introduction of deferred pay and where it can be shown that hardship results, provision has been made for the payment of income tax from the member’s deferred pay. provided that a reasonable sum is retained to the credit of the member.
Senator BRAND:

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

With reference to Statutory Rule No. 215 of 1942, setting out certain amendments to the Repatriation Regulations, will the Minister make a statement indicating clearly the differences, if any, in the granting of pensions and other benefits to members of the fighting services who served abroad and those who did not. or may not, leave Australian territories?

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · VICTORIA · ALP

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

For all practical purposes, members of home service personnel called up for the duration may said to be on the same footing as regards war pension and medical treatment and sustenance as members of the Australian Imperial Force who do not embark from Australia. The principal effect of the regulations referred to was to remove differences that existed between various classes of members of the forces in regard to eligibilty for war pension and medical treatment. Members of the Permanent Forces who did not serve on active service outside Australia or the territories were not previously eligible for pension under the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act. The new provision, which applies in respect of such members discharged on or after the 7th December, 1941, will now permit of the granting of war pension and medical treatment for war-caused disabilities. Previously, these members were eligible for compensation under Defence Finance Regulations. Until the passing of the new regulations, pensions could be granted in cases where a disability existed prior to enlistment andwas aggravated by service, only where the soldier had enlisted for service abroad. Likewise, payment of pension in respect of an accident occurring to a member of the forces whilst travelling on leave to or from his place of employment was restricted to Australian Imperial Force personnel. These privileges are now available to members of the home forceswho are enlisted or appointed for full-time service for the duration of the war. Members of the recently established Royal Australian Navy Nursing Service and Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service were given equal rights under the act to the Australian Army Nursing Service. The question of extension to home forces of general repatriation benefits such as sustenance pending employment, vocational training, and assistance under the soldiers’ children education scheme has not yet been determined by the Government.

page 1191

NAVIGATION BILL 1942

Motion (by Senator Fraser) agreed

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend Part IX. of the Navigation Act 1912-1935, relating to courts of marine inquiry.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Motion (by SenatorCollings) put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an a bsolute majority of the members of the Sen a te present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator ERASER (Western Australia

Minister for External Territories) [3.14]. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The first Commonwealth legislation deal ing with navigation was enacted in 1912. A comprehensive amending bill was passed in 1919, further amendments were made in 1925 and 1926, and in 1934 the Navigation (Maritime Conventions) Bill was passed to enable the Commonwealth to ratify important international conventions, including the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, the Loadline Convention, and some conventions of the International Labour Office. During the past seven years, however no navigation legislation has been introduced. This Government has not had an opportunity to consider any substantial amendment of the principal act, but there is one part of it which, even under the pressure of war conditions, should be revised, and this bill is designed for that purpose.I refer to Part IX. of the act, dealing with courts of marine inquiry. Most of the amendments proposed are formal, but there is one to bring the practice in Australia into line with that of the United Kingdom. This is an amendment of section 372 of the act, and is contained in clause 6 of the bill. Under that section as it now stands, it is often necessary to hold two courts of inquiry, one to inquire into an accident and the other to deal with an officer’s certificate, if, unfortunately, action in that direction’ has to be taken. It is now proposed to empower the court which inquires into the happening to the ship to deal also with the certificate of an officer should such action be considered necessary.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.

page 1191

LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1942

Motion (by Senator Feaser) agreed to -

That leavebe given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Lighthouses Act 1911-1919.

page 1191

EXCISE BILL 1942

Bill presented by Senator Keane, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Collings) put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the members of the Senate present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill which will amend the Excise Act 1901-1934 is, to enable the Department of Trade and Customs to issue regulations to control goods which come within the ambit of an excise tariff proposal.

At present the Excise Act only permits the issue of regulations for “ excisable goods “ which are defined in the act as goods in respect of which excise duty is imposed by the Parliament. Legal opinion is to the effect that goods, which are the subject of an excise tariff proposal, do not come within the meaning of that definition. Therefore it is considered necessary that the Excise Act be amended to extend the definition of excisable goods to include goods the subject of an excise tariff proposal, and the principles underlying this bill are recommended for favorable consideration by honorable senators. The amendment is most desirable, and the passage of the bill will solve a difficulty which at present exists in making excise regulations for the protection of the revenue, relating to new items incorporated in the excise tariff.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

. - I support the bill. I understand that it is purely a machinery measure, and has been recommended by the Grown Law authorities.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1192

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS BILL 1942

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a secondtime.

During the debate on the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill last year, I announced the Government’s intention to increase the maximum rate of invalid and old-age pensions to £15s. a week. The principal object of th is measure is to honour that undertaking. At the same time the Government is taking this opportunity to introduce additional benefits and to effect amendments which more recent experience in dealing with the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act has proved to be desirable. These amendments are designed to eliminate administrative difficulties. I assure the Senate that they do not remove, or reduce, benefits now enjoyed by pensioners.

Honorable senators will have an opportunity in committee to discuss the provisions thoroughly, and, where necessary, full explanations of each clause will be made. At this juncture I shall make clear the Government’s policy towards social services, and refer very briefly to the attitude being displayed towards this important subject in other parts of the world. Honorable senators who have studied the interim reports of the Joint Committee on Social Securitywill be familiar with that committee’s recommendations for comprehensive improvements in our social legislation. Prior to my assumption of ministerial ‘office, I acted as deputy chairman of that committee and had the privilege of presiding at many of its meetings, not only when evidence was submitted but. also at the subsequent deliberations of the committee. The members of that committee, who were representative of all parties in the Parliament, were so impressed by the statements of sociologists, economists, social workers, employers and employees’ organizations, and others, that we had no hesitation in presenting a. report advocating a liberalization of the existing system, and suggesting its extension to additional classes.

Some people believe that the demands of our war effort preclude any endeavour to improve the social and living conditions of the community. It is, of course not possible to do as much in this direction during the war as in a time of peace and prosperity ; but it is essential in time of national peril to do what common sense dictates to be necessary to sustain the whole nation on a war footing and maintain national morale at the highest possible pitch. This cannot be done if, in our midst, we have too much poverty, and too many people living in unhealthy and insanitary dwellings which are ideal breeding grounds of disease, and cause absences from work as well as distress. Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand

Iiia ve recognized the wisdom of raising the standard of living, and, to use words of the English economist Mr. John Maynard Keynes, to reap the immense advantages in morale of a plan conceived “ in a spirit of social justice, a plan which use3 a time of general sacrifice, not as an excuse for postponing desirable reforms, but as an opportunity for moving further than we have moved hitherto towards reducing inequalities “. In pursuance of that policy Great Brimin has recently extended its social services, added considerably to the cost of pensions, raised the insurable limit in the unemployment insurance scheme providing for some additional 500,000 insured persons, increased the weekly rate of sick benefit and in other ways taken steps to ensure that the standard of living is at least maintained. New Zealand has liberalized its Social Security Act. It has passed a Rural Housing Act, widened the scope of child allowances, liberalized maternity benefits, and introduced a scheme providing joint medical and pharmaceutical services. In Canada the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act has extended previous benefits, whilst in 1940 a comprehensive dominionwidescheme of unemployment insurance was introduced, and in February of this year a bill was introduced to provide a national health insurance scheme.

It is interesting to note also that the International Labour Conference held in New York last year was unanimously of opinion that the social conditions of the whole of the people should be improved however, and whenever, possible. To this policy which is being pursued by other countries, the Government subscribes whole-heartedly, and believes that in raising the standard of living, and seeing that, as far as possible, social security is assured, the nation’s war effort is being fostered. This view. I know, is held by those with whom I had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Social Security. It gives me great pleasure to announce to the Senate that the Government hopes to present, at no distant date, a Social Security Act consolidating the whole of the present social legislation of the Commonwealth, and providing further extensions. It is with equal pleasure, and with no

[‘121

small degree of pride, that I contemplate the fact that shortly after it has assumed office the Government has not only strengthened the nation’s preparedness for war but has also improved the living conditions of a very large proportion of the Australian people. The foregoing remarks apply with equal force to other social legislation bills which I shall present almost immediately to the Senate.

I come now to’ the more important features of this measure. The extension of the war to our own shores prevented the Government from bringing down this legislation earlier this year; but in order that pensioners may receive the full benefit of the Government’s original intention, provision is made for the operation of the new maximum rate of pension as from the 2nd April, 1942, when the last cost of living adjustment became effective. The first payment at the increased rate of 25s. a week will be made on the 9 th July next, when eligible pensioners will be paid arrears at the rate of ls. a week as from the 2nd April last. The principle of associating the maximum rate of invalid and old-age pensions with the cost of living index figure has been retained; but an important amendment ensures that in the event of a fall in the cost of living, that rate cannot be reduced below 25s. per week without parliamentary approval. The new maximum rate of 25s. per week has been related to the figure 1053, which was the price index number for all items in “ C “ series, for the quarter ended the 31st March last, and it has been arranged that this maximum will be increased by 6d. per week for every 21 units by which the price index number exceeds 1053.

One noteworthy provision is the Government’s decision to liberalize conditions under which pensions are paid to blind persons, who at present may have an income of £3 7s. 6d. per week without affecting the pension rate. The amendment now proposed will raise the permissible income for a blind person to the level of the federal basic wage as adjusted from time to time, the amount at present being £4 10s. a week. Where a husband and wife are both blind they will be permitted to have a joint income equal to the federal basic wage, and each to receive ia maximum pension. No altera- ir-ion has been made to. the permissible income for pensioners other than blind persons. .Concerning pensioners who are inmates of benevolent .asylums the Government proposes to follow established custom and give them one-half of .the increase of ls. per week, which, as from the .2nd April last, will raise the amount of the institutional pension from 8s.. ,to fs. 6d. per week. The balance, being ;i maximum of 16s. 6d. a week, will l>e paid to the institutions towards the cost of maintaining the pensioners. An amendment to which I dr.aw the special Attention of honorable senators will eliminate what are commonly known as the ’ Hospital “ provisions of the act. At present, when a pensioner becomes an inmate of a hospital, ‘his pension is automatically suspended. If he is an inmate t’or less than four weeks he receives the whole of the suspended pension on his discharge, but if he remains for more than four weeks he receives on discharge au .amount equal to four weeks full pension. During the period in excess of four weeks in hospital he receives a “ Hospital “ pension, the present rate being ‘8s. per week. It is now proposed to amend section 45 of the act to provide that pensions -will not be reduced consequent upon admission to a hospital ; whatever rate the pensioner was receiving upon admission will be maintained throughout his stay in the institution unless his circumstances alter materially during this period. The Government considers that there will be general agreement with this course of action, because the position in respect of hospitals has altered considerably since the passing of the principal Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. Intermediate wards have been added to many hospitals, and because they form a part of an institution, the pension is now suspended when a pensioner enters such a ward, even though he or his relatives may be making a substantial contribution towards the cost of his treatment and maintenance. In addition, there has been a considerable growth of hospital contributory schemes by which persons are entitled to free treatment for a period of about twelve weeks in return for small weekly payments. In such cases it is unfair to pay a portion of -the pen sion money to the .hospital, -and, with the consent ,and co-operation of *the authorities ‘.controlling , these schemes, it has usually been possible to arrive ,at a fair adjustment. This, however, has really been .a circumvention of the provisions of the act, .and it is undesirable to continue such a procedure. It is estimated thoi about 70 per cen-t. of pensioners remain legs -than four weeks in hospital, and .consequently they receive payment of pension in full for the whole of thenstay, the hospital receiving no payment whatever from the ‘Commonwealth on their account. The repeal of the “ Hospital “ provision will eliminate a considerable amount of work in regard to admissions and discharges and in adjusting pension payments. It should ako result in a reduction of work in post offices and in hospitals. At a lime when the man-power problem is as acute as it is at present, this aspect is of considerable importance to the whole community. Many of the hospitals concerned, hundreds of individuals and some organizations representing pensioners have asked the Government to take the action that is now proposed. Some of the larger hospitals may fear that they will lose some of their regular revenue, but it is considered that eventually there will be m» material reduction because those controlling the institutions may negotiate direct with those pensioners whose circumstances permit of a reasonable payment for maintenance in respect of the whole period of their stay in hospital. Th” provisions of section 45 of the act regarding pensioners admitted to asylums for the insane will remain unchanged, but. the more appropriate term “ Hospital for the Insane “ has .been inserted, thus following legislation in other parts of the Commonwealth. In these particular cases, no pension is payable during the period in which a pensioner is an inmate of such an institution, but upon discharge he may receive not more than four week? full pension.

A feature of this bill, which will make a strong appeal to, and receive the warm support of, every honorable senator, and of social workers and humanitarians throughout the country, is the decision to extend benefits to aboriginal natives of

Australia who are living under .civilized conditions, and whose character and intelligence qualify them to receive pensions. For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, a pension is proposed for aborigines, and it is hoped this provision will bring some measure of happiness to the original owners of this country. The Government is well aware of the difficulties that will be imposed on the administration by the introduction of this new benefit, and it prefers to hasten slowly. All who have any knowledge of this problem realize the futility of paying money to aborigines in certain circumstances, but there will be general agreement with a plan which provides aid for those aborigines who prove that they can put the pension to good use. Where an aborigine, by reason of his intelligence and development, is exempt from the operation of the laws of the State relating to the control of aborigines, he will be eligible for pension, subject to the same means te3t as other persons. Such exemptions are at present provided for under the laws of South Australia and Western Australia. So far as aborigines from other States are concerned, it is intended that the Commissioner shall exercise his discretion as to the desirability of granting a pension, and in doing so he will have regard to the same standard of character, intelligence and development as is applied in those States where certificates of exemption are in force. It has been considered desirable to specially authorize the Commissioner to pay less i ban the maximum rate in those cases where it is appropriate to do so, and he will also be given power to direct that payment of a pension be made to a suitable authority or person for the benefit of pensioners. The Government is under no illusion about the difficulty of administering this clause in a manner calculated to confer benefits as and where the legislature intends, and for that reason it considers that only a fairly narrow provision is justified at present. During the debate on an earlier amending pensions bill, a strong plea was made by certain honorable senators on behalf of those Pacific Islanders known as “ kanakas “. After reviewing the special circumstances surrounding these cases, the Government has included them for benefits under this bill. There are not. very many of them. They are all of great age, and their numbers are rapidly diminishing, and it is hoped that the concession by the Government will bring them some comfort and happiness in the eventide of life. The only other amendment of note contained in the bill will repeal the provision in the act under which claimants for old-age pensions are disqualified if they are adequately maintained by their relatives. This restriction was introduced by the financial emergency legislation some time ago. It is really a dead letter and has not been acted upon.

A similar provision relating to the grant of invalid pensions is being liberalized and modified to the degree that the only relatives whose maintenance of the claimant for pension will be taken into account will be the parents. In future, therefore, contributions by children will not in any way affect the eligibility of claimants for either invalid or old-age pensions. The total cost of new benefits provided in this bill will be approximately £925,000 per annum. In February, 1940, Sir john Simon speaking on the Old-age and Widows’ Pensions Bill in the House of Commons, said : - “ It would be a wonderful thing in the records of thi? House that during our fight for freedom and liberty abroad we had not forgotten ibo needs of the old folk at home”. I. commend the bill to the earnest considerate n of honorable senators.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– In speaking on this measure I take the opportunity to repeat what I said to the Government when it introduced another bill for the purpose of increasing the invalid and old-age pension rate to 23a. 6d. a week. It is regrettable that such a matter as invalid and old-age pensions should be the plaything of party politics. We all know the sordid story of the increase in the pension rate to 25s. a week. During the last general elections campaign we had the unsavoury spectacle of the then Leader of the Opposition indulging in political bribery or political bidding to the electors in an endeavour to secure a majority of seats for the political party of which he ‘ is a member in the Parliament. When the matter was considered at a caucus meeting certain senior members of the party advocated pensions of 23s. 6d. a week, and as a compromise this bill has been brought down to raise the rate to 25s. a week, retrospectively to the 2nd April, of this year. It is quite easy to bribe people with other people’s money; it- is much easier, in fact, than bribing them with one’s own money. We should be able to discuss this problem of providing for people in their invalidity and old age without introducing party politics. The more we examine this problem the more * we must appreciate the tendency in this country, particularly by a certain element in the Labour party, to employ bribery and spoon-feeding in a way that tends to apply a check to industry and to impose a penalty on thrift and self-reliance. We know of the huge commitments ahead of this country, and all I would say to those responsible for the bill is that, if we continue to spend on present lines, the time is not far distant when the Labour party will bo compelled to do what the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) was forced to do in clays gone by. I wish to direct attention to flic financial position into which we are drifting in the matter of pensions. In 1916-17, the invalid and old-age pensioners in Australia numbered 120,453, the rate of pension was 12s. Gd. ;i week, and the annual amount expended on pensions was £3,500,000. Twenty-five years have elapsed since then. It was estimated, when we were discussing this matter previously that in the year ending June, 1942, the number of pensioners would increase to 340,000, which, at the weekly rate of 23s. 6d. per pension, would involve an annual commitment for the people of Australia of £20,000,000. If we look ahead a further 25 years, we can roughly estimate that the pensioners will number over 1,000,000 and that the annual commitment will be over £65,000,000.

I suggest to the Government that at the earliest possible opportunity it should muster sufficient courage to place all social services, including invalid and ok.age pensions, child endowment, widows’ pensions, health and unemployment benefits iu a comprehensive scheme on a contributory ‘basis. This Parliament passed, a National Health and Pensions Insur- ancc scheme. The principal objection raised to that scheme by members of the Labour party, which was. then in opposition, was that it was on a contributory basis. I warn the Government, its supporters, and the old-age pensioners too, that if these schemes are not placed on a contributory basis the time is not far distant when we shall not be able to maintain the pension rate of 25s. a week. Ministers must realize the financial state into which we are drifting. We are committed this year to a war expenditure of £300,000,000, and to a civil expenditure of £100,000,000. If we add to those items £20,000,000 for invalid and old-age pensions, £12,000,000 for child endowment, £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 for pensions for soldiers and their dependants, and other commitments that will arise when the soldiers come back from the war, it becomes obvious that we must tread warily, and that we should give consideration to a suggestion from this side of the chamber that all social services should be placed on a contributory basis.

It seems clear that in this crisis the Government is paying special attention to certain sections of the community. Wages and conditions of employment have never been better than they are today, and the rate of payment to old-age pensioners has never been higher than it is to-day. The number of old-age pensioners in the community - 340,000 - provides a striking comparison with another section of the community, the wheatfarmers. I select wheat-farming as an industry where there is serious trouble as a result of war conditions. There are 68,000 wheat-farmers, and they are engaged in an industry that is looked upon as the second in value and the first in importance in providing employment and other benefits. The 68,000 wheat-farmers will’ receive from the Australian Wheat Board for 140,000,000 bushels of wheat already delivered less than the old-age pensioners will receive as a free gift from the Commonwealth Government.

I have asked numerous questions from time to time as to what the Government proposes to do about the payment of the guaranteed price to the wheat-farmers, and as to when it is proposed to make the next payment in respect of wheat in the No. 5 pool. So far the farmers have not been paid the balance due to them for wheat in the No. 3 and No. 4 pools. In the conditions ruling to-day, they are faced with greatly increased costs, and when the request is made for payment the excuse is that the money is not available in the Treasury, although millions of pounds oan be doled out in other directions. I am trying to persuade the Minister assisting the Minister for Commerce to use his influence iri’ inducing the Government to pay the money promptly, because the conditions of the wheat-farmers are becoming intolerable as the result of war conditions.’

Senator Fraser:

– It is unusual for the honorable senator to sympathize with the wheat-farmers.

Senator McLEAY:

– I have .as much sympathy for the wheat-farmers as has the Minister. It is not a matter of personalities, but of principles. I repeat that in the doling out of huge slims it is evident that special attention is given to certain sections of the community. In addition to ordinary costs, the increases of the cost of superphosphate, corn-sacks and many other requisites of the wheatfarmer are considerable. The -report of the Joint Committee on Rural Industries showed clearly that many of those engaged in the wheat industry were in a serious financial position. Owing to war conditions, the supply of superphosphate will be reduced next year by 50 per cent., and the acreage to be sown with wheat will have to be reduced, .thus further increasing the farmers’ difficulties. Despite the fact that members of the present Government, when in Opposition, were hostile to the imposition of indirect taxes, the Government now proposes to increase indirect taxes by an amount of £6,500,000, in order, I presume, to hand over to the invalid and old-age pensioners the additional sum now proposed to be paid to them. That means merely that money will be taken out of one pocket and put into another. It was stated -in the debate on the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill that in 1938 every 100 wage-earners were supporting 26 pensioners, whilst in 197S every 100 wage- . earners would be supporting 54 pensioners. Although I shall support this bill, which provides for the increase of the pension to 25s. a week,, the responsibility for the increase rests on the Government. It is of the utmost importance that at the earliest opportunity the social services of this country should by ‘ provided on a contributory basis. Then, in years to come, the people will receive the assistance to which they are entitled by right, and will not get it by way of a dole.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– I was about to say that I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) could develop any enthusiasm in suggesting that this bill should not be passed at. the present time; but I know that those interests with which he has been associated right through the years expect him to adopt such an attitude. Although he talks sneeringly about party politics, no member of this chamber has played the game of party politics more consistently than he has. I am sure that in his heart he has no unfavorable criticism of the bill to offer, but, because he is the Leader of the Opposition, he regards it as his duty to find some fault with the measure because it has been brought down by a Labour administration. In years to come, when he has acquired more wisdom, I hope that he will remember what I said in 1942, and regret that he did not give ungrudging support to this measure. He had the temerity to draw, a comparison between the plight of the invalid and old-age pensioners and that of the wheat-growers. If the. time were opportune, it would be interesting to tell the people how much financial assistance the wheat-growers have had, as compared with the modest sum drawn by the pensioners.

Senator McBride:

– There is no comparison.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Of course not. On the front bench of the Opposition are two distinguished South Australians, and there are other anti-Labour representatives of that State in the House of Representatives. They always howl against any proposal that savours of modern humanitarian legislation. Those honorable senators are not unacquainted with the wheat industry, and they should concentrate upon inducing their friends, the interest-mongers and the wheat and woolbrokers, to cease battening on the primary producers. Instead of doing that, they shed crocodile tears over the unfortunate wheat-growers, although no section of the community is more ably represented in both branches of the Parliament than are those primary producers. The Leader of the Opposition also used the term “special attention to certain sections of the community “. Then he looked around in the vain hope that every senator on the Government side would be horrified at the suggestion that any Government, particularly a Labour Government, should pay any attention to particular sections of the community. What was the innuendo behind the statement of the Leader of the Opposition? It was that the Government should not have brought down this bill because it provided for sectional interests only. In his opening remarks, he said that the Ministry was playing the game of party politics, and he meant that this bill had been introduced because the Government was prepared to offer nearly £1,000,000 as a bribe to the invalid and old-age pensioners in return for their votes. It has not been possible to hold a referendum among invalid and old-age pensioners in order to ascertain their political views, but I think that I am safe in saying that whether this Government increased the rate of pension or not, the pensioners of this country who are in the sear and yellow of their lives, and have ample time for reflection, have sufficient intelligence to vote for Australian Labour party candidates as I believe they always have done. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that before approval was given to the series of social measures, of. which this bill is one, consideration was given for one second in the Cabinet room or in the party room to the political affiliations of the. invalid and old-age pensioners, he does not know the facts. I ask the honorable senator to visualize for a moment the position of our fighting men abroad and at home. I believe that I have ample grounds for stating that amongst the members of our fighting forces, especially those stationed outside Australia, the arrival of mails from home is a redletter event, and I can conceive of no better news being conveyed to our fighting men than the tidings that while they are offering their lives for their country, those who are charged with its administration are busily engaged in making sure that Australia will be a land to which heroes will be glad to return, and are looking after the aged, the invalids, and other sections of the community which are utterly incapable of looking after themselves. I venture to suggest that there is not one of our fighting men abroad, no matter what his political allegiance may be, who will not be overjoyed when he reads, either in letters, or in the educational journals which are now being circulated amongst our troops, that the Government is looking after Dad and Mum at home.

Senator McBride:

– That is only an expression of opinion, and I suggest that the Leader of the Senate has no grounds to support it.

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the honorable senator means by that interjection that he does not believe that our fighting men will be overjoyed to hear such news, he is making a slanderous statement against the men who are fighting for our country’s cause. However, this is a matter for the honorable senator to consider. Every honorable senator is responsible to himself, and to his conscience for the vote which he casts upon measures such as this. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he would support this bill, but 1 regret that in the course of his speech he said certain things which were unworthy of him, unworthy of the Opposition, unworthy of an Australian, and unworthy of this great Australian Parliament. I appreciate the fact that this measure will have a speedy passage, and I am quite sure that a great majority of the people of Australia will pay a tribute to the Labour Government for introducing it.

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.-I support the bill. Those who will benefit by the proposed increase are, in the main, the pioneers of the industrial development of this country. Owing to misfortune, ill health., loss of employment, and other factors over which they have no control, many of them find themselves in necessitous circumstances, and I am sure that no person with a spark of humanity desires to see another man or woman in his or her declining years, in want. I.f does not matter which government first introduced the system of old-age pensions. The first hill providing for invalid and old-age pensions was passed in 1912, without opposition, and since then the pension has risen from 10s. to £1 5s. a week. In view of the purchasing power of the pension paid 30 years ago, the proposed new rate is not excessive. What concerns thinking people is not so much the increased rate, as the alarming increases of the number of pensioners. During the past twenty years the number has been doubled. At present 26 persons out of every 100 are of pensionable age, but only half of that number qualify for a pension. If the birth and death rates are unchanged 40 years hence, 54 out of every 100 persons will be eligible to receive a pension. That is a staggering prospect. Neither this nor any other country could meet such an overburdening social commitment and yet remain solvent. A non-contributory old-age pension system like that operating in Australia depends for effective functioning on the recipients constituting a decided minority of the population, and drawing an. amount that will not make the scheme a financial incubus. If this country is to keep solvent, the only fair way, so far as the old-age pension is concerned, is to make it contributory on the lines proposed in the national insurance scheme which, I. suggest, might even now be reintroduced since unemployment is negligible. The old-age pension schemes, in Britain and New Zealand are on a contributory basis.

It is time that those spendthrift people in the community realized that the nation cannot go on indefinitely increasing the old-age pension, whilst they spend their earnings on beer, betting, and on extravagant non-essentials. Thousands of young and middle-aged people have forgotten, if they ever knew, the saying, “ Put a little bit away for a rainy day “. Their motto is: “Make merry now; the nation will keep us when we are too old to work “.

With regard to the invalid pension I make no comment except to say the temporarily abandoned national insurance scheme, when in full operation, would ensure better health all round.

I take this opportunity to place before the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, a plea on behalf of the widows and widowed mothers of deceased service men who gave their all in the last war, and in the present conflict, to safeguard our freedom and liberty. I claim that these people who might be in necessitous circumstances are entitled to an increase of their pensions just a3 much as are invalid and old-age pensioners. Many of them have remarried and so are no longer in need of assistance, but, hundreds are still battling along, rearing and educating their children and denying themselves little extras which they need for their health and comfort. They have not a strong association to plead for them or to threaten the Government with action at the polling booths if their representations be ignored. The cost of living has increased, but the pensions of these splendid women have remained static for some years. I hope that Senator Cameron will bring this plea to the notice of the. Minister for Repatriation.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I had not intended to speak on this measure had it not been for certain words uttered by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and by Senator Brand. The Leader of the Opposition stated that it would be a good day when, by making contributions throughout his life, a person would be able to obtain an old-age pension as a right, and- not as a dole. T-he Labour movement says definitely that the pension is just as much a right as the pension paid to a member of the judiciary on his retirement. The man who works for his living, year in and year out, and is prepared at all times to do his duty to the country, has the same right to a pension as the man who sits on the High Court bench, or any one else who draws a pension in any shape or form from the community. A judge upon his retirement draws a pension of £1,500 a year. He is not criticized for doing so. His pension is not described as a dole; and he is not abused. As a judge, he does work for the community. Because of his mental capacity he is able to do work which is beyond the capacity of the great majority of people. But the worker, after he has performed his ordinary tasks for the community, after he has gone down the mines, or risked his life on the sea or driving a locomotive, is criticized by honorable senators opposite for drawing a pension. Honorable senators opposite are the representatives of monopolies and the privileged class. They say that the pension paid to the worker is a dole, and contend that he must contribute towards his pension in order that the stigma of a dole might be removed from it. However, many people in the community - the higher-ups one may call them - draw their pensions, and no stigma whatever is attached to them. Many aged people have felt that their pension is a dole simply because they have been taught that it is a dole. If we altered our attitude towards this subject, and the pension were generally regarded as a right and not as a dole, the psychological effect would be that our old people would accept it in the same way as a judge of the High Court accepts his pension, towards which, incidentally, the judge makes no contribution. It is a matter of psychology. If we drill into a man throughout his life that at 65, if he be down and out that he will receive a dole, he will naturally think that his pension is a dole. But if we give the pension as a right, he will accept it as such, and will not feel a blush of shame when he draws it.

Senator Cameron:

– Indirectly, the pensioner pays for his pension.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes; and he pays for it directly also. Actually, he pays for his pension by the exercise of his capacity to work until he reaches the age of 65. Many people to-day are receiving from the community money which they do not call a pension or a dole; they call it interest. They may have been born of wealthy parents, and may never have done a stroke of work in their lives; but they take payment from the community in the form of interest. However, honorable senators opposite look up to that class of people, many of whom are made lords, dukes and knights, simply because they come of certain parents, or enjoy unusually high incomes, I prophesy that for many who draw money from the community without earning it, their days of pleasure will soon be ended, because the community will soon say that before any one draws payment from the community, he or she must do some work in return. That will be the case, not only in this country, but also in other countries. It is part of the new order, of which many who now draw payment from the community without doing a day’s work, are very fearful. Senator Brand mentioned drinking by pensioners. Such remarks make my blood boil. How many workers in this country are really drunkards? They might have a pint of beer, or a tot of rum. Because some of our old men have a tot or two of rum their pension may be taken from them. At the same time, rich people swill champagne, because they can afford to do so and are not penalized. Some people can afford to spend more money on champagne and suppers than a pensioner draws in twelve months. T know that the number of such people is not very great, and that that tendency is not so pronounced in this country as it is in older countries, where many people live riotously and luxuriously, and drink more than they need. But when an old-age pensioner has a tot of rum, and some one smells it on his breath, there is a cry to deprive him of the pension. It would not matter to me if all the rum and beer in this country were poured into the sea. I mention these matters merely in respect of the arguments which many people advance concerning the payment of pensions.

Honorable senators opposite declare that all pensions should be on a contributory basis. Let us look at this matter from the economic view. What does saving really mean? You do not save a lot of goods, and pile them up in a huge warehouse. Saving means that you stop people from exercising their power to buy certain goods from the community. You tell them not to buy, but. to save ; and urge them to decline to buy new suits or beer. At the same time, manufacturers and business people expend thousands of pounds annually in order to persuade people to buy new suits, beer and rum. We hear requests over commercial broadcasting stations day in and day out, urging us to spend our money to the utmost of our capacity. “We know that, due to the huge expenditure, on advertising campaigns, some goods cost far more to sell than to produce. On previous occasions in this chamber I cited the instance of a sewing machine which some years ago was selling in this country for about £14, although its landed cost was only 50s. Before the war that machine was being sold for about £35. I suppose that its cost would not exceed £5. We have developed a system of society in which the power to produce is far greater than the capacity of the people, under the present financial system, to purchase. We give to the masses of the people an amount in wages which will enable them to buy only a small proportion of the goods produced. This state of affairs led to the development of the time-payment purchase system. At the same time, all kinds of systems of advertising to persuade people to buy these goods were’ carried on. The result is the topsy-turvy economic system which, if we get to the bottom of the matter, will be 3een to be one of the causes of the present war. Some honorable senators opposite are inclined to smile when I speak in this strain ; but I know that I speak the truth. When the war is over we shall have a better financial system, which will enable the community to take off the market all of the goods that are produced. We shall have a new order. It may not be communism or fascism, but I point out that communism and fascism are the results of attempts by certain people to overcome the disabilities of capitalism, which prevents the people from consuming the goods that they produce. Senator MoBride very often laughs at my statements. Personally, the honorable gentleman is all right, but as an economic theorist he is all wrong, and I remind him that loud laughter often bespeaks the vacant mind. I say to the honorable senator, that when the war is over, the productive power of the community will be 30 great that the chief problem of government will not be to persuade the people to save - or, in other words, not to consume goods - but the disposal of the goods that are produced. At present, honorable senators opposite are obsessed with false conceptions of finance that they should have swept aside years ago. They tell the young man in times of peace that he should save as much as he can, that he should not buy clothes or travel. That is bad advice. It reminds me of an incident which occurred many years ago and which made a lasting impression on my mind. A man whom I knew in Victoria, British Columbia, told me that he intended to save money until he reached the age of 65 years, when he would stop working and have a good time. He invited many of his friends to his 65th birthday party in 1911. He had saved money and had a. large sum to his credit in his bank account. He hired a small hall for the party and provided the choicest of viands and plenty to drink. Just after the party had assembled, he was .called away to receive a telephone message and left, saying that he would return in a few minutes. He did not return. On his way back to the hall, he was knocked down by a bus and killed. That unfortunate incident made me decide that in future I should advise my friends to take the best that the world could give them right through life instead of waiting until they became old and senile and close to death. There is a moral in that anecdote which honorable senators opposite should take to heart. We, on this side of the Senate, say that the community should be so organized as to provide the best of consumption goods to the people and enable them to enjoy life to the full. I am not going to say to the man who works in the cane-fields and whose health is impaired by the heat of the sun, to the man who goes down into the bowels of the earth to hew coal, as I have done, and to the man who works on the railroad as a navvy: “Look, old man, you are only earning a lousy £5 a week. It is your duty to save; do not have a good time, do not drink beer, buy good food, or new clothes, but save as much money as possible, so that when you reach the age of 65 years you can have a little fun”. Honorable senators opposite, many of whom are men of means, cannot bluff me with their false economic theories in this day and hour of economic development, when the power of the community to produce goods is higher than it has ever been. They cannot persuade me in peacetime io go abou t, the country asking people not to buy this, that, or the other thing. I admit that the war imposes a special set of conditions on the community. Every thoughtful person realizes that in wartime we must conserve labour as much as possible in order that we shall have adequate resources to produce bombs, bayonets, gun3 and. foods that are needed by our soldiers in1 order to defeat the enemy. In these circumstances we arecompelled to ask the community to refrain from buying certain goods so that fewer people will be employed in the production of those commodities and more people will be diverted to work that is essential to the successful prosecution of the war. I admit further that, on the grounds of war-time needs, honorable senators opposite could bring forward certain arguments against increasing pension rates. But they have not done so. Even if they did, 1 should not agree with them unless they could prove that, by keeping pensions at a low level, we should contribute materially to the successful prosecution of the war. Oan Senator McBride, Senator MeLeay, Senator Spicer, or anybody else, produce evidence to show that, as a result of this act of justice to the aged, the invalid, and the blind, our war effort will be retarded ? In passing, I take the opportunity to say that I am delighted that the Government has decided to give a greater measure of justice to the blind. If honorable senators could produce any such evidence, we should be prepared to listen to them. However, they, have not done so, and I whole-heartedly commend the action of the Government in introducing this bill, which will extend a greater measure of justice to the needy members of the community than has hitherto been granted to them. I am sure that such good work will be continued as long as the Labour movement holds the reins of government in this country. I have endeavoured to give honorable senators food for thought about our social problems.. In these times, when social developments are occurring with great rapidity, members of this Parliament should endeavour to the best of their ability to keep’ abreast of them. They fail to realize that they live in a time when changes are taking place fundamentally in every country in the world. I ask them to- throw aside those ideas, which are based on a false financial system.. It is a system that frightens people with figures and “ cows “ them with cyphers. The honorable senator who leads the Opposition, and who looks like Mr. Pickwick, has read to us figures that astound him. He said that, on the present basis, in 197S there will be 50 pensioners to every 100 workers. Prior to the war there were some persons who said that it would be a good thing for the country, and would help to provide work for young people, if we pensioned off every person at the age of. 55 years. That was advocated as a remedy for the failure to provide work for young people. Those who advocated that policy did not understand that the financial system they were living under did not fit in with the economic system. We have an archaic -financial system, and the trouble is that its supporters do not realize that the world has moved while they have stood still. They play with figures but forget economic facts.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– ‘Will the honorable senator explain, his system?

Senator BROWN:

– I am trying to show-

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator is trying, but he has not succeeded.

Senator BROWN:

– Some minds are composed of concrete, which I cannot penetrate, no matter how powerful my arguments may be. I know that if all the forces of intelligence in the world were concentrated on the brains of some people, no good could be achieved, because their brains are impervious to new ideas. Tha t is the penalty of senility - a stage which some people reach sooner than others, when their brains will not absorb new ideas. That is why reformers have so much difficulty in trying to convince the world of the need for reform. It is really the logic and power of events thai produce reforms, rather than the talk of speakers like myself, Senator Darcey anc! other members of the Labour party.

Before I conclude I wish to say as clearly and emphatically as I can that the march of progress is so rapid that the financial system under which we live has not been able to step in unison with economic development, and the result has been a clash. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition is a man of goodwill - I give him credit for that - but he has ideas that lead him to frighten people with figures. He does’ that because he does not really understand that he is playing the game of the financier, who is seeking to maintain his financial control in a world where he is outdated and outmoded. The time has arrived when we should look at the matter not from the standpoint of figures or bank balances, but from the standpoint of whether, as an organized economic unit, this country can provide for the essential needs of invalid and old-age persons. I put this to Senator Herbert Hays : Can Australia give to the old-age and invalid pensioners, and the blind people of this community, those commodities that we produce in abundance; and, further, can we do that without suffering as a community in the prosecution of the war? If we can do that, and thus keep them in the eventide of life in moderate comfort, it should be done. We say that if it can be done economically, it can be done financially.

  1. ask those honorable senators who have laughed at us on the Government side of the chamber, what would they have said before the war if they had been told that Australia’s annual expenditure would increase to £530,000,000? Those honorable senators would have laughed us to scorn. They would have said that the country would be bankrupt. They have f or a long time been saying the same shout Germany; but is Germany bankrupt? They said the same about Japan; but Japan, as we too well know, is one of the most powerful nations in the world. We are in a spot of bother with Japan, and we have a powerful foe to fight. We cannot go bankrupt so long as we have men and the necessary materials available in this country. So long as Germany has the men and materials, she will not go bankrupt. The United States of America will not go bankrupt. There may be trouble between the banking institutions, but those countries will not become bankrupt. So long as we can provide blankets, clothes, and food for the invalid, aged, and blind pensioners, regardless of the financial cost, they will receive justice from the Labour party.
Senator McBRIDE:
South Australia

– I regret that I cannot discuss the bill with the complete confidence displayed by Senator Brown. I have not such a happy solution of the problem to offer as he has enunciated. I cannot forget some of the things that have happened in the past, and I am quite happy to be designated a conservative for still believing that some of the principles that have operated economically, financially, and socially in the past will continue to operate in the future. Consequently, I cannot give to the Senate such a happy and easy solution of the problems now confronting us - problems that will, unfortunately, confront us when we have won the war.

Senator Brown:

– I did not say that the solution was easy.

Senator McBride:

– The honorable senator talked in such a flippant, joyous manner that it appeared to me that he regarded the solution as easy and that he regarded himself as the greatest optimist Australia could produce. I suggest to him that he rendered a disservice to this country when he put forward the most extraordinary theory that it was wrong for people to save. That false doctrine has been preached not only in war-time, but also in peacetime. If the people of this country were to follow the advice given by Senator Brown, we should have many more per- sons on the pensions list than I hope we shall have in 1978, or any other year in the future. I hold strongly to the belief that thrift should be encouraged in the community. It is the sheet-anchor of our social, economic and financial stability; but I believe that there are, unfortunately, too many honorable senators opposite who travel throughout the length and breadth of the country advocating the theory that has been enunciated by Senator Brown this afternoon. It is impossible to alter the opinions of the people with a few words, and we are now faced with the results of the advocacy in the past of Senator Brown and those who think with him. We had a most distressing instance of this only last week. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has appealed to the people to save in order to save themselves. They were asked to refrain from buying articles that they could possibly do without; but as soon as an announcement was made that goods were to be rationed, in order to distribute the available supply as equitably as possible among the people, panic buying occurred throughout the country. It is disturbing to find that the people do not yet realize that they must deny themselves, if we are to win the war.

I support this bill, but I do it with a good deal of uneasiness. I am uneasy about it for several reasons. I ask honorable senators whether we are justified at this period in extending increased benefits to invalid and old-age pensioners. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, announced, in support of the Government’s action in this matter, that increased benefits had been given to the invalid and aged people of Great Britain and New Zealand ; but he omitted to state some relevant facts in connexion with the pension schemes in those countries. He did not say that they were contributory schemes, and that the scale of benefits were much lower than that operating in Australia. Before we increase the scale of benefits in this country we must decide, as the Prime Minister and many others have said, whether this is an all-in war, or whether Australia is to make only a partial war effort. We should ask ourselves whether we are entitled to give to this section of the community a greater advantage than is enjoyed by similar classes in Great Britain or New Zealand, or whether we are entitled to say to them, “We should like to extend these increased benefits to you, but we think that in doing so we should be out of step with our allies “. We might well consider the matter from that point of view.

When we are dealing in hundreds of millions of pounds it is easy for the Government to say blithely that, because child endowment did not cost so much as was expected, it might well hand out portion of the sum allocated for that purpose in order to increase the payment to the invalid and old-age pensioners. We are told that the cost of the war will be tens of millions of pounds more this year than was estimated, and for all we know next year’s Estimates may also be greatly exceeded. I hope that the suggestions put forward by the Opposition will have the full consideration of the Government. If increased benefits are to be given to the aged and infirm, we should introduce immediately a contributory scheme of pensions and other social services. Modern civilization demands such services, and the people would then be compelled to make savings for their own future benefit. I have no doubt as to the Government’s sincerity of purpose in introducing the bill, nor did I doubt the sincerity of the Scullin Government. Surely the present Ministry can learn something from the sad experience of a previous Labour government, which was compelled by circumstances to be the first Commonwealth Government to reduce pensions.

Senator Cameron:

– It was forced to do so by a hostile Senate.

Senator Keane:

– With the support of the Opposition.

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I have already said that it did not desire to reduce pensions. One of the safeguards against a repetition of such an experience would be a contributory scheme for the provision of social services. If finanical reserves were built up for the post-war period, the government of the day would be in a much better position to continue the present scale of pensions than itwould if those reserves did not exist. I believe that many of the old people themselves have ideas on this matter consistent with my own. They are not all eager for the increased pension. I am fortified in that belief by a letter from a pensioner, 87 years of age, who has been a resident of Australia for many years. Portion of the letter reads :<s follows : - 1 think that the proposed increase of pensions is a bid for votes only and absolutely unwarranted under present conditions.

These are not my words; they are the words of an old-age pensioner who obviously has concern, not only for himself, but also for the future of the aged and invalid people of this country. I believe that a great many of our old people would be quite prepared to forgo this increase, if necessary. I emphasize again the need for caution in continually expanding our commitments without making provision for the future of social security in this country. I believe that this Government would be doing one of the best acts in the history of federation, if it were to introduce a comprehensive social security scheme, on a contributory basis, in order to build up reserve funds to meet future expenditure. I am conservative enough to think that rainy days will come again, and I believe that the best way to provide for them is to build up reserve funds for the payment of those benefits which we believe are necessary in a civilization such as ours.

Senator LAMP:
Tasmania

.- The arguments- advanced by the Opposition against the proposed increase of the invalid and old-age pension are not supported by facts, for the simple reason that since the war began the cost of living has increased by more than , t lie increase of pension provided for in this measure. That statement is amply supported by figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) claimed that the increase was unjustified because it would cost approximately £1,000,000 a year. But what is the position in regard lo our war expenditure? That expenditure has reached the colossal rate of £1,000,000 a day, therefore this increase represents only one-three hundred and sixty-fifth part of our war expenditure for this year, and is hardly worth considering. I do not desire to advance arguments in support of the increase, because ‘ every one knows thai there is ample justification for it. I had hoped, however, that the Government would go a little further by amending the section of the principal act relating to life assurance policies. In that regard I am interested especially in the service pension, which is payable at the same rate as the invalid and old-age pension. At present the surrender value of a life assurance policy is taken into consideration when a pension is being granted. I know of one pensioner who was compelled to take out a life assuranee policy when he was an employee of the Bailways Department in Tasmania. The surrender value of that policy is calculated to be £200, and for that reason, the unfortunate man receives only half of his pension. He knows very well that he. has only a few years to live, and he does not wish to surrender the policy because it will be very useful to his wife when he passes away, lt is a shame that life assurance policies should be taken into consideration in that way, especially in the case of individuals who have been compelled to take out such policies. I urge- the Government to give consideration to the elimination of this anomaly.

There is another small matter relating to invalid and old-age pensions which I should like to discuss. Should a pensioner incur medical expenses, they are taken into consideration for the purposes of his pension. However, many old-age pensioners are cared for by their daughters. In a case which came to my notice recently, the father was working and was receiving a little more than the basic wage. The daughter was compelled to stay at home to nurse her mother. The consequence was that as the father was earning more than the statutory amount provided in the act, his wife could not receive an invalid pension. Had the daughter been able to go to work, she could have been bringing £3 or £4 a week into the household. I suggest that in such cases a sum representing the earnings of the daughter should be deductible from the income of the bread-winner.

I am pleased that the Government has decided to increase the service pension as well as the invalid and old-age pension. Like Senator Brand, I am one of those who believe that the time has arrived when more consideration should be given to the widows of soldiers. As I pointed out earlier in my speech, although the pension is to be increased by this legislation, the purchasing power will be no greater than it was prior to the war, owing to the increased cost of living. In view of that fact, I appeal to the Government to see whether something can be done to increase the widows’ pension also.

Senator DARCEY (Tasmania) [4.57 J. - It has been said truthfully that nothing hurts a conservative mind so much as a new idea. My experience in this chamber has convinced me that conservatism is very strongly represented among honorable members opposite. I listened with interest to the figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) and I wondered- why he did not realize that the present monetary system is pauperizing the nation at an alarming rate. I remember well when invalid and old-age pensions were first introduced, the conservative newspapers claimed that the innovation would result in the loss to. the community of that valuable quality of thrift, and that in the long run a pensions system would be to the detriment of the people. Senator McBride’s speech this afternoon was along those lines. I contend that if we gave the people economic security under the system which I have put before this chamber on many occasions, there would be no need for pensions. It has ‘been said in the course of this debate that it was a Labour Government that first reduced invalid and old-age pensions. That is quite true ; but it must be remembered that before that Labour Government came into power, the administration of the country had been in the hands of the conservative-minded Bruce-Page Government for ten years, and when the Labour Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) returned from England, he was faced with an immense problem. He found that Australia had an adverse trade balance of £30,000,000, an empty Treasury, and the London market closed for further loans, merely because a Labour administration was in power. The conservative mind is static, even in the most dynamic situation, such, as exists nl present. It takes no cognizance of the flight of time and the great changes that time brings. That kind of mind never seems to learn anything new. Senator Lump has pointed out that this increase of the rates of the old-age pension will not bo of very great benefit to the recipients. Indeed, the pensioners will be no better off so far as purchasing power is concerned than was the case when the rate of pension was l2.s. 6d. a week, because the cost of living iia* risen so steeply . that 25s. :i week will not purchase more than the original 12s. 6d. a week. Who were the people who lost their money when the banks and insurance offices closed down in 1892? They were the thrifty people who had saved by denying themselves. They were the people who suffered in the depression caused by the banking interests whom Senator McBride represents in this chamber. I have said previously that depressions are caused only in one way, namely, by the calling up of overdrafts, and the refusal of further credits, by the private banks. Under the present system those institutions have that power, and they exercise it whenever it suits them to do so. Before an old person can draw a pension he, or she, must be proved to be of good character, and in every respect a worthy citizen. Senator McBride contends that pensions should be made contributory. That may be the only way of providing pensions under the present system; but it is quite possible under the system I have advocated in this chamber for so many years to do without old-age pensions altogether by giving to all people economic security and the means to enable them to buy all the necessaries of life, (“he purchasing power of the people i* never sufficient at any time to enable the goods produced to be consumed. I remind honorable senators of the old axiom that the only thing that justifies production is consumption. Yet, because of our present rotten monetary system all of the goods produced cannot be purchased. Lj it not time that this fact was recognized by the. Government? The enormous cost of this war is spoken of in terms of money. I repeat that wars are not fought with money, but with credit. Past wars have never been paid for, and neither will this war bo fully paid for. Many people have said to me that it does not matter how much we borrow because we shall never be able to pay back all we borrow. It will be physically impossible to pay back the enormous expenditure which will be incurred in this war. However, if we use the national credit as I have so often advocated, we shall be able to finance the war fully. The Government has recently prevented private banks from buying war bonds or advancing money to any person for that purpose. Therefore, it would appear that only two sources remain from which it will be possible to raise the money required for war expenditure, namely, taxation and the use of the national credit. The Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems stated that it is possible to utilize the national credit in this way. The following statement appeared in a Sydney newspaper last Monday week: -

Since the introduction of the new financial pol icy, requiring the private trading banks to pay surplus earnings into a special deposit account with the Commonwealth Bank,, about £37,000,000 has been so accumulated, and is in thin account, carrying interest at the rate of 15s. per cent.

A Government spokesman claimed to-day that, had this money not compulsorily been deposited with the Commonwealth Bank, it would have been used in two ways -

In advances to the public by overdrafts carrying a maximum interest of 5 per cent.; or

Investment in war loans at3¼ per cent.

By advancing this money to the public, the banks would have created a tendency towards secondary inflation-

That is a new term to me. All along we have been told that if the Commonwealth Bank put money into circulation it would cause inflation. The old bogy of inflation is always raised. The statement continues - and would have been able to make large profits as the result of Commonwealth war expenditure.

Use of £40,000,000 by the banks for their own private enrichment could have resulted in a secondary inflation of about £100,000,000.

T he spokesman added that the private banks were co-operating fully with the Commonwealth Government in its war-time policy.

I think that that passage is a piece of clever bank propaganda; and I am surprised that the Government sponsored it in any way whatever.

This increase of the rate of old-age pension is long overdue. It should have been provided years ago. Only the conservative mind accepts the view that we cannot afford this expenditure in view of our enormous war expenditure. The conservative mind is incapable of realizing that wars are not fought with money but with credit. The last war is not paid for. Australia borrowed £385,000,000 on that occasion, and we have already paid back over £400,000,000 in interest, yet the greater part of the original sum borrowed remains unpaid. I am very glad to think that even in a crisis like t he present, this Government has had the necessary strength of mind to do justice to the invalid and old-age pensioners by increasing the rates. I, personally, have had considerable experience in social service work. For many years I have been a member of a social service committee in Hobart. Perhaps’, I am more familiar than any . other honorable senator with present social conditions in this country. I have studied social dynamics. I have had experiences among the poor, the recital of which would make honorable senators weep. It is incorrect to say that our old people generally are in necessitous circumstances, because they failed to exercise thrift, or because they spent their money on drink, and failed to make any provision whatever for their old age. I have just pointed out that the thrifty people suffered most in the bank smash of 1892. Those people saved as much as they could, but they were caught in the crash, which was due to the present faulty financial system, under which there is no inducement for any one to save. At the last minute it is possible that all the people’s savings will vanish in a bank-created depression. That has happened over and over again. Senator McBride cannot see how we can afford to pay this increase of the rate of pension. He made a pathetic appeal to the Government to tell the old people to exercise more thrift. To what degree can any person exercise thrift on an income of 25s. a week? Many old-age pensioners have told me that they cannot secure a room fit to live in at a rental under 10s. a week. That means that they have been obliged to subsist on the other half of their pension. The honorable senator also expressed the hope that the Government would, in the near future, consolidate the whole of our social services, and deal effectively with the causes of malnutrition. It is impossible to improve social conditions under the present monetary system which, itself, is the cause of such conditions. There is no effect without a cause. We must get down to fundamentals, and deal with the real causes of malnutrition and slums. Whenever one advocates social reforms the cry is raised as to where the money is to be obtained. I again emphasize that people do not realize that money does not count, either in the provision of improved social services, or in fighting wars. We can effect such improvements as are necessary by using the credit of the nation. However, under the present system we are obliged to obtain such finance by taxing people on the better homes provided for them. In England, when model villages were built to take the place of slums, it was found that the death rate among the occupants of the new houses greatly exceeded that when the same people lived in slum areas. An investigation showed that the reason for this was that, in order to pay the extra rentals and hank interest, the people were obliged to deny themselves many necessaries which hitherto they had not been deprived of. In spite of all that I have said on the use of national credit I am afraid that honorable senators do not understand the subject. National credit is based on the productive capacity of the nation. Statisticians have told us that the national production of Australia this year will be worth about £1,000,000,000. We must keep that fact in mind. I have been trying to prove to the conservative minds of honorable senators opposite how national credit can bc used, but it is hard to penetrate the barrier of their outmoded ideas. I have been trying to do so now for nearly four years. If the Government took action under its national security powers to use the national credit, the Opposition would not dare to raise any objections. There is a nation-wide demand for monetary reform. The schoolmasters have been at work, and I am one of them. I have travelled all over Australia preaching monetary reform. Every State has demanded that The Government should make use of the Commonwealth Bank in order to finance the war effort with interest-free money. Why has not that been done? It can be done, and the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems has said so. It is a fact that, when war loans are raised through the private banks, no money roaches the Treasury. The Government only obtains the right to draw cheques against the private banks for the amounts which they have contributed. The banks charge interest at the rate of ‘Si per cent. If the Commonwealth Bank issued credit, it could charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent. The interest rate would not matter because the nation owns the Commonwealth Bank, and all of its profits must come back to the nation.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Cunningham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! I ask the honorable senator to connect his remarks with the provisions of thi3 bill.

Senator DARCEY:
TASMANIA

– As the bill is based on the capacity of the people to provide pensions at the rate of 25s. a week, and as the Leader of the Opposition has denied the ability of the people to do so, I consider that I am justified in pointing out how our pensions system can be financed. We cannot continue taxing the people in order to pay for social improvements, including the provision of larger pensions. It is impossible to improve social conditions effectively so long as we have to borrow the money that we need from the private banks.

Senator ARNOLD (New South Wales) 1 5.12]. - I am pleased to be associated with the Government which has introduced this measure. The bill will cause a slight alleviation of the poverty which is suffered by a section of our people, and it will not detract in any way from our war effort.. It is a measure that indicates what social improvements the Government has in mind. Ear too many of our people are still ill-clad, undernourished, living under slum conditions, and unemployed. I admit that, for the moment, war-time conditions have practically eliminated unemployment, but these evils are natural to the social order in which we live. I am glad to know that the Government contemplates the building up of a new social order. In this war, we are pledged to destroy the totalitarian systems of our Axis enemies. But in addition to making that pledge, our leaders have promised that we shall go on to a better social order. There has been considerable talk by the leaders of the British and American nations about a new order that is to emerge at the end of the war, and there is a general determination amongst the Australian- people that we shall not return to those unsatisfactory conditions which existed in this country from 1930 until the outbreak of war. Anybody who has witnessed mass unemployment, such as we had on the coal-fields of New South

Wales, knows that the disturbances that are continually occurring in the coalmining industry are the fruits of those conditions. When we ask that something be done to keep our coal-mines in full production, we must remember that the attitude of the miners is a legacy of the order which compelled them to remain idle for ten years, to live on a dole, and to exist under conditions of which Australians should be ashamed. The knowledge that the pledges have been made by out leaders is not sufficient. Concurrently with our war effort, we should build up a scheme- of social services. The nucleus of such a system should be put into operation and the general structure of the new order should be shown to the people so that they will know that it is not a specious plea that this war is being fought in order that there shall be a better world in which to live. That Great Britain has done something towards building the new order is evident from some of the legislation that has been passed in that country in recent years. In September, 1941, Mr. Ernest Bevin made this statement -

During this war, we accept social security as the main motive of our national life. In a bill to improve widows’ pensions, unemployment insurance and social welfare generally, in July, 1941, it was reported that the promising of things after the war was rousing cynical comment. The colossal problem of changing from a war footing and war economy to a peace footing and peace economy would present numerous problems of great difficulty. In the transition period a prescribed system of social security would be absolutely necessary. We ought to have this system of social security and social measures completed before the end of the war.

It is disturbing to hear ominous rumblings from the Opposition in this chamber to the effect that such a small measure as the provision of an additional ls. 6d. a week for pensioners may overload our economic system and make it unworkable. If those thoughts are in r.lie minds of honorable senators opposite, how can the people of this country look forward to the introduction of a new social order? If we are earnest in our talk of making this country a better place to live in after the war, and in asking our boys to lay down their lives to protect their country so that those who return afterwards shall be able to live under happier conditions, we must change the minds of many of those people who are represented by honorable senators opposite. It is not too much to ask when such a small measure of relief as this is before us, what they intend to do in the coming years. They should support this measure with a willingness that will show that they realize that the old order that has existed for many years - an order that has not provided the people with security in their social life - will disappear at the end of the war. But I am disturbed because it appears that some members of the Senate are not yet ready for the new order to emerge when the war is concluded. I wonder what is in their minds. What do they contemplate in this new social order? Are they prepared to see slum3 remain? Are they willing to see people still under-nourished? Do they wish unemployment to be rife once more? Do they think that the people should be under-educated and ill-clad? If we are determined that all those things shall vanish there must be a change of mind, and we must be determined that this country is going into a social security era of which we can be proud. It is to the degree to which we can remove those blots from our national life that the success of any new contemplated order will make itself evident.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– This bill is not a portion of any new social order ; it is one of a series of bills to increase invalid and old-age pensions. I cannot see in it any signs of the new order we hear so much about, but the details of which are difficult to discover. We debated a pensions bill in this chamber not long ago, and the Government then gave an undertaking to the people that at a future date it would propose an increase in the rate of invalid and old-age pensions to 25s-. a week. I supported the Government on that occasion, and I now admit that the increased amount is necessary for several reasons.

When the last pensions bill was before us, we had a concomitant measure in the form of a sales tax bill. After the Government had fired a few shots into the old-age pensioners’ cost of living with the sales tax gun, it helped them a little by increasing their pensions. In this instance the rate of pension is being increased, but later an increase of the sales tax will take away from the pensioners some of the increase.

Senator Collings:

– All basic needs are exempt under the Sales Tax Act, and the honorable senator knows it.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:

– I have yet to learn that a sales tax will not raise the cost of living, and I believe that no exemption will affect that economic fact. The Minister cannot adopt that attitude in this chamber. The increased sales tax will no doubt take quite a lot off the small increase of pensions granted under this bill. Whatever exemptions are made, it will be very difficult to stop increased living costs. When one realizes the increased cost of tea, tobacco, beer, matches and other commodities that old-age pensioners have to obtain every week out of the small pittance received, it makes one a little depressed. I am afraid that increased costs are inescapable. Regardless of how heavily we may hold down the lid of costs the lid will continue to rise. The proposed increase is well deserved, and I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of the bill.

During the discussion on a previous pensions bill, I mentioned a matter that I now. wish to repeat. Some consideration should be given to those elderly persons who have provided in some measure for their old-age by taking out life assurance policies. Often, the surrender value of a policy is such as to preclude an elderly person from obtaining a pension, or, in other cases, to entitle him only to a reduced pension. Such persons are usually loath to allow their policies to lapse in order to qualify for a pension. Many of them have been paying annual premiums for a number of years to keep the policies operative, and the premiums have been hard to raise. I should think it would not be impossible to devise a scheme whereby they could still obtain a slightly higher pension than many of them have to-day. I do not like the idea of their policies being surrendered, and I have advised many of them not to surrender them; but, unfortunately, some of them have to do so in order to obtain a pension with which to meet their dire and urgent needs. I should imagine that the Treasurer could put. forward a proposal to meet such cases, of which there are many in the Commonwealth. If any one is entitled to special considerationit is. those elderly persons who have for years been saving in the form of annual premiums. Their spirit of thrift should be encouraged in every possible way, and one method of doing so would be to give them special consideration under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) urged a contributory system of pensions. I have always been in favour of national insurance . covering old-age pensions on a contributory basis. Governments will have to look ahead and anticipate an increasing pensions bill, and therefore steps should be taken in the near future to grapple with the problem before the cost becomes too great. I cannot imagine any better scheme than one under which the recipients of a pension contribute to its cost.

Senator Cameron:

– The unemployed could not contribute much.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD.Under a comprehensive national insurance scheme, the unemployed would participate in the benefits, but, of course, the Government could not extract from them money that they do not possess. I have pleasure in supporting the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1210

LIGHTHOUSES BILL 1942

Bill presented by Senator Fraser, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Collings) put -

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Cunningham:

– There being an absolute majority of the members of the Senate present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

SenatorFRASER (Western Australia - Minister for External Territories) [5.38]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure deals with a branch of Commonwealth activities which is not often brought to the notice of the Parliament. The first Commonwealth Lighthouses Bill, passed in 1911, provided the machinery for taking over from the States coastal lighthouses and marine marks, and fortheir future maintenance and improvement. It also provided for the erection of additional aids to navigation to complete the lighting of the 12,000-mile Australian coast-line, and for the collec- tion of Commonwealth light dues. Before the act could come into operation, it was necessary for an officer to inspect all the coastal lighthouses and marine marks which had been provided by the States, and a most valuable report was submitted in 1912 by Commander C R. W. Brewis, R.N. ; but owing to delays in reaching an agreement with the States as to the properties and personnel to be transferred, and the conditions of transfer, the act could not be brought into operation until the 1st July, 1915. In that year, a short amending bill was passed, providing for the compulsory acquisition of lighthouses and marine marks where agreement with the States could not be reached. In 1919, another amending bill was passed, providing that the cost of any damage causedto a Commonwealth lighthouse or marine mark by any person or by any ship should be paid by the person responsible or by the master or owner of the ship concerned. No further amendments have been made, and therefore this is the first Lighthouses Bill that has come before the Parliament for more thantwenty years. The principal reason for the introduction of the measure is that regulations made under the act provide for the exemption from the payment of light dues of certain classes of ships, for example, vessels belonging to the Royal Navy or the Royal Australian Navy, ships in distress, mission ships, &c. Provision is also made for the remission of light dues in certain cases, for example, where a ship is laid up and not engaged in trade for a period of one month. Recently the Crown Law officers pointed out that such remissions were not authorized by the act, and it is therefore proposed in this bill to provide that such concessions may be granted by regula tion. The bill is also designed to give to the Minister, or an authorized officer, power to carry materials over private property, where it is necessary to erect or maintain a marine light. Such a power is necessary where places may be so inaccessible that the only practicable approach to the area is across private property.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and committed pro forma.

Progress reported.

page 1211

ESTATE AND GIFT DUTIES

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following paper : -

Report of the committee of senators and members appointed to consider the Estate Duty Assessment Bill and the Gift Duty Assessment Bill.

page 1211

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL 1942

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The chief object of this bill is to extend the benefits of the Maternity Allowance Act to aboriginal mothers who are living under civilized conditions, and are suitable in character and intelligence to receive the allowance. Where the aboriginal mother is exempt from the provisions of the law of a State or territory relating to the control of aboriginal natives, she will be eligible for a maternity allowance. At present such exemptions arc granted under the laws of the States of South Australia and Western Australia. In other States the Commissioner will exercise his discretion in deciding whether it is desirable that any aboriginal mother should be granted an allowance, and in doing so he will have regard to the same standard of character, intelligence and development as that adopted in those States where exemption is granted. It is proposed to give the Commissioner power, where he considers it desirable, to direct that payment of the maternity allowance shall be made to an appropriate authority or person for the benefit of the aboriginal mother. Opportunity is also being taken to remove from the act an anomaly which occurs in some cases in the assessment of income. In determining the total income of the claimant and her husband for the stipulated period of twelve months preceding the birth of the child there is no power to exclude any earnings of the mother prior to her marriage. This operates unfairly in those cases where a child is born within twelve months after the marriage. Where, as the result of this anomaly, a claim which would otherwise have been granted has to be disallowed under the act, it is usual to pay the mother an amount equivalent to a maternity allowance from a special vote. The bill removes the anomaly by excluding from consideration any earnings of the mother prior to her marriage. It is estimated that the cost of the concessions contained in the bill will not exceed £5,000 per annum.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1212

EXCISE BILL 1942

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1212

CHILD ENDOWMENT BILL 1942

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to liberalize the Child Endowment Act which, during the past ten months, has conferred benefits upon approximately 1,000,000 children in some 500,000 homes. Notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the principal act have won practically universal commendation, the Government has discovered some deficiencies and inequalities which it is now desired to remedy. The general observations I made in my second-reading speech on the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill are applicable to this measure. The more important features of the bill include the payment of endowment to inmates of State institutions, and in cases where children have been maintained on moneys forming the estate of a deceased person. In addition, an effort has been made to provide for children of families who have become separated for any reason: An amendment to permit the expenditure of child endowment in respect of aborigines in such a manner that the utmost benefit willbe obtained from the grant has also been effected.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– The Opposition support the measure in principle. We shall have an opportunity to discuss its details in the committee stage. At this juncture, I congratulate those responsible for the administration of the child endowment scheme. Those officers had very little time in which to set the scheme in operation. I have followed their work very closely, and have noted with pleasure that they are doing a very good job. In view of the circumstances in which the scheme was launched, it is not surprising that a few anomalies have arisen with which we shall now have an opportunity to deal.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

. -I am pleased to note that the measure makes provision in respect of orphans, whose omission from the principal act constituted a very grave anomaly. At present, orphans who have been maintained from the estates of deceased persons have not participated in child endowment. It is now proposed to rectify this anomaly.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate yesterday I raised the subject of child endowment.

I pointed out that in many eases the endowment was paid to a father who had deserted his wife and children because he was tha parent who paid the major portion of the sustenance of the children. Replying to my query, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) intimated that this matter would be remedied under the measure now before us. However, I find that no such provision is contained in the bill.

Senator KEANE:

– The matter is not dealt with in this measure; but I have an answer to the honorable senator’s query.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- 1 congratulate the Government upon introducing this bill, and upon its change of tone in respect of this legislation. I have a clear recollection that when the previous Government introduced the bill on which this measure is based honorable senators opposite opposed the measure lock, stock and barrel.

Senator Keane:

– The Child Endowment Bill was supported by the Labour party.

Senator LECKIE:

– It was opposed to the method then proposed for raising the funds to finance the scheme. In view of the fact that they have now introduced this amending bill, I take it that they have seen the error of their ways, and are now of opinion that the principal act is sound. I am not complaining about the opposition put up by those honorable senators against the original bill. J. merely congratulate them upon seeing the light. We might easily have assumed that they would take the first opportunity to upset the legislation passed by the previous Government. We find instead that they have set about improving that legislation in minor respects. I believe in giving the Government credit when credit is due to it. Of course,. I have criticized it when it has deserved criticism. I am glad, therefore, that on this occasion, I am able to speak kindly of it. In view of the strong-man stand invariably adopted by the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) in respect of every matter concerning the comfort and wellbeing of the Senate, I am glad to see that even he is prepared to change his mind when he sees the light. I was beginning to believe that he had resolved 50 or 60 years ago that during the course of his life, he would never change his mind. He is one of the real tories in the Labour party. I am glad that he is not taking his characteristic stand and deliver attitude on this occasion.

Senator BROWN (Queensland) [5.59J. - 1 have a. clear recollection of the debate which took place in this chamber when the Child Endowment Bill was being considered. I cannot recall that I or my colleagues offered any serious opposition to that measure. Certainly, we endeavoured to amend it. On that occasion, I pointed out that the people of Australia were being led to believe that endowment would be paid in respect of every child under the age of sixteen years, with the exception of the eldest. I proved that it was impossible, under the terms of that measure, to do so. 1 showed that clearly in argument, and also by a comprehensive table drawn up by my friend, Mr. Ben Taylor, of Brisbane, who is the father of nine children, and whose wife, incidentally, has been very pleased to receive £’7 a month under this legislation. Unfortunately, the purchasing power of that sum will be reduced as time goes on. I. spoke to the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) about the matter but he did not understand the bill thoroughly, and many other members of Parliament were in the same position. Then, for the purposes of administration, it was decided to pay endowment in respect pf the eldest child of a family but not in respect of the youngest child. This meant that all but the youngest of the children in any family would receive endowment benefits up to the age of sixteen years. This administrative change gave effect to the wording of the bill, but it excluded the youngest child of any family from the right to benefits. The Labour party, which was then in Opposition, objected to this feature, but it did not oppose the bill as a whole, and I give credit to the government of the day for’ the splendid job that it did. I said at the time that I was inclined to be jealous because I should have liked a Labour government to have introduced such legislation. Even- to-day I hope that, before many years have passed, endowment will be made payable in respect of every child.

I should like to have seen such a provision in this bill. However, the Government is to be congratulated upon the provisions which it contains.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) in complimenting the officers who prepared the original bill, which was introduced by the present Opposition when it held the reins of government. I, too, consider that the work which they did in such a short time was a great achievement and marked another milestone in the creditable history of the Commonwealth Public Service.

On the motion for the adjournment of the Senate last night Senator Allan MacDonald asked a question in relation to child endowment. I am now able to inform him that, under the Child Endowment Act, the person who is maintaining a child is the person entitled to be granted endowment. Legal opinion has been given that the word “maintaining” means providing the financial means of maintenance. In the case mentioned by the honorable senator, the father is bearing the cost of the maintenance of the children, and must be deemed to be the person maintaining them within the meaning of the Child Endowment Act. The Commissioner is obtaining the papers in relation to the case, and when he has looked into the circumstances he will advise the honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1942.

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Collings) put -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Sales Tax Bills Nos. 1 to 9 being put in one motion, at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such bills together in committee of the whole.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Cunningham:

-There being an absolute majority of the members of the Senate present, and no dissentient voice,

I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.

Sitting suspended from 6.12 to 8 p.m.

Second Reading

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

.- I move -

That the bills be now read a second time.

Under the existing laws goods are, for sales tax purposes, divided into three classes, the rate of tax on each of the classes being 5 per cent., 10 per cent., and 20 per cent. respectively. The Government proposes to grant complete exemption on goods in the 5 per cent, class, which may be broadly described as follows: - Equipment used in the fishing industry; drugs and medicines; surgical instruments and appliances; dental instruments and appliances and dentures; scientific instruments, &c, for use in universities and schools; axes and tomahawks and tool handles of wood; saddlery and harness; iron and steel wire of gauges six to fourteen. The loss of revenue which it is estimated will result from the exemptions is £290,000. In addition to the relief so granted, a further benefit will accrue to merchants by reason of resultant simplification of sales tax. returns when classification of taxable goods into two groups only, instead of three, is required.

With respect to goods at present taxed at the rate of 10 per cent., it is proposed to raise the rate to 12½ per cent. This rate will apply to goods in the general field of sales tax. In the case of the 20 per cent, group, which consists of less essential goods, the rate of tax is proposed to be increased to 25 per cent. These increased rates are estimated to produce additional revenue as follows: -

The total revenue sought to be obtained from the increases is, therefore, £6,662,500, from which must be deducted the estimated loss of revenue, namely,. £290;000, arising out of the abolition of the 5 per cent, class, leaving a net gain to revenue of £6,372,500. The amendment of the rates will operate on and from the date of their announcement in the House of Representatives, that is, the 1st May, .1.942.

Whilst it is admitted that the proposed new rates would, in ordinary times, be regarded as burdensome, the increased spending power- of the people arising out of increased governmental expenditure on war materials and essential services, will, it is contended, enable the burden to be borne without undue hardship being caused to any class of the community. Furthermore, insofar as the increased taxes, by the resultant increases of the prices of goods, act as a deterrent against the purchase of goods which can be done without. a national benefit will result. As the demand for the production of such goods decreases, man-power and materials will be freed for essential ser- vices, and savings will accumulate for investment in war loans. The exemption from tax of goods in the 5 per cent, class is not effected by the bills now before the Senate. That will be dealt with later by an amendment of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. T commend the -bills to the Senate.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– I support the bills, but I remind honorable senators that substantial increases of the sales tax are provided for under .these measures. It will be noted that the tax on goods in the 10 per cent, class is to be increased by 25 per cent., and this class includes many items which are important even in time of war. Since the present Government has been in office the sales tax on this class of goods was increased, first, from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent., and now an increase from 10 per cent, to 12-£ per cent, is proposed.

Senator Courtice:

– War expenditure has increased in a greater ratio.

Senator McLEAY:

– I admit that, but the tax has been increased on such items as building material, fruit juices, cider and many other items in the 10 per cent, class that are of great importance to the people. I merely suggest that honorable senators should not agree to these bills blindly. I have read the speeches delivered by members of the present Government in December, 1940, when the Menzies Government proposed to increase the sale-5 tax by £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. In the last increases of the tax the present’ Government increased indirect taxes by £3,500,000, and under the present bills it proposes to increase the tax by a further £6,500.000, making a total increase of £10,000,000. These increases fall very heavily on the family man. I remind the Assistant Minister for Commerce (Senator Fraser) that the increases seriously affect the wheatgrowers, and other primary producers, who are unable to pass on increased costs of production. I hope that the Minister will bear these facts, in mine! when considering proposals already submitted to the Government for further payments to wheat-growers.

Senator Fraser:

– The Leader of the Opposition selects one or two items and stresses them.

Senator McLEAY:

– I suggest that the Minister should peruse the schedule of goods, which are to bear sales tax at the rate of 12£ per cent. There he will find many articles that the farmers must have, even in war-time. Even in the class of goods on which the tax has been increased from 20 per cent., to 25 per cent, there are certain articles that are essential in those times. Whilst it is proposed to hand over an extra £1,000,000 to the invalid and old-age pensioners, and £1,500,000 is to be provided for pension? for widows, it is also intended to increase indirect taxes by £6,500,000. Much of this money will be taken out of one pocket and put into another. When the Menzies and Fadden Governments wen; in office, certain proposals were made by them to which members of the present Government were strongly opposed; but this Government has now found it necessary to do some of the things then suggested to it by the Opposition.

Senator FRASER:
Minister for External Territories · Western Australia · ALP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) should be fair in his remarks on these bills. He will agree, I think, that, the conditions obtaining in Australia at present are vastly different from those in December, 1940. T have yet to learn that any additional sum granted to the invalid and old-age pensioners would he expended on luxury goods. No increase of the sales tax on basic foods is proposed; but increases are to he made of the sales tax on luxury goods. All medicines are to be exempt from the tax. The Leader of the Opposition was not logical in picking out the increase of the tax on cider and referring to the effect that the increase would have on primary producers.

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– I thought that the Government was anxious to dispose of the apple crop.

Senator FRASER:

– That is being done as fast as possible. The present Government is in a better position with regard to- the apple industry than was the Government with which the honorable senator was associated. We hope that the increases of the sales tax will assist in the transfer of man-power from civil to war production. The Leader of the Opposition, in referring to the increase of the invalid and old-age pension, spoke of the unfortunate plight of the wheat-farmers. Despite all of the disabilities with which the Government has had to contend, it has put into operation measures beneficial to the primary producers. It is not ashamed of the work that it has done and it has no hesitation in telling the people that they must respond to the call of their country. The Leader of the Opposition and Senator McBride were not fair in suggesting that the increase of the sales tax and the increase of invalid and oldage pensions amounted to taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another. This Government has done what the Menzies Government was afraid to do.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time and reported from committee without requests or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Keane) proposed -

That the bills be now read a third time.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I. did not oppose any of the clauses of this bill when it was at the committee stage, but I should like to deal now with some important aspects of taxation generally. I wonder if honorable senators realize the tremendous increase of taxation that has taken place during the past thirty years? Commonwealth income tax was first levied in 1916, and for thefinancial year 1916-17 it yielded £5,621,950. By 1922, the annual yield had amounted to £16,790,682, and increases continued until 1941. The revenue from that tax represents an. increase of 420 per cent, on the total collected in the first year of its operation. There has been a similar increase of the sales tax which was first imposed’ by a Labour Government in 1930. . The then Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) returned from England and found the finances of this country in a dreadful state. Some means of raising revenue had to be found, and it was decided to impose a sales tax of 2-J per cent., which yielded an annual revenue of approximately £3,000,000. Since then the tax has been progressively increased by successive Commonwealth Governments which have clung to the same rotten financial system, and in 1941, the estimated yield from sales tax was £20,400,000. These new increases of 5 per cent, on goods now subject to 20 per cent., and 2$ per cent, on goods now subject to 10 per cent., are expected to yield a further £6,000,000. Is this drift never going to stop? Are we never going to get a sane monetary system in which we can do without taxation entirely? The present so-called sound monetary system is, in fact, so unsound that we started this war with a debt of £1,200,000,000. Orthodox financial advisers claim that budgets must be balanced, even if the skies fall; but it is time that honorable senators realize the utter impossibility of carrying on under the present financial system. Unfortunately when I spoke on this subject prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner, only four members of the Opposition were in the chamber. I repeat that harsh taxation measures such as this are quite unnecessary. The taxation burden to-day is almost unbearable. What will it he like if it goes on increasing as it is doing now? It is time that honorable senators realized where all this is leading.

Senator Gibson:

– The honorable senator is speaking against his own party.

Senator DARCEY:

– I am speaking in the national interest. The whole country is going to the dogs because people will not realize the colossal amount of revenue that is required to meet interest payments on loans. These increases of the sales tax will yield only a few million pounds, yet we are spending a million pounds a day on the war. Now that the banks have been prevented from buying bonds and financing overdrafts to dummy buyers, there are only two ways left in which money can be raised, namely, taxation, which I contend is quite unnecessary, and the use of national credit. A continual increase of taxes means a corresponding decrease in the standard of living, because directly or indirectly all forms of taxation come from the pockets of the people in cash, whereas wars can be fought on credit. I regret exceedingly that honorable senators opposite have not taken the trouble to check the accuracy of my statements on finance. Unfortunately they simply sit in their places and laugh.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. Cunningham) . - Order ! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bills now before the Senate.

Senator DARCEY:

– These bills provide for the raising of money, and if I can show how money can be raised in a much easier way, surely that is of some interest to the Senate. However, I realize that no good can be done by saying any more at present on this subject. The Government has decided that this legislation shall go through despite the fact that it will lead to the financial ruin of this country. Once again, I protest strongly against these continual increases of taxes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 1217

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1942

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria! · ALP

.-I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

I trust that this bill will meet with general approval. Its principal purpose is to implement the Government’s decision to restore exemption from sales tax, on and from the 1st May, 1942, in respect of those relatively few classes of goods which, immediately prior to that date, were taxable at the rate of 5 per cent., and are specified in the second schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. A further purpose is to grant exemption to certain goods which are associated with the national war effort. Exemption from tax is to be restored in respect of goods which may be briefly described as - equipment used in the fishing industry; drugs and medicines; surgical instruments and appliances; dental instruments and appliances, and dentures; scientific instruments, &c., for use in universities and schools; axes and tomahawks and tool handles of wood ; saddlery and harness; and iron and steel wire of gauges six to fourteen. A complete schedule of the various items affected has been prepared and circulated for the information of honorable senators. All these goods were exempt from sales tax prior to the 22nd November, 1940, when they, together with numerous other classes of goods were withdrawn fromthe exempt field and made subject to tax at the rate of 5 per cent. The estimated annual sale value of the goods left in the 5 per cent, field after certain amendments were made on the 30th October, 1941, amounted approximately to £5,800,000, a relatively small amount when compared with the sum of £211,500,000, which is the estimated annual sale value of the goods which comprise the general field which has been taxed at 10 per cent, up to the 1st May, 1942, and at 12½ per cent, on and from that date. The goods hitherto taxed at 5 per cent, are considered worthy of exemption. The restoration of exemption involves an annual loss of revenue estimated at £290,000, but that loss will be recovered from the additional revenue to be gained as the result of increases of the rates of tax payable in respect of other goods. The elimination of the 5 per cent, rate has the merit of simplifying the preparation of merchants’ returns. In the circumstances which have obtained while three rates of tax applied, a merchant who sold goods which come within the three rate groups encountered a considerable amount of work in the separate classification of the goods into the different groups. These difficulties should ‘be substantially alleviated by this bill, which leaves only two rates of lax in force.

The new exemptions proposed include an exemption .of uniforms purchased by members of the fighting forces of other countries, such as the United States of America and the Netherlands East Indies, who are serving in Australia in association with the Australian forces. An exemption already exists in respect of the uniforms of Australian soldiers, and it is but reasonable to extend that exemption so as to apply it to members of the forces of our allies. It is proposed to make this ‘amendment retrospective to the 1st December, 1941, so that the exemption may be allowed in respect of uniforms already purchased from tailors by members of these forces since their arrival in Australia. It is also proposed to make a corresponding extension of the exemption hitherto allowed in respect of moods purchased by non-profit-making organizations for donation to, or for the use, comfort or recreation of, members <of the Defence Forces of the Commonwealth. 1 1 is intended that this exemption shall apply equally to goods purchased by such organizations for members of allied or associated forces serving in Australia.

It is also proposed to allow exemption from sales tax. on and from the 1st January, 1942, in respect of methylated spirits, specially prepared for use as fuel in internal combustion engines, as a substitute for petrol. The exemption will also apply to other substitutes for petrol, including mixtures of methylated spirits and other substances. The precise terms of -the exemption are set out in the schedule which has been made available to honorable senators. Petrol is already exempt from ‘sales tax, as also is power alcohol. In the present war situation, it is the Government’s policy to encourage the production and use of all fuels which may be used in internal combustion engines in substitution for petrol, and the exemption of such fuels from sales tax will,’ it is hoped, assist in bringing that policy into effect.

It is hoped that honorable senators will not regard this as a suitable opportunity ito press claims for further exemptions, from sales tax. Undoubtedly, (claims can. be made to exempt many other classes of goods. Unfortunately, the Government is not in a position to .contemplatefurther exemptions unless it can be established that the goods involved bear directly on the war effort, and that the liability for tax -thereon constitutes an obstacle toa maximum effort. I therefore ask honorable senators to defer other claims until requirements from revenue are lesspressing, and the Government is able toconsider tax concessions.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I support the bill. Honorable senatorsgenerally will agree that the items which it is proposed to exempt from tax should be so exempt. Further, the reduction of the number of schedules from three totwo will prove of great benefit to the commercial community. Such action is certainly warranted, particularly when the loss of revenue involved is only £290,000,. and can be recovered from additional, revenue to be gained as the result of increases of other rates. I do not propose >to speak at length on the measure. However, it is not out of place to remind Ministers of statements which they made when in opposition in dealing with various kinds of legislation. For instance, I remind the Ministerfor Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) of certain remarks which he made on sales tax generally, when he was sitting on this side of the chamber. I take the following passage from the report of his speech recorded in Hansard’ at page 93S, 12th December, 1940 :-

The effect of the increases of sales tax will’ be to reduce the purchasing power of the workers, particularly the lower-paid workers, by approximately £5,000,000, according to theestimate given by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden). The important point that I wish to make isthat as the purchasing power of the workers- is lowered by means of the sales tax, so the possibility of strikes and industrial disputes will increase.

In view of the fact that the Government of which he is a member now proposes to increase the rates of sales tax, it is fair to assume that he did not really mean what he said on that occasion.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- I support the bill. However, I should like to know whether wire of gauge 17 which is used in the manufacture of wire netting is exempt from sales tax.

Senator Keane:

– Yes, if it is used for the manufacture of wire netting.

Senator GIBSON:

– I should also like to know whether 17 gauge tie wire which is used in bundling hay is exempt from sales tax.

Senator Keane:

– All wire used for tying up hay is exempt from sales tax.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1219

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Collings) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday, the 27th May next, at 3 p.m.

page 1219

ADJOURNMENT

Non-official Postmasters - Prices. Control : Myer Emporium Limited - American War Correspondents - Deceased Soldiers’ Estates.

Motion (by Senator Collings) proposed -

That the Senate: do now adjourn.

Senator LAMP:
Tasmania

.- 1. take this opportunity to support the claims of the forgotten legion of non-official postmasters for an increase of their allowances. For some time past these allowances have been fixed according to the volume of business handled by the respective offices. However,, despite the: substantial increase of the work now handled in non-official post offices, including the payment of soldiers’ pensions and child endowment, and the distribution of petrol ration tickets, the allowances of these officials have not been increased for some considerable time. On every occasion tha.t I visit isolated towns in Tasmania, the person conducting a nonofficial post office wants to know when the allowance will be increased. It is generally admitted that the cost of living has risen by as much as 10 per cent, since the outbreak of the war. In that period., however, the allowances paid by the Postal Department to these officers has not been reviewed. In addition to the duties which I have already mentioned, they are now required to attend to the payment of invalid and old-age pensions and maternity allowances, and the collection of wireless licence-fees, whilst they will soon be obliged to handle widows’ pensions. I urge the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) to consider the claims of these officers with a view to making some allowance in respect of the extra duties imposed upon them.

Senator KEANE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Victoria · ALP

– On the 29th April, I replied to a question asked by Senator Aylett concerning price control in respect of the Myer Emporium Limited, Melbourne, and the question of refunds by that company. Subsequently representatives of the company called on me to seek a clarification of the position, and questions were also raised on this matter in the House of Representatives. In view of the importance of the practice adopted by me of “ declaring “ firms under the National Security (Prices) Regulations, and of the decisions made by the Prices Commissioner, not only in the case of the Myer Emporium Limited but also in many other cases, I wish to make a further statement on the subject.

As regards the Myer Emporium Limited, it is true, as I intimated in my original statement when this company was “ declared “, that it had not adjusted its normal trading practices to the principles of price control, but it is equally true that the continuance of normal trading practices, and in particular the practice of discounting stock valuation, involved sales of goods at variance with the principles of price control. The goods were sold at a gross profit margin in excess of the- pre-war gross profit margin. It was on this ground that the company was “ declared “, and that the whole of its operations were brought under the direct control of the Prices Commissioner.

This is also true of all the retail and wholesale firms that have so far been “ declared “ under the Prices Regulations. In the case of the Myer Emporium Limited the average amount of overcharge was not a high percentage, but the number of transactions involved was so great that the aggregate amounts of the overcharge reached the substantial figure f conveyed to the Senate in answering Senator Aylett’s question. It should be mentioned, however, that the period concerned extended over two years, and that the total sales volume during that period was £12,000,000, representing 4:0,000,000 transactions. There are many other cases of “ declared “ firms in which the aggregate amount was much smaller but the overcharge per transaction much greater. In making a determination under a declaration of all the goods and services supplied by a particular firm, the . Prices Commissioner takes into account the amount of overcharge in the war-time period brought about by the operation of a higher gross profit margin than that prevailing at the outbreak of war. A new gross profit margin is then fixed by the Prices Commissioner under which the whole of the excess charge is refunded to the public on future trading activities. The accounts of the company concerned are continuously under review by the Prices Commissioner, and the public obtain the full benefit of any reductions. J.n the case of the Myer Emporium Limited, a substantial amount has already been refunded and the process is still going on. It is the objective of price control to keep prices as low as possible, and this practice is in line with that objective. Apart from legal difficulties involved in direct refunds to the Treasury, such a method of adjusting the position would not result in the public obtaining cheaper goods. It has been suggested that the method of declaration and of adjustment of prices under the control of the Prices Commissioner does not amount to a penalty- on the firm concerned,’ and that prosecution would be more effective. That aspect of the matter has been fully considered, and whilst many traders are still prosecuted f or offfences, it has been found that, for certain breaches of the Prices Regulations, the method of declaration provides a far more effective control. Apart from the severe adjustment of prices insisted upon, the whole of the trading activities or the company, including its conditions of trade, are ‘brought under the direct supervision of the Prices Commissioner, lu the case of prosecution it is necessary to proceed on each individual sale, and in the case of. a large company this would mean an enormous amount of detailed work and the presentation of many thousands of cases in order to bring before the court the total overcharges made by the company. The Myer Emporium Limited handles nearly 2,000,000 transactions a month, representing about 40,000,000 individual sales from the outbreak of war until the firm was “ declared “. The overcharge on any one transaction would be small and it would be necessary to examine millions of transactions and to furnish a court with evidence on each one. This would be a colossal task, far beyond the resources of the staff available. While one firm was being dealt with on these lines, many other firms would be escaping proper supervision. Moreover, on the experience so far gained from prosecutions, the fines imposed in many cases fall far short of the total amount overcharged by the offenders. 1 remind honorable senators that the penalties for breaches of the Prices Regulations are fixed under the National Security Act and cannot be determined by the regulations. In all the circumstances, I have no doubt that the method of declaration is by far the most effective weapon at my disposal as the responsible Minister. This view, I may add, is fully shared in trading circles, and it is no exaggeration to claim that the method of declaration has been perhaps the most potent factor in giving the Prices Commissioner the authority to deal firmly with traders who otherwise might obtain overcharges on a wide range of commodities. This is not to be regarded as eliminating the need for prosecutions, and a great many prosecutions, not only in the cities but also in country towns throughout Australia, have been successfully conducted over recent months.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN (South Australia) [8.50fJ. - Yesterday, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army whether his colleague had seen press reports to the effect that American war correspondents in Australia were debarred from transmitting news to American newspapers dealing with amendments of the Commonwealth Defence Act. I asked further whether the censor was acting in this matter under Government instructions, and, if so, why? In reply, the Minister said : -

I have not seen the reports referred to by the honorable senator. However, I have no doubt that all communications between American war correspondents in Australia and newspapers in the United States of America are subject to censorship.

That was not an answer to my question. I wanted the Minister to state whether the censorship in this instance is carried out by the censors themselves, or under instructions from the Government.

Senator ASHLEY:
Postmaster-General and Minister for Information · New South Wales · ALP

– The honorable senator must realize, as other honorable senators do, that the Army has an Intelligence Department which deals with the censorship of war correspondents’ messages to newspapers. The answer given to the honorable gentleman by Senator Fraser was adequate. No instructions have been given by this Government in regard to the censorship of Army correspondence or newspaper messages.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I support Senator Lamp’s plea for an increase of the allowances paid to non-official postmasters. I have interested myself in the affairs of these deserving postal officers for many years, and, largely as the result of representations that I have made, some consideration has been given to their claims. The allowances paid to non-official postmasters are. fixed according to the volume of business which they transact, but the figures shown on their monthly returns do not by any means reflect the value of the services that they render, not only to the Postal Department, but also to the public generally. Although they endeavour to observe ordinary business hours, they are at the call of people residing in their districts at all hours of the day and night. They also arrange for mail to be distributed to scattered homes by school chil dren, and, in doing so, they accept a certain amount of responsibility. Their duties cannot be measured adequately by the volume of business shown on their monthly returns. The last increase allowed to these officers brought the minimum allowance to £1 a week. About two years ago, when the basic wage was increased I asked the then PostmasterGeneral to grant an increase of their allowances proportionate to the basic wage increase. Since then, the basic wage has increased further, and I now repeat my request to the PostmasterGeneral. Non-official postmasters have no public service classification, and,’ in many cases, they provide rooms in their own houses for use as post offices at inconvenience to themselves. I support Senator Lamp’s claims on their behalf. The Postal Department, which has a monopoly and has abundant revenue, could well afford to be generous to this small section of its servants.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– Honorable senators will recall that a few weeks ago I brought to their notice a proposal by Mr. S. McKellar White, of the Taxpayers’ Association of New South Wales, regarding taxation of the estates of deceased soldiers. I interviewed Mr. White in Sydney this week, and to-day I received from him the following circular letter: -

Under Clause 4 of the Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1942, which was introduced by the Commonwealth Treasurer on May 6th, the Government proposes to grant (under certain conditions) an exemption of £5,000 in the estates of members of the fighting forces who die as a result of active service.

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

by granting to members of the fighting forces who die as a result of active service an unconditional and completeexemption from estate duty ;

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

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

When the Federal Government was previously asked to grant a general exemption of soldiers’ estates the then Treasurer, Mr. Fad- den, replied that the Government could not afford to extend the present concession. Surely the Commonwealth Government does not have to depend upon the distressing fatalities of the war to balance its budget?

Actually the Government would be losing nothing except “ windfall revenue “ if it granted an unconditional exemption to all soldiers’ estates. Members of the Forces are, because of the conditions of enlistment, young and healthy, and if it was not for the hazards of warfare the Government could not expect to collect death duties from these people for many years to come.

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

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

Submissions along these lines have been made to the Commonwealth Treasurer and the association asks that parliamentarians should support a general liberalization of the incidence of estate duty where death results from enemy action.

The last time I addressed the Senate on this subject I said that I thought it was wrong that the estates of soldiers and civilians killed in the war should be subject to tax. It must be obvious to any one that this is a just claim. Mr. White, who has brought this matter to my notice, is prepared to assist in the war effort. He has two brothers overseas. The acceptance of his offer to serve will mean that he will sacrifice a large income. The proposal he has made with respect to tax remission is worthy of support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1942, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1942/19420514_senate_16_170/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant