Senate
25 November 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- SALES’ TAX ASSESSMENT ACTS
QUESTION
- DEBT ADJUSTMENT LEGISLATION
FUEL OILFOR THE NAVY
- Latrobe Shale Oil
QUESTION
- WAGE STATISTICS
QUESTION
- INCIDENCE OF TARIFF
QUESTION
- LOSS OF AIRSHIP R.101
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING STATIONS
QUESTION
- JUTE GOODS
QUESTION
- NATIONAL WEALTH
PAPERS
QUESTION
- FINANCIAL STATEMENT
IMMIGRATION BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Sales Tax

The President (Senator the Hon.. W. Kingsmill) took, thechair at 3 p.m., and road prayers.

page 586

QUESTION

SALES’ TAX ASSESSMENT ACTS

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I should like to know if there is any truth in the rumour in circulation this morning in two of the State capitals that it is not the intention of the Government during, the present-sittings of Parliament to proceed with the bills, amending the Sales-; Tax Assessment Acts?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator was good enough to inform me that he proposed to ask this question;but, unfortunately,I have not yet been able to meet the. ActingPrime Minister (Mr . Fenton). On. the adjournment, I shall make a statement, on the subject afterhaving, in the. meantime, consulted with, the Acting,Prime Minister.

page 586

QUESTION

DEBT ADJUSTMENT LEGISLATION

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Will theLeader of the Government in the Senate make available to honorable’ senators a copy of the opinion of the Acting Crown Solicitor on the validity of debt adjustment acts of’ various States, having regard to the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Act?

Senator DALY:
ALP

-I shall lay a copy of the opinion on the table of the Senate for the convenience of honorable senators.

SUGAR inquiry:

Senator DALY:

– On the 14th November Senator Ogden asked the following question, upon notice -

Whether the committee which is inquiring into the sugar industry will take evidence in Tasmania, or in other States than Queensland?

The committee has advised’ that it proposes taking evidence in all States. It expects’ to complete its’ inquiries in all’ the mainland States before Christmas, and to visit Tasmania during the second week in January.

page 586

FUEL OILFOR THE NAVY

Latrobe Shale Oil

SenatorBARNES- On the 13th November Senator Sampson asked the following questions, upon notice -

Has the Government considered the advisability of fuelling the Royal Australian Navy with fuel oil obtained from Tasmanianoil shale? 2.. If not, will the Government take immediate steps to examine the desirability and. feasibility of so doing?
What quantity of oil fuel was used By the Royal Australian Navy during the year 1929-30?
Whence was it obtained, and what was the price paid per gallon or ton?
Is it a fact that an excellent grade of fuel oil is now being obtained at Latrobe, Tasmania, from oil shale on a practical and commercial basis?
If so, has this oil been tested by the Department of Defence?
If not, why not; and will the Government have tests’ carried out ?

I am now in a position to inform the honorable senator as follows: -

The Defence Department keeps in close touch with developments in connexion with the production of oil fuel and petrol in Australia, and the latest departmental information, dated 16th September, 1930, regarding the Latrobe installation in Tasmania indicates that a comparatively small quantity of crude oil is being produced there at present.
See reply to No. 1.
Approximately 17,000 tons.
Three hundred and fourteen tons, of Persian origin, supplied by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries, Victoria, at a cost of 70s. per ton. The balance was Borneo oil fuel, obtained under the departmental contracts at a cost of65s. per ton. 5.Recent reports claim that a high-grade oil is being produced at Latrobe. It is believed that the activities of the company concerned are being concentrated upon the production of a suitable motor spirit for com mercial use, The small output of residual oil fuel involved is obviously too limited to interest the Defence Department from a supply aspect at the present time. It is not known whether it is being produced on a successful commercial basis.
See reply to No. 5.
The department is prepared to have tests of the residual oil fuel carried out when the scale of production warrants this course.

page 587

QUESTION

WAGE STATISTICS

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 14th Novem ber Senator Chapman asked the following questions, upon notice -

What was the amount of duty paid for the year 1927-28 and the year 1928-29 on each of : the following items: - Cornflour, blankets and flannel, knitting factories produce, clothing waterproof, dressmaking and millinery, hats and caps, chemicals and rugs, paints and varnishes, matches, rubber goods, cement, confectionery, clothing (tailoring, &c), shirts, ties, and underclothing, inks, polishes, &c, ironworks and foundries? 2.What was the amount of wages paid for the year 1927-28 and the year 1928-29 on each of those items?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following informs tion : -

page 588

QUESTION

INCIDENCE OF TARIFF

Senator DALY:
ALP

– On the 14th November, Senator Chapman asked the fol- lowing questions, upon notice -

What is the excess cost to the people of Australia of commodities produced in Australia compared with what the cost would have been without any protective tariff, as estimated by Professors Brigden, Copland, Dyason, Giblin and Mr. C. H. Wickens?
What is the amount of the gross burden of the tariff on export industries which depend on world prices?

I am now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : - l and 2. AsI understand the questions, the answer would simply be a quotation from a book published by the gentlemen mentioned. The hook has been freely circulated and necessarily represents the personal views of the writers and no good purpose would seem to be served by quoting from it.

page 588

QUESTION

LOSS OF AIRSHIP R.101

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have to report the receipt of the following letter -

Prime Minister’s Office,

Canberra

Dear Mr. President -

The resolution of the Senate in connexion with the destruction of the airship R.101, which was embodied in your letter tome dated the 14th November, 1930, was conveyed by cablegram to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The following message from the Prime Minister of Great Britain has been received by cablegram from the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs dated London, 22nd November, for communication to you. On behalf of His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom. “I sincerely thank the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia for their resolution of sympathy in connexion with the disaster to airship R.101. I know that it will be deeply appreciated by the relatives of those who lost their lives in the disaster. -

Ramsay MacDonald.”

A. Beasley.

ADJOURNMENT (Formal) .

Wheat Industry

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– I have to report the receipt of the following letter -

Canberra, November 25th, 1930. Mr. President -

It is my intention to move this afternoon, under Standing Order 64, that the Senate at its rising adjourn till 10 a.m. to-morrow for the purpose of discussing the following urgent matter of public importance, viz: - The present grave position of the wheat-growers of the Commonwealth and the unfortunate refusal of the Government to come to their rescue.

P.J. Lynch

Four honorable senators having risen in theirplaces.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I move-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till 10 a.m. to-morrow.

I do not think that I am overstating the position by using the word “ urgent “ in connexion with this motion. This subject, which has been under discussion for some time, and in which the wheat-growers are vitally concerned, is still an unsettled question in this country. Honorable senators will recall it was reported in the daily press that the price of wheat in London yesterday was 22s.11d. per quarter, which is a world’s record in the matter of low prices. In considering the quantity available for consumption, which is an important factor in connexion with this subject, I find from inquiry from authentic sources that the world’s supply of wheat this year is very much greater than it has been for many years. The Department of Markets and Transport has supplied me with the following figures which will give honorable senators some idea of the position in this regard. ‘ Taking 1920 as the starting point I find that for nine years - from that year to 1928 - the average carry-over of the world’s production of wheat for each year was 316,000,000 bushels. In 1929 and 1930 the carryover was very much greater, the figures being 591,000,000 bushels and 540,000,000 bushels. The estimate for this year is 488,000,000 bushels. In yesterday’s press it was reported that the Argentine Republic, which is always a strong competitor with Australia and produces as much wheat as we do has been struck by a natural visitation in the form of red rust. According to the report, this will be responsible for a loss of 2,000,000 tons, which represents from 70,000,000 to 80,000,000 bushels, and when deducted from the difference between the average for nine years and the estimate for this year, leaves the present estimate of 488,000,000 bushels over 100,000,000 bushels above the average for the previous nine years.

The entry of Russia into the world’s wheat market is something of a mystery. It is reported in this morning’s newspaper that M. Stalin, head of the government of that country, which, in the past, has been the world’s greatest exporter of wheat, says that Russia will once more gain world preeminence in the matter of wheat exports. He said, “All this talk of exporting wheat below cost, and of forced labour in Russia is sheer nonsense.” I. have before quoted in this chamber the testimony of the crew of a Russian ship in Glasgow, and I shall repeat it in order to show that M. Stalin is telling the world something which has been directly contradicted by the crew of a steamer belonging to his own country. In a Glasgow newspaper of September 27th, the following paragraph appeared : -

Members of the crew nf the vessel that recently discharged 2,000 tons of Soviet wheat in Glasgow, relate how they had to pay ls. per 211). for very indifferent’ bread in Russian ports. Yet Russia is selling us wheat at prices that make a British 41b. loaf costing 74tl. in. Edinburgh, and Hd. in Glasgow.

– Yes. A good deal was said about providing an amount for equalizing purposes. The Acting Minister made it clear to the conference that the Government was considering a proposal to raise the price of wheat to local consumers in order to provide a better price for the whole of the marketable product. His actual words as given on page 5 of the statement were : -

Ministers yesterday gave long and careful consideration to the proposal that a price should be arranged above export parity for wheat required for local consumption. Had the Wheat Marketing Bill submitted by the Com- mon wealth Government to Parliament this year been carried there would have been little or no difficulty in giving effect to this suggestion.

On the one hand we are told that, “had the Wheat Marketing Bill been agreed to, no trouble would have been experienced in financing the crop, and, on the other, that a proposal for a much smaller guarantee has been rejected. What is the explanation? There is no use sheltering behind the rejection of the Wheat Marketing Bill. If the Government was in earnest it could get the necessary legislation put through now in a few days. The Government cannot go on fooling the wheat-growers. No longer can we feed them with an empty spoon. I do not charge the Labour party with being indifferent to the needs of the farmers of Australia - I believe that in its ranks there are many who entertain the kindest of feelings for them - but those members of the party who would assist the wheatgrowers are outvoted on every occasion by representatives of industrial districts who are afraid to raise the price of wheat or flour for fear that they themselves would be brought into disfavour.

remind honorable members of the Government and their supporters that, for the la,3t 30 years, the wheat-growers of Australia have had representatives of city interests, public men and all manner of appellants and suppliants knocking at their door seeking relief and protection, and never have their appeals been in vain. The people of the country have supported their city colleagues even to the tune of having to bend their backs to the resultant burden. Now, for the first time in the history of Australia, the wheat-growers seek a little reciprocation from the city interests and public men, and ask for but a morsel of the consideration that they have extended to them during those 30 years. Is it not fair that the city interests should turn a willing and attentive ear to those who have so obligingly and uncomplainingly borne the burden of tariffs and embargoes and other heavy imposts when they now say, “We have borne your burdens for the last 30 years and hope that, actuated by a spirit of fair play and gratitude, you will reciprocate and grant us a small measure of the assistance that we have extended to you in the past”?

Senator Guthrie:

– When wheat was 7s. 6d. a bushel the price of bread was the same as to-day, and even in New Zealand, with wheat at 6s. 3d. a- bushel, bread is cheaper than in Australia.

Senator LYNCH. That is so. In New Zealand, with flour at £16 a ton, the price of the 4-lb. loaf is lid., whereas in Australia, with flour at £9 a ton, the 4-lb. loaf is ls. It is a disgrace that the baking industry - those engaged in the intermediary processes of manufacture - should be making such enormous profits.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator Carroll:

– I move -

That Senator Lynch be granted an extension of time.

The PRESIDENT:

The Government has turned down the proposal on the ground that it would increase the price of bread. Assuming that it would, although Senator Guthrie says if should not, would not the same result have followed from the proposal to give State wheat boards power to fix a price for wheat for local consumption ?

I hope that this debate will throw some light upon the supposed guarantee. In his second-reading speech on the Wheat Marketing Bill, Mr. Parker Moloney did not say that the Commonwealth Bank would guarantee 4s. a bushel. The general assumption was, and debates have always proceeded on the lines, that the Commonwealth Bank would guarantee 4s.

Senator Daly:

– The Commonwealth Bank did guarantee 4s.

Senator Daly:

– All that we said to the Commonwealth Bankwas, “ We expect you to find the money,” and the bank said, “ Your expectations will be realized.”

-Ithoughtthatthe Senatemighthavediscussedthesecond andthirdproposals.Personally,I thinkthattheGovernmentwouldbe pleasedtohavetheadviceofhonorable senatorsregardingthefirstproposal.If itis practicable I am sure that the Government is prepared to give it further consideration, with a view to deciding whether it would be the best form of relief to give to the primary producers. I assure Senator Lynch that there has been no refusal by the Government, in the true sense of the term, to do anything to assistthe primary producers;on the contrary, it has explored, and is exploring, everyavenue by which assistance anight begranted. If as a result of this discussion, itcan be shown that the first proposalof theconferenceis practicable, I give an assurance that the Government willgive it the most careful consideration.

Senator Guthrie:

– It will haveto make taste.

Senator DALY:

– I admit that the matter is one of extremeurgency. The Acting Minister for Markets (Mr. Forde) is alive to the seriousness of the position,but the difficulty is to determine the practicability or otherwise of the first proposal. I hope that other honorable senators will express their views as to thepracticabilityofthefirstproposal,in orderthat I may bring them beforemy colleagues in Cabinet with a view to some assistance being granted to the primary producers of this country.

Senator Sir HALCOLEBATCH (Western Australia) [4.28]. - I join issue with the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) on the subject of exchange. I do not think that the honorable gentleman can be correctly informed as to what has taken place in connexion with the fixing of the rate of exchange. It will be within the recollection of honorable senators that the rate ofexchange was fixed some little time ago ‘at£6 10s. per cent. That rate Was fixedasthe Result of aconference between representatives of the Commonwealth Bank, the private banking institutions and the Treasury. Subsequently, when it was found that too large a volume of the exchange was going past the bank’s and that the arrangement entered into by the banks to provide £3,000,000 each month at Home, to meet London obligations, was in danger of being defeated in that way, the rate of exchange was again raised in the same way.

Senator McLachlan:

– Is it not a fact that .the meeting was postponed because Sir

James Mitchell could not attend on the day appointed?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I do not think that was the reason; hut I speak subject to correction. I know it was most inconvenient for Sir James Mitchell to attend the meeting of Ministers for Agriculture on the day that the Loan Council met. The following motion was carried at that meeting: -

The conference of Ministers for Agriculture in view of the decision of the Commonwealth Bank, cannot agree to the proposals for a bounty or for a guaranteed price owing to the impossibility of finding the necessary finance; but submits that, if possible, there should be formulated an equitable and workable uniform plan to secure an Australian price for wheat above export parity, with reservations for the protection of the consumers.

Ill rejecting, summarily, the recommendations of the conference, the Government, was actuated by its interest for the consumers. But there was no need for this protection, because figures relating to the price of wheat and flour disclose that a bounty to wheat-growers of Cd. or Yd. a bushel should not mean an increase in the price of bread. In Perth, for instance, the ruling retail price for a 2-lb. loaf of bread is 5d., and yet a contract for the supply of bread to the unemployed at Blackboy Hill Camp, situated about 12 or 13 miles from the city, has been let at a trifle over 2½d. for a 2-lb. loaf - to lie exact, 2 9-1 6d. a 2-lb. loaf.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is less than 6d. for a 4-lb. loaf.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Yes. From this it would appear that the imposition of a sales tax on flour should not justify an increase in the price of ‘ bread; but, as Senator Colebatch has already pointed out, it might mean that the consumers would not enjoy that, reduction in the price which they are entitled to expect because of the low price ruling for wheat.

It was made obvious by the Minister (Mr. Forde), that the conference of wheat-growers could not consider any proposal that was not in consonance with the resolution passed by the Ministers for Agriculture on the previous day. It was also made clear that any proposal to tax flour would have to be on a strictly limited basis. It was significant, too, that the Minister should indicate that he intended to souk the approval of the State Governments before levying what would be solely a federal tax. In spite of the opposition from Ministers representing Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland, the wheat-growers’ representatives carried three resolutions which had previously been announced. A sales tax of £7 4s. a ton on flour, to permit the payment of a bounty of 7d. a bushel for all marketable wheat produced in Australia, is a reasonable proposal. Although it3 adoption might not help the wheat-farmers to a great extent, it would be something. When the “ Grow more wheat “ campaign was in progress, farmers were led to believe that they would receive a much higher price than is now ruling; and when the Wheat Marketing Bill was under d…cussion, they hoped to get 4s. a bushel. A bounty of 7d. a bushel, as suggested, is little enough, because, from one end of Australia to the other, the wheat-growers’ organizations have been asking for n bounty of ls. a bushel this year, and for that bounty to be extended, as others are that have been paid by the Commonwealth, over a fixed period of years. The decision of the Government will be most disappointing to 60,000 wheat-farmers, of whom 8,000 in Western Australia are at the point of destitution. In spite of a very good season, they cannot pay their way this year, and special legislation has had to he put through the State Parliament to afford them protection from their creditors. The decision, however, will be more disappointing to the wheatfarmers of New South Wales who, a few weeks ago, were misled by a statement broadcast from one end of the State to another as part of the policy of Mr. Lang, the present Premier of New South Wales. In the course of a speech during the recent campaign, Mr. Lang said -

Return Labour and restore the State to tho prosperity of 1925 and 1927. We promised and we paid 7s. 6d. a bushel for wheat. What we did then we can do now.

Of course, Mr. Lang did not do what he said he did in the years mentioned. It was done by the Federal Government. It promised the wheat-growers 5s., and the State guaranteed them an additional 2s. 6d.; but, as the price of wheat overseas was then ‘ considerably higher than 7s. 3d. a bushel, there was no prospect of either the Commonwealth or the State being involved in any loss. At any rate, the farmers of New South Wales now find themselves neglected and abandoned, not only by the Federal Government, which said “ Grow more wheat,” and now says, “ We shall do nothing for you,” but also by Mr. Lang. According to what I have just read, Mr. Lang promised them 7s. 6d. a bushel, but since the election he has maintained a deadly silence upon this and many other extravagant promises he made during the course of the campaign.

The Wheat Marketing Bill was quite useless. It was unconstitutional, and it offered no hope at all to the wheatfarmers of Western Australia, particularly in view of the telegram forwarded to the Prime Minister by the newlyreturned Premier of the State, Sir James Mitchell. Before the bill came forward in either chamber, Sir James Mitchell telegraphed, pointing out that Western Australia would not and could not be a party to a bill which contained the shocking provision that, with its small population and large wheat production per head of the population, it would have to guarantee half of any loss that might have been made. From an Australian point of view, I am sure that it was a very good thing the bill was defeated. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of Senator Daly and Senator Barnes this afternoon, and it appeared to me that they had only one thing to offer to the wheat-farmers of the Commonwealth, and that was sympathy, which, without assistance, is like mustard without beef - most unsatisfying to those who are looking for something substantial.

Senator Daly:

– I am asking the honorable senator to show the Government, where the mustard and beef are to be obtained.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– There are people in the wheat belts who are literally starving, and they are offered nothing but sympathy. In spite of the resolution carried at that great influential conference held early this month, preceded as it was by a conference of Ministers of Agriculture of all the States, the Government turned round with remarkable celerity, and a couple of days later announced that nothing whatever would be done to assist the wheat- growers, either on the lines desired by the conference, or in any other way. The statements made by Ministers in this chamber are most depressing. Wheatgrowing is the most important industry of the Commonwealth. We are more dependent upon it to provide employment than upon any other industry; but ever since the inception of federation, through tariffs, and in every other direction, the farmers have had to carry the greater part of the country’s taxation in order to support the cities and their secondary industries. This is the first occasion on which they have asked for assistance- >-for bread - and they are given a stone, because to give the assistance they ask might mean a trifling increase in the price of bread to the consumers. The ministerial statement to-day shows clearly that no assistance whatever to the wheat-growers of the Commonwealth is intended by the Federal Labour Government this season. Either Ministers do not realize the plight of the wheat-farmer, or they have no plans whatever to relieve his difficulties. In this period of national emergency, as in other matters affecting the welfare of the .nation, the present Labour Government has absolutely failed. Ministers confess that they have no plans at all for the assistance of the wheat-growers. So far as they are concerned the wheatgrowers are deserted and abandoned by those who a few months ago were urging them to grow more wheat.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), in regard to the attitude taken up by the Government in February last, and its complete rightabout turn at the present time. The Acting Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Forde), in announcing the rejection of the proposal that was put forward early this month at his conference with the representatives of the wheatgrowers; said-.

The discussion at the conference showed that, a sales tax on flur sufficient to return the amount to the growers suggested in the South Australian scheme would increase the price of bread to the consumer by anything from id. to -id-, per lb.; that is, from Id. to 2d’, per loaf. The Government is not prepared to support this additional impost on the people at the present time, with large - numbers out of: work.

It is a very moot point whether the proposed impost of £7 4s. a ton on flour would necessitate an increase in the price of bread. According to the figures I hav9 worked out, no such increase would be necessary. The Acting Minister went on to explain that the present position had arisen entirely as a result of the rejection of the Wheat Marketing Bill by the Senate. The inference to be drawn is that the Government at the time of the introduction of that bill had some scheme for financing its wheat pool which is not now available, and that the scheme would not be open to the objection which the Minister says is fatal to the proposal to put a sales tax on flour. It does not require a very intensive study of the report of the conference between Mr. Parker Moloney and the various wheat organizations held on the 18th and 19th February last to find that the very foundation upon which the Government’s scheme -was built was a proposal to increase the home consumption price of wheat. Every speaker at that conference reverted to that point. Mr. Tod, Chairman of the Queensland Wheat Board,

Bald -

There is a limit beyond which we cannot go in the raising of local prices, and, in my opinion, ls. per bushel above the world’s parity is the maximum.

Mr. Slater, the Minister for Agriculturein Victoria, said -

My fear is that the attitude of the conference may be misinterpreted by a large section of the community, which may say, with somejustification, that the conference is seeking to bring about wage reduction, on the one hand, while on the other it is attempting tostabilize prices and compel the community largely to contribute to that end.

These are merely quotations taken at random from the speeches delivered! at that conference. They indicate that,, by fixing an increased price for wheat for home consumption, the Government hoped to recoup itself for any loss that might have accrued as the result of giving; a guaranteed price of 4s. a bushel. At that time the export price of wheat wasabout 3s. 7d.. or 3s. 8d. a bushel, so that the Government was actually proposing to guarantee about 3d. or 4d. a bushel above- the then market price. And, as it was proposing to shoulder only half of that responsibility, it is easily conceivable that the maximum price of ls-, a bushel! above the world’s parity, mentioned by Mr. Tod, would have proved quite sufficient to pay all that the Government undertook to do. I have no desire to impute motives, or to say that the Government has twisted, or that it never intended to do anything in the matter. Nevertheless, when we compare the statements made by responsible Ministers of that time with those made to-day by others who are equally responsible, we find them difficult to reconcile, and the man in the street becomes rather sceptical about the whole concern. There is no need for me to repeat what other honorable senators have said about the position of the wheat-growers; but I should like to say something about Senator Daly’s remark that a sales tax of £7 4s. a ton on flour might bring about repercussions in connexion with our export trade in flour. There is certainly a possibility of that; but it would be nothing new. We have had quite a lot of that sort of thing in connexion with Australian exports for as long as I can remember. Every day countries are putting up tremendous tariff barriers against Australian products by way of reprisal for what Australia has already done in that direction. If the Government had granted the request of the conference to impose a sales: tax on flour it would have been putting flour in much the same position as some other commodities that are almost as essential to the life of the community. I remind honorable senators that at present the value of a bag of wheat is equivalent to the cost of only 10 to 12 lbs. of sugar. Yet this and preceding Governments have not found any fault with the fact that the Australian price of sugar is greatly in excess of world’s parity. Although we export a tremendous quantity of surplus sugar, which is sold in the world’s markets, we have never heard the Acting Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Forde) offer any objection to this difference in price. If an increase in the price of flour for local consumption is a fatal objection to the proposal, surely such an objection is equally applicable to sugar or any other commodity which we produce and export. But it is only those who wish to support the wheat-growing industry who find themselves up against a stone-wall. We are absolutely at a dead end. If the Government had been honest in the first place and told us, as the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) did to-day, that it could not do anything, because of want of money, we should have had a certain amount of sympathy with it. If the Assistant Minister were honest he would say that, although the Government is unable to find the money to assist the wheatgrowing industry, it will remove some of the burdens piled upon the primary producers by this and other Governments. For instance, a primage duty has been imposed upon cornsacks. An undertaking was given by the Assistant Minister, in another place, that primage duty upon imported butter boxes would be remitted when the boxes containing butter were exported. The Minister was asked to take similar action in connexion with cornsacks when exported with wheat, but he said that that was impracticable because of the difficulty in identifying the bags exported with those upon which primage duty had been collected. That is the substance of a letter which I received in answer to a request I made in that direction. Primage duty is collected upon cornsacks used by primary producers in their endeavour to make a living, and to increase production as they were urged to do by the Prime Minister for the express purpose of assisting to rectify our adverse trade balance; the imposts put upon them have nullified their efforts in every direction. If the Government has not any money to assist the wheat-growing industry, surely it can remit the imposts to which I have referred, and help the industry to that extent. Shortly before the last sittings of the Senate adjourned, I referred to the efficient manner in which I felt that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Daly) had conducted the business of the Senate. What I said on that occasion was honest and sincere. In spite of what has happened I still believe he has more of the milk of human kindness than have some of his colleagues. I appeal to the Minister to use his efforts with his colleagues to see if something cannot be done to assist this very important section of the community.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– A striking belief in the minds of some people in this country is that the wheat-growers have been spoon-fed too long. On the face of it that is manifestly untrue. In submitting the motion I should here mention the outstanding fact that whenever the railway systems of this country are showing a decline in revenue, and Ministers in charge of railways are asked their opinion of the prospects of the railway balance-sheet, they invariably reply that the railways’ finances depend upon the wheat harvest. If there is a bumper harvest the railway revenue in the four principal wheat-producing States will recover; but if there is a poor harvest the balance-sheets will be unsatisfactory. Is not that clear proof that that main instrumentality of government depends upon this great industry as the chief means to balance their accounts? The industry is the back-bone of the balance sheet. From that it follows that those engaged in the industry are the main contributors to the success of our railway systems. Those who have had experience as a Minister in control of works and railways, as I have, know that to be a fact. Therefore, the foolish statement of those who say that persons engaged in rural pursuits have been coddled can be flatly contradicted by the outstanding fact that the railway systems in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia depend to a large extent upon the wheat-growers for their solvency when they are solvent.

Senator Dunn:

– What about Tasmania?

Senator LYNCH:

– The Tasmanian Government depends upon the primary producers in the same way for a large portion of its revenue. Senator Dunn has at last found his tongue-string. I should like the honorable senator to visit the wheatgrowing districts in New South Wales and attempt to justify the inactivity of the Government of which he is a supporter. If he did so, he could raise his voice to some purpose. It has been wisely said by some budding philosopher that there are only two classes in any community that cannot be organized - lunatics and farmers. The lunatics, because they do not possess normal reasoning powers, and the farmers, because they are too busily and honestly engaged in production to be associated with the tricks to which organizers of the present day are prone. They are hard down at their jobs every time and all the time. Clocks and watches were not made for the farmers, but for those who have steady jobs in the cities, and who benefit by the production and constant exertion of the rural settlers. The city dwellers, who are always seeking a 44-hour- or shorter working week, and double pay for overtime, “ smokos “ and all the rest, are living in comparative luxury at the expense of the man in the country, who, with bent figure, struggles for an existence every day of his life. Now, when he needs a morsel of sympathy - merely a crumb that falls from the table of those rich gluttons - they will not give it. This drift to the cities will continue unless the policy- is reversed, and we shall reach the position depicted in Goldsmith’s lines, “ 111 fares the land to hastening ills a prey “. It is because of our present policy that many farmers’ sons are to be found in our capital cities, and this in a land with vast areas to work and develop. Finding it impossible to make any progress in rural pursuits, they are attracted to the cities by the easy conditions enjoyed by those who have the audacity to call them “ comrades.” Comrades be hanged ! If any burden is to be borne it should be shared equally by the city and country workers alike. But what is the position to-day? Those in the city have practically no responsibilities, while the poor beggar in the country is bent and worn, and decrepit under the weight of his burden. Compared with fifteen or twenty years ago, the per capita value of our exportable surplus has decreased. In this country protection is afforded to one set of individuals; but what protection is given to the farmers?

Senator Dunn:

– An offer of 6s. 6d. a bushel for wheat.

Senator LYNCH:

– In order to secure votes, the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Gibbons) told the farmers that if a Labour Government were returned they would get 6s. 6d. for their wheat. The unfortunate farmers are now the victims of such promises, which were made from one end of the continent to the other by Labour candidates. Now is an opportunity for the Government to act. It is about time, as Senator Guthrie said, that this honest element in the community was fairly treated. That element comprises those who, because of the independence in their make-up, and their anxiety to carve out a livelihood for themselves, turned their backs on the cities. These men are infinitely more valuable members of society than are those who persist in hanging to the city areas, and who thrive on the efforts of those whom they refuse to assist. I have been recalling some of this Government’s proposals. For instance, a sum of £100,000 was placed on the Estimates to repatriate certain coal-miners ; but I understand that that proposal has now been amended. The Government proposed thus to reward coalminers who refused to work at £2 a day; but it resolutely refuses to assist the wheat-producers, who work from sunrise to sunset. That is justice up-to-date. If the Government has changed its policy, it is because it is quailing before the city influences. Compare the action of a government which can provide £100,000 for such men with its attitude towards the wheat-growers, who are working from daylight until dark. There is no offer of £100,000 for these men. All it can do is to give them three cheers and ask for their votes later on at election time. Four months ago this Government was prepared to extend practical sympathy to the wheat-producers; but what has become of that sympathy? How has it been spirited away? Why has it oozed out? The only party worthy of support is that which can show some consistency. If the Government was sympathetically disposed towards the farmers four months ago, its sympathy should be even greater to-day, for the simple reason that the wheat-farmers need assistance even more than they then did. ls the wheat-grower to be left to his fate and to be a pariah in his own country ? I appeal to the Government even at this late hour to give further consideration to the alternative proposals submitted at the conference, and to do the fair thing by these men, who are the main element in our economic construction and at the base of our prosperity. If our very wheatfarmers are compelled to leave the countryside, what will become of our prosperity? If those 60,000 wheat-growers, instead of being scattered throughout the Commonwealth, far removed from the spheres of influence, were concentrated in the suburbs of Sydney or Melbourne, honorable senators opposite would seek their support by doing something to assist them. The Labour party draws its support from the industrialists in the cities, and, therefore, does not extend to the farmers the sympathy- and help that it gives willingly to its supporters in the cities. I might paraphrase the old saying, that the nearer the throne the greater the favours that are bestowed, to read that the nearer the cities the greater the interest of honorable senators opposite.

Senator Dunn:

– The honorable member for Calare in another place (Mr. Gibbons) is a farmer.

Senator LYNCH:

– Mr. Gibbons is an artful mau, who got into this Parliament by promising the farmers of Calare something which he knew there was not a dog’s hope - not even a ghost’s hope - of their ever being granted. The latter-day politicians of the Labour party will make promise after promise, knowing that they can depend on the gullibility of the electors and they exploit it for all they are worth. If the farmers of Australia, instead of tilling the soil, were trade unionists employed in the galvanized iron industry or the coal industry, or any manufacturing industry, the Government could not do enough for them. Only the other day, a few unionists employed in the galvanized iron industry received from the Government all that they wanted. I am a trade unionist of 40 years’ standing; but I am not a trade unionist run mad. I have resisted those who have attempted to abuse the trade union movement. For many years I was the secretary of a trade union, receiving 30s. a month - not the £30 a month which impostors in the movement are getting to-day. I repeat that, were the farmers of Australia the producers of galvanized iron, they would get all that they sought from the Government; but because they are buyers of galvanized iron at greatly enhanced prices, they are pariahs in their own country. Like Belisarius, the saviour of his country in the days of ancient Rome, they are, as it were, searching for sustenance in the garbage bins. I can have no patience with the Government, which convenes conferences, expresses hollow sympathy, but turns down every proposal which comes from them. The recommendations of the recent conference have not been accepted by the Government, only because it fears that they would result in an increase in the price of bread, and that, in consequence, it would lose the votes of its supporters in the cities. But for that support, the Government would find its occupation gone.

These are hard things that I am saying; but I feel that I must say them for I can conceive of no other reason for the Government’s extraordinary attitude. Unfortunately, we have in office a flabby Government, which can do no more than make promises. The members of the Senate, representing every part of Australia, are prepared to give the farmers of this country a fair deal. Yet on the first occasion on which that most deserving section of the community has approached the Government for assistance, its request has been turned down. Of what value is the Government’s boast that it will act justly by all sections of the community? What evidence is there of any desire on its part tq show that fair play, which is the pride and boast of every Australian ? The Government would drive the farmers off their holdings rather than deprive the profiteers of their profits, yet it has the audacity to seek the suffrages of the primary producers. Why should the farmers of Australia vote for the Labour party? The wheat-growers of Calare voted for a youngster - a gossoon who does not know a bee from a bull’s foot - merely because he said that a Labour Government would guarantee them 6s. 6d. a bushel for their wheat. The electors of Australia are easily gulled. I am here to raise a voice on their behalf. I do not believe that all the members of the Government and its supporters are bad; but, unfortunately, the good in the party is over-ridden by the bad.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– Order! The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Senator LYNCH:

– I have ventilated this subject only partly; but my motion has provided honorable senators an opportunity to express their views.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not continue his speech after he has exhausted his time.

Senator LYNCH:

– Having achieved my object in bringing this matter before the Senate, I now ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 610

QUESTION

BROADCASTING STATIONS

Senator RAE:
through Senator Dunn

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

Has tlie Government hari its attention drawn to the character of regulations recently issued by the Postal Department for the control of “ B “ wireless stations ?
Is it a fact that the provisions of the regulations referred to will almost completely destroy the independence and usefulness of the “ B “ stations, which receive no subsidy of any kind from the Government?
Is the Government aware whether there is wide-spread alarm amongst the owners of “ B “ stations in consequence of these regulations; if so, will the Government consent to the suspension of these regulations until an opportunity has been given to those affected to present their criticism?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

Yes. The amended wireless regulations were approved by the Executive Council in accordance with the usual procedure relating to statutory rules.
There are no grounds whatever for fearing that the regulations would have such an effect.
There is no knowledge of alarm, nor does there appear to be any justification for suspending the operation of the regulations.

page 610

QUESTION

JUTE GOODS

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has the Tariff Board made its report on the application of a manufacturer for a duty on jute goods?
If so, when will the report be available to members of the Senate?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The report in question has not been received, consequently I am not in a position to state when it can be made available.

page 611

QUESTION

NATIONAL WEALTH

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the estimated national wealth of Australia at 30th June, 1930?
On what foundation was the estimate based, and what were the main items - showing amounts making up the estimate?

Senator DALY:
ALP

– The Commonwealth Statistician advises as follows: - 1 and 2 -

That estimates of national wealth of Australia are compiled at two-yearly intervals, the latest compilation being that for 30th June, 1927, which has been prepared but is not yet published.
That the basis of such estimates, which relate to the private wealth of Australia, is published in detail in the official Year-Book, No. 21 of1928 page 415, and following pages in connexion with the estimate for 1925.
That the estimated total private wealth of Australia at the last four points of estimating were as follows: -

That the items included in the estimates for 30th June, 1927, are as follows: -

Estimate of Private Wealth of Australia as at 30th June, 1927.

That the length of time elapsing before an estimate of wealth is available is due to the wide range of statistical data employed, of which those data relating to values of land and improvements and accounting for nearly two-thirds of the total value are necessarily very slow in compilation.

page 611

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lighthouses Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 120.

National Debt Sinking Fund Act - National Debt Commission - Seventh Annual Report, year ended 30th June, 1930.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 126- No. 127.

New Guinea Act - Ordinance No. 21 of 1930 -Supply (No. 4) 1930-1931.

Public Service Act- Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 121.

Railways Act - Report on Commonwealth Railways. Operations for the year ended 30th June, 1930.

Shipping Act - Commonwealth Shipping Board -

Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers -

Treasury Loan Account and Liquidation Account, 30th April, 1930 ; together with the AuditorGeneral’s reports thereon.

Cockatoo Island -

Balance-sheet as at 31st March, 1930, and Profit and Loss Account for year 1st April, 1929, to 31st March, 1930; together with the AuditorGeneral’s reports thereon.

Air Force Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 135.

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act -

Report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ended 30th June, 1930.

Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 116.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 118 No. 123- No. 129.

Quarantine Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 136.

page 611

QUESTION

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Debate resumed from the 14th November (vide page 345) on motion by Senator Daly -

That the paper be printed.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

.- I listened attentively to the eloquent speeches by Senators Pearce, Colebatch and Payne on the Acting Treasurer’s financial statement and although I shall find it difficult to follow them, I feel that, according to my ability, I should express my views as to what is necessary to extricate this countryfrom its serious financial position. In his budget speech delivered in July last, the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) said -

Parliament must recognize, however, that no further drift in Commonwealth finances can bo permitted, and that the balancing of the budget is an essential step for the restoration of the credit of Australia.

The financial statement now before the Senate, following a reference to a resolution adopted by the Loan Council, contains this paragraph -

A Premiers’ Conference was accordingly convened and after full consideration of the whole position, the following resolution relating to the budget was unanimously passed: -

That the several Governments represented at this conference declare their fixed determination to balance their respective budgets for the financial year 1930-31 and to maintain a similar balanced budget in future years. This balanced equilibrium will be maintained on such a basis as is consistent with the repayment or conversion in Australia of existing internal debt maturing in the next few years.

That is very definite ; it is a pledge by the Governments of Australia that they will balance their budgets, and meet their financial obligations, here and abroad, as they fall due. How different are the actions to the words. The Prime Minister, who is, no doubt, doing his best, has repeated in several of his speeches in the Old Country the determination of Australia to meet its liabilities and pay its interest and debts on the due dates. But what has this Government done since last July, when those determinations were arrived at? It has done nothing. It has even delayed the calling together of Parliament. It sat on the fence until the New SouthWales elections were finalized. It wasted months, during which our finances drifted alarmingly. So much unnecessary delay has been occasioned that the financial position of the Commonwealth has drifted more than £6,000,000 to the bad since the July statement was presented, and the drift is continuing at the rate of over £50,000 a day. It is endangering the stability and the honour of our country. The good ship Australia seems to have been abandoned by those who should be in charge of it. Apparently, the pirates of the Labour party have taken control and have tied the hands of the captain and his lieutenants. They are perpetuating our financial drift, and the good ship is getting closer and closer to the rocks. She is in roughwater, making heavy weather. Through the neglect of the Government to call Parliament together, face the facts, and carry its promises into effect, the good ship is in peril. If the Governmentwill not take hold of the helm and put it hard about in an endeavour to steer the ship into safe waters, disaster isinevitable.

The following paragraph appears in the financial statement now being debated : -

The Treasurers feel, however, in view of the difficult outlook generally that it is proper and advisable for them to urge upon all governments the need forthe utmost economy in regard to expenditures, and also that it is essential that the budgets of the Commonwealth and the States be balanced for the forthcoming financial year. This is necessary, not only because of the Australian position, but also because of the serious effect which the continued deficits in the accounts of the Commonwealth and States have undoubtedly had upon the credit of Australia abroad.

We all know that the credit of Australia is at a very low ebb. Yet, instead of giving effect to its pledges, the Government has allowed the “ Red “ majority in its caucus to take possession of the situation. The majority, which is controlled by outside organizations, and, in turn, controls the Labour party, has carried resolutionswhich strike a staggering blow at Australia’s good name, and at our credit. Our deficit is now enormous ; yet the Government allows the drift to continue. The Acting Treasurer is reported to have stated that the deficit at the end of the financial year might be from £12,000,000 to £15,000,000, but that, with the restoration of confidence and a revival of trade, it might be reduced from £8,000,000 to £10,000,000. The honorable gentleman is banking on two factors, which appear to be entirely beyond the reach of theGovernment. All will admit that there is nothing so essential for thewelfare of Australia as the restoration of its credit. It, therefore, behoves everybody to do his utmost to make the £28,000,000 conversion loan a success. The security is good, and the rate of interest is high. Everybody should subscribe as much as he can so that the pledge of the country to its bondholders may be fulfilled. If the conver- sion loan is not a success it will be a calamity, and will very materially weaken further the confidence in Australia, which already is at such a low ebb in the eyes of the world. To demonstrate that lack of confidence, which has come about since the advent of this Government, I draw attention to the values of government stock. In July, 1929, when the BrucePage Government was in power, the price of Commonwealth stock in London was £98 5s. Since the accession to power of this Government, with its extravagant policy, its inability to stop the drift, and its domination by the “ Red “ majority, that stock fell as low as £75 5s., and is to-day quoted at about £85.

Senator Daly:

– What was its price when this Government assumed office?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– In July, 1929, it was quoted at £98 5s. On the other hand, South African stock of the same denomination is quoted as just a little below par, while that of New Zealand is above par. Neither country is comparable with Australia in size, productivity, richness or recuperative power. That is a definite indication that our credit has slumped. Can any one wonder that that should be so after the staggering blows that the “ Red “ majority has dealt to our credit? On the eve of Australia trying to retain her honour and fulfil her pledge to pay her citizen bondholders the money that they loaned under very definite guarantees, the following destructive resolutions were carried by a caucus majority of 22 to 16-

Senator Daly:

– Will the honorable senator explain why the revolution in India did not affect its stocks?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am not going to deal with the revolution in India. To start with there is none. I only hope that there will be no revolution in Australia, through the action of this Government. If it continues its mismanagement much longer, until over 30 per cent. of the people are out of employment and on the verge of starvation heaven alone knows what will happen. These are the repudiation resolutions that were carried by a majority of the members supporting this Government : How difficult they make the task of Mr.

Scullin, Mr.Fenton, Mr. Lyons, and the Government generally -

Finance and requirements of the Commonwealth Government in connexion with all services covered by Parliamentary appropriations.
Meet that proportion of internal loans maturing during the financial year, which has not otherwise been provided for, i.e., £27,000,000 before the end of this year. .
Provide for financing State and Commonwealth Loan works programme up to a limit of £20,000,000.
Provide financial accommodation, through the Commonwealth Bank, trading banks, State financial institutions, if necessary, through insurance companies, to be used for productive purposes in primary and secondary industries.

That the several Governments represented at this conference declare their fixed determination to balance their respective budgets for the financial year 1930-31, and to maintain a similar balanced budget in future years. This budgetequilibrium will be maintained on such a basis as is consistent with the repayment or conversion in Australia, of the existing internal debt maturing in the next few years. Further,if, during any financial year, there are indications of a failure of revenue to meet expenditure, immediate steps will be taken during the year to ensure that the budgets shall balance.

It is surely ‘plain enough that, if the amount of work and produce sold is the same as previously hut the number of units used for exchanging them is increased, more units must be paid for each hour of work and each pound of goods, though no more work is done and no more goods are produced.. The worst sufferers are creditors and wage-earners. The former are paid in money that buys less than that which they lent. The latter, though wages rise with prices, suffer from an inevitable lag between the two so that remuneration does not overtake the cost of living.

Mr. Murray goes on to explain

The ?1 note is a debt due by the Federal Government, payable to bearer on demand, in gold; and that legally the holder of the ?1 note is entitled to demand, in Australia,, woods or services to the value of a sovereign. Gold, coin, or bullion, is, by immemorial custom and by virtue of the metal’s inherent qualities, a debt recognized as due by the civilized world to the holder; legal tender notes and metal tokens are, within the jurisdiction of the country in which they circulate, a debt due by the State, or the issuers, to the holders of the notes and tokens; bank balances are debts due by the bank to the customers.

A great deal has been said by honorable senators opposite about banks locking up money, about freezing credits, and about the release of credits. The statistics of the associated banks of Australia show that close on 99 per cent, of their deposit money has been lent to the people. It is a larger proportion than ever previously in the history of Australian banking. It is well for those who say that the banks are to blame for the present state of trade to remember this. It is absurd for any one .to say that the banks are not lending out their money. Mr. Murray also says -

It cannot be too often reiterated that government notes, before being issued, are printed pieces of paper only; they cost no more than the price of the paper and the printing. Otherwise they have no value at all. The greater the amount of notes in circulation in excess of requirements, the less the value of the notes, until the value of the note is negligible - a ?1,000,000 note is of less value than a packet of cigarettes.

That has been so in countries like Russia, Germany, and, to a certain extent, Prance, where there has been inflation. Mr. Murray sets out the position in this way -

Take a nobbier of Scotch whisky - or, if you baulk at whisky, take a glass of milk; it’s pure: normally dilute with water - it is still good; add more water and drown the miller and the value is negligible. That is inflation. Apply this to the issue of notes; the result is the same. Notes issued against gold are worth 20s. in the ?1 of gold. Notes issued merely against the credit of the State are not worth 20s. in the £1 in gold, and an unlimited issue of notes against the mere credit of the State is worth nothing in gold.

Should these notes be presented for payment, they cannot be redeemed in gold. It i6 a popular fallacy that when the Federal Government issues a £1 note, it gives value with the note; yet it is an obvious, but amazing, truth that when the Federal Government issues a £1 note it does not give value. In every subsequent issue of notes by the Federal Government it is a physical impossibility for the State to give economic value; it cannot give, but on the contrary it must take, and it takes from the community. The only resource on the State is the power to tax, and that is not unlimited. It has already about reached! its limit.

We all know that under the present Government taxation has more than reached its limit. It has become a depressing burden on industry and on the people. Mr. Murray continues -

It will be noted that recently overseas snipowners stipulated that freight prepaid in Australia shall be in British currency, not in the depreciated Australian currency. This is merely an instance of how a depreciated currency reacts on a community. The solution is to reduce the over-issue of notes in circulation and so bring down prices to synchronize with the movement in overseas prices. This essentially necessitates the bringing down of the paper money wages, though not of the real wages, or wages expressed in goods and service. There is no other way. Australia is the only country within the Empire where the policy of the note issue is controlled by the State. If the State borrows from the community by forcing on it free of interest irredeemable £1 bonds or notes, the community pays.

It is time the Government, and the people of Australia generally, faced economic facts which have been ignored, not only in our legislation, but by a majority of the people. We can no more ignore economic facts that we can stem the tide with a piece of string. The facts are simple. Our national income has been reduced from between £100,000,000 and £150,000,000. It is an old truism that one cannot take more out of a bag than has been placed in it. There are some who say that one cannot take more out of a bottle than has been placed in it; but that is hardly accurate, as in addition to the contents, I am told that a headache is sometimes obtained from a bottle. The reduction in our national income should be shared by all sections of the community. Those in a sheltered position in highly protected industries, members of Parlia- ment, and public servants, are obtaining profits or salaries equivalent to those which they received in previous years, while others are not receiving anything. A selfish section insists upon receiving the same wages and salaries, notwithstanding the depleted state of our revenue, with the result that a large proportion of the community have to be rationed or denied employment. It is a cruel uneconomic procedure. When men are rationed their wages are, in effect, reduced ; but the cost of production or of living is not correspondingly reduced. The so-called high standard of living in Australia does not exist. While the cost of production and wages have doubled since pre-war days, real wages, based on their purchasing power, have increased by only 1 per cent. The so-called high standard of living in Australia is enjoyed by only a few, while those who are rationed, or who are out of work, have no standard at all.

The latest statistics disclose that since this Government took office unemployment has increased from 12 per cent, to 20.5 per cent., and that in some States under Labour Governments such as South Australia, it is as high as 25 per cent. The position is probably worse than those figures indicate as they are based on the returns supplied by trade union organizations, with which a large proportion of casual and other workers, who are the first to suffer, are not associated. Probably 25 per cent, of our adult population is out of employment or soon will be.

– If Mr. Austey said that he would be branded as a disloyalist.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– What I have said is perfectly true. The British Government prefers to buy wheat from defaulting Russia than from fellow Britons in Australia.

It is, unfortunately, true that the prices now being obtained for our primary products are ruinously low; but I predict that there will be an improvement next year. Wool, which is now being sold at one-half the cost of production, is going into consumption because the low price has increased the demand, and as manufacture is keeping pace with sales there will be no carryover of wool, either in its raw or manufactured state. That condition obtains throughout the world, so that there is reason to believe that the wool outlook is more favorable than it was. If the world’s wool users were to increase their consumption of wool by a1/4 lb. per head there wouldbe a shortage of wool in twelve months. The present low price for wheat is largely due to the heavy carry-over from the huge Canadian crop of the year before last. This year it is reported that the Argentine wheat crop will be 75,000,000 bushels less than was anticipated, because of rust. The American corn crop shows a decrease of 600,000,000 bushels of corn used for feeding pigs. To make up that deficiency wheat is being used. There is no abnormal crop in the northern hemisphere; there . is a reduced crop in the Argentine ; and it is said that, although large quantities of wheat are being shipped from southern Russian ports, that country will soon have to import wheat to feed the starving hundreds of thousands in northern Russia. It may be asked why, in that case, Russia does not retain her wheat for her own starving people instead of exporting it from her southern districts. In conversation recently with a sea captain, he told me that it cost more to transport wheat overland from the south to the north of Russia than to import wheat through Archangel when the northern ports are opened after the ice melts. I feel confident that next, year our primary products will bring higher prices in the world’s markets ; but unless we can reduce production costs we shall still have to sell at a loss.

Senator Thompson:

– Stalin says that the export of wheat from Russia will increase during the next two years.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I place no reliance on bis statements; he has been proved wrong several times already.

What has become of the Government’s promises? During the election campaign the people were told that a Labour government would not dismiss any of its employees, and that it would find work for all. Yet thousands of men, including many returned soldiers, have been dismissed from government departments during the last twelve months. In the Prime Minister’s Department, 775 men, of whom 335 were returned soldiers, have been dismissed. I notice that 2,292 employees were dismissed from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department; of whom 1,423 were returned soldiers. Nearly all of those employees have been in the service of ‘the Government for approximately two years, and are good men. It is a sad state of affairs when the Government finds it necessary to dismiss returned soldiers in such numbers, men who rendered good service to the country during the war and who have proved efficient servants since their return.

We have been told that it is necessary to balance the budget; that economy is essential; that we must produce more.

– There are many such sections, including members of Parliament and a portion of the Civil Service. I am not going to be led into.’ saying anything against the civil servants. They are giving good service to their country, and are efficient and worthy of their hire, without being overpaid. I admit that there may be too many of them. It is wrong to give specially favoured treatment to ‘any section, of the community. Instead of stopping at a minimum of £725 a year, I suggest that a minimum of £250 a year would he a fair figure to. start with for the purposes of Public Service taxation. The civil servants of Australia are a loyal and honorable section of the community, and I am confident that they are prepared to bear their fair share of the burden in times such as these. If they are not then they are not good Australians.

In connexion with the crushing taxation on incomes from property I am indebted to Senator Payne for the figures with which he has supplied me, and take the opportunity of congratulating the honorable senator on the magnificent speech that he made last week on the financial statement. It was a constructive and fighting speech which exposed the absurdly exaggerated charges that are too often hurled at the BrucePage Government on the score of extravagance. The honorable senator has informed me that the new taxation will mean that a person who earns £200 by personal exertion will be subjected to the tax of 4d., while one with a similar income from property has to pay1s. 101/2d.–

Senator Daly:

– That has since been altered. I will supply the honorable senator with authentic figures.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am glad that it has been altered owing to pressure from the Opposition in this Parliament. The impost should be wiped out altogether, as it is a cruel tax on the thrifty. I have received the following letter from the Real Estate Association of Victoria : -

Dear Sir,

I have been instructed by the Central Executive of the Real Estate Association of Victoria to communicate with you, and to lodge a formal protest against the proposed additional property tax of71/2 per cent, now before the House for consideration. It is felt by the members of my association that while all sections of the community have to-day to bear their share of taxation, the proposed further property tax is most unfair in its incidence, and that it would press unduly upon a very large number of people. There are thousands of property-owners, both small and large, whose incomes to-day have been reduced in some cases almost to the point of extinction through the existing depression, which is responsible for a large number of houses becoming vacant. In addition to this, which is a direct source of loss of revenue and income, returns from their property have been materially affected for the following reasons : -

The inability of tenants to pay rent.
A large number of tenants leaving without paying, involving heavy loss to the owners.
The necessity, from a humanitarian point of view, of letting tenants who arc out of employment and consequently unable to pay any rent, remain in possession at possibly anominal rental, or no rent at all.
The excessive cost of repairs generally, which, it might be stated, has not been reduced in any way.
The continuing high municipal and water and sewerage rates.

In addition to the above, property is already bearing a special tax on income as distinct from income derived from personal exertion.

For the above reasons,I am instructed to express the hope that when this matter comes before the House you will give it your most earnest consideration - not from ‘the point of view of excluding property from taxation, but from the angle of whether the owners, who are suffering to-day to a previously unknown extent, should be so drastically harassed as will be the case under the proposed taxation.

This new property tax practically amounts to confiscation. Then take the tax upon tea, the poor people’s beverage. Why should those who are already rationed, and perhaps out of employment, bear such a tax?

– It would be the monument of debt.

Senator DUNN:

– I ask leave to continue my speech at a later date.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 624

IMMIGRATION BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a small measure designed to tighten up certain provisions of the Immigration Act in order to make effective the intention of Parliament. Section 5, which deals with the illegal entry of immigrants into the Commonwealth, was amended in 1924 to cast uponthe person charged with being a prohibited immigrant, the onus of proving that he was rightfully in the Commonwealth. Honorable senators will realize that this is a very necessary precaution to take for the safety of the country, particularly in time of war. The utility of the amended provisions of section 5 was practically destroyed, by a recent decision of the High Court. The effect of this decision is that the amended provisions apply only in the case of a person who has entered the Commonwealth in contravention of the act after the passing of those amendments: Consequently these provisions cannot be used in the case of prohibited immigrants who gained entrance to the Commonwealth prior to 1924. In the case to which I have referred, Ah You versus Gleeson, the Court found that Ah You had obtained entrance to the Commonwealth about 1906, but as the Commonwealth was unable to prove that “ he had evaded an officer “ the case against him failed, and he cannot be deported. The law requires that persons entering the Commonwealth shall submit themselves to the recognized procedure and must be passed by officials of the Immigration Department. In the case of Ah You, it was apparently the intention of the Government to deport him, but because of the High Court, decision, this could not be done.

Senator Payne:

– The Government intends to make the act retrospective to 1901.

Senator BARNES:

– Yes. It is proposed to amend the defective sub-section (1) of section 5 of the act to embrace all persons who have entered Australia since 1901 - the date of commencement of our immigration power - in contravention of the act.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [9.12]. - I do not intend to ask for an. adjournment of the debate because, having been Minister for Home and Territories, and having been responsible for the administration of the Immigration Act, I am familar with the facts as related by the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes). The previous Government did amend the law with the idea of stopping loopholes that were discovered in it; but apparently, as soon as one loophole was stopped, another was found. I have perused the memorandum distributed by the Minister in charge of the bill, and I agree that it is desirable that the law should be so amended. I, therefore, support the action of the Government.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– I assume that the bill is a noncontentious measure, but it appears to me, from a study of the statistics relate ing to immigration, that there is greater need to impose restrictions on emigration than on immigration, for the very good reason, that at present there is no immigration.

Senator Barnes:

– Yes; there is.

Senator LYNCH:

– The latest figures show, in the last three months, an excess of departures over arrivals of 11,000, so I suggest that if any action is to be taken at all, it should be in the direction of inducing people not to fly out of this country by hook or by crook at every chance they get. It is interesting to recall that, as the outcome of an amicable arrangement between the Commonwealth and the Government of South Australia as high contracting parties, there was recently . an influx of two domestic servants per month to a State covering 500,000 square miles!

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the proposed amendment of section 5 of the Immigration Act.

Senator LYNCH:

– The bill proposes to make the law retrospective to 1901. I doubt that the position of affairs warrants us in allowing the long arm of the law to reach back 30 years. The proportion of aliens improperly in Australia cannot be said to be large enough to dilute the race so badly and so warrant this proposal. If these people are here and are law abiding let them stay here. Before federation was established that principle was agreed to by every Colonial Parliament. In Queensland there was no question about the residential qualifications of any Chinaman, . or any other foreigner for that matter, who had entered the colony before the exclusion laws were brought into operation there. But now in this twentieth century we have arrived at the point where it is necessary for the poor wretch who landed in Australia 30 years ago, and has since given honest service to the country, lived up to every obligation, paid 20s. in the £1 and obeyed its laws, to explain why he did not enter the country in a proper way.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– He may be an excellent citizen.

Senator LYNCH:

– Of course. I asked the Minister on that point, and he had no better reason to offer for this bill than that a man may have entered the country improperly. Could the Minister explain his conduct of 30 years ago? Could any honorable senator afford to have thrown on the screen his every action of 30 years ago? It is a matter of man to mau relationship. It should be regarded purely from a humane stand-point, and to ask the Senate so to amend the law regarding immigration that an unfortunate wretch who entered the country 30 years ago must explain how he got here, the company he kept, and name the ship that brought him is to ask too much of it. The fact that a man has no blemish on Ms character should be ample proof that he has been a law-abiding citizen, and it should be ample reward for him to get the verdict in his favour. Why condemn him? Why put the brand of Cain upon him? Has the Government nothing better to do than to reach out after an unfortunate derelict who landed here 30 years ago? Surely it has mountainous difficulties to surmount. There are the requirements of 60,000 wheat-growers and 60,000 reasons why the Government should be doing some real honest serviceable work instead of paltry work of this kind. In any case, the Australasian Council of Trade Unions was allied to a foreign body that openly denounced our White Australia policy. But they cannot be attended to. What a dignified proceeding it is for the Government to be chasing a Chinaman, who landed in this country 30 years ago, while 60,000 good Australians cannot keep the bailiff away from their doors! But such is the equality of conditions in this country at the present time. Can the Ministry say that this Chinaman has broken the law - that he has robbed some one that he has in any way offended? Can it say that he has been anything but a law-abiding citizen ? If so, I shall vote for the bill.

But asthings are going now, when there may be some doubt sought to be cast on the way I got into Australia 45 years ago, when the Government begins on the law-abiding citizen, there is no knowing where it will finish. This bill, in short, is a gross outrage upon the liberty of the subject. It is not British justice, the standard under which I hope every honorable senator will enrol himself. But I had better not start on the brand of Australian justice or some of it abroad at the present time. All I am concerned with now is the fair name of Australia and its reputation, and particularly the fair name of the Government for which a soft spot exists in my heart. I want Ministers to do the right thing. I may speak severely of them at times, but I have a great respect for them personally, and socially, because I believe that if they behave themselves they are capable of only great good. When, however, they bring in a bill to chase a Chinaman who landed in Australia 30 years ago, and a law-abiding citizen, it is to my mind a mean, paltry achievement that can bring no credit on this country, the Government, or this honorable Senate. I feel that I shall have to vote againt thebill if forno other reason than that the Minister has given no rational grounds for asking the sanction of the Senate to it. I would deport those who are not law-abiding citizens, but the fact that men have been law-abiding for 30 years should be sufficient warrant for letting them remain in, Australia.

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided. (President - Sbnator the Hon. W. KlNGSMILL.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 5

Majority…………………. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Report adopted.

page 629

ADJOURNMENT

Sales Tax

Motion by Senator Daly proposed -

That theSenate do now adjourn.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Probably the Minister has forgotten that he promised to supply an answer to a question that I asked regarding the intention of the Government in connexion with amendments of the sales tax.

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaVice President of the Executive Council · ALP

: - A measure to amend the Sales Tax Act will he introduced this session, but through pressure of other business I have notyet had an opportunity of discussing with the Acting Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) the effect of the proposed amendments. I . shall, however, be in a position at question time to-morrow to reply to the honorable senator’s question.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate, adjourned at 10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 November 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19301125_senate_12_127/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 November 1930

QUESTION

SALES’ TAX ASSESSMENT ACTS

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

DEBT ADJUSTMENT LEGISLATION

Senator McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DALY:ALP

Senator DALY:

FUEL OILFOR THE NAVY

Latrobe Shale Oil

QUESTION

WAGE STATISTICS

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

INCIDENCE OF TARIFF

Senator DALY:ALP

QUESTION

LOSS OF AIRSHIP R.101

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

Senator LYNCH:Western Australia

Senator Ogden:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Daly:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Barnes:

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Guthrie:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

Senator Carroll:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Daly:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Daly:

Senator Daly:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Daly:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

Senator Daly:

Senator Daly:

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator Lynch:

Senator BARNES:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator BARNES:

Senator MCLACHLAN:South Australia

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator McLACHLAN:

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DALY:

Senator Reid:

Senator DALY:

Senator Lynch:

Senator DALY:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senate
25 November 1930

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · South Australia · ALP

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

Senator RAE:
through Senator Dunn

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DALY:
ALP

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria