Senate
12 March 1943

16th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. J. Cunningham) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1613

QUESTION

COAL-MINING INDUSTRY

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Leader of the Senate read the report in to-day’s press that 27 coal mines were idle yesterday? In view of the Prime Minister’s repeated statements about the serious Japanese threat to Australia, is the Leader of the Senate prepared to make a statement assuring the people of Australia that some definite action will he taken to prevent continual stoppages of work in the coal-mining industry?

Senator COLLINGS:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · ALP

-I have not read the report to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred,but I know that the Prime Minister made a definite statement on the matter in the House of Representatives last evening, and I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he should read the report of that statement.

page 1613

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1943

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

page 1613

INCOME TAX BILL 1943

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with a message intimating that it had not made amendment No. 1, requested by the Senate, but had made requested amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

In committee (Consideration of House of Representatives’ message) :

Clause 2-

This Actshall come intooperation on adate tobefixedby Proclamation, not being earlier than the date upon which the National Welfare Fund Act 1943 comes into operation.

Senate’s request No.1 - Leave out all words after “ Proclamation “.

House ofRepresentatives’ message. - Requested amendment not made.

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

– I move-

ThatRequest No. 1 be not pressed.

The House of Lords cannot amend a money bill, and the practice of the British Parliament should be adopted in this Parliament. I fail to see how honorable senators opposite can say that the National Welfare Fund Bill has been tacked on to the Income Tax Bill.

Senator McBride:

– The Prime Minister has admitted it.

Sen a t or FRA SER. - The word s “ tacked on “ should not be used in this instance. The House of Commons has the sole right to amend money bills, but I shall not enter into a debate on that subject.

Senator McBride:

– It is quite unnecessary.

SenatorFRASER. - Yes ; therefore I shall not delay the committee further.

SenatorMcLEAY (South AustraliaLeader of the Opposition) [9.40].-The Opposition will oppose the motion. It intends to fight out this matter of principle to the last ditch. I do not propose to speak at length. I listened to the debate in the House of Representatives early this morning regarding the Senate’s request. I shall merely repeat what I said yesterday that, if the Government accepts the bill, amended as requested by the Senate, it will then have the right to put this legislation into operation whenever it likes; The people of this country who take an interest in the financial situation know that the position iB serious, and it is important that the new taxation proposals -which, as far as deductions of instalments are concerned, take effect from the 1st April next, should not be delayed one hour. The Commissioner of Taxation has a depleted staff owing to man-power difficulties. It is unfair to ask his department to work day and night in order to put these proposals into operation on the 1st April. 1 hope that the Government will show some intelligence regarding this matter. If the committee accepts the clause as it stands, it will put the Senate in the position that, if it amends the National Welfare Fund Bill, it may defeat the taxation proposals and the Opposition is not willing to be placed in that position. The opinion expressed yesterday, upon the constitutional aspect of the matter by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), and the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), who are recognized authorities on the Constitution and on parliamentary procedure, coincides with that of Senator Spicer, who has declared that if the clause does not offend against the letter, _ it offends against the spirit of the Constitution.

Senator SPICER:
Victoria

.- The Government has given a deplorable exhibition in connexion with one of the most important constitutional issues that have been raised in this Parliament regarding the relations between the two branches of the legislature. Two lawyers in this chamber have expressed concurrence in views which indicate that the procedure adopted by the Government is at. least highly improper. That view is reinforced by three lawyers in the House of Representatives. In those circumstances the Government now asks us not to press the Senate’s request without bringing to the committee a single reason why the Government adopts this attitude. I emphasize, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) has done, that the omission of the words which the Opposition desires to delete would in no way embarrass “ the Government. It will not interfere with the Government’s taxation measures; it will not require the Government to bring those measures into operation on any particular date; it will not even require the Government to proclaim those measures before the National Welfare Fund Act is proclaimed. If this request bc accepted, the Government will be perfectly free in the exercise df its discretion as to when the act will be proclaimed.

Senator Collings:

– The Opposition will also bc free if the request be not pressed.

Senator SPICER:

– That is the whole point. Those words were not put in the clause for the purpose of protecting the Government; they were put in deliberately to embarrass the Opposition.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– Nonsense!

Senator SPICER:

– They can have no other purpose.

Senator Cameron:

– The request has been moved in order to embarrass the Government.

Senator SPICER:

– The request is designed to leave the Government perfectly free. If the request be accepted, the Government will be free to say that it will not proclaim the tax act unless the National Welfare Fund Act is agreed to. But if the Government is going to do that, it must take the responsibility. I insist that it shall take that responsibility. So far as I am concerned, the Government is not going to escape from that position by putting me in the embarrassing position that, when I come to deal with the National Welfare Fund Bill, I cannot deal with it on its merits.

Senator Cameron:

– The honorable senator Would like to deal with it.

Senator SPICER:

– I shall deal with it all right ; but I shall not put myself in a position in which .it can bc said that my vote in relation to that bill will determine the fate of taxation measures which I think are necessary for the purpose of carrying on the war.

Senator Collings:

– Evidently the honorable senator intends to oppose the bill.

Senator SPICER:

– I have not said that.

Honorable senators interjecting,

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! In a matter of such importance it is incumbent on honorable senators to hear an honorable senator in silence. Every member of the Senate will have an opportunity to express his views. I hope therefore that honorable senators will be able to express themselves free from interruptions and unseemly interjections.

Senator SPICER:

– Alf that I claim is the right, which I have as a representative of the people, to deal with every piece of legislation which is placed before me on its merits, and without regard to its effect on other legislation which is necessary for the proper prosecution of the war. In this matter the Government has displayed scant courtesy to the Senate; it has almost insulted this chamber, but that does not seem to me to be a matter deserving of particularly serious consideration. It has been suggested with a good deal of force that not only is the conduct of the Government placing hon.ora.hle senators in an embarrassing position, but also that it is directly contrary to the Constitution. I certainly regard it as unconstitutional.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator seems very positive on the subject.

Senator SPICER:

– I repeat what I said yesterday, that it is not necessary for me to found my argument wholly on that position; but it is ridiculous to say that this clause deals only with the fixing of a point of time - the date on which the legislation shall come into operation.

Senator Collings:

– That is all that it does.

Senator SPICER:

– No. That would be quite true if there were in existence a National Welfare Fund Act. In that event this clause would not do more than fix the time when this legislation shall come into operation. But the fallacy of that argument is revealed by the fact that the National “Welfare Fund Act does not exist.

Senator Courtice:

– The honorable senator does not want it to exist.

Senator SPICER:

– The coming into operation o-f the income tax legislation is made conditional, not merely upon the coming into operation of the . National Welfare Fund Act as a point of time, but also upon our agreeing to it. That is the point. The clause means, and can only mean, that this legislation is to come into operation if we agree to another bill. If that is not tacking, I do not know what is.

Senator Collings:

– The three bills are complementary.

Senator SPICER:

– We should not be astonished that these things do not seem to affect the minds of Ministers. I have frequently described the present Ministers as representatives of a totalitarian party - and totalitarian parties do not worry about constitutions. To them such things as legal rights do not matter. The only thing that really matters to totalitarian parties is that they shall get away with their proposals. I am glad to say that on this occasion the Ministry will not get away with its proposals. I hope that the Senate will fight this issue to the bitter end, and insist that the rights which we possess shall be preserved.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

Senator Spicer said that every lawyer agrees that the procedure which has been adopted is improper.

Senator Spicer:

– I did not say every lawyer.

Senator CAMERON:

– The honorable senator said that every lawyer who had considered the matter was of that opinion, and that the lawyers in the Senate had conferred on the matter. I cannot accept the opinion of any lawyer, even Senator Spicer, as the last word on the subject. Unfortunately many people who are not lawyers are apt to accept lawyers at their face value; but we have found among lawyers some of the most cultured and accomplished liars and impostors that the world has ever known. It is true that there have been some honorable exceptions to that rule, but if Senator Spicer says that, because lawyers agree that this is an improper procedure, we should bow our heads and bend the knee to them in submission, and accept their views as the last word on the subject, then, so far as I am concerned, I repeat the honorable senator’s words, and say that the Opposition is not going to “get away with it”. Lawyers may bluff and browbeat witnesses in the police court, but they will not do that to me. Reading the Constitution, not fis a lawyer, but as one who has a fair working knowledge of the English language, I express the opinion that clause 2 of this bill is constitutional. As I said yesterday it deals with two things - the act, and the time. When I consider the National “Welfare Fund Bill 1 try to place myself in the position of those responsible for drafting it. It is clear that they were influenced by their experiences.

Senator McLeay:

– By their experienced advisers in trickery.

Senator Collings:

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the direction which you gave when Senator Spicer was speaking be enforced.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So long as I am in the .chair, I shall endeavour to maintain order. I ‘have always done my best to be fair to every member of the Senate. I do not believe in schoolmaster tactics; I prefer to appeal to the good sense of honorable senators. I may say that on many occasions certain honorable senators in leading positions in the Senate have interjected more than the rank and file senators. In mv opinion, it is incumbent on leaders to set an example to the Senate generally. As every honorable senator will have an opportunity to speak on this subject, which is of great national importance, seeing that it affects the relations between the two branches of the legislature, honorable senators should curb their enthusiasm and await an opportunity to express themselves in a proper manner. I shall endeavour to maintain order, but I know that it is impossible to stop every interjection.. I appeal to honorable senators to hear speakers in silence. “While Senator Spicer was speaking I appealed to other honorable senators not to interrupt, him, but since he concluded his speech, Senator Spicer has interjected several times. I say that without attempting in any way to make invidious distinctions, but because I think I should do so.

Senator CAMERON:

– Those responsible for drafting the clause were evidently influenced by their experiences. During the last war, all sorts of promises were made, not only in Australia, but also in Great Britain and elsewhere.

The people were told that the world would be made a place fit for heroes to live in, that there should be no more poverty, aud that the position of the workers would be secured.

Senator McBride:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister dealing with the motion before the Chair?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister for Aircraft Production is in order if he can connect his remarks with the motion.

Senator CAMERON:

– On that occasion, in both the House of Commons and this Parliament, the representatives of the wealthy interests lied to the workers; they did not honour their promises. This clause, therefore, has been designed to prevent ‘a repetition after this war of the gross inhuman betrayal which was thus perpetrated after the last war. The Government wants to make certain that a foundation is now laid which will secure for the workers essential social service benefits in the future. Honorable senators opposite are opposed to that. That is their real objection to the clause. They wish to deprive our workers and soldiers of the measure of social security to which they are entitled. That is the real objective of honorable senators in persisting with this request, but they are not sufficiently honest to admit that fact. They speak of being embarrassed by this clause. Imagine Senator Spicer being embarrassed by it. They are not embarrassed. Their object is to make it impossible for the Government to do what it is pledged to do, and should do, that is to make impossible another betrayal of the soldiers like that which was perpetrated after the last war when many ex-soldiers, who were denied pensions, were forced to work for the dole. “We profit by experience. “We shall no longer be tricked, ‘bluffed or bounced by members of the legal profession, who quote seriously and sonorously, from authorities who were dead hundreds of years ago, as to how this, or that, should not be done, and in such pleading strike the highest note which it is possible, ethically and politically, to strike, and use the noblest sentiments for the most ignoble of practices. That is the motive behind the Opposition’s move on this occasion; and I have been impelled to say so because Senator Spicer lias declared that the Government is not going to “ get away with it “. So far as I am concerned, the Opposition will not “get away “ with it. We shall make it honour ite obligations, and, so far as it is humanly possible to do so, by legislative action.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.-I presume that the Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) has just spoken on behalf of the Government.That being so, wo can, luckily, leave the lawyers to argue the legal aspect of this clause among themselves. I intend to put the position purely as a layman. The Minister for Aircraft Production put that position in its proper perspective when he said that the object of the clause was to prevent a repetition of what happened after the last war. That is the intention of the Government; therefore, the clause in the bill has nothing to do with taxation. That has been frankly acknowledged by the Minister for Aircraft Production. Do we require further justification, therefore, for the action we have taken? He has just admitted to be right what we have been saying all along. No lawyer i3 required to verify that fact. We need simply take the Minister’s own word that the Government, under the guise of a taxation measure, wishes to force the Senate to pass another bill. Senator Spicer has .pointed out that if the Government had confidence in itself it would recognize that it has perfect freedom to decide the date upon which tills bill shall come into operation, because the clause if amended ils the Opposition has requested, would read, “ This act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation “. It is senseless for the Government to say to an Opposition which has been prepared to provide it with the revenue it requires for war purposes, and to allow it the fullest degree of freedom in the prosecution of the war, that in passing this measure we must also agree to pass some other hill. Apparently, the Government has little confidence in the proposals embodied in the National Welfare Fund Bill because this legislation cannot be proclaimed until that measure comes into operation. This is not a question to be decided simply by lawyers. It is a problem for the layman; and, as I have pointed out, the passage of this measure before the National Welfare Fund Bill is passed will place honorable senators in a false position. We are told that if we do not agree to this clause, and pass the National Welfare Fund Bill, the amount of money to be raised by taxes under this measure for the purpose of the war will not be made available to the Government. I refuse to accept that position. The Opposition would be prepared to pass this measure within five minutes, and to give to the Government all the money it requires for the war, if the Government would present this measure independently of the National Welfare Fund Bill. If it does not do so, I, certainly, shall not be bamboozled into a false position by a government which has not the courage of its convictions.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Information · New South WalesPostmasterGeneral · ALP

. - Honorable senators opposite object to this clause on two grounds : First, because they contend it is unconstitutional; and, secondly, because the clause attaches the measure to the National Welfare Fund Bill. Those objections are merely fictitious. Last night, honorable senators opposite, when they carried a request, promised that they would pass the measure in half an hour provided it was not attached to the National Welfare Fund Bill. Senator Leckie has just said that the Government can have the measure within five minutes on that condition. Is it not obvious to every honorable senator, as it will be obvious to the people, that the Opposition’s only objection to this measure is that it lays the foundation for the provision of social security of our people in the future?

Senator Spicer:

– That is another admission.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That fact was clearly demonstrated in yesterday’s debate when honorable senators opposite said that they refused to accept the clause because it attached this measure to the National Welfare Fund Bill. I point out that honorable senators were given an opportunity to proceed with the consideration of the National Welfare Fund Bill last night. But what happened ? They asked that consideration of that measure be adjourned. Honorable senators opposite now say that they will pass this measure within five minutes on the basis of their request, and will deal later with the National Welfare Fund Bill. They have intimated that they do not know what is embodied in the National Welfare Fund Bill; but they did not take the opportunity given to them last night to proceed with the consideration of that measure. That fact proves that they are not sincere in that contention. It is obvious that the Opposition objects to the measure solely because it makes provision for the social security of our people in the future. Even if we admit that this bill is attached to the National Welfare Fund Bill-

Senator Leckie:

– Does the ‘Minister admit that?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Foi- the sake of argument, I am prepared to admit that the taxes to be levied on incomes in the lower ranges under this measure are a guarantee that steps will be taken to ensure social security for our people in the future. Honorable, senators opposite say that they have no objection to the tax proposals under this measure, that they do not care who is to be taxed; but they object to provision being made to secure the social security of our people in the future. The Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator ‘Cameron) has reminded us of what happened after the list war. Not only were thousands of our people unemployed, but also thousands of ex-soldiers were denied the fulfilment of the promises made to them when they were being farewelled to fight for this country. Thousands of ex-soldiers were forced to carry their swags looking for work. No honorable senator opposite can deny that. At the conclusion of this war, the number of our returned soldiers will be greater tuan after the last war. That makes it all the more imperative for the Government to ensure that the soldiers, on their return after fighting for our freedom, shall at least be given social security. In order to deny that right to the soldiers and to the workers generally, the Opposition now raise the subterfuge that this measure is unconstitutional. I do not propose to waste the time of the committee by dealing with that aspect of the matter. I repeat that the Opposition’s real objection to the clause is the fear that wealthy interests in this country will be called upon to contribute towards the cost of ensuring the future security and welfare of our people.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I listened with a good deal of attention to Senator Spicer’s denunciation of the wording of the clause, and was particularly interested in his statement that it had been so framed in order to embarrass the Senate. I thought that he personally would probably not be embarrassed, because I cannot imagine a barrister being embarrassed in any circumstances. He does not go into court to get justice any more than the honorable senator comes into this chamber to get justice for the people of Australia. I remember him twitting me on my financial ideas, which he said represented a somethingfornothing scheme. I said on one occasion that I would not allow a lawyer to look over the fence where Parliament House was situated, much less allow him inside. That is my opinion of many members of the profession. Many years ago, when I got into an argument on body-line bowling, I stated that, for the first time in the history of international cricket, a lawyer led the English team on to the field, and that men do not learn to play cricket in law courts.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the motion before the Chair.

Senator DARCEY:

– I thought that the committee .was dealing with the actions of lawyers in certain circumstances. We know that when the captain goes on to the field he instructs his bowlers what to do. If they do not do what they are told, he promptly takes them off. A barrister is prepared for any circumstances. He comes into court to win his case, and is not likely to be embarrassed by anything.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing the conduct of business in the law courts.

Senator DARCEY:

– The Opposition has a majority in this chamber , and is relying on it. No matter what measure is brought forward by the1 Government the Opposition follows the advice of that great imperialist, Lord Randolph Churchill, who said that the duty of an opposition was to oppose everything, propose nothing and turn the Government out of office. That is indicative of the conduct of the Opposition in this chamber on every occasion. It would be a good thing for it to allow this bill to go through. I am not concerned with what was said in the House of Representatives, but we are trying to do justice by means of this bill, which is worthy of the support of every honorable senator.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– After the speeches of the two Ministers, there can be no doubt that the words to which we object constitute the “ tack “ or “ tag “ which the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) admitted that they did, because he spoke of them three times as an attachment to the bill. They undoubtedly infringe section 55 of the Constitution, and we now learn for the first time that they were introduced deliberately. We in this chamber have a responsibility, not only as an Opposition, but as the representatives of our respective States, to see that the privileges and rights of the Senate are preserved. I refuse to be dragooned by having attached to a bill which we are powerless to amend something which the Postmaster-General has said will compel as to give legislative form to a measure which we have not yet discussed. The twitterings of Senator Cameron regarding the legal profession pass me by like the idle wind. I remind him and Senator Darcey of the old legal tag that -

No man e’er felt an halter draw

With good opinion of the law.

It may be that we find ourselves in conflict with some of the pre-conceived notions of honorable senators opposite, but we press our point, not with any sinister motive, but for the preservation of the rights of the Senate, which I shall uphold so long as I remain here. The Government has no right under the Constitution to do what the PostmasterGeneral has definitely admitted this morning that it is doing, that is, to attach these words and make them an integral part of the bill. What more do we need than that admission? I doubt if a conference or any other course is open than a point-blank refusal by the Senate to agree to such a degradation of its rights and privileges. The words to which exception is taken constitute an attachment to another bill. Both Ministers spoke of them as something essential to the bill. They admit that other legislation is dependent upon the words embodied in this clause, so that we shall be tied and hamstrung in our activities and obliged, whether we like it or not, to accept another measure unless we are prepared to sacrifice the whole of the taxation proposals to which we have already agreed. Otherwise, as they admit, this bill does not come into operation. I put it to the Senate yesterday, and am glad to notice that my legal friend this morning is more inclined to agree with me than he was yesterday, that this is the most pernicious form of tacking, because it operates to compel certain action by the committee or lose this bill. The Government might as well include in the bill a substantive clause providing that “ this bill shall be of no effect unless certain other legislation be passed “. That clearly the Government cannot do under the Constitution. I cannot understand what is actuating it. Is it afraid of somebody else? Is it fear that prevents it from agreeing to our request? All the power rests in the Government’s hands. Let it therefore accept the responsibility, because it can bring this measure into operation when and how it pleases. There is no denying that fact. There is no justification for its putting some limitation on the bill, or attaching something to the measure, as the Postmaster-General so clearly said. That is something which this chamber as the senior branch of the legislature cannot and will not accept, and which the Constitution does not allow. Accepting the point of view put by both Ministers who have spoken this morning, the clause as it nows stands clearly violates section 55 of the Constitution.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

– I cannot help thinking that the real reason for the opposition to the clause has not yet been revealed, and I am tempted to the conclusion that it lies in the fact that honorable senators opposite feel that their manner in dealing with the National Welfare Fund Bill will be somewhat cramped.

Senator Leckie:

– Of course it will.

Senator LARGE:

– There is the admission, which I think that I can also get from Senator Spicer^ I agree with Senator Cameron that, although after the last war the people were promised a world made safe for democracy, and a land fit for heroes to live in, all that they got was a man-made depression. Is it surprising that the champions of the people, who have been sent to Parliament with the object of emancipating the downtrodden, decided that on this occasion at least they must guard against the possibility of a repetition of that state of affairs? I do not say that the two bills have been tied together for this specific reason.

Senator Leckie:

– But they are tied together, are they not?

Senator LARGE:

– They appear to be. I consider that the Treasurer in his zeal and anxiety on behalf of the class of people whom this social legislation is intended to benefit, may have deliberately caused what honorable senators opposite call tacking, but there is nothing very terrible about that. The Opposition is less concerned about the Senate being deprived of its rights and privileges than about, losing the opportunity of frustrating the passage of certain social legislation which has for its object the granting to the people, particularly to the returned soldiers, some instalment of that new social order which has been promised to them. I am another of those individuals who refuse to be impressed by the legal ponderosity which is typified by the quoting of alleged authorities. Nothing impresses people more than that which they do not understand. The endeavour of members of the legal profession such as those who sit opposite to pull wool over the eyes of the courts and of the public, and to create a state of misunderstanding, is to my mind the secret of much of their success. I have heard lawyers make a strange noise at the backs of their throats, and call it Latin; they then translate their ignorance into Latin and call it knowledge. My idea is that the number of honest lawyers in the community can be very easily counted. J wondered where Senator ‘Cameron met the few of. whom he spoke. I once saw one depicted on a sign outside an hotel at Kilburn, which was called “ The Honest Lawyer “. He was shown carrying his bewigged head under an arm. Apparently the artist, thought that that was the only kind of honest lawyer. ‘ The crux of the question is whether we shall keep faith, with the people we represent and to whom we are bound by our promises to them. I am not, afraid to debate the justice and equity of our proposals in regard to social welfare with Senator Spicer or any other member of the legal fraternity in this chamber, but I would prefer the measures to be separate. I am only a lay member of the Labour party, but I feel sure that I could so emphasize the justice of our claim for improved social welfare that honorable senators opposite would oppose it at their peril. But if those individuals who are responsible for arranging the presentation of this legislation decide otherwise, I am prepared to meet their wishes, just as honorable senators opposite are prepared to fall in behind the “bell wethers “ of the legal profession like Senator Spicer. The real reason for the opposition to this proposal was given only by interjection after I had started to speak. Apparently, honorable senators opposite were not game to state frankly their views on the subject, and so have the matter thoroughly debated. The real reason for the opposition to the proposal is to be found not in the pious wrath and indignation indulged in by two or three speakers from the Opposition benches concerning the alleged abrogation of the rights of this chamber, but in the fact that they see in this measure an attempt to cramp their attitude towards the introduction of certain social services by means of the establishment of a National Welfare Fund. If I am wrong in that view, then I should like to hear further from honorable senators opposite. Let them drop the mask and state frankly what their opposition is. After all, if it is merely a matter of two bills being tacked together-

Senator Herbert Hays:

– The honorable senator has just said that lie did not, believe in that practice.

Senator LARGE:

– No, the honorable senator must not misquote me. I said that I should have been quite satisfied had the measures been entirely independent. I did not say that I did not believe in this procedure. The honorable senator has sat so long beside a lawyer that I am afraid he has become contaminated by contact ! The mock indignation indulged in by honorable senators opposite is so much hypocrisy - I do not like to use the word, but the speeches made from the other side of the chamber are clearly open to that interpretation-

Senator LATHAM:
Western Australia

– I cannot believe that the public generally will echo the sentiments that have been expressed by Senator Large. J believe that the clearest possible case has been made out by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, and if the Government cannot appreciate the arguments that have been raised, it is not our fault. We should look at this matter from the point of view of the precedent which it creates, and for which I am sure honorable senators opposite will be extremely sorry in the future. We have a responsibility to preserve the rights and privileges which have been .placed in our hands by the framers of the Constitution. It seems to me that in some quarters there is not a clear understanding of what section 55 of the Constitution means. It states -

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

The National Welfare Fund Bill to which this measure is tacked is in an embryonic state. We do not know in what form it will emerge from this chamber, and we have no right to speculate as to its final form. This measure imposes taxes for a specific purpose, and, that being so, the correct procedure would have been first to introduce supplementary estimates and then to follow them with a bill. I am sure that even the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) will agree that that would have been the proper course. All we know is that £30,000,000 of the revenue to be raised under this measure is to be placed in a trust fund. Apparently, the Government wants us to buy a “ pig in a poke “.

Senator Ashley:

– The Senate had an opportunity to discuss the National Welfare Fund Bill yesterday.

Senator LATHAM:

– I draw the attention of the Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley) to the fact that the National Welfare Fund Bill merely provides that £30,000,000 is to be appropriated for the purpose of establishing a trust fund. It does not say how the money is to be apportioned. This bill will lead the public astray. Ostensibly, the measure has been introduced for the purpose of making up a deficiency in our war expenditure, and this is merely a subterfuge to delude individuals in the lower income groups to which income tax is to be extended into the belief that they will receive something in return. I shall not support this measure in its .present form. I have no wish to deny the Government any money that it may require for war purposes, nor would I oppose the authorization of expenditure on social services.

Senator LARGE:

– What about post-war needs?

Senator LATHAM:

– How can money be saved for expenditure in the post-war period? Surely the honorable senator will not suggest that money can be taken from the people now by means of heavy taxes, and hoarded in boxes or in banks until after the war! The honorable senator opposite who -first gave us information in regard to the Government’s intentions said-, in effect : “ If you do not pass this bill, there will be no money available to make up the deficiency in war expenditure.” That is a very serious statement. At least so long as I have been in this chamber, the Opposition has never hesitated to agree to the appropriation of all the money that the Government has deemed necessary for war purposes. The Postmaster-General was a little more candid than other government spokesmen, and admitted that the two measures were tied together.’

Senator Ashley:

– I said : “ If it is admitted that they aTe tied together.”

Senator LATHAM:

– My recollection is that the Minister said definitely that the measures were tied together. That was a truthful and candid admission. What the Opposition objects to is the tacking to this measure of a provision which will tie our hands in relation to another hill of which, so far, we know very little.

Senator Lamp:

– And which the honorable senator dislikes.

Senator LATHAM:

– I do not know whether I dislike it or not.

Senator Lamp:

– Then why oppose it.

Senator LATHAM:

– I am not prepared to allow Senator Lamp, or any other senator, to take away from this chamber a right which has been given to it under the Constitution. This chamber has the same rights and privileges as the House of Representatives, with the exception that it cannot amend money bills, but must proceed by means of making requests to the House of Representatives. We have the same franchise as the House of Representatives - one man one vote - except that in the case of the House of Representatives its members represent electorates and we represent a whole State. Honorable senators have definite responsibilities, and I am surprised to hear those who usually hold themselves up as champions of democracy advocating a dictatorial proposal such as this.

Senator Lamp:

– The honorable senator is a Fascist.

Senator LATHAM:

– I do not know what Senator Lamp imagines a Fascist to be, but I would just as soon be a Fascist as a totalitarian. I am quite prepared to face my responsibilities, and to stand up to whatever views I express. If the Government does not agree to the Senate’s request, then it will have to accept the responsibility for that refusal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) stated in the House of Representatives that the two bills were integral to each other, and we agree that that is so; but it is not fair to ask honorable senators to pass legislation which will restrict their powers in regard to another measure. Unfortunately, the constitutional issue has to ‘be determined now because after the bill has been passed it will be too late.

Senator Lamp:

– Let us have an election on it.

Senator LATHAM:

– I should not mind that. If this were the only issue that we should have to face I should be quite happy about it. It is my duty to safeguard the rights of the people; that is what I have been sent here for, and that is what I intend to do. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to accept the request. The money that it requires under this measure will be forthcoming, because no check is being placed on the Government’s right to impose taxes. The supplementary measure providing for the proposals which have been tacked on to this bill should be considered separately.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

– In view of the statement made by Senator A. J. McLachlan in reply to my earlier remarks, I feel that I should remind him, and his colleagues of the legal profession, that the late Mr. Clarence Darrow, admittedly the leading criminal lawyer of the United States of America, and, no doubt, one of the ablest lawyers of the world, said most specifically, not once, but often, that the members of the legal profession had done more to perpetuate poverty and to gaol men and women than any other section of the community.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Brown:

– Order ! The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the motion now under discussion.

Senator CAMERON:

– I am merely replying to certain statements that were made by Senator A. J. McLachlan. However, I shall let the matter pass. What the late Mr. Clarence Darrow had to say about his profession is to be found in the library, and probably it would do some members of that profession on the Opposition benches a lot of good to read those remarks. The attitude adopted by the Opposition in regard to this request is, in effect. “ You can have the revenue, but we are afraid that you may spend it on social services for returned soldiers and workers “. I point out that if this measure be agreed to as it stands, the Government will not be irrevocably committed to the spending of one penny in that direction; ‘but, apparently, honorable senators opposite fear that that will be done and, wishing to make perfectly ‘ sure that the Government will not be committed to expending money on social services, they are opposing this proposal so that there will be no shadow of doubt about the matter. In my opinion, there is no doubt now. The clause deals with the time when the measure will be proclaimed, and does not commit the Government to any specific expenditure on social services. The Opposition has the numbers, and if it so desires it can reject the National “Welfare Fund Bill; but I doubt very much if honorable senators opposite will be courageous enough to do that in view of what such action would mean. Therefore, the arguments against this clause are merely legal arguments based on mere assumption; arguments raised in an endeavour to mystify and bewilder unsophisticated persons like ourselves. They pose as the intellectuals of this chamber. Their argument presupposes that they have looked down from the treetops of human knowledge upon gentlemen of the calibre of my colleagues and myself as mental pigmies. They should be told these things, so that they will not be encouraged to persist in that attitude, and so that they will discuss the bill on its merits instead of on pure hypothesis. If this matter were being determined in a court, the magistrate would ask “ How does this provision commit you to spend one penny?” Honorable senators opposite would have to admit that it does not commit them at all, yet they would have us believe that it does. I have never witnessed a better example of an attempt to “ put something across “.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- The claim of the Government that the Opposition opposes the motion because it is against the granting of social benefits to the people is surely blown to the wind. The present Opposition, when in office, introduced the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill, which provided for the granting of the same kinds of benefits as those contemplated under the National Welfare Fund Bill, but the Labour party opposed that measure because it provided for a contributory scheme. That measure is on the statute-book, and the act could he proclaimed by the present Government. I refute the charge that the Opposition is not in favour of any kind of national welfare scheme. The scheme provided for in the National Health and Pensions Insurance Act is the best that has been submitted to this Parliament since the inception of federation, but it was opposed by those who are now in power and who are trying to place the Opposition in a false position.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– We shall always be jealous of the rights of the Senate, because, to a certain degree, this is a States’ House, and if we do not preserve our rights there is grave danger of the more populous States overriding other States. Although I am much concerned about the necessity for preserving the rights and privileges of the Senate, I have to accept the decision of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) and the Solicitor-General, Sir George Knowles, who have given an assurance that this clause is constitutional. Senator Latham complained that some supplementary estimates should be associated with the measure in order to put it in order, but I ask whether it is possible, for the Government, in view of the present position of affairs in this country, to bring before us a cut and dried method of dealing with the tremendous problems that will arise during and after the war. The Government desires to make a beginning with the task of meeting a situation that is sure to arise in the near future. It is prompted by the highest motives in submitting this measure which merely provides for the raising of a certain sum of money which is to be expended for certain purposes. The Government regards this as a war measure, and, if we are to get a maximum war effort, the interests of the people must he fully safeguarded. I deprecate the attitude of the Opposition in implying that the Government has reasons which it has not explained for submitting the clause in this form.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

. - The main reason why honorable senators opposite object to the clause under consideration is that they fear it would create a precedent, but, in order to safeguard the best interests of the people, I am prepared to do every day something that has not been done before. The bill should be passed as it stands, if the Government is to keep faith with the masses of the people. Senator Leckie has said that if the words complained of were deleted the Government could have the bill in five minutes, but he did not admit that he would use- his influence in order that the Opposition might have a voice as to where and how the money to be raised would be expended. In view of the heavy taxation proposals contained in the bill, the people should have some idea as to what is to become of the increased revenue to be raised. We have promised them that when the war is over social conditions will be made as favorable as it is possible for the Government to make them. We have promised the people- a certain degree of social security, but we could not tax them heavily for a social welfare scheme and expend the money in other directions. Therefore this bill and the National Welfare Fund Bill are definitely related. If the latter measure is not to come into operation, there is no need to place on the people the heavy burden of taxation, which the bill before us imposes. The morale of the people must be maintained if the best results are to be achieved. The revenue that is not required for the purposes- of the national welfare scheme will be expended in other directions. We should not decline to accept the clause under consideration merely because such a provision has not been embodied in an act previously. Why should we always do what our grandfathers have done before us?

Senator Latham:

– We must not ignore the provisions of the Constitution.

Senator AYLETT:

– Honorable senators opposite ask the Government to ignore the advice tendered by the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) and the SolicitorGeneral. That is an unreasonable request. I must have respect for the legal advice tendered to the Government, as I am merely a layman. We have been assured that the clause does not infringe the Constitution.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– We should take stock of what has happened in the last 24 hours, and the events which have led to the position in which we find ourselves this morning. During yesterday the matter was discussed. Eventually the members of the committee moved a number of amendments in the Income Tax Assessment Bill. They also requested that certain words be removed from the clause which is now the subject of debate. All that was within the rights of the Senate. When those amendments and the requests were considered in the

House of Representatives the Government magnanimously gave way in respect of the amendments, notwithstanding that that, meant the loss of a considerable amount of revenue at a critical time in the finances of Australia. The legislation upon which those amendments we’re moved was not something conceived in a hurry, or without regard to its implication. During this discussion honorable senators opposite have repeated many times that that legislation must be unpalatable to the Government, and to the people whom it particularly represents. That is so, but because of the exigencies of the war situation, the Government decided that stringent financial measures were necessary in order to preserve the safety of this country. Notwithstanding those considerations, however, the Government gave way and agreed to accept the amendments. Let us consider the reasons why the Opposition in this chamber intends to persist in this request. We have been told first that the clause to which objection is taken is unconstitutional. If we allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the legal and constitutional aspects of legislation, we may lose sight of the reasons why this request was moved, and why the Government is resisting it. As has already been said, there is a conflict of opinion among members of the legal profession as to the constitutionality of the clause. Every law passed by this Parliament may be subject to a test as to its constitutionality. Should it be declared unconstitutional it ceases to have the effect of law. That is merely stating a truism, and so, for the moment at any rate, we can dismiss that point in order that we may see more clearly the issues which are involved.

The next suggestion is that in some way the clause affects the dignity of the Senate.

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The rights of the Senate.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am prepared to accept that correction, although after all, that is a matter of opinion, because on this question legal authorities, not only in Australia, but also in other countries, have disagreed for a long time. It is said that this clause, if agreed to, would establish a precedent. I submit that there is nothing wrong in a precedent if, in the opinion of those who propose it, such precedent provides for a better procedure. Therefore, I think that we can dismiss that aspect also.

The important reason urged by the Opposition for what I describe as its wilful persistence in this matter, is that, by agreeing to the clause, honorable senators will have their hands tied when the time arrives for them to consider another bill. That contention will not stand a moment’s analysis. I am not now attempting anything in the way of destructive criticism, but am trying fo show a way out of the impasse which has arisen. There is no truth in the statement that if the bill which we are now considering is carried in the form in which it was introduced in this chamber, the hands of any honorable senator will be tied when the National Welfare Fund Bill comes before the Senate.

Senator MCBRIDE:

– Nonsense !

Senator COLLINGS:

– By accepting this hill in. its original form honorable senators do not promise to pass the other measure, or even to refrain from criticizing it. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that their hands will be tied, because they can still refuse to pass that bill.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– What would happen to this measure if we did not pass the other bill? In that event this bill could never be proclaimed.

Senator COLLINGS:

– What would happen afterwards would be a matter of policy to be considered by the Government. Let the other bill come before us in its proper course - the sooner the better - so that we can reach finality in regard to it. Every Opposition senator will have an opportunity to oppose that bill. In this proposal, the Government merely says that the date of the proclamation of this measure shall not be earlier than the date on which another measure is to come into operation. I can see no reason whatever - I say this in all sincerity, and with all respect - why the Opposition could not have agreed to sit for another hour and a half last night. We had agreed to sit until 11 o’clock. We could have gone on with the other bill, and could have passed it.

Even now, the Senate could pass the other measure before the luncheon adjournment. For honorable senators opposite to say that they do not know the purpose of that bill is not worthy of them. They have had copies of the second-reading speech of the Minister who introduced it and have had more than twenty-four hours in which to consider it. They know that that bill is a guarantee that an attempt will be made to make the future a bit more secure for people who in the past have found life most insecure. By agreeing to this bill the Senate would not commit itself to more than that. I ask honorable senators opposite to look the facts in the face. I cannot understand the argument that the withdrawal of the request would hamper them in any way. Many things have been said this morning which could open the way for acrimonious debate. I am just as capable of participating in a debate of that kind as is any other honorable senator, but there is no need for such a debate. We have before us a clear-cut question which can be decided on the facts. The way would be open for the other measure to be dealt with. Honorable senators would not have their hands tied and would not be forced to vote for it. They would be free to decide their course of action according to the dictates of their conscience. Let us get on with the job.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The debate this morning has not been without merit. When Senator Spicer moved his request yesterday the Government failed to give any information to the Senate, but this morning a wealth of information has been supplied to us. We have been told that the bill before us and the National Welfare Fund Bill are practically the same.

Senator Collings:

– No ; they are complementary.

Senator JAMES McLACHLANThis morning the Postmaster General (Senator Ashley) and the Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) said that the two bills are wrapped up together, so we are now in a position to understand the two measures. In the bill before us we are asked to make our vote conditional on something that we may, or may not do, when another measure comes before us. Any unbiased critic of the National Welfare Fund Bill will agree that it is most nebulous. That measure simply provides for the provision of a trust fund, from which in some indefinite future money will be taken for purposes which are not set out clearly.

Senator Collings:

– With the help of the Opposition arrangements will be made to do something definite in the future.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Opposition is always prepared to help the Government to do the right thing. The only time that the Opposition tries to prevent the Government from acting is when it feels that something wrong is contemplated. Some day members of the present Government will be grateful for the action which the Opposition is now taking. The National Welfare Fund Bill embodies a .plan which, to use the words of the Minister when introducing it, will introduce stage by stage a comprehensive scheme of welfare services including provision against unemployment and sickness. That is very vague. The Leader of the Senate also said that measures in respect of those two classes of benefits would be introduced within six months. I am not prepared to be a party to passing any legislation on the supposition that something will happen within six months.

Senator Collings:

– Those measures are awaiting attention.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– But the proposals with which they deal are only in embryo. They do not set out exactly the benefits to be provided, or to whom those benefits will be given. Those proposals exist only in the form of a promise by the Government to provide certain benefits which are not defined. I refuse to commit myself to a proposition of that kind. All we know yet is that the Government proposes to provide £30,000,000 for the establishment of a National Welfare Fund: .but in the absence of specific provisions governing the distribution of that fund, the Government could distribute that money, for instance - and it would not surprise me - by giving benefits to the Miners Federation, the Textile Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Union, or any other union.

In the absence of specific safeguards covering the distribution of that fund, we should, in effect, give the Government power to distribute that money in any way it desired. I sincerely hope that the Opposition will stand firm in its present attitude towards this request. The Government should realize that we have no wish to hamper it in the prosecution of the war, or in the raising of revenue for war purposes. The Leader of . the Senate said (hat if the Opposition desired, the Senate could complete consideration of the National Welfare Fund Bill by 12.45 p.m. If time is any consideration, the Opposition will consider that measure within five minutes provided the Government accepts the Senate’s request.

Senator FRASER (Western Australia - Minister for External Territories) 1 11. 17]. - In view of the discussion, I am prepared to postpone consideration of the Senate’s request until such time as- the National Welfare Fund Bill has been dealt willi .by the Senate. That measure has already reached the secondreading stage. Further, if consideration of this request be postponed, and the Opposition be prepared to pass the National Welfare Fund Bill, the Government will agree to accept the Senate’s request.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– It is clear from this debate that honorable senators opposite are not prepared to support any measure which is designed to provide for the social security of our people in the future. Portion of the revenue to be raised by the taxes to be imposed under this measure will be used for war purposes, and portion of it will be used to establish a National Welfare Fund. That money is to be retained in that fund until Parliament decides how it shall be expended. The Minister for External Territories (Senator Fraser) has just intimated that the Government is prepared to postpone consideration of the Senate’s request in order to enable the Senate to deal with the National Welfare Fund Bill. That should remove every objection raised by honorable senators opposite. I agree with the Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) that we should now lay a foundation to ensure the social security of our people in the future. Year after year, governments in this Parliament, politically akin to honorable senators opposite, have promised social security to the people, but invariably have advanced specious reasons for their failure to give effect to those promises. This Government is justified in stipulating that portion of the taxes to be collected under this measure shall be placed in a fund for the purpose of .providing national welfare benefits after the war. Parliament can then decide specifically how that money shall be distributed. There is nothing sinister in the Government’s action in taking that course. Indeed, this measure represents the first sincere attempt made by any Government in this country to carry out the promises made to the people during the last twenty yeaTs to establish a new social order.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– This is only a promise, also.

Senator ARNOLD:

– It is a clear indication that the Government is prepared to establish a trust fund for that purpose ; and if honorable senators opposite are sincere in their desire to see a new socia’ order established after the war, they will discontinue their opposition in this matter.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– In view of the intimation given by the Minister for External Territories (Senator Fraser), we shall now be able to deal with this matter without fear that the rights and privileges of the Senate are being infringed in any way. Honorable senators opposite have emphasized their desire that this measure and the National Welfare Fund Bill shall be treated separately on their merits. They are now given an opportunity to do that; and I believe that they will accept it.

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

– I believe that the Opposition will accept the offer made by the Government to postpone consideration of this request until such time as the National Welfare Fund Bill has been considered. I£ the Opposition fails to accept that offer, it must be obvious to every honorable senator and to the people that a sinister motive lies behind their opposition.

Senator Courtice:

– The Opposition will accept the offer.

Senator McBride:

– We are prepared to vote on the motion before the Chair.

Motion (by Senator Fraser) put -

That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 2

Motion negatived.

AYES

NOES

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

– It is perfectly obvious that honorable senators have deliberately misled the committee. Therefore, their word cannot be relied upon. They said that they desired to consider the National Welfare Fund Bill before dealing with this measure.

Senator McBride:

– We did not say anything of the sort.

Senator CAMERON:

– It was said that they desired to discuss it first, and they asked why it was not brought before the Senate before this bill. We should be in a position to accept the word of honorable senators opposite when it is given, but it is now proved beyond all doubt that their word cannot be accepted. In fact, it can be said that certain members of the Opposition deliberately lied about the matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable senator must not accuse the members of the Opposition of deliberately lying-

Senator CAMERON:

– I withdraw the statement that they deliberately lied and will say that they deliberately misled us, if that is more euphonious, although it has the same meaning. I say again that the members of the Opposition asked for the opportunity to discuss first the bill dealing with the National Welfare Fund, and gave us to understand that if that were done they would be prepared to discuss this bill. The opportunity has been given by the Government, and the Opposition has refused to accept it, so that it is quite obvious that they are running true to form, and following the policy laid down by the anti-Labour members of the British House of Commons when they defeated the Beveridge plan. That plan when it came before the House of Commons did not provide social security to the extent that the Labour party would have liked, and could not be said to represent 100 per cent, of Labour’s policy, but the anti-Labour members of the House defeated it with the object of depriving of its benefits, the men and women who are fighting and working to save the nation. Reviewing all these things, it is perfectly evident to me, and I think to my colleagues, that the opposition to this clause has for its object the removal of the possibility of any measure of social security being granted to those who most need it. The policy of the Opposition is the policy of big business outside this chamber.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I rise to order. Is an* honorable senator entitled to impute improper motives regarding the way in which we may cast our votes on a bill which is not yet before us? The Minister has said in effect that in dealing with this bill we are actuated by improper motives, and that we intend to oppose another bill, but the principles of that measure have not yet been, debated in this chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– An honorable . senator is not in order in imputing improper motives. I did not hear the Minister do so.

Senator CAMERON:

– Improper procedure, which means improper motives, was attributed to honorable senators on this side of the chamber by Senator Spicer.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is not in order to impute improper motives to honorable senators on either side of the chamber. If Senator Cameron did so, he should withdraw the imputation.

Senator CAMERON:

– I have no recollection of imputing improper motives. That is merely a construction which Senator Herbert Hays has placed upon my words. I simply stated as nearly as I could recollect what in my judgment was the real origin of the opposition shown to the clause.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Is the Minister in order in questioning your ruling?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No honorable senator is entitled to impute improper motives. Senator Cameron has no recollection of doing so.

Senator CAMERON:

– It is quite a proper motive for the Opposition to be pledged to the policy laid down by big business, although I would regard it as highly improper. The anti-Labour members in the House of Commons were responsible for the defeat of the Beveridge plan, because they were actuated by the motive of protecting the interests of big business at the expense of the working class of Great Britain. Their action, although entirely proper from their point of view, was quite improper from mine. ‘Senator Spicer has almost screamed from the house-tops that he is here to see that justice is done in the interests of the people. He made that statement without qualification or reservation, although that is not his real position.

Senator Spicer:

– I rise to order. I submit that the honorable senator is entirely out of order, because he is not discussing the motion before the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

– A certain amount of latitude has been allowed in the debate, because the National Welfare Fund Act is mentioned in the clause before the committee. In the circumstances, I have allowed honorable senators to discuss matters relating to national welfare schemes in this and other countries, because they appear to be pertinent to the clause.

Senator CAMERON:

– I merely repeated Senator Spicer’s statement that he opposed the clause in the interests of the people. In my judgment he merely makes that claim in order to mislead those who do not know any better. Actually, the honorable senator speaks for that section of the people which owns and controls the means by which the wageearners live.

The CHAIRMAN:

– It would be more fitting if the Minister dealt with the question before the Chair, and paid less regard to opinions expressed by honorable senators.

Senator CAMERON:

– I bow to your ruling, recognizing that certain limitations must be observed in debate, but when statements reflecting on the honesty and integrity of the Government and its supporters are made, I should be permitted, if I am reasonably careful in observing the rules of debate, to refute them.

Senator McBride:

– I submit that the honorable senator is disputing your ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that the Minister is doing so. He is simply giving reasons for some of the statements that he has been making. I hope that he will not persist in that direction, ,’but will discuss the motion.

Senator CAMERON:

– I wish briefly to indicate that, if statements are made reflecting on others, it should be possible to reply to them. I hope that the people outside will understand that the Government endeavoured, so far as lay in its power, to do everything that the Opposi- tion wanted in relation to the discussion of the two bills, but that when the opportunity was offered, it was proved beyond doubt that the promise given by the Opposition was not intended to be honoured, and that its members were not sincere when they requested an opportunity to debate the other bill.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– I have not expressed myself for or against any bill which will be debated later, but I strongly object to a clause which bears no relation to its subject-matter being tacked on to this bill. This action of the Government is without precedent in the Senate. We are the custodians of the rights of the Senate, and if we agree to what is now proposed we shall - be laying down a dangerous precedent. There is a catch in it, because if we postpone the discussion on this bill, and pass it after another measure has been disposed of we shall be acquiescing in tacking. There is no doubt that the clause tacks on to this bill a subject which is foreign to its purpose. If we accept it as it stands, we establish for all time a precedent whereby any government could force the Senate to support, say, compulsory unionism by ticking it on to another measure, or take the responsibility of refusing finance required to carry on the business of the country, and might even he urgently needed for war purposes. The question that we have to decide now extends far beyond the subject-matter specified in the title of this measure. The Government knows quite well that there are other ways in which it could have achieved its object without resorting to this procedure. This is a most serious matter. If honorable senators agree to the Government’s proposal, they will be associating themselves with an attempt to disregard the rights of this chamber and a dangerous precedent will be established. The principle is entirely wrong. The Government could have introduced this solely as a war-time measure, making provision for war expenditure. Both Senator Aylett and Senator Large have said that they would have preferred such action.

Senator Aylett:

– I did not say that. I said that I preferred the present procedure.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– At least the honorable senator said that the matter could have been dealt with some other way, and the same admission was made by Senator Large. Why not adopt the correct procedure and so maintain the rights of this chamber as a House of review? I am not prepared to associate myself with a method which has been condemned in all British Parliaments. “ Tacking “, as evidenced in this measure, is a sharp practice - I hesitate to use the word - employed to secure the agreement of this chamber to something which is quite foreign to the bill under discussion. I shall do all in my power to uphold the rights of this chamber under the Constitution, and to avoid the establishment of a precedent which I am sure would be deeply regretted. The time will come when honorable senators opposite will thank the Opposition for the stand that it is taking on this pernicious practice.

Senator COLLINGS:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · ALP

– “When I made a brief contribution to this discussion earlier in the day, I endeavoured to clear the atmosphere of arguments about matters which are not relevant to the question now before the committee. Such irrelevancies are to be deplored, and I propose to ignore them, except to refer briefly to a matter mentioned by Senator Herbert Hays, namely, compulsory unionism. There is nothing in the National “Welfare Fund Bill or in this measure about compulsory unionism.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– I merely used that as an illustration.

Senator COLLINGS:

– At any rate, the words were used, and the fact that they were used immediately created a desire amongst honorable senators on this side of the chamber to rebut the suggestion that it would be possible to “ tack “ to a measure of this kind, proposals relating to compulsory unionism. Earlier to-day, I referred to the argument which has been carried on in this chamber by the lawyers on the Opposition benches, and I pointed out that the Government itself did not prepare measures such as this, nor did it decide the form of drafting without full and careful consideration. The fact is that every phase of this matter has been considered carefully and deliberately by the Government and by its legal advisers. For some reason the word “ tacking “ crept into the debate yesterday, and rapidly became a popular expression. I wish to draw the attention of honorable senators to the opinion of the Government’s legal advisers in regard to the constitutionality of this proposal.

Senator Spicer:

– When did they give it?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator knows quite well that the Solicitor-General and officers of his department are available to the Government at any time. Obviously, it would be highly improper for the Government not to avail itself of the advice of these experts. The opinion that they have expressed is as follows: -

In our view, the words which the Senate has requested the House to omit from clause 2 of the bill do not amount to “ tacking “ within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

That section states that Jaws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

The provision which is objected to by the Senate is a provision imposing a limitation upon the power of the Governor-General in Council to proclaim the commencement of the act. It is a provision definitely related to the commencement of the tax law, and is not “ other matter “ within the meaning of section 55.

The object of the provision in the Constitution is to prevent the inclusion within a measure of other provisions to which the Senate might object. In the present case, the provision merely prevents a measure from operating at all until some date when it is certain that another bill will have become law. Until that time arrives, the law imposing taxation cannot come into operation. It cannot conic into operation because it is not required ns a law until the other bill has become law.

I have no wish to pose as one who possesses considerable legal knowledge. Definite opinions have been expressed by the legal luminaries on the Opposition benches, and, in reply, I have produced the advice upon which the Government is acting. I shall let the matter rest at that. As I said earlier, there was no need to raise the constitutional aspect of this matter at all. Honorable senators opposite will be quite at liberty to say what they like about the National Welfare Fund Bill and take whatever action they deem necessary in regard to that measure. No one can take that right away from them, and their freedom will not be hampered in any way. The Government is not asking for the passage of the National Welfare Fund Bill at present. All we are asking is that this measure be passed as quickly as possible in order that we may get on with our’ job. Any. further tactics which may be employed by the Opposition to-day cannot honestly be interpreted as anything but obstructive.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- Am I to understand that it is the firm opinion of officers of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department that the provisions of this measure relating to the date of commencement of its operation are quite legal? If so, would it not be just as legal to stipulate that this measure’ shall not come into force at a date earlier than the proclamation, of an act enforcing compulsory unionism?

Senator Collings:

– Obviously, such a measure would have no relation to a taxation bill.

Senator LECKIE:

– “Would it not be just as legal to provide that this measure should not come into operation until the proclamation of an act withdrawing the Commonwealth from the provisions of the British Empire Act? Surely that is the effect of the opinion which the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) has just read. As a matter of fact, you, Mr. Chairman, ruled that as these two acts were interwoven, they could be discussed together. Surely we can obtain no higher authority than that. If it is the view of the Attorney-General’s Department that the date of commencement of this legislation can be specified in the way it has been in this clause. I am most astounded.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have no recollection of having said that the two bills are interwoven. I merely, stated that in clause 2 of the bill under consideration reference was made to the National Welfare Fund Act, and consequently it was permissible for the discussion to proceed in a certain direction. I ask Senator Leckie to withdraw the remark that I stated that the two bills were interwoven.

Senator LECKIE:

– If I was mistaken in the inference that I drew, I withdraw the remark.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

– One of the procedures that I have always deprecated in deliberative parliamentary assemblies is any semblance of an attack upon public servants who are unable to defend themselves in this chamber. Therefore, I say that the remarks of Senator Leckie are unworthy of him, and must be definitely refuted by me. All that I did say, in order to refute and confute the opinion of legal members of the Opposition in this chamber, was that they should read every word of the opinion furnished to the Government regarding the request made by the Opposition. I add nothing to that, and take nothing from it. I did not even suggest that the Crown Law advisers of the Government had said that it would be in order to insert in the bill, such words as have, by ridiculous stretches of an exceedingly fertile imagination, been suggested by Senator Leckie. In order to make sure that no such imputation can lie on those who are unable to defend themselves in this chamber, but who are the properly constituted legal advisers of the Government, I shall tell honorable senators what they did say. Their opinion reads -

In our view tuc words which the Senate had requested the House to delete do not amount to “tacking”, within the meaning of section -55.

The opinion goes on to say what that- section provides and adds -

It is a provision definitely related to the commencing of the tax law, and is not “ other matter “ within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.

Therefore, compulsory unionism and disloyalty to the British Empire have no relation to an income tax law. The honorable senator knows that. He introduced these other matters in order to be obstructive. I do not desire to prolong this debate.

Senator MCBRIDE:

– Hear, hear!

Senator COLLINGS:

– If the members of the Opposition wish to prolong the proceedings I shall do my share in that direction. I am prepared to go on throughout to-day, to-night and tomorrow, and I guarantee to see members of the Opposition out, physically or mentally, under those conditions.

Senator McBride:

– The Minister is merely boasting.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the motion before the chair.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I submit that my remarks are relevant to the motion. The Government wishes to have this bill passed and I urge the Opposition not to persist in its attitude, after the Government has most magnanimously-

Senator Sampson:

– Rats!

Senator COLLINGS:

– That is indicative of the mentality of the honorable senator and of his efficiency as a debater.

The Government is imposing no shackles on the Opposition with regard to another bill. When the bill before us is passed the Opposition will have a perfectly free hand to support or reject the other measure. All we ask is that it should not waste further time. Obviously it desires to defeat the Social Welfare Fund Bill.

Senator SPICER:
Victoria

.- It would be merciful to the Government to end this debate, because the longer it proceeds the worse becomes the position of the Government. I entirely support the argument of Senator Leckie that, if the legal opinion supplied to the Government were correct, it would be perfectly lawful for this bill to contain a provision that it should not come into operation earlier than the date upon which,’ say, compulsory unionism was enacted.

Senator Collings:

– The legal advice tendered to the Government is that that is not so.

Senator SPICER:

– The opinion contains nothing of the kind. If that opinion be right in relation to the National Welfare Fund Bill, it must be right also in relation to a provision which referred, not to the National Welfare Fund Bill, but to compulsory unionism or any other matter. The latter subjects are no more “ other matter “ than the National Welfare Fund scheme if the legal opinions obtained by the Government be correct.

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1937

– The Government’s legal advisers say the opposite.

Senator SPICER:

– I disagree with them. If the legal opinion be correct, the suggestion of Senator Leckie is incontrovertible. If the provision in this bill stated what was true, I am disposed to think that the opinion of the law officers of the Crown would be correct. If a National Welfare Fund. Act were in existence at this moment I should have no difficulty whatever in accepting the opinion of the two gentlemen who have advised the Government in this matter, and for whom I have the greatest respect, that this clause merely fixes the time for the coming into operation of the act; but what has been overlooked, and what is very important - and it arises on the mere words of this clause - is that when this matter arises in this chamber to-day there is not in existence a National Welfare Fund Act. Therefore, the clause has a much larger meaning than the function of the date upon which the Income Tax Act is to come into operation. It must mean, in that set of circumstances, that the bill will come into operation subject to’ a number of conditions, the first of which is that the National Welfare Fund Bill must be accepted. If that is not an introduction of “ other matter “ I do not know what is. I suggest that, once we approach the question from that point of view, it is clear that this bill does not deal “ only with the imposition of taxation “. Those words in section 55 of the Constitution are very important. It has been said in the course of this debate, that an opportunity has been given to us to deal with the National Welfare -Fund Bill first.

Senator Fraser:

– Does the honorable senator deny that?

Senator SPICER:

– I deny that we were offered an opportunity to deal with the National Welfare Fund Bill unembarrassed by considerations in relation to the bill now before us. The only offer which the Minister made was that we should adjourn the discussion of this measure, and go on with the consideration of the National Welfare Fund Bill, and that if we passed it the Government would then be graciously pleased to take from this bill the words to which the Opposition objects. The Government persists that the National Welfare Fund Bill shall not be considered on its merits. Having regard to all that has been said, it seems to me that the conduct of the Government in this matter can be described as little short of disgraceful. In those circumstances I shall persist in my opposition to the motion.

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

.- I do not hold myself up as a constitutional authority, and I have to accept the advice in these matters of the legal advisers of the Government. Senator Spicer and Senator A. J. McLachlan hold conflicting views on legal issues at times, and Senator Latham is emphatic that the bill conflicts with the Constitution. Therefore both the Opposition and the Government should be guided by the opinion of the legal advisers to the

Crown. Section 55 of the Constitution provides that any provision in a law imposing taxation which deals with any other matter shall be of no effect. If the Opposition is correct in maintaining that the reference to the National Welfare Fund Act 1943 deals with something other than taxation, the only result is that the Constitution will deprive it of effect.

Senator Spicer:

– No.

Senator FRASER:

– The Government would then be in a position to proclaim the act at any time after it was passed. But this is all the request seeks to achieve. If the Opposition is right, the 3ame result will be attained whether or not the requested amendment be made. The request is thus, on the showing of the Opposition, unnecessary.

It would not be a violation of section 55 of the Constitution to provide in the same bill for one rate of tax to apply from the passing of the bill and for another rate to come into operation from the date on which another bill becomes law. There is no difference between such a measure and the measure under discussion. In passing the latter measure the Parliament would not be enacting any legislation other than that imposing taxation. The passage of the bill would not bring into operation the National Welfare Fund Bill, or even compel its passage. Simply, the position is that if the National Welfare Fund Bill is not passed, the imposition of the rates of tax set out in the Income Tax Bill will not be required. In other words, the purpose of the Income Tax Bill is that, in the event of the National Welfare Fund Bill being passed, the rates of tax set out in the bill are fo apply. Otherwise other rates of income tax will have to be imposed. The Income Tax Bill provides for the imposition of taxes partly to finance the national welfare fund. Should that fund not be established, the rates of tax specified in the bill setting out the rates of tax may have to be modified. The new taxes will be required largely for the national welfare fund.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– We were told that the money was required for the prosecution of the war.

Senator FRASER:

– The clause now being discussed was inserted in order to make the intention of the Government clear. As Opposition senators have complained that they have not had an opportunity to debate the National Welfare Fund Bill, the Government has generously offered to postpone the consideration of this request until that bill has been dealt with. Last night, Senator McBride declined to continue the debate on that measure. Obviously the Opposition is bent on defeating the intention of the Government to establish a National Welfare Fund. Yesterday, it claimed that no opportunity had been provided to discuss the bill authorizing its establishment, but in view of the Government’s_offer that objection can no longer be advanced. A further objection was that the dignity of the Senate was being endangered. To-day some other reason for the attempt of the Opposition to frustrate the purpose of the Government is advanced. The Opposition should accept the offer of the Government to allow the fate of the National Welfare Fund Bill to be decided. Should that measure be defeated, the Opposition will have to accept the responsibility.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister for External Territories (Senator Fraser) has made two statements which cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. By suggesting that the discussion be postponed he is burking the whole question. The Opposition is either right or wrong in saying that the privileges of the Senate are being invaded and section 55 of the Constitution violated. I submit that we are not entitled to bargain for the privileges of the Senate in the way suggested by the Minister. His suggestion exposes the very danger to which we have drawn attention, because, apparently, unless the National Welfare Fund Bill is agreed to this bill in its present form will be abandoned. I remind the Senate that the Government has at all times the power of proclamation; at any time it can proclaim a measure which has been passed by the Parliament. The action of the Minister makes me -somewhat suspicious, because his suggestion that this discussion should be postponed amounts to an infringement of our rights. It has’ been said that there is a difference of opinion between Senator Spicer and myself. If there be any difference of opinion, it is that I go further than he does in regard to the constitutionality of this provision. The legal opinion which the Minister has read convinces me that I am right in my contention that a condition is attached to this bill as definitely as if it were expressed in a separate clause. More is involved in clause 2 than a mere point of time. There is no such act on the statute-book as that to which clause 2 refers, although it is true that a bill to establish a national welfare fund is before the legislature. But what would happen in the event of the National Welfare Fund Bill being defeated ? One effect would be that the taxes to which we are asked to agree could not be imposed, because the act authorizing their imposition could not be proclaimed. I am interested to know whether the Government proposes to tax the people in order to raise money to establish a national welfare fund or to prosecute the war. The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) says that the money is required for war purposes and for the present will be placed in a trust fund. The legal opinion which has somewhat belatedly been brought before the Senate is so subtle that its true meaning escaped notice in the House of Representatives. It has been said that the clause deals only with the time of commencement, but that, I submit, is a misapprehension. What is proposed in the clause is something substantive; it is “other matter “. I have every respect for the gentlemen who submitted that opinion, but I shall not allow my rights as a protector of the privileges of the Senate to bc whittled away by any opinion which may be introduced into this chamber at the eleventh hour.

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1937

– I tried, and I had hoped with some measure of success, to clear up some of the difficulties which appeared to be worrying honorable senators opposite, but it seems necessary that I should make another attempt to smooth things out. Honorable senators who, as laymen, have nothing to rely upon but a working knowledge of the English language, are at some disadvantage because at every stage they are confronted, first, by Senator Spicer, who may be said to express the view of the Supreme Court in this chamber, and then by Senator A. J. McLachlan, who may be said to announce the decision of the High Court. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to assist Senator A. J. McLachlan in his difficulty by making a proposal to him. I now ask him whether he would be more satisfied, and less obstructive, if the clause were altered to read “ an act providing for the creation of a national welfare fund comes into operation “ ?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– That would make no difference whatever. Indeed, the provision would be more nebulous than it is now.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I made that offer in the hope that it might influence the Opposition, but as it has not been accepted I shall have to pass on to another phase which I shall submit to the Senate in all sincerity and humility. I am now anxious to offer the Leader of the Opposition a way out.

Senator McBride:

– The Leader of the Senate does not seem anxious that a vote be taken.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– We do not want a way out.

Senator COLLINGS:

– So soon as it. is made apparent that the Opposition is prepared that a vote be taken, no honorable senator on this side will attempt, to delay it. What does the tax bill propose to do? First, it imposes certain taxes. For what purposes are those taxes required ?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Treasurer said for war purposes.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Portion of the taxes, in spite of the honorable senator’s interjection, is required for war purposes ; and portion is required for the purpose of establishing the national welfare fund.

Senator McBride:

– That is not a taxation matter.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am dealing with the facts. If that portion of the taxes relating to the National Welfare Fund Bill is not required because of the non-passage of that measure, the tax bill in its present form will not be required either. That is so obvious that it should not require stressing. The words in clause 2 to which honorable senators so strenuously object were inserted definitely to prevent the operation of the tax bill which will have become unnecessary if theNational Welfare Fund Bill be not passed. That is sufficiently plain.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Executive already has power to provide against that contingency.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator is trying to “pass the buck”. I have spent a considerable time this morning endeavouring to show honorable senators opposite that they have the power in their own hands to deal as they wish with the National Welfare Fund Bill. Obviously, the words of the clause to which honorable senators opposite object are. relevant to the tax bill. Surely, honorable senators opposite do not deny that.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– We do.

Senator COLLINGS:

– At least up till now honorable senators opposite have not been as silly as that. They have said that the original clause did not suit them, and that those particular words offended their dignity and would embarrass them later ; but they have not yet said that the words to which they object are not relevant to the tax bill, which proposes taxes to meet the costs to be incurred under the National Welfare Fund Bill.

Senator McBride:

– The tax bill is not a bill for that purpose.

Senator COLLINGS:

– Yes ; it indicates plainly that it shall not become operative until the other is passed and proclaimed. It does not follow that a clause relating to compulsory unionism would be relevant to the tax bill. Indeed, honorable senators opposite in spite of their “ supreme court “ and their “ high court “ cannot possibly make such a clause appear to be relevant to the tax bill. I hope that I have made the position a little clearer, and have shown honorable senators opposite a way out of the difficulty in which they have placed themselves.

Question put -

That Request No. 1 be not pressed.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Request pressed accordingly.

Resolution reported ; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 12.40 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1635

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Collings) proposed -

That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1, be postponed until after the consideration of Order of the Day No. 2.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon J Cunningham:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The motion is in order, but it must not be debated.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 15

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1636

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Collings) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday next, the 16th March, at 11 a.m.

page 1636

ADJOURNMENT

Finance: Government Policy; Inflation - Australian Army : Noncombatant Officers ; Magazine “ Salt “ ; Service Chevrons - Wool Prices - War Service Homes - Flax

Motion (by Senator Collings) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I wish to make a few remarks on the much-debated subject of inflation. In a financial statement tendered to the Senate a few weeks ago, we were told of the steps to be taken to raise money for future requirements. Senator McBride, speaking a week or two later on the motion “ That the paper be printed “, said that it had been asserted by the Government that the whole of the Government’s financial arrangements had been made after consultation with its financial advisers and the Commonwealth Bank Board. The honorable senator then asked that the correspondence between the Government and the Commonwealth Bank Board should be laid upon the table for the information of honorable senators. This has not been done, a fact which has raised in the minds of some a suspicion that the statement made from the treasury bench was erroneous. Why was not the correspondence laid upon the table of the Senate? Surely it is the property of Parliament, and if so, members of this Parliament are entitled to see it. There is no reason that I know of why the Government should not lay it upon the table.

Senator Collings:

– The honorable senator has never heard of it being done before.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.Yes, I have. Yesterday a statement was made in Sydney by Sir Claude Reading, the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, which makes it evident that he had no hand in preparing the financial statement submitted to the Senate, because he distinctly said -

Inflationary methods, unless within reasonable limits and under strict control, merely create a false paradise for ourselves, our children and our children’s children.

From that I conclude that the Commonwealth Bank Board and its officers were not in agreement with the statement made from the treasury bench.

Senator Collings:

– Wrong again.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– If Senator McBride and I are wrong, surely the Leader of the Senate is prepared to lay the correspondence on the table, to prove who is right and who is wrong. The request is quite reasonable. If what I am saying be incorrect, I am prepared to peruse the documents and admit my error, but I shall not do so merely on a contradiction by the Leader of the Senate. Apart from that, inflation is already here, as the Minister- and any other honorable senator who thinks or reads well knows. Bank credit, as I pointed out in this chamber yesterday, has risen from practically nothing when this Government took office to about £300,000,000 to-day. The people will soon realize that it is not by the money which they have in their pockets that they can judge their wealth, but by what that money will purchase. Illustrations of this can be seen every day in the week. Two years ago one could go to the refreshment bar in this building and with1s. buy a dozen boxes of matches.

To-day ls. buys only eight boxes. That shows that our currency is depreciated.

Senator Cameron:

– Half the workers are in the firing line.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The coin which was worth ls. two years ago is worth only 8d. to-day.

Senator Brown:

– What is the position in other countries?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I am talking of Australia, not other countries. It is a pity that some people do not pay more attention to Australia. They are too fond of talking about other countries. It is absurd for the Minister for Aircraft Production (‘Senator Cameron) to suggest that matches are scarce because so many men are in the fighting services. Nobody in this country need go without matches.

Senator Cameron:

– Man-power is not available for their manufacture.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– An ample supply of matches is available, and anybody can obtain them anywhere in the country.

Senator Aylett:

– They are difficult to get at times, as I have experienced.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– They are not at all difficult to get. Our currency is depreciating rapidly, owing to inflation. I hope that even now the Government will accede to Senator McBride’s request, and place on the table of the Senate the correspondence between the Government and the Commonwealth Bank Board.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I do not understand why honorable senators opposite are continually referring to inflation. They have accused us of increasing the cost of living by 2s. 6d. in the £1, hut it increased whilst their party was in power, as they have admitted, by a similar amount. Therefore, if there be a fault, the blame must be shared by the two parties equally. When members of the Opposition were in power, the cost of living increased by 12^ per cent.; now they say that the increase is 25 per cent., so that 2s. 6d. in the £1 is to be charged to each side. In war-time it is almost impossible to avoid a certain amount of inflation. I remind Senator James McLachlan that there has been an appreciable rise in the cost of living, or inflation if he likes to call it so, in the

United States of America. The same thing has happened in Great Britain. The Government is to be commended for the way in which it has conducted the financial affairs of Australia up to the present, and avoided extreme inflation. Senator James McLachlan said that plenty of matches were available. If the workers are producing them why cannot they be sold at the same price as before? If the same volume of labour is going into their manufacture, and the same quantity is being produced, some of the honorable senator’s friends who control the match factories must be exploiting the people. It is not the workers of this country who are the exploiters; it is the employers who are taking advantage of war-time conditions to increase prices unduly and thereby rob the public. In view of that well-known fact, why do honorable senators opposite continually attack the Government because prices are increasing ?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– What about the Prices Commissioner?

Senator BROWN:

– He has done his best to maintain a level of prices consonant with the cost of production plus a reasonable margin of profit, and he has done a fairly good job, although not quite to my satisfaction. I believe that with adequate and efficient control it should be possible to make commodities available to the purchasing public at a price very close to the cost of production. If the cost of production of material, goods and foodstuffs that are essential to the welfare of the public cannot be kept to a reasonable level, then the production of these goods should be subsidized. That is being done in England in an endeavour to check the rising cost of living, although despite that action there has been a certain degree of inflation in that country. Why honorable senators opposite persistently raise the bogy of inflation, I do not know.

Senator Cameron:

– They began it in this country.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes, and they are still raising it. They are doing this country a serious disservice by continuing to do so.

I come now to the question of credit. It is true that a large amount of spending power - approximately £200,000,000 - has been made available for our war effort in the form of credit, but surely honorable senators are aware of what happened during the last war; surely they must have read some of the speeches made by Mr. Lloyd George when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, pointing out that it was quite impossible to obtain all the finance required for war purposes by means of loans and taxation? Wars produce a totally different state of affairs to that existing in peace time, and it is utterly impossible to finance a war by the ordinary financial methods. Therefore, it devolves upon governments to exercise their power to make available, by means of treasury-bills or some such method, the finance required to carry on the war. I am afraid that honorable senators opposite are so obsessed with the old orthodox financial ideas that they are unable to see beyond them. Finance must be the servant of the people, not only in war-time, but also in peace-time, and when this war is over whatever government is in office in this country will have to exercise its authority to mould the financial machine to facilitate the economic re-organization necessary to meet the needs of the people. Demonstrating his adherence to the ancient fossilized ideas, Senator Spicer said recently that the only solution to present-day financial problems was to take from the rich and give to the poor - to take from the “ haves “ and to give to the “ have-nots “. That is not quite true. By the use of credit, it is possible so to affect the productive machine of a country that production will reach a far higher level than by any other means. Taking from one section of the community and giving to another does not increase the total spending power in the community; but by means of an elastic system of production and the infusing of the correct amount of credit into the financial system, it is possible so to increase productivity that you can give more to those who “have” and more to those who “ have not “.

Senator Spicer:

– I do not disagree with that.

Senator BROWN:

– I am glad that the honorable senator agrees. Perhaps I misunderstood his previous speech. For years Senator Darcey has been telling honorable senators that only by the correct use of our monetary system could we obtain the fullest possible production from this country. He has been laughed at and jeered at, but he is quite right. That has been proved in Germany and in Russia, as 1 pointed out in a recent speech. In Germany, that was accomplished by the Reichsbank operating under the control of the German Government. It was found that every available man and woman in the community could be fully employed if the financial problem were tackled in the right way. If . productivity be increased, naturally there can be a more generous distribution of goods. It is not merely a question of taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. The Government should exercise its power over the financial system with a view to securing the fullest possible utilization of labour units. Unfortunately, in this country we are obsessed with obsolete financial ideas. So much so, that most of our time is spent discussing these matters, and not nearly sufficient time is devoted to the real needs of the community. My view is that the financial side of this country’s activities will look after itself. If we concentrate our efforts upon prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion, our financial system will be moulded to fit in with our military commitments. Unfortunately, . the Government has not given the fullest attention to the economic organization of Australia. I do not blame it entirely for that, because the previous Government also did not tackle the problem.

Senator Cameron:

– What about private monopoly ownership of production?

Senator BROWN:

Senator Cameron has put his finger right on the trouble. Monopoly control of industry has militated against the fullest development of Australia. We read in the papers that in the United States of America competitive capitalism is militating against the fullest war effort. In that country, they are going through the same phase that the people of Great Britain went through in the early part of the war. For a long time after war broke out contracts were let by the British Government to various large firms. Such was the pressure of business, that many of these organizations could not cope with. the flood of contracts, but they hung on to them in an endeavour to squeeze out smaller businesses which had no work to do. Ultimately, the Government was compelled to take many contracts away from the big firms and distribute the work amongst the smaller capitalist enterprises. That is what is happening in the United States of America to-day. Huge contracts have been let to big monopolies which cannot fulfil them, but are refusing to pass the work on to their smaller competitors. The Government, will have to step in. Where private enterprise stands in the way of the fullest prosecution of the war, private enterprise must go by the board, and, if in Australia competitive .capitalism is militating against the mosteffective organization of our forces, economic and military, competitive capitalism must go by the board.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Does ihe honorable senator know that more small businesses have been forced out of existence in this country during the last six months than during any similar period in our history.

Senator BROWN:

– Admittedly, many small businesses are being forced to close because of certain necessary war measures. They are the economic casualties of war.. In war-time economic change takes place much more rapidly than in peace-time.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Does the Government wish to put the small businesses out of operation?

Senator BROWN:

– Of course not. Every possible action is being taken to safeguard their interests. I am merely stating the facts. The Labour Government and the Labour movement are anxious to have passed legislation implementing certain social measures which will ensure that every man, woman and child will be provided for adequately so long a3 there is a sufficient production of food and clothing in this country. Just as we look after casualties on the military field, so Labour is anxious to look after casualties on the economic field. We believe in economic organization on a national scale, not only for military purposes, but also in the interest of the wel fare of our people. We conscientiously believe that just as in war-time it is essential to have the fullest possible cooperation within a nation, so in peace-time there must be that same co-operation in order to feed, clothe and shelter the people. In other words,, I stand for social organization and economic organization on a national scale, and I am opposed to the capitalist system under which, in the past, hundreds of thousands of men and women have been unable ‘to obtain employment. That is why the Government is fighting for social improvements now. We want to be able to say to the people, “ We have done this in war-time and we shall do it in peacetime “. We believe that by improving living conditions we can bolster the morale of the people and give them something to fight for. In the face of the greatest invasion in history there has been developed in Russia a spirit that has no equal; otherwise, the Russian people could never have resisted the Germans as they have done, particularly at Stalingrad. The morale of Russia is high because the men and women of that country believe that they have something worth fighting for - ownership of their own country in their own interests. They are fighting for a system which they know will be destroyed if their enemies succeed. What are we fighting for in this country? First of all, we are fighting in defence of our land, and I am convinced that our men are fighting equally as well as the Russians; but there is going on in this country a certain amount of economic sabotage which is militating against high morale. If we can show the people of this country that their various parliamentary institutions are in earnest in their endeavours to arrive at a system under which no man, woman, child, soldier, sailor or airman will be short of the necessaries of life, we shall be going a long way towards settling the morale of our people at the highest possible level. The Beveridge plan, which has been introduced in Great Britain, indicates that some steps must be taken to sustain public morale. We cannot maintain the morale of the people if there is a fear that after The war there will be insecurity and unemployment. The people must have an economic ideal, and then they will be prepared to fight for it. War conditions have compelled the leaders of the people to organize the economic life of the community in order to abolish unemployment. If we can do that in war-time, it could also be done in time of peace. Thousands of people have not suffered economically as a result of the war. Some of them will be in a sound economic position after the war, whilst many others, whose sons will never return from the front, will be much worse off. I read occasionally, with interest, the monthly review known as Sound Finance, but that journal occasionally has a “ dig “ at the Government and the workers. In its February issue, it discussed the Austerity Loan. It stated -

After every device known to high-pressure salesmanship was exploited to the full, only about 15 , per cent, of those receiving incomes could be persuaded to contribute to the Austerity Loan. Of the total amount subscribed, no less than 72 per cent, was contributed by 18,635 subscribers in sums of over £500. These subscribers were not those upon whom taxation falls comparatively lightly. Nor were they those whose incomes have shown the greatest proportionate expansion because of war-time activities. Indeed, a great many of these have net incomes much less than before the war. The most startling fact, however, is that 85 per cent, of all those receiving incomes (in most cases more than they ever got before) refused to contribute anything.

The statement that the workers refused to contribute anything is wrong.

Senator Darcey:

– War savings certificates accounted for most of the small contributions.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes. The workers generally are not in the habit of purchasing bonds. The investment of money is an every-day occurrence to many honorable senators opposite, but thousands of workers, despite public appeals and advertisements, are reluctant to enter a bank for the purpose of purchasing bonds. If the Government wishes to obtain more money from the worker’ it will have to use different methods from those adopted in the past. I object to the statement in Sound Finance that the workers refused to contribute to the Austerity Loan. I know that certain sums of money are. being taken from them. Senator McBride said that the Government was taking 2s. fid. in the £1 from them, and the honorable senator is anxious to take more from the lower-paid workers. I support the workers of Australia, because they are “ doing their bit “ in contributing to the cost of the war effort through indirect taxes.

Senator COLLETT (Western Australia; [2.53].- On the 11th December last I addressed the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army: -

  1. ls the periodical entitled Salt, and printed by Truth and Sportsman Limited, Melbourne, the official organ of the Australian Army Education Service?
  2. If so, is the Minister of the opinion that it should be used as a medium for the dissemination of political propaganda of a partisan character, even if of Government origin?
  3. Will the Minister approve of these questions, and answers thereto, being published in the next issue of Salt

The reply to the first and third questions was “ Yes “, and the reply to the second question was “ No “. In the first issue of Salt, published in September, 1941, the object of the publication of the journal was summed up in these words -

It proposes to keep men taken from their ordinary callings posted in the current affairs of their country and the world in general; to help those whose education hae been interrupted, to maintain their interest and progress with it; to advise those who before their entry into the forces were too young or had not had the opportunity to decide their profession or trade; and to take the first steps toward rehabilitating servicemen in the post-war community.

That statement, of course, entirely justifies the publication of the journal. In the third issue of Salt, dated the 9th October, 1942, there is a summary of the provisions of the Attorney-General’s Constitution Alteration (War Aims and Reconstruction) Bill 1942. Referring to that, the editor of the journal stated -

Soon, Salt will publish another article, giving the point of view of the States, who oppose wider Commonwealth powers.

That is what one would expect to see, after publication of the statement referring to the bill introduced by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt). In its fourth issue, dated the 26th October, 1942, there is a photograph of the title of the ill-fated bill, and further particulars with respect to the glowing promises contained in the measure. In the following number, that of the 9th November, 1942, the troops were invited to say what they thought of the bill, but none of the opinions of the troops have yet been published. On page 11, under the heading “Referendum next Year?”, the invitation is repeated, and prominence is given to certain features of the bill, especially that part relating to the reinstatement and advancement of servicemen. It warns that this is not a party political matter, and with that I agree. On the 4th January last, without any warning at all, Salt recorded the death of the Attorney-General’s first bill, and referred to the natal ceremonies associated with the second and third bills. It also noted the intention of the Government to abandon its proposal to scrap the High Court of Australia. Ten weeks have passed, and still no publication has been made in this journal of the point of view of the States. In the tenth issue, dated the 18th January, 1943, the editor published the questions that I submitted in this chamber on the 11th December last, together with the answers supplied to me, and added, “ No political propaganda has appeared in Salt”. Since that day there has been no further mention of the bills in Salt, not even a reference to the bases of the States’ opposition to their provisions. On the 1st February, however, publicity in connexion with the constitutional issue passed over to Current Affairs Bulletin, which is also an organ of the Australian Army Education Service. Much of the information which it is intended should be transmitted to the troops is here set out in better form. One cannot take exception to the matter, except that there is a suggestion that the High Court is an encumbrance to the community and a deterrent to the people conferring increased powers on the Commonwealth authorities. I merely desire to justify the asking of the questions which I submitted on the 11th December last.

A statement was made by Senator Amour in this chamber on Tuesday last about the appointment to the fighting forces of Australia of men who have had nothing to do with fighting. I think that most honorable senators will agree with me in the views that I am now about to express. The fighting forces of the Common wealth are organizations which, hitherto, have been composed of men actuated by the highest patriotic motives ; that is, they have offered even their lives, if that sacrifice would avert dangers threatening the liberties of the people and imperilling the existence of our much-prized liberal institutions. The members of these forces are supplied with a uniform which they wear with pride. That uniform should be treated with the greatest respect. It has earned that right. Rank is given for the purpose of the exercise of legitimate authority within these forces. It should not be improperly conferred, nor should the uniform, or imitations of it, be worn by persons who are not an integral part of the fighting machine. At one period in 1916, when I was in France, I was in a position where I could observe passers by, although myself unable to move. I noticed a man in a general’s uniform and I asked the person nearest to me who he was. The reply was, “ That is one of your officers. He has ‘ Australia ‘ on his shoulder straps “. I said that I was sure that he was not. On making further inquiries, I found that he was an accountant who had been sent from Australia to see that General Birdwood ran the war on approved treasury lines. The best dressed men that we saw in the back areas of France, and the men most correctly clothed according to army regulations, were the agents of I some of the English banks, who had nothing whatever to do with the war, except to see that persons like myself did not run short of money when on leave. They were dressed in the uniform of His Majesty’s Forces. In my opinion, that uniform should be honoured by being reserved for those people who belong to the fighting forces. I do not desire to make distinctions between, or invidious references to, individuals or groups of individuals, but I point to the great number of persons to be found to-day in uniform, and bearing military rank, whose duties are of a purely auxiliary character. In olden times there was a very sharp distinction in such matters. The absence of that distinction is, to-day, causing public and personal embarrassment which may grow acute in the near future, and may even lead to abuses. The anomaly is common to the Navy, Army and Air Force, but is most conspicuous in the land services of which I know something. I suggest to the Government that the Army proper be leftto its task and traditions, and that the auxiliaries, valuable as their services undoubtedly are, be embodied separately, and supplied with a distinctive dress and special designations for various grades of authority. That would not be a costly process. It could be initiated by an organization worked out in an office on paper, and circulated through armies and commands in the form of a regulation issued under the National Security Act, and completed by the clothing factories. The real Army is composed of: The Staff Corps; Corps of Staff Cadets; Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry, and their several branches; Engineers, including Signals; Army Service Corps; Army Medical Corps; Army Ordnance Corps; Chaplain’s Department; and Garrison Battalions and Volunteer Defence Corps. This matter has been exercising my mind for some time, during which I have observed the growth of the community wearing the uniform, and, in some instances, exercising the prerogatives of the services to which they do not really belong, and in which they have no genuine place.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

.- I have noticed that whenever Senator James McLachlan or Senator McBride has made a number of foolish and inaccurate statements in condemnation of the financial policy of the Government, the honorable senator makes a practice of leaving the chamber.

Senator Gibson:

– The honorable senator has no right to say that.

Senator DARCEY:

– I do say it.

Senator Gibson:

– On a point of order, I take exception to the remark of Senator Darcey that statements made by honorable senators on this side are inaccurate and foolish. I ask that he be called upon to withdraw that remark.

Senator Darcey:

– I shall prove what I have said.

Senator Gibson:

– The honorable senator cannot do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear Senator Gibson’s remark.

Senator Gibson:

Senator Darcey said that statements made by honorable senators on this side are inaccurate and untrue.

Senator Darcey:

– I did not say that they are untrue.

Senator Gibson:

– I contend that the honorable senator has no right to make such statements, and I ask that he be required to withdraw them, particularly his references to Senator McBride.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Gibson has raised a somewhat difficult point. The words complained of are frequently used in this chamber, although, in my opinion, they should not be used. However, a perusal of Hansard will reveal that honorable senators frequently charge one another with telling untruths, and making inaccurate statements. The remarks to which objection has been taken to-day apply, I understand, to Senator McBride, who is not now in the chamber, and Senator Gibson, on his behalf, now asks for their withdrawal. 1 leave it to the good sense of Senator Darcey to decide whether he will withdraw the words to which exception has been taken.

Senator DARCEY:

– I withdraw them. A statement can be inaccurate because of ignorance. Indeed, I believe that many of the inaccurate statements made in this chamber by the Opposition are the result of ignorance.

A few days ago Senator McBride complained that the Commonwealth Bank Board entirely disagreed with the financial policy of the present Government. I am not at all astonished to hear that. I have here a list of men who comprised the directorate of that board some time ago. Since the list was compiled I believe that there have been some changes due to death. The list reads as follows : -

page 1642

PERSONNEL OF THE COMMONWEALTH BANK BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FEBRUARY, 1934

Name, Position, Interests represented.

As most of the grazing properties in Australia are heavily mortgaged ito the banks and other financial institutions, what could a representative of the graziers say in favour of the Commonwealth Bank? Professor Wadham, who was a member of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry, showed that the wheat lands of Australia were mortgaged ro the banks and other financial institutions to an amount of about £161,000,000. The list continues -

S. Drummond, Esq., Director - Political appointee of the Bruce-Page Liberal Administration.

B. Duffy, Esq., Director - Political appointee of the Scullin Labour Administration.

J. Sheehan, C.B.E., Director - Secretary of the Treasury.

C. Riddle, Esq., Director - Governor of the Commonwealth Bank.

It is not surprising that such a board does not approve a policy which would enable the Commonwealth Bank to finance the war instead of calling on the private financial institutions to do so. To the list of directors is appended a note which reads -

The Hoard elects its own chairman, who possesses both a deliberative and a casting vote. The Governor is merely an executive officer of the board, although, as a member of thu hoard, he has a vote. Disregarding the two political appointees from rival parties, and the secretary of the Treasury, we may say that this board represents: (1) the private banks, (2) the insurance companies, (3) the tobacco monopoly, (4) the wool and produce rings, (5) the big pastoralists. Whether the interests of these people are also the interests of the Australian citizen let the Australian citizen decide for himself.

Senator McBride referred to taxation in New Zealand. I have cited in this chamber figures which prove that New Zealand before the war was the most highly taxed part of the British Empire. Some time ago it took a working man in New Zealand five months to earn enough to pay his year’s income tax, and since then the rates have been increased. Mr. Gr. D. H. Cole,’ one of the leading economists of Britain, once said -

Democracies will press for public control of the financial system in order to influence the prosperity of industry and the possibility of progressive programmes of social reform.

At various times Senator McBride, through ignorance, I believe, has made a number of inaccurate statements on financial matters. I have told him to his face that he knows nothing whatever about finance. That is clear when we recall that the honorable senator said that the banks could only lend the money deposited with them by their clients. I have quoted the greatest authority in the world ro show that that cannot be done. I have said these things and not one honorable senator has been able to controvert my statement. Whenever I place my views before the Senate all that Senator McBride does is to laugh. He has never attempted to refute my arguments. 1 regard the honorable senator as the greatest menace to good government that there is in Australia.

Senator DARCEY:

– I am an older man than Senator Gibson, and have had more experience of life than he has. I have a rule of life from which I never depart. I never express an opinion on a subject which I have not studied. It was for that reason that I attended the University of Tasmania and took a course of lectures under Professors Giblin, Copland, Mauldon and Brigden. Professor Brigden was brought from Queensland to take charge of the national health and pensions insurance scheme, but when that proposal fell through he was sent to New York because a joh had to be found for him. A man may be a doctor of philosophy, a master of arts, or a bachelor of arts or a lawyer like Senator A. j. McLachlan or Senator Spicer, and yet not know anything about the science of political economy. It is time that honorable senators learned something about political economy, which is the science dealing with the production and distribution of wealth. Until legislators have a knowledge of political economy we shall not have good government. From time to time we hear complaints that while there is a Labour Government in office the people will not contribute to loans. Such statements are suspect, because those who make them, are not prepared to put their names to them. Ever since the constitution of the Commonwealth Bank was altered by the Bruce-Page Government, at the instance of the private banks, the bank has not functioned in the interests of the public. The governor of the bank, and its directors, still have the power to tell the Government what it must do, although they are the servants of the Government. We remember that the late Sir Robert Gibson told the Scullin Government that unless it reduced pensions and social service benefits and the wages of public servants, the bank could not come to its aid. The original constitution of the bank should be restored in order to enable it to serve the interest of the public completely. Fortunately the ownership of the bank is still vested in the public, and it still retains power to- create currency. We can thank God for that. I urge the Government to enable the bank to function completely in the interest of the public.

Senator ASHLEY:
Postmaster-General · New South Wales · ALP

.- When I was speaking in this chamber last Tuesday, I stated that the Australian people were paying 70 per cent, more than the pre-war price for wool. I wish to correct that figure. The average price of Australian wool for the year 1938-39, the last pre-war year, was 10.39d. per lb. The British contract price for the years 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42 was 13.4375d. per lb. There was a further rise in the current year, 1942-43, to the present level of 15.4531d. This figure represents an increase of 48.7 per cent, on the pre-war prices. This refers to wool sold under the wool agreement with the British Government. The price of wool for local consumption has been fixed at the appraised values, plus 10 per cent., or 15.29d. per lb. This is an increase of 47.5 per cent, over prewar prices. Those figures are subject to some variation, because the locally consumed wool is not necessarily of the same average quality as the whole clip, and the figures for appraised values are partly estimated. The general picture, however, is fairly clear. The actual rise is approximately 47.5 per cent., which is more than double the general average increase of prices as measured by the cost-of-living index number.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- T did not understand the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Ashley) to refer to pre-war prices of wool when he was dealing with this subject on Tuesday last. I understood him to say that Australian manufacturers are now paying 70 per cent, more than British manufacturers for their wool under the wool agreement.

Senator Ashley:

– I did not say that.

Senator GIBSON:

– As a matter of fact, the price paid for wool by the Australian manufacturers during the last two years was 11 per cent, less in the first year and 8 per cent, less in the second year than the price which the grower was then receiving for his wool, because they obtained wool at the appraised price which was below the British price to the degree mentioned. Australian manufacturers were then actually paying for their wool a price less than that which the Australian Government was receiving from the British Government under the wool agreement. This year, the Australian manufacturer is paying 15 per cent, above the appraised price, or only 8 per cent, above the British price. Thus he is at a very great advantage over the British manufacturer, because he can choose his wool on the spot, whereas the British manufacturer cannot do so. I did not know that the Postmaster-General was referring to the price of wool prior to the initiation of the wool agreement with the British Government.

Senator Ashley:

– Yes, I was comparing present prices with those in the last pre-war year, namely, 1938-39, and I was showing that the increase of the cost of living was due to some degree to increases of the cost of staple primary products under war-time stabilization schemes.

Senator GIBSON:

– Apparently, I misunderstood the Minister. I thought that he said that the Australian manufacturer was now paying 70 per cent, more for wool than the British manufacturer.

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Aircraft Production · Victoria · ALP

– This morning, Senator Brand, upon notice, asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for War Service Homes, the following question: - ‘

Will the Minister represent to the responsible Minister the urgency of. giving priority to construction of war service homes for soldiers returning from the present war, fta many discharged soldiers have been unable to obtain accommodation lor their families in Adelaide and other capital cities!

The Minister has now supplied the following answer : -

The necessity to divert man-power and materials to the fulfilment of urgent war requirements will not permit commencement of building programmes under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act at the present time. Consideration, however, will be given the question of providing assistance in regard to homes in all States as soon as it is practicable to do so.

This morning, Senator Collett, upon notice, asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Air, the following questions.’ -

  1. Are service chevrons (blue) awarded to members of the Royal Australian Air Force?
  2. If so, (a) is the issue reserved for men who serve overseas, (6) do men attached to the Royal Air Force participate; if so, has a distribution been made!

The Minister has now supplied the following answers: -

  1. The issue of service chevrons to Royal Australian Air Force personnel has been approved. 2. (a) Chevrons are issuable only to personnel who’ have served overseas since the 3rd September, 1939, and in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea and in Papua since the 1st January, 1942; (b) members of the Royal Australian Air Force attached to the Royal Air Force are eligible. Chevrons will be available for issue during April.
Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– A few weeks ago, I and Senator Aylett made representations to the Government concerning the flax industry, and in reply to us the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) stated that the Government had declined to pay compensation to growers of flax who had lost their entire crops owing to adverse seasonal conditions, because that would set a dangerous precedent. The Minister also said that if the Government guaranteed the price of flax for which wo asked, the establishment of the flax industry as a post-war industry would he jeopardized. I urge the Government to review the position of this industry. In Tasmania, particularly, many farmers commenced to grow flax because, patriotically, they responded to the Government’s request to do so. They were told that this product was urgently required for war purposes by the British Government. These men did not primarily embark on the industry as a business proposition. Since the industry has been established, many flax mills have been built at considerable cost. To-day, this Government as well as the British Government urgently require flax for war purposes. Therefore, it should ensure a continuance of the industry. In view of present conditions following the failure of crops due to bad seasonal conditions, nearly all of the existing flax mills in Tasmania will soon close down. I believe that unless remedial action be taken by the Government, growers will not continue to produce flax except on a very reduced scale. In addition, officers have been trained at considerable expense to process the flax. In Victoria, the average yield is about 1 ton an acre.- That means that, on the basis of maximum prices, the return to. the grower would be at the rate of £7 an acre. However, the average price actually received by growers up to date is only slightly over £5 an acre. The Government should do justice to the flax-growers. I cannot see any reason why farmers who have entered this industry in response to urgent requests by the Government, and have suffered substantial loss due to bad seasonal conditions, should not he compensated for that loss, particularly when, had they grown other priority crops, they could have shown a greater profit than they could make on the basis of the maximum prices for flax. The least the Government can do is to guarantee the growers against loss. The time is now about due for preparing the soil for the planting of the next crop; hut, as I have already said, growers in Tasmania, owing to the lack of appreciation of their efforts by the Government, will continue to grow flax, if at all, only on a greatly reduced scale. For the first year they were guaranteed a price at the rate of £4 an acre, which ensured that at all -events they would not lose. An inspection was made of the crops this year. The growth was reasonably good, but heavy rain fell just before the time of harvesting which started a second growth, with the result that, as the flax had to he of a certain height, the whole of the crops were condemned as valueless. That was due to the second growth, which resulted from heavy rain following a dry spell. I urge the Government to take up the matter at the earliest possible date, and not to be afraid that, by giving some consideration to these growers, it will establish a harmful precedent. This is not an ordinary case. These people went into the business of flax-growing at the request of the Government, whole districts were canvassed, the names of growers of flax were ascertained, and were used to induce others to follow their example, on the plea that it was the duty of every body to make some contribution to the war effort. I trust that the Government will not turn these people down, but will see that they are paid at an early date an amount commensurate with the labour that they have put in. I hope that they will be put on a basis bearing some reasonable comparison with that of other men who are engaged in production for war purposes. This is a war industry, which the Government ought not to neglect any longer. If necessary, the matter could be referred by the Government to a committee, or finalized in some other way, because it is essential that the industry should be carried on, and that all the factories which have been erected at enormous expense,particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, should be fully utilized. The way to ensure that sufficient quantities of flax shall be grown, and the factories kept busy, is to ensure that the people who have been urged to take up flax-growing are not compelled to suffer total loss as the result of their patriotism.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandMinister for the Interior · ALP

in reply - I have taken a careful note of the points raised by honorable senators during the debate. All the matters to which it is possible to give further attention will be carefully looked into, and the honorable senators concerned will be informed of the results.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.33 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 March 1943, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1943/19430312_senate_16_174/>.