Senate
5 June 1947

18th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1947

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3464

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1047. Quarantine Bill 1947. Beer Excise Bill 1047.

page 3464

QUESTION

MANUS ISLAND

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy say whether the statement in this morning’s press that Manus Island is to become

An Australian naval base means that the request of the Government of the United States of America for a base on the island has been rejected by the Government; whether the contemplated base will be jointly owned by the governments of the two countries, or will be a purely Australian naval baBe? In the latter event, will facilities be made available for the United States of America authorities to utilize it if they so desire?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not aware that the Government of the United States of America has asked to be allowed to establish a base on Manus Island; .but I understand that it has requested that it be allowed to - use such a base if established by Australia, and, further, that the Government of the United States of America proposes that any. capital expenditure to make the base suitable for its own purposes shall be borne by it. The future of Manus Island, both as to its development and future maintenance and use, is a matter of high defence policy. I suggest that this is not the appropriate time to embark on a discussion of that matter.

page 3464

QUESTION

SERVICES TRUST FUNDS

Senator COLLETT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the provision in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1947,- exempting from the definition of “ income “ any income by way of benefits from any friendly society, and any payment in respect of illness, infirmity or old age from any trade union, will the Government introduce legislation to amend the recently-passed legislation dealing with the Services Trust Funds- in order to provide for a similar exemption in respect of any benefit received under that legislation?

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

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Treasurer, and shall supply an answer later.

page 3464

WAR LOANS

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 20th May, Senator Aylett asked whether a statement that the cost of raising war loans amounted to 5 per cent, waa correct. I am now able to inform the honorable senator that the cost is 5s. per cent., not 5 per cent, as’ previously stated.

page 3464

QUESTION

SOAP POWDERS

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As it is impossible to obtain soap powders in New South Wales, will the Minister for Supply and Shipping cause inquiries to be made as to the reason for the shortage, and will he take steps to ensure supplies of such powders in the future !

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I understand that there is a shortage of soap powders. I shall have inquiries made, with a view to improving the present position.

page 3464

QUESTION

LINSEED

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is it a fact, as stated in the press, that India will supply Australia with its present and back quotas of linseed, and, if so, will the. Minister make a statement on the subject before the Senate rises for the winter recess?

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

– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and shall endeavour to supply the information at an early date.

page 3464

QUESTION

SNOWY RIVER

Senator DEVLIN:
VICTORIA

– As I understand that the expert committee appointed by Commonwealth and State Governments to inquire into the diversion of the waters of the Snowy River has completed its report, can the Minister say when the report will be made- available to the Senate?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I understand that the committee has finished its inquiries and that a report is being prepared. When it comes to hand I shall endeavour to have it made available to honorable senators as soon as possible.

page 3465

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– In the event of shipping space not being available next year to ship fruit to Great Britain, can the Minister say whether consideration will be given to the continuation of the apple and pear scheme?

SenatorCOURTICE. - I have no information on the subject to give to the honorable senator to-day, but I shall bring his question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

page 3465

QUESTION

MEAT

Supplies Without Coupons - Supplies to Great Britain

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Has the Minister seen press statements that practically all the butchers in certain parts of north Queensland propose to sell meat without coupons? Can he say what has brought about that state of affairs, and what action the Government has taken to remedy that unsatisfactory condition in relation to the distribution of meat?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– Many reports have been published in the press regarding the position. In response to a request from the people concerned, I have agreed to discuss the matter with them; and I understand that they intend to continue to supply meat to the public as hitherto.

Senator GIBSON:
through Senator Cooper

asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

  1. Is the press statement correct, viz. - that refrigeration space on a visiting liner would not be filled with meat at Australian ports that the vessel would have to go to New Zealand to fill the space?
  2. Is it a fact that a grazier loses £50 to £60 per truck of sheep or cattle by exporting at the British contract prices?
  3. If so, will he see that British buyers are in attendance at stock sales to purchase livestock to be processed for the British contract so that larger quantities of meat are made available for the British people?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

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

  1. The quantity of frozen meat estimated to be available for shipment to the United Kingdom up to 24th July next, exceeds the quantity for which refrigerated space can be provided up to that date. The press statement that a visiting liner, presumably the Corinthic, had to be diverted to New Zealand, is misleading to the extent that this vessel was not scheduled to load meat at Australian ports.
  2. No. In Queensland the grazier is not involved in any losses on export of beef as local ceiling prices of beef in that State are based on export parity. Present local ceiling prices for mutton and lamb in Queensland are higher than export parity but the quantity offering for export in that State, if any, would be negligible. In the southern States ceiling prices for beef, mutton and lamb at this time of the year are higher than export parity and it is estimated in the case of New South Wales that the difference in value of export quality stock at local ceiling prices and export prices respectively would approximate £20 per truck for cattle and £25 per truck for sheep and lambs. The difference would vary according to States.
  3. All fat stock sales are conducted in the normal pre-war manner and buyers operate within the limits of local ceiling prices or export prices as and when the opportunity offers. The question of British buyers being in attendance does not, therefore, arise, more particularly as the price which can be paid for meat available for export has been fixed by the British Government after negotiation with the Commonwealth Government.

page 3465

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Shipping whether it is a fact that freighters available in the United States of America have been on offer to the Australian Government? If so, why have negotiations not been entered into with a view to purchasing those vessels?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– Freighters are available for purchase in the United States of America, but officers of my department who have made a survey of the vessels have informed me that none of them is suitable for the Australian trade, and that the expenditure that would be involved in refitting them to comply with conditions required by Australian seamen would be very considerable. That is one reason why we have not opened negotiations for the purchase of any of those vessels. My officers also reported unfavorably on them from the point of view of seaworthiness.

Senator FOLL:

– Is the Minister for Supply and Shipping aware that a large number of persons are awaiting passages to New Zealand and that the demand has become urgent because the airways operating between New Zealand and Australia are unable to cope with applications for passages ? Is he also aware that persons ave being constantly off-loaded from aeroplanes on that route? In view of these facts, is there any likelihood of a ship being made available to make a special return voyage to New Zealand? Is it possible to arrange for an overseas liner to make a special return trip to New Zealand in order to ease this hold-up which is causing great inconvenience to so many people desiring to go to New Zealand, or to .come to Australia from that dominion?

Senator ASHLEY:

– The conditions mentioned by the honorable senator have been reported in the press. It has also been reported, and I believe correctly, that no shipping will be made available for some time. There is no prospect of any improvement in the immediate future. I shall take up with the Director of Shipping the honorable senator’s request that a ship be made available to make a special return trip to New Zealand. I might add that the New Zealand Government also has a degree of responsibility in this matter. However, I shall do everything possible to provide transport for those desiring to travel between Australia and New Zealand.

page 3466

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WIVES OF AMERICAN SERVICEMEN

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is there any machinery available to Australian wives of American servicemen who are still domiciled in Australia to help them trace their husbands in the United States of America? I have had brought to my notice several cases of wives with young children who find themselves in this plight and are now obliged to subsist upon a few shillings benefit made available to them by the Child Welfare Department. Can anything be done to guarantee these women and their children some degree of security for the future?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– I am not sure whether the matter raised by the honorable senator comes within the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. If Australian women find themselves in the plight indicated, they would come within the category of deserted wives and would be classed as widows for the purpose of obtaining social services. They would be entitled to a widow’s pension, and, therefore, it would be possible for the department which I control to relieve their immediate needs. If the question of divorce is in the honorable senator’? mind, I point out that divorce proceedings can be initiated in Australia as the result of legislation passed by the Parliament recently. I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the AttorneyGeneral. Should there be any other way in which the Commonwealth Government can assist women in the plight indicated I shall see that that information is conveyed to the honorable senator.

page 3466

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Leader of the Senate in a position to make any statement with respect to the supply of white sugar to the southern States? As he is probably aware, Victoria has been without white sugar for some months past, and the blame for the shortage is placed on various shoulders. Can the Minister say whether the shortage is due to a failure of the sugar crop, a shortage of transport, or any failure on the part of the sugar refining companies; or is it simply due to “ cussedness “ on the part of any of those concerned who refuse to make supplies available to Victoria?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I have read press reports dealing with the matter mentioned by the honorable senator. Some newspapers attribute the shortage of sugar to reluctance on the part of certain people to work, whilst others attribute it to a failure of transport. Having read those reports, I anticipated that a question would be asked on the matter in the Senate. Consequently I inquired from my departmental officers whether, owing to shortage of shipping, there is a large back lag of sugar in Queensland ports. My officers have informed me that on the 27th May, 60,509 tons of sugar were required to be shipped from Queensland ports prior to the commencement of the new season’s exports in June. Against this quantity, shipping has been allotted for 57,160 tons, leaving 3,349 tons to be delivered. Tonnage is in sight to lift 9,000 tons of new season’s sugar after the final clearance of 1946 stocks. While the figures disclosed in the Colonial Sugar Refining Company’s report of the 1st March are, no doubt, correct, they are misleading insofar as the figures I have cited represent the actual position. No apprehension is felt as to whether sufficient shipping will be available to take the full deliveries of the sugar industry for the 1947-48 season.

page 3467

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Non-official Post Offices.

Senator DEVLIN:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

In view of the adjustments which have been made or are contemplated in respect of the salaries of officers of the Commonwealth public service, will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General furnish information showing whether the allowances paid for the conduct of non-official post offices have been increased correspondingly or, if not, whether it is proposed to improve the rates of pay and conditions under which these offices are being carried on by local residents, often at great inconvenience?

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– The rates of pay and conditions of employment of non-official postmasters are prescribed in a determination issued by the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator which came into operation on the 1st July, 1942. Some time ago, I directed that the allowances and conditions should be reviewed closely by the department, in conjunction with the Non-official Postmasters Association of Australia, with the object of reaching agreement concerning a basis upon which to approach the Public Service Arbitrator for improved rates of pay and conditions, consistent with those enjoyed by permanent employees of the Public Service. As the result of this review, which was comprehensive in scope, plaints were lodged with the Public Service Arbitrator covering

  1. an application for marginal increases to the extent proposed in connexion with comparable salaries under determinations in relation to permanent employees; and
  2. an application for increased rates of pay and improved conditions of employment of non-official postmasters.

A determination regarding the first plaint was issued by the Public Service Arbitrator on the 24th April, 1947, to operate as from the 1st April, 1947. This variation of the original award provides for non-official postmasters in charge of full-time service offices to receive increases ranging from £16 to £29 per annum, and for an increase of £16 in the annual amount upon which the monetary value of the work unit in respect of scale rate offices is calculated.

The Public Service Arbitrator has now issued a determination covering the second plaint and, unless this is disapproved by Parliament, it will apply as from the 1st June, 1947. Briefly stated, this particular determination provides for the following improvements to be effected in the rates of pay and conditions : -

page 3467

RATES OF PAY

Postmasters at full-time service offices - A further increase ranging from £22 to £118 per annum.

Postmasters at scale-rate offices - A further increase of £22 in the annual amount upon which the monetary value of the work unit is calculated.

page 3467

SPECIAL ALLOWANCES

Availability allowance for attendance during the normal post office hours - An increase ranging from £3 10s. to £13 per annum.

Allowances for attendances after the normal post office hours, the special payments in each case being in addition to the remunerationmade on a work unit basis for the transactions handled during the period of attendance: -

Telephone attendance - Increased from 1s.1½d. to1s.6d. per hour.

Mail attendance - Increased from1s.1½d. to1s.6d. per hour, and to 2s.6d. in certain cases.

Telegraph attendance- Increased from 2s. 3d. to 3s. 9d. per hour.

Holiday attendance - Increased from 2s. 3d. to 3s. per hour, and to 3s. 9d. in certain cases.

Attendance for continuous telephone service - Increased from £130 to £182 per annum.

Allowance for the provision of accommodation and light - Increased by £6 10s. per annum in certain cases.

page 3467

ANNUAL RECREATION LEAVE

The scope of the existing annual leave pro vision extended to cover persons in charge of “ self-contained “ Scale Rate offices where the extent of actual postal occupation exceeds 22 hours weekly on a work unit basis.

In addition,, the work unit value of a number of items of business baa been increased. It is estimated that as a result of both determinations non-official postmasters and telephone office keepers will benefit to the extent of about £270,000 yearly, based on the present volume of transactions. It will be recognized, therefore, that persons controlling non-official offices throughout the Commonwealth are being treated equitably in the matter of salary adjustments. The Government is fully conscious of the valuable part which is being played by non-official postmasters and telephone office keepers in the provision of postal and telecommunication facilities in Australia, and recognizes that without their co-operation and assistance it would not be practicable to extend essential facilities to the local residents, particularly those in outlying areas where other means of communication are infrequent and the absence of post office services would involve great inconvenience, if not actual hardship, in many cases.

I should like to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the Government appreciation of the meritorious work which was performed by non-official postmasters and telephone office keepers during the war period when normal communications were adversely affected by the exigencies of the war. The Government is confident that these employees will continue to give the utmost possible co-operation in the future in the rehabilitation of post office services upon which, as announced recently by the right honorable the Prime Minister, it is proposed to spend approximately £30,000,000 during the next three years.

page 3468

QUESTION

TRACTORS

Senator BEERWORTH:
through Senator O’flaherty

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

  1. Is it a fact that the United States Civilian Production Administration has strictly limited the export of tractors to all foreign countries, with the exception of Canada?
  2. If so, and in view of the great shortage of tractors in Australia, will the Minister state what action has been taken by the Government to overcome the difficulty caused by such curtailment in the import of American tractors ?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– Inquiries are being made in regard to this matter and information, will be furnished to the honorable senator as soon as it is available.

page 3468

QUESTION

TALLOW

Senator BEERWORTH:
through Senator 0’FLAHERTY

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

  1. Is it a fact that ceiling prices for edible tallow in Australia is in some cases less than one-third of British Ministry of Food prices?
  2. What is the (a) Australian ceiling price for (1) Mutton tallow, (2) beef tallow; (6) British Ministry of Food prices for (1) mutton tallow, (2) beef tallow? 3. (a) Is all edible tallow produced in Australia (mutton and beef) being consumed in Australia; (B) if any tallow is exported, what is the quantity?
  3. If edible tallow is exported, what is being done with the difference in price?
  4. Are stock-owners receiving the benefit from any tallow exported?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No. 2. (a) (1) £40; (2) £45. (6) (1) £97 12s.; (2) £101 13s. 4d. The prices relate to edible tallows only. 3. (a) Yes, with exception of edible oleo stearine sold to the Ministry of Food and exports for gift purposes. (6) Exports for gift purposes not recorded: edible oleo stearine exports approximately 100 tons monthly.
  2. The difference between the Ministry of Food prices and the Australian ceiling price is paid to the Commonwealth Tallow Equalization Pool Fund, which distributes benefit of all tallows and tallow derivatives exported in equal measure among tallow producers.
  3. The stock-owners benefit from the general higher prices received from exports overseas in respect of price of stock on the hoof.

page 3468

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator COOPER:

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

  1. Is it a fact that up to 1945 large profits were made on the re-sale of wool bought under the Imperial acquisition scheme?
  2. Is it a fact that further profits have been made from wool sold since 1945 under the Joint Organization Empire wool scheme?
  3. Is it intended that growers will now share in any profits resulting from the re-sale to countries other than Great Britain and Australia of wool acquired by the British Government under the Imperial acquisition scheme: covering the period 1st July, 1939,. to 30th June, 1.945, and the Joint Organization Empire wool scheme?
  4. If so, on what basis will wool-growers share in these profits, when finalized?
Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Under the war-time purchase arrangement for Australian wool clips, the profits on the re-sal’e of wool outside the United Kingdom wei-e equally divisible between the United Kingdom Government and the Commonwealth Government, but such profits were not ascertainable until all the wool purchased under the arrangement was finally disposed of at the 31st July, 1945. When the war-time purchase arrangement terminated the divisible profits account in the United Kingdom showed a credit of £20,000,000.
  2. Yes. 3 and 4. These matters were dealt with in a. statement by the former Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully), on Thursday, 8th August, 194B, and recorded in Hansard, No. 21, pages 3950-3951.

page 3469

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Fairy Meadow Limestone Deposits

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice -

  1. Who owns the Fairy Meadow limestone deposits ?
  2. In view of their proximity to Canberra, will the Minister have a thorough investigation made as to their suitability as building material?
Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for “Works and Housing has supplied the following answers : -

  1. The Commonwealth.
  2. Yes.

page 3469

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 22nd May, Senator Foll asked the following question : - le it correct that nearly 50 per cent, of the new cars arriving in Australia are allocated to the Commonwealth and State Government departments, leaving the balance to be allocated among members of the public?

I am now in a position to inform him that the answer is “ No “. The Minister for Transport has advised me that the basis of allocation of new motor cars to Commonwealth and State government departments is to endeavour to restrict the number to not more than 10 per cent, of available production in the particular makes required.

On the 22nd May, Senator Aylett addressed a question to me without, notice regarding the authority under which the Commonwealth Government acts in respect of the issue of licences for the purchase of new motor cars, The Minister for Transport has supplied the following information: -

Powers are conferred under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1940 (Control of Motor Cars Order), wherein provision is contained for delegating control authority as follows: - (a) Allan John Boyd Deacon, of the Commonwealth Department of Transport; (6) Charles Norman Neale, Commissioner for Road Transport and Tramways in relation to the State of New South Wales; (c) The Transport Regulation Board constituted pursuant to the provisions of the Transport Regulation Acts of the State of Victoria, in relation to the State of Victoria; (d) The Hon. Sir Richard Layton Butler, K.C.M.G., Chairman of the Liquid Fuel Control Board in relation to the State of South Australia; (e) The State Transport Commission constituted pursuant to the provisions of the State Transport Acts of Queensland, in relation to the State of Queensland; (/) William Henry Howard, Chairman Western Australian Transport Board, in relation to the State of Western Australia; (<7) Marshall William Stanley Wilson, Commissioner for Transport in the State of Tasmania, for the State of Tasmania.

State delegates administer the Control, and in certain cases co-opt organizations to assist with their specialized knowledge of particular applicants. The final decision in regard to the allotment of available cars is, however, made by the State authorities.

page 3469

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– Yesterday, Senator Cooper asked me the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Has the attention of the Minister beer drawn to an article in Smith’s “Weekly, dated the 27th May, 1947, in whiCh it is stated that sworn testimonies in that newspaper’s possession, containing grave allegations against the Commonwealth .General Assurance Corporation Limited, indicate an urgent need for a full and complete investigation of this company to ascertain what is going on and what has been done with policy-holders’ money?
  2. In view of the serious nature of the allegations, will he confer with the Prime Minister with a view to instituting an inquiry under the provisions of the Commonwealth Life Insurance Act?
  3. Will he arrange for the whole of the statement made by the newspaper to be examined, and will he make .a report . on the subject to the Senate?

T am now in a position to supply the following answers: -

  1. My attention has been drawn to au article in Smith’s Weekly, dated the 17th May, 1947, containing allegations against the Commonwealth General Assurance Corporation Limited. 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Life Insurance Act 1945 came into force on the 20th June, 1946, so that the Commonwealth had no control over transactions between a life insurance company and its policy-holders prior to that date. All inquiries from policy-holders of the company named have been the subject of careful investigation, but to date no evidence has been obtained of an infringement of the provisions of the Life Insurance Act.

page 3470

TARIFF BOARD

Reports - Publishing Industry - Australian Optical Industry

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Publishing industry.

Australian optical industry (including ophthalmic goods).

I wish to make a brief comment in connexion with each report. As regards the publishing industry, the Tariff. Board has stated that, although the industry could not be effectively assisted by protective duties, import prohibitions or quotas, it could be assisted by means other than those coming within the province of the Department of Trade and Customs. The board considered that the situation warranted the creation of a special authority to explore and administer -means of assisttance. The Government has been giving detailed attention to the recommendations of the board, and it is expected that a decision will be made shortly. It is desirable, therefore, that the report be tabled before Parliament adjourns, as, otherwise, considerable time must elapse before this could be done. It has been decided accordingly to release the report in order that interested parties may have an opportunity to examine it before the Government’s decision is announced.

The report on the Australian optical industry is a lengthy one, and printed copies are not yet available, but it is expected that the report will be ready for distribution in about a fortnight. Therefore, it has been considered desirable to table the report in’ order that it may be distributed as soon as printed copies are received. The Tariff Board’s conclusions, which cover a number of pages may be briefly summarized as follows : -

  1. The suggestion that the industry should be assisted as a composite whole required consideration from two aspects, defence and economic.
  2. The defence aspect is one for consideration in formulating the defence policy of the Commonwealth.
  3. Any assistance (if justified) to the manufacturer of precision optical instruments should not .take the form of protective duties.
  4. As regards the development of other sections on an economic and stable basis, the board considered thatseparate inquiries on each division would be necessary to determine the means of assistance.

The defence aspect raised by the board is being taken up with the appropriate authority.

Ordered to be printed.

page 3470

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator MCKENNA’ read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make provision for an increase of the parliamentary allowance payable to each senator and each member of the House of Representatives from £1,000 to £1,500 per annum as from the 1st July next. This measure is amply justified by changes in economic conditions, and by the increasing responsibilities now undertaken by members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Apart from reductions made in accordance with financial emergency legislation, parliamentary allowances have remained unaltered for 27 years, the last adjustment having been made in 1920. In the meantime, however, there has been a substantia] rise in incomes generally. Average wage rates have increased hy about 50 per cent., while comparable increases have also taken place in the general range of salaries paid in the community. A.s the result of Australia’s development as a nation, the Commonwealth has undertaken much greater responsibilities in recent years in the sphere of international relations, economic and political, and in connexion with such matters as social services, the maintenance of full employment and the general stability and prosperity of the Australian economy. For these reasons, the functions of members of the Commonwealth Parliament have increased greatly in extent and significance. If these functions are to be discharged adequately it is essential that the allowances received by members of the Commonwealth Parliament should be commensurate with the scope and importance of their responsibilities. The principal act passed in 1920 provided that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should be paid an allowance of- £200 per annum and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives an allowance of £400 per annum. The duties of those gentleman have become far more onerous and exacting than in former years, and therefore opportunity is being taken to increase their allowances to £300 and £600 respectively.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– A great deal of publicity has been given to this measure and it has been the subject of protracted debate in the House of Repre-sentatives. The bill may be viewed from various standpoints, but I propose to deal with three main aspects of it. First, is an increase of the present allowance justified? Secondly, is this an opportune time to make such an increase ? Thirdly, is the passage of this bill the proper way in which to make the suggested increases? Many factors have to be taken into consideration in regard to the first question. We all realize that proposals such as these arouse considerable criticism outside Parliament, but, on the other hand, it is often suggested by the general public that the best types of men to represent the community in this Parliament are notforthcoming, and that the interests of the country would best be served by attracting a better type of candidate for election to Parliament. If that be our opinion, we must agree also that sufficient remuneration must be provided to attract the type of people desired. In my opinion the present allowances are not sufficient to encourage those people. That applies especially to members from distant States who have to be away from their homes for considerable periods in order to attend the sittings of the Parliament at Canberra. Moreover, if a member has a. business of his own, or is a professional man, he soon gets out of touch with his business affairs. A young man who decides on a political career may be placed at a disadvantage in his profession or occupation as the result of devotion to his parliamentary duties.

It is worth considering what a political career involves. . In the first place, there is no guarantee of security; a member holds his seat at the will of the electors. At any time he may be defeated, in which event he must do the best he can to pick up the threads where he relinquished them to enter politics. Australia is a continent almost as large as Europe, and some electorates, especially in Western Australia and Queensland, cover a large area, and therefore it is necessary for a member of the National Parliament to visit not only every part of his own electorate, but also, in the case of a senator, the whole of his State. If he desires, as he should, to be conversant with conditions throughout Australia he must spend a great deal of time travelling from place to place. That involves heavy expenditure because, excepting for his rail fares, he has to travel at his own expense. Let us compare his position with that of an executive officer of a large business concern. Should the latter have occasion to travel in the interests of his firm, he is allowed liberal travelling expenses, yet a member of the National Parliament, which is the biggest concern in Australia, has to pay hi:s own expenses when he travels on the business of the Commonwealth. Members representing large electorates, and all senators, have either to use their own cars or hire cars if they would become acquainted with the problems of the people whom they represent.

In his second-reading speech the Minister (Senator McKenna) said that the salaries of members of this Parliament had not been reviewed for 2,7 years. During that period costs have risen by at least 50 per cent. Although it may be said that additional stamp allowances have been granted to members since 1920, and that each member now has the right to engage a secretary-typiste, I point out that every business executive is in a similar position. Even with the additional salary proposed in this bill, members of the National Parliament will not be paid more than is necessary for them to carry out their duties efficiently. Those duties have increased enormously during the last ten or twelve years. To-day, parliamentarians are more closely in touch with their constituents tuan at any time previously. As the Commonwealth has assumed the responsibility for social services throughout the Commonwealth, the volume of work which members will be called upon. to. perform on behalf of citizens will be much greater than ever before. Electors who. are in any doubt about social service legislation usually seek the assistance of their representatives in this Parliament. A representative, of the people is always at call in the interests of his constituents even when he is not attending the sittings of tine Parliament at Canberra. That short review, I believe, completely justifies an increase of salary to members of the Parliament. ! now come to my second point, namely, whether the present is- an- opportune time to raise the salaries of members. I answer that by saying that I do not think that it is an opportune time.

Senator Aylett:

– The salaries, should have been raised ten years ago.

Senator COOPER:

– Every honorable senator will admit, that there, is a; good deal of’ unrest throughout Australia. Some, of it is- undoubtedly a carry-over fi;om the war, but- the-re are other causes-. Extremist- elements in- the large industrial unions; aire using, the fact th,a,t they- have not been- able, to obtain increased wages because of the existence of wage-pegging regulations to foment trouble in the industrial life, of this country. They do not need any example provided by an- increase of salaries to. parliamentarians at a time when, wage-pegging- regulations in. respect of industrialists remain in force. During the war it was necessary that wages and prices should be controlled. As far as possible an effective relationship was maintained between the cost of living and the general wage standard. However, it is generally known that marginal rates in respect of skill have been substantially increased ; and that it is the general practice in industry to pay a bonus in respect of skill in order to attract, tradesmen. Owing to the shortage of skilled labour, many industries are obliged to follow that course in order to survive. But the fact remains that the wage-pegging regulations are still in force.

Senator Nash:

– To what degree?

Senator COOPER:

– That is difficult to say, because increases of wages at present are permitted provided they are approved by the Chief J udge of the Arbitration Court as not being inimical to the national interest. Under those conditions, wages have been and are still being increased. However, until every vestige of wage-pegging has been removed, the Government is not justified in increasing parliamentary salaries. At the committee stage I shall’ move an amendment of the appropriate clause to provide that the increase proposed under the measure shall take effect, not as from the 1st July next, but as from the day on which the National Security (Economic. Organization) Regulations cease to have effect.

My final point is that the- Government has not made the proper approach to this matter. Practically all honorable members, and all honorable senators agree that members of the Parliament are entitled1 to additional financial assistance as. the result of the increase- of their duties since- the present parliamentary allowance was fixed in 1920. I believe that such additional assistance should be provided specifically- ia respect of the expenses incurred- by honorable members and) honorable senators, including travelling expenses^ in the carrying- out of their duties-. The provision of a- special travelling allowance for members- of parliament is no* new. Fe some, years payment has-been made on that principle! to members of several State parliaments, and in view of the retention- of’ wagepegging regulations, this Government would be- well advised to follow it io this instance, rather than to increase the general allowance to honorable members and honorable senators. Several State parliaments recognize the need for the provision of such aid to their members, particularly to ease the financial strain devolving upon members representing large country electorates in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties.

Senator O’flaherty:

– Would that special expenses allowance be exempt from income tax ?

Senator COOPER:

– As an expenses allowance it would be automatically exempt from income tax. Instead of the increase of £500 a year proposed under the measure, an amount of, say, £200, or £250, would be sufficient to meet the requirements of members of the Parliament as an expenses allowance, and the latter, being exempt from income tax, would be almost the equal in value to the former. The point I make, however, is that it would be sounder to provide the additional financial assistance required by members of the Parliament in the form of a special expenses allowance rather than as an increase of the general parliamentary allowance. The public would thus be apprised of the fact that members of the Parliament in the past have been obliged to meet their travelling expenses out of their own pockets. I have no more to say generally about the bill, but at the committee stage I shall move the amendment which I have forecast.

Senator FINLAY:
South Australia

’. - I was pleased to hear the case so ably presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) in favour of increasing the present parliamentary allowance, which has not been altered, since 1920. Honorable members and honorable senators are paid, not a salary, but a parliamentary allowance. However, after presenting an excellent case in that respect, the Leader of the Opposition proceeded to oppose the- Government’s proposal on the ground, first, that the present was. not an opportune time to grant this increase, and, secondly, that any additional financial aid required should be provided to honorable members a,nd honorable senators- in the form of an allowance which would be tax free. He said that the Government should grant an amount of £200, or £250, specifically as an expenses allowance. Although I have not been a member of the Senate for very long, I agree with him that the present parliamentary allowance at the rate of £1,000 per annum should have been increased years ago, seeing that it has remained at that figure for the last twenty years. The honorable senator argued that it was not opportune to increase the allowance so long as any vestige of wage-pegging remains. The Government has gone as far as it possibly can in easing wage-pegging, consistent with its duty to retain effective control of prices. One has only to visit other countries to appreciate how effective our prices control has been during the war and since. Wage-pegging was introduced in order to stabilize our economy, with a definite relation to prices control in order to ensure that the purchasing power of the wages of the workers should not be destroyed by the inflation of prices. The comparatively limited discrepancy that occurred since 1904 until the end of the recent war between the increase of the cost of living and the basic wage is sufficient justification of the retention of prices control. Wagepegging has been eased to such a degree that the only major restriction still remaining is that the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court must be satisfied that any increases of wages proposed shall not be inimical to the national interest. Has any honorable senator ever known of a case in which a judge of the Arbitration Court has failed to take into account the effect upon the country’s internal economy of any increase of wages that he may grant? During many years’ association with the industrial movement in its fight for increased wages and improved working conditions I have- never known a judge of the Arbitration Court to fail to consider the effect upon the national economy of granting an increase of wages. In further proof of that I cite the increased basic wage granted some years ago, known as the “ needs “’ basic wage loading. The Arbitration Court did not apply that loading on a uniform basis throughout the Commonwealth as a whole. It took into considera- tion the economic1 position- of each State. The- result was that, although an increase of 6s. a week was granted in New South “Wales and Victoria, only 4s. was granted in South Australia. In fact, so successful was an application made by the South Australian Railways Commissioners to the court for special consideration because of the inability of the railway organization to pay even 4s., that railwaymen were given only 3s. The Leader of the Opposition said that the time was not opportune for an increase of the parliamentary allowance; but I point out, however, that judges of the Arbitration Court have always taken into consideration those aspects of wagepegging which remain in force to-day.

The second point made by the Leader of the Opposition was that this measure, if carried, would incite extremists in this country to clamour even louder for increased wages. I do not agree. Ever since labour in this country has been organized, it has been called by all sorts of names. First, we were charged with being members of the Independent Workers of the World, and, now, of course, we are “ Commos “. The aim of Labour organizations throughout the years has been to improve the standard of wages and conditions of employment of the workers of this country. Labour has organized extensively and effectively, but it has always pursued an evolutionary course. Some members of the community are always ready to brand others as undesirables who are seeking to cripple industry, simply because they demand for the workers a better share of the wealth that they produce. The passage or rejection of this measure will not have any material effect upon the attitude of those who are agitating for improved working conditions and wages. Their agitation will continue throughout the ages, until they are satisfied that the working people of this country are enjoying their rightful share of its wealth. Therefore, to try to justify opposition to this measure on the ground that it’ is untimely and may have an adverse effect upon the activities of extremists in this country is futile.

The third argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition that it would have been preferable to have increased the remuneration of members of this Parliament by granting a special allowance free of tax cannot be supported by any one who is honest. In effect, th<? honorable senator was urging the adoption of a more subtle method of increasing salaries that would not be so apparent to the general public. I hope that I shall never stoop to such a practice. I do not seek any concession that would give me an advantage over any other section of the community. If the workers in industry, and the people generally, have to pay tax on the income that they earn, members of Parliament should not be free from this obligation. Let us be honest with ourselves. If our salary is not sufficient to meet the expenses that we incur in the course of our official duties, I have no apology to make for seeking an increase. I do not ask for any privilege or tax concession that is not enjoyed by other members of the public. Let us stand four square with every other section of the community. If £1,500 a year is a fair and reasonable allowance, we should be prepared to pay our share of income tax. What will this increase mean after all? In my case, probably half of it will go back tq the Treasury, and that applies to nearly all members of the Parliament, as it would to any other member of the community earning a similar salary. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned £250 as a reasonable tax-free allowance to meet expenses. I point out that the net result of the proposal contained in this measure will be an increase of the parliamentary allowance by approximately that amount, but, by introducing this legislation, we are approaching the matter in a more satisfactory and honest manner. As has already been pointed out, members of this Parliament are increasing their salaries in the only manner permitted by the Constitution.

Reference has been made to the number of privileges enjoyed by members of Parliament and the suggestion has been made that these represent a substantial benefit. The press has endeavoured to fan opposition to this measure by emphasizing these privileges. Newspapers point out first that members of Parliament have gold passes permitting free travel on railways. That is quite true. I carry this little piece of gold around in my pocket, but virtually all that it does for me is to carry me between my home in South Australia and Canberra. Is it not the usual custom for business men to pay the fares of employees whose duties involve interstate or long distance travel? Of course it is, and similar provision is to be found in almost every award of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I have been elected to this Parliament to represent South Australia and my attendance in the Senate necessitates many thousands of miles of travel each year. Therefore, my employer - the people of this country - provides me with the wherewithal to travel. Surely press reporters who are sent to Canberra from Sydney, or from other more distant parts of the Commonwealth, to carry out their duties here have their fares paid by their employers. That is exactly what the gold pass does for members of Parliament. It may be argued that the gold pass is of considerable value in the organization of one’s electorate, but is it? When gold passes were first granted to members of Parliament, practically the only forms of transport were the horse and buggy and the railways. The advent of the motor car and the aeroplane has revolutionized travel, with the result that the gold pass to-day has not nearly the value that it had to members of Parliament many years ago. The principal mode of travel adopted by members of Parliament to-day within their constituencies, is by motor car. And what assistance does a parliamentarian receive from the Government in respect of that form of transport? None whatsoever. He has to purchase his own vehicle and to meet its running costs and maintenance charges. Do honorable senators opposite suggest that commercial travellers, for instance, or any other similar employees who are called upon to drive motor cars in the performance of their work, have to meet the running and repair costs of their vehicles? Obviously they do not. The salary of £1,000 a year for members of Parliament was fixed in 1920 when motoring was in its infancy, but now a member has to utilize the motor car as a tool of trade and that tool of trade has become a substantial drain upon his allowance. So much for the gold pass about which there has been considerable newspaper talk.

Members of Parliament also receive what the press usually describes as a “ liberal stamp allowance “. It is true that we do get a stamp allowance, but what is its purpose? Is it to enable us to write love letters, or is it to assist us to carry out the duties for which we have been elected ? Most members of the Parliament receive voluminous correspondence from their constituents. This has increased with the passage of our social services legislation. Is there any employee in ordinary business who is called upon to pay from his own pocket the cost of the stamps used for official purposes? The stamp allowance of members is to enable them to keep in touch with their constituents. For the last twelve months, members and senators have also had the services of a secretary-typist, and this too is offered as a reason for withholding an increased salary. Anybody who knows the volume of work that a member of Parliament has to carry out in connexion with his constituency will realize that he could not possibly attend adequately to his duties without assistance. Members and senators have to spend approximately half of their time in Canberra, away from the electorates and States that they represent, and it would be quite impossible for them to deal with their correspondence single handed. We . are unable as yet to bring our secretarytypists to Canberra, and, therefore, we have to send a large volume of correspondence work to them from Canberra. I hope that the day will soon come when members of this Parliament can take their secretaries with them wherever they may travel, as Ministers and other members of the community do. It is -just as important for our work to be kept up to date while we are in Canberra as when we are in our home States or electorates. The appointment of secretarytypists to help us with our work does not represent an increase of our allowances in any way.

Critics have also referred to the payment of 22s. 6d. a day that we receive as an allowance while we are in Canberra. That allowance has been paid to us only during the last twelve months. Previously, every member of the Parliament had to bear the full cost of his hotel accommodation at Canberra. Many people believe that members of Parliament receive hotel accommodation, entertainment, cigarettes and other luxuries free of charge while they are at Canberra. That is because they have not been told the truth. My expenses for incidental requirements and small luxuries are considerably higher in Canberra than in my home State. The granting of the Canberra allowance of 22s. 6d. a day merely placed members of Parliament upon the same basis as public servants in the same salary group. However, the allowance was made subject to a restriction which is not applied to public servants and others who travel away from home in the course of their employment. Originally, it was provided that a member of Parliament could not draw more than £125 a year in Canberra allowance. Furthermore, the allowance was payable only during the period of parliamentary sittings and only while members remained in the Australian Capital Territory. If a member left the territory for a weekend in order to visit friends payment of the allowance was discontinued during his absence. This restriction does not apply to public servants. They receive allowance from the time when they leave their home until they- return, and there is no ceiling limitation. Thus, members of Parliament have been in an invidious position. The Canberra allowance serves only to pay the costs of our hotel accommodation while we are in Canberra. Let us examine the position of other members of the community. I am not aware of any Arbitration Court award that does not provide- for an allowance to be paid to any member of a union who is sent away from his home State on the business of his employer, nor do I know of any trade union official or other person who does not receive an allowance in similar circumstances. Furthermore, many such allowances are considerably more liberal than those paid to us. I do not know of any newspaper representative sent to Canberra to report the ‘proceedings of Parliament whose living allowance is pegged at the miserable rate provided for members of the Parliament. Many men who are not doing such important work in the national interest as are senators and members of the House of Representatives receive allowances considerably in excess of those paid to us.

Reference has been made to the salaries paid to members of State parliaments. Although the salaries of members of State parliaments have not reached, in the aggregate, the level of the allowance paid to members of the Commonwealth Parliament, State parliamentarians are not required to cover such vast areas of territory as senators and members of the House of Representatives. Every Commonwealth electorate embraces a number of State electorates. The State governments are relinquishing the administration of social services, taxes, and matters of this kind. Therefore, the responsibility for these measures is falling increasingly heavily upon members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Our work will be further increased when the Government implements its proposals for the supply of free medicine and medical treatment and other services. When our present rate of allowance of £1,000 a year was fixed in 1920, the work of a Commonwealth member of Parliament was considered to be a part-time job. It was considered that parliamentary duties required his attention only during sessional periods. However, a member of the Commonwealth Parliament now has a full-time job. His work is not limited to 40 hours a week. No member of Parliament is immune from telephone calls and personal calls from electors at any time, whether it be on a Saturday, a Sunday or any other day. We do not object to this. We attend to the requirements of our electors willingly, and all that we ask in return is that the salaries paid to us by the people shall be adjusted equitably to compensate for increases of costs and changes of conditions since 1920. When the present rate of allowance was fixed in that year, the basic wage was £3 12s. a week, as compared with the present basic wage of £5 6s. a week. Other costs to which members of Parliament are liable have increased proportionately during that period.

The time is now opportune to improve the position of members of Parliament 30 that they will not be hampered by the costs of their parliamentary duties. Many calls are made upon the purse of a member of Parliament in attending to the needs of his electors, and those of us who have no other source of income have to budget very carefully. Before making a journey on the business of the people, it is necessary for us to consider its probable cost. This should not be necessary. I have served in the Senate for only three years, but, during that time, I have taken part in two Commonwealth election campaigns, two State election campaigns, and two referendum campaigns. Every penny of the expenses that I incurred in those campaigns had to be paid from my parliamentary allowance. We receive no assistance in . the form of free use of motor cars, and not one penny of our hotel expenses is paid. My financial position to-day is worse than it was when I first became a member of the Senate. Throughout my life I have endeavoured to improve the standards of the people. If it be right for me, as a trade union official, to attempt to improve the conditions and increase the wages of workers, then it must be right for me to support this move to raise the parliamentary allowance to a rate adequate for its purpose. I make no apology for doing so. I sincerely hope that the Senate will give its blessing to the bill.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- As this is the last occasion on which I shall speak in this chamber, for the time being at any rate, I trust that you, Mr. President, will permit me to digress a little. Owing to a delay of four hours in my air trip to Canberra yesterday, I was not present when you, Mr. President, and the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) made kindly references to those of us whose terms as senators will end this month. Having read the report of the eulogistic remarks made by you and by the Minister, I wish to express my sincere thanks. I also say “thank you” to the various presiding officers under whom I have served during an unbroken term of 30 years as a member of the Senate, and I express, to all honorable senators with whom I have come in contact during that long period, my appreciation not only of the courtesies they have extended to me but also of the valued friendships which I have made with them. I desire, too, to express my thanks to all members of the Senate staff. When I first came to the Senate as a lad - I was only 26 years of age when I was elected - a grand old

Australian, the late Sir John Forrest, was a member of Cabinet. He entertained the senators elected in 1917 at a dinner and gave us some kind and wise advice. I recall in particular this advice which he gave to me, “ Whatever your political career may be, when you do leave the Senate try to .go out with the goodwill of the men with whom you have served “. That advice made a great impression upon my mind, and I have endeavoured, perhaps not always successfully, to retain the goodwill of honorable senators with whom I have been associated.

It has been a great privilege to -serve in the National Parliament of Australia for 30 of the 47 years of its existence. 1 have seen wonderful development in Australia in that time, and I am particularly proud to have been associated with the remarkable development of the State of Queensland, which I have represented without intermission since 1917. I know that my retirement from parliamentary life has not been occasioned by loss of public confidence in me, but that it is due to other circumstances, which I do not intend to discuss now. I am not displeased that the last subject on which I shall speak in this chamber is the bill now before the Senate. I remember very vividly the circumstances connected with the introduction of the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1920, which increased the amount of those allowances from £600 to £1,000. The introduction of that measure was received with a storm of protest, and exactly the same criticisms were made of members of Parliament then as are levelled at us now. Members of Parliament may expect similar attacks whenever parliamentary allowances are reviewed. The fact is that the only way in which members of Parliament can increase their remuneration is by act of Parliament and if members of Parliament are not to be trusted to do the fair thing, then their constituents are to blame for having elected them.

I do not agree with the contention that parliamentary allowances should be on a scale barely sufficient to cover the actual expenses of members. Parliamentary life is so uncertain, and the end is often so cruel to men who have given a great part of their life to the service of the country, that some more generous provision should be made for members on their retirement. I think that their remuneration should be sufficient to enable them to save something against their retirement ; or, better still, that a scheme should be introduced for the payment of retirement allowances. In my experience of 30 years of parliamentary life I know that retiring members are usually faced with great difficulty in securing another means of livelihood. By reason of their preoccupation for years with national affairs and political matters they are not fitted to re-enter business or professional life. Unless they are fortunate enough to possess independent incomes, or to own businesses, before entering Parliament, they are faced on their retirement with the alternative of securing some kind of employment or becoming a burden on the country. I believe that from the inception of federation a proper scheme of superannuation should have been introduced, to which members of Parliament could have contributed, on similar lines to superannuation schemes provided for public servants and employees of large private concerns. In my long experience

I have known a number of men who have had to undergo considerable hardship and humiliation at the end of their terms of parliamentary service.

I do not think that members of Parliament will find that payment of an allowance of £1,500 per annum, without benefit of any tax remissions, is more than sufficient for them to carry out properly their parliamentary duties. Honorable senators who have spoken on this measure mentioned the erroneous view held by some members of the public that all parliamentary allowances are tax-free. That is absolutely incorrect, and our allowances are subject to the same taxes as the incomes of ordinary citizens. Until recently members of Parliament who had to travel from distant States to reside in Canberra for considerable periods had to pay substantial sums out of their own pockets for accommodation. But there are other ways in which parliamentary allowances are expended without profit to members of parliament. In the case of an honorable senator representing a large State like Queensland, it is necessary for him to travel extensively, particu- larly in the early years of his parliamentary life, and this involves him in heavy expense. I venture to say that no man can make an extensive tour of his own State, travelling in a manner befitting a representative of the people, without spending a sum of from £100 to £150. He cannot be a “ piker “ ; when he meets his constituents he must be -able to treat them properly. That involves considerable expenditure for first-class hotel accommodation and other incidentals. In the case of members with young families, it is always necessary for them to engage domestic assistance in their homes while they are absent. Journalists and members of the public who are so prone to criticize members of Parliament entirely overlook those facts.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) pointed out that a company executive is provided with a special allowance while he is travelling on his firm’s business. I think the Leader of the Opposition made a very practical suggestion when he said that the best method of reducing the financial strain on members of Parliament was to provide an allowance for expenditure in their electorates, rather than to increase the present parliamentary allowance. I do not think that Senator Finlay was fair to him when he suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was endeavouring to obtain something “ under the lap “. In my opinion the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that such allowance should bc tax free is no more than just. Money spent by a member of Parliament when travelling around his electorate in the course of his parliamentary duties should not be subject to tax. Almost every executive officer of the Public Service or of private enterprise receives travelling or entertainment allowance, which is exempt from the payment of tax.

Another suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the time is not opportune to make the proposed increase of allowances because of the continued operation of wage-pegging regulations. I agree with him that the proposed increase of parliamentary allowances should be related to the abolition of wagepegging regulations, but I point out that wage-pegging restrictions are not operating in nearly as many industries as people imagine. We know that in most occupations it is practically impossible to secure labour at the wages prescribed by awards, but I think Senator Finlay over-stressed the fact that wage-pegging and pricefixation are closely related. Price-fixation has operated in Queensland for many years, before wage-pegging operated there. I think it is absurd to suggest that we cannot relax wagepegging restrictions unless we relax price control. Admittedly price controls would require to be varied in certain respects if wage-pegging were relaxed ; but price controls are being relaxed every day. Hardly a day passes that one does not read in the press that the price of some particular item has been increased. I do believe, however, that the Government should have linked this proposal with the abolition of wage-pegging.

Senator Large:

– lt is almost abolished now.

Senator FOLL:

– Then, why not go the whole hog and remove it completely? Were it not for the obstinacy of a number of advisers of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), I believe that wage-pegging would have been abolished some time ago. From my knowledge of the industrial life of this country, I am convinced that it would be quite easy to abolish wagepegging now, and that the abolition would eliminate a great deal of industrial discontent. A lot of people who are not affected by wage-pegging believe that the regulations do apply to them. Disrupters of industry have seized on wage-pegging as a means of fomenting trouble. I suggest to the Government that, coincidental with the coming into operation of this legislation, it should abolish wagepegging entirely, because I believe that that would be a considerable advance towards establishing peace in industry. In no circumstances would I vote against a bill of this kind, particularly on the eve of my retirement from the Parliament.

I believe that Australia has a greater future than the average citizen imagines, so long as certain factors are recognized. That future prosperity, in my opinion, will depend not so much on large industrialists, or even on the Parliament itself, as on the organized workers of Australia. Trade union leaders, and others who control the great organizations of labour, hold the future of Australia in their hands. Whispers of another depression looming in the near future, statements that a depression is inevitable and unavoidable, are, in my opinion, unfounded, provided that the people of this country give of their best. One thing which is essential is that production must be increased in both primary and secondary industries. If there is to be a depression - which God forbid - it will come because of reasons entirely different from those which caused the last depression; it will result from reduced production.

As this may be my swan song, I take this opportunity, as one who has served in the National Parliament for 30 years, to express my appreciation of the honour and privilege of serving my country in this place. Whether my future activities be inside or outside Parliament, I shall always do my best to serve this country, which I love.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

– I am sorry to hear Senator Foll say that this may be his swan song, and to reflect that we shall not hear his voice in debate, at least for a time, after the end of this month. However, as the honorable senator is still a comparatively young man, I expect that we shall hear of him again in the parliamentary sphere, either in this chamber or in another house.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! The honorable senator must discuss the bill.

Senator LARGE:

– I regret, Mr. Deputy President, that I am not permitted to say all that I should like to say on the occasion of the retirement of a number of colleagues in this chamber. I have no wish to avoid discussing the bill. To use a trade-union term, I am not a “ scab “, but am always prepared to abide by the majority rule. As we are living in a democracy we have only one constitutional means of increasing the allowances paid to members of the Parliament. That method has been adopted. I believe that the proposed increase of the payment to members of the National Parliament is justified. Having listened to some of the debate on this bill in the House of Representatives, I am convinced that there is no real division on this point. The emoluments of members were last assessed 27 years ago. Since then they have remained static, notwithstanding that in the interim the cost of living, as reflected by the basic wage, has risen from £3 12s. to £5 6s. a week, an increase of practically 50 per rmit. On that ground alone, I contend that the time to increase allowances is opportune. It is to the credit of members of the Parliament that during the war years no move towards increasing their allowances was made, notwithstanding that almost every one else in the community appeared to receive an increase. When I reflect that within the last twelve months the allowances of members of the House of Commons have been increased from £600 to £1,000 per annum, and that half of the new rate will be free of income tax, there is no reason why we in this place should be nervous about increasing our allowances. That view is strengthened by the fact that members of the Mother of Parliaments have received two increases during the term that the rates of pay of members of this Parliament have remained static. Until 1936 members of the House of Commons received £400 a year. In that year the payment was increased to £600, and last year it was raised by £400, bringing it to £1,000 a year, half of which is free of tax.

I should have preferred an increase of £250 per annum free of tax. Many people believe that members of Parliament do not pay any tax on the amounts received by them for their services. A tax-free increase of £250 would have drawn attention to the fact that members now pay taxes on their incomes. As a married man I should be taxed £199 on the additional £500 to be paid to me. In other words I shall derive a benefit of only £301 a year from the passing of this bill, which is only £51 per annum more than I should receive from a tax-free increase of £250. I believe that during the stress and strain of the war years every member of the Parliament, regardless of his party affiliation, pulled his full weight. Naturally, supporters of the Government had more work allotted to them, but members of all parties freely accepted their share of the responsibilities devolving upon them. Many members constantly travelled from place to place in the service of their country. Some of them practically “lived in their suitcases”, away from the members of their family, doing their best for the country regardless of the cost to themselves. I recall that on one occasion some members who visited the south-west district of New South Wales on national business found that the transport arrangements made in advance had broken down. As a result, I paid £29 15s. for transport services for those ten days and did not receive back one penny from the Government. When I reflect on the splendid job done by the members of this Parliament during the war I cannot but recall the old saying that Parliament is a nice comfortable place in which to milk the State cow utterly dry. That might have been true in the early days of Federal government, but it certainly was not true of the Parliament in the war years.

I have mentioned the increases of salaries granted to members of the House of Commons. I now remind honorable senators that while our allowances have remained static, the Parliament of New South Wales, in 1938, increased the payments to its members from £670 to £875 per annum, plus a special allowance of £50 to cover transport expenses on the production of vouchers covering the payments. It may be well to emphasize that some federal electorates embrace five State electorates and that senators representing New South Wales represent an area comprising 28 federal divisions for the House of Representatives and 90 State electorates. In 1944 the salaries of members of the Victorian Parliament were increased from £500 to £600 per annum. In the same year, the South Australian Parliament increased the emoluments of its members from £400 to £600, and members of the Queensland Parliament received an increase of £200, thereby raising their salary to £850. In 1945 the Parliament of Western Australia granted the payment to its members of £600 plus £75 cost of living allowance, and for every increase of the cost of living by ls. lid. the salary rises by £5 per annum. In 1927 the Parliament of Tasmania increased the salaries of its members from £400 to £500.

All honorable senators will agree that- we are not avaricious in seeking some increase of our parliamentary allowance. During the war, we carried on without complaining. Although every other employee in practically any walk of life was then receiving some increased benefit, our parliamentary allowance remained static. There is no comparison between the duties of members of the Parliament to-day, and the duties parliamentarians were obliged to perform 20 or 30 years ago. Senator Foll has clearly indicated that fact.

T shall now deal with the attitude adopted by the Opposition in respect of wage-pegging. It seems strange to me that honorable senators opposite should b& so concerned to lift the peg out of the wage plug hole in order that wages may be increased. It is, at least, unusual; and I cannot help believing that their attitude in that respect is an excuse, and not a reason for opposing the bill. They seek an excuse to take advantage of this proposal for party political purposes. They seek to undermine the confidence of the workers, whom we on this side of the chamber represent, in our rectitude, correctness of procedure and fairness, in order thereby, possibly, to gain some advantage in the future. Wage-pegging was introduced for the specific purpose of controlling the currency; and wagepegging and prices control naturally move concurrently. Unfortunately, in respect of prices control the human element came into the picture. Certain persons were prepared to ignore all principles of manhood and the communal spirit even at a time when the nation was in death grips with the enemy, to take advantage of thu needs of the people, and build up- what are known as black markets. Without wagepegging and prices control this country would, to-day, be in a parlous plight indeed. In my recent travels abroad, I. discovered that the pre-eminence of this country in. the world to-day is due almost entirely to wage-pegging and prices control. In all the countries 1 visited prices had soared because no step had been taken to institute controls. That observation applies to Great Britain as well as to various continental and eastern countries which I visited. I came back satisfied that Australians live- better and more cheaply than people can live in any other country. Therefore, wagepegging and .prices control have proved most effective in Australia. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies), in dealing with this proposal, took the opportunity to indulge in party political propaganda by claiming that wage-pegging should be abolished concurrently with, or prior to, the granting of any increase of our parliamentary allowance. The Opposition in this chamber, of course, has followed that example. Personally, I should like to see wage-pegging abolished entirely. However, 90 per cent, of wagepegging restrictions have already been lifted, and, consequently, the peg on which honorable senators opposite hang their arguments in this matter is very fragile and insecure. Their arguments are not sincere. The Opposition is merely seeking to gain some party political advantage in this matter.

There is one point on which I find myself in agreement with the members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. All of them appear to deplore the attitude adopted by the press towards this proposal. In New South Wales the press has not behaved so savagely in this matter as the Murdoch press in the southern States. But it has always been the same. The very fact that we cannot legitimately appeal to any outside source . in respect of the fixation of our ‘parliamentary allowance makes us a ready target for the press, which claims that we are salary grabbing. The attitude of a. section of the press in this matter is vile in the extreme. In saying that, I have no complaint against press reporters. Indeed, I have found press reporters as a whole to be honest. What I complain about is that very often a few lines are taken from the context of their reports with the result that the original reports are distorted. That is, what I. deplore. I understand that, within the last two years the Australian Journalists Association has established an ethics committee; When I read some of the press paragraphs dealing with- what the newspapers call our salary grab, I can only say that it is a pity that that committee is not functioning a little more efficiently than it is. 1 want the world to know that I do not apologize for supporting this proposal. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I, personally, should have been better satisfied had the Government proposed to grant an increase of the Parliamentary allowance of £250 tax free. Had that been done we should not have had £250 worth of abuse. However, I belong to a democratic party and believe in democracy. Unlike the newspapers, which never miss an opportunity to decry Parliament and seek to lower it in the eyes of the people, I am a democrat; and I can only conclude that the hostile press is basically of a fascist turn of mind. The newspapers do not believe in democratic institutions. They are always condemning the National Parliament, which is our supreme democratic institution. T repeat that my criticism is levelled not against reporters, but solely against those who determine the policy of the newspapers.

Senator Leckie:

– The honorable senator is having a little both ways.

Senator LARGE:

– If anybody is having a little both ways in this matter it is honorable senators opposite. I say candidly that I have found all reporters with whom I have come in contact to be honest. I recall that on one occasion, when I was intending to make a speech in connexion with pensions, three newspaper roundsmen called on me at the Federal Members’ rooms in Sydney. One of them said, “ With your industrial background, you should be able to give us a little story every week “. I replied that I could do so quite easily, but asked, “ Can you get it printed ?”. The reporter replied that it was regrettable that my policy, apparently, did not suit the heads of any of the newspapers represented by the three reporters, and he added, “ We cannot get as much into the newspapers as we should like. However, let us give it a trial “. I took them into my office, and at an interview which lasted 25 minutes the reporters made shorthand notes of what I proposed to say in my speech at the following meeting of Parliament. Each of those reporters represented a different newspaper. As the result of that little trial I was given headlines in the Sydney Sunday Sun which misquoted my remarks, and stated that I had said that I believed everyone should retire at the age of 45 years. The term “45 years “ entered into the interview only when I was advocating the right of everyone, in the evening of his or her life, to enjoy comfort and security, and one of the reporters asked me what I would call the evening of life, to which I replied, “I should say that the evening of life commences some time after 45 “. Another newspaper published a paragraph of five or six lines dealing with the interview. It would appear that the only time that honorable senators on this side of the chamber can get into the press is when they make a “ blue “. Every mistake we make is flogged. Perhaps I am rather fortunate that I do not get too much publicity in the newspapers.

The Government need offer no apology for proposing- this increase of our parliamentary allowance. We have rendered valuable service to the country during the dark years of the war. Our work is not diminishing, but increasing; and judging by our experience in the past, the new allowance of £1,500 a year is likely to remain static for the next twenty years. Therefore, our hands should not tremble when we accept this increase. I support the bill.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– Great publicity has been given to this measure, which has evoked long speeches from members of the House of Representatives. The proposal is one of the most difficult upon which I have been called upon to make a decision. During a long period of service as a member of the Parliament one often finds it difficult to know what is the. right thing to do. Therefore, in discussing this proposal I shall deal only with principles, to the exclusion of personalities. A member of the House of Representatives stated that senators who are to retire at the end of this month speak with dying voices. As we shall be retiring on the 30th June, and the increase provided for in this measure will not become operative until the 1st July, we were wondering whether it was proper for us to exercise our vote on this occasion.

I was particularly interested in the speech delivered by my South Australian colleague, Senator Finlay. It was the best speech that he has made since he has been a member of this chamber. I believe that the very thought of the extra money will encourage the honorable senator to do better work in the future than he has done in the past. My own view is that, particularly as members of Parliament have to reside for half of the year in Canberra, a salary of ?1,000 a year is insufficient to enable them to maintain what I should term a reasonable Australian standard. It is regrettable that some members of this legislature who have not the advantage of substantial private incomes, have to live more or less like “ hoboes “ to eke out an existence when carrying out their important work as members of the National Parliament. It has been said that the quickest way to a man’s heart is through his pocket, and I think we have had evidence of that this afternoon.

Senator Foll drew attention to section 48 of the Commonwealth Constitution which provides -

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year. . . .

Those individuals who believe that this is a matter that should be determined outside Parliament, or by some committee, need not look to me for support. Parliament itself was entrusted with this responsibility by the framers of our Constitution. The responsibility has been accepted in principle, and members of Parliament should be prepared to take the risk and do what they believe to be the fair thing. Undoubtedly entering political life means a sacrifice to many individuals. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies), who has rendered a great service to Australia, has made an enormous sacrifice, although at times he seems to get from the general public more kicks than credit for the splendid work that he has done for this country.

The fact that at the end of this month a number of honorable senators will retire from this chamber brings to mind the fact that political life offers no security of tenure. Looking back, I feel that this Senate could have done more useful work than it. has been doing. The world has so changed that greater attention should be devoted to foreign affairs and to the defence and development of our country. The Senate does not meet as frequently as the House of Representatives, and I believe that the establishment of standing committees to deal with these matters would give an opportunity to members of this chamber who are not in the Cabinet to devote their time and attention to non-party problems of very great importance. The time has come for us to realize that membership of the Commonwealth Parliament is a full-time job. National problems to-day are greater than ever before, and members of the Parliament should be able to devote the whole of their attention to their parliamentary duties. In spite of what has been said by some supporters of the Government I believe that considerable criticism and ill feeling will be provoked amongst a large section of the community by the decision of the Government to increase the salaries of members of Parliament by 50 per cent, at a time when portions of the wage-pegging regulations remain operative. I have advocated the abolition of wage-pegging many times in this chamber and it is known that organizations of employers and employees have been pleading with the Government to abolish wage-pegging entirely. Whilst I realize that the Government’s object in retaining some control over wages is to endeavour to prevent inflation, I believe that wage-pegging has been responsible for more industrial disputes in this country during the last two years than anything else. Recently we passed legislation under which fifteen conciliation commissioners are to be appointed to assist the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. But wages and margins will still be a matter for the Court itself, and it will be for the Chief Judge to determine whether or not an increase of wages is in the national interest.

I fear that the passage of this measure may create bitterness, ill feeling, and further industrial unrest. As I have said, the object of wage-pegging has been to keep prices down and thus prevent inflation and whilst that may be reasonable from certain points of view, the Government seems to have lost sight of the fact that inflation has been assisted, development retarded, and post-war reconstruction delayed by continued strikes and hold-ups resulting from the wage-pegging regulations. What the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) has said in this regard must have an important influence upon our attitude to this proposal in the present circumstances. With prices controlled, profits are low .and in many cases do not even equal the percentages ruling in the pie-war period. I know of quite a number of people in business who, because of increased costs and strict control of the prices of the commodities that they sell, are not receiving a margin of profit commensurate with the increase that has taken place in general price levels. Therefore, I urge the Government to abolish wage-pegging and to relax price control as far as possible. I agree that in regard to real estate, rents, &c, some control is necessary, but where restrictions are not necessary they should be abolished or relaxed in order that the economic life of the community may flow more smoothly than it is to-day. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the amendment that Senator Cooper proposes to move.

There will always: be some opposition to increased salaries for members of Parliament, but judging by reports, the main objection to this bill is that it should not have been introduced while any vestige of wage-pegging remains. The Government is setting a bad example to the people generally. I realize that many individuals are rather cynical in their attitude to politicians; but that should not deter us from establishing in this Parliament, important basic principles such as that implicit in this measure. We have .the power to increase the parliamentary allowance. The Constitution is clear on that point. But I believe, that prior to the general elections nine months ago, the Government should have included in its policy speech a statement of its intention in this regard so that the people would not be misled. If a political party honestly believes that an increase of the parliamentary allowance is desirable itshould have the courage to say so prior to an election so that members of the general public may have an opportunity to express their views on the matter. This will not be the last occasion on which the salaries of members of this legislature will be increased, and I put it to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Ashley) that it is time to decide the correct way to approach the matter. My view is that the people should be told at election time -of any proposal to increase parliamentary salaries. I realize that the making of such an announcement would not ‘be popular with the Labour party nor with the Liberal party, but I believe that the principle is sound, and I ask the Government to amend this measure along those lines, making the increased allowance payable as from the date of the next general elections. That would give candidates an opportunity to know what, their remuneration would be should they be elected, and the people would be able to record their votes either for the men who advocated a reasonable standard for members of Parliament, or for those who thought that they could secure votes by supporting a lower payment. The decision would then be in the hands of the people themselves. There is considerable merit in the contentions of a large section of the people. In view of the fact that, when the elections were held nine months ago, we all knew - what our allowance would be, and the conditions under which we should work, there is no justification for a move to increase salaries now. I ask the Minister to give consideration to the suggestion that on this occasion we should establish a principle, that -would give the people of this country no room for criticism, and would be a guide to governments in the future.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
We have just heard the former Leader of the Opposition in this chamber (Senator McLeay · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

give a splendid dissertation on what we should do. It is remarkable that although he has been a member of this chamber for many years, this thought has just occurred to him.. Just prior to the last elections there was a discussion in the House of Representatives of parliamentary allowances and perquisites. The debate became rather heated., and when it ended, the discussion was continued amongst groups outside the Parliament. In the course of one such discussion, I .was asked my ©pinion of the whole position. I said that perquisites received by members of Parliament under the lap were quite wrong, and that it would be better for members of Parliament to have £1,500 a year if it would mean the elimination of such subterfuges. I was not aware of the presence of a pressman at that gathering, but next day, the press proclaimed that I had advocated an increase of the allowance of members of Parliament to £1,500. Some of Senator McLeay’s friends produced the statement at a number of election meetings which I attended in support of the successful Labour candidates. On each occasion I said that I still believed that the parliamentary allowance should be increased to £1,500, or £2,000 if necessary, and that the granting of perquisites free of income tax should be discontinued. I have never believed in such “ under-cover “ payments.

Any citizen who is elected to this Parliament should receive a fair allowance to compensate him for the work that he does for the people and to recompense him for expenses incurred in the course of his parliamentary duties. The Commonwealth Constitution provides that the Parliament itself shall fix the rate of the allowance. The Parliament has done so before, and it is properly doing so now. The payment of expense allowances free of income tax, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, would be wrong. We should be paid a fair allowance, on which we should pay income tax just as other citizens do. Certain members of the Parliament perform extra duties, in consideration for which’ they are granted additional allowances to cover their expenses. I do not belong to any parliamentary committee whose members receive such payments, but I am a member of inter-party committees which are not specially remunerated. In the course of my duties as a. member of the Senate and as a member of those committees, I have been obliged to make special trips to Canberra and to visit various States. I have found that my parliamentary allowance of £1,000 a year, which many people wrongly believe to be exempt from income tax, is not sufficient to provide for my expenses. I shall mention at a later stage some of the costs which I have been called upon to bear in the discharge of my parliamentary duties.

Since the last elections, our .so-called friends of the press have engaged in a deliberate campaign to defeat the Labour Government. I do not entirely blame journalists for this, .although sometimes I wonder whether they have not sold their souls in some of their efforts to malign the Labour movement. I realize, of course, that they are slaves chained to the machine for which they work and that, in fact, they do not control the policy of the newspapers. The press is only a .part of the financial oligarchy which has had a stranglehold on Australia for many years. These financial interests are prepared to do anything in order to smash the political Labour movement. Honorable senators who have said that, although they believe an increase of the parliamentary allowance is necessary, the time is not opportune, or the method proposed by the Government is not appropriate, agree that we should deal with this subject according to the highest principles. The only principle which the press acknowledges requires the destruction of the. political Labour movement. That is why newspapers all over Australia have attacked the Government for its action in introducing this bill. The first step of their campaign was to forecast what the Government would do. They said that there had been secret negotiations for a salary increase at which all sorts of things had been decided.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The Labour party is not the only one that has been attacked by the press.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The newspapers did malign a few members of the Opposition parties, but their attack was not directed at those parties as a whole. They are concerned only with smashing the Labour party, and their attack was planned to break up the solidarity of the movement outside Parliament. That was the starting point. The newspaper representatives fossicked around when there was a meeting of a Labour committee, which reports only to the Labour party, in an endeavour to secure information regarding the committee’s doings. They wanted somebody to betray the party, so that thor could make political capital. But they failed. Then they indulged in all sorts of surmises, which frequently they knew to be untrue. They also found . that they could not secure information regarding the opinions of the Liberal party after the Labour party had announced its plan for an increase of the allowance. Therefore they maligned members of the Liberal party. The next step in the campaign was a series of letters published in the newspapers. It is a remarkable fact that letters of this nature which appear from day to day usually come from one disgruntled section of the community. These people are critical of everything that is done by the Government. Nothing satisfies them.

The newspapers organized a campaign ‘ urging the people to write to their parliamentary representatives, as they did previously in opposition to the Government’s banking proposals. The campaign against the banking legislation introduced by this Government resulted in thousands of letters being written to members of Parliament, but it did not smash the Labour party as the organizers hoped that it would. The Government went on with the job and lost none of its prestige. The second campaign was completely ineffective. The people knew the futility of responding to it. The next step in the campaign was the misrepresentation of the procedure adopted in introducing this bill in the House of Representatives: The Leader of the Opposition in that chamber (Mr. Menzies) has explained over the air that the procedure followed by the Government was the same as that normally adopted in relation to money bills. ‘Therefore, I shall not traverse the same ground again. The newspapers stated that the bill was hurriedly introduced and that the Standing Orders were suspended for the purpose of securing a speedy passage for it. They deliberately accused the Government of doing underhand things, but I did not notice that they published any apologies to-day for their mis-statements. I venture to say that, if any apology is published, it will appear in small type in a few lines at the foot of an obscure column, where nobody will look for it. That is consistent with the tactics of the newspapers. They have ignored all of the many factors which, justify an increase of the parliamentary allowance.

These so-called “standard bearers of the working class “ have now started a campaign which they claim is designed to help the working man. It is being carried on by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Herald, the Adelaide Advertiser and another little “ rag “ in Queensland. As far as Australia is concerned, the campaign is about- 150 years too late. These newspapers now say, “ Ah, yes, the Parliament must remove all wage-pegging controls. Until it does so it has no right to increase the allowance paid to members.” They know as well as we -do that wage-pegging has been entirely removed, except that power to safeguard the welfare of the community has been left in the hands of the Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Throughout the length and breadth of Australia now. employers and employees can come together and agree to wage increases according to a formula which has been laid down. They do not need to secure the approval of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court of such agreements. However, if they want to go beyond the bounds laid down by the formula, they may apply to a local judge, who may make an award, subject to the proviso that the consent of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court must be obtained before the award can become effective. The Chief Judge will give his consent if the award will not interfere with the public interest. I remind honorable senators that all arbitration enactments contain reference to “the public interest “. The court must always have regard for that factor. This safeguarding control over the public interest has been placed in the hands of the Chief Judge in order to secure uniformity throughout the Commonwealth, a requirement about which honorable senatorsopposite “ squealed “ vociferously only a few weeks ago. It is the only wage control left in existence.

When honorable senators opposite, and the newspapers, shed crocodile tears anr! claim that, in the interests of working men, wage controls should be removed before Parliamentary allowances are increased, they are merely making an astute but unjustified attack on the Labour Government. Honorable senators opposite, who speak so loudly now about the welfare of the working men, have always opposed our efforts to guard the welfare of the workers. They saw blood being spilled in industry, but they would not support measures designed to provide compensation for men injured in the course of their employment. To-day they contend that they are the champions of the working men, and that is part of their propaganda to drive a wedge between the working classes of this country and the Australian Labour party. The press i3 always on the side of the boss, and the monopolists; and the most powerful organs have even succeeded in creating an absolute monopoly for themselves. The result is that metropolitan newspapers throughout Australia continuously present one line of political argument. Because of that monopoly one reads identical articles in newspapers published in cities so far removed from one another as Sydney and Adelaide. Now, they try to convince us that they are attempting to help the working man by criticizing this measure; and members of the Opposition adopt the same attitude. Senator McLeay said that 90 per cent, of the present trouble in industry is caused by the continuance of wagepegging. However, only a few weeks ago he stated that the main cause of industrial unrest was the influence exercised by Communists over the control of trade unions. He cannot have it both ways. The press comes into the picture again to further the interests of present combines and former financial controllers, whose wings we have clipped, by agitating for a relaxation of price control. Day after day the press is urging that price controls should be abolished in respect of meat, housing materials, motor cars and a number of other commodities; but there is never one word of condemnation of the men who break the law. Now the press is viciously attacking the Australian Labour party because of this measure, and inciting workers to withhold their allegiance from that party.

In fairness to myself and honorable senators who support this bill, I propose to give details of some items of expenditure incurred by me. Any member of Parliament who is conscientious and endeavours to discharge his duty to his constituents finds that there is very little left of his parliamentary allowance, and this applies particularly to members of this chamber, who have much greater areas to cover than members of the House of Representatives. Newspaper articles have referred to the “ perks “ which members of Parliament receive, and one report stated that we received £110 a year for stamp allowance, while another mentioned that we received £80 for that purpose. My stamp allowance is £93 a year, and of that amount I expended last year on postage on correspondence dealing with matters of public concern stamps to the value of £24. I expended a similar amount on postage of bulletins circulated by honorable senators who support the Government explaining the purport of measures debated in this chamber. Those bulletins are confined entirely to reports and discussions of matters affecting the public. Telephone and telegraph charges amounted to £19, and acknowledgements of letters received cost £30 3s., making an aggregate of £97 3s. I was fortunate enough to have some stamps left over from the previous year’s issue to offset the deficit. As an example of the lack of appreciation of our position, a number of people who have called to see me on business and whom I have entertained at afternoon tea, have been astounded when I paid for that small hospitality - they thought that it was free.

To explain the disbursement of my parliamentary allowance of £1,000 a year, I have prepared detailed figures showing my actual expenditure. From my gross allowance of £1,000, I paid £207 in income tax. The maintenance of my home in South Australia costs me £240, which represents an expenditure of something less than £5 a week. Money paid out by way of donations and subscriptions’ to charities, schools, sporting bodies and other deserving causes in South Australia, including the cost of my accommodation at Canberra during sessional periods, amounts to £470. These payments aggregate £917, so that I am left with only £83 of my gross salary. From that sum I have to provide clothing and entertainment for myself and my wife and the usual personal necessaries. Honorable senators will realize from their own experience that the items of expenditure I have mentioned are similar to their own commitments, and that there is no possibility of saving anything. Another instance of misrepresentation by the press is its allegation that members receive a sum of from £250 to £280 a year from which to pay the salaries of their secretaries. That is absolutely false, because the money is paid by the Government to the individuals concerned, and members of Parliament do not even see that money. Another unfair suggestion made was that members of Parliament pocket thi3 money themselves and employ members of their families. That, too, is false. My secretary is a young lady, returned from the war, who is not receiving to-day as much as she did before the war. She is my daughter, and she was war crippled when she returned from the war. I might say that I do not touch her salary; it belongs entirely to her. Some newspapers endeavour to create a background of fairness for their criticism by suggesting that, while an increase of parliamentary allowances is justified, the time is not opportune for it. Of course, the time is not opportune - it has never been opportune, so far as these anti-Labour organs are concerned, for the introduction of any reform! Even when the parties opposite have introduced measures of social reform they have done so only because of the pressure of public opinion, and even then they have favoured, in every conceivable way, the interests of the class they represent. As an instance, I mention the introduction by them of amendments to workers’ compensation legislation, which conferred on employers the right to employ lawyers, to the detriment of applicants for compensation. The same thing applies in regard to the Arbitration Court.

The Leader of the Opposition said that, in his opinion, instead of members of Parliament receiving an increase of their parliamentary allowance of £500 a year, they should be paid a special allowance of £250 a year, free of income tax, to cover expenses incurred by them in carrying out their duties in their electorates. That is simply a snide way of getting money, and I do not approve of it. With regard to the privilege which we enjoy of the issue of a railway pass, about which the press has said so much, I point out that in my case the pass is almost valueless to me, because in the State of South

Australia, which I represent, most of the towns which I have to visit are remote from railheads, and I am compelled to use my own motor car. Senator Large explained that members of Parliament who use their Own motor cars for transport on parliamentary duties in their electorates are considerably out of pocket, and there is no provision for recoupment.

With regard to the proposed increase of parliamentary allowances to £1,500 a year, the recent amending income tax legislation provides for a reduction of taxation as from the 1st July next. Under that legislation a single man will benefit by £292 a year; a man with a dependent wife by £301 ; a man with a wife and one child by £308 ; and a man with a wife and two children by £310. Members of Parliament will receive the benefit of those taxation reductions, but they will not receive any further benefit than ordinary citizens. The effect of the reduced rate of taxation will be that a member with dependent wife will receive £1,146 a year net. Some people say that the salary should be £1,000 a year free of tax. That would give to us another £146 a year. I was a member of the committee of the Labour party which investigated this matter. I emphasize that members of the committee received no fees and were not paid any expenses, and that the committee sat on a number of occasions when the Parliament was not sitting. I believe that the committee arrived at a good decision when it decided to recommend a salary of £1,500 a year, subject to income tax, because that means that members of Parliament will be on exactly the same plane as taxpayers earning a similar income. I shall oppose the milk-and-water amendment which has been foreshadowed. It iB easy for honorable senators opposite to support an amendment which they know will be defeated, thereby enabling them to collect the increase just the same.

Senator Foll:

– That does not apply to most of us on this side.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– The honorable senator may be back here again some day. It is a case of “ Heads I win, tails you lose “, because, even if honorable senators oppose the increase, they know that it will become law. I do not know a great deal about betting, but it seems to me to be an instance of “ Two bob each way “.

It may be argued that the increase should await the lifting of wage-pegging regulations, but the new rates will come into operation on the 1st July next just the same. And, even if it were decided that the increase should not be paid until after the next elections, candidates would know that the electors would have little choice in the matter, because whoever were elected would be entitled to the higher rate. I submit that the time for the rise is opportune, and has been opportune for a considerable period. I understand that prior to the war there was a move to obtain increased salaries for members, but that the then Treasurer, Mr. Casey, stopped it. I do not know Mr. Casey, and have never met him.

Senator Sampson:

– That is the honorable senator’s loss.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– Had war not broken out, I believe that there would have been an increase of salary at that time.

Senator Foll:

– It is only fair to say that when Mr. Casey was Treasurer the full salary, which had been reduced during the depression, was again paid.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– Only the war prevented this rise from coming into operation many years ago.

Senator LECKIE:
Victoria

.- I have been rather astounded at some of the things that have come out in this debate. For instance, according to Senator O’Flaherty, it is a natural and proper thing for the stamp allowance granted to members of the Parliament to be used for party political purposes. He said that he used stamps to post to electors a propaganda pamphlet issued by the Labour party every month. That is a new conception to me of the use to which the stamp allowance may be put. I had thought the stamps were to be used in the service of an honorable senator’s constituents.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– So they are.

Senator LECKIE:

– Senator O’Flaherty has told us that he and his colleagues use their stamps to post a propaganda pamphlet to the electors.

Senator O’Flaherty:

– I did not say that: I referred to a bulletin.

Senator LECKIE:

– The honorable senator said that the postage of those pamphlets, or bulletins, cost him £22 10s. a year, so it would appear that the pamphlet is fairly widely circulated. I object, not so much to the stamps being so used, as to the outlook of an honorable senator who considers that government funds may rightly be used for party political purposes. These little things, of which we had not previously heard, have emerged from the debate, and it seems that the practice has been in existence for some time. It would appear, too, that the policy of the Labour party to use Commonwealth revenue to meet the cost of a referendum pamphlet is now being put into operation by individual members of that party.

I was amazed at the attack on the press made by Government supporters, not on the grounds that the press put the case against the increase of salary unfairly, but because it had set out to destroy the Labour party. The attack is the more amazing when we reflect that no government has ever had a better deal from the press than has been given to the Labour Governments of the last few years. Senator Large said that the only reference in the press to happenings in the Senate is when some one makes a “ bloomer “. It would appear that members of the Labour party resent unkind things being said against them. I had thought that their skins were so tough that they could stand any criticism.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator LECKIE:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was saying how extraordinarily thin-skinned are members of the Labour party. They seem to have the idea that they themselves should not be criticized in any way, but, at the same time, are as vituperative and as scurrilous as they like about everybody else; and on such occasions they wax eloquent. It is interesting to examine the bill from two points of view. I wish to be perfectly honest in this matter. It is possible, although not probable, that, in the circumstances, one cannot be absolutely honest in this matter. I, and most honorable senators on this side of the chamber, will not participate in this increased allowance. When I look at the proposal from that point of view, I should probably be inclined to say, “ This is sheer banditry. Why should these fellows get an extra £500 a year, when we have worked our soul-case out for years on a mere pittance; and we are to get nothing out of it ? From that point of view, I might be justified in saying what a section of the newspapers have been saying, that this is merely a salary grab, an act of banditry which should be condemned by all right-minded electors. As a matter of fact, the real defect in the bill is that it is not to be made retrospective. I presume that the Minister would not accept an amendment to make the increase retrospective, say, to that fatal day in September, 1946, when all the brilliance and wisdom of the Senate were told by the electors to go and chase themselves. If the proposal were made retrospective I might look at it from a different point of view. Thus, it is difficult for an individual member of the Parliament to give an absolutely unbiased and unimpassioned view of the proposal. [ have defended the press against the sort of attacks made upon it by some honorable senators opposite. However, I resent the action of the press in this matter, not because it is a wholesale condemnation of members of the Parliament for increasing their allowance, but because the whole tendency of the criticism levelled by the press is to belittle the Parliament and what it stands for. The newspapers want to place members of the Parliament on the same footing as the basic-wage earner. That is their attitude. If I, or any other honorable senator, considered himself to be just an average man picked out of an average group of men, we should have no right to be here. Some better qualification than that possessed by the average man is required of a member of the Parliament; and if an honorable senator or honorable member does not possess that qualification he has no right to be here leading this country. That statement might be controverted; but, in my view, members of the Parliament, taken on the whole, are above the average man. They require special qualifications to fit them for their parliamentary duties.

When I read the attacks made by some newspapers during the last week or two upon this proposal. I wondered what I had done with all the tremendous amount of money I had received as a member of the Senate. I have been a member of this chamber for twelve years, and I shall leave it a poorer man than when. I was elected to it. T ask myself, how did that happen? Have I been extravagant? Have I wasted my money on riotous living; or what happened? Senator O’Flaherty gave rather a detailed balancesheet of what it costs him to be a member of the Senate; but let me give an idea of what the public generally believes a member of the Parliament receives. They believe, first, that each member of the Parliament receives a clear £1,000 a year. He does not. I do not know how other honorable senators fare, but £22 10s. has been deducted from my salary every month and paid to the Commissioner for Taxation ; paid, mind you, from twelve to eighteen months before it was due. Thus, the Government has had the benefit of the interest on that money for that period. Out of my salary of £1,000 a year 1 received, approximately, only £700. In addition, as I presume is the case with most honorable senators, I had a small additional income which brought my total income for taxation purposes into a higher range. That being so, my income during the last five or six years has been approximately £650. That is very different altogether from what the public believes. They believe that every member of the Parliament receives £1,000 clear spending money. The same condition applies to practically every benefit which the public believes members of the Parliament receive. Much has been said in the press about the provision of a secretary for each member. I did not have a secretary. I did not want one, particularly. Probably, it would have been better for me had I put the country to the expense of providing me with a secretary. However, I did not do so ; but I do know that members of the Parliament who have secretaries do not make any money out of that fact; and for the most part they require their secretaries in order to help them carry out their parliamentary duties.

Much has also been made of the fact that, while attending parliamentary sessions in Canberra, we receive an allowance of 22s. 6d. a day. When I come to Canberra the journey here takes one day, the return journey another day, and. assuming that I am here for two days, if any one says that a member of the Parliament can live for that period on £2 5s. he is getting close to the bone. L do not believe that any member of the Parliament makes any money out of his stamp allowance. How could he? The press ignore altogether the fact that the salary for members of the Parliament in 1920 was altered when they, themselves, voluntarily reduced their salary during the depression. Did we hear any cry from the newspapers at that time in respect of the fact that members of the Commonwealth Parliament reduced their salary by 25 per cent.? However, the newspapers caused a terrible fuss when action was taken to recover our lost ground by increasing our salary from £750 to £850, and later when we increased it from £850 to the figure of £1,000 fixed twenty years ago. All those things are forgotten. The newspapers of this country have forgotten that during the depression the members of the Commonwealth Parliament reduced their salary from £1,000 to £750. For those reasons, and because I believe that this proposal has been attacked unfairly, I shift from the attitude that, as I retire on the 30th June next, and shall not participate in the increase, the proposal, therefore, is sheer banditry. I am driven from that conclusion, after carefully examining what the newspapers allege to be banditry. I do not live at a higher rate of expenditure than any other member of the Parliament. I repeat that when I retire from this chamber at the end of this month, I shall leave the Parliament a poorer man than when I entered it, twelve years ago. And I am now twelve years older, without any opportunity of starting again. Personally, I believe that it would be better to utilize the increase proposed under the measure to provide a retiring allowance for members of the Parliament. Probably the new allowance will be sufficient to enable members to make provision for a retiring allowance; but, unless some organized action is taken in that direction, none of the money will be used for that purpose.

I do not want to be misunderstood in this matter. I know that members generally find themselves in a difficult position on an occasion of this kind.

However, I do not believe that when the next general elections come around the action of the Government in providing this increase will count one iota against either the Government or the Opposition parties in the eyes of the electors. Within two years the electors will have forgotten and forgiven this action. I believe that the people of Australia, provided they are not misled in the matter, will look at this proposal on the basis that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and that if they expect members of the Commonwealth Parliament to live up to the standard appropriate to membership of this national assembly, they will not complain very much about this increase, which is not a large amount.

I believe, however, that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) was justified in drawing attention to the fact that we have no right, arbitrarily, to increase our own salaries while any sec-‘ tion of the community is prevented, under the laws we have enacted, from obtaining increases of their wages. He will be quite justified in moving an amendment on these lines, not only because, in the present circumstances, the proposal is unjust, but also because he and I believe that the sooner restrictions such as wagepegging are removed, the sooner will this country return to a sane and sound economy. I am left cold by the argument used by honorable senators opposite that without wage-pegging and price-fixing prices would have gone sky-high. I cannot believe that. No doubt, there would have been some disorganization, but I do not think it would have lasted for more than a month or six weeks. By fixing maximum prices the Government has also fixed minimum prices, because all goods to-day are sold at the ceiling price. The result is that even when there is a glut of fruit and vegetables, for instance, worm-eaten apples are sold for lOd. or ls. a lb. Pricefixing does not prevent this. It is true that we are enjoying a period -of temporary prosperity, but that has been brought about by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the Government. All the price-fixing and wage-pegging, about which we hear so much, has been nothing more than a futile beating of the air. I favour the immediate removal of these restrictions, and, therefore, I shall vote for the amendment to be moved at the committee stage by the Leader of the Opposition. 1 deplore greatly the manner in which the privileges and prestige of members of Parliament, and their standing in the community, has been attacked. These attacks are damaging, not so much to the members themselves, as to the parliamentary institution. The constant belittling of that institution can only bring law and order into disrepute, and cut away the very foundations of that democracy to which we all claim to belong and of which Parliament is the living symbol.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– Almost every honorable senator who has spoken on this measure has said that its purpose is to increase the parliamentary allowance. That is not so. In the bill the word “ increase “ is not used. All that the measure proposes to do is to make up the deficiency in the purchasing power of the parliamentary allowance by 50 per cent. In my opinion, the true depreciation of the purchasing power of that allowance is approximately 66$ per cent. It is obvious from the prices that we pay to-day for goods and services that the purchasing power of the £1 note is only about onethird of what it was in 1920. Therefore, should this bill become law, there will not be any true increase of the purchasing power of the parliamentary, allowance compared with 1920. In that regard,, the parliamentary allowance is in the same category as wages. “Wages actually have not increased since 1920, although, in terms of the depreciated currency, they have increased by 50 per cent. The guiding factor is that to-day the basic wage does not buy any more than did the basic wage of £3 odd. in 1920. I emphasize, therefore, that this measure does not provide for an increase of the actual purchasing power of the parliamentary allowance.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) said that the time chosen for this move was not opportune. My own opinion is that the bill is long overdue. Had the purchasing power of the parliamentary allowance been maintained throughout the years from 1920 onwards, there would not have been any need for this legislation. Similarly, if the purchasing power of wages had been maintained instead of being allowed to depreciate to the point where men are forced to go on strike to draw attention to their needs, there would be no occasion for the many appeals that have been made to the Arbitration Court, and the friction that has been evident throughout industry would not have occurred. What was the cause of this depreciation? There were two causes apart from the law of supply and demand. The first is that years ago the currency was deliberately inflated to tax wages, salaries and other fixed incomes. The purchasing power of the currency was reduced to protect the very wealthy against additional taxation. That was the reason for the resort to inflation. The currency of every country was inflated. The second cause is that included in, and collected through prices are totally unwarranted and unjustified capital charges that have actually been recovered over and over again. Let me illustrate that point: When a house is built, the wages of the building workers are paid only once, but the capital cost of the building is recovered over and over again in rent. In times of war when there is scarcity of houses, the continuing capital cost has, the effect of increasing prices. So, we have two reasons for increased prices ; first the depreciation or inflation of the currency, and secondly, the loading of prices with capital costs that actually have been repaid many times over. That was the condition of affairs that this Government inherited and its effects have done more to discredit our political opponents at election times than anything else. When I was first elected to this chamber in 1938, the. pegged wage for hundreds of thousands of workers throughout Australia was the dole, and despite our earnest pleading for the unpegging of that wage and the provision of work for all those who needed it, the government of the day was not prepared to do anything to relieve the situation. Then the war came and we found that a virtue was made of a necessity almost over night. Men who in the depression years were dispensable became indispensable for the protection of the country and for the maintenance of war industries. They received more food and clothing, better housing and more consideration generally.

I draw attention to that state .of affairs to emphasize again that the economic system which is the policy of the Opposition and which was inherited by this Government was responsible .for the depreciation of all wages, including of course, the parliamentary allowance. Senator Leckie said that citizens elected to the Senate should possess certain qualifications. I observed that he did not attempt to define those qualifications. Therefore, the implication is that honorable senators on this side of the chamber, as compared with himself, are ill-qualified.

Senator Sampson:

– That is not so.

Senator CAMERON:

– That was the implication. In the absence of any explanation, we arc entitled to place our own construction on the honorable gentleman’s statement, particularly in the light of the disparaging remarks that he made. Examination of the facts indicates that the existing state of economic affairs was brought about by a lack of qualifications on the part of governments which preceded the Labour Government appointed in 1941. Had those governments possessed the requisite qualifications, they would at least have been able to maintain a working economic equilibrium. In that event, the purchasing power of wages, allowances, pensions and other fixed incomes would not have been reduced. The fact that it has been reduced suggests to me that the members of anti-Labour governments were not qualified to govern the country. Senator Leckie also said that prices would not soar sky-high if economic restrictions were removed. That was not the case in the United States of America. Immediately economic controls were removed in that country, prices rocketed and, almost overnight, the purchasing power of wages was very considerably reduced. By means of prices control, this Government has applied a brake which has prevented inflationary price increases. Had it not done so, I could conceive a position arising in Australia similar to that which has arisen already in the United States of America.

In order to make an intelligent approach to the subject of costs, we must divide them into two categories, namely, economic costs and monetary costs. Economic costs are measured in terms of the labour-time required to carry out any particular work or to render any particular service. These costs have been diminishing as the result of modern methods. However, we are faced with the paradoxical situation that, whilst the economic cost of production has never been lower, monetary costs, in terms of depreciated currency, have never been higher. From that point of view, the Government deserves commendation for having done as well as it has done. It should be obvious to honorable senators that the domestic economy of a country cannot be re-organized overnight. That is impossible, particularly in time of war. All that can be done is to make the best use of our economy as it is organized. That is what the Government did very efficiently. One of the necessary measures was the pegging of wages. As I have said, the true economic cost of production has never been lower. We were never able to produce as cheaply, expeditiously, or abundantly as we do to-day. In this respect, the war acted more or less as an accelerator in Australia and elsewhere, particularly in Great Britain and the United States of America. Thus we have the paradoxical situation that goods can be produced so abundantly, quickly, and cheaply that millions of people overseas, and hundreds of thousands of Australians to a lesser degree, are not able to get sufficient commodities for their needs. I have said these things because it seems to me that, either consciously or unconsciously, honorable senators opposite have endeavoured to cloud the issue by conveying the impression that the monetary cost of increasing parliamentary allowances, or of increasing wages, would be beyond the resources of the nation. Why, we even hear judges of the Arbitration Court saying that, if wages are increased, ipso facto they must necessarily be added to costs. I deny that proposition emphatically. It is not necessarily correct, but it has been accepted and will continue to be accepted as long as it is not challenged.

The Leader of the Opposition . in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies) has said that the press has misrepresented the whole position in relation to this bill. I do not doubt that for a moment. I do not concede that the gentlemen who write editorials for various publications know much more about the matter than do other opponents of this bill. My own opinion is that the press is not very much concerned about the amount of money involved in the measure. It is principally concerned about the growing strength of the Labour party in the Parliament. The dominant fault of the press is that it attempts to discredit Parliament as much as possible merely because a Labour government happens to be in power. By seeking to discredit Parliament, the major monopolists and financial capitalists, who operate efficiently and successfully behind the scenes, hope to be able to dominate this Government and declare its policy through the medium of the newspapers. Consider what the newspapers have done, both during the war and afterwards! Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of pounds have been paid into the bank accounts of the newspapers. These sums should have been paid into Consolidated Revenue, for the purposes of financing this country. Leading advertisers have expended hundreds of thousands of pounds on unnecessary advertisements, with the object of avoiding taxes, which the Government could have used to better advantage on behalf of the nation. The press has one objective in mind - that of discrediting the Government, if possible, and forcing it to accept the policy laid down by the newspapers. This will not happen. This Government, like Labour governments in other countries, represents the political expression of the resistance of the great majority of the people to the manner in which their purchasing power is being reduced and in which profits are being increased at the expense of people who are expected to live on the bread-line.

We all should know that the’ press and the major monopolists in Australia, as well as in Great Britain and the United States of America, have capitalized the war to the utmost limit. While on the one hand they expressed their patriotism and appreciation of the sacrifices of the men on the fighting fronts, on the other hand they drove the hardest bargain possible in order to .mortgage every one of the allied nations to the hilt. The war was a most profitable proposition from their point of view. Now, they are demanding the tribute that they claim should be paid to them. While I was privileged to serve as Minister for Aircraft Production, we found it necessary to examine the books of contractors in order to detect malpractices. Many firms, which claimed to be reputable establishments, had deliberately debited to the Government costs which properly should have been charged to themselves. We recovered the sum of £1,000,000 from these people and if we had had available the services of more cost accountants we should have recovered a great deal more.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) . - The Minister must confine his remarks to the bill under discussion.

Senator CAMERON:

– The bill before the Senate provides for an increase of parliamentary allowances, and I point out that the purchasing power of those allowances has depreciated greatly. I suggest that the people responsible for the depreciation of money values to-day are the very people who are so bitterly criticizing this proposal, including the proprietors of the monopolistic press. The predatory section of the community, whose members pose as super-patriots, are primarily responsible for the position in which the community finds itself to-day. Inflation began about 1917, and it has been going on ever since, with a consequent decline of the purchasing power of workers’ wages. I recall that you, Mr. President, at one time pointed out very forcefully that the Commonwealth Bank was paying out three £1 notes for every sovereign deposited with it. That process has been going on ever since, but at times the effects on the purchasing power of the community have been more disastrous than at others. To relate this fact to the measure under discussion, the purchasing power of our parliamentary allowances has depreciated by 66$ per cent. In this bill members of parliament are not seeking to have that 66$ per cent, restored; they merely seek the return of 50 per cent, of the original value of their allowances. Critics of the Government have described this measure as a “ salary grab “ but the reverse is the case. The small section who are benefiting by the depreciation of the community’s spending power are using the powerful propagandist organs of the press to endeavour to stampede members of the Government into servile acquiescence in their views. [, for one) am not prepared to acquiesce by admitting that this bill proposes to increase our allowances ; on (he contrary, I challenge that proposition by pointing out that the increase proposed does not correspond with the loss we have sustained by depreciation of the value of our allowances. The small amount which members of parliament will receive by the passage of this bill will not do the slightest harm to the wage-earners.

To-day we are the victims of a system of economy that has evolved over the years, and now that its effects have become so apparent to the general public the Government must do something to counter them. That is the reason for the introduction of this bill. The increase proposed in the bill does not -go as far as it should, any more than awards of the Arbitration Court are adequate to meet the needs of employees, but it is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, it represents a protest against the insidious propaganda of all those whose material interests are advanced by the perpetuation of the present policy of inflation. I trust that the passage of this bill will indicate to our opponents, both inside and outside Parliament, that we cannot be imposed upon indefinitely, and that there is a limit to our patience. I hope that in the near future, the distribution of economic justice will be on a much fairer basis that in the past. The pegging of prices has applied a brake to the indirect, but systematic robbery practised by the vicious interests to which I have referred. I believe that it will serve to maintain the purchasing power of wages, and ultimately 1 hope that a system of economy will be evolved which will function more justly than the present one.

One must draw a distinction between economics and finance, and if one is able to understand the real position, despite its apparent contradictions, it will be realized that economic costs have never been lower, whilst costs, in terms of depreciated currency, have never been higher. That is the position which has to be adjusted by those charged with the responsibility of government, and if it is not adjusted by the Government it will be adjusted in a more direct way by the hundreds of thousands of working people, who are influenced more by their physical needs than by the dogmatism of our political opponents. Senator Leckie said that we are placing ourselves in the same category as men on the basic wage - we are; there is no difference in kind, it is a difference in degree. We are more fortunately placed than men on the basic wage, because we have the means to remedy the injustice which we are suffering, in that we are empowered by the Constitution to do so. Whilst we are adjusting our own. position now we should keep in mind that there is a great deal more to be done to adjust the wages of those who are employed in the production of goods and essential services. Those people carry the whole country on their backs, and provide the means for the payment of parliamentary allowances, the maintenance of defence forces and all other essential services in the community, and they are entitled to economic justice.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– Notwithstanding the eloquence of the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron), he has failed to persuade me that he is a victim of “ middle class morality”. I approach the discussion of this proposal with some diffidence, because I shall no longer be a member of the Senate after the 30th June. However, I feel impelled to correct the statement that parliamentary allowances have remained static since 1920. That is only a half truth. When I entered this chamber in 1925 members of parliament received “ O.S.” postage stamps to the value of £2 a month. At that time the Parliament met in Melbourne, and under the arrangement existing there, it was not necessary for a member of Parliament to affix stamps to his correspondence. The practice was that members placed their unstamped correspondence in a basket, leaving them to be stamped and despatched by parliamentary officials. That practice continued until it was so grossly abused by members - and they were not members of the parties represented on this side of the Senate - that the practice was discontinued. Members of Parliament then had their stamp allowance increased to £4 a month, and became responsible for providing postage for their correspondence. In those days members of Parliament paid the rental and call charges in respect of their telephones. When the issue of postage stamps was increased later we were given the privilege of paying for our trunk calls from our postage stamps. That concession was afterwards extended and we were allowed to use stamps to pay for all our telephone charges. In the light of the few instances I have given, honorable senators will realize that their emoluments have not remained static since 1920. Again, it means something to have a tax-free allowance of £250 a year. When I first entered the Senate I had my own secretary, whom I paid. Relief from the necessity to pay a secretary out of his own pocket is surely of some advantage to an honorable senator. These things show that our conditions have not remained static since 1920. There has been some talk of clouding the issue and honorable senators supporting the Government have said that the press has not been fair, but the protagonists of this proposal have not disclosed the whole story.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) said that there had been no adjustment of members’ allowances since 1920, apart from the depression years, when the financial agreement was in operation. At that time, the salaries of public servants were reduced by 22£ per cent., whilst members of the Parliament voluntarily reduced their own allowances by 25 per cent. Complete restoration was not made until the 1st July, 1938, although there was a partial restoration of £75 some years earlier. I repeat that it is not correct to say that the position has remained static for 27 years.

Senator GRANT:

– Was not £1,000 per annum paid to senators and members in 1920? The Minister was speaking only of allowances.

Senator SAMPSON:

– Time after time honorable senators referred to allowances when they said that conditions had remained static. My hearing is good, and I know what was said because I have been in the chamber most of the time.

Senator Finlay:

– Has not the size of electorates increased ?

Senator SAMPSON:

– Not in respect of the Senate. The boundaries are the same as they were in 1901. As the honorable senator knows, we in this chamber represent States.

Senator LARGE:

– The population of many electorates has increased.

Senator Grant:

– There are twice as many people in New South Wales to-day as in 1920.

Senator SAMPSON:

– That has no bearing on this subject.

Senator Grant:

– Does it not affect the stamp allowance?

Senator SAMPSON:

– Government supporters in this chamber appear to be very sensitive, yet they say they have no apologies to make for supporting the proposal before the Senate. If they have no apologies to make, why make them?

In 1938, and again in 1944, proposals were tentatively put forward for the establishment of a superannuation fund for members so that when, with the swing of the pendulum, they f ailed to receive the support of the electors they would have something to draw from the fund. I have thought for a long time that a fund of that kind should be established, and I think that the proposal is well worth considering. If that scheme be not approved, I suggest that every member of the Parliament should be paid an allowance sufficient to enable him to perform his duties effectively and to save something for the time when he will no longer be a member.

A salary or allowance of £1,000 a year seems a fairly substantial sum but it is not an effective £1,000. In my opinion, members of both Houses are not sufficiently recompensed if they give their full time to the business of running the country. However, at this stage I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) adopted the right attitude and, therefore, I shall support the amendment which he intends to submit in committee.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– I support the bill because I believe that the proposed increase of the parliamentary allowance is justified. I compliment Senator Leckie on the excellent and impartial speech that he made to-night, and I agree with most of what he said, with the exception of his remarks in relation to prices control. He epitomized the position very well indeed, and left little to be said to convince the public that the proposed increase of £500 per annum is warranted.

Earlier to-day, Senator Foll referred to his impending retirement from the Senate after 30 years’ membership. The honorable senator said that he regarded it as a high honour to be privileged to serve his country as a senator, whilst Senator Leckie said that, in his opinion, the criticism of the Parliament by the press was not justified. I entirely agree with them. During recent years there has been developing among the Australian people a tendency to demean the parliamentary institution. That is a tendency which must be counteracted. Although the proposal in this bill that the parliamentary allowance to members should be increased by £500 a year has been criticized, it has been pointed out that, despite the unsatisfactory economic situation of the United. Kingdom, payments to members of the House of Commons have been increased twice since we in this Parliament received our last rise. Similar increases have been granted in Canada. Members of the legislature of the United States of America are paid sums which seem large when compared with our own allowances. An American senator or member of the House of Representatives is paid 10,000 dollars a year, which is equivalent to about £3,000 Australian, and, in addition, he is allowed certain expenses. There was no outcry against increases of allowances paid to members of State parliaments, even though those increases took place when the nation was at war and price-fixation and wage-pegging were on a more strict basis than at the present time. In all the circumstances, the proposal before us seems most reasonable. I have been a member of the Senate for about three and a half years, but I am very little better off financially than when I first entered the Senate.

One of the outstanding disabilities associated with membership of this Parliament is the absence of any security of tenure. A senator or member does not know whether he will be returned or defeated at the next election. Comparisons are said to be odious, but when comparisons are made between members of Parliament and persons engaged in industry certain factors should not be lost sight of. A worker in industry, although paid on a weekly, fortnightly, or monthly basis, knows that so long as he gives good service he has some security, whereas, it is not long before a member of Parliament realizes that continued membership of the Parliament depends on the decision of the electors. He must go before the electors periodically; and that is a costly business. He soon realizes that, if he is to be re-elected, he must put aside out of his earnings a certain sum to meet his election expenses. I have found that travelling to and from Western Australia three or four times a year is costly. While I am in Canberra I. have still to maintain my home in Western Australia. My circumstances prevent me from letting my house while I am away from my home State, but, even if the circumstances were different, I should fear to take the risk of not being able to get possession when I returned.

When a member returns to his home at the conclusion of a session he must do a fair amount of travelling in order to acquaint himself with the needs of the electorate. That means the expenditure of a considerable sum on hotel accommodation and transport. It may be said that every member has free travel over Commonwealth and State railways. That is true; but other forms of transport are necessary in many electorates. It is physically impossible to reach every part of a State like Western Australia by rail. Therefore, I am obliged to use a motor car, and in respect of it I am involved in considerable expenditure for maintenance, the purchase of petrol and incidental expenses. I have endeavoured briefly to give the reasons why I support the bill. Many people believe that members of the Parliament receive a clear allowance of £1,000. However, as other honorable senators have pointed out, that allowance is subject to income tax, and, therefore, that figure is purely nominal. If this measure be passed and the allowance be increased by £500, I shall receive in actual fact not that amount but, approximately, £301, because income tax in respect of the amount will be at least £199. It is right and proper that our parliamentary allowance should be subject to income tax. No member of the Parliament asks for any special privilege in that respect, but is prepared to carry the same obligations as ordinary citizens whose incomes are subject to tax.

It has been argued that this proposal constitutes a breach of contract. I do not share that view. When I stood for election to the Senate, the subject of what remuneration I should receive as a member of this chamber was not raised in any respect. I knew that if I were elected I should receive a certain salary, being the allowance paid at that time to members of the Parliament. However, how can members of the Parliament receive any increase of their allowance unless it be by a majority decision of the Parliament itself, because the Constitution provides that Parliament is the only body empowered to fix the allowance that shall be paid to members of it? Consequently, the argument that this proposal constitutes a breach of contract is groundless.

I do not believe that should this increase be implemented, it will have the effect of causing industrial trouble throughout the Commonwealth. It has been said that the “ extremists “, as they are called, will take advantage of this action to try to stir up trouble among the workers. I remind honorable senators that the Australasian Council of Trade Unions has approved this proposal, provided the Government repeals wage-pegging regulations. However, we know that 95 per cent, of those regulations have already been lifted. Therefore, that argument is not effective. Should the Senate agree to the amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper), we should find ourselves in a rather peculiar position, because the effect of the amendment is that the increase should be implemented as from the date on which National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations cease to operate. The honorable senator and his colleagues, together with all honorable senators, agree that the present parliamentary allowance is inadequate to enable honorable members and honorable senators to discharge their parliamentary duties efficiently. Should the Government decide to repeal wage-pegging regulations completely this increase, under the amendment, if it be agreed to, would then take effect, and the honorable senator himself would be quite satisfied. I fail to comprehend such an attitude. I have already pointed out that under the Constitution the question of increasing the parliamentary allowance cannot be decided by any authority but the Parliament itself. In this chamber, I represent the State of Western Australia, which is a vast State with a population of over 500,000, but I have not received one letter from any individual, or any source whatever, protesting against the proposal embodied in the bill. That fact clearly shows that the people of Western Australia are in favour of the proposal

Senator BRAND:
Victoria

.- Ever since the decision was made by the Labour caucus to induce the Cabinet to bring down a bill to increase the’ parliamentary allowance by £500 a year, a storm of public protest has arisen. Much of the criticism is ill-founded, due to misleading and exaggerated statements as to the privileges and extras which members of the Parliament actually receive. I agree that some increase is necessary, provided honorable members and honorable senators carry out their duties faithfully as legislators and elected representatives of some thousands of electors. To-day the job of a member of this Parliament is a full-time one.

However, the question arises as to whether the time is opportune to make such an increase. To-day the nation is struggling to regain its economic feet. The pensions of the poorer sections of the community are hardly sufficient to live on. Many pensioners are deprived of the necessaries of life. Owing to the present Government’s extravagance in dubious socialistic ventures and experiments, taxation has bounded up, and is likely to remain high, so high that the incentive to work hard and produce is destroyed.

Taxation is crippling industry, and retarding the production of consumer goods. An adequate and ever-increasing supply of these goods would bring about a gradual lowering of prices. The result would be that the purchasing power of the £1 would be increased. Discontent would disappear gradually, and something like normality would be restored.

I do not believe that one person in ten is satisfied with the salary or wages which he or she receives. They would be, if their household or personal expenses were not so high. I repeat that the burden of taxation is the root of all our troubles. The Government does not know the meaning of the word thrift. However, it should set an example, particularly when thrift is the surest road to economic recovery.

The present parliamentary allowance is inadequate for the conscientious member, but I repeat that the time is inopportune to make any increase. The wisest course is to appoint an all-party parliamentary committee to examine this proposal. Such an inquiry might reveal the necessity to postpone the proposal until the nation is well on the way to economic recovery. This is a matter not for the Arbitration Court but for the Parliament. Section 48 of the Constitution reads -

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat.

Twice since federation, the parliamentary allowance has been increased, and on one occasion reduced. In principle I support the proposal; but I repeat that it should not take effect until wagepegging regulations cease to operate.

Senator SHEEHAN (Victoria) [9.251. - As Senator Brand has said, since the Government announced its intention to increase the allowance to members of the Parliament a good deal of discussion has taken place in the press of the Commonwealth, the newspapers in New South Wales being somewhat in favour of the proposal, whilst those in Victoria bitterly oppose it. As I have not perused newspapers published in the other States, I am unable to say what stand they have taken on the matter. A proposal of this kind should, of course, be fully and openly debated. I have been amazed at the argument advanced in a section of the press against the proposal. However, my amazement in that respect was reduced to some degree by Senator Sampson. The honorable senator has been a member of this chamber for some time, yet he failed entirely to present any sound argument against the proposal. From his remarks, one would be led to believe that members of the Parliament are allowed to make all of their telephone calls free of charge. That, of course, is not correct. No member of the Commonwealth Parliament is allowed to make private calls without charge, although all trunk calls on official business can be made free of charge. The impression has also been conveyed by some newspapers that the parliamentary stamp allowance is made available in the form of a monetary allowance. The fact is that each member of the Parliament is allowed stamps up to a certain value each year, and those stamps must be collected by the 30th June of each year. An honorable member, or an honorable senator, cannot accumulate these stamps from year to year. If one issue be not collected at the 30’th June none of that issue can be used in the following year. It has also been suggested that members of the Parliament are able to convert their stamp allowance to monetary gain. Beading some newspapers, one might also be led to believe that members of the Commonwealth Parliament are entitled to a free pass on tramways in capital cities. No member of the Commonwealth Parliament is entitled to travel free of charge on any tramway system in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia or Tasmania. In fact, one member of the Commonwealth Parliament who believed that he was entitled to this concession was prosecuted for attempting to travel free of charge on the trams in Melbourne, whereas, in Victoria, State members are allowed free travel on the trams. For this concession there is a special badge distinct from the gold railway pass that members of the Commonwealth Parliament possess. Arguments of this kind are advanced by the press in their ever-keen anxiety to belittle members of Parliament.

The propriety of introducing this measure while some degree of wagepegging remains in force may be debatable, but in the circumstances, and in view of the actions of the Government and its expressed intention to eliminate wagepegging as rapidly as possible, there is no reason why an increase of the parliamentary allowance should be delayed if members of the Parliament consider that the time is now opportune for such a move. Mention has been made of retiring allowances, &c, but these are specious arguments and are not related to the question now at issue. This Parliament, under the influence of the Labour party, has not been unmindful of the less fortunate members of the community. It was due to the influence of the Labour movement that old-age pensions were first introduced in this country, and since that time great advances have been made in social services. Provision has been made for invalid pensions, child endowment, widows’ pensions, and many other benefits. One would gain the impression from the remarks of some honorable senators opposite that the Parliament had paid no heed to the needs of the community at large. Only in recent weeks this Government eliminated the means test from certain social services. The Labour party has announced publicly that it intends eventually to eliminate the means test completely. These are the thoughts that are running through our movement and our party, which, of course, is in control of national affairs to-day.

Many of the matters to which reference has been made by opponents of this measure have been introduced to cloud the real issue. The opposition to members of Parliament receiving a salary goes back to the time when parliaments, not only in this country, but in other countries, and including the mother of parliaments in Great Britain, were the close preserve of the wealthy people. It is not long since members of the British Parliament received no payment at all, and the franchise was denied to the great bulk of the community. In the early years of the Australian parliaments a similar position arose, and whenever the suggestion was made that the conditions of entry into Parliament should be altered, or the franchise extended, that section of the community which to-day is opposing this measure raised a storm of protest. They did not want the masses of the people to have their representatives in Parliament. They still seek to resist the upward march of what they call the common people. They have always endeavoured to make it impossible’ for the common people to have their voice heard in the council chambers of the nation. In Victoria, the franchise of the upper House still makes it impossible for the great masses of the people to have representation in that chamber. A few years ago, when it was proposed that an honorarium should be paid to members of the Legislative Council, wholesale protests were made. It was contended that the council should be a superior legislature ; a house of review in which the hasty legislation passed by the more democraticallyelected Legislative Assembly might be considered. It was the place where vested interests and wealth had the final say. It was the last ditch in which were entrenched all the powerful interests that throughout the ages have prevented the onward march of the common people.

Because of the democratic atmosphere that is slowly but surely pervading all of our Parliaments, attempts are made from time to time to ridicule these institutions. It was not until after the last war when Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister that members of the British House of Commons were paid a salary. We all know of the great difficulties that the people of Great Britain had in sending representatives to Parliament. In the early days of the parliaments of this country, session’s were held at times which made it impossible for some members to attend. When the workers in England finally managed to get their representatives into the House of Commons, the trade unions had to provide their emoluments. Every member of the community is entitled to his opinion as to what the salary of members of Parliament should be, but the constant ridiculing of parliamentary institutions can lead only to totalitarianism. The aim of dictators has always been to destroy the prestige of the democratic parliamentary institutions. So, if as the result of this propaganda this Parliament loses the respect of the community, we can look forward to a different form of government before very long. There is an old saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. That is what is happening to-day with the press. Newspapers are venting their spleen upon this Parliament and upon other democratic institutions.

Much of the criticism of this measure has had little or no relation to the question at issue, namely, whether or not the proposed increase of the parliamentary allowance is justified. During the discussions that have taken place on this measure in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, speaker after speaker has expressed agreement with the principle of the bill. Some speakers, it is true, have suggested that the proposal should be investigated by a committee, or an authority outside Parliament, but I can assure the Senate that before the Government decided to introduce this bill most earnest and careful consideration was given to the manner in which the problem should be approached. Members who reside in distant States and are called upon to spend a great deal of their time in Canberra have spoken of the difficulties that they have to face with the allowance at its present figure. I can appreciate their position. At one time it was suggested that as a senator represented so many people he actually represented nobody, and therefore all he had to do was to attend the sittings of the Senate in Canberra and that was the end of his parliamentary duties.’ I have led an active life for a number of years serving the people of my State, and I have not found my term of office in this chamber a holiday. Those who know me best will agree that I have endeavoured to carry out my duties as efficiently and as well as my ability will permit. The job of a senator to-day is no sinecure. Times have changed, and I have been amazed in recent years at the number of people who require the assistance of members of Parliament. The job of a member of this chamber to-day is almost a full-time activity. During recess there is never a day that I am not in my place to interview those people who wish to ‘ see me. I have no spare time. The work of the Parliament has grown, and consequently the work of all members of Parliament has grown. The life of a senator might have been different in the old days when there were no Labour representatives. The wealthy classes did not need the assistance of members of Parliament. Therefore, the job was a sinecure in those days. However, conditions have changed greatly, as I have proved, and members of Parliament are now obliged to give considerably more time and attention to their work than previously. For this reason, the present allowance is inadequate. I believe that the discussion of this measure, both here and in the House of Representatives, has caused many people to change their views regarding the position of members of Parliament. Many thousands of Australians must now appreciate that the allowance of a member of Parliament is subject to taxation. They will also know that the perquisites that we have been accused of receiving do not exist. This knowledge has been widely disseminated because of the march of time, which has led to the broadcasting of the proceedings of this Parliament. Broadcasting has enabled us to make many matters clear to the people and, in that way, it has rendered valuable service. In view of the complexity of parliamentary duties, which will be increased as the result of this Government’s progressive policy for the improvement of social services, there is no reason why the argument which has centred on this measure in recent weeks should be further continued.

Senator TANGNEY:
“Western Aus tralia

.- The merits of this bill have been thoroughly thrashed out both here and in the House of Representatives, but it would be wrong of me to cast a silent vote on a question in which so much public interest has been aroused by the reports, whether false or true, published in the newspapers and .by the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. Honorable senators generally, with the single exception of Senator Sampson, are in accord regarding the justice of the claims for an increase of parliamentary allowances. Those who have spoken in this debate, whether for or against the motion, have said that the allowance should be increased. After all, we are the directors of the largest company in Australia. It has 7,000,000 shareholders, all of whom have an unquestioned right to draw some dividend from the total results of our work. 1 put this question both to the press and to the public generally: ls there any company worthy of note in this community whose directors are charged with a measure of responsibility equal to that which we bear as the guardians of the welfare of the nation? Would the directors of such a company be paid a mere allowance of £1,000 a year, subject to tax? The case in favour of increased allowances has been conclusively established. However, two points of view have been expressed in correspondence which has been published in the newspapers in recent weeks. I do not attack the press on account of the opposition to this measure which it has fostered. I regard journalists as tha fourth estate. They have a job which they perform according to their lights.

The first point of view which has emerged from the press correspondence is that the Parliament should not authorize an increase of the allowance paid to its own members. Supporters of this view contend that this matter should be decided by some outside authority. These people overlook the fact that the Parliament is expressly charged by the Constitution with the duty of fixing the rate of allowance for its members. That provision is deeply embedded in the Constitution. We all know how reluctant the Australian people have been during the last 46 years to sanction any alteration of the Constitution. The proposals submitted to them by referendum for alterations of the Constitution have, in the main, been rejected. It has been suggested that Parliament should refer the proposed increase to another authority, such as the judiciary. Such an action would create an invidious position. The members of the Commonwealth judiciary are appointed by the Parliament, and it would be anomalous for them to tell the Parliament what its members are worth to the community. It would be like an employee telling an employer what he is worth to himself. I often wanted to do that in the past, but I realized that I should not hold my job very long if I did so. The second point of view expressed in correspondence to the newspapers is that the expense of the proposed increase will be too great. The amount of money involved is not large. It will be about £55,000 a year, of which about £25,000 will revert to the Treasury in taxes. This will involve a net cost to the community of about £30,000. In 1945, there were approximately 3,000,000 taxpayers in Australia. Therefore, the cost of the increase to each taxpayer will be only 2½d. a year. Thus, the increase, which will cover six senators and one member of the House of Representatives, will cost each taxpayer less than $d. a year - less than the price of a packet of “ P.K’s.” - for each Commonwealth parliamentary representative. That dispose* of the argument directed at the cost of the increase. At present, the total cost to each taxpayer of maintaining this Parliament is only ls. 6d. a year.

The increased cost, therefore, will be only ls. 8½d. a year each for the full services of members of Parliament and the protection of Parliament as an institution. In consideration of that expenditure, each taxpayer will be able to call upon his parliamentary representative for assistance at any time. If my experience is a reliable guide, a member of the Commonwealth Parliament must be on duty every day of the week and for considerably more than 40 hours each week. In Western Australia, for instance,- my duty as a senator has been to travel throughout the State, which covers one-third of the area of the Commonwealth. I realized this fact when I sought election, and I carry out the duties willingly. Parts of Western Australia are accessible only by means of drays, lorries, or jeeps. Last year alone I incurred 46 hotel bills for accommodation in various country towns which I visited in the course of my work. That figure excludes expenses arising from election campaign work. Many people believe that such expenses of a member of Parliament are paid from the general revenue. That is not so; they are a charge upon the member’s allowance. Personally, I have no complaint regarding the amount of the allowance, because I have not the family responsibilities of some other honorable senators. Nevertheless, the individual does not count in this matter. The proposal involves the dignity of Parliament. We belong to a group of 110 citizens who are charged with immense national responsibilities. In 1945, 77,000 Australians paid tax on incomes of £1,000 a year or more. Would any honorable senator suggest that any one of those taxpayers had a more responsible position than that of a member of the Commonwealth Parliament who carries out his duties faithfully, as we are all pledged to do? We have in our hands the destinies of the people of Australia. We deal with momentous international affairs, and the everyday life of every citizen is affected in some way by our work. Therefore, I contend that members of this Parliament must not be allowed to suffer financially as the result of their service to the nation. The only dissentient voice raised in the debate was that of Senator Sampson, who said that conditions had not changed much since the present rate of allowance was fixed in 1920. Of course, unfortunately for Tasmania, the population of that State has not increased at the same rate as have the populations of mainland States. Therefore, the duties of senators and members of the House of Representatives from Tasmania have not increased proportionately with those of members of this Parliament from the mainland States. In any case, the work of the Commonwealth Parliament has increased considerably since 1920. Therefore, the time is opportune to increase the rate of allowance. I remind honorable senators that, if a thing is just, there can be no inopportune time for doing it. There is justice in this proposal, and it should be put into force immediately.

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

– in reply - I regret the necessity for prolonging this debate by speaking in reply. Having regard to the fact mentioned by Senator Tangney that the amount of money involved in the measure is only £55,000 a year, it seems to me that the bill and what it stands for have been elevated to a position of undue importance in the debates of this Parliament. That is so for reasons that are quite extraneous to the normal conduct of the business of the Parliament. As Senator Tangney pointed out, by the time the additional allowance has been subjected to taxation, the net annual cost to the country of the proposed increase will be only about £30,000 a year. There is no breach of principle concealed in the measure. As Senators Mcleay, Tangney and Nash have pointed out, section 48 of the Constitution makes the position clear. It provides that -

Until the Parliament otherwise provides-

I emphasize those words - each senator and each member of the House of Representatives shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year. . . .

Senator Sheehan:

– That was enacted 47 years ago.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. Since then there have been two increases of the parliamentary allowance, one to £600, and another, in 1920, to £1,000 per annum. There is a duty and a responsibility cast upon this Parliament - and upon thi9 Parliament alone - to determine the allowances to be paid to its members. It seems to me that after every thing that has been said it only remains now to determine whether the increase is justified. Not one honorable senator has contested the need for an increase, nor has any honorable senator questioned the quantum of increase proposed under this measure, so that there is a complete consensus of opinion on the part of every one charged with the determination of this matter that some increase should be made. For that reason I need say very little on those aspects of the matter.

It is significant that the twelve retiring senators are unanimously in favour of a substantial increase of the parliamentary allowance. I think the Senate has taken a great deal of notice of the fact that they have so expressed themselves, more particularly because they do not stand to obtain any benefits themselves from the proposed increase. I agree entirely with what Senator Tangney has just stated, namely, that there is no more important business in this country than the running of the country. Those who are concerned with its management are responsible for the provision - to mention only a few of the major matters - of national defence, the conduct of foreign relations, both economically and politically, the promotion of exports and imports, the regulation of Commonwealth and States financial relations, the incidence of taxation, and the raising of the national revenue. Members of the Government and of this Parliament are responsible for the maintenance of the national economy, including the problem of providing employment, and the implementation of health and social service schemes. I am prepared to say that there are no directors of any commercial concern in this country who are so poorly paid as are the members of this Parliament. Companies pay salaries and allowances to their executives far in excess of the amount contemplated by this measure. I agree with honorable senators opposite, who say that if a member of Parliament does his duty conscientiously as a representative of the people he must devote the whole of his time to it. It is incumbent upon him to concern himself with all the matters of major policy to which I have referred, and, in addition, he must have a thorough knowledge of the working principles which underlie them. That involves a great deal of study,- and by the time he accomplishes that, and attends to the needs of his constituents, he finds that he has no time for indulgence of private interests at all. In the course of my three years in this chamber I have often wondered why it is that members who have no means other than their parliamentary allowances are able to remain in this Parliament, particularly when we reflect that membership of this chamber is an ephemeral thing without the slightest guarantee of security. It is subversive of every private interest, and completely disruptive of their entire private life and domestic arrangements. I may say that in my own case, apart from one week spent at my home last Easter, I have been able to visit my home for a day or so at weekends on only five occasions in the past six months.

Very little remains to be said, but to complete the debate I point to what has taken place in the State parliaments and the parliaments of the United Kingdom and Canada. Last year the British House of Commons raised its parliamentary allowance from £600 to £1,000 per annum, and provided that of that amount £500 should be exempt from taxation. In December, 1945, the Canadian House of Commons increased the emolument of its members from $4,000 to $6,000 dollars per annum, an increase of 50 per cent., and provided that the amount of the increase should be completely free from income tax. Surveying what has happened in Australia in recent years, we find that the Victorian Parliament has raised its allowances from £500 to £650, the South Australian Parliament increased its allowances from £400 to £600 in the same year, the Queensland Parliament increased its allowances from £650 to £850, and the New South “Wales Parliament substantially increased its allowances in 1.938. In 1945 members of the Western Australian Parliament received a considerable increase of their allowances. I have come to the conclusion that gentlemen who occupy seats in this Parliament are here for one reason, and for one reason only. They are here because they seek an interesting life ; and because they like the element of conflict it affords; but, above all, they are here because Parliament affords them the best opportunity of serving others and of furthering the national interest. That is unquestionably the underlying impulse which leads men to contest parliamentary elections, and which fills them with regret when the will of the people requires them to leave Parliament.

Yesterday, I listened attentively to the farewell remarks addressed to our colleagues who are to retire shortly, and I venture to suggest that although they go out poorer than they came in, and have missed some of the best things in life enjoyed by other men, when they look back upon their parliamentary record and reflect upon the ministerial portfolios they have occupied, and the part they have played in opposition, they will go away with the life-long satisfaction that they have made a real contribution to the welfare of their country. That is something which will stand to them in yeaTS to come. However, on the material side, they find that it is necessary for them to devote themselves to some means of livelihood because they have been unable to set aside from their parliamentary allowances sufficient to maintain them in their declining years.

A great deal has been said of the necessity for postponing the operation of this measure. It is acknowledged that the increase is justified, but reasons have been found by members of the Opposition for suggesting that its introduction should be postponed. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) argued that it should be postponed until wage-pegging regulations are completely repealed, and Senator McLeay based his request for postponement on the ground that no increase should be made until after the next election. Senator Brand was anxious to refer the whole subject to a royal commission or to an all-party committee of Parliament. It seems to me that honor-‘ able senators opposite who have advanced these suggestions suffer from an action phobia; they are always anxious to postpone decisions. Yesterday, when we were debating an important measure, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill, which will provide free medicine for the people of this country at an estimated cost of £2,000,000 a year, a strong protest was made by honorable senators opposite that the measure was being hurried through the Senate. But, despite the fact that unlimited time was available for debate, only one honorable senator opposite spoke. That bill was passed through all stages in one and a half hours, and the only honorable senator opposite who spoke on the bill urged that action should be deferred. To-day we came into this chamber to discuss what is, in reality, a most insignificant measure, but again, we encounter this desire to procrastinate..

Let us consider the arguments advanced by honorable senators opposite regarding wage-pegging. They speak as though they had a monopoly of concern for the workers, and as though this Government had done nothing to ease the position of workers since the war ended, but let me review the position briefly. Wage-pegging was imposed by this Government during the war period, and it was accepted generously and willingly by the trade unionists of this country. Actual hostilities in World War II. ceased in September, 1945, and in March, 1.946, without pressure from anybody, this Government took action to enable the workers of this country to approach the Arbitration Court on two matters of vital concern, namely, a revision of the basic wage, and the alteration of stan dard hours. I emphasize that the initiative, in referring this matter to the court, was taken by this Government, and not by the workers themselves. The Commonwealth Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) intervened in an application ,to the Arbitration Court by the Printing Industry Employees Union in 1946, and it was his intervention that put on the tapis, for the benefit of the workers of this country, the whole question of the 40- hour week, and it was the Government which prepared for submission to the court the vital evidence on which to base their application. Again, it showed the workers’ representatives how to shorten the proceedings and reach finality. Later in the year a further intervention by the Attorney-General resulted in the basic wage being reviewed by the court, and that led to a substantial increase. Substantial alterations to the wage-pegging regulations were effected in December, 1946.

As recently as March last the Government further relaxed the wage-pegging regulations to enable any industrial tribunal in the country to increase the basic wage to a level not higher than that determined by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; and on ‘ the 9th April last it struck, away almost the last prop supporting the wage-pegging structure. As a result, wages are not pegged to-day although there is still a very necessary measure of control exercised over them. That control is preserved for two important reasons; first, the need for relative uniformity between the decisions of industrial tribunals, in order to avoid anomalies which might create industrial unrest ; and, secondly, to prevent improper agreements being made between bodies of employers and employees. To-day the supply of labour falls far short of the demand, and if there were complete absence of control many employers would be prepared to pay almost unlimited wages, in the knowledge that extra costs would be passed on to the community in increased prices of commodities so essential as clothing and foodstuffs, and luxuries such as tobacco. If that were permitted, the plight of the workers, and indeed of the whole community, would be a most serious one. Control is vested in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court solely in relation to specified types of matters. “Wage-pegging regulations, as they are still wrongly named, enable any industrial tribunal to give increases up to approximately 25 per cent, according to a formula. As Senator O’Flaherty made clear this afternoon, if that formula is not suitable, or if those concerned do not think that it is just, they may go to any tribunal in this country, either Commonwealth or State, and it has complete power to alter the rate of remuneration under the regulations made in April last, and with the consent of the Chief Judge of the highest industrial tribunal in this country, namely, the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, it may proceed to vary the rates.

Senator Large:

– That means that wages are not pegged.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so. The term “ wage-pegging “ is erroneous. During the debate it has been said that the wage-pegging regulations have been repealed by about 95 per cent. That statement is almost .completely true if we preserve the term “ wage-pegging “. In those circumstances, any suggestion that the Government is heartless in relation to workers and has not considered them is incorrect. Apart from what I have already indicated, the Government has set up separate tribunals for coalminers, and persons engaged in stevedoring, it has passed a new arbitration act, and generally it has showed its willingness to consider the industrialists of this country before devoting attention to the proper needs of members of Parliament. I refer to the control which the Government sought by referendum of the people to deal directly with conditions of employment. Unfortunately, that power was refused by the people.

I have presented to honorable senators a picture of a government well aware of the needs of the people and attending to them as economic circumstances permit. I conclude that phase of my reply by saying that wage-pegging regulations are deemed to expire on the 31st December next, but whether they will be continued beyond that date remains to be seen. As the Minister who was unexpectedly placed in charge of this bill this afternoon. I thank honorable senators for the frankness of their approach to thi* subject. It would appear that all honorable senators agree that an increased payment to senators and members is justified. The only diversion of opinion is as to how it should be implemented. The Government believes that since the increase is justified there should not be any postponement, but that the increase should date from the 1st July next.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Allowances at the rate fixed by section* three and seven of the Principal Act, eb amended by this Act, shall commence to be payable on the first day of July One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– In my second-reading speech I forecast an amendment to this clause and, therefore. I now move -

That the words “ first day of July One thousand nine hundred and forty-seven “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “day on which the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations cease to have effect “.

I gave reasons for the proposed amendment in my second-reading speech. These regulations were promulgated as a war measure, and were designed to peg wages and fix prices during the war. The war ended about twenty months ago. I admit that, in many instances, wages have been allowed to advance, but the fact remains that wage-pegging regulations still remain in operation. In his reply to the second-reading debate, the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) gave good reasons why the wage-pegging regulations should remain in operation. The Minister generally makes a good point. That is his duty when introducing or explaining legislation. But he does admit that these regulations will remain in force until the end -of this year, or longer, and that some persons in the community are still controlled by them. I believe that the right time for the increased allowances to come into operation is when the regulations have been entirely repealed.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I was interested in the comments of the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna), especially those concerning the wage-pegging regulations. I do not think that trade unionists, generally, understand that those regulations have practically been abolished. In today’s press it is reported that the judge dealing with the 40-hour week case said that he would defer his decision because there was some doubt as to whether the existing wage-pegging regulations made a law passed by the Parliament of New South Wales invalid. 1 understand that, in certain circumstances it is impossible for a conciliation commissioner to grant an increase of wages unless he has obtained the approval of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court. It may be contended that the increases provided for in this bill represent only a small sum in the aggregate, but I submit that the Parliament should have regard to the principle involved. I greatly fear that, unless the wage-pegging regulations are repealed, there will be further considerable industrial unrest in Australia. Both employers and employees desire that the restrictions shall be removed forthwith, [t does not matter how much we try to excuse our action, or to advance the plea that £1,000 a year is inadequate, the fact remains that until the restrictions are removed there will be friction, some of which will be attributed to the bad example set by the National Parliament.

I had in mind moving an amendment that any increase shall take effect from the day of the next general elections of members of the House of Representatives so that whatever parliament was in power would have a clear mandate from the people to do what it thought best. But, having regard to the wording of the amendment now before the committee, [ am not sure whether the Standing Orders would permit me to do so. The first portion of the amendment now before us proposes that certain words be left out. I should like a ruling from you, Mr. Chairman, as to the effect of a decision that those words shall remain in the clause. Although the first portion of my proposed amendment agrees with the first portion of the amendment now before the Chair, they differ greatly in other respects. If you rule, on technical grounds, that I should be prevented from moving my amendment, I should like to know if there is any way in which I can place my proposal before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN:

– If the committee decides to reject the first portion of the amendment now before the Chair, that would mean that the words “ the first day of July one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven “ would remain, in which event the proposed amendment of the honorable senator would be definitely out of order. I draw attention to Standing Order 145, which reads -

No amendment shall be proposed to be made to any words which the Senate has resolved shall not be left out, or which have been inserted in or added to a Question, except it be the addition of other words thereto.

Should the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition be defeated, the amendment forecast by Senator McLeay will not be in order.

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

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) was good enough, in his second-reading speech, to forecast this amendment, which, in effect, provides for the postponement of the operation of the measure until the day on which the National Security (Economic Organization) Regulations cease to have effect. As I dealt fully with that point when replying to the second-reading debate, I am sure that honorable senators will not think that I am discourteous if I do not traverse that ground again.

In reply to Senator McLeay, I do not propose to comment at this stage upon what is transpiring with respect to legislation passed by the Parliament of New South Wales for the introduction of a 40- hour week. That matter is sub judice. and it would not be proper to embark upon a discussion of it in this chamber. Senator McLeay contended that wagepegging regulations, as they are still erroneously called, should be removed at the earliest possible moment. I have already intimated that the Government has been very active in reviewing those regulations from time to time, and has ameliorated them very substantially and very recently. The Government has that matter under constant review, and so soon as it is possible to do so, having regard to the economy of this country, it will remove the very limited overriding measure of control that it still exercises under those regulations.

Whilst I fully subscribe, Mr. Chairman, to your ruling in respect of the amendment which Senator McLeay has forecast, I cannot very well suggest a way to the honorable senator that might get him out of his dilemma unless he is prepared to add the additional words he proposes as a possible alternative to those set out in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and states that whichever date first occurs shall be the operative date. I make that suggestion with a desire to help the honorable senator.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I appreciate the desire of the Minister (Senator McKenna) to help me, but his suggestion makes your ruling, Mr. Chairman, more confusing so far as I am concerned. With respect to the removal of the wage-pegging regulations, the Government has had an opportunity, during the last two years, to repeal those regulations completely, but it removed some of those restrictions only at the eleventh hour when strike after strike had occurred and industrial production had been held up for many months. Therefore, I see no point in the Minister’s statement that the Government now intends to do as quickly as possible what it has been doing for the last two years.

In view of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that should the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition be defeated, the amendment I have forecast will be out of order, I intend, because of the importance of my amendment and in order to protest against the action of the Government in the matter, to vote against the motion for the third reading of the bill.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cooper’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)

AYES: 5

NOES: 18

Majority . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I desire to move -

That the words “ first day of July One thousand nine hundred and f orty -seven “, be left out with a view to insert the following words: - “day of the next general election of members of the House of Representatives “.

I referred to this point earlier and I understand that the Chair is not willing to accept the amendment. In order to put the matter beyond doubt, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know Under what standing order you rule that the amendment I have forecast is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator T M Nicholls:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Standing Order 145.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McKenna) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator McLEAY (South Australia) [10.42 [. - I repeat that the time is inopportune to give effect to the proposal embodied in the bill. I regret that the Government will not agree to postpone the operation of the bill until the date on which wage-pegging regulations cease to have effect. I also regret that it has refused to give to the Senate an opportunity to consider the important amendment which I foreshadowed. Therefore, I again strongly protest against the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3509

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1947-48

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Ashley) pro posed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– I take this opportunity to invoke the sympathy of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) in a matter which I have no reluctance in bringing before the Senate. On the 20th March, I asked that a postage stamp be issued in partial commemoration of the great public services of the late Lord Forrest associated with the exploration of Western and Central Australia and the establishment and development of Western Australia under responsible government. This action on my part was prompted by the fact that this year is the centenary of the birth of Lord Forrest. The Postmaster-General’s reply to my suggestion was -

The programme of new postage stamp issues during 1947 will preclude the issue of a Lord Forrest commemorative stamp this year. In accordance with the practice adopted in respect of the explorers Sturt and Mitchell, consideration will be given in due course to the matter of issuing a special postage stamp to commemorate the centenary of one of the most important explorations of the late Lord Forrest.

Before I deal with this reply, let me tell the Senate something of Lord Forrest. He was born at or near Bunburyon the 22nd August, 1847, and at theage of 18 years he entered the public service. Four years later he was entrusted with the leadership of an expedition to search the interior of this continent for traces of Dr. Leichhardt and his lost party. This journey took about three months, during which the late Lord Forrest traversed 2,000 miles of desert country and that in days, it might be well noted, before sur veyed stock routes or mechanical vehicles existed. In the following year, 1870, he, by the same means, went overland from Perth to Adelaide by John Eyre’s route - occupying five months - and in 1874, with another party, reconnoitred that vast uninhabited tract extending from Champion Bay eastwards to the Darwin telegraph line in Central Australia. In 1878, and again in 1882, he conducted important surveys in the almost unknown north-west area of Western Australia.

For these services he received official recognition and was also honoured by the Royal Geographical Society and by the Courts of St. Petersburg, Vienna and Rome. In 1883, at 36 years of age, Forrest was appointed to be SurveyorGeneral and Commissioner of Crown Lands and thus became a member of the Legislative Council and of the Governor’s Executive in the then Crown Colony days. He was, too, one of those who strove, successfully, for the institution of responsible government and, when this was granted in 1890, was called upon to form the first government. Although hitherto he had exhibited considerable stamina, courage, and administrative capacity, it was at this stage that his really great work began.

Like most Western Australians of those days I had some acquaintance with Lord Forrest, before he received that title. He was a big man - essentially a man of action - not much given to the aesthetic. But in literature he was fond of Burns and writings on the first Napoleon. He got some inspiration from the scriptures - his philosophy as head of a government administering almost 1,000,000 square miles of territory being to make two blades of grass grow where only one grew before. How far he succeeded in giving practical effect to his beliefs his record of ten years as Premier is some indication. It is interesting. His liberal policy in respect to public works is reflected in the building of the harbour at Fremantle and the extension of railways. The great gold-fields water scheme followed upon his encouragement of prospecting for minerals, and the expansion of agriculture upon his generous land schemes. All this was in the days before the advent of the political Labour party. In 1891, after 60 years of settlement, the population of Western Australia was 50,000. Ten years later it was 184,000. The public revenues in 1890 amounted to £414,000. In 1900 the figures were £2,615,000. The condition of trade and commerce is revealed by an increase of exports from £799,000 in 1891 to £6,S52,000 in 1900, and imports from £1,282,000 in 1S91 to £5,692,000 in 1900. A considerable proportion of the imports was composed of capital goods. Generally the State or colony was financially sound, and only twice in the ten-year period did the budget reveal a deficiency. To-day the population of Western Australia is 500,000. But John Forrest went further in his conception of statesmanship. He foresaw the advantages of federation and worked for it. He assisted in the framing of our Constitution and later became Minister for Defence in the Barton Government. To him we owe the Defence Act, still extant, under which our Commonwealth Defence Forces were raised and organized; served us through two great wars, and enabled our defenders to establish magnificent traditions.

Lord Forrest was, too, the first PostmasterGeneral of the Commonwealth. Has the present Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) overlooked this fact? Surely he has as much pride in his department as I know his staff has. Even, in hopes of favours possibly yet to come, he might seek to do honour to his predecessors in office. Subsequent to the defence portfolio, Forrest held other ministerial office during his eighteen years of service and a grateful country was pleased when His Majesty the King created him a Baron - :the first Australian to be so honoured. Lord Forrest died in 1.918. One authority has said, “Forrest’s great work was the development of Western Australia during his long premiership “. The people of the State appreciate this. They have pride and satisfaction in his achievements and desire in this centenary year to honour his memory. The Historical Society of Western Australia has taken the initial step towards this end, and had promise of support from the Government led by Mr. Wise. There will be a Forrest exhibition in Perth this year. Surely it is not asking too much of the Commonwealth Government to make a small tribute.

Let me revert to the PostmasterGeneral’s reply to my suggestion. At first sight this might appear to disclose a lamentable lack of appreciation of values, or of Australian history. It might seem to have been influenced by. some queer prejudice, or intended, unbelievably, as a deliberate affront to the people of Western Australia.

In referring to Mitchell and Sturt, the Postmaster-General barely does justice to Forrest. Those two men were primarily soldiers and explorers. They did noi enter the larger sphere of administration where qualities of statesmanship were demanded. The proposal to consider the issue of a commemorative postage stamp in, say, 22 years time, is absurd, as is also the reference to “ the programme of new postage stamps during 1947 “.

This is what the West Australian of the 28th March last has to say on the subject -

page 3510

QUESTION

ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Although there are, no doubt, difficulties associated ‘ with the production of postage stamps under present conditions, it is surely taxing credulity for the Postmaster-General to claim, with nine months of the year still to run, that the programme of the new issues for 1947 will preclude the issue of a Lord Forrest commemorative stamp this year. There was much to commend the suggestion made by Senator Collett that, as this year marks the centenary of Lord Forrest’s birth, a special stamp he issued in his honour, but it seems that the senator left it too late to remind the Postmaster-General’s Department of the significance of Lord Forrest’s career. In view of the special stamps issued to commemorate the explorations of Sturt and Mitchell, the department mi slit have been expected to act on its own volition, particularly as the present Government is always anxious to publicize Australian achievements. It seems strange that what was overlooked by Senator Cameron, who himself is not unknown to West Australians, did not stir the imaginative faculties of Mr. Calwell. Lord Forrest was not only a great West Australian and a foremast explorer. He was also one of the fathers of the Commonwealth and one of its foundation Ministers. It would have been graceful if the Commonwealth department of which he was the first ministerial head had concerned itself to make provision for recognizing the centenary of his birth. All, however, is not lost. Senator Cameron hae promised that consideration will be given in issuing a stamp to commemorate the centenary of one of Lord Forrest’s most important explorations. There will he no need for the senator - or his successors in office - to be unduly precipitate about this because they will have at least 22 years in which to give the subject consideration.

It may be thought that I am unnecessarily stressing this matter. But I am anxious to show it in the right perspective. We boast about being a nation. At great cost we are sending diplomatic and other missions all over the world. Surely our pretentions must .be associated, in some manner, with achievements of the past - with the stirring events of our foundation and the display of wisdom and courage that has brought about our satisfactory growth and enrichment. If that be so, then let us do at least some honour to our proved great public men. Let us remember them with gratitude and bequeath something worthwhile and encouraging to posterity, rather than follow the present tendency to overwork, vilification, or, at the least, early forgetfulness of great services rendered. We can build up this country if we offer just rewards to those who work to that end. It might well be a feature of Postal Department policy, on the philatelic side, to represent Australian history in appropriate fora. As far as Western Australia is concerned, there is a choice of subjects in the personnel of the early voyagers - say Vlaming and Dampier, and .Captain James Stirling and Lord Forrest. Therefore, I ask that the Minister give renewed consideration to my suggestion. In doing this he will, I am sure, have the full support of his Government.

Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania

– I cannot let this last opportunity pass without having something to say on a subject which honorable senators will expect me to mention, namely, the defence problems of Australia and of the British Commonwealth of Nations. History has a habit of repeating itself, and I believe that I can see to-day a trend of events that we saw after World War I. In those days, we proposed to place our faith entirely in the League of Nations. Today we appear to be placing our faith entirely in an international organization known as the United Nations. I have been greatly concerned about defence problems since I served as a trooper during the Boer War, 45 years ago. I lived in South Africa for seven years, and for four years of that period I served as a regular soldier.

The Government at least has a plan of defence on paper. As a paper plan it has’ much to commend it, but a great deal of criticism can be levelled at the proposed method of execution. I was great: impressed with a recent statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman), who said -

To rest content on a hard-won victory, and let our defences run down, would be inviting future catastrophe.

That is true, and it is precisely what this Government has done since the war ended. Australia’s defences to-day are in a terrible condition. I have studied defence problems for the last twenty years, both as a soldier on the active list and as a soldier on the reserve, and I have some knowledge of these matters.

Frankly, I am gravely concerned about the future defence of Australia, even though the Government’s plans provide for the expenditure of vast sums of money. These amounts will be much greater than any that have previously been devoted to defence in time of peace, but they will not be nearly so large as the amounts to be set aside for social services and other purposes. The Government’s plan is lacking in many respects. For instance, there is no plan for the replacement of obsolete ships in the Royal Australian Navy. The service’s existing ships are old. I recall an occasion twenty years ago when, on my way to Canada, I saw the ship which later became H.M.A.S. Canberra being fitted out at Portsmouth. H.M.A.S. Australia also had just been fitted out and commissioned at that time. When I arrived in Canada, I saw the vessel 1,000 miles from the sea in the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. This ship has been badly battered and. although it has been re-fitted,- it is obsolete. Almost every other vessel in the Royal Australian Navy is in a similar condition.

The Government’s plan for the land defence of Australia is divided into two sections. There is to be a permanent force of 19,000 men, and a voluntary militia force of 50,000 men. The permanent force will be composed not so much of soldiers as of clerks, instructors, and other odds and ends of personnel, presided over by the Military Board. Tho militia force, under the rotten system of voluntary enlistment, will be nothing but an ill-trained, half-baked force of enthusiastic amateurs. This precious plan provides that volunteers shall have fourteen days’ training each year, except in special cases, in which the period will be extended to 24 days. The mure scientific and complicated machines and weapons become, the more important it is to provide solid training for these men in order that they may become masters of their machines and weapons. In any case, the Government will not bv able to secure 50,000 volunteers, and the training given to those who do enlist will be of no use. The whole scheme apparently is based on the fatuous view that the next war will be a “ push-button “ one. The Army’s annual allotment of expenditure under this plan will be about £12,000,000.

The treatment provided for the Royal Australian Air Force is in accordance with the rest of the plan. The strength of the force will be reduced to about 12,000 men. I presume that that number will be exclusive of civilians. Whatever happens, we must have long-distance fighter aircraft capable of dealing with heavily armed long-distance bombers.. According to my assessment of events at the end of the war, long distance bombers are formidable striking weapons which can give a good account of themselves against fighter aircraft. The munitions programme provides for the employment of about 15,000 men and women, about 4,000 of whom will be engaged on aircraft production. Annual expenditure on this programme will be about £15,000,000. That is a satisfactory amount. However, considering the overall plan, the Government is only playing with the problem, which is of great magnitude and of vital importance to the nation. The scheme provides for a mere shadow defence, which will leave the country at the mercy of any sudden attack by a determined enemy. We might as well have no defence scheme at all.

Two outstanding problems are involved in the adequate defence of Australia. The first is that of keeping an invader off our soil. The second is that of dealing with an invader should he break through.

The lesson to be learned from the recent war is that we must keep our enemy at as great a distance from our shores as possible. A cursory examination of a map of our portion of the globe shows that we must have an external chain of defence to the north and the north-west of the continent. There is a vitally important line of islands which must be held in our own or in friendly hands. This line includes the Philippines, the Marianas, the Carolines, the Marshalls, the Gilberts, the Friendly Islands, which include Tonga, Fiji, New Caledonia, our sister dominion of New Zealand, the NewHebrides, which are a condominium, Timor, New Guinea, the Solomons, and Norfolk Island, which belongs to Australia. All of these islands represent Australia’s outer line of defence. To-day we are threatened by a new open flank to the west and the north because, in the main, the guard of the Royal Navy has ceased to exist. Singapore will no longer be the bastion which it was originally intended to be long ago. Furthermore, British forces in India are being withdrawn, and the garrison in the Middle East also is to be removed. We are scuttling out of India and Egypt as fast as we can go, and this requires a vital change of our defence arrangements. I suggest that an attempt to invade Australia will almost certainly come from the north-west. Because of the nature of the United States defence plans, we should be safe on our eastern flank.

If we are to have a land force of any practical value, compulsory training must be re-introduced. We have tried in the past to popularize voluntary military training, but we have always failed. Between World War I. and World War II., a special recruiting drive was organized, an improved uniform was designed, and money was expended on drill halls and the provision of amenities for trainees, but the response was very disappointing. The campaign failed dismally. The Minister for Defence at that time, Sir Archdale Parkhill, did his best, but he could not arouse popular interest in military training. I have noticed that the present Minister for the Army (Mr. Chambers) also is busy designing bright uniforms for the military forces in the futile hope of attracting 50,000 recruits.

But experience has proved that he will not succeed. In any event, is it a fair thing to require of a generous, noblehearted fellow, who does think something of his country, and who is prepared to make sacrifices in time of peace to serve it, that he should “ carry the baby “, and that the lazy, irresponsible and thriftless should “get away with it’’? It cannot be done. We cannot, under this exploded, voluntary system, achieve the creation of an effective fighting force. The proposal that members of voluntary forces should serve from 14 to 24 days in camp each year is of no value whatever. You cannot make a soldier in that time; it is impossible because of the developments of modern war, and I am satisfied that there is no hope of the plan succeeding. The task of preparing a force to deal with an air-borne invasion cannot be achieved with a handful of volunteers, nor can the advance of the invading army be delayed while the Defence Department is raising and training a force after the outbreak of war. I suggest that the internal defence requirements of the Commonwealth may be summarized as follows: The provision of sufficient ships, equipment and trained personnel to carry out sea patrol and to act as an offensive force capable of operating at least one thousand miles from our coastline and of dealing with enemy concentrations and shipping movements. Another most important matter in regard to the Royal Australian Navy is the provision of radar equipment, which proved invaluable in the defence of Great Britain, on an extensive scale right around the coast of Australia. We must have an air force to provide protection against invasion - an invasion which will be made, I suggest, by air-borne troops, because it is a certainty that the next attack will be delivered from the air. The probability that the enemy will effectively employ air-borne forces is very great. We need an internal air force sufficiently strong and mobile to deal effectively with any enemy force that may effect a landing. Its task would be to disrupt enemy communications and to prevent the enemy from consolidating any gains he might have made. It follows that we must have adequate infantry, artillery and ancillary forces, trained in the technique of parachute jumping, seasoned by realistic training, and ready for immediate action. That cannot be achieved by a half-baked militia, which does a few days’ training a year.

Another matter of first-class importance is the provision of adequate transport facilities to supply the needs of our fighting forces on sea and land and in the air. Again, we need adequate protection by coastal batteries, searchlight and anti-aircraft emplacements, and we must have trained reserves for all those arms. That will involve a tremendous drain on our man-power, but if we are to pull our weight as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations we must face up to our responsibilities. Finally, we need skilled personnel for training men for the expansion of the forces as the war goes on. That was one of our greatest handicaps in 1940, 1941, and even in 1942. The next war is not likely to be a “push-button war” - whatever that term means. Statements of that kind are so much arrant nonsense, and the fatuous statements being made by Ministers in that regard will avail us nothing. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Dedman) said that his statement is more an outline than a detailed plan. There has been a great deal of talk about the Security Council, but we are still waiting to see what our contribution to the International Police Force will amount to. I suggest, however, that if we wait until the military staff of the United Nations organization determines the size and nature of our defence force we shall have to wait a long time. The efficient organization, so painfully built up by Australia during the recent war, has been allowed to disintegrate. To-day there is not a single squadron of combat aircraft nor a battalion of combat troops available in the whole Commonwealth. I do not know what plans the Government proposes to lay before Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, but I presume they will bt. along the lines of the Minister’s statement. I suggest to this Government that it should have the courage to follow the lead of Britain’s Labour Government, and implement national and compulsory service. To raise a force which is adequate, efficient, and worth the money it will cost, that force must be both national and compulsory. That is a paramount need for the maintenance of national security. The modern soldier’s trade, because of the complexity of modern weapons and equipment, is a highly skilled one, and the trained reserves which are absolutely essential to an efficient defence force cannot be supplied by a volunteer week-end soldier.

What, then, are we to do? We have to come to a decision sooner or later unless we are content simply to drift along. Press reports of the acquisition of aircraft carriers and the construction in Australia of jet-propelled aircraft, and the provision of funds for munitions production and research are most cheering. That, at least, is a step in the right direction. But Australia cannot be defended by ships, machines and rockets alone. The man still counts, and he always will count in war, no matter how intricate the machine may be. Therefore, we must have trained, skilled men, with the will and the guts to do their job. Nor will there be, in any future war, time to train men after it has begun. With atom bombs, guided projectiles and air-borne armies, war - as both the scientist and the soldier have warned us - will be terribly swift, and it will most certainly be undeclared. 1 suggest that the lessons of World War II. must be re-learned unless Australia is again to face war unprepared .

I realize that we cannot afford large permanent forces, because of financial and man-power considerations. Small regular forces must be expanded by raising a trained citizen army, and we cannot achieve that by voluntary enlistment, nor will the provision of attractive uniforms for volunteers assist us. I suggest that the raising of a voluntary militia of 50,000 men, or any other number, is impossible without the introduction of some form of national compulsory service. Apropos of the talk one hears now of collective security, I was told by a professor in Hobart recently that we have no need to worry about preparedness for future wars, because we shall have collective security. That is a myth. What does “ collective security “ mean ? The theory provides for the establishment for the world as a whole of an authority charged with maintaining the peace, and with visiting upon those who break the peace the collective punishment of all other nations. The idea is that, faced with thecertainty of having arrayed against it the military might of the rest of the world, no nation will dare go to war. If thechances of action by the rest of the worldseem slim, then the ambitious will make a bold resort to violence to achieve theirends. That is how the outbreak of the last war is explained by those who believein collective security. They say theremust be a will to act on the part of all peace-loving nations, there must be loyalty to the world organization, and there must be arms to act as well - thoseare the “ teeth “ they mention. Those arms were available in Australia immediately after the termination of World War II., although they are absent now.

Sitting suspended from 11.28 p.m. to 12.15 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 6 June 194-7

Senator SAMPSON:

– The argument in favour of collective, security might appear to be sound, and countless people have come to believe in it, but I regardit as a faulty argument. The theory underlying it is based on power. The main contributors to any organization such as the United Nations would be the nations which are now strong in arms. I suggest that those nations are the United States of America, the Soviet Republics of Russia, and the British Commonwealth of Nations. In effect, therefore, collective security would rest upon those three nations to determine when force should be applied. That means that those three nations would have to surrender their sovereignty. It cannot mean anything else. Those who talk of a league with teeth in it are, in the strict sense, talking nonsense. We cannot exhort nations to give up their sovereignty and at the same time advise them to maintain their national strength. Before the waT Winston Churchill summoned Britain to retain it3 strength and not to cast it idly away; but his voice went unheeded. However, in the hour of danger Mr. Churchill again arose. He instilled into the people of Britain a sense of their own greatness and emboldened the nation to defy the terrible danger besetting it. At the elections held after the war was over, Britain rejected Mr. Churchill, not because the people were ungrateful to him, but because they did not understand the spirit for which he stood, the spirit which made the nation’s resistance possible, the spirit enshrined in his memorable words, “ I did not become first Minister of the Crown in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire “. In the moment of victory the speaker of those words was turned out of office and replaced by men who before the war had preached the surrender of the nation’s power, and in the first days of the new Parliament preached the same doctrine again.

The great nations to-day show the same contrast as they did before the war; Britain talks of the abandonment of sovereignty, whilst another nation is filled with a sense of its own strength and is asserting its sovereignty at every opportunity. That nation to-day is not Germany, but Russia. When I say that, I do not mean that Russia is going to war, but I do mean that if in the pursuit of an international institution Britain becomes unduly weakened, Russia will be tempted to take ambitious action. Britain’s moral influence and example in the world are higher than those of any other nation, but its ability to enforce its influence and example with power is not as great as it might be, because during the war the nation’s economic strength was dissipated. The problem before Britain is not how to divest itself of its power, but how to keep it at a point commensurate with its moral greatness. If Britain can do that, even in this tragic post-war period there is some hope for orderly and right living in the world. On the other hand, if Britain fails, as fail it will if it persists in entrusting power to an international organization, then the outlook, not only for Britain, but also for Australia and indeed the whole world will be dark beyond imagination. The lesson for us in Australia and of every other member of the British Commonwealth of Nations is the motto of Baden Powell and the boy scouts, namely, “ Be prepared “.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I assure Senator Collett that the departmental officers who were consulted about designing a stamp to commemorate the achieve ments of Lord Forrest have just as high a regard for that notable Australian as has any one else in this country. Long before his achievements were recognized by the conferring of a knighthood upon him) it was my privilege to meet Lord Forrest in 1896, at the official opening of the railway from Perth to Coolgardie. Later, I followed his activities with interest, particularly his great achievement of conveying water from the Mundaring pier, near Perth, to Kalgoorlie. I was just as anxious that a commemorative stamp should be issued-

Senator Collett:

– The reply to my communication was most discourteous.

Senator CAMERON:

– The honorable senator may place that construction upon the communication sent to him, but I assure him that there was no intention to be discourteous. Shortages of skilled man-power in Government departments made it impossible to depart from the programme already decided on. I also assure the honorable senator that when opportunity offers effect will be given to the matters referred to in the communication. A committee of prominent philatelists has been formed, and various designs will be submitted to it. I assure Senator Collett that proper recognition will be paid to the memory of the great Australian to whom he has referred.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– Senator Sampson is to be commended on many of the things contained in his speech, but I disagree with him regarding other matters to which he referred. From the time that the honorable senator entered this chamber until now he has, in season and out of season, advocated compulsory military training. During the first twelve years that he served in this Parliament, governments which he supported were on the Treasury bench, but they left Australia totally unprepared for war. More than compulsory training is needed to win a war. Even Senator Sampson will admit that soldiers require food, but he has always omitted to refer to facts of that kind.

Senator Sampson:

– Rubbish!

Senator AYLETT:

– The fact is that no preparations for war had been made when war broke out. No factories were making munitions, and we were completely unprepared.

Senator Collett:

– That is not true.

Senator AYLETT:

– Did honorable senators ever hear such a fairy story? It may be that a few rifles as well as a few bullets for rifle range practice were available, but honorable senators will recall that when war broke out the government of the day set about to obtain a few shot-guns to send to Britain. When Japan entered the war there was no equipment available for the men who returned from the Middle East, and so they had to bring their equipment with them.

Senator Collett:

– The honorable senator is completely ignorant of the facts.

Senator AYLETT:

– I am only repeating the cold, hard facts which have been related by the leaders of the country, and not the opinions of rank-and-file members of the Opposition.

Senator Collett:

– Can the honorable senator explain what he said a moment or two ago?

Senator AYLETT:

– I shall not go into details now. The honorable senator is entitled to express his own opinion, as Senator Sampson has done. The latter has already gone through the third world war in one speech. In the war of 1914-18 Australia raised a volunteer force of 3S0,000 men. Yet, he now says that the rising generation of Australians have not the stomach, or sufficient patriotism, to volunteer for the defence of this country. He said that not 50,000 Australians would be prepared to volunteer for that purpose. That is an insult to our young men. The honorable senator is constantly preaching compulsory military training in order to ensure that we maintain an adequate army, navy and air force. Surely, he knows that not one man has ever been conscripted for service in our air force or navy. However, with World War II. hardly concluded, the honorable senator resumes preaching fascist military compulsion in preparation for another war. I have not the slightest doubt that the average young Australian man is sufficiently patriotic to. undergo military training, provided that the Government ensures that he shall be trained under proper conditions. Whilst other honorable senators opposite have been constantly urging the Government to lift controls of all kinds, Senator Sampson continues to advocate the imposition of the worst of all controls, namely, compulsory military service in time of peace.

However, I rose to speak on matters of more importance at the moment. The first has an important bearing upon’ the Government’s plans to rehabilitate exservice personnel by enabling them to settle down in their own homes. It relates to land sales control which comes within the jurisdiction of the Treasury and is dealt with by officers of the SubTreasury in each State. It is provided that in respect of any subdivision of land for residential purposes no blocks can be sold without the approval of the Treasury, and that power is delegated to the officers I have mentioned. However, under local government by-laws in Tasmania, the owner of land subdivided for homebuilding purposes must construct streets and footpaths throughout the subdivision, and no block is allowed to be sold until that requirement has been fulfilled by the vendor. At the same time, all values are fixed under Commonwealth regulations at the level of values prevailing in 1942. I have no quarrel with those regulations, because I know that they are designed to prevent inflation and to maintain the purchasing power of the wages of the workers at the highest possible level. However, since 1942 the cost of constructing streets and footpaths has increased by over 100 per cent. I took up this matter personally with the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), who informed me that he would allow the increase of the cost of constructing streets and footpaths to be added to the value of each block of land. I am not aware of any subsequent decision having been made by the Government in this matter; but officers of the Sub-Treasury in Tasmania informed me that they were required to provide that the value of any block of land could be increased by only 20 per cent, in order to offset the increased cost of the construction of streets serving such block. Under that provision, the vendor of high-priced blocks would probably show a profit on the sale of that land, but the vendor of low-priced blocks- would show a loss. I have taken up many individual cases with success with the department; but I was informed only as recently as yesterday that Mr. Murray, the officer at the Sub-Treasury, Hobart, who had been handling this matter, has delegated his power to an officer who recently arrived at that office from New South Wales, and that the latter, who is not familiar with local conditions in Tasmania, has laid down the policy that the value of any block of land may be increased for this purpose by only 50 per cent, of the increase of cost of constructing streets and footpaths since 1942. This will mean that owners of land recently subdivided will decline to sell blocks for home-building purposes, because of the low values which will be assessed in respect of each block. They realize that any sales of home-building blocks under those conditions would result in a loss, having regard to the increase of the cost of constructing streets and footpaths for which adequate compensation is not allowed under the new arrangement.

One way of overcoming this difficulty is to allow the vendor to pass on the increased cost of constructing streets and footpaths in the sale price of homebuilding blocks. As thousands of ex-service personnel are endeavouring to purchase blocks on which to build homes, this matter calls for urgent consideration. I do not agree that purchasers should be obliged to carry the burden of that increased cost. At. the same time, if vendors are not allowed to pass on that increase of cost to purchasers, probably 95 per cent, of blocks now available in new sub-divisions in Tasmania will be held off the market. The increased cost of constructing streets and footpaths should be borne by either the State or the Commonwealth Government, or both. When a main road is constructed, persons who own properties fronting it are not asked to bear the cost of constructing that road. In. no case are the owners of properties fronting main streets in any city in the Commonwealth obliged to bear the cost of constructing that thoroughfare. The difficulty I mention arises under laws which have been passed only in recent, years, and, therefore, bear most heavily on. the rising generation. The time has arrived when the State and’ the. Commonwealth

Governments should shoulder the whole of the increase of the cost of constructing streets and footpaths since 1942. Otherwise, purchasers of home-building blocks will.be obliged to bear “that cost, whilst persons who built their homes some years ago will not be obliged to make any contribution whatever of that kind in respect of their properties. I urge the Government to overcome this difficulty, particularly in view of the fact that all land in Tasmania, including urban properties, are to be re-valued in the near future. If the Commonwealth has anything to do with that matter, it should appoint a competent valuator for that work, and ensure that he does not delegate his duties to somebody else who does not know anything about local values in Tasmania. Only a valuator who has an intimate knowledge of the varying conditions in Tasmania is competent to do work of that kind in that State. As I understand that the officer in the Sub-Treasury at Hobart, to whom Mr. Murray delegated his power, is not an experienced valuator, I ask the Government to check up on his experience in these matters. My information is that he was not a valuator but an engineer in a country centre.

The second matter which I raise deals with the serious disability being suffered by residents of Tasmania and islands in Bass Strait as the result of the shortage of shipping. Whenever I have made representations on this matter to the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) he has given sympathetic consideration to my requests. I have in mind the two most important island’s between Tasmania and the mainland. The only ships which ply to those islands are owned by W. Holyman and Sons Proprietary Limited. The residents of those islands have complained to me about the service provided by that company. 1 shall cite a typical case. It i3 that of a farmer who, when visiting Melbourne, purchased a tractor which the distributors guaranteed to ship within fourteen days. He paid for the tractor, but it was not delivered until six months later. On his behalf, I got in touch with the firm of distributors, and’ they informed nae that they could not get the tractor shipped, and that when they did so they were obliged to indemnify the shipping company in respect of all risk of damage or loss. At the two last general elections Government candidates gave a pledge that the Government would, if necessary, make its own vessels available to provide an adequate service to Tasmania and the islands surrounding it. In view of Tasmania’s isolation, that was not an unreasonable undertaking. I understand that vessels are now being built and sold by the Government shipyards. Therefore, I urge the Government to honour its pledge to the people of Tasmania to guarantee them an adequate shipping service, and to refuse to allow them to be left to the mercy of any shipping company, such as Holy man and Sons.

To-day, the people of Tasmania generally are obliged to wait for shipping accommodation until the cargoes of persons and organizations having trade connexions with Holyman and Sons, or any of its subsidiaries, have been handled. The others have to wait until more shipping space is available. That difficulty could be overcome by putting a Commonwealth-controlled vessel on the island run. Shipping difficulties have always existed in the island trade, and these difficulties may be more serious in the future. As the Commonwealth Government is building ships, surely it could commission some of them under its own control to run on these routes. The provision of the requisite finance does not seem to present any difficulty these days. Apparently, if finance is required, it can always be raised by loans, or obtained from the Commonwealth Bank. During the war, a large army of men and women was engaged on loan work. Quite recently, I noticed that there is still quite a considerable number of people carrying out these duties. Surely the time has arrived when it is unnecessary to keep a large staff permanently employed on loan work, particularly in view of the fact that the last loan was over-subscribed a week or a fortnight before the closing date originally announced.

Another matter to which I draw the Gocvernment’s attention is the waste of money incurred in inserting large loan advertisements in daily newspapers and periodicals throughout the Commonwealth. I have asked a question in regard to the cost of these advertisements, and, no doubt, I shall receive an answer in due course; but the sum involved must be large. I am sure that the advertisements are not worth the money that is spent on them. Broadcast appeals over the national stations would be adequate. There is no need to bolster the revenues, of the daily press, which so often criticizes and misrepresents government policy.

I notice that certain State governments are wasting the taxpayers’ money by contesting the uniform tax legislation in the High Court. I point out that, under that legislation, taxpayers generally are better off to-day than they were prior to the war. In Tasmania, for instance, a taxpayer with a wife and one child, in receipt of an income from £200 to £300 a year, pays approximately £5 a year less under the uniform tax scheme that he did under the dual system operating prior to the war. Therefore, it is against the interests of the people generally that an attempt should be made by the States to have the uniform tax legislation declared invalid. Such action is only a. waste of State funds. Nobody wants to go back to the old system under which two separate income tax returns had to be made. I strongly support the uniform tax scheme, and hope that the States will show some common sense. Instead of wasting money in contesting this legislation, they would be rendering a greater service to the community if they were to devote these funds to the construction of more homes or to the development of the States generally.

I come now to a matter concerning the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard), namely, the position of Tasmanian fruit-growers. Before the war, it was not uncommon for 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 bushels of apples to be exported from Tasmania to Great Britain in one year. During the war, of course, when overseas markets were lost, the Commonwealth came to the assistance of appin p.nd pear-growers by introducing the apple and pear acquisition scheme, which saved many orchardists from ruin. If sufficient snipping space is available to carry adequate quantities of fruit to Great Britain, Tasmanian growers will not require any assistance; but. if ships are not forthcoming, and I am afraid that they will not be available judging by present difficulties in the interstate shipping services, I hope that the Commonwealth will continue the acquisition scheme until additional shipping can be provided. Several honorable senators opposite have stated in this chamber recently that there are huge surpluses of food in this country that could be sent to Great Britain. If they were speaking of fruit, they were quite correct ; but they know quite well that lack of shipping space has been the cause of this state of affairs. Again I urge the Government to ensure that vessels shall be made available to carry fruit from Tasmania to Great Britain. If this cannot be done, the apple and pear acquisition scheme should be continued for another year.

Senator COOPER:
Leader >f the Opposition · Queensland

– I feel obliged to say a few words in refutation of some of the statements made by Senator Aylett in regard to the alleged unpreparedness of this country when war broke out. First, I should like to congratulate Senator Sampson upon the well thought out speech that he delivered on the defence of this country. The honorable senator has been in this chamber since 1925, and at all times he has taken a keen interest in defence. Whatever may be said against him by his political opponents, they must give him credit for being consistent in his advocacy of defence preparedness. In that regard, the honorable senator has been just as consistent as certain honorable senators opposite have been in decrying preparations for war. In 1929, the Scullin Labour Government abolished compulsory military training and closed the Royal Military College, Duntroon, and the Royal Naval College, Jervis Bay. It also laid up naval vessels and put many of the men who had served in them on the dole. Senator Aylett claimed that pre-war antiLabour governments made no preparations for the defence of this country. If he will peruse the pages of Hansard, however, he will find that members of the party to which he belongs strongly opposed the provision of £10,000,000 for defence in the 1939 budget, and at a later date did everything possible to prevent Australian soldiers from being sent to the Middle East. The honorable senator spoke of the manufacture of arms and munitions. The late John Curtin, who became Prime Minister of this country in the difficult days of October, 1941, commended the previous Government upon the excellent foundations that it had laid for the production of war equipment.

Whom are we to believe? The honorable senator, who knows nothing about defence, or John Curtin, who was man enough to express appreciation of what had been done by his political opponents? I visited munitions undertakings in Melbourne in 1940 and saw the famous 25-pounder gun and the 3.5- inch anti-aircraft gun, both of which rendered splendid service during the war, coming off the assembly lines. Our aircraft production industry was also well under way at that time. Certainly it was not producing the latest types of bombers and fighters hut it was producing aircraft, and men were being trained in the skilled trades associated with that work. It was only necessary to obtain plans and blue prints of the latest aircraft from Great Britain to enable the production of these aircraft to be undertaken. Does Senator Aylett recall that we sent millions of rounds of small arms ammunition and thousands of rifles to Great Britain when that country was in distress after the evacuation of Dunkirk? I have stated only a few of the things that were done, yet the honorable senator says, “Not a thing was done”! Either the honorable senator tried deliberately to mislead the Senate, or he does not know anything about the subject which he attempted to discuss. I prefer to believe that the latter is the case. I also point out to him that Mr. Essington Lewis, Mr. Hartnett and others who were placed in responsible positions in the munitions production organization were retained in those positions when the Labour party took office. The late Mr. Curtin realized what these men had done for the country and agreed that they should be allowed to continue the work of building up the magnificent organization which was a great factor in winning the war in the Pacific area. I pay tribute to the thousands of men and women who entered the armaments industries and helped considerably to bring final victory to our side.

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

– in reply - I am sorry that Senator Collett has been disappointed in regard to the request that he made to the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron). I believe that the Postmaster-General has explained the position adequately and T hope that Senator Collett will leave this chamber satisfied that the Minister did what he could for him. Having occupied the post of Postmaster-General, I understand the procedure that is followed. A committee deals with the production of stamps, and it prepares a programme. One factor which militated against the production of a stamp to commemorate Lord Forrest was the fact that the honorable senator made his request too late. Had he submitted it earlier, the PostmasterGeneral might have been able to accede to it.

Senator Sampson dealt with the defence programme. “We all appreciate that he has had a great deal of military experience and is an authority on defence. Nevertheless, I do not agree with his criticism of the Government’s defence plans and of the Australian fleet. Our navy may. not be as up-to-date as possible, but that state of affairs is usual after a war. I believe that every one will agree that wars of the future will be on a more scientific and technical basis than ever before. With increased knowledge of atomic energy, wars may be fought at extremely long range, in which event large numbers of trained troops will not be required. If Senator Sampson were a member of the Government to-day, he would be guided by his advisers in relation to defence. The Government has relied on the advice of its experts, just as anti-Labour governments always did. Any criticism of the Government’s policy in that respect is not justified. Furthermore, our defence plans have been drawn up _ after close consultation with the United Kingdom Government. Senator Sampson suggested that large sums of money be devoted to the development of radar. I agree that we must examine all avenues of scientific progress in order to provide the nation with the best possible measures of defence. The Government recognizes this fact and is pressing on with research and investigation in co-operation with the British Government. The honorable senator also referred to the forthcoming visit of Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, who will confer with the Government on defence problems. I presume that the Opposition parties, if they were in power, would also confer with Lord Montgomery. Can Senator Sampson suggest any other person who might be better able to advise the Government ? I am not aware of any such authority.

Senator Aylett referred to allowances made for street construction in land valuations. He said that he had already discussed this matter with departmental officials and had been successful with some of his representations. I shall bring this matter to the notice of the Treasurer. The honorable senator also referred to Tasmanian shipping services. The Government, and officials of the Department of Supply and Shipping, appreciate the importance of shipping services to the residents of Tasmania, and, therefore, provision has been made for an equitable allocation of vessels to the Tasmanian trade. I cannot at present hold out any prospect of the establishment of a Commonwealth line of steamships. One impediment to the achievement of this desirable object is that, although money is available, man-power and materials are in short supply. Consideration will be given to the proposal, but it cannot be implemented in the immediate future. I shall also bring to the notice of my department Senator Aylett’s representations regarding the provision of better shipping services to islands in Bass Strait. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) referred to defence and spoke of what had been done by antiLabour governments. I have no desire to take away any of the credit that is due in this connexion to the governments which preceded the Curtin Labour Ministry. Recriminations can be of no help in planning for the future, which should be our chief concern. The Government is doing its utmost to safeguard the welfare of the nation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second* Reading.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to secure an appropriation of £68,1S9,000, which is required to carry on the necessary normal services of Government for the first four months of the financial year, 1947-48’. The provision may be summarized under the following heads : -

The bill provides only for the estimated requirements to carry on the essential services on the basis of the’ provision in the Appropriation Act passed by Parliament for the current year. The amounts set down for ordinary services represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one-third of the 1946-47 appropriations. It is estimated that, after excluding special appropriations, the total expenditure on Defence and Post-war, 1939-45, charges will approximate £40,000,000. This amount indicates a substantial reduction of expenditure compared wilh the monthly average for last year. The usual provision is made in the bill for “ Advance to the Treasurer the amount being £9,000,000. This amount is required mainly to carry on uncompleted civil works which will be in progress at the 30th June, and also to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure. No provision has been made for any new expenditure, and there is no departure from existing policy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3521

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) lead a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has been introduced to provide for the appropriation of the sum of £18,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. The sum of £16,000,000 was appropriated last July, and the balance now remaining is only sufficient to cover payment of war pensions to the end of July next. After taking into account increases of pensions in accordance with proposed legislation recently submitted to Parliament, the amount now requested will meet approximately one year’s expenditure. Although there is some falling off in pension payments arising out of World War I., pensions in respect of World War II. are increasing. The following table shows the trend in both cases : -

Expenditure from the proposed appropriation of the sum of £18,000,000 will be divided almost equally between pensioners of the two wars.

Parliamentary approval is now required to permit ‘ withdrawal from revenue of the amount of £18,000,000 for payment to the War Pensions Trust Account, in order that pension payments may be made as they become due. This bill has no bearing on rates of pensions payable, but proposes merely to appropriate the amount required to effect payment at such rates as are approved by Parliament.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill is simply an appropriation measure to provide money for the payment of war pensions, and I am sure that honorable senators on this side of the chamber do not desire to delay its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3522

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the act where considered desirable to expedite the fulfilment of the country’s obligation to provide war service homes to the 20,000 applicants who have already lodged claims, and to the many thousands who will be lodging claims in the next few years. The amendments provided in the bill are divisible into five principal categories.

The first amendment proposed is designed to provide for the abolition of the position of commissioner, and his replacement by a Director of War Service Homes in the Department of Works and Housing. This proposal involves the transfer of the war service homes staff to that department, and will result in making available immediately considerable technical and administrative knowledge and experience. This will be particularly valuable in group building, and it is considered that it is essential that this method of construction be adopted if applicants are to be supplied with homes within a reasonable period.

The second amendment proposed is designed to provide for the acquisition by the Commonwealth of goods necessary for the provision of war service homes. The provision of this power is considered important in order to ensure that exservicemen and women receive that priority to which they are entitled. The authority is vested solely in the Minister.

The third amendment proposed is intended to provide for an increase of the maximum cost to the Commonwealth of the provision of a house, and the land on which it is erected, from £1,250 to £1,750. This is necessary to permit of the erection of homes of reasonable standard, with accommodation for a man with more than one child, in those States in which building costs are highest. If we are to expedite the provision of war service homes it is important that the Commonwealth should be in a position to undertake group building without delay. Having regard to the present cost of building, particularly in NewSouth Wales and Victoria, group building could not be commenced, even on the land purchased at cheap rates by the War Service Homes Commission, without exceeding the maximum of £1,250 provided by the act at present. Whilst this maximum will not necessarily represent the cost of the home and land, it is essential that in the provision of group building a number of homes should be erected with sufficient accommodation for a man with a family of more than one child. The figure of £1,750, fixed as the maximum by the proposed amendment, is based on experience of land and building costs over the last twelve months. As stated previously, the maximum amount permitted need not always be used.

The fourth amendment proposed provides for an increase of the amount of the advance which may be made under mortgage. It relates to advances under mortgage to a man who is able to deposit 10 per cent of the total value of the property in respect of which the advance is to be made. He is not limited to a deposit of 10 per cent. Under this proposal a home might be built for a much higher value than the advance made by the Government, but it is considered desirable to limit the Government’s advance to £1,500. The Government may be asked to discharge encumbrances on existing homes, and it is therefore proposed to increase the maximum amount of advance’from £1,250 to £1,500.

The fifth amendment proposed is intended to provide for the fixation of a minimum, as well as of a maximum, deposit for those who propose, under the rent-purchase system provided in the aci, to undertake the responsibility of purchasing a home costing more than £1,250. The provisions of the present act leave to administrative decision the determination of the amount of deposit in rentpurchase cases, but impose a maximum of 5 per cent. In view of increasing building costs and the value of homes erected, it is considered necessary for the Government to ensure that an applicant does not undertake the obligation of purchasing a home valued at more than £1,250 unless he is in a position to deposit at least 5 per cent, of the purchase money, because the amount involved and the financial implications are considered too great to be left to administrative decision.

Two further amendments of the act are also proposed. The object of the amendment proposed is to extend to eligible persons the opportunity to secure homes under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act, jointly with their wives or husbands, as the case may be. Existing provisions allow assistance to be granted only to the eligible party, and precludes a wife or husband erecting or acquiring a home as joint tenants. Land owned jointly by an eligible party and the wife or husband of that person, as the case may be, must now be transferred to the name of the eligible person before assistance may be granted. The amendment proposed will remove this bar and permit the Director to grant joint assistance to a husband and wife. Provision for assistance to be granted in this way has been requested both by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of’ Australia and by individual applicants, and has been advocated by tho Law Institute of Victoria on behalf of eligible persons. It is suggested as a reasonable method of providing assistance, which encourages saving towards complete ownership by the husband and wife, each having a personal interest in the knowledge that the home will pass to the other by survivorship. Sub-clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the proposed new clause are designed to empower the Director to grant assistance along the lines mentioned, and sub-clause 4 is intended to restrict transfer by either the wife or husband unless written consent of the Director is obtained.

The amendment proposed by clause 6a of the bill is designed to empower the Director to erect homes which conform to reasonable design and construction in any locality, irrespective of whether” such buildings contravene building ordinances adopted by local-governing authorities. It is not expected that circumstances will arise requiring the extensive exercise of this power, because it is. hoped that local governing bodies will co-operate as much as possible in efforts to alleviate the acute housing position. Nevertheless, it is desirable that the Director should have the power proposed to be conferred on him by this clause in order to ensure that the maximum use is made of land acquired for the erection of homes for exservicemen. It is desired to prevent land lying idle because of the operation of any law, by-law, ordinance or regulation of a State or local government authority which restricts building to a particular form of construction. For example, in areas proclaimed by local government ordinances for brick construction only, it may not be practicable to erect homes in brick because of cost, or some other consideration. On the other hand, it may be possible to provide comfortable homes of different construction which would provide reasonable living standards at a cost within the limits of the act and the ability of the exserviceman to pay. The proposed amendment is also designed to promote expedition in planning and erection of dwellings in groups. If the power sought is granted, it will override the authority of local government bodies, but it will be used judiciously and only where it is found necessary in the interests of exservicemen to depart from construction standards adopted by local government bodies. Sub-clause 2 of the proposed amendment is intended to protect exservicemen and subsequent purchases against actions or proceedings brought after the erection of the houses. Sub-clause 3 restricts the right of the Director to use the power to cases where it is deemed necessary to exercise it in order to provide houses expeditiously, and to cases where the houses are certified as being substantial and durable in construction, and not detrimental to health or safety.

The remaining amendments proposed in the bill are complementary to the proposed amendments already mentioned and do not involve any principle.

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– This bill has important features to which I shall refer as briefly as possible.. On previous occasions in the Senate I have discussed at some length the functions of the War Service Homes Commission and the success of its operations. The commissioner needs no apologist, but this “hill proposes, in effect, to abolish the commission and transfer its activities to the Department of Works and Housing. The reason advanced for this course of action is that the change will facilitate a programme or policy of group building.

Although group building may be considered a necessity at the present juncture when materials and labour are scarce and there is an acute shortage of houses, such a project is in direct conflict with the established policy of the commission, namely, to undertake to provide a home on a site, of a design, and at a price, suitable to the ex-serviceman who may apply for assistance. In adhering to this policy the commission has done most valuable work. If it is now to be absorbed into the routine of an ordinary government department, with the outlook that such a department usually has or acquires, 1 can foresee the complete forfeiture of that independence of action that has proved so valuable in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will reject clause 6.

As clause 7 confers upon the Minister power to require the delivery of goods, I should like the Senate to be informed whence that power is derived. At the moment, and in the absence of information to the contrary, the exercise of such power would appear to be unconstitutional.

I refer next to the increase of the amount of the advances that may be made oh the purchase of land and the erection of a house from £1,250 to £1,750, and to the lifting of onerous mortgages on which the advance is extended from £1,250 to £1,500. This is a liberal provision, but I rather fear the repercussions when prices fall and values depreciate. It does appear that it would be preferable for the Government to concentrate upon an investigation of and appropriate action in regard to price rates, .many of which are, I believe, fictitious.

On the matter of costs and interest rates I have received from the Western Australian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia a letter which reads as follows: -

page 3524

QUESTION

INTEREST ON WAR SERVICE HOMES

As it appears the Government is not prepared to accede to our request for reduction in interest rates on war service homes, and in view of the increased cost in building, the league requests that provision bo made for a special advance which could be called a supplementary loan. This loan would be granted to cover the increased cost of building over the normal cost.

A similar system is at present in force in New Zealand, and in our opinion this puts the ex-serviceman now wishing to build his own home in a position in which ho is capable of paying a reasonable weekly payment within his capabilities.

We recommend this supplementary loan should be made free of interest and should not be required to be repaid as long as the serviceman or his dependants occupy the dwelling as a home.

The normal cost of the building previously referred to, we recommend, should be based on ruling rates in 1939, and should be assessed by a sub-committee of the War Service Homes Commission.

I ask the Minister to give earnest consideration to these representations, coming, as they do, from a body of men that is closely in touch with the realities of the circumstances surrounding the great majority of those whose interests it guards. The remaining clauses of the bill are of a machinery character and do not need other comment.

I revert to clause 6 and the threatened abolition of the War Service Homes Commission. As this is the last occasion I shall have the opportunity to speak on “ returned soldier “ matters, I should like to make this general observation: I view with some concern the declining status in the community of the man who has fought for his country. In spite of the great services, acclaimed on all sides, which he has rendered to the nation, he and his organizations are being forced, slowly but surely, back or down on that scale of factors of importance in our national make-up. How often have we heard, and read, statements revealing to him all that it was claimed was being done on his behalf? How often have we heard it said, with tongue in cheek, that nothing is too good for him; and how often, too, have we seen the people who said these things cast their votes against his vital interests? This Government, or some influence behind it, is to blame for the situation that exists to-day. As a correspondent puts it to me “ There seems to be a determination, on the part of those who have authority, to destroy everything that the league has been building up for the benefit of exservicemen for over the last quarter of a century. Change seems to be the war cry on the part of certain people. Some would even change our freedom and democracy for the dreadful ‘ isms ‘ of other countries.”

The late Mr. John Curtin was a believer in the ex-servicemen being organized for the protection of those whose interests they represented - the wounded, the sick, the unemployed, and the widows and dependants of the fallen. He expressed himself as in favour of exservicemen having preference in employment. In this connexion we know of the opposition he met and how much that opposition is reflected in the terms of the Re-establishment and Employment Act - an unsatisfactory measure from which “ preference “ has proved to be a sham and “ re-establishment “ already a 50 per cent failure.

I cite the evidence of retrogression, and the existence of a malign influence, as follows : -

  1. The circumstances in which the Re-establishment and Employment Act was drafted and enacted. The terms of the act itself.
  2. The fact that the act may be, and has been, altered without reference to Parliament.
  3. The limitations, including that of time, set upon the giving of preference in employment, and the failure, in this respect, of the Government to observe the terms of its own legislation.
  4. The failure in operation of the land settlement scheme.
  5. The recent absorption into the Commonwealth Public Service of the staffs of the Repatriation Commission and War Service Homes Commission. Hitherto these two departments have been staffed entirely by ex-service personnel, which has provided - (i) a staff with a personal and basic knowledge of the functions of the departments, and (ii) a staff in which those needing the assistance of the departments have a maximum degree of confidence.
  6. The proposed abolition of the War Service Homes Commission which has provided over 30,000 homes for those who have applied for its benefits; and
  7. Some indications that it will not be long before the Government attempts to wipe out the Repatriation Commission and transfer its activities to the Department of Social Services.

It will be a bad day for Australia if the ex-servicemen’s organizations are broken up, their capacity for further national service neutralized, and their real and potential value as non-partisan public-spirited bodies destroyed. I am surprised that these organizations have not already reacted to the trend of ev ents. I fear that they have been either lulled into a false sense of security or are so busy within their own affairs as not to observe what is going on around them. I hope that their leaders will rouse themselves before it is too late, or that the Government will change its course before it forfeits the possible support of over 1,000,000 votes.

I make these comments because I have been a member of an organization for 28 years. I know what these men have done for Australia and what they are still capable of doing. I owe some allegiance to them and I do not want to see them discouraged or hurt.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

.Although Senator Collett has dealt fully with this bill in an able speech, I should like some information on a number of points. It is proposed to increase the maximum advance for a home from £1,250 to £1,750. I take it that that is due to the greatly increased cost of materials and that it has been found that a home suitable for a man, his wife and two children cannot be built to-day for £1,250. I point out however, that even at the low interest rate of 3f per cent., the repayment of a loan of £1,750 in twenty years would place a heavy milestone around the neck of an ex-serviceman for practically the whole of his lifetime. It would be impossible for him to repay such a loan at less than £2 a week. As it is reckoned on sound authority that the economic rental of a home is not more than one day’s pay a week, that would mean, on the basis of a five-day week, that the purchaser of a war service home would have to be in receipt of an income of at least £10 a week. Repayment at the rate of £2 a week, plus rates, taxes and maintenance, may be beyond the financial capacity of many ex-servicemen. I understand that the commission has acquired land for building purposes in all of the capital cities. I should like to know whether it has also acquired land in country centres for the same purpose. If not, is it intended to make similar provision in those centres where the housing shortage is just as acute as in the capital cities? The report of the War Service Homes Commission for 1945-46, the latest report issued, reveals that the commission’s administrative expenses increased to £84,762, or an increase of £27,760 over those for the previous year. I realize that preparations were probably being made during that year to expand the commission’s activities, but that report is a year old, and, possibly, administrative costs have increased in the same ratio this year. However, the number of homes constructed in 1945-46 will not justify such a large increase of expenditure in respect of administration. I ask the Minister (Senator Armstrong) to ‘explain the reason for that increase. I support the bill.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

– in reply - I suppose that in Senator Collett’s own mind there could be no happier circumstance under which he would prefer, to use his own words, to make his last speech in the Senate than in connexion with a measure dealing with war service homes. For some years he administered this department, and in that capacity he did a good job. Consequently, I appreciate his keen interest in the measure. He queried the transfer of the commission to the control of the Department of Works and Housing. That query naturally arises, because, after all, no change has been made in the organization and control of the commission during the last twenty years. However, the Government is strongly of opinion that this arrangement will do much to give impetus and strength to the homebuilding programme which it envisages. One has only to bear in mind the very large technical background available to the Department of Works and Housing to appreciate the value of this change to the commission. To-day, that department is probably the largest constructing organization in the Commonwealth. It now employs over 7,000 officers, and that fact gives some idea of its technical resources.

Senator COOPER:

– But are homes being built?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The department is doing a good job, not only in respect of housing, but also other important projects, such as the construction of the guided weapons testing range. All of its resources will be placed at the disposal of the War Service Homes Commission, and this arrangement should speed up the provision of homes for exservice personnel. The arrangement is also another indication of the Government’s desire to bring all of its employees directly under the control of the Public Service Board. Honorable senators will recall that some time ago we passed legislation under which the staffs of not only the War Service Homes Commission but also the Repatriation Commission were brought within the ambit of the Public Service Act.

Senator Collett:

asked whether the Government possessed power to order, confiscate or obtain by any other means, goods and materials essential to its housebuilding programme. That power clearly exists under the Commonwealth’s defence power. It is a continuing power which will remain so long as we require to use it in order to satisfy the needs of exservice personnel. No doubt exists as to the validity of that power.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) asked why the values of homes had been increased from £1,250 to £1,750. His assumption that it is due to increased costs of building in the two major States concerned is correct. I also assure him that the commission has acquired land for sites for war service homes in country centres as well as in capital cities. I am unable at the moment to give any details with respect to the administrative costs of the commission. I agree with him that the commission undertook very little construction during the war years. Evidently, the increase of administrative costs to which the honorable senator referred is due to gearing up for the programme ahead.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6. (Incorporation of Director).

Senator COLLETT:
Western Australia

– This clause virtually abolishes the commission in the form in which we have known it, and with the authority which has enabled it to do such excellent work in the past. I fear that if the commission is absorbed by another department it will lose the independence which has contributed so much to meeting the demands of its clients. The commission should retain complete power and such increased facilities as can be provided in these days to enable it to pursue its work untrammelled by control by an ordinary department which is hampered by many other responsibilities I oppose the clause.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 4

Majority. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 15 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3527

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE (Queensland-

Minister for Trade and Customs) [2.1 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to confer a measure of self-government on the residents of the Northern Territory. For many years prior to the war the territories of Papua and New Guinea had legislative councils. The Government feels that the time has now arrived when there should be a legislative council in the Northern Territory. Up to the present, all ordinances and regulations relating to the Northern Territory have been made by the Governor-General in Council and the residents of the territory have had no say in the legislation. They have to live and work in the territory and their experience and local knowledge must be of real value in the framing of legislation governing the country. The people of the Northern Territory and the northern parts of Australia generally are sound at heart and have a real, live interest in the progress and development of the country. They may be relied upon to elect representatives who will cooperate with the Government representatives in the passing of legislation which will be for the benefit of and in accordance with the requirements of the territory.

There will be considerable development in the northern parts of Australia within the near future and the Northern Territory, therefore, should have some say in the framing of its legislation, as is the case in the adjoining States. In view of the fact that the Northern Territory is not self-supporting financially, and the greater part of the expenditure on development must be provided by the Commonwealth, it is provided in the bill that there shall be a slight majority of Government members in the Legislative Council. It is further provided that an ordinance, vote, resolution or question, the object or effect of which is to dispose of or charge any part of the revenue of the territory, shall not be proposed in the Legislative Council except by the Administrator, unless its proposal has been expressly allowed or directed by him. Estimates of expenditure for the territory will continue to be provided in the estimates of the Department of the Interior.

The council will consist of -

  1. The Administrator.
  2. Seven official members, appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the Administrator.
  3. Six elected members.

The preponderance of official members will, therefore, be two. The majority of the official members will be heads of departments. In the Legislative Councils of Papua and New Guinea there was a larger preponderance of official members and the non-official members were nominated and not elected. Consideration was given by the Government to the nomination of the non-official members of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory, so that the various interests and classes in the territory could be represented. It was decided, however, that the members should be elected and efforts have been made to divide the territory into electorates which will return members representing all the various industries and classes.

The territory will be divided into five electoral districts, viz.: - Darwin district, Batchelor district, Tennant Creek district, Alice Springs district, and Stuart district. The Darwin district will be represented by two members and each of the other districts by one. The Darwin district will comprise the town of Darwin and the country immediately surrounding it as defined in the Darwin Lands Acquisition Act 1945. Darwin is the capital of the territory and the seat of the administration. It has a large percentage of the total population of the territory. The Batchelor district will comprise the whole of that part of the territory lying above the 20th parallel with the exception of the town of Darwin and its surroundings and the town of Tennant Creek. The greater part of this district is occupied under pastoral lease. The Tennant Creek district will comprise an area within a circle having a radius of 20 miles measured from the Tennant Creek post office. This is purely a mining district. The population consists of persons engaged in mining and the commercial community associated with the miners. The Alice Springs district will comprise an area within a circle having a radius of 10 miles measured from the Alice Springs post office. Alice Springs is the second largest town in the territory. The composition of its population closely resembles that of Darwin. The Stuart district will comprise all that part of the territory south of the 20th parallel, but omitting the Alice Springs district. The population of this district consists in the main of pastoralists. There is also a small mining community.

It is considered that the division of the territory into the five electoral districts mentioned should result in the elected members being fairly representative of the various industries and communities. Members will be elected whenever practicable at the same time as the

Commonwealth member for the territory in the House of Representatives. The first election, however, will have to be a special one. No salaries will be paid to members. The elected members will receive fees for the days they attend meetings of the council and travelling allowance for the period they are away from their homes.

The provisions of this bill have been drafted as closely as possible on the lines of those of the New Guinea Act. The Legislative Council will have power to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the territory. Every ordinance must be presented to the Administrator for assent, but those relating to the granting or disposal of Crown lands, the lease or grant of land or money or any donation or gratuity to the Administrator, or aboriginals or aboriginal labour must contain a clause suspending them from operation until the signification of the GovernorGeneral’s pleasure. Every ordinance must be laid before each House of Parliament. For a considerable number of years, the residents of the Northern Territory have been asking for some measure of local government. They have protested against the existing procedure whereby legislation for the territory is drafted and enacted in Canberra. This bill will confer upon the people of the Northern Territory the power to make their own legislation and the necessary precautions have been taken to ensure that the finances shall be protected.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill is a step in the right direction. It gives to the people of the Northern Territory a form of local government and, what is more important, it provides for a decentralization of the administration which hitherto has been in Canberra. Since the war, the Northern Territory has assumed a role of some importance, mainly from a defence point of view. The northern shores of this continent are practically uninhabited by the white race. Prior to the war, the white population of the Northern Territory was approximately 8,000, and of Darwin, approximately 5,000. According to figures issued ou the 30th June of last year, Darwin then had a population of approximately 3,100, and the total white population of the Northern Territory was 5,900. Undoubtedly there is a need to encourage settlement in the Northern Territory. Some encouragement has already been given by the continuation of the exemption from income tax of income earned in the Northern Territory. However, up to the present, the territory has been a field for big pastoral companies with immense holdings. The history of the settlement of Australia as a whole has been one of progress through the stage of settlement by large holding companies, to the subdivision of these estates for sheep stations, and for farming pursuits. Mining has also played a big part. “ That has happened in the Northern Territory.

For some years past, however, the territory does not seem to have advanced as quickly as it should have done. There are still huge cattle properties. A certain amount of mining is also done. However, it is hoped that the territory will follow the example of the other States and that small holdings will be taken up for pastoral and agricultural purposes. It is most important, particularly from the defence point of view, that some development of this type should take place. This measure indicates that a large sum of money will be expended on developmental work in the territory, and, as that money will be provided by the Commonwealth Government, it is only fair that that administration should have a majority of members in the proposed Legislative Council. I trust that this measure will bo the foundation of a general developmental policy for the Northern Territory, which, in the past, has been the Cinderella of the Commonwealth. I am confident that the development of this part of Australia will be rapid, and I hope that when sufficient progress has been made, a greater measure of self-government will be given to residents than is provided for in this measure. For defence reasons, if for no others, it is essential that the great open spaces in the north of this continent should be populated.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– in reply - I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) for his commendation of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3530

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1946-47

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this measure is to obtain parliamentary appropriation for the expenditure of an additional amount of revenue of £18,000,000 for war purposes. In recent years, it has been the practice, after making adequate provision to meet civil expenditure, to appropriate the balance of revenue receipts for war purposes. The gap between the total expenditure on war services and the available revenue is met from loan fund. In the budget for 1946-47, it was estimated that revenue receipts would aggregate £385,000,000. The provision for non-war items of expenditure was £223,000,000. The balance of £162,000,000 was appropriated for war purposes. It is now apparent that, because of increased revenue receipts and a reduction of civil expenditure, the amount of revenue available for war expenditure will be substantially greater than was expected when the budget was introduced.

As indicated in the financial statement presented to Parliament in March last, the prosperity of business and the high level of trade. turnover coupled with an increase of the volume of imports will result in the receipt of revenue considerably in excess of the budget estimate. It is now possible to furnish some details of anticipated increases of revenue. Customs and excise duties may yield an additional £13,000,000. A further £6,000,000 may be obtained from sales tax. Income tax may exceed the estimate by £13,000,000. Post Office revenue and other items will also show increases aggregating possibly £2,000,000. On the expenditure side, a net saving of about £6,000,000 is expected, mainly due to shortages of labour and materials for civil works. While it is still difficult to forecast accurately the final figures of receipts and expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the further amount of revenue available is estimated to be from £38,000,000 to £43,000,000. Of this anticipated amount of up to £43,000,000, £25,000,000 is to be appropriated by proposed legislation to make a gift to the Government of the United Kingdom towards the cost of its war effort. The bill now before the House appropriates the balance of £18,000,000 for war expenditure. Of this balance of £18,000,000, an amount of £4,000,000 is allocated for international post-war relief.

Australia has already expended or committed the whole of the Unrra contribution of £24,000,000. This was the fourth largest contribution to that organization. Unrra has done valuable work in providing for the relief and rehabilitation of war devastated areas, but its activities in both Europe and Asia are now coming to an end. Nevertheless, relief needs are still critical and members of the United Nations have been asked to make further contributions to cover requirements in 1947. This proposed further contribution by Australia will enable us to play our part in ensuring that the work commenced by Unrra shall not be left unfinished. In addition to providing for general relief supplies, the proposed allocation of £4,000,000 will cover contributions to the International Children’s Emergency Fund and the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Reconstruction Fund and also our first annual subscription to the International Refugee Organization.

The November budget provided for a total war expenditure of £221,000,000. It is anticipated that expenditure on some items will not reach the budget estimate. However, additional expenditure of £25,000,000 will be incurred in connexion with the gift to the United Kingdom. The total war expenditure for the year, including this gift, is now estimated at approximately £230,000,000.

The proposed appropriation of £18,000,000 will enable additional revenue to be applied to war expenditure, thus reducing the amount chargeable to the loan fund.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The speech by the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) discloses a surplus of £43,000,000, with which the money-bags of the Treasury are overflowing. Of this sum, £25,000,000 will be used as a gift to Great Britain and, of the remainder, £4,000,000 will be devoted to the International Post-war Belief Fund. The Opposition has no objection to these provisions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3531

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1947

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

page 3531

UNITED KINGDOM GRANT BILL 1947

Message received from the House of Representatives transmitting a copy of a message for the Governor-General recommending an amendment, and intimating that the House of Representatives had agreed to the recommended amendment with which it desired the concurrence of the Senate.

In committee (Consideration of messages and amendment) :

Governor-General’s recommended amendment. - After clause 1 insert the following new clause: - “ 1a. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.”

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

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

This bill contains no provision for fixing the date upon which it shall come into operation. Consequently sub-section 1a of section 5 of the Acts Interpretation Act applies. That sub-section provides that-

  1. . every act . . . shall come into operation on the twenty-eighth day after the day on. which that Act receives the Royal Assent unless the contrary intention appears in the Act.

The bill has passed both Houses of the Parliament, but its passage has taken rather more time than was expected. Consequently, if the provisions of the subsection I have mentioned are allowed to operate, the bill cannot come into operation until after the 1st July, 1947. In consequence, the authority to pay money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund contained in the bill could be exercised only in respect of the revenue for the financial year 1947-48. This is opposed to the Government’s intention, which is that the money should be a charge against the financial year 1946-47. The proposed amendment will enable this situation to be corrected.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3531

WAR GRATUITY BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to extend for a further period certain benefits conferred by war gratuities provided under the War Gratuity Act 1945. There are no fundamental departures from the principles adopted by the all-party committee which considered the matter, and the proposals contained in the bill are intended to meet circumstances which were not anticipated when the original act was drafted. Under the present act war service after the 2nd September, 1946, is not taken into account in the determination of eligibility for payment of war gratuities. It was hoped by the 2nd September, 1946 - twelve months after the cessation of hostilities - general demobilization of the forces would have been completed and the establishment based on a more or less post-war footing. However, it was not possible to complete general demobilization within that time, and the Government has decided that the date of entitlement for war gratuity shall be extended to the 30th June, 1947, and the bill proposes to give effect to this decision. A consequential adjustment is provided to ensure that members serving at the 2nd September, 1946, or who re-enlisted subsequent to that date, shall not suffer loss of interest on gratuity because of the extended date of enlistment. The War Gratuity Board, in applying the provision that a minimum of three years’ gratuity shall be available to a totally dependent close relative of a deceased member of the forces only if that relative is a beneficiary of the deceased’s will or intestacy, has advised that in certain instances deserving cases are deprived of benefits. The Government therefore proposes that the restrictive provision requiring a beneficial interest in the deceased member’s estate shall be removed in. respect of totally dependent close relatives.

A further proposal included in the bill is intended to provide a formal power of delegation of the powers of the Minister under the act. I am sure honorable senators will accept the measures outlined as being desirable and facilitating the administration of the principal act. It will be realized that no departure has been contemplated from the sound principles formulated by the all-party committee in its report. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I was a member of the committee which considered the original legislation, and the committee realized at the time that amendments might be required to the act. From a quick perusal in the short time available to honorable senators to consider the bill now before the Senate, it would appear that the proposed amendments are designed to advance the interests of exservice men and women, and, therefore, members of the Opposition have no intention of delaying the passage of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3532

SOCIAL SERVICE’S LEGISLATION DECLARATORY BILL 1947

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 3532

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The provisions of the Wine Export Bounty Act 1939-1944 relating to the payment of bounty on fortified wine exported lapsed on the 28th February, 1947. A. bounty at varying rates on fortified wine was in existence from September, 1924, until February, 1947, by virtue of successive acts, and when the present act was under consideration in the early part of 1946, it was decided to refer the matter to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report. On the 4th July, 1946, the following questions relating to the Wine Export Bounty Act were referred to the Tariff Board : -

  1. Is the continuance of the payment of a bounty on fortified wine exported after 28th February, 1947, justifiable?

  2. If the payment of a bounty is justifiable -

    1. What rate of bounty should be paid; and
    2. For what period should the bounty operate ?

After inquiry in the main wine producing States, the board in December, 1946, presented a full and comprehensive report on the questions submitted and the matter of wine bounty in general. ‘ To the first question, whether the continuance of a bounty was justifiable, the reply was in the negative. There was, therefore, no necessity to answer the second question in the reference. However, during the course of the inquiry, it was realized that a third matter, the disposal of the surplus money standing to the credit of the “Wine Export Encouragement Account, was so closely connected with the matters being examined as to require consideration, and, in consequence, the board took evidence on the matter and submitted recommendation s.

The report and recommendations by the Tariff Board were considered by Cabinet in January, and it was decided -

  1. That the payment of bounty on wine exported after the 28th February, 1947, be discontinued and the Wine Export Bounty Act be permitted to lapse, subject to recommendation (c) below.
  2. That the excise duty on fortifying spirit used in the fortification of wine be reduced from6s.6d. to 4s. a gallon, and any necessary adjustments of drawback made pro rata.
  3. That provision be made for the payment of bounty on wine sold to an overseas purchaser prior to the 30th October, 1946, but shipped after the 28th February, 1947, where, in the opinion of the Minister, such payment would be justified.
  4. That £500,000 of the credit held in the Wine Export Encouragement Account on the 28th February, 1947 be transferred to a trust account to be drawn upon at any time within five years of that date for the assistance of the wine industry if and when it be found, after inquiry by the Tariff Board that such assistance is necessary.
  5. That the balance remaining in the Wine. Export Encouragement Account after the transfer of the £500,000 to a trust account and payment of any claims on wine sold to an overseas purchaser prior to the 30th October, 1946, but shipped after the 28th February, 1947, be transferred to Consolidated Revenue.

Following a report by the Tariff Board to the Government, it was decided to pay a bounty to induce wine-makers to establish an export trade and to assist Australian grape-growers. There is no doubt that it has achieved its purpose, because prior to 1924 less than 1,000,000 gallons of wine was exported annually and immediately prior to the recent war exports amounted to approximately 3,700,000 gallons. At the same time grape prices were stabilized and growers were assured of a reasonable return.

On the outbreak ofWorldWar II it was feared that the industry would find itself in a precarious position because of the loss of overseas markets, but the slump predicted did not occur, as there was an unforeseen demand for wine within the Commonwealth. Exports fell from 3,619,000 gallons in the year 1939-40 to 1,550,000 gallons in 1944-45, but withdrawals from bond for home consumption in that period rose from 3,960,000 to8,330,000 gallons, while in the year 1945-46 withdrawals from bond amounted to 6,400,000 gallons. The figures I have given reflect the buoyancy of the industry in recent years and show that the consumption of wine within Australia is now practically double that of pre-war years. During the course of the inquiry it was freely admitted that in existing circumstances the industry could do without the bounty, but its continuance was requested on quite different grounds from that on which is was originally granted. Wine-makers contended that its continuance was necessary to protect the industry against local and overseas developments, which might operate to its detriment, and for the purpose of assisting Australian wine exports to compete with British and South African wines.

Honorable senators have had an opportunity to peruse the report made by the Tariff Board, and realize that for the reasons set out therein the board could not see any justification for continuing the bounty on the grounds mentioned, or on any other grounds. The board was satisfied that Australian wine-makers can, and should, take steps to protect themselves by organizing their export trade, and expressed the opinion that a bounty that would relieve the industry of the necessity for making the utmost effort to help itself would not be in the national interest. It will be seen that Cabinet has decided not to renew the WineExport Bounty Act 1939-1944. It is considered desirable, however, to provide for the continuance of the bounty in certain limited circumstances and this is the main purpose of the bill now before the Senate. There may be cases of long standing unfulfilled contracts with overseas purchasers where, through factors beyond their control, wine-makers have not been able to avail themselves of the usual commercial safeguards or have not been able to sell at sufficiently remunerative prices to return a reasonable margin of profit.

It is proposed to authorize the payment of bounty on wine sold to an overseas purchaser prior to the 30th October, 1946, but shipped after the 28th February, 1947, in respect of which the exporter satisfies the Minister for Trade and Customs that the price at which the wine was sold did not return a reasonable margin of profit or that for some other reason the payment of bounty is justified. There are many aspects that will need to be taken into consideration in deciding whether the bounty is justified and each case will have to be dealt with on its merits. For this reason it is necessary to give the responsible Minister wide powers in the matter and the bill has been drafted accordingly. Honorable senators will be aware that the price paid for grapes has invariably been associated with the payment of a bounty to winemakers and that certain minimum prices for grapes were determined each year under the Wine Export Bounty Act, and in later years under the National Security (Wine Industry) Regulations also. The National Security Regulations in this respect remain in operation until the end of this year, but thereafter no provision has been made in regard to grape prices. It is not considered that grape-growers will suffer as a result of the cessation of the wine bounty. It is an established fact that for some years past growers have regularly received prices far in excess of those determined, and there is reason to believe that enhanced prices will continue. If at some future time conditions should change and some control over grape prices be called for,, consideration can be given to the question in the light of the circumstances then existing.

The matter of the disposal of the sur- ‘ plus in the Wine Export Encouragement Account has received consideration, and provisions regarding the disposal of the balance, which now amounts to £1,110,000, are incorporated in the bill. This account is maintained by regular transfers from revenue of an amount of 2s. 6d. for each proof gallon from the excise duty on fortifying spirit, and bounty is paid therefrom. The Wine Export Bounty Act provides that the balance standing to the credit of the account on cessation of bounty shall be paid to revenue. Wine-makers maintain that this fund was established by means of a levy on the industry itself - at the industry’s sole cost - and that, therefore, no portion of the balance, except a small allocation to cover administration costs, should be treated as general revenue, but that it should be used in the interests of the industry. It cannot be conceded that the excise duty on fortifying spirit is a levy on the industry itself, for the reason that such excise duties are regarded as a source of revenue which the consumer pays in the same way as he pays duty on other excisable goods. Further, the Government cannot agree that the industry is in need of assistance, under existing conditions, to enable it to further its interests either in Australia or overseas. Nevertheless, it is recognized that difficult trading conditions may occur at. some future time, and as a safeguard the bill provides for an amount of £500,000 to be placed in a trust fund for the assistance of the industry at any time within the next ten years if such assistance is deemed to be warranted. The period of five years, as decided by Cabinet, for which- this fund would remain in existence has been extended to ten years at. the request of the industry. A reduction of the rate of excise duty on fortifying spirit necessitated an amendment of the excise tariff, and steps have been taken in that direction. The reduction from 6s. 6d. to 4s. for each proof gallon represents the amount previously transferred from revenue to the trust account for the maintenance of bounty payments.

Except in the particular instances which this bill is designed to cover, it is clear that a bounty on wine is no longer justified. I commend the bill to honorable senators for favorable consideration.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I understand that representatives of the wine industry made representations to the Government in an attempt to persuade it not to amend the existing legislation along the lines indicated in this bill, but that the Government, being anxious to get its hands on the money extracted from the industry, has compromised’ with the wine exporters. Although this is an important South Australian industry, I have not received any requests from those engaged in it to oppose the bill.

Senator COURTICE:

– I think that they are satisfied with it.

Senator McLEAY:

– Probably that is se; but it may be they are not optimistic as to their ability to change the mind of the Government. From my experience of the reception given to suggestions from the Opposition in this chamber, I can understand such an attitude on their part.

It may be well to emphasize that the Government has never given financial assistance to this industry. That applies to previous governments as well as to the present Government. All moneys raised to pay an export bounty on the wine is derived from a tax on spirits. That is a tax on a primary industry which employs a great number of exservicemen. Out of the yield from that tax a certain amount is used to encourage the export trade in wine. An interesting feature of the wine-making industry which, in addition to giving employment to a great many Australians, has a large amount of capital invested in it, is the greatly increased consumption of wine throughout the Commonwealth during the last five or six years. The wine consumed in Australia has practically doubled in that period. This is an important industry, and we should do all we can to encourage those engaged in it to manufacture only first-class wines. If the sales of wine on the Australian market continue to expand as they have done during the last five or six years, it would appear that there are no serious problems ahead of the industry.

Senator LARGE:
New South “Wales

– This is a most commendable bill. When I was abroad, a few months ago, I found general astonishment that Australia was not doing more to cultivate an overseas market for its wines. The people of other countries are keen to obtain them, and they consider that the Australian product compares most favorably with the best wines manufactured in any other country. Even the cheaper brands of champagne manufactured in Australia are considered second only in quality to the best Spanish champagne. Generally speaking, the industry is on a sound footing, and if it cultivates the home market there should be no need for further assistance to it in the form of a bounty.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– in reply - As indicated by Senator McLeay, who is keenly interested in this important industry, representations were made to the Government when this legislation was being drafted. Those representations were carefully considered, and I believe that the interests concerned are satisfied with the result. Of the amount in the fund - a little over £1,000,000- the sum of £500,000 has been set aside to meet any contingency that might arise during the next ten years. Originally, a period of five years was thought to be sufficient, but, because of the representations to which I have referred, the Government agreed to extend it to ten years. Should any unforeseen danger threaten the industry, there will still be about £500,000 in the fund to meet it. I am keenly interested in the wine-growing industry,, and shall always do what I can to ensure that it shall be adequately protected and given every encouragement. Although I have not had an opportunity to study the industry closely, I am confident that those associated with it are satisfied with the Government’s proposals.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3535

STATES GRANTS BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the payment during the current financial year of further special grants aggregating £1,078,000 to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The payment of these further grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in a report which was received recently and was tabled in the Senate last week. These grants are additional to grants amounting to £3,670,000 which were recommended by the commission in its thirteenth report in October, 1946. The payment of those grants during 1946-47 was authorized by Parliament in the States Grants Act 1946 which was assented to in December of that year.

As honorable senators may be aware, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has over the years adopted the principle that special grants should meet the financial needs of the claimant States provided that the severity of taxation and other charges and the scale of services in those States are not out of line with standards derived from the practices adopted- in States not receiving special grants. To implement this principle a thorough examination is made by the commission of the finances of both the claimant and the non-claimant States. Since the information required for this examination is not available for some time after the close of the financial year, the grants assessed by the commission in any year are based, in the first instance, on the budget results of the States two years previously, and are designed to meet the financial needs of the claimant States two years previously. One result of this procedure is that by the time the assessed grant appears in a State’s budget it may, especially in a period of rapid, change, be greater or less than the current financial needs of the State. Accordingly, the commission has, when considered necessary, followed the practice of recommending either that payment of portion of the assessed grant be deferred or that a payment additional to the assessed grant be made.

In the light of such information as was available when it presented its thirteenth report in October, 1946, the commission formed the opinion that the grants assessed for South Australia and Tasmania on the budget results of 1944-45 would be insufficient to meet their needs in 1946-47. Accordingly, the grants recommended by the commission and approved by Parliament in Decem- ber last in respect of the current year 1946-47 were made up as follows: -

In March of this year the Premiers of the three claimant States applied for further special grants in respect of 1946-47 on the ground that the grants already approved would prove substantially inadequate to meet their current financial needs. These applications were referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for report.

From the commission’s report, it is clear that the finances of these States have deteriorated this year to a degree not anticipated by the commission. The main causes of this deterioration, as explained by the representatives of the claimant States in evidence before the commission, may be stated briefly as follows: In the first place, a serious decline has occurred in the net revenues of the States’ business undertakings, particularly their railways. This has been due mainly to the decline of defence traffic, to increased costs of wages and materials, and to maintenance work which was deferred during the war years. Secondly, the claimant States have incurred large cumulative increases of expenditure on education and other social services as the result of rising costs and expansion of amenities. Thirdly, there has been a general increase of expenditures by reason of increased costs arising from wage and salary adjustments. It was also submitted by the States’ representatives that it was difficult for the States to adjust their revenues to rising expenditures because, in accordance with the price stabilization plan of the Commonwealth, the States refrained from increasing the charges made for State services, such as railway fares and freights.

After taking these factors into account, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has reached the conclusion that the

States’ financial difficulties this year have arisen -to a large degree from circumstances over which the States had little control, and that further Commonwealth financial assistance is necessary to meet the financial needs of the claimant States this year. Accordingly, the commission has “ recommended that the following further special grants, be paid in 1946-47 :-

The total special grants payable in 1946-47 to South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania would then amount to £2,000,000, £1,873,000 and £875,000, respectively, a total of £4,748,000. The commission has indicated that if these further special grants are approved they will he treated by the commission as advance payments to be taken into account when the financial year 1946-47 is under review and the grant for each claimant State for that year is assessed. In this way, the commission will ensure that the States do not receive a double benefit from the advance payments made this year. In the case of Western Australia, however, an amount of £153,000 included in the further special grant now recommended represents a payment which has been deferred since 1945-46. No adjustment, therefore, will be made in respect of this amount in a future year.

The commission has taken an unusual step in recommending further special grants. Nevertheless, after considering carefully the special circumstances, as set out in the commission’s report which have arisen this financial year, the Commonwealth Government has decided to adopt the Commonwealth Grants Commission’s recommendation that further special grants amounting to £1,078,000 be paid to the States concerned in 1946-47.

Senator McLEAY (South Australia) r3. 5 a.m.]. - I commend the Government for following the practice adopted ever since the Commonwealth Grants Commission was established of carrying out the recommendations of the commission to the letter. . The claimant States are, indeed, fortunate that the commission was established. It is obvious that those States require substantial amounts to enable them to maintain a reasonable Australian standard in their respective spheres. It is interesting to read in the report of the commission that it keeps a close check on wasteful expenditure. I look forward to the day when the Parliament will be able to give such attention to the needs of the three claimant States as will enable them to develop their economy to a stage when they will no longer be obliged to rely upon these grants. I thank honorable senators from the three financially stronger States for supporting the measure.

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

– Despite the hour, I feel the urge, in my interest in the work of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, to offer some comment upon the commission’s latest recommendations. Like Senator McLeay, I commend the commission for its valuable work in the sphere of Commonwealth and State financial relations. The States of Tasmania., South Australia and Western Australia are fortunate to have a body of this type impartially reviewing their needs. The commission, in its last formal report, its thirteenth report dated October, 1946, calculated what I may call the assessed grant to Tasmania for the current year, that is, based on the year of review 1944-45, at £665,000. But passing from the year of review to the year of payment, which is 1946-47, the commission had regard to the adequacy of the amount for that year of payment based upon the experience of the year of review, and, finding that financial and economic trends had adversely influenced events in the -State, it decided to make an additional payment. Accordingly, for the current year, in the course of its thirteenth report, it added to the upset grant of £665,000 the sum of £160,000. In its twelfth report dated the 29th August, 1945, the commission evolved a new principle of dealing with these additional sums which were, more or less, arbitrary assessments in the actual year of payment. In paragraph 86 of that report it says -

In future, when the commission decides that its estimate of current financial needs requires the payment of a sum greater than the amount assessed on the basis of the year of review, the additional sum will not be made in the form of an advance, but as an additional payment to meet the estimated deterioration in the budget. This change means that the additional payment will not ,be deducted from any future grant unless and until the conditions which rendered it necessary are reversed. No additional payment, therefore, will be deducted, in whole or in part, from a future grant unless the budget position has sufficiently improved to warrant the adjustment.

Applying that very recently determined principle to the year 1946-47, which we are now considering, it means that when the additional payment of £160,000 was determined upon that sum was to be treated as an additional payment and not as an advance to be deducted from some subsequent grant. Accordingly, I view with some particular interest the report of the commission upon which the recommendations accepted for the purposes of this bill are based. Paragraph 21 of the commission’s current report states -

It is appropriate- although the commission does not say why it is appropriate - that any additional financial aid to South Australia and Tasmania for 194G-47 which is approved by the Parliament should be in the form of an advance upon the grant to be assessed, in due course, for each of those States in respect of the financial year 1946-47.

And in paragraph 23 of the same report, the commission is fairly specific. It says. -

It is the commission’s intention to take any advances made in 1946-47 into account when the financial year 1946-47 is under review and the grant for each claimant State for that year is assessed.

That seems to imply that the commission is to treat the sum of £50,000, which is the additional amount recommended and provided for under this bill, not as the £160.000 will be treated, but as an advance against the grant to be calculated for the year 1948-49. I have indicated to the Senate that the commission has not gone into the reasons for this apparent departure from the principle so recently set up by itself in its twelfth report dated the 29th August, 1945. I am sure that if I am placing the proper interpretation upon the commission’s very brief references in the report now under consideration there will be considerable disappointment in the claimant States. It seems to me when the commission necessarily had to make an estimate earlier this year and determined that the assessed grant would be inadequate based on the year of review 1944-45, and settled upon the sum of £160,000 by way of additional payment and not by way of an advance to be subsequently deduced from some later grant, when it came in March last to a consideration of the unusual second applications of the claimant States and decided in the case of Tasmania that a further £50,000 should be paid, it was operating in the light of additional information not available to it earlier in the financial year, when it decided that the sum of £160,000 would suffice by way of additional payment. In the light of accounts of the State that have been developed in the interim it now has a clearer vision of the additional need of the State, having regard to the fact that nine months’ accounts have passed, and it decided that the £160,000 should be supplemented by an additional payment of £50,000 in the case of Tasmania. As the £160,000 was only an estimate and needed to be supplemented by the sum of £50,000, I am unable to see why those two amounts should be treated differently, the first being treated as an additional payment not to be deducted from any subsequent grant, but the latter amount being treated as an advance against some subsequent grant. I shall look forward to the next report of the commission, because I am sure that the commission will go into far greater detail in putting before the Parliament its reasons for the change in the principle it set up in August, 1945.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– As one who has taken a considerable interest in the subject of grants to the claimant States and as a representative of one of the standard States, I support the bill. I am pleased to note that additional grants are to be made to the three claimant States as the result of their budgetary position as disclosed by further examination. I support the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) in his remarks regarding the method in which the commission is treating this particular grant to Tasmania ; and like the Minister, I shall look forward to the commission’s next report when, possibly, more information will be placed before the Parliament. I should like some information in regard to the position of Western Australia. I have no complaint about the grant to that State, but I am wondering why the payment ‘of the £133,000 that is included in the further special grants now recommended has been deferred since 1945-46. Why was that amount not paid in 1945-46?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– in reply - The Grants Commission is always striving to improve the methods of calculating special grants and X am confident that the remarks of the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) and Senator Sheehan in this chamber to-night will be given consideration by the commission. No doubt, when the commission’s report is presented, a little later this year, explanations will be given. To Senator Sheehan I point out that the special grant of £153,000 to Western Australia in 1945-46 was not required by that State.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3539

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

, - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides £750,000 for the relief of cereal growers in New South Wales. The money will be paid to farmers whose crops failed during last season. During the last three years, Australia has suffered from severe drought, and for three successive seasons it has greatly reduced the cf-real crops of the nation. In spite of all efforts, this has meant that growers have not been able to produce satisfactory crops, and they have suffered grave financial losses because of crop failures. In each season there have been States and districts where crops have been satisfactory, while over a large part of the cereal belt there has been either complete or partial failure. From year to year the drought has hit different parts of the cereal areas, but in the three seasons it can be said broadly that practically every district has had two years of failure, and one fairly satisfactory year. In 1944. the areas badly affected by drought were South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and part of Western Australia. The following year, South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales again had extensive crop failures, and iD 1946 New South Wales was the chief area of failure.- The effects of the drought are well known to honorable senators. In the districts affected they have been disastrous, and it has been necessary to transport wheat interstate in large quantities to supply States which normally have a large surplus for export. Last year, Victoria had not sufficient local wheat for its own use, and during 1947 the Commonwealth is shipping 20,000,000 bushels of wheat to New South Wales and Queensland to provide the grain needed in those States. New South Wales is normally the State with the biggest export surplus, but the 1946-47 wheat crop was only 15,000,000 bushels, as against the normal crop of 55,000,000 bushels.

These disastrous seasons have come at a time when the world needs badly all the food grains that can be produced. It has reduced seriously Australia’s ability to supply food for overseas countries, and has completely frustrated our attempts to get back to normal production of cereals. The effects on our farmers have been serious. Some of them have had three successive crop failures, and a very large number have had two serious droughts in three years. The second drought came on them before they had any hope of recovery from the first one. In these circumstances, the Government of New South Wales requested assistance from the Commonwealth to provide relief for cereal-growers, and submitted plans for assistance to growers.

The position concerning relief for farmers is well established. Relief is a

State function, and normally the Commonwealth does not intervene. In cases, however, where the relief needed is on a. scale beyond the financial capacity of the State, the Commonwealth will assist. That is the position in this case. The losses caused by drought are so heavy and so widespread that Commonwealth assistance is necessary. In New South Wale3, it appears that about threequarters of the wheat crop, and a proportionate share of other cereal crops, have been ruined. This is equal to a loss of about a quarter of the whole Australian crop. As a result, the Commonwealth Government agreed to provide assistance on a £l-for-£l basis with the State, and the proposals for relief submitted by the State have been approved.

The methods of giving relief have become fairly well established as a result of our unfortunate experiences over the years, and the plans follow the lines of those adopted in the previous two seasons. These have worked well, and it is not considered they should be altered.

The relief is to be a grant to the growers. Because of the extent of the losses, loans would not be adequate. Growers should be assisted without having to face a future debt which would hamper their attempts to get into a satisfactory financial state in the coming years. There will be no means test. The extent of the drought and the overwhelming number of small growers affected show that the small saving effected would not be enough to justify the delay and irritation always associated with a means test.

Payment will be made direct to growers, and the State will ensure that the money ‘ cannot be attached by creditors. Government institutions, banks and companies are to be excluded, as the relief is intended for farmers, and not for governments nor trading concerns with farming as a side line. Belief is based on crop failure, with a yield of 6 bushels to the acre as the upper limit for assistance. The assistance will be graduated, with the maximum rate applying in cases of complete crop failure.

The assistance is given for the specific purpose of enabling growers to carry on their normal farming. It, is not intended as compensation for part losses, but it is aid to ensure future production. To qualify for assistance growers must continue their normal farming.

The bill is presented with the knowledge that honorable senators will give it sympathetic consideration. Our farmers have had an abnormal run of bad seasons. At best, Australia’s climate is erratic, and the consequences are that farmers must meet frequent seasonal losses. That is the normal farming risk, and governments do not assume any responsibility for normal farm losses. In bad seasons heavy losses often occur, and then the States can take the steps necessary to assist their growers. However, when the losses occur on the scale of the past three years the Commonwealth must assist because the aid needed cannot be given by the States. Australia wants full production on the farms, and the present measure has two features: First, it gives aid to our farmers at a time when they need it, and so ensures that they shall not have to bear heavy losses entirely on their own account; and, secondly, it provides the best means of keeping up our farm production. At present, the prospects for the coming season look reasonably bright, and this bill is presented with the hope that our cereal-farmers, after years of drought, will now have good crops to put them, back on a basis of sound and profitable farming.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– It is regrettable, indeed, that this loss of 25 per cent, of our cereal crops has occurred’ at a time when the world is short of food. In view of the losses that have been sustained in this country due to droughts in the last fifty years - I am speaking particularly of stock losses which have cost us many millions of pounds - the time has arrived when we should take some action to safeguard against droughts. We could, for instance, undertake long-range planning for water conservation. This, to a substantial degree, would ‘mitigate stock losses. The grant provided for in this measure is to assist cereal-growers in New South Wales. I commend the decision of the Government to provide this straight-out grant instead of assisting the drought-stricken farmers by way of loans which would have to be repaid. The absence of a means test is also a noteworthy feature of the measure. I give credit to the Premier of New South Wales, who has interested himself in obtaining this assistance for the farmers of New South Wales. Queensland farmers suffered to a similar degree, and I regret that the Queensland Premier did not approach the Commonwealth Government for assistance on their behalf.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

, - Like Senator Cooper, I deplore the necessity for this bill. Adverse seasons have made conditions extremely difficult for cereal-growers in Victoria as well as in New South Wales. Nevertheless, I do not begrudge the assistance that will be granted in New South Wales under this measure. I draw attention to the fact that the relief money will be paid from Consolidated Revenue. I mention this because, a few weeks ago, the Opposition, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, attacked the Government for honouring an agreement with the Government of New Zealand for the sale of wheat to that dominion. The Government informed the growers that the difference between the price at which their wheat was sold to New Zealand and the current market price would be paid to them from Consolidated Revenue. The Opposition in both chambers submitted special adjournment motions in order to protest against the action of the Government in paying that money from Consolidated Revenue.

Senator McLeay:

– That is not so. The protest was directed against a bad deal, providing for the sale of Australian wheat at half the market price.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– In the first instance, the protest was made on the assumption that the growers would suffer financial loss. When the Opposition discovered that the full price would be made up to the growers from Consolidated Revenue, it suggested that the Government was robbing the Treasury.

Senator McLeay:

– I rise to order, Mr. President. Senator Sheehan’s statement is entirely misleading.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not a point of order.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I said, during the debate on the motion in this chamber, that honorable senators opposite should choose their words carefully, because this Government had assisted primary producers considerably out of the Console dated Revenue fund. I did not expect at that time that I should have such, concrete proof of my statement so soon afterwards. This Government will always rise to the occasion when primary producers are in trouble. It has the interests of the people at heart. Honorable senators opposite will not be in a position to make such charges in the Senate again, but I hope that others who presume to speak on behalf of wheat-growers will not make such extravagant charges against the Government in future. I heartily support the bill.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I have just heard a most amazing statement by Senator Sheehan. I took the opportunity some time ago to move for the adjournment of the Senate in protest against the blunder of a Minister who sold wheat to New Zealand at 5s. 9d. a bushel, under an agreement operating for five years, when the market price of wheat was about three times that amount. The Opposition definitely supported the decision made by the Government, when it found itself in a corner, to appropriate money from Consolidated Revenue so that the growers would not sustain a total loss of £8,000,000. Senator Sheehan’s statement that we protested on the grounds that the money was to be taken from Consolidated Revenue was one of the most ridiculous that I have ever heard in the Senate. The protest was against the ridiculously low price in the agreement. It was a bad deal, a blunder, and the unfortunate taxpayers now have to pay £8,000,000 on account of the stupidity of a Minister. Senator Sheehan does not know what he is talking about; he had better stick to union advocacy. I could not let his statement pass without lodging an emphatic protest.

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– in reply - I thank honorable senators for supporting the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Payment for financial assistance).

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I assume that the Commonwealth will bear only half of the cost of assisting the cereal growers affected by this measure - in other words, that the Government of New South Wales will contribute an amount equal -to that provided by the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Courtice:

– - That is correct.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3542

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This, bill proposes to amend the Apple and Pear Organization Act, No. 58 of 1938, to provide for the reestablishment of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, constituted under that act for the purpose of regulating and controlling the export of apples and pears from the Commonwealth. This Board was set up in May, 1939, but, owing, to the outbreak of war, it had little opportunity to deal with other than preliminary matters before overseas exports ceased. Action was then taken to introduce the acquisition scheme under National Security Regulations, and a special authority named the Australian Apple and Pear Marketing Board was set up to admin:ster the scheme. I emphasize that the board with which this measure is concerned is the pre-war export board and should not be- confused with the emergency board created to handle the acquisition arrangements.

When the three-year tenure of office of the industry representatives on the Apple and Pear Board expired in 1942, action was taken to postpone the reappointment of members of the board until more normal conditions were operating. In view of the gradual restoration of our export trade, the Government now proposes to reinstate the Australian Apple and Pear Board so that a proper statutory body shall be available to advise and assist in dealing with the important industry problems likely to arise with the gradual rehabilitation of overseas markets. The board was composed of sixteen members originally, cOIn.prising eleven growers, four exporters, and a government member. As the Government holds the view that more effective administration would be achieved by a smaller body, the bill provides for twelve members in all, who will be representative of the following interests : -

The persons to represent the growers in the industry are to be elected by a poll of the growers and the representatives of other interests will be appointed on the nomination of the Minister.

It is proposed to strengthen the provisions of the act in relation to export control so that more effective supervision may be exercised for the orderly marketing of overseas exports, thus bringing this legislation into line with the marketing legislation for such other export products as dried and canned fruits. Concurrently with the passing of the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938, legislation was enacted to enable the Apple and Pear

Board to take action for the purpose of increasing and extending the consumption of apples and pears in Australia by means of publicity and research, and for the improvement of production in the industry. The funds for this purpose were to be derived from a tax on all apples and pears sold in Australia for consumption as fresh fruit. Because of the emergency conditions which arose within the industry at the outbreak of the war these measures were deferred and have not been put into effect. The Government does not intend to proceed with this levy on local sales of fruit and has provided for the repeal of the Apple and Pear Publicity and Research Act and the related Apple and Pear Tax Acts. Provision has been made in the amending bill, however, for an extension of the functions of the Apple and Pear Board to embrace the activities I have mentioned. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– The Opposition supports the bill. I am pleased that the Apple and Pear Board will include seven growers’ representatives, who will be elected by a poll of the growers. I think that is most important to the proper functioning of the board, more particularly since we are now looking forward to a revival of our export trade. The Opposition offers no objection to the measure.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I approve of this bill because it is based on democratic principles. If any board is to function satisfactorily it must include representatives of every section of the industry concerned. This measure provides that the board shall be representative of every section of the industry, including the employees, and I think that its constitution will prove of great value. However, I remind the Senate that when a similar bill was brought before the chamber some years ago to provide for the appointment of nominees of the Government, I moved an amendment that the appointment of members should he made in conformity with democratic principles, and I advocated that the growers’ representatives should be appointed by the growers. However, I regret to say that members of my own political party as well as that of the Government of the day rejected my proposal. I am pleased, therefore, that this Government has realized from experience gained during the recent war the necessity for the appointment of growers’ representatives on the board, and that the growers should choose their representatives. I support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill - by leave - considered as a whole.

Amendments (by Senator Courtice) considered together -

Clause 5 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the definition of “ grower “ and inserting in its stead the following definition : - “ ‘ grower ‘, in relation to a poll of growers taken for the purpose of this Act, means the occupier of an orchard of which not less than five acres is used for the growing of apples or pears or apples and pears;”.

Amendment. - Paragraph (b) leave out “the occupier of an orchard of which not less than five acres is used for the growing of apples or pears or apples and pears “, insert “ a person who carries on the business of growing apples or pears or apples and pears and, for that purpose, utilizes an area or areas comprising not less than five acres”.

Clause 6-

Section four of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting sub-sections (5.) . . . and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: -

Amendment. - Paragraph (b) before” (5.) “ first occurring, insert “ (4.) “.

Amendment. - Paragraph (b) before proposed new sub-section (5.), of section four of the Principal Act insert the following sub-section : - “ (4.) The member appointed as the Government representative shall hold office, unless sooner removed from office by the Governor-General, for a period of three years but shall be eligible for re-appointment.”.

Clause 13-

Section fourteen of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (7.) all the words from and including the word “ request “ to the end of the sub-section and inserting in their stead the words “ refer the matter to the Minister for determination “; and

by omitting sub-section (8.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - “ (8.) The Board shall give effect to any determinationmade by the Minister under the last preceding sub-section.”.

Amendment. - Paragraph (I) leave out “determination’; and”, insert “decision”.

Amendment. - Leave out paragraph (c), insert the following paragraphs: - “ (c) by omitting from sub-section (8.) the words ‘ an arbitrator, the arbitrator ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ the Minister, the Minister ‘ ; and “(d) by omitting from that sub-section the word ‘ arbitrator ‘ and inserting in its stead the word ‘ Minister

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 3544

APPLE AND PEAR EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE (Queensland-

Minister for Trade and Customs) [3.53 a.m.]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum charge which may be imposed on apples and pears exported from the Commonwealth. The Apple and Pear Export Charges Act provides for a maximum charge of¾d. a case, subject to a lower rate being prescribed by regulations. The actual rate at present prescribed is½d. a case. It is proposed to increase the maximum charge which may be imposed from¾d. to1d. a case. The whole proceeds of the export levies are applied to meeting administrative costs and other expenditure of the Australian Apple and Pear Board constituted under the Apple and Pear Organization Act. As the result of amendments to the Apple and Pear Organization Act, provision has been made for the board to undertake additional functions associated with the extension of consumption and the improvement of production of apples and pears in Australia. The increase of the permissible rate of levy is intended to provide for any additional revenue considered necessary or desirable to enable the additional functions of the board to be effectively discharged in the interests of the industry. I commend the measure to the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I understand that this measure is purely a machinery one, and therefore I support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3544

INTERIM FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New SouthWales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill which I now place before the Senate is to define the benefits which will be available upon discharge to members of the interim forces who enlist after the 30th June, 1947. Demobolization of the armed forces has been successfully accomplished and reestablishment of ex-service men and women in civil life has also been achieved to a very great degree. Associated with this question of re-establishment is the question of recognition of the services of those men who, though unable for various reasons to serve in the forces prior to the cessation of hostilities, are none the less offering their services to the country in the transitional period from a full war to a normal peace-time economy. The Government feels that it should recognize these services in some tangible form, and the bill is intended as the instrument to achieve this end.

Honorable senators will agree with the Government that the services of these men can hardly be placed on the same footing as the services of the men who enlisted or were called up for active service when the enemy was actively campaigning against us. Nor is it appropriate to apply the many special provisions which operate under existing legislation, principally that relating to re-establishment and employment, repatriation and war service homes for men who served in World War II. to men who have decided to make a career in one of the services. On the 16th May, details of the new conditions of service which will apply from the 1st July for men who enlist in, or are appointed to, the Permanent Forces on a long-term basis, were tabled in the House of Representatives. . These are the men whom we may fairly regard as making a career in the fighting services. Provision was not made for the men whose intended service is for a short period only - say for two years in the interim forces - after the 30th June of this year. .

It is to these men that the bill is specifically directed. Its provisions may be summarized under three headings - (1) Re-establishment leave, (2) legal assistance, (3) repatriation pensions and other benefits where appropriate. In respect of re-establishment leave, 30 days is provided where a member has been engaged for a period of not less than six months.; in other cases the leave is fifteen days. As regards legal assistance, the intention is to make the present service to servicemen, ex-servicemen and their dependants available also to enlistees after the 30th June, 1947. Benefits under the Repatriation Act include war pensions for members and dependants where a member is injured or dies on service.

Honorable senators will observe that provision exists in the bill for prescribing certain benefits by regulation. The intention is to provide some of the benefits prescribed under the repatriation regulations, such as medical treatment for members under certain conditions; gifts of furniture and tools of trade, and education of children. The bill expresses the Government’s view of what is reasonable recognition for services rendered in the interim forces for those who enlist after the 30th June, and is submitted for consideration by the Senate.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– From what I have gathered from the Minister’s second-reading speech, this bill extends to members of the interim forces certain benefits which are now available to other servicemen. As I have no desire to prevent such assistance being given to them I shall support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3545

BRITISH COMMONWEALTH PACIFIC AIRLINES AGREEMENT BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
Post master-General · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for the establishment of British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited, a tripartite organization for establishing, operating and developing trans-Pacific air services between Australia and North America and between New Zealand and North America, under arrangements to be agreed between the three governments. The organization has already been registered in Sydney as a company with an authorized capital of £A.1,000,000 and an initial subscribed and paid-up capital of £10,000. The contributions by the governments are in the ratio: Australia 50 per cent., New Zealand 30 per cent., United Kingdom 20 per cent. These proportions were agreed by the three governments to represent the degree of general interest which each country had in the services to be operated by the company. The operation of the air services concerned will be governed by directions given as necessary to the company by or on behalf of the three governments. The bill also provides for the appropriation of such amounts as are required to be paid by the Commonwealth under the inter-governmental agreement.

Honorable senators will recall that on the 10th April, 1946, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford) in a statement on civil aviation, referred to the bilateral agreement with the United States of America, which would confer reciprocal commercial rights in the United States of America and Australia respectively upon the scheduled airline operators of the two countries. As honorable senators know, that agreement was signed on the 3rd December, 1946. The United States Government, as forecast in the Minister’s statement, designated Pan-American Airways to operate a service between the United States of America and Australia, and Australia has designated the tripartite organization, British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited, to operate such a service on behalf of Australia. Each country has approved the operation of the service by the designated airline of the other country, and the services are in operation. The British Commonwealth service goes on to Vancouver, in Canada, under agreement with that country. Until such time as British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited is in a position to operate the service itself, approval has been given by the three governments for an interim service to be operated under contract to the company. The Australian Government at the Chicago International Air Conference advanced the view that international air transport should be under international ownership and control. This view did not receive full support but the tripartite organization set up to operate the service to North America is a step in that direction.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill is to authorize an agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for the establishment, operation and development of trans-Pacific air services between Australia and North America and between New Zealand and North America. As the agreement has been signed, anything that the Opposition might say would be unavailing because the Government has the numbers to pass the measure. In the circumstances, I shall not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3546

MINISTERIAL DUTIES

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

– by leave - I desire to inform honorable senators that the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) has advised me that he will act as Minister for Defence as from the 5th June, 1947, during the absence abroad of Mr. Dedman. The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) to act as Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, and the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan) to act as Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, also from the 5th June, 1947, for the period of Mr. Dedman’s absence.

page 3546

QUESTION

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

Charges by Mr. F. A. Lush.

Senator COOPER:

asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

In view of the serious allegations made in Smith’s Weekly and the counter charges made subsequently by Mr. Lush, delegate of the Treasurer in New South Wales Land Sales Control, will he inform the Senate if a decision has yet been reached regarding the holding of a public inquiry?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer: -

I have now received from the Investigation Service of the Attorney-General’s Department a report of the inquiry which I asked that service to make concerning alleged irregularities in the Land Sales Control Office, Sydney.

From the report, it is apparent that the inquiry so far as it has proceeded has confirmed what I have already told the House, namely, that there was evidence of irregularities in the administration of the Land Sales Control Office in Sydney.

Inquiry has been hampered from the outset by Mr. Lush’s illness.

In view of the alleged irregularities referred to in a weekly newspaper, the Commonwealth Actuary, who administers Land Sales Control, went to Sydney under my instructions on Friday, the9th May, 1947, to inquire into the matter.

On Monday, the 12th May, 1947, Mr. Lush saw a Macquarie-street specialist and next day applied for six weeks’ sick leave. The applicant was supported by a certificate from the specialist stating that if Mr. Lush did not have a complete rest he was in danger of a nervous breakdown which might incapacitate him for several months and that he must have a complete holiday and rest of at least six weeks.

On Monday, the 2nd June, 1947, the Commonwealth Medical Officer in Sydney examined Mr. Lush and he has furnished the following advice : -

Mr. Lush was medically examined by me on the 2nd June, 1947. He is suffering from anxiety neurosis and is unfit for duty. I do not think he will be fit to resume for at least one month. Brigadier Galleghan (Deputy-Director, Commonwealth Investigation Service, Sydney) requested an opinion as to whether Mr. Lush is in a fit state for questioning. I do not consider him to be well enough, as he is at present unable to concentrate even on matters relating to his own health.

I told the House last week that, in the light of the report to be made by the Commonwealth Investigation Service, the Government would decide whether or not there should be a further inquiry, either by the Public Service Board or by some other authority.

Accordingly, having reviewed the position, the Government regards the information now available as warranting the institution of a public inquiry on oath to investigate the alleged irregularities in the Sydney Land Sales Control Office, and any associated matters dealt with in the Canberra Land Sales Control Office. Steps to this end will be taken as soon as is practicable.

page 3547

QUESTION

GOLD RESERVE

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 21st May, Senator Allan MacDonald asked me a series of questions regarding the Australian gold reserve. I am now in a position to furnish the following information : -

The present gold reserve amounts to approximately £29,000,000. This is held in Australia by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. No gold has been exported to the United States of America since 1941.

page 3547

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOANS

Staffs

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 22nd May, Senator Aylett asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following questions, upon notice -

  1. How many employees are now retained on the Commonwealth loan staff in Australia?
  2. How many employees are retained in each State?
  3. What is the cost for each State and the total cost for Australia, per year, for the above staff, including expenses?
  4. What was the percentage cost of raising war loans and Commonwealth loans during 1939 to 1946, inclusive?
  5. What is the cost per year paid to daily and weekly newspapers and journals for advertising loans during 1940 to 1946, inclusive?

The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. Two hundred and twenty -two.
  1. The cost of the staff per year is not constant. For the last complete financial year 1945-46, the figures asked for were as follow: -
  1. The average cost during 1939 to. 1946 inclusive was 5s. per cent.

page 3547

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Whaling Industry

Senator LAMP:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Does the Government intend to take part in the Antarctic whaling operations next season; if not, why not?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

If possible, Australia will take part in Antarctic whaling operations next season. At present Australia does not have the shipping necessary for participation in Antarctic whaling; however, the Government is exploring the possibilities of obtaining the necessary shipping as early as possible.

page 3548

SERVICE CAMPS

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 8th May,

Senator Fraser:

asked me a question as to what service camps have been declared surplus to service requirements in Western Australia ; what camps are to be held for other requirements for State or Commonwealth purposes; and what camps or head-quarters are to be retained permanently for service requirements. I then undertook to have inquiries made of the three services, with a view to supplying the honorable senator with the desired information.

The following information has now been supplied by the Departments of the Navy, Army and Air: -

page 3548

NAVY

Service Camps Declared Surplus to Service Requirements in Western Australia.

H.M.A.S. Leeuwin II. - Established in the Freshwater Bay Yacht Club premises at Keane’s Point, Perth, and has now been returned to the Yacht Club.

Swanbourne. - Buildings which were erected to accommodate about 30 personnel have been declared to the Commonwealth Disposals Commission.

Camps Held for other Requirements for State or Commonwealth Purposes.

Nil. camps to be Held Permanently for Service Requirements.

H.M.A.S. Leeuwin at Preston Point, Fremantle. is a peace-time requirement, but consideration is being given to the possibility of disposing of some of the hutted accommodation which may be deemed surplus.

Naval Boom Depot with its associated living accommodation at Fremantle is a permanent peace-time requirement.

Jandakot. - Two timber houses which were erected for accommodation of personnel at direction finding station are being held for future service requirements but in the meantime have been leased.

page 3548

ARMY

Camps and Installations Declared Surplus to Service Requirements in Western Australia.

Camps and installations -

Melville Camp

Point Walter Camp, 100 Convalescent Depot

Claremont Show Grounds

Salters Point Camp

Kalgoorlie (Parkstown )

Werribee Camp site.

North Fremantle Oval

Hamilton Hill (Healy-road) .

Harvey Camp

Merridan Hospital

Hamilton Hill Camp site, Davilik-road.

Chidlows Well

Belle Vue Camps (3, 4 and 5)

Jolimont Torpedo Depot

Fremantle Park Gun Station

Guildford Camp No. 22, sites1, 2 and 3.

South Merridan Supply Stores

Rope Works Camp, Morgan Park

Fremantle United States Navy Barracks (Old Women’s Home)

West Midland Supply Depot and Camp

Parkestown Staging Camp

Blackboy Camp

Spencer’s Brook Supply Depot

Marrinup Prisoner of War Camp

Blackboy Hill Camp

Also95 minor installations.

Installations in Western Australia to be Declared for Disposal in the Near Future.

Grayland Camp

Swanbourne Garrison Camp (portion only).

York - Engineers Depot

Camps Held for other Requirements fob State or Commonwealth Purposes.

Nil

Camps tebe Held fob other Requirements for State or Commonwealth Purposes.

The Department of Air is not aware of any camps which are to be held for other requirements for State or Commonwealth purposes.

Camps or Head-quarters to be Retained Permanently for Service Requirements.

Pearce

Merredin

Cunderdin (portion only).

Exmouth Gulf (portion only).

Truscott (portion only).

page 3549

THE PARLIAMENT

Rail Transport of Members

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– On the 26th March, Senator O’Flaherty raised the subject of railway transport arrangements for members of Parliament who travel between Canberra and Adelaide. I have discussed the matter with the Acting Minister for the Interior, who has now furnished the following answer: -

It is presumed that the honorable senator’s remarks refer to travel during parliamentary sessions, and representations on that basis are being made to the Victorian and South Australian Railways Departments with a view to ascertaining whether some action can be taken by them to remove the disabilities complained of by the honorable senator. It should be mentioned, however, that the demand for sleepingberth accommodation is very heavy, and it is impossible for the railway authorities to provide berths for all passengers who require them, even when early application has been made. For some time past the booking diagrams were opened 28 days ahead of the date oftravel, but the difficulties arising out of the industrial disputes in Victoria caused this period to he reduced first to seven days ahead and more recently to one day ahead. It has now been extended again to seven days. In the circumstances, it is feared that the Railways Departments will not be inclined to regard favorably the withholding of accommodation from public booking on the offchance of its being required for federal members. When accommodation is set aside in this manner to meet emergency journeys, there isa tendency to disregard the necessity to give as long notice as practicable of train requirements and to depend uponthe emergency reservation. The reservation referred to by Senator O’Flaherty from Melbourne to Ade- laide consists of four sleeping berths on each Friday and Saturday night’s express. It is held in reserve during parliamentary sessions only until 12 noon on the Friday and Saturday, respectively.

Sitting suspended from 4.14 to 6.15 a.m.

page 3549

APPROVED DEFENCE PROJECTS PROTECTION BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill designed to protect defence works against obstruction, hindrance or prevention by the activities of persons who improperly oppose the establishment of such works. The Government considers that one of its greatest responsibilities is that of ensuring the defence of Australia. It feels that until there is assurance of world-wide disarmament on a permanent basis, it would be lacking in its duty to the people of Australia if it allowed the adequate defence of the country to be neglected. Although hostilities in the recent world war have ceased, the Government has in mind the state of unpreparedness which existed in 1939, and .is determined that this state of affairs shall not be repeated while there is any danger of attack by an aggressor, nation. It is not intended that the bill shall apply to all works of a defence character, but only such as are approved by the Minister for Defence as “ immediate defence projects “ - that is to say, works which are vitally necessary to the defence of Australia. Such a work is the range for the testing of long-range weapons proposed to be constructed in Central Australia.

This measure contains means of dealing with persons who by boycott or propaganda hinder, obstruct or prevent the carrying out of any work approved as an immediate defence project. The expression “ boycott “ was considered by the High Court in The King v. Archda.il and Roskruge; ex parte Carrigan and Brown, and the meaning given by the court was “withdrawal from such intercourse as would naturally and reasonably be expected to take place between the parties concerned as members of the community in normal circumstances “. The publication of any declaration or threat of a boycott directed against a defence project and the advocacy and encouragement of the prevention, hindrance or obstruction of a defence project are also covered by the proposed legislation. In this connexion it is important to note that the acts referred to above are qualified by the words “without reasonable cause or excuse “ so that the absence of such cause or excuse becomes an ingredient of the offence. It is not proposed that persons who honestly oppose a defence project on humanitarian or other proper grounds shall be liable to prosecution under this legislation. In considering the effect of the words “ without reasonable cause or excuse “ the High Court has said that “ reasonableness is relative and must be proportioned to the circumstances of the case considered as a whole”. The question whether in any particular case there is reasonable cause or excuse will be a matter for the court. Acts pf violence - sabotage - and threats of violence, which are unlawful in themselves, are made punishable under that measure if they are directed to the pre- vention of the carrying out of a defence project. It is not proposed that it shall be open to any person to institute proceedings under this measure and provision is made which requires that proceedings shall be instituted only by the Attorney-General or with the consent of the Attorney-General or of some persons authorized by him.

Senator COOPER:
Leader . of the Opposition · Queensland

– The purpose of this bill is to protect the building of approved defence projects from interference by subversive elements. It indicates the Government’s determination to proceed with these projects in spite of any disruptive influences that may be brought to bear. I support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3550

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1945-4’6

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

These Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure total £2,283,597 and relate to the financial year 1945-46. The amounts set out were expended out of a general appropriation from revenue of £10,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. ‘ It is now necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of excess expenditure. Full details of the expenditure which is now submitted for approval were included in the Estimates and Budget Papers for 1946-47. These publications show the amount voted for 1946-47, together with the actual expenditure for the previous year, which is included for informative purposes. Details are also included in the Treasurer’s finance statement for 1945-46 which has been tabled for the information of honorable senators. The Supplementary Estimates detail the items under which the additional amounts were expended by the various departments. The chief items in round figures are -

Any further details of the various items of expenditure will be available at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– As the Government has already been committed to this expenditure the Opposition will not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3551

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1945-46

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The total appropriation passed by Parliament for works and services under the heading of this measure amounted to £8,640,000. The actual expenditure was £6,290,000, i.e., £2,350,000 less than the appropriation. However, due to requirements which could not be foreseen when the estimates were prepared, certain items show an increase over the individual amounts appropriated, and it is now necessary to obtain parliamentary approval for these increases. The excess expenditure on the particular items concerned totals £977,829, which is spread over the various works items of. the departments. Any details which may be required will be furnished at a later stage.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill also covers expenditure to which the Government is already committed. The Opposition does not oppose it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3551

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 3551

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the date on which the Senate next meets.

page 3551

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate : Retirement of Senator Herbert Hays; Answers to Questions; Accumulation of Bills; Allnight Sittings; Wearing of Service Ribbons by Staff; Allocation of Seats of Senators.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I have been asked by Senator Herbert Hays to express to you, Mr. President, and to the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) his appreciation of the remarks made in this chamber in reference to his distinguished service as .a State and Commonwealth parliamentarian over a period of 35 years. He is unavoidably absent from this sitting. He has also asked me to convey to the Clerk of the Senate, the Clerk- Assistant, and the other members of the staff, his thanks for their courtesy and goodwill towards him during his long and happy association with the Senate.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I ask the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) to ensure that, during the coming recess, honorable senators shall be supplied with answers to questions which have been placed on the notice-paper, but to which replies have not yet been given. I also take this opportunity to lodge a protest at the way in which bills have been brought down by the Government in the dying hours of this sessional period. Nineteen bills have been passed by the Senate since midnight. Probably it is impossible to prevent a certain number of bills from accumulating; nevertheless I protest against the forcing of legislation through the Parliament in an unreasonably short time. It has been impossible for us to examine in detail every measure that has been passed by the Senate since midnight. I also bring to your notice, Mr. President, a matter affecting officers of the Senate who wear His Majesty’s uniform, and ask you to consider it during the recess. Almost every member of the staff is an ex-serviceman, and I consider that it would be appropriate if they were permitted to wear service ribbons on their jackets. I ask you to consider the suggestion seriously.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I, too, raise my voice in opposition to the practice of holding all-night sittings of the Senate. I can see no reason why honorable senators should not have been called together again next week, or perhaps later this day, instead of sitting throughout the night which has just ended. There is no necessity for this sort of thing in the Senate, although stone-walling tactics which are sometimes employed in the House of Representatives may justify protracted sittings in that chamber. In my view, the sittings of the Parliament should have been continued for another week in order to avoid exhaustion of honorable senators through night-long vigils. I also refer a matter to you, Mr. President, for your personal attention. I understand that seats in this chamber are to be re-allocated. I have placed my name on the bench where I now stand, and I hope that it will not be moved from there. I have had difficulty in hearing the debates from my previous position, and I hope that you will reserve this seat for me.

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

– in reply - I assure the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) that delayed answers to questions on the notice-paper will be forwarded to the honorable senators concerned. I shall investigate the cause of such delays when the Senate reassembles. I, too, objected to delays which occurred in answering questions when I was in the Opposition. When members of the Government were in opposition we complained of delay on the part of Ministers in answering questions, and some honorable senators think that, because the country has now emerged from a state of war, questions should be answered more expeditiously. However, I can assure them that the difficulties confronting Ministers, mainly because of shortage of staff, makes it even more difficult now to provide reasonably prompt answers to questions. However, ‘ I realize the importance of this matter, and I can assure the Senate that I shall do my utmost to expedite the furnishing of answers to questions. With regard to the complaint that measures are introduced to this chamber on very short notice and rushed through the Senate, I point out that that is something which has happened ever since I have been a member of the Senate. It is most difficult to synchronize the work of the Senate with that of the House of Representatives so as to ensure perfect co-ordination in the functioning of both chambers, but I am iii constant touch with my. colleagues in the House of Representatives and we endeavour as far as possible to co-ordinate our activities. I remember an occasion when approximately 30 bills were passed through the Senate in one day, with the assistance of the “guillotine”. The Leader of the Opposition was then a member of the Government, and he did not protest against that.

Senator Cooper:

– I did not relish it, however.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I can quite understand that, because the Leader of the Opposition has always displayed the utmost courtesy and consideration, and I can assure him, as Leader of the Senate, that I appreciate his attitude. With regard to the very late sitting which is now concluding, I can assure honorable senators that I do not appreciate inordinately long sittings any more than they do, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) asked me last evening if the Senate was prepared to make a special effort to dispose of current measures to keep pace with the Government’s legislative programme, and I assured him that honorable senators supporting the Government would do everything possible to comply with his wish. Honorable senators have carried out my undertaking, but I point out that Government supporters have merely done their duty. I regret that many honorable senators have been deprived of their sleep, but I point out that I myself have not had any rest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3553

PAPERS

The following papers were presented: -

Arbitration(Public Service)- Act - Determination by the Arbitrator,&c. - 1947- No. 51 - Postal Telecommunications Technicians’ Association (Australia).

Commonwealth Grants Commission Act - Commonwealth Grants Commission - Supplement to Thirteenth Report (1946).

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Department of Health - R. C. Taylor.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Shipping Coordination.) Regulations-Orders - 1947, Nos. 21-24.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Scat of Government ( Administration) Act - Ordinanees - 1947 -

No-. 2 - Conservation of Soil..

No. 3 - Building Operations Control.

Senate adjourned at6.37 a.m. (Friday) to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 June 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1947/19470605_senate_18_192/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant