House of Representatives
23 October 1936

14th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1244

QUESTION

BRITISH SHIPPING SERVICES

Australia to New Zealand - Australia to the East.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

. - by leave, - For some time past the governments of Australia and New Zealand have been in agreement upon the principle of protecting the special interests of British shipping in the passenger and cargo service between the two countries, but for various reasons action has been deferred from time to time. More recently, this matter has become involved in the general question of the Pacific shipping services, upon which Empire governments have deferred a decision until the Imperial Shipping Committee has submitted its report, which will be in the near future. Recently there have been consultations between the different governments, on account of the desire of the Government of New Zealand to introduce enabling legislation during the session in that dominion which is about to close. As the result of these inter-governmental consultations, that Government is about to submit its legislation to Parliament. The Commonwealth Government will introduce appropriate legislation, and the policy in regard to trans-Pacific services will be determined as soon as possible after receipt of the report of the Imperial Shipping Committee.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– In view of the fact that within recent years British shipping lines have traded between Australia and the East only on the sufferance of Japanese shipping interests, will the Prime Minister say whether the Government has formulated proposals for the protection of British shipping in that quarter ? If so, is it proposed to introduce legislation for its protection concurrently with the legislation dealing with transTasman and trans-Pacific shipping?

Mr LYONS:

– This matter has been, and is now, receiving the consideration of the Government.

page 1245

QUESTION

SPANISH WAR

Service by Australian Nurses.

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been directed tothe statement that the Spanish Belief Committee has sent a cable to Egon Kisch in Paris, asking him to meet the four Sydney nurses who have volunteered for Bed Cross work for the Spanish Government? Does the right honorable gentleman see no inconsistency in allowing these nurses to leave Australia, in view of Australia’s participation with the principal powers in apact for nonintervention in the Spanishwar? Is it within his power to prevent these nurses from leaving Australia?

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for Repatriation · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have seen the paragraph to which the honorable member has directed my attention. I have my own opinionof these nurses, whom, happily, I do not know.While I should be prepared to exercise my powers of persuasion over them, and, if necessary, offer them inducements to remain inAustralia, officially I have no authority over them.

page 1245

QUESTION

BARRISTERS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware of the formation in New South Wales of an association to achieve the almost impossible task of promoting fair and honorable practice among barristers?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Has the formation of this organization the approval of the Attorney-General ?

Mr MENZIES:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– In spite of the obvious fact that the honorable member has suffered in the past at the hands of barristers, the answer to his question is “ no “.

page 1245

QUESTION

INTERSTATE TELEGRAMS

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Has the atten tion of the Attorney-General been directed to the statement of the Honorary Secretary of the Postage Reduction League in Sydney, that eminent counsel is of the opinion that the decision of the Privy Council upon section 92 of theConstitution makes it illegal for the Federal Government to discriminate in its charges for telegrams between the States? Will the honorable gentleman examine this contention, and take what he regards as appropriate action?

Mr MENZIES:
UAP

– My attention ha. now been directed to the statement. If the honorable gentleman will ask the association to forward the opinion to me, I shallbe very glad to peruse it.

page 1245

QUESTION

SPONDYLITIS

Mr MULCAHY:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the large number of ex-members of the Australian Imperial Force who are suffering from spondylitis, but find it almost impossible, after the lapse of twenty years, to establish the claim that their condition is due to war service, will the Minister for Repatriation consider the advise ableness of making provision for this complaint to be accepted as one due to war service, in order that these sufferers may obtain hospital and medical treatment?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– The honorable member opens up by his question a very wide field of inquiry. I shall investigate the matter, to see what may be done in the direction suggested by him.

page 1245

QUESTION

COUNCIL OF DEFENCE

Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP

– In view of the large expenditure to be incurredthis year on defence, will the Prime Minister consider the desirability of extending to the Leader and the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition an invitation to take a seat onthe Council of Defence? Further, will the right honorable gentleman consider the formation of an allparty committee of this Parliament to deal with defence matters as they arise?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I believe that the House has been assured that both of these suggestions will receive the consideration of the Government.

page 1246

QUESTION

ENGLAND-AUSTRALIA AIR MAIL

Position of Western Australia

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General state whether there is any foundation for the rumour that, in connexion with the proposed overseas air mail contract, it is intended that mails for Western Australia shall becarried from Darwin to Sydney before proceeding to Perth ? Can the honorable gentleman give the assurance that there will be no departure from the present route via Daly Waters, or some other approximately direct route?

SirARCHDALE PARKHILL.- This matter is bound up in the reconsideration of the internal services upon the completion of the British air mail proposals. My view is that there is no foundation for the rumour that the present arrangement will be varied in the manner suggested. Inany event, the matter has not yet been considered; but it will be considered in connexion with whatever re-arrangements are found to be necessary. I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that the existing arrangement will be continued.

page 1246

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUTHS

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– In view of the fact that the Prime Minister, in the policy speech which he delivered before the last general elections, stated that a conference would be held with representatives of the State Governments, to discuss concerted measures to deal with the employment of youths, and as press reports indicate that the State Governments are agreeable to such a conference, will the right honorable gentleman give early consideration to the matter?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Consideration will be given to the matter.

page 1246

QUESTION

MEINKAMPF

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs state whether it is a fact that a recent publication by Adolf Hitler, entitled Mein Kampf, has been censored? Has the honorable gentleman received a protest from the Presbyterian Assembly in connexion with the matter?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

-I have not received a protest.

page 1246

QUESTION

MATERNITY

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Health state whether finality has been reached in the arrangements between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales, in connexion with the maternity policy propounded by the right honorable gentleman ?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– The arrangements to which the honorable member refers, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, were completed long ago. A quota for New South Wales, under the distribution agreed upon, was handed over. A committeehasbeen appointed by the Government of New South Wales and, I believe, is functioning. If the honorable gentleman desires further particulars, I shall endeavour to obtain them for him from the State Minister for Health.

page 1246

QUESTION

BOY LABOUR FOR FARMS

Position in Queensland.

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Has the Prime Minister read the statement of the Premier of Queensland regarding the shortage of boy labour for farming operations in that State? Will the right honorable gentleman obtain fromthe Premiers of the different States particulars of the number of boys available and suitable for this class of work? Will the. Commonwealth pay the fares of any boys who are prepared to go to Queensland, and ascertain under what rates of pay and conditions they would be employed?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– This matter is one for the Premier of Queensland. I shall bring it to his notice.

page 1247

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (MARKETING) BILL 1936

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 22nd October (vide page 1239), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the hill bc now read a second time,

Upon -which Mr. Curtin had moved, by way of amendment -

That all the words after “That” lie omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words - “this House is of opinion that, the proposed alteration of the Constitution is inadequate and that the referendum codling approximately £100,000 should have for its purpose such alteration of the Constitution as would grant to this Parliament wider and mure comprehensive powers “.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.– In recent years this Parliament has been called upon to consider no measure so fraught with serious consequences to Austraiian primary production as is this measure, which proposes that a referendum be taken to surmount the difficulties that have arisen as the result of the decision reached by the Privy Council in the James case. In consequence of that decision, the Australian primary producers have reached a crisis in marketing affairs, and I am sorry to see from the debate, as far as it has gone, that we do not appear likely to be able to get that assistance which we might reasonably have expected from the Opposition. The Privy Council’s decision has affected the well-being of more than 100,000 producers, mainly in the dairying, dried fruits and wheat industries, and it has definitely destroyed the effect of th’marketing legislation which the Commonwealth and State Governments have passed to stabilize the prices of primary products amounting to an annual value of £25,000,000. The marketing of. Australian primary products in Australia and overseas has been a difficult problem for a long period. The primary producers first of all attacked the problem on a voluntary basis but not with much success; many agencies undermined their endeavours. Then their voluntary systems were backed by statutory authority and certain control boards were created, which were of invaluable assistance to the industries. Those boards finally approached the governments with requests for special legislation to help them in organizing the industries. The federal boards were made up of representatives of the producers and of the Government, and their task in the main was to overcome the problems of interstate and overseas trade. Under the legislation passed by the State governments, and under the complementary legislation passed by the Commonwealth Government at the request of the various States, much has been done to establish orderly marketing of primary products on a profitable basis. To-day we find that as the result of tho Privy Council decision, the organization that wa3 created has crashed, and will become ineffective. The underlying principle of that organization mainly was that a producer could sell only a portion of his goods in Australia, and had to agree to send the balance of his products overseas for sale in a market which is less profitable than, the local market. The portion* to be sold in tho home market and in the overseas market were arranged on an equitable basis by the board. It is obvious that the overseas market must be less profitable than the Australian market because it is unprotected and the goods have to bo sold in competition with lowwage countries. Furthermore, the additional expenses involved in overseas marketing include freight, insurance and advertising, &c., all of which must come out of the return obtained from the produce. Obviously, therefore, the people engaged in the industries prefer the local to the overseas market. Orderly marketing of primary products has been worth millions of pounds to Australia. Those engaged in the industries speak with one voice, and the organization that has been created has resulted in the growers obtaining substantial reductions of shipping and insurance charges. The Privy Council’s decision has shattered that organization. Prior to the decision there existed power to control marketing in Australia, particularly interstate marketing, on an orderly basis. The High Court said that that power existed and it was not until the Privy Council gave judgment that we found ourselves in the chaotic position that we occupy to-day.

Before federation, each of the States had power to control intra-state and interstate and overseas marketing, but now, as the result of the Privy Council decision, no power of control, either Federal or State, exists over interstate trade. The proposal to add a new section after section 92 .of the Constitution is the minimum step that can be taken to overcome the difficulties that have been created. Nothing is asked for which would take powers from the States or add to those of the Commonwealth. The sole purpose of the proposal is to restore to the States and the Commonwealth the power which we all believed they had and which the High Court said they had. lt is necessary for us to profit by previous experience of referenda. Of the seven or eight referenda that have been submitted to the people, only two have been carried, and each of those two concerned a single subject. Past experience shows that if a referendum is to be successful it is necessary that it should deal with only one point. Referenda were held in 1906, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1919, 1926 and 192S. The referendum held in 1906 was a single referendum taken for the purpose of altering the basis of Senate elections. No political issue was involved, and it was carried by a substantial majority. Referenda which succeeded it until 1923 dealt with a series of proposals, and all were rejected. The history of referenda in Australia shows that unless they deal with one subject they are disastrous to the parties which promote them, and all parties have had referenda submitted to the people. The only other referendum that was successful was submitted in 192S, and it was only submitted after agreement had been arrived at between the Commonwealth and the State Governments and legislation had been passed to g;ve effect to the financial agreement. The electors, by a substantial majority, approved of the financial agreement at that referendum. Therefore, having regard to the vital importance of the proposal contained in this bill, and having regard to our experience of the fate of referenda which dealt with more than one subject, it is obviously necessary to submit this referendum in the manner in which the Government has suggested. The proposal is an emergency proposal designed to overcome the difficulties created by the decision of the Privy Council, and to restore the position which existed prior to that decision. If the referendum is not carried, the producers engaged in primary industries that arc the subjects of the orderly marketing system will be thrown to the wolves.

Mr MAHONEY:

– But the people w ill get cheap food.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Obviously, the hon orable gentleman is more desirous of giving the people of Australia cheap food than he is of being fair and just to the people who produce that food. The people engaged in the dried fruits, the dairying and the wheat industries will be thrown to the wolves if this referendum is not carried. Apparently, the Labour party does not desire to lift its hands to help them in any way. Before the system of orderly marketing was introduced, the dairy-farmers were living under coolie conditions. Their income was well below the basic wage, and for a long period they received only about 6d. per lb. for butter, which was mainly produced by unpaid family labour on a basis which demanded 865 days of work each year - winter, summer, autumn and spring. These people d’d not have a 40-hour week; they worked intolerably long hours; yet the Labour party, apparently, desires to allow them to fall back into those conditions. Orderly marketing has meant a great deal to the men engaged in primary production, and the Labour party in opposing this referendum is most ungenerous unfair and selfish. Indeed, its attitude is almost unbelievable. The conditions 0f the dried fruits industry nr 1 -r t” lr>94. and before the orderly marketing of that product, was established, were ruinous. I remember that a deputation of representatives of the industry came to Parliament House in Melbourne and pointed out the chaos that existed in it. de”1 a ring tl,pt without control of marketing it could not carry on because the growers 17fare nimble to export in competition 1, 1 th ether countries. All that the deputation said was proved bv investigation to be porrect. It was found that the industry was indeed in sorry circumstances. but. as the result of orderly marketing. it was restored once more to prosperity. Unless, however, the Government’s proposal receives the endorsement not only of this Parliament, but also of vue people of Australia, it will be compelled more or less to drift back to the conditions that operated some years ago. The Labour party is not prepared to assist in preventing that drift.

Under the marketing legislation the butter industry has grown in such a way in a 1 ew years that to-day it exports 110,000 tons of butter a year. Not only has the quantity of the product grown, but also the quality has improved to such an extent that to-day the Australian butter producers are able to sell overseas at pr.ces equal to those obtained by their New” Zealand competitors - something they have never hitherto been able to achieve. Much of the expansion in the industry has resulted from the assistance given by orderly marketing, which this referendum is designed to restore. No industry has done more to develop closer settlement in Australia than the dairying industry, and if this legislation is not passed it will be thrown into chaos and the development of Australia will be retarded for many years. If orderly marketing is not able to proceed, all industries - not merely those I have mentioned - will suffer. I remind the House that the problems of the depression were accentuated by the fact that returns from the sale of primary products fell by £250.000,000. Indeed, that slump was one of tho biggest factors contributing lo the depression. If the referendum is not carried, serious repercussions, which will damage the prosperity of this country, will occur. As the result of the depression, employees in industries in Australia had to submit to a wage reduction of 10 peT cent, to compensate for the drop in the prices of primary products. The Labour party would drive us back to the period which brought about the depression, and if it does so it will have to answer to the workers of the country. Our secondary industries are protected by tho tariff and by the Arbitration Court. “What is sought bv the prima rv industries of Australia is similar protection to that which is enjoyed by the manufacturing industries. Austro1!”” manufacturers, generally speakin<r. ^ >>-( only one market, and that is lbc 1o”“1 market. The purchasers of their goods, other than the workers engaged in the manufacturing indus tries, are largely the primary producers, and those dependent upon them Therefore, if the primary producers are not prosperous, the secondary industries must necessarily experience bad times. The morn prosperous our primary producers arc, the greater will be the number of persons employed in this country, and the higher will be the prices obtained for the products of secondary industries.

It has been suggested that the present impasse might be overcome by the imposition of excise duties on primary products. Such a proposal could not be seriously entertained by the Labour party, because it has consistently opposed the adoption of that method of assistance Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) remarked that his party was definitely opposed to an excise duty. During the depression when an excise duty was imposed on flour for the purpose of providing help for the wheat-growers it was vigorously opposed by the Labour party. Despite the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition, the Labour Government of Western Australia, according to the press, has announced that the present difficulty should be overcome by the imposition of excise duties. I have never seen such chaos in the ranks of the Labour party as is evident there to-day.

Mr Drakeford:

– -What about the honorable member’s own party?

Mr FRANCIS:

– I think that my party will he found standing solidly behind the proposal of the Government. The attitude assumed by the Labour party on this issue is almost unthinkable. I trust that Lt will reconsider its position, and allow the bill to be passed on the voices, indicating that it has at last seen th& light, and is willing to give the primary producers the assistance they sorely need. Otherwise the men on the land will be left to chance, deserted by tho Labour party. Proposals for orderly marketing similar to those enjoyed by the manufacturers and the workers in secondary industries should not be denied to primary producers.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the bill provides for a paltry alteration of the Constitution, but I point out that orderly marketing has- been invaluable to the primary producers of Australia.

Incalculable benefit kas been derived by the dairying and dried fruits industries. Butter producers, particularly, have gained to the extent of many millions of pounds. The improved conditions brought about by orderly marketing will not be considered by the primary producers as paltry. During the depression period, the primary producers were of special assistance to the community generally. Prior to the depression, all industries enjoyed a certain measure of success, hut the biggest part in assisting the nation towards economic recovery, and in the provision of employment was played by the primary industries. In 1923-24 there were 84,000 male workers engaged in the dairying industry in Australia. In the following year the number had increased to 94,000, whilst in 1930-31 the total was 105,000, showing that employment in that industry actually increased at the beginning of the depression. In the manufacturing industries, employment was reduced during the depression, but in the dairying industry, the number of men employed rose from 105,000 in .1930-31, to 122,000 in 1933-34. Despite the reduction of prices, all the primary industries continued to produce to their utmost capacity, and played a noble part in helping the nation to surmount its difficulties. Yet, when these industries appeal to the Parliament for assistance to meet an emergency, the Labour party lets them down. In 392S-29, there were 450,000 persons engaged in the manufacturing industries; in 1929-30, the total had fallen to 419,000 ; and it further dropped to 338,000 in 1930-31, and to 336,000 in 1931-32. Then the figures slowly rose, until, under the careful administration of the present Government, the total to-day is 475,000, the highest in the nation’s history. For the important part which the primary industries have played in assisting towards national recovery, both during and after the depression, and because of the fact that the collapse of the primary industries would spell ruin to the secondary industries, I urge the Opposition to support the Government in the present proposal. Are honorable members opposite prepared to allow the workers in rural industries to be thrown to the wolves?

As the present bill i3 designed merely to meet an emergency, I commend the Government for its action in submitting only the simple issue which the hill contains. For 36 years attempts have been made to alter the Constitution, and various governments have met with a sorry series of reverses. On the present occasion we should profit by that experience, and be content to submit to the people the one question which is of vital importance to the primary producers. The present attitude of tho Labour party is untenable. Because it cannot get the whole loaf, it is ready to refuse the primary producers even the crust. I appeal to the Opposition to change the attitude it has adopted, and to stand solidly behind the Government in the interests of the primary producers, the workers, and the people of Australia generally.

It is customary, in a debate of this nature, to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), at an early stage of the discussion, but he has scarcely been seen during this debate. I should like to know where he and his Labour colleagues from Queensland stand on this matter. I read in the Canberra Times to-day that a special dispensation has been granted to them in order that, at the direction of the party’s organization in Queensland, they might support the Government on this occasion, because the Labour Government in that State strongly supports organized marketing for the primary producers. I sincerely hope that they will support the Government on this important question. I have never seen the Labour party so tom about on any issue as it is on the matter under consideration; it is marching in all directions. Then seems to be a bigger rabble in its ranks on this issue than there was when Napoleon’s army was retreating from Moscow. On that occasion, Napoleon’s men had one objective - to get back to France as soon as possible; but, on this issue, we do not know in which direction the Labour party is marching. Certainly the rejection of this bill would mean chaos to the primary producers. I have never seen a more sorry picture than that presented by the present divided Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition has stated in this chamber that he is opposed to excise duties to help the producers; yet, according to the press, the Labour Government in Western Australia declares that the difficulty can he overcome satisfactorily only by means of excise duties. 1 hope that, during the week-end, the Labour party will recon.sider its position, and that next week it will speak with one voice and support the bill.

On the 7th October last, the CourierMail published some remarks by the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, concerning the impasse that has arisen. A paragraph headed “ Gap Must be Bridged,” states -

The Premier, who w;i3 addressing a representative gathering oi the dairying industry at a luncheon party on the Moolan, remarked Unit the industry in Queensland was unfortunately suffering from two disabilities. One of them was the dry spell and the other waa the decision of the Privy Council in what had become known as the James case. Though no doubt sound in law the effect ot this ease upon producers waa serious. It was not a question now of giving Parliament certain legislative powers, but thu question was whether thu people should have those powers. The answer, he believed. was in the affirmative. Queensland knew how important marketing organization had been to producers in Queensland, and how it had improved and was still capable of improving their economic position. There was no reason at. all why producers should not engage in that form of marketing which they thought best for themselves.

Tt had always appeared absurd, said the Premier, that while the State authority had complete power in their trade and commerce there was no power with regard to interstate exchanges, and he trusted this defect would bp remedied in the near future.

Immediately following the announcement by the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) of the Government’s proposals regarding the referendum, the Premier of Queensland, about the 16th October, stated -

A study of thu Federal referendum question indicated tint it had been drawn up to establish the legal position on interstate marketing, which it was thought the Commonwealth Parliament had before the decision of the Privy Council in the Jo-men appeal, said the Premier (Mr. Forgan Smith) yesterday. II carried it would m’‘an Unit the Commonwealth could continue to exercise that legislative authority which it had done in the past and so make effective St’-ite legislation designed to improve the farmers’ conditions.

All that, the people will be asked to grant to the Commonwealth Parliament is power to implement the State legislation that is designed to help the primary producers. Queensland has had much experience of orderly marketing, but the members of the Labour party in this House who come from other States curiously enough are opposing this policy, even though they have not had the experience of it which their party ia Queensland has had. Ihe Queensland Government has had considerable experience of orderly marketing, yet Labour Governments in other States which have not had such experience are also prepared to ignore its advice to fall in behind the Commonwealth Government in support of its present proposal. I appeal to the Labour party in this House to reconsider its attitude towards a matter which is fraught with serious consequences to the primary producers of Australia and to keep in mind the reality that, if the producers are now driven back to conditions even remotely resembling those which existed at the beginning of the depression, the workers will suffer proportionately as the prices of primary products fall.

Mr Mahoney:

– Will the honorable member tell us how that will happen?

Mr FRANCIS:

– If, at this stage of his political cai-eer, the honorable member cannot realize what is obvious, it is probably futile for me to endeavour to explain it, but it must be obvious, even to him, that if the primary producers are impoverished, and therefore unable to purchase manufactured articles, it will be futile for the manufacturers to continue production. They have only the Australian market, and if that is denied r-hem because of the poverty of our primary producers they will speedily be in difficulties. Their production would be unprofitable.

T make a final appeal to all honorable members to fall in behind the Government a.nd support its proposal, the object of which is to restore rightfully to the primary producers the power to control the marketing of their products in Australia and overseas in a. way which will ensure a. continuance of the prosperity which they have enjoyed in the past. If this is done it will help towards the further development of Australia generally along those lines we have followed so successfully in recent years.

Mr MCCLELLAND:
Wimmera

.- Mr. Speaker-

Mr Garden:

– Five Government members in succession!

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. ‘J. Bell).Order! There have not been five Government members in succession. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden) was not in his place when I gave the call to the honorable member for Wimmera, who also sits on my left and had previously risen at the same time as the honorable member for Cook.

Mr Mahoney:

– But five running!

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) is noi in order. I have given the call very carefully in the order in which honorable members have risen, paying attention to the claims of honorable members on both sides of the House. The honorable member for Denison has no reason to complain.

Air. Mahoney. - I rise to a point of order–

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! No point of order arises.

Mr MCCLELLAND:

– I listened attentively to the speech made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) and with the majority of his remarks I agree, but I think that possibly with some other honorable members, he is taking too much notice of the professed antagonism of honorable members opposite to the Government’s proposal in this matter. Undoubtedly a measure of this nature offers an opportunity to honorable members to express opinion on the need for alterations of the Constitution in directions other than marketing, but taking all the circumstances into consideration the Government is to be congratulated on the reasonableness of its attitude as evidenced in this measure. All honorable members will agree that there is a necessity for many alterations of the Constitution but the proposed alteration is urgently needed in the interests of several important primary industries which, at the present time, are threatened with chaotic conditions as the result of the Privy Council’s decision in the James ease. To me it seems remarkable that an amendment to the Government’s proposal should be moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), who hap pens to represent an electorate in a State that appears to be more antagonistic than any other State to any enlargement of Commonwealth powers. Western Australia is the only State in which a referendum has been taken on the issue of secession. Consequently it must have been obvious to the Leader of the Opposition when he moved his amendment that there was no chance of the people of Western Australia agreeing to an enlargement of Commonwealth powers as suggested in his amendment.

One reason why I congratulate the Government on its attitude is that it is entirely reasonable. Its proposal is evidence of its desire that this Parliament should be given that power to deal with marketing which it waa thought it possessed prior to the decision of the Privy Council, and it represents the minimum for which the Government could ask in order to prevent a recurrence in our primary industries of the chaotic conditions which existed prior to the enactment of our existing marketing legislation within the last twelve years. Several honorable members opposite appear to entertain grave fears that, if the Government’s proposal is carried, those in control of primary industries will take advantage of the opportunity afforded to exploit the community. But this fear is somewhat tardy. This opportunity has been available to the primary producers under marketing legislation enacted ten or twelve years ago. The achievements of the dried fruits industry oan be regarded as typical of the material results of that legislation. [Quorum formed.] The Dried Fruits Control Board, which has controlled the sales of dried fruits during the last twelve years, has exercised the very powers which some honorable members opposite now profess to fear may be abused if the Government’s proposal ia agreed to by the people. A protection of 6d. per lb. is available to the dried fruits industry, but it may be news to some honorable members to learn that the board has never charged for that portion of fruit sold locally more than 2d. per lb. over the prices obtained on overseas markets, and that extra 2d. has not been taken from the local community to provide for any losses that might result on sales overseas. It is used merely to com- pensate growers for the added cost to the industry imposed by the tariff, and the operation ot Arbitration Court awards.

Mr Paterson:

– Thu local price has never been more than a id. per tb. above the overseas price; it may have been 2d. per lb. more than the export parity, which is different.

Air. MCCLELLAND.- That is so. The point I emphasize is that whilst a protection of 6d. per lb. is available to this industry, the Dried Fruits Control Board, which honorable members opposite appear to fear may exploit the community if the Government’s proposal is agreed to, has never taken full advantage of that protection. I point out that in 1912 the price of dried fruits to grocers in Australia was 7d. per lb., whilst the price during the last three years has varied between 6¾d. and 7-Jd. per lb. Sultanas at the present time would cost about £84 a ton to land in Australia, and the control boards are supp-ying local consumers at about £56 a ton. Those prices compare more than favorably with those ruling for products of any other industry in this country during the same period.

If the people refuse to agree to this minimum alteration of the Constitution, primary producing industries will be forced into a state of chaos similar to that which existed in quite a few of them some years ago. Unfortunately, however, some people hold the view that primary producers should be prepared to take prices determined solely by the law of supply and demand. If that were the case in respect of all other industries I have no doubt that the primary producers would fare as successfully as other producers. But in considering this point, let us examine developments in the dried fruits industry in another country. About seven or eight years ago the Californian fruit-growers allowed their industry organization to pass out of existence, and as the result of the low prices prevailing in the interim 140,000 acres have gone out of production. In Australia, in the Murray Valley alone, 50,000 acres are involved in this industry. Prior to its establishment this land was carrying about one sheep to every six or seven acres and the total value of annual production was not more than a few thousand pounds. To-day, some of the most prosperous towns in Australia are situated in the Murray Valley, which carries a population of 45,000. There are about 4,000 orchardists, nearly half of whom are repatriated returned soldiers with comfortable homes on holdings of from 16 to 20 acres. I ask honorable members to contrast the position of this district to-day with that existing there prior to the establishment of the dried fruits industry. The total annual value of dried fruits produced in Australia is nearly £3,000,000. lt the growers are not enabled to secure a price which Will cover their costs of production, they will bo ruined, and these productive areas will have to be abandoned. The position of the dried fruits industry is similar te that of the other industries concerned. Such a development would have an adverse effect on the community as a whole. lt may be of interest to some honorable members to learn that, although it would cost £84 a ton to land sultanas in Australia from London, the locally-grown sultanas are being sold here for £56 a ton. That statement alone must surely dispose of the fear expressed by some honorable gentlemen that marketing control boards are likely to exploit the general community. The total value of the dried fruits industry of Australia is estimated to be about £7,500,000, and the value of its annual production about £3,000.,000. I ask whether a single other Australian primary industry can be named which is selling only 20 per cent, of its product at the local price? Everybody knows that world prices for our products fluctuate considerably. It would be impossible to maintain our dried fruits industry without some measure of control, for it is very different from most rural industries. Fruit trees have to be pruned every year, and in the irrigation areas they have also to be watered, and unless our orchardists receive a price for their product which will at least cover the cost of production they will be unable to continue in the industry.

The proposal of the Government is much to be preferred to that of the Opposition, and I think would have much more chance of success if submitted to the people by referendum. If the alteration of the Constitution proposed by the (government were made, it would not materially increase the power of the Commonwealth Parliament. Unanimity, both inside and outside of this Parliament, is highly desirable on this subject,’ and as we arc simply trying to stabilize our marketing legislation on the basis that was thought to be legal before the decision was given in the James case, I can see very little justification for any discord. 1 urge honorable members opposite to co-operate with the Government in seeking to secure a substantial affirmative majority at the forthcoming referendum.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– It is to be hoped that all other State governments will follow the lead given by the Government of Queensland in regard to co-operation with the Commonwealth in the maintenance of our marketing machinery. Quite recently the Queensland Parliament passed “A bill to continue the operation of the Dairy Products Stabilization Act of 1 933 “. That measure, which is the basis of Queensland’s butter stabilization scheme, would have expired next year had not steps been taken to continue its operation. It is interesting to note that the new act contains the following section : -

The operation of the Principal Act is hereby continued without limit of time.

The Government of Queensland, which is supported by a very large Labour majority, has thus shown that it is willing to co-operate indefinitely with the Commonwealth Government in continuing its present effective arrangements for the marketing of dairy products. It may be said that, on a population basis, Queensland is one of the small States, and J hope that its lead will be followed by the other States that fall within the same category.

The necessity for organizing the marketing of our primary products surely cannot be gainsaid. At least ffourteen marketing boards of one kind and another are in operation in Queensland. These deal with wheat, butter, cheese, and many other commodities. There has also been constituted in that State a committee to deal with the marketing of the fruit grown tthere. The, Under-Secretary ffor Agriculture and Stock, who is also the

Director of Marketing, recently presented to the Queensland Parliament, a report which dealt with the marketing organizations in that State, and in the course of it he said - lt may be stated in a general sense that the principles of orderly marketing of primary products have continued to gain in popularity willi producers.

The commodities to which the collective system of marketing has been applied have made satisfactory development, and in many cases, very material increases in the volume of production of the commodities have taken place. It is still the case that no pool once formed under the marketing acts of thin Sit A te. has ceased to function.

At thu present time primary products with an aggregate value exceeding £17,000,000 per annum arc dispensed of through marketing organizations. Over the term pf years during which orderly marketing has been in operation, more than £100,01)0,000 has been distributed by pool hoards to primary producers^

The fact that every pool board established under the marketing acts has been able to meet its financial obligations for loans raised tor purposes connected with the pools, can be accepted as evidence that the pooling system is based on sound economic principles.

During it recent debate objection was offered to the establishment of marketing boards on the ground that they might exploit the consumers, hut that has not been the experience in Queensland. 1 shall refer to this subsequently. The practice has been adopted in Queensland of appointing a government representative ou each marketing board, and on ;!i is aspect of the subject, the UnderSecretary for Agriculture observed in his report -

The practice of arranging for officers of thi” department possessing special knowledge of the particular products that have been made the subject of a pool to act as Government representatives on the various boards has again been’ followed throughout the year with satisffacto ry results. I wish to record the interest the officers concerned have taken in this particular work, and to thank them for the services they have rendered in this connexion.

The circumstances under which these various boards and ‘the pools which they control came into being are interesting. Prior to the adoption of the pooling system in Queensland, the thousands of persons engaged in primary production in that State were entirely unorganized and the conditions under which they had to live were most unsatisfactory. The price of butter at that time was, in effect, fixed in London, and it fluctuated greatly. Very often the dairy-farmers received a return for their product which did not cover the cost of production, and was certainly quite unreasonable in view of the work done by them in producing. In those days, many dairy-farmers were getting financial returns much lower than the payments made to workers engaged in our city areas. The Queensland dairying industry was really established by men who included many who had been shearers or other workers, and who, under the system of land selection in vogue in Queensland, took up small holdings, and became primary producers. In my own electorate some of the most successful dairy-farmers had been engaged in shearing or other kinds of labour. These primary producers were forced by economic conditions to organize their industry, and as a consequence, the Butter Board and the Cheese Board, in particular, were constituted, these being among the earliest of the marketing boards to be established. But it was discovered after the boards had organized the marketing of the various products under their control, that the improved prices obtainable caused interstate competition. As interstate trade was entirely free, the State Government could do nothing to cope with the situation. For this reason the aid of the Commonwealth Government had to be sought. Some regulation of interstate trade was necessary, and it became evident that a wider application of the principle of organized marketing on a Commonwealth, instead of a State, basis was necessary. The need arose also for the orderly marketing of our products overseas. After the Queensland dairyfarmers had successfully organized their industry within the State, they sent representatives to the southern States to persuade the dairy-farmers there to agree to the organization of the dairying industry on a Commonwealth basis. As honorable members know, the Paterson scheme bad been in operation, with great success, for a considerable time, but was subsequently superseded by the joint scheme operated under Federal and State legislation.

It will be realized from what I have said that we are not engagedin an academic debate, but are dealing with realities. Thousands of primary producers throughout Australia are intensely desirous that constitutional authority shall be provided to enable them to conduct their affairs under their organizations, not only for their own benefit, but also for that of the nation. There are more than 90,000 dairy-farmers in Australia, and it is estimated by Mr. Plunkett, M.L.A., that the value of the dairyfarms of the Commonwealth is about £200,000,000. The persons engaged in wheat-farming on areas exceeding 20 acres in extent numbered 56,738 in 1933-34. The honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. McClelland) has given figures which show the vital importance of the dried fruits industry to the Commonwealth. The subject with which we are dealing is thus of great magnitude, and it is regrettable that some honorable members opposite have adopted such an unsatisfactory attitude towards it, but I trust that, as the result of this debate their outlook will be altered. It is worthy of comment that the members of the Opposition have not said that the alteration of the Constitution proposed by the Government is not necessary, nor have they said that, if it were made, it wouldbe ineffective. What they seek by their amendment is that the bill be rejected on the ground that the Government’s proposal is inadequate, and that, it is desirable that the Constitution should be altered so as to clothe this Parliament with wider and more comprehensive powers.

Mr Garden:

– Hear, hear!

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; IND from 1931; UAP from 1934

– I ask honorable gentlemen opposite to consider first the time it would take to reach an agreement as to the extent of the powers that should be granted to this Parliament, and secondly, the delay that would occur in obtaining the powers and putting them into operation. In the meantime what will be the position of these producers throughout Australia? It would appear that because the Opposition believes in unification, it will do nothing to help the primary producers in this matter until the electors vote affirmatively on that subject. Apparently the existing chaotic conditions are to continue until this Parliament is so constituted that it will agree to unification, and the people will vote for it. When members oftheOpposition meet individual farmers in their electorates that isthe position, that they must face. In effect, some of them say to the producers of this country. “ We sympathize with you because it is true that prices for primary products are falling. You have ourheartfelt sympathy, but until there is unification things must remain as they are.” Honorable members should face that position now.

Mr Ward:

– The position outlined by the honorable member is that of government supporters in regard to unemployment and want.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– The decision of the Privy Council has created serious conditions in certain primary industries, and unless something is done quickly the producers in this country will suffer owing to the absence of federal authority. The Parliament of Queensland has recognized the seriousness of the situation, and I ask honorable members of this House to do the same. There are many throughout Australia who, like members of the Opposition, desire extended constitutional powers for the Commonwealth, but are not prepared to allow the present difficulty to remain until removed by an increase of federal powers in other directions.

Mr Brennan:

– Does not the honorable member think that with the greater support it would get from the primary producers the Commonwealth could obtain wider powers than the Government is now seeking?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– The honorable member’s interjection shows that he has approached this subject in an improper way. He and his colleagues will not allow individual questions to be considered on their merits but say, in effect, to the producers of this country, “We want wider powers for the Commonwealth, and you must help us to got them or your problems will remain unsolved.”

Mr Brennan:

– Is not that a fair bargain?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– It is not a fair way to approach any public question . Each question of an extension of powers should be decided on its own merits. The industries affected by legislation providing for organized marketing have pointed out the advantage of the existing schemes. Dealing with interstate trade, the report of the Queensland Director of Marketing states, in relation to the dairying industry -

By reason of the operation of the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Committee Limited no trouble was experienced during the year in the matter of imports of butter from other States. As indicated above, only a small quantity of butter enters Queensland via the border for consumption in centres adjacent to the border. It can be said that this trade, in this case, is following its natural course, and the arrangement is a sound and economical one to dairy-farmers generally.

On the general subject of the equalization of prices the report states -

During the year the board has co-operated to the fullest extent with the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited, and it is pleasing to state that the record of the company’s operations from May, 1034, to June. 1935, indicates fully that the company has fulfilled the expectations of those who were responsible for its inauguration and, in addition, the stand-point of factories generally throughout the Commonwealth. The benefits Queensland dairy-farmers have received on the quantity of butter sold by them throughout the year on the basis of parity values, as compared with the actual prices factories have received under the Commonwealth Equalization Plan, are indicated in appendix 3. From this it will be seen that Queensland dairy-farmers received £1,294,716 8s. 8d. more than would have been obtained had no organized system of marketing been in operation.

That is the position in Queensland, and there has been a corresponding benefit in the other States. In its twelfth annual report dated the 31st July, 1936, the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Control Board makes a similar claim -

The board records its considered opinion that only the existence of legislation permitting orderly marketing of the harvest of dried fruitshas enabled the establishment of a large export trade on sound lines’, which while doing justice to the consumer of raisins and currants in Canada and New Zealand has given confidence to mercantile marketing interests in these countries. At the same time financial benefit resulting from prompt marketing on a cash basis of so large a proportion of the harvest has greatly relieved the strain of financing these considerable crops and permitted more promptpayment of the proceeds of his crop to the producer.

Again we read in that report -

Under these circumstances it is felt that much of the success in the effective disposal of alargely increased production must be attributed to organized marketing and the ability of the growers to speak in overseas markets as a united body.

The report of that board for the previous year contained the following paragraph : -

The existence of legislative control in an industry which hitherto had not enjoyed the advantage of full organization such as exists in respect to the major primary industries of the Commonwealth has been of material benefit to the many thousands of growers producing the Australian dried fruits harvest.

Those extracts show clearly the great advantages of orderly marketing. The first report of the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited dated June, 1935, sums up the general benefits of equalization in these words -

Other benefits derived by the producer from equalization may be summed up as under: -

Maintenance of a stabilized Australian price for dairy produce.

Elimination of indiscriminate interstate transfers.

It stands for equity and gives to the producer the full value realized for his product.

I have said sufficient to make it clear that orderly marketing is an essential part of the economic organization of Australia. The recent decision of the Privy Council struck such a blow at organized marketing on a national basis that prompt action on the part of the Commonwealth was necessary in order to counteract its effects. Consequently the Government has introduced this bill.

I propose now to deal shortly with the proposal contained in this measure. The Government is bound to deal with this subject as a separate problem.No party considerations are involved in it, because before the decision of the Privy Council, all parties assisted to pass through Parliament the legislation to give effect to such organized marketing. Moreover, that legislation was acceptable to all the States. In order to give to the primary producers the legal security that they thought they possessed, the Government has introduced this particular bill free from all other complications; it seeks only to alter the Constitution with respect to marketing. The insertion of a new section 92a in the Constitution is proposed -

The provisions of the last preceding section shall not apply to laws with respect to marketing made by the Parliament in theexcercise of any powers vested in the Parliament by this Constitution.

Section 92 of the Constitution - the “ last preceding section “ referred to - provides -

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free . . .

I emphasize the words “ trade, commerce and intercourse”. Section 92 refers to trade and commerce. Under section 51 (i) of the Constitution the Commonwealth has power to make laws with respect to trade and commerce. It is not proposed to remove the prohibitions imposed by section 92 as regards the whole of the activities covered by the words “ trade and commerce “. The Government’s proposal applies only to marketing. As the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) properly said, the word “marketing” is not a precise word of art in the sense of having a definite legal meaning. It is a general word. In the James case, the Privy Council, referring to the use of words in a constitution, said -

It is true that a Constitution must not be construed in any narrow or pedantic sense. The words used are necessarily general and their full importance and true moaning can often only be appreciated when considered as the years go on, in relation to the vicissitudes of fact which from time to time emerge. It is not that the meaning of the words changes; but the changing circumstances illustrate and illuminate the full importance of that meaning.

That will apply to the interpretation of the word “ marketing “ which obviously is accepted as a general term. By way of illustration, let us consider the words “trade and commerce”. According to the judgment of Knox, C.J., and Isaacs and Starke, J.J. in the McArthur case -

The terms “ trade, commerce and intercourse “ are not terms of art. They are expressions of fact, they are terms of common knowledge, as well known to laymen as tolawyers. and better understood in detail by traders and commercial men than by judges’ . . . The particular instances that may fall within the ambit of theexpression depend upon the varying phases and development of trade, commerce and intercourse itself. Aviation and wireless telegraphy lui ve lately added to the list of instances,, but the essential character of the class remains the same.

Professor Harrison Moore in Commonwealth of Australia, page 550, describes “ commerce “ in this way - “ Commerce “’ in its most obvious sense describes an operation or transaction - buying and selling, the interchange of commodities; and interstate commerce therefore comprehends “ the sale of an article lying in one State to bc transported in execution of the contract to another State “. But as early as 1S24 the decision of the Supreme Court (U.S.) in Gibbons v. Ogden, established that it was not limited to these operations, but extended to commercial intercourse. “ Buying, selling and the transportation incidental thereto constitute commerce “. (Kidd v. Pearson (1898) 128, U.S., 574.)

We have also to consider the effect of the words “ incidental to “. Section 51, paragraph xxxix, of the Constitution provides -

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws . . . with respect to . . . matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament. . . .

It is now proposed to vest in the Parliament a power to legislate with respect to marketing. If that proposal is adopted section 51, paragraph xxxix will apply to it. A study of publications on economic subjects, including marketing, discloses how the use of the word “ marketing “ has been widened. It covers much more than it did many years ago when it meant only the buying and selling of commodities in recognized market places, many of which were conducted under special charters. The Oxford dictionary defines “marketing “ in this way- “ Buying or selling, the action or business of bringing or sending a commodity to market.”

According to the same authority - “ Market “ means to deal in a market, to buy and sell, to go to market with produce, to dispose of in a market, also to bring or send to market.

The terms “ marketing “ and “ market “ appear, therefore, to be comprehensive. Learned judges have said that the phrase “trade and commerce, and intercourse “, in it3 broadest sense is better understood in detail by business men and traders generally than it is by judges, because the latter are not conversant with the actual conditions under which trade is being car- ried on. In these circumstances, the Government is wise in submitting the alteration in the form proposed, because the term “ marketing “ appears to be sufficiently comprehensive to confer the power that is desired. The word “marketing “ has now a wide meaning in general use. The Queeusland Government uses the word “ marketing “ in reports dealing with schemes for the disposal of produce, as also does the Director of Marketing, who describes various kinds of marketing by boards. In the Commonwealth Y ear-Book the words “ Marketing of Australian commodities “ are used in respect of all the federal organizations to assist or control marketing of primary products. I urge honorable members opposite to support their colleagues in the Queensland Parliament, who favour the proposed alteration. If they refer to a recent issue of the Queensland Ilansard, they will see how the subject was dealt with in the Parliament of that State. The Queensland Secretary for Agriculture and Stock does not appear to consider that under a system of organized marketing the people are likely to be exploited. In referring to the work of the Butter Board in operation in Queensland, he said -

  1. feel sure the public of Australia do not begrudge the dairy farmer the increased earning capacity that has been brought about by stabilization.

This morning an honorable member opposite advocated cheap food for the people, - presumably to be provided by the cheap labour of the farmer.

Mr Mahoney:

– The honorable member believes in cheap labour.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– I do not. Does the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) consider that the fruit-growers of Tasmania are entitled to a fair and reasonable return for their labour?

Mr Mahoney:

– They are not getting it.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Are they entitled to it?

Mr Mahoney:

– Yes.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– All that honorable members opposite are asked to do is to enable other primary producers also to obtain a reasonable return. I deny the assertion of the honorable member for Denison that I believe in cheap labour. Ifthe principle forwhich I tun contending is given a general application additional employment should be provided, and reasonable wages can be paid. The Queensland Secretary for Agriculture and Stock continued -

There is an old axiom, “ The labourer is worthy of his hire”, and so I say the dairyfarmer of Queensland and the Commonwealth generallyis entitled to a fair market price for the commodity he produces. That view is shared by the public. Evidence of that is to be found in the fact that the public have willingly paid a stabilized price of 140s., and, as far as Iam aware, no demur has been made by any representative of consumer organizations.

The proposed alteration of the Constitution is to enable effect to be given to the principle of a home-consumption price which honorable members opposite have previously supported. Mr. Plunkett, a member of the Queensland Parliament, said that the object in stabilizing prices was to ensure that if prices in Great Britain varied a fixed price would continue to operate in Australia. He said -

Stabilized industry is in the interests of the consumer as well as the producer. Previously, butter would be1s. a lb. one day,1s. 2d. the next, then1s. 4d., and then back to1s. 2d. The consumers did not know what they would have to pay for this article from day to day. but under stabilization they have had the same price for nearly two years. Although at times London parity was above 140s… the Butter Board did not raise its price. It recognized chut as far as primary products are concerned one can only get the price the people can afford to pay.

General policy throughout the world today is to stabilize in many directions. Our arbitration courts are functioning in an endeavour to stabilize industrial conditions.

Mr Ward:

– But are they doing it?

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Is the honorable member opposed to the present arbitration system?

Mr Ward:

– Yes.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– The Commonwealth Arbitration Court was established with the object of ensuring reasonable, and, so far as possible, uniform industrial conditions throughout Australia. Organized marketing of primary produce is to secure stabilized conditions in primary industries. Honorable members are not justified in opposing this proposal merely because they believe that the alteration should be more comprehensive. Further alterations, if required, can be made at a more opportune time. If this proposal is just and reasonable we should accept it and advise the people to do so. We can later decide whether the more comprehensive powers suggested by some honorable members should be sought for this Parliament. The Commonwealth Constitution, adopted in 1901, embodies the important principle that, in the distribution of powers between the Commonwealth and the States, those national in character should be exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament, and those of purely local nature by the sovereign States. There is power to amend that distribution as the nation grows. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether the proposed alteration will give to the. Commonwealth a power which it is proper in the interests of the nation it should exercise, or whether such power should be enjoyed by the States. When the Commonwealth Constitution was framed the conditions with respect to primary production were different from those existing to-day. The country has developed to such an extent that an alteration to confer this proposed power is now imperative. The Government, which believes that the power sought to be conferred should be exercised by the Commonwealth in cooperation with the States, is submitting the proposal in the earnest belief that a majority of the people will accept it. The proposed alteration should not be clouded by other issues; I feel sure that if it is put to the people fairly and clearly they will support it.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

.- No fewer than sixhonorable members opposite, supporting the Government’s proposal to alter the Constitution in the direction outlined by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies), have accused honorable members on this side of the chamber of selfishness; but some honorable members supporting the Government, and particularly the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) have adopted a most selfish attitude. The honorable member for Wakefield stated publicly in South Australia that, if the people were to be asked to confer increased industrial powers upon the Commonwealth, he would not support the Government’s marketing proposal. I do not blame the Attorney-General for drafting the proposal in its present form, because some of the most eminent legal authorities in the Commonwealth have said that the whole subject is surrounded by doubt. The Attorney-General, who appealed unsuccessfully to the Premier of South Australia for support of an amendment of section 92, is walking the tight rope; he does not know on which side he is likely to fall. Prominent legal authorities have said that, if the proposal contained in the bill be adopted, a further appeal to the Privy Council will be successful. Instead of clarifying the position, and helping the primary producers, the Government is spending £100 000 merely to satisfy the greed of certain sections of the community from which it receives political support. When some of the members of the United Australia party said that they were in favour of the introduction of the 40-hour week, political log-rolling immediately took place, and nothing more has been heard from them. Since his return to Australia, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), both inside and outside of this Parliament, has said that he favoured the introduction of the 40-hour week. Only last Sunday, when addressing a church meeting, he repeated that statement. Where does the honorable member stand now? Apparently the roller ha3 been over him, and he has been squelched. The Labour party desires to do everything possible to assist the primary producers; but, unless the present proposal for an alteration of the Constitution is coupled with an appeal for full industrial powers for the Commonwealth, it will not be passed. Only by clothing the Commonwealth Parliament with full powers can the whole resources of the nation be mobilized, and the interests of the primary producers conserved. It has been said that the validation of the Commonwealth marketing legislation is an urgent matter; but what is more urgent than that the unemployed shall be put back to work? Time after time the Government made promises to the unemployed that it would see what it could do to establish the 40-hour week in Australian industries. But in making those promises ii was> telling a deliberate lie, because it knew that the Commonwealth Parliament has not the power to enforce the general application of that reform. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) promised the people that, if his Government were returned to power, certain things would be done which he knew full well it would not have the power to do. The right honorable gentleman said a few days ago that the depression was over; but the unemployed, and those working half-time, do not think so. Honorable members opposite have repeated that statement time and time again. Let us consider the attitude of some honorable members opposite. The right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page) said during his first election campaign, “ If I am returned to power, and it is my privilege to bt included in a ministry, the first thing I shall do will be to see that the people of the Commonwealth have an opportunity to vote by way of referendum on the question of the establishment of new States.” The honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) said to the people, “ If you elect me, I shall support proposals for the establishment of new States.” He was elected on that pledge, and, true to it, he year after year places on the businesspaper a motion to secure the approval by the people of the recommendations of the royal commission for the amendment of the Constitution. He never gets a chance to speak to it; but, at the end of every session, he collects all the spare copies of the business-paper available and distributes them amongst his electors to prove that he is loyal to his promises, and is an honest representative of the people. The Labour party says, “ We believe that the Commonwealth Parliament should be vested with unlimited legislative powers - that there should be one sovereign parliament delegating to States or other subordinate authorities certain of its powers.” That is what the right honorable member for Cowper wanted; that is the cry upon which the honorable member for New England was returned to Parliament. All we ask of those honorable members now is that they will stand up to the pledge they made to the people.

Both of them were returned on the promise that they would strive for the creation of new States, so that the northern part of New South Wales might have its own government to look after local interests. The Labour party believes that the High Court should have final jurisdiction in respect of all Australian matters. The farmers would vote for that to-day. The opportunity of securing an affirmative vote is presented only on rare occasions, and I appeal to members of the Country party to learn the views of the farmers on these important matters.

Mr Nock:

– The farmers have not a sufficient number of votes to carry these proposals.

Mr GARDEN:

– They would be supported by every voter who is animated by truly Australian sentiments. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) has referred to the number of persons in the. dairying, dried . fruits and wheat industries; if his numbers are correct, the alteration can be carried without the help of the Labour party. Why are honorable members appealing to the workers to assist them if they already are assured of the requisite votes? They know that the figures presented by the honorable member for Darling Downs are not correct. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) has said that the workers do nothing to help the butter producers of this country. I can assure the honorable member that the Labour party fought to secure for the Australian primary producers prices for their products above world parity. When an agitation was raised against the loading of the price of butter in the local market we told the workers that it was in their interest that Australian primary industries should be supported and that a home-consumption price for their products should be fixed. We believe in protecting all sections of our own people.

Mr Nock:

– Will the honorable member support the amendment proposed by the Government so that the butter marketing scheme may be validated?

Mr GARDNER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The alteration proposed in this bill will not secure that.

Mr Nock:

– But the honorable member said that the Labour party was in favour of the scheme.

Mr GARDEN:

– It is, but it will not give everything to the Country party, which will give nothing to others. The members of the Country party want everything for themselves; they are interested only in retaining their seats in this Parliament. They have not the true interests of the primary producers at heart. They have opposed every progressive proposal which has been advocated for the betterment of the workers. The Labour party will help them every inch of the way in any honest endeavours to improve the lot of the primary producers. But at the same time we demand that they shall support us in an endeavour to improve the lot of the workers. What is good for the primary producers is good for the workers.

Mr McBride:

– The workers have got protection.

Mr GARDEN:

– They have not a 40-hour week. For some time we have endeavoured to have the 40-hour week introduced into Australian industries, but the Prime Minister has replied that the Commonwealth Parliament has not power to do so.

Mr Thompson:

– The farmers do not work a 40-hour week.

Mr GARDEN:

– Members of the Labour party have been accused of being selfish, but all we ask is that theCom- monwealth Parliament should be clothed with the necessary legislative authority to deal fully with industrial matters. At the present time the Arbitration Court has not that power, for unless a dispute becomes interstate, it cannot intervene. Similarly the court cannot deal with the subject of hours unless there is a dispute in two States. Must we tell the workers to go out on strike in order to have an application for reduced working hours heard ?

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Why not go to the court?

Mr GARDEN:

– We have done so.

Mr Lane:

– The court has never been approached in regard to this matter.

Mr GARDEN:

– We have expended over £40,000 in supporting our claim for the introduction of the 40-hour week. That money has come out of the pockets of the workers. We found,however,that the Arbitration Court did not have power to deal with the matter.

Mr Lane:

– To what case does the honorable member refer?

Mr GARDEN:

– To the case in which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) appeared before the court as an advocate. It was, however, merely a waste of money, time and energy. Members of the Country party arethe most selfish in this Parliament. I believe in protecting the primary producers and of assisting them in every possible way. 1 have been in farming districts. I have met a great many farmers in conference, and I believe that their interests are grossly misrepresented by the Country party members in this House. All that the farmers want is a fair deal. I believe in a homeconsumption price for primary products and always will do so, and I feel sure that the farmers will help the workers if, in turn, they will help the farmers; but their representatives in this House will not give them that chance. Honorable members supporting this bill are more concerned in gaining a political advantage than in helping the farmers and the workers. The Prime Minister appealed to the Labour party to support the Government; we are willing to do so, but the Government has said : “ Here is our proposal; accept it or reject it”. That is not the way in which to getour co-operation. That attitude may be all right in this Parliament, where the Government parties have a majority; they may carry the bill, but it will not be approved by the people generally. If, however, the Government agrees to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) it will have the support not. only of Labor party members in this House, but also, I feel sure, of the majority of the people of Australia. Honorable members have made much of the statements of the Labour Premier of Queensland (Mr.Forgan Smith), and his colleague (Mr. Bulcock), in regard to this matter, but not one word has been said of the attitude in regard to it adopted by the Nationalist Premier of South Australia (Mr. Butler), who has said unequivocally that he is opposed to the Commonwealth’s proposal. As the devil, when it suits his purpose, quotes scripture, so members of the Government parties, when it suits their purpose, quote the opinions of Labour men. The policy of the Labour party on these matters has been clearly defined, and is expressed as follows : -

The promotion and extension of the agricultural and rural industries by the establishment of a Federal Bureau of Agriculture to co-operate with similar State bodies, with a view to organizing all those engaged in primary production into a unified body, so that they may be able to more effectively place their views before governments, and to generally co-operate and assist in giving effect to the following policy: -

Theencouragement of co-operation among primary producers, in order to bring consumers and producer* into direct communication.

It is our policy to keep out the middleman, the fellow who fleeces both the consumers and the farmers. We seek to bring the farmers and the workers together, but it is the policy of the capitalists to keep them apart. When the farmers and the workers realize that their interests are identical, it may be possible to make some progress. The platform of the Labour party further states -

  1. The provision of more up-to-date methods of marketing products, both locally and overseas.
  2. The provision of a system of research work for the betterment of rural production.
  3. Representation of primary producers upon all boards affecting the handling and marketing of their products.

That is the policy of the Labour party, and it. is evident that we seek to serve the best interests of the primary producers. Unfortunately, we cannot get the support of the Country party in our efforts to put. that policy into effect. It is of vital importance to the farmers that this alteration of the Constitution should be agreed to, hut members of the Country party in this House are not prepared to take the only action which will ensure that it will be. No doubt they will be content if they can say afterwards to their supporters, “This is how we voted on the matter in Parliament”. The vote in Parliament is not important now; it is the vote outside that will matter, the vote that will either accept oar reject this proposal. If we include a proposal that Parliament shall have full power to deal with hours - no one asks that Parliament should deal with wages - we should then mobilize the industrial vote in favour of the constitutional alterations we are seeking. “We should also obtain the support of the sympathetic middle class, as well as of the farming classes, who wish to preserve their marketing organizations. In that way, there would be no possible danger of the proposals being defeated.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked that the bill be withdrawn, with a view to its being redrafted, so as to incorporate the suggestions he offered. However, the Government will not agree to that. It proposes to stand fast, and says, in effect, that those who are not prepared to walk with it must go their own road.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– How many people does the honorable member think will walk with him!

Mr GARDEN:

– I am convinced that a majority of the people of the Commonwealth will think as we do. The Government has refused to accept the offer of the Leader of the Opposition because it thinks only of party. With members of the Government party is greater than principle. However, it is not too late for the Government to change its mind. The bill could be withdrawn now and redrafted, so that when we meet next week we may be able to deal with the question as a united body. That is the only way in which the proposal can possibly be carried. It is of no use members of the Country party telling us the old story about the needs of the primary producers, and repeating the history of the wheat and butter industries. We know all that, and we do not want to hear it again. Of course, honorable members opposite are concerned only to get their speeches into Ilansard, so that they may distribute 5,000 copies among their constituents. The farmers do not want speeches; they want the votes of the people to help them put their marketing schemes into operation again. The Government apparently is out to defeat the farmers. On other occasions, the Country party has cracked the whip, and the Government has obeyed. Let it now bring pressure to bear upon the Government to withdraw this bill, and have it redrafted in such a way as to be acceptable to all parties in the House, and to all sections of the community. Perhaps, however, the Country party does not want the referendum to be carried. I do not think they do. No doubt they will be quite content as long as they can make the farmer go on believing that they are trying to help him.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– They must bc more successful than is the honorable member. It takes him all his time to fool his own party, let alone his supporters.

Mr GARDEN:

– My party is solid. It speaks with one voice, and its members will vote as the party decides. The proposal of the Government was not drafted to suit the farmers, but is a compromise reached in an endeavour to placate the Premier of South Australia, and obtain his support. The Attorney-General, with other legal luminaries, visited Adelaide, and tried to win over Mr. Butler, but even then they were not able to gain his adherence.

Mr Casey:

– Will Labour in South Australia support the Commonwealth Government’s proposal?

Mr GARDEN:

– Labour in South Australia will act according to its conscience.

Mr Lane:

– Cannot the Labour party control its members?

Mr GARDEN:

– The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) is one of several members who made a great show of rebellion against the Government some time ago, but they have now been whipped back into line. The Labour paTty, on the other hand, says to its representatives, “ Vote as your conscience directs you “.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– If the bill were withdrawn, and resubmitted in the form proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, would the referendum proposals be supported by Labour in the smaller States?

Mr GARDEN:

– Yes. We can give a guarantee that the Labour party in every part of the Commonwealth would then give an affirmative vote on the referendum.

Mr Thompson:

– The leaders of the Labour party said the same thing in 1926, and then turned against it.

Mr GARDEN:

– The Labour party at that time was divided. If this Parliament decides to put to the people the question of granting to the Commonwealth full industrial power, we pledge the Labour party to support the proposal.

Mr Lane:

Mr. Lane interjecting.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already called the honorable member for Barton to order several times, and I now reprimand him. He is grossly disorderly, and if he offends again, more drastic action will be taken.

Sitting suspended from 1245 till 2.15 p.m.

Mr GARDEN:

– I have received correspondence from eight municipal councils in New South Wales requesting me to make overtures to the Government to include in the referendum the question of the abolition of State Parliaments. I hasten to add that this request originated not in an industrial constituency but in the country electorate of Riverina. It was forwarded to the municipal councils concerned, whose members were heartily in accord with the proposal. 1 urge the Government to give due consideration to the amendment which has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) asking for the granting of wider powers, particularly in the industrial sphere, to the Commonwealth Parliament, if the Government will agree to withdraw this bill and substitute legislation as suggested by the Leader of the Opposit’on, it will have the support of the Labour party, and a referendum to embrace the marketing proposals and increased industrial powers will be unanimously supported by all shades of political opinion. The Country party has pleaded with the members of the Opposition to join with it in urging the people to record an affirmative vote in connexion with the marketing proposals, but if the Country party wants the referendum to he carried it should urge upon tho Government the necessity for agreeing to the Leader of the Opposition’s proposals, so that with the support of the agriculturalists, the industrialists, and the middle class, a victory will be gained on both issues. If the question of the conferring of wider industrial powers on the Com monwealth is included in the referendum^ the industrial movement pledges its word to record an affirmative vote for the dual issue and will support, the farmers who now require protective legislation for the marketing of their products. Otherwise the proposed referendum is doomed to failure.

Mr McEwen:

– Is the honorable member’s point that if the industrialists are unable to get what they want, they will debar the farmers from obtaining thi* necessary protection?

Mr GARDEN:

– The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) and others stated that unless the issue were confined to marketing they would not support the referendum proposals. The Labour party wants the referendum on the dual issue carried, and it will be able to work up sufficient enthusiasm in the industrial electorates to enable an affirmative vote to be recorded if the question of granting wider industrial powers to the Commonwealth is also included in the proposal.

Mr McEwen:

– That does not answer my question.

Mr GARDEN:

– I Avant the referendum carried, but without the support of the workers no affirmative vote will be returned.

Mr McEwen:

– Will the honorable member support the referendum?

Mr GARDEN:

– I would not support it in its present form, because I would be failing in my duty to the industrial section. I want some question to be submitted to the people that is reasonably possible of achievement. I emphasize that I want the referendum to be carried, but I know the condition that the workers will insist upon in return for their support for the marketing proposals. Long ago they were promised that the Commonwealth would endeavour to assume wider industrial powers, but that promise has never been kept. Having once failed this large section of the community, the Government will have difficulty in winning the:r support unless it endeavours to keep that promise. I hope that the Government will give favorable consideration to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- On previous occasions in this House, honorable members have heard sentiments expressed by the Opposition to the effect that it stood solidly for organized marketing schemes in Australia. After taking into cons. deration that fact, it seems strange that the Opposition should now be behaving in such .a way as to confuse the minds of the electors on this matter, thus jeopardizing the prospects of the success of the referendum in the country. The policy which has been adopted by the Opposition in this connexion shows that it has little direct sympathy with the hundreds of primary producers, who are looking forward anxiously towards the success of the referendum, and that it is not definitely considering the true interests of the workers in rural industries. Let me make a recapitulation of the circumstances. Until the decision of the Privy Council in the James case, the Commonwealth Government believed that it had power to legislate in connexion with interstate trade, and that the States had power to legislate for intra-state trade. The marketing schemes which came into operation could do so only through the combination of State and Federal powers; and in fact, the States really approached the Commonwealth in the first place to supplement their legislation, thus making the marketing seh ernes possible. The Commonwealth Government, therefore, legislated to control the interstate position. The decision in the James case, however, has disclosed that the Commonwealth does not possess the power which it thought it did in regard to interstate trade, and the entire foundation of various marketing schemes is consequently in danger of collapse, with adverse results, not only to the industries concerned, but also to the workers therein and the country generally. The Government has acted very genuinely in a desire to prevent that catastrophe, and during the last few weeks, has carefully studied the phrasing of the proposed alteration of the Constitution :~o as to present to the country a simple unambiguous phrase. It has also taken into consideration the effect that State animosity may have on the result of the referendum, and the alteration has, therefore, been so phrased ns to curtail this tendency as far as possible in order to bring about a successful issue of the appeal.

I now come to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) which is so ambiguous that it will only confuse the public mind. In my opinion members of the Opposition were well aware that it would have that effect if it were accepted by the Government. In view of those circumstances I state clearly and definitely that they are displaying very little sympathy for the producers and the workers engaged in rural industries. The object of this measure is to fill a blank in the Constitution that endangers the success and standards of a large number of primary producers, and through them and their employees, the nation generally. Owing to the decision of the Privy Council in the James case, the fact must be faced that to-day no authority in Australia has power to legislate in regard to interstate trade, a position that can only be described as fantastic. For that reason alone T consider that this alteration is worthy of being placed before the people, and every effort should be made to carry the referendum. If the alteration be not accepted the producers of dried fruits and butter will be in a most precarious position. On many occasions various persons have suggested to me that the marketing schemes, which to a certain extent are artificial, have led to unhealthy growth in certain industries, that they have increased the capital value of the land, and so on, and that this has mitigated against their success during the last few years. That may be so, to some degree, but the position which has now arisen has developed over a period of years, and we have to face the present circumstances. To those persons who are liable to criticize the schemes along such lines I have said, “ Would you prefer to have these industries at their present stage of growth, and their value to Australia, than the situation that would have developed without the introduction of those schemes? Would you not rather have an increased export of butter, and the larger sum of money which cornea to Australia from that source than a greatly reduced export?” Furthermore, the question is argued that by prolonging the life of these schemes the boards which control them will exploit the community. We have only to consider their past experience to recognize that, particularly from a more recent date, no exploitation of the public through the operation of those marketing schemes has taken place. The control of marketing of dried fruits has been longer in operation than the butter scheme, and an analysis of the position shows that the Australian public are purchasing dried fruits at a price which is very little above London parity. One can only assess exploitation of the public in this regard by comparing the overseas price, in terms of Australian currency, with the Australian price. 1 f one does so, one will find that the Australian consume!’, for example, pays only Ad. per lb more for dried fruits than does the British consumer. That clearly demonstrates that no exploitation is tailing place in Australia in connexion with the marketing of dried fruits. A study of the position applying to butter discloses the curious phenomenon that, only recently, the Australian butter, in terms of Australian currency, brought a higher price in Great Britain than butter on the Australian market. The object of these schemes, however, is to make possible a home-consumption price which may be higher than the price charged overseas. I am led to consider the principle which underlies them. All political parties, and the whole of the community, have adopted the principle of a protected market and a home price for the products of our secondary industries. The Australian worker also profits by the application of the principle of arbitration, under which he enjoys a wage greater than is paid in other countries, with the possible exception of the United States of America. Therefore, the manufacturer and the worker cannot, in justice or equity, refuse to the primary producer a homo price for that portion of his product which is consumed in Australia.

These are the two points which have to be considered. First, is it necessary to make good the deficiency in the Constitution by reason of which the position in regard to interstate trade is fantastic to a degree, because there is no authority which may legislate to deal with it? The second point is, in principle, that the farmer has a right to a home-consumption, price to place him in a position analagous to that of the worker and manufac- turer. These two points should bp placed clearly before the people. In bringing forward this legislation, the Government is not asking for any now po we*, but merely wishes to be enabled to continue to legislate along lines previously adopted, that is, to supplement State schemes and make them workable. The proposal is one of the utmost simplicity. Section 92 of the Constitution provides that trade and commerce between the States shall be absolutely free. The proposed new provision merely says that that section shall not apply to marketing. The rights of the States arc not infringed by it, because the power could bo. exercised only when the Commonwealth was asked to pass supplementary legislation to enable a State scheme to operate.

It has been argued that the object sought could be achieved by means of an excise duty, which would be used to recoup producers for any loss sustained on the surplus production exported. It is certain that such a payment could be made; but that would not rectify the position which this Government aims to correct. The result would not be orderly marketing, because that implies control within as well as without Australia. I hope that the matter will be viewed in a national,, rather than a sectional or parochial, spirit; that the city people will not join issue with the country people but will recognize that, as they have a home price provided for them through the agency of the tariff and the Arbitration Court, they cannot deny the same principle to primary producers, but will realize that they would aim a blow at their own prosperity if they impaired the prosperity of primary industries. In that spirit, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

.- The issue which faces the people of Australia is. the prices of primary production on tho one hand and the economic conditions and purchasing power of the workers on the other hand. I have always believed in the farmer receiving a fair price for his commodity. I contend, however, that it is lop-sided legislation which makes provision for the fixation of prices to the detriment of th* workers, without correspondingly increasing their purchasing power. While the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) was speaking, I made an interjection on the subject of cheap food for the people. Great Britain has demanded that Australia shall supply it with foodstuffs at world parity prices. It will not pay a price higher than that at which it can purchase from Turkey.

Mr Paterson:

– Great Britain gives Australia preferences.

Mr MAHONEY:

– Great Britain has to supply its teeming millions with cheap food.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must connect his remarks with the bill.

Mr MAHONEY:

– I am endeavouring to show that the prices obtained for primary products overseas make necessary the taking of this referendum. The surplus production of Australia has to be sold on the London market at the price paid for the products of other countries, and that is lower than the price which rules in this country. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) admitted that cheap goods were entering the British market, and that Australia could not compete with them. If the Australian producers cannot find a market for their goods abroad, they will destroy millions of pounds worth of them.

Mr Nock:

– That has never been done.

Mr MAHONEY:

– I have seen foodstuffs dumped into the rivers and the sea whilst women and children were starving.

Mr Paterson:

– Not in Australia.

Mr MAHONEY:

– Yes, and the same thing is to be. done again whilst men and women will be compelled to subsist on the sustenance meted out to them by the governments in the States composed of those who support the present Commonwealth. Government. I want the referendum to be carried, and because of that I want co-operation between the country and city workers. The policies of the agrarian and the city workers have to be at one. Many primary producers are making enormous profits by selling their produce to the city workers at high prices. While that continues the referendum has no chance of being carried. The proposal of the Government will merely increase the cost of food to the worker without increasing his purchasing power. In fact, it is merely legislation to inflate the prices of foodstuffs.

Mr Paterson:

– It will not alter I hem.

Mr MAHONEY:

– The Government has already announced in this House that, the primary producers must get higher prices.

Mr Paterson:

– No.

Mr MAHONEY:

– In that case, the public must be being exploited, and this proposal is simply false and malicious intriguing on the part of the primary producers. Any country that legislates in order to place prices at a false level must cause a decline of its birth-rate with a consequent curtailment of the local market. The farmers in Tasmania have told me that they do not want a fixed price for their products.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– Why are they squealing about the New Zealand potatoes ?

Mr MAHONEY:

– They are not squealing. Why is Victoria boycotting the Tasmanian potatoes when the Constitution provides for unrestricted trade between the States? When the Tasmanian Government took a ballot of the butter producers of Tasmania on a proposal to fix the price of the commodity they voted against it. The proposed referendum has no chance of being carried except with the co-operation of the working classes with the farmers. Both sections have something in common, inasmuch as they are both being exploited by the same parasites. But the Commonwealth Government is not prepared to give to the industrial worker what the industrial worker is willing to give to the farmer. Its outlook is too narrow and parochial. Labour would give to the Government its full support if it would also submit a proposal designed to enable the Commonwealth to have full industrial powers; it would “stump” the country and induce hundreds of thousands of workers to support a fair deal for the farmers. But, while marching forward to obtain the emancipation of the farming community, it is not prepared to allow the Commonwealth Government an opportunity to shoot it in the back afterwards, by not proceeding with a proposal to obtain full industrial powers over the Commonwealth. The Labour party is too wary to allow itself to be sniped at in that way. It is interesting to note that the validity of the price-fixing legislation was tested in the courts by a primary producer of South Australia.

Mr Paterson:

– He was a dried fruits merchant, and not a primary producer.

Mr MAHONEY:

– But he was backed up by the farmers and that means that it was the farmers of South Australia who broke down the marketing scheme. As a matter of fact what this referendum proposes is so much clap-trap electioneering propaganda. When the election is to be held the Government will say, “Look what we did. We submitted a referendum, but we could not get it carried “. If the Government sincerely desires that the referendum be carried, it will also submit for the approval of the electors legislation for the establishment of one industrial power for the whole of the Commonwealth.

Mr Paterson:

– Would the Premier of Tasmania support that?

Mr MAHONEY:

– The Premier of Tasmania left it to the Labour party in this House to decide what was required for Tasmania. The Tasmanian representatives in this chamber have had no screws put on them. It is left to our consciences to decide what is needed.

Mr Paterson:

– It has come to that then.

Mr MAHONEY:

– What about the £5,000,000 taken from the consumers in the fixation of the price of butter that at one time rose to 2s. 6d. per lb.

Mr Fisken:

– When was that?

Mr MAHONEY:

– About ten years ago.

Mr Nock:

– The honorable member means twenty years ago when the war was in progress.

Mr MAHONEY:

– The price of butter was fixed, and butter was cornered and kept away from the poor. It was only after long agitation and outcry that the people who had been exploited were able to force the people who had cornered the butter to disgorge it from cold storage. In that instance alone, £5,000,000 was filched from the people. It was not the price of labour that sent the price of butter up to more than 2s. per lb. I contend that if the price of a commodity is to be fixed the standard upon which it should be fixed is the labour cost, not the standard of luxury which the wealthy “ cockies “ enjoy while the unemployed are starving throughout Australia on doles of from 6s. 6d. to 10s. a week. I do not intend to allow the citizens of this country again to buy luxury motor cars for the farmers when those farmers expect a man and his wife to exist on 10s. a week. That happens under the administration of the Stevens Government. 3 consider that the same consideration shouldbe given to the unemployed workers as is, given to the farmers. I should have no objection whatever to going upon the public platform with the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse), and advocating the granting to this Parliament of increased powers in order to improve the economic condition of the industrial workers, and at the same time to assist the rural industries. The honorable member and I should make an effective combination. But I object to the Government playing a political three-card trick, and asking the Opposition to “ pick the lady “. The Opposition has done all it can reasonably be expected to do in the direction of cooperating with the Government by submitting its amendment. When the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) said that the Opposition was adopting a parochial attitude, by advancing the claims of hundreds of thousands of workers he did not express his personal convictions, but merely answered to the crack of the party whip. The Government is not justified in taking advantage of the decision of the Privy Council in the James case, and submitting a proposal that would allow one section of the people to be exploited by another.

Mr Paterson:

– If both sections art robbed, all is well, apparently?

Mr MAHONEY:

– There are only two classes. The Minister represents the robbers, and I represent those who are being robbed. A referendum of the people will not result in an affirmative vote unless the proposals submitted to them have the unanimous approval of all political sections.

Ministers and their supporters* might well accept the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition, as it would not involve the swallowing of any of their sacred principles. Many members on the Government side are absent from this chamber at the present time. Are they afraid to hear the criticism that the Opposition has to offer? I trust that the crack of the party whip has not scared them into silence. If the representatives of the primary producers desire to develop a valuable home market for primary products, it will be necessary to reduce the hours of labour to 40 a week. Then we should not have so many thousands of unemployed, who cannot afford to buy meat or butter, but have to live on bread and dripping. I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) say that the primary producers had

Buffered more than any other section of the community; but I claim that pool people living in the cities, who were unable to obtain sufficient food and warmth during the winter months, endured more hardship than any section of the primary producers, who can at least grow the food they need, and can always have fires in their homes to keep themselves and their families warm. The prosperity of the primary industries t3 largely dependent on the success of the secondary industries, and those employed in them. If the secondary industries languish, the surplus products of the farmers have to he dumped at unprofitable prices.

I cannot help sympathizing with the United Australia party in having attached itself to the discredited Country party.

Mr Paterson:

– Thos* on the ministerial side are not so divided as are the members of the Labour party.

Mr MAHONEY:

– In our party we have freedom to express our own opinions. The Prime Minister must feel the heavy load that he is carrying inbeing associated in office with the Country party, which tries to extract from the Government all it can get in the interests of its own section. The Prime Minister must know that it is too much to expect an affirmative vote at the referendum. The prospects of such a result disappeared when a motion was submitted in this chamber recently by a supporter of the Government to the effect that the farmers should be allowed to corner the foodstuffs and fix the prices which the people must pay for them.

Tasmania is fighting for freedom of trade between the various States, as from 75 per cent, to SO per cent, of its business is of an interstate nature.

Mr Holt:

– Does the honorable member favour the granting of full industrial powers to this Parliament?

Mr MAHONEY:

– I am supporting the amendment submitted by my leader. I am not aware that any section of the primary producers is in such dire need of assistance that it is necessary to pass this bill post haste. If that were the case, we- could adopt other means to give them financial assistance. There is no reason, therefore, why this proposal could not be postponed and the measure redrafted to meet the wishes of honorable members on this side of the House.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– What would the honorable member propose?

Mr MAHONEY:

– The desires of members of this party have been fully expressed by tlie Leader of the Opposition. We propose that the Government should ask for power to enable this Parliament to give greater assistance, not only to the primary producers, bur also to those people who to-day are existing on the dole and sustenance relief. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) stated that he had paid as much as £1 a day to farm labourers. The conditions under which employees on some big stations in Australia are obliged to work are disgraceful, and I know that on some wheat farms employees are given bags to sleep on, and even these are taken from them when the harvesting season commences. I have worked for farmers in the Ganmain and Coolamon districts, so I know the conditions under which farm labourers have to work. When I said to one farmer who employed me that the hours of work were very long, he simply replied, “ The hours are not longer, but there are more of them”. If the farmer is prepared to increase the wages of the worker in primary industry, I shall wholeheartedly support any move to increase the price of his commodities, but I shall not stand idly by when any move is made on behalf of the producer which will have the result of starving women and children through the cornering of foodstuffs and the keeping up of prices. Producers of wheat and wool are receiving fair prices for their products to-day, and we are not asked at the present time to enable them to fix a price for their product in either the Australian or the overseas market. I have come to the conclusion that an agreement has been entered into between the representatives of this Government and the British Government on trade matters generally, which completely lacks evidence that the British Government has any intention to be loyal to the interests of the dominions by giving their products preference on the British market at reasonable prices.

Mr MCCLELLAND:

– Would not the honorable member call a preference of £18 a ton on dried fruits a fair preference?

Mr MAHONEY:

– The British Government is not prepared to ask its people to pay a higher price for Australian fruits than they are obliged to pay for fruit from Turkey, for instance. Yet Turkey has been quoted to-day as one of our competitors on the dried fruits market. It is a disgrace to the British Government that it treats Australian producers in this fashion and fails to make any attempt to ensure that our products will be sold on the British market at a price which will give a reasonable return to the producers even if it does exceed that of the products of those people who, in the Great War, shot down our kith and kin. When it is a matter of £.s.d., patriotism is forgotten. Britain has purchased millions of pounds worth of wheat from Russia where that commodity is produced under mass-production methods which cannot be applied in Australia. Furthermore, British interests have dumped hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of butter from Russia on the London market, mixing inferior foreign butter with good Australian butter with the result that the market for the Australian product has been ruined. Why should consumers in Australia be expected to pay a price which will en able our products to be sold cheaper to consumers in England? If I thought I could trust the Country party to support any referendum proposal to enable this Parliament to increase the wages and shorten the hours of the workers, in addition to assisting primary producers, I would support this bill. Members of that party now have an opportunity to show their sincerity in this matter. I feel sure that if the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) really d t-si red the Government’s proposal to he carried by a referendum he would accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, as all parties in this House would then be enabled to go to the country” with a united front, in which case an affirmative vote would be assured. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden) has given the views of the industrial workers in New South Wales on this matter, and I can assure honorable members that the industrial workers of Tasmania would support this bill if the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition were accepted. But, judging by past experience, the farmer cannot be relied upon to be loyal to the workers. When the workers have gone on strike for better wages, the farmers have stepped in and taken their jobs. To-day members of the Country party in this House tell the farmers thai representatives of the workers are thu enemies of the primary producers. Th, principal enemy of the farmer is the middleman who makes the greatest profit out of our primary products.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– What does the honorable member propose that the Government should do?

Mr MAHONEY:

– If well-paid Ministers cannot do their job properly, and devise effective means to meet this difficulty, then they should get out of office, and let the Opposition do the job. This Parliament should be given power to provide that the worker is paid reasonable wages. To-day there is more suffering among those on the dole in the cities of New South Wales in one week than the farmers of Australia as a whole experience in twelve months. Honorable gentlemen opposite who have appealed to me to consider the poverty, misery and suffering of the farmers should attend tlie Melbourne Cup meeting and take note of the luxurious ears that the farmers will drive into the parking area at Flemington. It is pure hypocrisy to speak of the poverty of the farmers in the same breath as the poverty of the workless people in our big cities. Last year this Parliament did its utmost to assist necessitous farmers, so we are fully entitled to ask that something shall be done to improve the lot of the working classes. If the Government would accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition the members of this Parliament could approach the electors with a united front and seek their aproval to alterations of the Constitution which would be satisfactory to all of us. I ask the Attorney-General to tell us, when he makes his speech in reply, what the farmers would be likely to lose if the Government accepted the amendment? All wo desire is to make the way clear for effective parliamentary action to be taken to improve the lot of the general community. The Leader of the Opposition delivered a most eloquent speech in support of his amendment. In fact it was one of the finest speeches ever made in this House. If effect could be given to that sound principle of democracy, “ the greatest good for the greatest number “, the primary producers would be placed in a better position that they have ever occupied before. We have heard something iri the course of this debate about the benefits of industrial arbitration, but the Attorney-General knows full well that organizations representing thousands of workers are clamouring for the court to hear their plaints. The honorable gentleman has, for many years, been an advocate before the court of the opponents of the workers, and he knows that before an increase of wages can be given the judges of the court must be satisfied that the industries likely to be affected can afford to pay increased wages. The Government should consider whether the workers of Australia, are ab’.e to continue to pay fictitious prices for foodstuffs. The market for primary products has been manipulated all through the years for the benefit of the middlemen, and this has caused the most serious revolutions that the world has ever known. It would be deplorable for this

Parliament to take an action which might permit the market for certain commodities to be cornered. The AttorneyGeneral is a reasonable man and I appeal to him to give careful consideration over the week-end to the appeal that has bean made by the Labour party for the taking of more effective action to alter the Constitution.

Mr Menzies:

– Am I to gather from the honorable member’s remarks that he intends to support the bill?

Mr MAHONEY:

– If the Government will accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition I shall certainly support it. In the interests of the primary producers, the workers, and the middle classes, all of whom have suffered severely during the depression, the Government should reconsider its attitude. The Prime Minister must remember the occasions on which I have appealed to him to provide food for starving people in Tasmania. It is ridiculous to apply the word poverty to farmers. There is scarcely a farmer in the country who cannot, at any time, provide sufficient food, a good fire, and pure milk for his family; but the children of many workers suffer from malnutrition, degradation and extreme poverty. The actions of the Government of New South Wales, in relation to the poorer people of that State, is a disgrace to democracy.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- In order to effect an alteration of the Constitution it is necessary to secure a majority of the votes of the people of the Commonwealth and also n majority of the States. This proposal for the alteration of the Constitution comes to us with an unusual history. For years it was thought that the Commonwealth Parliament had the power which the Government is now seeking to secure for it, and on the strength, of that presumption numerous measures have been passed by this Parliament. These have all been invalidated by the recent decision of the Privy Council in the James case. The purpose of the bill we are now considering is to initiate steps to validate them. Industries that we have sought to protect and organize will now become disorganized because of the invalidation of the acts which have been passed by this

Parliament in relation thereto. As the bill bet ore us seeks to rectify the position, its passing is manifestly urgent. No new development can arise from its passing ; it will not moan the “cornering” of the country’s food supplies, any more than they can be said to have been “ cornered “ by the legislation previously passed. The decision of the Privy Council means that industries which this Parliament thought it had protected are, in fact, not protected. By this proposed alteration the Government seeks merely to restore them to the position which they were previously thought to occupy. According to the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies), should the people of Australia .give to this Parliament the power that it thought it had, so that it can validate the legislation it previously passed, ipso facto that legislation will again come into force, and the intention of Parliament will, in fact, have legislative effect. I regard as a kind of political blackmail the bargain sought to be made by the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) knows well that there is no chance of hia amendment being accepted in his own State. I regret that the Labour party in Western Australia has, according to press reports, intimated its opposition to the alteration proposed by the Government. The whole question to be decided is whether or not this Parliament now agrees with its previous decision; whether it is willing that legislation previously passed by it shall now be ratified. I remind the Opposition that the legislation now on the statutebook, but declared by the Privy Council to be invalid, had the support of members on both sides of the chamber. It is generally admitted that the protective policy of Australia has laid a very heavy burden indeed on the exporting pr,mary industries of this country. Moreover, the arbitration laws, which determine the wages of railway employees, public servants, and others, also bear heavily on the man on the land, both direct.lv and indirectly. So heavy indeed has that burden become that, during the last three years, 2.800 families have abandoned their farms in Western Australia. The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) said that the primary producer still has his cow, so that his children are not without milk, and sufficient .wood to keep them warm, but does the honorable member know anything of the struggle of those who work, not 40 hours, but frequently 60, or even SO hours, a week on their holdings? Does he know of the inconvenience of their homes, the lack of educational facilities for their children, and the’ battle which those 2, SOO families fought and lost before deciding to abandon their holdings ?

Mr Makin:

– Thousands of workers throughout the country are in a similar position.

Mr PROWSE:

– The high duties on the galvanized iron, fencing wire, machinery, and tools required by primary producers were an important factor in contributing to the losses of those who have abandoned their holdings. The Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry reported that, in respect of the requirements of a farm of 1,200 acres, the duty payable to the Customs Department would be about £500. As most of the holdings which ‘have been abandoned in Western Australia would be of that size, honorable members can readily see to what extent the holders of those blocks contributed towards the upkeep of people in the cities. Now that an attempt is being made to validate legislation already passed by this Parliament, the Opposition is attempting to widen the issue, and in so doing is resorting to what I can only describe as political blackmail. Honorable members opposite should know that the three smaller States are not likely to grant additional powers to the Commonwealth. However much honorable members, individually, may favour unification and the abolition of State Parliaments, will they now take advantage of .a foruitious circumstance to achieve a political advantage? If the Attorney-General’s interpretation of this measure be correct, its passing would be the quickest and simplest way to regain the position which we have lost.

Mr Rosevear:

– It would be the quickest way towards a shortage of foodstuffs in this country.

Mr PROWSE:

– There has been a good deal of misinterpretation of the Government’s proposal. As was the case with butter recently, wheat will probably be cheaper in Australia than in other parts of the world this year, even if a home-consumption legislation were in force. The purpose of this legislation is to give to that section of the community which is so important to the welfare of Australia an approximate equality with other sections. 1 am still as willing as I was when I first entered this House to abolish all protective duties, and if that were agreed to I would not ask for anything for the primary producers of this country. [Quorum formed.] Honorable members opposite who are opposed to an alteration of the Constitution to give a fair deal to those engaged in our primary exporting industries said that many rural workers are not receiving award rates of pay. How could the 2,800 Western Australian farmers 1 have mentioned who received world’s parity for their product, but paid £500 in customs duties and excessive rail freights pay award rates? Honorable members opposite ignore the fact that the returns from our exportable products establish credits overseas. When the Scullin Government was in office, we were besought to “ Grow more wheat “. That request was made, not with the object of making supplies available at a lower price or feeding the unemployed, but in order to increase our exports so that we would be able to meet our commitments overseas. While those engaged in that great primary industry are producing wealth, which has been of inestimable value to the Commonwealth, that wealth has been of little benefit to them ; many farmers have not even earned wages for themselves. In fact, during the depression, the industry has lost hundreds of millions of pounds. The Government is only seeking for this Parliament the constitutional authority which it was thought to possess, to legislate in co-operation with the States in respect of marketing. Honorable members opposite say t.1at the object of this proposal is to enable a section of tlie community to corner food supplies, but no such suggestion was made when marketing legislation was discussed in this chamber. The members of the Labour party are always willing to “ S001 “ on the wheat-growers, as they did during the war period and since, to grow more wheat; but when the price of wheat dropped to . such an extent that the growers could not meet their commitments, honorable members opposite declined to assist them by advocating lower customs duties on the implements required in the production of wheat. Probably they will say that the depression was brought about by the change of world conditions, and not by reduced prices for primary products.

Mr Mahoney:

– lt was brought about by the manipulations of financiers.

Mr PROWSE:

– The depression in Australia was caused by the fall of the prices of our export commodities. Parliament has provided for the payment of bounties to wheat-growers to enable them to remain on the land, but the assistance given to many I.as been, little more than a miserable dole. It must be manifest to honorable members opposite that had the prices of our export commodities remained at the 1929 level the depression in Australia would no* have been acute. They should remember that the best way to assist the unemployed is by encouraging production in our exporting industries, because if those industries are crippled there must necessarily be more unemployment and distress in the community. We have been told from time to time that prosperity is just around the corner, but the financial stability of Australia depends almost entirely upon the prices obtained for the commodities which we export. If wheat and wool prices decrease to any marked degree, we are soon in difficulties. The position became so acute when the Scullin Government was in office that it asked the farmers to grow more wheat. At the same time, it had to reduce salaries and pensions, and the number of unemployed in An ‘tra’ in became greater than it had ever been previously. If honorable members opposite are anxious to improve the position of the unemployed, and to make Australia more prosperous, they should assist those industries which it is proposed to help under the Government’s marketing proposal, as it is upon those industries that the stability of Australia depend

Dr. MALONEY (Melbourne) [3.39 1.Although I do not propose to criticize the action of other honorable members, I claim to have recorded more votes in this Parliament to benefit the man on the land than has any other honorable member. When I took up a selection 64 years ago, the Government of the day placed me on the heaviest timbered country in Australia; the big chest I developed from swinging the axe was the only benefit T derived. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) has said that the depression in ‘ Australia was caused by the drop of the prices of exportable products. On the contrary, it was brought about because of the actions of twelve multi-millionaires, seven in America and five in England, who by their control of the banks pulled the financial strings and plunged countries into distress. I have some knowledge of the banking system, because I spent seven years in a bank. During that time I saw many farmers placed in a precarious plight because an order had been issued by the head office withdrawing their advances. The referendum proposed in this bill will cost £100,000. How noble parliamentarians are may be gauged from the fact that 37 of their number in this House who voted against my motion for the referendum, initiative and recall will cast their votes in favour of this bill. Why should people be permitted to vole at such a referendum only by the kindly charity of an Australian Government ? Why should they not have a right on their own initiative to vote on all important matters? If the Government is really sincere in this matter and really trusts the people, why does it not give to them the right to demand a referendum whenever they wish ? If that were done, wrongs could be remedied in a day which now are permitted to continue for years. It would cost only £10 more to place another question on the ballot papers. It has been said that the people would he less confused if one question were submitted at a time. In reply to that I remind honorable members that in a referendum of the people of Ohio no less than 45 questions were submitted, seventeen of which pertained to farmers’ interests. The whole of those proposals were carried. My authority for that statement is the journal of the American Academy of Political and Social Service. I remind honorable members also that

Switzerland - which is a tri-lingual nation, and therefore has greater difficulties in these matters than has Australia in which only one language is spoken - by its acceptance of the principle of the referendum, initiative and recall is able to deal more expeditiously and more effectively with matters of this kind. Section 92 of the Constitution provides -

On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall bo absolutely free.

If some of the speeches which have been made on this bill had been made on the public platforms during the Federal referendum campaign, the union would never have been approved. The people voted that trade within the Commonwealth should be free, but we are asking them to-day to agree that it shall not be free in certain circumstances. That is not fair. I shall oppose any such proposals until we have the referendum, initiative and recall. If that principle were embodied in the Constitution, the people would be given an opportunity quickly to remedy anything that was wrong and injurious. It is certainly an injustice that in this land of plenty, which I believe God has blessed with more food than any other country in the world, men, women and little children are in need of proper food, shelter and clothing. In my appeals to the public for funds to provide milk for little children. I have frequently been confronted with the spectacle of misery and want. If honorable members opposite who voted against my proposal for the referendum, initiative and recall were on the public platform and were asked if they trusted the people, they would say that they did, but I remind them that actions speak louder than words, and votes in this House carry much greater weight than speeches. Mr. Gillies, one of the greatest parliamentarians we over had, especially when in association with that orator of orators, Mr. Alfred Deakin, said, when a young man came into the Victorian Parliament and insisted on a division being taken at every opportunity - “ My long political experience telle me that it is difficult to explain away a vote in a division, whereas it is comparatively easy to explain away a speech.”

Though my leader has brought forward an amendment to this bill, even if it were accepted by the Government, I would still unwillingly vote for the Government’s proposal. My experience of many years tells me that this referendum has no more chance of being carried than 1 have of flying out of this chamber. I have no desire to see £100,000 thrown away. Let honorable members cast their minds back to the pre-federation days, when on thousands of platforms throughout the country the people were promised that there would be freedom of trade throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Did we net say also then that we would have only one Parliament? Has that pledge been kept? Every Ministry has been to blame. We were told that there would be one chief justice instead of six chief justices, one high court instead of six supreme courts, and one high-commissioner instead of six agents-general. There was to be one set of laws instead of six conflicting sets of laws. Are we going to allow it to be said that all those promises were lies, never intended to be carried out? If we give the people the referendum, initiative and recall, they will make Parliament honour the promises made over 36 years ago. Those, however, who are opposed to the honouring of those promises very wisely withhold this power from the people. On the 24th September of this year, 37 members of this House voted “ no “ on my motion for the institution of the referendum, initiative and recall. Am I wrong in saying that there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy over this question? If we would trust the people, let us trust them wholeheartedly. It has been proved in Switzerland that the people can be trusted. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) was the only member of this House who had enough common-sense to study my proposal for the minting of silver, which would have enabled every wheat-grower to receive 5s. a bushel for his wheat. He said that there seemed to him to be something in it, and I thank him for that expression of confidence. The 40-hour week has now been provided for by law in New

Zealand, and no ill effects have followed; wages, instead of being reduced, have been increased from 14s. 6d. a day to 16s. 6d. a day. There is at present in Canberra a distinguished visitor from New Zealand who can bear out what I am saying. In New Zealand, there has been compulsory arbitration for the last eighteen years, and now the judges of the Arbitration Court have been instructed to provide for the introduction of the 40-hour week in all industries as opportunity offers. Compulsory unionism has been instituted in most industries, and it is sought to make it apply also to employers. At a conference of representatives of farmers and of the Government, steps were taken to limit the number of hours worked by employees on dairy farms.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is not dealing with the subject before the Chair, when he describes in detail the legislation recently passed in New Zealand.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I am trying to show that a 40-hour week, which is the main purpose of the amendment before the House, has not done any harm in New Zealand, where it. is in operationNew Zealand is the only example I can cite in this connexion. The Government asked for a 56-hour week for dairy workers, and the employers wanted a 70- hour week. It was agreed that the workers should receive four weeks’ holiday a year on full pay. Here is another point that will interest those honorable members in whose constituencies dairying is carried on: An arrangement was reached in New Zealand whereby, for every 6d. per lb. by which the price of butter fat increased, the wages of dairy workers were to be increased. I shall take a later opportunity to discuss further what is being done bv our progressive sister Dominion. Here we cannot agree upon the principle of a 40- hour working week. Let us go before the people as a united Parliament, asking them to give us the powers which a national Parliament should possess. In no other way will it be possible to raise the standard of living in this country. Without the help of the Labour party it will be impossible for the Government to obtain the consent of the people to its proposed alteration of the Constitution. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) prophesied dreadful things if the alteration were not agreed to, but I hope that his prophesies will not be fulfilled. I hope that the Government, during the week end, will reconsiderits decision, and will accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. If it is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands, let it, at any rate, seek some other way out of the difficulty. Let it not stand obstinately by its present proposal. I confess that I am tired of the slow rate of progress achieved by this Parliament. No doubt some people will ask why I do not get out of Parliament; the reason is that my people do not wish me to got out. I have given them power to recall me from Parliament at any time they like. For the last 47 years my constituents have always possessed that right, but they have not exercised it. I hope that I shall live to see better laws passed by this Parliament in the interests of humanity. I believe that every honorable member wants to make things better, and to give fair play to every one. The fact that, in so many respects, Australia now lags behind the other civilized nations of the world such as Russia, the United States of America, Germany, France and England is a discredit to us as legislators. I am grieved to think that the per capita consumption of milk in Australia is so low, and that little children who need milk, are unable to get it. At one time I could boast of the excellent and plentiful food available to all classes in Australia, but I can do so no longer. No one can live a healthy life on a weekly wage of 6s. or 7s.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Price) adjourned.

page 1276

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat ofGovernment (Administration ) Act - Ordinance of1936 - No. 43 - Hawkers.

page 1276

ADJOURNMENT

Members’ Railwaybookings - Film Censorship - Muttonbird Oil - Canberratrain Service - Pensions for Aliens - Naturalization

Motion (by Mr. Menzier) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

. -I desire to direct attention to a communication which honorable members have received in connexion with the future arrangements for the booking of their railway accommodation. The existing method of booking accommodation through the officer in charge at the federal members’ room, Melbourne, is to be discontinued, and in future the servicewill be effectedthrough the Commonwealth Railways office. This alteration of arrangement surely requires some explanation. The officer who, up to the present time, has performed this duty has given most satisfactory service. 1 have not been in communication with him in regard to this matter, and 1 therefore hope it will not be thought that he is in any way associated with my protest against the alteration of the arrangements. To his credit, I point out that he has never been prepared to accept any consideration from honorable members for his services to them, and has discharged his duties efficiently and impartially to all members. At all times he has endeavoured to provide service for members to the best advantage. It has been indicated to me in Canberra that the reason for the alteration of the arrangement is because some Ministers have not been satisfied with the accommodation that has been allotted to them on trains. Apparently the introduction of the new system will mean that Ministers will be given first choice of accommodation. But I contend that honorable members have an equal right to share in the available travelling accommodation, and that no special privilege or concession should be given to Ministers. Perhaps the explanation given to me is incorrect, but I resent the alteration of the arrangements for the booking of our accommodation between Canberra and Melbourne, particularly in view of the fact that this service has been executed by a most competent official. A further objection is that honorable members will be obliged to make representations to an office which they seldom visit, and will therefore be put to some inconvenience.

Mr Menzies:

– Why cannot the official at the federal members’ rooms in Melbourne ring up the Commonwealth Rail- ways to book accommodation for honorable members?

Mr MAKIN:

– Why cannot he be allowed to book the accommodation direct, and thus be personally responsible to honorable members?

Mr Menzies:

– It is convenient to have the booking done from the one place.

Mr MAKIN:

– If Ministers themselves desire to have their booking arrangements done from the Commonwealth Railways offices, they are quite at liberty to do so, but I see no reason why honorable members themselves should be deprived of the services of a competent official, who is experienced in attending to their requirements. I hope that honorable members, particularly ministerial supporters, will be prepared to uphold my protest in this connexion.

I ask the Minister for Customs (Mr. White) to furnish me at his convenience with some explanation as to the reason for the banning by the censor of the film “Ten Days That Shook the World”. This film, I understand, was given considerable prominence in England and the United States of America, and was acclaimed by critics for its excellent production and historical interest. Why the Australian censor should have banned it I fail to understand. So far as I am able to learn, it contains no offensive or indelicate feature, and in those circumstances, some explanation for the action of the censor is certainly necessary.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- Last month I asked the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) a question in regard to a preparation called Mirdol, which is manufactured from mutton bird oil, and is used for the treatment of tubercular patients. Upon that occasion, I asked the right honorable gentleman to table a report dealing with certain tests which had been made by the medical superintendent of the Heatherton Sanatorium in respect of mutton bird oil emulsion, but some time passed before my request was complied with. When eventually the report was made available, I found that it referred to experiments covering five and a half months, instead of eighteen months, which is the full period during which the tests have been undertaken. However, I commend it for its excellence, and I was gratified to learn from it that the Mirdol preparation, which has been manufactured by a chemist, has, in many cases, been of material value in relieving the suffering of tubercular patients. Indeed, if results continue to be as successful as they have been for the period covered by the report, it appears, that the claim that pulmonary tuberculosis can be cured at any stage with this extract of mutton bird oil will be borne out in fact. I desire to place on record the two concluding paragraphs of the report, as follows: -

In successful cases the emulsion is effective, . firstly, in increasing the weight of the patient which has been noticed generally right from the offset. The cough is made easier and the sputum lessened in amount in a quite appreciable number of cases. The Blood Sedimentation Index is usually improved within three months, and physical and X-ray examination shows fibrosis taking place.

I feel convinced, therefore, after studying the above series and many subsequent cases, that one can say from the results observed, that the emulsion seems to bear out, clinically, the claims that it is rich in vitamin contents, and certainly that it is a reliable adjunct in our treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.

That report is so encouraging that I am at a loss to know why the information in connexion with the tests for the full period of eighteen months has not been made available to honorable members, and in particular why it has not been supplied previously to the chemist. If the report upon the efficacy of Mirdol were unfavorable, there is no reason why the chemist should not be informed of the fact, and the matter dismissed at once in order to obviate unnecessary expenditure upon experiments; but if it is being withheld because it is satisfactory, I consider that a strong protest should be made against denying to the public the benefits of a preparation which will not only relieve the suffering of unfortunate tuberculosis patients, but also, in many instances, prove to be a cure. I hope that the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) will brine; this matter under the notice of the Minister for Health, and that a report covering experiments at the sanitorium for the full period of eighteen months, will be made available. I ask him to treat the matter as urgent for two reasons. First, because I am interested in the subject of pulmonary tuberculosis generally, and fis I know something of the suffering of those unfortunate people, 1 am anxious to do everything in my power to assist them. Secondly, the mutton bird frequents a portion of my electorate. If it is of use in a preparation of this character, a very considerable fillip will bo given to the mutton bird industry. I ask the Attorney-General to bring the matter under the notice of the Minister for Health.

Mr FISKEN:
Ballarat

.- I direct attention to the continued use by the Railways Department of New South Wales of the composite coach commonly known as the “ dog box,” between Canberra and Albury. I understand that it forms a part of the train which is to leave here this evening. I speak for other honorable members, as well as for myself, in protesting against the great inconvenience and discomfort to which we are thus put. Honorable members have considerable travelling to do, and at the least that travelling should be made as comfortable for them as possible.

Mr Menzies:

– As comfortable as travelling is made for the general public.

Mr FISKEN:

– Quite so. Members of the general public use the sleeping car possibly only once or twice in a year, whereas honorable members have to use it twice a week, and sometimes more frequently, while Parliament is in session. I hope that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) will take strong action immediately to see that this disgraceful condition of affairs is no longer continued.

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– I am glad that the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Fisken) has raised this matter. I have made the strongest possible representations on several occasions to the Minister for Railways of New South Wales. I agree with all that has been said concerning the unsatisfactory nature of the accommodation which at times is provided on the railway between Canberra and Albury. I shall again take the matter up with the Minister for Railways of New South Wales. Some little time ago, I made arrangements with that gentleman for the construction of two composite coaches to replace these old coaches at a very early date. I shall now endeavour to arrange that, pending their completion, the old coaches, about which complaint is made, shall not be used on the service from Canberra.

The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) has referred to the new booking arrangement in Melbourne. The honorable gentleman jumped to quite wrong conclusions when he assumed that that arrangement had been made for the convenience of Ministers.

Mr Makin:

– Appearances favour that assumption.

Mr PATERSON:

– It will not in any way affect honorable members; they may continue to make their bookings through Mr. Sharkey, at the Federal Member*’ Rooms in Melbourne, as they have done formerly; hut the bookings will go through the Commonwealth Railways office, instead of direct to the railway booking office. The object is to avoid duplicate bookings. In the past, with some bookings being made through the Commonwealth Railways office, some from the Federal Members’ Rooms, some through the Tourist Bureau, and others by honorable members personally, duplication and a certain degree of confusion have been caused. An endeavour is being made to put that right. The new system is to be given a trial for three months. Neither the honorable member for Hindmarsh nor any other honorable member who has been in the habit of making bookings through the federal members’ rooms will be in the slightest degree inconvenienced.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I bring to the notice of the Government the position of naturalized Asiatics who have lived in Australia for 50 or more years and yet are denied certain rights which other citizens enjoy. With others, I have been endeavouring for years to have this matter straightened out. Representations upon it have been made ever since a visit was paid to Australia by Prince Sastri, who sought tn have these additional rights conferred on subjects of his country who came to Australia before the passing of the Immigration Restriction Act. My interest in it has been revived by an Assyrian lady who came to Australia with her husband 48 or 49 years ago, settled in Tasmania, and raised a family. Two of the sons of the family enlisted in the Australian forces, and were killed while on active service. A third son was killed while breaking in a horse at Scotsdale, Tasmania. This lady was introduced to the present King during his visit to Australia as Prince of Wales, and was presented with a medal with bars, in addition to being thanked for her Red Cross and other patriotic work in Tasmania. The family is regarded by all as a splended one. After the signing of the Peace Treaty the husband returned to Syria to straighten out some property matters. As proof of his right to return to Australia, I mention the fact that a return ticket was issued to him, but while in Turkey he died. The business of the family declined, and they came across to Victoria. The mother, who is now 82 years of agc, and lives in my suburb, is in extreme financial embarrassment for the first time in her life, and has been obliged to make an appeal - if this can be so described - for assistance. I have seen the medal which she received from Royalty, and have heard from her about the two sons who were killed at the war and the third who was killed at Scotsdale. She boasts of having worked for Mr. Lyons, Mr. Guy, and other persons in Tasmania. Although she has been on the roll for many years, she has so far been unable to obtain the old-age pension or any repatriation pension for the loss of her two sons. Even apart from the tragic features of this case, I have always regarded as a blot upon our demoncracy the provision which debars such persons from enjoying the full rights of citizenship. People of this class have always been regarded as citizens of Australia. They were admitted freely into this country before the introduction of the Immigration Restriction Act, and should have all the rights and privileges that are enjoyed by other citizens. I recall the opinion that I expressed to the distinguished gentleman from India, with whom I had the privilege of discussing the matter, that those who were subject to the penalties of the law should receive the protection of the law, and that there should be no discrimination as to either colour or creed. He pointed out that that was not the position. There would not be in Australia more than 3,000 or 4,000 persons, described as Asiatics, who came here before the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act. Even if all of them were made eligible to receive the pension, not more than 1 per cent, or 2 per per cent, of them would claim it, because most of them have done well in this country. They have been real pioneers. They are to be found in the farthest outback settlements as well as among the merchant class in the cities. The field is narrowed when we ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) to concentrate on those who are already naturalized. There would be no necessity to alter the naturalization law. I understand, however, that there is some difficulty in respect of the Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Act.

Mr Scullin:

– Asiatics are excluded under that act.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is so, and it would mean that it would have to be altered. In the cases I have mentioned, however, no difficulty should present itself, because the persons concerned already have been naturalized. I understand that if a man is naturalized as an Australian citizen, his wife automatically also becomes an Australian citizen. The only hurdle to be crossed, therefore, is the Pensions Act. The Attorney-General should go into this matter to ascertain whether effect can he given to what I have placed before him.

Mr Menzies:

– I understand that the honorable member has asked the Prime Minister a question on this matter.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I did so a month ago, and he said then that the case would be considered. I have had several interviews with one person concerned, and he told me that he had written to the Prime Minister - his family and the Prime Minister’s family are known to each other in Tasmania - and the reply that he received was that the matter would be considered. I impress upon the Attorney-General the necessity to straighten out this matter. It is such little things as this that make it impossible to say that our Constitution is truly democratic, and gives equal rights to all citizens, although it has always been my proud beast that the Australian Constitution is different from the Constitutions of other countries. 1 recall that when I attended a conference at Geneva, the principle of the White Australia policy arose, and among the representatives of three or four nationalities, exception was taken to it. 1 wasable to point out that the White Australia principle was a matter of national policy, and was not dictated by any hatred of coloured races. I declared that our Constitution differed from that of any other country in that that there was no colour bar. We did not make a black man walk on the side of the road, or prevent him from riding in first-class railway carriages if he desired to do so. There are, however, such inconsistencies as that which I have mentioned which spoil the general trend of the Australian Constitution.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- I was glad to hear the explanation of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) regarding the staff in the members’ rooms at Melbourne, Mr. Sharkey and his assistant. I support the case submitted by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), but I do not think that the number of persons affected is anything like 3,000 or 4,000. I believe that the figure is considerably less. I have had a great deal of personal experience of the Chinese population of Melbourne, and those with whom I have an acquaintance who are affected in the manner mentioned by the honorable member, I could number on the fingers of one hand. My electorate contains a great number of foreigners, and I consider that any foreign person who has proved to be a worthy citizen for 30 or even 20 years should be allowed to become a naturalized Australian. In this respect I have in mind two Chinese who are personal friends of mine, and both feel very much the fact that the privilege of Australian citizenship is denied to them. One of them is denied citizenship because he did not make application for naturalization within the prescribed period. The other has lived in Australia for 30 years, and has considerable property - of course, he cannot take that with him to heaven - and is a man in every sense of the word, one whose word I should trust absolutely. He is a splendid citizen, and I regret that he is debarred from becoming naturalized.

Mr MENZIES:
AttorneyGeneral · Kooyong · UAP

. - The question raised by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), and supported by the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) is not a matter which falls in my department. A question was, I understand, put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), who said that he would inquire into it. He put inquiries in hand which involve consultations between the Departments of the Interior and the Treasury. Those discussions are now proceeding. I shall remind the Prime Minister of the matter again, so that he may take an early opportunity to inform the honorable member as to what action is proposed. As to the other questions raised, apart from the one dealt with by my colleague, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson), I shall draw the attention of the appropriate Ministers to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.26 p.m.

page 1280

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The foll owing answers to questions were circulated: -

Treatment of Tuberculosis

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government yet completed its inquiries in connexion with Dr. Spahlinger’s method of treating tuberculosis in animals?
  2. If so, has any decision been reached as to the importation and the use in the Commonwealth of this vaccine?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. Following upon a recommendation of the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting held in Canberra during May, 1936. arrangements were made for the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research to maintain close contact with the authorities in Great Britain and Ireland responsible for any further tests, under properly controlled conditions, of the Spahlinger vaccine for tuberculosis in stock. Sir David Rivett, Chief Executive Officer of the council, who is now abroad, has been asked to make inquiries into the matter, and it is expected that his report will be available towards the end of the year when he returns to Australia.
  2. The tests already carried out in this connexion in Northern Ireland are regarded by the Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research as inconclusive, and consideration will not be givento the importationofSpah- linger vaccine into Australia until mure authoritative information is available in regard to it.

Whaling Industry

Sir Donald CAMERON:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · UAP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. With reference to his statement regardingthe whaling industry, can he say in what way it is proposed to encourage Australians to engage in the industry?
  2. Have any companies been formed in Australia for carrying on whaling?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. My purpose in making a statement to the press in regard to the whaling industry was to attract the attention of Australian enterprise to the possibilities of the industry as well as to point out the national aspects of it. The results stated to have been obtained by Norwegian companies operating in Australian waters this year suggest that the industry offers lucrative possibilities which should be sufficient to attract private enterprise without further action on the part of the Commonwealth Government.
  2. There is a company known as the Australian Whaling Company Limited registered in New South Wales. This company owns the plant and machinery at Point Cloates Whaling Station in Western Australia.

Economic and Research Council

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

son asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to certain recommendations made by Sir Herbert Gepp in a paper read before the Institute of Public Administration; if so, will be consider -

the appointment of an economic and research council along the line* suggested by Sir Herbert Gepp?

the advisability of having Sir Herbert’s paper and other papers read before the institute made available to members of Parliament and the various administrative departments?

it these papers cannot be made available the advisability of collaborating with the State governments in having certain selected papers printed so that the knowledge and experience of those who read papers to the institute would be made available to members of Parliament, departments, officers and students of such matters?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– An endeavour will be made to obtain a copy of the paper read by Sir Herbert Gepp, together with other papers read before the institute, and consideration will then he given to the suggestions made by the honorable member.

War Service Homes.

Mr Hunter:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Repatriation · MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

r. - On the 1st October, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) asked, inter alia, the following questions : -

  1. Howmany orders of eviction have been instituted by court proceedings in each State?
  2. How many persons in each State occupying warservice homes have been requested to vacate such homes?

I am now able to supply the following answers : -

  1. Detailed information in regard to the number of cases in respect of which court proceedings were instituted prior to the 1st January, 1930, is not available, but since that date the number of orders of eviction which have been obtained in each State is -

In Victoria the State Savings Bank administered the provisions of the War Service Homes Act from July, 1922, until December, 1932, and fig ures in respect of that institution are not included. In South Australia, the War Service Homes Commission took over from the State Bank of South Australia as from the 1st January, 1935, and the figures for that State cover only the period from the date mentioned. Of the total court orders obtained warrants were executed by the commission in respect only of the following number of cases:-

Of the remaining cases, 336 were withdrawn in New South Wales, 118in Victoria, 102 in Queensland, 23 in South Australia, 97 in Western Australia, and 2 in Tasmania. The number of purchasers who could have made satisfactory payments but vacated the home rather than do so was -

The number of purchasers who were hopelessly involved and had no prospects of meeting their obligations, and who vacated the home as a result of the order of the court was-

The number of warrants which are still current in each State is -

These are current cases only where no arrangement has been made to enable the purchasers concerned to retain possession of the homes.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 October 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1936/19361023_reps_14_152/>.