House of Representatives
7 June 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CUT GLASS INDUSTRY
ITALIAN WARSHIP
QUESTION
- MONTECUCCOLI
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH LOAN OF £10,250,000
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
PRICE OF BUTTER
QUESTION
- STATE BY-ELECTIONS
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- BRISBANE WATERSIDE WORKERS
QUESTION
- NON-OFFICIAL POST OFFICES
QUESTION
- MAIL CONTRACTORS
QUESTION
- LONDON FUNDS
DAIRYING INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS AIR-MAIL SERVICE
QUESTION
- CONSCRIPTION
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL
QUESTION
- DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- ITINERANT .TEACHER FOR NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- MANUFACTURE OF MOTOR CAR ENGINES
QUESTION
- REPAIRS TO SS. PORT ST. JOHN
UNDESIRABLE LITERATURE EMBARGO
QUESTION
- MAPS FOR AIR PILOTS
COMMONWEALTH AND STATE TAXATION
DISTRIBUTION OF OVERSEAS AIR MAIL
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
ASSENT TO BILLS
PAPERS
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- National Insurance
- Australian Broadcasting Commission: State Advisory Committees
- Trade Marks Law
- Distribution of Air Mails
- Commonwealth Railways : Supply of Sleepers
- Invalid Pensions

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1859

QUESTION

CUT GLASS INDUSTRY

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOAN OF £10,250,000

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Treasurer any statement to make to the House with regard to the Commonwealth Loan, subscriptions for which have just closed?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– Yes. The loan resulted in a slight over-subscription. Applications were invited for £10,250,000, and about £150,000 in excess of that sum was secured. The total number of individual applications, was about 10,200, which is almost a record. This response has been exceeded only once in the last six or seven years, and the Government is extremely satisfied with the final result.

page 1859

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Price of Bread - Departures from CityPlan.

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– What is the present price of bread in Canberra, and how does it compare with the prices in the capital cities of the various States? In view of the marked decrease of wheat and flour prices, have the bakers in Canberra given any indication that the price of bread here will be reduced?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– I am unable to reply to the question offhand. I shall obtain the information, and advise the honorable member later.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I recently asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of alleged departures from the Canberra city plan, in the erection of buildings and in the provision of other services in this city, a committee of inquiry would be set op, or whether the matter would be referred to the PublicWorks Committee. Is it a fact that the work of erecting the new high school, which was temporarily suspended, was resumed today,and does the Government intend to erect the school on a site which was not set apart for that purpose?

Mr McEWEN:

– I had proposed to make a statement in regard to the matter generally within the nest few days. In reply to the question concerning the building of a school in Canberra, I shall supply information to-morrow,

IncomesinAustralia.

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Treasurer noticed the disparaging statement published in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, of the 3rd June, that only 250,000 persons ill Australia receive incomes of £4 a week or over? If so, willbo. correct the statement?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I noticed the report, and I can only suppose that the newspaper must have : been under some misunderstanding in publishing such a statement. Evenat the worst period of the depression, according to the census returns, . the number of persons in mid- 1933, who had incomes of £4 a week and over, was considerably in excess of 500,000. The economic conditions are now immensely better than they were in 1933, and the total number of persons whose incomes arc not under £4 must be well over 500.000. The misunderstanding may have ariscu because of an unjustified assumption that federal taxpayers are the only persons with incomes of £4 a week and over, but that is a different matter, because, for federal taxation purposes, the statutory deductions and various other deduction?, such as those for wives and children, are made from the income -before the, taxable amount is determined. Apparently there has been a confusion as between actual income and taxable income.

page 1860

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the increase of the price of butter by the butter interests, and in view of the statement by Professor Copland, of the Melbourne University, that £2,500,000 per annum is being exacted from consumers by the butter interests, who can raise the price at will-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The professor’s opinions should not be conveyed to the House in asking a question.

Mr McCALL:

– Will the Acting Minister for Trade and Commerce refer the subject of the price of butter to the Tariff Board for the purpose of investigation and report?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– No evidence has come to the department, nor have I any reason to believe, that an unreasonable price is being charged for butter. Should the Government deem that an unfair price is being asked for butter or forany other primary or secondary product, the question raised will have consideration.

page 1860

QUESTION

STATE BY-ELECTIONS

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the remarks of the Treasurer against the return of a- lady Labour candidate, Mrs. Brownbill, at the recent by-elcction at Geelong in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, resulting in a record victory for that lady, will the Prime Minister arrange for the Treasurer to address all by-election meetings in the future, so that Labour candidates will be returned, thereby ensuring the return of Labour governments in the near future?

Question disallowed.

page 1860

QUESTION

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the difficult position of many persons engaged in the dairying industry, will the Acting Minister for Commerce take steps to set. up some authority to ascertain the cost of producing butter in accordance with Australian standards of living in order that a fair selling price might be determined.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– Requests similar to that of the honorable member have been directed to the Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) and myself, for some time past. At an early date the matter will be considered by the Cabinet, and its decision will be announced.

page 1862

– My attention has not previously been directed to the question. I have already outlined what amounts to a complete reply to the question. There is no suggestion that the service cannot be brought into operation immediately. The ground organization is complete as well as the equipment and, if necessary, the service from Darwin to Perth and Darwin to Adelaide could be commenced within a fortnight without any difficulty whatever.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Will the Minister for Defence inform the House of the exact date on which the flying boat airmail service from England to Australia, will be inaugurated?

Mr THORBY:

-I cannot state the exact date, but a committee is sitting in-

Melbourne at the present time endeavouring to arrange a date, or approximate date, on which the service can be inaugurated. We are in close contact with the British postal authorities and are endeavouring to arrange a suitable time [hat will fit in with their requirements and with the Australian postal services, lt is impossible at the moment to say when the service wilh commence, but it is anticipated that there will be a preliminary service in July, and a full service in August this year.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– Is it the intention of the Government to have overseas air mails carried from Sydney to Hobart and Melbourne by air? If so, will they be carried on the same terms as the mails from Darwin to Perth and Adelaide ?

Mr THORBY:

– It has not yet been decided whether it will be advantageous to convey overseas mails from Sydney to Melbourne and Hobart by air, because we do not know the approximate time of arrival of the flying boats in Sydney. The whole matter of distribution beyond Sydney is still under consideration, pending the fixing of the time-table, which will be submitted to the Government within the next two or three days.

page 1863

QUESTION

CONSCRIPTION

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been directed to a press report that the subject of conscription was discussed at the last Imperial Conference? Can tlie right honorable gentleman say whether the report is true, and has he ‘any information to give to tlie House with respect to that section of the report which states that Australians resident in England will he liable to be conscripted in the event of conscription being introduced into Great Britain?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– As to the latter part of the honorable member’s question, I am not in a position to say how Australians resident in Great Britain would .be effected, by the introduction of conscription. That matter will have to be looked into. I give an absolute denial to the report that conscription was discussed at the last, Imperial Conference. The subject was not raised at the conference; indeed, the Imperial Conference is not the body to discuss such a matter.

Later:

Mr WARD:

– “Will the Prime Minister state whether tlie subject of conscription was discussed at any conference -or meeting in Great Britain at which Australiawas represented?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I can answer only for those conferences which I attended. The subject was not discussed at any of them, and I am perfectly sure that it was not discussed in the presence of any Australian representative. I have previously stated that the matter of conscription or no conscription is one for this Australian Parliament to decide, and for no other body. government assistance to wheat-growers:

Mr McCALL:

– In view of the recent agitation by the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) on behalf, of wheatgrowers for a home-consumption price for wheat, and in view of a recent increase of the price of butter, will the Government consider the permanent appointment of a board, with powers similar to those of the Tariff Board, to investigate the assistance that has been given to primary industries?

Mr Nock:

– And to secondary industries.

Mr McCALL:

– Secondary industries are attended to by the Tariff Board. Will the proposed board also be instructed to investigate requests for further assistance for wheat-growers?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– The matter will receive the consideration of the Government.

Later:

Mr NOCK:

-Will the Prime Minister say whether it is a fact that the royal commission which was appointed to inquire into the wheat industry recom.mended that the Government should take action to secure a home-consumption price for wheat, and whether the Government’s proposals were prevented by the result of the referendum at that time?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– It is true that the Government’s proposals regarding this matter were defeated at the referendum.

page 1864

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Prime Minister adhere to his statement that on no consideration would he allow legislation like the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill to be disposed of before the meeting of the reconstituted Senate after the election ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I did not make any such statement. I said very clearly that it was the duty of the Government to go on with this legislation, but that I would not unnecessarily press legislation or hurry it through this chamber.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The honorable gentleman did make the statement. I shall look it up in the press.

Mr LYONS:

– The honorable member can look up what he likes. I made no such statement.

page 1864

QUESTION

DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA

Utilization ov Railway Workshops.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Defence, when inspecting industrial plants, ‘government or otherwise, for the purpose of ascertaining their suitability for making defence equipment, inspected the railway workshops at Newport, Victoria? If not, will he take an early opportunity to do so? I ask this question at the request of the municipalities in the district.

Mr THORBY:
CP

– I have not personally inspected the railway workshops at Newport, hut a special committee has already furnished me with a report dealing with railway workshops’ equipment throughout the Commonwealth. Whilst I am not prepared to go into details, I can say that everything possible has been done to co-ordinate the State government railway workshops with the Defence Department, so that in the event of an emergency those equipments could be used in the most efficient way for the defence of the country.

page 1864

QUESTION

UNDESIRABLE LITERATURE EMBARGO

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In connexion, with the prohibition of the importation of certain publications and a certain class of literature, can the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs say whether he has received any information from the State Governments regarding action they may propose to take.

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– No official information has been received from any of the State governments. I have seen the Minister concerned in New South Wales and he has assured me that his State will co-operate with the Commonwealth. I doubt whether any communication has been addressed to the States. We want to do our own preliminary work before communicating with them.

page 1865

QUESTION

MAPS FOR AIR PILOTS

Mr BLAIN:

– In view of the confusion occasioned by lack of detail on maps of the Northern Territory, and of Australia generally, in the possession of air pilots, will the Prime Minister accept the suggestion of Dr. Watson jnr. in the Daily Telegraph of last Saturday, and invite Sherlock Holmes to leave his bee farm at South Downs in order to come to Australia?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Question not answered.

page 1865

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE TAXATION

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I lay on the table of the House a copy of an informative memorandum that has teen published at my direction ‘by the Commissioner for Taxation regarding rates of Commonwealth and State Taxation.

page 1865

DISTRIBUTION OF OVERSEAS AIR MAIL

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).I have received from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely “ The Empire airmail service, and the distribution of the mails to the States of the Commonwealth “.

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

I desire to direct attention to a matter of urgent public importance namely “ Empire air-mail services, and the distribution of such mail to the States of the Commonwealth “. I think it will be acknowledged by honorable members generally that, notwithstanding a series of interrogations, and the replies which they have elicited, there still exists a great deal of uncertainty, and a good deal of confusion, regarding the manner in which the Empire air-mail service is to be operated, and the extent to which the inland mail services of Australia will be affected when the overseas service is inaugurated. The Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) has said that a preliminary service will begin to operate in July, and that the full service will probably be operating in August. Thus, there is to be initiated -within approximately four weeks, an air-mail service which is to be the subject of an agreement between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of the United Kingdom, and yet, notwithstanding repeated assurances by the previous Minister for Defence, the Parliament has not yet been given any details regarding what the service will involve, and the conditions under which it will operate. I direct attention to the fact that this is no new thing. In May, 1937, the Acting Prime Minister (Sir Earle Page) sta ted -

I am gratified that the long negotiations between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia, regarding the Empire air mail, have resulted in agreement on all points which had originally been at issue. The scheme to be put into operation in January, 1938, will materially reduce both the time taken in the transmission of mail by air, and the cost thereof to the sender. These results will be achieved without interfering with air mail development in Australia or reducing that measure of control by Australia over the Singapore-Sydney section, which the Commonwealth Government regards as essential.

At that time, I asked the then Minister for Defence (Sir Archdale Parkhill) when it was intended that Parliament would have an opportunity to study the agreement between the Commonwealth and the Government of the United Kingdom, and he replied as follows -

There are certain mutters of detail outstanding, but I believe I am entitled to say that the investigation . and the consideration of the proposals is approaching finality. When that stage is reached, a full statement will be made on it at the earliest possible date.

I think I was entitled to construe that reply to mean that the statement would be made to this Parliament, but yesterday the present Minister for Defence evidently made certain statements to newspaper reporters. Whether those statements were in fact accurate or not, it is at least true that the Minister must have discussed the matter yesterday with reporters, and must have had in mind the fact that the service was to commence in about four weeks; and this, notwithstanding the fact that frequent questions in this House have failed to elicit so much information, and that even to-day a further series of questions failed to clear up important and fundamental matters incidental to the inauguration of the service.

Mr Thorby:

– They had nothing to do with it. They referred to the internal distribution of mails.

Mr CURTIN:

– The internal distribution of mails is an integral feature of the overseas mail service, and I decline to accept the suggestion that the Empire air-mail service consists merely in delivering mails to Darwin and Sydney. There is far more in the inauguration of this service than the department has yet provided for. In 1935, the then Minister for External Affairs (Sir George Pearce), in a statement made at Perth, said that meteorological data would have to be collected, landing places prepared, and a ground organization created before the service could be put into operation. I accepted that statement, believing those things to be an essential feature of the service. In July of last year, in Record Series No. 11, issued by the Government Publicity Office], the achievements of the Lyons Government were set out in these terms : -

In the forefront of the achievements is the establishment of a direct air-mail connexion between Australia and England, by means of an Australian-controlled and operated service between Brisbane and Singapore, the terminal of the Imperial Airways Service, of London. At the same time, it was decided to re-organize and develop internal subsidized air services to connect them to the main trunk services.

– Well, at about the same time! On the next day they will dawdle into Melbourne and some hours later into Hobart. The Minister’s reply to-day shows that although the whole affair is in a most chaotic condition, it could be cleared up by two or three hours of clear thinking.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

Mr MAHONEY:

– Take the matter we are now discussing. The Minister should give way to another member of his party, in the interests of the welfare of the people. I understand that representations were made that the flying boat service should terminate at Hobart. I appeal to the Government to give further consideration of the claims of the people of southern Tasmania.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I have no desire to badger the Minister (Mr. Thorby). He has given a satisfactory assurance regarding the date when the department will be able to undertake the distribution of overseas mails from Darwin to various parts of Australia, and I hope that he will be able to give an equally explicit assurance that this mail matter will not bo subject to a further surcharge. It is reasonable for the public to expect that they shouldbe given definite information regarding this service, and the rates to be charged, seeing “that they are within ten or twelve days, or less, of the date when some of the overseas letters will be posted. I understand that the first flying boat will leave Singapore for Australia on the 2nd July. It is clearly reasonable that the people, not only in Australia, but also on the other side of the world, who will be posting letters within the next few days, should know whether or not they will be required to pay a surcharge.

I endorse what the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) has said about the undesirability of discriminating between the rates at which letters will be carried to different parts of Australia. I hope that the Minister is in a position to give assurances which will clear up these misunderstandings. If he is not, I express my sympathy with him because, on his record, I know that the fault will not be his.

The method of carrying the mail from Sydney to Melbourne and Hobart is a matter which should be cleared up as soon as possible. Should the overseas flying boats arrive in Sydney late in the afternoon, it will not be possible, in the initial stages of the service, to distribute the mail by air, because of the absence of night flying facilities. It would be absurd to hold the mail in Sydney for twelve hours in order that it might be carried by air the next morning. It is not entirely the fault of the department that night flying arrangements are not yet complete; I understand that the air companies have not yet installed the necessary equipment on their planes. I support what has been said by Victorian members that, even if it is not possible to face the cost of night flying between all the capital cities, there is a strong case for carrying mails by night between Sydney and Melbourne. As a representative of one of the smaller States, I recognize that that is the most important mail route in Australia. It is important also from a defence point of view. If otherwise, Melbourne and Hobart are to be the last places in Australia to get overseas air mail, there is a strong case for establishing a night flying link between Sydney and Melbourne ahead of other night flying arrangements between the other capital cities.

The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) referred to a possible surcharge on letters to Hobart. In my opinion it is inconceivable that any government would increase the charge. Such a suggestion is preposterous. I hope that the Minister will clear up these misunderstandings forthwith, so that the House will be able to get on with the business on the notice-paper.

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · Calare · CP

– There is no justification whatever for certain statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) . Obviously his mind is confused as to the inauguration of the Empire air-mail service, because he repeatedly referred to the internal airmail agreements as if they were part of the Empire air-mail agreement. That agreement has nothing whatever to do with the internal distribution of mails within the Commonwealth of Australia. That is a matter entirely in our own hands, and is quite independent of the agreement which has been drawn up, but has not yet been signed becaise one or two minor points are still outstanding. Copies of the agreement are in Australia, and are now being considered with a new to finality being reached. At the proper time, it will be submitted to the Parliament for ratification.

The Leader of the Opposition was critical of the delay which he said had taken place in inaugurating this service. It is difficult to say definitely that there has been delay. It is true that as far back as two years ago the Government stated that it hoped that the air-mail service would be inaugurated in January, 1938, but that statement was made without any definite knowledge of the detailed work that had to be performed before the service could begin. The flying-boats which were under construction when that statement was made, have not long been completed. Several of them are already in Australia, and crews have been trained to handle them. Accommodation for them has had to be provided at the various bases from Darwin to Sydney. The construction of some of these air bases, which are in little known places, such as Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria, is not a simple matter. Karumba, also, is an isolated place at which a complete base has had to be established. ‘Before any action could be taken to establish a base at Groote Eylandt it was necessary, first, to carry out an aerial survey to discover whether a suitable base could be found, and then to send naval craft there to make a complete survey of the waters. After considerable investigation, all of which took time, an excellent site .was found at Langdon Inlet, on the north-west corner of the island. When the site had been determined, the construction of the base was commenced-, and it is now well advanced. The work was of a difficult nature; all the materials required had to be transported by ship under special charter, there being no established line of steamers running to the island. Moreover, no facilities existed there, nor was there any white man resident in the locality. All these difficulties had to be overcome, and a survey of the adjacent areas made, in order to see what would be required to make the base capable of meeting the needs of a flying-boat service. Meteorological investigations have been carried out and numerous other inquiries made. Similar work has been done in connexion with all the bases between Darwin and Sydney - at Groote Eylandt, Karumba, Townsville, Gladstone and Brisbane, with emergency landing places at other points.- Considerable delay was occasioned in securing a suitable site in Sydney Harbour for a terminal base. As honorable members know, there was great public agitation - supported by some of those persons and sections of the press which to-day criticize the Government for the delay that has taken place. However, when all these obstacles were overcome, tenders were called for the construction of the slip-way. Everything possible has been done to expedite its construction. After tenders had been called and accepted I even went so far as to offer to the contractor a bonus for every week that he could save in the time of construction, so that the service could be inaugurated with the least possible delay. Whatever delay has occurred, it has not been in Australia. We are working to schedule. I am assured that the company is in a position to commence at an early date the preliminary service which the Leader of the Opposition appeared to ridicule.

Mr Curtin:

– I did not.

Mr THORBY:

– The honorable member spoke slightingly of the preliminary service to be commenced in’ July. On the advice of its expert officers, the company has decided to run a preliminary service for several weeks. The regular mail service will be continued, so that for a time, there will be a little overlapping, but that is necessary in order to prevent any risk of dislocation of the air-mail services of the Commonwealth.

Listening to honorable members discussing this subject, an impartial person might have thought that no air-mail service to Australia existed, and that Australia lagged behind the other dominions in this connexion. I have been accused of neglecting my responsibility, and of depriving Australia of something which other dominions have. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) said that I was too busy to pay attention to all the duties of my office. There is no delay in either the Defence Department, or the Civil Aviation Department.

Mr Curtin:

– I did not accuse theMinister of delay.

Mr THORBY:

– No, but it is not the first time that the honorable member for Henty has accused the department of neglect. I have a fairly difficult task in hand, but the Defence Department has been so well re-organized that I have been relieved of many duties which previously were the responsibility of the Minister for Defence. Technical matters are nowentrusted to an increased staff of competent men. The flying boat service will take over the existing air-mail service carried out by land ‘planes, but it will run to a faster and more frequent schedule and will provide greater carrying capacity than is possible with land planes. The intention is not that every town and hamlet in Australia, or even every capital city, shall be part of. the Empire air-mail service, but that overseas mail shall be expeditiously carried between the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Australia. Moreover, the original intention was that the mail, having reached the terminus of the overseas service, would be carried to its destination in the ordinary way.

In reply to those members who have raised the question of Melbourne, I would point out that under the original arrangement mails are distributed from Sydney in the ordinary way. When the new agreement comes into force, instead of paying the present rates of air-mail postage a very substantial reduction will be brought about. That is known to every honorable member. If the air mail were delivered in Sydney late in the afternoon, very little time would be saved by sending it by air to Melbourne. A matter of only a few hours might be involved. The fact is overlooked that business people posting letters in the afternoon in Sydney have them delivered in Melbourne at midday next day. It is of no use becoming hysterical over the idea of saving two or three hours. This is not the first time that the air-mail question has been discussed in Parliament, and members are merely making a mountain out of a molehill. There is not much sense in spending large sums of money or asking flying organizations to fly at night to deliver mails that will have to lie in the Melbourne Post Office until the following morning. [Leave to continue given.]

The Government does not intend to vary the agreement drawn up between the British authorities, the operating companies, and the Commonwealth Government in the direction of altering the arrangement for the delivery of mails in Sydney. The method of distribution from Darwin, Brisbane and Sydney is “under consideration at the present time, and a statement will be made by the Government setting out the details of distribution. I am not going to forestall that statement. I refuse to be drawn on the matter of Government policy at this juncture to suit the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else. All reasonable honorable members will admit that it is unreasonable to ask me what is going to happen to the mails for” Melbourne, or for any “other capital city or any country town, until I am able to say, “ There is the complete scheme; there ds the complete re-organization; there is the timetable of times of arrival; and there is the basis on which the internal services will co-operate in the closest possible way “.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– What is the Minister’s view of the surcharge?

Mr THORBY:

– Until the reorganization of the internal services is complete I shall not be in the position to make any pronouncement on behalf of the Government. It is not a vital matter. Some members have suggested that letters posted in London in the next few days will come out by the Empire air-mail service. They will be delivered in the ordinary way, as at present. There will be no dislocation or confusion. The new system will come in automatically, and whatever advantages are given will be given at a specific date to be announced.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Porta

– This question is another link in the chain of actions of the Government in the last few years which people outside are beginning to talk of a3 Executive government. Parliament is not taken into consideration before decisions are arrived at. Very often members of Parliament are asked in the street about questions that have not come before them in Parliament, but about which they may have read in the press. The motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) represents a real complaint that Parliament has not been properly consulted. I feel sure that when the people of Australia realize that they are not all part and parcel of the Anglo-Australian air-mail service, and that only those on the eastern coastline are directly associated with it, there will be many confused minds. I always thought that the intention was to give equal service as nearly as possible to at least all capital cities. To-day the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) has said, though not quite definitely that only that portion of Australia from

Darwin to Sydney will be really associated With the direct service, and that the Government has no responsibility to cater for the rest of Australia. Many of us believed that Darwin would be the first port of call. “We believed then that the mails would be carried across Australia by air services which would help to improve communications to the outback places. When we found that it was not to be so, every one was disappointed. Then it was decided that the mails were to be carried from England in flying boats, touching at Darwin, and proceeding down the east coast. Probably there were sufficient reasons for this, but at least every one thought that the flying boats would be met at Darwin by aeroplanes which would distribute the mails to all the capitals of the Commonwealth, these subsidiary services being part and parcel of the main service, and would distribute simultaneously the mails to all parts of Australia without further charge. Now we are told that this will not be so, that the Government believes that its responsibility will end when the mails are delivered to Sydney. Thus it is possible that the mail from England may be delivered in Dunedin before mail which arrives in Darwin by the same flying boat is delivered to some parts of Australia. That is contrary to what every one believed and hoped. It will be a further disappointment to the people if it is found that those who are fortunate enough to live on the eastern side of the continent will have their overseas mail delivered to them at a cheaper rate than those living in Perth, Adelaide or Melbourne. At least the people have a right to expect that mail shall be delivered all over Australia at the same cost. At the present time, costs are pooled so that those living in remote districts pay no more for their mail services than do the people in the cities, and that principle should not be departed from. This Government is gradually but surely developing a method of ruling Australia by Executive action, and ignoring Parliament more and more. I would not go so far as to say that this Government is a dictatorship. That would not be right, but all students of international politics are agreed that the first cousin of a dictatorship is government by Executive authority. If this Parliament does not assert its rights it may not be very long before we really have a dictatorship here.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Flinders

.- I do not propose to criticize the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), because I recognize the splendid work he has done in organizing and co-ordinating the work of five separate branches. I am confident that, in so far as the organization of mail services is in his hands, it will be well done. Neither do I propose to criticize the air-mail arrangements, for the simple reason that I have not the faintest idea what they are. I desire to point out, however, that this air-mail service is one of the matters in regard to which Parliament has been kept unnecessarily in the dark, and has been given very little opportunity to offer assistance and advice. That Parliament could have helped to negotiate the agreement with the United Kingdom I do not believe. The details of such an agreement are too intricate for parliamentary consideration, but the arrangements that would have to be made for distribution within Australia must have been apparent for a considerable time - subject, of course, to minor arrangements with the United Kingdom, and subsidiary arrangements with the Government of New Zealand. The Government might very well have put forward some time ago a tentative scheme for consideration by Parliament. Members from every State could have made helpful suggestions regarding such a scheme if there had been one before us for discussion.

Many people seem to think that the overseas mails should be delivered simultaneously in all six capitals. That is fantastic and absurd. To read some newspaper comments one would think that the Government should provide six aeroplanes at Darwin, and handicap them like horses in the Melbourne Cup, so that they would all arrive simultaneously at their respective destinations. It should be possible, however, for the Minister to assure Parliament and the people that there will be no surcharge on the delivery of overseas mail matter, particularly to Perth and Adelaide. Up to the present, there has been no surcharge in respect to such deliveries, and it is unthinkable that, as the service is developed, it should become more retrogressive.

In my opinion, it is time that a night air-mail service was established between Sydney and Melbourne. More than two years ago the Postmaster-General’s Department led us to believe that an intercapital night mail service would be inaugurated in the near future. Why it has been delayed I do not know, but it is high time the promise was honoured. The first night service should be between Sydney and Melbourne, because it is only by a night air Service that any appreciable saving of time can be effected in the carriage of mails between those two cities. I understand that the Empire flying boat will probably reach Sydney at an hour too late to permit of the mails being carried on to Melbourne by a day service. Therefore, it would be almost as well to send them on by train as by aeroplane next morning. In either case, the people in the suburbs of Melbourne would not get their mail until 5 o’clock’ in the evening, whereas, if it were sent on by aeroplane at night it would be distributed by the first delivery in the morning, and country districts would receive it the same day, instead of the following day, as would be the case if it were sent on from Sydney by train or by the day air service.

The difficulty with which the Minister is confronted is that, although he knows quite well what his department has done, and can do, with the flying facilities available, he is possibly in the dark regarding the intentions of the Postmaster-General’s Department. This brings me to the point that civil aviation should be under the control of the Postmaster-General rather than the Minister for Defence. At the present time, civil aviation is engaged primarily in the service of the Postmaster-General’s Department. In fact, except for a little passenger traffic, and some private aviation, which is still insignificant, practically the whole of the civil aviation in Australia is employed in the service of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. The inauguration of a night service between Sydney and Melbourne would be definitely economic, and might tend to reduce the subsidy which, sooner or later, must be paid to the companies operating between those two cities. Operators have told me that a substantial subsidy is needed because their aircraft are not at present being used to capacity. If they were engaged in operating a night service, this would be largely overcome.

To sum up then, I believe that. Parliament should at an earlier date have been taken into the confidence of the Government regarding overseas air-mail services. I believe that night air-mail services should be inaugurated between Sydney and Melbourne, and that this is an opportune time to begin. Finally, I think that civil aviation should be under the control of the Postmaster-General rather than the Minister for Defence. It has been argued, I know, that the aerodromes used by civil aviation will also be used by the Defence Department. That is equally true of the harbours used by merchant shipping. They are used by the navy, yet no one has ever suggested that they should be under the control of thu Defence; Department.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

Mr DRAKEFORD:

Mr PRICE:

– The impression that I have received from the debate is that there is to be a surcharge c-f 3d. It has not been denied. What we need 13 a Minister to tell us what is the actual position. I was very much concerned when I saw the headlines on the article in the newspaper. I should prefer to receive my information, not from the press, but from the responsible Minister in this House, and, on future occasions, Ministers should take care to give honorable members the fullest information.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- When the Minister for Defence (Mjr. Thorby) started to reply - I understand that he did not start to reply until he thought everybody on this side had spoken - he stated that there had been disclosed a considerable amount of confusion in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) as to the difference between the distribution of the mails that had reached Australia and the special contract for the conveyance of mails by air to Aus tralia. It was noticeable that I could not induce the Minister to re-state that charge when the Leader of the Opposition came into the House. No such confusion, of course, was manifested by the Leader of the Opposition. He is perfectly clear that an agreement is in prospect, and he is perfectly aware that honorable members of this House and members of the public have not been taken into the Government’s confidence as to what this country is to be committed to. I go to the foundation of this matter, and I say that it is intolerable that a querulous, inexperienced Minister like the Minister for Defence, who brings neither knowledge, capacity, nor experience to this work, should inform the House that he does not propose to take the House into his confidence as to what this country is to be committed to in regard, to international air mails. This House should be consulted before, not after, an agreement has been reached. I know that the evil practice of committing this country and consulting it afterwards has been followed in the past, but it is a practice that does not gain anything in respectability by repetition, and one which ought to be discontinued. The present debate gives point to that contention. It has shown us that we have a Minister, a neophyte in postal administration, who is impatient of criticism and unwilling to take advice. When he is either criticized or apologized for from behind as well as in front, and when inquiries such as that made by the Leader of the Opposition are made, this leader of a would-be totalitarian state is personally affronted. I do not admit his right to take the stand that he takes.

It is suggested by the Minister when we speak of the special claims of the city of Hobart, the city of Melbourne, or any other part of this vast continent, we are influenced by petty parochial motives. My answer to the Minister is that as he takes it upon himself to be the only person envisaging the saving involved in this international air-mail contract, it is his duty, as soon as the arrangements for the contract are completed, even if the details are not completed - we were led to suppose that they were - to see that the arrangements for the distribution of the mails in Australia are in harmony with the arrangements for the bringing of the mail to Australia, which are, we are led to believe, designed, to give a quicker and bettor service. About that the Minister has done nothing whatever. As a matter of fact, it is a question on which he has no opinions whatever. He has given us to understand that it is not his concern at all.I entirely agree with the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Fairbairn) when he says that it would be far better if postal concerns were left in the hands of the Postmaster-General’s Department, and not in the hands of the Defence Department. The fact that the Defence Department is playing such an important part in it arises from the fact that defence is made predominant in the consideration of all the claims of all departments. It is that fact which has caused this postal question to be removed from the department which is trained in and is capable of administering it to a department which has no knowledge of the matter, whatever, and is, at the moment, unhappily presided over by a Minister who is specially unsuited for dealing with it. It may be that some honorable members would disagree with me on this point, but the Director-General of Postal Services is paid a handsome salary, and, in my opinion, he is a very competent officer. He understands the postal needs of Australia, and realizes that an overseas airmail service of the character contemplated requires an efficient service within Australia to make the whole scheme effective. Yet, when questions are addressed to the Minister for Defence, he regards honorable members as suspicious, and, if we press for an answer, we are regarded as impudent.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. G. J. Bell).Order! The attitude of the Minister to honorable members when they are asking questions has nothing to do with the question before theChair .

Mr BRENNAN:

– The Postal Department could deal with this matter’ more effectively than the Defence Department. To me it seems intolerable that the people of Australia should have to wait for the signing of this important agreement without a knowledge of. what it involves, and without any assurance that arrangements have been satisfactorily completed for the effective distribution of the mails after they reach the Australian coast. I make no special claim on behalf of Victoria, but, as the representative of a Victorian electorate, it is my bounden duty, as it is of every other honorable member, to direct attention to the matter.

Mr JENNINGS:
Watson

.- I realize that the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) has been working at high pressure for a long time, but, if an additional surcharge is to be imposed on overseas mail matter carried over the inland routes, I must associate myself with the strong protest lodged against the suggested charge. It is generally understood that the tendency is now to reduce rather than increase air-mail rates.

Debate interrupted under Standing Order. 257b.

page 1882

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent, to the following bills re ported : -

Customs Tariff1938.

Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1938.

Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Bill 1938.

page 1882

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Taxation - Memorandum of the Commissioner of Taxation showing Commonwealth and State Income Taxes for 1937-38.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at - Darwin. Northern Territory - For defence purposes; Kissing Point, Queensland - For defence purposes.

New Guinea Act- Ordinances of 1938 - No. 8 - Native labour; No. 9 - Arms, liquor, and opium prohibition.

page 1882

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 3rd June (vide page 1782) on motion by Mr. Casey -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to provide for insurance against certain contingencies affecting employees, and the wives, children, widows, and orphans of employees, and for other purposes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported, and. - by leave - adopted.

Message reported recommending appropriation for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Treasurer in this bill.

In committee:

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue bo made for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Treasurer in a bill for an act to provide for insurance against certain contingencies affecting employees, and the wives, children, widows, and orphans of employees, and for other purposes.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I move.

That, after the word “Treasurer”, the words “ and other members “ be inserted.

The motion, if carried, would authorize the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to submit amendments extending the scope of the bill, and I propose, under my amendment, that the privilege which the Treasurer seeks for himself shall be extended to members of the committee generally. The motion restricts amplification of the benefits under the bill to such extensions as the Treasurer may suggest.

Mr Harrison:

– How will the honorable member overcome the difficulty presented by the Constitution?

Mr CURTIN:

– The Constitution provides that no bill of this character shall be valid unless an appropriation of revenue has been made at some stage prior to the passing of the measure. It is notnecessary to consider the message recommending the appropriation until the concluding stage of the legislation has been reached. I desire every member of the committee to he placed on an equality with the Treasurer in dealing with this bill. The committee is master of the situation. It can say that it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue shall be made in order that further amendments may be considered by. the committee. We know that an appropriation is a limiting thing, and, because of this motion, in all probability it will be impossible to give consideration to many of the amendments which have already been circulated. I desire that those amendments shall be discussed on their merits. I submit that it is constitutional for me now to submit an amendment which would put the committee in a position to authorize the requisite appropriation to ensure that a ny extension of the bill, as contemplated by the Treasurer, and any other amendments submitted by honorable members, will be considered by the committee on their merits, and will not be declared out of order on the ground that they are not covered by the appropriation.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– As this amendment would appear to contravene the Constitution, 1 ask for a ruling as to whether it is in accordance with the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The Chair had intended to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) before giving a ruling on the point.

Mr CURTIN:

– It is true that the Administrator has recommended that an appropriation be made for the purpose of amendments to be moved by the Treasurer

Mr Holt:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) has asked whether the amendment is in order. I submit that a ruling should be given on that point before further discussion is allowed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have heard sufficient to enable me to determine now that the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition goes beyond the scope of the recommendation by the Administrator, and is, therefore, out of order.

Mr Curtin:

– I move -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The ruling of. the Chairman raises an important constitutional question as to the rights of the Parliament to deal with legislation. The principle at stake is of first-class significance to the deliberative competence of Parliament, for only so far as the Constitution may limit the Parliament, is the discretion of members of this chamber affected. The provision of the Constitution dealing with this point is in section 56, which reads -

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

That really means that for any bill which involves an appropriation of revenue to be valid, a message from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending an appropriation for that purpose must be received at some stage before it is finally passed. There are good reasons for that. The theory is that the Crown asks for the money, and that the Parliament decides whether it will, or will not, vote the money. In this case, wo are asked to consider a bill dealing with insurance for national health and pensions. It would have been perfectly competent for the Treasurer to have arranged for the Administrator’s message to be received after the committee stage of the bill had been concluded, in which event amendments moved by members of the committee which might have the effect of enlarging the scope of the measure, would have been in order.

Mr Casey:

– No!

Mr.curtin. - If no message had been received they would be competent to do so. On the other hand, if a message were not received from the Administrator prior to the concluding stages of the bill, the measure could not be validly passed. The Chairman has ruled that I am not entitled to seek to amend a motion moved by the Treasurer. If accepted by the committee, that ruling means that the Treasurer shall be competent to move amendments, whereas other members of the committee shall not have an equal competence. Although the Treasurer is a Minister of the Crown, in this chamber he has no rights greater than has any other member of the committee, except in so far as the Parliament gives them to him. Therefore, he has only the Standing Orders of this Parliament to rely on. I submit that a motion moved by the Treasurer, or, indeed, by any Minister, can be amended, provided the Standing Orders of this chamber permit the course to be taken. There is nothing in the Standing Orders to preclude my amendment.

Mr Casey:

– The prohibition is contained in the Constitution.

– It is common knowledge to honorable members that the (business of the country cannot be carried or unless the government of the day is in charge of its finances. In every parliament of the British Empire provision is made in the standing orders as well as in the constitution, where there is one, whereby the government of the day is protected from the obligation to appropriate money at the instance of the Opposition. That is inherent in section 56 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. A point that is not expressly stated in. that section is that only a member of the Government may cause to be originated a message of appropriation from the Governor-General. The Standing Orders control the business of this chamber, unless the House itself decides otherwise. I direct attention to Standing Order 171-

No amendment for the imposition or for the increase of a tax rate or duty shall bo proposed by any non-official member in any committee on any bill. and to Standing Order 247 -

No amendment whereby the charge upon the people will be increased may be made to any such resolution, unless such charge so increased shall not exceed the charge already existing by virtue of any act of the Parliament.

Again I draw attention to Standing Order No. 1 of this House, which reads -

In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by Sessional or other Orders, resort shall be had to the rules, forms, and practice of the Commons House of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland in force at the time of the adoption of these Orders, which shall be followed as far as they can be applied to the proceedings of the House of Representatives.

If the two Standing Orders I have quoted, No. 171 and No. 247, should for any reason be considered inadequate for the purpose I have mentioned, I rest my case on Standing Order No. 1. On page 505 of the 13th edition of May’s Parliamentary Practice, which in all cases not determined by the Standing Orders governs the proceedings of this committee, reference is made, among other things, to Standing Order No. 66 of the House of Commons. That Standing Order reads : -

This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service, or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, unless recommended from the Crown.

Our own two Standing Orders 171 and 247, taken in conjunction with No. 1, and Standing Order No. 66 of the British House of Commons, are all in line with what I have maintained, namely, that a message has to be brought down from the Governor-General covering any appropriation of money. That message has been brought down. It can be brought down only by a Minister of the Crown. Nothing that I have done or could do in this connexion can affect the rights of honorable members one way or the other. I cannot increase or decrease their rights, which are fixed by the Constitution. I venture, with great respect, to draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to that fact. He has set out again to-day, in extension of the debate that took place earlier in this chamber, to attempt to establish the contention that by bringing in the previous message I, in some indefinite way, attempted to curtail the rights of honorable members. The Government has to have control of any amendment that would increase the charge upon the budget. There has been cited one instance, and one only, in the whole history of this Parliament, when the message was not brought down at the beginning of the committee stage of a bill. That was when

Mr. Theodore was Treasurer. The hill was the Fiduciary Notes Bill. He did not bring down the message until just before the third reading, and the reason for that was that it had been overlooked at the earlier and appropriate stage. 1 give honorable members an undertaking that that “was so. I have consulted all the available high authorities on this point, and there is no room to doubt what the position i3. It is quite adequately dealt with by the written and unwritten words in the Constitution. Unless the introduction of a message of the sort dealt with in section 56 is restricted to a Minister of the Crown, responsible government would get into a sorry moss. These things arc not my imaginings. I can assure honorable members that by bringing down the message at this stage [ am conforming to the Constitution, the Standing Orders, and the usage of this Parliament for over 37 years - a usage that has been only once departed from, and then only because of an oversight. I appeal to honorable members on all 3ides to accept what I say as the true position, regarding which there cannot be any argument.

Mr Beasley:

– The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has shifted his ground many times to sustain his point. As 1 listened to him I imagined a set of circumstances in which ho would be addressing a public meeting, and I think I could guarantee that he would have been counted out long ago. Any audience other than members of this committee would not have stopped to listen to him. He states that the procedure being followed is the usual custom. I am not here to follow slavishly the customs of the past. While some honorable members laugh at that statement, I can assure them that the tendency not to follow tlie customs of the past is more widespread among the present generation than many members appreciate. Therefore, it is not for me to be bound by what some one did 25 years ago. What was done then or since may have been entirely wrong. We are here to do things according to what we believe is in keeping with modern ideas. In any case I should say that if this procedure was ^followed 25 years ago it is time it was changed. Tlie Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Curtin) has set out to alter the procedure so that honorable members may have free scope to discuss the bill and £o amend it in conformity with the speeches they made during the second reading debate. The Treasurer has quoted Standing Orders 171 and 247, and he says that if he cannot get through with them he will do so with No. 1, and that failing that he will go to the House of Commons for No. 66. If he cannot gatecrash on one he hopes to do so on the other. I have hurriedly looked at No. 171, which reads: -

No amendment for the imposition or for the increase of a tax rate or duty shall be imposed by any non-official member in any committee on any bill.

– The argument of those who support the present procedure is that any departure from it would be unconstitutional.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to S p.m.

Mr Beasley:

– The Treasurer has moved that a message from the GovernorGeneral recommending an appropriation of revenue be taken into consideration, the purpose being to enable amendments to be moved by the Treasurer to be incorporated in the bill. To this motion the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has moved that the words “ and other members “ be added, so that the appropriation may cover amendments moved, not only by the Treasurer, but also by other honorable members. You, sir,- have declared that the amendment to the motion is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution in that, if agreed to, it would increase the appropriation; you have, therefore, ruled it out of order.

The Leader of the Opposition discussed fully the bearing of the Constitution upon the amendment, and I do not think that you, as Chairman, are any more competent that he is to give a decision upon that point. I cannot accept your ruling that the amendment to the motion would have the effect of extending the appropriation. No one can say whether or not that will be the case until the amendments to the bill are moved in committee. It is not desirable that honorable members should be prevented from moving amendments. Every honorable member should bc able to move as he thinks fit, say what he thinks necessary, and have his opinions duly recorded. At this stage, it is pure assumption on your part that amendments which have not yet been moved will increase the appropriation. The purpose of the Government, supported by your ruling, seems to be to prevent Parliament from considering the bill deliberatively, and to stifle the free expression of opinion. If this ruling be allowed to- stand, Parliament will exist only as an instrument for recording the opinions, and carrying out the wishes, of the Treasurer. I can hardly imagine the the framers of the Constitution, however anxious they may have been to keep the control of the finances in the Government’s hands, ever intended that private members should be denied the right t.o express and record their views on financial matters in a free and democratic way. Honorable members who feel that they owe a duty to their constituents should support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, even to the extent of dissenting from the ruling of the Chairman, so that the widest possible discussion may be permitted. ‘ If the Treasurer may arrange for a new message from the GovernorGeneral recommending a further appropriation, so that he may introduce amendments, the Chairman should be generous enough to allow other honorable members to move such amendments to the bill as they think desirable. The Leader of the Opposition merely asks that, under cover of the Governor-General’s further message, private members, as well as the Treasurer, may be permitted to move amendments. No one can reasonably object to that. It is desirable that private members should be given every opportunity to express their opinions on so important a measure as this.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– They have that opportunity now.

Mr Beasley:

– Only in a limited way.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– The same opportunity exists in regard to this bill as exists in regard to every Budget.

Mr Beasley:

– If we must always do things in the same way as our grandfathers did then we shall make very little progress. I hold the view that the ruling of the Chair, if upheld, will restrict discussion, and destroy the deliberative character of Parliament. If the

Treasurer is to be permitted to introduce amendments that will increase the appropriation, other honorable members should enjoy a similar right.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr Holt:

– The constitutional principles and practice regarding financial measures are known to all honorable members. In that classical repository of parliamentary procedure, May’s Parliamentary Practice, Tenth edition, at page 5S0, the following passage occurs -

The constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility over national expenditure, and which forbids the Commons to increase the sums demanded by the Crown for the service of the State (see page 532). is strictly enforced in the committees of supply, and ways and means.

In a later work, An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, by Campion, at page 232, the writer, under the heading “Principles of Financial Procedure “ states - . .

The main effect on financial procedure of tlie principles governing the relations between the Crown and Parliament (see pp. 23-29) and the rules by which the House of Commons regulates its own practice (S. Os. Nos. 06 to 7 IB) may be summarized as follows: -

All financial business is originated by the Crown alone. No member other than a Minister acting on behalf of the Crown may make a motion or move an amendment which has the effect of imposing a new “ charge “ or increasing an existing or proposed “charge” whether “upon* the Consolidated Fund” (expenditure) or “upon the people” (taxation).

Those principles have been clearly laid down and recognized for centuries. The honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) said that we should not be bound slavishly by custom, but he, as a parliamentarian of some standing and experience, should be aware of the battle which the English people fought through the years for the right to exercise sole control over the financial expenditure of the Government, and, without any desire to reflect unduly upon him, I suggest that he was not quite sincere when he expressed the view that there ought to be a change in our constitutional practice,. I have cited to honorable members the practice of the House of Commons which we have followed in Australia. We have included in the Com monwealth Constitution Act, section 56, which reads -

A vote, resolution, or proposed law for the appropriation of revenue or moneys shall not be passed unless the purpose of the appropriation has in the same session been recommended by message of the Governor-General to the House in which the proposal originated.

We have before the committee a message from the Administrator, and based on that message, the following motion has been moved by the Treasurer -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of amendments to be moved by the Treasurer in a bill for an act to provide for insurance against certain contingencies affecting employees, and the wives, children, widows, .and orphans of employees, and for other purposes.

Mr Makin:

– Although I disagree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my remark.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Whatever the motive behind this amendment may be, it comes strangely from the Leader of the Opposition, because, if he were carrying ministerial responsibility, he would, with his deep knowledge of the Constitution, and his respect for this Parliament, be the first to repudiate an amendment of this kind.

Mr Forde:

– After hearing the unreasonable statements by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), I strongly support the reasonable amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. The honorable member for

Henty tries, at times, to make us believe that he takes an independent stand, but he evidently attended the caucus meeting of the Government parties this morning, when honorable members opposite were whipped into line. The Treasurer has moved that it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of amendments to be moved by him in a bill for an act to provide for insurance against certain contingencies affecting employees, and the wives, children, widows and orphans of employees, and for other purposes. Surely the Leader of the Opposition, having listened to numerous speeches by members opposite, who said that they felt certain that the Government would give every opportunity for consideration in committee-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to reasons for disagreement with the Chairman’s ruling.

Mr Forde:

– The Leader of the Opposition submitted the amendment that, after the word “ Treasurer “, the words “ and other members “ be inserted. That was to give other members the right to submit amendments to the bill, but you, sir, ruled the amendment out of order on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the Administrator’s recommendation. I say, with great reluctance, Mr. Chairman, that that was one of the worst rulings I have ever heard you give. I make that statement with very. great respect, and without wishing to cast any reflection on the Chair. Surely the Leader of the Opposition has the right to submit an amendment to enable honorable members generally to have the same freedom as the Treasurer is to have in submitting amendments for the consideration of the committee. It is mere balderdash to say that the amendment would give to honorable members the right to increase taxation. I dot not believe that the honorable member for Henty seriously holds that view. The Parliament alone can impose taxes. Without a majority in the Parliament iu favour of an increase of taxes, the increase cannot be imposed. Why should not any honorable member be permitted to move an amendment to give effect to views expressed by him in the debate on the second reading of the bill. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling infringes the rights of honorable members, and I hope that, even at this lal:« hour, you will overlook any criticism that has come from members of the Opposition, and re-consider your decision. If honorable members are to be prevented from exercising their right to submit amendments, we shall be wasting the time of Parliament by discussing this measure in committee. I have never had previous experience of a bill which has aroused such wide interest as this has. I have a vivid recollection of a vote last Thursday in which five or six members crossed over from the Government side and voted with the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The importance of this bill has nothing to do’ with the motion before the Chair.

Mr Forde:

– But its importance makes us take your ruling all the more seriously. Certainly the ruling will enable Government supporters to escape from an awkward situation, because it will stifle discussion and allow honorable members opposite to avoid giving effect to views expressed irc their second-reading speeches. The Opposition is strongly opposed to your ruling, because it was told that in committee every opportunity would be given to members to liberalize the measure. The Government is now going back on its promise in this regard.

Mr Nairn:

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Acting Minister must confine his remarks to the subject before the Chair.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– I realize that these references are unpalatable to honorable members opposite. If the Opposition knows anything at all of the Standing Orders of this Parliament, it knows that no chairman would rule that any private member could move an amendment which would increase the burden of taxation to be borne by the people. The case of the Opposition falls down for another reason. I cannot remember having ever read of a proposal by a member of the Opposition that a message from the representative of the Crown should be changed by a vote of the Parliament.

Undoubtedly, Parliament has the right to turn out of office the Government responsible for such a message, but it has no right to change the message itself. The right to turn out the Government exists, but the present Opposition has not the numbers to exercise it. The only consolation that its members have is that they can go home to-night and sleep peacefully, knowing that they will not be called upon to-morrow to accept the responsibility of governing the country. There is no necessity to discuss this subject at length, because honorable members on all sides of the House realize that the ruling of the Chairman is correct. Even if all the previous rulings that you, Mr. Chairman, gave were wrong, they would be atoned for by the rectitude of this ruling.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

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

– I have only to say that honorable gentlemen on the other side, who at one time attempted to remove the chairman from the Chair, are ill-advised–

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Archie Cameron:

– As neither the Opposition nor yourself, Mr. Chairman, appears to desire to hear of that incident, I shall say no more.

Question put -

That the ruling be dissented from.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 34

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

– I do not know. I asked to be informed of the approximate amounts which it is intended shall be paid to the three commissioners.

Mr Casey:

– The stun to provide for the salaries of the three commissioners is approximately £4,800.

Mr CURTIN:

– I am satisfied.

Mr Beasley:

-t-Do I understand the Treasurer to state that three persons have been tentatively selected as commissioners ?

Mr Casey:

– The Government; of course, cannot make appointments until the bill is law. but the tentative appointees are Mr. Bridgen, Chairman; Mr. McVey, Second Commissioner; and Mr. Green, Third Commissioner. Their total salaries will amount to approximately £4,800.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 -

Subject to this act, all employed persons (not being aboriginal natives of Australia or of the islands of the Pacific) who have attained the age of sixteen years, and have not attained the maximum age, shall be insured under and in accordance with this act as employed contributors.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I move -

That the words “ aboriginal natives of Australia or “ be omitted.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I wholeheartedly support the clause and for more than one reason. While I have criticism to offer on many provisions inthe bill, I consider that this clause embodies one of the . finest principles contained in any legislation in this country. I, and others, have approached the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and other Ministers with requests to remove from Australian democracy the blot which prevents some citizens from enjoying the benefits of social legislation. The clause removes one blot, and I regard it as one of the finest features of the bill. There was objection to it when it appeared to keep out aborigines, but the amendment puts them on the same footing as other persons. The clause will exclude many aborigines, but it will not exclude some men that I know who are highly respected tradesmen, sportsmen, and broadcasters at Wesley Church, and other places. The suggestion of the Treasurer is excellent. J want to emphasize how pleased I am that the amendment will enable Chinese or other foreigners, of whatever nationality, creed, or caste, to share in the benefits that other citizens of Australia enjoy.

Amendment (Mr. Rosevear’s) negatived.

Amendment (Mr. Casey’s) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.46 p.m.

page 1905

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

National Insurance

Mr James:

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What steps does the Government propose to take to prevent the owners of industries from increasing the prices of their products as an offset to being compelled to subsidize employers’ contributions under the proposed national insurance scheme?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– It would not be possible to deal with this matter fully in reply to a question. I suggest that it would be more appropriate to deal with it in connexion with the debate on the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill now before the House.

Australian Aerial Medical Services: Accommodation For Pilot at Wyndham.

Mr Green:

n asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice -

Is it a fact that suitable accommodation for the air pilot of the flying doctor service is not available for married men at Wyndham. and consequently it is difficult to retain the services of seasoned air pilots, which are so essential for this necessarily dangerous work?
Will he take into consideration the representations that have been made to him by letter from the secretary of the Victorian branch of the Australian Aerial Medical Services, for the erection of suitable married quarters at Wyndham to be leased at a reasonable rental to the pilot appointed to this service ?
Is it a fact that the medical officer at Wyndham states that this would solve the difficulty of retaining the pilots?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

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

Information to this effect has been received.
The Minister for the Interior will investigate the whole position during his forthcoming visit to Wyndham.
The opinion of the medical officer has not been communicated to the Minister.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: State Advisory Committees

Mr Price:

e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What progress has been made by the South Australian Advisory Committee to the Australian Broadcasting Commission?
Are there similar advisory committees in existence in any other States of the Commonwealth ?
Is it a fact that the Minister, in reply to questions, informed honorable members that all recommendations made by the advisory committee are confidential?
What means has an honorable member of being informed on the question whether this committee and other broadcasting advisory committees are functioning in a satisfactory manner?
What recommendations, if any, have been adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission ?”

Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

The committee has met on several occasions and has given the commission the benefit of its opinions.
Yes; in Western Australia.
The views expressed to the commission are regarded as confidential.
It is regretted a convincing reply cannot be given to the question. The committees consist of specially chosen representatives, who have been good enough to give their services, and the knowledge that they are continuing their activities is all thatcan be expected.
See answer to 3.

Postal Department: Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs at Adelaide.

Mr Makin:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that, at a saving of a few pounds per annum, one position of Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs at Adelaide has been abolished?
Is it a fact that this office, owing to its geographical position, is perhaps the most important unit in the Australian telegraph service?
Is it a fact that Adelaide is the telegraphic gateway from south to north Australia, and, as such, must be regarded as an integral part of the Australian defence system, in so far that all telegraphic despatches from the seat of government to His Majesty’s forces stationed at Darwin must pass through the Adelaide telegraph office?
Will he take steps for the immediate replacement of the second position of Assistant Superintendent of Telegraphs, Adelaide, thus recognizing that such a key telegraph office should have the services of an assistan t superintendent for a longer period than seven hours daily?
Will he take immediate steps to ensure that the telegraphic link between Canberra and Darwin naval base, namely, the Adelaide office, is never left in charge of any officer of status lower than that of supervisor?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

Yes, concurrently with the creation of an additional position of Supervisor, Grade 3. I am advised that the latter status is more appropriate to thepresent traffic requirements.
No.
Yes, so far as it relates to messages transmitted by landline. 4-5. I am advised that replacement of the position referred to is not considered necessary, and that the supervisory control provided for is adequate to meet all traffic needs.

Trade Marks Law

Mr Price:

e asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the Government has under consideration the question of the law relating to trade marks?
What stage has been reached, and when is it expected that a decision will be made?

Mr Hughes:
Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

A committee is at present examining the trade marks law with a view to recommending its amendment in certain directions. When the committee’s report is available it will be presented to the Attorney-General for his consideration and, if its recommendations meet with the approval of the Government, a bill to give effect thereto will be introduced into the Parliament. The date of its introduction depends on the date of the return of the Attorney-General from his official mission overseas and the exigencies of parliamentary business.

Australian National War Memorial at Villers Bretonneux.

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the structure to be unveiled by His Majesty the King at Villers Bretonneux on the 1st July is not the Australian National War Memorial which the Government determined should primarily fulfil the following conditions, under which, in utmost good faith, some 30 architects competed, viz.: -
1. Qualifications of competitors - This competition is limited to -
1. Australian architects or designers, resident in any country, who enlisted for service in the Great War with the sea or land forces of the British Empire;
2. Australian architects or designers, resident in any country, whose sons or daughters enlisted lor service in the Great War with the forces above-mentioned.
3. Australian materials to be employed - The exterior and interior of the memorial, wherever seen, are to be faced with Australian granite and/or such other durable material of Australian origin as competitors may suggest.
4. Execution of the work - The granite, trachyte, stone, marble, or other work of Australian materials is to be executed in Australia under supervision by the selected architect complete and ready for transport and erection in France.
Is it a fact that the Government has violated each of the three fundamental conditions mentioned by having a structure on “the famous hill of Villers Bretonneux”, the architect for which is not Australian, the material of which is not Australian stone, and the workmanship not Australian?
Whywas the successful Australian architect for the Australian National War Memorial at Villers Bretonneux not given an opportunity to submit a modification of the scheme, either regarding design, material, or workmanship, to meet the altered taste of the Government?
Is it a fact that he previously prepared authoritatively all details and working drawings necessary for the erection to the satisfaction of the Imperial War Graves Commission, and secured the approval of all authorities in Great Britain, Australia and France, including the signing by the President of the decree enabling erection?
Why were all Australian architects throughout the world, as wellas Australian stone and allied Australian workmanship, excluded?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

Yes.
The Scullin Government in 1031 decided to abandon the proposal to construct a memorial on the lines originally intended. The various steps which led to the decision a re as follows: -

In 1926, the Commonwealth Government approved of the erection of a national memorial at Villers Bretonneux not to exceed £100,000 (inclusive of approximately £20,000 at the disposal of the Imperial War Graves Commission).

In 1927, as the result of a competition limited to Australian architects and designers who had enlisted or whose sons or daughters had enlisted for service in the Great War, the design of Mr. William Lucas, of Melbourne, was selected.

After consultation with the Imperial WarGraves Commission, Mr. Lucas completed his plans and these were then submitted to the Bureau of Fine Arts, Paris, whose approval was necessary before the work of construction could proceed. This approval was obtained in 1929, but, owing to the financial situation, construction was postponed and in 1931 the scheme was abandoned.

Subsequently, the Imperial War Graves Commission drew attention to the fact that the constructional programme for treating graves overseas of the fallen of the British Army had been completed and memorials to the missing (except at Vimy) erected, whilst the names of some 11,000 Australians missing on the Western Front had not been commemorated. The commission urged that action was necessary to proceed with the national memorial on which the missing were to be commemorated or, alternatively, to proceed with the memorial to the missing from the funds at their disposal for this purpose (approximately £20,000).

In 1935, the Commonwealth Government asked the Imperial War Graves Commission to submit for approval a design for a memorial at Villers Bretonneux to commemorate the 11,000 missing and incorporating tablets indicating the names of places where the remaining 8,000 missing were commemorated. The total cost of the scheme was not to exceed£30,000 (subsequently increased to £36,000).

In February, 1930, the scheme submitted by the War Graves Commission was approvedby the Commonwealth Government and the commission was requested to proceed with the work.

The design approved was prepared by the eminent British architect, Sir Edwin Lutyens. This architect had designed the entrance to the cemetery at Villers Bretonneux and, as this entrance also leads to the memorial site, it was appropriate that he should have been selected by the commission to design the memorial.

In view of the fact that most of the funds to be expended on the memorial have been provided by the Imperial War Graves Commission, it was reasonable that the construction of the memorial should be left in the hands of that body.

See answer to question 2.

Mr. Lucas was reimbursed financially for the services he had rendered. 4 and 5. bee answer to question 2.

Distribution of Air Mails

Mr Nairn:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has his attention been directed to press reports that the distribution of air mails from Darwin would not come into operation for about twelve months?
Willhe make a statement on the subject?

Mr Thorby:
CP

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

I haveseen statements in the press that the arrangements for the distribution of overseas air mail arriving at Darwin would not come into operation for about twelve months after the commencement of the flying boat service. I am not aware from what source this report emanated, but it certainly has no authoritative basis.
As the Government has not yet made its decision on all details in connexion with the distribution of overseas mails arriving by the flying boat service, I am unable to make a full statement on the matter yet; such a statement will be made, however, as soon as possible.

Commonwealth Railways : Supply of Sleepers

Mr McEwen:
CP

n. - On the 1st June, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

Has any contract for the supply of sleepers for the CommonwealthRail ways been made during the past two years ?
If so, what are the names of persons or firms supplying such sleepers during that period?
What were the dates, quantities and price of such supplies?
What are the number of sleepers at present in stock held by the Commonwealth Railways for maintenance purposes?
What number is in stock to provide for the re-sleepering, as authorized by the Commonwealth Parliament, of the Commonwealth Railways systems?
What particular sections have been resleepered and what total mileage has been completed?

The information desired by the honorable member is as follows : -

Yes. 2 and 3. Statements hereunder -

4 and 5. The numbers of sleepers in stock for maintenance purposes and for special resleeper ing referred to are -

On Trans-Australian Railway . . 72,300

On Central Australia Railway . . 52,000

Complete sleeper renewal is not being carried out in sections, but such sleepers as are in need of renewal throughout the whole railway are being replaced.

Invalid Pensions

Mr Casey:
UAP

y. - On Friday, the 3rd June, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

How many applications for the grant of invalid pensions were received in each State for the year ended 30th April, 1938?
How many of the applications received in each State were successful?
How many invalid pensioners ineach State were medically re-examined in the same period ?
How many invalid pensions in each State were cancelled as a result of such reexamination ?

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 June 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380607_reps_15_156/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 7 June 1938

QUESTION

CUT GLASS INDUSTRY

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

Mr PERKINS:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

ITALIAN WARSHIP

QUESTION

MONTECUCCOLI

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LOAN OF £10,250,000

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Mr MAHONEY:DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr McEWEN:Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Sir CHARLES MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:

Mr NOCK:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:UAP

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr McCALL:

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

STATE BY-ELECTIONS

Mr GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr FADDEN:DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

BRISBANE WATERSIDE WORKERS

Mr BAKER:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

NON-OFFICIAL POST OFFICES

Mr STREET:CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

MAIL CONTRACTORS

Mr CLARK:DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

LONDON FUNDS

Mr JOHN LAWSON:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr CASEY:UAP

DAIRYING INDUSTRY

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR-MAIL SERVICE

Mr PRICE:BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr THORBY:Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr THORBY:

Mr Curtin:

Mr THORBY:

Mr Martens:

Mr THORBY:

Sir HENRY GULLETT:HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr THORBY:

Sir Henry Gullett:

Mr THORBY:

Mr NAIRN:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr THORBY:

Mr JOHN LAWSON:MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr THORBY:

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

Mr THORBY:

QUESTION

CONSCRIPTION

Mr WARD:EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr WARD:

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr McCALL:

House of Representatives
7 June 1938

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

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NOCK:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr THORBY:
CP

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr JENNINGS:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty