Senate
28 November 1946

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1946

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

page 701

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

presentation to governor-general.

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to inform the Senate that this day, accompanied by honorable senators, I waited on the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to the Speech of Hia Royal Highness, on the occasion of the opening of the Parliament, agreed to on the 15th November. Eis Royal Highness was pleased to make the following reply: -

MB. President -

I desire to thank you for the AddressinReply, which you have just presented to me. It will afford me much pleasure to convey to his Most Gracious Majesty the King .the message of ‘ loyalty from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, to which the address gives expression.

page 701

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Tasmanian Services

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Supply and Shipping aware that Launceston and surrounding districts will be faced with an acute shortage of sugar and breakfast foods, unless shipping is made available direct from Sydney? Will the Minister have allocated to Launceston a portion of the cargo space on Karuah, which has been taken off the Sydney-Launceston run and diverted to north-west coast ports ?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not know that there is likely to be a shortage of sugar and breakfast foods in Tasmania, but I am aware that there is a general shortage of sugar. A» to the second portion of the question I shall have (inquiries made and ascertain whether the desired facilities can be provided by means of the vessel to which, the honorable senator has referred.

page 701

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND CUSTOMS

Commercial Branch

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs yet in a position to inform the. Senate the nature of the work of the new Commercial Branch of his department, which ‘was established some time ago?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Some days ago Senator Arnold made representations to me concerning this matter I have had some inquiries made and I am now able to inform the Senate that the Commercial Branch of my department is carrying out the work of liquidating the stocks of lendlease, Canadian mutual aid and other government-procured goods held by the Department of Trade and Customs, and this merchandise is being absorbed into current consumption without price levels or ordinary orderly commercial trading being upset. During the four months ended the 31st October, 1946, the department collected a total of £4,766,491 in payments for these goods, and the distributon has been so wide that approximately 8,000 separate invoices had to be issued. Over the same period the Customs Department also declared to the Commonwealth Disposals Commission as surplus stocks, not readily saleable at full prices through ordinary commercial channels, government-procured goods to the book value of approximately £1,500,000. Four hundred and two of such declarations have been made each incorporating fullest details of established cost, specifications and selling data which would enable the Commonwealth Disposals Commission to set in motion its specially designed machinery for the liquidation of government-held stocks in lines of merchandise, which cn account of the war having ended have lost much of their value as consumer poods.

page 702

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Numbers of people have either interviewed me or written to me saying that if they could secure .permits to purchase motor vehicles they could obtain them from Hastings, Deering Proprietary Limited. “Will the Minister for Supply and Shipping make inquiries in order to ascertain the number of persons who have left with Hastings, Deering Proprietary Limited deposits for the purchase of motor cars or utility trucks, the number of vehicles that the company has available for sale, and the amount of interest that is being paid to the people whose money it holds as deposits ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall have inquiries made, but the supplying of the information is probably a matter for the company concerned. The allocation of motor vehicles to the people of Australia is a matter for determination by the transport authorities in each State, who give consideration to the claims of exservicemen, medical officers and others in allocating priorities.

page 702

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Western Australian Scheme. Senator ERASER. - Some months ago representations were made to the Prime Minister on .’be-half of the Government of Western Australia by the State Minister for Works, Mr. Hawke, for financial assistance in carrying out a large-scale water supply scheme for country towns and agricultural areas which is estimated to serve 10,000,000 acres of land. Can the Minister for Supply and Shipping say whether an examination of the (proposal has been made by the special committee appointed by the Prime Minister and, if so, what conclusions have been arrived at? If the report has, not been completed, can he say what stage the examination of the project has reached ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall place the honorable senator’s question before the Prime Minister, with a view to the desired information being supplied.

page 702

QUESTION

CLOTHES RATIONING

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate whether any relief is to be given to the public by the issue of additional coupons in respect of suits, overcoats and costumes when the new ration books are issued on the 6th and 7th December next? If so, what will be the coupon rating in respect of the items I have mentioned?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The coupon rating for all articles is determined by the needs of the people as a whole in relation to the availability of supplies. The policy of the Government in respect of clothes rationing is to enable all individuals to obtain a fair share of the goods available. I shall furnish the honorable senator with a detailed reply at the earliest opportunity.

page 702

QUESTION

HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION

Senator ARNOLD:

– Just outside Newcastle a 100-bed hospital, with a building capable of accommodating 80 nurses, has been erected at a cost of £150,000. Those’ structures were completed twelve months ago, but are not yet. occupied. Will the Minister for Health take steps to see whether use could not be made immediately of this new hospital ?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– 1 understand that the hospital mentioned by the honorable senator was erected by the State authorities, and that it was intended to be used for the care of tubercular patients. One reason why it has not been opened yet is that there has been a shortage of nursing and other staffs. As the honorable senator no doubt is aware, that difficulty is not peculiar to Newcastle, or New .South Wales. It is a general problem to-day. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth has been given new powers to provide medical and dental services, a new responsibility now devolves upon it in relation to the shortage of nurses, more particularly’ in view of the fact that the Government has announced its intention, as it intimated during the recent election campaign, to implement a national medical scheme. Such a scheme involves the provision of adequate nursing services. The honorable senator will understand that up to date the Commonwealth has not been able to do much planning, partcularly in the way of providing a. national medical scheme. Innumerable difficulties arise. The best that I can promise at this stage is that I shall confer with the Minister for Health in New South Wales to see whether some particular use can be made immediately of the new hospital mentioned by the honorable senator.

page 703

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Senator FINLAY:

– Can the Minister for Supply and Shipping say whether thu abolition of petrol rationing in New Zealand has resulted in a decrease of the petrol consumption in that dominion? If that be the case, when can we expect petrol rationing to be discontinued in Australia?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I have seen a press report that the new scheme adopted in New Zealand for the distribution of petrol has proved satisfactory. I am not in a position to state when petrol rationing will be abolished in Australia. To-day, we have no guarantee that sufficient supplies will be available to meet the demand likely to arise as the result of the abolition of rationing. Until we are assured that sufficient supplies will be available I can see no prospect of rationing being abolished.

page 703

QUESTION

PENICILLIN

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Health and Social Services in a position to inform the Senate of the progress that has been made in the manufacture of penicillin in Australia with a view to its wider arid cheaper distribution throughout the Common wealth ? “Will the Minister also indicate what steps have been taken to bring the cost of producing this essential drug in Australia, more into conformity with the cost in other countries?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– “Within a week of my appointment as Minister for Health and ‘Social Services, I visited the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and investigated the production of penicillin, realizing that it was a drug of great importance and that there would be a substantial demand for it. I arranged that the price of penicillin should be reduced as soon as possible, and within a few weeks, a substantial reduction - almost 50 per cent. - was effected. I have since reviewed the price very carefully from time to time. With regard to the production of penicillin, I also authorized at that time the erection of further ‘buildings to make possible the manufacture of this drug on a large scale. At present, the cultures are developed in bottles, of which there are literally millions. This involves a vast amount of handling, and therefore considerable delay. Now, the technique for the production of penicillin is impregnation of the necessary virus in large vats. The work of erecting the new vats is well under way, and a good deal of the necessary machinery is already on the site. Whatever delay there may be in producing penicillin on a large scale will depend entirely upon the difficulties that are common to the erection of all structures to-day. I am hopeful, however, that by the middle of next year, the buildings will be near completion and the necessary plant installed. We shall then be able to meet the demand for penicillin in this country, both for human beings and for veterinary purposes. Two types of penicillin are produced : One is an ancilliary to the main product which is for human use. The secondary development is unsuitable for this purpose, but is useful for veterinary purposes. Supplies have been made available out of fairly extensive stocks to cure, and to prevent, the spread of, mastitis in cows. I can assure the honorable senator that the manufacture of penicillin in this country has been given the most serious consideration, and that the development of production on a large scale is well under way. Close attention is also being given to the question of price.

page 704

PRINCIPAL PARLIAMENTARY REPORTER

Retirement of Mr. G. H. Romans

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– I wish to inform the Senate that on Saturday, the 30th November, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr. G. H. Romans, will retire from the service of the Commonwealth Parliament. Mr. Romans has been engaged for 36 years in the official reporting of parliamentary proceedings, for he joined the Hansard staff of the Parliament of Western Australia in 1910. Prior to beginning his Hansard career Mr. Romans was engaged in journalistic work on the metropolitan press of Adelaide and Perth, and in that sphere his ability won him high status. He joined the Commonwealth Parliamentary Reporting Staff in 1914. Between 1933 and 1940 Mr. Romans, as Second Reporter, was in charge of the reporting of the proceedings of the Senate, and during those years he was a familiar figure in this chamber. Since 1940 as Principal Parliamentary Reporter his editorial duties have kept him mainly in the House of Representatives. His work throughout the 32 years of his Commonwealth service has been of a very high order. He has served the Parliament with great distinction, and by his retirement we shall lose a most competent and courteous officer.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– by leave. - When Mr. Romans retires from the service of the Commonwealth Parliament on the 30th November, he will have been a member of the Commonwealth Hansard staff for over 32 years. He ,has served the Parliament with efficiency and distinction. Reporting the debates in the Commonwealth Parliament, which Mr. Romans has controlled for some years, is very difficult, but he has carried out his duties with satisfaction to all parties. That is something which has not yet been accomplished by the press of Australia. On behalf of the Government, I wish Mr. Romans well and hope that he will enjoy his retirement. I also hope that he will be able to carry on the good work that he has been doing for many years as a citizen of Canberra. He has shown marked public spiritedness, and his activities in the public life of the National Capital have been notable. I trust that the continuance of these activities will not interfere with his recreations, which I understand are gardening and golf. I am sure that every honorable senator joins with me in wishing him well.

Senator McLEAY:
Leader of the Opposition · South Australia

– by leave - I join with the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) in paying tribute to the meritorious work performed by Mr. George Romans, of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Reporting Staff. I agree with the Minister that he has set a high standard of efficiency and courtesy. He has given complete satisfaction to the members of this Parliament. We derive great pleasure from the fact that, on his retirement, he looks so well. I hope that the Government will take advantage of the experience and outstanding ability of this Commonwealth officer so that his talents may be used in ways that will be of further benefit not only to the National Capital but also to the Commonwealth as whole.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

- by leave. - On behalf of the members of the Australian Country party in the Senate, I wish to say how much we have appreciated the good work that Mr; Romans lias done as a member of the Hansard staff, particularly during the period in which he supervised the reporting of the debates in the Senate. He will take with him into his retirement the good wishes of all members of my party. He will be greatly missed in this Parliament. His -unfailing courtesy to honorable senators and to honorable members of the House of Representatives has been outstanding. I hope that he will be spared for many years to enjoy his retirement, which he richly deserves.

page 705

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

Senator SAMPSON:

asked the Minister for Health and Social Services, upon notice- -

What is the amount of money which has been spent in unemployment benefits in each Statu of the Commonwealth since the 30th June, 1946?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– The reply to the honorable senator’s question is as follows?: -

The amount of unemployment benefit paid in each State between the 1st July, 1946, and the31st October, 1946, is as follows: -

page 705

H.M.A.S. SYDNEY

Replacement Fund

Sena tor SAMPSON asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice - 1.Whatdoesthe Government propose to do with the sumof money, reported to be over £400,000, subscribed by patriotic citizens to replace H.M.A.S. Sydney, which was lost with all hands in the Indian Ocean?

  1. Is it true that this money is lying idle in the Commonwealth Treasury, not even earning interest?
  2. If so, will the Government apply it to the original purpose or return it to subscribers?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Pending determination of post-war naval policy, it is not practicableto make any firm proposals in regard to the utilization of the amount of £426,925 standing to the credit of the H.M.A.S. Sydney Replacement Fund. The matter will be kept under review and when the decision is reached as to the best use within the purposes of the trust account to which the money can be put, full publicity will he given.
  2. This amount is standingto the credit of the trust fund and forms part of investments in internal treasury-bills for war purposes.
  3. As the money was raised by public subscription and is held in the trust fund for the specific purpose of replacing H.M.A.S. Sydney, it is not lawful under the Audit Act for the Treasurer to expend these moneys except for the purposes of the fund or under the authority of an act of Parliament. There is, therefore, no legal authority which would permit repayment to the subscribers.

page 705

QUESTION

ESTIMATES AND BUDGET PAPERS 1946-47

Debate resumed from the27th November (vide page 633), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the following papers be printed: -

Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure, and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, for the year endingthe 30th June, 1947.

The Budget 1946-47 - Papers presented by the Right Honorable J. B. Chifley, M.P., on the occasion of the Budget of 1946-47.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– Last night, when I obtained leave to continue my remarks, I was discussing various ways suggested by honorable senators opposite whereby industrial unrestcould be minimized. I said that whilst some industrial stoppages could not be justified, most of them were due to the impatience of the workers with the arbitration system and the long delays experienced in having their claims heard. Apart from those stoppages which have occurred for trivial reasons, which I make no attempt to condone, the most important factor in dealing with industrial unrest is the human element. Most employers do not pay sufficient attention to the importance of that aspect. When they recognize fully the value of the part played in industry by the employees, we shall be well on the way towards a solution of the problem of industrial unrest. Some firms in Australia have gone a long way in that direction by providing the best possible working conditions and various amenities for their employees, and where these conditions prevail there is a minimum of stoppages and long lists of applicants for positions in those establishments. Much has been said by the Opposition concerning the coal-miners, the waterside workers and others whose callings are of such a nature that stoppages frequently occur. Their work is most arduous. Had their jobs been attractive, why was it that, when man-power restrictions were removed, thousands left the coal-mining industry and sought work in other avenues of employment. Last session the Government passed legislation to bring to the coal-mining industry some measure of stability in order to ward off industrial stoppages. There are always two sides to industrial disputes, and we must have co-operation between employers and employees. If a fair deal be given to both sides, Ave shall have gone a long way towards solving the problem of industrial unrest.

Reference has been made by an honorable senator to the fact that about £4,000,000 has been placed on the Estimates for ‘unemployment relief. That ‘ is necessary, not because we envisage a great deal of unemployment, but because we know that there is never a time when a certain number of people are not out of employment. I have in mind such persons as shearers, fruit-pickers, harvest workers and others engaged in seasonal occupations. Still others are unemployed because of illness and, of course, there are always some persons in a community who are unemployable. During the present transition period from war to peace some ex-servicemen and women are unemployed while waiting opportunities to engage in their chosen occupations. According to an answer given by the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) this afternoon, the Commonwealth Government has already expended £228,000 in unemployment relief. Those payments have not been rendered necessary solely because of strikes and stoppages in industry, but have, in most instances, been caused by circumstances over which the Government had no control. For instance, thousands of citizens of Perth were thrown temporarily out of employment recently because of a breakdown at the power house. For a period of about three weeks many families would have gone short of food had it not been for the relief provided by the Commonwealth Government. I am pleased that legislation providing for such assistance to needy people is on the statute-book, and that provision is being made by the Government to continue such payments. That does not indicate a defeatist and hopeless outlook on the part of the Government; it is rather a guarantee to those who may be temporarily unemployed. Australians have reason to congratulate themselves upon the fact that the level of unemployment in this country is so low although many thousands of men and women have been released from the fighting services, the unemployment figures have reached the lowest level on record. Even in the most prosperous days before the war, there was always more than 1 per cent, of the people not working; to-day the proportion is less than .5 per cent. There would be no persons unemployed in Australia if the Government favoured a policy of industrial conscription, because at the present time there are more jobs than unemployed workers. The Government, however, does not believe in industrial conscription; it does not force a man whose home is in Perth to go to, say, Marble Bar just because there is a job there. The Government must take into consideration the domestic circumstances of the worker, such as the needs of his wife and family, the education of the children, the housing situation, &c.

Many primary producers are unable to obtain sufficient labour to work their holdings. This state of affairs is a heritage of the days - now gone for ever, I believe - when workers in rural industries were regarded as well paid if they received £1 a week and their keep. “We still have a long way to go before the prejudice against accepting rural employment disappears. One step in the right direction .is the granting of subsidies to .those engaged in rural industries to enable them to pay reasonable wages to their employees. Most farmers are willing to pay reasonable wages provided that they can be sure of the price that they will receive for their produce. When wheat was being sold at ls. a bushel, as was the case in Western Australia during the depression, farmers could not .pay high wages to their employees. Now, however, there is stability because ‘of the guaranteed prices paid for many primary products. The Opposition says that even higher prices could be obtained in the open markets of the world. At the present time that is so, bcause of world shortages, but the high prices now being paid for wheat and other primary products are not likely to last. They are the result of many of the grain-producing countries of Europe being devastated by war, but already most of those countries are getting back into production. Some of them which, before the war, were good customers for Australian wheat are now supplying their own needs. That process will doubtless continue, and if the Danubian countries and others supply their own requirements some of the markets for Australian wheat will disappear. Knowing these things, the farmers realize that it is better to have long-term stability rather than inflated incomes for a short time, followed by a depression. They remember the time when wheat was a glut on the market and was sold at ridiculously low prices, with the result that many farmers could not meet their commitments and lost not only the savings of a life-time, but, in many instances, their holdings also. 5 am pleased, therefore, that the budget makes provision for the needs of primary producers.

Senator Sampson told an amusing anecdote about “ dog eats dog “. His story might have interested children, but .to tell it in this chamber as an argument against the Government’s social service policy was misleading. The people have placed the Government in office, and the Government will act fairly .towards them. It has a programme of social services to help them. It does not hold the view that the present standard of social services in Australia is all that can be desired. For instance, it doe3 not regard the present pensions paid to invalid and aged persons as being adequate. During the recent election campaign, the means test was discovered by quite a number of interested people. The Opposition parties advocated the immediate lifting of the means test in respect of all social services, particularly pensions. They believed that that would be an election-winning catchcry, and that the people would swallow the bait and turn the Government out of office. But the people of Australia have more sense than that. No one is more anxious than I am to provide greater benefits to our people’; but when we examine the Opposition’s proposal to abolish the means test we find that we should have to increase expenditure on social services enormously. “With the Opposition parties now clamouring for reductions of income tax, it would not then be a question of dog eating dog; there would be no dog. We should exhaust our financial resources whilst, at the same time, create the responsiblity to provide further financial help to the com munity. The abolition of the means test as envisaged by the opposition parties would not provide any relief to those people who are in receipt of only a basic pension, namely, those who receive only 32s. 6d. a week, on which they have to live. But, under the Opposition’s proposal a retiring allowance of 32s. 6d. a week would be given to people earning greater incomes. The Labour party stands for levering up the whole community from the lowest strata upwards. By so doing we shall raise the whole fabric of society. On the other hand, if we merely insert a wedge half-way up the ladder of society, and press up those on top, we shall press down those on the lower rungs. That is what the Opposition’s proposal to abolish the means test would do. Under that proposal, the abolition of the means test would not give one penny extra to the invalid or old-age pensioner, who now receives only 32s. 6d. a week; but would give 32s. 6d. a week to people who are now receiving good incomes. And, to the latter, of course, the value of that pension would be in inverse proportion to the amount which they already receive. Therefore, what the Government hopes to do, and the budget expresses its hope in part - it is not a pious hope but a practical proposition - is to eliminate the means test gradually as the Government has already done in respect of invalid pensioners and persons in receipt of an income not exceeding fi. We hope, first, to raise the basic pension in order to give more to those who are receiving only 32s. 6d. a week. Some people say that the present system penalizes persons who have been thrifty and saving, whereas it benefits persons who have wasted their substance over the years and gives the latter a better deal than it gives to those who have saved. We have the answer to that contention, because the great majority of persons now in receipt of pensions were for the whole of their lives wage-earners, or had small businesses or small properties. Eighty per cent, of them have reared families on very small incomes, which did not give them an opportunity to put by any savings for their old age. These persons earned only the basic wage, which was approximately £3 a week not many years ago. On that income they reared families, and thus did not have any opportunity to put by savings. Even with the basic wage at its present level, the wage-earner has not much chance to save and rear a family when we allow for the high cost of clothing and the present high rentals. Therefore it is safe to say that the present system of pensions benefits not more than 10 per cent, of people who would come within the category of those who could be said to have wasted their substance. At least 80 per cent, of persons now receiving pensions did not receive sufficient income to allow them to put by anything for their old age. These people have done a very good job in helping to develop this country in the years which we hope have passed for ever by shouldering heavy family responsibilities and providing healthy citizens for Australia on very low wages.

I shall refer now to the proposed provision in respect of national fitness. I agree with Senator Arnold that this grant be increased. One aspect of national fitness which I, as a member of the Social Security Committee, feel very strongly about is this: A section of the people who have done great work not merely in recent years, but long before national fitness was established, is the surf lifesaving clubs which are now established in every State. I do not think that many people realize just how much the community owes to the thousands of young citizens who week in and week out throughout the long summer months on every Australian beach give up their time in order to safeguard the lives of bathers. We are very proud of our lovely beaches. They are one of Australia’s greatest assets. In every pictorial representation of Australia, and in every guide book of this country as well as in every film depicting Australian life, attention is directed to the beauty of our beaches ; and the fact is stressed that they can be used for many months of the year. Those beaches are safe for the many thousands who find on them their only form of relaxation. It is a cheap form of relaxation, which is availed of by every section of the community. But the thousands who use our beaches would not be able to bathe in safety were it not for the wonderful work that is being done by the members of the surf life saving clubs throughout Australia. These young men and women, in order to qualify as members of those clubs, go through a very severe training. In order to do so they deny themselves many pleasures and privileges; and they give up much of their time in running social functions in order to finance the purchase of equipment which they use for the .benefit of the community as a whole. In Western Australia I have seen small clubs established by from ten to twenty persons, which to-day have grown to considerable proportions. To-day, the clubs form a great movement in Australia.” Having regard to the enormous length of our coast line and the vast numbers who enjoy relaxation on our beaches, it is” amazing that we have so few fatalities. That is due in great measure to the number of rescues effected each week-end by members of surf life saving clubs. I have prepared statistics on this aspect of their activities, but, unfortunately, I have not those statistics with me. I have been approached by the representatives of various surf life saving clubs to endeavour to obtain some recognition of their activities by the Commonwealth. The members of such clubs do not regard their activities just as a recreation. In other sports, participants enjoy sport itself, and derive individual satisfaction from their recreation; but the members of surf life saving clubs give more in the interest of others than they themselves receive. They ensure safety on our beaches, particularly to family people who take their children to the seaside. All who use the beaches know that their safety is assured because of the self-sacrificing activities of the young men and women in these clubs. Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), when he is reviewing the report of the Social Security Committee “with respect to national fitness, will give due recognition to the work carried out by these clubs. The monetary grant that is made for national fitness is not given to separate organizations. For this reason, surf life saving clubs have not received one penny from the Commonwealth through that fund to assist them in their essential work. I sincerely hope that these clubs will be recognized as a component of national fitness. They are doing efficient work, and should be given a grant from the National Fitness Fund.

Listening to the speeches of honorable senators opposite one might be led to believe that they alone are interested in the liberalization of repatriation benefits, and the well-being of ex-service personnel generally. That is not so. We cannot expect to liberalize repatriation benefits unless we are able to finance any extension of existing benefits. I should like those benefits to be increased. I believe that anything that can be done for exservice personnel who have suffered in some way as the result of war service should be done. Indeed, anything that we can do for our ex-service personnel will still fall far short of what they were willing to do for us. For instance, the dependants of an ex-serviceman who is in receipt of a partial pension, should be given a full pension if the breadwinner has to relinquish his employment to go into a repatriation hospital to receive attention for an illness or disability resulting from his war service. I know of many eases in which the wives and families of exservicemen have had to live on a partial pension for this reason. The payment of a full pension for the period of hospital treatment in these cases would not cost a very large sum of money, and the additional expenditure would be well warranted by the increased security that would be given to these unfortunate people.

The work of our repatriation tribunals should be speeded up. At present exservicemen may have to wait six months, or even eight months, for their claims to bc heard. These cases should be dealt with almost immediately, and instead of having to make perhaps three or four long trips to the city a member should be able to appear before all the necessary tribunals at one visit. Repatriation is one of the most important tasks that this Government has had to undertake, and expendiure on repatriation benefits this year will be £21,000,000 more than it was last year. Personally, I do not mind how much we expend on the provision of these benefits for our ex-servicemen who .are so badly in need.

The scale of pensions payable not only to war widows but also to civilian widows, is another matter that requires a complete overhaul. Recently I have been in touch with various bodies that are endeavouring to organize the war widows of Australia. I find that a service widow is expected to live on £2 10s. a week and that civilian widows receive considerably less than that amount, namely £1 12s. 6d. a week. Although those payments are considerably more than were provided by previous administrations - civilian widows did not receive anything - they are quite inadequate .to permit a reasonable standard of living. In my opinion,, widow’s pensions and other similar benefits should not be less than the basicwage, and I hope that this Government, will not relax its efforts to improve our social services until at least this amount is payable. Such a ‘policy, of course, could not envisage any reductions of taxes. J am not one of those who believes that a reduction of the income tax is the cure for all our industrial and economic ills. The maintenance of high taxes will be necessary so long as we are determined to remain true to the trust that the people of this country placed in us at the last elections. There is an obligation upon the Government to ensure social security for every section pf the community. We have not been returned to office to reduce the income tax by 6d. a week or 6s. a week. We did not promise tax reductions during the election campaign. Honorable senators opposite did that, and they were given their answer by the people who were sufficiently intelligent to realize that they could not expect from any government benefits that were beyond its capacity to pay. The capacity of a government to pay is limited by the amount of revenue that it receives in taxes. If we are to give to the people of this country the things that they most desire - economic security, freedom from fear, and freedom from want, particularly in their times of misfortune or in their old age when their earning capacity has gone - we cannot hold out promises of greatly reduced taxes. Our job is to ensure economic security and good living standards. That is much more important than enabling industrial organizations to make huge profits, and various individuals to amass wealth.

I repeat that I do not regard this as a peace-time budget, but rather as one of transition. In the next twelve months it may have to be amended in various ways, but I hope that the social service proposals contained in it will be implemented to the full. I trust that the provision that is made for defence will be sufficient to ensure that we shall not again drift into the state of unpreparedness in which we found ourselves in 1939. The Government is fully cognizant of the necessity to maintain adequate air, sea and land ‘defences, properly coordinated through the Ministry of Defence so that Australia may never again face the disaster which came so close to us only a few years ago.

I compliment the Government upon the budget, not because I regard it as a panacea for all the ills of the community, but because of its spirit. It is honest in that it does not hold out any great inducement to any one section of the community to the exclusion of others. It tells us honestly what the Government intends to do and admits frankly that much remains to be done. The Treasurer stated in conclusion -

Consistently with the trust wu hold for national security, for the re-instatement of servvice men and women and for the development of facilities vital to the welfare of the community, our efforts further to reduce expenditures will be unremitting, as they have been in the past.

In other words, whilst we shall endeavour to reduce expenditure, reductions will not be effected at the expense of the well-being1 and security of the citizens of the Commonwealth.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– A visitor to the Senate last night or to-day could not help but be impressed by the intelligent interest that supporters of the Government are taking in this first post-war national budget. I notice that the Government benches are almost empty again to-day. The budget speech covers a very wide field of discussion but, with one exception, I propose to confine myself to passing comment only on a. few of its aspects. Other matters, of course, can be dealt with more effectively when the estimates are before us. At the end of the second paragraph of the speech will be found this very striking sentence -

The first stage of the post-war transition has been completed successfully.

One is impelled to ask what is the first stage and what has been its success.

Senator Sheehan:

– Demobilization !

Senator COLLETT:

– That was carried out entirely by the services. The restoration of the supply of the consumer goods and the rehabilitation of discharged service men and women cannot be described as being completely successful, nor has the distressed and harassed housewife been able to obtain those supplies and services that a normal system of transport and distribution usually offers. The process of demobilizing the forces has virtually ended and as a military operation it has been very successful. The process of absorbing the demobilized forces into the civil population and restoring them to the full conditions of peace and industry is, however, far from complete. The Government still has a very heavy task to perform, as it admits itself, and this will impose a strain, not only on its services and resources, but also on its administrative ability.

I shall refer briefly to the subject of uniform taxation before proceeding to my main theme. The continuance of the uniform taxation system is not in the best interests of the States. “Western Australia, as is generally known, has immense natural resources. It has a population of only 500,000, and its resources have to be exploited. To do this, public utilities have to be set up, and the amenities which usually go in advance of a spreading population must be provided. If the provision of these things necessitates waiting upon the will of a Commonwealth government, which derives its political power almost entirely from the more heavily industrialized eastern States, then the chances of the less populous States being able to progress, whether by their unaided efforts or with outside assistance, are not very good. There should be a revision of the constitution after n careful and unprejudiced survey so that the basic idea of federation which, we had 46 years ago will not ultimately breed anc! let loose a

Frankenstein monster upon the less populous States.

The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) hinted in his budget speech at heavy post-war expenditure on defence. In 1943-44 the peak year of war-time activity, war expenditure totalled £54S,000,000. The figure was reduced to £448,000,000 in 1944-45, and to £348,000,000 in 1945-46, and, for the current financial year, the Treasurer estimates that £147,000,000 will be sufficient to meet certain commitments and to provide for immediate needs. Several honorable senators have referred to defence measures during this debate, and Senator Tangney, in the speech which she has just completed, reiterated remarks which she made a few days ago. This is a healthy indication of the alertness of the nation and of its awareness of recent history and the legacy which war has bequeathed to us. I shall now attempt to present a broad view of our defence policy. It is not uninteresting, and it may help us to reach conclusions on certain issues which are inseparable from the problems of defence. For the moment, I shall disregard the causes of international strife. “We all know that the science of war is progressive and necessitates from time to time extensive revisions of our systems of defence. This is due to changing circumstances associated with the growth and movements of populations, with trade and commerce, and with developments in pure science and the application of those developments to the design, manufacture and use of weapons and other war equipment. At the present time, we are ,at another revision stage. We are guarding ourselves against immediate risks with interim forces, about which I have nothing to say. We have demobilized great numbers of fighting men. The political results of their achievements in war are not yet fully apparent, and the lessons to be derived from a review of the strategy and tactics which our forces employed have not yet been analysed and assimilated. Until these matters are resolved, we should ‘be foolish to commit ourselves to changing horses in mid-stream. However, two very satisfactory and comforting features have already begun to emerge from what has been, almost literally, the fog of the first fifteen months of peace. In the first place, the dominions are unanimous in agreeing to combine for the future defence of the British Empire. In this connexion, 1 allude to the clear and reassuring statements made by the Prime Minister on his return from London. I was also greatly impressed by the definite utterances of Senator O’Flaherty on this subject last night. It was very pleasing to hear such a definite statement in relation to our association with Great Britain. In the second place, the British Empire has expressed its willingness to play its part in the United Nations in enforcing peace in this war-devastated world. The first of these features, namely, the unity of the Empire, involves primarily the taking of measures for the immediate defence of Australia. This necessity presents major problems. When I was a young soldier, I was taught to make an appreciation of any military task which was set. Upon the proper appreciation of such tasks depended the number of troops to be engaged and the methods to be adopted in fighting any action. This was intended to teach economy in the use of men and materials in war. We Jack such an appreciation of world conditions to-day. Probably, appreciations have been made by men whoare competent to do so, !but their conclusions have not been placed before us.Until this is done, we shall not know whatforces we need, much less how they shouldbe equipped, trained and employed. I. agree with Senator Nash that, at present, no individual member of this Parliament is competent to say offhand what will be the best method of defending Australia in the immediate future. The GovernorGeneral’s Speech at the opening of this Parliament did not afford any useful indication as to how the nation should be organized for defence. The paragraphs dealing with defence lacked clarity and were devoid of information capable of being applied to the situation as we see it now. However, two -requisites of a democratic country have emerged from a survey of our experiences and probable future commitments. The first of these is the universal obligation to serve in the defence of Australia, and the second is the necessity for giving sufficient training to fit each, individual for his allotted task se that he, and the nation, may have a fair chance of a continued existence. I have nothing to say against volunteers. In common with several honorable senators, I was a volunteer. Those who, before 1911, gave their time freely to learning how to defend the nation formed, together with the Staff Corps, the backbone of the Australian Imperial Force in World War I. Their record was, and still is, a very fine one. However, circumstances have changed, and our potential world commitments suggest that only danger would be encountered if our obligations were borne by a minority of our manhood. Senator Sampson’s statements regarding universal training are worthy of the serious consideration of the Government, and of the Senate as a whole, in -view of the tactics and mechanics of war that have been developed. Obviously, with our large area and small population we cannot, for financial and economic reasons, maintain large forces on a permanent basis.

During its comparatively short life this Commonwealth has had more than one fundamentally sound system of defence in operation. For various reasons, mainly political, these have never been fully implemented. Here I do not wish to expose again the “ dead horse “ I mentioned a few months ago, for whilst all governments may be adjudged guilty to some degree, the Labour party, with the exception of the period covered by the Fisher regime, has achieved notoriety for its consistent opposition to adequate preparedness. Take its attitude to the National Registration Bill introduced in 1939. In relation to this the late Senator Keane said -

In the history of this Parliament there has probably never been a measure which has been received with greater disfavour by the Labour movement in Australia. . . . This bill has the full opposition of every trades hall council in Australia.

No further comment is needed. However, the act is still on the statute-book, and was availed of by the Curtin Government.

Latterly, however, the Labour party has, I think, had its lesson ‘and will not, I hope, stand in the way of measures considered necessary for our future security.

Two of my colleagues suggested the appointment of an all-party parliamentary committee, or commission, to consider relative facts and report on defence matters. Frankly, I must say that I do not favour such a course. It would be dangerous. Already we have a Council of Defence, composed of responsible political representatives and the chiefs of the services. Behind this council, and to implement its conclusions, are the expert staffs of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and those supervising the means of production and manufacture. If the Government uses this council, as I have no doubt it should and will, there is little more to be desired. On the other hand, I consider that members of this Parliament have a genuine thirst for enlightenment as to what are the essentials of a sound defence policy, and it seems to me to be reasonable that, in order to meet the need, the Government should arrange for addresses to members to be given, from time to time, by those who are qualified to speak on principles, means, and methods.

Personally, I am sensible of the existence of movements in the direction of ensuring national security. First of all, consultations have taken place between the Prime Ministers of the British Dominions. That suggests an attempt to appreciate the international situation. Then, more recently, under the presidency of Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery, a conference composed of the most highly qualified members of the three services was held in Camberley. It seems to have reached conclusions as to means and methods that are available, and should be adopted, to implement our attitude in international affairs and, at the same time, provide defence needs. Furthermore, the Government and staffs of the services have had the advantage of opportunities for consultation with distinguished representatives of the Royal Navy, Army, and Air Force, who have visited Australia since the cessation of hostilities. As I have indicated, Parliament is without full information on these several matters. But, as against that, we have now, from the Prime Minister, an assurance of an early statement that should be of great value to us all.

Senator Tangney, in a recent speech, upon which she has been commended, touched, upon a variety of subjects of national importance. During that speech she paid a well-merited tribute to the work done by our women in the recent war. Then, no doubt encouraged by her success in leading a “Labour” offensive in Western Australia, she went on to say that the problem of defence was a practical one, and that women, being essentially practical, had given a great deal of thought to that problem. But, unfortunately, she made no practical suggestions, and I must ask for her forbearance if I traverse some of her statements. She pleaded for a “ co-ordinated system of defence” and went on to state -

I am not sure that such a co-ordinated scheme was in existence in Australia before September, 1939.

Then she added -

Twenty-five or thirty years ago- that is 1916-1921 - during three of which we were at war - when the defence policy of this nation was being formulated, most of the men in charge of’ national affairs were more army-minded than defence-minded.

The meaning of that is not quite clear -

They apparently forgot that Australia is an island continent.

Well, what are the facts? How much we owe to the experience and aid of the people of the British Isles may not be fully realized. But through the ages, since the time of Alexander the Great, as Senator Sampson pointed out, certain principles of defence have been in force and unchanged. As we well know, it was Alfred the Great who, in devising a plan for the protection of England, organized a navy to operate in conjunction with his small land force. That was the genesis of the “ blue water school “ which, for centuries, by persisting in its advocacy of a strong fleet, has rendered us such great service, and never more than in 1939-45. Alfred and the “school” were navy-minded. So, for a thousand years of our history there have been strivings to secure appropriate coordination between the sea and the land forces.

In Australia, in 1902, two years after federation, General Sir Edward Hutton propounded the first scheme for our defence by means of an army designed to co-operate with a British naval squadron. During the next decade we provided the nucleus of our own fleet, and followed that up by seeking the advice of Admiral Sir William Henderson, who visited us and submitted a report based on a conception that the Indian Ocean and western seas would be the strategical focal points of the future. Sir William’s views were never fully implemented, owing to the outbreak of war in 1914, but the existence of the battle cruiser Australia and its supporting ships drove the German squadron from these seas and made possible the occupation of New Guinea. The Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Jellicoe, voyaged to Australia early in 1919. After that our naval policy was reorientated, and with what results no. effort of memory is required to appreciate. It should be pointed out that the actions at Cocos Island, the Falkland Isles and the battles at Dogger Bank and Jutland were as effective in winning the war of 1914-18 as were the successful operations in the Coral Sea, Midway Island and the Solomon Islands in respect to the campaigns of 1939-45. They prepared the way for the land forces, which are the deciding factor in the winning of all WallS

Hutton’s plan for our volunteer army was revised in consequence of a visit from Lord Kitchener in 1910. His views were accepted by the Parliament, and the progress made with this new scheme was reported upon, early in 1914, by General Sir Ian Hamilton. The outbreak of war in the following August found it only half developed. It was again examined about 1919 or 1920 by Generals Chauvel and Brudenell White and certain modifications approved in regard to organization and equipment. For an overall review we had, in 1934, the benefit of a visit from, and the advice of, Lord Hankey, who had been Secretary to the British War Cabinet and the Imperial Council of Defence.

During World War I. aircraft made their appearance as a weapon and potential strategical force. It was two armyofficers, Trenchard and Salmond, who correctly visualized their future. In 1928 Air-Marshal Sir John Salmond visited Australia and made recommendations which were not only adopted “but had been more than implemented by the Australian Government before the opening of hostilities in 1939. To this report we owe, inter alia, the construction of the Air Force station at Pearce, “Western Australia. Nothing that WingCom.wander Wackett may have said has affected the real issue, which is - were resonable steps taken to effect a coordinated system of defence of this country? I maintain that such was done. The fact that 1939 found us unready was mainly due to the actions of the Scullin Government during its term of office.

Senator Tangney is evidently navyminded. She complains that after the first world war there was only one man in the Royal Australian Navy for every 100 men in the Australian Imperial Force. That alinement is, in itself, incorrect, but from it emerges the suggestion of a lack of sense of proper proportion as between the services in regard to their respective functions. I think that we shall always need a navy, an army and an air force. Therefore, a balanced force is one of strength appropriate to the tasks in hand, combined with the resources of the country and the capacity of . the nation to provide materials and to construct and man units. However, the honorable senator’s hypothesis is in itself an argument for the maintenance in the future of adequate naval reserves. I agree with the view that the development of an adequate defence system should not be hampered by party differences.

A retrospect of the war of 1939-45 brings into relief and justifies the mention of - (1) The ineffectiveness of our army at the time of the outbreak; (2) vigorous and immediate action taken by the Menzies Government for participation with the Empire in a great and prolonged war and the wisdom of its basic arrangements; (3) the gallantry and efficiency of our forces in many campaigns fought in many parts of the world; (4) the proof of the value, and the need1 for the maintenance of the training institutions for officers of the three services, and of the necessity for continuing the system of exchange of officers between Great Britain and the Dominions; (5) the failure of the Government to recognize adequately with rewards the great services rendered to the nation by the senior commanders of the forces; (6) the voluntary efforts of ex-members of the forces, and the people as a whole, at a stage when the nation was gravely endangered; (7) the failure to form a national government at a time of acute crisis - such an action would have heartened the people, encouraged our allies, and improved the administration of the whole war effort; (8) the success of the Government’s negotiations with the Government 6f the United States of America and the victories which followed the joint operations of the allied forces in the Pacific; (9) in view of the needs of the Empire, and the free services given by other dominion and allied troops, the error committed in restricting the sphere in which Australian armies might operate - even for the purposes of succouring our countrymen in captivity; (10) the mistake committed in maintaining in Australia two armies with dissimilar conditions of service - this was wasteful of man-power, costly to administer and engendered, amongst our own people, ill feeling that only the passage of many years will eradicate; (11) an error in completely withdrawing our Army from the Middle East operations - our non-representation at the battles in Tunisia, and during the campaigns in Sicily, Italy, and even on the old Western Front, in which our navy and air force took part, has left a blank in Australian history and has not enhanced our military prestige; (12) a recognition of Australia’s vulnerability in the Pacific and the seas to our north, together with need for an intensive study of changing political conditions and the promotion of friendly understanding with peoples who share our ideals and culture.

I may have been critical, but that has been done in order to emphasize certain points. As to the future, we should have confidence. I believe that we have had our lesson and that governments and people alike, whilst supporting all measures possible to ensure world peace, will combine in urging that there shall be no lack or failure in measures to protect ourselves from outlaw nations. In this, time is of ~the essence of the contract.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Senator Collett has given to the Senate a thoughtful speech. At its commencement he said that he would be brief. He kept that undertaking, and I hope that I shall at least be able to emulate his brevity. I propose to refer to some of the matters to which reference was made during the debate by honorable senators, and, perhaps, to discuss also other matters which have not been mentioned. First, I wish to make some remarks concerning the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) when he launched the debate on this motion. His first speech in the Eighteenth Parliament was marked by the statement that he and many of his colleagues were speaking with dying voices by reason of the fact that they will not be in this chamber after the 30th June next. Foi- a dying voice the honorable senator showed a great deal of strength when he addressed himself directly to the microphone yesterday. I suggest that there was no lack of strength in his voice; the weakness was in his ideas. He made the comment that last year the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) was £49,000,000 out in his estimates of revenue and expenditure, and went on to say that that grave error might be repeated in connexion with the current Estimates. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition did not look with care at the figures. I refer him to statement No. 1 mentioned in the budget speech. It is apparent that in dealing with the budget estimates and the actual receipts last year the honorable senator included in the actual receipts amounts received from business undertakings, but forgot to include the corresponding figure when dealing with the budget estimates. If he will look at the receipts from “ taxation and general revenue “ lie will find that the budget estimate last year was £341,100,000 and that the actual revenue was £35S,372,860, a difference of £17,272,860. If we include the relevant figures under the heading “ Business Undertakings “ we find that the estimate last year was £372,000,000 and the actual’ receipts £389,001,163. The difference was £17,001,163. It is clear, therefore, that the honorable senator was in error in saying that there was a gap of £49,000,000. When we compare the estimates last year with the actual receipts we find variations in each direction. For instance, the estimated receipts from sales tax were £2S,000,000 but £33,600,175 was actually received. That difference was due to the fact that the war ended in August, 1945, allowing civil production to he stepped up, because a good deal of freedom in the matter of civil manufacture was permitted.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– Prices had risen in the meantime.

Senator McKENNA:

– That would be a factor, because rising prices always have their reactions on governmental revenues. It is always a temptation to a Treasurer to permit a considerable degree of rising prices in the interests of his budget. Indeed, it takes a good deal of courage on the part of a Treasurer, particularly in an emergency, to take steps to ensure that prices shall be kept down to a minimum. Despite the rises that have taken place, the Treasurer and the Government are to be commended. In the assessment of income tax the estimate in relation to companies was £59,000,000. The actual receipts were £55,264,216. Estate duty was expected to yield £3,000,000;’ it actually brought in £3,880,041. And so the variations go on. In a transitional period it is impracticable for a treasurer to calculate revenues and expenditures with the degree of accuracy that is possible in peace-time. My first comment is that the Leader of the Opposition was in error in claiming that the Treasurer was £40,000,000 out in his estimates last year ; the variation was in fact £17,272,860.

The honorable senator also said that no attempt had been made to reduce expenditure, including war expenditure. Here, again, he obviously did not study the figures. I draw his attention to the figures set out in the budget speech. The actual expenditure on “ Defence and Allied Services “ last year was £34S,000,000. The estimate for this year under that heading is £147,000,000, a reduction of £201,000,000. It is true that there are increases in connexion with “Post-war (1939-45) Charges” by reason of the growing war debt. The amount has risen from £41,000,000 to £46,000,000. Reestablishment and repatriation expenditure this year is expected to be £35,000,000 compared with £14,000,000 last year. Allowing for those and some other items which snow increases, there is over-all a reduction of £157,000,000 compared with the expenditure last year. Clearly the charge of the Leader of the Opposition that no attempt has been made to reduce expenditure cannot be sustained.

He also complained that high rates of taxes presented no incentive to the wageearner to give of his best. He had in mind, no doubt, the proposals of his party during the recent election campaign, in which a 20 per cent, overall reduction was promised if a non-Labour government were returned. It was contended that that reduction would constitute an incentive to production and would affect not only workers in industry but also professional men and others. That contention was adequately canvassed during the election campaign, but I propose to refresh the minds of honorable senators on the subject by reviewing the position of a man, his wife, and two children .at different income levels if we apply a uniform tax reduction. Let us take a man with an, income of £250, which represents £4 16s. 2d. a week. Today, he pays £2 2s. a year as tax. A 20 per cent, reduction would be 8s. 5d. or less than 2d. a week. A man whose income is £300 a year would benefit by lOd. a week if the tax were reduced by 20 per cent. The saving to a taxpayer in similar circumstances whose earnings were £350 a year would be ls. 7d. ,a week. I am sure that no honorable senator will say that a reduction of 2d., 10d., or ls. 7d. a week would stimulate any individual in the community to greater effort. Let us pursue this matter into the regions of the higher incomes. To a taxpayer who earns £1,000 a year, and now pays £217 10s. tax, a reduction of 20 per cent, would mean a remission of £43 10s., or 16s. 8d. a week. A. taxpayer in receipt of an income of £2,000 would receive a remission of tax of £2 13s. a week, In respect of an income of £3,000 the remission would be £5 a week, and in respect of an income of £4,000 it would be £8 a week. A taxpayer with an income of £5,000, on which he now pays tas of £2,847, would with a reduction of 20 per cent, have an additional spending capacity of £585, which is more than double the combined incomes earned by two men on the basic wage. There:fore, it is apparent that a reduction of income tax by 20 per cent, over all incomes would represent only 2d. a week in the case of the man on the basic wage, but £11 a week in the case of tha taxpayer with an income of £5,000.

Senator Gibson:

– Carrying the Minister’s argument further, the reduction means nothing to a person in receipt of the old-age pension.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator is not citing an appropriate case. We are now discussing the advisability of reducing income tax in order to provide an incentive to the worker; and the old-age pensioner is not a person who is expected to contribute to the production of the country. The old-age pension is intended to be some provision for old age, and, on the face of it, is given to persons who are not able to exert effort in production. I believe that the honorable senator himself will concede that we cannot expect vast effort from old-age pensioners. I shall now survey briefly the incidence of taxation at the existing Fates. We find that present taxes bear heavily upon the person who has no dependants, or who is in receipt of a high income; and I suggest that that is a very proper incidence under present conditions. However, no tax is payable by persons with reasonable family responsibilities who are in receipt of incomes of £400, or £450, a year; or else, allowing for child endowment, they show a profit in their transactions with the Government. A person with an income of £200 a year with no dependants pays £12 18b. tax; with a wife only dependent upon him, he pays £6 9s.; and with a wife and one child, he pays £1 16s. A taxpayer with an income of £200 a year with a wife and two children is not only exempt from tax but also receives in child endowment £19 10s. Thus, a man with even as low a family responsibility as a wife and two children shows a balance in his favour of £1J9 10a. A taxpayer in receipt of an income of £250 pays £26 17s. tax, if he has no dependants, £13 if he has only a wife, £5 4s. if he has a wife and one child, and £2 2s. if he has a wife and two children; and in the last-named instance the family unit receives £19 10s. by way of child endowment. In that case, the taxpayer shows a clear profit of £17 10s. A taxpayer with an income of £250, with a wife and three, four, or more children is not only exempt from tax, but if he has three children he receives £39 in child endowment ; and if he has four children he receives £58 10s. in child endowment. A taxpayer in receipt of an income of £400, or £7 10s. a week, pays £68 7s. tax if he has no dependants, £51 5s. if he has only a wife dependent upon him, £38 9s. if he has a wife and one child, and £33 7s. if he has a wife and two children. But in the last-named instance, the family unit receives child endowment of £19 10s. A taxpayer with an income of £400, with a wife and three children, pays £27 IO3. tax, and receives £39 child endowment, whilst if he has a wife and four children he pays £22 10s. tax and receives £58 10s. in child endowment; and if he has a wife and five children he pays £17 10s. tax and receives £78 in child endowment. It is apparent, therefore, that any taxpayer with reasonable family responsibilities is to-day showing a profit in his dealings with the Treasurer. That is a fact which was very apparent to the electors, and it is one explanation why the people of this country were not tempted at the recent elections by the irresponsible offers made by the Opposition parties. While I am talking of irresponsibility in this matter, I shall examine what the position would be had the proposals made by the Opposition parties been implemented. We are faced to-day with a gap between revenue and expenditure of £59,000,000.. That is quite apart from the £45,000,000 that must be raised in order to provide money to the States for their developmental works. The proposal pf the Opposition parties to reduce income tax was, on the one hand, to lower the Government’s revenues and, on the other hand, to increase vastly the Go.vernment’s expenditure. They proposed to reduce income tax by 20 per cent. That reduction would mean a decrease of the Government’s revenue of £26,000,000.

Senator McLeay:

– The Minister is not making any allowance in respect of increased wages and increased production which would result.

Senator McKENNA:

– Those are factors which might have affected my calculations. I am allowing for the mean between two proposals; because the Liberal party offered a reduction of 20 per cent., whilst the Australian Country party offered a reduction of 28 per cent. There was no agreement between the two Opposition parties on the matter. Even allowing for the factors mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition the proposal of the Opposition parties would have meant a reduction of the Government’s revenue by £26,000,000. The gap between revenue and expenditure would have been increased by approximately that amount. I turn now to the effect which the proposal of the Opposition parties would have had in increasing government expenditure. They proposed to abolish the means test completely ; and that would inevitably have caused an increased annual expenditure of at least £42,000,000.

Senator Leckie:

– Who said that the Opposition parties advocated that?

Senator McKENNA:

– J understand that that was the attitude taken by the Opposition parties. Certainly, it was what they set forth in all their advertisements. I do not know whether they speak with two voices, or hot; but the position that was represented to the people of Australia, and was driven into them by Opposition advertisements in the press and over the air was that they would, if returned to office, abolish the means test. At all events that was what the people of Australia understood would be the policy to which the Opposition would give effect ; and that proposal would have increased governmental expenditure by at least £42,000,000 annually. No honorable senator will deny that the Opposition parties offered to provide endowment in respect of the first child, and that that would have involved an additional annual cost of £20,000,000. In respect of the three items which I have mentioned, the Opposition’s proposal would have increased the gap in the budget year by year by £88,000,000. .Senator Collett. - What does the Minister mean when he says, “year by year “ ?

Senator McKENNA:

– The additional expenditure involved in the abolition of the means test, and endowment of the first child would go on year by year. In addition’ to the proposals which I have mentioned the Opposition also proposed to remit sales tax and company tax, the amounts in each case being unspecified; and it also proposed to establish a national medical scheme. I put it to the Senate that the proposals made by the Opposition parties in these matters were insincere, and were completely irresponsible having regard to the finances of the country; and in fact, they received from the people of this country the answer that they deserved. A good deal was said during the election campaign regarding the amount which the Government had in reserve by way of arrears of taxes and uncollected taxes. Dealing with arrears, it is a fact that no government ever collects in the year of assessment the whole of the tax that is levied. There is always a lag of approximately 20 per cent., and the arrears are apparently steady year by year at that level. An examination of arrears of taxes for the last ten years shows that the arrears of £42,000,000 in respect of the year 1945-46 were normal, and in the normal way were required to finance the initiation of this year’s operations. In 1936-37, when the present Government was not on the treasury bench collections of tax totalled £8,556,000 and the arrears of taxes as at the 30th June, 1937 amounted to £3,21.4,000, or 37.5 per cent of the total tax assessed in respect of that year. In 1937-38 the arrears represented 32 per cent, of the taxes assessed, and in 1938-39, 2S.4 per cent.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– That was when a Liberal government was in office?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. In 1939- 40 the arrears represented IS. 7 per cent, of the taxes assessed, in 1940-41, 16.6 per cent.; in 1941-42, 16.9 per cent.; in 1942-43, 13.S per cent.; in 1943-44, 18.3 per cent. ; in 1944-45, 17.5 per cent. ; and in 1945-46, 19.2 per cent. The lastnamed figure of 19.2 per cent, as at the 30th June, 1946, is relatively much lower than the arrears of taxes in 1936, 1937, 193S, 1939 and 1940 when governments supported by the Opposition parties were in office. Therefore, to suggest that anything extra could be financed out of what . is, after all, only a normal accumulation of arrears is, frankly, the height of absurdity. I admit frankly that there is a fairly large sum of taxes not assessed. It may be £42,000,000. The Treasurer has admitted that there is a considerable body of taxpayers who fall in the category mentioned by Senator Cooper. The reason for the existence of that body of taxpayers is that the Taxation Department, like every other department, has had its troubles during the war period, including difficulties with respect to staffing, accommodation and equipment. I am perfectly certain that those arrears will not be overtaken in the current year, and, perhaps, not in the following year.

Senator McLeay:

– The collection of such taxes may involve drastic methods.

Senator McKENNA:

– Senator Cooper referred to the difficulty of several years assessments falling upon primary producers in the one year, possibly at a time when they have suffered loss through drought. I can only say to the honorable senator that the Taxation Department is sympathetic in dealing with cases of that kind. There are cases which permit of complete remission of tax when real hardship can be proved. My experience, having regard to the number of persons for whom I have acted through the years, has been that in a genuine case of difficulty, the Commissioner of Taxation is prepared to grant terms, and to allow arrears to be overtaken over a reasonable period.

The Leader of the Opposition drew attention to the fact that whereas last year the expenditure on unemployment and sickness benefits was £1,142.000, for the current year the estimate i.s £4,000,000. We were fortunate that the expenditure last year was very small, and I am hopeful that these benefits will not cost any more this year; but honorable senators will realize that it is impossible to determine what sicknesses will beset the people of this country in any given year. For instance, an epidemic would necessitate substantial sickness benefit payments. I point out also that despite the wide publicity that has been given to the unemployment and sickness benefits scheme the people of this country are not yet quite familiar with the benefits to which they are entitled. No doubt this year many citizens of this country will discover, belatedly, and for the first time, that they are entitled to sickness benefits. The needs of these people will increase the demand upon the Treasury in the coining year. Approximately £2,500,000 of the £4,000,000 is reserved for unemployment benefits. I sincerely hope that the expenditure of this money will not be necessary. If it is, it will be because of industrial disturbances that will necessitate the payment of unemployment benefits, not to the strikers themselves, but to other workers who will be thrown out of unemployment through no fault of their own. So, whilst there is hope that all of the £4,000,000 will not be required, the Government believes that at this stage it should make reasonable provision to meet possible contingencies and we consider that the provision now made is reasonable. The £4,000,000 also includes provision for special benefits payable under section” 36 of the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act. Under that section, a special benefit, not exceeding the unemployment benefit, may be paid to a person who is not entitled to a pension under our pensions legislation, or under the act itself. It is not expected that these special benefits will represent a very heavy item of expenditure, but they are a factor that helps to increase the estimated expenditure under this heading.

There is, in the budget, reference to our financial relations with the States. Senator Collett referred to uniform taxation, and the blighting effect it might have on State development. I make the point immediately that the development of the States will not be affected by the existence of uniform taxation. It is normal procedure for developmental work to be undertaken out of loan moneys, and not out of current revenue. Too heavy a burden would be imposed upon the people of a State if developmental work were to be financed from current revenue.

Senator Leckie:

– Interest payments on loans have to be met.

Senator McKENNA:

– I concede that interest payments do add to the budgetary burden, but we had hoped that the States would be wise, and so far as possible would undertake reproductive developmental schemes which would add to their revenue. Therefore I suggest seriously to Senator Collett that uniform taxation should not in any way adversely affect the development of the States. I point out that although every .State in the Commonwealth objected to the introduction of uniform taxation, when they found that its introduction was inevitable, they agreed with the Commonwealth on the basis of reimbursement. Each State is enjoying a vastly increased reimbursement, commencing this year, the total for all States having risen from approximately £34,000,000 to £40,000,000.

Senator Collett:

– How does that compare with the amounts raised by their own levies prior to the introduction of uniform taxation?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is considerably higher than pre-war revenues. Uniform taxation was based , upon the average collections in the years 1939-40 and 1940-41, which was approximately £34,250,000, so the £40,000,000 now being distributed represents a substantial increase. Uniform taxation has operated since the 1st July, 1942. Let us examine for ,a (moment how the State of Western Australia - the State that Senator Collett represents in this chamber - has fared under uniform taxation. On page 14 of the budget papers there is reference to uniform tax reimbursements. Western Australia was given a very special grant early this year to enable it to balance its budget at the 30th June. Therefore, in addition to the ordinary State* grant for the last financial year, Western Australia has received £912,559 under the income tax reimbursement scheme which expired on the 30th June of this year, and on top of that, it has received a vastly augmented ordinary income tax reimbursement grant. By way of special grant it is receiving this year the substantial sum of £1,245,000. Therefore, I say that the States have been treated generously by the Commonwealth in the matter of income reimbursement and grants generally.

Senator Collett:

– They still think they could do better under the former system.

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– That may be their view, but I venture to say that the finances of the States, and particularly those of the claimant .States - Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania - have never been so buoyant. I can give a very clear example of that by taking the case of Tasmania. Under section 6 of the act which expired on the 30th June, Tasmania received £118,000 early this year to enable it almost to balance its budget on the 30th June last. Its income tax reimbursement grant for this year is £295,000 higher than it was in previous years, and on top of that this year it has a special grant of record proportions, exceeding last year’s figure hy £179,000. Therefore, there is an accretion to the revenues of Tasmania this year of approximately £500,000 more than in prior years. That is typical of the other States, and shows the Commonwealth’s more open and generous approach to State finances, particularly those of the less populous States with which Senator Collett and I are especially concerned.

Before I conclude I should like to say a word or two about national health. The Commonwealth Parliament, by virtue of the last referendum, has been given power to make laws in regard to the provision of medical and dental services and it has authority under section 51 of the Constitution to do anything incidental to the execution of that power. As the subject-matter of the power concerns the States as well as the Commonwealth - that is, they exercise concurrent jurisdiction - section 109 of the Constitution applies, providing in effect, that if any law of the Commonwealth in that field conflicts with a law of a State in that field, the Commonwealth law shall prevail. The powers involved are enormous and I do not propose in the course of this debate to address myself to all their con notations and implications; but I feel that they do place upon this Parliament a new responsibility. The concept of a national health scheme is wide and complex. It embraces much more than the treatment and cure of diseases by medical practitioners. That is only one aspect of the matter. In Great Britain during the war period, there was a clear demonstration of the importance in national health of factors such as a better distribution of food, a better balanced diet, and an improved measure of economic security. Everybody was employed, rich and poor alike, and it was good for them. Thousands of workers and their families were removed from urban centres to rural areas. There was a noticeable improvement in the health of the people in spite of the fact that there were fewer doctors to look after them, and that those doctors who remained were labouring under great disabilities. To anybody who studied the position it was evident that better food, a better distribution of food, the decentralization of population, the removal of slum areas, the improvement of educational standards, and above all, the provision of a degree of social security, bringing to the people the peace of mind that is the basis of all well being had produced remarkable results. When one. looks at national health in that way, one sees the social services programme of the Commonwealth Government simply as part of a gigantic scheme to ensure to the people that economic security that is the prime factor in health. Taking a very broad view, one cannot consider national health without having regard to every aspect that makes up life. It would be easy, by means of a proper balance of food and drink, sufficient rest and exercise, to breed a race of human beings with perfect bodies, but unless those bodies were animated by intelligent, disciplined minds, we should have a race of human beings with the manners and minds of baboons. So, it is essential ‘to tie up education with the development of health. These are broad aspects of the problem that I touch upon lightly to intimate to the Senate that the Government is not taking a narrow view of its responsibilities. We are very much concerned with education, and honorable senators will find, upon examining our social service activities, that they commence at the right place, namely, with maternity benefits for mothers. I am not prepared to say that anything adequate is being done in that field. I believe that a vast amount of research is necessary to determine and control the factors that are responsible for the conditions obtaining at the birth of a child. Provision has been made, through the States, for infant welfare. We have given a substantial lead in the care of the pre-school child. School services are being dove-tailed with health services. We have set up a National Fitness Council, the activities of which are concerned mainly with youths between the schoolleaving age and 21 years. National fitness is an important development, and the Commonwealth has given a good lead. T agree with . Senator Tangney that regard might well be had to the excellent public service rendered by surf life-saving clubs throughout Australia, and their important bearing upon national fitness. The distribution of national fitness funds made available by the Commonwealth is undertaken by councils in the various States. These councils are set up not by the Commonwealth, but by the States themselves. And, so, in the national health scheme that we envisage, we care for Australian citizens from birth to maturity, and even further, into their old age. This is all part of a gigantic national health scheme. However, the problems involved do not deter or terrify us, and we propose to embark upon such a scheme at the earliest possible moment in accordance with the Prime Minister’s statement during the election campaign that we should have a free national medical scheme of the highest technical excellence. This is an ideal which the Government cherishes and hopes very soon to put into effect.

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

.- The budget has not been received with very much enthusiasm anywhere in Australia, and I believe that, as its effects become more apparent, the people will express their keen disapproval. We have heard some extraordinary statements by Government supporters . regarding the reasons for reducing indirect taxes instead of direct taxes. I point, out to the

Minister for Health (Senator MeKenna) that high direct taxes have a bad psychological effect on the people. They cause everybody to “ go slow “. Workers in industry have been led to believe that if they earn more money, the increase will be absorbed by exorbitant taxes. This fear is constantly at the back of their minds. The primary producers are affected by the same fear. Already they complain that they have to “share with Chifley “, that half of the time they are working for the Government. Primary production is decreasing for this reason. This complex influences workers and producers alike.

Senator Sheehan:

– It is encouraged by the remarks of honorable senators opposite.

Senator GIBSON:

– It is encouraged by the remarks of many people who force into the minds of the working people the- belief that if their wages are increased, taxes will absorb all of of their extra earnings. That belief is entirely wrong. Senator Nash said that the reduction of indirect taxes would be of direct benefit to the workers. I point out to him that a man earning £6 a week would have to spend the whole of his wages in order to gain the benefit of only 3s. from tax reductions.

Senator Nash:

– How does the honorable senator arrive at that conclusion?

Senator GIBSON:

– Because 2$ per cent, of £6 is 3s. A man would have to spend £6 in order to save 3s. The only benefit that a working man on the basic wage is likely to receive from the Government’s tax reductions is an occasional amount of a few pence. There will be great difficulty in convincing a man that he will benefit by saving 3d. or 6d. on such items as a pair of boots, which he might buy only once in three months. He pays no sales tax on food. He is able to buy the cheapest butter, bread, and meat in the world.

Senator Lamp:

– A man told me that he saved 9s. last week on the price of a suit for his boy as the result of the new sales tax scale.

Senator GIBSON:

– How often would he make such a purchase? If he could save 3s. a week as the result of the reductions, that would be equivalent to an increase of his wages by 3s.

Senator O’flaherty:

– -That would be worth while.

Senator GIBSON:

– Yes, but it is not worth while for him to save only a few pence now and then, or to be obliged to spend the whole of his earnings in order to save 3s. a week. All goods, particularly food items, are in short supply. We need increased production, but I fear that the Government is discouraging production, particularly in primary industries. It has been stated in the newspapers this week that, if wages are increased by 10s. a week, a proposal to which I have no objection, the cost of living will increase by 2 per cent. The Government is being forced by outside pressure to remove wage-pegging restrictions. I have no objection to wages being increased, provided that comparable increases are made in the prices paid to primary producers. If the Government lifts wage-pegging restrictions but continues to peg the prices of primary products, what will happen to the farmers?

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The Government has not pegged the price of wool.

Senator GIBSON:

– I shall say something about that later. Consider the prices of primary products to-day. The price of tallow in Australia is fixed at only £27 10s. a ton. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) informed me recently that the reason for fixing the price of tallow and banning its export was the shortage of soap. That is sheer nonsense. The export of tallow was permitted until recently, and the price obtainable on the British market was £100 a ton. Producers in Argentina receive as much as £120 a ton. Australian soap manufacturers are able to buy tallow for £27 10s. a ton, whereas British manufacturers, with whom they are competing, have to pay £100 a ton. This is an extraordinary situation, and it has a serious effect on sheep sales. I had a strange experience recently. A butcher came to my property to buy a flock of sheep. I told him that he could reject a certain number of them. He said that he would reject fat sheep, but not lean sheep. I asked the reason for this, and he explained that he could obtain 6d. per lb. for mutton but only 3d. per lb. for fat. Because of this, fat sheep are left on the hands of the producers until they become lean. This is due to the Government’s action in controlling sales’ of tallow.

Senator Ashley:

– That should help the farmers. They need not fatten their sheep.

Senator GIBSON:

– Sometimes producers cannot prevent their sheep from becoming fat. They cannot raise sheep fat or lean just to suit market conditions. I refer now to oat prices. No doubt Senator Devlin will know something about this subject. Oats are taken into the harley pool at 3s. a bushel, although the producers could obtain 6s. a bushel or more if they were allowed to export their crop. Wheat for home consumption is sold at 5s. 2d. a bushel, although the whole crop could be sold at 10s. a bushel. I shall say no more about that; enough has been said about it already. Does the Government propose to subsidize primary producers so that they may continue in production? I am certain that they are not making huge fortunes under the present system of controls. If the Government did compensate them for the low Australian prices, they would receive very large sums of money. The price of butter in Australia is ls. 7d. per lb. In what other country can people buy butter at that price? The price should be at least 2s. per lb. to the consumer. The Government refuses to tell us what prices have been fixed for meat in the contract between it and the British Government. There should be no secrecy about the matter. The buyers of stock must know the prices, but the sellers cannot obtain the information. If the buyers did not know what prices had been agreed upon, they would not be able to buy stock for export. The export of hides and skins is not permitted. What is the reason for this prohibition? The Government says that it has been imposed in order that people may have cheap boots. That is a desirable aim, but it is costing the primary producers £3,000,000 a year. The Government pays them no subsidy to compensate for unprofitable local prices. Nevertheless, they are expected to cope with droughts, fires, floods and any other calamities that may occur. Consider the plight of wheatfarmers in northern New ‘South Wales to-day. They have not sufficient seed wheat to enable them to plant their crops for next year. This sort of thing happens year after year, but the Government continues to restrict production, hindering and hampering the people who produce the commodities which bring money to Australia from other countries. Senator Fraser referred, by interjection, to the high prices now obtainable for wool.

Senator Fraser:

– I did not refer to the subject in that sense. I said that the price of wool was not pegged.

Senator GIBSON:

– I have no doubt that the honorable senator has at the back of his mind what many other people are thinking, namely, that the producers are receiving record prices of up to 99d. per lb. for their wool. That is not so. The record price of 99d. was paid for only one bale from a lot of 100 bales. The next highest price paid this season was for two bales from a lot of 1,100 bales. The -balance of the wool in those lots did not bring anything like record prices. Probably it realized a price between 30d. and 40d. per lb. I admit that 28d. per lb. would be a good average price for wool, but that is about the best that growers are receiving.

Senator Fraser:

– All I said was that the price of wool is not pegged.

Senator GIBSON:

– That is true. It was pegged at one time, but the control has been lifted. People are being misled by reports of record prices for wool. These extremely high prices are paid probably by a few American buyers, for wool required for special purposes. The quantity of wool sold at exceptionally high prices probably does not represent even I per cent, of Australia’s clip.

I am very interested in the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land, and I am fearful of what will happen to those nien who are depending on the Government’s schemes for rural settlement. A responsible government official stated recently that 54,000 men were expected to apply for assistance, but Senator Cooper was informed to-day that only 40 men have been settled up to date. These men have obtained properties in New South Wales. Nothing has been achieved in any other State.

The Government probably blames the State governments, but that is not fair, because it is equally responsible with the State governments for carrying out the settlement schemes. The State governments are not permitted to purchase land for the settlement of exservicemen until the Commonwealth Government approves the transactions.

Senator Ashley:

– Is that not a wise provision ?

Senator GIBSON:

– Yes; but why is the scheme not working?

Senator Sheehan:

– The test of the Government’s policy will be the results achieved in ten years’ time.

Senator GIBSON:

– Ten years from now, men who are applying for settlement on the land will be almost ready to apply for old-age pensions. One man whom I met in Melbourne inquired from the Department of Post-war Reconstruction when he might expect to be allotted a. block of land, and he was told that he would have to wait for at least a year. He commented bitterly that he would probably have to apply for the old-age pension before he could secure a block. Thousands of young ex-servicemen want to go to work on the land immediately, but they cannot do so. One unfortunate feature of the Government’s plans is that established farmers are not allowed to buy blocks for their sons. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. A. farmer wishing to buy a block of land for his son should receive -the same help from the Government as any other man. Blocks should not be allotted by ballot.

Senator Devlin:

– At present land prices, would the honorable senator, as a nian-on-the-land, prefer to buy or sell property ?

Senator GIBSON:

– Land is being sold at 1942 values, not at present values. Sellers are compelled to accept the 1942 valuation. There is not much wrong with that. Land is being acquired compulsorily under those conditions, in spite of enhanced values. It is unfortunate that young men are unable to get a start on the land. If a young farmer could buy a block alongside -his father’s property, he would be able to have the use of hig father’s machinery and would also benefit from his father’s advice and financial assistance. It is very difficult for young men to start on bare blocks of land. They have to buy stock and purchase fencing and building materials at high prices. In such circumstances, they have little .chance of being successful.

Senator DEVLIN:

-I agree with the honorable senator.

Senator GIBSON:

– I doubt whether any young man with a mortgage on his property representing up to 80 per cent, of its value could possibly pay off the debt owing to high rates of taxation. He would he working for the rest of his life in a hopeless effort to pay off the debt owing by him. Those who are placed on the land to-day will be in a worse position than that of ex-servicemen who took up rural pursuits after World War I.

Senator Sheehan:

– Why ?

Senator GIBSON:

– Because they cannot huy stock at a profitable price. They cannot afford to purchase machinery at present prices, A header costs £100 more than in the pre-war period. Exservicemen will have such heavy costs to meet that I fail to see how they can make a success of farming. With butter at ls. 7d. per lb., they will have no chance. The Government will have to move faster than at present if these men are to be settled under such conditions as will afford them an opportunity to make good. A house which costs £1,200 today will probably be worth only about £800 five years hence, but the occupant will be paying interest on the larger sum. In my home town the Government built five houses, each containing three rooms but no chimney, and the cost of each cottage was £S50. Chimneys are now ‘being provided, and the cost of a cottage of this type has now increased to £1,250.

I am not sure that the low interest rates to which reference has been made are of great value. We are forcing thousands of people to resort to the old-age pension, because- an elderly couple need to have £5,000 invested in Common wealth loans at 34 per cent, to obtain -a return equivalent to the old-age -pension. Scores of public servants who have been subscribing to the superannuation fund for many years, and, who, upon their retirement, will ‘be entitled to receive £1 or £1 10s. a week from that fund, would have done better for themselves had they withdrawn from the scheme and been content to accept the old-age pension, for which no contribution is necessary. The Government could .’have safely said to those who have money in the State savings banks that it would give them 3^ per cent, instead . of 2 per cent, interest. It seems to me that the Government will be unable to go on raising loans of £100,000,000, because that policy is creating an interest debt which the public will not he able to pay. In view of the high taxes imposed on them, the people cannot save enough money to invest in government loans. Many have been forced to subscribe to loans when they would have preferred to invest their money in other directions.

I am astonished at the appointment of a politician, who was defeated at the recent general elections, to a position on the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. I say nothing against this man, but the position is an important one. It has been held by men of great experience, who have been highly trained for research work. If the Government wished to find a job for one of its supporters it could have given him a position similar to those taken by the ex-member for Wimmera, Mr. Wilson, ex-member for Henty, Mr. Coles, the ex-member for Herbert, Mr. Martens and the former Minister for Repatriation, Mr. Frost. A mistake was made in appointing a man inexperienced in research work to take the .place on the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research which became vacant through the death of Sir George Julius. The council has done valuable work for Australia, and has even bigger jobs to do in future. Tens of thousands of sheep, probably worth £2 10s. a head, are lost annually, 83 the result of the ravages of various diseases. I refer particularly to jaundice, for which no cure is yet known. Research work in connexion with such diseases i9 essential, and the requisite money is available,, because the: Government is collecting £600,000 a year from the woolgrowers for research and publicity purposes, .in addition to the £7,000,000 of which it robbed the farmers in respect of the sale of skin wool.

The Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron.) has an extensive (building scheme in view; but I point out that buildings alone will not give service to the public. In Great Britain, there are few country post offices, but mails are delivered to the doors of people living not more than three miles from a post office. The services which the people urgently require immediately should be provided, before money is expended in the construction of post offices. No fewer than 30,000 people are waiting for telephone services.

Senator Ashley:

– Those services cannot be provided without buildings.

Senator GIBSON:

– Of course, telephone exchanges have to be built, but 1 stress the urgent necessity for trunk-line telephone services, so that country people will not have to wait for a couple of hours to make a call. I also stress the need for mail deliveries in the country. More mails could be carried by air than at present. Tenders should be called for mail services by road, rail or air.

Senator ALLAN MacDonald:

– We need bouses for the accommodation of the employees required to provide additional postal services.

Senator GIBSON:

– Yes. I do not object to the construction of more po3t offices in country districts, when the department has caught -up with the arrears in the provision of postal and telephone services, but an. expenditure of about £20,000,000 will be required to bring trunk-line services and telephone exchanges up to date. The people do not require ornate buildings, but efficient services.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– There is a wellknown saying that finance is government and that government is finance. The budget reveals the revenue and expenditure anticipated for the ensuing financial year. It indicates the sources from which revenue is obtained and the channels through which, the expenditure ia to be made.. The revenue is collected from all of. the people, either directly or indirectly, and therefore it should be expended for the benefit of the whole of the people, inorder that production may be -maintained and even increased. The Government has just returned from a victorious election campaign. The majority of honorable senators opposite have spoken with amaz-ing assurance, as though they now have a job- which will last a life-time. According to them, apparently, nobody worthwhile has ever previously held their positions. Although the Government and its supporters have been returned with sweeping majorities in both branches of the legislature, they do not represent a large majority of the electors of Australia in either chamber.

Senator Ashley:

– Quite sufficient.

Senator JAMES MCLACHLAN:

– That is the Minister’s opinion, because, as a result of the elections, he has retained his ministerial portfolio; but the members of the Parliamentary Labour party represent only 52 per cent, of the people of this country. The minority consists of no fewer than 48 per cent, of the electors.

During the war period, lavish expenditure was incurred on defence measures and the people did not object to the payment of high taxes for that purpose. They did not complain of the necessity for war loans, but, in a period of peace, we should be discussing a peace-time budget designed to increase production and attract immigrants. We are told that Australia has never had such a large export trade as at present. I admit the importance of our export .trade, but its dimensions are due to the fact that people overseas are eager to purchase almost everything that we can produce. During the war period, Great Britain purchased the whole of our wool clip at a fixed price. It also took many other products, such as meat, butter and cheese, but the time must come when we shall have to compete with the rest of the world in the export of those commodities. The only way to meet that competition is to prepare for it now, when export markets are available.

Sitting suspended from 5~i-5 to 8 p.m.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– The Government is using figures in respect of Australia’s exports in an attempt to show that the country is prosperous, hut as the prices of most of our primary products which are sold overseas are governed by agreements entered into during the war, the figures are not a true indication of our prosperity. Nor is it correct to base an argument that the country is enjoying great prosperity on figures relating to the national income because .that, too, is an unsound foundation. It is probably true that the people of Australia never had so much money in their pockets as they have to-day. If any person wants confirmation of that statement he has only to see how freely money is being spent in the pursuit of sport of all kinds - dog-racing, horseracing, football, and so on. Our great trouble is that we are not paying sufficient attention to the need for increased production, yet without it we shall not be truly prosperous

Industrial unrest has reached such proportions in this country as to justify the assertion that the matter has got out of hand. When complaint is made, we are told that the position to-day is not so bad as it has been in the past; but every unbiased person must admit that industrially the position was never so bad as it is now. Industrial unrest is with us all the time; there is an outbreak somewhere almost every day. Trade-union tyranny is seen on every hand. No worker dares to be without a union ticket, because without it he is ostracized by all trade unionists. Only this morning we read in our newspapers that 8,000 men had gone on strike because one man would not join a union, and the boss would not force him to do so. Those men are losing about £60,000 a week in wages. What a ridiculous state of affairs!

During this budget debate honorable senators supporting the Government have spoken with rather conflicting voices. Senator Nash spoke of the Government’s achievements in the field of arbitration, whilst Senator O’Flaherty said that half the troubles in industry were caused by there being too many tribunals - Federal and State arbitration courts, in addition to wages boards and conciliation boards. It is difficult toknow what the Labour party really believes.

Last night Senator O’Flaherty said that at the recent referendum the electors had refused to give necessary powers to the Government. He accused thewealthy patrons of the Opposition with having expended large sums of money in advertising to defeat the referendum proposals. The day has gone when supporters of the Labour party can use that argument against the Opposition with effect, because the most wealthy organization in Australia to-day is the Australian Labour party.

Senator Leckie:

– In addition, thereis the money in Consolidated Revenue.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– Tes. Honorable senators can work out for themselves the financial strength of the trade unions which have approximately 1,750,000 members, each of whom pays an annual subscription of 27s. An organization so financed would not have much difficulty in laying its hands on £1,000,000, and so it is useless for any honorable senator on the Government benches to say that the referendum was defeated by the wealthy patrons of the Opposition. It is true that only one of the Government’s referendum proposals was accepted by the people; the rejection of the other proposals was not due to the wealth of those who opposed them, but to their common sense.

Almost every day we are told that the nationalization of industries would remove the cause of most strikes. That is a fallacy, as the recent transport strike in Victoria showed clearly. Railway transport in that State, and indeed throughout Australia, is already nationalized, but that did not prevent a strike from taking place. A more glaring example has occurred in, South Australia. As honorable senators know, broadcasting station 5KA practically belongs to the Labour party, yet every one of its employees is on strike, pickets surround the building and the people are told that it is a filthy place to work in, and is infested with rats and mice.

Senator Amour:

– Why does not the honorable senator tell the truth?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– I am telling the truth.

Senator Amour:

– The honorable senator is not telling the truth, and he knows it. Station 5KA has .five directors, only one of whom is associated with the Labour party.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– My point is that even if these public utilities were nationalized we should still have our industrial troubles.

Communism is rife in Australia to-day. That is a great pity, but in a young country such as ours it should be possible to eradicate it. The trouble with communism is that it is foreign to Australia and Australian ideals. Its headquarters are in Europe, and it is from there that funds to keep Communist propaganda active in Australia are derived. I commend to honorable senators a book on this subject entitled The Truth About Communism, by J. T. Lang.

Senator Leckie:

– Is it correct that he is about to publish a new book entitled The Truth About Immigration!

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:

– Mr. Lang, who is now the representative of the electorate of Reid in the House of Representatives, is doing good work, but, perhaps, I should not eulogize him too much, I ask the Government to tackle the menace of communism courageously.

Australia’s export industries are being hampered by heavy taxes. This afternoon we had a learned discourse on taxation by the Minister for Health (Senator MoKenna), but what I have said about the effects of high taxes on our export industries remains. Last night, Senator Sheehan told us that heavy taxes would have to continue in order to meet necessary governmental expenses. As an instance of the need for such expenditure he mentioned the necessity to provide improved postal facilities. Senator Gibson, a former Postmaster-General, who knows more about the Postal Department than do most other honorable senators in this chamber, was correct when he said that the need is not so much to improve post office buildings as to improve postal services.

In his speech this afternoon the Minister for Health criticized the programme of the Liberal and Australian Country parties .at the recent general elections. He made special reference to the proposal of those parties to reduce taxes by 20 per cent. He tried to show that the relief which taxpayers would derive from that reduction of taxes would be small - in most cases not more than 2s. a week, and much less in respect of workers with large families, whilst others would benefit by amounts equal to twice the basic wage. He mentioned a sum of about £585. If a man’s taxes were reduced by £585 he would be able to employ two other men at the basic wage all the year round, and therefore it will be seen that a reduction of taxes would be of great benefit to industry and production.

I agree that it is necessary to make, provision for sickness and unemployment, but even in such directions it is possible to go too far. In my opinion, the Government is trying to run before it has learned to walk. It should know that a country cannot expend more money than is represented by its income. Already Australia’s national debt is £2,000,000.000 and the budget points out that another £104,000,000 is to be added to that total this year. It would be better to reduce taxes, and thereby provide an incentive to greater production.

Much of the talk in favour of a 40- hour week is so much “ hooey “. If the basic wage is not sufficient - and I do not think it is - it should be increased, but I am opposed to the granting of a 40-hour week under existing conditions.

The Treasurer’s estimate of revenue for the financial year 19415-46 was £389,000,000. This year he expects to receive £385,000j000, which is only £4,000,000 less that last year. In the circumstances, it is clear that greater relief from heavy taxes could have been provided. At the committee stage we shall have full opportunity to examine the Estimates in detail. I was struck last night by a simile used by Senator Leckie when he likened the Government, having regard to its self-satisfaction, to a cow contentedly chewing its cud. Senator Sheehan said that the simile was rather apt, because, he declared, the Government was contented; it had done all that it possibly could in the administration of the country’s affairs. I suspect, however, that both of those honorable senators have forgotten the fact that all animals which chew their cud are liable to contract a disease known as dry bible.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– in reply - 1 appreciate the reception given by honorable senators opposite to the budget. They did not offer severe criticism of it, but talked much as they talked during the election campaign. They laid great stress on the need to reduce taxes in order to provide incentive to increase production. Although they saddled up the old stalking horse “ Incentive “ every day during the election campaign, they saddled it up again in this debate. Indeed, they have given it as much publicity as “ Bernborough “ has received. During the election campaign the Opposition offered to reduce direct taxes by at east 20 per cent., and to reduce indirect taxes also. I do not propose to examine the effect of that proposal in respect of all categories of taxpayers. I shall content myself by demonstrating its effect in respect of a single taxpayer who has no dependants. A single taxpayer with an income of £5 a week, who is now paying 10s. a week tax, would benefit to the degree of 2s. a week. A taxpayer earning £5 10s. a week would benefit to the degree of 2s. 6d. a week ; and a taxpayer earning £6 a week would benefit to the degree of 3s. a week. Honorable senators opposite claim that taxpayers in these categories should be given the greatest possible incentive to greater effort. I fail to see how a reduction of 3s. a week, or 6d. a day, would give them a stimulus to increase production. Honorable senators opposite should be more realistic in their approach to this problem. Of the total number of persons receiving income in Australia, 500,000 do not pay either income tax or a social service contribution. Under the Opposition’s proposal, those people would receive no benefit at all. About 750,000 persons pay a social service contribution only, whilst 1,500,000 pay both income tax and a social service contribution. The Opposition, until it discovered its mistake, proposed to offset reductions of income tax by establishing social services on a contributory basis.

Such contributions, of course, would really be a form of taxation. So, in effect, the Opposition’s proposal would mean that a single man in receipt of £5 a week, with no dependants, would have his tax of 10s. a week reduced by 2s. a week; but, on the other hand, he would be required to pay 7s. 6d. a week, or 5s. 6d. a week additional tax as a social service contribution.

Senator Leckie:

– Where did the Minister get that information?

Senator ASHLEY:

– It cannot be denied that the Opposition’s proposals to reduce direct taxes and to endow the first child would involve an additional expenditure of £60,000,000 a year. The Opposition did not indicate how it proposed to finance its proposal. It simply said that social services would be placed on a contributory basis. Senator Leckie now asks me where I got my information. I should like him to tell me where the Opposition proposed to find that additional £6,000,000 a year. My statement is reinforced by the remarks made by the “ Leader of the Liberal party, the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), during the election campaign. He el id that social services in Great Britain and New Zealand were on a - contributory basis; and implied that the Opposition would implement a similar scheme. In order to obtain the additional £60,000,000 a year which would have to be provided under the Opposition’s proposal, a contribution of ls. 6d. in the £1 would have to be levied on a single man in receipt of an income of £5 a week, if, as we are entitled to assume, the Opposition would apply the social service scheme now operating in New Zealand. Taxpayers in receipt of an income of not more than £300 a year contribute £11,000,000 annually in income tax and social services contribution. If incomes up to £300 were exempt it would be necessary to re-taper the rates of tax applying to incomes above £300. This would cost approximately £20,000,000 making the total cost about £31,000,000 annually.

Honorable senators opposite dealt at length with the effect of present rates of taxes on private enterprise. They said that present taxes were retarding- the development of industry. The facts do not support their arguments; because the income of companies increased from £S9,000,000 in 1938-39 to £139,000,000 in 1945-46, whilst profits and similar earnings by persons increased from £165,000,000 in 1938-39 to £225,000,000 in 1945-46. To-day there is full employment in the community. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (.Senator McLeay) said that lack of materials would cause widespread unemployment. However, the .fact is that the greater demand existing for materialstoday is due to the expansion of industry which was given, an impetus during the war. That impetus has been in the transition from the manufacture of the requirements of war to the manufacture of civilian requirements. Honorable senators opposite also claim that the present high taxes are discouraging overseas investors. The fact is that companies and organizations from all countries are anxious to establish industries in Australia. On this point, I refer honorable senators to the following extract which I take from the leading article of the London Financial Times of the 27th August last -

In the light of past achievements, however, it might not bc over-optimistic to expect the Australian Government to be more successful than the United Kingdom and, still more, the American Governments in securing orderly transition from war to peace economy and warding off the threat of inflation. In all probability the present trend towards greater industrialization in Australia will continue unchecked. More and more British and American capital is likely to be impressed -with the long-term advantages of a Stake in Australia. Such investment offers a share in the Commonwealth’s development and expansion, and a means of acquiring suitable bases for a growing and prosperous trade with the Far East. Here is the beginning of a movement which may swell to large proportions and bring great benefit both to Australia and to investors of new capital.

It would not appear from that statement that overseas investors .are frightened to establish industries in Australia. Another feature of the debate was the manner in which honorable senators opposite harped upon industrial disputes. Listening to them one might be led to believe that .all industrial disputes were confined to Australia. It is true that industrial disputes have occurred in this country, but I remind honorable senators that the workers of Australia toiled very hard in the war years and were promised that as soon as the war ended, their working conditions would be improved. Attacks by honorable senators opposite in this chamber have been confined mainly -to two industries, namely, the coal-mining industry and the waterfront industry. However, although during the past two weeks the coal-miners have worked almost continuously, not one word of commendation of them has been offered either in this chamber or in the press. On the other hand, even the most unimportant industrial dispute is given the widest publicity whether it is due to a strike, or to a mechanical breakdown. We see in the newspapers big headlines proclaiming that so many coal mines were idle on such and such a day, but seldom do we find the reason for the idleness stated, the implication always being that the miners themselves are responsible. The coal-miners should be given due credit for their efforts in recent weeks.

Senator Finlay:

-. - Production yesterday was a record !

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. When industrial disputes occur, the press has no hesitation in condemning the coal-miners who, in most cases, are fighting for their rights and for justice. This wide publicity does not assist production in the coal-mining industry, and coal must be produced if our industries are to remain in operation. Nothing is so detrimental to the economy of this country than a loss of coal production. Whilst I do not condone trivial stoppages or strikes, I cannot agree that the fault always lies with the strikers. I repeat that the response by the miners during the past few weeks to the appeal for increased production of coal to keep our industries in operation, and to ensure adequate transport facilities over the Christmas period is deserving of the highest commendation.

The other industry to which honorable senators opposite most frequently direct their criticism is the waterside workers’ industry. Conditions in that industry, and in the coal-mining industry, are almost identical. There has not been any substantial modernization of cargohandling facilities in the port of Sydney, or in any other port of the Commonwealth, for the past 40 or 50 years. The only improvement that has been effected in Sydney, the largest port in the Commonwealth, has been the introduction of fork lift trucks, and these have been placed on the wharfs and are operated by, the Department of Supply and Shipping. Until there is a more ready appreciation of the necessity to provide mechanized equipment for the lifting and carrying of heavy loads, there will not be peace in this industry. One often hears the statement that the coal-miners object to the mechanization of the mines. That is not so, providing the mechanization is complete from the mouth of the tunnel right to tie coal face.

Senator Finlay:

– And provided adequate safety precautions are observed.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. In support of my statement I point out that at Kandos, in New South Wales, there is a fully mechanized mine in which there has not been a stoppage in the war period, or since the war ended. The reason is that the mine is fully mechanized from the shaft to the working face. Generally speaking, however, conditions in the coalmining industry in this country are the same as in other parts of the world. The colliery proprietors are concerned mainly with making high profits. They provide machinery to tear out the coal at the working face, but they have no consideration for the miners who have to work in a dust-laden atmosphere, and very often lose their health and even their lives within a very short period. Until the conditions of the men engaged in coalmining and wharf labouring improve there will not be contentment in those industries, nor will production reach the desired levels.

Senator Leckie said that it was false to claim that there had been a real increase of national income in this country since 193S-39. In actual money terms, the national income increased by 55 per cent, between 1938-39 and 1945-46, rising from £S03,000,000 to £1,247,000,000. It is clear that the prices of goods have not risen by 55 per cent. In fact, retail prices of goods in the “ C “ series list have increased by only 24 per cent., and wholesale prices of goods, principally home-produced commodities, by 23 per cent. Therefore, the real national income has increased significantly. Whilst honorable senators opposite may dispute the figures given by the Treasurer, I submit that no other Treasurer, regardless of his party affiliations, could in similar circumstances have produced any other figures. I agree with Senator Leckie that the real income may not have increased to the degree that the figures would indicate, but at least there has been a significant increase.

The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Leckie, and other Opposition speakers referred to wage-pegging. I remind them that as a result of controls such as wage-pegging and price-fixing this country is in a much sounder economic position than any other country in the world. That cannot be denied. Consider, for instance, how the absence of such controls has resulted in inflation in the United States of America. The Commonwealth Government has relaxed wagepegging to a certain degree, and a review of the basic wage is now taking place. Further relaxation of wage-pegging will be granted as circumstances permit. I arn at a loss to understand why honorable senators opposite have suddenly become so solicitous of the welfare of the workers of this country.

Senator Leckie:

– We have always been solicitous.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am amazed to learn that the Opposition favours an increase of the workers’ wages, and a decrease of their taxes. That is a complete reversal of form. However, as the electors of this country indicated only a few weeks ago, these matters may safely be left in the hands of the Government.

Senator Cooper referred to arrears of taxes. I happened to be in Quensland when the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden), the Leader of the Australian Country party, of which Senator Cooper is a member, made a most emphatic statement on this subject. He declared that if his party were returned to office and the arrears of taxes were not collected rapidly, he would sack the Taxation Department officials who were responsible. That statement was published in the press of Australia. However, there is no need for me to go deeply into this matter. My colleague, the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), dealt with it in detail earlier to-day. He pointed out that in 1936-37, when an anti-Labour administration was in office, arrears of taxes totalled 57.5 per cent., whereas in 1944-45, the figure was 17.5 per cent., and in 1945-46 it is 19.2 per cent. Another factor that must be taken into consideration in regard to this matter is that primary producers in this country are liable to sustain heavy losses due to droughts such as that now being experienced in Queensland. “Would the eight honorable member for Darling Downs suggest that Taxation Department officials should go to the drought-stricken farmers of Queensland and demand the payment of arrears of taxes? It may not affect Queensland next year, but Victoria, Western Australian or Tasmania may be the next to suffer. Tax payments are always being deferred for that reason. I thank the Senate for the reception which it has given to the budget proposals. Any further information which honorable senators may desire can be supplied during consideration of the Estimates in committee.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 731

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to -

That the Semite, at its rising, adjourn to Wednesday, the 4th December, a’t 3 p.m.

page 731

ADJOURNMENT

Shipping: Western Australian Services; Building Materials - Sugar - Clothes Rationing - Forty Hour Week

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) to direct his attention again to the subject-matter of a question which I asked on the 7th November relating to shortages of goods in Western Australia caused by the scarcity of shipping. I referred particularly to shortages of builders’ hardware, roofing iron and guttering. The purport of the Minister’s reply was that any shortages of these materials in Western Australia was not the result of a scarcity of shipping. I have since made further inquiries in Western Australia and have obtained reliable information that shortages of the materials which I mentioned are again serious. Large quantities of goods, including roofing iron, plumbers’ requisites, builders’ hardware and other housing materials, are held up at Sydney because of the lack of shipping. I would like the Minister to make further inquiries to ascertain whether the shipment of these urgently needed goods can be expedited. In the northern goldfields area of Western Australia, iron has number one priority on the list of building materials in urgent demand. The people of Western Australia will be most appreciative if the Minister can do anything to hasten the shipment of these commodities from the eastern States.

Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) relating to the scarcity of sugar in Australia. Perhaps the way in which I put the question misled the Minister, because his reply had no bearing on what I had in mind. I made no suggestion that there should be a general permanent extension of the sugar-producing areas of Queeusland. I did suggest that the Sugar Board should consider the granting of temporary licences for additional sugar production to growers already possessing licences. Most sugar producers in Queensland have sufficient equipment for the cultivation of greater acreages than their licences cover. I have inspected many sugar farms, and my views are supported by those of practical men. There is nothing to prevent an extension of the areas already under production. Furthermore, the crushing mills which I visited are capable of handling more cane than at present. There is no barrier in this respect to increased production. There should be no shortage of sugar in a country like Australia. The granting of temporary licences for additional production would enable the industry to overtake the shortage. Such licences could be revoked when stocks reached the desired level. I emphasize that I am not advocating the permanent extension of sugar production although consideration could he given to the settlement of exservicemen on sugar farms. They are entitled to be given opportunities of that sort. I realize as well as other honorable senators do that the sugar industry normally suffers greatly from over-production. I contend that, even in time of drought, there should not be a shortage in Australia. There is plenty of land in the rich thousand-mile belt of coastal country in Queensland which could be cultivated.

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Queensland · ALP

– The present shortage of sugar in Australia is due entirely to the drought conditions in Queensland.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– The shortage occurred before the drought.

Senator COURTICE:

– Australia has been exporting sugar in large quantities. Last year, for instance, exports totalled nearly 200,000 tons. Furthermore, during the war, local consumption was increased by the demands of thousands of American servicemen and members of the Australian services. There would he no shortage of sugar in Australia if the Government was not making sacrifices to meet the urgent requirements of Great Britain.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– But the people of Great Britain are not getting our sugar.

Senator COURTICE:

– Exports this year already total about 100,000 tons.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– That sugar is going to Unrra.

Senator COURTICE:

– The shipments are under the control of the British food control authorities. The honorable senator’s suggestion that production be increased immediately by extending the areas under cultivation is impossible to implement because of drought conditions. His suggestion relating to the reestablishment of ex-servicemen in the sugar industry is already being considered. Men engaged in the industry realize their obligations to ex-servicemen. An inquiry was held recently with a view to making plans for the absorption of as many exservicemen as possible in the industry.

Last week Senator Tangney asked me whether extra clothing coupons could he allotted to people living north of the 26th parallel of latitude. I now inform the honorable senator that, soon after the rationing system was adopted, coupon concessions were granted on cotton underwear to persons resident north of the 26th parallel. With the removal of knitted garments from the scale, this provision was no longer necessary. The present coupon scale relates mainly to outer garments, and it is considered that no great advantage accrues to persons living in the colder climates due to the lower rating on wool. Generally speaking, it is unnecessary for residents of tropical areas to purchase as many types of the clothing items remaining in the scale as people living in colder climates, and therefore the suggested need for a greater replacement of garments owing to climatic factors is offset by the limitation on the number of types to be replaced and the fact that coupons are no longer required for knitted underwear. It may be conceded that, in some cases, hardship is being experienced, owing to insufficiency of coupons, by persons resident in these areas, and where this is so, favorable consideration will be given by Deputy Directors to making a special issue to persons in the areas concerned. However, it is not considered practicable to make a general supplementary issue of coupons to persons in specified areas.

Senator FINLAY:
South Australia

– Some days ago I asked a question of the Minister representing the Attorney-General regarding national security regulation 18b and the powers of the Public Service Arbitrator to ‘hear an application for a 40-hour working week by the trade unions represented in the Commonwealth Railways Service. At that time, the Minister was not conversant with the provisions of amended regulation 18b, and he said that he would investigate the matter and inform me of the actual position as soon as possible. The Minister for Labour (Mr. Holloway) has informed me that the unions should request the Public Service Arbitrator to inquire from the full Arbitration Court whether he has the power to investigate any claim for a 40-hour working week. Regulation i!8b, which was gazetted, on the 98tb March, 1946, is definite in respect of hours of work. It states -

The power conferred by the last preceding sub-regulation shall not be exercised unless the question is heard by not less than three Judges of the Court, and the alteration, variation or interpretation, as the case may be, is approved by a majority of the members of the Court by whom the question is heard.

I have again been asked by the unions concerned whether anything can be done expeditiously to amend the regulation so that the Public Service Arbitrator, or any single judge, may be given power to hear their application for a 40-hour week. As the regulation stands, only the Pull Bench of the Arbitration Court may hear any claim by any section of workmen for a reduction of the standard hours of labour. Obviously, the present system is cumbersome and a great deal of time must elapse before the various unions in the industrial movement of Australia can present their claims for a reduction of hours to the full Arbitration Court. The regulations should be amended in such a way as to enable the full Arbitration Court to delegate power in this respect to individual judges, arbitrators, or commissioners. That is all that the industrial movement is seeking to-day. The procrastination which appears to be taking place is causing great irritation, and many industrial disputes would probably be settled very quickly if the suggestions which I have made were given effect. I hope that the Government will give immediate attention to this matter, and decide to amend regulation 18b along the lines which I have suggested.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I am extremely disappointed with the reply furnished by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) to the question asked by me last week with regard to the necessity for extra clothing coupons for people living in tropical areas. It shows the need for the’ appointment to the Rationing Commission, or in the Minister’s office of a woman who knows something of the conditions under which women live in the outback areas. No woman would have written that part of the Minister’s reply which reads -

The present coupon scale relates mainly to outer garments, and it is considered that no great advantage accrues to the person living in the colder climates due to the lower rating on wool.

Last year I visited the north-west portion of Western Australia for a month. The maximum daily temperatures did not fall below 103 degrees in the shade, and they reached as high as 118 degrees, whilst the degree of humidity on some days was as great as 90 per cent. It is not difficult to imagine the state into which a woman’s clothing would get as a result of perspiration if she did not have two or three changes a day. In addition to the extra wear and tear occasioned by tropical conditions, great harm is done to silk garments by insect pests. Cockroaches, Singapore ants and other pests attack clothing in the northern parts of Australia. I should like to send an officer of the Rationing Commission to the locality which I visited. He would soon require extra clothing coupons in order to get back to his home in the south without being arrested. Residents in the northern areas are isolated. They are 500 or 600 miles from the nearest shops. At one port only one shop is available to serve the people living within a radius of 500 miles. When I called at that shop, it had only two bolts of cotton material. In my question last week, I asked that increased supplies should be made available to residents of the northern areas, even if the people in the south were deprived of cotton goods. In the south silk can be worn. There has been a coupon reduction in respect of woven goods, but very few cotton woven goods arc available, as far as underclothing, and particularly petticoats, are concerned, and it is necessary for coupons to be presented for any goods made of cotton. Household linen deteriorates quickly in the north, because of the climatic conditions and the lack of good washing water. More attention should be paid to this matter, because I know that definite hardship is suffered. I referred to areas north of the 26th parallel, because I did not wish to be regarded as parochial, but the Minister should have been more specific in his reply. The area from Onslow to Wyndham was affected during the war by the Japanese raids, and the women in that district had to evacuate their homes at a few minutes’ notice. They were unable to take their household linen with them, and on going south they had to resort to their ordinary clothing coupons. In view of my assurance that definite hardship has arisen, I hope that the Minister will grant some relief, particularly by making more cotton goods available in the northern areas.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I regret that I was not in the chamber when Senator Finlay commenced his remarks, but I shall take an opportunity to-morrow to read them. I understand that he drew attention to a matter on which he directed a question to me last week. He is concerned to ensure that bodies such as State industrial tribunals and Public Service arbitrators shall be free to deal with the hours of work and the basic wage in the same way as the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. He also desires that a single judge of the Commonwealth court should be able to deal with the hours of employment in individual industries. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, as it operates at present, makes it necessary for the Full Bench of the Arbitration Court to deal with the hours of employment and the basic wage. The reason is that the public interest is largely concerned. It is not merely a matter in which the employer and the employee could reach an agreement and ask the court to adjudicate on the dispute. In a matter as fundamental as this the public obviously has an interest. It is provided in the act that the AttorneyGeneral may intervene in any proceedings between the parties in respect of either the hours of employment or the basic wage. A bill to amend the existing act will be introduced fairly early in the new year.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– There will be no employees working on the Commonwealth railways if the Government waits till next year.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government appealed to the electors on the 28th September, and they were invited, by way of referendum, to consent to the granting to this Parliament of full powers with respect to industrial matters. Prior to that date the Government had been considering the introduction of a new arbitration bill, and until it knew the result of the referendum, it was reasonable to postpone it3 decision, in order to ascertain what power it was to have in that field. It would have been useless, prior to the elections, to prepare a new bill based on the limited powers enjoyed by this Parliament, and then have to discard the measure and prepare another. The present Ministry was reconstituted as late as the end of October. It has been in office for less than a month, and all the problems of State cannot be tackled at once. The new bill will be given complete consideration during the coming recess, and I hope that the Government will be able to meet the Parliament next year with definite views on the subject under discussion.

Turning to the matter of allowing tribunals other than the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to deal with hours of employment in industry and with the basic wage, the Government announced prior to the last elections that it proposed to consider modifications of the wage-pegging regulations. It has been discussing possible modifications with industrial bodies such as the Australasian Council of Trade Unions and other organizations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has intervened and taken a keen personal interest in the matter. All I am in a position to say at this short notice is that consideration is being given to allowing tribunals other than the Commonwealth court to deal with the matters referred to, with possibly some limitation restricting those tribunals from going beyond the new limits that may be set up for the time being by the Commonwealth court. Having regard to the transition period, and the difficult economic times through which we are passing, it would not be rendering a service to this country at present if every tribunal, without considering the broad national interest and the effect of its decisions on other industries, were free to do entirely as it pleased. I think there is general agreement that an overriding view of the whole position is required in relation to industrial matters. I am not now in a position to make a pronouncement with regard to the Government’s deliberations, but I can assure honorable senators that full consideration is being given to the matters raised by SenatorFinlay. I hope that before long a statement of the Government’s policy can be made.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

– in reply - I regret that Senator Allan MacDonald is not satisfied with the answer which I gave to a question asked by him. That is perhaps his own fault. He said that Western Australia was short of building materials, and be particularly referred to iron, piping and h ardware. I pointed out that the lag on cargo from Newcastle, where most of those commodities are manufactured, had. been overtaken some weeks ago. If he will let me know by to-morrow morning precisely what goods are in short supply I shall endeavour to see what can be done to assist Western Australia. The honorable senator made particular reference to iron. This is made at Newcastle and Port Kembla, but he said that the supplies were short because of shipping troubles at the port of Sydney. If he will specify the kinds of materials that are in short supply and the localities from which they have been ordered, I shall see that they are shipped to Western Australia as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 735

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. -

No. 35 of 1946 - Commonwealth Telegraph Traffic and Supervisory Officers’ Association.

No. 36 of 1946 - Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.

No. 37. of 1946 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical’ Association.

No. 38 of 1946 - Professional Officers’ Association.

Commonwealth Grants Commission Act -

Commonwealth Grants Commission -

Thirteenth Report (1946).

Distillation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1946, No. 123.

National Security Act - National Security ( Prices ) Regulations -

Declaration - No. 159.

Orders- -Nos. 2768-2790.

War Service Homes Act - Regulations -

Statutory Rules 1946, No. 164.

Senate adjourned at 9.13 . p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 November 1946, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1946/19461128_senate_18_189/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant