Senate
3 September 1924

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPEES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
- Southern Intercepting Sewer, Canberra
QUESTION
- WAR PENSIONS
QUESTION
- THE SENATE AND THE PRESS
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- CRUISER CONSTRUCTION
QUESTION
- DEFENCE DEPARTMENT
WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL
DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL
QUESTION
- BUDGET, 1924-5
WIRELESS AGREEMENT BILL
SEA-CARRIAGE OF GOODS BILL

The Deputy President (Senator NewLand) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3843

PAPEES

The following papers were presented . -

Defence Department - Return showing number, classification, &c, of officers in Accounts Branch in each Military District.

Excise Act- Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1924. No. 117.

Northern Territory - Ordinance No. 17 of 1924 - Licensing.

page 3843

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether the Government intends to make an announcement that the Commonwealth Bank is to conduct business as usual or whether its present method of carrying on business is to be interfered with in any way?

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

– The scope of the bank’s activities is set out in the act and the amending legislation. The effect of the latter is to provide for an extension, not a restriction, of the bank’s operations.

Senator Gardiner:

– There is a good doal of uncertainty about the position and a feeling that the amending law recently passed will interfere with the bank.

Senator PEARCE:

– That misapprehension is based on a misconceptionof the law.

page 3844

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Southern Intercepting Sewer, Canberra

Senator Lynch brought up the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, together with minutes of evidence with regard to the construction of the southern intercepting sewer, Canberra.

page 3844

QUESTION

WAR PENSIONS

Case of Munition Worker W. Dunk

Senator GARDINER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and Mr. Dunk, munition worker, brought the Government under the provisions of the Seamen’s Compensation Act?
When Mr. Dunk accepted the £120 as final settlement, did he have the right to submit such compromise to the Registrar under the Seamen’s Compensation Act?
Is it compulsory for such a compromise as that accepted by Mr. Dunk to be registered under the Seamen’s Compensation Act?
Is the Minister aware whether, until such registration has been made, the Commonwealth liability continues, notwithstanding any amount paid ?
Did the Registrar refuse to register that agreement because the amount of compensation paid by the Commonwealth was totally inadequate for the injuries received?

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s questions: -

No.
No. I am advised that the agreement did not, and could not, confer any statutory rights, under the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911, on Mr. Dunk or on the Commonwealth or on any authority.
No. No compromise was accepted by Mr. Dunk. An agreement was arrived at under which Mr. Dunk accepted £120 in settlement in full of his future rights in respect of his claim for compensation, and executed a deed of release to the Commonwealth in respect of his claim for compensation under ‘the agreement, and there is no legal necessity for this release to be registered under the Seamen’s Compensation Act.
No.
No. I am informed that the release was tendered for registration, but the Registrar declined to register it because Mr. Dunk objected to his doing so. The registration could have had no legal effect in any case, as the matter was not within the scopeof the act.

page 3844

QUESTION

THE SENATE AND THE PRESS

Newspaper. Reports of Proceedings

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Whether he noticed that in the Melbourne Aye recently there was nearly a column on the doings of Squizzy “ Taylor and not a word on the proceedings of the Commonwealth Senate?
Whether he noticed a loader in the same paper suggesting action for’ the abolition of the Senate, but that there was no reference to the need for suppressing “ Squizzy “ Taylor?
Whether he does not consider it advisable to refuse to allow the post office to be used for the conveyance of newspapers containing such poor-quality news to unoffending citizens in this country?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The reply to the honorable senator’s questions is “No.”

page 3844

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Effect of Classification

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it correct to say that under the recent classification of the Public Service by the Public Service Beard, the status and position of officers in Western Australia have been towered in comparison with those of the other States; for example, are the posts of accountant and supervisor graded lower than those of Queensland?
If so, what is the reason for such dif ferentiation ?
Is it correct to say that the classification of the same offices for the remote porta of Carnarvon, Fort Hedland, and Roebourne is £48 per annum lower than is the same classification for such places as Devonport, Burnie, and Worraambool?
If so, is there a reason for such difference?
Is it correct to say that under the classification, when an officer reaches the maximum of his classification no chance is given him to be transferred to a higher classified position, notwithstanding his seniority’; and further,. that such an officer finds himself in such a position that he is not able to prove his efficiency, if he is possessed of same?
Ifso, on what ground is such an officer prevented from seeking and obtaining a higher reward for his increased efficiency and accompanying seniority?

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

– The Prime Minister supplies the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - 1 to 4. The classification of the Public Service Board is based on the nature and value of the work performed (vide section 27 (1) of the Public Service Act). As a matter of generalpolicy it is considered undesirable to furnish details of the reasons underlying classification of individual positions.

No, the classification has no such effect. The conditions of transfer to a higher classified position are governed by . the Public Service Act (section 50) which prescribes that in filling such positions regard must be had to relative efficiency and, in the event of equality of efficiency, to relative seniority.
See answer to No. 5.

page 3845

QUESTION

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION

SenatorFINDLEY asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Has the Government made anyarrangements in respect to the -construction of cruisers ?

If so, what is the estimated cost?

If no definite arrangements have been made, will the Government make known its intentions in respect to the appeals made to have at least one of the cruisers constructed in Australia?

Senator WILSON:
NAT

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

No.
See No. 1.
The matter is still receiving consideration, and the Government expects to announce its intentions at an early date.

page 3845

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Accounts Branch Officers

Senator McDOUGALL:
for Senator Grant

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

How many officers are employed in the Accounts Branch in each Military District?
What are the classifications and subdivisions into which the staff in each district is divided?
What are the salaries paid for similar classifications and subdivisions in each district?
What discretionary increments were paid in each district during the financial year ended 30th June, 1924?

Senator WILSON:
NAT

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

1st Military District, 13; 2nd Military District, 22; 3rd Military District, 17; 4th Military District, 13; 5th Military District, 7; 6th Military District, 5. 2 and 3 -

1st Military District, 3; 2nd Military District, 1; 3rd Military District, 5; 4th Military District, 3; 5th Military District, 2; 6th Military District, 2.

page 3845

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL

Bill received from the House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Wilson) read a first time.

page 3845

DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL

Debate resumed from . 29th August (vide page 3777), on motion by Senator Wilson -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Wilson:

– It is because we realize the difficulties that we are not rushing into the business until every consideration has been given to the problem.

Senator FINDLEY:

– The only solution is to find good markets for the exportable surplus production.

Senator HOARE:

– With one excep-tion, honorable senators of the Labour party are protectionists, and the one exception is obliged to support protection for the simple reason that his party says he must do so. I hope that the men engaged in the dried fruit- industry will meet with success. I trust they will not need further assistance, but if they should need it I hope the Government will treat them as generously as they have treated the beef kings of Queensland.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Arrangement for payment of advances and appropriation therefor).

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– If I remember correctly, Senator McDougall, who at the moment is acting as Temporary Chairman of Committees, suggested on the second reading that all arrangements for the payment of advances should be made through the Commonwealth Bank, and that this clause should be amended to enable this to be done. Why should we not transact all our business through our own bank? Not to do so is to own a store and buy goods elsewhere. I can see no reason for going outside our own bank for the transaction of this business. My statement on the second reading, that if the Labour party were in power we could apply the socialization planks of our platform to the marketing of the whole of the produce of the primary producers, has been interpreted by Senator Duncan to mean that any industry which is exploiting . the people should be socialized. As a matter of fact, our scheme is wider in its scope. Instead of relying upon the rotten stick of protection or upon anything else that brings producers to an unfortunate position, such as that now occupied by the people engaged in the dried fruit industry, our scheme is to handle their products, put them on the market, and, by socializing the means of distribution and exchange, bring the consumer and producer together, thus avoiding the loss between the two, and enabling the whole of the profit to accrue to the grower. As it is worded in our New South Wales platform, the objective of the Labour party is “to secure to the producer the full results of his industry.” Like myself, Senator Duncan is sometimes in a very difficult position. He revels in the fact that on the fiscal issue my views differ from those of the rest of my party, but I am thankful to say my party tolerates me in spite of my fiscal views. On the other hand, Senator Duncan is a red-ragger in the Conservative ranks. He is obliged to trim his views so that he may be accepted as a pure merino- nationalist, but, as it is qtiite impossible for him to do so, he has to cover up his deficiencies by making constant attacks upon me. Here we have an opportunity to apply our socialization to banking. In the Commonwealth Bank we have a socialized institution, and it is quite a simple matter to provide that all advances made to the dried fruit growers are negotiated through that institution: During the war, it was big enough to cash payments for soldiers, arid even prisoners of war in all parts of the world. Surely it can handle the business of making advances to dried fruit growers?

Senator Duncan:

– The clause, as it stands, enables the growers to deal with the banks in which they have accounts.

Senator Crawford:

– As it stands, the clause will permit the Government to stand behind any bank with which the growers do business, but the time has ar rived when every consideration should be given to the institution which has been brought into existence by the Commonwealth, and for whose success the Commonwealth is responsible. I asked Senator Pearce to-day whether it was to go out of business, but I was pleased to hear him say that “ business as usual “ was to be the order of the day so far as the Commonwealth Bank is concerned. I shall move no amendment at this stage. I shall be. pleased to hear the views of the Minister upon Senator McDougall’s suggestion.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– I quite agree with Senator Gardiner that all Commonwealth Government payments in commercial matters should be made through the Commonwealth Bank. That is the attitude taken up by the Government, and it will be put in operation in connexion with advances to the growers who are to be given the assistance afforded by this bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 15 agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 3855

QUESTION

BUDGET, 1924-5

Debate resumed from 28th August (vide page 3698), on motion by Senator Pearce -

That the papers be printed.

Senator Duncan:

– The land, is not of the same productive capacity as land in other si/citGS’

– I haive not the figures, but it is quite as much as the people can beair. I have unlimited faith in the state. We have a wonderful hydro-electric power scheme, which has been the means of attracting important industries, which have spent millions of pounds in the erection of buildings and in the installation of plant. These industries take time to become firmly established, and a considerable period is sometimes occupied in deciding whether an industry could profitably be established. One firm which, when I was a member of the Tasmanian Government, considered the establishment of an industry, has now completed its arrangements, and is about to commence operations with a capital of £1 , 000 , 000 . Hydroelectric power can be moire profitably employed by large industries than by small ones,, which- cannot be easily attracted to Tasmania owing to> the absence- of an extensive local market, and the disadvantages associated with isolation. Certain big industries are already established, amdi altogether the prospects in this direction are attractive. If we can successfully surmount thepresent financial trouble, there is. a bright future ahead of Tasmania. I hope that honorable- senators will look at this matter frorat that point of view, and grant the assistance1’ asked’ for by Tasmania with- as little delay as has- occurred in the granting of assistance to the dried fruits industry on. the river Murray.

Because of the fact that Tasmania is a poor state, she has felt, the drain of soldier settlement more than the other states. I se© no reason why the settlement of soldiers on the land1 should’ not be as much a Commonwealth undertaking as are war service homes, pensions, and’ other matters dealt with by the Commonwealth Government. The staites undertook the work primarily because they had> Hhe land, and) the necessary governmental machinery. Sinuce this work- has- been’ undertaken in Tasmania, the loss has reached a total of about £400,000. In some of the other states the loss has run into millions. That the work could not have been done better, in the circumstances, is proved by the fact that all the states are in the same position. If the Commonwealth Government had done the work, it is probable that the loss would have been even greater. So far as the public and the soldiers would allow it, the work has been done well. The trouble was due largely to the fact that many people who were intensely sympathetic towards the soldiers were quite irresponsible. These people urged greater expedition on the part of the Government. It sometimes takes two or three months for an ordinary settler to obtain a farm, but the public generally expected the Government to settle four or five soldiers on the land each week. In addition, the fact that Government money was being expended, . and that a number of new buyers were in the field, caused land values to become inflated. In the circumstances, mistakes were inevitable. The Commonwealth Government, to some extent, recognized its responsibility in that, for a number of years, it paid 2½ per cent, on the losses incurred. That, however, did not recoup Tasmania, because some of the money advanced- to the soldiers was advanced free of interest, while other advances were made at from 3½ per cent, to 5 per cent., whereas the. money cost the Government up to 6 per cent, or 6½ per cent. Notwithstanding that the utmost care was taken, the result was a huge loss to all the states, and Tasmania, being the smallest state, felt it most.

I desire now to refer to the payment by Tasmania of duty to the Commonwealth Government -in connexion with its hydro-electric scheme. The Treasurer of Tasmania, who, no doubt, had the correct figures, said that the Tasmanian Government had paid to the Commonwealth Government not less than £250,000 in duties in connexion with its hydro-electric undertaking. When those works were in course of construction, the war was in progress. Large quantities of machinery and cement were used, much of which had to be imported, as it was unobtainable in Australia. This, also, is a matter which should be taken into account when Tasmania’s claim1 for financial assistance is being considered. I have no desire to make a comparison between the claims of Tasmania, in relation to its hydro-electric scheme, and the claims of Victoria, in connexion with its undertaking at Morwell. In response to a question in this Senate I was supplied with some figures which showed that Tasmania paid in duty, on machinery the sum of £169,000, of which £78,000 was subsequently remitted. Victoria paid duty to the extent of £442,000, and had £304,000 remitted. In” other words, Victoria, whose payments were not double those of Tasmania, had remitted a sum which was four times that remitted to the smaller state. In making that, statement, I have no desire to infer that unfair treatment was meted out to Tasmania by the Customs Department. The difference between the amounts remitted to the two states was due to the fact that the remission of duty operated only after a certain date. Tasmania had paid a larger proportion of the duty before that date than Victoria had done. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Tasmania had remitted a smaller proportion of the duty paid than was remitted to Victoria. Honorable senators should bear that in mind when this question of financial assistance to Tasmania is before them.

– I do not want ad valorem duties. The duties should be definitely fixed in- pounds, shillings, and pence, so that the Australian farmer may know exactly what he has to pay.

Deeply interested as I have been for many years in the dairying industry, I am glad to know that the Government is trying to do something for those engaged in it. I read the report of the speech delivered the’ other day by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), who, notwithstanding that it does not come under any of his departments, showed that he has an exceptionally good’ grasp of the present situation.For the general! information that it contains his speech is well, worth reading and re-printmg. I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to do something to stabilize the industry. I do not say that the scheme propounded is absolutely correct, but the dairymen of Australia are represented by an excellent council, and I am satisfied that if the Government accepts the advice tendered by that bodv, any measures adopted for the relief of the industry will be on a sound basis. I do not lose sight of the consumers’ point of view, for whilst there are comparatively few butter producers, there is a large number of consumers who, as a rule, do not care under what conditions butter is produced so long as they can get it cheaply.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Nor do they care how dairymen live.

Senator J B HAYES:

– I like to think that the workers of Australia can get cheap food. Butter is one of the best foods produced; but the workers have no right to expect cheap butter, if, to produce it, our dairymen are forced to work under conditions that every wage-earner would scorn to accept for himself. I warn the people that they will suffer if something ia not. done shortly to increase the price paid to the dairyman for his product, and to bring about stabilization in the industry. Butter produced at anything less than 2s. per lb. is a relatively good and cheap food. Three or four- years ago about 50 per cent, of the Australian production was consumed locally, and about 50 per cent, exported. More recently local consumption has increased very materially in relation to the total output,, until this year, so I am informed, and I believe the figures to* be approximately correct, 75 per cent, of the Australian production is being absorbed by the local market, and only 25 per cent., is being exported. In -January last, owing to certain overpayments in the factories, and they were not heavy, butter fat went down to ls. a lb. So serious was the outlook that in my own state dairymen were turning their cows out. In Victoria and

New South Wales also, dairy farmers were seriously thinking of selling their cows, and buying sheep, because relatively a small number of sheep pays better than cows for dairying with butter fat at anything below1s. 6d. a lb. It would be a calamity if anything happened to the dairying, industry in Australia. A splendid business has been built up, but I warn the people that if the producers cannot depend upon getting1s. 6d. a lb. for butter fat, the dairy farmers will carry their threat into execution, and sell their cows. It is not reasonable to expect a dairy farmer to> work for fourteen hours, and for a few shillings a” day, while men in our principal cities can get anything from 12s. to 18s. or 20s. a. day for eight hours’ work. If, as is contemplated, the dairy farmers go out of the business, consumption of butter in Australia will very quickly equal production, and then the price will rise rapidly to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per lb. Consumers really have most to gain from the stabilization of the industry, and the fixing of prices at a level that will ensure a fair return to the dairy farmer. If consumption overtakes production,, and that certainly is a likely contingency unless the industry is stabilized, butter will rise to such extraordinarily high prices that many people will be unable to afford it. But there is another aspect to this problem. Bacon is another important food largely used by Australian consumers. Although, independently of dairy farming,, it is possible to produce

Email quantities of bacon, the industry must be allied with dairying if bacon is to be produced on a commercial scale and at a reasonable price. Therefore, if the dairying industry declines, so also will pig-raising, and the Australian consumer will probably have to pay twice as much for bacon as at present. Although it is desirable that the dairy farmer should be able to put up a good case for the stabilization of the industry, it is equally necessary that the consumer should see the reasonableness of paying a fair price for dairy products in order that the dairyman may live under decent conditions. I put this point of view to those who may be disposed to object to dairymen receiving an increase of 6d. a lb. for butter fat.

I have been particularly interested in the Government proposals to make grants to the states for wire-netting advances and for road construction. I understand that the Government has set aside £250,000, on the pound for pound basis, for the purchase of wire netting. In my own state, where so many of the farms consist of 100 to 200 acres, it is extremely difficult to keep properties clear of ferns, blackberry, and rabbits. The Government’s proposal with regard to wirenetting advances is one of the best that has’ been made for many years. Babbits, when . they make their appearance, displace stock and ruin the pastures. A great many applications have been made in Tasmania for small quantities of wire netting on terms, the applications, in’the main, being for½ mile,¾ mile, or 1 mile of netting. Pastoralists in mainland states, accustomed to handling very much larger areas, appear surprised that the farmer who applies for a mile of wire netting is- not in a position to pay fox it. Many farmers in my state are in that position. They are extremely anxious to take advantage of the long terms of repayment, and, although they made application for wire netting, some time ago, it has not yet been made available. I placed the position before the Treasurer, and, although he is not the responsible Minister, he informed me that the Government intended to regard the grant as a perpetual endowment. In other words, the idea was that the State Governments should distribute the money, collect repayments from settlers, and, instead of returning it to the Commonwealth Government, should use it for the purchase of additional supplies of wire netting. This is a splendid scheme, but, unfortunately, between the Commonwealth and State Governments there is a hitch which I’ should like to see straightened out. The Government insists on getting a definite security for the advance, but I understood the Treasurer to say that the Commonwealth Ministry would be satisfied with a security that was acceptable to the State Government concerned. In Tasmania, under what is known as the Babbit Netting Act, which has never been put into operation, it is necessary to take a mortgage for any advances made. It is impracticable to do that.

Senator Pearce:

– The state law should be amended.

Senator J B HAYES:

– It has been a dead “letter for so many years.

Senator Pearce:

– I should think that a very good reason why it should be amended.

Senator J B HAYES:

– Is there not a better way? The Commonwealth Government, I understand, does not expect the money to be returned. It is intended to help our farmers to combat the rabbit pest. So long as the State Government complies with certain conditions as to the way in which it should be used, there should be no difficulty. Let the money be advanced to small holders. An application from a man for, say, 10 miles of wire netting might very well be ignored, and preference given to the small man who cannot very well get the netting in any other way. If regulations were made to ensure that the netting was supplied to the small farmers who stand most in need of it, I am sure the Government would be glad to hand the money over, for, after all, does it matter very much to the Commonwealth Government what sort of security the State Government gets for the wire netting advanced to its settlers ? Since there is £500,000 to be distributed the Commonwealth Government would be well advised to hand over its contribution to the states proportionately, for I am sure that the money would be wisely expended. In Tasmania, for instance, it was arranged that the municipal bodies should examine the applicants and report whether they approved or disapproved of them. If this system were adopted there would be very few bad debts, and the Commonwealth would not have to take the risk of the money being wasted. It must be a worrying operation to segregate the seeurites, and I am sure that nobody would be better pleased than the Minister for Trade and Customs if the. task were handed over to the state authorities.

A similar argument applies to the main roads development grant. Tasmania has a large mileage of roads on which it cannot expend any of this money, since they have been, partially constructed. Owing to- the large mileage it was necessary to build light roads 12 feet in width and with only 9 inches of metal. These roads now need to be strengthened, and in many places reconstructed, and it is unfortunate that the Commonwealth grant cannot be used for the purpose. The re strictions imposed in regard to grades have been found to be impracticable in a hilly country like Tasmania. My view is that since the grant has been made on a pound for pound basis, the expenditure could safely be left to the states concerned. In Tasmania, it has been necessary to look for roads that comply with the conditions laid down by the federal authorities, instead of spending the money in’ places where the most good would result. It is impossible to draw up conditions in a central office that will suit the needs of all the states, and where money is advanced on a pound for pound basis it is generally safe to trust the local governing authorities to use the money to the best advantage.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I congratulate the honorable senator from Tasmania on the very thoughtful character of his speech, and with many of his remarks I cordially agree. The truth of his statement that the manufacture in Australia of agricultural implements has resulted’ in the farmers of this country obtaining cheaper machinery than would otherwise be procurable can be demonstrated beyond all shadow of doubt. In the adjoining Dominion of New Zealand many of the identical implements sold by the foreign companies that are trading in Australia are disposed of at a higher price than is charged to the Australian producers. The truth of this statement can be shown by a comparison of the catalogues printed and circulated in both countries. It is obvious that the competition by the Australian manufacturers leads to the farmers of this country obtaining their implements at lower prices than would rule if there were no local manufacture of these goods. With what Senator J. B. Hayes said concerning the dairying industry, I am heartily in accord. When the late war was in progress, and during the period of control, I endeavoured to induce the dairymen of the Commonwealth to agree to a scheme of organization which, if accepted, would have saved them hundreds of thousands of pounds. The dairymen are now. willing to act on the lines I then suggested, but it was felt by the Government with which I was associated at that time that it was not justified in compelling the dairymen to accept its view of the situation. The Government felt that it was necessary for the dairymen to be allowed to gradually realize what action was necessary, although many of their number, particularly .in Queensland and New South Wales, approved of the proposal. The dairymen of Victoria, however, through their organization, were so definitely hostile to the scheme that the Government was not disposed to proceed with it. I hope, however, that the negotiations now in progress will result in steps being taken which will ultimately place the industry on a sound footing. If there is one class among the toilers of this country which deserves well of the people of Australia, it is the dairying section. No other industry, so far as I am aware, demands the same constant application, thought, and care on the part of those engaged in it. The dairymen receive no holidays, and no Saturdays or. Sundays off. For 365 days in the year they must toil early and late, with no hope of being able to secure adequate relief from their unceasing toil. It is almost impossible to adequately recompense them for the amount of labour they put into the industry. If the Government suddenly tried to force the people engaged in other industries to work for 365 days in the year, there would be something approaching a revolution. But here is an industry in which the people are voluntarily doing that, and they are contributing a large sum to the national wealth year by year. Statistics show that the industry is extending its activities in a number of directions that were not thought of a few years ago.

I wish to devote a little attention to the study of the actual budget figures as they are presented to us in the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure which the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) brought down a few weeks ago. I think that it was’ almost a pity that the Treasurer was in such great baste to lay the Estimates on the table. Whilst I willingly accord to him and the officials associated with him the praise that is due for their great industry in presenting the figures unusually early in the year, there are other considerations which almost outweigh the advantage of their early presentation. I am strengthened in that opinion by the fact that, although it is now five weeks since the Treasurer tabled the figures, this is the first day practically that the Senate has had an opportunity of dealing with them. It seems to me, therefore, that the figures might have been withheld for a little while longer to enable the statistical information to be brought more up to date than it was. One is handicapped to some extent in discussing matters bearing upon the trade, industry, and commerce of the people when the’ figures supplied are very often two or three years old. That is the position in connexion with some of the figures which accompany the present budget, for some of them date back to 1922. It would be better if an arrangement could be made to enable the latest data to be presented, even if ‘it meant slightly delaying the actual presentation of the budget.

Senator Duncan:

– The figures were not published in New South Wales until three or four days after they were presented here.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is desirable that the people in states other than Victoria should be given every opportunity to have placed before them such important figures as the statement of the annual receipts and expenditure of the Commonwealth.

Senator Findley:

– Did not the other states have that opportunity?

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Not on the present occasion. The press in New South Wales has always previously had the courtesy extended to it of being supplied with advance copies of the budget in sufficient time to enable it to place the whole of the information before the public.

Senator Duncan:

– The press in Sydney could not publish the complete figures even on the following Monday.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Such unseemly haste to lay the budget on the table places states other than Victoria in a somewhat invidious position. It is impossible for such a mass of information as is contained in the budget to be telegraphed to the other states as soon as it is laid on the table.

– The honorable senator has misrepresented me. I urged the people to accept them.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

-When we make due allowance for war expenditure, and for some other matters to which I shall refer presently, such as the change over from revenue expenditure to loan expenditure, which has been followed to an extraordinary extent, we shall find that the estimated expenditure of the Commonwealth for this year is far greater than ever before. Let me refer honorable senators- to the Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure for the years 1921-22 and 1924-25. I have chosen 1921-22 because that year has always been held up as a “horrid example” of profligate expenditure. I remember when the present Treasurer almost exhausted his vocabulary in denouncing the 1921-22 budget, and the proposals of the then Treasurer - that great servant of Australia, Sir Joseph Cook - to spend more money from revenue than he anticipated receiving. It was almost impossible to follow the gentleman who to-day is Treasurer of the Commonwealth in the vituperation which he poured out on the head of the Treasurer at that time. The expenditure for 1921-22 was a record up to that time, and for that reason I have chosen that year as the basis of the comparison which I propose to make. In 1921-22, the amount actually expended under the heading “Defence” was £5,964,730. This year it is proposed to expend £5,101,887. One would almost gather from statements appearing in the Treasurer’s budget speech that in 1921-2 there was no sinking fund. But in 1921-22 the amount paid into the sinking fund was £3,032,478, and this year - I am quoting from figures supplied to me by the Treasurer in answer to questions -the total is £2,759,318. Expenditure on repatriation in 1921-22 was £2,102,641, and this year it is £900,563. For other war services, which, of course, include interest on the war debt and so on, the amount paid from revenue in 1921-22 was £26,234,523, and this year it is £25,080,152. If honorable senators have been able to follow my figures and make a rapid calculation, they will have ascertained that in 1921-22 expenditure from revenue under these four headings - defence, sinking fund, repatriation, and other war services - was £3,492,452 more than for this year. Notwithstanding this, the expenditure this year from revenue, as I shall show directly, is very much more than it was in 1921-22. I said a little while ago that there has been a remarkable turnover from expenditure charged to loan instead of to revenue, as in 1921-22. Comparing the two years we find that this year’s expenditure from revenue on new works - which, of course, includes the Department of the Postmaster-General and other departments - is £2,168,005 less than it was in 1921-22. Although the Treasurer has this year taken his heavy charge off his revenue expenditure, and put it on to loan, the expenditure from revenue is still very much greater than it was -in 1921-22. Let me sum up the figures I have just given. The Treasurer has- relieved revenue expenditure by £862,843 less, expended on defence, £1,202,078 less expended on repatriation, £273,160 less paid into the sinking fund, and £1,154,371 less expended on other war services, the total being, as I have stated,. £3,492,452, and by charging to loan expenditure £2-168,005, which previously was charged to revenue, the total is £5,660,457. *[Extension of time granted.”] In other words, had the Treasurer been called upon to pay on account of those services the same sums this year as in 1921-22, and had he charged them to revenue instead of to loan, he would have been obliged to add £5,660,457 to his- revenue expenditure for this year. The total expenditure from revenue for the year 1921-22, not including interest on loans raised for the states, about which I shall have a word or two to say directly, was £64,195,699. Had the Treasurer in 3.921-22 made provision only for defence, repatriation, sinking fund, and war services to the same extent as in this year’s budget, the net expenditure from revenue for 1921-22, instead of being £64,195,699, would have been £58,535,242. The estimated expenditure from revenue for 1925 is £63,445,183. Allowing for automatic reductions for comparison, we find that the added expenditure since 1921-22 on the items - which appear in the budget is £4,909,941. That is not by any means the whole of the story. There is another very extraordinary feature in this budget, and one which I venture to say is not to be found in any other budget that has been presented to this Parliament. It introduces an entirely new method of finance. 1 direct the attention of honorable senators to the receipts and expenditure for this year, as shown on page xii of the Estimates.

Sitting suspended from- 6.S0 to 8 “p.m.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– On page xii of the Estimates one sees what is, I believe, an entirely new feature. It is termed the “allocation of surplus,” and it will be seen that it deals with certain payments such as those for invalid and old-age pensions, war pensions, naval construction, and a reserve for defence. There is £500,000 for main roads, £500,000 for assistance in marketing primary products, and £1,000,000 for naval construction. These sums are left, like Mahomet’s coffin, hanging ‘twixt heaven and earth. They are not brought to account either in last year’s or this year’s figures, except in the table dealing with the consolidated revenue fund. Of course, the net result is obvious. Honorable senators will remember well that when the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) made his comments on the budget of 1921-22, he condemned the then Treasurer most bitterly for spending more money in any given year than he was collecting, and I think that he went so far as to move for a reduction in the whole of the surplus expenditure of that year. If the present Treasurer had adopted the measures which the then Treasurer followed, bringing his expenditure for the year to account in the Esti mates for that year, and treating his surplus as meeting part of that year’s expenditure, he would have been in exactly the same position. But, when the Treasurer superimposes these additional figures on the expenditure of the year, the total is relatively and actually vastly greater than the expenditure of 1921-22. The reasons for what has been done, as I have already said, are obvious. If the Treasurer had followed the usual course he would have shown a heavy deficit on this year’s transactions. He did not wish to show that, and, therefore, he adopted this new, and, I venture to say, unjustifiable method of drawing up the annual balance sheet of the country. He avoided showing that he was drawing on his surplus for this year’s expenditure, although it was a practice that he condemned bitterly m the previous Treasurer. Had he done what be said the previous Treasurer should have done, this year’s budget would have represented the “heaviest expenditure out of revenue that the Commonwealth has ever known, not even excepting the budgets presented during the war years, when we had to meet actual war expenditure. Then, of course, the Treasurer would have found it extremely difficult, in view of ‘ the figures presented, to justify the reduction of taxation. The method adopted by him is unjustifiable, and the Treasurer was hardly frank with the country. Surely we should have an honest statement presented of the year’s expenditure out of revenue, but the figures given do not present the position in a way that truthfully tells the whole story. My reason for laying particular stress on this fact is that there is no saying who may be Treasurer of the Commonwealth when the next budget is_ presented, and I am afraid that next year many of these chickens will come home to roost. There is another feature of the budget to which I desire to draw attention. Being a non-recurring item, honorable senators may not have noticed it. I refer to the fact that the Treasurer has received a windfall of £500,000 in interest payable by the State of Victoria, which should have been paid lastyear. The Victorian Government, for some reason, held up the payment to the Commonwealth of this sum, and it is brought to account in the Treasurer’s figures this year. It means that the Treasurer has budgeted to receive :£500.000 more from the State of Victoria this year than he would get in an ordinary year, and, consequently, it is necessary to take that sum into account in obtaining a correct appreciation of the position in regard to the present budget, as compared with those that have preceded it. After all, the matter is passed and done with, but we have to think of the future. 1 Vim the statement of receipts, it will be found that last year the Treasurer received from income tax £11,057,555. He is making a remission of approximately £2,000,000 this year, but we do not find that remission reflected in the budget figures. On the other hand, we notice that the Treasurer proposes to raise from income tax this year £10,500,000. Despite the remission of income tax to the extent of £2,000,000, he expects to raise from this source in 1924-25 only £557,555 less than in 1923-24. It should be realized that it is necessary to make provision to meet a reduction in income tax next year to the extent of £1,500,000, and less interest from the states to the extent of £500,000, unless his anticipations of revenue are falsified. There will be no surplus to meet the additional naval expenditure of £1,000,000 which is provided for this year, thus leaving- no less than £3,000,000 to be made up. It is a somewhat serious state of affairs, in view of the fact that Parliament has already passed a bill which, in all probability, will mean an expenditure on naval construction for ships alone of some £5,000,000, and possibly £5,500,000. Although in this year’s budget there is a special provision from the surplus carried from trust account of £2,500,000, it will not be long before we shall be hard hit in connexion with naval construction, and we shall not be able to meet the expenditure from ordinary revenue. In addition to the two cruisers to be built, the Government proposes to increase the expenditure on the Air Force, and there are many other avenues of defence expenditure - such as the proposed large submarines, and the replacing of some of our vessels that are rapidly becoming obsolete. This makes it difficult to see how we shall balance the ledger in the future. Compared with 1921-22, making due allowance for automatic reductions, we see that there is an added expenditure of £4,909,941. To this must be added recurring expenditure of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, according to whether we include or exclude £1,000,000 for extra naval expenditure, making the total either £6,909,941 or £5,909,941. Of this added expenditure, £4,000,000 has been added by the Treasurer of his own volition. There is, also, £1,000,000 foa1 old-age pensions. I am not objecting to the expenditure, but I am endeavouring to point out that the responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the present occupant of the Treasury. There is an extra £2,000,000 for the Defence Department and the Navy, £500,000 for main roads, and another £500,000 for assistance in marketing primary produce; and presumably the two last-mentioned items will be continued. Faced, as we are in all probability, with a very large reduction of revenue on this year’s figures, ‘ as I have indicated, and in view of the necessity for adding to next year’s expenditure, the figures which this year are simply left hanging betwixt heaven and earth, and not brought to accountanywhere, the prospect of the Treasurer in budgeting for next year is not rosy unless he obtains an accretion of revenue which cannot at present be foreseen.

Senator Needham:

– The honorable senator must take his share of that responsibility, because he supports- the Government.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Certainly I take a share of that responsibility, but I was noi a member of this Parliament when a lot of the expenditure was added, and now that I am here I am endeavouring to point out the road along which I think we are going. It is not necessary that I should point out that there must be a cessation of this largely increased expenditure, because we are rapidly coming to that stage when, if there is not that cessation, we must either re-impose a considerable amount of the taxation we have already lifted from the shoulders of the people, or curtail very considerably our expenditure. I know how extremely difficult it is to curtail expenditure once it has been incurred. It is far easier to say, “ No, we will not incur that expenditure,” than, once it has been incurred, creating considerable vested interests, to curtail it and possibly seriously affect those interests. The time has come for the Commonwealth to consider carefully any proposal for incurring heavy expenditure which may involve regular annual outgoings for many years to come. Since the budget was framed we have agreed to certain other expenditure. It may be that the Government propose to meet it out of the £500,000 provided for helping to market primary produce, but if it is not to be provided in that way, it is something additional, for which we shall also have to make provision in the future.

On page 60 of the budget papers the actual expenditure on every department from revenue and loan is brought to account. Making an allowance for the reduction of £8,625,463 in war expenditure, it will be found that the actual expenditure this year from loan and revenue is £3,346,837 more than it was in the year 1921-22, but that does not include the £2,000,000, which, as I say, is placed in the allocation of surplus, and not brought to account in the Estimates. If this £2,000,000 is added, the actual increased expenditure - from revenue and loan- this year as compared with 1921-22 is £5,346,837.

While I sound this note of warning, I realize to the full the splendid relative position Australia occupies. Notwithstanding the heavy burden of the war placed on our, shoulders, our record has been one of steady and continuous progress. Certain figures in the budget papers are so indicative, of our wonderful prosperity that I think they are well worth bringing under the notice of honorable senators. The burden we are carrying is extremely heavy, but nevertheless there are features in connexion with our position which might well make the rest of the world envious of us. During the last ten years the total area under crop increased by nearly 3,000,000 acres, making the total 16,543,555 acres, the increase being 19 per cent. I understand that this year the area under crop will be close upon 18,000,000 acres. The area under fruit increased from 205,114 acres to 275,687 acres, an increase of 39 per cent. Vineyards increased in area from 62,388 acres to 105,476 acres, an increase of 69 per cent. The value of our exported wool rose from £26,277,062 to £57,138,764. The quantity of wool actually used in Australia, which, of course, has to be added to the quantity exported, increased from 10,133,512 lb. to 23,415,533 lb. Dairying has been under a cloud, but the figures in connexion with that industry are also wonderful. I am sorry that they are not thoroughly up to date, but those available show that before the war the total value of dairy produce was £13,706,384, whereas in 1922, the last year for which I could get the figures, the value was £33,709,177. The value of milk consumed in the cities increased iu the same period from £1,876,900 to £6,781,643, and the value of condensed milk rose from £385,454 to £3,176,473. Notwithstanding the cloud that has been hanging over the dairying industry, it has made wonderful progress. Before the war the’ value of our wheat production was £13,303,396. The last year for which I could get the figures its. value was £35,154,664. Our prosperity is also reflected in our banking statistics. Savings bank deposits increased during ten years from £75,261,354 to £171,643,812, and cheque paying deposits from £154,508,380 to £306,182,458. Thus the bank deposits of Australia increased from £229,769,734 to £467,825,270 in ten years, an increase of no less than £23S,056,536. Our total overseas trade also increased from £158,321,422 to £249,627,982. I have not the time to refer to the figures in regard to our manufactures, but they also show wonderful progress. It does not matter from what aspect it is viewed, the progress has been remarkable, and the outstanding feature of our manufacturing enterprise is that the amount of Australian raw materials used in production has almost trebled in the last decade.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I am thankful to the Government for having brought down the national balance-sheet so early in the session. It has already been stated that on only four occasions since the establishment of federation has the budget been presented to Parliament in the month of July. I realize that there may be some disadvantage in having the Treasurer’s financial statement made at such an early date, but I am fully conscious of the many complaints in the past about the late presentation of the budget and of the corresponding disadvantage occasioned. The budget has usually been presented some time between June and Christmas, but most often it has been close to Christmas, with the result that we have had to be content with giving this most important feature of governmental activity anything but the due attention it deserves. Very often, through pressure of business at the last moment in the concluding weeks of the session, the discussion of the budget has been reduced to so many days, and often to a very limited number of hours. I am pleased that om the present occasion that disadvantage has been overcome, and although, as Senator Greene has said, we may be at a disadvantage through not having at our fingers’ ends those figures which would make possible a more intelligent discussion of our finances, at the same time we have the corresponding and offsetting advantage that we have more leisure to devote to a more minute dissection of the budget than we would otherwise have.

The sole reference in the budget to the wheat industry, which employs more than all the other primary industries put together, is contained in seven lines, but that slight reference is more than made up by the Government’s subsequent announcement that it has decided to give some form of guarantee to those people who are working out in a very heroic way the developmental destiny of the Commonwealth. I am pleased that this Government has at length hearkened to the voice, sounded no doubt in a weak manner in this chamber some time ago, when I tabled the motion that it would be a good policy for the Government to step into the arena and give a guarantee of so much per bushel to people engaged in producing wheat. It is true that at the time the suggestive seed I dropped seemed to fall on barren ground, but apparently it has found some modicum of mothersoil on which to take root and grow.

The Government have now come to the conclusion that it is in the interests, not only of the internal development of the country, but also of the development of the whole of the community, to give a helping hand to this most important industry. I have no desire to make comparisons, but I notice that almost every other industry has had the advantage of dipping into the Federal Treasury, and some have been able to dip into the surplus earnings of the people, to an almost unlimited extent, through the operation of the Customs tariff. On not one occasion has the wheat industry been responsible for dipping into the Treasury to secure one penny of government patronage, and on no occasion has it occasioned the Government one penny of loss. I am pleased that Ministers now recognize its position and, realizing what it has done in the past and what it is capable of doing in the future, have offered a guarantee which can be safely extended to it without occasioning the Government any loss.

With regard to the budget, the Treasurer has been out, on two occasions, im his estimates of probable revenue and anticipated expenditure. The result is a happy one, because the funds collected in excess of expenditure have been used for many of the purposes to which Governments can wisely apply their surplus revenue. It is undoubted evidence of prosperity. But whether the incidental effect of raising such am unexpected amount from the Customs is a good thing is an entirely different matter.

In looking over the items in the budget papers we find that in regard to the civil activities of the Government, which include commercial undertakings, special appropriations, additions, new works and buildings, and miscellaneous, there has been an increase in expenditure. Comparing the figures for the present year with those for 1920-21, which may be taken as a standard year, the expenditure on ordinary votes has decreased. Business concerns, which include railways, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, and shipping enterprises, show an increase in expenditure of £1,270,000, and special appropriations for which the Parliament and not the Government must assume responsibility disclose an increase of £3,400,000 as compared with 1920-21. The cost of additions, new works, and buildings show a decrease of £1,470,000, the deficiency being made good by expenditure from loan funds. Under the heading of Miscellaneous there is an increase of £326,000, which, in conjunction with the figures quoted, shows an increase in the expenditure on civil activities of £3,286,000, against which the expendi- ture in connexion -with the war and repatriation has to be considered. As Senator Greene has stated, as compared with the financial year 1920-21 there has in this connexion been a shrinkage of something in the neighbourhood of £4,500,000, so that the net result is that the difference between the increase in the expenditure of civil activities of government and that in relation to war and repatriation services is about £1,250,000. The amount spent on war and repatriation services has been mentioned by Senator Greene, whose salient remarks concerning the necessity of placing the burden of (he war on those who are best able to bear it are worthy of notice. Whilst that is very desirable it is hard to square the proposal with that of reducing the rate of income taxation, which in some instances seems to be placing additional responsibility on those least able to bear it by taking the surplus earnings out of the pockets of some people and transferring them to the Treasurer. The credit of the Government is superior to that of individuals, and, in the opinion of John Stuart Mill, we have to ask if it is wise or right to take out of the people’s pockets, even for a short period, one penny more than is needed to meet the requirements of government. I have no serious complaint to make in regard to the proposal to reduce taxation and so increase the exemption, or to the payment of annual war and repatriation expenditure in the manner suggested, which may not be in accordance with Senator Greene’s views. On page 65 of the Estimates it is shown how our war and repatriation ‘ expenditure has been met since 1914-5, when our war expenditure was met by the payment of £14,000,000 out of loan and £640,000 out of revenue. The records show that from 1914-5 up to the present financial year the figures were -

The percentages of war expenditure met out of revenue for the following years were : -

That is rather a respectable showing, and1 I shall explain later why I have no fault to find with the war and repatriation expenditure being divided as it has been between the two funds. The question of war and repatriation expenditure is closely related to that of taxation, and shows that if larger amounts have to be paid out of revenue we shall have to submit to increased taxation. We have no “philosopher’s stone,” and cannot turn wood into gold, or adopt some such means of raising money to meet expenditure incurred in that great effort from which we so successfully emerged. For the information of the Senate, I shall quote from the Canadian Y ear-Book, which, by the way, is an excellent production, and compares more than favor.ably with the Commonwealth Y ear-Hook, good as that publication is. We would be more convenienced, however, if we were supplied with more elaborate details, and particulars covering a longer period, as I find that in the Canadian Year-Book the expenditure of every department is given for a period of 60 years. Our publication deserves all the encomiums passed upon it, but whether its compilers are restricted by a shortage of funds, or a lack of sympathy on the part of the Government, I do not know. There is, however, a great difference in favour of the publication I have mentioned, which gives the taxation and other revenue raised per head of population,, and a mass of other particulars as well. But the general revenue raised is not a true index of the pressure of taxation upon the people, as one country may engage in certain forms of enterprise which another may not think of entering upon. Canada, for instance, undertakes canal construction and control on an extensive scale, but has not a shipping line as we have. In Canada , in 1914 the revenue raised per head of population was £3 6s., whereas in 1923 it was £7 5s., which includes all forms of war and repatriation expenditure. The taxation imposed in New Zealand as set out in the Year-Booh of that Dominion shows that the revenue derived from taxation in’ 1914 was equal to £5 10s. per head of the population, and that obtained from other sources £5 17s., or a total of £11 7s. 4d. Last year the amount derived from taxation was £12 7s. per head, and from other sources £9 10s., or a total of £21 17s., as against £7 5s. in Canada. The Commonwealth. Year-Book shows that in Australia during the year before the war, the amount of revenue per head of population was £4 10s., whilst this year it is about £12 15s., which covers all forms of war and repatriation expenditure, so that the totals of Canada and New Zealand were nearly doubled, .and that of Australia increased practically threefold in the same period. Canada does not pay any invalid or old-age pensions, or other forms of endowment such as maternity allowances, which I am sure we will not think of abandoning. The figures show that, compared with Canada, we are an overtaxed community. Our position, when compared with New Zealand, is much better.

Senator Barnes:

– What does the honorable senator think of an increase in the maternity bonus ?

Senator LYNCH:

– The expenditure it involves should be much greater than it is at present. It is one of the features in connexion with our social life with which I am dissatisfied. The amount set aside for that purpose remains stationary, while in other directions expenditure is increased. I am sadly disappointed to think that in this item there is no increase. A good deal of criticism is levelled at the Government because of what is termed its extravagant habits. Every honorable senator supporting the Government has at times found it necessary to explain that the money expended has not been wasted. In 1914 our revenue was approximately £22,000,000; last year it was £35,000,000. To any one with the least knowledge of economics it is perfectly clear that during the last nine years many changes have taken place. In the first place, the price of everything that we eat, drink, or wear has gone up considerably,, as has also the cost of .services generally. No sane man would to-day expect to get service or material at the same price as he paid in 1914. According to the Australian Year-Book, wholesale prices increased by 63 per cent, and retail prices by 48 per cent, during the period 1914 to 1922. Roughly speaking, there has been a good increase of over 50 per cent, in the necessaries of life services during that period. In other words, the purchasing power of a sovereign in J 914 is to-day equal to only 14s. Conversely, 14s. would, in 1934, have purchased as much as can be obtained to-day for £1. Add that increase to the revenue of 1914, which was £22,000,000, , and we get an additional £11,000,000, ‘ making a total of £33,000,000. Increase that by the £4,000,000 by which the old-age pensions have been extended, and we find that the £35,000,000 revenue of last year is, by comparison, under, rather than above, that for 1914.

Among some of the most rabid critics of Commonwealth expenditure are some sections of the press. I have received from the Treasury some figures to show what it has cost the Commonwealth Government to advertise its various functions. In 1905, government advertisements cost 5s. 7d. an inch. In 1916, the rate was increased to 7s. 8d. an inch. In 1910 it was 8s. 9d., while from 1920 to the present time, 12s. an inch has been charged. From that it is clear that, if the Government did nothing else but expend its money in advertising, instead of allowing for an increase of 50 per cent., which was the increase during the last eight years, the expenditure would be doubled in eighteen years. When newspaper critics ask what the Government is doing with its money, they should be informed that, if the revenue of the Commonwealth were devoted to advertisements alone, it would be necessary to budget for a larger sum than even £35,000,000. It is well that the Government does not need to advertise more than it does, otherwise additional revenue would be necessary.

The general defence vote of £3,800,000 is inadequate on several grounds, but chiefly on the ground that it does not compare favorably with what is being done in other countries. Instead of our defence vote being increased, the budget papers indicate that the amount has been decreased. If honorable senators will, turn to page 6 of the budget papers they will notice, under the heading of “Department of Defence,” that ordinary expenditure for defence in 1920 was £3,800,000. Last year the expenditure under the same heading was £3,500,000, showing a decrease of £300,000 in three years. I look with apprehension upon anything in the nature of a decrease in the expenditure for defence purposes. If we leave out the amount required for works and buildings, we find that, in connexion with the ordinary defence vote, there has been a decrease. It is true that £2,000,000 is set down side by side with the £3,800,000. Of that amount, £1,000,000 is taken from the accumulated surplus, and the remaining £1,000,000 it is proposed to take from the revenue for next year. There is also that nucleus of a fund- £2,500,000- to pay for the two cruisers. The ordinary expenditure for this year is in the neighbourhood of £4’,SOO,000, or about 15s. per head of population. How does that compare with the position in other countries of the world? From the Statesman’s Tear-Book, I have extracted figures which show that for 1922-3 the expenditure in the United Kingdom for the Army was £45,000,000, for the Air Force £9,000,000, and for the Navy £56,000,000. I do not know whether the present Labour Government originated the Estimates for 1923-4, but it certainly introduced them into the British Parliament. The same authority that I have quoted gives the vote for the Army for this year as £52,000,000, that for the Air Force as £12,000,000, while £58,000,000 was set apart for the Navy. That shows an increase of about £12,000,000 during 1923-4 as compared with the previous year. If we are to be guided by what has taken place in the Old Country, our cheese-paring of the amount required for defence purposes is not justified. The population of Great Britain, apart from Southern Ireland, is 42,000,000 people. Last year’s defence vote was £2 12s. per head, and this year it is in the neighbourhood of £3 per head. If we compare that amount with 15s. per head in Australia, we must conclude that we in Australia are very much underinsured. For the same purposes the United States of America last year voted $64S,000,000. For 1924-5 $618,000,000 was asked for. Although that shows a decrease of $30,000,000, the average amount which the Government of the United States of America considers that its people should pay for the purpose of defence is :£1 3s. per head, as against 15s. in Australia. I do not wish to refer to the relative position of the two countries, except to say that if one stands in greater danger than the other it is Australia rather than the United States of America. In France the vote for 1923-4 was 4,735,000,000 francs, and for the present year the amount is 5,026,000,000 francs - an increase of 291,000,000 francs. There is no evidence of an intention on the part of France to ease the burden upon her citizens for the defence of the country. Japan - it is fitting that I should close my illustration by a reference to Japan - last year expended on defence 306,000,000 yen, as compared with 331,000,000 yen in the previous year. Our comparisons, however, should be made’ with the United Kingdom. As I have shown, the- people of the Mother Country are called upon to pay four times more per head than is levied upon the Australian taxpayer for defence purposes. Australia, by comparison with Britain, is . decidedly parsimonious in a matter that is of vital importance for the safety of this country. If we increased the Australian average to, say,- £2 per head, we should be able to put ships on our coasts for the defence of our shipping, and also strengthen our air force in addition to a much needed increase to our arms and munition supply. At present we are doing nothing to be proud of. We should, if possible, survey the position in its true perspective.

Turning to the post office, I regret the reduction in postage from 2d. to 1 1/2d. occasioning a loss of over £1,000,000 in postal revenue. This loss has to be made good in some shape or form. The Government should have retained 2d. postage until the amount of £282,000, representing the accumulated debit of the post office since the establishment of federation had been wiped off. This annual debit represents interest upon a capital sum of £5,000,000 which the Treasurer has had to make good from time to time. In other words, the general taxpayer has been called upon annually to give a subvention, in the amount stated’, for the purpose of carrying on the business of the post office, and giving cheaper postage rate3 to those who do not want them, and are well able to pay for them. The post office, like other government activities, should be self -suppor ting. There is no reason why we should dip into the Treasury for this £282,000 each year and hand it over to the post office. The reduction in postage rates benefits principally the professional, commercial, and other citizens in our urban areas at the expense of the general taxpayer.

I turn now to the position in my own state, and I offer no apology for referring to this subject, for the simple reason that, like other members of this chamber, I represent in a primary sense the political division that sent me here. We are all anxious to advance the interests of our respective states, but at no time are we disposed to do so at the risk of causing friction between the states which form the component parts of the Commonwealth. I have no desire to be regarded as a chr.onic grumbler, or to be associated with any fictitious claim. I endeavour to have the grievances of my state remedied in an equitable manner, and without encroaching upon the legitimate rights of the Commonwealth. I re-echo the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Gardiner), who stated that, broadly speaking, federation in its effect has pressed heavily upon the smaller states. In saying that 24 years after the event the honorable senator said nothing new. As a member of the Labour party, I voted for federation. I did so with my eyes open, and in the firm belief that distinct advantages would accrue to those older states with a better industrial organization. I was firmly convinced that, whilst keeping a jealous eye upon the interests of its component parts, all the inhabitants of Australia were animated with a desire to forward the interests of this young nation. The official Labour party of that time opposed federation, but, as I said, we who believed in it voted in the affirmative with our eyes wide open and with our wits about us. I firmly believe that, so long as we live, we should never say “ unto this last.” The man is foolish who says, as has been claimed for Bacon, that he has reached the end of human wisdom. For that type of citizen there is little hope in this world. The smaller states, I repeat, have been hard hit bv federa tion. The Government should authorize the commission appointed to inquire into the effect of the tariff upon Western Australia, to investigate also the entire position of that state, and, if possible, ascertain the effect of federation upon its finance, -its industries, and its economic outlook generally. No one wishes to see harm clone to any one state, but the facts ought to be brought home and grievances rectified. Justice should be done on its merits to the western state. If the scope of the proposed inquiry be widened to enable the commission to ascertain what has happened in that state, 1 shall not oppose an inquiry into the position in some of the other states. Tasmania, and I believe Queensland also, has suffered under federation. But Queensland is in the fortunate position in that she has two golden streams running into the centre of her activities. I refer to that valuable product of which this country has virtually a monopoly, namely, wool, and to that other golden stream in the shape of higher prices for sugar obtained by Queenslanders from their fellow citizens of the Commonwealth. In regard to wool, Australia is in a mostfortunate position, since the product is about 400 or 500 per cent, above pre-war values. This year, it is estimated, Australia will produce about £60,000,000 worth of wool, which at former values would represent only about £15,000,000 or £20,000,000. The position in Western Australia is such as to justify the inquiry which I suggest. I may be permitted to quote a few figures that have an intimate bearing upon the problem. It has been said by certain wiseacres, that it is possible to prove anything with figures. That may be true. It is equally true that nothing can be proved without figures. It would be hopeless for me to submit the case for Western Australia without supplying figures which, I claim, will stand the strictest investigation under the circumstances as to what has happened in my state since federation. We have to remember that Western Australia is essentially a primary industry state, depending in the main upon wheat, wool, timber, and other productions. What prospect she had of developing her secondary industries was lost when she entered the federation. Since the establishment of federation no state has experienced so great’an increase in population . as has Western Australia. It was surprising to me to find that the farmers of Australia contribute no less than 11 per cent, of the total income tax of this country, as compared with 4 per cent, contributed by the great and opulent wool industry, and 3 per cent., or 4 per cent, by the manufacturing section. I find, from page 190 of the budget, that the increase in wheat production in New South Wales has been from 16,464,415 bushels in 1904-5 to 33,040,000 bushels in 1923-4, or an increase of about 100 per cent. In Victoria, during the same period, the production increased from 21,092,139 bushels to 36,246,800 bushels, an increase of about 60 per cent. In Queensland, there has been a decline in the production. In South Australia, the figures rose from 12,023,172 to 34,551,955 bushels, but in Western Australia the increase was from 2,013,237 to 20,008,606 bushels, or about 1,000 per cent. The importance of the wheatgrowing industry is indicated by the fact that, according to the last census, 235,000 people were obtaining their livelihood in the cultivation of the soil, as against 60,000 engaged, for instance, in woolgrowing. There is an unlimited area of country in Western Australia suitable for the production of wheat. It is realized that the present production of 20,000,000 bushels in Western Australia could be increased to 80,000,000, if not to 100,000,000 bushels without placing any undue strain on the resources of that state. All that is needed is an opportunity to convert the great areas now given up to the dingo and the rabbit into prosperous farms and homesteads. The area under cultivation in New South Wales in 1904-5 was 2,674,896 acres, and in 1923-4 it had increased to 4,696,459, or an increase of about 80 per cent. In Victoria, during that period, the area under crop increased from 3,321,785 to 4,862,548 acres, or about 35 per cent. In Queensland the increase was from 539,216 to 835,060 acres, and in South Australia the figures rose from 2,275,506 to 3,575,879 acres. In Western Australia the area under crop in 1904 was 327,391 acres, but it had increased last year to 2,274,998 acres, an increase of 700 per cent. In Tasmania the increase was 40 per cent. These figures bear eloquent testimony to the fact that Western Australia, since the establishment of federation, has made greater progress in wheat production and general cultivation than any other state. Had I time to refer to the increase in production in secondary industries, the figures would show that Western Australia was not in quite as good a position as are the smaller states on the average.

I now intend to show how Western Australia is treated fiscally under federation, and I again have to complain of the lack of statistical information, due either to a desire to save money or a want of knowledge as to what information should be made available to the public. At any rate, there are no reliable statistics showing how each state fares in regard to its fiscal relationship with the Commonwealth. The best one can do it to make a guess at the position. From the Commonwealth Statistician, Mr. Wickens, I have ascertained the amount of income tax per head of the population contributed by Western Australia as compared with the other, states. [Extension of time granted.] The people of Western Australia contribute £1 10s. 6d. a head in income tax, as against an average of £1 18s. Id. in the other states. 1 quite recognize that Western Australia is a young state, and is also the poorest of the group, but I make no apology for that, for I do not measure the richness of a country by the worldly possessions of its inhabitants. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the figures I am about to furnish regarding Customs and excise returns. During the gold boom, Western Australia had a larger masculine population than any of the other states. It is true that a position of greater equality has been reached between the several states, and that now there is very little difference in that respect between Western Australia and Queensland. In 1910 this Parliament passed the Surplus Revenue Act, and it was then clearly shown that the State of Western Australia had a higher revenue per head of the population than any other state. Still, it is ahead of all the rest. On the basis of the figures for 1909-10, we arrive at the following allocation of Customs and excise revenue for 1923-4: -

Thus Western Australia still leads to the extent of, roughly, £2 per head of the population compared with the average of the other states. To further sustain my argument, let me mention that the Premier of Western Australia stated at the Premiers’ Conference in Melbourne last year that the receipts from Customs and excise revenue in Western Australia amounted to £6 4s. 5d. per head as against £4 5s. in Victoria. He did not say what was being paid in the other states, but it was clearly his opinion that Western Australia was undoubtedly paying excess revenue through the Customs. I believe that the figures are of such a nature that an inquiry into the position is warranted, and action should be taken to obtain definite information in regard to the financial relationships between the several states and the Commonwealth.

I do not intend to further occupy the time of the Senate. I support the leading features of the budget, and congratulate the Treasurer on the presentation of a statement that is very creditable. I believe that his efforts to see, by virtue of the exemptions granted, that the burden of taxation falls on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, is deserving of praise, and I feel that the finances of this country are not in bad hands. I believe, also, that the people must put their shoulder to the wheel in their everyday endeavours. It is true that this Parliament can do much to assist the people, but I have the opinion that the rains that’ have fallen within the last few weeks did more good than all the acts passed in this country since legislation first began. It shows how much we are dependent on Providence for our daily bread. Side by side is the necessity for wise counsels to prevail in the government and control of the nation, and, judging by the way the present Government’ has acquitted^ itself and presented its budget, it has struck a fair balance between what should form the load to be borne by the average work-a-day people of the country and that to bo borne by future generations.

I commend the Government for the way in which it has handled the finances. The work accomplished in getting the states together for the first time in 24 years in the matter of loan expenditure is sufficient to earn for it the highest commendation and praise. It is clear that in the past, by means of divided counsels, and through the jealousy between the states and the Commonwealth, and between the various states themselves, the average taxpayer, whose interest should be our daily concern, stood to lose on every occasion, but, as the result of the lead given by the Nationalist Government, the Governments of the states, representing varying shades of political opinion, have been brought together, and made to see that their divergent views, their inclination to go this way and that, and their desire to borrow on the loan market whenever they please, are not in the interests of those people who create them and us as well. In respect to its management and control of the finances,- 1 have no hesitation in saying that the Commonwealth Government has done exceedingly well. It has done well in relieving the burden of taxation of 240,000 taxpayers. I regard the tariff in operation as something that badly needs overhauling.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– If it is overhauled, it will be increased.

Senator LYNCH:

– Too much shelter is already given by it to one section of the community, and as a result that section is not doing what it should do. But, while I say that. I admit that any other section of the community placed in the same position would do the same. I am firmly of the belief that there is hardly a section in any democracy which,when given the chance to take advantage of its fellows, will not do’ so. As that condition of human nature stares us in the face in all conditions and climes, I do not blame these people for taking advantage of the opportunity afforded to them by the tariff, but I blame this Government and this Parliament for affording them that opportunity. When I recall what has to be done in a state which has increased its area under cultivation by 700 per cent., when I know that it has to hawk its bushel of wheat and sell it at less than 30 per cent, more than it received for it twenty years ago, while at the same time it is obliged to pay anything from 50 to 100 per cent, more than it paid 20 years ago for whatever it requires, I cannot feel too reconciled to this Government or this Parliament. However, later on, perhapsnext session, with the assistance of Senator Gardiner, I may have some opportunity of seeing a rational tariff passed into law, and I shall reserve my remarks upon the tariff until that opportunity is afforded.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 3879

WIRELESS AGREEMENT BILL

Bill received from House of Representatives, and (on motion by Senator Crawford) read a first time.

page 3879

SEA-CARRIAGE OF GOODS BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 28th August, vide page 3684) :

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -

There shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea to which this act applies any absolute undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship.

That the word “ not,” line 1, be left out.

My motion will enable us to have a test vote, and will show that honorable senators who oppose it are in favour of protecting the carrier of goods who deliberately takes them outside of this country in an unseaworthy vessel.

SenatorReid. - If that is so, how does the honorable senator get over articleIII. ?

Senator GARDINER:

– I cannot now discuss articleIII., as clause 5 is before the committee. When articleIII. is reached, the honorable senator will find that there will be an amendment to fit in with that which we are now trying to carry. I want a straight-out division to decide whether the man who carries goods in an unseaworthy ship shall be liable, and whether the sender of the goods shall be protected.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– Senator Gardiner seeks to place, on honorable senators supporting the Government the onus of adhering to the clause in its present form, and, consequently, the onus of supporting the men who, to use his term, deliberately carry goods to sea in an unseaworthy ship. The Leader of the Opposition has been very silent all the evening, but has suddenly come to life. I fear that, to a certain extent, I am responsible, because I feel certain that Senator O’Loghlin rose to speak to clause 5 for the sole purpose of indulging in the gentle amusement of censuring me for venturing to suggest that he had not considered the measure as much as it deserved. What does this clause really mean ? It certainly does not mean what. Senator Gardiner would have us believe. It means that the shipper shall not give an absolute warranty of seaworthiness - that he shall not undertake that in no circumstances will the ship founder.

Senator Needham:

– Why should he not do so?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Because he is not the Almighty, and does not control the elements. Honorable senators are asking him to give a warranty that, despite all the care which he may exercise, and which he is compelled by the law to exercise, the ship will not go down. I thought that Senator Elliott had made the position clear., but Senator Gardiner - that astute gentleman who leads the Opposition inthis chamber - apparently did not “follow his line of thought. I have assumed that Senator O’Loghlin really did desire an explanation, and I hope that now that he has obtained it, he will appreciate the true meaning of the clause.

Senator McDOUGALL:
New South Wales

– I listened carefully to the explanations of this clause given by

Senator Drake-Brockman. In his own mind, he has made it perfectly clear; in my mind he has made it just as clear as mud. He interpreted this clause to mean the sinking of a seaworthy ship, but it means nothing of the sort. It deals only with unseaworthy vessels. Have we not a Navigation Department, and marine surveyors, who examine every vessel to see if it is seaworthy ? Why cannot the captain give a guarantee to the shipper of goods on the certificate of the surveyors? We had a case recently where a vessel went to sea in an unseaworthy condition, and a short distance out, shipped 100 tons of water. Had the vessel not been taken behind an island and pumped out, she might have sunk. The captain knew that that vessel was not seaworthy. That which happened in the case of the Port Lyttleton has been referred to by honorable senators opposite. The men who refused to stay on her, because she was unseaworthy, were placed in jail, but the captain of the vessel was not jailed. . Senator Drake-Brockman ‘ has placed an entirely wrong construction on this clause. He does not understand it. He evidently has not studied it, or he would not have made such absurd statements.

Senator WILSON (South Australia-

Honorary Minister) [10.15]. - I ask Senator Gardiner not to press his amendment. At the Imperial Conference in England it was decided that it was advisable to bring about uniformity. Each country represented at the conference undertook to bring in the necessary legislation. I have already said that . the Navigation Act fully protects the interests of passengers. The British legislation, passed in February of this year, provides in section 2 -

There shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of goods by sea to which the rules apply, an absolute undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship. ‘

That is the British act.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– And therefore it must be right.

Senator WILSON:

– It is Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s act.

Senator Gardiner:

– It is morelikely to be LordInchcape’s.

Senator WILSON:

– I do not think it likely that Lord Inchcape, notwithstanding his position as a shipping magnate, could master the ship of state as the honorable senator suggests. There is, as I have said, a general -desire on the other

Bide of the world for uniformity of the law. Therefore, I ask the committee not to accept the amendment.

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

– I hope the committee will accept the amendment. Clause 4 provides, in sub-clause 2 -

The Rules shall not, by virtue of this act, apply to the carriage of goods by sea from a port in any state to any other port in the same state.

Clause 5 states that there shall not be implied in any contract for the carriage of the goods by sea an undertaking by the carrier of the goods to provide a seaworthy ship. The carrier, of course, must mean the ship-owner, and the ship must be worked by seamen. Is there to be no law for the protection of passengers or seamen on ships trading from, Bay, Warrnambool, in Victoria, to Portland; in the same state This bill distinctly states that the rules in the schedule shall not apply to a carrier going from port to port in a state. If we are to codify the Empire laws in regard to the sea carriage of goods, we should set an example. If we could eliminate. clause 5 altogether, I would prefer that to be done, and depend upon article in of the rules, which provides that the carrier, in this case the ship-owner, shall provide a seaworthy ship.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– I hoped, when I raised this matter, that we would have had some explanation from the Government, but apparently the Minister, although convinced that we are right, feels that he must stick to his hill. After listening to the legal members in this chamber, I am more than ever convinced that it is absolutely necessary we should make some attempt to amend the clause, and, if we fail, to endeavour to strike it out altogether. The Minister must be aware that the Commonwealth navigation laws are miles ahead of British legislation, which has been under the control of shipping magnates for years. Although there has been considerable progress since Plimsoll’s time, the British law is still much behind our Navigation Act. Where is the harm in trying to make this hill conform to the Navigation Act, if only for the sake of uniformity? I. thought at first that the best way to amend the measure . would be by striking out the clause, but I see some advantage in putting in a positive enactment to provide that the shipper shall be required to provide aseaworthy ship. After consultation with Senator Gardiner,I suggested that if we struck out the word “ not,” we should effect our purpose. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- Senator DrakeBrockman appeared to think that he had fully explained the position when he stated that the carrier of goods would be liable for losses. It. is quite possible for the best equipped ship in the world to be lost in a storm. A seaworthy ship could be defined as one that complied with all the conditions of the Navigation Act. If a ship having all the certificates of seaworthiness required under the Navigation Act foundered, the carrier should still be liable, and then we should have the owners making careful examinations of their vessels. I have heard it said that even ships belonging to the Commonwealth Government Line of Steamers have been sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition so that they might be repaired in countries where cheap labour is available. I understand that a vessel was actually sent away in order to be repaired by cheap labour.

Senator GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Sent in an unseaworthy condition?

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes.

Senator McDougall:

– I made the allegation, and I am prepared to prove it

Senator Pearce:

– That is a charge against the Navigation Department.

Senator GARDINER:

– I should like to ask Senator Drake-Brockman what the weather has to do with the seaworthiness of . a ship. His statement was so exaggerated that I am convinced that the word “ not “ should not have been included in this clause. Parliament should safeguard the shippers of goods, and leave the ship-owners to safeguard themselves.

Question - That the word proposed to be left out be left out (Senator Gardiner’s amendment) - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 10

NOES: 13

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 September 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240903_senate_9_108/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 3 September 1924

PAPEES

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator GARDINER:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator Gardiner:

Senator PEARCE:

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Southern Intercepting Sewer, Canberra

QUESTION

WAR PENSIONS

Senator GARDINER:

Senator WILSON:Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

THE SENATE AND THE PRESS

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator LYNCH:

Senator PEARCE:NAT

QUESTION

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION

Senator WILSON:NAT

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT

Senator McDOUGALL:for Senator Grant

Senator WILSON:NAT

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL

DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL

Senator DUNCAN:New South Wales

Senator H Hays:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McDougall:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McDougall:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Gardiner:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Wilson:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator McDougall:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator Graham:

Senator DUNCAN:

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Reid:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senate
3 September 1924

Senator GARDINER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator PEARCE:
NAT

Senator WILSON:
NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
for Senator Grant

Senator WILSON:
NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
New South Wales

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator HOARE:
South Australia