Senate
19 July 1923

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PERSONAL EXPLANATION
PAPERS
QUESTION
- THE LATE MR. DAVID LINDSAY
QUESTION
- NAURU ADMINISTRATION
QUESTION
- SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION
QUESTION
- PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND
QUESTION
- MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TOURIST BUREAU
QUESTION
- LAND VALUES TAXATION
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE
COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL
- Second Reading

The President (Senator the Hon. T. Givens) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1274

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

– (By leave).-I desire to make a personal explanation. When speaking last evening in the debate on the Northern Territory Crown Lands Bill, I stated that the representative of the Northern Territory in another place, Mr. Nelson, was a member of the Australian Labour party. I ‘ now find that my statement was incorrect. “When the Northern Territory election was decided, it was reported in the press that the position had been filled by a Labour representative, and when I knew the elected member was Mr. Nelson, I came to the conclusion - being influenced in this matter by my knowledge that he had been prominently associated with union and industrial matters in the Northern Territory - that he had stood as the representative of the Labour party. I have since learned that Mr. Nelson conducted his election, not as a Labour candidate, but as a Northern Territory advocate. He made his position in this respect quite clear during the campaign, and I desire now, in justice to him and in fairness to his supporters; as well as in the interests of the Territory which he represents in another place, to set the matter Tight.

page 1274

PAPERS

The following, papers were presented: -

Northern Territory Charts (four) to accompany Report by Engineer Vice-Admiral Sir WilliamClarkson on the possibility of developing a Harbor at the mouth of the McArthur River, tabled in the Senate on the 18th July, 1923.

Ordered to be printed.

Audit Act- Transfers of Amounts approved by the Governor-General in Council - Financial Year 1922-23- Dated 11th July, 1923.

page 1274

QUESTION

THE LATE MR. DAVID LINDSAY

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I ask the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) if his attention has been directed to a paragraph in this morning’s press to the effect that the Commonwealth Govern- merit have consulted the Governments of New South. Wales and Victoria in connexion with a proposal to make a grant to the widow of the late Mr. David Lindsay, the Australian explorer. If the statement is true, will the Government give the . Government of South Australia an opportunity to contribute to the fund?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– We approached the Governments ofNew South “Wales and South Australia; not New South Wales and Victoria.

page 1275

QUESTION

NAURU ADMINISTRATION

Penalty for Sorcery

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

Is the Minister aware whether an Ordinance has been passed by the Administrator of Nauru providing a penal ty for the alleged offence of “ sorcery “?
What constitutes such alleged offence ?
Will the Minister direct that each alleged offence be thoroughly proved before any punishment is inflicted ?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The replies are as follow : -

The Native Regulations, 1922, made by the Administrator of Nauru on 14th October, 1 922, ‘ contain the following provisions: - “17. Sorcery. Any native found guilty of the offence of sorcery shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine of not exceeding Five pounds or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding six months.”
“Sorcery” is not defined in the regulations.
The regulation permits of infliction of a penalty only “on conviction,” Offences against the regulations are dealt with by the Central and District Courts of the island; and there is no reason to suppose that any native would be punished by these Courts except after strict proof of the offence.

page 1275

QUESTION

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the depreciated value of money, will the Government during the present session introduce a Bill to amend the schedule to the Seamen’s Compensation Act to provide that the maximum amount of compensation may be increased from £500 to £1,000, and that the payment of £2 per week may be increased to £4?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The matter will receive consideration.

page 1275

QUESTION

PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Is he aware whether, if a blind woman’, marries a sighted man, she loses her pension?
If such is the case, will the Governmentamend the Act so as to allow blind persons, to continue in receipt of pension after marriage?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurersupplies the “following answer: - 1 A blind . woman marrying a sighted man would not lose her pension merely by reason of the marriage. Moreover, she could receive pension provided the income and property of herself and her husband are within thestatutory limits.

See answer to No. 1.

page 1275

QUESTION

MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What extension of time has been granted to the Midland Railway Company, Western Australia, to pay the arrears of taxes due by them under the Land Tax Act 1910?
At what date must the arrears be paid?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurer supplies the following answer: -

102 days.
30th September, 1923.

page 1275

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Automatic Postage Stamp Machines

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minis ter representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will the Postmaster-General make arrangements forthe installation of automatic postage stamp machines throughout the Commonwealth for use when post-offices are closed?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The answer is as follows: -

In view of the facilities available for the purchase of postage stamps after office hours from stamp vendors who are granted licences for the sale of stamps throughout the Commonwealth, where necessary, . the PostmasterGeneral does not propose to make the arrangements asked for by the honorable senator at present.

page 1275

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TOURIST BUREAU

Distribution of Literature

Senator NEEDHAM:

asked the Minis ter representing ‘the Minister for Works andRailways, upon notice -

Will the Minister for Works and Railways make arrangements for the distribution of tourist literature from the Western Australian Tourist Bureau on the transcontinental railway?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner is willing to arrange for the distribution of literature approved by him.

page 1276

QUESTION

LAND VALUES TAXATION

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In the scheme for its exit from a large area of the field of taxation, has the Government taken into consideration the question of imposing taxation on the £375,000,000 worth of land values excluded on account of the £5,000 exemption provided for in the Federal Land Tax?
If so, will the Minister say what decision has been arrived at?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Treasurer supplies the following answer: -

The honorable senator’s question concerns a matter of Government policy, and it is not usual to give replies in such cases.

page 1276

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator John D. Millen) agreed to -

That two months’ leave of absence be granted to Senator Bakhap on account of illhealth.

page 1276

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13th July (vide page 1105), on motion by . Senator Wilson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I rise to speak on this measure in a somewhat doubtful frame of mind, but I wish to express my pleasure that the Minister (Senator Pearce) did not insist yesterday that honorable senators should sit continuously until the Northern Territory Crown Lands Bill had been passed through all its stages. Had he done so, I should not have been able ‘ to do anything like justice to this measure to-day. In view of the generous treatment that I received when a lone representative of the Labour party in this Chamber,I appeal to the new senators to insist that all Bills shall be treated in a way worthy of this Senate. I am not one of those who are able at a monent’s notice to readily discuss any question, and we should act fairly to the people who sent us here by insisting on a deliberate discussion of every measure. At present I have to speak on five Bills, and there is a possibility of the introduction of seven others on which I shall be called upon to speak. In view of the limited time which is said to be at our disposal, the list of Bills seems to be somewhat large. Senator Wilson must be congratulated upon the way in which, as Minister, he introduced his first Bill in: this Senate. He is in the very happy position of having introduced a Bill, portions of which will certainly meet with the approval of all parties. His own party - that is himself - was evidently “in hearty agreement with him; the Country party, which he represents in the Ministry, I have no doubt, will approve of the Bill; the Nationalist party, -with which he is associated, will concur; and speaking for the Labour party, I say that we shall heartily welcome the continuation of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. Senator Wilson is, indeed, in a very happy position, since the four parties I have mentioned approve of the Bill to be piloted by him through this Senate. I wish briefly to refer to some of the Minister’s remarks, because there are certain matters relating to the Bill which will require a definite statement from him. Some of his statements might easily be misconstrued. At one stage Senator Wilson stated: “We shall have to follow the road of prosperity and turn aside from the road followed in the past.” He was there referring to the Commonwealth Shipping Line.

Senator Wilson:

– That was a general statement.

Senator GARDINER:

– I hope he will not turn aside too far from the track followed in the past. The Commonwealth Shipping Line has been a most profitable investment. On another occasion he stated -

A statement, showing the position of the Commonwealth Government shipping and shipbuilding activities from the end of 1014 until June last, has been tabled. This shows a total debit of £2,645,761 on all transactions after allowing for the proposed writing down, interest on all moneys advanced, and the total cost of all steel ships built or in course of construction in Australia. In fact, it shows all expenditure except the loss on wooden tonnage, which, it is freely admitted on all sides, could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a reasonable charge against the Line.

As a matter of fact, notwithstanding heavy losses incurred during the last two years, the Commonwealth (Shipping Line has made a gross profit of £2,493,449 since its inception, but the net loss has been £493,278, the difference comprising interest and depreciation already written off.

I shall now quote statements made by Mr. Bruce, a gentleman who holds a very high office in another place, which are very pertinent to the question of profit and loss, and the opera-, tions of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. It is one of the lasting pleasures of my public life that I was a member of the Government which established the Commonwealth Shipping Line. I do not know whether I shall he justified in quoting from memory a sentence dropped by Senator Pearce in private conversation some years ago, but I shall venture to do so. Discussing our intended purchase of a number of ships to inaugurate the Shipping Line, the purchase to be subject to parliamentary indorsement, Senator Pearce said that it was comparable with Disraeli’s action in purchasing Suez Canal shares for the British Government:

Senator Kingsmill:

– No wonder Senator Pearce dropped that sentence.

Senator GARDINER:

-I am inclined to think that ha was absolutely correct. Although in recent years, or recent months perhaps, there may have been occasions when the fleet was of little use, this attempt on the part of the Government of that day to do something to benefit Australia is comparable with what Disraeli did for Britain in the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. The Commonwealth Shipping Line should not be thrown aside on a catch cry. If the Line is continued I have no doubt that some of us will live to see the consequent benefit to Australia. I shall now quote the remarks made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce) in November, 1921, concerning the profits of the Commonwealth Shipping Line, as follows: -

I now wish to deal with the actual position of the ships we own, and the value at which they stand to the Commonwealth. In my figures I shall quote those used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Hughes), which deal with the cost of the vessels, the profits made, and their present capital cost to the Common wealth. The actual position as shown bythe statement of the Prime Minister is as follows: -

If the value of that profit is employed in writing down the present value of the ships held by the Commonwealth, they stand in to the Commonwealth at £3,265,157. But to that amount interest on the money employed - the amount, again taking . the Prime Minister’s figures, of £382,000- -has to be added. That means that the fleet stands in the books of the Commonwealth at £3,647457. The Prime Minister’s figures give the amount as £3,527,157, which shows a slight difference, which is accounted for probably in the additions, because the figures appear quite plain in the statement.

If we have £10,000,000 worth of shipping, standing against the then Commonwealth book value of £3,647,157, it shows a. very handsome profit for the brief period that the ships were in commission. That- statement is taken from Hansard of the 29th November, 1921. The success of the Commonwealth Shipping Line is not to be estimated on the basis of the money actually earned, but on the benefits, indirect and otherwise, it has conferred on the community. I know the Honorary Minister (Senator Wilson) does not expect me to deal fully with the various points mentioned in his speech, which was not of undue length, but included a considerable amount of information that we had no difficulty in following. In the course of his speech he said that the Government intended to’ eliminate unnecessary expenditure by placing the Commonwealth Shipping Line on a proper working basis and disposing of the surplus tonnage. I can quite understand the Government wishing to dispose of unprofitable vessels. It would be presumption on my part to address the members of the Government on this question from the business point of view, because I am not a.’ business man. The Government, however, is supposed to comprise men experienced in all the ramifications of big business, and”! am surprised to learn that it is_ their intention to dispose of surplus ships when such a number are lying idle. If the ships were in my possession, and I wished to dispose of. them, I should utilize them in such a way that they would be entering into competition with private shipping companies and developing trade wherever possible. If the Government wish to sell them it would be a much more business-like proceeding to utilize them instead of allowing them to remain idle, particularly when there are thousands of capable men available to man them. If these vessels were put to their best use it would cost very little more than is involved in maintaining them in their present idle state, and if private shipping companies found that these vessels were competing for the trade offering, they might be prepared to acquire them at a higher price than they would otherwise offer. I do not think a single primary producer has not benefited in some way in consequence of Commonwealth Government steamers entering into the overseas trade. I do not know, Mr. President, to what extent I am allowed to quote from newspaper articles, but there are_ one or two press comments in relation to the shipping business which, although not altogether relevant to this Bill, will be of interest to honorable senators. Senator Newland, Senator Kingsmill, and the Minister can speak as the representatives of important wheatgrowing States; whilst . Senator Duncan, Senator Cox, and I are representatives of a State which not only produces wheat but wool in very large quantities. Queensland, on the other hand, has her cattle and sugar industries.

Senator Reid:

– Queensland also produces a large quantity of wool

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes, and 50 per cent, of the beef produced in Australia. Sen ator Lynch, of “course, is a prominent representative of the wheat producers, who can not only give us the facts concerning wheat production, but is himself a wheat producer. According to the Industrial Australian and Mining Standard, from which I shall quote, the private shipping companies in 1918 were carrying wheat at 235s. per ton, whilst the freight charged by the Commonwealth Government Line was 120s. per ton. It is only fair to assume that the difference between these two amounts went into the pockets of the primary producers. Wool is grown in every State to a . greater or less degree - even Tasmania produces wool of an excellent quality. According to the information before me, the freights fixed for wool on account of the Imperial Government was - for greasy wool,.15/8 d. per lb.; and for scoured, l5/8d. per lb., with a surcharge of¼d. per lb. for any scoured in excess of 15 per cent, of total shipments. The’ Commonwealth Government Line was asked to join in the increase on scoured wool for private shipment from l5/8d. to 21/8d. per lb., but did not agree to such a large increase. When we consider the enormous quantity of wool shipped across the seas we can easily estimate the benefit thus derived by the wool producers. The freight, however, was raised by others to 21/8d. per lb., and although the management- of the Commonwealth Shipping Line agreed that scoured wool should be carried at a higher rate, it considered ½d. per lb. unjustifiable. In order to bring . the scoured rate to a reasonable basis, it decided to fix it at l7/8d. per lb. It is needless to “go into calculations to show the enormous saving thus secured by those engaged in the wool industry, which enabled us to conduct business with the rest of the world on an even balance. Dealing with other products, the article says -

From1918 to 30th May, 1921, the rate on sheepskins was15/8d. per lb. In the early part of 1921 shippers were unable to effect sales on this rate, and business was practically at a standstill. The Commonwealth Lino, in order to assist the exporters of sheepskins, reduced the rate on 30th May to l¼d. per lb.

There, honorable senators will see, an immediate benefit was conferred upon the primary producers. The same thing has occurred in respect of everything the Line has touched. This article preceeds to say - .

In 1921, when the freight on frozen rabbits was being quoted at 168s. per ton, the Commonwealth Line was quoting 140s.

That again was an immense advantage to the Commonwealth, the cheaper freights enabling our people to export rabbits ad- vantageously. A further statement made in this article is as follows: -

On 22nd January, 1923, it reduced freights on frozen cargo all round, beef, mutton, &c., being reduced by Jd. per lb., rabbits by 10s. per ton of 40 feet, fruit by ls. per case, butter by 6d. per box, and general cargo by 10s. per ton.

In considering the advantages conferred on the people by this Line, we must not pay heed to a temporary slump in trade or a slight dearth of freight during a particular month or a particular year. The whole question for us to consider is whether the people are deriving a sufficient benefit from this Line to justify us in keeping it going. Believing that they are, I think that I am justified . in saying that all parties - including the separate Independent party, known as “ the Wilson party,” which always looks after its own interests so ably .in this Senate and outside - welcome the introduction of this Bill. ‘ I do not feel called upon to criticise the Bill closely. The opinions of the organized section of Labour regarding the shipping business are contained in an article from which the following is an extract : -

The retention of these ships by the Commonwealth, and their management in the interests of the Australian people, cuts right across the policy of the richest, the ablest, and the most rapacious capitalist organization in the world - ‘the Inchcape Shipping Combine - with its press and its financial ramifications in every industry and in every country in the world.

I venture the opinion that the continuance of this Line does cut across the policy of the organized shipping ring of the world. Honorable senators who on other occasions have heard it will pardon my repeating the statement made by the late Pierpont Morgan, when he had completed the organization of the shipping ring. At a banquet which was tendered to him by business magnates he said -

We are the advanced Socialists. We have discovered that combination means success ‘in trade, not competition, as our forefathers thought, and we are going to take the profits of combination until the people are sufficiently intelligent to take the profits for themselves.

Senator Wilson is associating ‘himself with the establishment of a Shipping Line which will demonstrate that the Australian people are sufficiently intelligent to take to themselves some of the profits that accrue from the shipping business. I quite agree with the statement that it depends upon the intelligence of the people whether they permit the profits from shipping or any other kind of business to go into the pockets of private companies, trusts, syndicates, or firms, rather than into the common purse. Therefore I welcome the introduction of this Bill. This is a step in the right direction. When this legislation is passed we shall hear no more about the scrapping of this Line. It matters not how powerful the great Inchcape’ organization may be, or how adept it may be in inspiring articles in newspapers, this Line will go on. These interests sometimes try to inspire parties to take certain action by assisting them financially. We know that the financial interests of the world help each other. A quotation which I made yesterday showed that the Financial News in London expected help from a new Queensland Administration if it succeeded in displacing , the existing Labour Government. Remembering the time when ample money was available in Queensland for the purpose of buying up Labour’s majority there - a bid of £3,200 having been made fruitlessly for one vote - I realize that these corrupt practices emanate from the- organized captains of industry, the organized wealthy rings which want to dominate not only the trade, but the Parliaments of a country.

Senator Reid:

– That offer of £3,200” was said to have been made by theCountry party - the primary producers.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall not say where it originated. I do not think there are many members of the Country party who would agree to provide out of their own funds money with which to attempt to. buy up a Parliament.. My reading has led me to the conclusion that the practice of the big Combine has always been not to spare money if it can gain a corresponding advantage from its expenditure. I am in general agreement with the Bill, but there are some clauses which I am not at present prepared to accept. I am a careful man, without a great deal of business experience, and I. therefore do not accept, without question, everything the Minister (Senator Wilson) says in regard to this measure. Clause 7 provides -

The Board shall be a body corporate, under the name of the -Australian Commonwealth Shipping Board, ‘with perpetual succession and i a common seal, with power to hold property, and capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name.

When I read clause 13, it appears to me that the Minister has -gone too far with this Board. It reads -

All the right, title, and interest of the Commonwealth in and to -
1. the merchant ships specified in the schedule of this Act, together with their tackle, apparel, gear, spare gear, furniture,’ stores and equipment, and office furniture andfittings ; and
2. the stores or other property owned by the Commonwealth which are on hand at the commencement of this Act, and are used for the purposes of those ships, are by force of this Act transferred to and vested in the Board.

I have no doubt the Minister will say that that is quite usual, and that it is all right. It may be quite usual, and it may be all right. But I can see no reason why the Australian Parliament should pass a clause denuding itself of all right in its own property. . I hope that the Minister (Senator Wilson) will tell honorable senators the reason for this proposal Senator Duncan. - Parliament will control the Board, and the Board will control the industry.

Senator GARDINER:

– Could not Parliament control the Board without actually vesting the property in it? Under clause, 14, all the right, title, and interest “of the Commonwealth in and to -

the islands situated in the Harbour of Port Jackson, in the State of New South Wales, and known as Cockatoo Island and Schnapper Island, and in and to all improvements, buildings, structures, erections, dockyards, machinery, tools, plant, craft, furniture, and fittings on those islands respectively; and
all stock on hand which, at the commencement of this Act, is the property of the Ship Construction Board, are to be transferred to, and vested in, the Board. I am afraid that this may prove a very costly matter. I take it that the property of the Commonwealth is not liable to State taxation, and, although I am a New South Welshman, and am sent here to look after the interests of New South Wales, I do not see why, if we can avoid it, we should hand over Commonwealth property to a Board, knowing that the property would then be. liable to State taxation.

Under the Bill it is proposed to establish a trust account, and eventually, it is quite clear, that the profits, if any, will be handed over to the Consolidated Revenue Account, and the Shipping Line will not reap any advantage from those profits. The Government propose to deal with th» Cockatoo Island Dockyard as they did with the Commonwealth Shipping Line. The capital cost of the works at Cockatoo Island, amounting to £2,275,000, is to be written down to the absurd .amount of £400,000.

Senator Wilson:

– I explained that matter to the Senate.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The Minister said: “lt is ridiculous to value the works at £400,000.”

Senator Wilson:

– The honorable senator should read the -whole of my speech before he quotes any portion of it. After an exhaustive inquiry, it was decided that £400,000, the value two years ago, should be fixed as the present-day value. In addition, there is machinery at the island which belongs to the Navy. That is included in the £2,000,000, but not in the £400,000.

Senator DUNCAN:

– We differ not as to the facts, but in respect of the fixation of values. The difference between a fair valuation of Cockatoo Island Dockyard, the book value as it exists to-day, and the valuation now proposed, is entirely overlooked. The Minister stated -

It is ridiculous to value the works at £400,000, and if the Government were selling the concern to a private company, they would not be prepared to accept anything like £400,000.

No Government would ever dare to sell the Cockatoo Island Dockyard for £400,000, or even three .times that amount. The balance-sheets of the dockyards showed a profit of £40,000 up to 1922, and £51,000 up to 1923. This venture shows a very handsome profit.

Senator Wilson:

– The honorable senator should quote the qualification contained in my speech.

Senator DUNCAN:

– The Minister stated -

Taking the valuation of £400,000, and keeping in view the fact that the balance-sheet of the dock now shows a profit of £40,000 to 1922, and £51,000 to 1923, it will be possible, on the basis of valuation, to allow five per cent, depreciation, and five per cent, on the capital value.

Queensland, with its succession of brilliant statesmen and its progressive, enterprising activities, had the first Government which attempted to break down the shipping ring in Australia. The late Sir Charles Lilley, when a monopolistic compauy refused to carry mails to Queensland, because Queensland could not, or would not, pay it a heavy subsidy, made a contract with Mort’s Dock, to build three vessels, each of 498 tons, to carry the mails to that State. They were small vessels compared with those which we have to-day. One was to cost £16,500 and the other two £16,000 each. . The Governor Blackall, unlike vessels which are built to-day purely for profit, was a beautiful little ship. She was quite a little yacht, and continued to carry the mails to Queensland until the colleagues of Sir Charles Lilley politically “ butchered “ him. They would not have anything to do with State enterprise and he was . compelled to sell the Governor Blackall. It was bought by the Australia United Steam Navigation Company and for thirty years carried mails to Brisbane weekly. It then did duty as a collier on the South coast, and I believe it is now doing duty as a hulk, although it is fifty years old. History has repeated itself. Sir Charles Lilley was “ thrown to the wolves “ by the men who should have supported him. In the same manner, the right honorable gentleman who inaugurated this Line and made it a success has been “ thrown to the wolves “ by the colleagues for whom he did so much. I refer to Mr. W. M. Hughes. The Government dare not sell the Line because the people of Australia are so strongly’ in favour of its retention. I happened to be in London when Mr. Hughes bought the “ Austral “ ships in 1916. He was criticised very severely for buying such old vessels. They were nob much good then, and they are not any better now, although they have paid for themselves over and over again. Figures have been quoted by the Minister (Senator Wilson)., Senator Gardiner, and Senator Duncan. Figures can be made to prove anything. I shall quote figures which show that the Line has not made a loss but has proved to be a paying concern. These figures have been taken out for me by a competent man and they demonstrate clearly that on actual working the Line has shown a profit. According to a statement of accounts which was tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), the total debit on all Government shipping transactions - including depreciation to be written off under the reorganization scheme, and interest on all expenditure, capital or otherwise - amounts to £2,545,761. Only the wooden ships have been excluded. The standardized ships also should have been debited to the cost of the war. Those ships are not of a class which is capable of competing with the mercantile marine of the world. An Australian draftsman prepared plans for the construction of a splendid cargo vessel of about the same tonnage at an estimated cost which was less than that incurred on these vessels. The construction of the vessels was altered to the Isherwood type, which was a mistake in the opinion of the best shipping experts of the world. That type of vessel is suitable only for certain classes of trade. We have none of that trade in Australia, and if we wish to dispose of these vessels we shall have to sell them to a firm which is trading on the Isherwood principle of quick handling of cargo and the storage of bulk cargo. There is no trade in the waters of Australia to which these ships can be applied, and that accounts for the difficulty which is being experienced in disposing of them. They are well built vessels, but when they start to wear the cost of repairs is great’er than is encountered- with other classes of vessels. It is not known, 1 perhaps, to many, that those’ plans which were prepared for the construction of an Australian type of vessel and which cost £5,000 were afterwards destroyed. If the standardized ships were charged to tho war debt the Line would be shown to have been a good paying proposition. Before writing off £3,000.000, there is a profit of £5,400,000 available to set off against the difference between the book value and the market value of the fleet. No doubt the Government’s total loss of £2,645,761 would have been a profit if the Line had not been saddled with the extremely expensive “D” and “E” class of vessels. From its inception, notwithstanding the heavy losses during the last two years, the Line had made a gross profit, to 30th Tune last, of £2,493,449, but a net loss of £493,278. The difference between gross profit and net loss must comprise the interest and depreciation already written off; and, as the statement shows the interest as £557,364, the depreciation must amount to £2,429,363. In addition to this, an insurance reserve has accumulated to the extent of £901,920. Therefore, taking everything into consideration, more particularly the fact that during the last few years the Line has been fighting for its life against the shipping rings, the position cannot be termed unsatisfactory. The Commonwealth Government Line has had the effect of compelling the other shipping companies to reduce freights and fares, and it has saved the producers and tourists of Australia from being mulcted in the sum of at least £5.000,000 per annum. If that amount could be credited to the Line, it would enable it to show a very creditable balance-sheet. But, apart from the financial aspect, the Line is a necessity from a national point of view. We should all be proud to belong to this young nation. The United States of America is prepared to lose huge sums in conducting its own shipping line, and it will not allow any produce to be carried around its coasts except in American bottoms. Heal’ progress can never be made by a young nation unless the people are prepared to meet any losses that may have to be sustained in the initial stages of development. It has been necessary for the Commonwealth Shipping Line to spend considerable sums of money, whereas private companies would refrain from spending it, in the provision of better conditions for the seamen. Repairs- are to be carried out in Australia, and that will mean keeping money in our own country. Taking all these aspects into consideration, it is obvious that the advantages of retaining the Line are- great, and I congratulate the Government upon refusing to sell the vessels in compliance with the cry for economy. Instead of bringing about economy, the effect of selling the vessels would, in the long run, be just the reverse. It is proposed to appoint a Board of three to control the Line. I have always taken strong objection to the appointment of Boards, because I believe that, where brains are required to direct an undertaking, one manager is best. There are certain features in connexion with this

Bill, however, that may induce me to waive my opposition to the proposed Board. The Minister (Senator Wilson) told us that there would be a shipping expert, and also a financial expert, on the Board, in addition to the chairman. I hope that there will not be a naval expert, because naval and mercantile men are trained in entirely different ways, and they can never work in accord. I have seen many mistakes made because of this peculiarity. Some time ago a vessel was designed by a naval man. for the Customs Department, but it proved an absolute failure. It was supposed to travel at a speed of 20 knots, and it has never maintained a speed of 7 knots. It now lies in the river at Brisbane a monument to the crass ignorance of the man who designed it, and I should like to know if he is still in the Service. Every effort should be made to prevent overlapping between the Navy and the mercantile men in the designing of vessels. I am glad to know that the Navy is now to do its own work in that respect. This alteration should bring about a reduction in the number of ship designers, some of whom have titles such as “ captain “ .and “commander,” but have never been to sea. I was impressed by the Minister’s Australian aspirations. This aspect of the Commonwealth Shipping Line was entirely overlooked by the gentleman who formerly had control of it. He did not care for Australia. His only thought was in the direction of cutting down expenses. He sent some of the vessels to Germany to be repaired, and others were overhauled in India by black labour. The quality of the work done at Cockatoo Island by Government employees, and in other parts of New South Wales by private firms, shows conclusively that Australian workmen can effect ship repairs more cheaply, and in every’ way more satisfactorily, than they can be done in other parts of the world. Mr. Farquhar, who has had experience in the management of ship-building yards on the Clyde and elsewhere, confessed surprise when he noted the excellence of the work done at the Cockatoo Island dockyard. A press report of his1 statement contains the following : -

He was a Clyde man, and intimately knew the shipbuilding of that famous yard and yards elsewhere. Better workmen or more in telligent industrialists were not to be found anywhere. The Cockatoo men could turn out work under efficient direction that would surprise the world. The worst enemies to shipbuilding in Australia were unfortunately to be found within .the Commonwealth itself.

He was referring to that section of the press in Sydney and Melbourne that never tires of. trying to defame the workmen of Australia, although those workmen have helped to make those journals great. Mr. Farquhar went on to refer to a test made of the ballast tank of the Fordsdale. The space between the hull and the false bottom was filled with water, and, of course, the pressure was enormous, but there was no sign of a leakage. Mr. Farquhar admitted that he had never seen such a test responded to so well in any. part of the world. It was certainly a great compliment to the Australian workmen. In building the Fordsdale only about half the number of men that would, be employed on the construction of a similar vessel in the Old Country were engaged. That is another feather in the cap of the Australian. In British shipbuilding yards the workmen are confined to the particular branches pf the work in which they are experts; but the Australian is familiar with all sections of it, and thus fewer men are required. The subject of the tonnage of the Fordsdale was mentioned last week. The tonnage of 12,800, mentioned by the Minister (Senator Wilson), is simply what the ship can carry; but the Board of Trade does not calculate tonnage in that way. It is estimated according to certain conditions, which I have not time to describe here. The Board of Trade calculates, as the gross tonnage, what the ship is measured to carry, and in arriving at the net tonnage the space occupied by the engines, boilers, cabins, &c, is deducted. Thus a vessel of 9,000 tons gross register is guaranteed to carry 12,800 tons of cargo. A word or two now about the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. Even if the Government had felt inclined to dispose of the dockyard, they would hardly have been allowed to do so, because the Imperial Government have laid it down that there must be an effective dockyard in this part of the British Empire. It is highly probable, therefore, that if the Commonwealth Government had wished to dispose of the dockyard it would have been taken over by the British Government. Many years ago, when I was secretary of the Boilermakers Union of New South Wales, I was in close touch with the Imperial authorities, who were then controlling Garden Island, and I know that they had a complete list of the whole of the mechanics of Australia, so that in the event of anything happening to the British Fleet in this portion of the globe, they could have called upon the services of those men at short notice. They know exactly what class of work can be done in Australia, and also at Singapore. Cockatoo Island Dockyard is an absolute necessity for naval purposes. In Sydney there is another dock which can deal with vessels of the Navy, and I believe it may be lengthened by about 200 feet if necessary. No private firm could afford to install and maintain the machinery that is available at Cockatoo Island for naval repairs, but there is, in the Sydney dock that I have just mentioned, all the necessary machinery for mercantile repair work. The Minister made reference to the number of vessels that have been sent from Australia to other ports for repairs. Many reasons actuate owners in this course. Generally, they expect to have the work’ done more cheaply in certain other ports where skilled labour is not so highly paid as in Australia, and so only temporary repairs are. made to vessels that should be repaired here, and they are sent elsewhere. If our navigation officers were vigilant they would never allow some of these vessels to leave Australia in that condition, merely for the sake of getting repair work done elsewhere at a cheaper rate, although I doubt whether, in the end, if quality is taken into consideration, this course is really economical. The owners of private dockyards must provide work for their staff in order to keep them together. The Government, having decided to retain Cockatoo Island Dockyard, must now see to it that there is continuity of work. Even if the work does cost a little more - I do not think it will amount to very much - it would be better in the end to have it done here, and so keep an efficient staff together ‘. If the Commonwealth Line repairs are carried out at Cockatoo Dock, and if naval work is done there also, there should never be a shortage of work for the present staff. This would .be in the interests of all concerned. The Commonwealth would get their work done w.ell’, and the workmen would know that they were not likely to be “ thrown to the wolves “ through ‘ a stoppage of work, and, perhaps, have to walk the streets. I am glad to know that the Government intend to build two more vessels at Cockatoo Island. Our destroyers and a number of light cruisers were built by the dockyard, and although they -cost a little more than we expected, the work was done very well indeed. There are pessimists who declare that the Australian workman is no good. I do not subscribe to that view at all. Many years’ ago I took part in a demonstration in Sydney to persuade the Government to build all railway locomotives in Australia. At the time it was contended that the engines could not be built here, but wehave since proved that they can. In to-day’s press there is a report that the Victorian Government intend to spend a large sum of money in extending the Newport workshops in order to keep pace with the needs of the Railway Department. It is also stated that they can now build locomotives at a price £600 below the cost of those built by private enterprise. As with the locomotive, so with shipbuilding. One naturally expects the first ships to cost a little more than is estimated, but if we continue in the business we shall eventually be able to compete with any shipbuilding yards in the world. I congratulate the Minister upon his sincerity and his evident desire to place the affairs of the dockyard on a satisfactory basis. I shall do my best to improve the Bill where I think- improvement is necessary, and I am sure the Minister will be only too pleased to accept any assistance that we may be able to render him.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– It is pleasing to note the welcome which this Bill has received, but when we remember the position of this country we need not wonder at it. Australia is perhaps the most lonely outpost in civilization. We have the longest distance to travel in order to dispose of our produce, and we are at the mercy of those who are able to extract the last farthing from our producers. Among our competitors, the Argentine is the most formidable rival. The primary products of that country may be transported to the markets of the world for a fraction of the cost to the Australian producer, who, being, as I have shown, entirely at the mercy of shipping people, have to submit to a system of uniform freights. It is necessary, therefore, that we should set about finding the best means of overcoming these almost insuperable difficulties. The Bill is a means to that end. It has been subjected to criticism. ‘ That is only natural. Fault has been found with the excessive amount by which the value of . the Line has been written down. As we all know, the first ships of the Lino were bought at a high price during the war. At that time Australia, in common with other of the allied nations, was in trouble. There was urgent need to provide adequate means to transport our men, goods, and material to the other side of the world. Therefore, in the purchase of these ships, we had to ignore altogether the question of cost. At that time prices of ships were mounting to a very high figure indeed. Now, owing to the great activity in the production of vessels, nearly every country in the world has a large amount of tonnage lying idle. This condition of affairs necessarily means a huge drop in value. I believe the Government of the United States of America have on their hands not dozens, but hundreds of idle ships. It may be a negative form of consolation, but, nevertheless, it is some consolation to know that our losses in connexion with shipping are not to be compared with the colossal losses sustained by the keen business men of the United States of America as the result of their Venturing on a shipbuilding policy. I extract this information from a leading authority of America, published in the April number of the Review of Reviews -

Money by the hundreds of millions was spent in extending old shipyards and creating scores of new ones, with the result of turning out something like 1,500 ocean-going vessels, nearly all of them slow freighters of medium size. . . . Our Government operation of ships in use, and our maintenance of hundreds of vessels not in use, have resulted, during the past two years, in an annual loss to the United States Treasury of about 50,000,000 dollars. . . . Buteven without subsidies the Government is ready to sell off its worst ships at prices amounting to hardly more than one year’s interest on the original cost.

The illustration accompanying the article - a photograph taken within the last few months - shows a’ veritable forest of masts of idle ships in the River Hudson. I do not know that any credit need be claimed by one political party or the other for the initiation of the Shipping Line. There were few public- spirited men who had not come to the conclusion, in view of Australia’s position, that something had to be done. The necessity had arisen for action. I recall the declaration made by the then president of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, Sir Malcolm McEacharn, that it was absolutely necessary to do something in the way of establishing a shipping line to give our producers a chance of meeting the fierce competition with which they were faced in the markets of the world. That declaration by a representative of the commercial interests was made long before any political party appropriated to itself the credit of establishing the Line. The establishment of the Commonwealth Shipping Line is a matter for congratulation.. It is quite true that it was hastened by the war and its influences, but, sooner or later, its creation, was inevitable. No particular party need claim any credit for the Commonwealth Shipping Line, because it was simply a child of necessity. The Australian producers cannot hope to hold their own with other countries if a great deal of the results of their energies is monopolized by excessive freights. Plenty of good men have gone into the interior of this country raising cattle and growing wheat and fruit, and applying themselves energetically, night, noon, and morning, to the production of those commodities. When they have garnered the fruits of their labour, what is the use of sending the surplus to oversea markets if the bulk of the earnings is monopolized by excessive freights ? They have no chance in life. I know a little of wheat production, and I believe Australia is sending two-thirds of her wheat crop to the world’s markets. We have immense areas of wheatgrowing country, and, in competition, we are holding our own with other countries. Our wheat lands are encroaching on’ the poorer and dryer soils. In Victoria the settlers have been pushed out to the Mallee lands; in New South Wales, although good rains have fallen, semi-arid areas are being occupied ; in South Australia the Pinnaroo district and other neglected portions of that State are now receiving attention; and in Western Australia they are leaving what was once- considered a safe wheat-growing zone for semi-arid areas, and up to date the settlers there have met with success. There is a very narrow margin of profit in growing wheat in those areas, so narrow that many of the men there are doubtful whether they will be able to continue on the land if their expenses are further increased. These have been increased in various ways. The cost of labour, which nobody begrudges so long as it provides a reasonable margin of profit, is increasing. The cost of machinery to work the dry and semi-arid areas has increased from 50 to 100 per cent. As pointed out by Senator Gardiner, when the crops are eventually gathered, and the surplus is sent overseas, we shall find the Shipping Combine,’ which is never satisfied, seeking to get double the freight charged by the Commonwealth Shipping Line. It is a question not of political virtue or wisdom, but of absolute necessity, as to whether the Line should be continued in order to save the Australian producers, especially those who have settled in dry areas, from prohibitive expense, and to give them a chance to- make a living. “We are holding our own against the black-grown wheat from the’ Himalayas, and the wheat of China and Bulgaria. That is a standing testimony to the industry that characterizes our primary producers, those who have turned their backs to the cities and have settled in the interior. The Commonwealth Shipping Line is vastly different from other shipping enterprises. The men engaged in this Line will be placed on their mettle, as have the settlers on the land. The value of the Commonwealth Shipping Line has been written down, and the Treasury has met the loss. It is not proposed to hand over this undertaking to the Board of -Control at a prohibitive value. It has been written down from the actual cost to what is considered a fair market value. This is only fair to the Board of Control; in fact, conditions will need to be made a little easier if, it is to be a success. Its burden should be lightened, as it will have a very heavy task in managing the Commonwealth Shipping Line. Keen competition will be met, and the Board will receive no mercy from the powerful interests arrayed against it ; nor will it receive any consideration from the people to be benefited. . The producers will insistently demand cheap freights from the Common- wealth Shipping Line. They will require freight to be fixed at bedrock, in order to give them a margin of profit from their holdings. The Commonwealth Line will be exposed to a fierce blast of competition from private enterprise. No other Government enterprise will be in such au unsheltered position. The running of a railway system is child’s play compared with the administration of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. No railway system in the Commonwealth has to face competition, except in some cases from motor services. The railways are not up against the economic difficulty of competition. The Commonwealth Ship* ping Line will be in an unenviable position. It will be out in the open, and will need all the consideration and sympathy , that the people and the Government are able to give it. The Government have driven a remarkably hard and fast bargain with the Board of Control. Honorable senators have stated that the Commonwealth Line has been . excessively written down, but do they wish it to show a worse return than is the case to-day t Do they wish to increase the work of the Board, and make its responsibility heavier?- The best way to accomplish that, and to raise freights, is to fix the value of the fleet at a higher figure than is now proposed.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon T Givens:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! There is no reference in the Bill to railways and railway profits, and the honorable senator is not entitled to debate that subject.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– A shipping line may not, on the surface, appear to be a monopoly; but it is almost as much a monopoly as a railway, or any other public Utility which is acknowledged to be best conducted by the State. For that reason, if for no other, I support the principle of the Commonwealth continuing to control the Shipping Line. It is proposed to establish a Board. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of management by Boards. There is a danger of creating a number of highly-paid positions, and the number is likely to be substantially increased, if not in the interest of the industry concerned, for the benefit of the officials personally. The control of the Commonwealth Bank was vested in one man, and I think that he made a pronounced success of the institution. Therefore I see no reason why we should not adopt that plan in the present case. If, however, the Board is to comprise five members, as has been suggested, at least three of the positions should go to representatives of the working-class section. It would not be fair to allow all the positions to be held by men who have had no practical experience as workmen. I hope that the Government will realize that the working class is entitled to direct representation on the Board, and I have no doubt that if the suggestion were adopted, the innovation would prove to be fully justified. It is quite impossible to secure the best results from workmen who feel that their services may be dispensed with almost at any time. They have to pay their way just the same as the more wealthy section, and they are entitled to the privilege, enjoyed by tens of thousands of people, of a regular income. That can only be secured by steady employment. I am glad to know that the Board, in addition to managing the ships, is to undertake the work of keeping the vessels in order. A regular supply of repair work would go a long way towards making the employees contented and efficient. If highly-skilled mechanics were dispersed, owing to a slackening off in the volume of available work, they would find positions elsewhere, and when the Government required the services of experienced men, they would be unable to obtain them.For some time the Cockatoo Island Dockyard will ‘be the centre of operations, so far as Commonwealth shipping is concerned. It is proposed to hand over to the Board the whole of the island and the plant, at a valuation of £400,000. There are two large graving docks, and a good deal of machinery of a most costly character. As the Island itself is very valuable, I think that too low a valuation was placed upon the establishment; but it was better to do that than to overcapitalize it. It is also proposed to take over Schnapper Island. Although I have a very fair knowledge of the islands atPort J ackson, I do not know of one by that name. I am under the impression that the proper designation is Spectacle Island. It lies some short distance west of Cockatoo Island. I am entirely opposed to the Cockatoo Island property being made subject to State taxation. This Parliament should never permit any State to levy taxation upon a Commonwealth utility. Many people, especially the members of municipal bodies, complain that Commonwealth properties are not rateable as private properties are. I maintain that it would be entirely wrong to give a State Government power to tax such an undertaking as the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. I am in favour of the Commonwealth controlling big industries such as a shipping line, and even increasing its activities in such directions. Although the Board will be acting for the Commonwealth, the undertaking, will still be Commonwealth property. I therefore support the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator McHugh) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m.

page 1298

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

Secondreading.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I am glad of the opportunity of submitting to the Senate this proposed amendment of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1922. The Bill, in clause 2, seeks to amend the Act by omitting from paragraphc of section 16 the words -

Five per centum of the capital value of land and improvements thereon, owned and used or used rent free by the taxpayer for the purpose of residence or enjoyment, and not for the purpose of profit or gain.

I invite the attention of honorable senators to what I consider is one of the most important questions engaging the attention of the people of the Commonwealthat the present time. I ‘refer to the scarcity of houses. Paragraph e of section 16 of the Act is largely responsible for this . condition of affairs. There are other causes, it is true, but this is one of the most important. I may be told that the scarcity of housing accommodation is not peculiar to the Commonwealth; that it is a world-wide trouble, and that in some other countries it is more acute than in Australia. That may be true, but, nevertheless, this Parliament should do all it possibly can to overcome the difficulty in the Commonwealth. Unless the people are properly housed, the health of the community must be adversely affected. This trouble with regard to housing has become more acute since 1914. One factor, as we all know, was the withdrawal of a large number of men usually engaged in the building trade - and other peaceful avocations to engage in war. I do not suggest that the passage of the Bill will bring about the millennium, but I think it will contribute very materially to an increase in housing accommodation throughout the Commonwealth. The section of the Act which I desire to have deleted was introduced ‘ by a Labour Government in 1915. The provision was strongly opposed by many members of the party, but it got through our Caucus meeting by two votes, and therefore its passage through Parliament was simple. It has remained upon the statute-book ever since. So far as I know, the principle is not incorporated in any State Income Tax .Act, or, indeed, in the income tax legislation of any other country, but that, of itself, would not be an argument against it. The idea of taxing incomes is a very ancient one. It has been in operation in Great Britain almost from time immemorial, and, perhaps, for that reason it was adopted quite easily in our Commonwealth legislation. The existence of the principle prevents the investment of capital in houses. Some illinformed persons declare that the Labour party are opposed to Capital. I disagree with that view entirely. The Labour party is opposed to the investment of capital in such a way as to enable the investors for a long term of years legally to rob their fellow citizens of the fruits of their labour, but that is quite a different matter from being opposed to the investment of capital in legitimate enterprises. So far as I know, not a single member on this side of the Chamber, and not one of our supporters, would for a moment offer opposition to capitalists who wanted to invest money in the .erection of housing accommodation. In fact, they would all welcome, more especially in the large centres of population, a substantial addition to the existing number of houses, particularly houses to let. The erection of houses to let is unheard of in suburban Melbourne. Nearly all of the dwellings that have been built are for sale on terms involving the largest possible deposit, and the payment of heavy instalments for an almost indefinite number of years. Thousands of our fellow citizens have . -this millstone about their necks. I am afraid that very many of them will never be able to get rid of it. I can speak with more authority of the situation in New South Wales, because there I come in direct touch with those who are directly concerned in the problem, and know what I am speaking about. Overcrowding today in suburban Sydney and in many parts of the country is more acute than at any previous period in our history, and I feel certain that, despite the existence of the Fair Bents Court and a number of other panaceas, rents are higher than ever.

Senator Crawford:

– Is that not because the operation of the Fair Bents Court discourages the building of houses to let!

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In my opinion the Fair Rents Court has had very little effect upon the situation one way or the other. In a limited number of cases it has prevented increases in rents, but as a set-off it has prevented builders and speculators from investing money in housing propositions. To that extent it has limited the supply, and the position of the prospective tenant is as bad as ever it was.

Senator Gardiner:

– Was speculation in house-building in Sydney ever more profitable than at the present moment ?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I doubt if speculation was ever more profitable, but that does not touch the point that houses to let are very nearly unknown in Sydney and the larger centres of population in New South Wales.

Senator McHugh:

– And in the other States also.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that in Sydney it is most difficult to get a house to rent at almost any figure. The person . who invests money in house property expects to get at least as good a return as from any other investment, and it is a fact that, as an investment, house property is not attractive. For this I blame, to some extent the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. On previous occasions I have referred to the exactions of the State income tax in New South Wales, upon which is superimposed solicitors’ fees and a number of rates and taxes upon house property, with the result that no one cares now to build houses except for sale. The builders do not come to this Parliament asking for assistance. They only want to be left alone to work out their own salvation, instead of being handicapped in many ways, including the imposition of high Customs duties on materials used in the construction of homes. I am aware that, in this measure, I cannot deal with the duty up to £5 lis. 8d. on roofing slates, or with the State income tax, but this Parliament can give some relief by adopting the amendment which I am .now submitting for the favorable ‘consideration of honorable senators. This amending Bill affects every taxpayer who has a home in the Commonwealth. The man who has no home is not directly affected, but every .taxpayer - and there is a good number of them - with a taxable income and a ‘home of his own, or a home in his wife’s name, is obliged, under the Act as it stands, to add to his taxable income the value of his home and the land upon which it is erected. This Bill would do .away with that requirement. There is no £5,000 exemption. Even the Labour party violated their platform in their anxiety to increase the tax upon housing accommodation.

Senator Gardiner:

– Why attack the Labour party?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Labour party, in this connexion, violated the £5,000 exemption.

Senator Gardiner:

– We never had an exemption of £5,000 on income tax.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

I direct your attention, Mr. President, to the fact that this Bill proposes to amend section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1922, and that section (2) of the Income Tax Act provides-

The Income Tax Assessment Act 1922 shall be incorporated and read as one with this Act.

It may be contended that the Income Tax Assessment Act, which this Bill proposes to amend, does not impose taxation, but since, under the section I have just read, it is to be incorporated and read as one with the Income Tax Act of 1922, it is clear that taxation is imposed by either one or both of them. They are laws imposing taxation. If that is so, then this is a Bill to amend an Act that imposes taxation and, as such, cannot be originated in the Senate.

Senator Needham:

– This amendment is not to impose, but to relieve, taxation.

Senator Pearce:

– That does not affect the question. In the Act itself there are various sections which relieve the taxpayer from taxation. There are exemptions of all kinds; but the Constitution is clear. It says that proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the , Senate. It is clear, therefore, that if such a measure as this cannot originate in the Senate, we are merely wasting time in discussing it now. I do not wish to limit the powers of the Senate in any way ; but if we should pass a Bill imposing taxation, another place, in the exercise of its constitutional, powers, could not receive it. In our own interests, we. do not want to exceed our constitutional rights, and that is why I have raised the point of order at this juncture.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate to originate a measure for imposing taxation. That is provided in the Constitution, but I do not know why. The members of this Chamber are elected on aswide a franchise as those of another place, and presently we will assert our right to initiate . money Bills in the Senate. I submit that this measure does not impose taxation, and therefore is properly before the Senate. The Bill is framed to relieve, instead of to impose, taxation. I submit that it is’ in accordance with the provisions of the’ Constitution, and is one which should meet with the approval of the Senate. I trust, Mr. President, you will not uphold the point of order raised by the Minister (Senator Pearce).

Senator Gardiner:

– Is it not a money Bill?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is not a money Bill. The proposal is to remove taxation.

Senator McDougall:

– It is a Bill to amend a money Bill.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Not at all. It prevents the imposition of a certain form of taxation, and I submit that, in the circumstances, I am in order in bringing it before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. ‘

Givens). - If honorable senators will refer to section 53 of the Constitution, upon which the Minister (Senator Pearce) has based his point of order, they will see that the restriction imposed upon the Senate is entirely in regard to “ proposed “ laws and not in relation to “ existing “ laws. The section provides that proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys or imposing taxation shall not originate in the Senate. The Senate may not amend a measure which appropriates revenue for the’ ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth, or a measure which imposes taxation; but it has frequently amended other money Bills. There is, for instance, nothing to prevent the Senate amending a money Bill relating to the annual expenditure on works and buildings. AsI have said, there are only two classes of Bills which the Senate may not amend, and the constitutional restriction relatessolely to proposed laws. There” is not a word in the’ Constitution restricting the right of the Senate in regard to existing laws. In any case, the original Act, which Senator Grant proposes to amend, is not an Act which the Senate may not amend. I therefore rule that Senator Grant is quite in order in submitting this Bill to the Senate.

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In concluding, I wish to emphasize the ‘ point that if this Bill becomes law, it will benefit every owner of a home in Australia who has a taxable income. It is a measure of far-reaching ‘ importance, and will have a perpetual and generally beneficial effect on the whole community. I have never claimed that if adopted it will be the means of bringing about the millennium; but it is a step in the right direction, and I am not at all concerned if it upsets one of the pet theories of a previous Labour Adminis-‘ tration.

Senator Findley:

– Does it exempt the man who does notown a home?

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No. He is already exempted. In this connexion I am not concerned about such persons. The measure is primarily framed to benefit those who own a home and have a taxable income, and to remove taxation from industry. It is a serious question, and one on which we should openly and fearlessly express our opinions. I trust that in view of the very favorable consideration honorable senators on this side have given the business of the Government, the Minister (Senator Pearce) will not move the adjournment of the debate, but will express his views and also induce his colleagues to support the second reading, which I now move.

Debate (on motion by Senator Pearce) adjourned.

page 1302

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICE

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

– I move -

That, in view of the fact that all the mainland States are linked up by the railway systems of the Commonwealth and the States, the advantages of which are not shared by Tasmania, in the opinion of the Senate it is an undoubted obligation of the Federal Government to provide adequate means of transport between this State and the mainland.
That, with this object in view, this Senate affirms that a direct and up-to-date Federal steamer service should be established between the northern ports of Tasmania and Melbourne, so that Tasmanian citizens may be brought into closer communication with the sister States, thus enabling them to share advantages enjoyed by the other States.

– Tasmania will have to start the beet sugar industry.

Senator OGDEN:

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The service at the present time is not an improvement on that which has been in existence between the mainland and Tasmania for the last thirty years. In the report to which I refer, there is, in an appendix from Admiral W. B. Creswell, this statement - *

There is no reason on earth why a Government should not carry passengers and conduct a passenger traffic by sea just as well as by land. A fast’ steamer is an addition to the defence of any coast. The faster the better, and if in addition she is capable, on occasion, of carrying n large number nf troops she. is a valuable acquisition in this particular instance. » -

That report was issued in 1902, and we are getting considerably less than was suggested then as; being the necessary amount of accommodation for the transport of cargo and passengers. I want to credit the Tasmanian Steam-ship company with having put on the Loongana and the Nairana. These are excellent vessels, but, unfortunately, the Nairana has been taken off for. repairs, and the Loongana has been transferred to the Melbourne-Burnie run, a smaller vessel, one that is totally inadequate for the purpose, having been substituted on the Melbourne-Launceston route. The extraordinary hours at which this vessel leaves Launceston make it almost impossible for intending passengers, other than those who are absolutely compelled to travel, to make the trip. On two mornings this month she has left at 3 a.m.

Senator Cox:

– Passengers can get on board in the evening, surely.

Senator JOHN D MILLEN:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes, but wo all have not the honorable senator’s proclivities for sleeping. In the consideration of this problem we have to decide what would be an adequate service for Tasmania. There are two routes - (1) to the northern ports; and (2) to Hobart. I do not think the Commonwealth has any. vessels that would satisfactorily meet the situation on the run from Melbourne to Launceston. Therefore, Senator Ogden’s proposition that the Government should ‘either’ build or procure suitable vessels is an excellent one. It should pay the Government handsomely. Mr. Hughes, when

Prime Minister, bought certain vessels for the Commonwealth for a specific purpose during the war. His action was a stroke of genius. But when the war was over the functions of these vessels were at an end, and the opinion held in some quarters was that they should be sold. I shall try to. set out the reason for the difficulty of selling these steamers at the present time. “We have to remember that the British Government, during the war, were compelled to seek American financial assistance. They ‘ had to find security against which to borrow money to carry on the war, so they forwarded shipping stocks to the United States of America, and .these were taken up by the International Mercantile Marine Corporation which was formed for that purpose. When the war was over British investors desired to repurchase their stock, and made an offer which was acceptable to the Corporation. The Corporation decided, however, that before concluding the bargain it would be proper to submit the proposal to the Washington authorities, who were then ^deeply interested in the question of international shipping. The Washington authorities refused to sanction the repurchase. The British investors then said that the Corporation could take over the ships represented by the stock, and they would rebuild. This resulted in feverish building to increase the British and Allies Mercantile Marine, and at the same time Germany decided to very materially increase her building programme. Thus, practically, every Treasury was compelled to face serious losses in connexion with shipping proposals. The position of Tasmania in regard to shipping facilities is most unsatisfactory. I therefore suggest that it would be of mutual advantage to the Commonwealth and Tasmania if, instead of forcing the sale of this fleet at ruinous prices, some of these vessels, after being suitably fitted, were transferred to the Hobart route, where any loss in running would be small compared with that occasioned by such a sale. The position as regards the northern end is that none of the present Commonwealth fleet is of the right draft to suit the river at Launceston, consequently it would be necessary to adopt Senator Ogden’s suggestion to build or buy.

Should he be unsuccessful in his desire, I would be glad to put an alternative proposition. It will be remembered that the following clause is part of the agreement between the Postmaster-General and the Shipping Company -

That the Postmaster-General hereby covenants and agrees with the contractors that if they well and faithfully observe and perform all and every the covenants and agreements hereinbefore contained, and on their part to be observed and performed, he, the Fostmaster Gener al will pay or cause to be paid to the contractors by < equal monthly instalments, calculated from the 1st May, 1921, a subsidy at the rate of £30,000 per annum payable in Melbourne, such > instalments to be payable and paid respectively on the expiration of each succeeding calendar month during the continuance of this contract. .

In connexion with the subject of Stateowned steam-ships, it is well, I think, that we should consider the position in some of the other countries of the world. I find this information in a publication issued by the ‘ Department of Commerce, Washington, and entitled, Government Aid to Shipping -

A number of countries own steam-ship lines. Belgium has owned for many years a number of vessels that have been operating between Ostend and Dover in connexion with the Belgian State Railways. Lloyd’s register shows that the Belgian Government owned in 1914, ^eleven steamers, three turbine and eight . paddle-wheel boats. The turbine steamers are of about 1,700 tons gross capacity, and have a speed .of 24 knots. Three of the other steamers have a speed of 22 knots, and three others have 21 knots.

This Government obviously realized the immense advantage of a fast ‘service. I wish to emphasize the fact that the subsidy for the Tasmanian service is the substantial amount of £30,000, and I. therefore say that the Postmaster-General or the Government should have a voice in the control of the company, as is done in many other parts of the world. For instance, in Japan I find that -

Under the . recent mail contracts made with the leading Japanese steam-ship lines, the Japanese Government has practically as much control over the affairs of these companies as would be possible under direct Government ownership. The extent of governmental control is indicated by the fact that all passenger fares and charges are subject to modification by the Minister of Communication, who must be consulted also in regard to arrangement of routes, ports of call, number of voyages to be made, and time of voyage.

Austria has had similar difficulties, but they deal with the situation better than we do, for they have imposed on their steam-ship mail contractor these conditions -

To carry both letter and parcel posts free of charge.
To place its vessels at the disposal of the Government in time of war in return for satisfactory compensation.
To permit the State to nominate three representatives on the Board of Directors, the President of the Board to be nominated by the Emperor, and the other representatives to be nominated by the Minister of Commerce.

I could quote more extensively on this subject, but I shall content myself with .a reference to the Dutch position. I find that they have included in their mail contract the following provisions : -

Control by the Government. - Appointment of directors and representatives, and adoption of Statutes and by-laws to be subject to the approval of the Dutch Government, which would also have the right to be represented at all -meetings of the company, and the power, to examine all its books and papers.

If the Government do not agree to Senator Ogden’s proposal, and I trust t they will, they should, at all events, see that they have some representation in return for this subsidy of £30,000. We would then have some voice in the control of the vessels and the routes. The Tasmanian Steam-ship Proprietary Company may say that they have diverted the Loongana for the purpose of allowing the Launceston Marine Board to remove a rock from the mouth of the river; but it is not very comforting for passengers on the Oonah, when hung up waiting for slack water, to learn that another vessel, eight times as large, is coming down the river and steaming past the rock with no difficulties at all. It is utterly absurd to say that the river is not navigable, and that it is necessary to wait for slack water. If we had a voice on the Board of Directors, I undertake to say that our. representatives would not stand this sort of 1 treatment being meted out to our people. Such representation and control would be nearly as satisfactory as would be the carrying out of Senator Ogden’s proposal in its entirety. It would be one means of enabling us to overcome some of our present difficulties. We have a right to expect from the Commonwealth the same treatment in respect to the Tasmanian shipping service that the people of other States get in respect of the railway system. Our oceanic position should not militate against us. I have much pleasure in seconding ‘the motion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilson) adjourned.

page 1308

.- The vessels forming the nucleus of the Commonwealth Government Line were purchased by the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. W. M. Hughes), and although considerable opposition ‘ was shown towards his action, subsequent events have proved that what he did was in the best interests of the Australian people. It is very interesting to note the number of honorable senators and honorable members of another place who have been converted to* Government control, and who now realize the benefits to be derived . from a Government-owned line of ships.

Senator Needham:

– The converts are on the honorable senator’s side of the Chamber.

Senator REID:

– I realize that. Many members of the Country party who opposed this 1 form of Government control now enthusiastically support the enterprise, because it has been of great benefit to the primary producer. I have always been in favour of governmental enterprises conducted in the interests of the people, and during the recent election campaign I strongly advocated the retention of the Commonwealth Government Line. A number of speakers have referred to the losses incurred, but they have been more than compensated for by the benefits derived. I am very glad that the Commission which was ap- pointed to inquire into the working of the

Cockatoo Island Dockyard has been justi’fied in the recommendations which it made. A very strong feeling existed that that’ Dockyard should be disposed of, and that private enterprise should be allowed to manage the business. The people of Australia now realize, however, the benefits which they have obtained from the Commonwealth (Shipping Line, and they recognise that it is necessary to have a place at which to carry out repair work. As the result of the recommendations of the Commission, the management has been placed on a better footing than has existed for a considerable time. Marine engineers and experts who were not connected with the Cockatoo Island Dockyard, in giving their evidence, unanimously expressed the opinion that the work done there was a credit to the workers.

Senator Elliott:

– What about the cost of that work?

Senator REID:

– The cost was too high; but, under the new conditions resulting from different management, they have decreased considerably. Thousands of pounds have been expended in the installation of first-class machinery. Shipbuilding will have an important bearing on the future of Australia on account of the isolation of this country, and its distance from other countries. It is necessary, therefore, that every encouragement should be given to the industry. The shipping and allied trades have made England what it is. Without that in- dustry her other manufactures would not have enabled her to reach the high position she occupies in trade and commerce. Australia is similarly situated in the Pacific, consequently I have always been extremely anxious to see shipbuilding go ahead. The work which has been turned out at Cockatoo Island Dockyard has stood the strain of battle, storm, and stress. That highly satisfactory state of affairs will continue only so long as the workmen eve to the Commonwealth adequate service for the money which they receive.

Senator Needham:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that the workmen have “gone slow”?

Senator REID:

– I know that they have. The future development of this country depends upon the worker. If an honestday’s work is given, the shipbuilding industry will become firmly established in Auslralia. At times, and under certain conditions, efficient service . has not been rendered. I have not any class feelings. I am prompted to speak in this manner because I desire to see the interests of the workers advanced, and the future welfare of- Australia assured.

Senator Needham:

– I think that the honorable senator is libelling the workers.

Senator REID:

– If Senator Needham went about with his eyes open, and studied the facts without any party feeling, he would agree with nine-tenths of my statements. I make these statements with a feeling of sorrow. They are’ based, not on: hearsay, but on actual knowledge. I regard the working class in Australia as being second to none in the world. I desire to see industries established. Especially do I desire that shipbuilding shall be carried oh at Cockatoo Island. I shall do everything I possibly can to encourage the workers to turn out a good article able “ to compete with that turned out by any other country. I know that they can do it if they like. I worked amongst them some years ago, and I have, had them working under me. To-day, while the quality is all right, the quantity is lacking.

Senator Needham:

– Are these men getting an honest day’s wages?

– I do not knowwhy a limitation was imposed. It has been suggested that the Government are appointing a Board to control the Commonwealth Line, with the intention of eventually disposing of the fleet. I am sure that the Government have no such- intention. The members of the Ministry are fully alive to the wishes of the people in this direction. The people of Australia are standing solidly behind this enterprise, notwithstanding the press criticisms which, ever since the inauguration of the Line, have, been most unfair. Doubtless the repre; sentatives of shipping companies or large commercial enterprises interested in the shipping business have been behind the agitation which has been g’iven such prominence in the pi psb. I am confident, however, that the people are standing solidly behind the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, knowing ‘ perfectly well the benefit it has conferred on Australia. Senator McHugh has referred to’ the freights charged by the vessels trading from Port Adelaide to Spencer’s Gulf. Many years ago a company of farmers on the west coast started a small line of steamers. I think they had two > vessels. At that time - it was prior to the war - freights were not as high as they have been since, but the other steam-ship companies then trading cut fares and freights again and again until they managed to push the small company out of business. I believe it was said at the time that they even went so far as to pay bonuses to people who travelled or sent goods by their steamers. At any rate, the farmers in their blindness .and folly patronized the vessels that cut. the fares and freights, and the consequence was that after running for a few months the new company had to close down. Fares immediately went up, and now, as Senator McHugh has pointed out, it scarcely pays a man to send live-stock or goods by water from the west coast. Within the last month or so, the Adelaide Steamship Company has increased the passenger fare from Port Adelaide to Port Lincoln from £1 10s. to £2. The journey from Port Adelaide occupies an afternoon and a night. Passengers leave in the after- * noon, have one meal and a bed on board, and are supposed to be off the steamer at Port Lincoln before breakfast. At one time the fare for this trip was 10s’. This is an instance of the so-called benefit that is derived by handing over to private enterprise the full control of shipping along our coast or overseas. And it furnishes a reply to the question Senator Drake-Brockman put to me a few moments ago. I should like to say a word now about the Commonwealth Line of Steamers and industrial trouble. Like Senator Reid, I do not refer to industrial troubles in any vindictive spirit, but I very much deplore the fact that the Commonwealth’s steamers should be subjected to more labour trouble than is met with by any other shipping line trading in or to Australian waters, whether its crews be black, brown, or brindle. There is very little industrial trouble on the boats engaged in the coastal trade, but nearly every time a Commonwealth owned vessel comes into Australian waters trouble occurs. Why should this be the case? The Commonwealth Line of Steamers pays fairer, wages than are paid even by the private com,panies trading along our’ coast. It’ provides accommodation not to be found on the ships of other lines. Its crews are paid overtime, and receive wages for the voyage to England that are almost unbelievable when compared with those paid by other lines. It pays these wages and competes with vessels run by cheaper labour, and manned by crews whose conditions are not to be compared with those, for the Commonwealth vessels. And yet it it expected to show a profit. I sincerely hope that the crews will take a more reasonable view of their duty to the Commonwealth. After all, this experiment is but an instalment of the public ownership which the Labour party desire to bring about. Why should they seek to tie up Commonwealth vessels every time they come to Australia? I hope that wiser counsels will prevail, and that the responsible leaders of the Seamen’s Union and the Stewards’ Union will not send men down to the ships’ to induce the crews to cease work for no reason whatever. I know that the organizers of these unions harangue the men on the wharfs, and that the men very foolishly leave their ships. For what reason they do so heaven only knows. The conditions under which they work are very much better than those provided by other shipping lines. I trust that wiser counsels will prevail, and that for the sake of the future welfare of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers the Labour party will urge the men to take a more reasonable view. Why subject the Line to treatment which is not experienced by other lines trading to Australia? I have a rooted objection to the appointment of Boards. In my opinion the appointment of Boards is a means devised by members of a Government to relieve themselves of responsibility. As one who is responsible to the electors, I. am willing to take my full share of the responsibility entailed in administering the affairs of Australia, and my full share of whatever blame may - attach to the running of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers. I am ready to bestow blame ‘ or to condone anything whenever I think it necessary. The function of .managing public utilities belongs, first of all, to the Government, and, in the second place, to members of Parliament, and I intensely dislike the idea of relinquishing in the slightest degree the hold that Parliament should have on every public utility. However, tho Board to be appointed in this instance must be one. of experts. They should be men specially trained for many years in the shipping business. A man will not acquire a full knowledge of shipping business unless he spends many years in it, and the more knowledge he possesses the more successful is his management of a shipping line.

I hope there will not be more than three members on the Board to be appointed under this Bill, and that the Government will secure the best men available. Whether they be found in Australia or elsewhere I do not mind, so long as they have the very highest qualifications, and I shall not care whether they are paid £2,000 or £10,000 each.. If they are not, really capable men, and their salary is £2,000 per annum each, they can easily cause the country ‘ to lose that amount in two months. If they are well qualified, they can save the amount of their salaries, whatever it may be, by careful and competent management. Therefore, I hope that the question of the salary to be paid will not stand in the way of securing the very best men who are available. There is in Australia a great notion of paying small salaries. A bigger mistake could not be made. The salaries paid to men occupying positions similar to this in private life are much greater than the Commonwealth Government will be. prepared to pay to the men whom they place in charge of the Commonwealth Shipping Line. The salaries that are being paid to-day to responsible officers of the Shipping Line are an absolute disgrace to the Commonwealth. I hope that that practice will be altered, and that in the future the salaries paid will be commensurate with the responsibilities and the qualifications of the men who are appointed. I regret that such large powers are proposed to be given to the Board, and that such large’ interests are to be handed over practically without any check or control over them. Just as I recognise the necessity for appointing this Board, however, so I recognise that it will be impossible for us to go only half way in - the matter. I can see no way of achieving the result which we are all anxious shall be achieved, other than by vesting in the Board the powers which the Government intend to give them. I am compelled to agree to that provision, as I am unable to see how these men will be able to carry out their duties unless they have absolute control over everything appertaining to the Commonwealth Shipping Line. The Bill provides that after the profits reach a certain amount they shall be paid into the Consolidated Revenue. I hope that the Government will not put a finger on the profits of this Line. It is a very bad practice to allow the Treasurer to take money from public utilities, and place it into the Consolidated Revenue. The same objection can be urged against this proposal that can be urged against the manner in which the earnings of the Postal Department are dealt with. The only way in which profits should be taken from the Commonwealth Line is by an appropriation of Parliament. After an adequate sinking fund has been provided and a sufficient sum has been set aside for the proverbial rainy day, the Treasurer should obtain the consent of Parliament before he appropriates any of the profits.

Senator Wilson:

– The Treasurer will have to obtain the consent of Parliament before he can do so. Parliament will have absolute control.

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

– I have read very carefully the clauses to which I object, and I have come to the conclusion that when the profits exceed a certain percentage they can be automatically appropriated by the Treasurer. I hope that I am wrong. If the Treasurer adopted the usual practice, these moneys would be too easily taken over by the Treasury. The matter should be dealt with by special legislation in order to afford members of . Parliament the opportunity of properly discussing it. It is said that the Line will be removed from political control. I hope that it will not be. If, at any time, I feel it to be my duty to criticise the Commonwealth Shipping Line in this Parliament T. shall regard myself as having a perfect right to do so. This Line is still to be the property of the’ people of Australia, and I shall never agree to relinquish my right to criticise it publicly, when I believe it necessary to do so. As long as that is the rule I do not think it will be possible to say that the Line is free from political influence, any more than are the railways or other public utilities. Although I do not approve of some of the provisions of the Bill, I support it as a whole, and wish the Board and . their enterprise a very successful career. ‘

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

. -I am exceedingly grateful for the very fine spirit which has been exhibited in the discussion of this measure and - to honorable senators opposite especially - for the very considerate manner in which I have been treated’ in handling this, my first, Bill in the Senate. At this very late hour of the night I think I shall best meet the convenience of honorable senators by asking leave to continue my remarks tomorrow morning.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 11.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 July 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1923/19230719_senate_9_104/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate19 July 1923

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator FINDLEY:VICTORIA

PAPERS

QUESTION

THE LATE MR. DAVID LINDSAY

Senator NEWLANDS:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

NAURU ADMINISTRATION

Senator ELLIOTT:VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND

Senator NEEDHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TOURIST BUREAU

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

LAND VALUES TAXATION

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:NAT

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL

Second Reading

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator Wilson:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Reid:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Reid:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Elliott:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Elliott:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Elliott:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Elliott:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator Reid:

Senator Duncan:

Senator GARDINER:

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator Hays:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Hays:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McDougall:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Thompson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Needham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senate
19 July 1923

Senator FINDLEY:
VICTORIA

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator NEEDHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917

Senator NEWLANDS:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP; NAT from 1917