House of Representatives
7 September 1937

14th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 529

QUESTION

GENERAL ELECTIONS

Proposed Date - Business of Parliament

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · FLP

– I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to an advertisement which appeared in Saturday’s issue of the Brisbane Telegraph to the effect that the rolls for the coming elections would close in a week or so. This was signed by P. Goldenstedt, General Secretary of the United Australia party in Queensland. Is the information contained therein correct? If so, how is it that organizations such as the United Australia party, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and others know the date of the elections although honorable members of this Parliament have not been informed of it?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– These organizations have no definite information of the date of the elections. I take it that the particular organization referred to by the honorable member is warning people that they must get on the rolls early, and 1 am surprised that the organizations of the Labour party are not also issuing such warnings.

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister inform me whether there is any foundation for the report in this morning’s Canberra Times to tire effect that it is authoritatively stated that the House will sit next week as well as this week, and that the Government has decided to select the reserve date - whatever that might be - for the coming elections? If the House is to sit next week docs this represent a change of intention by the Government?

Mr LYONS:

– The report referred to is simply .mother attempt to guess tho dato of thu elections. In actual fact it is hoped that Parliament, will be able to finish its work on Friday of this week, hut if, when Friday comes, ttc find that some work still remains to bc done Parliament will have to re-assemble next week regardless of how we feci about it. I hope, however, that this will not be necessary.

Mr James:

– Why docs the Prime Minister keep thu election to himself ?

Mr LYONS:

– Unfortunately I cannot keep the election to myself. I wish that I could do so; but the honorable member will bo .in it with me and with nil the other honorable gentlemen.

Mr BRENNAN:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BATMAN, VICTORIA · UAP

– I ask the Prime Minister whether there is any truth in the report that the date for the holding of the general elections lias been postponed in order to enable members of the right honorable gentleman’s party who ure likely to he defeated at the State election ,in Victoria to nominate for seats in thu Commonwealth Parliament?

Mr LYONS:

– The Government does not expect to lose any of its supporters nt either of the forthcoming State or Federal elections.

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

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, when the motion for the adjournment of the House U moved this evening, it will be possible to intimate what business the Government expects Parliament to transact before the approaching dissolution? I do this particularly because the Treasurer has just displayed for us a string of legislative pearls which, presumably, has to be disposed of before the elections.

Mr LYONS:

– The Government should he in a position to indicate to honorable members this evening what business must ho transacted before the recess. I can allay the honorable gentleman’s fears however in regard to tho notices of motion given a few moments ago by the Treasurer on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral. The five or six bills for the introducing of which leave will be sought to-morrow relate to one subject - superannuation; but each department affected has to be dealt with separately.

page 530

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CARS

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs inform me whether the Government has yet received the report of the Tariff Board relating to the manufacture of motor car engines in Australia? If fi, has consideration yet been given to it and has any decision been arrived at by the Government in regard to it ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall bring tho honorable gentleman’s question under the notice of the Minister.

page 530

QUESTION

SANDY BAY RIFLE RANGE

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-I direct the attention of the Minister for Defence to a statement, which appeared in Saturday’s press to the effect that tho Deputy Mayor of Hobart has stated that negotiations between the Commonwealth Government and the State authorities for the removal of the Sandy Bay rifle range from its present site had reached a deadlock owing to the request of the Commonwealth Government that the city authorities should accept responsibility for any injury sustained by persons who might he shot on tho new range. This, of course, _ should he a Commonwealth responsibility. Is tho report true or otherwise ?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I understand that a hitch has occurred in the final negotiations between the Defence Department and the Hobart Municipality in regard to the removal of the range from Sandy Bay, but whether the point, at issue is that referred to by the honorable member, I have no exact, information. I shall, however, obtain » report on the subject for him.

page 531

QUESTION

REPATRIATION LEGISLATION

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Repatriation inform me whether we may anticipate legislation to liberalize the repatriation benefits to the parents and dependants of deceased returned soldiers? The right honorable gentleman will recollect that these benefits were affected by the financial emergency measures.

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

– That subject is now receiving attention.

page 531

QUESTION

MECHANIZATION OF COAL MINES

Mr JAMES:

– Has the Prime Minister seen the report in the press to the effect that serious developments are occuring in the northern coal-fields consequent upon the decision to install laboursaving devices in the mines there to such an extent, it is claimed, that 50 per cent, of the miners now employed will be displaced by machines? In view of this, does the Government propose to take action to ratify the 40-hour week convention adopted at the International Labour Conference in 1935 seeing that that procedure would in a large measure counteract the displacement of men by machines?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The subject referred to by the honorable member affects Government policy, and it is not the practice to reply to such questions, especially those without notice.

page 531

QUESTION

BULK HANDLING OF WHEAT

Effect on Workebs.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been directed to a statement made by His Honour Judge Beeby in a judgment delivered on the 27th November, 1933, to the following effect: -

The medical reports are sufficient to support the claim that wheat trimming in holds is accompanied by unusual discomforts if not risks. I think the extent of the risks should be further investigated by a committee of experts, orby the Commonwealth Health Bureau.

Has the Health Department taken steps to ascertain the reason for the enormous growth in such diseases as tuberculosis, cancer and asthma among waterside workers engaged in the bulk handling of wheat? If not is the Minister prepared to cause such an inquiry to be made without delay?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– My attention has not been drawn to this subject, but I shall have inquiries made and give the honorable gentleman a considered answer to his question to-morrow.

page 531

QUESTION

SUBMAKINES ON AUSTRALIAN COAST

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Defence in a position to make a statement regarding the reports published on two occasions recently to the effect that submarines have been seen within the vicinity of the Australian coast?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– I have no information on this subject. It is generally considered that the rumours are without foundation. Inquiries have been made into the reports but it is thought that what has been seen is wreckage in that part of the ocean.

page 531

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE OVERSEAS

Mr CURTIN:

-I ask the Minister for Defence whether he will lay on the table as early as possible, for the information of honorable members, a return showing the proportion of the proposed expenditure of £11,500,000 on defence works which it is intended to incur outside Australia ?

Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– When the Works Estimates are under consideration immediately following the passage of the Supply Bill I shall make a full statement and give all the details in regard to this subject. I think it is preferable to deal with it in that way rather than in answer to a question.

Mr Curtin:

– Hear, hear!

page 531

QUESTION

SKI CLUB FIRST AID CABINET

Mr SPEAKER:

– On Friday last the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) asked me “Is it a fact that a first-aid cabinet is now being constructed at Parliament House for a skiclub, by employees of the Parliament, out of material the property of the Commonwealth Government? If so, who authorized the carrying out of the work?” I have made inquiries into this subject and have ascertained that, although such a cabinet is being constructed at the House, it is not being done in the working time of the officers who are making it. The officers concerned asked for permission to make the cabinet and were informed by the Secretary of the Joint House Committee that they could make it, but must do the work in their own time. The material for the cabinet has been purchased by the officers concerned out of their own money, and I have seen the receipts for the purchase of it. The cabinet will be available not only for the members of the ski club, but also for members of the public who may need firstaid in remote places.

page 532

CORONATION OF KING GEORGE VI

Reply to Address of Congratulation

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have to inform the House that I have received the following reply to the Address of Congratulation presented to His Majesty on the occasion of his Coronation: -

Buckingham Palace

Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia :

I have received with much gratification your message on the occasion of my Coronation.

I value greatly the loyal assurances which it contains, and, on behalf of The Queen and myself, I wish to thank you sincerely for your congratulations and good wishes.

We join with you in earnestly hoping that the British Commonwealth may be vouchsafed the blessings of peace and prosperity during my reign. (Signed) Georger.I. 16th July, 1937.

page 532

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

States’ Grants Bill 1937.

War Pensions Appropriation Bill 1937.

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill 1937.

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill 1937.

page 532

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1937

Bill brought up by Mr Thorby, and read a first time.

page 532

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 1937

Bill brought up by Mr. Thorby, and read a first time.

page 532

PAPERS

The following papers were presented -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at -

Darwin, Northern Territory - For Gaol purposes.

Liverpool, New South Wales - For Defence purposes.

Passports Act - Regulations amended -

Statutory Rules 1937, No. 93.

Public Service Act - Appointment of H. D. Lodewyckx, Postmaster-General’s Department.

page 532

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd September (vide page 493) on motion by Mr. Casey-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I wish first to deal with the claim made by several honorable members opposite that the Government’s policy of remitting taxes is responsible for the prosperity in Australia to-day. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr.Fadden) enunciated a principle in relation to taxation with which I heartily agree, when he said that the measure of the severity of the burden of taxation imposed on that section of the community which includes salary and wage earners is the best test of a country’s prosperity. If that principle had been given effect, the Government might claim to have done something to bring about general and. real prosperity; but that is not the case. On the contrary the Government has imposed taxes on the basis of class, and, therefore, the claim that the Government’s taxation policy has resulted in Australia enjoying the highest peak of prosperity since federation is not justified. I frankly admit that there has been an increase of orthodox prosperityduring the last four or five years, but that the prosperity is as great as has been claimed by Government supporters, I deny. Moreover the prosperity which this country is now enjoying is not in any way associated with the Government’s policy; it is due prin- cipally to better prices for Australia’s primary products - wheat, wool, meat, and metals - and surely no honorable member would claim that those prices are the result of the policy of the Government in taxation matters or because of its policy in general. Honorable members opposite have also said that the fact that the aggregate amount collected in taxes from the community is higher than ever before is no evidence that the Government has not decreased taxation. The “honorable member for Darling Downs said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) in his ignorance did not understand that the greater volume of business transacted during the last few years was responsible for the high aggregate amount collected in taxes. That statement ought not to have been made, for the Leader of the Opposition is quite capable of understanding so elementary a principle. But the analysis must go deeper than that. Surely no honorable member desires that we should hide our heads in the sand, or live in a fool’s paradise. We should know where we stand. Whilst all honorable members would gladly welcome real and firmly established prosperity throughout Australia, that is no reason why they should not examine the situation with a view to discovering any weakness in the policy which is being followed. The Government does not deny that there has been an increased aggregate revenue from taxes. The Minister, in admitting the fact, said that it was not the result of the harshness of the Government’s policy, but was due to the increased volume of business transacted. That would be a sound argument if the imposition and remission of taxes were made on a fair and democratic basis; but in the light of the fact that the aggregate revenue derived from taxation is higher than ever before in the history of Australia, how can the Government claim to have followed a policy of low taxation? The real test is the effect of taxation on the individual and the community. The people naturally expect reduced taxes when business is at a high peak. The fundamental principle underlying a sound policy of taxation is that taxes shall be imposed according to the ability of the person to pay. In times of business prosperity the burden should be lifted from the shoulders of the people as much a3 possible. During bad times Governments are forced to impose taxes to meet their ordinary commitments. The present Government has had the good fortune to have been in office when high prices have ruled for Australia’s primary products. Those high prices have augmented the national income, and both town and country have shared in the benefit. The additional money which has come into Australia as the result of those high prices has been responsible for the greater measure of prosperity which Australia now enjoys. Unfortunately, the remissions of taxes did not greatly benefit that large section of the community which consists of people who spend their money almost as soon as it comes to hand, and for that reason the remissions have not benefited business as they might have done, nor have they caused that general all-round prosperity which is claimed for them.

Mr Lane:

– The turnover shows otherwise.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– The extra millions which came to this country were the result of influences altogether outside the control of the Government. While we all welcome higher prices for our products, the fact remains that the better prices which have ruled during the last two or three years are not in any way the result of Government policy in Australia. The point I emphasize is that, during the period when we enjoyed wonderful increases of prices for products sold overseas, the remissions of taxes made by this Government were made to the same people who were getting the advantage of those increased prices, whilst no remissions were made in such a way as to benefit that SO per cent, of the people who do not save any increase of income that might come to them, but spend every penny as soon as they get it. I refer to the wage and salary worker. I do not think that those points oan be refuted, and, apart from any debate in this House where nobody seems to debate these questions seriously, I am prepared to discuss this subject with anybody. In 1931, in bad times, when one could expect the Government, of necessity, to increase taxes, the aggregate amount of taxes collected was only £50,000,000, whereas in 1936, when, it has been asserted on behalf of this Government, Australia reached the highest peak of prosperity it has ever experienced, that figure jumped to £63,000,000, or an increase from £7 15s. 8d. to £9 8s. 5d. a head of the population.

Mr White:

– But the direct per capita taxation has been reduced.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Let us -see how those reductions have been distributed, as it is in respect of that point that my greatest complaint arises. In distributing those reductions this Government has opposed the views of the greatest writers on the subject, and has shown itself to be class biased in remitting taxes. In the period from 1931 to 1936, indirect taxation increased from £4 18s. Id. to £7 14s. Id. a head. Although all sections of the community pay indirect taxation, the people whom I represent, the 80 per cent, who live solely on wages or salaries, feel the burden of it more than does any other section of the community. Instead of being reduced in such a way that all sections of the community would have benefited and the spending power of the community in the aggregate increased by leaving as much as possible with the wage and salary earners, whose outlays would have been turned over repeatedly in the business community, indirect taxation on the individual rose from £4 18s. Id. to £7 14s. Id., whilst the direct taxation referred to just now by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) was reduced from £2 17s. 7d. to £1 14s. 4d. Indirect taxation was increased by £2 16s. a head whilst direct taxation was reduced by £1 3s. 3d. a head. Who received the benefits of the reduction of direct taxation? The same handful of people who got the benefit of the increased prices for their products overseas. I might point out that prior to the last two years, during which these increased prices have been received, something like £20,000,000 was collected from the great masses of the people in order to pay subsidies and bounties and to give assistance of all kinds to the people who are now reaping the benefit of those increased prices. I am not complaining about that, but I emphasize that, after those people had been helped over the stile, as it were, by the rest of the community who at the same time had had their wages and salaries reduced, they then received this undreamed-of increase of prices for their commodities. I admit that the community generally benefited from the increase .of national income resulting therefrom, but, after they had been called upon to make great sacrifices in the interests of the primary producers, remissions of taxes were denied to the masses of the people. The masses of the people suffered in order that the farmers might be put on their feet. Surely I have a just complaint when I say that when this Government found it possible to make remissions of taxes and the primary producers were reaping the advantages of increased prices for their commodities overseas, with which, by the way, we had nothing to do, the rest of the community should have been considered when remissions of taxes were being made. But the remissions were made only to the people who had already got out of their difficulties and were receiving for the commodities they sold overseas the best prices yet recorded in the history of this country. I shall take one examine to prove that these remissions were made on a class biased basis. When the Leader of the Opposition advanced an illustration some honorable members pretended to misunderstand him; he asserted that a person with a salary of £317 per annum received a remission of income tax of 15s. 8d., whilst a person with a salary of £2,000, received a remission of £15 7s. 30d.. or twenty times more than the man on the lower rung of the social ladder, whereas a ratio of 6 to 1 would have represented fair and equitable treatment. Surely the man with an income of £2,000 a year, if he received any benefit from the first remission - and I am not saying that he was not entitled to it - should not have received so disproportionate a benefit. If these facts do not disclose that the Government made its remissions of taxes on a class biased basis, I do not understand what bias means.

Dealing with the academic statements made by the honorable member for Darling Downs on this point, I suggest that we would be enjoying greater prosperity in Australia to-day had the remissions of taxes, or the restoration of the cuts -made during the emergency period, been made in such a way that the great mass of the consuming public would have received the advantages. A bad season or a fall of overseas prices would upset the basis of our present prosperity whereas if the remissions of taxes or restoration of cuts had been made with a view to distributing them over the great masses of the people, our prosperity would rest on a more solid and permanent basis. If the first remissions had been made to the pensioners, at least £5,000,000 would have been distributed to these people during the four years in question. But no restorations were made to the pensioners. Furthermore, the last thing this Government attempted to do was to restore wage cuts, and these have not yet been completely righted. I intend to prove beyond any doubt whatever that the supposed higher standards of living in Australia to-day do not exist, but that, on the contrary, the highest general standard of 1 living in Australia to-day is below that of ten years ago. Had the pensions and the wage cuts been adjusted, the distribution of money through such channels would have been immediately turned over again and again in the community, whereas some of the remissions made to largo landowners and large company operators, the directors and shareholders of some of which are absentees, have gone into cold storage and. consequently, the community has not received any advantage from such remissions. It so happened that the people who received these remissions received also, probably unexpectedly, benefits from increased prices for export commodities which they had not dreamed of receiving. Approximately £12,000,000 has been remitted by this Government to a handful of people who do not comprise more than 10 per cent, of the population, and these people have put aside that money as savings. It has not been used to purchase consumable goods. Had the Government made its remissions of taxes in such a way as to spread the benefits over the whole of the people on a fair and equitable basis, our present prosperity would, be of a much more ‘ permanent character than it is to-day.

I now propose to examine certain claims made on behalf of this Government. I do not suggest that honorable members on this side of the House would not welcome such a statement if it were true, .but the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) repeatedly said that we have reached the highest peak of prosperity yet known to this country. That assertion, however, it not sound. Surely we do not wish to delude ourselves or to live in a fool’s paradise’. The Treasurer claimed that we had reached the highest peak of prosperity in our history - whether that prosperity is temporary, artificial or permanent I shall pass over at the moment - but let us see what arc the facts. Unlike the Treasurer, I do not propose to make a comparison between the figures for the lowest year of the depression and those for the present year. That is a simple way of showing that a great improvement has taken place : but nobody wishes to regard the lowest year of the depression as a normal low year. That year was historic in itself because of its economic tragedies, and to make a comparison of conditions existing in 1931 with those existing in the year 1936-37 is not examining the position at all. In order to make a fair comparison I have asked the Statistician’s Department to supply me with the relevant information in respect of the last decade and neither the first nor last year of this ten-year period was the lowest or highest year. In 1926-27 the population of Australia was 6,121,757, compared with 6,804,397 in 1936-37, or an increase of approximately 700,000. Employees in factories in 1926-27 numbered 452,184, compared with 518,000, or an increase of over 60,000, whilst wages paid per capita in respect of all employees in factories in 1926-27 ‘ averaged £208 compared with £177 in 1936-37, or an individual decrease of income by £31 a year in the present year as against 1926-27, in respect of over 500,000 employees. Despite the Treasurer’s assertion that we have reached the peak of prosperity, the figures I have cited show that, although there has been an increase of 700,000 in the population of Australia since 1926-27, the average wages of factory employees has declined by £31 a head, or about 13s. aweek.

Mr Lane:

– That would be a fair comparison if price levels were taken into consideration.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I shall leave the honorable member to deal with that phase of the problem and get what comfort he may from it. The figures which I have submitted indicate the existence of lower wage standards than obtained ten years ago. Since this Government has been in office, it has remitted taxes to an amount of between £18,000,000 or £20,000,000, principally to the large landholders and companies. If the. remissions had been used for improving the living standards of 80 per cent, of the population, the wage earners who make our home market, we should have reached a much higher level of general prosperity than exists to-day, because that money would have been put into circulation over and over again. But the chief beneficiaries of the Government’s tax reduction policy being large land-holders and companies, the money so saved has not been, and will not be, put into circulation while present overseas prices for primary products stand. Therefore, the people of Australia have not benefited to the extent claimed by Ministers and their supporters, or to the extent possible had the remissions been made on a more democratic basis. There is nothing wrong with high taxes as such. No reasonable citizen would complain of high taxes if the Commonwealth or State Governments or local governing authorities gave in return the facilities which the people have a’ right to expect. But there is every ground for complaint when the people who are best able to bear tax burdens are the first to enjoy remissions.

I admit that, in recent years, there has been some increase of prosperity. Indeed if there had not been an improvement of the economic position of the Commonwealth since 1930 we all should have been just about insolvent by this time. In the nature of things an uplift of the general economic circumstances of the Commonwealth was inevitable. But I have shown that the average of wages paid in industry has not reached the level of 1926-27. The wage basis of 80 per cent. of the people determines the volume of sales of consumable goods, and so is the real test of prosperity. Students of economics all over the world agree that if the purchasing power of the wageearning section of a community is forced down, the general standard of living declinesbecause of the decreased sale of consumable goods, and the level of general prosperity is lowered. I find support for this contention in a statement made recently by the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes), who declared that 40 per cent, of the children in the Commonwealth were underfed or were suffering from malnutrition. Surely a fact like that does not endorse the Treasurer’s assertion that Australia has reached its highest level of prosperity since Federation.

We have complaints from State Ministers about the lack of co-operation between Commonwealth and State Governments. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) declared that if returned to power his Government would immediately co-operate with the States and local governing authorities to rid Australia of the evil of slums. Had that statement been sincere it would have brought much comfort to the people. Unfortunately no action whatever has been taken by this Government to help the States or local governing bodies in their housing difficulties. It cannot be urged, in excuse for this inactivity, that the Government has not ample precedent, because since the Lyons Government has been in office, the Government of Great Britain, acting in co-operation with local governing authorities, has been instrumental in erecting about 1,000,000 homes in England under comprehensive housing schemes, allof which were subsidized by the British Government. Last week the Melbourne Herald emphasized a complaint made by the Dunstan Government of lack of co-operation by the Commonwealth in connexion with the youth employment movement or housing problems. All of these complaints, I repeat, do not fit in with the Treasurer’s statement about the high level of general prosperity. Indeed, so serious is the position in some parts of the Commonwealth, that campaigns have been inaugurated for the purpose of distributing free milk to children attending schools.

The Government cannot entirely free itself of responsibility for this state of affairs. The Postal Department which shows immense profits on the operations employed, until recently, some thousands of adults at juveniles’ wages.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Many of them were married men with families.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is true, and regrettable though it may be, very many of them had to be content for three years with wages far below the standard fixed by the Arbitration Court. It was only recently that, as the result of persistent protests from this side of the House, these adults were paid the minimum wage.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– Many have been dismissed lately.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I understand that is correct. The wages paid to many employees of the Postal Department are shamefully low. Thousands of men and women are employed by the department in every part of Australia handling money orders, keeping bank accounts, paying pensions and transacting all other phases of the department’s activities for less than £3 a week. Not long ago one of these under-paid employees of the department appeared in a New South Wales court on a charge of having embezzled £200. After hearing the evidence the judge said that he was ashamed to discover that the accused, who in the ordinary course of his routine duties handled hundreds of pounds of public money, was receiving such a low wage, and he was the more surprised to learn that the man was an employee of the Federal Government. Surely in the light of all the facts which I have cited and the daily complaints, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were speaking with their tongues in their cheeks when they declared that Australia was at its peak of economic prosperity. One could go on almost indefinitely telling of instances of hardship in the community due to unemployment among Australian youths, the malnutrition of Australian children and economic distress generally. It is disquieting to ‘know that the figures relating to unemployment are again on the increase. A report in to-day’s Canberra Times stated that unemployment, even in the Federal Capital Territory, was on the increase. No one can foretell the trend of prices for our primary products in overseas markets. The drastic methods adopted in the United States of America a few years ago for the restriction of output of primary industries had the effect of holding up prices on overseas markets. Fortunately it was not necessary for Australian primary producers to “restrict their output, and as the result of enhanced prices in recent years the economic position of this country has improved. But I repeat that the Government was wrong in making large remissions of taxation to those sections of the community least La need of relief, in view of the fact that the living standards of the wage earners had been so seriously depressed by taxes and by other methods employed to keep our primary producers on their feet. I deny the statement of the Treasurer that we have reached a high peak of prosperity. I admit that there has been an improvement since 1931, but I assert that it has been due entirely to extraneous circumstances - not to the financial or taxation policy of this Government.

Turning now to the Government’s defence proposals I wish to place on record a definite statement of my personal views which I shall hold regardless of He political party which may be supporting the Government in office, but I am pretty certain that my views are held almost unanimously by my colleagues in the Australian Labour party; but whether this be so or not, I repeat what I have said on previous occasions “that I will at all times vote and speak against the right of private firms to manufacture or sell for private profit, arms and munitions. In this view I am convinced that I have the support of millions of decent men and women in all countries.

Mr Casey:

– Does the honorable member suggest that there is to be manufacture of munitions for private profit in Australia ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I believe there is that possibility, and I am anticipating it.

Mr Brennan:

– The Treasurer believes in private enterprise.

Mr Casey:

– Nol “in. connexion with the manufacture of arms and munitions. Mr. HOLLOWAY. - I am very glad indeed to have that assurance from the Treasurer, because I have asked a number of questions of the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) and the replies received have not led me to that conclusion. The Treasurer’s definite statement will be very welcome news to the majority of the people of Australia. “But we must deal with these things as we find them. Prior to the Great War public interest was aroused as to the danger of allowing private manufacture of munitions of war. Every conference held to discuss this danger, every inquiry authorized by the League of Nations in more recent years, has disclosed corrupt practices in connexion with the manufacture and sale of munitions. As the result resolutions have been carried urging the governments of all nations, in the interests of peace, to eliminate the private manufacture for sale and profit of munitions of war, which is the greatest agent provocateur of war. The greatest curse of Great Britain is tho private manufacture of arms and munitions, and it is my belief that, for the first time, this Government intends to transplant that curse into Australia. I make my protest now. I am sure that it is the policy of the Government to establish this evil in Australia, because I gather from newspapers and from the statements made by Commonwealth Ministers that private employers have been canvassed, that factories and workshops have been examined, and that blue prints and patents for the manufacture of arms and munitions have been brought into this country. As sure as I am standing here, it is the policy of the Government in its co-operation with Great Britain and the other branches of the British Empire to make Australia for the first time in its history the depot for the manufacture and distribution of arms and munitions. For the first time, the health of the people of Australia is to be undermined by the manufacture of poisonous gases and all kinds of warlike material in this country, not only for the defence of Australia, but also for sale to other peoples. It is known to anybody who reads and follows the growth of international affairs that wherever depots are established for the manufacture of ammunition . and/or weapons of war, those depots attract raiders and attackers. It is natural, like the law of gravitation. This collaboration with Great Britain to make Australia such -a depot is due to the fact that the idea has been conceived that the Pacific Ocean will be the scene of future wars. Accordingly, Australia, because of its geographical position and the extent of its country and its possession of raw materials, has been selected as the British zone for the manufacture of all kinds of arms and munitions. I stand four-square for the Government’s policy, of defence’ insofar as it is a policy which is purely Australian and designed to protect the Australian people against an invader and is not aggressive in character. Not only do I believe in the Australian portion of .the Government’s defence scheme, but also I have advocated it year after year in thi3 Parliament. It is not, however, because of any change of heart that the present Government has adopted the suggestion frequently made by Labour men that we should fit our nation to fight in its own defence by continuously raising the mental and physical standard of its people, that we should encourage the establishment of Australian industries and build up national workshops and that we should teach the people how to roll steel plates in order that we might build our own ships. For the six years in which I have been a member of this Parliament I have put that programme forward; now the Government has adopted it, but, I repeat, not because of any change of heart. It has done so because it has been told that it cannot hope to continue to get its equipment from overseas. We are, therefore, now being forced to stand on our own feet. I am glad that we have to do so - it is the only way in which this .country can develop - but I protest emphatically against those external influences which have ‘ made this Government accept the responsibility to manufacture and sell arms and ammunition outside Australia and to allow private enterprise to enter into this trade which will transplant to Australia the evils which have been a curse to the old world. It must be clear to all that, if Australia becomes a depot for the distribution of armaments, potential enemies will be attracted to this country. Every “time nations outside Australia become involved in war this country will be patrolled by the war vessels of the conflicting parties and their friends in order to prevent supplies of arms from being exported from this country to one or the other of the belligerents. I oppose, vigorously, thu proposed export of arms and ammunition from this country, and also the entry of private manufacturers into the munitions business. Surely the lessons learnt by Great Britain should be enough to convince us that we should not start the same evil here. During the last war Great Britain depended on private manufacturers for the supply of its wants, and whilst hundreds of thousands of British and Australian soldiers were being slaughtered in France those private manufacturers accepted contracts for the supply of -equipment, although they knew that they could not fulfil them and thus our men were left without supplies at the front. Inquiries pursued by the British Government after the cessation of hostilities proved that the British people had been criminally robbed and that, without having the slightest prospect of making deliveries at the due date, the private manufacturers accepted contracts and left the British forces, in many instances, absolutely defenceless. It was proved that the private manufacturers had charged three times the prices they should have on every shell, gun, rifle, and everything else than they should have, allowing a 10 or 12 per cent, profit. In spite of this there still exist potential Zaharoff s in the world to-day. Zaharoff, that prince of blood-sucking men, is dead and the world does not miss him, but everybody knows that the world is full of other men equally evil. There are thousands of salesmen of death all over the world who are paid princely incomes - incomes which we in this country would not dream of paying to judges, legislators and other occupants of high positions, incomes of more than £20,000 a year - to do nothing else but travel from one country to another urging governments to increase their purchases of war equipment, so that they can pass the news on to the other countries, and persuade them to do likewise. It is well known that the international financiers who lend the money with which munitions are bought are the same people as those who control the manufacture of munitions. Yet, in spite of our knowledge of these facts, we are going to transplant into this country the evils which have cursed the old world.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr LANE:
Barton

.-We are delighted to receive the homily we have received from, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway). We heard the same thing from the Independent Workers of the World twenty years ago. We have heard it from the Communist platforms, and now we hear it in this Parliament. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports accused private enterprise of dishonesty. We have seen as much dishonesty in the Labour movement and in all movements. It is part of human nature. The honorable member’s speech is typical of all the speeches that we have heard from the red, red industrial movement over the last 30 years. Fancy the honorable member telling us to-day that Great Britain intends to manufacture munitions in Australia and export them to other countries’, thereby all the warships and raiders of the opposing nations will be attracted here to destroy the factories of Australia so that world supplies of munitions will be depleted. Remarks just about as sensible could be imagined as coming from a primary school or a lunatic asylum, but, if we had not heard the honorable member, it would be hard to imagine anything of such nature emanating from this Parliament. It is ridiculous to imagine that, by some means, owing to the Imperial Conference, and owing to the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) having been in London, the manufacture of munitions in this country will set Germany and Italy at our throats in order to destroy our munitions factories.

Mr Brennan:

– But the Government did make inquiries.

Mr LANE:

– I thought the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) would come into it. The honorable member is one of those boys who is antiBritish and pro-Irish aril pro everything that is anti-British. “We know that the honorable member for Batman has misled the working class and filled it with cheap anti-British sentiment from daylight to dark in Melbourne, but, when an honorable member comes here into this Parliament and declares that Australia is to be made a depot for munitions, we are not misled. The Government has done a very wise thing; It is trying to make Australia self-contained. I regret that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports is like all the rest of his party and clears out of the chamber when he is being answered. The honorable member knows that, owing to the rising in the Mediterranean of unforeseen events, our export trade with Great Britain was endangered, and yet now tells us that we should separate ourselves from Great Britain and the rest of the Empire in the defence of Australia and the defence of the Empire. The Labour party goes out and declares that it is anti-British and -anti everything that is British, but blood is thicker than water and in the Australian blood there flows a strong stream of British blood and Australia will stand by Great Britain through all of its vicissitudes and fortunes. Honorable members opposite may well groan, but I am not afraid. Rather than say that I was anti-British I should be happy to go down at every election.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member viti go down next election.

Mr LANE:

– The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) showed distinct signs of pro- Japanese sentiment when the trade dispute with Japan was in progress and he was distinctly antiBritish when, during the Abyssinian trouble, he urged that H.M.A.-S. Sydney and Australia be recalled from the Mediterranean for fear that one of Mussolini’s warships would fire upon them and Australia would become embroiled in war. Such a policy is cowardly and unworthy of Australia.

Mr Rosevear:

– I never said it.

Mr LANE:

– I heard the honorable member say it, and noted it. When the honorable member is faced, with facts, be squeals and squirms in’ an effort to prevent the truth coming home to him. The policy of the Lang group for many years has been anti-British. I sympathize with the honorable member for’ Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) who has been to the other side of the world and has seen Great Britain in all its glory. He would not cast an anti-British vote, and has never done so in his life.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports alleged that, taxation had been made less oppressive to the wealthy classes than to the poor, but he did not mention that the great, bulk of the customs revenue, which represents two-thirds of the total revenue, is contributed by the wealthy men of Australia, including the manufacturers who import raw material and machinery. He also ignored the fact that those with higher incomes pay the great bulk of the direct taxes. When the honorable member was comparing wages and prices, he did not compare the cost of living figures for the two periods he mentioned. He knows very well that, with high wages, the cost of living rises, and the worker is really no better off. The honorable member also argued speciously that if invalid and old-age pensions had been restored in full, the pensioners would have greatly benefited, although he knows that, from the time the present Government took office, the 17s. 6d. a week paid has been worth more to the pensioners than was the £1 a week which they received when the government which he supported was in power. To-day, when we are paying £1 a week to the pensioners, they are able to purchase 2s. worth of commodities more than they could in 1930. Members of the Opposition do not tell these things to the electors ; they simply say to them : “ You are getting small money, but if you put us in power we will give you high payments.” They do not mention that the cost of living would rise, and that those in receipt, of higher wages and pensions would be poorer under a Labour government than under any other.

I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) on this year’s budget. I do not think we have ever had a tetter one. Everywhere people are commenting on the improved position, and on the prosperity that surrounds us. The total production of Australia in 1930-31 was valued at £305,000,000; to-day, it is worth £428,000,000. Those figures alone account for money being so plentiful and for the steady increase of employment. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) recently told the House a parable of a man who planted an orchard, the fruits of which were gathered byhis successor. He should have said.: “I. had an orchard once with splendid trees in it, but the members of the Lang group, with Mr. Theodore, came in and cut down every tree in it, leaving nothing but the bare land.” The honorable member for Yarra claimed that after ten years that orchard is still growing, and that the present Government can take no credit for replanting it and producing the fruit of prosperity in Australia.

I wish to quote from a speech made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) some years ago, just prior to the downfall of the Scullin Government. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) on that occasion voted against the Government, because it was devoting £230,000 to unemployment relief in Australia, of which New South Wales was to get £90,000, and Mr. Theodore, the then Treasurer, “collared” £5,000 for the unemployed in his electorate of Dalley. The honorable member for West Sydney said “ We have been deprived of the opportunity of putting our men on at Cockatoo Island,” so he, with the honorable member for Hunter and the honorable member for East Sydney, helped to throw the Scullin Government out ore a motion for adjournment, alleging that the then Treasurer was not dealing fairly with the unemployed in other districts than his own. Although they posed as champions of the workers, and particularly of the unemployed, they threw Australia into chaos and confusion when a Labour Government was already in power. The honorable member for

Wilmot, now the Prime Minister in this Government, said in relation to the Scullin Government some time before it was thrown out -

I believe that the policy of this Government means an increase of unemployment, misery and destitution. I see these things in out midst to-day, and that is why by my vote, voice and action, I want to enter my protest against that policy in’ an endeavour to have it changed. Time after time in the party room have I appealed to honorable members in the interests of the workers of Australia toproceed along lines which, I think, are sound and likely to prove beneficial, and even now, if’ the Government will adopt that course, I am prepared to sit back in the corner helping it every moment of its cabinet life.

Later on, in the same discussion, he said -

I have given some reasons why I am disappointed in. the Government’s policy, why I cannot continue to support it, why i would not have remained in the Cabinet had I known that that policy, which was adopted by the party in the absence of the Prime Minister who has always been opposed to inflation, would be adhered to. I felt that the right honorable gentleman would, on his return from abroad, oppose such a scheme, but he did not. He has fallen into line, and has rejected the policy which I advocated, and which I thought he did also- before he went away. The Prime Minister having taken to his boson* those who stood for that policy,. I could no longer remain in his Cabinet. He has within his ranks to-day those who declared for what he and I had described as repudiation, and so I have withdrawn my support from the party. I do not charge my late colleagues with being guilty of willingly and knowingly advocating the policy of repudiation, but I say that what they propose is to me an act of repudiation to which 1 refuse to be a party, and so there they are in office to-day, and I am out.

That was before the honorable member for West Sydney submitted the motion that was the cause of the Scullin Government losing office.

Mr Rosevear:

– What did the honorable member tell the Haymarket business men?

Mr LANE:

-I told them to. ask the Labour party what taxation they would remit. I told them also that the Labour party had already announced, through a speech by Senator Collings, that if they were returned to power they would reimpose all the taxes that the present Goverment has taken off. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports stated just now that if these taxes had been retained, more money would have been available to distribute in wages, and a larger consumption of products, with greater prosperity all round, would have resulted. I contend that, by lightening the burden of taxation on industry, we have brought about a greater measure of prosperity in Australia, in spite of all that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports may say. “When I went to the business men of Broadway, they asked me if I would vote to reduce taxes and help them with the Youth movement. I replied “We have remitted taxes already and you are reaping the return in higher dividends, which in many” cases exceed 10 per cent. Some day, if you are not sensible, there will come into power a party that will probably prohibit the payment of dividends greater than 10 per cent., and will at the same time destroy industry by making taxation over-burdensome.”

Mr Rosevear:

– Who did you tell the people there sent you into Parliament?

Mr LANE:

– I said at that meeting what I repeat now : I have not taken my. commands altogether from the people who placed me here. My actions have been dictated by conscience, and I have always sought the welfare of humanity. All my life, I have appreciated the higher spiritual values, and have made them my guiding principle in the course of my public duties. I have always done my best in the interests of the working class.

Mr Rosevear:

– That was not what the honorable member said at the meeting; he said that it was God who put him here.

Mr LANE:

– The honorable member may compare the record of what I am saying now, with what I said at that meeting, and he will find that it is substantially the same. In 1932, 30 per cent, of registered trade unionists in the Common’wealth were unemployed, but that figure was reduced in 1936 to 9.7 per cent., in New South Wales, and it is now 6.5 per cent. In Queensland, the percentage of unemployed in 1937 was reduced to 5.7 per cent. In’ 1928-29 the number of persons employed in Australian factories was 480,000, but in 1931-32, this figure had declined to 337,000. By 1936-37, how ever, the* number had increased to 51S,000, while it is estimated that, by the end of this year, 535,000 persons will be so employed. Honorable members opposite have pretended that the workers are worse off than in 1929 because, in some instances, the total sum paid in wages is not so great as it was, but they ignore the fact that the cost of living has declined. The fact is that more workers are now employed than ever before, and they arc receiving full award rates.

This Government has provided a sum of £200,000 ‘ for the encouragement of employment amongst youths, and of this £79,000 has been allocated to New South Wales. Compare this with what was done by the Labour Government for the unemployed. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) is reported in Commonwealth Hansard, for the 25th December, 1931, at page 1889, as follows : -

On the 23rd October, the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) made a statement in this chamber to the effect that an amount of £250,000 would bo available for relief just prior in Christmas. That sum was to be split up among all the States, and £90,000 was allocated to New Souf.li Wales.

Thus we see that the present Government has .allocated £79,000 to New South Wales for the employment of youths, whereas the Scullin Government provided only £90,000 to New South Wales for the relief of employment amongst all classes. Mr. Beasley continued -

On tlie 5th November, Senator Dooley made a statement in another place, outlining the intentions of the Government, and particularizing the work that was to be undertaken i.n New South Wales. Following on the utterance, representatives of this group waited upon the Works Director at the Customs House, Sydney, on the 7th November, and asked what he proposed to do with regard to the engagement of labour. That gentleman informed us that he had received a circular from tho Government detailing the procedure to be followed. That circular was dated the 30th October, which makes it clear that the Government had arrived at a decision before the announcement was made by Senator Dooley.

Further on in the same speech, Mr. Beasley stated -

I desire to pay the highest tribute to Mr. Todd, the Works Director for New South Wales. I have no grievance against that gentleman for anything that he has done in this matter. He frankly’ informed ns as to the position, and stated that, in the circumstances, the only course open to myself and my colleagues was to send along the names and addresses of those who came to us for employment. After the registration had closed on the 10th November, there was a positive stampede of applicants to myself and my colleagues, both at the offices of the Commonwealth Bank and at our homes. As ii matter of fact, when men called at the Postal Department’s office in Castlereaghstreet, the officer in charge informed them that they should go to their local member, and register through him. Wc contend, that it was then too late to do anything; that Iia men who caine to us were not given a fair opportunity to obtain employment, as supporters of this Government had already submitted names for registration, and - in many instances the men had already obtained employment.

Tu another place, Mr. Beasley said -

We shall be able to prove, if we aru given the opportunity to do so, that canvassers went from door to door in my electorate, iti forming householders that they had instructions from the Federal Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) to collect 200 names. They also said that their instructions were that priority nf employment would bo given to tl*,se who supported the political views of the. Treasurer.

In this way the honorable member for West Sydney destroyed the Scullin Government on a purely domestic quarrel, namely, whether the unemployed in Mr. Theodore’s electorate should obtain more than those in Mr. Beasley’s district. That whs the spirit of the Lang party that wrecked its own Government, and that was the spirit shown by the Lang Government in my electorate. Residents in my constituency were told that their only chance to obtain employment was to join a Labour league. If we are seeking corruption, there is no need to go beyond the Labour movement, which is necessarily corrupt because its basic principles are wrong. Only a little while ago the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) said that the working class was taking things too easily - that it was time the workers struck. It is significant that very shortly afterwards a strike occurred at the works of the Melbourne Gas Company, which arc situated in the honorable member’s electorate. This Government protects the workers from the avarice and greed of the employers, and it also tries to protect them against the class-conscious agitator, who would persuade them to strike, thus robbing them of their livelihood. Young men have told me that they have been assured of a job, and I have told them to go to the Trades Hall and register as unionists. “When it was found at the Trades Hall, however, that they were my friends, they were passed over, and the man next on the list was given the job. > The fact is that the socalled Labour leaders are not the friends, but the enemies, of the workers. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. Garden) for instance, led the workers in the timber strike. I used the word “led”, but actually he was well in the rear when the workers were being batoned by the police. On another occasion the workers on the coal-fields were on strike for fifteen months, but the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) did not step forward and tell them to compromise, and go back to work so that their wives and children might be fed. Yet he, and his associates, claim to be the champions of the working class when, in fact, they are champions of poverty mid social destruction.

Mr Rosevear:

– The honorable member is the champion of the bosses.

Mr LANE:

– I am not. I have been

  1. resident of an industrial suburb for 30 years, and I have always done my best in the interests of the workers. I believe in the principle of arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes. T have never said that ari employer has the right to be unjust to his employees. I do not advocate taking away from the workers the right to strike, but before, they do so, they should exhaust every method of conciliation. Then there would bo less suffering among the workers, and the lot of their women and children would be pleasanter. The so-called representatives of the workers make no attempt to guide them towards industrial peace. They do not represent the workers at all -they misrepresent them. I have never hesitated to tell the workers that the union bosses are their enemies. I have spoken from the platform and from street .corners, and have put forward my views without fear. When it comes to tyranny, members of the Lang party have gone further than any one else. Mr. Lang himself closed up the taxation office, and resorted to every means at his disposal to create chaos and revolution. That was how he helped to destroy the orchard which the right honorable mem- ber for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) referred to the other day, the orchard from which this Government allegedly plucked the fruit. Yet honorable members opposite objected ‘ to the methods we adopted to end Mr. Lang’s illegal reign. They asked why we did not summon him in the lower court, but the legal advice given at the time was that it would be impossible to achieve our object in that way. We took a short cut, and it was found that the certificate of the Auditor-General was enough for our purpose. Honorable members opposite then asserted that the High Court should have been consulted before that action was taken. Nevertheless, the measures then taken brought about the collapse of the Lang regime, The orchard was replanted by the United Australia party and now blossoms and yields fruits in season. Since then the New South Wales Government has been capable of dealing with the unemployment problem in that State. Honorable members are aware of the difficult problems which have had to be faced during the last eight years by young men between the ages of 18 and 25 years, the .great majority of whom left school at fourteen years of age, and had no prospects of securing jobs. No less than 95 per cent, of the youths who come to me seeking work left school a.t the age of fourteen years. I have frequently remarked to business men that I considered that the school leaving a,ge should be raised. I consider that eight years’ schooling is insufficient to equip a child for the battle of life. I have pointed out to business men that their children leave school at sixteen or eighteen years of age, and that the extra two years of schooling is of great benefit to them when seeking employment. As a means of relieving the unemployment problem, the school leaving age should be raised at least to fifteen years, or before leaving school a boy should, be required to hold the intermediate certificate. In -a broadcast address in July last, to boys and young men who had passed through the great difficulties of the last eight years, the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. Stevens, said that there are still 8,t)00 young men unemployed, whose ages vary between 18 and 25 years, but that from 1933 to the end of March, 1937, no less than 1S,776 youths had been placed in employment by various agencies co-operating with the New South Wales Government. He went on to point out that the Young Citizens Association has placed in employment no less than 8,679 boys, that the juvenile department employment agencies found positions for 3,290, and that rural employment was found for 6,807. He said that, of the total of 18,776 for whom employment was found in the period mentioned, 4,764 were placed in employment in 1935, and 7,011 in 19B6. I have no doubt that many others secured positions on their own account. These figures show the great improvement which lias taken place, whether the members of the Labour party admit it or not. Mr. Stevens estimates that in the next twelve months 30,000 to 40,000 additional jobs will be made available, and that the number of people employed in New South Wales will be increased from S00.,000 to between 830,000 and 840,000.

Reference has been made -to -the defection of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) from the cause of Labour. The right honorable gentlemen was influenced to abandon that party because of Labour’s proposal for the issue of fiduciary notes which would have destroyed the foundation .of Australian finance, and would have meant ‘destitution, to the workers of Australia. It must not be forgotten also that it was on what amounted to a motion of censure moved by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) that the Scullin Government was thrown out of office in order that an opportunity might be given to Mr. Lang to take control of the treasury bench. Subsequent events resulted in the election of the honorable member for Reid (Mr; -Gander) who, as is well known, was to be merely the seat warmer for Mr. Lang, and would step down in his favour at an appropriate time. However, Mr. Lang’ will never be in a position of power le the federal arena. He will be dead and buried before his party secures office. If he is ever to be Prime Minister, it will be in another world.

Mr James:

– That is the voice of a Christian’!

Mr LANE:

– The honorable member knows so little about Christianity that when he endeavoured to recite the Lord’s Prayer in this House some time ago, he was unable to do so. I have always fought for the rights of the men on the lower rungs of the ladder, contending that mem. of influence and position, can always look after themselves. Some years ago I took a prominent part, in the anti: liquor campaign,, and in the elections- of 1925 the liquor trade, paid the expenses of five Labour men who- opposed me. Honorable members opposite grovel at the feet of the big. financial institutions ©f this country, and accept their money iia order to win seats in this Parliament, yet they have the- audacity to point the finger of scorn at one who has always remained independent of vested interests. The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) knows very well that my efforts have always been directed in the interests of the workers, and that I have endeavoured .to secure for those in need the greatest comforts in life.

Mb. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

.- Unlike the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) I do not propose to indulge in personalities. The speeches of honorable members opposite during this debate have been largely directed to the discus-sion of a war that it is said is about to take place; but they have, not told us who the enemy is to bc, nor have they attempted to forecast the date upon which hostilities are likely to commence. It is obvious that honorable members opposite who are about to face their masters to give an account of their stewardship and to receive their just deserts, are fabricating this old worn-out story of a threatened war in an endeavour to stampede the electors of Australia. One would think from the utterances of honorable members, opposite, that they have a monopoly of loyalty. The majority of them, however, do not know the meaning of the term; they could not even remain loyal to a political party. I have no desire to delve into the history of the past, because to-day we are living in a rapidly changing world; events of surpassing importance of three or four years ago are now but dim memories of the past.

During the course of this debate we have heard a good deal from honorable members opposite of so-called prosperity, which, it is said, exists throughout the Commonwealth. In this connexion. I desire to refer to the unfortunate position of many of the people in the north and west of Queensland whose plight, unfortunately, is unknown to most of our globe-trotting politicians who, instead of making themselves conversant with affairs in their own country, and with the requirements of those who live in the far-flung parts of the Commonwealth, are more concerned with “Windsor uniforms and swords. This Government has no regard for those who live in the outback parts of Australia, whether they be workers, business men, or selectors. Those engaged in the pastoral industry in the north and west of Queensland, selectors and workers alike, have had a bad time during the financial depression, and are also suffering on account of the adverse climatic conditions. Prices of primary products, however, have recently risen and, at the end of last year, following a bounteous rainfall, the pastoral industry in the outback -portions of Australia would have been in a flourishing condition but for the bad drought which was experienced in 1935, resulting in the loss of 2,500,000 sheep. When the rains came there was a serious shortage of stock. Representations were made to the Government that the- necessary finance should be made available to enable the pastoralists to re-stock their holdings. These people could turn to no one else- for assistance. The lack of sympathy on the part of the Government for their plight show that it is standing four-square behind the financial institutions which refused to assist them. On the 25th August last, I asked the Treasurer whether, in view of the representations that had been made, the Government was prepared to make a grant to finance the re-stocking of the holdings of those affected, and I was informed that the matter was not one for the Commonwealth Government. I then asked if this Government would propose an amendment of the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act, to enable financial assistance to be afforded to the pastoralists, and I was informed that, as it would be necessary to secure uniform amendment of the complementary legislation of all the States before assistance could be given, my suggestion was impracticable. Section 4 of the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act reads -

The amount borrowed shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for the purpose of expenditure in accordance with this act to provide for the grant to the several States, by way of financial assistance, of moneys to be used for the payment to or for the benefit of farmei-3 to enable them to make compositions or schemes of arrangement with their creditors in respect of their debts.

That section provides a glaring example of class-conscious legislation. Its purport is that before any assistance can be granted to any farmer - and the definition of “ farmer “ includes a grazier or a selector - the financial institution has to give its permission. If the financial institution is afraid that it may lose on the transaction, it will readily make a composition with the individual farmer.

Apart from lack of government assistance, the farmers are suffering severely because of the effects of the discriminatory tariff imposed by this Govern- 1 ment, which has already cost the wool-growers of Australia £7,000,000. The trade diversion policy of the Government has caused Japan to buy only 533,000 bales of wool from Australia since it has returned to the market, although previously that country took 750,000 bales from us. Through Japan being off the wool market, European buyers were able to procure Australian wool at least 3d. per lb. more cheaply than if Japan had been a competitor. Japan was forced to go elsewhere for its wool, and the countries from which it procured its requirements benefited at the expense of the Australian woolgrower. Townspeople in the outback areas, the workers engaged in the pastoral industry, and women and children on the frontiers of the nation, suffered tremendously because of the act of the present Government in imposing a tariff “which did not benefit the country one iota.

Some weeks ago I referred to the tobacco industry. Recently 1 visited North .Queensland, and attended a tobacco sale at Mareeba. It was the < first time I had been at Mareeba when a sale of this kind was in progress. 1 1 was one of the greatest farces I have ever witnessed. In the saleroom 20 tons of tobacco had been graded, labelled and baled. The tops of the bales were open, and the growers were collected outside the saleroom.. Two buyers were present, representing the tobacco combine. They passed through the saleroom, branded each bale according to the grade of tobacco it contained, and then fixed the price. The farmer had to accept the fixed ‘ price or lose the sale of his product. As he is in dire straits to-day, he had no option but to take the price offered. I have before me a lotter.from a tobacco farmer whom I met at the sale. He informs me that the whole of his crop was purchased, except 20 lb. of green leaf, and he adds that under the present system a good sale results in the return to him of an average price of 2s. 3i)d. per lb., which price is below the cost of production. !”We read of sales of tobacco at 4s. per lb., but the quantity of leaf which realizes that high figure could be carried away in a bucket. My correspondent is one of the largest growers in the Mareeba district. Unquestionably these primary producers are being exploited, and something should be done to enable them to obtain an adequate return for their labour. They work from daylight’ to dark, and, a3 they are not is a position to employ assistance at ordinary wage rates, their wives and children are called upon to help them. In France, the tobacco industry is a government monopoly, and the revenue of about £35,000,000 per annum derived from tobacco duties is used in the reduction of the national debt.

The International Sugar agreement, which gives to Australia the’ right to export a maximum of 400,000 long tons of sugar per annum, means that, our exports of sugar are now to be restricted to that tonnage. Australia’s own requirements also being fixed, the industry must be regarded as having reached the zenith of its development. I point out, however, that if the growers are to remain in the sugar belt - from Mossman in the north to the most southerly cane-producing districts, but particularly in the northern districts, where settlement is greatly needed because of our defence requirements - it is essential to provide for the expansion of the industry. If we do not continue to increase the production of sugar, the sons of cutters, farmers, business men and others who depend upon the industry for their livelihood, will have to wait until others die before they can get jobs, or else go to other parts of Australia in search of employment

One way out of the difficulty is to establish the power alcohol industry. At Sarina, a distillery is now producing power alcohol at “a profit, and, if this spirit were manufactured in large quantities, much employment would be created in the agricultural areas of Queensland and the other States. As part of its defence policy, the Government is willing to assist in the production of oil from shale, and inquiries are being made into the prospects of the treatment of coal by the hydrogenation process. Experiments are also being conducted with regard to power alcohol. Strangely enough, it was announced after this House rose on the 1st July that these experiments would be made, and a fortnight later an announcement appeared in the press that the Colonial Sugar Refining Company would expend £200,000 in the erection of factories for the production of power alcohol. As motor spirit is vital for defence purposes, this industry should be encouraged by the Government. I have before me a report by an expert who sets out all the costs with regard to the production of power alcohol, and shows that, on a conservative estimate, it can (be manufactured at ls. 6d. a gallon. The establishment of this industry would assist the settlers in the northern portion of Queensland, and would also be of great value in the event of war. Power alcohol can be manufactured from corn, sweet potatoes, and many other crops, as well as from sugar-cane. The proper encouragement of the industry would lead to decentralization, and it is not difficult to visualize a series of factories for the production of this spirit throughout the various agricultural districts of Australia from Cape York to Perth. The success of the industry would assist the primary producer, and also do much to liberate this country from the tentacles of the’ octopus oil combine.

On the 24th August la’st, I asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral the following questions, without notice -

Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral furnish any information as to what steps, if any, have been taken to establish broadcasting stations in the north and west of Queensland to serve the people living in those areas? If nothing has yet been done, will he make inquiries with a view to having these services provided?

The Minister for Defence subsequently furnished the following reply: -

The department has established broadcasting station 4QN Townsville as one of the station* for the north of Queensland, and preliminary work is in hand to provide others in accordance with the general plan of the national broadcasting system. For the far west and north-west of Queensland, it is economically impracticable at present to provide service by means of stations operating in the regular band of wave frequencies. However, shortwave operation has proved practicable, and the present short-wave service from the national station 3.LR is being augmented, so that service in the west and north-west of Queensland will bo improved.

I have been negotiating with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department for over eight months, and have been informed that station 4QN was established to serve not ‘the people of Cairns or in the far-west, but the people of Townsville and the districts north and south of that centre. The Minister also said that the service at 3LR has been improved, but unfortunately every listener in the north and north-west of Queensland does not possess a dual wave or a short wave set. As a majority of listeners are using ordinary receivers they are unable to avail themselves of the service provided through 3LR. Settlers in such remote parts of the Commonwealth, who are deprived of receiving wireless news and entertainment, are entitled’ to greater consideration than they are receiving at present. Strong agitation for a better radio service in that district has been supported by shire councils, chambers of commerce, listeners leagues, and other bodies. Payment of a .licence-fee should entitle listeners to a reasonable service; but owing to climatic and other conditions, they are not receiving the return to which they are entitled. The .service at 3LR is satisfactory to some, but it is still inadequate. I appeal to the Government to erect a station to provide those living in isolated parts of Queensland with a better service, and thus enable them to get the daily news as soon as it is available to men in the cities. Many of the disabilities experienced by settlers in the more remote parts of Queensland will soon be removed. Fortunately a general election is approaching, and with the change of Government, many of the inconveniences they have experienced will be removed.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- Mr. Speaker-

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

– I rise to a point of order. Under what standing or sessional order or decision of the House, are you, .sir, occupying the chair after the time at which the sitting is usually suspended for lunch?

Mr SPEAKER:
Hon. G. J. Bell
Mr COLLINS:

– I desire to make a few observations in connexion with the bill now before the House, and the budget speech which .the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) recently presented to Parliament. ‘ I congratulate the Government on the good work which it has performed during the time it has occupied the treasury bench. It will be remembered by all honorable members, and by the people of Australia., that when the first Lyons Government came into office it f ound financial chaos, due to some extent to a fall of prices, and a huge deficit left by the preceding Government. The recovery which has taken place during the past six years is very creditable to the Administration which has successfully steered the ship of state through rocky channels. When the first Lyons Government took office there was a deficit of ‘,£10,759,000, and no fewer than 300,000 workers were out of employment. Owing to the serious decline of prices, many of those engaged in primary production were compelled to seek assist,ance from the Government, and it was difficult to know what policy to adopt in order to solve the pressing problems then confronting the Commonwealth. Since the Lyons Governments have been in office not only has an immense deficit been wiped off, but also many concessions have been conferred upon the people, including £14,000,000 paid to the wheatgrowers, and £12,000,000 allocated for the rehabilitation of the farmers. A complete restoration of all the reductions made in public service salaries and invalid and old-age pensions has been effected. For 1936-37 the Government showed a surplus of £1,276,558, and it is anticipated that at the end of the present financial year there will be a surplus of £30,000. Although no further reductions of taxes are to be made this financial year we have to remember that taxes amounting to £15,500,000 have already been remitted, and that provision has been made for the expenditure of x large sums for defence purposes and for the restoration of invalid and old-age pensions to the full rate of £1. The record of this Government is even more creditable when we consider that other countries which are also incurring heavy expenditure on armaments are increasing taxes. This Government has been able to provide large sums for defence purposes and at, the same time to reduces taxes. Moreover, large sums have been made available to the States for road construction and maintenance, and assistance has also been given to the apple and pear growers and others engaged in primary production.

I do not suggest, however, that the Government has not made some mistakes, because the urgent requirements of some of the people have unfortunately _ been overlooked. For instance the postal and telephonic services in some country districts are quite inadequate. In travelling through rural areas I have found that those conducting non-official post offices have to work like gallery slaves; they have to bc available from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. for a mere pittance. The public service of this country should function in. the interests of the people, but those who conduct that service should be adequately remunerated, particularly when there is a huge surplus. In the far west of New South Wales, and in some mountainous regions, the attendants at non-official post offices have to work from the early hours of the morning until late at night without adequate recognition of the value of the work they perform. The settlers in such localities who are developing this country, are entitled to a weekly, bi-weekly or triweekly mail service which in some districts is not available. Those living in the city and suburban areas have pillar boxes and in close proximity to their places of business or their homes which are cleared several times daily, while many living in country districts work long hours, and, when their day’s labour is finished, have to travel six or seven miles to collect their mail or to post letters. That is most unfair. Further, in certain districts telephone subscribers have been informed that as “the number of subscribers to the exchange to which they are connected has increased, the rental is to be raised. These people do not mind contributing in this way, provided that the people farther out receive the services to which they are entitled ; but although rentals in large country towns are being increased by the department satisfactory service is not being provided for the outback districts. It is time, therefore, that the people protested, and that I, in the interests of my constituents, should also protest in this chamber. It is with reluctance that I have continuously to abuse the postal department for its failure to provide efficient services, but I feel fully justified in doing so and will continue to do it until the services are improved. Recently I took the PostmasterGeneral to a large, progressive and prosperous country town to show him the postal facilities. The congestion in that particular post office was so great that the people had hardly room to move about, and the slime and filth that came up through the floor through bad ventilation, and clung to the floor boards when they were lifted, was beyond description. The Postmaster-General admitted to me that something ought to be done, but so far as I know, nothing has been done. The public telephone outside that building was not sheltered in any way and on wet and windy days the people who wished to use it had to do so without any protection whatever. Yet telephone subscribers in lange country towns are being notified that their rentals are to be increased. I take exception to this action on the part of the Administration. The people should receive reasonable service for the money they pay. I hope that the attention of the Postmaster –General will be drawn to the remarks that I am making in the interests of my constituents. The conditions that I complain about are due chiefly, in my opinion, to the tyrannous action of some district inspectors, who, for their own aggrandisement, fight tooth and nail to curtail even reasonable expenditure. These officers seem to be out of the control of the Deputy Directors of Posts and Telegraphs, and even of the PostmasterGeneral, who never see them. They seem to be czars in their own territory, and undoubtedly they crucify the people. I speak feelingly on this subject, because of the experiences that I have had and of the conditions that have been described to me by non-official postmasters and postmistresses in my electorate.

I come now to a consideration of -‘the Federal Aid Roads agreement, ‘ and the manner in which the proceeds of the petrol tax are used. Although our main highways are topdressed and polished, many developmental roads and roads through rural areas which should be feeders to the railways, are left without any attention whatsoever. Much of the money obtained from the petrol tax should be used to improve road services in country districts. . The continuous furbishing up of the highways is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Farmers who live in flat country and in districts where heavy soil is to be found have been left without adequate roads, and they are entitled to clamour for more consideration. It is necessary for them to use roads to get their produce to the railways, and I submit that the whole of , the additional money being made available to the States under the new agreement should be earmarked for expenditure on country roads.

Mr Lane:

– The honorable member should “ have a go “ at Buttenshaw and Bruxner about this.

Mr COLLINS:

– I am having a go “ at this Government, for it imposes the tax. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) is no doubt looking after the interests of the industrialists, but my concern is for the primary producers. If the proceeds of the petrol tax were applied reasonably, no one would take exception to the impost, but they are not expended equitably. A far larger proportion of the money obtained from this tax should be spent on roads which serve the farms of this great country.

The defence programme of the Government merits the approval of the House. About £29,000,000 has been made available by the Government for defence purposes. It is statesmanlike policy on the part of. the Government to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the interests of Australia, particularly as the governments of other countries of the world are to-day spending huge amounts on armaments. In fact, this Government would be deserving of censure if it did not give adequate attention to defence measures. If we should be attacked by an invader - a happening which we all hope will never occur - we should be able to defend ourselves. “We do not know, of course, to what extent Great Britain might be able to help us if a war occurred, nor do we know how the Mother Country itself would be affected in such circumstances. It is, therefore, imperative that we do everything possible to provide for our own defence. We all know that certain nations are antagonistic to us because of the large areas of unoccupied country that we have. There is also a desire on the part of some other countries to break up the British Commonwealth of Nations.

This reminds me of the efforts of the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) to stimulate development in that part of Australia. I compliment the honorable member on his recent advocacy of the defence and development of our empty north. At present development is just as necessary as defence in that area. The great empty stretches of land in the Northern Territory should be carrying a large population and I hope that, in the near future, effective steps will be taken to that end. Unless we are able to develop the Northern Territory, we must expect other nations which need land to attempt to take it from us. We are holding Australia with a few million people and we have huge areas practically without population, whereas certain other continents arc so densely populated that many of their people live on the water because there is not room on the land. I refer particularly to Japan and China. The people of those countries are creatures of the earth with the same right to live as ourselves, but there is no room for them on land and many of them live and die on the water. I say definitely that we are not entitled to hold huge stretches of habitable country unless we are prepared to use it. The development of the Northern Territory could be hastened by the construction of adequate roads and the opening of ports so that the produce of the country may be marketed overseas. If proper roads were made, road trains could be run from east to west, from the Barkly Tableland through the Kimberleys to Wyndham. This, of course, would need the co-operation of the Government of Western Australia, but I am sure that that could be obtained. I look forward to the day when Vesteys Meat Works at .Darwin will be reopened and a port established at Vanderlin Island so that the people in the north may have an additional outlet for their produce. We know that a considerable body of opinion favours the completion of the railway from north to south for the purpose of finding a market in the south for the produce of the north. I do not favour ‘that policy. If ports “ were opened in the north, a valuable market for northern products could be found in eastern countries, and there would be no possibility of congesting and glutting the markets in the south. The President of the Australian Producers Council, who is at present in Japan, stated, recently, that Japan was desirous of making a trade treaty with Australia for the supply of meat. This surely suggests that au important market is awaiting development in that direction. The honorable member for the Northern Territory deserves the compliments of the House for the efforts he is making to accelerate the development of the area which he represents.

Reverting to our defence policy, I repeat that it is to the credit of the Government that so much money has been made available for this purpose. With other honorable members, I trust that we shall never be called upon to engage in war but we must provide ourselves with an effective navy and an efficient and adequate air force so that if an enemy should attack us, we shall be prepared to offer stout resistance. Certain honorable members of the Labour party have said “ We shall stay here and fight. We shall not fight anywhere else. If we have to fight at all, we shall fight in our own backyards, in our own towns and cities, on our own lawns, in our own front gardens.” Those are not my views. I believe that we should be prepared to meet, at least 500 miles out at sea, any enemy who shows a disposition to attack us. We should not allow any aggressor to find a footing on our soil. The defence of Australia, in my opinion, is dependent entirely upon an efficient navy and a virile and effective air force. The youth of this country should be encouraged, through our system of voluntary training, to prepare to defend Australia, and every young Australian should be given the opportunity to obtain an air pilot’s certificate. It is of no use to wait until we are attacked. We must prepare ourselves beforehand. Because the Government is doing so much good work in this regard, I offer it my congratulations.

I also compliment the Government upon what it has done for the invalid and aged people of Australia. It might be imagined, from the speeches delivered in this House, that the Labour party alone has the interests of our pensioners at heart, but a consideration of the facts must, lead to a very different conclusion. I am glad that the Government has seen its way clear to restore the rate of pension to £1 a week. Honorable gentlemen of the Labour party frequently suggest that every move to improve the lot. of our pensioners has emanated from their side of the House. They also claim that the pension system was inaugurated by Labour. The truth is that that great statesman, Alfred Deakin, first intro duced our pension system. The original rate of 10s. was increased by the Hughes Government in 1916 to 12s. 6d. a week. The same government again increased the rate in 1919, and a further increment was provided in 1920. In 1923, the Bruce-Page Government raised the pension to 17s. 6d. a week and in 1925 advanced it again to £1 a week, the highest rate that has ever been paid. Through absolute and dire distress, the Scullin Government, when it came into office, reduced the rate of pension by 2s. 6d. a week, and it has been left to the Lyons-Page Government to restore the rate to £1 a week.

Mr James:

– It was also left to that Government to take away the property of the pensioners.

Mr COLLINS:

– The Country party was responsible for the abolition of the property sections of the pensions law. Not once during the whole period that our pension system has been in operation has a. Labour government increased the rate of pension, but through incapacity and sheer inability to govern, the Labour Government decreased the rate of pension and so afflicted the poorest section of the community. Honorable members of the Labour party have said a great deal about the need to increase the rate of pension, but the Labour Government actually reduced the benefits of these unfortunate people. I repeat that not a single Labour Government since the advent of federation has increased the rate of pension and, through sheer incapacity to govern, and in the time of collapse and calamity in 1931, the Scullin Government reduced the pension rate. At that time of dilemma it was actually forced out of office by members of its own party, and at the subsequent election the country returned to office the government that has remained in power ever since. It was during the time of distress- to which I have referred that the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales had to close its doors. Our calamities, in truth, came in a heap. The restoration of financial stability was left to the nonlabour parties which, in the best interests of the country, were returned with a sufficient majority to form a strong Government. As the result of the sound and common sense legislative policy of this Government and the business like methods it adopted in administering our affairs, not only have the invalid and oldage pensions been restored to their former rate,, but unemployment has been reduced to a remarkable extent. When this Government assumed office in 1932, official statistics showed that 30 per cent, of our people were unemployed. The latest figures show that only 9 per cent, of the people are now unemployed. This is a remarkable achievement upon which the Government deserves the heartiest congratulation. It is a triumph alike of common sense administration and sound legislation. I know that the people- at large may be relied upon not to forget these facts at the coming elections. When Parliament has been dissolved and the Government and its supporters go to the people to give an account of their stewardship, they will be able to submit a record of achievement which will be so convincing that they will be returned to office to carry on their good work for the welfare of the community. Through the able administration of our financial affairs, Australia is to-day in a better position in regard to employment and otherwise than at any time since federation.

In conclusion I warn the members of the Ministry that they must pay more attention to the provision of postal facilities for people who live in remote districts. The residents of our cities who are close to post offices have been well provided with all necessary requirements in this direction ; but there is urgent need that those engaged in developmental work of great value to Australia should be given the postal and telephonic services to which they are entitled, without having to dip their hands into their pockets incessantly in order to obtain them. When new telephone lines in country districts are asked for, the subscribers have frequently to provide the poles at their own cost; later when these have to be replaced, they become the property of the Postmaster-General, and the new poles again must be provided by the subscribers. The Government should see that those engaged in rural pursuits are given better facilities. By providing these service it would add to its already excellent record.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.- With other honorable members, I congratulate the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) on. the ‘ excellent budget which he introduced a few days ago. Doubtless, many of the electors will be a little disappointed to find that no further reductions of taxes are proposed, but when they realize that the reason is the Government’s resolve to make adequate preparation for the defence of this country, their disappointment will disappear and they will readily agree that the right thing has been done. [Quorum formed.] In 1930-31, the defence vote was alarmingly small, and Australia was left without anything approaching adequate means of defence; but during the six years that the Lyons Government has been in office, the vote has been increased year by year, until for the current financial year, it has reached the colossal sum. of over £11,000,000. Unfortunately, the state of world affairs justifies that huge expenditure. At the moment, Australia is at peace with its neighbours, but that happy state of affairs may not continue. Should there be another world war, Australia will need its own navy and air force for its defence. I am pleased, that the Government intends to expend most of the defence vote in Australia in supplying necessary naval protection as well as in the manufacture of aircraft and . munitions. In this connexion, I urge a policy of greater decentralization of secondary industries. At the present time, the major secondary industries are principally established in Victoria and New South Wales. A sound policy would ensure that more of them were situated in the other States. Under present conditions, an invader would most likely attack either Victoria or New South Wales first, because, as I have said, our chief manufacturing establishments are situated in those States. I was pleased to notice that the Prime Minister recently said that the manufacture of munitions would be distributed more generally throughout Australia, and I hope that that policy will be put into operation without delay. Concentration of our secondary industries in two States has caused population to flow to those

States from the rest of Australia, thereby impoverishing the other States and making necessary the grant of considerable sums annually to enable them to function satisfactorily. I am pleased with the proposed allocation of the defence vote. Of the total sum, £3,616,000 is to be expended on the navy, £3,264,000 on the military forces, £2,672,000 on the air force, £1,039,000 on munitions supply, and £940,000 on civil aviation. The Opposition claims that Australia’s defence should be restricted to its air force, but I submit that a strong navy is necessary not only to protect this country in the event of its being engaged in a war, but also to safeguard our trade routes. I am pleased to know that during the life of the present Government, the personnel of Australia’s defence forces has increased by over 10,000. The improved conditions which now operate should tend to increase those numbers considerably in the near future, so that, in the event of the mobilization of our forces becoming necessary, this country would be able to put into the field a fairly strong force of trained men.

Another pleasing feature of the budget is the improved condition of the finances of the States which it discloses. At the 30th June, 1930, the budgets of the Commonwealth and the States showed a total deficit of £9,269,000. By the end of the following year, the deficit had increased to £25,390,000. During 1931-32, it dropped to £19,490,000, .and further fell to £4,563,000 in 1932-33. In 1933- 34, the deficit was £5,485,000, but in the following , year, it had fallen to £2,554,000. Then followed a series of surpluses. In 1935-36, the surplus was £1,123,000, and in the following year it was £965,000. There has been a succession of surpluses since the Lyons Government came into office.

The burden of interest has also fallen during this Government’s term of office. In 1920-21, the per capita rate was £6 19s. 8d.’ It rose to £8 7s. 9d. in 1925-26, reaching a maximum of £9 10s. Id. in 1930-31. Last year it was £7 7s. 3d. [Quorum formed.’] There has been practically no increase of the interest debt per head of the population during the last sixteen years. In view of the seriousness of the depression, that state of affairs reflects great credit on the present Government.

The sales tax is expected to yield about £7,700,000 this year, but had the present Government not reduced the rate of the tax, the revenue from that source would have amounted to approximately £18,000,000. During its term of .office this Government has practically halved Commonwealth taxation, whilst it has reduced the Commonwealth debt by £11,000,000, although we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the public debt of the States has increased. The financial administration of this Government has been most successful. I do not know of any other government that has a similar achievement to its credit. Furthermore, the national debt sinking fund now stands at £10,000,000, whilst £5,500,000 has been made available to the States in respect of their sinking funds. [Quorum formed.] This Government has converted overseas loans totalling £198,000,000 on a basis which could not have been achieved had it not the confidence of the people of the world. I am also pleased to know that the budget forecasts the inauguration of a two-way twice-weekly air service between Australia and Great Britain with the prospect of a thrice-weekly service in the near future. I note with satisfaction that an amount of £100,000 has been earmarked in respect of the development of the Northern Territory. , Honorable members generally know that I am deeply interested in the future of the territory and have always advocated its cause. I believe, with other honorable members, that we should develop this part of Australia as rapidly and as fully as possible. There can be no doubt that it is worth developing, yet the population of the Northern Territory to-day is some hundreds less than it was when the Commonwealth Government took over control of the territory from South Australia. I am pleased also to know that, acting on the advice of those who accompanied the Minister for the Interior (Mi*. Paterson) on his recent visit to the Northern Territory, the Government has now installed a battery at Tennant Creek, which will reduce the cost of crushing ore by over 50 per cent., and will, therefore, be an invaluable aid to those miners who are engaged in unearthing the auriferous ore known to exist over a large area. When the Minister visited Tennant Creek the ore had to be transported many miles to various batteries, some of which were run by foreigners, and the treatment cost was as much as £2 a ton. All of these batteries were very primitive. We can now rest assured that this work will be done effectively at a cost of about 24s. a ton, covering crushing and cyanide treatment. Another obstacle to the development of this part of Australia is being overcome by the establishment of water supplies which will enable the miners to remain on the fields, whereas there was no prospect of their doing so before the Minister visited the territory. One essential for the development of the territory, however, is still lacking, and that is satisfactory railway transport. I have never spoken about the Northern Territory in this House without advocating that the railway should be completed between Alice Springs and Birdum. At present a railway connects Darwin to Birdum and Adelaide to Alice Springs, the gap between the railheads being 500 miles. The Commonwealth Government has not only pledged itself to undertake this work, but also is bound to do it under the agremeent it entered into with South Australia when it took over the control of the territory. While I remain a member of this House I shall strongly advocate the completion of this line, which will prove a benefit not only to the people of the Northern Territory and Sotith Australia, but also to Australia as a whole, because it will be a means of increasing the population of central Australia.

Every honorable member on this side of the House is pleased that the Government has been able to restore the invalid and old-age pension to the former maximum of £1. Certain honorable members opposite, however, are very sorry to hear of this decision. So often have we seen them shedding crocodile tears when advocating that the pension be increased, that T wonder what they will have to talk about now. As the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins) pointed out, the party with which honorable members opposite are associated had an opportunity in six different Parliaments since federation, to increase the rate of the old-age and invalid pension, but failed to do so. Every increase of the pension has been brought about by either a Nationalist or a Liberal government.

I am pleased to see that an amount of £75,000 is to be allocated as a preliminary step in the inauguration of a scheme of national insurance. As we know very little about the subject at present, we are not aware of what lines the Government will follow, but we are living in hopes that when it is returned to office after the next elections, it will attend to this matter. Honorable members will recall that during the last session I recommended a certain scheme of insurance for the financing of pensions. I suggested that every child at birth should be insured for £100, the policy to mature ‘ a t the age of twenty. Since then I have delved into data concerning this subject, and I now find that the scheme I previously suggested can be greatly improved upon. I shall now outline the scheme for the consideration of the Government, and should it be able to put the scheme into operation I hope that it will not hesitate to do so. As far as I can ascertain, a person who reaches the age of 65, lives, on an average, to 72,’ that is, seven years more. At the present rate of old-age pension of £1 a week, the Government would pay £364 to a pensioner in a period of seven years. The average number of births. I understand, is about 100,000 a year. I suggest that each child be insured at birth for a policy of £50 to mature at twenty years of age. The Government should finance this insurance itself. The cost of such a policy would be 30s. a year, or . a total cost of £30, which would do the work which it now costs £364 in the form of old-age pension to do to-day, over a period of seven years. The amount of the policy, I suggest, should be invested at 4£ per cent.,’ at which rate it would double itself twice within the period in question, raising the amount to £200. Taking into consideration the fact that considerably less than 50 per cent, of those eligible by age actually apply for the old-age pension, that amount of £200 would be equivalent to £400, and, in respect of each recipient, would pay a pension of £1 2s. 6d. instead of the present pension of £1. This, I repeat, can be accomplished at a cost of only £30. Furthermore, by reason of the fact that one-third die before reaching the age at which they become entitled to :. pension, the pension payable to the survivors would be increased to £1 9s. 2d. :i week. This benefit would be secured for an initial cost of £30 in respect of each person, or a total cost, spread over 60 years, of £90,000,000, which we now spend, in respect of pensions, in a period of six years. If the scheme were put on a £1 for £1 contributing basis the total cost in respect of each person to the Government would be £15, or a total, during the 60 years, of £45,000,000, which we now spend in respect of pensions within three years. At present it costs the Government more than £15,000,000 a year to pay a pension of £1, whereas under the scheme of pension I suggest we could pay a pension of £1 9s. 2d. at a cost of only £15 in respect of each pensioner, thus effecting a saving of £14,250,000 a year, which, over a period of SO years, would practically pay off our national debt, which to-day amounts to £1,262,872,000. I hope that the Government will give this scheme careful consideration.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- Before proceeding to deal with the main portion of my speech, I desire to make some comments upon the statements made by the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins) and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey). Both honorable gentlemen declared that, as the Labour party had been in power in the Commonwealth on six different occasions since federation, it had had opportunity to increase, the rate of invalid and old-age pensions. I wish to impress upon the House that, with the exception of two occasions, it was a minority government. The first time that the Labour party had a majority in both Houses was from 1910 to 1913, which is a quarter of a century ago. [Quorum formed.’] That was the only occasion on which the Labour party had a fair opportunity in this Parliament to put its platform into effect, and in that period it placed upon the statute-book many enactments - including the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank - which no successive . government has ever dared to repeal and which stand as monuments to Labour. It is now 21 years since the second time when the Labour party had control in both Houses of this Parliament. The Labour party was elected to power in 1914, during the war, and, until the split came in 1916, that Labour Administration was engaged wholly in prosecuting the war to a successful conclusion. For that reason, it was unable to attend to most of the matters on its platform. Not since then has this party had a majority in both Houses of this Parliament.

Mr Casey:

– How does the honorable member explain that?

Mr BAKER:

– I explain it as being largely due to the misleading statements made by members of the Government party, such as those to which I am replying now, which have prevented the people from returning to power the party which will act in their best interests and will make statements which will not twist and distort the truth. In fairness, we are entitled to another opportunity to govern and this will be given to us in a few weeks’ time..

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– Is that all upon which the honorable member’s party can base its claims for election?

Mr BAKER:

No. I now leave that aspect and approach the main subject of my speech, namely, the Imperial Conference and the concomitants of foreign affairs and defence. Before the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) left for overseas, honorable members were informed that they would be given the opportunity to decide what was to be the attitude of the Commonwealth Parliament towards the matters to be discussed at the Imperial Conference. That promise was not carried out.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– “When was that promise given?

Mr BAKER:

– It was given in answer to questions asked in this House. Even if there had been no promise, surely it is not too much to expect that the elected representatives of the people would have been allowed to discuss matters of major importance which were to be brought, before the Imperial Conference. The report of that conference has been published, but we are not concerned so much with what was written in that report as we are with what was left unwritten. I refer to the commitments entered into by this Government of which this Parliament has never been informed. The debate upon the Imperial Conference report was begun in this Parliament,, but shortly after it was started, it became obvious that the Government’s endeavour to capitalize the conference and to fight what is termed “ a khaki election” had not been successful. In preparation for this khaki election campaign and to draw attention away from the real matters of concern, the report upon the Imperial Conference, was brought before Parliament, but, unfortunately for the Ministry, its plans miscarried. The Government was so dissatisfied with the response that it received that it is not prepared to allow Parliament further to discuss, the report before the elections. The motion upon which the debate was proceeding has been placed at the bottom of the business-paper and will not be discussed before ‘Parliament is dissolved.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– What else is the honorable member doing now but discussing the report?

Mr BAKER:

– I am taking advantage of the opportunity which the Supply debate gives to defeat the intention of the Government to avoid further reference to the report.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– Then there is nothing in the honorable member’s argument.

Mr BAKER:

– There are many other matters which could have been discussed on Supply, but which had to be left alone because of the Government’s failure to give Parliament specific opportunity to discuss the Imperial Conference. The Government is following the examples set by dictatorships which, when they seek to divert the attention of the people from real policy, declare war upon other countries. In pseudo-democratic countries, such as Australia, governments come forward with specious election cries and thereby seek to achieve the same result as is achieved in dictator-ridden countries. In Australia, we had the “ Win the war “ -government, and, in Great Britain, we had a similar spectacle of a government winning an election on the promise that it would “ Hang the Kaiser.” Instead of attention being paid to the real economic necessities of the people, these cries are put forward. This Government has done nothing for three years, and then it seeks to avoid defeat by raising matters totally irrelevant. Our representatives went to the Imperial Conference, and, with all respect to this latter-day Napoleon, the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill), there is no doubt that they were overawed in St. James’s Palace by the diplomats among whom they were sitting.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– We were too modest.

Mr BAKER:

– Yes. too modest to put up a fight on behalf of the Australian aspect. The failures of the Australian representatives, however, cannot all be put down to modesty. Great Britain for hundreds of years has led the world in diplomacy, and there would be little prospect of the emissaries from this country competing against British diplomats. There is little doubt that the Australian representatives swallowed whole what the British Government put before them at the Imperial Conference.

There is a fundamental difference between the anti-Labour parties which form the Government and the Opposition party. The attitude adopted by supporters of the Government as that we should still occupy the position of mere colonials, and that the dominions should be colonies from which Great Britain should gain riches and benefits. The attitude of the Labour party is that’ this country has grown into a nation. We are proud to he Australians, and, while we do not subscribe to the lip-loyalty of the Government party, we believe that our loyalty to Great Britain, and to what is not so much a British Empire as the British Commonwealth of Nations, is best expressed by being free Australians and by doing our best for the country in which we live. Our political opponents unceasingly protest their loyalty. They are sycophantic in their loyalty to Great Britain. To hear them speak would lead one to believe that they had a monopoly of loyalty, that the British Empire was their special private property, and that it was an impertinence for members of this party to make reference to their being citizens of the Empire. The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane), with his customary ability, in a tirade of abuse, to-day charged this party with being antiAustralian.

Mr Brennan:

– Ability?

Mr BAKER:

– Yes, ability in being able to make untruthful statements. The first endeavour of supporters of the Government is always to prove that they are more British than the British. They are particularly ultra patriotic.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr BAKER:

– There would be nothing wrong with it if honorable members opposite betrayed the slightest semblance of sincerity, but «very one recognizes the fact that their patriotism is in the nature of a garment put on to win the elections. Once again during this campaign the truth is to bc displayed of Dr. Johnson’s dictum -

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

At imperial conferences, when it comes to deciding any matter affecting Australia, members of the Government party merely concur. They did it with regard to the Abyssinian trouble. They merely concurred with Great Britain and had no opinions of their own. When it was a matter of making enemies of two great countries, Japan and the United States of America, by the adoption of the trade diversion policy, they rushed in to put that policy into practice, because Great Britain considered it suited its exporters that it should be done. Irre”spective of the fact that the United States of America and Japan are the two great powers in the Pacific, and that it should be obvious that, if we are to have trouble with one of them, it- is unwise to pick on the other at the same time, the Government did so.

There are two main differences between the policy of this party and the policy of the Government parties. The first is the attitude towards our connexion with the British Empire. The whole process of evolution of the nations within the British Commonwealth of Nations has been towards giving self-government and greater power to all the nations included therein. In the beginning of the century, particularly at the Imperial Conferences of 1907 and 1911, the fight was fought and lost for an Imperial federation. Largely as the result of Canada’s effort, supported by the other dominions, Ave evolved a different method altogether. It has been said that the 1926 Imperial Conference can be regarded as a watershed from which two streams of opinion run, one flowing to the old colonial days, with their idea of imperial ties and imperial sentiment, and it is with those days that the present Government is in sympathy, the other flowing forward -to a great future, when those countries which are at present members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and others which will become members later, will stand in free association with one another for the advancement of their common interests. That is one of the points upon which we differ from our political opponents. The other is in regard to the defence of Australia.

The Labour party believes that Australia should be prepared, in the last analysis, to defend itself - that we can not afford to depend on Great Britain or any other country. We believe, therefore, that it is better for us to place our reliance on a strong air force than on a navy. We recognize, of course, that there must also be an army and navy, but we believe that we should concentrate primarily on the development of an air force. We maintain that it would be impossible for us to provide a navy which, by itself, could defend our shores. The position to-day is very similar to that which obtained in 1910, and the Imperial Conference, which has just concluded, might be compared with the Imperial Conference of 1911. That conference dealt largely with defence, and was held only three years before the beginning of the Great War. In 1910, a Labour government in this country laid the foundations of the Australian Navy. To-day, honorable members opposite are prepared to give the Labour party of that time credit for what it did, but they will not agree with us that the Labour party of to-day is the same party as that which founded the Australian Navy. As a matter of fact, bitterly as the party opposite fights us now, it is nothing compared with the bitterness with which they lough. t Andrew Fisher and the other Labour loaders twenty-five years ago, when they first proposed that Australia should build its own navy. Only a little while before the Labour Government in 1.910 embarked upon the construction of ;in Australian navy it was proposed at ;in imperial conference that three dreadnoughts should be provided by the dominions for the British Navy. Sir Joseph Ward, the docile Premier of New Zealand, whose attitude to such matters was the same as that of the present Australian Government to-day, moved that a poll tax of 10s. a head should be imposed on the entire population of the dominions in order to raise money with which to build those three dreadnoughts. The proposal was defeated at the conference, because some of the dominions would not agree to it. Sir Joseph Ward returned to New Zealand, and was himself defeated largely because of his support of the scheme. However, the idea of providing dreadnoughts for the British Navy was not dead. The party opposed to Labour still wanted Australia to adopt this policy, but the Labour Government insisted that Australia should build its own fleet. The Labour leaders were, of course, accused of being disloyal, and the proposed fleet was described as a “mosquito fleet “, a “ phantom fleet “, and a paste board fleet “, which would carry only dummy guns as the Chinese fleet at that time was supposed to do. Then our opponents rushed to the other extreme, and said that the Labour Government proposed to build powerful ships of war which would eventually turn their guns against the Empire. They said that we were planning to cut the painter. The reply of the Labour party was that they were merely determined to defend Australia, and that is what we say now. The difference is that we recognize now that Australia can best be defended by building aeroplanes instead of battleships, but honorable members opposite still cry for battleships, even though 600 fighting aeroplanes - 50 squadrons can be built for little more than the cost of one battleship.

Sir Charles Marr:

– Would the honorable member be averse to the use of our own defence forces for the defence of the Empire ?

Mr BAKER:

– I would defend the Empire by defending Australia. The comparison between now and 1910 extends also to the Government’s proposal to borrow money overseas for defence purposes. When it was first proposed to have an Australian navy, the anti-Labour party wanted to have the ships built overseas, and would have raised a loan with which to build them. The Labour Government insisted that most of the ships should be built in Australia, and that all of them should be paid for out of revenue. That was done, but the present Government again proposes to borrow money overseas with which to build ships overseas.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member knows perfectly well that we do not.

Mr BAKER:

– The Government is prepared to raise £2,000,000 overseas, and its excuse is that the money will be spent overseas. Who were the men whom the anti-Labour party so bitterly attacked over their defence proposals in 1910? The man who brought the proposal forward was Senator Pearce, and the Acting Prime Minister at that time was the present Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes). It is a “curious thing that although the Minister for Health is the only member of the Government who really knows anything about military affairs, he is making no contribution to this debate. As was the case at the time of the Abyssinian fiasco, he is conspicuous by his absence.

The Labour party believes that we should defend Australia against invasion. That does not mean, as honorable members opposite try to make out, that our navy and air force would not go beyond the three-mile limit. Our policy of adequate defence against aggression would be interpreted according to the needs of the situation. If an enemy were approaching Australia our air force would go out to meet it, even if it were necessary to go to New Zealand, or further. The attitude of members of the Government is well expressed in the words of Kipling, probably the arch-imperialist of the British Empire of all times -

Whatever they do they fold their hands and suck their gums and think well of it.

They are, as the same poet has said -

Hedged in a backward-gazing world.

Always they are gazing backwards in order to discover how to go forward. They do not realize that aeroplanes have come to stay, that conditions have changed radically in the last ten years, even in the last three or four years. With a country of vast distances, we must depend upon our air force for defence. Of course, the Minister for Defence is quite satisfied with things as they are. l£e has been to the Imperial Conference, has met the great ones of Britain at St. James’s Palace, and has come back quite convinced that whatever they say must be true. As a matter of fact, even the Economist, a most conservative publication, has stated that the tale told at the Imperial Conference was like the tail of the mouse in Alice in Wonderland: it winds across the page until it reaches a point and disappears. The Labour party believes that it is for the people of Australia to decide, as part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, what action Australia should take in regard to any war in which Great Britain becomes involved. We have our own government, and the people are their own masters. It is for them to decide. Honorable members opposite may say that it would not be practicable to hold a referendum to decide such an issue, but, in reply, I point out that, during the last war, two referendums were held, even though it was supposed to be a matter of the utmost urgency to raise more troops by conscription to send to the front. The Labour party will not allow Australia to enter a war in the “ mad Continent of Europe “ without the people being consulted. If Great Britain becomes embroiled in war with Germany or Italy or Japan or any other country, it is for us to say whether or not we shall follow. In this, the attitude of the Labour party is the same as that of the other dominions. I quote from the current issue of the Bound Table, one of the leading imperialist organs of Great Britain, in which the following appears: -

There are still Canadians who put loyalty to the Mother Country above every other political affiliation. But both the number and the influence of these imperialists, so-called, have diminished since ‘1014 in proportion to other elements and other forces in the population. On all sides one hears it said that the enthusiastic rallying of that fateful year will not repeat itself. The burdens of the war still weigh crushingly, and the disillusionment of an otherwise barren victory has been accentuated by the bankruptcy of the institution that alone among the products promised lasting benefit. More and more English-speaking citizens add their voices to those of the French-Canadian bloc, which forms almost 30 per cent, of the population, and which clamours with something like unanimity for total abstention from all foreign wars. Whether or not they know it, the members of this composite group are asking for secession from the Commonwealth.

In the opinion of this imperial organ, therefore, not only the French-Canadian 30 per cent., but “more and more English-speaking citizens “ with them are opposing British leadership on the war question. The words of the new Governor-General designate of South Africa, Sir Patrick Duncan, speaking at Aberdeen in January, 1937, are symptomatic. He said -

I hope you will not let those controversies in Europe pull you into commitments, even possibly into conflicts, in which it will be difficult for the Dominions to follow you.

That passage appeared in the Times of die 31st January, 1937. In the Bound Table of March, 1937, the fallowing appeared : -

It may well be that a more fundamental decision is facing us than any that has confronted us since 1020. ls it really necessary that the whole world should remain tributary l.o En lope, so that if, as in 1014, an anarchic Ku rope once more stumbles into war, the whole world has to stumble into the inferno after it? Is not an alternative possible? Might not the pan-American system and the British Commonwealth system, if they both detached themselves from our commitment to any other continental system, form a bloc so strong that no other power or powers would dream of attacking it, and economically a,nd politically so stable that it could stand outside a European war, ami yet exercise decisive influence in preventing war. in isolating it if it broke out, and in ending it quickly and on reasonably just terms? … ft is precisely questions of this kind wl; icl i it is the business of the dominions to compel the Europefascinated politicians of Great Britain to face next May.

That was published just before the Imperial Conference took place. An example of the sort of war into which it would’ be very easy to be drawn is the present Sino-Japanese conflict, in which, of course, Great’ “Britain is considerably interested. The argument is put forward that so many million pounds of British capital are invested in Shanghai that Great Britain must take some action to protect it. I notice also in a conservative periodical published in Canberra every month or thereabouts, and dealing with foreign affairs, the statement that one British family, the Sassoon family, has invested £7,000,000 sterling in Shanghai, and that it did this to avoid paying British income tax. Such are the causes which bring about wars, u whole nation being asked to fight for the interests of wealthy families which have placed their money in other countries to avoid paying income tax in their own. These people, who have at all times been traitors to their own country, do not play their part as citizens, but their country is expected to go to war to protect them.

I have dealt with the attitude of the Labour party with regard to the air force. The Minister for Defence seems to be under the impression that what I said in that regard represented’ merely my own ideas. I will therefore quote from the report of the Imperial Conference. There is very little in that report, and we are more interested in what has been left out of it, but it does contain one or two things of interest. It states in one portion that the resolution of the 1923 conference, was reaffirmed. That was the resolution which gave full power to the dominions to decide of their own free will exactly what defence forces they wanted.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– Nobody will contest that, on either side of the House.

Mr BAKER:

– The second section with which I am concerned relates to the air force provided by Great Britain. It states -

The Conference heard with satisfaction ot the important steps token by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom for the maintenance ot a Home Defence Air Force of sufficient strength to afford adequate protection agaInSt attack by the strongest air force which may be at any time within striking distance of the shores of the United Kingdom . . .

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member would feel like that if he was only 30 miles away from Europe.

Mr BAKER:

– The report continues-

In this connexion the Conference took note of the extensive preparations that are being made by His Majesty’s Government in thu United Kingdom in the spheres of both active and passive defence against air invasion.

The United Kingdom is providing for an air force of 5,000 fighting planes by 1940. What we say now is what the Prime Minister said at the elections before the last. We say “ Join in with Great Britain in that direction and provide a large fighting air force, as Great Britain is doing.”

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member’s party did not say that then.

Mr BAKER:

– When the British Government is right we agree with it and support it. We are prepared to follow it in that policy. All that the Labour party asks for is a policy on the lines of what is being done by Great Britain, to provide a home defence air force of sufficient strength to afford adequate protection against attack by the strongest air force which may be at any time within striking distance of Australia’s shores. We are able to do this, because an air force does not cost nearly so much as does a navy or military force. We are prepared to fight the Government at the coming elections on the issue of an air force as against ‘ a navy. We are satisfied that the people are air-minded, that they realize the efficacy of the argument, and that they will support the Labour party. We have to face the position - it is not a matter of whether we like it or not - that Great Britain is no longer ruler of the seas. It is useless, ostrich-like, to bury our heads in the sands of sentiment. We must face up to realities, whether we want them to be so or not, and the real position is that Great Britain does not rule the seas as it did for practically a century - that it has more commitments than ever before, whilst at the same time its strategic power to face up to its commitments is less than it was. It is impossible for Great Britain at one and the same time to have a predominant navy in the North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean and in the Western Pacific, yet that is what would be required to enable Great Britain to continue to hold the position which it held in the past. That being so, we must face the fact that Great

Britain in all probability will not be able to send a fleet to protect this country in case of need.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The British Government has given assurances that that will be done.

Mr BAKER:

– The Government has to cany out the wishes of the people. Great Britain, unlike Australia, is dependent for its food supplies upon its navy. It is not by any means self-contained in regard to food, and must have its navy available to convoy the ships which cany its foodstuffs to it. Half of those food supplies pass through the Mediterranean, which at the present time is not the safest sea in the world for them to pass through. That being so, the fundamental duty of Great Britain is to look after its own people and their food supply. Even if the British Government wanted to cany out its commitments, assuming that it made those promises and meant to keep them, it must face the possibility that the British people will not allow it to do so, because it is unlikely that the British people will permit half their navy to be sent to the other side of the world to protect Australia, if the necessity arose.

The British Empire has a population of approximately 500,000,000 people, which is about one-quarter of the population of the world, and it owns a quarter of the area of the world, but when we inquire into the composition of that 500,000,000 people we find that only 70,000,000 of them belong to the white race, of whom 50,000,000 live in Great Britain, whilst the other 20,000,000, representing 1 per cent, of the population of the world, are scattered over South. Africa, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and between them control oneseventh of the area of the world. It is therefore not very likely that one country of 50,000,000 people, such as Great Britain, even plus the 20,000,000 other white people in the British Empire, would be in a position to guard the whole of the far-flung British Empire. So far as this country is concerned, our population of 7,000,000 comprises one-tenth of the white population of the British Empire. We hold that the greatest assistance that we can give to Great Britain is to say: “At least so far as this portion of the Empire is concerned you need not trouble, because we will look after it.” We say that, instead of sending our ships racing across the seas looking for one stray war or another, we should keep them here, remembering that “charity begins at home “. That is the attitude which the Opposition takes up, but we also believe that we should be selfcontained so far as armaments are concerned, that every effort should be made by the Government to obtain supplies of oil in this -country; that in the meantime, whilst we are seeking for those sources of oil supply, large stores should be laid in, that we should build up our coastal defences, and that in every way we should do our part to guard this country. We will take no backward step in that regard. We are as keen as anybody else so far as protection for Australia is concerned.

There are only one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. The first is the Pacific Pact proposed by the right honorable the Prime Minister. The attitude of the Imperial Conference towards it was to dismiss it in a very few words - to “ damn it with faint praise “. Most of the people of this country - excluding perhaps the members of the Ministry - realize that within recent years there have been unlimited numbers of pacts, and that in the final analysis no nation keeps a pact unless it suits its own interests to do so. That applies particularly to those countries which are governed by a very different system from that which obtains in Australia. Three large nations, namely Russia, Germany, and Italy, and other smaller ones, are governed by dictators. Their people obey the whim of one man, irrespective of the Tights or the wrongs of the situation. In another great country, Japan, the government lias very little say in the policy to be adopted, because the military caste have a direct connexion with the Emperor, have their own representatives in the ministry, and decide for themselves whether there shall be war or peace. It therefore appears to be only a waste of time to endeavour to add another pact to the countless number which have been made, not only prior to the last war, but particularly since it took place. I suggest that, whilst not receding from the British Commonwealth of Nations in any way, we should at the same time endeavour to draw closer to the United States of America,’ realizing that that is a great country with 120,000,000 people and that, apart from other sections of the Empire, it is the country which is nearest to us in every way. Instead of suddenly throwing on the table trade-diversion policies which may cause considerable enmity amongst nations, we should make every endeavour to work in close amity with the United States of America. I should like to see something on the lines, of the Monroe Doctrine adopted so far as the Pacific is concerned, with some sort of alliance between this country, other portions of the Empire, and the United States of America. We must realize that the centre of world power in the future is going to be in the Pacific. Of the 2,000,000.000 population of the world to-day 1,000,000,000, or approximately half, form the population of the nations which border the Pacific Ocean. The trend of world affairs is undoubtedly in the direction of the Pacific, and I believe that our duty is to develop in this country a nation representative of British ideals and of British interests, and to work in harmony with other countries which have similar ideals and’ interests.

Ministers arc boasting largely in this budget, despite the fact that £11,500,000 is required for defence purposes, that they have reduced taxation by £1S,000,000 per annum. Honorable members on this side of the House have pointed out that the Government has reduced only direct taxation, whilst “as a matter of fact indirect taxation, which falls upon the mass of the people, has been very largely increased. When we are spending £11,500,000 on defence, in a situation so serious as the present instead’ of borrowing overseas, those people who are to benefit. from it should pay their share of the taxation for it by a special defence contribution, as is done in Great Britain.

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

– I take this opportunity, one of iiic last that presents itself prior to the rising of this Parliament, to deal with matters of great public importance to which I think the attention of the Parliament should be directed. In his concluding remarks, the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) advocated the development of this nation with people of British ideals. In that regard I am entirely in accord with him. In all of the remarks which I am about to offer, I am imbued with a desire to promote British, ideals and interests. For instance, I consider that we should address ourselves to the subject of defence on nonparty lines, because it is of vital importance to us, not as a party, but as a nation; and in considering any line of defence we must take into account many factors. For instance, we presuppose that we have a land that is worth defending, we must ensure that we have the necessary population with which to defend it. I have heard honorable members opposite deliver a variety of speeches on defence, and no two of them agree. In the main they resemble a weaver’s rug composed of odds and ends of wool. Such a rug is certainly very colourful, but it has no definite pattern or design. During the next few weeks the policy speeches of the Government and of the Opposition will be delivered, but at this stage it is necessary to disregard our personal interests and consider the matter of defence from the national aspect.

I venture to say that the general consensus of opinion among the people of Australia is that they are not satisfied with the rate at which this country is being developed. Criticism has been heard from people overseas, and from Australians generally, as to the use we are making of our great country and what we propose to do with our wonderful heritage. Various estimates have been formed of the eventful population of Australia. One optimistic forecast is that, by the production of wheat on a grander scale than in the past, our population will ultimately reach about 100,000,000. According to other estimates, the population will range from 10,000,000 to 300,000,000. Others, again, have endeavoured to conjecture the ultimate increase by comparing Australia with countries of similar rainfall, and it seems to me that, on this basis, we may make the safest assumption regarding the future population. It has been said that, in areas of like rainfall in the United States of America, the population is such that Australia ,could hope to be able, ultimately, to support 46,000,000 inhabitants, and that, according to the population in similar areas in the western portion of the United States of America, our ultimate population could be calculated at about 29,500,000. I should say that a total somewhere between those two estimates would be near the mark as the maximum population of this country. But I point out that that maximum would be achieved only if Australia realized its duty and so populated this country as to obtain maximum develop-, ment. This has not been done up to the present time.

Those who have made a close survey of the population trend have pointed to a condition that provides food for serious thought. For instance, the Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) recently stated that, if the population of Australia does not increase beyond the present rate, stagnation point will be reached in 1968 at 9,500,000, after which it will greatly decline, until it will fall below the present total. In the face of this alarming statement, what have the Parliament and the Government done to face up to the situation? At a period when we are confronted by a crisis, the various governments in Australia have adopted a plan of restriction with regard to immigration, and they have failed to implement a health policy that would compensate for the present wastage. I was staggered some time ago to read in the Sydney Sun of the 3rd March last certain figures submitted by Professor Dew. He pointed out that in New South Wales 6S4,744 patients, or 26 per cent, of the population, attend hospitals. He also gave the percentages for the other States, pointing clearly to the fact that Australia is rapidly becoming a “ O 3 “ nation. Those members of the public in other States who receive hospital treatment represent 30 per cent, in Queensland; 18 per cent, in Victoria; 15 per cent, in Tasmania, and 12 per cent, in South Australia. The percentage for Western Australia is not given, but it is probably similar. These figures are indeed alarming because, based on further facts and figures to which I could draw the attention of the

House, it is clear that the health policy of the Commonwealth and State governments is not a satisfactory one.

Apart from the failure to compensate for the huge steady decline of the population, there is room for much good work in the reduction of infant and maternal mortality. When the present policy is criticized, a “hush-hush” attitude is adopted by the authorities and an effort is made to prevent the public from fully realizing the extent of the cancerous growth in the national body. I suggest that when policy speeches are being delivered, we should make it clear that Australia’s foremost need is population. The people should know exactly whither they are drifting. I take it. that we desire to retain our White Australia policy, and to continue to have 90 per cent, of British blood, of which we are justly proud. If this is so we should so organize migration activities as to take advantage of what is offering at the moment in the shape of the best type of British migrant. Honorable members may say that this remark has been made time after time; but arc the people of Australia to bear the cost of bringing migrants from Great Britain ; or have we not already had sufficient experience of past failures? Our representatives have attended imperial conferences and made arrangements with the British Government at Ottawa for the purpose of increasing production in Australia; but may I suggest that it would also be” possible for them to arrange for us to take over the liabilities of many of our fellow Britons, who are now dependent on the British Government, by making the necessary arrangements to settle them on the land in this country on the understanding that a certain proportion of the markets within the British Empire should be made available to them? The resultant increase of primary production would give a fillip to secondary industries, and assist in reducing the heavy taxation nowborne by the people generally.

If we desire to approach the United Kingdom, we must do so without delay, because we have already been advised that the time is not far distant when Great Britain will be unable to supply migrants to Australia and the other dominions. The Mother Country, like all nations of European origin, has a declining birth-rate. Times were different in the eighteenth century, when Cotter Morrison referred to the extraordinary increase in the population of Great Britain from 8,750,000 to 26,000,000 in 80 years, and pleaded for a cessation of the “ devastating torrent of children.” The present day trend according to Dr. Charles, foreshadows a drop from the present population of 45,000,000 to 29,000,000 in 1980. This total is arrived at by forsaking the crude figures - obviously taken by those who wish to cite statistics for immediate use, and concentrating on what is called the reproduction rate. The long-sighted view shown by those reproduction figures indicates what will ultimately befall the British race. The figures show that the birth rate of Great Britain has dropped from 35.5 to 14.7 a. thousand, and its rate of increase of population from 18.1 to 5.5 a thousand. Those figures, which obviously forsake the crude figures and get closer to reality, also direct attention to the vital consideration that British women are not reproducing their own numbers. In 1921 the replacement rate of British women was 1.07 per cent. In other words 1,000 mothers were producing 1,070 girl children a year. In 1931 the replacement figure had dropped to .81. In other words 1,000 mothers were producing only 810 girl children a year. Undoubtedly it was this that caused the then Chancellor of the British Exchequer, now the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Mr. Neville Chamberlain), to issue the famous warning in the budget speech, which he delivered to Parliament on the 15th April, 1935, which said -

I must say that I look upon the continued diminution of the birth rate in this country with considerable apprehension. At the present time it may seem that we have here a larger population than we are able to support in England. At the same time wo know the difficulties which the dominions find in accommodating a larger population when they themselves are, troubled with unemployment. But I have a feeling that the time may not bo far distant when that position will be reversed when the countries of the British Empire will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed, and when wc, in this country, shall not be able to supply the demand.

That grave warning is based upon the consideration that- the mothers of the United Kingdom are not reproducing at least an equivalent number of potential mothers, the result of which, as I have already stated, will be that the population of Great Britain, which at present stands at 45,000,000, must ultimately fall to 29,000,000. This disease is common to all European nations, and is not peculiar to the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that economically this is agreeable, but from the Australian point of view it is tragic. It points definitely to the necessity for Australia drawing upon British migrants without any further delay because that source of supply will gradually be closed to us.

There are four ways in which we may overcome our population difficulties:’ - More people may enter the country; less people may leave it; fertility may increase; and mortality may decrease.

Let us take the first consideration, the possibility of bringing more people to Australia. I was amazed to hear the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Paterson) state in the House a few days ago that from 1929 to 1936, a seven-year period, Australia had lost 30,000 migrants of British stock - an average of 5,000 a year. Our loss last year was 1,200. That fact in itself should give us furiously to think. General migration has been restricted to an extraordinary extent, having dropped from 1.72 to .05. In British migrants we had a minus quantity for the March, 1937 quarter of 1,799. Obviously some long-range policy is necessary to induce people to come to Australia. Otherwise we shall lay ourselves open to a continuation of the criticism levelled at us that we wish to hold this country with a population which is clearly altogether too small. Various State governments have given some consideration to the resumption of migration. The Government of New South “Wales, for example, is investigating a closer settlement policy. I am afraid that if closer settlement is considered in this piecemeal fashion the confusion that will occur in Australia will ultimately cause such serious disability to the whole country as will take a long time to correct. Closer settlement has to be dealt with expertly. It is not a

State prerogative. As population is a national concern, it should be a federal prerogative to administer such a policy. I suggest, therefore, that, by agreement or otherwise, the ‘Commonwealth Government should assume control of this policy, for it is of vital importance to us that we should increase the number of approved migrants to this country.

The second consideration, I mentioned related to the number of people leaving Australia. “We need not worry very much on this account, for things ure tending, to right themselves. Our present minus quantity will doubtless gradually be overtaken. The minus figure has never been very large.

My third consideration, increased fertility, merits a great deal of attention. I do not wish to- give honorable members a wrong impression of my views on the birthrate and mortality rate of Australia. Although, I criticized the national health policy in my opening remarks, I was dealing then with details and not with collective results. Australia, of course, has some wonderful records in fertility and mortality which, compared with similar records of other countries should give us intense satisfaction. Figures which I have taken out show that in 1931 we had a birthrate of 22 a thousand, which was the highest in the world, and a death rate of 9.32 a thousand which was the lowest in the world with the exception of that of New Zealand. Nevertheless, our population is increasing on a gradually decreasing basis. We are not making sufficient headway. We are not providing adequate replacements for the wastages that are occurring. For example, our birthrate dropped by more than half from 37 a thousand in the period 1871 to 1875, to 16.39 a thousand in 1934!. This i3 a distressing condition in a virile young country like Australia, and the national legislature should give serious consideration to it. Although our birthrate is certainly the highest in the world, it is too low to enable us to increase the population of Australia on a satisfactory basis. The rate of increase of our population has dropped from 4.47 in the period 1850 to 1901 to 1.84 in the period i901- to 1931. Although our death rate is only 9.3,. it is not low enough to make up for our declining birthrate ; and unless the deficiency is replaced by migration or some other method, stagnation must occur. The inescapable fact is that Australian women are not reproducing their own numbers. For instance, in 1920, 1000 women were producing 1,319 girl children, while in 1932-33, 1000 Australian women were producing only 976 girl children, ‘ and unless some other steps- are taken the forecast of Carl Saunders, Dr. Kuezynski, Professor McCleary and Dr. Watson Munro, that Australia’s population will not exceed 7,500,000 by 1.973, and will then gradually decline, will be realized. I suggest, therefore, that some intensive form of migration should at once be considered by the Government, so that we may be able to take advantage of such British migrants as may still be available to us. Unless,

Ave can do something of this sort, all our talk about defence measures will be futile, and the money spent on providing for the defence of the country will be practically wasted, for Australia will not have a sufficiently large population to enable it to defend, itself. Unless we increase our population, we shall live in a fool’s paradise, for the defence of the country will not be possible.

Obviously, we are in the throes of a wasting disease. The body politic is being assailed by pernicious anaemia. If we refuse to take measures to correct this disease, we shall deserve all that is coming to us, and ato shall certainly justify the criticism of the people of other races who accuse us of wishing to hold a country which we are neither willing nor able to -populate. Australia must be populated or it must cease as a nation to exist. The United Kingdom, as a source of migrants, is gradually drying up. We have been warned by the present Prime Minister of Great Britain that the time is not distant when Great Britain will require to keep within its own borders all its own people in order to maintain its standards of living and to protect the country against invasion. It is imperative, therefore, that this national Parliament should give immediate consideration to this very serious outlook. We should set aside all party considerations and get our knees underneath a common national table to discuss this subject in order to protect ourselves from national extinction, and must do so apart altogether from any other considerations such as those associated with, say, the Ottawa agreement.

I come now to my fourth consideration, the decrease of the mortality rate. Our mortality at the moment is low, but it is not sufficiently low to make up for other wastage from which we are suffering. I have gone to some trouble to obtain from the Commonwealth Statistician, certain figures relating to age groups which show that, instead of our population being like a pyramid, with an ever-widening base, it is gradually assuming the proportion of an inverted pyramid with an ever-widening apex. As things are going now, we shall build up to a certain point, but then the various age groups will decline and ultimately, instead of enlarging the base of our pyramid, we shall find ourselves working to extinction at the top of an inverted pyramid In the age group 15-19 years, the figure between 1915 and 1935 is round about 3,000; in 1935 it was 3,507. In the age group 20-24 years, which must be replaced by those in the age group 15-19 years, the figure for 1935 is 14,644. In the ago group 25-28 years the figure is 15,864. Those figures show that from 25 to 29 years we can maintain a population pyramid and increase our age groups on the pyramid scale; but we cannot replace the higher age groups from the groups 15-19 years and 20-24 years. Therefore, as those increased numbers are gradually forced into the upper age groups, there must ultimately be in the old-age groups an overbalanced figure and that must result in a higher mortality ratio, either from purely natural causes or from diseases and the like. The low mortality ratio of to-day must be further lowered because, although the medical profession has made rapid strides and has reduced considerably the ravages of disease, if cannot now advance as rapidly as it did formerly, and ultimately our mortality will be based in the main on age groups. We cannot see any hope there. But there is one matter to which the Government can direct its attention, and thus help in some small measure to make good the existing wastage. I refer to the adoption of a policy for the reduction of the present extraordinary mortality among infants and mothers. That mortality is exceedingly high in Australia at the moment. Notwithstanding the establishment at Sydney University of a part-time chair of obstetrics twelve or thirteen years ago, maternal mortality is higher to-day than it was 25 years ago. The loss of mothers is to-day 5.03 to every 1,000, or 500 a year in New South Wales, and the figure in Australia is somewhat similar. This figure is exceeded only in such places as Scotland; Africa, Ceylon, and Greece.In Japan, our very near neighbour, as well as inFrance and Italy, the mortality rate is just about one-half of the Australian rate, namely, 2.73. I have been challenged from time to time in regard to these figures by persons who say that the method of computation in Asiatic countries is entirely different from the method adopted in Australia and other British countries. That may be so. But notwithstanding the average loss of 5.03 mothers, we have institutions in which there has been no loss of 1,200 consecutive births. In the: heart of London slumdom, the records reveal a loss of less than one in 2,000 consecutive births. Therefore, the figures far Japan are higher than those returned by some of our institutions. This fact should destroy any insinuation that my figures are unfairly placed. Thisis known to the various departments of health. I suggest that, having this knowledge, they should implement a policy that would overcome this extraordinary wastage. The present position is an indictment not only of the present Government, but also of governments of all shades of political opinion that have occupied the treasury bench in the State and Federal arenas as long as there have been legislatures in Australia-

Let us analyse the groups in which fall these 500 mothers ‘that are lost every year. Are they virile, fertile women, who can give to Australia the best immigrant that any country could have? Unfortunately, that is the case. More than one half of them are under 30 years ofage - an age when they could be of the greatest use to this country. More than one-third of thern lost their lives when undergoing their first experience of motherhood. If our birth rate is declining, and the present rate of natural increase will result in a population of only 7,500,000 in 1973, there is a fruitful field awaiting action by the Government. We are losing annually 10,000 infants - the best immigrants that Australia could expect to get. Of those deaths, 52 per cent, occur under the age of one year.The Minister for Health of New South Wales recently commenting on the infantile mortality in New South Wales over a certain period, quoted certainfigures which were published in the press. The number of deaths was 2,008, or 43.47 in every 1,000. He pointed out that the fact that infantile mortality was 3.62 above the average for New South Wales over the last five years was hard to account for inasmuch as in. that period, the State had not suffered from epidemics. He also drew attention to the fact that there was a definite effect which arose out of mal-treatment during the period of birth. The mortality among mothers and infants is greater to-day than it was 30 years ago. That, I suggest, is an indictment of departments of health. In 1929 Dame Janet Samp- bell, Director of Maternal Welfare in London, was brought to Australia and made a report upon which, unfortunately, no action was taken. In it she said -

The safety of the mother and infant must ultimately depend upon the knowledge and skill of the professional attendant, whether doctor or midwife.

She also said she was forced to the conclusion that the maternal death rate of four, five or six mothers to a stated num- ber of live births, was unduly high. She went on to say that the tendency was to regard the new-born babe as a somewhat unimportant bi-product, scarcely worth the attention of a busy obstetrician. Surely such an observation calls for government action; because governments should be concerned with the terrific wastage of Australian women and children. The Director of Medical Services in New South Wales, Dr. Morris, in a paper read recently to a health conference in Canberra, said -

Maternal mortality, andespecially maternal morbidity, varies in direct proportion to the inefficiency and inadequacy of the professional care and supervision during ante natal, natal, and post natal periods,

He also said that 60 per cent of the total mortality was capable of control to some extent. If that is so, is it not time we, as a Parliament, insisted upon some action being taken by the departments of health in order to ensure that not one life shall be needlessly lost to Australia. We have been warned by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that the British source of migrants will shortly be closed to the dominions. Is it not high time therefore that the Government considered the necessity for, first the preservation of life within Australia, and secondly the initiation of a population policy with which the Opposition could readily agree?

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) has made a very valuable contribution to the population problem of Australia. I believe that he has treated the subject temperately, and in most respects fairly. He has asked that the matter be dealt with in a nonparty atmosphere. The subject demands that. But the only Government which he appeared to reproach for inaction was a Labour government.

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

– The honorable gentleman is not doing me justice. I referred to every government, of every colour, in every State.

Mr CURTIN:

– The honorable gentleman named but one government. However, we shall not quarrel about that. J. point out that if we are to have in Australia the conditions that will make practicable a healthy population, every child having a reasonable chance of existence, an attack must be made generally upon all the causes that contribute to our high rate of maternal mortality and our equally grievous rate of maternal morbidity, as well as upon the ills from which we suffer as the result of the infantile death rate. We shall need to examine the extent to which this Commonwealth Parliament can deal with the industrial and social factors that unquestionably are the most important elements which affect the life of the people. Unhappily, this year it is proposed largely to expand our expenditure on armaments, in order to defend this country against the possibility of invasion. Apparently we are doing that determinedly, though not cheerfully, because we feel that the national existence is at stake and that therefore our responsibility to the people demands it. But I think it is equally true that Ave must make provision against other evils which are sapping the national vitality. I would submit to the Parliament that the charges which have to be borne in order to grapple with these problems effectively are as legitimately insurance premiums for the safety of the nation as are the charges that we impose on the people for the purpose of equipping our shore defences, our naval resources, and our armaments generally. Therefore, our military, naval, and aerial preparedness on the one hand, and plans of social services on the other, are not alternative schemes, but are derived from one basic obligation, namely that the nation shall defend itself against everything which is likely to prejudice its progress and its competence to deal with the difficulties of the future. I look forward hopefully to a concerted plan of social services in Australia, in which the Commonwealth Parliament and the State parliaments will co-operate effectually, as long as the States continue in existence - and they appear likely to continue for many years to come. As matters stand, this federation is a concert of States. I put it to the State parliaments as well as to this Parliament, that the co-ordination of our activities in dealing with problems relating to health, industrial conditions, the housing of the people, and unemployment, is absolutely necessary if those problems are to be solved, and solved they must be if the prospect is not to be a bleak and dismal one. This year we are faced with the fact that the Government proposes to find from a variety of sources’ a large amount of additional revenue with which to purchase armaments; but, except, in the case of old-age pensions, there is no additional provision in relation .to social services.

Mr Casey:

– There is an additional £100,000 for health.

Mr CURTIN:

– Commonwealth activity in respect of health is largely in the form of research, and I sincerely hope that the Medical Research Endowment Bill, passed by this Parliament, will not be starved by a failure on the part of the Treasurer to provide adequate resources for this work to be done thoroughly. From my own study of maternal mortality, I am forced to the conclusion that we need to know more about the pathological causes of our present high mortality in this respect. One element to be considered, -I suggest, is the inability of large numbers of working women, who are faced with all the anxiety of conducting households, to have rest and holidays at proper periods and when their health demands it. There is, therefore, a distinct wage aspect in this problem as it applies to the wives of working men. I am faced with the fact that in a number of cases it happens, unfortunately, that women, whose husbands are in receipt of fairly reasonable incomes, are in ill-health as the result of diseases supervening upon maternity. In many of these cases ‘ lives are lost. I cannot say, however, that such ill-health is due to poverty, or the absence of things which a reasonable amount of income would enable them to possess. I am forced to the conclusion that there is a certain medical aspect about which we need to know more. There is also the view advanced by Professor Marshall Allan, who gave evidence before a commission of which I was a member, to the effect that to some extent medical practitioners were at fault. On questioning him closely I ascertained that that was due to causes which were part and parcel of the fact that there Wert private practitioners who endeavoured to visit as many patients as possible, noi merely to earn money, but also to carry out the very valuable work to the community of healing the sick, and, as the result, in many instances, there was a hastening of nature by the use of instruments which, he thought at that time, contributed some element to this trouble. I repeat that I welcome the speech just made by the honorable member for Wentworth.

I now turn to one or two other considerations. I should like, first of all, to say something about the arrangements which may operate with regard to the conduct of the forthcoming Federal elections and the use which will be made, of the national broadcasting stations in connexion with the election campaign. Although I have already written to the Australian Broadcasting Commission on the subject,’ I have been unable to get from it any definite indication of what facilities are likely to be extended to myself. I make no comment about what facilities are to be extended to the Government. I say to the Broadcasting Commission, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, that there must be provided absolute equality of treatment as between supporters of the Government and opponents of the Government in the forthcoming election campaign. The commission states that on previous occasions it has allowed the Leader of the Country party, the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition - and, in connexion with the 1934 elections, the Leader of the New South Wales State Labour party - to speak over the air. On this occasion I understand that as there is one party in opposition it is not contemplated to allow more than one of its representatives to speak, although, at the same time, the commission will concede this facility to the Minister for Commerce (Dr. Earle Page) as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). I object to the Minister-for Commerce assuming a dual personality. in this contest. He is the Deputy Prime Minister, and his Leader is the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government, and no man can be said to belong to- a separate political entity in the national life of Australia while he is, at the same time, a member of the Government, and, I should say, a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister. If the Broadcasting Commission chooses to do so, it can give to the Government as many as four or any number of relays, and the Prime Minister may allocate the number given among members of the Government as he thinks proper - if he should allot all of the relays to the Minister for Commerce, I shall not object - but I emphasize that the Opposition should have allotted to it the same number of opportunities to speak over the national network a3 is given to the Government.

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

– On that basis Mr. Tunnecliffe, the Leader of the Labour party in the “Victorian Parliament, has no right to speak over the air as a participant in the Victorian State elections.

Mr CURTIN:

– The political position now existing in Victoria is similar to that which existed three years ago so far as the Commonwealth was concerned. At that time the right honorable member for Cowper was not a Minister and none of the other Country party members in this Parliament was in the Government. In Victoria to-day the Leader of the Labour party may offer support to the Government, but he is not in the Government; he may continue or withdraw his support; the Government and the Labour party are distinct political entities. I say that if the Minister for Commerce, or the Country party, chooses to withdraw from this Government between now and the date of the elections, it would be reasonable to regard the Country party as a separate entity from the Government.

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

– Is that an invitation?

Mr CURTIN:

– It is not an invitation, but I object to the Leader of the Country party being a member of this Government in this Parliament and then, before the elections, masquerading as a separate “and independent political entity with a distinct and separate policy from that proclaimed by the Government itself. I say directly to the right honorable member and members of his party that if they support this Government by belonging to it then they are bound by the policy speech of the Prime Minister as the Leader of their party. That is where those honorable gentlemen stand in this matter. There is no justification or equity, and no rhyme or reason, in members of this Government, once the House is dissolved, separating into so many elements and. professing to offer things which in themselves are distinct to the people of Australia, because, when all is said and done, the way that procedure works out is to give to the Broadcasting

Commission some justification, perhaps, for a course which, I understand, it intends to pursue. By a reply-paid telegram to-day, I asked the Broadcasting Commission for an answer to my query in a letter to it last week. I had an acknowledgment to that letter, saying that the commission would deal with the matter on the 2nd September. The commission has now dealt with that matte? and the reply to my telegram was to the effect that tentative proposals were being transmitted to me by mail to-night. Furthermore, ari officer of the commission, evidently carrying out the wishes of the chairman of the commission, conveyed to me by telephone this morning a suggestion that I should proceed to Sydney and confer on the matter with the chairman. I flatly refuse to do that. The Broadcasting Commission is charged with this responsibility and it ought to attend to it without fear or favour. Again, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, I say that in order to do its work impartially and justly in connexion with the coming election and without overcrowding the air, the commission should see to it that whatever opportunities are given to the Government are equalled by the opportunities given to the Opposition. Whether the commission shall give one relay to the Government and one to the Opposition, or even ten relays to the Government and ten relays to the Opposition, is a matter entirely at the discretion of the commission, but whatever number of relays it decides to give to the Government, then, most certainly, the Opposition should be given an equal number.

I direct attention to one or two aspects of the propagandist statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) quite recently. This statement was delivered in this House and was circulated all over Australia, being published in a most elaborate way. I direct attention to the fact that, throughout his statement, the Treasurer, in endeavouring to make out the best case on behalf of himself and his colleagues, also” made it appear that the facts support his general claims and deductions. That is not the case. For example, he produced a table which gives the interest burden, including the cost of exchange a head of the population, for a series of years. It starts from 1920-21

Ifr. Curtin-. and goes up in five-year periods until 1930-31, when it jumps to a six-year period; or, taking the latest financial year, 1936-37, which we have a right to know all about, instead of going back five years, the Treasurer jumped back six years and then, having reached a suitable figure to prove what he was endeavouring to prove, took a five-year period. Thus itis made to appear that in 1930-31 the interest burden a head of the population on the public debt overseas of the Commonwealth and States, including the cost of exchange, was £9 10s. Id. That is perfectly true. The next figure shown is for 1936-37, where the burden is given at £7 7s. 3d. a head. Anybody reading that statement would believe that the advent of this Government had produced such conditions in this country as had reduced the interest burden from £9 10s. Id. to £7 7s. 3d., an improvement of approximately £2 3s. a head. The facts are that in 1930-31 the interest burden in Australia a head of the population had reached its peak. Certain changes were effected as the result of what was done before this Government came into office- before Mr. Lyons became Prime Minister in 1932, and the figures for 1931-32 are figures which were reached as the result of something that was done before this Government assumed office, and not as the result of anything that it has done. The figure for 1931-32 is £8 9s. 10d., which is a vastly different figure from £9 10s. Id. What the Treasurer should have done to make this table completely explicit to the Australian people “was to publish 5-year periods until 1930-31 and thereafter the figures for each year.

Mr Casey:

– I shall do it.

Mr CURTIN:

– I propose myself to publish them, and therefore supply the gap that appears in this statement.

Mr Casey:

– There is no gap.

Mr CURTIN:

– Oh yes there is. The figures that should have been supplied are -

Mr Casey:

– Those figures were in last year’s budget.

Mr CURTIN:

– But they are not in the Treasurer’s statement this year, which was a statement delivered, I submit, largely with an eye to the elections rather than as an attempt to present the whole truth to the Australian people. I find that that reduction is largely made possible as the result of what has happened in relation to war services including interest on the war debt to the British Government, but not interest on loans to the States. In 1930-31 that cost £27,700,000, and in 1931-32 only £19,700,000. That is a difference of £8,000,000, which was the saving effected for only ten months of that financial year. In the next year, 1932-33, the cost was £18,000,000, and it has been £18,000,000 each year since. Therefore there has been a £9,000,000 reduction in the cost of war services as specified in the table which the Treasurer from time to time presents and terms “ the Commonwealth inescapable expenditure table”. That saving of £9,000,000 is the real source of the reduction of the interest burden a head of the population, exclusive of the conversions effected overseas by the High Commissioner, Mr. Bruce.

Mr Casey:

– By the Government.

Mr CURTIN:

– By the High Commissioner on behalf of the Government. I return to the statement I made previously, and say that the total of these savings overseas is only a flea bite in comparison with the relief to the present budget of the Commonwealth Government and the budgets of the State governments, which has arisen as the result of work done by the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin) as Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr Casey:

– But not by his party.

Mr CURTIN:

– It does not matter who was responsible. We say that it was the Labour government. I should not have used these facts but for the repeated way in which the Treasurer, in a variety of statistical compilations,makes it appear that the total recovery of Australian government finances is attributable to the policies initiated by him and his colleagues. As a matter of fact, it is due to the policy they inherited, and not to anything that they have done.

Mr Paterson:

– What about the overseas loan conversions?

Mr CURTIN:

– I have mentioned them. They have resulted in a total saving of £11,000,000 and not an average of £4,000,000 a year. The savings to all governmental budgets as the result of measures which this Government did not introduce, but which another did, was £79,000,000. The total savings are £90,000,000, of which this Government can claim credit for only £11,000,000. An important thing to bear in mind is that interest on war services this year will cost £18,000,000, whereas in 1930-31 it cost £27,700,000. That saving of £9,750,000 is due to the Hoover moratorium reductions and in consequence of internal conversions and some other consequential savings.

Mr Casey:

– What does that prove?

Mr CURTIN:

– It proves that if it were not for that saving of £9,750,000 the Government would not have had in recent years, means to establish a defence equipment fund; it means also that it would not have had facilities to remit certain classes of taxation. Moreover, the Government would have been faced with very great difficulty, if not almost an impossible situation, if £9,750,000 had to be added to the inescapable expenditure table in each of those years, because since 1930-31, the figure has been scaled down from £27,700,000 to the £18,000,000 which is estimated for the present year.

Mr Casey:

– All that that really proves is that the British Government, in letting Australia off £7,000,000 in respect of the war debt to Great Britain, has saved us from being forced to impose higher rates of taxation.

Mr CURTIN:

– I see. The Government would have taxed higher. I welcome that admission, because it clearly shows that the remissions of taxation which the honorable gentleman has been able to make are not the outcome of any statesmanlike policy which this Government has propounded, but are due to the rather fortuitous inheritance of action taken by the British Government at the time the Scullin Government was in power in Australia. The honorable gentleman’s admission is quite satisfactory.What I point out is that in this present year the Government proposes to borrow £2,000,000 sterling overseas, which is equivalent to £2,500,000 in Australian currency. The Government will do this because it says that to equip our defence organization is a matter of urgent moment, and we have largely to increase our defence expenditure. As a matter of fact, in the present year defence is to cost £4,500,000 more than two years ago. It cost £8,000,000 in the last financial year, and, as we are to spend £11,500,000 this year, the cost is to be £3,500,000 more than we spent last financial year, and £4,500,000 more than in the previous year. The Minister does not propose to have any increased taxation. There is to be no excess profits tax, for example, to be used in order to provide for any portion of this largely increased- provision for defence. And this Government, bear in mind, in association with the Commonwealth Bank, only a few months ago scaled down the loan programmes of the States for useful works.

Mr Casey:

– Not the Commonwealth Bank.

Mr CURTIN:

– Is it not a fact that the State governments put up programmes for works which involved a larger loan raising programme than the Commonwealth regarded as prudent?

Mr Casey:

– Than could be raised at reasonable rates of interest.

Mr Menzies:

– The States agreed to the reduced programme.

Mr CURTIN:

– The States agreed to it ! The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) who was then Acting Treasurer, and presided over the deliberations of the Loan Council, knows that from the beginning of the Australian Loan Council, whatever their views have been, the States have finally had to agree to what has been given to them. If the State governments could have had loans raised for them, either in Australia or overseas, for the purpose of useful works in the pre sent financial year, they would gladly have used that money to carry on works that they have submitted to the Loan Council as necessary and desirable.

Mr Casey:

-We could raise whatever sums of money we like -provided we were willing to pay the high rates of interest demanded. The States were not willing to pay those high rates.

Mr CURTIN:

-The State governments came to the Loan Council and asked for a general appropriation much larger than that which was given to them. They proposed to spend that money on country water supplies, and various works of a reproductive character which would have furnished employment in Australia, but the Commonwealth Bank Board, and, I submit, the Commonwealth Government, threw their weight against the maintenance of internal loan raising for the State governments.

Mr Casey:

– That is a half truth.

Mr CURTIN:

– Oh, well. I also say that for months, indeed for practically the whole of last year, there has been going on in Australia an active campaign for the purpose of reducing the loan expenditure of State governments.

Mr Casey:

– Why?

Mr CURTIN:

– Perhaps because it was considered undesirable by those operating the market. It is an extraordinary thing that the Treasurer, as a member of the Commonwealth Government which acquiesced in refusing to increase the Australian public debt for water supply services, the sewering of houses, or the construction of houses by the workers’ homes boards in the various States, himself, without reference to the Loan Council, proposes to increase the public debt by £2,500,000 Australian currency in the present financial year in order to defend Australia and yet, at the same time, out of the revenue account of his own budget this year, he proposes to spend less on defence than he did last year.

Mr Casey:

– Oh, no!

Mr CURTIN:

– Last year £6,970,000 was spent on defence out of revenue.

Mr Casey:

– And how much out of the Trust Fund?

Mr CURTIN:

– I shall tell the honorable member. Last year the Government spent £16,000 from loan and from the Defence Equipment; Fund, £1,084,000.

Mr Casey:

– How much is it proposed to spend from the Trust Fund this year?

Mr CURTIN:

– The amount is £3,031,000 from the Defence Equipment Fund.

Mr Casey:

– Total those up.

Mr CURTIN:

– I am doing so. I have already stated it. If I did so again the honorable gentleman would be justified in directing the attention of Mr. Speaker to my tedious repetition. This year it is proposed to spend £6,000,000 from revenue as against £7,000,000 last year from revenue, and the Government is therefore during the present financial year spending less from revenue - from its own proceeds as a government. This year’s revenues which are to be larger than last year’s, this year’s taxation which is to be larger than last year’s is to make a smaller contribution todefence expenditure than was made last year and, as a matter of fact the Government’s proposal to use the Defence Equipment Fund brings the Defence Equipment Fund to the position of not having a very great deal left in it; because on page 82 of the budget papers there is shown a balance on 1st July, 1937 of £2,655,000 for defence equipment and for defence stores, London, there is a balance of £1,900,000. I have to await the details which the Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) is to give before I can say by how much the expenditure on defence material will increase the total of our London purchases.

Mr Casey:

– The honorable gentleman will find that there is not much point in his argument.

Mr CURTIN:

– There is this point in it: one of the Minister’s colleagues has said that this £2,000,000 sterling which it is proposed to borrow overseas is to be used for the purpose of purchasing overseas equipment.

Mr Casey:

– “Which cannot be manufactured in Australia.

Mr CURTIN:

– Admittedly. If it. is proposed to use for this purpose the London defence trust fund, as well as the £2,000,000 which is to be borrowed then the total defence expenditure overseas will be £4,000,000.

Mr Casey:

– No.

Mr CURTIN:

– Then why add to Australia’s overseas debt by issuing treasurybills for £2,000,000, when there is already in London for thepurpose of meeting liabilities in regard to defence stores a present balance of £1,900,000 ?

Mr Casey:

– I am afraid I shall have to give the honorable gentleman a speech on the use of trust funds.

Mr CURTIN:

– I think that is just what the Treasurer will have to do. Is he not going to use any of the London trust fund to pay for imported defence equipment and material?

Mr Casey:

– Yes, part of it. Some of it is already committed.

Mr CURTIN:

– “We do not know when the orders were given, or when the goods will be supplied, but quite obviously the Government would not pay for anything until it was supplied. The Treasurer must be making provision ahead. Is the whole of this £2,000,000 which it is proposed to raise to be expended this year?

Mr Casey:

– I do Dot want to make the honorable gentleman’s speech for him.

Mr CURTIN:

– My assertion is that in the present year the Government has said that it is to spend more on defence than has ever been spent before; that the world situation is such that we should make it a matter of major importance to strengthen our defences. The Treasurer has stated in his budget that we are at the height of unexampled prosperity. Then, in this year of unexampled prosperity, not only does he propose to incur a debt of £2,000,000 sterling overseas for defence purposes, but he also proposes to spend less out of the proceeds of taxation on defence than was the case last year. It seems to be contradictory to state that, while this is the most prosperous year we have had, it is yet proposed to allocate less out of revenue for the defence of Australia than was allocated last year.

Mr Casey:

– If I had made any such statement it would be wrong.

Mr CURTIN:

– But the Treasurer has made it. Docs he deny that out of revenue he spent £6,900,000 last year on defence, and does he deny that in this year’s budget be contemplates spending only £6,000,000 out of revenue?

Mr Casey:

– The honorable gentleman is not taking the trust funds into account.

Mr CURTIN:

– It is not proposed this year to add to trust funds established from revenue for any purpose except post office works. On the facts before us, it is evident that the Government is going to spend on defence £11,500,000 this year as against £8,000,000 last year. The Government claims that the country is in a condition of unexampled prosperity, yet instead of spending on defence at least as much out of revenue this year as last, it is proposed to spend £1,000,000 less, and in order to make up the amount ‘it is proposed to increase the Australian debt overseas by £2,500,000 Australian. That will have the effect of increasing the flow of imports into Australia. It will provide work for people overseas, and profits for overseas armaments firms. It will add to our immediate external obligations, and will put an end to the possibility of the favorable conversion of our overseas indebtedness.

Mr Casey:

– That is not so.

Mr CURTIN:

– Why not? When a country which has refrained from external borrowing for a period of years suddenly reverts to it in a period that is admittedly prosperous, overseas investors are not likely to accept the country’s prospectus seeking a favorable conversion. This country has not borrowed on the overseas market for six years - indeed for eight years, because the overseas credit of the Bruce-Page Government died before that Government itself did. Now the reversal of that policy must have the effect of hardening the interest rates.

Mr Casey:

– I do not think so.

Mr CURTIN:

– Then let me put the opposite case. If Australia were to stay off the London market, would there not be less likelihood of interest rates hardening against us ?

Mr Casey:

– I do not think so.

Mr CURTIN:

– The whole conception of an external loan to pay for defence is false to every sound principle of financial practice. The Government ought not to have gone overseas to borrow without at least having exhausted the patriotic impulses of the Australian people. If the Treasurer had said, “It is of the highest importance to raise money for defence equipment in the present year beyond what I can provide out of the budget, and I ask the Loan Council to float a special defence equipment loan to make the country safe, “ the people would promptly have responded. Then, admittedly, the public debt would have been increased, but the new debt would be an internal one, and we should not have had to resort to the device of increasing our London funds by means of borrowing, and then wiping them out again by importing material. Of course, ‘- we ought to have met this situation without having to make any addition to our London funds. We ought to have met . it by curtailing imports in other directions.

Our imports arc increasing in a rather remarkable way. In Australian currency, we imported last year goods worth £113,000,000, of which £68,000,000 worth were dutiable and £45,300,000 worth were non-dutiable. In 1934, imports were valued at £90,000,000 of which £54,000,000 worth paid duty, while £36,000,000 did riot.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr MCBRIDE:
Grey

.- I take . this opportunity to make some reference to the budget delivered by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey). While this budget does not make any great concessions, and while it involves increased expenditure in some directions, we can all agree that it places clearly before the people, not only die general financial position of the country, but also the responsibilities which we have to face during the coming year. I compliment the Treasurer upon being able to point to a marked increase of prosperity during the last few years, though I admit that this prosperity is not entirely due to actions of this or any other government. In this connexion, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) did not hesitate to take full credit for the Scullin Government for what it did during those very desperate days when it had control of the affairs of Australia, but he entirely omitted to mention the severe criticism levelled against that Government by some of its erstwhile supporters. That might be passed over, but it is a little too much when the Leader of the Opposition takes credit to the Labour government for the savings effected under the Hoover moratorium, through the concessions granted by the British Government. The British Government passed on to Australia the benefit of the concessions which it had received from the United States of America, and in addition, made concessions on its own behalf because of the desperate times through which we were passing. I do not suggest that the prosperity now being enjoyed is entirely due to the present Government, but it is significant that, after the first Lyons Government had taken office, confidence was immediately restored. New South Wales, where a government of another political colour was in office, was still in the slough of despond, and unemployment figures in that State reached the maximum level. 1 agree with the Treasurer that great prosperity is now being experienced, yet we must remember that whilst, owing to the increase of export prices, we have been able to make material progress, certain sections of the community are still suffering from the effects of the depression. Although the prices enjoyed by primary producers are high, and future prospects are bright, many of the producers have not yet paid off debts incurred during times of low prices. These people, may be looked to for support of the present Government, for they realize that sound administration and refusal to adopt fantastic monetary policies have enabled them to take advantage of the improved conditions ruling generally throughout the world.

I welcome the increase of employment that has taken place in Australia, and I am glad that the conditions of the workers have improved. It is necessary for Australia to have a balanced economy. Primary and secondary industries must develop side by side; therefore, I am glad to know that manufacturing industries have expanded during the last four or five years. ‘It is as well to inquire from what sources unemployment has chiefly arisen. The primary industries which, during tho depression, enabled Australia to remain solvent and meet its overseas liabilities, have materially assisted the secondary industries. The following figures show the position of the agricultural industries : -

Throughout the depression, those industries dismissed only about 7,000 workers. In fact, in the dairying industry, employment actually increased, as will .be seen by the following figures : -

The total number of workers employed in , manufacturing industries decreased from 450,000 in 1928-29, to 330,000 in - 1931-32, showing a drop of 120,000. Those figures clearly show tho industries which are the mainstay of Australia in time of trouble. During a period when the turbulent position of the world is such as to cause alarm in all countries, the Commonwealth Government is rightly endeavouring to make this country as self-contained as possible, particularly with regard to defence materials. I entirely support that policy, but the Governments should be careful that, in establishing new industries, nothing is done to jeopardize the interests of the primary industries on which we are mainly dependent in times of prosperity or depression.

The Government, of course, is not entirely responsible for the improvement that has taken place in Australia, and although the control that it can exercise in .the regulation of prices received overseas for primary products is very limited, it can make a valuable contribution to the improvement of trade conditions of the world. It can at least show a willingness to cultivate close trade relations with other countries. I heartily supported the Ottawa Agreement, which I regarded as a valuable contribution to the welfare of this country and the Empire generally, and I hope that the Government will be able to renew some of the preferences which will be under review next year. I compliment the Government upon the renewal of the meat agreement, which will materially assist in maintaining the price of meat on the overseas market. Honorable members from Queensland, particularly, should offer congratulations to the Treasurer upon the satisfactory result of his negotiations at the International Sugar Conference. Australia was generously treated at this conference, and I consider that this was largely due to the able work of the Treasurer. Whilst I have not always been in agreement with the Government’s trade policy, I realize, from the remarks of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) that the Government desires to promote trade agreements with other countries. The Minister said that, although our trade diversion policy operates against the United States of America .because of the imposition of quotas with regard to certain goods obtained from that country, the Government wishes to make a comprehensive trade treaty which will avoid the necessity for the quotas now operating. We should do everything possible to remove these trade barriers.

When inquiries were being made regarding the complex subject of national insurance, it was interesting to hear the allegations made by members of the Op- position against the Government of delay -in introducing the scheme. I suggest that the magnitude of the scheme necessitated thorough examination and due consideration. The Government did right in bringing to Australia two men who were competent to examine the position and to make practical recommendations, but I was rather amazed, on hearing the harsh statements by the Opposition, to read in the press recently that it was not now in favour of any scheme of national insurance. This comes as a surprise from a party which continually claims to advocate humanitarian legislation. In many instances, the party opposite suggests that it has an absolute monopoly of humanitarianism in this Parliament. We are now told by the Leader of the Opposition that his party is not in favour of this scheme.

Mr Garden:

– Who said so?

Mr McBRIDE:

– It was stated in the press.

Mr James:

– Which newspaper?

Mr McBRIDE:

– The statement was made in the Canberra Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, and, I believe, several other journals. I support the principle of national insurance. We all recognize that the present method of relieving the needs of the invalid and aged section of our community has definite weaknesses. For example, it discourages thrift. People have no incentive to make provision, during their working life, for their old age, for if they save a certain amount of money they arc unable to obtain the pension. The present system also causes a great deal of irritation in consequence of personal inquiries that have, of necessity, to be made to ascertain the circumstances of applicants for the pension. Under a proper system of national insurance, everybody who contributed to the scheme would be entitled, by right, to the benefits of it. All suggestion of a dole would be entirely eliminated. Yet, there would be no discouragement of thrift, for people who, by rigid economy, had saved money for their old age, would not be denied benefits to which they were entitled through contributions to the scheme. I hope that the members of the Opposition will alter their attitude on this subject.

A great deal’ has been said during this debate about defence. Personally, I do not feel qualified to discuss the subject in detail. With my limited knowledge, I am unable to- determine which arm of the services should be selected for advancement in preference to other arms of it. I believe, however, that the people of Australia will’ approve heartily of the Government’s programme for the increase of our defence equipment and the adequate training of our man power. No honorable member on this side of the chamber would suggest that Australia should be, willy-nilly, embroiled in any foreign war; yet we realize the impossibility of successfully resisting an invasion by a major power without some outride assistance. Consequently, I believe that, while we should do as much as we possibly can for our own defence, we should take care that our measures for defence are such as can be co-ordinated with the defence measures of Great Britain, so that, should the need for action arise, our equipment may be dovetailed into that of Great Britain. None of us desires war to occur, but we all feel the need to prepare ourselves to face such an unfortunate eventuality. , In spit© of the criticism levelled against the Government’s naval programme, I do not think that any member of the Opposition would suggest that we should dissociate our naval programme from the measures being adopted by Great Britain at Singapore for Imperial defence. Obviously, our navy should be able to co-operate with the British naval squadron at Singapore.

We should, as far as possible, make ourselves self-sufficient in military equipment. I, therefore, approve of the Government’s decision to establish factories which otherwise would not be justified. The establishment of a factory in Australia for the manufacture of aircraft is wise. Perhaps even larger sums than those proposed to be allocated for munitions may have to be actually expended, and additional factories may need to be built. In determining our defence measures the fullest possible advantage should be taken of all the expert advice available to us. I am sure that the

Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) obtained the most expert advice possible while he was abroad, and for that reason I shall support the policy which he will outline to us when the Works Estimates are under consideration.

I approve of the “allocation of an additional £830jO00 of loan money for expenditure on postal works. As a representative* of a country district, I realize the inconvenience to which country people submitted during the days of the depression when money was not available for normal postal works, but the time has now arrived when the Government should spend as much money as possible on the improvement of country postal facilities. As the general economic circumstances, of the country have improved, it is only reasonable to request that the hopelessly inadequate postal facilities provided in many country centres should be at once improved. I feel justified in emphasizing this request in view of the fact that the revenue of the Postal Department has expanded so substantially. I hope, therefore* that the Government will take every care to spend as much as possible of this loan money on additional works in country districts. When the Works Estimates are under consideration suggestions in this regard will doubtless be made to the Minister representing the Postmaster^ General, and I trust that they will receive the most sympathetic consideration.

I compliment the Government on the effort it is making to ameliorate the circumstances of the unemployed youth of this country. During the depression many of. our young men and women were deprived of all opportunity of an industrial or business training. [Quorum formed.] The Commonwealth Government is now seeking the co-operation of the State governments in training these unfortunate young people to become efficient artisans. This work can be done most effectively and efficiently by State instrumentalities, for education is necessary, and education is a State function. I feel sure that with proper co-operation between the Commonwealth and State authorities in this regard a great deal of good will be done. If more money should be found to be necessary to carry to fruition the various projects that are put in hand to train the young people whom it is desired to assist, I feel sure that the Commonwealth Government will provide it.

Mr GARDEN:
Cook

.- The Government has been taking a great deal of credit to itself for the seeming prosperity that has returned to Australia. No one can deny that things are improving. But how has the improvement been effected? Lord McGowan, who visited Australia this year prophesied that prosperity would continue here for at least two or three years as the outcome of Great Britain’s re-armament expenditure. He said that a good proportion of the money being expended on rearmament in Great Britain would reach the British consumers and so increase their power to purchase Australian foodstuffs and raw materials, especially dairy produce, wool and metals. He added, however, that it was impossible to foresee what would happen in Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere when Britain’s re-armament programme was complete. A alight degree of prosperity has returned to Australia, not as the result of, but despite the policy of, the present Government. If there had been no re-armament in Europe and other parts of the world, Australia to-day would be in a pitiable condition. Only yesterday the price of wool declined by 10 per cent, at the Sydney wool sales, and it was prophesied that a further 5 per cent, fall would follow immediately. This indicates that the people who use wool for manufacturing purposes have sufficient for their requirements. The demand for Australian foodstuffs has increased in Great Britain because millions of pounds are being expended in preparation for war. It is strange that in our day and generation millions of pounds can be provided to provide means to destroy life, but nothing can be provided to assist the men, women and children of Australia who are suffering as the result of unemployment. Not a penny can be obtained to help them ! “When it is a matter of preparing for war, the Government proposes to spend £11,500,000 in one year. Why can funds always be made available for the pur pose of destroying life? The reason is that basic industries such as’ the metal and coal industries are always more profitable in a time of war. The Director of the International Labour Office in his latest bulletin issued this month, said that “ prosperity has come in a slight way.” One of the reasons which he gives for that prosperity is the growth of armaments, and what he describes as the “ uneconomic activity “ which it represents. There is not a member on the Government side who will say that preparation for war is economic. This report went on to say -

Armaments must at any time represent some deduction from the national well-being. When pushed to extravagant heights, they inevitably involve an increasing sacrifice of the standard of living and the standard of hours. The armament race is an element of weakness in the process of recovery.

Therefore, that for which the Government takes credit is an element of weakness, not of strength; it is not stable or secure. The report also said -

As long as the fear of war is as widely prevalent as in the later months of 1936, it is vain to expect that the world can attain its full economic momentum. Even with the preparation for war, you are hindering the development of national recovery.

Let us consider what the Government has done on behalf of the youths of this country. It has made available the sum of £200,000 to meet the needs of an approximate equal number of youths who have never entered industry and have had no opportunity to do so. That provision represents £1 a year for each unemployed youth. It would not pay their tram fares for more than a few weeks.

Mr McBride:

– Where did the honorable member get the figure 200,000 ?

Mr GARDEN:

-From figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician.

Mr Nock:

– It is stale.

Mr GARDEN:

– It is the figure for this year. Last year, it was higher. Between the ages of seventeen and 21 years, approximately 200,000 youths are to-day unemployed. They are too young to do a man’s work, and too old to do a youth’s work; consequently they are at a dead end.

Mr Ward:

– They would not be considered too young to go to war.

Mr GARDEN:

– They have reached an age at which they are regarded as fit for cannon fodder.

Mr Paterson:

– The honorable gentleman does not suggest that there are. 200,000 youths of that age who are unemployed’ to-day?

Mr GARDEN:

– I do.

Mr PATERSON:
CP

– I do not believe it.

Mr GARDEN:

– There are many things which the honorable gentleman does not believe. He disbelieved our statements in regard to Mrs. Freer, the Larrakia, and alien migration. I am here, not to convince the honorable gentleman, but to state facts. God has given rae the gift of imparting knowledge, but not of making the honorable gentleman understand it.

I challenge the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician in relation to t>he trade union returns with respect to unemployment in this country. Mr. In.ce, in his report, said that he could not accept the figures of either the Commonwealth Statistician or any State statistician. The trade unions have always complained that the statistics in relation to the cost of living do not accurately state the position. For the purpose of ascertaining what figure he shall decide upon in regard to rent, the Commonwealth Statistician has information compiled in such places as Coogee, Randwick, Bondi, Redfern, Waterloo, Surry Hills, Woolloomooloo and Newtown. The newer suburbs of Sydney, such as Hurstville, Kogarah, and those along the Bankstown line, are not taken into consideration. The investigations arc confined to the city areas, and an average is struck which applies to the whole of New South Wales. Everybody knows that a four-roomed house cannot be rented in Sydney for 17s. a week. On the Bankstown line it would cost 27s. a week. The same practice is adopted in Melbourne; the older districts are taken, not the newer districts where an increasing number of workers are now living. A four-roomed cottage cannot be rented in

Melbourne for 15s. 9d. a week. A conference of the Australasian Council of Trade Unions has demanded the establishment of a bureau for the correct compilation of figures relating to food, rent and groceries. The cost of groceries is computed at present on the basis of figures furnished by the wholesalers, or a cheap retail establishment in the city. On the material that he has at hand, the Commonwealth Statistician cannot do other than he has done. We do not blame him; he has done his job on the basis laid down for him. We contend, however, that a new basis must be established.

At the last elections, candidates supporting the Government promised that, if returned to power, they would legislate for a 40-hour working week. The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) went further, and- said that so great was the responsibility of the Government that he would appoint a special Minister to deal with employment. That Minister was appointed, but he did not last long. In order that’ he might be appeased, he was sent to Geneva, with instructions to vote for a 40-vhour week. He carried out those instructions, but when he returned to Australia and attempted to give effect to the convention ho found that the Government was opposed to such a policy. Since then he has been like a flea on a hot brick, hopping here, there and everywhere. He does not know where to hop or what to do. He conscientiously believes in the principle of a 40-hour week, but the Government will have none of it. The promise that it would be implemented was made to the people by the Government only with a view to its being returned to power.

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

– Why did not the trade unions accept the invitation of the Government to participate in a conference to discuss the matter?

Mr GARDEN:

– Why did not the Prime Minister accept the condition laid down by the trade unions, namely, that there should be five employers on one side and five on the other, with a judicial chairman ? What was wrong with that ? The Government said it did not believe in a body constituted on those lines. It wanted to have a personnel of seventeen, of which there should be five Labour representatives and twelve representatives of ‘Other interests. If the honorable mem-, her for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) favours such a policy, his rejection by the electors would not cause surprise. The Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) said that the convention for a 40-hour working week cannot be implemented; yet before the elections the opposite belief was expressed. To-day, in preparation for the forthcoming elections, the Government says that this cannot be done. In their joint judgment in the Henry case, Mr. Justice Evatt and Mr. Justice McTiernan said -

  1. The Commonwealth has power both to enter into international agreements and to pass legislation to secure the carrying out of such agreements according to their tenor even although the subject matter of the agreement is not otherwise within Commonwealth legislative jurisdiction. >
  2. The subject matters of these agreements may properly include such matters as, e.g., suppression of traffic in drugs, control of armament, regulation of labour conditions and control of air navigation.
  3. It is an essential condition of the power to carry out such international agreements that the local legislation .should be in conformity with the terms of the agreement.

In that statement, which is to be found on page 696 C.L.R., it was declared definitely that the Commonwealth Government has legislative power to give effect to an international convention. Yet the Attorney-General (Mr. Menzies) says that this Government does not possess that power. I appeal to it, even in its dying hours, to ratify the 40-hour week convention. If it does not do so i1 cannot promise the people, during the forthcoming elections, to introduce a 40-hour week if it is returned to office, because in its three years of office it has failed to accomplish that objective, and the workers, therefore, will not accept any more of its promises in respect of this matter.

I shall now deal with the speech of the honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) in which he congratulated this Government on its record. The honorable member secured a seat in this Parliament solely because of the fact that every word he uttered during his election campaign was condemnatory of this Government. Now that he is enjoying u safe, cushy seat in this House, he, apparently, ‘ says to himself, “ The best way for me to keep this seat is to make friends with the Government. If I offer my congratulation to it, I shall get a free run as the Country party candidate for the Darling Downs at the next election ,!. In not one of the speeches he made during his campaign could the honorable member find language vile enough with which to condemn this Government. He said that it was controlled by the parasites of the cities - bloodsuckers who sucked the blood of the farmer and the primary producer. He told his electors that if they returned the United Australia party candidate they would not be supporting the country people. In spite of all these utterances, however, we find the honorable member declaring last week that this is a wonderful Government. He was converted overnight. Who effected his conversion I do not know. Now he proposes to go on the platform to help Mr. Dunstan, the Premier of Victoria, in the forthcoming Victorian elections. No doubt he will say to members of the Victorian Country party, “ Look here, you are mistaken about this Government. You have only got to get into the Federal Parliament to know all about them. They are not the bloodsuckers I thought they were”. He will say to Mr. Dunstan, “ You have made a mistake about this Government. It is not so bad aa I thought it was. I told them that they were bloodsuckers and parasites, but now that I have a cushy job in Parliament, I find I have made a mistake, and, as a representative of the Country party, I plead with you, just before this election, to say nothing against the United Australia party “.

In a land like Australia, which is flowing with milk and honey and possesses a superabundance of everything a human family needs, we have the tragedy, revealed by startling figures produced in this House, of 40 per cent, of our children suffering from malnutrition. Yet this Government praises itself for the wonderful things it alleges it has accomplished. On the subject of malnutrition the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) always advances arguments which are welcome to any one interested in the subject, and I agree with the views which he expressed here to-day. I repeat that 40 per cent, of Australian children suffer from malnutrition, although everything required for their nourishment exists in abundance in this country. Milk is so plentiful, that it is fed to pigs. Recently, I visited the farm of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) at Dundas, where I found that not. skimmed milk, but the best of milk was being fed to pigs. The honorable member for Parramatta said, “Look at those wonderful pigs,” and I thought then of all the unfortunatechildren in Australia who could not even get skimmed milk. After wallowing in troughs brimming with the best of milk, pigs were rugged and put into sties which were really lovely houses. I thought then that even in this wonderful city of Canberra, the beauties of which are a delight for any one to look upon, the workers had to live in structures not comparable with the housing provided by the member for Parramatta for his wonderful pigs. No wonder they were the best pigs in Australia. This Government apparently would rather see that pigs were well fed with the best that this country can produce than attend to the needs of our under-nourished children. That is its policy. It is no wonder that the honorable member for Darling Downs described it as a government of bloodsuckers and parasites; I agree with every word he said about the United Australia party during his campaign as a candidate in the electorate which he now represents. Every word he then said was true, and I thought that when he rose to make his speech last week, he would have said, in dealing with the next elections, that a United Australia party government spells damnation for the people of this country. I thought he wouldhave pointed out that if this Government were returned to office, the workers would suffer, as they always suffer under governments of its kind, whilst the rich would be made richer. Undoubtedly big companies like the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and the steamship companies can show wonderful bank balances every year, but those profits are made out of the sacrifices borne by the workers. The honorable member for Grey (Mr. McBride) referred to the humanitarian spirit of this Government. I have failed to find any evidence of such a spirit. Individually the members of this Government are all right, but the Government itself is all wrong.

It has been said, “ Join the United Australia party and see the world “. That is quite true. Certainly a few members of this Government have not yet had a trip overseas, but their names are on the list for future reference. One trip paid for by this Government has struck me particularly. It is that of Mr. H. C. Brown, the Auditor-General, who, on the eve of his retirement, recommended that he should go overseas to investigate public account systems in England, the United States of America and other countries. No one objected to the fact that an Auditor-General should be sent on such a mission, but who would not object to sending a man who was due to retire as soon as he returned?.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that the confidence so placed by the Government in Mr. Brown reveals his capacity?

Mr GARDEN:

– It certainly proves something when, on his own recommendation and although he is due to retire on his return, the Government sends him abroad.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– Has the honorable member any idea of the work that he accomplished overseas? It was well worth the money spent.

Mr GARDEN:

– It would have been better if this investigation had been made by one who was likely to succeed Mr. Brown.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The results of the investigation are all available for Mr. Brown’s successor.

Mr GARDEN:

– That view does not convince me. The Minister for Defence himself recently went abroad to attend the Imperial Conference, and would he say that all the information which he gathered will be left behind for his successor, or that his successor will be able to assimilate such information as fully as the honorable member himself? I am not dealing with trips made by Ministers; they have their job- to do whether they happen to be members of a Labour, or an anti-Labour government, but I criticize the action of a Government in sending a man overseas on his own recommendation when he is due to’ retire from his position on his return. That case, 1 suggest, i3 amazing. The Prime Minister this week informed the House that Mr. Brown made this trip on his own recommendation.

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

– Does not the honorable member think that the accounts department can be reorganized as a result of the knowledge gained by Mr. Brown?

Mr GARDEN:

– No, he has now left the service.

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

– As a matter of fact, he is now dealing with the reorganization of his department on the material gained overseas.

Mr GARDEN:

– I propose now to deal . with the alleged humanitarian spirit of this Government in dealing with returned soldiers. I have here a letter written to an applicant for a war service pension by the Repatriation Department. It reads -

The tribunal has decided that shell shock and nerves are not, in your case, attributable to war service. The appeal has therefore been disallowed.

How, I ask, could a man contract shell shock but as the result of war service?

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

– “Would the honorable member read all of the letter?

Mr GARDEN:

– The register number of the Letter is No. 10,425.

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

– Read the. letter.

Mr GARDEN:

– I cannot give the man’s name, but the letter reads: -

Decision of Tribunal.

The Tribunal has decided that shell shock and nerves are not, in your case, attributable to war service.

The appen.1 has therefore been disallowed.

Sir Archdale Parkhill. The tribunal is impartial.

Mr GARDEN:

– No. The tribunal is there for the purpose of doing this work.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– This Parliament decided that the tribunal and not the Minister should do the work and the honorable member cannot blame the Minister for that.

Mr GARDEN:

– I am not blaming the Minister. These cases occur every day. Honorable members frequently have them brought before their notice. They do not come to me often because my attitude towards returned soldiers is well known. This Government has an obligation to returned men which it is not fulfilling. On a previous occasion I cited the case of a man who was in hospital for twelve years and was refused a war pension because the doctors of the Repatriation Department said that his disability was not due to war services. Eventually the man was operated on at the Sydney Hospital, and it was found that his sinus was filled with poison gas. It was only when that fact had been disclosed that the doctors of the Repatriation Department, who had formerly denied that the patient’s condition was due to war services, admitted their error and his case was reviewed.

I am astonished that the Government should take on itself credit for the return of prosperity. The prosperity of to-day is due to the warlike preparations of this and every other country of the world. This Government is about to perpetuate the fatal mistakes involved in borrowing overseas which the Scullin Government had to correct. This may be my last opportunity in this Parliament to impress upon the House the dangers involved in floating loans overseas. It is intended to approach the London market for £2,000,000 this year. That is just the start. Next year it will be £4,000,000. The country is at the top of a precipice and when the war preparations cease Australia will find itself on a greater toboggan slide than that of 1930-31, when conditions were such that, if the Scullin Government had not acted as it did, Australia would have been plunged into bankruptcy. The Scullin Government has been criticized - I admit that I have criticized it myself - but analysis of the facts shows that it did a wonderful job of work. The present Government in fact is taking credit for what was done by its predecessors. It was the Scullin Government that laid the foundations upon which the present Government has built.

Mr Lane:

– The honorable member criticized the Scullin Government.

Mr GARDEN:

– I do not deny it. It was a mistake on my part. But every one makes mistakes. The person who does not make mistakes never does anything. I have the courage to admit the mistakes I have made. I am not like the present Government which is ever ready to run away from its mistakes. For example, although it obtained power on three promises: first, a 40-hour week; secondly, a social insurance and, thirdly, a national housing policy; another election approaches and it has not yet given effect to any of them. It has run away from its promises. It says that it is too late now to do anything about the 40- hour week. The services of two gentlemen from abroad were called in to assist in the formulation of a social insurance policy which has become a .political pariah. The Commonwealth Government will not implement it and the State governments have been handed the baby but they will not touch it. The Federal Treasurer has appointed a committee. That committee has met.

Mr Casey:

– And lias practically finished its task.

Mr GARDEN:

– It will do nothing. No Government wants to touch the Ince scheme. The Commonwealth Government has not spent 6d. on the housing policy which was in the forefront of its election pledges.

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

– The honorable member cannot show anything in the Prime Minister’s policy speech which relates to the 40-hour week.

Mr GARDEN:

– The honorable member for “Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison) I cannot blame because he spoke against it, but the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) went around his electorate boosting himself as an advocate of the 40-hour week and saying, “ Bump me into Parliament. You can trust me “. The Barton electors bumped him in and now they are going to bump him out.

Mr Lane:

– The honorable member is going, at any rate.

Mr GARDEN:

– Yes, I am going of my own free will. The honorable member is going in some other way.

Sir Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member for Cook is going, not on his own free will, but with a push from Jack.

Mr GARDEN:

– I guarantee that, if I stood for Parliament, I should be elected to-morrow. These are not the issues with which I am dealing, however. My concern i3 the failure of the Government to fulfil its pledges in the three directions which I have named. Because of the failure of politicians to carry om the pledges they make, the workers of Australia are beginning to distrust Parliament and politicians. The man who would go up on the platform and say that he has no policy and no promises to make, but that, if returned, he will do what he can, is more sincere than the man who pledges himself to do a variety of things, none of which he does. Above all, the parties now in power have forfeited the trust of the people, who know that they will never carry out the pledges that they make. Labour, when returned to power, with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) as Prime Minister, will itself make good the promises which the United Australia party made before it was elected, and will implement a 40-hour week, social and unemployment insurance and housing policies. National insurance,, as proposed in the Ince plan, will be touched by no one, but Labour has a plan which it will put into operation. The ‘plan of this Government would impose upon the people a condition worse than the dole system in New South Wales. For all time the Ince scheme is in the wastepaper basket.

Debate (on motion by Mr. White) adjourned.

page 584

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1937

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2). ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means-:

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– I move- [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2)]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1936 as proposed to be amended by the Customs Tariff -Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-fourth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven, be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the eighth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1936 as so amended. By omitting the whole of Prefatory Note (12) and inserting in its stead the following Prefatory Note : - " (12) (a) Mechanical driving units and apparatus for transmitting power from such driving units to the driven units, when incorporated in orforming part of machines, machinery or machine tools, shall not, unless the Tariff specifically so directs, be dutiable under the Tariff Item applicable to the machines, machinery or machine tools in which they are incorporated or of which they form a port, but shall be dutiable under the Tariff Item or Tariff . Items applicable respectively to similar mechanical driving units and to similar apparatus for transmitting power from such driving units to the driven units, when not incorporated in or forming part of machines, machinery or machine tools. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Nothing in the last preceding paragraph shall apply to mechanical driving units or to apparatus for transmitting power from such driving units to the driven units, when incorporated in or forming part of machines, machinery or machine tools to which the Minister directs, by notice published in the *Gazette,* that it shall not apply. 1. For the purposes of the last two preceding paragraphs, the expression " mechanical, driving units " means any apparatus or appliance producing motive power and operated by means of steam, oil, electricity, petrol, air, water, alcohol or any other liquid or gas, and includes all devices for regulating starting or controlling such mechanical driving units, whether such devices be incorporated in or form part of the mechanical driving units or the driven units.". [Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1034-1036 be amended as hereunder et ant, and that on and after the eighth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty -seven," at nine, o'clock in- the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance, of the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1931-1936 as so amended. The first of the two resolutions which I have just moved amends prefatory note 12 in the Customs Tariff schedule, also the tariff item covering iron and steel plate and sheet. The object of the amendment to the prefatory note is to ensure to Australian manufacturers of motive power units the full measure of protection accorded them under the tariff. This object has recently been difficult of achievement due to doubts being cast on the departmental interpretation of the word " integral". The present prefatory note reads as follows: - >Unless the tariff otherwise provides, motive power, engine combinations and power connexions, when not integral parts of machines, machinery, or machine tools, shall be dutiable under their respective headings. The matter has been more definitely defined in legal phraseology, and it now is naturally a longer story; but, while it does not alter the meaning intended in the original prefatory note, it will give full effect to the protection which the Australian manufacturers were intended to enjoy under the various items. The other item in the first resolution relates to iron and steel plate and sheet, plain. The reduction is made 'by means of a proviso which will operate only until the 31st August, 1938. The previous rates of duty were - >Fifteen per cent. (British preferential tariff), with amaximum duty of 48s. per ton. > >Fifteen per cent, and 70s. per ton (intermediate tariff). > >Twenty-seven and a half per cent, and 70s. per ton (general tariff). The new rates will be - >Ten per cent. (British preferential tariff), with a maximum of 28s. per ton. > >Fifteen per cent and 20s. per ton (intermediate tariff). > >Twenty-seven and a half per cent, and 20s. per ton (general tariff). Honorable members may be aware that certain manufacturers have had difficulty in obtaining supplies of iron sheets. This refers not to automotive sheets, but to those used in the manufacture of stoves, hollow ware, &c. The Australian mills are able to supply a large proportion of the demand, but recently they have slipped behind, while the British output has also been inadequate, largely because of Britain's re-armament policy. This shortage has caused users to look to foreign sources. Imports could be admitted under by-law, but the Government desires to preserve the revenue and to ensure that such British supplies as are available will be bought, as well as the total Australian output. Therefore, it has been provided in the amending schedule that English steel will still be cheaper than foreign steel. The effect of the second resolution amending the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1934-36 is to apply customs duties equivalent to the duty under the intermediate tariff to costumes and dresses, sparking plugs and piston rings for internal combustion engines when those goods are of Canadian origin. The increases of duty on these Canadian goods are - >Costumes, drosses and robes - . > >Cotton, linen and other material - 3s. each. Wool - 5s. each. > >Silk - 4s. each. > >Plus for all types, 17½ per cent, ad valorem. > >Piston rings - 30 per cent., with minimum of 2½d. each. > >Sparking plugs - each 3d., or ad valorem20 per cent. Hitherto, these Canadian goods have been admitted into the Commonwealth at the British preferential rates in accordance with the agreement of 1931. Unfortunately, under that agreement, which was made during the regime of the Scullin Government, there was no provision for the imposition of dumping duties, and, therefore, an adjustment could be made only in accordance with article 9. By mutual arrangement between the governments, this adjustment has been made. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Is that adjustment regarded as adequate? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Yes. Various manufacturers stated that, with the increase of the importation of frocks from Canada, the business of Australian manufacturers would be seriously interfered with, because the landed cost of the Canadian goods was so low as to amount to dumping. Importations from Canada increased from £1,824 in 1935- 36 to £20,950 in 1936-37. Buyers were visiting Canada regularly to obtain supplies, and it was stated that before long many workmen would be displaced in Australian factories. The same thing applied but to a less extent in regard to sparking plugs. I hope that the pre- sent proposals will satisfactorily adjust the matter, and will assure to the Australian industry, the protection to which it is entitled. Progress reported. SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1937-38. (Debate resumed from page 5S3). {: #subdebate-15-1-s1 .speaker-KEM} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Flinders .- L desire first to offer to the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** and the Government my congratulations on the budget, and also a measure of sympathy, i desire to congratulate the Government on the courage and honesty with which it has faced the dangerous and unpleasant facts of the present international situation and, even more, on the way in which it has spurned any temptation to bring down an electioneering budget. To have done so, I admit, would, in the present state of affairs, have been to betray the people of Australia. The Government has shown in this budget that it is prepared, if necessary, to risk defeat rather than betray the people; and I believe that it will, in consequence, earn respect and support. By the steadfastness and resolution which they exhibited during the depression, scorning the so-called easy way to recovery, and by their readiness to make sacrifices to win back to prosperity, the people of Australia demonstrated their ability to make parliamentary democracy work. I am confident that those same qualities will be shown again at this time of international crisis, and that the people will return a government pledged to a policy of adequate defence. I desire also to express a-certain amount of sympathy for the Treasurer and the Government, and the people generally, because it has not been possible in this budget to continue to hand to the people, by way of remission of taxation, the reward that was so well earned during the difficult years of the depression. I do not wish to deal with the defence policy of the Government in detail, because the more I study defence problems the less inclined I feel to back my opinions against the opinions of experts. I shall content myself with general observations. I support the policy of the Government because it is a well-balanced policy framed on the basis of Empire co-operation. As one who joined the air force at the age of eighteen, and has followed its progress with thu greatest interest ever since, as one with some considerable enthusiasm for the potent. al value of the air force in time of war, I have to state that my know.edge, such as it is, and my enthusiasm lead me to believe that the air force should be developed not at the expense of the other arms,, but rather with a view to co-operating with them. Particularly do I commend the Government on having based its policy upon the principle of co-operation with the Empire's defence programme. The more the Government follows this policy, the more enthusiastically shall I support it. It was suggested in the course of an excellent speech this afternoon by the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Collins)** that we should not be prepared to wait, as honorable members of the Opposition have suggested we should, until an enemy lands on our shores, before seeking to defend ourselves. He said that he would rather go to meet the enemy with our ships and our aircraft 500 miles out to sea. That is a considerable improvement upon the suggestion of the Opposition, but I would go further, and suggest that any attempt to invade Australia should be met several thousands of miles from our shores. For that reason, I believe that every on« of our three defence arms should bc equipped and trained with a view to cooperating at Singapore, with the other forces of the Empire for the safety of Australia and the Empire as a whole. If that is done, Australians need neve.r fear that an invader will set foot on our shores. If we adopt a policy of selfsufficiency, we shall run suicidal risks. If we say that we shall not fight until Australia itself is attacked, every other unit of the Empire will be justified in making the same, reservation. By putting, our faith in a policy of that kind, we should be cutting ourselves off from the safeguard of the combined power of the Empire as a whole. The people must decide between supporting the Government in a well-balanced policy of Empire defence co-operation, and the risky, isolationist policy which has been advocated by influential members of the Opposition. As an election is approaching, I have taken considerable interest in statements made by prominent members of the Labour party, and have jotted down some remarks uttered by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward). His** utterances should be carefully noted by the people of Australia. He is one of the most prominent members of the Lang section of the Labour party, and we have it on the unimpeachable authority of the honora"ble and genial member for Reid **(Mr. Gander),** who is the whip of the Lang Labour group, that if a. Labour government were returned to power, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** would be Treasurer. Everybody knows that a Treasurer plays a most important part in defence deliberations, as in other matters, and, therefore, I draw attention to the fact that the honorable member for East Sydney has made the following statement with regard to defence - "I think nothing could be more damaging than a unified Empire policy". I do not consider that the people of Australia are prepared to entrust the government and the security of their country to a party which, if returned to power, would have as Treasurer a parliamentarian holding that view. Of the many interesting figures supplied by the Treasurer in the budget speech, those which I desire to comment on this afternoon appertain to factory employment in Australia. I hasten to reassure the House that I do not desire to refer to them in any spirit of party recrimination. I realize that, owing to betrayal by a section of its supporters, the Scullin Ministry was forced to depart from the policy advocated by its leader, thus making it impossible for the more responsible members of the party to remain within its folds, and bringing about the downfall of that government. It was in power for so short a period that it is impossible to tell what would have been the ultimate effect of its tariff policy had it continued in office. Personally I consider that a policy of prohibitive duties could have led only to disaster. Before the depression, which the Scullin Government, unfortunately, had to face, the number of workers employed in factories in Australia was 450,000. In 1931-32, in the depth of the depression, the figure fell to 337,000. Then the Lyons Government came into power. *[Quorum formed.]* During the regime of the Lyons Administration the total number of persons employed in factories in Australia increased to 535,000, an increase of about 200,000 above the depression figures, and 85,000 over the pre-depression peak figures. During its term of over five years, the Lyons Government has from time to time adopted a much more moderate tariff policy than that of the Scullin Ministry, its object being to safeguard adequately our secondary industries, and at the same time to promote our overseas trade. Duties have been considerably reduced from time to time from the level at which they stood when the Lyons Government took office. Whenever action has been taken to reduce a tariff item, or to effect a trade treaty, the Opposition, particularly its indefatigible **Deputy** Leader **(Mr. Forde),** has attacked the Government for its tariff smashing, and for pulling down the sacred wall of protection. 'Almost on the verge of tears, the honorable gentleman has spoken of the betrayal of the Australian manufacturers, and of the countless numbers of Australian workers who have been thrown out of their jobs. When a trade treaty with Belgium was being negotiated, he treated us to a pitiful story of the destruction of Austraiian secondary industries. Although the debate lasted for several days, shares in the Australian Glass Company increased from 62s. to 65s. ! In the Deputy Leader's impassioned appeal, he declared that the Government was hard-hearted, and had betrayed the glass industry in the interests of many thousands of primary producers, who were then in a state verging on bankruptcy. I have never heard that a solitary man was put off by tho Australian Glass Company, and since that time the company's profits have increased to such an extent that to-day its shares are quoted at 85s. That was an example of tariff slashing and tearing down the sacred wall of protection! I consider it an insult to the Australian manufacturer, and to the Australian workman alike, to suggest that they require a prohibitive tariff. Of course, the manufacturer must have protection in most cases, and the Government is prepared to give it to him; but the figures which I have cited show that, whilst the Lyons Government applied its sane tariff policy, the number of factory employees increased by 85,000 beyond the peak figure prior to the depression. Lt has been suggested that the volume of employment in factories has not increased in proportion to the increase of population. I have calculated that whilst the number employed has increased by approximately 85,000, or 16.6 per cent., the population increased during the same period by only 10.3 per cent. Therefore, under the policy that has been carried out by the present Government, our secondary industries have not only held their own, but made a 50 per cent, greater increase of employment than the increase of population. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- The employment position to-day shows considerable improvement, even allowing for the increase of population in the meantime. {: .speaker-KEM} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- That is so. This justifies a continuance of that policy, and even a stronger application of it. I make that statement for several reasons. First, there is the purely local consideration of Australian interests. We have a great exportable surplus, for which we have difficulty in finding markets, and t lie only way to safeguard our markets is to trade with other countries. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- What about the loss of £7,500,000 when Japan got a smack in the eye? {: .speaker-KEM} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN: -- I have been so flattering to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** that he might accord me the favour of allowing me to go on with my speech. The greatest men whom I have met have proved to be the best listeners, and I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition might endeavour to achieve some measure of greatness in that direction.. It is essential to adopt a tariff policy which enables Australia to trade with those countries which are prepared to trade with it. It is well known that our good rainfall areas are being more intensively developed, and that it is possible to increase production in some areas by from 200 to 400 per cent. However much we may expand our secondary industries, we must obtain increased markets overseas for our surplus primary products. Therefore, I suggest a stronger implementation of the tariff policy which the present Government has applied. There is also the additional reason of peace. Honorable members opposite are always talking of their love of peace. I hope and feel that in most cases this is sincere. It is also the sincere wish of every decent man in Australia and in the world that peace may be preserved. But the greatest factor in disturbing the peace of the world, apart from suspicion and international hatreds! - forces which I do not think are strong enough in themselves ever to drive the world to war again - is starvation for raw materials. Certain countries of the world are starved of raw materials. A.notable Australian said recently that it was absurd to say that certain nations were starved of raw materials. He added " We will sell them all the raw material they care to come and buy". He must have been talking with his tongue in his cheek, because he must have known that we will not buy goods from those countries so as to give them purchasing power in Australia. Anybody who genuinely seeks peace in the world must stand for the reduction of tariff levels in order to encourage international trade and to enable peoples of various countries to buy their raw materials where such materials are available. The solution of troubles in this regard is not, as I see it, in the alteration of international boundaries. Recently I travelled through many European countries and heard a good deal of talk about the disabilities from which those countries suffered. It was suggested that their abject was to get back certain territories. When I examined their proposal for the return of territory I found that if SUB] a return of territory were made, corresponding disabilities would be inflicted upon other peoples. The relinquishment of certain territory by one country to another will not solve the problem. My theory is that the solution of many international problems is not in the readjustment of boundaries but in the lowering of tariff walls to such an extent that trade between countries would be a very great deal freer than it is to-day, and intercourse between them would oe so free that the crossing of boundaries would be almost imperceptible. ' I note with interest the proposal of the Government to set aside a sum of money for tho initiation of a scheme of social insurance. For that 1 commend the Government ; at the same time I warn it not to be stampeded into precipitate adoption of a half-baked scheme of insurance for window-dressing purposes. To be successful any scheme of social insurance must fulfil three fundamentals. First, it must give real security to those who insure under it; secondly, such security must be removed from the odium of charity; and, thirdly, [he scheme must be of such a nature as to cause no doubt about the country's ability to finance it. Without referring to specific instances, -I remind honorable members that in the sphere of Commonwealth and State politics governments have often rushed into schemes which were desirable in themselves but which, because "of the haste with which they were adopted, were robbed of any chance of success. For example, governments have said "We must do something about closer settlement ". They have apparently felt that whatever was done must be done in haste. The results have been disastrous to the finances of the governments and the settlers themselves. The Government should not take any definite steps to implement social insurance until it has secured the co-operation of every State government, and any scheme must be subjected to the three tests that I have mentioned. It must assure real security, remove any suggestion of charity, and be within the financial competence of the country. We have been informed that a proposal is now being considered by a committee of experts representative of each State. It would be a good idea if more of our social problems could be considered in this way. » I advocate as well the establishment of non-party Parliamentary committees to consider our various social problems. We often boast that we faithfully follow the methods of the mother of parliaments, but we have drifted away from the procedure of the Parlia- ment of the United Kingdom in not mak- ing more use of non-party committees of the House. With the Commonwealth Parliament meeting in Canberra there is a great opportunity for action of this kind. Every conscientious member of the House who is . not a member of Cabinet or a party leader must feel that there is little opportunity in Canberra for doing real work. But if non-party committees of the House were appointed to study our social problems a great deal of useful work could be done. We have countless problems to consider. Population is one; the making of the lot of the rural worker more attractive is another; and the improvement of the status of the domestic worker is still another. These problems all deal with more or less unspectacular subjects, but unless they are seriously considered by members of this Parliament great difficulties which face us will probably remain unsolved. We hear a good deal about the need for a 40-hour week. In Australia a great deal of good has admittedly been achieved through our arbitration courts. Much . has been done to improve the conditions of city workers, but unfortunately not so much attention has been paid to the lot of the rural workers. I admit that the Arbitration Court has elevated the conditions of shearers and some other workers in the pastoral industry, but there is a great deal more to be done to improve the conditions of the married rural workers. Various awards of the court have improved the lot of the rural workers, but when such workers desire to achieve what should be the ambition of every- young man, that is, the joy of marrying and caring for a family, they are frequently forced to leave country districts and seek work in a city in some sphere which will not be nearly so congenial to them. I have known many young splendid station hands with a love for country life who have been forced to go to work in the city because conditions in the country made it almost impossible for them to marry and make a home for a wife and family. I refer to the lack of homes for married men rather than rates of pay and hours of labour. In Victoria unmarried country workers receive £2 5s. a week in addition to decent quarters and a decent table. That is a fairly reasonable standard of living for an unmarried man. But if a man marries and has to keep a family in a village miles away from his work it means that his family is practically on the breadline. Something should be done to face the problem of housing for country workers. There are various ways in which it might be done, hut all of them are so surrounded by obstacles that I shall not embark upon a discussion of them at the moment. This is a subject, however, on which there could with advantage be considerable investigation. I have, so far, been talking of what may be described as the more favoured country workers. Men who work longer hours and often have much less congenial conditions are those employed by dairy farmers. I do not in any way criticize the dairy farmers, because their economic position does not make it possible for the majority of them, with prices at the existing level, to pay higher wages or provide better conditions. The problem with- which I am now dealing demands the most careful consideration. Unless *it* is solved, we shall find that the Australian-bom country man who is not so fortunate as to be able to get a farm with the help of his father, will gradually drift into our cities and towns, and his place will bo taken by foreigners. I do not wish to speak disparagingly in any way of the many excellent foreign settlers who are working in country districts in Australia. But every country must, in the last resort, be judged as to its national character by its rural population. Although England is, with the possible exception of Belgium, the most industrialized country of the world, when we think of the English character we think of the people who live in the shires and counties of England. It is they who typify the English character and are the stalwart backbone and background of the nation. Australia is becoming more and more industrialized, but when we think of the typical Australian we think not of the city dweller but of the long, lean chap swinging along on his horse somewhere up in the mulga country. That is where we find our finest type. It should there fore be our desire to frame our national policy in such a way as t« assist the rural community and to make life in the country as attractive as possible. I had intended to trace to some extent the development of civil aviation in Australia, but as the Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** is not in the chamber at the moment, and time is limited, I shall reserve my observations for a later opportunity, should one occur when the Works Estimates are under observation. Although this debate has been devoted largely to electioneering purposes, that is not a ground for criticism. It is quite right that the Government's budget should be considered by the House, with a view to providing the people with an opportunity to form an opinion as to what policy shall be implemented after the next elections. But personalities, such a3 those indulged in by the honorable member for East Sydney when he made a scurrilous and unfounded attack on the honorable member for Hume, simply because that honorable member had fortunately sold his wool on a good market, are entirely to bo deplored. Members on both sides who have put forward the views of their party in regard to policy have more often than not been well justified. It is upon policy that the people of Australia have to decide. They have not to decide whether they like best the kindly sincerity of the Prime Minister or the equally kindly sincerity of the Leader of the Opposition. They have not to decide whether they admire most the martial qualities of the Minister for Defence or those of the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green).** They have not to decide ' whether they prefer the genial hard-working Treasurer, or his vitriolic counterpart, the honorable member for East Sydney. Personalities should not be brought into this House. But it is not wrong to direct the attention of the people of Australia to the policies in respect of which they have to make a choice. In the matter of defence, they will have to choose between a well-balanced policy that is founded on co-operation with the rest of the Empire, and one that would commence to operate only when the enemy had placed his feet on the shores of Australia. They will have to choose between a policy of moderate tariffs, which has' been responsible for increasing considerably the output of our manufacturing industries,, and one which has attacked every modification of the tariff and advocates apparently that Australia should revert to prohibitive duties. I do not criticize the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** because he introduced a prohibitive tariff, but I criticize his party because it considers that a prohibitive tariff should be maintained to-day. Lastly, there is the financial policy of this Government. The people of Australia must decide whether they want to follow the policy of sound finance which has given to the people of Australia the opportunity to recover economically. We on this side do not believe that it is possible for any government to produce prosperity by means of legislation. In our view, the function of government is so to govern that the country may profit by the individual efforts of the community. I recommend the people of Australia to keep in office a government which is committed to a sound policy of defence^ in co-operation with the rest of the Empire, which stands for the policy of trading with those countries that wish to trade with us, and which believes in allowing the people of Australia to ensure their own prosperity. {: #subdebate-15-1-s2 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
Herbert .- I wish to reply to one or two of the observations of the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Fairbairn).** {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- I am reluctant .to take a point of order, but I wish to draw attention to the order in which you, **Mr. Speaker,** are giving the call to honorable members. Two honorable members whom you have called this afternoon were not present either last Thursday afternoon or this morning. During their absence on Thursday I rose in my place on two occasions. When I referred the matter to you, you informed me that you had a list of honorable members who wished to speak, and that you intended to call them in the order in which they appeared on that list. I protest against your adoption of this practice. I contend that you are not acting rightly in keeping a list, of honorable members who have been absent from this chamber while others who wish to speak have been in continuous attendance. {: #subdebate-15-1-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Although the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** has not stated a point of order, I have listened to the protest he has made. If he refers ito the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Martens)** as having been absent on Thursday, as apparently he does, he is wrong in his statement. That honorable member was present until the House rose on Thursday. The list that I keep is for my own information. As many as seven honorable members whose names appear on it had not spoken up to the time when the House last adjourned. I cannot remember the order in which honorable members rise 'unless I keep such a list. I add no name to the list except that of an honorable member who has risen and endeavoured to secure the call. The honorable member for Herbert rose before the honorable member for Hunter; that is the real point at issue.; and, as I have already stated, he was here until the sitting ended on Thursday last. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- He was not here this morning, yet his name is on your list. The honorable member for Cook was not here on Thursday, yet hia name also was on the list. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The honorable member for Hunter is quite wrong. The honorable member for Cook was here when I added his name to the list on Thursday. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- He was not here on Thursday afternoon, because he had left Canberra by car. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have called honorable members in the order in which they have risen. The honorable member for Hunter did not rise till to-day. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- The honorable member for Flinders said that the rural workers' problem is a very difficult one. Having had a long experience in the Arbitration Court, I can say that those responsible are the interests which he claims to represent. The Moore Government, in Queensland, denied to rural workers the opportunity to approach the Arbitration Court. It even went so far as to amend the act so as to prevent the Arbitration Court from investigating in any way the conditions of rural workers. It also included station hands in the definition of rural workers, with the result that they, too, lost the benefits conferred by the act. A round-table conference with the Australian Workers Union, the big organization in that industry, I believe would effect an eminently satisfactory settlement as far as the majority of the employers in the industry are concerned; but, generally speaking, the big interests, which are the most difficult to deal with, are composed of overseas squatters, whom we rarely see. The domestic problem is another which presents many difficulties. Domestic servants are. not covered by the arbitration law, even in the State of Queeusland. On every occasion when the opportunity has been presented to bring them within the ambit of the act, or to obtain anything like decent working conditions for them, the representatives of the pastoral industries and of rural industries generally have deplored the suggestion, and have done everything they could to prevent its adoption. Those who look after their domestic servants have no difficulty with them.. I speak as one who, for quite a number of years, was associated with the Australian Workers Union. For three years before I entered this Parliament I was the head of the Queensland branch of that organization, which had in its ranks 58,000 members. Efforts have been made by the Australian Workers Union to induce the Graziers Association to agree to a conference, but they have failed. If it were not for the Arbitration Act, the conditions of shearers and station hands would not be what they are to-day. I know that in the State of Western Australia we organized the station hands for a period of eight months. Claims were obtained from employees on a large number of stations ; but, when the case came before the court, the employers were able to show that those men were no longer in their employ ; and a federal award covers only those who are included in the claim. The honorable member for Flinders also referred to the fair treatment that the Government had given to the manufacturers of this country. The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** tabled this afternoon a schedule which makes provision for increased protection for a number of Australian industries. That may be merely a sop to the manufacturers of this country because we are within a month or two of an election. The Minister himself made the statement that the Government believed that these proposals would afford necessary protection, thus admitting that in the cases affected the existing protection against the manufacturers of Canada was not adequate. Reductions of duty have been made in respect of a number of tariff items, while small increases have been granted in other cases. I say quite definitely that if the employers of labour generally were prepared to meet their, employees round a table, better results would be obtained than are likely from any court, no matter how it is constituted, because, generally speaking, these discussions take place between men who understand the whole matter from the viewpoints of both the worker and the employer. But the employers will not do that. The family whose name the honorable member for Flinders bears was one of the families with which it was very difficult to deal in the early days. Amongst stockmen, it was regarded as by no means the fairest they could wish to have dealings with. The honorable member also eulogized the Government for having done wonderful work. The honorable member for Grey **(Mr. McBride),** too, made a statement which I shall endeavour to correct a little later. The statement of the honorable member for Flinders was that the confidence which the people of this country felt in the Government was due to its administration and its activities. My reply to that is, that when this Government came into power it received from the Scullin Government a favourable trade balance of £32,000,000 in the London accounts; whereas, when the Scullin Government came into power there was an adverse trade balance in the London accounts of £30,000,000. Thus that government corrected the position to the extent of £62,000,000 in a matter of only 22 months. Whatever claims maybe made on behalf of the present Government, that action of the Scullin Government did more than anything else to restore confidence in Australia. As with individuals, so it is with nations - confidence is reposed only in those who meet their obligations. The honorable member for Grey asserted that the Leader of the Opposition had claimed that the Scullin Administration was responsible for the Hoover moratorium, which has saved this country an enormous amount - running into millions of pounds - each year. I have not heard either the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Curtin) make that claim. What they have said is that action was taken during the regime of the Scullin Government. The right honorable member for Yarra was overseas at the time, and I have not the slightest doubt that he made some representations through the Imperial authorities with a view to obtaining some relief for Australia. The present Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** would have done the same. I have no wish to claim any special credit for the right honorable member for Yarra, but I do believe that he looked after Australia's interests in that matter, and that a considerable saving was effected by virtue of the action then taken. This Government would otherwise have been in a very much worse position than that in which it now finds itself. *Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]* {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- I was dealing with the criticism of the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Fairbairn)** of the import prohibitions and tariffs of the Scullin Government. The honorable member said that the Labour party still believed in those things. I assure the honorable member that this party does still believe in those things, andin support of that policy I shall refer to no less an authority than the present High Commissioner for Australia in London. He made a statement in London which is always worth repeating in this connexion when he informed the Associated Chambers of Commerce that had it not been for the policy pursued by Australia at that time, Australia would not have made the recovery it did. But what he did not say was that every member of the Opposition at that time opposed the doing of those things. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- That is not so, because members of the then Opposition voted for them. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- Every member of the Opposition opposed the Scullin Government in this respect, and none were more bitter in that . Opposition than the Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill),** the Minister who was lately directing negotiations for trade treaties **(Sir Henry Gullett),** and the present Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White).** {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- If the honorable member looks up my speech he will find that I supported the then Government in this respect, except for its treatment of British preference. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- Members of -the then Opposition stated that the Scullin tariff constituted an attack on friendly nations. Nevertheless, and this is the point I emphasize, it was the Scullin Government's tariff policy which brought about the conditions upon which this Government has thrived. The Labour party still believes in a lot of those things, and it stands for bringing back a lot of the things which this Government has undone. I say, candidly, that it was the actions of the Scullin Government to which I have referred that put this Government where it is at the present time. A member of the Scullin Ministry was taken to lead the Opposition; he is now Prime Minister. On his transfer to the Opposition forces, he was regarded as a paragon of virtue by honorable members opposite, whereas previously they attributed all sorts of political vices to him. His selection as Prime Minister in the Government which succeeded the Scullin Government, was the reward he received in payment for his treacherous action which brought about the defeat of the Scullin Government. He and several others left the Labour party, for what? {: .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby: -- For Australia's good. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- No, for their own good. The other day the present Prime Minister challenged the right honorable member for Yarra. When that right honorable gentleman said that the present Government had no election plan, he replied that the previous Prime Minister had no plan, but was forced to go to the country. The present Prime Minis- ter was one of the individuals who forced the right honorable member for Yarra out of office. As another example of the Prime Minister's inconsistency, I recall the time when he rushed out of the party room exclaiming in front of a group of pressmen that he would never be a party to sending gold out of this country, because such action would ruin the credit of Australia. However, when he became Prime Minister his Government passed legislation with the object of exporting all the gold that this country possessed. A fiduciary notes issue, was terrible and would ruin the country, but to-day we have no gold backing for our note issue; with confidence restored every one seems to be going along all right, at least those who are fortunate enough to get some of the notes. It ill becomes the Prime Minister to talk about what sent the right honorable member for Yarra to the country on that occasion, and it ill becomes supporters of the present Government to talk about political treachery when their party is prepared at all times to pay the price for the individual they require to suit their purposes. That is what happened in respect of the Prime Minister's betrayal of the Scullin Government. I do not hesitate to say that he is not doing what he is doing to-day on his salary as Prime Minister. That was the price paid to him to oust the right honorable member for Yarra. As a member of the Scullin Cabinet, and holding an important position therein, he was a party to all the things done by the Scullin Government. On one occasion, when he challenged the right honorable member for Yarra with the statement, " I will tell of some of the things that happened in Cabinet ", the right honorable member for Yarra asked him to tell everything that happened, and also what he had opposed that the Government had clone. In view of these facts, it ill becomes the Prime Minister to talk about treachery. On one occasion in Hobart, he made a statement which does not do him credit as the occupant of his present position, lie said - >Experience has shown that those who had at any time departed from the Labour movement after having formed part of it, had invariably failed to block the growth and progress of the movement. As a matter of fact, very few men ever survived as politicians who have stepped out of the Labour ranks. Hav ing failed their own party, the opposite party has but a cold affection for them, and cannot be expected to show confidence in them. Speaking on the Hobart Domain, and referring to the breakaway of **Senator Ogden** from the Labour party, the Prime Minister also said - > **Senator Ogden** comes into the city today. and hits no one to bid him' welcome. He will go out to-morrow, and there will not be one to bid him Godspeed, lt is a terrible thing to sec a man sell his principles and the party that *has* lifted him up. 1 hope I shall never have the misfortune to leave my children the shame and the dishonour of one who has become a traitor to his own class in order to serve the enemies of the people. Yet the Prime Minister did the very things which, in 1916, he said he would never do. The statements which I have just read are those of a man who made the challenge to the right honorable member for Yarra which I have just indicated. If his health should break down it will not be because of his conscientious adherence to principles. The honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. John Lawson)** referred to the right honorable member for Yarra as a crooner. The honorable member has also sneered at the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. "Ward),** to whom he has referred as " this honorable gentleman ". I assure the honorable member for Macquarie thai the honorable member for East Sydney is as honorable as he is himself. The honorable member suggested also that the right honorable member for Yarra was begging for mercy. The right honorable gentleman made a statement in this House which the honorable member for Macquarie, or any other member on that side of the House, could not contradict. In any case, the right honorable member cannot be accused of being personal. He made a statement of what he believed to be the facts, and I believe everything he said. The only thing" he objected to was that the Minister for Defence had claimed for this Government all the credit for Australia's economic recovery. The Minister is certainly entitled to make such a claim, but at the same time it is surely the right cf another honorable member to say that he is not stating all of the facts. The honorable member for Macquarie claimed that the present Government was more loyal to the Crown than the Labour party. I came into this House originally as the head in Queensland of a great organization - the Australian Workers Union - which was referred to to-day by the honorable member for Flinders. Of that organization) 40,000 members enlisted for service in the Great War. Those men were prepared to pay the supreme sacrifice for their country, and many of them did so, whilst many of them were crippled, and cannot get a war pension to-day because it is alleged by the authorities that they are not suffering from the effects of war. In contrast to their, sacrifices, I point out that many other people in this country who helped to sool these men to the front, draw interest to-day on money invested in war loans. They loaned their money whilst other men risked their lives and others came back crippled. The latter are still making sacrifices whilst those who only lent their money sit back and draw the interest on their investments. Invest. ment in war loans represents their loyalty. Honorable members on this side of the House have been twitted by the Minister for Defence with the assertion that in the event of any war occurring, we wish to stay in Australia. In that respect the Minister contradicted the honorable member for Macquarie when he said that the only difference between the policy of the Labour party, and that of this Government was that in the event of an outside dispute this Government wished to cooperate with the Empire, whilst the Labour party wished that all Australian soldiers should stay here. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- I said nothing about an outside dispute. {: .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS: -- The Minister said more than once that if the Empire were embroiled in trouble, Australia should co-operate with Great Britain. I contend that at least 75 per cent, of the causes of war arises out of the activities and influence of munition manufacturers. The other night in this House the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Lazzarini)** named a gentleman of Greek origin who had figured prominently in the affairs of the British Empire, who had had various honours bestowed upon him by different nations, and who was known as the mystery man in the munitions ring which played one nation against, another. That sort of activity is being indulged in all the time, not only by individuals, but also by organizations. Honorable members may read numerous authoritative books in the Library which will prove that the international munitions ring is responsible for most wars. These people set one nation against another and then supply munitions, at inflated values, to the combatants. That fact can be proved by any honorable member who cares to read the speeches made by responsible Ministers in the Government of Great Britain, and prominent members of the House of Commons, during the war and immediately after the war. The munitions ring made enormous fortunes by overcharging the Government of Great Britain and the governments of other countries for munitions supplied to them. To-day a conflict is taking place between China and Japan and combatants are being destroyed by munitions supplied to both sides by the same manufacturers, who are interested solely in the manufacture of munitions for profit. I know that some honorable members and some people outside would say that men would not do things of that kind for profit, but I ask - Why do they do them? Why were British and Australian soldiers killed at Gallipoli by bullets and shells fired from guns made in- the factories of Great Britain? The international munitions ring is active in connexion with every war. By means of propaganda the munitions manufacturers inflame the minds of people of different countries with a view to rousing their passions and embroiling them in war solely for the purpose of making profits for themselves. It is suggested that the J apanese are fighting the Chinese for the preservation of national ideals, whereas actually the Japanese are fighting- to secure areas of China which, because of the existence of oil wells, will be of tremendous advantage to them should they succeed. That war, like every other war, has been brought about by the activities of the munitions ring in order to find a market for the sale of munitions. That statement can be proved by references to authentic sources; it is not merely information of the kind that is retailed by the man on the street corner. Books on this subject are available in the Library and can be referred to by honorable members who desire to do so. Dealing with the problem of defence, the Leader of the Opposition stressed the advisability of strengthening our air force to the utmost degree. He emphasized the fact that aeroplanes would play a very importantpart in any war which might take place. Like the honorable member for Flinders the Leader of the Opposition does not pose as an authority on this matter, but he agrees with the honorable member that air forces will play a very important part in any war that may take place. Because of that fact he stressed the necessity for developing the air force more than any other arm of our defence services.. There are numerous kinds of experts, including those engaged in the manufacture of poisonous gases used for the destruction of human life. One of the important personages who attended a conference recently held in Great Britain was Lord Halsbury, who said - >War on a large scale to-day would mean a conflict in which masses of civilians were blotted out in scarcely conceivable conditions of horror. One single bomb filled with modern asphyxiant gas would kill everybody in an area from Regent's Park to the Thames. Some honorable members may know the extent of that area; but I assume that it would be fairly large. That statement was made by a responsible person in the affairs of the nation. **Mr. Fenner** Brockway, in a book entitled, *The Bloody Traffic,* stated - >General J. P. C. Puller tells in that remarkable hook. *What Would be the Character of a New War,* that, "In the third battle of Ypres, which took place during the summer and autumn of 1917, the British fired 4,283,550 shells, costing £22,000,000, in the preliminary bombardment before the battle opened. > >But perhaps it will be better to formulate the charges at once. Here they are, in direct, unmistakable language - > >Armament firms have formed international rings *to* intensify armaments rivalry in order to get large orders. > >They have exploited their own nations by artificially maintaining exorbitant prices through the operations of armament trusts. > >Whilst claiming to be patriotic, they have supplied all countries with armaments, including enemy countries. > >They have deliberately created war scares. > >They have influenced countries to be warlike. 6.They have bribed government officials. > >They have lied about the military and naval programmes of other nations. > >They have used their influence over the press in order to inflame public opinion. > >They have used their influence in banking institutions in order to finance increased armament programmes in other countries. > >They have sent representatives to international conferences in order to hinder the achievement of disarmament. > >I shall justify these charges in detail, but it may be well, right at the commencement, to meet scepticism by quoting authoritative support for much of the case here outlined. The first authority he quoted is the League of Nations, which in 1921 appointed a commission to inquire into the private manufactureof arms. Brockway states that - >The League of Nations is a very moderate institution. The governments of Europe which compose it are in some cases imperialist and in all cases capitalist. Yet the commission which the League appointed to inquire into the problem of the private manufacture of arms came to these conclusions in 1921 - > >Armament firms have been active in fomenting war scares and in persuading their own countries to adopt warlike policies and to increase their armaments. > >Armament firms have attempted to bribe government officials both at home and abroad. > >Armament firms . have disseminated false reports concerning the military and naval programmes of various countries in order to stimulate armament expenditure. > >Armament firms have sought to influence public opinion through the control of newspapers in their own and foreign countries. > >Armament firms have organized international armament rings, through which the armaments race has been accentuated by playing off one country against another. > >Armament firms have organized international armament trusts, which have increased the. price of armaments to governments. > >Unfortunately, the evidence upon which these conclusions were reached has not been officially published, but the efforts of investigators and research workers in various countries have revealed sufficient facts to enable onenot only to repeat the charges of the League, but to add the other charges which are included in my indictment. I could cite many similar instances showing how individuals and organizations are responsible for war and have a strong influence in world affairs. Some are always endeavouring to bring about war - they expect others to do the fighting - with the one object "of making profit for themselves at the expense of other members of the community. A further extract from the same book reads - >The French Government has conferred upon Zaharoff the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, and the British Government has knighted him and made him Guardian of the. British Empire. The University of Oxford has conferred upon him the degree of D.C.L. Such are the honours held by a triumphant salesman in the armament business. > >Patriotically, he began re-equipping and extending the Greek army. Then, in accordance with armament technique, he sold Greece (the great powers having turned it down) the first submarine ever produced. An immortal honour for the Greek navy! That accomplished, his interests widened. He convinced Turkey that, if Greece had one submarine, she ought to have two. Turkey bought. He convinced Russia that Turkey's submarines would menace her shipping in the Black Sea. Russia bought. And so the terror of the submarine was launched under the waters of the world. Within a few days the representatives of the leading European powers will be meeting at Geneva to deal with the menace of submarines operating in the Mediterranean and off the coast of Spain, which should be treated as pirates and shot down. Listening to the statements of honorable members opposite concerning loyalty to the British Crown, one would think that they are the only loyal members of the community, but their loyalty is no greater than that of honorable members on this side of the chamber or of the working class whom we represent. This is another interesting fact - >During 1915 and 1910 Sweden sent to Germany 2,470 and 2,064 tons respectively or boots and shoes. The boots were of military pattern and for the use of the German army, and the above figures represent for these two years over 4,500,000 pairs. During the same period, in addition to the boots Sweden, sent to Germany and Austria nearly 50,000 head of cattle on hoof, 6,000 tons of hides and skins, and more than 2,000 tons of tanning materials and tanning extracts. This traffic was assisted by 2,800 tons of hides and skins, and 3,400 tons of tanning materials and extracts which Sweden received during 1915. and 1916 from the United Kingdom and the British Empire. That is one of the acts of loyalty of these great patriots who claim loyalty to the British Throne and who on the recommendation of the Government become titled gentlemen of the British Empire. Another extract reads - >Many firms are engaged in the simultaneous production of armaments for Japan and China. Arising from this there arose a curious incident at a British armament works which **Mr. Morgan** Jones, M.P., described in the House of Commons on February 27. " At a certain factory ", he said, " armaments were being prepared in one part of the building for Japan and in another for China. By an unfortunate chance the representatives of governments arrived at the factory at the same time and were shown into the same room. There they began to discuss the charges made try the firm for their munitions, with the result that they agreed to a joint ultimatum asking for a reduction in prices. Couldthe irony of facts go further? If the Japanese and Chinese representatives had met on the battlefield they would have attempted to kill each other. They had come to this firm to buy weapons so that their countrymen could kill each other. And what do they do? They do not even hurl words at each other. They coolly discussed the price which each other is paying for the slaughter of the other's compatriots and decide to join forces in bargaining with the armament maker. What a bloody game it is. So it is. When they met they did not find fault with one another. All they were concerned about was the extent to which their governments would be financially involved in the purchase of munitions. A few individuals get busy and by means of propaganda inflame the minds of the people, just as this Government is doing, and in that way bring about war. But whom are we going to fight? We are told that there is danger and that there is someone at our backdoor. Propaganda is disseminated with the idea of inflaming the minds of the people who are told that they are likely to be attacked. SirArchdale Parkhill,. - We have been told by honorable members opposite that the policy of the Labour party is as good as that of the Government. What nation does the Labour party think will attack us? {: #subdebate-15-1-s4 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- The Labour party has a policy for the effective defence of Australia, but its representatives are not telling the people that they are likelyto be attacked. The following is a report of a portion of the proceedings before a royal commission of inquiry in the United States of America conducted by **Mr. Hull:-** > **Mr. Hull.** You say they are kept in training on this foreign business? > > **Mr. Monahan.** Yes, sir. > > **Mr. Hull.** That is arms and ammunition for war purposes? > > **Mr. Monahan.** We never know what part of the exports, or what we call these metallic cartridges, are going to be used for war purposes and what part for protection, policing, and sport purposes. > > **Mr. Hull.** In order to keep in tune, to keep in practice you have got to have trouble going on in some part of the world. > > **Mr. Monahan.** Yes, sir. > > **Mr. Hull.** In other words, to be prepared for war in your own country, you must hope for continuous wars in other countries. At a later stage in the proceedings **Mr. Monahan** replied in the affirmative. There is an old German legend which reads - " A fool stands by the side of the road and watches the approach of a body of armed troops. He asks where these men come from and he is told from peace. He then asks where they are going and he is told that they are going to war. He asks what they do in the war and is told that they kill the enemy and burn their cities. He then asks why they do that and he is informed that they do so to make peace. The fool then said thathe could not understand why they come from peace to go into war in order to make peace They should, he said, stay at peace in the first place. The absence of a common language prevents the nations of the world from understanding clearly one another's difficulties. In my electorate it is difficult to get some of the people to understand the language which I speak. If itis hard to get the members of small communities to understand what is required of them, how great must be the difficulty when millions are involved? When an attempt was made in Britain recently to encourage the teaching of Esperanto an order was issued to prevent the language being taught. Had encouragement been given in that direction we should have been going a long way towards providing a better understanding between the nations, and have taken a definite step towards international peace. A further extract from the same authority reads - >But the world war was the golden time of the armament firms. Europe was turned into a sea of blood and the bloody traffic profited. In the early stages of the war the armament firms could charge what they liked and they did. Later, the governments passed legislation restricting the profits, but even these high profits were permitted. In Britain, for instance, the profit fixed was 20 per cent., selected because it represental pre-war profit. Men were conscripted. They had to face death or mutilation for life. They had to surrender their future prospects by devoting the creative years of young manhood to the wasted existence of the trenches. But profits on the weapons of war were allowed to remain at their pre-war figure. On every shell that shattered young men to bits there was a profit of 20 per cent. Up to the spring of 1916, certain main types of cordite had cost 2s. 3d. per lb., but the accountants reported in the case of a propellant factory - to the provision of which the firm had contributed ?464,000 - that the price beingobtained represented the dividend of 105.7 per cent, per annum on this capital. **Dr. Addison** gives tables showing the gross over-charging of which the armament firms were guilty. The following is an example: - The capital of the sixT..N.T.. factories was ?1,473,000,but by April, 1917, they had already produced T.N.T. which, as against contract prices, had given asur plus of ?2,404,318. They had therefore completely wiped out their total cost of provision, and had left a balance over of 38 per cent. That was done in a short period by those who are continually stirring up trouble, and who want war. As stated by **Mr. Monahan,** in giving evidence before the royal commission in the United States of America, unless war is in progress factories cannot be kept going. This is another interesting little scheme of these people - >During the war hundreds of people were prosecuted by the vigilant Attorney-General for violation of the espionage act, hut who has heard of the prosecution of a war profiteer, said **Mr. Graham, chairman** of the Committee on expenditure on the War Department. > >The fraud committed by the Carnegie Steel Company was to supply armour plate which contained " blow holes " as fit for use. The head of the department, **Mr. William** E. Corey, acknowledged that the general superintendent of the company, **Mr. Charles** M. Schwab, was also aware of what was being done, and **Mr. Schwab** himself acknowledged that he gave orders that the occurrence of " blow holes " should not mean the rejection of the armour plate. He thought it was "likely " that his company concealed the fact of these defects in their supplies. The President of the United States imposed damages of 140.000 dollars on the company. Despite this scandal, **Mr. Schwab** retained his prominence in the American armament industry, and in the world war was actually appointed by the Government as the DirectorGeneral of the Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation. The duty of this body waa to superintend the making of contracts between the Government and the armament firms for ship-building. It is amazing that a man who confessed to having done a thing of that kind should be considered sufficiently good by a government of a great nation to take over the important position which he did take. Any quantity of similar information can be found in the Parliamentary Library, and, unless they be beyond reform, honorable members who care to read it must conclude that the statements contained therein are true. Their truth is testified to by Ministers and honorable members in both Houses of the British legislature and by members of parliament in many different parts of the world. When this party says that it will not be a party to sending men out of this country to take part in outside brawls, it is justified. Sixty thousand of our men were killed in the Great War when we took part in a conflict against Germans and others with whom our soldiers never previously had even come into contact. When they went abroad, our men had the idea that they were being sent overseas to fight for this country, but many since their return have had a real awakening. Many have , been told that they cannot get pensions because their disabilities are not due to war service. I have already told this House of a relative of mine who, in all his life, both before and since his enlistment with the Australian Imperial Forces, had never worked in a confined space, and who, in fact, was a head stockman on a Queensland station. This man, who is only one of a vast number, was discharged from the army as being medically fit. After a passage of time, he suffered an illness which doctors told him was due to collodium as the result of his being twice gassed. The repatriation doctors, however, declare that he is not the victim of war circumstances. Men who work in the open air in Queensland do not develop lung troubles unless they be so careless as to lie about in the cold, and my relative is not a man of that sort. His case is typical of thousands of others. When he was Minister for Repatriation, the late **Sir Neville** Howse said that the greatest difficulty confronting this Commonwealth in the future would be the fact that when returned men reached the age of 45, illnesses and disabilities undreamt of would show themselves and the result would be a drain on the finances of this country. Two tribunals were set up to deal with returned soldiers' repatriation claims. In the first twelve months of their existence, the tribunals were considered too fair and then, when they were charged by the then Auditor-General, **Mr. Cerruty,** with playing fast and loose with public funds, they went to the other extreme. The prediction made by **Sir Neville** Howse was correct. We see about us every day the results of war service upon men who, generally speaking, were considered to be physically fit when discharged from the army, but who have since developed troubles towards the development of which they themselves have done nothing to contribute. Yet we are told by the Repatriation Commission and the commission's doctors that * these men are not victims of the war. What are they then? They went away from Australia perfect specimens of men and they came back to this country and were discharged from the army. The late **Mr. P.** E. Coleman, who was formerly member for Reid, was no doubt a victim of the set of circumstances which enable the Repatriation Commission to refuse a pension to returned soldiers who, in the belief that their physical condition did not warrant it, failed to apply for one at the time of their discharge and who, since then, have developed complaints which private medical men say are undoubtedly due to war service, but which the repatriation doctors deny to be so. **Mr. Coleman** used to sit in the same seat as is now occupied by the honorable member for Forrest **(Mr. Prowse).** He said on one occasion : " I am one of those who might easily find myself in the position of not getting^ any pension because I did not claim it. I was discharged as medically fit and I am not." Everybody who knew him knew that he was not physically fit, and no one was surprised to learn that he -collapsed and died suddenly. He never hesitated to say that his trouble was due to his war service. Medical men treated him for the after effects of war. He is only one of the unfortunates, but, unlike the vast majority, being a member of Parliament, he was not in great need of a pension. It ill becomes the Repatriation Department to deny to our returned men some solace for the evil effects upon their systems which war service has undoubtedly had upon them. Although I do not assert that a shorter working week was promised in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** prior to. the last elections - I do not know whether it was or not - I point out that the Government instructed two delegates to the conference of the International Labour Office at Geneva to support a shorter working week. The honorable member for Parramatta **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** was one of those delegates, and when he returned to Australia the Government repudiated him and was not prepared either to endorse the convention reached at the conference or to suggest to the Arbitration Court that, as a government, it believed some effect might be given to the 40-hour week in some industries. I have repeatedly stated in this House that I am not enamoured of the 40-hour- week, but I have also stated that, as far as it can be placed in effect, action should be taken to do so. I point out, however, that there are so many scientific implements awaiting utilization in the interests . of manufacturers as soon as reduced hours of labour come about that there will not be any great improvement of the condition of the people. {: #subdebate-15-1-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- The honorable member has exhausted his time. {: #subdebate-15-1-s6 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- The Government's programme of defence this year is the largest that has ever been undertaken since the Great "War. There is not much popularity to be won by expenditure on defence, but I think that the people of Australia do realize that the times demand that we should be prepared, and (!he people are willing to trust the Government to do what is necessary in order to provide security for the country. I rise to say something in support of decentralization of Government defence works. I think it is an error to have all our activities concentrated as they are now in a couple of the cities on the eastern side of the continent. At the Imperial Conference recently this subject was discussed,* and certain principles relative to the production, and supply of munitions and raw materials, as well as foodstuffs, were laid down. It was recommended that there should be developed in the different parts of the Empire resources for the manufacture of munitions as well as for the supply of raw materials. On the 24th August, the Prime Minister in his report on the Imperial Conference said - >The new programme of the Government will provide for important new Government factories which, while increasing local self sufficiency, will also relieve Britain of the responsibility of meeting our demands and' contribute to the needs of the Empire in an emergency. The Prime Minister further stated that in any future new expansions the Government would consider the practicability of decentralizing production where possible. It is hoped that, before long, Australia will become the centre for the manufacture and distribution of munitions for the dominions and any allies we may have in the Pacific. The necessity arises at once to one's mind for the provision for the making of munitions on the western as well as the eastern side of Australia. The most vulnerable part of the coast is on the west and. north-west. It is a long and sparsely inhabited- strip, well endowed with good ports which would afford landing places for an enemy, and, if we are to make for an effective defence policy, it is necessary to have a munitions factory somewhere near Perth. This Government has not been unmindful of the needs of "Western Australia in relation to defence. It has established, or is about to establish, an air force in Perth. It has provided guns and several forts in "Western Australia, but the scheme of defence will not be completed until a munitions factory has been established in that State. Associated with the matter of the protection of "the empty spaces of the north, and the general defence of Australia, is the matter of the iron deposits at Yampi Sound, in the north-west of Australia. For many years the existence of rich deposits of iron at Yampi Sound has been known and many attempts were made to organize capital in order, commercially, to utilize the ore. These attempts failed, but recently a new organization has been able to get together the essential capital and has made a contract with Japan. That company is making a great effort to exploit the resources that exist at Yampi Sound, and at the present it has about 50 men engaged in building wharves and in making provision generally foi- the development of the project, lt is spending £12,000 a month and expects that within twelve months there will be between 300 and 500 Australians employed in the new industry. Associated with the Yampi Sound enterprise there is also the question of revitalizing the export of cattle from the Derby area which is nearby. The Government of Western Australia is assisting the Yampi project. It has surveyed a site on the mainland' for a town site, and we in Western Australia hope that the enterprise may result, in reviving the declining fortunes of the north-west. Unfortunately, the Yampi project has been beset from the eastern States by critics who have engaged in active propaganda against it. The source of it has not been disclosed, but the propaganda is there, and every effort is made to try to scotch the developments. It has been suggested that the Commonwealth Government should hinder, if it does not actually prohibit, .the export of the iron ore by imposing duties on the machinery, but up to the present the decisions of the Commonwealth Government have been quite satisfactory. From time to time the company has informed the Commonwealth Government of what it is doing, and has invited it to state whether it has any objection to the development of the Yampi resources and to the sale of the ore to Japan. The Commonwealth Government has repeatedly stated that it has no objection. Those who have interested themselves in this matter have gone so far as to ask the British Government whether it had any objection, only to receive the reply that iron ore is so plentiful a commodity throughout the world that it saw no reason why the deposits at Yampi Sound should not be disposed of to Japan. It has been pointed out that all the iron ore which is now being mined in the Malay Peninsula is sold to Japan, and that if that nation cannot obtain supplies from Australia there is plenty of ore available in other parts of the world. The ground upon which those who have indulged in this propaganda against the export of ore from Yampi Sound have based their case, is that there is a shortage of ore in Australia for our own requirements. It has been stated that a survey of the iron ore deposits of Australia would be undertaken, but, so far, no real survey has been made. I do not believe that there is any shortage of iron ore in Australia, and in confirmation of my opinion, I quote from a statement issued by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited - probably the most authoritative source from which an opinion on this subject could be obtained. In 1935, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, in a jubilee publication, gave the following details of the ore available at Iron .Knob and other mines which it controls : - >The Iron Monarch is 040 feet above the plain, its huge being 1£ miles in diameter. The bulk of. the ore above plain level is estimated at more than 100,000,000 tons. The estimate for Iron Duke 18 miles south is equally great. The estimate of the period likely to elapse before underground mining will be necessary is given as being beyond this century, based upon the present rate of consumption. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is not likely to exaggerate the extent of the deposits. It is estimated that the quantity of ore above water level at Yampi Sound is from 50,000,000 to 80,000,000 tons. That represents ore which is readily accessible. The programme of the company which is operating in Yampi Sound provides for an export of 1,000,000 tons of ore a year during the term of its lease, which has a limit of twenty years. Even if that quantity of ore is exported each year for the full term., there is little chance of any great impression being- made on the deposits. There are, moreover, many other deposits of iron ore in Australia. Attention has recently been drawn to deposits in Queensland and Tasmania, in respect of which, it is understood, that Japan is making inquiries. It is also reported that the Government intends to hamper the company operating at Yampi Sound by not giving to it the concession which is generally extended to companies engaged in similar undertakings, namely, the admission of necessary machinery duty free. A concession of that nature was granted in connexion with the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and a similar provision is included in the proposal for the development of the Newnes shale oil deposits, in respect of which the Government also proposes to give substantial guarantees to the company. In my opinion, no adequate reason has been given why there should be any hampering of the Yampi Sound project. I thank the Prime Minister for the reassuring . statement which he made recently, and I am confident that the survey which he promised will reveal that there is no ground for the fears which have been expressed as to a shortage of iron ore for our own purposes. 1. hope that the last has been heard of this propaganda against the development of Yampi Sound. {: #subdebate-15-1-s7 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter .- Undoubtedly, a visitor to this House who heard the speeches which have been delivered by honorable members supporting the Government, would gain the impression that a great deal of electioneering propaganda is being indulged in. I am concerned with the Government's failure to redeem the many promises it made to the people at the last general elections. Prominent among those promises was one that the problem of unemployment would be tackled in earnest. The Government may claim that- it has kept that promise, because its supporters never tire of saying that the number of persons unemployed in this country has been reduced. That state of affairs is, however, due to the fact that many who were previously numbered among the unemployed are now either in receipt of the dole or working on emergency relief schemes. They were promised that if they voted for the United Australia party they would obtain good jobs at steady wages. . They certainly have secured steady wages, for the dole which is paid to them has not fluctuated. If the unemployed are satisfied with the treatment that they have received, the United Australia party may fairly claim to have solved the problem of unemployment. It is one thing to say that work has been provided, and another to say that the wages and conditions of employment are satisfactory. The matters are entirely different. Among the many other promises made by the party now in office, was one that a full time Minister would be appointed to deal with employment and the rehabilitation of the great industries of Australia. The Minister appointed in pursuance of that promise represented the Government at the International Labour Office at Geneva. Later, he returned to Australia with a voluminous report. . Unfortunately for him, h:.s views did not coincide with the views of the majority of the government supporters, and consequently, he ceased to be a member of the Cabinet and is now a " back-bencher. " He became the leader of what may be termed the " brain trust " of the United Australia party, one member of which is now in the chamber reading a newspaper, whilst the others are campaigning in their electorates. The leader of the " brain trust " stated that he intended to oppose the Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** in the Warringah electorate, because that honorable gentleman, instead of assisting to carry out the policy of the party in regard to employment, was too fond of indulging in jaunts oversea. The ox-Minister realized in time the difficulty of defeating the Minister for Defence, and consequently, he has decided to contest Parramatta again. A government which makes promises at election time should make an earnest attempt to fulfil those promises. The governments of the States do not hesitate to prosecute an unemployed person who makes an error of £1 in regard to his income, even though his motive is- a desire to obtain an extra loaf of bread for his starving wife and children; yet members of Parliament are allowed to go on the hustings and make promises that they have no intention to keep. **Mr. SPEAKER (Hon.** G. J. Bell).Order ! {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES: -- The Labour party intends to tell the people that when it is returned to power at the forthcoming election, it will proceed to give effect to a policy with which the present Govern- ment has only tinkered ; I refer to the introduction of a working week of 40 hours. The honorable member for Parramatta returned from Geneva, having committed Australia to a 40-hour week, but, after his return, the Attorney-General **(Mr. Menzies)** claimed that there were constitutional difficulties in the way, and that the Commonwealth would be invading the sphere of State legislation if it attempted to give legislative effect to a shorter working week without first consulting the States. Apparently, the members of the " brain trust, " who claim to be the watchdogs of government policy, are satisfied with the contention of the Attorney-General that constitutional difficulties exist. There are many in the community who believe that since we have the power to adopt international treaties we should adopt the international treaty in respect of a 40- hour working week, which was agreed to at Geneva. Many who agree with my contention are men holding high, positions in this country. Among them are some legal luminaries, including such prominent men as the late **Mr. Justice** Higgins, **Sir Robert** Garran (a former SolicitorGeneral). Professor Berriedale Keith, and last, but not least, **Sir John** Latham. Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. Some of them previously held the view that States would have to agree, but they have recently changed their opinion on this subject. On page 339 of a book written by **Sir John** Latham in 1933, the right honorable gentleman said that he believed that the Government had the right to conclude international treaties and to override State .laws. **'Sir John** Latham was Attorney-General of the Commonwealth when he made that statement; I claim that the power exists, and, in support of my contention, point to the Versailles Treaty. Canada, with a constitution similar to that of the Commonwealth, has adopted the Statute of Westminster, as Australia also will do eventually. Australia has adopted the' Ottawa agreement, has entered into an agreement with New Zealand, and, in addition, has made other agreements which vitally affect the economic welfare of the States. If we can, without consulting them, adopt agreements of that kind, which affect the economic welfare of the States, there is no justification for raising the bogy that the States must be consulted before we can adopt a 40-hour working week. This Government has frequently passed legislation of doubtful constitutionality, and has taken the risk of its being upset by the High Court, but the object of such legislation has always been to oppress the workers, not to better their lot. I refer to the Crimes Act, certain sections of the Immigration Act, and the penal clauses of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This legislation is invoked from time to time for the purpose of deporting working class representatives, or of preventing working class sympathizers from entering Australia. I maintain that in a free and enlightened democracy such as ours we should be able to tolerate political opinions, even when w e do not agree with them. The increasing mechanization of industry is leading more and more to the displacement of workers by machinery. In my own electorate, machines of various kinds, including coal loading devices, are displacing the workers in the coal mines, and this has added to the di? tress already caused by the substitution of other forms of fuel for coal. It is estimated that coal loading machines now being installed will displace 50 per cent, of the workers at present engaged, and heaven knows that the men have suffered enough already. There are at present 7,000 men unemployed on the coal-fields. In 1929, 7,617,036 tons of coal were produced, by 22,417 employees, but in 1934, 7,873,118 tons were produced by only 13,465 employees. It is stated that the men employed in the John Darling mine, which is now owned and controlled by the Broken Hill Proprietary, are threatening that they will refuse to be desplaced by machines, and that, if necessary, they will insist on working only six hours a day. In most other countries of the world the coal miners already work a 38-hour week, but we in Australia are only asking for a 40-hour week. The mechanization of industry has produced the same effect in many other industries, as the following table shows - > *Glassworkers.* - In 1910. six men made 50 gross of beer bottles in a week. To-day, one man. using a machine, can make the same number in a shift of eight hours. > > *Printing.* - The output of newspaper pages an hour in Melbourne increased from 44,000 in 1898 to 140,000 in 1905, and 232,000 in 1935, with practically no increase in the amount of employment afforded. > > *Sheet Metal Work.* - Three dozen baking dishes used to be a day's task for one man. With the introduction of machinery, the day's task is now 10 dozen. Twenty years ago, two men and one junior produced 350 six-foot lengths of guttering, five operations being necessary to finish the article. To-day, a single worker, with an up-to-date machine, can produce 1,000 six-foot lengths in eight hours. > > *Rubber Workers.* - In 1920, the day's task of a " tyre-builder " was at the rate of 10 tyres for a 46-hour week. To-day it is 94 tyres for a 44-hour week. In the making of sand shoes, a girl worker in 1930 made from 25 to 28 pairs a day. Now, under a "belt" system of continuous production, eighteen girls make 1.250 pairs, or nearly 70 pairs each, daily! > > *Baking.* - In 191G, the weekly output of a man was 850 four-.pound loaves. To-day, it is 1,200, or even 2,000, in highly mechanized factories. yallourn. - At the Yallourn "(Victoria) brown coal and electricity works, the mechanized " track-shifter " shifts certain railway tracks in four hours. If done by manual labour, the operation would employ 100 men for a week. The coal dredge lifts as much coal as 800 men. > > *Engineering.* - New machinery has raised the output of railway truck wheels from five pairs a day to sixteen, sometimes eighteen. The output of engine wheels has been increased from two to six pairs a day. A certain job in the manufacture of motor axles can now be done in 20 seconds, as against five minutes under the old method. Another job which took six hours can be done in 25 minutes. The representative of the Engineering Union quoted the case of an American company using automatic plant for the production of motor frames. Two hundred men can make 10,000 frames a day. With non-automatic plant, 2,000 men could only produce 2,500 frames a day. The motor industry is one of the most highly mechanized of all industries. > > *Tailoring.* - The installation of modern machinery for making pockets has reduced the cost of the operation by 80 per cent. A similar saving is made by the use of a machine for stitching seams. A button-sewing machine .sews 13 to 14 buttons a minute; the hand sewer used to take a little over a minute for each button. A girl using the latest type of button-sewer, puts buttons on a dozen pair of trousers in ten minutes! > > *Gas-making.* - A few years ago 80 men produced 1,000,000 cubic feet of gas in 24 hours. By the latest method, twelve men can produce 5.000,000 -cubic feet- of gas in 24 hours. In the handling of coal the work of fifteen or twenty men is being done by one man operating an electric crane, capable of lifting 150 tons of. coal in an hour. > > *Clerical Workers.* - At the Taxation Office, Melbourne, taxation forms are now being sorted by a new device, which enables five girls to do the work once performed (last year) by 41 girls! If the Government were to adopt the 40- hour week it would be taking a big step towards the solution of the unemployment problem. It should not allow itself to be deterred by constitutional difficulties. When the Constitution was adopted in 1901 conditions were very different from what they are now. The Constitution must be adjusted from time to time to meet the requirements of the people. The need for a 40-hour week is manifest. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** has been much criticized, but he gave valuable information when he pointed out that many members of this House and of the Senate had investments in great industrial concerns of such a nature that one could not possibly expect them ever to agree to the introduction of a shorter working week. The mechanization of industry is resulting in thousands of workers being thrown on the scrap heap, as is shown by the table I have just quoted, a table prepared by a select committee of the Victorian Parliament, set up by the Country party Government in that State. I appeal to the Government to introduce a 40-hour week, instead of allowing the. workers to force the issue by action in the industrial field. Already the 40-hour week has been adopted in many countries. It was adopted in France, Belgium and New Zealand in 1936, while Italy, Czechoslovakia, Mexico and the United States of America adopted the principle for all industries in 1933. I admit that in the United States of America there was a set back when the Supreme Court declared that the National Recovery Act, which gave legislative authority for the 40-hour week, was unconstitutional. The representative of this Government voted at Geneva for the 40-hour week, so that the Government stands committed to the principle, and should introduce it as soon as possible. I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral the need for better accommodation. in the carrier room in the West Maitland Post Office. I led a deputation to the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs at West Maitland regarding this matter, and an inspection was made of the room, which, ' before the introduction of motor vehicles, was used as a stable. It has been converted into a carrier room and houses equipment to the value of £150,000, but so inadequate is the accommodation that the mechanics are unable to work with any ' degree of comfort. In wet weather water enters the room and so adds to their discomfort. There is not even room to hang extra clothing which is so often required in wet weather. There is no water supply, and the sanitary conveniences for both sexes are in close proximity, and females going to and fro have to pass by open windows where males are employed. This is a very embarrassing position for employees to be in. This is an. obnoxious arrangement that would not be . tolerated if the Commonwealth had to conform to the regulations applying to privately-owned shops and factories. The department has promised to erect another building, but, so far, nothing has 'been done. I assure the Minister that before ventilating thu grievance in this House, I have repeatedly made representations to the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs, but the only satisfaction I have received is an intimation that it is intended to erect a two-story building at Maitland to house the carrier equipment. Maitland is an important terminal post office, and the accommodation provided there should be in keeping with its importance. The battery room is not properly ventilated, and the obnoxious fumes are. the cause of frequent complaints from the mechanics. The building ought to be condemned. I feel sure it would be condemned if the local health inspector had sufficient courage to stand tip against this United Australia party Government. If a Labour Government were in power there would soon be adverse reports about the condition of the building. Another matter which I desire to ventilate deals with the relations of members and their constituents. The usual practice, when an elector approaches a member who is not the representative for his constituency, is to forward the communication to the honorable member concerned. But this rule is not always observed. The Minister for Commerce **(Dr.** Earle Page) has received a number of communications from members of the Tenambit Poultry Farmers Association in my electorate, voicing complaints about telephone matters which properly should have been addressed to me. From these letters it would appear that the Minister for 'Commerce has been trying to " butt-in " on my work, but so far he has not obtained any satisfaction. As the result some of the electors concerned have appealed to me to request the Postal Department to permit Tenambit subscribers, near East Maitland, at present connected with West Maitland exchange, to be connected with the Morpeth exchange. Connexion with the West Maitland exchange costs them from £5 15s. to £6 5s. a year, whereas if they were connected with the Morpeth exchange, .the cost would be only £3. If, however, the department will not grant their request, and insists that they continue to be connected with West Maitland, they claim that the charge should not be more than it would be if they were connected to Morpeth. I hope that the Minister for Defence will bring these matters under the notice of the Postmaster-General, because the complaints are well founded. The refusal of the department to grant this reasonable request means loss of revenue, as prospective telephone subscribers declare that they will not pay the extra amount charged for connexion with West Maitland exchange. {: #subdebate-15-1-s8 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- le Labour fit to govern? I have no doubt that this inquiry, which is not my own, is familiar to my friend the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** . {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- It is a question, and the answer is " Yes ". {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- On the occasion when it was previously put to the people the answer was "Yes". For the information of honorable members I may say that the question with which I have prefaced my remarks was addressed to the people by the then Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Scullin)** in his policy speech in Melbourne in September, 1929, and published the following day in the Sydney *Labor Daily* beneath a picture of the right honorable gentleman. Around the photograph there "were printed no fewer than 31 promises which the right honorable gentleman and _ his party declared would be honoure'd if the voters entrusted them with the responsibility of. office. It is here pertinent to observe that when **Mr. Seullin** asked that question of the people, he knew full well that if bis party won the election and he became Prime Minister, he would have a hostile Senate to contend with. Furthermore,he declared that if returned to power, his Government would lift industry and trade right out of the depression and create conditions which would attract our kith and kin from overseas. I think I am acting quite fairly in directing attention to the. specific promises made by the right honorable member for Yarra who was then the responsible leader of his party. 1 now invite the House to consider what happened in connexion with those promises, taking them in their proper sequence, thus : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Abolish the amusement tax. For over two years -when the Scullin Government was in office it did nothing to give effect to that promise. Possibly the right honorable member for Yarra and his colleagues thought that the people should pay some amusement tax because of the little "goings on" in this Parliament at that time - the frequent changes in the Ministry, the frequent alterations of its policy, and the spectacle of the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** making a rather interesting confession of the Government's failure to do what, it had promised. The amusement tax which the Scullin Government promised to abolish was taken off by the Lyons Government on the 26th October, 1933. The next, promise was - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Policy of assisted migration to be changed, the cost to be directed to employment for the workless, assisting to lift industry out of the trade depression, and create local conditions attractive to our kith and kin from overseas. Actually the Scullin Government put an end to assisted migration, and for the first time in the history of Australia, due to tie bad conditions under Labour rule, the flow of migrants was from Australia to Great Britain, the net loss in 1930 being 10,000, and in the following yea:> over 9,000. The next promise was - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Labour is not satisfied with the present price of petrol, oil fuel and power alcohol, and will take immediate steps to investigate this matter in an endeavour to reduce prices. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- From what is the honorable member quoting? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I am reading extracts from the policy speech delivered by the right honorable memberfor Yarra in September, 1929, and published in the *Labor Daily* on the following day. Instead of taking steps to reduce the price of petrol the Scullin Government increased the tax on petrol by 4d. a gallon. {: .speaker-KLC} ##### Mr Mahoney: -- This Government has not taken it off yet. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- This Government has not done many things which, I have no doubt, it would like to do. My immediate purpose is to prove that the Labour Government did not give effect to its promises, and, therefore, Labour is not fit to govern. The nexT promise made by the right honorable member for Yarra was - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Encourage production of coal by-products, including power oil fuel, for internal combustion engines. This will stimulate coal production and red ure petrol charges. I hesitate to ask the House to listen to all the promises made by the right honorable member for Yarra, but I remind honorable members that the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** delivered a most scathing condemnation of the Scullin Government in connexion with its promise to encourage the production of coal by-products. The next undertaking was - {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Labour will encourage production of power alcohol from our tropical products, such as molasses, cassava, &c. All that the Labour Government did in this connexion was to continue the policy of the Bruce-Page Government. It did grant a number of bounties which seemed to be the popular method of assisting various industries at that time. The next promise was - {: type="1" start="6"} 0. Labour will investigate the imposition of the petrol tax on users of agricultural tractors, launches, and for other purposes, with a view to granting a rebate. Labour did absolutely nothing while in power to ease that burden on primary producers. {: type="1" start="7"} 0. Labour will establish an Australian-wide system of marketing. It will lose no time incalling a conference of growers to discuss this subject. I am not aware that effect was given to that promise. It is true that there was a conference of wheat-growers, and I remember the men who attended it on behalf of South Australian farmers. They spent about a week in Canberra in conference with the then Minister for Markets **(Mr. Parker Maloney),** and came back converted to all sorts of fantastic notions about the marketing of wheat. But the government of the day did not give effect to that undertaking. It promised the farmers 4s. a bushel for wheat, but did not honour its promise, very little benefit being derived by the primary producers. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- Not even 3s. a bushel. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- That is so. ' Probably the honorable member who interjects is rather sore on that point. I turn now to the next item of the policy of the Scullin. Government - {: type="1" start="8"} 0. Necessary legislation will be passed to facilitateand co-ordinate the activities of the State governments for the assistance of those engaged in rural pursuits. Just What that plank meant I do not know; but, as to any result from it, we know that it was as barren as the Sahara. It was left to those who succeeded the Labour Government to constitutethe Australian Agricultural Council, by which some attempt has been made to bring about co-operative effort on the part of the Commonwealth and State Governments. The next plank of the policy was - {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The Arbitration Act will be revised to provide a system of sound, businesslike arbitration, free from the entangling legalisms of the law- a system based on the lines of the Industrial Peace Act, to be handled by men of industrial experience to ensure equitable, expeditious and less costly methods of dealing with industrial matters. Again, I say that the record is an absolute blank. " Nothing attempted, nothing lone." The party opposite is not able to ay, as was stated in *Locksley Hall, "* It is better to have loved and lost, than lever to have loved at all." The next item was- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Loan moneys to be raised in Australia and spent on productive works. The Labour Government certainly raised some loan moneys, but the whole of its credit overseas had vanished, and it was not able to borrow outside the Commonwealth on any terms whatever - {: type="1" start="11"} 0. Income tax to be equitably imposed and unfalteringly collected. That is a very definite statement. The result was that on the 30th June, 1929., when the Bruce-Page Government completed its last year of office, the arrears of income tax amounted to £1,901,550, and the arrears of land tax to £609,000; but, in 1931, after two years of government by this party which would unfalteringly collect outstanding taxes, the arrears of income tax amounted to £4,933,000, and the arrears of land tax to £1,465,000, an increase of nearly 300 per cent. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy Leader have something to explain in that regard. The next undertaking was as follows : - {: type="1" start="12"} 0. Repeal of the tax on mutual assurance companies. Nothing was attempted, and nothing was done. It was left to the Lyons Government to provide, under Act No. 17 of 1933, for a reduction representing 4 per cent, of the companies' liabilities. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- "When did the honorable member become a supporter of the Lyons Government? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- Even if, Like Peter, I follow my master at a distance, at times, if it comes to a classification of members of this House, I am a supporter of the Lyons Government. I have never suggested that I consider that this Government is perfect; no government ever was, yet the Lyons Government is an immeasurable improvement on the Ministry that preceded it. I remind the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** that the present Ministry has been in office for nearly six years, and one of the characteristics of democracy is its fondness for change, coupled with a burning desire to kick those whom it places in authority. At an election such as that which the members of this House are about to face, there will be the greatest possible accumulation of opposition to this Government. Generally speaking, a ministry is not rewarded for the good things which it has done; the average elector votes for or against it because of its action with regard to some minor matter on which he thinks it has been at fault. For instance, some persons in my electorate may have a grudge because of the action taken in respect of a certain lady. On small matters such as that, a certain number of the electors decide how they will vote. The big issues do not worry them, because they will not devote the time necessary for their proper consideration. The next item of the election policy of the Scullin Government reads as follows : - {: type="1" start="13"} 0. Breaches in the tariff wall to be repaired at once. Labour stands for the fullest protection of all industries, secondary and primary I do not believe that at any time the world has seen a more ridiculous or savage tariff than that imposed by that Government. Admittedly, it was faced with a set of conditions that were, perhaps, without parallel, but a heaven-sent opportunity was afforded to some of the dyed-in-the-wool protectionists opposite to put into force a. policy that was dear to their hearts. I can imagine the fervour and joy with which the honorable member for Capricornia, as Minister for Trade and Customs, devised new duties embargoes and restrictions. When the honorable gentleman came into the chamber, after having imposed an export duty on sheepskins- {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- It was the then honorable member for Maribyrnong **(Mr. Fenton)** who did so. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- Then the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did the apologizing. He is appropriately named Forde, because one might fairly accurately describe him as the " Tin Lizzie " of the Scullin Government in the matter of Australian manufactures. The breaches in the tariff wall had to be repaired at once, and the Scullin Government erected a wall of gigantic proportions which had to be reduced by a painful process by succeeding governments. I make no secret of the fact that my policy is that which was enunciated by the honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Fairbairn),** who favours the reduction of duties, more freedom of trade, and less suspicion among the various countries of the world. The next item of the Scullin Government's policy was - {: type="1" start="14"} 0. Cotton bounty to be supplemented by definitely protecting yarn and piece-goods that can be made from Australian-grown cotton. I admit that the Government of the day did something towards imposing new duties and granting bounties to the cotton industry. I am not quarrelling with it on that score. If we have to help any new industry, a system of encouragement by bounty is better than tariff assistance, because we know from year to year what the bounty is costing ; but we never know what the tariff costs, because the burden is an indirect one and incalculable. Here is the next item - {: type="1" start="15"} 0. Co-operation with the States to assist in the development of existing gold mines with the object of placing the industry on secure foundations. The sum of £500,000 was granted by the Lyons Government towards that worthy object, and, if my memory serves me right, the honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** and the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Lazzarini)** had something very caustic to say about miners delving into the bowels of the earth to bring out the yellow metal, only to enable it <to be placed in the vaults of capitalists in New York and Paris. I gather that those honorable members were anything but friendly towards the gold-mining industry. The production of gold in Australia has increased from £7,500,000 to *£10,000,000* per annum, and an additional 7,000 workmen have been employed in the industry. This has been of definite economic advantage to the Commonwealth as a whole. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Is that not due to the fact that the price of gold has almost doubled, rather than to anything done by the Lyons Government? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The gold bounty played practically no part, because it hardly became operative. The increase of the price, of gold and the increase of the exchange rate helped a lot, but £500,000 was granted by this Government to the various States to assist the industry, and the honorable member for Capricornia comes from a State which has benefited considerably from the expenditure of money provided by the Commonwealth Government, although credit for the- expenditure in Queensland has been taken by the Labour Government of that State led by **Mr. Forgan** Smith. This practice is indulged in by almost every State government, regardless of the party from which it springs. The Commonwealth does the paying, and the State claims the credit for the expenditure. I continue the examination of the Scullin Government's policy - {: type="1" start="16"} 0. Where consumers can be safeguarded, complete protection will be given in guaranteeing the Australian market to Australian industries. A policy such as that is fairly common to the various parties, and not much political capital is to be made out of it. {: type="1" start="17"} 0. The Federal Labour party stands for the continuance of the existing embargo on the importation of sugar to protect growers from the product of black labour. I do not know that the Lyons Government removed that protection. This policy is common to all parties in this Parliament. In a division, I have seen only thirteen members in favour of reduc-' ing the price of sugar. {: type="1" start="18"} 0. Government ownership and control of wireless broadcasting. This bring me to a little Blue Book which was recently published by the Leader of the Opposition, who, at the end of the pamphlet, again enunciated a policy which means nationalization of B class stations. So that while nothing was done during the regime of the Scullin Government, probably, in the remote event of our friends opposite assuming control of the Treasury bench, we may expect to see something done towards the end of the year. Now we come to the next promise - {: type="1" start="19"} 0. Unification of railway gauges will be placed at the forefront of a progressive works policy. I think the old machine must have gone into reverse gear. The only measures for unification were the construction of the Brisbane to Kyogle railway which was the work of the Government which preceded the Scullin Government, and - if it can be considered a measure of unification - the extension of the railway from Port Augusta to Bed Hill which was the work of the Government which succeeded the Scullin Government. There was never a time in the history of Australia when there were so many men able and willing to undertake work of that description, and there never was a government that should have been more concerned to institute that necessary reform, the standardization of railway gauges; but with all the provocation which the Scullin Government had nothing was attempted, let alone done. The next item of the policy was - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Labour will convert the Commonwealth Bank from a " Bankers' bank " into a peoples bank. It will be encouraged to extend its powers and influences as an important factor in national development. Just exactly what " the peoples' bank " means I cannot say, but whatever it means I do not know of any amendment of the Commonwealth Bank Act which gave effect to that desire of the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- The "peoples-' bank" was the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- That reminds me of a conversation I had in. Adelaide recently with a man who had. just returned from Sydney. He told me that when he had passed the building formerly occupied by the Government Savings Bank in Sydney he noticed on one of the foundation stones the following inscription - "This stone was laid by the honorable J. T. Lang" and that beneath it somebody had scribbled in chalk '"' and the same gentleman closed it. " The next item was - {: type="1" start="21"} 0. *A* Common wealth insurance scheme, similar to that in operation in Queensland, will be undertaken. I do not know of any tiling that the Scullin Government attempted in connexion with the introduction of a Commonwealth insurance scheme. {: type="1" start="22"} 0. Unlimited legislative powers for the Commonwealth Parliament and such delegated powers to the State or provinces as the Commonwealth may determine from time to time. That would have meant an amendment of the Constitution by way of referendum. Again there is a complete blank. The record of the Scullin Government in that regard was as barren as the Sahara, desert. Nothing whatever was attempted. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- The honorable member is ignoring history. "Was not a bill sent to the Senate? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The honorable gentleman may deal with that himself. The next item dealt with organized marketing - . {: type="1" start="23"} 0. Labour will invite producers to a con ference for the establishment of pools and an Australian-wide system of organized marketing. I think that has been effectively dealt with under another heading. I come now to an item in which my genial friend the honorable member for Denison **(Mr. Mahoney),** must have been interested - {: type="1" start="24"} 0. Steamer services to Tasmania to be established and placed under the complete control of the Commonwealth. I shall leave the honorable member for Denison to say how much was done in connexion with that. The next point - and here again I direct myself particularly to the honorable member for Denison - was - {: type="1" start="25"} 0. Wireless telephony for Tasmania, with telephone communication between Western Australia and the eastern States to be installed. Nothing was clone by the Labour Government, but the Lyons Govern- ment effected a link by cable on the 25th March. 1936. I do not know that there is much to be said for the Scullin Government on that score. The next point in the policy of the Labour Government was- - {: type="1" start="26"} 0. A system of unemployment insurance will be established, the fund created to be distributed, as far as possible, in providing work. Again there is a complete blank; nothing was attempted. {: type="1" start="27"} 0. The States will be consulted with a view to a revision of the Road Agreement. The States were asked to consent to the chopping off of not less than £600,000 of the Commonwealth obligation under the Federal Aid Roads Agreement. But the States would not agree to it. As a matter of fact although the amount of federal money being expended in aid of State road construction under the agreement had come down in 1930 to £1,812,000, it has increased every year since then until to-day it stands at the record figure of £3,750,000. The next point related to defence - {: type="1" start="28"} 0. We are prepared to assume full responsibility for the adequate defence of Australia, And again referring to the little blue book I find that practically the same statement is contained in it, and exactly what it means was disclosed during the discussion of the report on the Imperial Conference. {: type="1" start="29"} 0. The burden of the military machine will be lightened by applying the necessary means of defence to the development of our country and the promotion of our industries. I know very well what that means. There was what one might accurately describe as a savage attack on the permanent forces of Australia; reductions of pay were effected, warships were laid up and many permanent officers were put on part time. No attempt was made by the Government to deal with these things which the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** said were recommended eighteen months before he was able to give effect to them. It appears to me that the federal government singled out the permanent forces for invidious treatment, well knowing that by the terms of their enlistment they were incapable of defending their own rights.' The next item reads : - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act will be amended to bring the amounts provided for injuries up to a modern standard. Labour merely put into operation the bill which I understand was drafted by the Bruce-Page Government which it succeeded. That bill was put through this House by the Labour government without alteration. {: type="1" start="31"} 0. The Commonwealth finances to be adjusted to meet the special disabilities of any State that are shown to be due to federation. That is, disabilities due to federation. There again nothing was attempted by the Scullin Government and it was left to the Lyons Government to establish the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the first body to inquire into the needs of the States arising out of federation and having a financial complexion. - Those are the 31 points of the policy speech of 1929 and the question which the right honorable member for Yarra addressed to Australia was " Is Labour fit to govern?" I ask the people of Australia to-day to consider those days between October, 1929, and December, 1931, and the answer comes not from the Ministerial side of the House but from honorable gentlemen opposite. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Should not the people consider the period 1931 to 1937 also? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I have no doubt they will. I am not a novice in politics. There will be much more consideration of the events of the period 1931 to 1937 than of what took place in 1929-31. That is why I raise this question. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** belongs to a group in this House which most definitely decided in 1931 that Labour was not fit to govern. That group was responsible for sending the Labour government to its masters twelve months before it was due to face those irate people, and it was severely dealt with. Labour came back from that poll the smallest party in this House, and divided into two factions. No sooner was a Labour government in power than a series of " caves " was formed. J enolan had nothing to compare with them. What took nature thousands of years to create was achieved by honorable gentlemen opposite in a few months. I desire now to deal with the 40-hour working week, another important question about which the people will hear much during the forthcoming elections. Every honorable member on both sides of the House knows by now that I am an opponent of the 40-hour week; I have never hidden my views in regard to that question. A good deal has been said by honorable members opposite regarding the failure of the Government to give effect to the Geneva Convention by applying the 40-hour working week in Australia. I think the honorable members for Bourke **(Mr. Blackburn)** and Batman **(Mr. Brennan)** should be able to enlighten their supporters on that very important question without a great deal of trouble. I should say that both honorable gentlemen are much better acquainted than I am with the institution known as the International Labour Office; but in reading its history I have discovered that when it was formulated in 1919 an important debate lasting over a number of weeks took place at the Assembly of the League of Nations before an agreement was arrived at in connexion with Article 19 under which the International Labour Office was instituted. In Article 19, paragraph 9, we find this illuminating statement - >In the case of a federal State, the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case. 1 say that Australia is one of those federal States. Australia, where we have seven governments with a resultant division of powers such as exists in the United States of America and to a lesser extent in Canada and Switzerland, admirably answers the description laid down in paragraph 9, and consequently the Federal Government is not able of its own power, on account of constitutional limitations, to give effect to the hours convention adopted at Geneva. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- What did **Mr. Justice** Evatt have to say about it? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I am not concerned with what **Mr. Justice** Evatt said. If the honorable member for East Sydney cares to look at the evidence given before the Constitutional Commission in 1927 he can see what some of the leading lawyers of Australia, including **Sir Robert** Garran, **Mr. Nicholas** and others, had to say in regard to the powers of the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- **Sir Robert** Garran thought that the Commonwealth could ratify a convention. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The following statement from **Sir Robert** Garran's evidence does not give that impression : - >That raises a very large question and one in regard to which there is no judicial decision at present; that is to say, how far the power as to external affairs extends, and whether it does or does not include the power to make laws for carrying out any treaties, on any subject which may be negotiated with foreign powers. That is a very large question, and one on which it is impossible to express any definite opinion in the absence of any judicial decision. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- That is not the whole of it. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The honorable member can quote a lot more of it, but the sum total of the evidence is that some of the leading lawyers of Australia arc convinced that there is very grave doubt as to whether the external power of the Commonwealth is so extensive as to be able to allow this Parliament to implement certain agreements arrived at by the International Labour Conference at Geneva. Furthermore, if we had attempted to use that power, we would, in my opinion, have been usurping certain powers deliberately delegated to the States under the Constitution. "We have no right to impose these things upon the States. The Commonwealth has power to deal with the 40-hour week only in its own territories and in its own public service. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Does the honorable member think, then, that it was honest for the Commonwealth delegate at Geneva to vote for the convention? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- My understanding is that very severe limitations were placed upon the honorable member for Parramatta **(Sir Frederick Stewart)** as to the vote he should record in connexion with the hours convention. My personal feeling in regard to the honorable member for Parramatta on this question, is that he has never been absolutely frank with the people of Australia as to his vote on the 40-hour week question at Geneva. If the honorable member does not like my opinion on this subject, he has the right to come here and say so, and we can fight it out on the floor of the House before we go to the country. Mr.Ward. - The honorable member is bursting up the Government! {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I am not worried about the Government. One of the cries upon which apparently we shall go to the country is the 40-hour week. The legal members of the Opposition know as well as they know I am standing here to-night that the Commonwealth Parliament has neither the legal right nor the constitutional power to give effect to this convention. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- I do not agree with the honorable member. I think that the majority of the High Court agrees with me. Professor Bailey is frankly against the honorable member. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- No doubt the honorable member for Bourke **(Mr. Blackburn)** will have something to say on this subject. I put it to the House, however, that the Scullin Government, when it was in power from 1929 to 1931, had the opportunity to ratify 30 agreements of the International Labour Conference. Actually, it selected only three of them for ratification. One convention was ratified by the BrucePage Government before the Scullin Government assumed office. In the most recent return of the International Labour Office, dated last July, there is a list of seventeen agreements against which appears a mark indicating that the Commonwealth Government had no power to give effect to them. The legal members of the Opposition know as well as we do, that even if a Labour government occupied the Treasury bench it could not ratify these conventions. It is time, therefore, that this . issue of the 40-hour week was faced frankly. The honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James)** had a good deal to say about the possible effect of the 40-hour week in the coal-mining industry. I have recently read a report dealing with the operation of the 40-hour week in France. In that country, it had the effect of reducing the output of the coal mines last winter by 22 per cent. The cost of production in the coal mines in the north of France was increased by 25 per cent, in consequence of the 40-hour week. The mines were not capable, under a 40-hour working week, of supplying France with the coal it required, and coal had to be imported from Germany, and even from Poland, to supply the needs of the people, although France has an abundance of coal in its own soil. In view of these facts honorable members opposite would be wise to take a better look at this subject, than apparently they have done. Many more profitable issues could be submitted to the country than the fantastic proposal for a 40-hour week in Australian industry. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr Rosevear: -- Then why is the honorable member worrying about it? {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I am only concerned, at bottom, with good government in this country. As one who has some concern for democratic traditions, I say that a change of government now and then is a good thing for democracy. I make that statement quite deliberately. It is only good, however, if we get down to definite principles and if the policy submitted to the country relates to questions of real concern and does not consist of attempts to buy votes with the people's money which has to be provided afterwards. Under these conditions there is nothing very wrong with a change of government. I shall not go any further into that subject at the moment, except to say that, in my opinion, one of the worst things besetting democracy in Australia to-day is the control exercised over members of Parliament by certain outside organizations. In this regard,- we have the classic example of our friends opposite having to abide by any decisions of the party meeting, and we also have some of my, at present, rather distant friends in Victoria in the same unfortunate position. {: .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr James: -- What* does the honorable member think of **Mr. Dunstan?** {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I would give him a good bath in sulphuric acid. A member of a Ministry who goes to the country under the conditions that obtained when **Mr. Dunstan** went on the same platform with **Sir Stanley** Argyle during the last State election. in Victoria, and does afterwards the things that **Mr. Dunstan** did, is, so far as I am concerned, politically a foreigner. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The Prime Minister did the same thing. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I am not concerned about the Prime Minister. I am dealing at the moment with a member of my own party, as I have every right to do. I know that a body of opinion in Victoria thinks that the Federal Country party should do as the Dunstan party did, but I would be no party to such a move as that. There are seven major points in Federal politics on which the Federal Country party and the Labour party can never agree. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- There are more than seven. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- Long ago some one, I think it was Solomon, wrote about the seven wonders of the world. To-day there are eight. The eighth is the 'honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** Let me recite these seven points. They are: - (1) our foreign relations policy, on which we could never agree; (2) our imperial relations policy and the Statute of Westminster, which I would not touch with a 40-foot pole, and which I regard as one of the most dangerous measures ever introduced into this Parliament; (3) our defence policy; (4) the Federal tariff; (5) the national insurance scheme, on which, after reading the published statement of the Leader of the Opposition the other day, I am sure we could never agree; (6) the 40-hour week principle; and (7) unification *versus* State rights. Because of our different outlook on these points I should never be a party to an alliance or working arrangement in this Parliament between the party which, for the time being at all events, I have the honour to represent in this House, and my rather consistent friends of the Opposition. Having dealt with these subjects at some considerable length, I repeat that the all-important question that the electors of Australia will have to ask themselves on a not-far-distant Saturday, is that which the right honorable member for Yarra addressed to them in 1929: " Is Labour fit to govern?" As I referred in my opening remarks to the rather straightforward attack which the right honorable member for Yarra launched against the Minister for Defence the other day, when he dealt with a certain orchard and its fruit, I shall conclude my address by reminding him and his supporters of the saying from the Good Old Book - " By their fruits ye shall know them." I think Australia knows them. {: #subdebate-15-1-s9 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP .- The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron),** without anything in the nature of a preface or foreword, commenced his speech with the question : " Is Labour fit to govern ?" and I, as an act of natural courtesy, which is characteristic of me, immediately answered in the affirmative. This answer, which showed that I knew what I was talking about, bad the unaminous support of the Labour party in this chamber. If anything further by way of confirmation is wanted by the honorable member, he need not become impatient, for an election is at hand. It is true that it has apparently been postponed a week or two for the purpose of giving to the members of the Country party and the United Australia party, if defeated at the coming State election in Victoria, a second run for a Commonwealth seat. But the election is at hand, and the people may be relied upon to give a definite and conclusive answer to the honorable member's question. The honorable member stated 37 separate points-- {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- I think it was 31. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Only 31? I have no desire to be guilty of any exaggeration approaching that indulged in by the honorable member for Barker. Let us leave it at 31. The honorable gentleman charged the Labour party with failure in respect of these points. I remind him, however, that fulfilment of Labour's promises on those points was subject to three conditions. First, there was no undertaking on the part of the Labour Government that effective action could be taken on all those matters within a period of two years; secondly, it was a condition precedent to our carrying out any part of that policy that we should have control of the legislative machinery of the country, by which alone they could be put into operation; and, thirdly, it was reasonable to suppose that not much could he done towards the completion of our programme within the first two years as we had to meet a deficit of £7,000,000 piled up as the result of the maladministration and iniquitous legislation of the friends and political relations of the honorable member for Barker. I might even suggest that as the honorable member was not a member of the Parliament at that lime, his ignorance of the many matters with which he dealt with such extraordinary confidence is easier to under stand. Everybody knows that the climax to conditions, which were, admittedly, world wide, was approaching in 1929 when the Labour Government assumed office. Everybody also knows the liberal extent to which the Bruce-Page Government, which preceded the Scullin Government, contributed, in Australia at all events, to the depression and the effects thereof under which we laboured for some years, and under which, notwithstanding the boast of honorable gentlemen opposite, we are still labouring. I suppose it is idle to attempt to correct the honorable member for Barker. He makes these whirling charges which are carefully prepared for him by the publicity officer of his .party; he reads from a closely printed typed strip and evidently made no attempt to verify the statements contained therein; and, as I have already said, he was not in this Parliament at the time and 'so had no firsthand knowledge of the circumstances with which he dealt. He fires the charges off against a defenceless House without notice, and immediately quits the chamber without waiting to hear any part of the answer to them, an answer unrehearsed and immediate as it must be. Such is the courage and consistency of the honorable member ! He does not apparently know or care whether it is true or not that the then honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Parker Moloney),** who was Minister for Markets, introduced a marketing bill which this' House passed, and which gave particular benefits to the members of the Country party and their friends; but which was rejected by the Senate at the instance of a member of the Country party. I do not know whether he knows these things or whether his publicity officer has taken the trouble to compile this information for him; but I suggest that the manner in which he has rushed away from the House without waiting to hear the replies to his statements indicates that he is well aware what is about to come to him. He suggested that the. Labour party committed itself to a promise to collect the accumulated arrears of land tax. It did. Long before 1929, the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** had moved for the appointment of a royal commission to inquire into the failure of the then Government to collect outstanding very substantial sums, that had not been collected by the then Nationalist Government. These were taxes which were owing by the rich landlords and landowners, the friends and supporters of this Government, and the friends and supporters of the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron).** It was the Labour party that moved for the collection of those taxes, which in the most discreditable way had been allowed to outstand and accumulate whilst poorer men, owing smaller sums, were prosecuted repeatedly, and the last shilling exacted from them. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were actually outstanding and not one step was taken to collect them - not because of the neglect of the commissioner, but because of the influence of the gentlemen who support this Government and keep it in power. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- Quite untrue. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- We took steps to collect that money, and we collected part of it. We should have continued to collect it until, if humanly possible, the last penny of it was recovered for the Treasury from the friends of the honorable member who runs away from his place rather than hear the answer to his charges. I do not know in what capacity he speaks here at all, whether he is a supporter of the Government or whether he is an independent. I asked when he became a supporter of the Government. We all have heard him in this chamber, and we all are perfectly well aware what a thorn he is in the Government's side. We are prepared to give him credit for a considerable measure of ability, and never has he shown his ability to greater advantage or in a more meritorious way than upon those numerous occasions when he has been holding this Government up to ridicule and contempt. But an election is at hand, and the position has changed. I said that he was not here in 1931. He was in South Australia, and was then giving just as much trouble to the Premier of that State as he has given to this Government since he came into this House. But to-night he suits their pur pose, because of the considered attack which he made, and which had been carefully prepared for him, upon the late Labour Government. He knows nothing, apparently, of the banking bill which was introduced into this chamber by the then Treasurer, the then honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Theodore),** probably the ablest Treasurer we have ever had in this country. He knows nothing about the fact that that bill went to the Senate, where it was rejected by his friends. Notwithstanding that, he dares to come into this chamber, and to tell it, in my presence and in the presence of others, that the late Scullin Government did nothing about banking legislation, and nothing about amending the Constitution. The honorable member knows that on two occasions we sent a measure to the Senate. On the first it was rejected, and, on the second, it was referred to a select committee for inquiry, and entombed. The Senate did not even have the decency to deal with it by rejecting it or sending it back, but side-tracked it in that way, which made it impossible for us to seek a double dissolution upon it. One does not expect to deal in detail with those things, N03. 1 to 31, enumerated by the honorable member for Barker, in the limited time at my disposal, but, as I said in my opening remarks, Nos. 1 to 31 inclusive were conditioned by us having power to implement the policy. As to the greater part of the charges made against the late Scullin Government, they are a tissue of distortions and misrepresentations of the facts of the case. I think I have sufficiently disposed of the honorable member for Barker. I had intended to say, in a very quiet way, notwithstanding any provocation which I might receive from the Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** a few words in general terms on the motion for supply. The truth is that my particular object in saying anything at all at that stage, before the honorable member for Barker spoke, was simply that, if I allowed the vote of supply to go without any criticism, if I neglected to avail myself of the time-honoured right of the ordinary member to ask for redress of grievances before granting supply, it might be mistakenly thought that I was satisfied with this Government, its Supply bill, its schedule, and its policy, and that I was allowing the Government to go through with it, and to proceed quietly to the country for the judgment of the people, perhaps for their commendation upon its good works. The Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** will be shocked, I am sure, to hear from me that I have no confidence in the Government, that I do not approve of its policy, and that the only confidence I feel is a confident belief that its days are numbered, that is a great, consolation to me. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- And the same applies to the Minister, for that matter. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- I understand that the Minister also, in a personal political sense, is marked out for the slaughter, but I had no desire to be personal in referring to him. I know the subject to him is a very painful one. I was recently in Sydney, and, moving through his electorate, I saw the name of his opponent, **Mr. Spender,** K.C., published on various hoardings regardless of expense. It seems perfectly obvious that, even amongst the aristocracy of Clifton Gardens and the surrounding district, the days of the honorable gentleman are politically numbered. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- I have been here continuously for ten years, but the honorable member was out for three years. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- If the honorable member is speaking in the sense of being a member of this Parliament, I have been here a great many years longer than he has. He is to me comparatively a glaxo baby in politics, and therefore it is perfectly idle for him to assume the air venerable when he talks to me. The honorable member for Flinders **(Mr. Fairbairn)** spoke this afternoon about members making electioneering speeches. He said, in effect, at all events, that he thought there was no valid objection to people making electioneering speeches so near to an election as we are, so long as policies were discussed and personalities were not indulged in. Proceeding along those excellent lines - and so far I entirely agreed with him - he then went on to deplore what he was pleased to call the scurrilous personalities of the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** I am sorry the honorable member for East Sydney was not present to deal with him immediately. There is a very old Latin saying which indicates that where a number of men or women are together, there are different opinions. We also have different types of men in this Federal Parliament. When the honorable member spoke approvingly of the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey),** and most disapprovingly of the honorable member for East Sydney, I could not help thinking of that old. saying - *tot homines, quot sentential* - and I thought further that it was quite likely that a great many of the constituents and supporters of the honorable member for East Sydney did not go to their work every morning in a highpriced aeroplane. I also thought it very likely, looking at the Treasurer, that a good many of them did not often sell expensive private houses in London.I could see, therefore, that there were certain fundamental differences between the honorable the Treasurer and the honorable member for Flinders on the one side, and the honorable member for East Sydney and his constituents' on the other, but then I bethought me of the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Lane)** who made a speech this morning, in the course of which he made what I should have thought the honorable member for Flindersmight rightly have described as a scurrilous attack on a number of honorable members, including myself. If the honorable member for Flinders had been sufficiently just to call attention to the observations of the honorable member for Barton, and to some very offensive remarks made by the honorable and precariously situated member for Newnes **(Mr. John Lawson)** I should have summed the situation up in this way, that, as between the honorable member for East Sydney and the honorable member for Barton, if the honorable member for East Sydney was at any stage scurrilous, at least he was able, at least he was forceful, at least hecould adduce a powerful argument, and could put it in comprehensible and effective English, whereas the honorable member for Barton, when he attacked us, put his scurrilities into foul English. It was at that stage that I was obliged to leave the chamber, because I could stand him no longer. It appears that one of the objections that these sensitive disciples of Lord Chesterfield have against us is that we are not as loyal as we might be. I listened the other day to some manly utterances by the honorable member for "Franklin **(Mr. Frost)** on this matter of the alleged disloyalty of honorable members on this side of the House. I am not now on my defence in respect of a charge of disloyalty; I do not stoop to put myself in a position of defending myself against such a charge. There are some things which normally among decent people are taken for granted, and one is a sense of loyalty in citizens, and especially representative men, to the institutions under which they live. But the charge made by honorable members opposite gives me an opportunity to examine for a moment this interesting abstract matter of loyalty. "When, as they are prone to do in their fervour ou the eve of an election, and especially when they are in a position, if not absolutely dangerous, at any rate, slightly precarious, they make charges of disloyalty, what do they mean? Do they mean disloyalty to the Sovereign? If so, I point out that in the present constitutional position in which we live as citizens of a nation which is, in turn, a member of a commonwealth of nations, under a monarchical system, the Sovereign acts in all official matters upon the advice of his Ministers, and, in all matters affecting Australia, upon the advice of his Australian Ministers. It has been my proud privilege as a member of this Parliament, and as a Minister of the Crown, to advise the Sovereign, and the representative of the Sovereign, on various occasions in their constitutional capacities. This, then, is the very high-water mark of a democratic system. In this country, so far as I know, there is not the slightest agitation anywhere against the monarchical system. Some 25 or 30 years ago, certainly in Victoria, and probably in some of the other States, a republican party came into existence and republicanism had considerable vogue. It was supported by members of parliament, professional men, and, more important still, of course, by a considerable body of .the working class, part of whom I represent in this Parliament. {: .speaker-K9A} ##### Mr Gander: -- Joe Cook was among them. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Yes; in his early days **Sir Joseph** Cook lent support to the republican party. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- They called him " cut the painter Joe." {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- That is probably true. I feel pretty certain that in those days the agitation was not so much for " cutting the painter " as it was a protest against external control of Australian Ministers in this country - a form of interference by the Colonial Office in the. affairs of Australia. It was that real invasion of the constitutional right of this country to apply the principles of responsible government in their entirety that caused that reaction in those days. As the result of those considerations, Australia now has complete self-government in international affairs, as well as in internal affairs, and, having that perfect freedom under which it applies the constitutional principle of advising the Sovereign and the Sovereign immediately gives effect to such advice, not in any section of this Commonwealth, even the most radical, or the most disaffected, can one hear a whisper or suggestion of any desire on the part of any one to change the existing system of constitutional government. Nowhere and at no time, I think, was that more strongly exemplified than in the recent upheaval when the new .Sovereign ascended the throne. That is the answer to this intensely silly charge that there exists in the Labour party disloyalty to the .Sovereign. That charge is easily disposed of in that way. Indeed, those who make the charge, if they make it seriously, should either be segregated as fit inmates of a mental asylum, or committed to a reformatory for the punishment of people who persist in wickedness of that description. Well then, do honorable members opposite speak of disloyalty to Australia's institutions or its form of government? I am not sure what that exactly would mean, but I point out that the Labour party has fought for the existing institutions in Australia. Every great reform which has tended to emancipate the people has been fought for by the Labour party and its immediate predecessors. For instance, members of the Labour party and men of their type, and their predecessors, fought for and obtained a liberal franchise in spite of the stubborn resistance of men who were the spiritual predecessors of those who are now in power in this Parliament. We have established democracy in this country; we have 'a democratic form of government. Every man has a vote. That reform was opposed by the spiritual predecessor of honorable gentlemen opposite, who sought to confine the vote to a particular class. To-day every woman has a vote. That also, was strenuously opposed. The democratic institutions which we enjoy have been fought for, and won, by the Labour party and its predecessors. It naturally follows, therefore, that we could not, under any conceivable circumstances, be disloyal to the system of government which we have been at such pains over a number of years to build up in Australia. There then remains the question - Are we disloyal to the British Empire? "What Ls the British Empire in this sense? I have already said that we are members of a nation which is, in turn, a member of a commonwealth of nations. {: .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr Hutchinson: -- Within an Empire. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- So it is declared. The honorable member has called my attention to a very interesting phrase in the 1926 resolution preliminary to the Statute of Westminster - "within the Empire ". So far as the Commonwealth of Nations is concerned we cannot possibly be an empire. There can be no empire in any strict sense of the word in this instance because the nations are declared to be autonomous and equal in every particular, not only in their local affairs, but also in their relationship to what may be fairly called the Mother Country, and in their relationship to the world. So no question of loyalty, or disloyalty, enters into that relationship of absolute freedom and goodwill. But the honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Hutchinson)** pointed out that it is suggested in some way that we are within the Empire. I confess that I find difficulty in understanding the use of those words in that connexion and it would be a little difficult to explain what their meaning is. This Government stands in the matter of peace and war for co-operation with Great Britain. I suppose that in some sense or other all of us would favour a policy of co-operation in that respect, as far as practicable, but when I loot at the British Empire, as distinct from the British Commonwealth of Nations, I ask myself, where our responsibility begins and where it ends. There is, for instance, the great Empire of India with its teeming millions, and its seething political problems. There are colonies dotted all over the map of the world. There is the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Nyassaland, Southern Rhodesia, and Togoland in Africa. In Sierra Leone we have small interests and in addition to all those, colonies we have some sort of control over various Mandated Territories. There are Palestine, which is a problem in itself, former German West Africa, and Tanganyika in East Africa, as well as our islands in the Pacific Ocean. There are other possessions which I need not detail. In Egypt, in addition to the Sudan, we have what is called a sphere of influence which we are considered to control as a British possession. There are also protectorates. Apart from our obligations to the League of Nations - and this applies to each one of the dominions - Australia has no knowledge or control of, or responsibility for, any of those territories. Australia has no knowledge of these territories, it accepts no responsibility in respect of taxation, and it asks for nothing in regard to the collection of revenue. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- We accept responsibility, under mandate, in respect of New Guinea. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- That is one exceptional case in the long list I have mentioned, and exceptional only to the extent that Australia has accepted the mandate over New Guinea subject to control by the Mandates Commission. That really does not alter the extraordinary fact that we have no control, no practical interest in, and no knowledge of any of those vast territories that are controlled directly by the British Government without any reference whatever to Australia. I arn not complaining; I am satisfied up to that point, but how can it possibly be said that we can have any responsibility in regard to these territories which *re spread all over the world? India, in ' itself, is a vast problem. We have read how acute the position is at present on the north-west frontier, where there are repeated troubles with the tribesmen. The honorable member for Maribyrnong **(Mr. Drakeford),** who spoke -to-day about the private manufacture of munitions, would be interested to learn that 150,000 rifles used by those tribesmen against British soldiers serving in India were manufactured in Birmingham. But that is another aspect of the subject I am discussing. The Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** takes an interest in foreign affairs, and from time to time has answered questions regarding international relations, but I have never known the Government, through its Ministers, to declare any policy of its own on foreign affairs or in connexion with any territory included in the British Empire. Ministers speak in general terms about co-operation with Great Britain in matters of defence, but is the Government to give us any information on what co-operation means? Has it any theory which shows the extent or the nature of Australia's commitments in regard to all those territories? {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- There are no commitments. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The Treasurer is in error when he says there are no commitments. For example, there is a commitment on the part of this Government to co-operate with the British navy, or tho British army, as the case may be, in the defence of any or all of those territories, including mandated territories, in any part of the world. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- There are no commitments at all. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Taking refuge behind all these vague generalities in regard to foreign affairs, the defence of Australia, and the defence of interests outside of Australia, the Government has never told us its policy. It says that it will co-operate, and that if Britain is at war, Australia is also at war. It does not matter where" the war occurs. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Does the honorable member admit that? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Constitutionally and legally I deny it absolutely. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Does the honorable member deny that when the King is at war we are at war? {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- Surely the Minister has studied the Statute of Westminster and knows what has been done in respect of the dominions? {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- I deny that that statute provides that when the King is at war, constitutionally we are not at war. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The Treasurer is entirely wrong. The Attorney-General has not committed himself by making such a statement. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- I have heard the Attorney-General on the subject. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- The Treasurer's experience in this matter is immature because he will find that others, apart from the Attorney-General, have committed themselves most definitely. The position is clear. In dominion affairs the King acts upon the advice of his dominion Ministers, and therefore Australia cannot be involved in war, or peace cannot be proclaimed in respect of such a war except on the advice of his Ministers in Australia. If war breaks out in any part of Europe and Has Majesty's Ministers in Britain advise His Majesty, to declare war against a European or Asiatic country, war is, *ipso facto,* declared. That declaration of war has no effect upon the constitutional position of Australia, which is not involved in war by such a declaration. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Technically, we are at war when Britain is at war. So far as I know, **Mr. Hertzog** is the only representative man who adopts the same attitude as the honorable member. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN: -- This matter will come up for discussion oh another measure if the Government provides the opportunity. {: #subdebate-15-1-s10 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-15-1-s11 .speaker-KK7} ##### Mr JENNINGS:
Watson .- I take this opportunity to make some comments on the budgetary position of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer referred to three very important factors in regard to the position of Australia - Australia's economic position, our satisfactory trade balance, and the extent to which the public debt of the Commonwealth has been reduced. When a budget is introduced in normal times, the taxpayers expect further remissions of taxes. In view of the fact that taxation reduction stimulates industry and promotes employment this is urged. During the regime of the Lyons Government, according to figures supplied, taxes amounting to £15,000,000 per annum have been remitted. When we examine the budget we find that the financial position of Australia is dominated by the annual expenditure on invalid and old-age pensions and on defence. I approve the Government's action in making a full restoration of the invalid and old-age pensions, the expenditure on which plays a very important part in a government's budget. For instance, an additional £2,000,000 is being added to the estimated expenditure on pensions for this financial year which will bring the total expenditure to nearly £16,000,000. For the last eight years, the expenditure in this direction has increased by 50 per cent., and during the last eighteen years, by 325 per cent, lt has. risen from £4,500,000 in 1919-20 to approximately £16,000,000 per annum. Invalid and old-age pensions absorb practically the whole of our revenue from federal income tax and the sales tax, and represent approximately one-third of the expenditure on the general services of the Commonwealth. So one readily recognizes that this presents one of the difficulties in budgeting. The proposed expenditure of £11,531,000 on defence during this financial year must be considered in the light of the position in Europe to-day, which has a very important bearing on Australia's defence. In travelling through European countries, particularly in central Europe, one needs no reminder of their military activity. Disciplined German military regiments - air and other services - can be seen in full operation, and extensive barracks have been erected in various parts of that country. When inquiries are made concerning the extensive military preparations one is told by the Nazis that Germany is compelled to arm because neighbouring countries are heavily armed. We are faced with the human folly of the nations of the world having now 10,000,000 more men under arms than the world had in 1914, and the expenditure on defence in Europe to-day approximately £10,000,000,000,000. We talk of world peace; it is armed peace. In the budgets of all European countries 35 per cent, of the expenditure is for armaments rather than social advancement. Because of nations outside the League showing force we have the paradoxical position of Great Britain arming to prevent war. The duty of the Government is to make provision for the effective defence of Australia. The defence programme outlined by the Government, including the expenditure on the air force, will be approved. I think British opinion to-day is that Australia can help Great Britain in the difficult matter of supplies in these rapidly-changing days and altered conditions. In Great Britain up till recently there were some who appeared to be opposed to the development of Australian secondary industries. It is now realized that, in taking advantage of our raw materials, we are effectively and efficiently improving our industries, providing further employment, maintaining our population and inspiring confidence not only in Australia but also in Great Britain. Additional British capital is now being invested in Australian industries to the advantage of both countries, and more is available for the purpose, and in the event of national emergency these industries will be of paramount importance. I wish now to refer to the granting of a further subsidy to the Australian National Travel Association. Tourist traffic is an important item in the1 invisible income of all countries. Its value is shown in the latest Canadian report, which states that the income derived from tourist traffic reached the remarkable large total of £50,000,000. Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, in addition to other countries have consistently endeavoured to develop their tourist trade and to obtain a lucrative income. Canada is fortunate in that it has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company actively engaged in advertising the various .tourist attractions of that dominion, and also because of the proximity of the great centres of population in the United States of America. We, in Australia, at least can say that we have attractions equal to those of other countries, added to which is the important fact that the exchange is greatly in favour of the tourists. Every dominion is making its voice heard in this connexion. The Australian National Travel Association is doing a good job with limited resources and the further subsidy must be approved. The revenue aspect is worthy of the consideration of the Government. I congratulate the Government on its policy in regard to Pacific shipping. The heavy subsidizing of American ships and the prevention of British trading to American Pacific ports has been a tremendous obstacle to the advance of British shipping interests in the Pacific, but the action of the Government in supporting Great Britain, Canada and New Zealand in a combined policy will restore British prestige in that sphere, and remove a serious obstacle to national development. Another matter for which I desire to commend the Government is its decision to make available a grant for the vocational employment of youths. One of the great problems of many overseas nations is that of finding work for unskilled workmen. As the several States and the Commonwealth are co-operating in this matter, the result should be the provision of greater opportunities for Australian youths to obtain skilled and technical training. On numerous occasions the effect of new inventions on industry has been referred to in this chamber. When I was in Washington the National Research Committee of the United States of America issued a remarkable interesting report dealing with the effect of new inventions on employment, industry and general living conditions. The Government of the United States of America appointed a committee to investigate unemployment, and to deal with the problems associated with the adjustment necessary to meet changed conditions due to such inventions as air conditioning, artificial cotton, wool fibre, fabricated houses, oil from coal, television, mechanical cotton pickers, steep, flight aircraft and general laboursaving appliances. The report is most comprehensive and is expected to become a guide to the United States of American Government in planning against future depressions and is making proper adjustments to obtain the fullest benefit from modern inventions. I recommend the report to the consideration of the Government and its officers. By following, generally a sound and sane policy the Government has directed Australia's economic life towards the securing of a progressive measure of prosperity, and therefore it deserves the support of the people at the forthcoming election. {: #subdebate-15-1-s12 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley .-I have been interested to hear from government supporters of the wonderful progress that has been made towards the absorption of" unemployed workers in industry during the regime of the present Government. For what has been done to absorb the unemployed in industry, the Government takes the credit. In his budget speech, the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** based his claim that unemployment had decreased during the last six years on figures which are notoriously unreliable. Time after time the Treasurer has based similar arguments on the figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician, and just as frequently the Opposition has endeavoured to point out the unreliability of those figures. It is useless for the Government to claim that conditions have returned to normal, when those who move around the different electorates can see for themselves that unemployment and destitution still exist. The figures of the Statistician mean nothing to the man who, for the last four or five years, has been forced to depend on relief work and the dole. Even the Commonwealth Statistician himself admits that his figures are incomplete. That is also the opinion of **Mr. Ince,** who was brought to Australia from Great Britain in order to report on unemployment insurance. **Mr. Ince** said that he was unable to arrive at any definite recommendations based on the figures supplied to him in Australia, for they were so unreliable that many of his computations had to be based largely on guesswork. Let us examine the posi- tion with regard to the Statistician's figures for the last few years. Statistics compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician showed that, in 1936, the total membership of trade unions in Australia was 814,809, but the Statistician added that that figure did not represent the total trade union membership, because other organizations, which were practically independent and self-governing, were not included. Therefore, on the Statistician's own statement., it is clear that the total of 814,809 did not include all the organized workers in Australia. For the purpose of compiling his figures in relation to unemployment, the Statistician took as a basis, the membership belonging to unions which reported their unemployment figures as nearly 443,000 - a little over half of the known organized workers in Australia. He did not take into consideration the number of unemployed in other organizations, nor did he include those thousands of workers who were entirely outside any trade union organization at all. The figures quoted by the Statistician represent less than half of the workers in industry in Australia. Yet, on that most unsatisfactory basis, he computed the proportion of workers who are unemployed. He went on vo say that, of that number, those out of work three days or more each week were considered to be unemployed. Any one who works more than two and a half days a week is regarded by the Statistician as being in full employment. I do not know whether the Government or its supporters are satisfied with figures which have been formulated on that basis, nor whether they will be prepared within the nest few weeks to go into the electorates and tell men who arc relying on two and a half days or less each week that they are the only persons unemployed Neither do I know whether they will be prepared to tell those men, the majority of whom are employed for about three weeks in five weeks on relief work, that prosperity has returned to Australia, simply because the Commonwealth Statistician says that only 9.7 per cent, of the workers of Australia are unemployed. But the Treasurer and some of his supporters are not satisfied with pointing to the index figure. In his budget speech. the Treasurer stated that, if part time workers be included as employed, the result would be 5.3 per cent. What do the Treasurer and other Government supporters regard as part-time work? Those men who are unemployed for three or more days a week - which means that they are employed for two and half days or less each week - should be regarded as being part,time employed, but apparently that is not so. They are actually regarded as being fully employed. Those who work less than two and half days a week are regarded as part-time workers. If this country is unfortunate enough next year to have the same Treasurer, the honorable gentleman might be a little more ridiculous, and take into account those who are not even part-time workers - those who have no work at all, but probably help their wive3 with the, housework. If these are included in the returns in some way, the problem of unemployment according to the Treasurer's line of reasoning will be entirely solved! Honorable members may regard that as a ridiculous suggestion, but is not the claim of the Treasurer in his budget speech also ridiculous? Let us test the reliability of those figures. We get a reliable index of the prosperity of the people of Australia only once in every ten years. That remark also applies to the degree of unemployment that exists. I refer, of course, to the year in which the census is taken. It is interesting to compare the census figures for June, 1933, with the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician upon which the Government relies for the formulation of its arguments in relation to unemployment. In June, 1933, the Statistician showed that 106,652 persons in Australia were unemployed, but the census taken in the same month gave the number as 481,044. That is to say, nearly five times as many persons in Australia were unemployed at that time as were shown in the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician. According to the Statistician, 40,000 persons are now unemployed in Australia. I suggest that, if the Statistician's figures are as unreliable now as they were in . 1933 - and the Statistician has not altered his basis of computation - I should not he exaggerating if I were to say that the actual number of persons unemployed" in Australia to-day is between 140,000 and 150,000. The Government, of course, will tell the House, and it will be published throughout the anti-Labour press, that the figures are as it states. However, members of the Government will not go into the industrial suburbs on dole day in the vicinity of the post office and dole dumps, where as many as a thousand men in a single municipality gather for the purpose of obtaining rations or tickets for relief work. They will not tell those men that prosperity has returned because they are able to get one week in three or one week in five on relief work. What part hasthe Government played in the restoration of employment? We know that the economic crisis was world-wide, and that unemployment was general throughout all countries. Australia was not the only country that suffered as the result of the financial crisis. {: .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson: -- The honorable member for Cook **(Mr. Garden)** said that there were 200,000 youths unemployed, apart from adults. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- The honorable member for Cook may be right, because the Statistician's figures did not take youths into account, and the boys who were at school in June, 1933, are now eighteen years of age, and a great many of them have never worked. However, let us examine the unemployment figures as they are presented by the Statistician. This Government claims that the improvement in the unemployment situation is due to its policy, but, strangely enough, every State where there is a non-Labour government has a higher percentage of unemployed . than have the States with Labour governments. Here are the figures for March, . 1937,- for the three States which have Labour governments - For the States with non-Labour governments, the figures are - The average for the three States with Labour governments is 7 per cent., while for those with non-Labour governments, the average is 10.2 per cent. Therefore, it would appear that if the matter is influenced by government at all, the advantage lies with the Labour governments. It would certainly appear that any improvement in the situation during the regime of the Commonwealth Government has taken place in spite of that Government, not because of it. Let us now examine the alleged prosperity of the factory workers. The Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** said that there had been an enormous growth in the number of persons employed in factories, but neglected to say that there had been an abnormal growth in the number of children and females employed. However, taking the figures as a whole, we find that, in 1929-30, the number of persens of all ages and sexes employed in factories was 419,814, while the total wages paid to them amounted to £84,717,000, or £210 a head. Last year, in this era of prosperity under the present Commonwealth Government, the number of persons employed certainly increased to 492,771, but the total wages paid amounted to only £82,098,208, or £173 a head. Thus, there were 73,587 more workers, but the wages paid declined by £2,718,745, whilst the amount earned *per capita* dropped from £210 to £173. It will not be of much use for this Government to seek the suffrages of factory workers who know that during its administration, their annual earnings have fallen by over £40 a year. When we compare the wages earned in the various States, we find that the advantage is again in favour of those States with Labour governments. The figures are as follows r - The average annual wage in the Labour States was £184, as against an average wage of £171 in the States with nonLabour governments. The honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Jennings)** referred to the. need for the Government to contribute to an Empire Travel Association, but I think that the Commonwealth baa already made sufficient contribution lo this association. During the last five years, Ministers have been continually travelling abroad at the expense of the country. During that time seventeen Ministers have made 22 trips and visited 28 countries at a cost to Australia of £50,000, exclusive of the cost of the coronation delegation, and the delegates who attended the Imperial Conference; the last named two items .alone cost between £12,000 and £15,000. Thus, approximately £65,000 has been expended during the last five years on ministerial trips abroad. If that is not a substantial contribution to the cause of Empire travel, I should like to know what would satisfy the honorable member for Watson. Now we have reached the stage where even Government officials claim the right to recommend themselves for trips overseas. After all, I suppose there is no reason why they should not do so in view of the example set them by Ministers. Every time a Minister feels like having a trip abroad he just goes, and the country foots the bill, though no proof has ever been offered of any benefit having accrued to the country. Now the bad habit has spread to high officials of the Public Service. Questions were asked in the House only this week regarding the recent trip abroad of **Mr. Brown,** the AuditorGeneral, who is due to retire shortly. He went on a trip allegedly to check the accounts of the Commonwealth's office in New York. When Ministers were asked who recommended **Mr. Brown's** trip, we were told that it was not recommended by the Public Service Board, nor by any responsible Minister, nor even by the Cabinet. **Mr. Brown's** trip abroad was recommended by **Mr. Brown** himself. He went abroad to seek experience, although he is just about to retire, and he went at the expense of the Commonwealth. Because **Mr. Brown** thought that **Mr. Brown** ought to have a trip, the Cabinet agreed. I desire to make some observations regarding the national broadcasting stations, and the control exercised over them for political purposes. Recently the Australian Broadcasting Commission refused the Premier of Queensland, **Mr.** Forgan Smith, access to the Queensland A-class station in order to make a speech on a non-political matter. The excuse offered by the manager of the commission was that any politician who spoke over the national network, whatever the subject or the occasion, obtained a tremendous personal advertisement. I take it that this is no new idea on the part of the manager of the commission. It appears from information gleaned from the Government that between the 1st January, 1935, and the 31st August, 1936, supporters of the Ministry used the national network on at least 75 occasions, whilst members of the Opposition were permitted to enjoy that privilege on only six occasionsThere is -no doubt that if the manager of the commission thought - and he appears to have thought so all along - that any politician speaking over the national network got a tremendous personal advertisement, the charge that has been laid more than once by members of the Opposition against the members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that they are political partisans is well founded, on the admission of the manager of the commission himself. As was. said by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** to-day, it is iniquitous on the part of the commission to offer theeader of the Country party equal facilities to those afforded to the Prime Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition in connexion with the forthcoming election campaign. If the two leaders of the two anti-Labour parties are not facing the people on a common policy, they should make a public declaration to that effect; but, while the Leader of the United Australia party is looked upon as the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the Country party is the deputy leader, they should not have a greater privilege than that accorded to the Leader of the Opposition. To-night the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** went to much pains to . criticize the policy enunciated by the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin)** at the last federal elections. One point he stressed was that the Scullin. Government did not carry out its promise to initiate a steamship service between Tasmania and the mainland. No Government supporter would be justified in criticizing the Labour government because it was unable to carry out that promise, having regard to the record of the present Government in connexion with overseas transport. I refer to the total neglect of the present Government to recover on behalf of the Commonwealth the money which it was supposed to collect for the sale of the Australian Commonwealth Government Line of steamers to the overseas shipping combine. It is well known that that line was purchased for £7,500,000 and was sold to the White Star line for £1,900,000. The report of the Auditor-General for the year ended the 30th June, 1935, shows that there was a balance then owing to the Commonwealth of £77.8,330. The report continues - The White Star line is now in liquidation and its affairs are mixed up with various subsidiary companies in a manner in which it is not practicable to deal with in this report. About three years ago, the vessels bought by the White Star line for £1,900,000 were sold for £500,000 to a newly formed company in which the White Star line held a substantial financial interest " through another subsidiary company. In my earlier report I criticized somewhat severely the misleading character of the statement of the chairman of the White Star line to shareholders concerning this transaction, as well as the complaint of the chairman that his company had been the victim of a very hard bargain by the Commonwealth. As I pointed out, this very fine fleet of vessels, which cost the Commonwealth originally £7,500,000, was resold for £500,000 only, and the asset forming the security *for the* payments due to the Commonwealth now seems to have disappeared through the manipulations of the company with its subsidiaries. In the winding up of the White Star line, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company lodged proof of debt for £2,440,000, plus interest - seriously prejudicing the Commonwealth's position. When the Commonwealth objected to the claim ranking for dividend, the claim was withdrawn and one for only £60 substituted. All that now can be done is to await developments, but, as far as the accounts show, it is unlikely that the Commonwealth will recover as much as £300,000. Similar unfavorable results are not altogether uncommon in government transactions with private vested interests. It ill -becomes any member or supporter of the Government to criticize the Scullin Ministry for not having brought into operation a line of steamers between Tasmania and the mainland. The real sacrifice of the interests of shippers of primary products was made by the BrucePage Government, when it sacrificed tilt Commonwealth line of steamers for over £5,000,000 less than its original cost. This Government stands condemned for having made no genuine effort to recover the balance of money owing by the company which bought the vessels and resold them to the subsidiary company. What has been the effect of the sale of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers? The exporters of Australia's primary products are, to-day, entirely at the mercy of the shipping combine, to one of the partners of which were sold the Commonwealth line. The Government talks today about the prosperity that has returned to the wheat-growers because of the increased price of wheat. How much have the farmers gained from this increase? The prices have risen, but the exploiters have risen to the occasion as well. The Government crows about the freightreduction it was able to arrange with the shipping combine. It states that, as the result of the negotiations, it has been able to save the primary producers £500,000 a year. We find that the chartered shipping rates of wheat from Australia to the United Kingdom in 1932, when wheat prices were at bedrock, was 20s. a ton. In 1937, when the farmers were getting the first real rise in the price of wheat for a number of years, the shipping rate has risen from 38s. 3d. to 53s. 6d. a ton. The freight rate for wheat in parcels was 20s. a ton in 1933 and 45s. a ton in 1937. According to the *Western Australian Wheat-Grower,* the shipping companies actually took 9d. out of every 13d. rise in the price of wheat. How much real benefit did the farmers get from the increase of the wheat price? Yet the Government has the temerity to speak about the increased prosperity amongst the wheat-farmers as the result of the increased price. The London price of wheat in English currency was 5s. in October, 1936, and 6s. Id. in April, 1937, whilst the freight rates from Australia were 10d. and ls. 7d. a bushel respectively. If there is any further reduction of the price of wheat, the Coun- try party will be clamoring for additional bounties. What bas the Country party done to protect the interests of shippers of primary produce? It was associated with the Bruce-Page Government, which sold the Commonwealth's shipping line, the barrier standing between the primary producers and the overseas shipping exploiters. Over £20,000,000 was expended by the Commonwealth Government in five years on subsidies and bounties to wheatgrowers because of the calamitous fall of the price of wheat. The price having now increased the overseas shipping combine took an extra 9d. a bushel out of the 13d. by which the price has risen. Consequently the farmer has not received onethird of the benefit of the increase of the t price. If the price falls again to anything like the level experienced a couple of years ago, the farmers will be in no better position as the result of the increased price. The farmers' position particularly so far as wheat prices affect it, is practically no better to-day than it was, and it might be infinitely worse in the near future if there is a similar fall of the price of wheat. {: .speaker-KVU} ##### Mr Thompson: -- That was not said in Gwydir. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- The electors in Gywdir thought that that was so, and I feel sure that they and the electors in other country constituencies will be of i:he same opinion in the near future when another opportunity is presented to them ;.o translate their views into votes. At the last federal elections the Government promised to make available £20,000,000 for rural debt adjustment. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Not £20,000,000. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- The Government started by promising £10,000,000; the amount went up to £15,000,000, and ultimately - I think at Gosford, but a search of the files of the newspapers will settle the point - the -Leader of the Country party **(Dr. Earle Page)** promised £20,000,000 for rural debt adjustment. At any rate, a bill known as the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Bill was subsequently passed under which it was proposed to provide £12,000,000 for that purpose. I hope that that statement will not be denied. On the 21st March, 1935, the Minister for Commerce **(Dr. Earle Page)** said, as .reported in *Hansard,* that the £12,000,000 would be disbursed in three or four years; but to the 30th April, 1937, only £1,570,000 had been handed over to the States. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- That is all that the States had asked for. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- The Treasure* **(Mr. Casey)** can " pass the buck " to the States if he desires, but I know that if they are asked why more money was not disbursed they will blame the Commonwealth. A definite promise was made that £12,000,000 would be provided for rural debt adjustment. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Not on behalf of the Government. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I take it that when the United Australia party took the Country party into the Government it took the tail with the head. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Did the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Curtin)** take all that with you too? {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I have no doubt that the Minister for Commerce rushed in while the pickings were there, and promised £20,000,000 for rural debt adjustment. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- That is absolutely untrue. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- If it is untrue, the Minister may blame the anti-Labour press, which generally backs him, for having made it. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- Read my policy speech in which I promised £12,000,000. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I have already lead it. When the Minister started his election campaign he promised £12,000,000. That amount was subsequently raised to £15,000,000,- and later, at Gosford, to £20,000,000. I remarked at the time that if the election were postponed for another month the right honorable gentleman would probably promise £40,000,000. When the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Bill was before the House, the Minister for Commerce stated that the money would be disbursed in three or four year3. He cannot deny having said that, because that statement appears in *Hansard.* {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- The States could not take the whole of the money. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- This is the first time I have ever heard of States being unwilling to accept money from the Commonwealth. As I have said, only £1,570,000 had been made available up to the end of April, 1937; if disbursements continue at the same rate it will take over 15 years for the whole amount provided under the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act to be handed over to the States. *Sitting suspended from 11.50 p.m. to 12.20 a.m. (Wednesday).* *Wednesday, 8 September,* 1937. *[Quorum formed.]* {: #subdebate-15-1-s13 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong .- The debate on this bill has been marked on the one hand by the expression of compliments, mostly from Government supporters, to members of the Government on the marvellous work they have done since they have been in office; and on the other hand by freely expressed criticism of the Government for its failure to do many things that it should have done. No Government which feels that it has done its job properly should object to hostile criticism from the Opposition or even to a measure of criticism from within its own ranks. It seems to me, however, that most of the so-called achievements of this Government have been purely visionary. Nothing of much real value has been accomplished by the Government during the last three years, and if Government supporters have nothing better to tell the electors than they have told us in this House the prospects for the return of the Government to power seem to me to be hopeless. A number of honorable gentlemen opposite have commented adversely upon the defence policy of the Labour party, but I point out that a good deal of support has been forthcoming outside this House for the course advocated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin),** not only by people who do not claim to be experts, but also by some who have a considerable knowledge of the subject. That these persons should support the view enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition is significant. Several articles have been published recently which are i n accord with Labour's defence policy. One of these bears the name of a person who is in the service of the country, though he takes care to say that he does not speak in his official capacity. An article to which I direct particular' attention, entitled "Defenceless Australasia ", by Commander Russell Grenfell, and appearing in the September issue of " *Digest of World Reading* ", refers to Australia's defenceless position and subscribes to the view of the Labour party that more reliance than the Government is providing for should be placed upon the air arm of the service. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- That article appeared in the English press months ago. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- That is not to its detriment. I object very strongly to the attitude adopted by honorable members opposite to Labour's defence proposals. It would appear that Government supporters preferred to consider that the Labour party has no desire to provide adequately for the defence of this country, but they know that this is not the case. There is surely considerable room for differences of opinion on such a subject. Commander Russell Grenfell in the course of his article says - >Though public Ben ti ment in peace time may be generally favorable to sending the fleet a long way overseas to the aid of a sister Dominion, it might not be so easy to *do* it when the time came. Great Britain might easily be faced with such a hostile combination in Europe that the dispatch of important forces to distant parts might be out of the question. After discussing Australia's position exhaustively he observes - >The other form of attack which Australia and Kew Zealand have to fear is an attack on their trade. This threat might come, not from Japan only, but from any maritime country which happened to be at war with the Dominions. He further says - >Taken all round, the present systems of defence in both Australia and New Zealand, hardly seem the .best suited to the needs of those countries. They provide some protection for trade, but hardly any against the more serious danger of invasion. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- Does lie indicate how aircraft could guard our trade routes ? {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- I shall make further citations from the article, for apparently it will be of assistance to the Minister although he does not seem to be very impressed by the authority of the writer. The Labour party is strongly of the opinion that we should rely far more on the air arm of the service than the Government is disposed to do. Commander Grenfell has studied the situation carefully, and obviously feels that modern developments merit a greater recognition of the value of aircraft in defence. He is also of the opinion that we should not rely so much on the navy as we have been disposed to do. He says - >Australia and New Zealand, on the other hand, would probably not he able to import the aircraft in time of war, and therefore require an industry able not only to create a strong and efficient force, but also to make good war wastage. The Labour party has no desire to avoid using such units of the navy as we now have available, but it is strongly opposed to the spending of large sums on the construction of battleships, which might be drawn into a war on the other side of the world. The Government parties apparently take a different view. Labour's history indicates clearly that Labour is far from being opposed to the provision of adequate defence equipment. As a matter of fact, it was responsible for the establishment of the nucleus of the Royal Australian Navy. When that policy was first advanced members of the anti-Labour parties of the day poured scorn upon it, but our policy was fully justified during the war. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Who ordered the navy? {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- It frequently happens that the policy enunciated by the Labour party, after meeting with strong opposition for a number of years from the anti-Labour forces, is ultimately adopted by these forces. That is what happened in connexion with the navy. The credit for the establishment of the Royal Australian Navy belongs to the Labour party and not to the anti-Labour parties. I now direct attention to the following report, which appeared in the Melbourne *Age* on the 3rd September:- {: .page-start } page 629 {:#debate-16} ### AUSTRALIAN INVASION Views op Cruiser's Captain. DARWIN, Thursday. - Captain Fitzgerald, of the cruiser *Sydney,* gave a lecture in the Town Hall on Wednesday night. He said he was giving his own opinions, and not making official statements. He considered the Australian naval men to be superior to British sailors in physique and in intelligence, due probably to more outdoor life, more physical training, surf bathing, &c, but Britain had higher technical standards and finer specialized training, with more up-to-date equipment. Population pressure was the greatest cause of invasions and economic pressure was the quickest method of overpowering resistance, but he could not imagine any one invading Australia, as the country was too completely self-supporting to be greatly affected by economic .pressure. Evidently Captain Fitzgerald has very definite opinions on this subject. He goes on to say - >An invading power would have to be at least three times more powerful than any defending power. If Australia's defence forces were fully organized, properly equipped and efficiently manned, no enemy would ever take the risk of invading Australia. {: #debate-16-s0 .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- That may be so ; but, undoubtedly, the Minister is favorable to the sending of Australian warships overseas. Just as certain people are anxious to misrepresent Labour's policy in regard to defence generally, so are they busy publishing statements to the effect that if Labour were returned to power many of the men now employed in our munitions factories would be dismissed. Although there is not the slightest foundation for such statements, they have been made in my own electorate. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- Some honorable gentlemen opposite are not at all in favour of the manufacture of munitions. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- After listening to the speeches .of honorable members opposite it is very difficult to tell what the Government's policy really is, for there seems to be more difference of opinion amongst Government supporters than there is alleged to be among Labour supporters. At least honorable members on this side of the House are absolutely unanimous in the view that we must have an adequate defence policy. We also feel that our people should not be dragged into any conflict that might occur overseas. That is how I understand the position. I repeat that the suggestions made from time to time that a Labour government would close up munition factories and thereby throw numbers of men out of employment, are advanced with ulterior motives in order to damage the Labour party. As the representative of an electorate in which" large numbers of men are employed in government, factories in the manufacture of munitions, I am simply clarifying the position of the Labour party in this matter. I hope that the policy of this Government in that, respect will not be in the direction of handing over to private persons the right to manufacture arms and armaments for private profit. So far Australia has avoided doing that. But suggestions have recently appeared in the press that the Ministry has been considering whether private firms should be given contract® for the manufacture of arms and armaments. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- The Treasurer himself said this afternoon that he thought there should be no private manufacture of munitions. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- I sincerely trust that the view of the Treasurer is also the view of this Government and that it will not be altered. The Government would be doing a great disservice to this country and would be acting contrary to Australian sentiment if it made any attempt to hand over the manufacture of arms and armaments to persons for private profit. The honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Martens)** indicated very clearly to-night the evils arising from the manufacture of arms for profit. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Would the honorable member put the manufacture of aircraft in that category? {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- I contend that we should manufacture aircraft in our own factories. I do not know whether this will be done, but it certainly could be done by a really patriotic government - at any rate in respect of bombing planes and planes to be used primarily for defence or attack. If such manufacture were undertaken, it would be possible to train our own men as competent technicians. Our workmen would be just as efficient in this field as they have proved themselves. to be in the building of ships - equal to the best elsewhere. No one will deny that those countries which have had greater experience in this field possess superior technicians, but I suggest that, provided with plans, the workmanship of our artisans would not be surpassed by those of any other country. I wish now to deal with certain promises made at the last election by this Government. The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** traversed the 31 points which he stated appeared in the policy speech of the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I quoted from the *hah or Daily.* {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- The honorable member is entitled to quote from any source which suits his case. He referred to the standardization of railway gauges. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill: -- That was included in the platform of the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- The honorable member quoted 31 points as telling against the Scullin Government: {: .speaker-KOL} ##### Mr McBride: -- It was rather unfortunate for the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- It was unfortunate for Australia that gentlemen now associated with honorable members opposite deliberately utilized the Senate to block legislation introduced by the Scullin Government, although the passage of that legislation was desired by the people of Australia. As the result of that action, the Labour Government was placed in an awkward position and was finally deserted by some of those who were elected on its platform. Furthermore, those deserters who are now associated with honorable members opposite, utilized the knowledge which they obtained as members of the Labour party in order to damage that party What the honorable member for Barker overlooked in dealing with the standardization of railway gauges, was that the Government which at times he supports with a hearty cheer, and at other times with an axe, also made promises to the people similar to those to which the Scullin Government endeavoured to give effect ; but it has failed to bring about the standardization of railway gauges, although it has had better, opportunities to do so than presented themselves to the Scullin Government. It has had a majority in both Houses and could have gone on with this work immediately, or at any time since it took office. Dealing with the standardization of railway gauges, the Prime Minister in his policy speech, said - >The Government has also in mind works of some magnitude, such as the unification of railway gauges between capital cities, country water storage, sewerage constructions for large country towns, and other works of like description which meet public needs. > >Such works might not at once prove reproductive, but, if wisely chosen they could not fail to prove a sound investment in the further development of Australia. If that is so, I fail to see any good reason why legislation for such work should not have been introduced. There would have been no obstruction to it from this side of the House, because the leaders of all parties have expressed their eagerness to get on with this work. What better opportunity could this Government have had to go ahead with it than that which presented itself at the time it took office? Such an undertaking at that time would have relieved unemployment and been the means of training many of the unfortunate youths about whom the Prime Minister spoke in his policy speech. No other work is of move importance than railway work as a means of training our youths as technicians and teaching them trades. That is admitted unanimously. Furthermore, such work would five increased employment at the roken Hill Proprietary Company's plants and elsewhere in the manufacture of rails and the extraction of iron ore. Thus an opportunity could have been given to many of our unemployed to become usefully employed citizens. Notwithstanding the fact that we have been told that the standardization of railway gauges is one of the major works with which the Government has gone ahead, very little has been done. I was going to say that nothing had been done, but a few additional miles of railway of standard gauge between Port Augusta and Port Pirie have been constructed. Speaking at Port Pirie at the ceremony of opening the new line the Prime Minister made an excellent speech. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The honorable member went to meet him. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- I listened to a speech from the Prime Minister which indicated . that the Government was wholeheartedly in favour of the standardization of railway gauges. Yet it has constructed only 56 miles of railway of standard gauge. This work will mean fewer breaks of gauge and has already facilitated traffic on that particular part of our railway system. The Prime Minister spoke of his experience overseas. He stressed the fact that in Europe one may travel from London to Southern Italy or to the shores of the Black Sea without being aware that frontiers exist. Yet, in Australia, he said, where we had nothing more ferocious than State boundaries we had broken gauges and have to bear all the expense and delay which these involve. He added that we had created frontiers where none need * exist and that each State had to provide an independent set of vehicles and workshops and incur much economic waste through the transfer of goods at breakofgauge stations. All of that is excellent argument. The Prime Minister continued. On this day we should remember one who was intimately associated with the beginnings of the transcontinental railway, who has for some years been out of public life, and is growing an old man. I refer to my old personal friend, King O'Malley, who was Minister for Home Affairs when the first sod of the transcontinental railway was turned. It can at least be said of King O'Malley that he did something when he had the opportunity, whereas this Government has had the opportunity ito undertake this work, but has done practically nothing, as I shall prove later in my remarks. The Prime Minister added - >The new route was constructed as a result of the joint efforts of the State and Federal governments, and indicated that, when tho interests of Australia as a whole were involved, governments could act unitedly for the common good. Speaking at the civic dinner at Port Pirie on the night of the same day, the 24th July, the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Paterson)** made a speech which could be interpreted only as indicating the wholehearted support of the Commonwealth Government for the standardization of railway gauges. He said - >The opening of this line is another step towards the fulfilment of the Government's desire for the co-ordination of the transport of the country. > >Some years ago it was found that it would take nearly a month to transport a division of troops with stores and equipment from Melbourne to Perth. This shows the need for the closer co-ordination of transport. The day's ceremony also represents a second step towards the unification of Australian railway gauges, the Graf ton-Ky ogle line being the first. The Minister spoke of what he termed the paradise existing in Australia as the result of a people speaking one tongue and possessing similar ties of blood and kinship and their short-sightedness upon allowing the phantom of the broken railway gauge to intrude upon their unity, whilst people of different blood, class and creed, and possessing widely diverse views and national aspirations, like the peoples of Europe, had a uniform gauge from one end of that continent to the other. He added that the disintegration caused by the break of gauge had a peculiar psychological effect upon our people. When one changed trains at Albury, he said, one became keenly conscious of the fact that he had left one's own State behind, and was entering upon strange territory. The Minister concluded an excellent address by saying - >I venture to think that the closer linking up of Australia will make a considerable contribution to the decentralization of industry, which is undeniably so necessary to Australia. Hearing that address, one could riot help being struck by the enthusiasm shown by the spokesmen of this Government for the standardization of railway gauges. Of course, that speech was delivered in the congenial atmosphere created by the mayor of Port Pirie, a town which would benefit a great deal as the result of the change-over point being transferred to it from another point 56 miles away. However, it contrasts with the failure of this Government in this respect, and that failure speaks for itself. I agree that psychology plays a part in the perpetuation of the State outlook which this Commonwealth Parliament was created to diminish, and, most people hoped, to supersede, because there is not a stronger factor operating on the mainland of Australia than the break of gauge in keeping alive the narrow State outlook and delaying the growth of Commonwealth vision. In the United States of America the standardization of railway gauges accomplished more than any other single step in uniting those States into a real nation. **Mr. E.** A. Pratt, an authority on uniform railway gauges, said - >The uniformity of railway guages has, in fact, been a most important factor in rendering the United States of America more united than they would otherwise have been. It knit west, north and south still more closely to the east, and made the different States feci that they constituted part and parcel of one and the same nation. A similar view can be expressed concerning the advantages which would arise from the standardization of railway gauges in Australia. I know of nothing that would knit us more closely together and rid us of the narrow State outlook than the standardization of gauges, and I know of nothing, except the lack of initiative on the part of the Government, that stands in the way of this being done to-day. Reports in the press last week indicated that the traffic through Port Pirie as the result of the improvements already made, has reached record proportions for recent years. Despite the advancement made in aviation, traffic is increasing as the result of increased speed and greater comfort resulting from the ballasting of the track. In spite of the competition of air services, this railway is securing a greater volume of passenger traffic than ever before. I hope that it will continue. The Government should go on with the job. My complaint is that the Prime Minister included this subject in his policy speech as a bait for the unemployed and those with no fixed political views who believed that the Government meant what it said about embarking on a vigorous policy of public works. I am reluctant to impute insincerity to any one, but I am forced to the conclusion that the Government, was either insincere or did not have the courage or the initiative to go on with the job. According to figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician, to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Holloway)** on the 17th September, 1936, the large sum of £210,000,000 was spent in sustenance and on the relief of unemployment during the seven years ended the 30th June, 1936. As I do not wish to misconstrue the facts, I admit that that sum may include some public works on which unemployed labour was utilized. The total cost of the scheme which I am advocating would have been about £21,000,000, so that the work could have been done ten times for the amount spent in the relief of unemployment. Even if the work were done out of revenue, it could have been done three times, since the revenue derived from the imposition of taxes for unemployment relief in the period mentioned amounted to about £61,000,000. No person who examines the railway maps of Australia can be satisfied that the best use has been made of existing railway facilities, from the point of view of unrestricted service to those who wish to use this national asset. Nor can the railways be used to the best advantage until the breaks of gauge have been eliminated. I want the railways of Australia to be given a chance. In this connexion, I speak not only as the representative of the electors of Maribyrnong, but also as a railwayman of long experience. When I was stationed at Benalla I saw the disadvantage of having breaks of gauge at State borders. I was there during a period of drought, and I know that fodder intended for starving stock was hung up at every railway station between Albury and Wallan. Thousands of sheep died in the Riverina, because fodder could not be sent to keep them alive. What happened then was a reflection on the system. At the time there was some agitation in favour of the elimination of the breaks of guage, but when better seasons returned the agitation died down, and nothing was done. It is true that the Commonwealth has done something towards the standardization of the gauges, for it has built a section of standard gauge railway between Kyogle and Bris bane at a cost - of approximately £4,500,000. It has also recently constructed 56 miles of standard gauge railway in South Australia. Unfortunately, the present Government has not the vision of **Mr. King** O'Malley; had he been in charge, the work would have been completed long ago. If the position were analysed, and the Commonwealth Government were prepared to advance more money, the work could be done with little expense to the States. On a per *capita* basis, South Australia's contribution would be £1,526,097, whilst the total expended in that State would be £3,400,000. It will be seen, therefore, that for an average expenditure of less than £220,000 a year for seven successive years, South Australia would have its share of the work completed, whilst the amount spent in that State in each of the seven years required to complete the scheme would average nearly £500,000. On the same basis, Western Australia would have to provide only £1,153,544 of a total expenditure in that State of £6,200,000 to complete the scheme. Thus, over seven years, Western Australia would have to provide for an average yearly expenditure of £165,000, whilst the amount spent in each year would be £85,000. Those figures are based on the assumption that the Commonwealth would provide, as originally agreed upon, only 20 per cent, pf the total expenditure; but, in view of the importance of the completion of the scheme to the defence of Australia, it is not unreasonable to expect the Commonwealth to provide a greater share. In the event of the Commonwealth providing either 33$ per cent, or 50 per cent, of the total cost, the contributions by South Australia and Western Australia would be as follows: - The necessity for Victoria to convert its railway system to the 4-ft. 8^-inch gauge would mean the expenditure of a considerable sum in that State. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- Do those figures allow for changes of rollingstock ? {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- Yes. All the locomotives and new rolling-stock made for the Victorian railways since this scheme was adopted in principle by the several governments of Australia have been built on the basis of conversion. Axles and other parts have been so constructed as to make the conversion as easy and as cheap as possible. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The first section to be converted in Victoria would probably be the line from Albury to Melbourne. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- Probably that would be so. Those figures show that any increased payment by the Commonwealth would reduce the cost to the States, particularly those with small populations. During the depression South Australia has spent on unemployment relief and sustenance over £3,208,000, or approximately £650,000 per annum. The expenditure for Western Australia amounted to approximately £6,000,000, or more than £1,000,000 per annum. If only a portion of that amount had been devoted to standardization, an asset would now exist, and much suffering on the part of deserving citizens would have been alleviated. The vested interests which are opposed to further expenditure on railways are growing, and their power will not diminish with the years. The agitation for the standardization of the railways must come from those who believe that railways are as essential today as ever, and I am hopeful that honorable members will play their part by forcing the Government to fulfil its election promises. If not, the Government should make way for another government which will undertake this necessary work. It has been suggested that the day of the railway has passed, but there is ample evidence to show that vast sums of money are still being expended in other countries in the development, improvement and expansion of their rail way systems. ' Expert evidence does not support the contention that railways are no longer necessary. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- The Japanese standardized the Manchurian railways practically in one night. {: .speaker-KCM} ##### Mr DRAKEFORD: -- A length of 14S miles was converted to standard gauge in one night. Of course, detailed preparations had been made for some time beforehand. That would have to be done here. To those who suggest that the day of the railway has passed, I submit the following evidence as a complete refutation of such argument. According to *Modern Transport,* of the 3rd October. 1936- > **Mr.** Sleton Davies, Chief Commercial Manager L.M.S.K., gave an interesting figure of £51,000,000 as the amount spent on capital improvement by the four group railway companies during the past twelve years. That amount excluded expenditure on renewal or equipment such as replacement of locomotive carriages and wagons. Since grouping (1921) outlay on major reconstruction partly to make good accrued wastage and partly to effect economies amounts to no loss than £2,300,000. In the same journal reference was made to the assistance that the spending of that money had been to trade and industry. It stated that there was no sign that the railways had ceased to spend money on modernization and quoted in support of its contention the contracts placed under the recent governmentassisted loan. The London Midland and Scottish railway spent £3,250,000 in 1936 on improvements to rolling-stock alone. The same journal in its issue of the 8th August, 1936, stated that since 1923 the railway companies in Great Britain had spent £66,000,000 on new rolling-stock. For the year ended the 31st March last, the South African railways spent £3,151,000 on new locomotives, and are also spending £2,000,000 on rolling-stock. During the year ended 30th June, 1936, Italy duplicated 4,092 miles of railway; the duplication of a further 8,540 miles was in hand as well as the quadrupling of 1,751 miles. In the United States of America, the Missouri-Pacific railway is spending £1,781,730, the Chicago and Northwestern railway £1,314,062, and the Chicago-Burlington-Quincy railway £1,846,105 on improvements. In London, £65,000,000, spread over five years, is being spent on new tube construction, large-scale suburban and main line electrification, colour-light signalling, rebuilding of stations, and so on. The railways of the Soviet Union were increased by 3,500 miles in 1936, and 2,500 miles of line were duplicated. We, in Australia, talk of our defence policy, and yet the condition of our railways makes it impossible for us to transport troops from one side of Australia to the other in less than a month. I blame the Government for not tackling this problem, which, if left untouched, will mean that much of the defence vote will be wasted.The London Passenger Transport Board has placed orders for 750 new cars, costing over £3,000,000, for delivery extending over two years. In January and February of 1937, orders were placed in the United States of America for use on the railways there for. 21,413 freight cars, 224 passenger cars, and 79 locomotives, including eleven diesels. In 1937, the four main line railways in Great Britain will construct 532 locomotives, about 2,000 coaching vehicles and 34,000 goods vehicles. During 1936, orders were placed by the United States of America railways for 533 locomotives, 67,544 freight cars, 307 passenger cars, 738 motor buses and 1,730 motor trucks. It is an incontrovertible fact that railways are recognized throughout the world as the backbone of the transport service, yet here in Australia governments seem to be inclining to the theory that we should place reliance first in other methods of transport, such as road vehicles and aeroplanes. The Commonwealth has for years been talking about the unification of railway gauges, but up to the present it has unified only 151 miles in fifteen years, an average of about ten miles a year. There still remain to be done 6,425 miles so that, at the present rate of progress, we may expect that the task will be completed about the year 2579. The Government should push on with this work without delay, instead of merely talking about it. Its leader made definite promises to the people with regard to housing; but although its term of office has now almost expired, nothing has yet been done. Before the last election he said - >We propose to secure money in co-operation with the States for the purpose of home building > >Honorable members opposite may talk about the 31 points in regard to which the Labour Government allegedly failed in its duty, but the Labour Government was hampered by a hostile Senate, which deliberately obstructed its legislative programme. The present Government has had no such obstacle to overcome, but it has not fulfilled its promises. There is a wide-spread shortage of houses throughout the country, and a dearth of tradesmen. According to an estimate prepared by the builders of Melbourne, there is a shortage in that city of more than 30,000 houses, the construction of which would open up a wide field for the training and employment of skilled workers. At the present time, exorbitant rents are being charged for houses not fit for human habitation. Compare the inactivity of governments in Australia with whathas been done in New Zealand, where the problem has been attacked by a live government. When the promise of the Prime Minister in regard to housing was brought under his notice recently, he excused the inaction of his Government by saying- > >Any extensive scheme of borrowing and then their clearance would involve the raising of large sums of loan money. > >If the Commonwealth embarked upon a programme of loan raising for the purpose of assisting the State Government in this direction, it would only result in the amount of loan money now available for ordinary State Government loan programmes being reduced. > >Evidently the Government was prepared to promise anything in order to get into power, but it now shows itself to be devoid of conscience or of statesmanship. There will be much resentment amongst the people on that account. {: #debate-16-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-16-s2 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh . -I have been very interested listening to the speeches of Government supporters who have sought to arouse war fever in the public mind with the object of rescuing the Government from the wrath of the electors who feel -that it is time that a change took place. I remember that I was told six months ago that the Government would try to make the next federal elections a "flag" fight, in the course of which loyalty and defence would be prominently paraded. Of course, this Government has always tended in that direction, and has talked much of loyalty when it has found itself bankrupt of progressive ideas for the betterment of the country. I believe that on this occasion, however, though members of the Government may parade themselves as super patriots, the people will not be deceived. The present attempt to create war hysteria is seriously deprecated by members of the British Cabinet. Only a little while ago I had the privilege of listening to a speech by one of the leading members of the British Government on the subject of defence, and in his opening sentence he took to task those who employed extravagant language inside ana outside Parliament in an endeavour to excite alarm in the minds of the public. I also visited some of the other dominions, and, conversing with -representative public men there, I found that their attitude to the subject of defence was altogether different from that of the Commonwealth Government. "While there is general agreement that adequate defence is necessary, the governments of the other dominions refuse to resort to the cheap political clap-trap of the kind with which we have been regaled by honorable members opposite. If there is anything amiss with the defences of Australia, if they are less efficient than they ought to be, the present Government must answer for it. Since the .termination of the Great "War, approximately £100,000,060 has been spent on Australia's defences, and during the whole of that time governments representing the party opposite have been in power, with the exception of a period of 2 years and 3 months. The general situation today is very similar to that which existed in 1910 when a Commonwealth Labour Government was first returned to office. **Mr. Cook,** afterwards **Sir Joseph** Cook, propounded views on defence which were astonishingly similar to those which we have been listening to from members of the Government. His proposal was that Australia should borrow money from abroad in order to build battleships to present to the Imperial Navy. He tried to fan the Imperial spirit in Australia, and told the people that they should not heed the immediate defence needs of Australia, but should contribute to an Imperial defence scheme. However, the Labour party came forward with a truly Australian defence scheme, and it received the. endorsement of the people. There was no justification then for saying of the Labour party that it was un-British, any more than there is in saying such a thing of the Labour party now. The burdens imposed by war are shouldered mainly by that section of the community which is represented by honorable members on this side of the chamber. It is high time we dropped highfalutin jingoism, and endeavoured to deal with the problem of defence in a definitelyresponsible manner. The political leaders in Great Britain indicate that, supplies are, at the moment, the chief essential, and that we should be in a position to feed and clothe our own people in a time of national emergency. That assertion was definitely made as the first need expected in the defence programmes of the dominions. It was not the intimation of a junior member of the British Cabinet ; it was the word of the First Lord of the Admiralty, **Sir Samuel** Hoare. It was pointed out that it was essential for the dominions to provide satisfactorily for the requirements of their own people by fostering such industries as would make them self-reliant in. time of national emergency. The ideas expressed by honorable members opposite are out of tune with the views of those in a position to make an authoritative statement about the defence requirements of the dominions. This Government takes up a remarkable attitude "in seeking to hold the Opposition up to a certain amount of public derision and suspicion with regard to its defence proposals when it is remembered that the Minister for Defence **(Sir Archdale Parkhill)** was in haste to declare that the policy enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** was also the policy of the Government. The Labour policy, as enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition, has not been altered in any respect. Ministers are mistaken if they think that they can hoodwink the people by posing as super patriots. This Government has proved wanting in practical proposals to safeguard the interests of the country in times of emergency. It is regrettable that the enthusiasm displayed by Ministers has not been employed for the purpose of providing improved social services for the people, and higher standard of living. Large numbers of people have been subjected to much hardship during the last six years. Substantial remissions of taxation have been received by the wealthy sections, who should be required to pay more than they now contribute towards provision for the welfare and security of the people. When the. members of the Government and its supporters seek the suffrages of the electors, I am sure that they will receive a sharp rebuke. They have sought to serve interests overseas rather than the people of Australia. They will have to answer for their un-Australian policy. The time has arrived when there should be closer co-operation than in the past between the various members of the British Commonwealth of Nations located in the southern hemisphere. The natural tendency has been to look to the northern hemisphere for a lead with regard to matters which intimately concern the dominions south of the equator; but these dominions should realize that they have many interests and problems in common. Only last year, when certain difficulties arose because of the Government's trade diversion policy, Australia was. placed in a most unfortunate position with regard to its relations with a neighbouring nation. A sister dominion regarded this as an excellent opportunity to improve its trade with that nation, although its action was detrimental to Australia. Some time ago I suggested to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons)** that a conference might be called of the leaders of the governments of South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia to discuss matters of mutual interest, but the Prime Minister showed little interest in the proposal, and it was hopeless to expect serious consideration of it by this Government. Yet, I was encouraged to persevere in the idea during the consultations that took place when I was in Great Britain, and during contacts which I was able to make in South Africa. The best interests of these dominions would be served if they cooperated rather than acted as rivals, as I am afraid they do at the present time. In South Africa, 1 was astonished to find how little was known of Australia, its nearest sister dominion, and I believe that we have comparatively little knowledge of South Africa's problems. I hope that the Government will show a more sympathetic attitude than it has in the past to my suggestion for closer interdominion consultation. I shall not deal with the observations of honorable members opposite who have sought to misrespresent the policy of the Opposition with regard to defence and associated problems, although they have tried to stir up an unjustifiable war frenzy. In Europe, at the present time, and particularly in the United Kingdom, the fear of war is not so great as it was two years ago. Rather than create a fear of war) wo should endeavour to encourage a desire for peace. In this way we ure more likely to prevent a conflagration which would be the worst that civilization could experience. Those who govern should do nothing to stir up feelings of hatred, but should always do their best to promote peace. {: #debate-16-s3 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP -- *in reply* - Of the many speeches dealt with in the course of the long second-reading debate on this bill, I propose to confine myself to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin),** and the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin).** The latter gave us the benefit of a parable with a biblical significance. Members of this chamber are not frequently addressed in such terms as those used by the right honorable gentleman. He spoke of a man who had cleared and cultivated land, and planted an orchard which he tended over a period for years, but before he could receive the fruits of his labour, he passed from the scene, and the fruit of the orchard was gathered by his successors. The parable, I think, appealed to the imagination of honorable members. I venture to surest that the para"ble was a very incomplete one. I do not. in any way wish to take debating points on this subject, but the point which the right honorable gentleman made was that this Government, in the presentation' of its case, primarily in the budget speech, and in the addresses of honorable members on this side arising out of the budget, in ordinary fairness to the right honorable gentleman himself and to the party which he led, should have given him and his party more credit in that some of the basic things that were done in 1930-31 had been responsible in some appreciable measure for the degree of prosperity that has since come to this country. In my budget speech I ventured, on behalf of the Government, to cover the period of the two Lyons' administrations, practically six years. That was done for the reason that the last six years occupy, in the history of this country, a distinct era from the political, economic and financial point of view. Had one gone back prior to December, 1931, one would have had to go right back into Australian history in order " to produce a story of the happenings that led up to the events of to-day. The right honorable member, at any rate, confined himself to criticism of the fact that no reference was made to the events of 1930-31. That is a reasonable challenge ; but I should say that if we are to go back prior to December, 1931, and to give a fair description of the events of the right honorable gentleman's administration, we must not only take out the blame here and the blame there, we have also to do our best to attribute praise and blame for the events of 1930-31 as even.handedly as possible. The right honorable gentleman based his case largely on the fact that he had been responsible for debt conversions in the middle of 1931, and that that debt conversion had formed the foundation of prosperity that has gradually grown ever since. Even if the premise were to be admitted that the big debt conversion of June, 1931, had an appreciable effect on the events that followed, I think that we must look into the Debt Conversion Agreement Bill and the conditions under which that measure was passed through this chamber and this Parliament. Although that measure was introduced by the right honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Scullin),** who was then leading the Labour Government, I invite honorable members to turn to the division list on the second reading of that bill, the most important division on that measure. It reveals a most peculiar state of affairs in that of the Labour party led by the right honorable gentleman fifteen members and the right honorable member himself voted for the measure, and no less than twenty of his own followers voted against it. In fact, most of his own party were most bitterly hostile to the measure. How, in these circumstances, was it passed through this chamber? By the simple means that the whole of the then Opposition, led by the present Prime Minister **(Mr. Lyons),** supported it. In clear terms, the National Debt Conversion Agreement Bill was passed through this chamber, certainly under the leadership of the right honorable member for Yarra, but not by his party; it was passed practically entirely by the parties that now form this side of the House. In these circumstances how can it be claimed by the right honorable member that the Labour party was responsible for the debt conversion operations that ensued? I am perfectly willing to give the right honorable gentleman all the credit due to him for bringing the measure before this chamber, but I am not prepared to give any credit for its passage to the members of his party. I further point out that the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** voted in opposition against the bill. In these circumstances, I do not believe that any credit is due to the present Leader of the Opposition for the passage of a measure which the right honorable member for Yarra himself said formed the basis of a greater part of his claim that his party had been responsible for the returning prosperity of this country. If we go back a little prior to that bill, accepting the right honorable gentleman's invitation to delve deeper into the past, we have to ask ourselves what was the basic measure in this Parliament that made possible the great national debt conversion of 1931 of over £500,000,000. It was a measure passed by the Bruce-Page Government a year or two before, known as the Financial Agreement "Validation Bill. But for that measure, in spite of the right honorable member's jibe, no unified treatment of our domestic Australian debt would have been possible. If it had not been for what I might term the miraculous foresight of **Mr. Bruce** and his colleagues no unified and centralized treatment of our national debt in time of emergency would have been possible. In order to apportion blame and praise with something of an even hand, let us remember that the whole of the Labour party voted solidly on strictly party political lines, including the right honorable member for Yarra and the present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin),** against the Financial Agreement Validation Bill. Therefore, the further we go back into the past, the more evidence do we get that the Labour party as a party - it was a unified party at that time - can claim no credit for the creation of conditions that began in 1931 to make the conditions of to-day possible. {: .speaker-JPN} ##### Mr Blackburn: -- Was not the financial agreement part of the Premiers Plan agreed to by the States as well as the Commonwealth ? {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY: -- I am grateful for that observation because I had overlooked the fact that when the present Prime Minister, who has come in for a good deal of obloquy during this debate, was fighting tooth and nail for the financial agreement in the Tasmanian Parliament the present Leader of the Opposition was fighting tooth and ' nail against the National Debt Agreement Bill in this chamber. That is the apportionment of the praise and the blame. Although any right-minded man will be prepared to give the right honorable member for Yarra credit for the happenings of those days, I think it will also be admitted that his efforts were almost completely stultified by the party which he led. The other subject with which I wish to deal is the question of the Government's defence proposals for the current year. I invite honorable members to envisage the budget and the burdens that are placed on the Government's finances this year that did not fall on the finances in previous years. In fact, no less a sum than £8,680,000 has to be found thi« year to implement the Government's policies in various directions that did not have to be found last year. The additional £8,680,000 is mad6 up as follows : - The Government, therefore, can claim that unusual burdens are falling on its finances this year that had not to be carried by the finances of last year. Indeed, I know of no year since federation when the Government has been faced with the necessity for financing urgent proposals costing such a large additional amount of money in any one year over and above the burdens of the preceding year. In these circumstances the Government was faced by two immediate problems, first, the finding of this additional £8,680,000 to finance its urgent proposals for the current year, including particularly that of defence, and, secondly, the finding of this very large amount of money without doing damage to, the existing structure of industry and employment. It has also to carry out this policy without doing general damage to the interests of the people of this country. Furthermore, it is faced with this problem at a time when the Australian loan market is closed to it for reasons which I explained at some length in my budget speech. The Government has to meet conversion operations of nearly £72,700,000 at the end of 1938, and it has been obliged by the Loan Council to limit calls on the local money market during this financial year to the lowest possible proportions. Of the £16,000,000 raised this year by the Loan Council this Government has had command of only £2,500,000, and that money was hypothecated in advance for farmers' debt relief. The local money market, for this reason, was closed to the Government. Consequently, two courses only were available to it to raise the additional money needed. It could have imposed additional taxation even if it were of only a temporary character. But the adoption of that course would have given a setback to industry and employment. The alternative course was to raise a small loan through the Commonwealth Bank in London to finance the purchase of essential defence expenditure overseas which could not be obtained in Australia. The Government, therefore, decided to raise £2,500,000 Australian overseas through the Commonwealth Bank. The raising of this relatively small amount in a total budget of £85,000,000 has been described as "frightful" by honorable gentlemen opposite, and it is said to presage the renewal of overseas borrowing on a grand scale. The one thing which the Government desires to do is to pay its way to the greatest possible extent. This course has been followed throughout our six years of office, and we shall continue to lean to the slightest possible extent on loan expenditure. In this financial year £7,750,000 is being provided out of revenue for public works usually financed out of loan moneys, and, in addition, £6,000,000 is being provided out of revenue for payment into sinking funds for the reduction of the existing national debt. I believe that we should do everything possible to avoid borrowing in London, for the simple reason that we should do everything in our power to reduce the burden of our overseas debt obligations. The Government has pursued that policy consistently during the last six years, with the result that since the 31st December, 1931, the national debt in London has been reduced by £12,700,000. The Government has also converted nearly £200,000,000 of overseas loan money at a lower rate of interest and thereby saved £4,000,000 a year in interest. Our London interest bill on the 31st December, 1931, a few days after the Government first came into office, was £28,150,000 annually. The same service of debt at the 30th June last was costing the country £22,700,000, which shows a saving of nearly £5,500,000. That does not, of course, take into account the saving by reason of the cessation of war debt payments in consequence of the consideration accorded to us by the British Government in that respect. That particular saving was effected shortly before this Government came into office. The reduction of our interest debt overseas by £5,500,000 a year has been of tremendous benefit to Australia. The average interest rate on our London debt when the Government assumed office was £4 14s. 3d. per cent. At the 30th June last it was £3 18s. Id. per cent., showing a saving of nearly three-quarters of 1 per cent. That is a brief outline of the successful history of the Government's financial operations, and it indicates clearly that we have been mindful to do . our utmost to reduce our overseas indebtedness. In these circumstances it is ridiculous to suggest that the decision of the Government to seek an additional £2,500,000 Australian abroad in order to meet urgent defence expenditure indicates a return to the policy of overseas borrowing on a grand scale. There is no danger whatever of the Government resuming that policy, and there is nothing wrong in our raising this -relatively small amount overseas for the special and urgent purpose I have indicated. The Government has no intention to rely upon London borrowing as a permanent means to finance its defence expenditure in the future. It is, in fact, against overseas borrowing for any other than urgent purposes. The conditions obtaining this year are such as to justify the rather unusual course that has been adopted, but it is unlikely that such heavy expenditure will recur in the future. A great many matters have been raised during this debate. The honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** discussed a number of subjects relating to taxation, and also the Board of Review, and certain other honorable members discussed the land tax. I do not propose at this late hour to weary honorable members with a long reply on those subjects, but I shall most certainly take an opportunity during the next few days to reply to the statements that have been made. At present I shall be content with having replied to the two principal speakers from the Opposition benches, the right honorable member for Yarra and the Leader of the Opposition. Question resolved in tie affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-16-0} #### Declaration of Urgency {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP -- I declare that the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1937-38 is an urgent bill. Question put - >That the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1937-38 is an urgent hill. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.) AYES: 27 NOES: 12 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {:#subdebate-16-1} #### Allotment of Time Motion (by **Mr. Casey)** proposed - >That the time allotted in connexion with the Bill be as follows: - > > *For* the committee stage, ten minutes. > >For the remaining stages, five minutes. {: #subdebate-16-1-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .It is no wonder that even honorable members behind the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** are laughing at the ridiculously short period of time it is proposed to allot to the consideration of this bill in committee. I think he said that ten minutes would be alloted for the committee stage and five minutes for the remaining stages. The Opposition protests vehemently against this method of bludgeoning business through at 2 o'clock in the morning. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- It is a disgrace to this Government that it has brought on this business at this time. Parliament could have been called together weeks earlier in order to give honorable members an opportunity to discuss Supply item by item. There are fifteen departments involving an expenditure of £8,000,000. Honorable members would be entitled to two speeches of fifteen minutes each on each item in ordinary circumstances. The Minister is offering ten minutes for the whole fifteen departments. It is absolutely ridiculous. Why should legislation involving the expenditure of millions of pounds be rushed through at this hour without honorable members being given an opportunity to examine the bill thoroughly and to discuss important items ? I and other honorable members wish to say something on quite a number of items. Surely the taxpayers are deserving of more consideration at the hands of the Government than it has shown in connexion with this measure. It is an insult io honorable members on this side as representatives of the people to rush through important legislation of this kind in this manner. Because some honorable members on this side have not felt well enough to 6tay np through the night, honorable members opposite have uttered cheap gibes. They have no opinion of their own but have been whipped up in this matter. Honorable members should not be expected to be here at 2 a.m. The Opposition protests most strongly against the rushing through of this legislation. {: #subdebate-16-1-s1 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Commerce · Cowper · CP -- To hear the fervent utterances of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** one would lb. ink that an extraordinarily short time had been allotted for the consideration of Supply. The fact is that the secondreading debate on this measure, which has just been concluded, has lasted six hours longer than the longest debate which has ever taken place on Supply in the history of this Parliament. Honorable members opposite have had an opportunity to talk for 263 hours on this particular measure whereas the longest period of time occupied by this debate on previous occasions is 20 hours. Yet honorable members opposite rise in their seats at this time in the morning in order to make a pretence that there has been some curtailment of the privileges of the House. Indeed the number of hours occupied in debating this Supply Bill has exceeded the number of hours which have often been taken on a debate in connexion with the passage of the budget itself. In those circumstances it is obvious that the display which has just been made by the small section of the Opposition which is still present in the House was made for the benefit of the public. It is not justified. {: #subdebate-16-1-s2 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr CLARK:
Darling .- I protest against the Government gagging through this measure. Prior to this session, we have sat only ten days since early in December last. It has been the practice of this Government to allow Parliament to sit for a few day3 and to put through important financial measures during the closing stages of the session. Parliament is then closed down for long recesses. The time allotted for the consideration of the items of Supply is on this occasion absolutely insufficient, because many honorable members wish to discuss a large number of the items. The whole of the time allotted for the remaining stages of this measure is not sufficient for the consideration of the items of a single department such as the , Postmaster-General's Department. The House met yesterday morning at 10.80 a.m. and did not adjourn for lunch at mid-day. It is still sitting in the early hours of the morning although most honorable members, as the result of an all-night journey by train to Canberra, are under a strain. That is not the proper way in which to conduct the business of this House. The Government's action on this occasion provides another illustration of the fact that it intends to govern as much as possible by regulation. I understand that there will be no budget debate because the Government does not want honorable members to discuss various items of expenditure. It does not wish honorable members, for instance, to discuss the cocktail party which was given at the expense of members of the delegation which went overseas to the passengers on the return voyage on the *Orontes.* I venture to say that the Ministers concerned spent more time in arranging that entertainment than has been allotted for the discussion of items of Supply on this occasion. {: #subdebate-16-1-s3 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Minister for Defence · Warringah · UAP -- I wish to offer one or two observations on this important matter. I have listened with a great deal of patience to the hill-billies from honorable members opposite. The remarks of the honorable member who has just resumed his scat typify many of the speeches which he has delivered in this House. I have never yet heard him offer one original thought in the course of his remarks. {: #subdebate-16-1-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- 1 am merely expressing an opinion, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Minister must discuss the times proposed to be allotted. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- I have never heard one original thought emanate from the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** since he has been a member of this Parliament. The time which has been taken up by this debate lias been excessive because it has been confined to electioneering speeches by honorable members opposite. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I rise to a point of order, **Mr. Speaker.** I ask that the Minister for Defence withdraw the remark he just made that I had risen to waste time. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I certainly did not hear the Minister say that. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- 1 did not say it. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- Very well, **Mr. Speaker.** My point of order is that, so far as the Minister's observations are intelligible, the Minister i3 discussing a previous measure. I submit that he cannot do that on this motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -The Minister must discuss the motion before the Chair, which is the allotment of times. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir ARCHDALE PARKHILL: -- I was dealing with the question before the House, and was pointing out that far from the time allowed being inadequate it was, in fact, excessive. The speeches of honorable members opposite have had a direct relation to a certain event which is likely to take place shortly. In these circumstances, there can be no charge that the Government has unduly curtailed discussion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Minister's time has expired. {: #subdebate-16-1-s5 .speaker-JNP} ##### Mr BAKER:
Griffith -- I support the protest of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** and other honorable members on this side regarding the attitude adopted by the Government toward this measure. The parties constituting the Government prate of their belief in democracy, but their action tends to destroy democracy. We are asked to agree to the expenditure of over £8,000,000 to cover Supply to the end of December of this year. Obviously, it is not the intention of the Government that the House shall have a proper oppor tunity to discuss the budget. The Government claims to have acted courteously in that it has allowed members to speak at some length on this bill, but it has a distorted view of courtesy. Honorable members know that the reason why they have been allowed to speak, even at such length as has been permitted, is that a member of the Ministry desired to reply ; otherwise, the "gag" would probably have been applied much earlier. It is impossible in ten minutes to deal with all the activities controlled by thirteen Ministers and Assistant Ministers. Important matters under the heading of the Parliament, the Prime Minister's Department, the Department of External Affairs, the Treasury, the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defence, the Department of Trade and Customs, the Department of Health, the Department of Commerce, Miscellaneous Services, War Services, Commonwealth Railways, the PostmasterGeneral's Department, Territories of the Commonwealth, including the Northern Territory, the Federal Capital Territory, Papua and Norfolk Island, as well as items under the headings Refunds of Revenue and Advance to the Treasurer, have to be dealt with within ten minutes ! {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Honorable members opposite would only talk politics if given longer. Too much time has been allowed. {: .speaker-JNP} ##### Mr BAKER: -- Is it too much to allow ten minutes for 28 members of the Opposition and 47 supporters of the Government to discuss the expenditure of over £8,000,000? The action of the Government reveals how little it really believes in democracy. If it, had not been that the action of the Victorian Government has already determined the fate of the present Commonwealth Government-- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-16-1-s6 .speaker-KIX} ##### Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi -- As has already been stated, the time allowed for the discussion of* this bill exceeds that allowed on any similar occasion previously. There has been ample opportunity for every activity covered by the measure to be discussed, but honorable members opposite have preferred to indulge in electioneering speeches. The Government has acted properly in determining that there shall be no further time lost in the passage of the bill. Its record shows that it believes in action rather than words. The Opposition professes to be interested in the items covered by the bill, but I see on opposite benches only two " Langites " and a very attenuated Opposition. Obviously, honorable members opposite are not greatly interested in the measure itself. Ample time has been allowed for a full discussion of all matters relevant to the bill, and I agree with the action which has been taken. {: #subdebate-16-1-s7 .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley -- It is true that there is but one step from the sublime to the ridiculous. The curtailment to ten minutes of the time allowed for discussing the items covered by this bill is indeed ridiculous. Over £8.000.000 is involved, yet we are asked to vote that sum in ten minutes. Surely, it is our duty to examine the proposals contained in this bill. The charge of the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** that members of the Opposition have made political speeches applies with equal force to supporters of the Government. If any honorable member lias talked politics during this debate, and done so fairly ineffectively, it is the Treasurer himself. It should be remembered that it is during the discussion of departmental expenditure that the opportunity occurs to concentrate attention,not only on the proposed vote itself, but also on the administration of the departments concerned. One could mention more than one department in regard to which the administration by Ministers is not giving satisfaction even among the Government's own supporters. For instance, everybody knows that during the last six months, the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Paterson)** has blundered along, criticized as much by members of his own party as by the Opposition. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- I should like to know whether the honorable member is in order in discussing the Minister for the Interior ? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is in order ; he is giving reasons why more time should be allowed for discussion.' {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I feel that I have the moral support at any rate of members on the Government side who desire to probe the administrative acts of the Minister for the Interior. "We also need more time to discuss the administrationin the Treasury in order to place before the Treasurer representations of responsible organizations of the pensioners, many of whose proposals were favourably received by the Minister for Commerce **(Dr. Earle Page)** when he was Acting Prime Minister. I also desire to make a disclosure regarding certain things that have transpired since I asked a question in the House a little time ago regarding the Commonwealth Bank. I wish to tell' honorable members how a certain prominent official of the Commonwealth Bank- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is not in order in discussing a department. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- I want more time to discuss a matter of public importance which I brought before the House this week. An attempt is being made by a» official sent by the Governor of the bank to browbeat a prominent citizen into making a statement - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is out of order. {: .speaker-L08} ##### Mr ROSEVEAR: -- Having regard to the terrible epidemic prevailing in Australia at the present time, and the observations made in regard to it by the Minister for Health **(Mr. Hughes),** honorable members should have an opportunity to discuss the administration of the Health Department, and to ask whether the funds made available to it are being properly used during this time of emergency. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-16-1-s8 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT:
Fawkner We are witnessing the curious spectacle of members of the Opposition charging the Government with allowing insufficient time for the discussion of public business, and at the same time themselves indulging in deliberate stonewalling. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I ask that the expression " deliberate stonewalling " be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must discuss the allotment of time. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- He has alleged something that is very offensive to me, and to the other honorable members, and I ask that the statement be withdrawn. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The expression "stonewalling" is a common parliamentary expression. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HOLT: -- The accusation has been made that time allotted for the discussion of the proposed departmental votes is ridiculously inadequate. If the time allotted were considered by itself, there would be substance in the charge, but when we consider it in conjunction with the time already allowed for the discussion of the second reading of the bill, it is evident that ample time has been given to members of all parties to make any representations they think fit. The honorable member for Dalley **(Mr. Rosevear)** mentioned specifically that insufficient time was being allowed to discuss the Health Department, but I remind him that during the secondreading debate many honorable members, including the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin),** the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. E. J. Harrison)** and myself, did in fact discuss that particular department at length. Other honorable members interested in particular subjects discussed them in the course of their second-reading speeches. Very little attempt was made, however, by honorable members opposite to discuss matters which form the subject of this Supply Bill; they were content to discuss almost any other subject. If there were any keen desire amongst members of. the Opposition to discuss the proposed departmental votes, it is strange that only twelve members of the Opposition out of a total of 28 are present to do so.I do not approve as a general practice of the curtailment of the rights of private members, and, in the ordinary course of events, if I were of opinion that insufficient time was being allowed for the discussion of subjects of public importance, I should protest emphatically. However, that is not the case in this instance. A total of 26 hours has been allowed which, as the Minister for Commerce **(Dr. Earle Page)** has pointed out, is six hours more than the longest period previously required for the discussion of a Supply bill. Therefore, the Government, in view of the peculiar circumstances attending the passage of this measure, mainly due to the fact that it has to go to the Senate at a later hour this day- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-16-1-s9 .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP -- According to the existing regimentation of time, I understand that I have half a minute in which to make a speech on this important subject. It has been suggested that, because several subjects have been discussed by honorable members on the opposite side of the House, sufficient time has been allowed for the debate, but honorable members opposite have not elucidated matters, they have merely obfuscated them - theyhave thrown no light upon them. There are twenty items to discuss, and so that half a minute is to be allowed for the discussion of each. That time is entirely inadequate for the discussion of important proposals involving the expenditure of many millions of pounds. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The time allowed by the Standing Orders for the discussion of this motion has expired. Question put - >That the time allotted 'in connexion with the bill be as follows: - > >For the committee stage, ten minutes. > >For the remaining stages, five minutes. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker. - Hon. G. J. Bell.) AYES: 27 NOES: 14 Majority . . . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. *In committee:* The bill. {: #subdebate-16-1-s10 .speaker-KMW} ##### Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931 .- It had been my intention to speak on the second reading of the bill, but unfortunately, so much time was occupied by honorable members on both sides of the chamber that little opportunity remained for me to speak on various matters which I desire to bring under notice. I was hoping to offer some Observation regarding departmental activities. There are matters under the control of the Department of External Affairs which are of great interest to the country as a whole, and I am sure that they are also of interest to the Empire. I draw the attention of the committee to the excellent services rendered to Australia and to the Empire by the Minister for External Affairs **(Senator Pearce)** by his able administration of his department. I also offer my congratulations to the Treasurer **(Mr. Casey)** upon the excellent budget which he has submitted, and upon the able manner in which he has supervised the affairs of his department. Nor can one cavil at the administration of the Department of the Attorney-General. Question (by **Mr. Rosevear)** put - >That the honorable member he not further heard. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 12 NOES: 25 Majority . . . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: #subdebate-16-1-s11 .speaker-KMW} ##### Sir CHARLES MARR: -- When I was interrupted by the division just taken, I was about to commend the Minister for Defence for the policy- {: #subdebate-16-1-s12 .speaker-KYI} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the bill in committee has expired. The question is that the bill be agreed to and reported without amendment. {: .speaker-JSC} ##### Mr Brennan: -- I rise to order. I. submit, sir, that the time occupied in taking the first division should not be subtracted from the time allotted for the consideration of the question before the Chair. May I suggest in these circumstances that the speech of the honorable member for Parkes **(Sir Charles Marr),** which honorable members generally were following with considerable interest up to a point, should not have been interrupted at this stage? {: #subdebate-16-1-s13 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The honorable member is sufficiently familiar with the forms of the House to know that the time allotted for the consideration of the bill to a certain stage having expired, the motion must be put to the committee. Question put - >That the bill be agreed to and reported without amendment. The House divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 26 NOES: 13 Majority . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: #subdebate-16-1-s14 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP -- I move - >That the report be adopted. I wish to take this opportunity- {: .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP; UAP from 1931 -- Is the Treasurer proposing to stonewall the bill? {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY: -- I wish to deal with one or two points that may be of some interest to honorable members. I understand that at this stage of the bill the extent to which an honorable member may discuss the measure is limited. Speakers in the past have ruled in slightly differing ways on this point, but any matter introduced at this stage must be strictly relevant to the motion. Motion (by **Mr. Clark)** put - >That the honorable member be not further heard. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.) AYES: 13 NOES: 26 Majority . . . . 13 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 647 {:#debate-17} ### ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Dr. Earle** Page) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. Mr.FORDE (Capricornia) [3.0 a.m.]. - On behalf of the Opposition, I desire to register a protest against the application of the guillotine in the way it has been applied in the course of the present sitting. {: #debate-17-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will realize that the House has already come to a decision in respect of that matter and, therefore, it cannot he debated. Mr.FORDE. - I desire to protest against the action of the Deputy Prime Minister **(Dr. Earle Page)** in preventing the Opposition from registering its protest against the rushing through within ten minutes of a Supply bill involving an expenditure of £8,000,000. Honorable members opposite have had plenty of opportunities- - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- As the House has already come to a decision upon that matter, the honorable member cannot debate it. {: .speaker-KZZ} ##### Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP -- I call attention to the State of the House. *There being no quorum present,* **Mr. Speaker** adjourned the House at 3.5 am. {: .page-start } page 648 {:#debate-18} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-18-0} #### Price of Australian Butter {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: n asked the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the recent increase of 1d. per lb in the retail price of butter in Australia was made, notwithstanding that the London price for Australian butter had substantially advanced? 1. Will he state *(a)* the London price at the time when 140s. per cwt. was fixed as the home price for Australia; (b) the present London price per cwt.; and (c) the present Australian price per cwt.? 2. What grounds, if any, have been given by the equalization authority for the increase of 1d. per lb. retail? 3. If it is a fact that the Australian price has been raised concurrently with improved export prices, will the Government consider admitting butter from New Zealand or otherwise taking action to prevent the exploitation of Australian consumers? {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page:
CP -- The information is being obtained, and will be furnished to the honorable member later. Sugar Industry. {: #subdebate-18-0-s2 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr Nairn: n asked the Minister for the Interior, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that in the majority report of the Sugar Commission in 1931 the cost of production of sugar in Australia was estimated at £22 a ton? 1. What was the equalized price obtained for sugar consumed in Australia and sugar exported during 1936? 2. Has any exodus from the sugar-producing industry been observed, following on the apparent loss on production? 3. What was the Australian export of sugar (a) during 1931; and (b) during 1930; and what was the average for the six years 1931 to 1936? 4. Since Australian consumers have to pay more for sugar in order to contribute to the loss on export, what were the reasons for obtaining at the International Sugar Conference an export quota of 400,000 tons, being substantially more than the average annual export ? 5. Has there been any increase in plantation since 1931? 6. What steps, if any, are being taken to restrict the area of plantation? {: #subdebate-18-0-s3 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - . {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes, including depreciation and then current rates of interest on capital invested. 1. £171s. 4d. a ton. 2. No. 3. 1931 season's exports were 301,430 tons, 1936 season 424,393 tons. Average for seasons 1931 to 1936 inclusive 312,703 tons. 4. Through improved efficiency and subject to reasonably good climatic conditions, the sugar industry is now able to produce its new export quota of 400,000 tons from the present total area which is little more than that of 1931. If an export quota less than 400,000 tons had been accepted, it would have been frequently necessary arbitrarily to reduce sugar production and employment with no possible compensating benefits to governments or consumers. Moreover, the express purpose of the International Sugar Conference was to raise the price of all exports to a more economic level, and it has already achieved some success in this direction. 5. Only 2.15 per cent., viz., from 325,737 to 332,786 acres under cultivation in Queensland and New South Wales. 6. Except for the purpose of adjusting anomalies and the like, no further areas for cane-growing have been granted assignments by the controlling authority, the Queensland Central Cane Prices Board, for a number of years. A joint conference in Brisbane last week of the executives of the two sugar associations urged the Queensland Government and the Central Cane Prices Board to announce a policy that no further assignments be granted, and that all unused assignments be cancelled. Cost to Australia of World War. Mr.Forde asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* >What is the total cost to Australia to date of the 1914-1918 war, giving amounts for (a) war and repatriation services, including war pensions, (b) interest and sinking fund, and (c) war loans? > >What is the average decrease per annum in the lumped sum for interest and sinking fund, for the last three years? > >In how many years will the total cost amount to £1,000,000,000, by adding interest and sinking fund payments each year to the original total cost? {: #subdebate-18-0-s4 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
UAP y. - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - £43,357,000 has been provided by way of sinking fund in reduction of war debt covering loan expenditure. It is not appropriate to include in the total expenditure, sinking fund contributions for the redemption of debt, in addition to the expenditure made from loan. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. £87,000. 1. As it is not possible to forecast annual costs and interest rates over a long period of years, a reliable estimate in reply to this question cannot be furnished. Common wealth Bank: Purchaseof Land from Postal Department. {: #subdebate-18-0-s5 .speaker-KMZ} ##### Mr Martens: asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, *upon, notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have the Commonwealth Bank authorities sought to purchase or lease a small portion of land at (a) Ingham, and (b) Ayr, from, the Postal Department; if so, what is the decision of that department? 1. What, in each instance, is the extent of the frontage unused for departmental purposes ? 2. Has the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Queensland **(Mr. A. B. Corbett)** been asked to report on the advisability of letting the bank have the ground sought in each case? {: #subdebate-18-0-s6 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Bank authorities sought to purchase a portion of the postal sites at Ingham and Ayr, but it was considered inadvisable to dispose of any part of the department's land at these places. 1. The frontage sought by the bank was 50 feet at Ingham and 45 feet at Ayr. The area at Ingham is occupied by a building previously used for post office purposes. 2. A report was furnished by the Deputy Director, Posts and Telegraphs, in both cases. Milk Distribution. {: #subdebate-18-0-s7 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby:
CP y. - On Thursday, the 2nd September, the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Holt)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What organization, if any, exists in Australia corresponding to the National Milk Publicity Council of Great Britain? 1. Is it a fact that in 1936 as a result of the activities of that council nearly 3,000,000 school children in Great Britain received a daily supply of milk free or at half the ordinary price? 2. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of bringing about a similar "Marriage of Agriculture and Health " in Australia ? The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There is no national organization of the character mentioned in this question, but some of the States have established milk boards. 1. Nearly 3,000,000 children received a daily supply of milk at half the ordinary price. 2. The matter will he brought before the Australian Agricultural Council. {:#subdebate-18-1} #### Export of Canned Fruit {: #subdebate-18-1-s0 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby:
CP y. - On Thursday, the 2nd September, the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. Price)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the number of cases and the value of canned fruit exported to Great Britain during the year ended the 30th June, 1937? 1. What is the general export progress of canned fruit over the last few years? The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1,191,269 cases (each containing two dozen 30-oz. tins, or its equivalent) valued at £805,400, were exported to Great Britain during the year ended the 30th June, 1937. 1. The general export progress of canned fruit over the last few years is fully set out in the tenth annual report of the Canned Fruits Control Board for the year 1935-36, copies of which have been issued to all honorable members. {:#subdebate-18-2} #### Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act {: #subdebate-18-2-s0 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby:
CP y. - On the 24th August, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Curtin)** asked the following questions, *upon notice : -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications have been received in each State up to the 30th June last, in connexion with the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act? 1. How many of such applications in each State have resulted in debts being adjusted? 2. What is the total of the debts in each State so adjusted, the amount advanced, and the amount of debt remaining? 3. How many claims in each State have been rejected and what is the total of the debts affected? 5, How many claims in each State have been withdrawn ? The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers: - {:#subdebate-18-3} #### Wool Publicity Tax {: #subdebate-18-3-s0 .speaker-KWC} ##### Mr Thorby:
CP y. - On Thursday, the 2nd September, the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What money has been raised by the tax on wool for publicity purposes? 1. How has this money been expended? 2. Have the British woollen manufacturers subscribed any amount to this fund, as promised by their representative, **Mr. Wilson,** who came to Australia in April, 1936? The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. £72,805 to the 30th June, 1937. 1. Provision for grants to pastoral research projects, £22,844. (Note.- £19,499 has not yet been paid). {:#subdebate-18-4} #### Oil Search {: #subdebate-18-4-s0 .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson:
CP n. - On the 2nd September, the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Archie Cameron)** asked the following questions, *upon notice: -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have the geological and other investigations into the presence of flow oil in Australia, conducted by the Anglo-Iran geologists, been completed? 1. Has any report on the prospects been lodged with the Government or with Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited? 2. If so, is the report encouraging? I am now in a position to furnish the following information : - >The services of **Dr. K.** Washington Gray, one of the senior geologists of the AngloIranian Oil Company Limited,' were placed at the disposal of the Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited during the past two years. After carrying out prolonged and detailed investigations, including field work in four States. **Dr. Gray** recently returned to London to discuss the results of his work with the technical officers of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Limited. It is not yet known whether further geological work in Australia will be recommended by them. The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited have received reports from time to time, but the company does nol feel competent to publish any statements pending receipt of recommendations following **Dr. Gray's** detailed discussions in London. {:#subdebate-18-5} #### Postal Department: Times of Closing of Post Offices ; Sales for State Governments ; Overseas Mailing Information {: #subdebate-18-5-s0 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr Price:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, *upon notice -* >Has the Postmaster-General received a report from Adelaide concerning, and is he now in a position to state that he has granted, the request of the Unley City Council that the mails nt the post offices at (a) Unley, (6) Goodwood, and (o) Parkside should close at 3.30 p.m. each day instead of 1.45 p.m. with a view to giving business people time to attend to interstate correspondence? {: #subdebate-18-5-s1 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : - >The mail facilities in respect of the three offices mentioned have been reviewed and arrangements made as from the 6th September for the closing time of the afternoon mail to be extended Monday to Friday as follows : - Goodwood, 3.20 p.m.; Unley, 3.35 p.m.; and Parkside, 3.55 p.m. {: #subdebate-18-5-s2 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- On the 1st September, the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. A. Green)** asked a question, *without notice,* regarding the commission paid by State governments for the sale of State duty stamps, promissory notes, &o. The Postmaster-General has supplied the following particulars of the commission received by the Commonwealth from State governments during the year ended 30th June, 1936, viz. : - (a) Sale of State duty stamps and promissory notes, £11,557; (6) sale of State taxation stamps, £27,536 ; (c) sale of entertainment tax tickets, £940; *(d)* sale of swine duty stamps, New South Wales, £505. {: #subdebate-18-5-s3 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- On the 2nd September, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Holloway)** asked a question, *upon notice,* regarding the posting of overseas mailing information at the St. Kilda and Williamstown post offices. The Postmaster-General has now supplied the following answer to his inquiries : - >So fur us is known, no request of this nature has been received by the department. The poet offices ure regularly supplied with copies of the mail notice, and information is willingly given upon application at the public counter. The department, however, will, in addition, be pleased to arrange for the notices to be exhibited on the notice-board in future. Commonwealth Public Service: Permanent Appointments of Returned Soldiers. {: #subdebate-18-5-s4 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr Lyons:
UAP s- On the 27th August, the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. George Lawson)** raised certain matters concerning the appointment of returnedsoldier temporary employees to permanent positions in the Commonwealth Service. 1 desire to inform the honorable member that the following provision governing the appointment of returned soldiers to non-clerical positions was embodied in the Commonwealth Public Service Act as passed in 1922, viz. : - >Section 84 - " (9) Tn the making of appointments to positions in the Commonwealth Service of a non-clerical nature the order pf preference to returned soldiers shall be as fallows: - > >Returned soldiers who have been temporarily employed continuously for not less than two years, but have not passed the prescribed examination, and in respect of whom the Chief Officer certifies that their duties have been performed in a satisfactory manner: > >Provided that any such appointment shall be to a position the duties qf which are similar to those which- the returned soldier has been performing." The Commonwealth law authorities had advised that, under this provision, the period of two years' continuous service must be completed immediately prior to the permanent appointment of the returned soldier. The amendment passed by Parliament towards the end of last year did not widen the provisions of the Public Service Act as to the classes of returned soldiers who may be appointed without examination, lt was introduced for the purpose of restoring eligibility, acquired under the above-mentioned provision, to certain returned soldiers still within the prescribed age limits *(i.e.,* under 51 years of age), who had previously qualified for permanent appointment, but whose services had to be dispensed with, mainly on account of the financial depression, before permanent appointments could be made. "With regard to returned soldiers temporarily employed in clerical positions, it may be pointed out that at no time has there been any legislative provision in force similar to that quoted above. Appointments of returned soldiers to permanent positions in the Third (or Clerical) Division of the Commonwealth Service are governed by the provisions of section 84(1)- (6) of the Commonwealth Public Service Act and are restricted to those who have passed the examinations arranged by the Public Service Board or one of the examinations prescribed under section 84(4). (See also Public Service Regulation 159.) Oil in Dutch New Guinea. {: #subdebate-18-5-s5 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr Lyons:
UAP -- On the 27th August, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** asked the following question, *without notice: -* >Will the Minister for the Interior communicate with the Administrator of New Guinea to ascertain whether there is any truth in the report that is circulating, that oil in commercial quantities has been found in Dutch New Guinea in close proximity to British territory? I now desire to inform the honorable member that the Commonwealth Government has no information regarding the discovery of oil in Dutch New Guinea, and, in reply to inquiries made of them, the Lieutenant-Governor of Papua and the Administrator of New Guinea have advised that they have no information regarding any such discovery. Fishing in Northern Waters. {: #subdebate-18-5-s6 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Sir Archdale Parkhill:
UAP -- On the 2nd September the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Blain)** asked me a question, *without notice,* relative to the investigation of the fisheries of the northern waters of Australia. The Minister in Charge of Development has supplied the following answer: - >The possibilities of the fisheries of North Australia will be investigated by **Dr. Thompson,** the officer in charge of Commonwealth fisheries, as soon as the necessary arrangements can conveniently be made.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 September 1937, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1937/19370907_reps_14_154/>.