House of Representatives
9 August 1926

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- MILITARY VETERANS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL AID ROADS GRANT
QUESTION
- VISIT OF THE DUKE OF YORK
QUESTION
- MEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- NORTH ANDSOUTH POLAR EXPLORATIONS
QUESTION
- STATE TOURS AND REGIMENTAL EXERCISES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN MEAT COUNCIL
QUESTION
- PRESERVATIVES AND COLOURING MATTER. IN FOODS, DRINKS, AND SWEETS
QUESTION
- FLOUR AND BREAD MANUFACTURE
LOCARNO TREATY
TARIFF BOARD
- Annual Report
FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL
- Second Reading
PAPER
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Development and Migration Commission

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Sir Littleton Groom) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 5045

QUESTION

MILITARY VETERANS

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Defenceaware of a strong agitation to secure something in the nature of justice for the veterans of the Permanent Military Forces, who have borne the heat and burden of the day? These aged soldiers, by the accident of dates, have been deprived of all benefits which otherwise might have accrued to them under the superannuation scheme and under the Defence Retirement Act. Is the Minister for Defence prepared to do something to alleviate the distress of these old and faithful servants who have done their duty to the country so well?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I recognize the extreme value of the services rendered by the men to whom the honorable gentleman refers, and I have already received a deputation from them, and have given their claims the greatest consideration ; but in view of the honorable gentleman’s further representations, I shall again go into the matter, though. I regret that I am unable to hold out any hope that I shall be able to do any more than I have already undertaken to do to meet the claims of these men.

page 5046

QUESTION

FEDERAL AID ROADS GRANT

Proposed Agreement with Local Authorities.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As many shire councils in New South Wales are bitterly opposed to the attitude adopted by the Premier ofthat State towards the Federal Aid Roads Grant, will the Prime Minister take into consideration the advisability of making agreements with the Shires Association, or with associations of shires in New South Wales that favour the proposed Commonwealth roads grant, in order that Commonwealth money may bo made available to them on the same terms as those in the agreement with the States, namely, the expenditure by the shires of 15s. for every £1 granted by the Commonwealth?

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– The Commonwealth’s relations must be with the respective State Governments. The attitude of the Government towards assistance for the carrying out of a national roads policy has, I think, been made very clear in this House.

page 5046

QUESTION

VISIT OF THE DUKE OF YORK

Mr BOWDEN:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– As I have seen in today’s newspapers some suggestion of an alteration of the programme of the Duke of York’s visit to Australia, I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has had any official notification of such an alteration, and whether it will involve any later date for the visit of His Royal Highness to Canberra than that which has already been mentioned, and which is itself,in my opinion, too late?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I am not in a position to make any official statement as to the itinerary of His Roysl Highness for his visit to Australia. I can, however, assure the honorable gentleman that there is no intention of postponing to a later date than that already fixed the ceremony of the opening of the Federal Parliament at Canberra.

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– In a cablegram appearing in the Melbourne Herald of Saturday evening, this statement is made -

The Duke’s own inclinations definitely favour the utmost economy. He would have travelled to Australia with the minimum of ceremony and expense consistent with the importance, dignity, and prestige of the mission. There is no question that the Renown was chosen in deference to the emphatic wishes of Australia expressed in the speeches in the House of Representatives.

I ask the Prime Minister whether the Duke’s wishes and desires have been set aside as the result of any representations made by the Government?

Mr BRUCE:

– No ; and there is no authority for any statement in the press of the character of that which the honorable member has quoted.

page 5046

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Will the Prime Minister, before leaving Australia for the Imperial Conference, endeavour to get into touch with the meat interests of the Commonwealth with a view to creating an authority that may be the mouthpiece of the industry in Australia? Will the right honorable gentleman also, in collaboration with representatives of the dominion of New Zealand, get into touch with the British authorities with a view to the more favorable entry of meat from dominions into the British market as against that of our foreign rivals? Will he also inquire concerning the great disparity there is between c.i.f. prices in London of Australian meat and the very high retail prices?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– Since it became obvious that the Meat Council would have to be disbanded, I have made many inquiries about the formation of some organization that would be able to speak on behalf of the industry, but the information I have at present is that it is quite impossible to get the meat interests to come together to form any sort of organizaion tospeak on their behalf. As to the position in Great Britain, and the honorable gentleman’s suggestion that Australia and New Zealand should co-operate with a view to securing more favorable terms of entry into the London market for Australian and New Zealand meat, I remind him that the Imperial Economic Committee has held an investigation regarding meat, and has issued a report quite recently on the subject of the meat industry and the interests of the dominions. The disparity between the c.i.f. prices and the wholesale and retail prices in London, has also been the subject of investigation by the

Linlithgow Committee, and all the facts and information on the subject can be obtained from the report of that committee. I further remind the honorable gentleman that at the last Imperial Conference I drew attention very pointedly to this very important matter, and I have no doubt that during the ensuing conference I may find opportunity to refer to the matter again.

page 5047

QUESTION

NORTH ANDSOUTH POLAR EXPLORATIONS

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Willthe Minister request the Council for Scientific and IndustrialResearch to publish, for the benefit of the public, a statement setting forth the advantages gained by exploring the North and South poles?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The matter will be referred to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research for its consideration.

page 5047

QUESTION

STATE TOURS AND REGIMENTAL EXERCISES

Sir JOHN GELLIBRAND:
DENISON, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice-

How much money was expended during 1924-25 on staff tours and regimental exercises?
What amount is allotted for the current year?
Are definite allotments from such sums made to commanders of formation and units; and, if so, what is the basis of such allotments ?

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

It is regretted that this information is not available at the moment, but it isbeing obtained, and will be supplied tothe honorable member as soon as possible. 2 and 3. The allotment is made by formation commanders on programmes approved by Army Head-quarters. The amount allotted to eachforamation annually for all training purposes is decided by Head-quarters when the Estimates have been passed by Parliament. On being informed of his allotment for training, the formation commander then proceeds to suballot it, as far as it will go, in accordance with his approved programme, which includes camps, staff tours, regimental exercises, courses of instruction, week-end bivouacs, &c. No allotment can be made for the current year until the Estimates are passed. The bases of allotment by Army Head-quarters to formation commanders are - (a) Numbers in formation; (b) distances to be covered; and (c) cost of living in various districts.

page 5047

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT COUNCIL

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

How much money has been advanced by the Commonwealth Government to the Australian Meat Council?
For what period has the money been advanced, and who are the guarantors?
Has any of the money advanced been refunded, and, if so, what amount?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– The amount advanced by the Commonwealth was £24,500, the whole of which has been repaid, with the exception of £595, which will shortly be received.

page 5047

QUESTION

PRESERVATIVES AND COLOURING MATTER. IN FOODS, DRINKS, AND SWEETS

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the opinion that is rapidly gaining ground that cancer of the digestive tract is caused by chemicals being used to preserve foods, does the Minister for Health consider it would be advisable for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to devote portion of their time to inquiring into the preservation of foods and drinks, the colouring matterof sweets, and the flavouring essences, &c., in order to assist in preserving the health of the community?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

-The chairmen of the State Committeesof the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research have already been asked by the council to submit reports on the whole matter of food preservatives. As soon as these reports are received, the matter will be further considered by the council.

page 5047

QUESTION

FLOUR AND BREAD MANUFACTURE

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister for Markets and Migration, upon notice -

What is the average quantity of wheat that will produce 1 ton (2,000 lb.) of white flour?
What quantity of whole-wheat flour will the same quantity of wheat produce?
What quantity of bread will such white flour produce?
What quantity of bread will such wholewheat flour produce?
What is the average cost of gristing such wheat?
What is the cost of making bread - (a) from the said white flour; (b) from the said whole-wheat flour?
What is the average time taken tobake - (a) the white loaf; (b) the whole wheat-meal bread?
What is the value of wheat in the 4-lb. loaf?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– The information is being obtained.

page 5048

LOCARNO TREATY

correspondence.

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– On the 5th August, the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt)asked whether I would lay on the table of the House the correspondence in relation to the Locarno Treaty. I have looked through all the documents which the Government has received in connexion with the Locarno Treaty, and I find that all the really essential negotiations which preceded the signature of that Treaty are comprised in the papers I have already laid on the table of the House. I do not think that the remaining documents could be published. They consist largely of reports of conversations between the diplomatic representatives of the countries concerned, and, obviously, could not be made public without the consent of those countries.

page 5048

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

.- I lay on the table the Annual Report of the Tariff Board for the year 1925-26. There are numerous annexures to the report, but most of them relate to the previous tariff and have already been laid on the table of the House, while others refer to classification items, and have already been printed in the public press and the Government Gazette. Therefore, although I lay the annexures on the table together with the report, I merely move -

That the report be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 5048

FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6th August (vide page 5044), on motion by Mr. Hill -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So much criticism has been levelled against the Government from both sides of the Chamber that I think Ministers must feel that they occupy an unenviable position. I doubt if any other Government has been made to appear more ridiculous in the eyes of the public than this Government has been since the introduction of this measure. The procedure of the Government, in commencing at the wrong end, by seeking to pass this bill before the States have ratified the agreement, reminds me of the practice of the cleargyman, who puts on his collar back to front. The Government has its proposals back to front. Much has been said by Government supporters to justify the over-hasty action of the Ministers. Everything done by the Government this session has been characterized by an over-hastiness which is inadvisable in the best interests not only of the legislation itself, but also of the people of this country. In dealing with some of this criticism, I wish to refer to a very unfair statement made on me by the the Attorney-General. When he was speaking on the bill he laid himself out to attack certain people who did not see eye to eye with him in regard to these proposals. It would be very hard to see eye to eye with the honorable member, without becoming cross-eyed in the endeavour. He quoted a speech I delivered last year on the Main Roads Development Bill, in which I said that the whole of the money proposed to be spent by the Commonwealth Government could very well be spent in the Hume electorate. To-day I am just as anxious as I was then to have good roads in Australia, but I am opposed entirely to the method adopted by the Government to bring about the construction of these good roads. There is nothing contradictory about my present attitude. The Government’s proposals to-day are entirely different from its previous proposals. The Attorney-General, because of the very anomalous position he has taken up on many questions, may perhaps be forgiven for trying to get as many people as possible into his own boat. When he was speaking with his individual mind, and not as a member of the Cabinet, he opposed the export control of butter and dried fruits; but later, as a member of Cabinet, he was a whole-hearted supporter of similar legislation dealing with canned fruits.

Mr Scullin:

– That was his composite mind.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Speaking with a composite mind, he can see many virtues in the proposal which he cannot see as an individual.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He has now a Government brief.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. As “was said in the Chamber last Friday, we cannot accept the advice of the AttorneyGeneral on these matters unless we know whether he is speaking with a composite mind as Attorney-General and a Minister of the Cabinet, endeavouring to help the Government out of a difficulty, or whether he is speaking with the individual mind he * passessed when he’ had not ministerial responsibility. To-day I am as much in favour of the provision of good roads as I was in the last Parliament, but the imposition of a ^special tax in order to create a special roads fund is entirely different from the granting of money from a Federal surplus ito assist the State Governments in the construction of main roads. If the Govern.ment were again proposing to make available to the States portion of its surplus revenue for the construction of roads, I would support the proposal. Indeed, at the last election, the Labour party promised that it would assist the State Governments, as far as possible, in the construction of better roads, but it did not propose to raise money for the purpose by means of special Customs duties. I believe that if honorable members were free to vote as their judgment dictated, this bill would be rejected. The Government Whip has given an indication of what will happen when a division is taken. He was reported in the Melbourne Herald of Friday last as laving said that, although several ministerial supporters were opposed to this bill, many of them would be conveniently absent when the division was taken. If members are to be whipped into support of Government proposals in “this fashion we shall not get an honest expression of opinion upon any measure. Of those ministerialists who have spoken against the bill, some will vote against it, whilst others will either support it against their convictions or, in the words of the Government Whip, be conveniently -absent when the division is taken. The position of the Prime Minister is particularly unenviable. I have never seen him to worse advantage than he was last week, when he lashed the oil trusts that he had suddenly discovered to be a menace to the Australian people. Although he declared that he would not back down from these proposals, he has since agreed to forgo the duties on tires and chassis, and to exempt from the duty of 2d. per gallon petrol not consumed upon the road ; in fact, he has climbed down so far that I expected on arriving at the House today to find that he had abandoned this taxation entirely. I do not know which part of the composite Government is responsible for this proposal, but I am inclined to believe that it has emanated from the brain of the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page), or the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Hill). If so, the Prime Minister was very ill-advised to allow them to put him in the unenviable position he occupies to-day. He has been forced to abandon a big proportion of this roads scheme, and I believe he would abandon the rest if he had not found a means of saving his face by attacking the oil trusts. Now, in order to maintain the pose of a strong man, he intends to adhere to the petrol duties, giving as his excuse that it is necessary to cut the wings of the insidious trusts. No honorable member on this side of the chamber holds a brief for the great corporations or trusts. We have given evidence of our desire to clip their wings, but on all previous occasions we have” been opposed by the right honorable the Prime Minister, and the fact that there are many other combines operating in Australia, against which he proposes to take no action, is proof that there is not much sincerity in his attack upon the oil combines. In fact, the two foreign oil corporations which he specifically attacked could have continued until Kingdom Come, levying toll upon the people without any interference by the Prime Minister, if he had not needed a justification for the petrol duties and a means of saving his face. Hearing him speak, last week, one might imagine that he intended to devote the rest of his life to trying to bring the trusts to heel; but a few days before they had offended him by saying that they would withdraw from him their financial support at election time, he did not regard them as a menace to the people. In proof of that, I quote a question asked by tha honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister) on the 28th July-

If, in view of the increasing demand for petrol, the Government has considered the necessity for duplicating the plant of the Commonwealth Oil Refining Company?

That would be an effective’ means of counteracting the influence of the trusts, and stemming their growth in Australia. The Prime Minister replied -

The whole question of the refining of oil in Australia had been seriously considered by the Government, but at present it was not proposed to duplicate the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited plant in Victoria, or to establish plants in the other States.

Two days before the right honorable gentleman made an attack upon these great commercial trusts, which he said were levying such a heavy toll upon the people of Australia, he was asked if the Government proposed to do anything to increase the output of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited plant in Victoria, and he said that it was not proposed to duplicate the plant or to establish plants in the other States. His sudden attack upon these corporations was doubtless due to the fact that they had stated that if a petrol tax were imposed the financial support which they had previously extended to the Nationalist party would be withdrawn. If the right honorable gentleman were really in earnest, it would be easy for the Government to restrict the operations of these combines by increasing the output of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited. If the Government had been in possession of the powers- which the Labour party endeavoured to obtain for the Commonwealth in 1913, combines acting in restraint of trade could be controlled, and in the absence of such powers the Government should duplicate the plant of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and provide for an extension of its operations to Nev/ South “Wales, South Australia, and Queensland, as honorable members on this side of the House have frequently suggested. If that were done, the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, instead of supplying only 6 per cent, of Australia’s requirements would be able to produce a much larger quantity of liquid fuel, a.nd thus counteract the insidious influence of these combines. If the Prime Minister denies the logic of that statement, he should admit that

Ifr. Parker Moloney. only the other day he discovered that these companies were acting to the detriment of the trade and commerce of the Commonwealth, and that the operations of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited should be extended to enable it to meet the increasing demand- for its product. One has only to peruse the speech of theright honorable gentleman to see that he has adopted a most peculiar attitude. At the outset, he went to considerable’ trouble to show that prior to the last election hestated that it was proposed to raise money for main roads construction from motor users, but before he concluded, he said that these great companies would pay the tax and not pass it on to motor users. I have never known a Minister to makesuch contradictory statements. When-, quoting from a Nationalist electioneering pamphlet he used these words: “In my policy speech I made a definite statement that the money would be raised, through the Customs from motor users.” Later on he said, “ These companies “ - he was referring to corporations which he mentioned - “could sell petrol at the present price and pay the proposed duty of 2d. per gallon, and still do extraordinarily well in this country without passing it on.” But if the motor users wereto pay the impost, the companies clearly were not expected to do so. I have never known a Government to be in such an untenable position. The Treasurer, in endeavouring to defend the Government, said that as Queensland and two of the other States had decided to sign the agreement, the Government intended to proceed with the bill. What would be the position of New South Wales, which apparently is not likely to sign the agreement, if the tax of about £15 per motor user is imposed upon the people in that State ! The State would not gain the slightest advantage from the impost, which would mean a tax of £300,000 upon them. Instead of awaiting the ratification of the agreement by the States, the Government is proceeding with the bill, and placing itself in such an untenable position that it will be compelled to drop it. The Treasurer repeated the Prime Minister’s statement that all the opposition to the measure had originated with the big oil companies, and added that he could not find any real opposition to it from the genuine motorist. But the day following the publication of the Prime Minister’s speech I saw press comments on behalf of organized motorists in both Victoria and New South Wales, which were strongly hostile to the measure. Mr. H. Witty, general secretary of the Commercial Motor Users Association of Victoria, according to a newspaper report, said- -

Mr. Bruce’s statement to the effect that the whole of the agitation in connexion with t’.ie recently-imposed duty on petrol, tires, and chassis was coming from the oil companies could not be substantiated, and was incorrect-. The meeting of protest, recently held in tlie Exhibition Building, had been organized jointly by the C.M.U.A. and the Chamber of Automotive Industries - the oil companies had hail nothing to do with the meeting, which had comprised motor users from all sections of the community. Their sole object had been to give members of various organizations an opportunity of voicing their protest. None of the speakers hod any connexion with importing oil companies. It had been felt that with the additional burden of 2d. a gallon, imposed through the Customs, the commercial motor users had a genuine grievance, which had been voiced on their behalf by speakers at the meeting. The Prime- Minister was wrong when he stated that motor users would have fallen into line “but for the insidious propaganda of the oil companies. Had the commercial motor users not been so highly penalized by the State Government’s action, by which the registration fees had been heavily increased under the power, weight, and unit system, the position might not- have ben so pronounced. It simply meant that the impost money would come out of the pocket of the motor user. . . . The C.M.U.A. was collecting statistics for the purpose of placing them before the Federal Government, if it persisted in its proposed action: and they would be compelled to send a deputation to Mr. Bruce, asking that commercial motor vehicle owners should be exempt from the Customs duties.

Mr. J. C. Watson, a former Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, in his capacity as president of the National Roads and Motorists Association of New South Wales, commented on the Government’s proposals, in the same newspaper, as follows : -

Tor the Prime Minister to assert that the widespread protest raised against the proposed additional taxation on motorists were the outcome of insidious propaganda by the oil interests was childish. The objection had neon voiced unanimously ‘by all the motoring organisations throughout Australia that had no association whatever with, nor were influenced in the least degree by, the petrol companies.- ‘Die attitude of the National Roads and Motorists’ Association, with an active membership of nearly 20,000, hail been adopted with entire spontaneity and without the least regard for the interests of any commercial concerns. They at least tried to make it perfectly clear that there could not lie the least justice in the throwing on Australian motor owners of an additional burden of £1,500,000 a year through Customs duties, while they were already paying £3,500,000 annually through the same channel, and that huge total of £3,500,000 expanding so rapidly that during the ten years’ currency of the proposed Federal road finance scheme it might become two or three times as great, with the additional £1,500,000 impost going up in proportion.

Mr. Watson went on to point out that, although the additional taxation would cost motorists in New South Wales about £15 per head per annum, on the .average, that State would reap no advantage whatever from the scheme, for it had decided not to participate in it. If the Government persists in its proposals, it will act most unfairly. One of my chief objects in rising was to refute the argument of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham) that, because I voted for the various main roads development bills when they were before us, I should vote for this measure; but this -is an entirely different scheme, and an iniquitous one at that, and I shall not be at all inconsistent in voting against it. If the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited needs fostering, and the Government canshow that it is a legitimate industry, which merits consideration,’ I shall be quite prepared to extend to it the protection that I have assisted in granting to all legitimate Australian industries; but, before I should be willing to do that, I should require a close investigation to be made to reveal the extent of control exercised over it by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The matter should be referred to the Tariff Board for report. Even though the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited is suffering from the competition of the two big importing oil trusts as stated by the Prime Minister, I am not favorable to taking this method of granting it relief. Apart altogether from the unconstitutionality of’ this measure - and it has already been attacked on that ground by an eminent constitutional authority from whom the Victorian. Government sought an opinion - I submit that the financial side of it is wrong in principle. I, with all the members, of my party, believe in the construction and maintenance of good roads, but I complain that the money previously voted by this Parliament for that purpose has not been spent to the heat advantage. It has been used to improve roads that run parallel to and compete with out railways, whereas more of it should have been used to construct roads that would feed them. The fact of the matter is that, so far, the man out-back, who is in most need of good roads, has had very little benefit from the Commonwealth money that has been expended in road construction. For the reasons given, I intend to oppose the bill.

Mr MANN:
Western Australia

– Throughout this debate we have heard with almost wearying reiteration, the statement that we want good roads. I suppose there is no harm in repeating it bo long as there is no one in Australia misled by it. But there is reason to object to its being used so frequently in connexion with this bill, because of the implication that if we want good roads we can only hope to secure them by wholeheartedly supporting the measure If it were true that we had to choose between this bill and good roads, or no roads at all, there might be some justification for continually harping upon this theme. But this is not the only method by which we may obtain a solution of our transport problems. The passage of this bill will create greater difficulties in other directions, and lead to such grave abuses that it would be better to abandon altogether this proposal, and consider what is the right and proper method to meet the road requirements of the Commonwealth. The axiom that the end justifies the means does not hold good in this case. This bill does not provide the only means by which we may obtain an improved system of road transport. The original grants under which money was given for roadmaking purposes were in an entirely different category. To begin with they were paid out of accumulations of surplus ‘revenue which the States had complained were not being returned to them. Therefore, when a proposal was made to return the surplus revenue, and that it should be devoted to -roadmaking, the States accepted it gladly, not only because it enabled them to provide roads, but also because it was in conformity with their demands as_ to the return of surplus revenue.

Mr Coleman:

– Who would not take unconditional grants?

Mr MANN:

– Those were- not unconditional grants; but were very different from those now proposed. Road-making is properly one of the functions of a State Government. I could not state my view on this- subject more forcibly than was done last week by the right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt)’, who- raised this* question from a mere- mercenary level into the atmosphere of constitutional propriety and political justice. He put the; case so admirably that I do- not propose’ to go over that ground again; but I do> wish to emphasize that the States alone’ should determine the urgency of theirroads problems as compared’ with otherdifficulties with which- they may be faced. For example, in my own State it might be of far greater importance and lead togreater development if, instead of spending so much money on road construction, there were undertaken a large and? comprehensive system of drainage in thesouthern portion of Western Australia, where large tracts of sour or salt land, would become sweetened and fit for intensecultivation and the production of enormous wealth. Whether that scheme -would.! commend itself to the Government of that’ State I do not know. I simply use it asan illustration, that a State Government should have the right to determinewhether other important proposals should; take precedence over road construction. It is urged in support of this bill that hitherto the States have not devoted sufficient attention to road’ transport problems. That is not strictly true. As a matter of fact, the States haveall done a good deal, and are planning Todo a great deal more. In recent yearsthey have established main roads boardswith a view to tackling this problem “.u a more comprehensive way. If they havenot done as much as was expected of them it is because of the drainage of financefrom the States to the Commonwealth during the last ten or eleven years. Forsome years now we have been slowly and’ painfully recovering from the effects of” the war. We know by experience that if we are to make good the loss and wastageof war we must conserve our resources by limiting taxation. It takes time torecover from the war. The States could not at once resume functions that were temporarily abandoned owing ta> the exigencies of the war. Their recovery has been rendered the more difficult because of the extravagant expenditure of the Commonwealth, which has imposed taxation beyond all reasonable bounds. This taxation has drained revenues from the States to the Commonwealth, and has seriously handicapped the States in the carrying out of developmental schemes. It is well understood by every one who has studied political economy that the imposition of unnecessary taxation leads to the curtailment of enterprise and the consequent diminution in the demand for labour. To retain revenues as the Commonwealth has done, and to return them to the States on condition that the States spent the money in conformity with Commonwealth policy is, I submit, an unwarrantable assumption of State functions. That is why the States have not been able to do what they wanted to do. Revenue raised by the Commonwealth has been spent in directions which, although approved by this Government, do not in many cases commend themselves to the States. That is one great objection which I have to this bill - that it permanently takes from the State Governments functions which they are prepared to fulfil, and could fulfil if the Commonwealth, instead of usurping their functions, left them free to attend to their own development. I also do not like the method by which this legislation is being forced through. The bill should not be passed until the attitude of the States has been determined. Not one State Parliament has approved of it. We have been told over and over again that three States have approved of it; but they have not. Three governments have said that they will submit the agreement for ratification by their Parliaments.

Mr Fenton:

– And they have majorities in those Parliaments.

Mr MANN:

Mr Marr:

– They would have to travel 36,000 miles in a yeartodoso. That is not probable.

Mr WEST:

– I have read a letter which was written to the press by Mr. Wagstaff, the general manager in Australia of the British Imperial Oil Company, but I was not at all impressedb y it. He would not faithfully serve his company unless he closely watched its interests. Not many of my constituents will be called upon to pay the extra duty, because the localities in which they reside are so closely settled and the land is so valuable that it is too expensive for them to runa car, as it would be necessary for them to garage it elsewhere. The proposal of the Government is to have good roads constructed throughout Australia, and that is not possible unless a sufficient amount of money is made available. If additional revenue is not obtained by the imposition of the petrol tax, the ordinary Customs duties will have to be increased to make good the deficiency. We must not rely too much upon those duties, because, as Australia becomes more self-contained, it is natural that our revenue from that source will become less. I should welcome a substantial drop in Customs revenue, because it would indicate that Australia was depending less upon other countries to supply her needs. I believe that the people of Australia are becoming alive to the necessity of enlarging the field of our manufactures. If the consumption of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries product is increased, employment will be found for a large number of men. I can see open to me no course other than to assist the Government to pass this bill, and I shall therefore give it my support.

Mr PARSONS:
Angus

.- I should not have spoken upon this measure but for the fact that I represent a South Australian electorate, and events that have occurred in that State recently render it necessary for those South Australians who have stable ideas to give expression to them. I was interested in the speech of the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann). He objected to the bill on the ground that it was absolutely impossible for this or any government to pledge itself to a ten-year policy. He supported the Government at the last election when one of its principal proposals was that over a period of ten years the States should be advanced the sum of £20,000,000 for the construction and maintenance of roads. Presumably, when the honorable member recently removed his political cloak he also discarded his political ideas, and, politically, he now stands before us naked and unashamed. The honorable member for Hume (Mr. Parker Moloney) has evidently swallowed a lot of figures without understanding their meaning. He advanced the contention that the average motor user in New South Wales would have his petrol expenses increased by the proposed tax to the extent of £15 per ‘annum. For that to be, the mileage travelled would have to be 36.000 annually. I am not acquainted with any motorist who travels that distance in the course of a year. I understand that the average mileage totals only 5,000 a year. There fore, the figure of the honorable member is an exaggeration. The probability is that the remainder of his arguments were proportionately exaggerated. He also said that Ministers reminded him of the clergy, who wear their collars back to front, because their policy in this matter was back to front; but they must regulate their conduct according to the requirements of the position. I strongly protest against the honorable member’s statement that the money which the Commonwealth Government has so far advanced to the States has not been spent on out-back roads for the benefit of country people. That statement is absolutely contrary to fact. The stipulation has always been made by the Commonwealth Government and accepted by the States that the money granted must be spent on country roads, particularly those in the out-back. That has been done in South Australia, and I have reason to believe that a similar practice has been followed in the other States. It is quite erroneous for the honorable member to argue otherwise. I have been in a portion of the honorable member’s electorate where I found thatmany roads have been improved as the result of Federal grants, and the people spoke loudly in praise of the Federal aid roads policy. The honorable member for Hume is probably very busy about two or three of the larger towns in his electorate in which he gains his majority; but I suggest it would be well for him to visit other portions . of the electorate and find out what, the producers think of this policy. The right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) told us that the Federal authority in the United States of America is gradually giving up the policy of Federal aid to the States for national road construction, and he said that we should follow the American example. He also informed us. and it is a fact, that the American Federal Government initiated this policy ten years ago. Having now brought the national highways into a more or less perfect condition, the American Federal Government is discontinuing that policy. I agree with the right honorable gentleman that we would do well to follow the American example, but in order to do so we should first of all enable the State Governments to cope with the road construction problem by assisting them to the greatest extent possible. When our national highways in Australia are in as good a condition as those of the United States of America, as a result of Federal assistance in their construction, it will be time enough for us to talk of withdrawing that assistance. I take strong exception to some of the advertising on this question in the press of the cities and some of the country districts during the last few weeks. I read an advertisement recently in the South Australian newspapers by what was called “ The Town and Country Union,” with an address in Melbourne,- which dealt with the petrol tax associated with this bill. In this advertisement people were invited to -

Write or telegraph to your Federal member, and then watch and see how he votes.

That sort of thing reminds one of some of the unsavoury sidelights on American politics, and I should like to say for the honour and credit of the constituency I have the honour to represent, that I have not been insulted by having letters or telegrams sent to me on this question. This may be because I am considered so hard headed that I would not take notice of such communications, or possibly because I am not worth taking notice of. I assume that the first is the real reason why I have not received these communications. My constituents elected me to this Parliament, and it is not the practice of South Australians to at: tempt to browbeat their representatives and dictate to them as to how they shall vote. One gentleman stopped me in King William-street, Adelaide, and in great distress asked me whether the Federal Aid Roads Bill and the petrol tax were likely to be passed. We carried on a conversation for a few minutes, and I then said, ‘ What line are you in ? “ The reply was, “ I am working for one of the petrol firms.” I then said, “ I understand your argument, and I shall give full consideration to the matter when it is brought before the House.” This man was the only resident of the electoral division of Angas to whom I have spoken who has raised any objection to the Government’s policy for the construction of good roads. Referring again to the remarks of the right honorable member for Balaclava, I may say that whilst America spends £1 per head per annum in Federal aid for the construction of roads, the Commonwealth Government is proposing to spend only 6s. 8d. per head per annum. We have still a long way to go before we plunge into this policy in tha way the American Federal Government has done, and perhaps it would be as well if we did so. Representatives of suburban electorates are complaining that construction of roads in the cities and their suburbs is not getting the support that it should have, and they further complain that the residents of cities and their suburbs will be called upon to pay their share of the Commonwealth grants for road construction in the country districts. I do not think that that is unfair. I have lived for some time in a large country town, ‘ and I speak from experience when I ‘ say that business centres in the larger towns and cities should be considered. But although the residents of the cities and larger towns, will have to go on paying for the upkeep of their own roads, they will indirectly reap immense advantage and profit from the construction of better roads .in the country districts. As a result of the improvement of country roads people from the country districts will be able to travel in the winter, as well as in the summer months, into the cities .nd towns and spend their money there, and that is what the residents of the cities and towns desire. It is complained that the money that will be spent under this bill will be spent in the country districts and not in the cities. That is a very narrow view to take of the matter. The purpose of national roads is to develop the country districts and not the cities, and if we consider the question carefully we shall find. that the country districts have a perfect right to expect to get some share of “the revenue raised in the. cities. The great cities in this country have been built up” by the tariff, more than anything else. I raise no ob’jection to the tariff, beca’use I believe in protective duties. The “large cities have, been built up as the ‘result of the development of secondary’ industries by the protection afforded bv ‘ the tariff. Un* doubtedly, the tariff has increased the, cost of production in the country ‘districts,and it is not unreasonable that, in their turn, the residents of the large cities should pay their fair share of the Federal grants for the construction of- national roads. In doing so they will be merely paying something back to the people of the country districts. It is right that. they should pay their just and lawful debts, and I am certain that true Australians living in the large towns and cities, sio- matter how they may be appealed to by selfish, interests, will not begrudge their country cousins some little assistance in the development of main roads, so needed in the outback districts. One contention on this question is that the money raised within a State should be spent within it. The Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament has said that he is prepared to agree to the Federal roads policy on condition that the money raised in Victoria is spent in this State. Let us consider that suggestion for a moment. If it be a reasonable one, then all the money raised in a city should be spent in the city. The money raised in a particular municipality should be spent in that municipality, and, carrying the argument a step further, the money raised in a particular street should be spent in that street. Again, there are some streets in every city in which there are a greater number of motor garages than in others. Consequently, a greater proportion of petrol will be sold in those streets, and it might just as well be contended that the money raised in those streets should be spent in those streets, and then the argument might be completed, and . we would find that the largest supplier of petrol would be entitled to have a pavement laid in gold in front of his business premises. The contention is absurd. We should look at these matters- from a broad Australian standpoint. If the poor municipalities about which we have heard so much would like to know how to raise money for roads, I advise them to write to the clerk of the Burnside District Council. Only a few years ago the worst suburban roads around Adelaide were those of the Burnside district. To-day, they are the best roads around Adelaide. This has been brought about by the imposition of a special arterial roads rate. The money derived from this rate was earmarked for the construction of these arterial roads, and, to-day, there are no main roads troubles confronting the Burnside District Council. I would remind honorable members that the State Governments have raised no particular objection to the expenditure of Commonwealth funds in the payment of bounties to different industries.’ The Government of Queens- land has certainly raised no objection to the bounty on cotton, although the money for its payment is raised throughout Australia, since it is paid from the general revenue. We have not heard of many objections from New South Wales to the iron and steel bounty, although the money is raised throughout Australia. We have heard no grave objections from South Australia to the wine bounty, although that is paid from moneys raised throughout Australia. In these circumstances I cannot understand why so much objection is raised in connexion with this measure to the expenditure of money in the smaller States, because most of it will be raised in the more thickly populated States. Since 1918 £2,077,000 has been collected in excise on fortifying spirit for wine, but I have heard no squeal because this money raised from excise has not been spent in South Australia. Yet, practically the whole of this money was raised in South Australia. Let us get the Australian view of these matters. We are considering a proposal for the development of the national roads of the country, and not of the half-dozen gaslit areas represented by the chief cities of Australia. I cannot understand the attitude of the States to the Government’s proposal. For three years the State Governments have willingly acepted money from the Commonwealth for the purpose of road construction. They have accepted nearly £2,000,000 for this purpose, and apparently did not consider the Commonwealth grants illegal. Now we are told that they consider it illegal to accept any money for road construction from the Commonwealth, because road construction is not a Commonwealth function. Do the State Governments propose to return to the Commonwealth Treasurer the £2,000,000 they have already accepted for this purpose? I trow not. If they are honest in the belief they now express, and have accepted money to which they had no right, they ought to hand it back to the Commonwealth. I do not think they will do so. They may say that the money granted them by the Commonwealth was paid out of surplus revenue, and without any stipulation at all. I combat that statement, because that money was given for the specific purpose of the construction of certain roads, in country districts. Although the present proposal i* more detailed, in principle, the previous grants were made on exactly the same terms. . They were not given to the State Government to do as they liked with the money, but to spend it on particular loads. To-day they are making a great :noise, and complaining that the Commonwealth Government is laying down what the State Governments shall or shall not <do. Did not the Prime Minister take into ^consultation the Premiers of the different States? Did they not sit down together and thrash this policy out? Did they not -decide that this policy, which the State Governments now say is illegal, was to be carried out? Did not the representatives of the States say that they would return to ‘their States and would recommend the adoption of the policy to their Parliaments? They started making all the noise a few days after a certain proposal was submitted to provide for the way in which the money to be granted by the Commonwealth was to be raised. There were three things to be taxed, petrol, tires, and motor chassis, but we have heard very little about tires and the motor chassis tax. One would think from the commotion that has been made that petrol only was to be -taxed. We saw the advertisement, “ Watch and see how your Federal member votes; telegraph and write to him.” Then we learned that a celebrated aviator had been informed that when flying over Australia he must not use Austraiian refined petrol, but must use petrol which is 60 ner cent. Dutch. All of these things make me wonder where this opposition comes from, and when I read about monopolies associated with another proposal, like the priest of the parish, I put on my considering cap. I come to the conclusion that these gentlemen who are stirring up so much noise have very little of the real Australian sentiment, and are really thinking more of the probable effect of the proposed duties on their own pockets. Any honorable member who is doubtful about the Wls dom of the Government’s proposals should go out into the back country where roads are badly needed - where it takes a man all day to drag half a load of wheat to the nearest siding over almost impassable sand-hills. And he should then pass on to localities where Commonwealth money has been spent on the construc tion of main roads - where some of the bad sand-hills have been topped, and a man can take two full loads of wheat a day where formerly he could take only half a load a day at the risk of breaking the hearts of his horses and his own back. Having seen what ought to be done, and what is done by means of the expenditure of Commonwealth money, an honorable member would have nothing but praise for the Government’s present proposals. His only comment would be not to put a brake on the spending of Commonwealth money in this direction, but to urge the expenditure of even more money on the construction of main roads. I am pledged to the Government’s road policy. On 70 different platforms I told my electors what’ the Commonwealth Government proposed to do for the construction of main roads; I repeated the Prime Minister’s statement in his policy speech that £20,000,000 was to be spent on a national roads policy at the rate of £2,000,000 a year for ten years, and in every district, suburban and country,, where that policy was outlined by me, it was received with acclamation. It was regarded as a sound, sensible scheme. I regret that I am unable to follow the wobbly course of the South Australian Government in regard to these proposals. A Melbourne newspaper said that I was wobbling on the question, but all I can say is that rather than follow the wobbly course of the South Australian Government I prefer to follow the straight furrow ploughed by the Federal Government.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

.- I rise more for the purpose of making my position clear than to attack that taken up by the Government. It is, however, inevitable that I must comment upon the Government’s policy. May I be permitted, at the outset, to remind the House and the Ministry, that the policy of assisting the States in the construction and maintenance of roads was initiated by the previous administration, over which I had the honour to preside, and, hitherto, the present Government has followed the course then laid down. It is not to be expected, therefore, that I should appear as a critic of the Government’s policy, in so far as it involves assisting the States in this very necessary and national way; but I am surprised that the

Government has posed as an economic and political Columbus - as the discoverer of some new continent - whereas, in truth, it has merely followed a well-beaten track.

– About 120,000,000 gai– Ions.

Mr HUGHES:

– The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited was established during my term of office, despite the opposition of gentlemen who used to adorn the corner benches, and may now, if they have time in their busy lives, read what they then said. If they deny those statements I may. in committee, remind them of the printed record against them. The Commonwealth Oil Refinery was established because the Government of the day believed that the importing companies ought not to be in a position to impose what toll they pleased. But if, notwithstanding the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited their position is impregnable, and they can afford to nay the tax of 2d. a gallon and yet make a profit, it is a pity that the Government has not proposed a tax of 4d. a gallon, because twice as much would be obtained from them then. I ask Ministers to consider this point. It is proposed to collect revenue, and to hold it in suspense, for a specific purpose which falls outside the province of the Federal Government. This revenue is to be collected for a purpose which may never be achieved. New South “Wales, for instance, will contribute 45 per cent, of the £1,500,000 to be raised, and, although the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) said that the legislature of that State would eventually ratify the agreement, we have no assurance that it will. In the meantime, motor users there will be paying an extra 2d. per gallon for petrol on the off chance that some of the money may be expended on the State’s roads. It is unsound finance to tax except for necessary expenditure. Taxation should not be collected on the assumption that some day it may be found useful; it should be imposed only when there is no alternative. If there is an alternative the people should not be taxed. The more populous States have declined to sign the agreement, and I sympathize with the Prime Minister in his resentment at their attitude; it does not astonish me. As Prime Minister I have made many arrangements with the States on behalf of the

– It was built by the man who built the Columbia River highway of 365 miles, along which I have driven. Whatever our roads cost, let us make them with the object of permanence. If we cannot get money for them out of revenue, then let us get it by loan. It may be said that this is a new departure. So is the motor; but it has come to stay, and we must act accordingly. The motor has revolutionized this country, and it has revolutionized country life. It has made tolerable that which was intolerable. The farmer is no longer like a dog chained to his kennel; he can now go abroad if he desires. He can share the benefits that civilization showers upon modern man. The advantages of the city are now open to him. Only by making good permanent roads shall we encourage land settlement in this country. When good roads are available, it will not be necessary to holdout special inducements to mcn to get them to go on the land; they will go readily, for, other things being equal, tho man on the land, as everybody knows, lives a free and independent life and calls no man his master. If we can once banish isolation and give to the country people the advantages of city life, we shall do something to make Australia what it should be, and render certain that influx of population into this country, which is so necessary.

My attitude on the bill may be put briefly. As to its constitutionality, I have already set out the facts as they appeal to me. The present position of the measure is most unfortunate. As things are it will not apply to more than one-third of the people of the Commonwealth, it will leave the States of New South Wales, Victoria, andSouth Australia untouched, which places honorable members who represent divisions in those States in a most invidious position. Those of us who support the Government are asked to vote for the measure; but I ask the Prime Minister what ho would do if he were in my place ? So far as I can see, the bill is being persisted in simply to save the face of the Government. What about the faces of honorable members who are anxious to support the Government, but find themselves in the position of being called upon to vote public moneys, collected chiefly in their own States, for expenditure in other States?

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

.- I do not intend to cover the ground that previous speakers have traversed, and I would not presume to add anything to the admirable remarks that have been made by two or three honorable members in particular. I have always had sympathy with the Government in endeavouring to stimulate the construction of good roads in the States, for I have recognized that some of the States particularly, are quite unable, with their own limited resources, to embark on a big road construction policy. But I wish to get to the heart of the situation which now faces us. I am favorable to assisting the States in road construction, so long as in doing so we do not trespass beyond our own preserves, and undertake work which is entirely outside our constitutional authority. I shall have very little to say on the constitutional aspect of the matter, but I am sorry that the Standing Orders will not permit me to give free and vigorous expression to my opinion of the speech of the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) in this regard. The right honorable member said, “ Let the courts decide.”’ The courts, of course, will decide if the measure is passed ; but I submit that we should be guided by our own constitutional lawyer, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), for whom I have the greatest admiration and esteem. I have followed with interest his very delicate references to the constitutional position of this bill, and the most conclusive word he has said on the matter was published in the Adelaide Register on Thursday morning last. In the course of an interview the honorable gentleman is reported to have said -

He understood that the objection was put upon the ‘basis of interference with State rights. That objection was equally open in February last, “but not a word was then said about it.

– Because of the wise encouragement given by the Government.

Mr.FOSTER. - The honorable member for Indi, whom everyone likes, has, unfortunately, a somewhat restricted vision. I do not like this constant sneering at the wine bounty.

Mr Lister:

-What has the wine bounty to do with the roads?

Mr.FOSTER. - Everything. The Prime Minister referred to the wine bounty as justification for the imposition of a petrol tax. No other country imposes an excise duty on spirit distilled from grapes. They make their spirit from decomposed potatoes, wood pulp, and other refuse unfit for consumption even by pigs.

Mr Fenton:

– Is that the spirit with which they fortify their wines ?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes ; and people drink it as if it were new milk.

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr FOSTER:

– Before a vote is taken the Prime Minister should make a statement as to the real position. If he can satisfy me that the Government intends to act in accordance with the law, as explained by the Attorney-General, I shall vote for the bill; if not, I shall oppose it.

Sitting suspended from 6.24 to 8 p.m.

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- I should not have troubled to speak on this bill, but that I think I ought to make clear my attitude towards it as a representative of Western Australia. I have always been in favour of Federal grants for main roads, because they enable needy States to obtain revenue that would otherwise be denied them. I represent a State that is not financially strong, and I make no boast of being influenced in this matter by ethical considerations. I realize that from a business point of view Western Australia will do uncommonly well under this measure, and I propose to accept it with both hands. My State will receive £380,000 per annum for ten years, and, so far as I am aware, no assistance comparable with that has been offered to Western Australia during the period that I have been a member of this Chamber. I entirely disagree, however, with the method to be adopted in raising the money. The petrol tax, as it has been termed, will operate unjustly in many respects, even with the modifications proposed by the Government. I shall suggest another means of financing the scheme. We were told that under the States Grants Bill, which the Government has abandoned for the time being, there would be made available to the States £1,500,000 more than the amount of Customs revenue previously returned to them. The special grants that were to have been made to Tasmania and Western Australia under the States Grants Billamounted to £828,000, and since the Government would receive only £850,000 from the petrol tax, it would be very little out of pocket, if it decided not to impose that tax. I draw attention to the peculiar position that one-third of this continent will be in if the money is raised in the manner proposed. At the beginning of 1925, the Minister for Works and Railways (Mr. Hill) informed me that the amount paid to Western Australia in main road development votes for the two financial years 1923-25 was £384,000, of which only £32,000 was spent in 900,000 . square miles of country in the northern portion of that State ; that is to say. ten-elevenths of the State received only one-twelfth of the grant. The people in the north-western portion of Western Australia, who got £10,000, or one-thirty-eighth of the total grant, are, therefore, greatly concerned about the petrol tax. They know that even if a large grant is made, they will not receive an appreciable share for the construction of roads in the sparsely-populated country north of the 26th parallel of latitude. Consequently, I am not surprised that I have received scores of telegrams from roads boards and municipalities protesting against the petrol tax. The people of this district, which comprises a large portion of my electorate, are opposed to the bill, because they believe that the money will be raised by way of a petrol tax in accordance with the original proposals of the Government. I am in favour of the bill so far as it affects Western Australia as a whole, although a large part of my electorate will get practically no benefit from it. Under the circumstances, I suggest that the sum that would have been set aside, had the States Grants Bill been proceeded with should be made available for main road construction; then the States would lose very little. A petrol tax is not new. Western Australia has one in operation to-day ; but, of course, it would be withdrawn if the Commonwealth decided to impose a tax of this nature. Since Western Australia is a very large State, the northern portion of which is very sparsely populated, the State Government finds it difficult indeed to develop the southern portion. I may say, in passing, that, contrary to the general opinion that prevails among my own friends there, I think that the north-west should be financed by direct grants from the Commonwealth Government. Despite the local feeling that Western Australia should retain the whole of its territory, I cannot escape from the conviction that the development of the north-west is a national work, and that this Parliament should undertake the financial responsibility for its settlement. Returning to the subject now under consideration, I contend that, since the State Government considers it inequitable that the people north of the 26th parallel should be required to pay the locally-imposed petrol tax, it would be unfair for the Commonwealth to collect such a tax from a district in which no roads are to be constructed. But there is a difference between a State levying a petrol tax and the Commonwealth Government imposing it. The State Government can discriminate between one district and another, but the Commonwealth Govern ment cannot discriminate in that way. Therefore, I am opposed to this method of raising the revenue. I do not agree with those honorable members who gauge the merit of the proposal by the benefit that particular States would get out of it. I do not desire to secure any special advantage for Western Australia ; but one honorable member, when reminded that South Australia had received considerable assistance by means of - the wine bounty, heatedly pointed out that returned soldiers, on the verge of starvation, had been thereby assisted. He hinted that, while those men were entitled to assistance, settlers in other States should not receive similar benefits. I willingly supported the wine bounty for the benefit of returned soldiers and other primary producers, because I realized that the industry was in difficulties. As a protectionist, I am a warm supporter of Australian* industries generally; and when I ask for assistance for sparsely populated portions of Australia, it should be remembered that the settlers in those districts assist the thickly populated areas by contributing their share towards the £40,500,000 raised annually through the Customs. In that way, they help to establish infant secondary industries in the eastern States. Although a number of people in Western Australia clamour for freetrade, I shall always be found endeavouring to convince my electors that Australia must ultimately establish her own secondary industries. Up to January last, the Commonwealth had paid in bounties, since 1916, the sum of £1,301,000, and I hope that honorable members from the eastern States, whose electorates benefit immensely from the establishment of secondary industries, owing to the beneficent operation of the tariff, will be prepared to help the outlying parts of the Commonwealth, if they, appear to be getting rather more than their fair share of the main roads grant. This is the first opportunity that I have had to support the granting of a considerable sum for the development of an outlying portion of the Commonwealth. 1 should be entirely in the clouds if I ignored the benefit that the States will receive from the scheme. My only hope is that the Government will obtain the money, not by a petrol tax, but from the same source as that which was to be set aside from the State Grants Bill. In the circumstances, I have very much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

Ministers, agreed to the imposition of taxation on petrol used in all kinds of farming machines. This is an extraordinary proposal to have come from the champions of rural interests. I am glad to learn that it is suggested that users of petrol other than road users, will be entitled to some rebate or exemption from the proposed tax; but if, as the Prime Minister says, the oil companies are going to pay this tax, I should like to know why there ia any sort of necessity for giving a rebate of the tax to farmers, fishermen, and other people who use petrol for purposes apart from motoring. If, as we are promised, the oil companies will pay the tax under this scheme, it surely becomes entirely unnecessary to make rebates to petrol users who do not use the roads. Another point to be considered in the incidence of the - tax is that it is proposed to exempt from it those who use Commonwealth Oil Refineries petrol. It has been again and again denied that this is a protective duty. Why, then, should those motorists who use annually 6,500,000 gallons of Commonwealth Oil Refineries petrol to run over the. roads be exempt from this special taxation? Why should a motor bus company, with a dozen motors on the road between here and Geelong, using Commonwealth Oil Refineries petrol and knocking the roads to pieces, contribute, nothing to this special taxation, while at the same time an unfortunate little grocer or trader in Brunswick or Northcote is to be heavily taxed for every mile he covers, if he uses any petrol other than that which is supplied by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries? If this is not a protective tax, it should in justice apply to all petrol. Even as a

Victorian I protest in equity against the special exemption from the tax of Commonwealth Oil Refineries petrol, although all, or nearly all of it is used in this State. Before I conclude I should like to say a few words on the fact that three States - New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia - possessing some five-sevenths of the total population of Australia have at this stage re used to have anything further to do with the Government’s scheme. I can scarcely believe, even now, that in view of the defection of these States, the Government intends to persevere with this measure.

I am unable to understand why the Government, if it is really going on with the scheme, and believes that the three States to which I have referred can be compelled by force of public opinion to come into the scheme, has dropped the proposed duties on chassis .and tires. As I understand, the amount required to carry out the road construction scheme in the contributing States of “Western Australia, Queensland, and . Tasmania, is about £850,000 per annum. The revenue expected from the tax on petrol alone is about the same amount. In addition, there is a sum of £500,000 which is to be contributed out of the general revenue to the carrying out of the scheme. As the scheme stands to-day, there is to be raised £500,Q»)0 more than is required in the three States that will participate in the proposed grant, and by dropping the tire and chassis taxes, an insufficient amount will be derived to give effect to the scheme in the other States, should they come in. I wish to make myself perfectly clear in this matter. I should vote against the bill if for no other reason than that these three States have failed to ratify the agreement. I cannot believe that the Government will long persist under its scheme in. taxing the petrol of motor users in Victoria against the expressed determination of the Victorian Government not to take any part in the scheme. What is to be done with the money if it is raised for roads, and not applied to roads? Will the Government have power to allocate it for any other purpose? I do not think the. Government will have the temerity to spend in the other States the whole of the revenue derived in Victoria and New South ‘ Wales from the petrol tax. As a Victorian, I do not at all mind being charged with being a Statesrighter, because there are such things as States rights under the Federal Constitution, and I am not ashamed to stand up for them. Even if, under the earlier scheme, the Victorian Government had subscribed to the proposal, I should not have been content that within ten years £2,000,000 should be taken from the taxpayers of Victoria and spent in any of the other States. Since the war the taxpayers of Victoria by the exercise of a good deal of self-denial, have made a sincere effort to carry on economically, and, as a Victorian and a member of this House, I deny altogether the justice of taking some of the money derived from Victorian taxpayers and passing it over to a State which has been living as Queensland has been living. I say that without any apology whatever.

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

– What about the River Murray Waters Scheme? Does not Victoria benefit from that?

Mr GULLETT:

– Honorable members have referred to reciprocal payments between the States, and I say that the conscience of Victorians is quite clear as far ‘ as the northern State is concerned.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Queensland will ask us to-morrow to pay a cotton bounty.

Mr GULLETT:

– Yes, a cotton bounty of £900,000; and yet we are asked what we have done for Queensland. My final word is this : I do deplore, and I am sure the whole House would deplore, anything in the nature of a conflict between the Commonwealth and State Governments. It would be sheer tragedy for us to get into conflict with the governments of any of the States, if such a conflict could possibly be avoided. There is no doubt that the trouble that has developed over the Federal Aid Roads Bill is largely due to other well-known Government proposals of a financial character which were recently submitted to this House. This is the first retaliatory kick of the States against those financial proposals. Out of war with the States no good can come for the Government, this Parliament, or Australia. As showing the undesirability of quarrels with the States, we have only to reflect upon all those measures which have gone- through this House, and are being passed this session, whose success or failure depends upon harmony between the Commonwealth and State Governments. There have been some relatively small bills for the payment of bounties, for oil and metal prospecting, and some very important bills, such as the Development and Migration Bill and the Science and Industry Bill, and the success of all those measures must depend upon the maximum amount of goodwill between the Commonwealth and State Governments. Therefore I deprecate the passage of this bill at this stage, because it will go a long way towards making trouble between the

Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the States. On that and other grounds I have mentioned I shall vote against the second reading of the bill.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- From the remarks of many honorable members, particularly those who sit on the Government side, one would think that by the waving of some magic wand we could have good roads brought down from the clouds. Every one wants good roads, but some people would like to get them for nothing. We have heard honorable members on the other side of the Chamber discussing the constitutionality of the Government’s proposals. These honorable gentlemen knew full well that in his policy speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) promised to give the States £20,000,000 for roads, yet not one of them on the hustings took exception to that particular proposal. In the circumstances, therefore, they are rather late in raising the cry of unconstitutionality. The time for them to protest and obtain the opinion of their electors was when they were seeking election. If they could not endorse a part of the policy speech they should have told their electors so.

Dr Nott:

– They were not game to do so.

Mr FENTON:

– No.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– How does the honorable member know?

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member for Wannon did not raise any objection to the roads grant.

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I qualified my support of the Government’s financial proposals.

Mr FENTON:

– We are now talking of the roads grant. Not a single Government supporter had a word to say against the proposal of the Prime Minister to make a grant of £20,000,000 to the States for road construction. Some honorable members say that Australia should no,t take cognizance of what is done in the United States of America. My chief complaint against the Australia Constitution is that it follows too slavishly the Constitution of the United States of America, which at the time of the formation of the Commonwealth was about 115 years old. But we can have no better example than America in the matter of a Federal Government granting assistance to State

Governments. In 1916, the United States Government passed a bill to enable assistance to be given to the States for ‘ making roads, and from 1916 to 1926 $690,000,000 has been voted from the Federal Exchequer to assist the State Governments to carry out this work. The right honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Watt) quoted only a portion of President Coolidge’s message to Congress.

Mr Cook:

– The part that suited him.

Mr FENTON:

– I do not go so far as to say that the right honorable member quoted only that part of the message that suited his case, but T propose to quote another paragraph preceding that which he quoted. It reads as follows: -

Since the inauguration of the present plan of Federal aid for road construction, the States have changed their methods of financing their portion of the expenses. A large majority of the States now exact a gasoline tax, thereby distributing the cost of road construction and maintenance to those who benefit by their use. The construction of roads within a State is purely a State matter, and ultimately should be financed by State funds. Without further legislative enactment the States would carry on their construction to an amount which they can afford to spend on it. But the National Government is committed to the policy of assisting in the building of good roads. Commitments have been made both by the States and the nation in this direction. It is necessary to continue them for the present.

The paragraph read by the right honorable member for Balaclava was as follows : -

I do, however, recommend for the consideration of the congress that future legislation restrict the Government’s participation in State road construction to primary or interstate highways, leaving it to the States to finance their secondary or intercountry highways. This would operate to diminish the amount of Federal contribution.

Despite these words, President Coolidge recommended to Congress for the financial year, 1926-27, a bigger vote than ever from the national Parliament to assist the States, and the great bulk of the expenditure was for road construction. It is now six months since that message was sent to Congress, but I regret that there are no records available in our Library to enable me to ascertain what action was taken by Congress. I am inclined to think that Congress is constituted very much like the Australian Parliament - that being wedded to a policy for the construction and development of good country roads, it would no doubt pay as little regard to this message as it has paid to many of his other messages. Except for the hint in the President’s message, -we have no information that Congress has any intention of decreasing its grants to the States for road construction. Some honorable members in the Chamber are complaining that money raised in Victoria will be spent in other States, but that is not an innovation. It has been done before, and no objection has been taken. It will be done again. It is also dene in America. According to the World Almanac for 1925, only $3,663,105 was allocated from the Federal grant for road construction in the populous State of New York, against §4,410,169 for Texas, whose population does not nearly approach that of New York. Quite evidently the amount of revenue contributed by the various States is not taken as the basis of distribution. A great many people in Australia declare that a national Parliament should not dabble in roads and bridges affairs. In the past no one could say anything more disrespectful of a politician than that he was a roads and bridges member. To my mind the development of arterial roads is a national policy. No doubt our railways have developed Australia wonderfully, but the great cry in our country districts is : “ Give us good roads.” Transport has been revolutionized. During the last ten years the national government in America has found it necesary to spend $690,000,000 to assist .the States in making roads. As a matter of fact, the Federal Government’s contribution towards the expenditure on roads is nearly half.

Mr Lister:

– Is the Federal Government’s contribution derived from general revenue ?

Mr FENTON:

– I have not studied the source from which the money is obtained, but as President Coolidge in his message refers to the fact that the States have adopted a tax on gasoline, the honorable member is probably correct in assuming that the contribution of the Federal Government comes from general revenue.

Mr Hill:

– It would be more equitable to make the road users pay.

Mr FENTON:

– That is a debatable point. Many people are very dubious about the equity of the Government’s proposals in that regard. Many people say, like the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), that the importer always passes on the tax. However, later on we shall have an opportunity to discuss the proposed taxation. The World Almanac summarizes the position in the United States of America as follows : -

In the seven years ending the 30th June, 1923, the sum of $407,704,641 was spent in building 23,297 miles of roads in this country, of which the Federal Government contributed $174,044,674. New roads built under way or approved, in the year ending the 30th June, 1924, total 26,491 miles, at an estimated cost of $505,626,454, of which the Federal Government pays $227,311,475. The Federal Aid Highway system, provided hy the Act of 1921, consists of, approximately, 170,000 miles of road, and has been designated by the States and approved by the Federal Government. At the beginning of 1924 it was estimated that 60,000 miles of the system had been surfaced, about 8,700 miles graded, leaving 110,000 to be surfaced. Some of this work had beer done by the States independent of Federal aid. The $75,000,000 appropriated by Congress to the States as aid in road-building in the year ended the 30th June, 1925, was divided as follows: -

The quotation then proceeds to enumerate 50 -different participants, including the distant possessions of Hawaii and Alaska.

Mr Cook:

– In respect of roads through Crown lands, the Federal authority provides the whole of the cost.

Mr FENTON:

– I am not aware of (hat, but in no instance is the expenditure upon a population basis. In 1925, Texas, which has a very much smaller population than the State of New York, received the biggest vote, namely, $4,500,000. The Commonwealth proposals follow very closely on the lines adopted by the Federal authorities” in the United States of America. I call the attention of honorable members to the statement that the American highways upon which the expenditure is incurred are “ designated by the States and approved by the Federal

Government.” Practically the same policy is followed in Australia. Victoria controls the selection of the roads to be constructed, subject merely to’ the approval of the Federal Minister for Works and Railways, but the actual construction work is handed over to the Country Roads

Board, which, in turn delegates it to the shire councils. Thus, the final control of this expenditure lies with the State and its instrumentalities. The Commonwealth Government will not call for tenders for the construction of 1 inch of roads. It will merely grant money to the States, which will carry out the actual work with the aid of their own authorities. According to President Coolidge’s message to Congress, the United States Government has budgeted to expend more money upon the States in the current financial year than in any previous year. From £16,000,000 to £20,000,000 is voted annually by Congress as grants in aid to the States.

We have heard a good deal of protest against the duty of 2d. per gallon on petrol. Recently I was supported by honorable members on both sides of the House when I protested against the importation of petrol pumps and an unwarranted increase in the price of petrol by 2d. per gallon. The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) referred to-night to the Federal Parliament as a great taxing machine, but its activities in that direction are insignificant in comparison with what is done by the big combines in Australia. Recently, without previous warning,the Australian managers of the two oil trusts met in. solemn conclave, and, although professing to be bitter rivals in business, agreed to impose a tax of 2d. per gallon on all petrol users in Australia. In other words, two private business managers were able to tax petrol consumers to the extent of £1,000,000 per animm - exactly the amount which the Federal Parliament hopes to . collect from the importers of petrol.

Mr Hill:

– And very little fuss was made about it; the people had simply to pay.

Mr FENTON:

– Yes; they had no representation at the meeting at which the tax was imposed, and they could make no protest. I am glad that the two oil combines made that mistake, and I believe that if they could retrace their steps they would not repeat it. They placed the Commonwealth Oil Refinery on its feet; to-day the company cannot supply the demand for the spirit it produces, and that spirit isused by some of the shrewdest business people in Australia, including the Yellow Cab Company. We are warned that the Vacuum Oil Company and the British Imperial Oil Company will pass the petrol duty on to the consumer. They may; but if the speech of the Prime Minister last week means anything, it means that he will fight these combines to the bitter end. If he falls down on the job he and his supporters will cut a sorry figure. The fight has been commenced, and no half measures will suffice. These trusts are seeking to impose their terms on the national Parliament and the people of Australia, and if they increase the price of petrol by 2d. per gallon it will be the duty of the Government to establish other refineries in Australia, and, if necessary, import large quantities of refined spirit. That can be done. Many people tremble with fear that, if we offend the Vacuum Oil Company and the British Imperial Oil Company, they will cut off our supplies of petrol. We need not fear that. I am informed on the best authority that if they resorted to such tactics Australia could promptly be supplied from other sources with all the petrol it requires. I am glad that the Prime Minister spoke as he did last week, and I hope that he will not stop at mere words. The Labour party has been preaching the same doctrine for years; but it aims at, not only the oil monopolies, but all trusts and combines that batten upon the Australian people. I notice that in its leading article to-day the Argus rails against the Government on account of its roads policy, and that, to my mind, is one indication that the Government is on the right track. Often in reading the news columns of a journal one gets a view that is very different from that expressed in the leading article. The following extract from the commercial column of the Argus indicates the immense profits that are made by the Shell Transport and Trading Company: -

For the year 1925 the Shell Transport and Trading Company earned trading profits amount in to £4,859,970, which compares with the previous return of £4,858,594. Deducting certain expenses, net earnings aggregated £4,818,355, or slightly higher than in 1924. The balance available was £5,049,979, and the ordinary dividend free of income tax was at the rate of 22½ per cent. The company has increased its holdings in subsidiary concerns by £426,654,and the total now amounts to £23,929,707. The company’s investments in gilt-edge securities appears at £7,452,311. The reserve is £5,000,000, and the surplus of current assets over current liabilities is £12,0/2,013. If cash be added to gilt-edged investments a total of £8,000.000 is provided. The report of the Royal Dutch Petroleum. Company, the associate of the Shell Company, for the same term shows a net profit for 1925 of nearly £S,000,000, a substantially larger sum than in the previous year. The increase in profits is 7.4 per cent., and the dividend on the ordinary shares is at the former rate of 23 per cent. The progress of the- Royal Dutch Shell group is shown by the report to have been well maintained. Refineries have beer extended and equipped with the latest processes. The carrying capacity of the tanker fleet is now 1,600,000 ‘tons. Production of oil in the Dutch Bast Indies field has been reduced, and in the United States and Venezuela it has been increased. The larger output in the last field is one of the satisfactory features of the report of the company.

That statement covers only two of the companies included in the Shell group; I do not know how many more there are, but I should- like to know what were the total profits of all the allied companies. I contend that the oil companies were not justified in increasing the price of petrol by 2d. per gallon recently, and they will not be justified in passing on the new duty. If they do that, I expect the Government to fight them to the bitter end. Some of us were opposed to the Commonwealth Government entering into partnership with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, because we feared that it might become just as dangerous a combine as the Shell and Standard Oil groups, but later developments have thrown a new light on that agreement, and although the Anglo-Persian Oil Company may in some respects co-operate with the other big companies, I believe that the fact that the British Government has a half-interest in the main company, and the Commonwealth has a half share in the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, is some assurance to the Australian consumer. At any rate, the Commonwealth has its own directors on the board of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and if they do not do their duty to the people they should be removed and others appointed in their stead. The petrol importing companies are making such huge profits that there is no reason why they should pass on the new duty. They may attempt to do so, but the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited are well informed in regard to oil movements throughout the world, and, with their advice, the Commonwealth should be able to counter any move made by the trusts. I intend to support the bill although its constitutionality may, as the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) said, be tested in the High Court. The Supreme Court of the United States of America interprets the Constitution of that country as does the High Court our Constitution. It has been said that Chief Justice Marshall, of the United States of America, was once asked to give a constitutional decision (which would in effect have shattered the Constitution. He felt, however, that he should give a decision in favour of the nation, which he did, and that principle, I believe, has been followed in other countries. Some may say that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America are more of a political than of a legal nature, but Professor Channing once said that the decisions of that court are generally in favour of the people. I suppose the High Court of Australia, to a large extent, adopts the same methods. In one case the original High Court of Australia gave a certain decision in regard to State instrumentalities, but that decision was subsequently reversed by the present High Court, whose decision was more . in consonance with the aspirations of the people. In conclusion I desire to say that in this case as in relation to other construction works the Government should have a continuous policy. This Parliament cannot, of course, bind succeeding Parliaments; for instance, a Government of which I was a supporter repealed a Naval Li.an Act passed by its predecessors. A continuous policy in regard to road and railway construction and other public works should however be adopted in order to avoid waste of money and delay. If I were a member of a State Government I should not be concerned if the passage of such measures as this reduced the status of the. States. I say, unhesitatingly, that the State Parliaments should be put in their proper place, and the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament should be extended in such a way that works of national im- portance could be proceeded with uninterruptedly in the interests of the whole Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the. decisions reached by some of the State Governments, I believe that in the end they will all take advantage of this proposal. The Premier of Victoria, Mr. Allan, has displayed great weakness. In the first place, he said that his Government would accept the scheme, and then, when a little political turmoil arose in the House, he turned it down. If such men fall down on their jobs they deserve to be left by the wayside. I intend to support the bill, and hope that, as the result of its passage, we shall have a permanent continuous and progressive system of road construction that well ensure Australia’s development and generally be in the interests of the whole of the p people.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

.- I do not propose to discuss the constitutional aspect of this matter beyond saying that, as the Attorney-General has definitely stated that this measure is within the constitutional powers of this Parliament, we are justified in supporting it. It is true that a leading King’s Counsel in Melbourne has expressed a different opinion, but he added that it was extremely probable that the High Court would disagree with the view he had expressed.

Mr Brennan:

– Is the honorable member referring to the opinion given to the State Government?

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– Yes.

Mr Brennan:

– That opinion was not given by a King’s Counsel.

Mr G FRANCIS:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · NAT

Mr HURRY:

– He said that the trend of decisions of the High Court was towards constitutionality, especially in regard to action taken under section 96 of the Constitution. Mention has been made of the delicate position in which representatives of New South Wales find themselves. That, however, is for them to determine; it has nothing to do with me. But it may be said that Victorian members are in exactly the same position. I do not find that so. My State Premierwent to a conference of representatives of the States and agreed to this proposal, and the Prime Minister was quite justified in assuming that he had a majority of members of the State Parliament behind him. Having ratified the agreement at the conference, the Premier should have done his best to carry it into effect. I believe that Victoria will soon come into this scheme, because it is too good to lose. It has been said that we are invading State rights; but unless there is some co-ordinating authority, such as the Federal Parliament, a national roads policy will never be obtained.I am pleased that the Federal Parliament has taken this matter in hand, and I hope that it will go through with it to the end.It has been said that there is great objection by motorists; but, except in the one locality, which has sent me a large number of telegrams, I cannot discover any substantial opposition to the tax, not even among garage proprietors. It has been said that certain of my constituents have “ intimidated “ me. I do not think so. Any one of my constituents has a right to make his views on any matter known to me. They have not exceeded their rights; but I wish that instead of making me open so many telegrams they had sent me one telegram saying that the soandso club, of 140 members, strongly objected to the bill. That would have saved my time and theirs. I had to open every one of the telegrams, because I thought that the next one might contain something more important. I naturally wonderedwho was responsible for them, and after making inquiries I found that the secretary of the local motor club was not a local representative of an oil company, but an employee of the post office. The amount of revenue thereby brought to the department was considerable, and I suggest to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Gibson) that when he is marking out officers for promotion he should consider the claims of that individual. If the senders of those telegrams had expended a similar sura in payment of the petrol tax of 2d. a gallon, assuming that they travelled 20 miles to the gallon, they would have made a journey of 99,600 miles.

Question - That the hill be now read a second time - put. The House divided.

AYES: 39

NOES: 13

Majority . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 5089

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1926, Nos. 72, 91, 92, 93.

page 5089

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until 11 o’clock to-morrow morning.

page 5090

ADJOURNMENT

Development and Migration Commission

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

I desire to announce to the House the names of three of the members of the Development and Migration Commission. Mr. H. W.Gepp, the general manager of the Electrolytic Zinc Company, has been appointed chairman for a period of seven years at a salary of £5,000 per annum. Mr. C. S. Nathan, the managing director of Charles Atkins and Company, of Perth, has been appointed vice-chairman. When invited to join the commission, Mr. Nathan indicated that his personal and business arrangements precluded him from accepting a position for an extended period. He has, however, agreed to join the commission as vice-chairman for a period which at present is limited to one year. In the circumstances, he has asked that he be not paid a salary in respect of his services, but that some allowance be made to him to cover the cost of his transfer to Melbourne, and the incidental expenses which would be entailed by his living here. For the year which be has agreed to serve on the commission the Government proposes to make him an allowance of , £1,000. The third commissioner is the Hon. J. Gunn, Premier of South Australia, who has been appointed for a period of five years at a salary of £2,500 per annum. The act contemplates the appointment of four commissioners, but as yet only three have been selected. The Government anticipates being able to announce the name of the fourth commissioner at an early date.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 August 1926, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1926/19260809_reps_10_114/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 9 August 1926

QUESTION

MILITARY VETERANS

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL AID ROADS GRANT

Mr R GREEN:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr BRUCE:Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

QUESTION

VISIT OF THE DUKE OF YORK

Mr BOWDEN:PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:NAT

Mr SCULLIN:YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr BRUCE:

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

NORTH ANDSOUTH POLAR EXPLORATIONS

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

STATE TOURS AND REGIMENTAL EXERCISES

Sir JOHN GELLIBRAND:DENISON, TASMANIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT COUNCIL

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

PRESERVATIVES AND COLOURING MATTER. IN FOODS, DRINKS, AND SWEETS

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:NAT

QUESTION

FLOUR AND BREAD MANUFACTURE

Dr MALONEY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr PATERSON:Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

LOCARNO TREATY

Mr BRUCE:NAT

TARIFF BOARD

Annual Report

Mr PRATTEN:Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

FEDERAL AID ROADS BILL

Second Reading

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Scullin:

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr E RILEY:SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MANN:Western Australia

Mr Coleman:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr Cook:

Mr MANN:

Mr Gibson:

Mr MANN:

Mr Fenton:

Mr MANN:

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr MANN:

Mr WEST:East Sydney

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr WEST:

Mr Marr:

Mr WEST:

Mr PARSONS:Angus

Mr HUGHES:North Sydney

Mr RODGERS:WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Hill:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Watkins:

Mr HUGHES:

Mr Fenton:

Mr HUGHES:

House of Representatives
9 August 1926

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

Mr BOWDEN:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Sir JOHN GELLIBRAND:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Sir NEVILLE HOWSE:
NAT

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for Markets and Migration · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

Mr PRATTEN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr MANN:
Western Australia

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bayley:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr PARSONS:
Angus

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr FOSTER:
Wakefield

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND · LP; NAT from 1917

Mr COLEMAN:
Reid

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr GULLETT:
Henty