View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
4 December 1930

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- CHRISTMAS RECESS
WHEAT INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- QUESTION DISALLOWED;
QUESTION
- LAND TAXATION
QUESTION
- INFLATION
QUESTION
- PAPER-PULP INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- MILITIAFORCES
PETROL PEICES
QUESTION
- FINANCIAL STATEMENT
BOUNTY ON GOLD PRODUCTION
EXPORT OF MANUFACTURED GOODS
BEAM WIRELESS
QUESTION
- FINANCIAL STATEMENT
PAPER
PATENTS BILL
- Second Reading
NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX (SALARIES) ASSESSMENT BILL
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 944

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS RECESS

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

– I shall endeavour to get the information to-morrow.

page 945

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Advance of 2s. a Bushel.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– by leave - I desire to inform the Senate that, following representations by the Government extending over some weeks, requesting that a first advance be made by the Commonwealth Bank to wheat-farmers at the rate of 2s. a- bushel at country stations, which would be equal to approximately 2s. 6d. f.o.b., the Commonwealth Bank has now decided to make an advance to pools and organizations at the rate of 2s. a bushel f.o.b. on wheat of the present season’s crop, which is equal approximately to ls. 6d. a bushel at country railway stations.

I also wish to summarize very briefly the history of the negotiations leading up to that decision. Two days before the conference of representatives of the wheat industry, held in Canberra on the 12th of November last, the Acting Minister for Markets (Mr. Forde) interviewed the chairman of directors and the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank and urged that an advance of 2s. a bushel at railway sidings be arranged. The reply received was that a first payment of this amount could not be made, even if guarantees were forthcoming from the Commonwealth and State Governments. This intimation was conveyed to the members of the conference. On the 22nd November, the Acting Minister for Markets interviewed the chairman of the board of the Commonwealth Bank (Sir Robert Gibson) iu Melbourne, and urged that favorable consideration be given to the suggestion to pay a first advance of 2s. a bushel at country sidings. At the conference between members of the Government and the Commonwealth Bank board in Melbourne, last Monday, the 1st December, very strong representations were made by the Cabinet in favour of a first advance at the rate of 2s. at country sidings, or 2s. 6d. f.o.b., as it was considered by the Government that that advance could bc made without any risk of loss to the bank. The Commonwealth Bank has since considered the representations of the Government, and the following telegram has now been received from the chairman of the board : -

The bank board yesterday evening decided to fix the advance to wheat pools at 2s. per bushel f.o.b., subject to usual conditions as between wheat pools and bank.

While the rate of advance which the Commonwealth Bank is prepared to make is less than that desired by the Government, and is viewed with disappointment by many wheat distributing organizations, it represents a definite amount, and it is hoped that at a very early date the position of the world’s market in regard to wheat will so improve as to bring about an increase in this advance. The Government will continue to do everything possible, having regard to the present financial stringency, to assist the wheatgrowers in the marketing of their present season’s crop.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the statement just made that the farmers of Australia are to be guaranteed approximately ls. 6d. a bushel at railway sidings, and of a previous ministerial announcement in this Parliament that they would get 4s. a bushel at sidings, I .wish to know what has become of the balance of 2s. 6d. ?

Senator BARNES:

– I do not know that any promise was made that 4s. would be paid, but I remember distinctly that a bill which was not passed by the Senate guaranteed the farmers 4s. a bushel.

page 945

QUESTION

QUESTION DISALLOWED;

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I should like to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, and with the indulgence of the Senate I should first like to read a couple of short paragraphs from a letter I have received from South Australia.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– It is not permissible to make a statement before submitting a question. Questions are asked for the purpose of gaining and not giving information.

page 946

QUESTION

LAND TAXATION

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the heavy fall in the value of agricultural, pastoral and other land throughout the Commonwealth, will the land tax for the current year be assessed upon the present depreciated value of land?
If necessary, will legislation be introduced to enable this suggestion to be carried into effect?

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

Land tax will be assessed for the current year, in accordance with the law, upon the capital sum which the fee-simple of the land might be expected to realize if offered for sale on 30th June, 1930, on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of the act, the improvements, if any, did not exist.
No further legislation is required.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as reported in the West Australian on the 27th ultimo, that the Taxation Department has written to the Wyalkatchem Road Board, stating that, for purposes of taxation, “the valuation of the whole of the properties in the district has been increased by 25 per cent.”?
Is it a fact that wheat is the main product of the district mentioned, and that in existing circumstances land values should be reduced at least 50 per cent. for taxation purposes throughout Western Australia, instead of being increased 25 per cent.?
Are similar increases of land valuations being made in other parts of Western Australia to-day?
Will the Government have all valuations of land reduced immediately to accord with existing market values ?

Senator DALY (through Senator Barnes). - The answers are -

Inquiries are being made.
This cannot be stated without a careful examination Of all evidence relating to market values of land.
Inquiries are being made.
The law requires tax to be paid on the market value, as described in answer to Senator E. B. Johnston’s earlier question of this date.

page 946

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as reported in the Melbourne Herald of the 2nd instant, that, though

Cabinet is divided on the question of inflation, Ministers are unanimous in advocating some scientific expansion of credit?

If this is so, is not expansion of credit, whether scientific or otherwise, inflation?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– The honorable senator’s question involves a matter of Government policy, in regard to which it is not the practice to make statements in reply to questions.

page 946

QUESTION

PAPER-PULP INDUSTRY

Senator PAYNE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon, notice -

Is it the intention of the Government tomake a statement, before Parliament concludes its session this year, that may assist the early establishment of the paper-pulp industry in Tasmania?

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

– Negotiations are being actively pursued between the Governments and the interests representing the paper-pulp industry in Tasmania, and the Senate will be informed as early as possible of the result of these negotiations.

page 946

QUESTION

MILITIAFORCES

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

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

What was the actual strength of the Militia Forces on the 30th June, 1930?
What was the actual strength of the Militia Forces on the 31st October, 1930?
Is the Minister satisfied with the progress of recruiting?
What was the percentage of efficiency for the year ended June, 1930?

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA · ALP

– The answers are -

27,093.
Returns are now rendered quarterly. The latest return received was for September, and the strength at that date was 27,993.
Yes.
Seventy-eight per cent.

page 946

PETROL PEICES

SenatorCOOPER asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice-

Is it a fact that the Government has ordered an investigation to be made regarding the price of petrol in Australia?

If so, is the investigation completed, and is the Minister in a position to make a statement regarding this matter?

Senator DALY:
through Senator’ Barnes · ALP

– The answers are -

Yes.
The investigation is not yet complete.

“WHEAT-GROWING INDUSTRY.

Price or Wheat - Sales Tax on Flour.

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Has the Government noticed a statement in the press to the effect that a mass meeting of wheat-growers, held lately at Perth, passed resolutions declaring that owing to the low price of wheat most farmers were faced with ruin ?
In view of this serious position, what action, if any, does the Government propose to take ?

Senator DALY (through Senator Barnes). - The answers are -

Yos.
As a result of representations made by the Government to the Commonwealth Bank, the bank has decided to make an advance on wheat to pools and organizations at the rate of 2s. per bushel, f.o.b., equal to ls. 6d. per bushel at country stations. As the Government has no funds, and cannot get the necessary finance from the Commonwealth Bank to pay a guaranteed price, it regrets that it is unable at present to grant any monetary assistance to the wheat industry.

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is the statement in the press correct which set out a proposal for imposing £7 4s. per ton on all flour locally consumed, the proceeds to be applied as an increase on the price of all marketable wheat, and also that the Government would give the suggestion further consideration ?
If so, what action can the Government take, and when does it propose to take such action ?

Senator DALY (through Senator Barnes). - The answers are -

A recommendation was made at the conference which met at Canberra on the 12th November that a sales tax at the rate of £7 4s. per ton be made on flour for local consumption, the proceeds of the tax to be distributed as a bonus among wheat-growers in proportion to the quantity of wheat produced during the present season. The Commonwealth Government was unable to accept the proposal, as it would have been well nigh impossible to administer the scheme.
Attention is invited to my reply to the honorable senator’s previous question, intimating that the Commonwealth Bank “ has now decided to make an advance on wheat at the rate of 2s. per bushel, f.o.b., equal to about ls. Gd. per bushel at country stations. The present financial stringency prevents any monetary assistance being granted to the wheat industry by the Commonwealth.

page 947

QUESTION

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Debate resumed from the 3rd December (vide page 892), on motion by Senator Daly -

That the paper be printed.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– Some weeks have elapsed since this unwanted foundling first made its appearance in this chamber. I remember the day well. No one - not even any supporter of the Government - was enthusiastic about it. The paper before us purports to be a statement of the Government’s financial policy as amended from time to time. Whether it will be the last statement of policy which the Government will present to us, I do not know.

I was grieved yesterday to hear some honorable senators, under cover of speaking to this motion, ‘make strong attacks upon a gentleman who came here at the invitation of the Government to advise it in regard to the financial position confronting the country. He came here and gave of his best. Nevertheless, during his stay with us, and for some time after his departure, some supporters of the Government, and indeed, some members of the Ministry, denied that he had been invited here by the Government. It was only after certain events had taken place in Australia that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fenton) issued a statement in which he admitted that this gentleman came here to assist the Government on its invitation. One honorable senator yesterday attacked what he described as “ Sir Otto Niemeyer’s proposals.” I remind him that those proposals having been adopted by the Government are no longer Sir Otto Niemeyer’s proposals. They now form the policy of the Government, and when honorable senators attack Sir Otto Niemeyer’s recommendations, they are, in fact, attacking the Government they profess to support.

The statement before us contains a number of extracts from the budget speech delivered in July last. It also refers to a resolution unanimously adopted by the Loan Council in August when the Prime Minister represented the Commonwealth Government. That resolution reads -

That as the loan policy of the Commonwealth and States is wrapped up with the balancing of the budgets, representatives of the Commonwealth and State Governments should meet in Melbourne on Monday, 18th August, with the object of balancing the budgets.

At the conference between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of all the States on the 21st of August last the following resolution was unanimously adopted : -

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 budget equilibrium 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.

That is what Sir Otto Niemeyer advised the Government to do. Whether we agree with his advice or not, we must admit that at one time the- Government accepted it. I am, therefore, surprised that Government supporters in this chamber have joined with a number of Government supporters in another place to condemn these proposals!

Honorable senators supporting the Government frequently refer to “ the class to which we belong; the section of the community which we represent “. In my opinion, there is no distinct wage-earning class in Australia. There is nothing to prevent any man who to-day is working for wages from working for himself tomorrow, or from employing others th, day after. Probably there are. very few senators who have not at some time or other been wage-earners. I worked for many years for wages on mines and elsewhere. It is wrong to attempt to foster class consciousness by referring so frequently to the wage-earning class. Rather should we foster the idea that every person has “equal rights to be a ‘wage-earner or an employer of labour.

Senator Rae:

– Or that all should be millionaires.

Senator CARROLL:

– I take it that the honorable senator’s great pursuit in life is happiness. From what I have read of’ millionaires - and all I know about them is from reading - they are, as a class, very unhappy men.

Throughout this document, there are references to the legacy of debt inherited by the Government from its predecessors in office as a result of their unwise administration and extravagant spending of public money. Seeing that every government in Australia, whether Nationalist or Labour, is in a bad position financially, it is useless to blame governments for our present unsatisfactory position. Without in any way attempting to excuse any government, past or present, I suggest that no government could have survived long had it acted differently from the way it did act in the days of reconstruction after the war. Every government was forced by the people into an orgy of extravagance. Indeed, the only complaint against some of them was that they did not go far enough. The public urged that more and still more money should be spent. Had any government attempted to curtail repatriation expenditure! - which has perhaps been the greatest drain on public finances - it would have been turned out of office at the first opportunity presented to the electors. Each age has its own besetting sin, and if there is one that belongs peculiarly to this age more than another, it is that of blaming the other fellow for any trouble that may be affecting the world. We are always spotless; the other fellow is invariably the one who has got us into the mess. It is consistently claimed that governments, no matter what brand of politics they may espouse, are the cause of the trouble of the moment; never is it attributed to the people who elect and maintain those governments. Time after time, in Parliament and elsewhere, individuals publicly denounce’ governments for their alleged extravagant administration, knowing that their statements will be recorded in Hansard and the press, and absorbed by the people. Publicly stigmatizing the Government, privately they run to its Ministers, pat them on the back, and solicit their favours. We should be honest and accept our share of the blame for; the trouble. In times when the country was in a good position, and money easily obtainable, we spent it profligately. Now, when our creditors ask, “ What about that little debt of ours ?”, we respond, “ These governments have put us in a position of penury. Had it not’ been for them we should be able to pay you.” Let us face the music, stand up to the position like men, and meet our obligations. From my little experience of life I have learned that there is no crooked or twisted way of gaining prosperity, by the evasion of public responsibility and indebtedness. The only was is the honest way. No matter how it hurts, we should play the man and meet our obligations. If it is necessary to obtain an extension of time, why, let us frankly explain the position to our creditors. I am confident that if that is done the pressure will be relieved.

The position of a nation differs in no way from that of an individual. If an individual finds himself with a diminished income, he does one of two things, or, perhaps, a little of both. He endeavours to increase his income; if he cannot do that, he reduces his expenditure. He is wise enough to realize that he cannot continue to indulge in whisky and cigars, at the same time denying himself an adequate ration of bread and meat. But luxuries must be reduced to a minimum.

I have no wish to he unfair, but I believe that this Government has not made that effort to reduce its expenditure that is demanded by the needs of the moment.

Senator Rae:

– It has not cut wages sufficiently, I suppose?

Senator CARROLL:

– Never mind about wages. Wages account for but a minor portion of our national expenditure. I wish to goodness the honorable senator could lift his mind to a higher plane, and realize that that is but one of many angles to a very difficult problem. Every man has a right to obtain the best remuneration that he can in return for the labour that he sells, but when he is faced with the plain fact that the wages he demands are not available, what is he going to do to re-adjust matters ? I should be very pleased to learn of any untouched fountain pf wealth, some Fortunatus’s purse, waiting to be tapped, but, candidly, I do not believe such a thing exists.

When one realizes that the sources of income of the people of Australia have been depleted by 50 per cent, at one fell swoop, one must conclude that it is ridiculous to blame anybody for the pinch that we are feeling. The Minister in charge of the Senate made a statement with regard- to the wheat industry. Wheat has been one of Australia’s great staple crops, an asset upon which the nation has- always relied to a great extent. Year after year Commonwealth Governments have imposed burdens upon that industry and their cumulative effect has overtaxed the capacity of the industry. This is particularly so in such times as the present. Only a day or two ago a duty of £2 10s. a ton was imposed on fencing wire. Is it any wonder that in these circumstances the farmers see no ray of hope? The Minister expressed the devout hope that the price of our products will increase overseas. We echo that hope in all sincerity. While that is a factor which is beyond our power to control, we can control the cost of production, and ease the burdens that have been piled upon our important basic industries. The producers of wool, another of our great primary industries, never have, in the past, sought support from a government. Their industry has suffered the burdens placed upon it by natural and artificial conditions and has won through. But now that important industry is also in a precarious position. At last it turns to the Commonwealth Government, urging that something should be done to assist it; that a bonus should be paid on every pound of wool produced. I have just received a telegram from the south-west of Western Australia, soliciting my co-operation in that request. E believe that I speak for that industry when I say that those engaged in it would far rather be relieved of the heavy burdens that have been piled on it than ask for transitory assistance in the form of a bonus. I urge the Government to lighten the load that it and its predecessors have placed upon the primary industries; but I realize that I am practically asking for the impossible.

Reverting to the claim that appears in this supplementary financial statement, that the Bruce-Page Government was responsible for the financial position in which the country finds itself-

Senator Dunn:

– Which is quite correct.

Senator CARROLL:

– I was in Perth when the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and the Minister for Markets and Transport (Mr. Moloney) passed through, en route to London. The Prime Minister was too ill to attend a civic reception that was tendered to him at His Majesty’s Theatre, Perth, and he was represented by the Minister for Markets and Transport. I was honored with a seat on the platform, and was close enough to the honorable gentleman to hear quite distinctly everything that he said, so that I am not under any misapprehension as to his statement. He said that, in order to give effect to its policy, this Government had deliberately thrown away £12,000,000 in customs revenue. Then the Minister went on to explain that having done that the Government was forced to exploit fresh avenues of revenue to recoup itself for the losses sustained. He offered no criticism of the financial policy of the previous Government. The Minister spoke of the sales tax as one new source of revenue, and congratulated the people of Australia upon the fact that never previously had a new tax met with such universal approval. This statement, I remind honorable senators, was made at a time when the newspaper press was flooded with protests from all classes in the community against the imposition of this tax, and complaining of its anomalies. No one seemed to know from day to day what it meant or how it was going to be applied, and daily fresh rulings were being broadcast by the Commissioner of Taxation. If that was the reception given by the people to a form of taxation which, according to the Minister for Markets, had received universal approval, I wonder what would have been the attitude of the people under the imposition of a new tax which had not their approval. Since the occasion to which I refer, the sales tax has been increased, and additional customs and excise duties have been imposed. I say quite openly that it is a fallacy for the people of Australia to think that the Federal Parliament, through its legislation, rules this country. It is now twelve months since the Scullin Government came into office. During that time it has brought down numerous tariff schedules and we have not been given an opportunity to deal with any one of them.

Senator Lynch:

– In all, fourteen.

Senator CARROLL:

– I venture the opinion that, before Parliament is given an opportunity to consider the Government’s tariff policy, the number of schedules will have been substantially increased. The Constitution provides that the power of the Parliament to impose taxation through customs and excise shall be exclusive. Since the Scullin Government came into office it has collected customs and excise duties under varying tariff schedules which this Parliament has not had an opportunity to consider. No one can say when we shall be invited to approve or disapprove of the Government’s tariff policy, but since we have waited for so long I suppose a little further delay will not make a great deal of difference.

I wish to impress upon the Ministry and honorable senators the urgent necessity for governmental expenses to be reduced to the lowest level compatible with the rendering of efficient service to the community. In view of the fact that the incomes of the great industries upon which we depend for our national safety have been reduced by more than 50 per cent., it is the obvious duty of this Government to take the necessary action to meet the altered conditions. The Ministry should come right out into the open and declare its determination to do the right thing. I well remember the first meeting of this Parliament in Canberra in May, 1927. “We were told then that this was the first Parliament in the Commonwealth, and that the eyes of the English-speaking world were upon us. Naturally, we felt rather proud of our position among the nations of the world at that time. It is, therefore, somewhat humiliating now to realize that, after all, the Federal Parliament is not the paramount governing authority in the Commonwealth; that the measures to be presented to it, and its deliberations on matters of moment, were held in abeyance pending the verdict of the people of New South “Wales in a recent State election. The Government should have been courageous enough to stand by its determination to give effect to the agreement entered into’ by the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) with the Premiers of the various States, before he left Australia, to take all measures necessary to balance the budget. That pledge has not been honored. The people of Australia may overlook some of the misdeeds of this Parliament, but they will not forget or forgive the action of this

Government in declining to do the right thing in their direct need.

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

.- So much has been said during the course of this debate that there is little one can usefully add; but I desire to make a few general observations on the position as I see it. This is, I understand, a special emergency session. It was called pursuant to the Melbourne conference resolutions which embodied the terms of an agreement on the financial situation made between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the various States. That agreement followed a series of conferences with Sir Otto Niemeyer, representing the Bank of England, and Sir Robert Gibson, the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, at which every aspect of the financial position of the Commonwealth was fully considered. It bears the signature of the right honorable the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth (Mr. Scullin) and the signatures of all the Premiers of the States representing every brand of politics ; and we have been called together pursuant to that agreement, in order to pass financial measures which will assist in restoring budget equilibrium.

We all know the dire need of our country. Industries are languishing. There is a lack of money, and public finance is in a state of hopeless disorder. The key to the whole situation is public finance. We shall not restore financial stability or bring about that feeling of confidence which is so essential until public finance is adjusted and we have continuity of policy in regard to financial matters. The people whom we represent are looking for leadership. They are bewildered and harassed; they are in doubt and perplexity. I do not desire to sound a pessimistic note or to pose as a Jeremiah, but I see disquieting symptoms. I have abundant faith, however, in the recuperative qualities of Australia, in its citizenship and in the character of its people. I believe that, given a lead along a courageous path, the people are prepared to follow it, but I look in vain for that courageous lead. I presume that honorable senators a’gree that we are in a period of great financial stress, if not approaching a crisis, and what we want in a period of crisis is a definite and not a vacillating policy. The people have a right to expect what those of us who have been nurtured in British traditions of Parliamentary Government look for, and that is unity of command, Cabinet solidarity, which is a basic principle of representative government. They have a right to expect the Government to speak with one voice and to give a definite lead. Until we have that we cannot restore confidence or financial stability.

But we have confronting us the amazing spectacle of honorable senators closely associated with the Government repudiating by implication, if not directly, an agreement to which the Government is a party and attacking the person who was primarily responsible for the promulgation of that agreement. With a leadership of that kind, what can we expect from the community, but doubt, perplexity, confusion? A principle in which you, Mr. President, have been nurtured is that of Cabinet solidarity - the Government speaking as one man and acting unitedly. In a time of military difficulty, as the soldiers in our chamber will explain, there must be unity of command; there must be purpose and determination and concentration of effort.. You must know exactly what your objective is and must devise the be3t means of arriving at it. But here we have a captain, the right honorable the Prime Minister, who has temporarily surrendered his command while away on Government business on the other side of the globe, and members of his Cabinet who appear to owe no particular loyalty to any leader. They do not appear to be able to follow consistently the declarations of the leader of the Government or the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fenton), but seem to be at liberty to act according to their own sweet will, and to speak at random in an utterly irresponsible fashion. Unless, in place of all this . confusion, we can restore confidence by having a definite policy and a clear line of action, and particularly a clear indication from the Government that it is prepared to lead the people along a definite line, we shall never find financial salvation; we shall never put the public finances on a proper basis, or restore them to a state of system and order.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– That document discloses that during the regime of the previous Government there was a steady drift in the finances of the Australian nation. The Bruce-Page Government inherited a surplus of £7,500,000 in 1922, but when it was defeated in 1929 it left a legacy of debt or commitments amounting to £6,500,000.

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

– And paid £14,000,000 into the national debt sinking fund in excess of the statutory requirement.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The finances of the Commonwealth went to the bad during the Bruce-Page regime to the extent of £14,000,000. Senator Carroll said that a nation, like an individual, should live within its means. If the late Government had recognized that fact much earlier the position would not have been as bad as it is to-day. According to the trade bulletin published by the Commonwealth Statistician, there was a continuous drift in our overseas position during the period the late Government was in power. Prom 1923 to 1929 the adverse balance in overseas trade, including bullion and specie, was £42,236,685, and as ships’ stores established a credit of £15,801,394, a net debit in our overseas trade balance of £26,000,000 remained. That is to say that during that period Australia imported goods to the value of £26,435,287 in excess of those which we exported. That, however, is an unimportant portion of the story. The great tragedy is that during that period there were huge commitments for interest overseas which could be met only by the exportation and sale overseas of Australian products. The interest payable abroad during the same period was, approximately, £154,000,000, so that during prosperous years the Commonwealth failed to balance its accounts with the outside world to the extent of £180,000,000, or at the rate of £30,000,000 per year, while the Bruce-Page Government was in office.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator is including interest on State debts, over which this Parliament has no control.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The actual difference would be about’ £60,000,000, including all commodities. One factor has to be taken into account when considering the effect of that on the national income. It is how that income, derived from the sale of wheat, wool, metals and other commodities, was used in bygone days and whether any change has been made in the mode of expenditure. In previous times, a very substantial portion of the national income was used to purchase luxuries from abroad, such as motor cars, grand pianos and pianolas. The huge annual commitment for fuel on which to run motor cars is also a drain on the national income. If people have the money with which to buy such luxuries, imports of that nature cannot be stopped. Unfortunately, motor cars and the fuel with which to run them are not produced in Australia, although we hope that something will be done to develop our shale oil industry and thereby render us independent of oil supplies from other parts of the world. A very large portion of the national income was also used in previous years to purchase from abroad commodities which could be, and are at present being made in Australia. One has only to glance at the huge drop in customs revenue to realize that in this respect there has been a very substantial decrease in the drain on our national income. To-day, the nation is producing many commodities which it previously paid people on the other side of the world to produce. To that extent ive are better off. That provides a measure of employment in Australia and circulates among our own people money that was formerly circulated among the people of other countries.

– This Government, by the enforcement of its tariff policy, is giving Australian secondary industries a chance to establish themselves on a sound basis. Unfortunately, because of the prevailing depression, they are not able to expand to the extent that would have been possible, if this opportunity had been made available to them in former years of good seasons and high prices. This is one reason why the effect, on employment of this Government’s tariff policy, is not as pronounced as it was hoped it would be. But in the discussion of this problem we should consider what the unemployment figures would have been if the Government had not taken somewhat drastic action to safeguard Australian industries. Many would have been closed down and our employment difficulty would have been much more serious than it is to-day. Advocates of freetrade, and there is still a limited number, appear to ignore the effect of such a policy upon our secondary industries. Honorable senators opposite are continually referring to the value to the Commonwealth of our great staple industries. We, on this side, admit that sustained production of wool and wheat on an economic basis means much for the prosperity of this country. But an examination of the figures, to be found in the Commonwealth Year-Book for 1929, will disclose that our secondary industries are responsible for a considerable proportion of the wealth produced in the Commonwealth, and they must also be credited with providing employment for large numbers of operatives who, in their turn, are consumers of the products of our primary industries. The number of persons employed in our secondary industries in 1929 was 464,000, the wages paid to them amounted to £91,000,000, the value added to the raw materials in the process of manufacture was estimated at £167,000,000 and the value of the total output of the secondary industries for that year was £417,000,000. Practically the whole of the raw material used in our secondary industries, valued at £159,000,000, was produced in Australia. It is estimated, further, that the production of these raw materials required by our secondary industries gave employment to another 300,000 persons.

– But I am speaking of the general effect of our tariff policy, and my remarks have particular reference to arguments adduced by one or two honorable senators opposite, who urged that we should abandon protection and revert to a policy of freetrade.

This Government has done what it set out to do. It has checked the flood of imports, and has done something to stimulate our secondary industries. By its action it lias prevented a further drift in the national income to the extent of approximately £30,000,000 or £40,000,000. We propose to pursue this policy, because we believe that only in this way will it be possible to reach budget equilibrium. Obviously it is impossible to balance the budget while we have an army of about 200,000 unemployed. The Government has been criticized because it believes that it is impossible to balance its budget unless it can ensure the profitable employment of the great majority of those who are at present out of work. The history of these attempts in some of the States to balance budgets, demonstrates the truth of what I am saying. In my own State, for example, we all remember the enthusiasm with which a young Treasurer, who swept the polls in 1927, set to work to square the State ledger. We had a special session of Parliament for that purpose; but at the end of the financial year, despite heroic attempts on the part of the Treasurer to secure economies, and despite also the burdensome taxation which was imposed upon the people, the deficit was the greatest in the history of South Australia. Since then there have been successive deficits, which to-day threaten to overwhelm the State Treasurer. That attempt to balance the budget was responsible for increased unemployment in South Australia at a time when the problem was almost negligible in the other States, and unhappily the position in that State is so acute to-day that about 60,000 people are living on rations provided by the Government. This number includes about 20,000 wage-earners, who, although willing and anxious to work, are unable to find employment. They are costing the State in relief £14,500 a week.

I invite honorable senators opposite to demonstrate how it is possible to balance budgets when unemployment is so acute in all the States. These workless people, besides being a burden to their government, are themselves non-taxpayers. It is estimated that every adult person, by indirect taxation through the customs, contributes between £6 and £7 to the Commonwealth revenue. Obviously, the 60,000 persons who are living on rations in South Australia are not contributing their quota. Their expenditure on necessaries of life and other commodities has been curtailed by probably 50 per cent., so that on a conservative estimate the loss to the Commonwealth Government, from this source alone, is, at least, £150,000 a year. The State Government is also losing heavily through reduced income taxation and other charges. This Government is endeavouring by the exercise of wise economy and by increasing the Commonwealth revenue wherever possible, without making taxation too burdensome on the people, to achieve a measure of financial equilibrium - if not to actually balance the budget to at least get within striking distance of doing so, and at the same time cultivate an ability to increase employment by which the number of taxpayers may be increased. In that way the burden may be spread over more shoulders and made to fall lighter on the individual. That is the only sound policy to be adopted by any government in getting Australia out of its financial difficulties.

We are asked, “ How are you going to do this?”; and we have been subjected to quite a lot of criticism because, among other things, it has been suggested by us that a measure of credit expansion may be practised. I propose to show that there is nothing terrible in the measure of credit expansion propounded by members of the Labour party, and that experience shows that the prophecies made to-day will prove to be false, as were those which were made when a previous Labour government was taking the initial steps to establish the Commonwealth Bank, and to issue Australian notes. One wonders why some of these criticisms were not levelled at the governments which controlled Australia during the war, because if ever there was a material inflation of currency in Australia, it occurred during that period. It is, therefore, advisable in examining this subject to consider what occurred during the war and see whether the prophecies made to-day are in any way substantiated by the experience of the war years. We are told to-day that there are three objections’ to a policy of credit expansion; that if credit is expanded we shall not be able to find profitable work to do; that the cost of living will be increased; and that a tremendous burden will be imposed upon the export industries. I shall deal with these seriatim.

Dealing with the first objection, that profitable work could not be found from the credit made available, I venture to say that a restriction of the circulation of the monetary power of Australia has been responsible for a great deal of the unemployment that exists to-day, and that if steps were taken to loosen credit a definite move forward in the absorption of our people in profitable employment and increased production would follow. In South Australia we have had three years drought over the whole of our pastoral areas, and in some districts it has continued for five years. The result is that holdings have been denuded of stock, improvements have fallen into a state of disrepair, and what was formerly a great and prosperous industry is to-day in a very parlous condition. Twelve months ago, while the drought still continued, we told ourselves - and we fondly believed that we were telling ourselves the truth - that as soon as the drought broke there would be a material improvement in the prosperity of the State. The drought has broken, and to-day there are fields of luxurious fodder waving in the wind where twelve months ago there were dust holes producing something most unpleasant to face in the form of daily dust storms that made the lives of the people in those areas a veritable hell upon earth. But from an economic stand-point the State is no better off to-day with its fields of grass than it was with its dust holes, because there is no money available for restocking. [Extension of time granted.] Pastoralists have not been able to restock their holdings. Honorable senators opposite say that it is useless to re-stock thém: because wool cannot be produced at present day costs. They say that, unless working costs can be reduced, the woolgrowing industry must go by the board. My opinion is that at prevailing values for sheep these holdings can be profitably restocked, and that even with low prices ruling, wool can be profitably produced. But nothing can be done until the holdings are restocked. In the north, north-west and north-east of South Australia the restocking of these holdings would lead to the direct employment of between 1,000 and 1,500 men who were formerly employed on the properties, and the seasonal employment of many others who were engaged at shearing, and in many other directions in days gone by.

Among those who have been chosen to fill the role of advisers to the Government, and say that wages must be reduced, are many chairmen of directors of stock and station firms, and directors of banking institutions. What contribution have they made towards the rehabilitation of the pastoral industry? When the price of wool was high during the war, and when stock was bringing high prices, the former raised their commission rate for the sale of wool by a fraction of 1 per cent., and for the sale of stock by 1 per cent., and they have not yet brought down those rates. Ear from making any sacrifice to rehabilitate the pastoral industry or reduce costs, which they are imploring others to do, banking institutions have recently raised their overdraft rates by 1 per cent. . That is their contribution towards the rehabilitation of the industry. In the face of such hypocrisy are we to stand idly by and do nothing to endeavour to rectify the position ? Are we to allow these financial institutions, which undoubtedly do control Australia at the present time, to maintain their control and drive the country to the verge of national insolvency, if not actually into that pitfall? Or should we not take some steps, not to annihilate these people or impose any injustice upon them, or deprive them of anything which is their legitimate right, but to compel them to recognize their responsibility to the community just as the community recognizes its responsibility to them? That, put briefly, is the policy which the Labour party proposes to pursue, and which, if adopted, would, in my opinion, solve our difficulties in this country.

– Yes. The opinions expressed by honorable senators opposite including Senator Colebatch strongly suggest that- they believe in maintaining the present system under which money power is undoubtedly the master of production and trade and commerce in this country. It is the policy of this Government to loosen those shackles and to relieve the burdens which have been placed upon industry in Australia ; but the policy has been condemned by Senator Colebatch and those with whom he is associated.

We are told that we have to deflate and to continue doing so. Let us see where this policy of deflation will lead us. The Government has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of honorable senators opposite, and has refused to take the advice which has been tendered to it so freely during the debate because they know the effect of such a policy.

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

– That policy was adopted at the beginning of August.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– The deflation policy which has been pursued, has brought about a tremendous fall in property values, equities have been destroyed, and businesses have been ruined to such au alarming extent that if we continue the present policy much longer Australia will be unable to meet its commitments.

Honorable senators will see that the increase for Queensland was more than double that for the Commonwealth. Those figures show that, compared with the Queensland Labour Government, the Bruce-Page Government was not extravagant in the expenditure of loan money.

Let us now look at the position from another stand-point - that of the debt per head of the population. At the 30th of June, 1922, the per capita debt of the Commonwealth was £65.539; that of Queensland £108.659 ; and that of all the States £93.439. Seven years later the per capita debt was £59.251, £122.564 and £114.202 respectively. Thus it will be seen that, whereas under the BrucePage Administration the per capita debt of the Commonwealth decreased by £6 5s. 10d., that of Queensland increased by £13 18s.1d., and that of all the States by £20 15s. 3d.

Now let us examine the honorable senator’s charge that the Bruce-Page Government was extravagant in its expenditure from revenue. That Government went out of office in October, 1929. Its expenditure from revenue during 1928-29 was £4,000,000 less than the estimated expenditure of the present Government for this year. On the 21st of November, 1929, the Scullin Government, in order to make up a shortage of revenue, introduced new taxation proposals, which involved an estimated increase of revenue from customs amounting to £2,750,000. Further additions to the revenue from the same source were estimated at £1,200,000. It imposed a super tax on incomes, which was expected to yield an additional £1,285,000 and from the liquidation of ex-enemy properties, it anticipated receiving £1,200,000. The total estimated additional revenue from the sources mentioned amounted to £6,435,000. The budget proposals introduced by the Treasurer in July last included an estimated increase of revenue from various sources amounting to £14,050,000. I emphasize that these were the proposals of a Government which when its members were sitting in opposition, charged the late Government with having imposed excessive taxation on the people. Rather than make a genuine effort to reduce expenditure, the present Government preferred to levy an additional £14,050,000 on the people. It certainly reduced expenditure . in one direction, for it cut down the defence expenditure to the bone; but the savings in other departments are practically nil. The Government’s action is a breach of its promise to. the Premiers of the States, at the conference held in Melbourne in August last, to reduce expenditure by £4,000,000. It has kept that promise only to the extent of reducing departmental expenditure by £65,000, thus placing the burden of balancing the budget solely on the taxpayer.

Senator O’Halloran said that the Government would not ask those public servants receiving less than £725 per annum to make any sacrifice.

Senator Rae:

– Do they not pay their share of income tax?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

–Public servants in receipt of salaries in excess of £’725 per annum are being specially taxed, whereas those whose remuneration is less than that amount are not asked to make any special contribution. Other sections of the taxpayers are being called upon to make very heavy sacrifices; indeed, many of them have difficulty in making ends meet. Next year their capacity to pay taxes will probably have disappeared, for they will have no income to tax. Let me point out the serious position of the woolgrowers of this country. The following table shows the returns from the fleece of each sheep from 1922 to the present time : -

The difference between 5s. 6d. and the higher rates which have been obtained during recent years all comes out of the pocket of the grower. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to talk of the sacrifice made by public servants. The public servants of this - country are a sheltered community. In their own interests they should make a contribution to assist the Commonwealth in its present difficult position. Senator O’Halloran drew attention to an extract from the report of the British Economic Commission. The following paragraph is drawn from the same source: -

Seeing that Australia is not isolated and is dependent to a large degree upon overseas market, the seriousness of the position lies in the fact that the cost of production in competing countries has declined while the costa in Australia generally have risen - thus increasing the already wide margin of difference between the costs in overseas countries and those in Australia.

That is the difficulty in Australia. The value of all commodities has fallen, but the cost of production has remained high. It is impossible to continue producing all of our important commodities, wool, wheat, metals, &c, if that condition of affairs is to continue. The cost of production must fall, and the burden should fall evenly over the grower, the worker, and all who are responsible for the transport of the goods to market. I shall also quote from a speech made by Mr. Collier, at that time Premier of Western. Australia, at the Premiers Conference, held in Canberra in May, 1929. Mr. Collier said -

We find to-day that, because of our relatively high costs of production, we are unable to compete with the other countries -of the world. 1 venture to say that if we have a severe drop in the prices of our staple products, such as wool and wheat, associated with a bad season or two, Australia will be faced with the greatest crisis in its history. The cost of production must undoubtedly be reduced.

Senator O’Halloran:

– Hear, hear! Reduce interest.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.That is the usual cry: “Let the other fellow come down.” Interest will be reduced if confidence is restored, but that can be achieved only by resolute action on the part of the Government. Why is it that to-day New Zealand can borrow in the London market at 4i per cent, while Australia cannot borrow at all? South Africa can also borrow at a. favorable rate on the overseas loan market. Why is it that stocks of similar denomination

Senator O’Halloran:

– Because of the utterances of the honorable senator and those who share his views.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– It is because of the vacillating policy of this Government; because, instead of carrying out the decisions upon which it determines in its wisdom, it follows the dictates of caucus. Actually the Ministry is not representative government. It is merely the mouthpiece of caucus.

Senator Rae:

– Does not the honorable senator carry out the instructions of the Consultative Council, which finds the election funds for him and his colleagues ?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.I carry out the instructions of no outside body. I am here to represent the people who elected me, and to do my best for Australia. The honorable senator’s party organization browbeats certain representatives from his State and makes them mould their policy in conformity with its own ; he is dominated by the organization to which he belongs.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I think honorable senators would be wise to vacate that field of debate.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– There is no doubt that the Government formulated certain proposals in accordance with the determinations of the Premiers Conference that was held in Melbourne a few months ago, and that those proposals were jettisoned by caucus. That is the reason for the lack of confidence in Australia on the part of overseas investors. The country is not being governed by the Government in power, but by a Soviet.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– That is evident from this supplementary financial statement.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honorable senator is guessing.

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.As Senator .Colebatch, stated, the first portion of this statement embodies portion of the original proposals of the Government, but the second part, which emanates from the extremist wing of caucus, supersedes the remainder of those proposals.

Senator Barnes:

– Does the honorable senator wish us to believe that the Opposition has not a caucus?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW.Certainly it has a caucus.

Senator Barnes:

– And are not the honorable senator and his colleagues bound by its decisions?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Certainly not. That was apparent from the manner in which some of my colleagues criticized and voted against the Government during the Bruce-Page regime. We have now been in session for more than a month, and the only bill that the Government has brought down in this chamber is one which sought to impose an embargo on galvanized iron ! That is conclusive proof that the will of caucus predominates, and that the Government is a negligible factor. I am confident that if it would take heart and pursue the policy that it knows to be right, there would be an improvement in the value of our stocks, and the confidence of the investors in Australia would be restored. The investing public merely require to be assured that the Government is doing the fair thing, by keeping its expenditure within reasonable limits. The Government is entitled to impose a certain amount of taxation, but the exorbitant impositions that it contemplates will ha,ve ,ii serious adverse effect on the welfare of the nation. They will eventually operate to the disadvantage of those whom the Government is trying to protect, as the finances of the country will become worse and worse until, in addition to a salary reduction, there will be considerable retrenchments in the Public Service.

I have conclusively rebutted the statement of Senator O’Halloran that the Bruce-Page Government was more extravagant than is the present one. That would be utterly impossible. I sincerely hope that, instead of concentrating upon the dissemination of political propaganda, the Government will seriously set about readjusting the fortunes of Australia.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Before a paper so important as this is printed it is as well that I should say a few words upon its contents. In the first place, we know that this supplementary budget would not have seen the light of day were it not for the fact that the finances of Australia took a turn for the worse immediately after Parliament last went into recess. It was thought that there would be no need to call us together again until 1931, but the calculations and pious hopes of the Ministry were confounded, and the drift continued. It is quite clear that “ something is rotten in the State of Denmark”. “What is it? There is nothing wrong with our country. It is as fertile and as well blessed by a benign Providence as it has been at any time since the white man set foot upon it. The climate is all right; the seasons, too, are all right. The difficulty must rest with the people. In the early ‘nineties Australia went through just as perilous times as those which now confront it. Then there was a very serious curtailment of credit, prices of agricultural produce were deplorably low, financial institutions were unable to square their ledgers, and employment was rife. But the position was quickly adjusted, because the people of those days were of stronger moral fibre than are the people of to-day. What is the matter with the people of to-day? Just this: They have been listening, all too obligingly, to a band of social reformers who have sprung into existence like mushrooms, almost over night, fanatics who. haveinculcated in the minds of the general public the delusion that we are about to witness the birth of a new era. They have been directed to this new Garden of Eden just over the hill with a finger post at the bottom, and have been told that all that is necessary for them to do to enjoy its fruits is to claim more and more of their share of the products of industry than they have been receiving in the past. Whence came this band of reformers no one can say. All we know is that they came from all points of the compass, from lands where they were no longer wanted, and have been advising the workers to combine for the purpose of getting more and still more of the fruits of industry regardless of what becomes of that industry. Strange as it may seem, this pernicious doctrine is still being preached on every hand. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) - that poor, lone man who departed from these shores on an important mission a few months ago, leaving behind him ministerial colleagues who were unable to stand up to the agreement which he made - even he told the workers of this country not so long ago that their share of the fruits of industry should be increased.

SenatorRae. - Hear hear !

Senator LYNCH:

– Despite the obvious approval with which Senator Bae has received my remarks, I maintain, and will prove, that the organized worker has had more than his fair share of the deal when compared with the unorganized one, and even when compared with the man who risks his money in the enterprise.

SenatorRae. - The honorable senator cannot prove that.

Senator LYNCH:

– In the sense that I have implied before, the organized worker, I repeat, has been getting more from industry than has been his due.I know, of course, that in saying this, I am taking my political life in my hands. With me this is not a new experience. It is easy for Senator Rae to speak of the worker - with a capital “ W “ as high as the roof of this chamber - it is easy for him and those who think with him to persuade the organized workers of this country that they have been, and are being, ill-treated by industry, and that they must organize to squeeze more out of it. But that very attitude and policy are responsible for the misery of to-day. Such attempts as these have landed us in our present position. Prices for our primary products are now so low that it will require the united efforts of the whole of the people to right the situation that confronts us. But we have passed through similar crises before in the history of this country, the only noticeable difference to-day being evidence of an entirely different spirit in the industrial field, as compared with that in earlier years. I invite Senator Rae to search the records dealing with the prices paid for our primary products. If he does, he will find that, at one stage in our history, wheat was as low as ls. 8d. a bushel in Victoria. We have not reached that level yet. Wool also was sold as low as 7d. a lb. We are close to, if not right at, that position to-day. There were no throngs of unemployed then, nor were there free food depots. As I have said, there was a different spirit abroad in those days. The people faced the situation courageously with the result that the crisis was hardly precipitated before the means to meet it were adopted and the country was on the up grade. The Australian citizen of those days, true to the spirit of his forefathers, faced the situation with a firm determination to overcome his difficulties, with the result that the depression was lifted in short order.

To-day, a crisis of great magnitude faces us, but because the pioneering spirit of our forebears has oozed out or been sadly watered down, to meet it is a totally different proposition. To-day we have the spectacle of State Governments being in danger of having their cheques returned marked “ n.s.f . “, simply because this Government and its supporters will not face the realities of the situation. So I say that there is nothing wrong with this country - nothing wrong with its productivity or the seasons - but there is something very much wrong with the spirit of its people. They have been listening over-long to the false voice of those “ sooner “ reformers, who have come among us within the last fifteen or twenty years. I say it with regret that they have listened to the advice of these people to their own undoing. What is urgently needed now to put Australia again on the road to prosperity is hard thinking, not foolish thinking; hard work, and not slack work; hard saving, and no more extravagance. We want these things very badly. Especially should we take good care to avoid the printing press and the oil can which some people would use to lubricate the financial machinery of the nation for the production of wealth. History teaches us that wealth created in this way will be so much waste paper in the end. We cannot expect to return to prosperity along this path. It lias been tried, before and proved to be a false road. In fact, it is a roguish road. Honorable senators on this side, who have been warning the people of the dangers that confront them, are not blind to the teachings of history. They know that these alternatives to hard work, honest thinking and frugality have been tried and found wanting.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Those who advocate that course are trying to bluff the unemployed.

Senator LYNCH:

That, in order to assist Australia to redress the overseas trade balance, the Senate is of opinion that the Government should give consideration to the formulation of proposals, by which the manufacturing industries of the Commonwealth could be encouraged to export manufactured goods to overseas markets. and (on motion by Senator Barnes) adjourned.

page 971

BEAM WIRELESS

Penny a Word Messages - Report of Select Committee.

Debate resumed from the 3rd July (vide page 3624) on motion by Senator Herbert Hays -

That the report from the Select Committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the desirability and commercial possibility of sending messages from Australia to England over the Beam Wireless at1d. a word, presented to the Senate on 14th August, 1929, be adopted.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– This matter has been before the Senate on several occasions, and on each occasion I have resumed the debate and asked leave to continue my remarks, in view of the fact that certain negotiations were being undertaken which would have a very important bearing on the report of the select committee. As, according to the latest information I have received, these negotiations have not yet been completed by the Prime Minister in Great Britain, I again ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 972

QUESTION

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Debate resumed from page 971.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– Honorable senators will remember that my old friend, Senator Rae, and I had a few words before the dinner adjournment. In the heat of debate one is tempted to step beyond the boundary line of prudence, and I wish to say now that if I said anything that wounded Senator Rae’s feelings, I withdraw the words and apologize to him. If he so desires, I shall request that all mention of the matter be expunged from the records of the Senate. As I understand that it will facilitate business, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 972

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

AuditAct - Transfers of amounts approved in Councilby the person administering the Government of the Common wealth of Australia - Financial Year 1929-30 - Dated 24thNovember,1930.

page 972

PATENTS BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a very simple and noncontroversial measure providing for increasing the charges for the services which the Patents Office renders the public. Since this office was first established in 1903 it has grown considerably. Its chief item of expenditure is the cost of examination of applications for patents and the cost of printing. There are about 1 00 employees and the work they do is astonishing. I had occasion to do some business in the office the other day in connexion with a patent a young man was trying to put through and I got an excellent idea of the work which they do. Incidentally I learned that the staff was delighted that it was not to be transferred to Canberra. The main purpose of the bill is the revision of the fees payable in connexion with the granting of patents. These have remained unaltered since the first Patents Act in 1903. It will be realized that since that date costs of administration have increased, and accordingly a scale of charges deemed to be reasonable in 1903 is quite insufficienttoday. Printing costs £14,000 a year; double what it cost in pre-war days. In 1904 four examiners were employed whereas to-day 36 are necessary. This is, however, not an index to the increase in the number of applications for patents. The number of applications received annually is only a little more than double the number received 20 years ago, but the necessity to employ nine times as large a staff to deal with only double the number of applications is attributed to the increased scope of the searches to be made, a factor which will continue until the provision in section 60 of the act, under which specifications more than 50 years old are, in certain circumstances, not a bar to a patent, comes into full play as applied to specifications filed under the Commonwealth act. While it is not desired to impose any unnecessary tax on inventions, it is considered that the granting of a patent should, in the present time of financial stress, bear some small share of the burden. The Government is anxious to spread the burden over as wide a field as possible. The immediate increases which are provided for in the bill will be payable by persons who apply for patents after the date of the commencement of the act, but the increase which is provided for in regard to renewal fees will not come about immediately. It will take effect in five years because the first renewal fee under the bill is to be payable on the expiration of the fifth year of the period of the patent. I understand that a fee of £1 is paid on the submission of an application and that upon the granting of the patent, a further fee of £2 is paid and the patent has a currency of sixteen years, but another fee has to be paid at the end of five years and if it is not paid the patent lapses. No additional revenue can be expected for the next five years from renewal fees. The fees which may be expected to produce some additional revenue within those five years are -

1 ) A fee of £2 payable on lodging a complete specification after a provisional specification, and
Where a complete specification is filed in the first instance, a fee of £3 as against the fee of £1 which is at present in force.

The present scale of fees is defective in that it provides for a fee of £1 only on any application up to but not including the stage of the acceptance of the complete specification, when the scale provides for a fee of £2. If, however, the office on examination of the specification as to prior patenting or as to novelty, rejects the application, no additional fee is payable. In such cases the fee of £1 is quite inadequate. The principal cost to the office in connexion with dealing with applications for patents is the cost of examination, and a complicated invention may quite conceivably occupy the attention of an examiner for a long period. It is therefore proposed that, in addition to the acceptance-fee now payable, a fee shall be payable on lodgment of the complete specification. It is considered that, as the first of the renewal fees will not be payable until five years from the date of the patent, it is reasonable that additional revenue should be derived from this source. Presumably, a patentee will in the ordinary course have had a reasonable time in which to exploit his invention, and the fee then to be paid would presumably be from receipts from the monopoly which he enjoys. It seems reasonable that in such cases the patentee should be asked to make an additional contribution to the Consolidated Revenue. The department is to give persons who have sufficient intellect to invent something of service to the community a sufficienttime in which to exploit their invention. I have been informed by the department that most of the inventions are submitted by comparatively poor men. A patent was recently applied for by a young working tradesman which stood every test, and which, under ordinary conditions, would have sold readily; but at the present time, when so many are afraid to put their hands in their pockets because of the possible presence of a death adder, it is difficult to sell anything. The only other alterations for which this bill provides are in the form of Letters Patent. The first is to substitute the Commonwealth Arms for the Royal Arms, and the second to substitute the present for the old form of the King’s title. I do not think that there is anything controversial in the measure, which has been framed in an attempt to enable the Patents Office, which is conducted for the convenience of the public, to obtain more revenue than at present. The Government cannot afford to employ a staff of 100 under the present scale of fees, as the work involved in dealing with every application, many of which are rejected, is very heavy. In the circumstances the Government is of the opinion that fees more in keeping with the service rendered should be paid by those who apply for patents.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [8.18]. - I am under the impression that it was the intention of the previous Government to introduce an amending measure of this nature. It is a fact that the cost of administering the patents branch has increased tremendously since 1903, and even under the rates now proposed Australia will be one of the cheapest countries in which to patent an invention. It is also apparent, as the Assistant Minister (Senator Barnes) said, that the principal cost is in the initiationof a patent. The fees now proposed will not in any sense recoup the department for the cost of conducting searches. The fee which is to be paid subsequent to the application-fee is higher, because such a fee would be payable only after the invention had proved to be a success. In these circumstances I do not think there will be any opposition to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendmentor debate.

Report adopted.

page 973

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL

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

page 973

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL

(No. 2).

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The principal object of this bill is to alter the basis of the general deduction allowable in respect of income derived from property. The proposed alteration is one of the Government’s three proposals to obtain additional revenue from income tax. The other two proposals, which will be contained in theIncome Tax Bill dealing with rates of income tax, are -

to increase last year’s rate of tax on income from personal exertion by 15 per cent. (in lieu of the 10 per cent. imposed last session), in the case of taxable incomes exceeding £500; and
to impose a super tax of7½ per cent. (1s. 6d. in the £1) on all interest, rents, dividends, royalties and all other income from property.

As regards the proposal in this bill for the alteration of the general deduction from property income, it may be noted that at present there is a general deduction of £300 from the total net income, whether that income is derived from personal exertion or property or from both sources. That deduction diminishes by £1 for every £3 by which the total net income exceeds £300, so that the deduction disappears where the total net income is £1,200. It is not proposed to alter the existing law in the case of incomes derived wholly from personal exertion.

In the case of incomes derived wholly from property, it wasoriginally proposed that the deduction should be £100, diminishing by £1 for every £1 by which the income exceeded £100, and hence disappearing at £200. After the introduction of the bill in another place, the Government decided to increase the deduction to £200, diminishing £1 for £1 so that it would disappear at £400. During the debate in committee, the Government agreed to alter the rate of diminution to £1 by every £2 by which the income exceeds £200, with the result that, under the bill as it now stands, the deduction from property income will disappear when the net income from that source reaches £600.

In the case of income derived partly from personal exertion and partly from property, a deduction for each of the two sources of income will, in the first place, be calculated on the assumption that the total income is derived from that source, and the amount so calculated will be reduced to the same proportion of that amount as the income from that source bears to the total income, namely -

These alterations of the general deduction are provided for in clause 3 of the bill. Apart from a provision to remedy a drafting oversight in clause 5, the remaining provisions of the bill are either -

incidental to the alteration of the basis of the general deduction ; or
incidental to the proposed super tax of1s. 6d. in the £1 on income from interest, rents, dividends, royalties, and other income from property.

The provisions incidental to the alteration of the general deduction are contained in clause 4, which empowers the Commissioner to call for returns from persons deriving income from property, and whose total income is £200 or over. As regards the proposed super tax, clause 2 will prevent shareholders, who, under the Bates Bill, will be exempt from the proposed super tax on dividends paid out of income upon which the super tax is paid by the company, from obtaining, in addition to that exemption, a rebate of the super tax paid by the company; while clause 5 is designed to prevent mortgagees from passing on their liability for income tax on mortgage interest to their mortgagors. The last-mentioned clause amends section 94, which applies only to mortgages of land, and as the result of a decision of the High Court it is unable to achieve its original purpose. The proposal to impose a tax of ls. 6d. in the £1 on all interest makes it important that the section should be made effective, and also that it should be extended to apply to mortgages of every kind - -every charge, lien or encumbrance to secure the repayment of money upon which interest is payable.

Honorable senators are well aware of the serious position which confronts this country. They know that it is now almost impossible for the Commonwealth to carry out the resolution passed at the conference of Premiers held in Melbourne in August, and balance its budget this year. The Government is, however, making an honest attempt to as nearly as possible balance its budget. The taxation proposals of a governmentare never popular, whether the imposts be heavy or light. There seems to be a natural disinclination to pay taxes ; the person who runs along to pay his levies before they become due is indeed rare. The position which faces us is, however, so critical, that the Government feels that every citizen should do his share. It has, therefore, searched for means of increasing its revenue; but it has endeavoured not to make the burden of taxation intolerable. It will extract as much from the people as it feels it can legitimately ask tl em to pay, so that it will get as near as possible to balancing its budget. We are all more or less agitated about the country’s financial position; but recriminations will not get us very far. We should work together as citizens whose desire is to serve their country, rather than act as partisans in politics. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Pearce) adjourned.

page 975

SOUTH AUSTRALIA GRANT BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– -I move -

That the bill be now rend a second time.

This bill proposes to give some assistance to South Australia, whose financial position is worse than that of the other States, chiefly because of the droughts from which the central State has suffered in recent years. South Australia’s wealth is derived principally from wheat, sheep and cattle. The cattle country is in the north of the State, where the droughts have been most severe. The wheat belt is chiefly confined to the middle districts of the State, which, unfortunately, have not escaped the droughts. In good seasons the northern portion .of South Australia produces large quantities of grain ; but for three years there has been practically no crop there. Consequently, the revenue of the State has fallen considerably. The previous Government recognized the claims of South Australia and agreed that’ a grant of £1,000,000, spread over a period of three years, was justified. South Australia has suffered from over-borrowing more than the other States have done. The Government of South Australia also claims that that State suffers serious disabilities as a result of federation, although I do not know that the Commonwealth Government admits that claim. We frequently hear complaints from the States that they have suffered by reason of federation; but, personally, I should regard as a backward step any attempt to get back to pre-federation conditions. Rather do I hope that the time will soon come when there will be a federated Australia, with but one Parliament controlling it. Of course, matters of local administration would be left to the States. In 1929 a royal commission investigataed the position of South Australia under federation, and recommended a grant of £500,000 a year for two years. The late Government proposed that South Australia should be assisted to the extent of £1,000,000, spread over three years. That proposal was contingent on the Red Hill to Salisbury railway being handed over to the Commonwealth. As honorable senators know, that railway would provide a more direct route between Adelaide and Port Augusta than that now traversed, and would save passengers nine hours of unnecessary travelling. After the present Government came into office, Parliament agreed to a grant of £1,000,000 being made to South Australia, £360,000 to be paid in 1929-30, £320,000 in 1930-31, and £320,000 in 1931-32. Notwithstanding this assistance, the position of South Australia in 1929-30 was much worse than in previous years; its deficit for that year amounted to £1,625,000 as compared with £275,000 for 1927-2S, and £931,000 for 1928-29. At the August conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, held in Melbourne, a resolution was passed that all governments should balance their budgets for this year. The Premier of South Australia stated that, despite increased taxation and economies, he would require a further £1,000,000 to balance his budget. The other States agreed to help South Australia; and subsequently a further resolution was passed under which they agreed to forgo certain grants from the Commonwealth aggregating £850,000; and the Commonwealth agreed to pay that sum to South Australia. I believe that that has ‘been done. It was agreed at the Melbourne conference that the Commonwealth and South Australian Governments should confer regarding the balance of £150,000 required to complete the £1,000,000 requested by South Australia. It was contemplated at the time that that amount should be made good, if possible, by South Australia, or alternatively by South Australia and the Commonwealth, acting conjointly. No definite arrangement has yet been made and the matter is still in abeyance. It has not been possible for the Commonwealth Government to examine the budget proposals of South Australia thoroughly to see whether this sum could be provided by South Australia herself. Moreover, the position of the Commonwealth has become more difficult iu the meantime and the new budget proposals will not secure a balanced budget for this year. It would seem wrong for the Commonwealth to increase its deficit merely to balance the budget of South Australia, but the matter will be further investigated before the 30th June, 1931. The Government has requested the Public Accounts Committee to inquire into the claim of South Australia for further assistance from the Commonwealth. That body, which was appointed by the Commonwealth Parliament, is well qualified to examine this problem exhaustively, and to report the actual position to the Government. The first review of the South Australian budget showed a deficit of approximately £3,000,000. Measures to balance the budget included the following: -

It will be noted that South Australia has budgeted for a grant from the Commonwealth of £1,000,000, whereas that now proposed is £850,000. As already indicated, no definite arrangement has yet been made to cover the difference of £150,000. Since the budget was presented certain arbitration awards have been made which, it is anticipated, will result in further savings. I believe that rates of pay are being reduced, a procedure which is unpalatable to me.

I have clearly indicated the position ofSouth Australia. Unless help is granted to that State, it will be in a desperate plight. The purpose of the hill is to allow it to adjust its own affairs, and to save it from becoming a mendicant; to enable it to hold up its head on terms of equality with the other States. There is promise of better seasons in South Australia and, with reasonable prices for its stock and produce, there is every likelihood of that State regaining a satisfactory financial position. Although for the moment the price of wheat is exceptionally low, authorities hold out the hope that, while perhaps it may not bring the price that was contemplated by the wheat Marketing Bill, it will return a satisfactory profit to the producers. The hill should commend itself to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber.

Debate (on motion, by Senator Sir George Pearce) adjourned.

page 977

INCOME TAX (SALARIES) ASSESSMENT BILL

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is a very distasteful one, because it proposes to tax salaries.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– It has already been subjected to rather severe criticism in another place.

Senator BARNES:

– It has, and I suppose the process will be repeated in this chamber. The bill has been introduced in accordance with the decision of the Government to impose a tax on the salaries of members of Parliament and Ministers, and also of higher-paid Commonwealth officials. The first group comprises parliamentary allowances and salaries, and, in this instance, the tax will apply to the allowances of all senators and members. In the case of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, the Chairman of Committees, and the Leader of the Opposition in either House, the tax will apply to the salary attaching to the office which he holds. The officers in the second group will include every public servant whose salary exceeds £725 per annum, and is paid from the Commonwealth public account or the North Australia Commission Fund, unless the officer concerned is employed by the Commonwealth in any territory which is not part of the Commonwealth, and where the revenues are raised within that territory for its own purposes. This group embraces officers of the Development and Migration Commission, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Commonwealth Railways, the War Service Homes Commission, the Repatriation Commission, the North Australia Commission, the Naval, Military and Air Forces, and the Public Service generally, as well as the High Commissioner, and the CommissionerGeneral in the United States.It does not include officers of the Commonwealth Bank, the Commonwealth Shipping Board, the Dried Fruits Control Board and the Commonwealth Oil Refineries. The Administrator of Norfolk Island and the administrators and officers of the Papuan and New Guinea services are also excluded. It does not affect any person whose salary is not paid directly from the public account, as, for example, officers of a semi-governmental institution such as the Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited.

Officers who have been rationed in any financial year on or after 1st July, 1930, will not be subject to the tax during that financial year. Should there be cases in which the amount of rationing is not equal to the amount of tax it will rest with the administration to see that the same sacrifice is made by rationed officers as is made by others. Generally speaking, the rationing which has taken place so far is at least equal to the tax which it is proposed to levy.

The basis of the tax is expressed in a separate taxing bill, which provides for the following taxes: -

On allowances of senators and members - a tax of 10 per cent. of those allowances;

On allowances and salaries of Chairmen of Committees and Leaders of the Opposition, in both Houses - a tax of12½ per cent. of those allowances and salaries ;

On allowances and salaries of Ministers, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate - a tax of 15 per cent. of those allowances and salaries.

On salaries of Commonwealth officials -

where the salary exceeds £725, but does not exceed £1,000, a tax of 10 per cent. of salary, but so that no salary is brought below £725 ;
where the salary exceeds £1,000, but does not exceed £1,500, a tax of12½ per cent. of the salary, but so that no salary, is brought below £900 - the net income remaining after payment of tax on £1,000 - and
where the salary exceeds £1,500 a tax of 15 per cent. of salary, but so that no salary is brought below £1,312 10s.- the net income remaining after payment of tax on £1,500.

The tax will be deducted at the source from each payment of salary or allowance and will begin with the first payment of salary after the 1st December, 1930, but only in respect of salary earned after that date.

It is possible that the salaries of some Commonwealth officials may fluctuate during the course of a year, and in order that the amount of the tax shall be definitely ascertainable in respect of each payment of salary in such cases, it has been found necessary to provide that the annual salary, for the purposes of the rate of tax to be applied to each payment, shall be calculated at the rate of the official’s salary at the time of the payment. The salary of a taxpayer who is a Commonwealth official is defined to mean the annual remuneration paid to the official in respect of the office occupied by him, and any annual allowance paid in respect of any duties performed in addition to those of that office.

Although, technically speaking, the salary or allowance of any person affected by the tax remains unaltered, the practical effect of the tax is to reduce that person’s salary or allowance. In the circumstances, it is considered that the salary of any person, to the extent that it is subjected to a reduction by way of tax, should not form a part of his income for the purposes of ordinary income tax, or of any other form of taxation of salaries or allowance.

The subject is a very controversial one. Members of Parliament have been criticized because of their alleged disinclination to tax themselves while being prepared to tax everybody else in the community. They are subjected to considerable criticism chiefly because the general public does not understand the peculiar circumstances which attach to the occupation of a member of Parliament, Parliamentary representatives are put to agreat deal of expense which does not apply to those who follow other occupations, and their position is a very precarious one, giving no security of tenure. An honorable senator might remain in. office for his full term of six years, while a turn of the wheel of fortune might bring about a double dissolution and terminate his appointment within a month. However, members are a philosophical lot, and endeavour to accept without undue complaint anything that fate has in store for them. This measure imposes a pretty severe tax upon members of Parliament, and it is a definite indication that the Government is endeavouring, as far as possible, to spread the burden of taxation evenly over the community.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– With one exception, the public servants.

Senator BARNES:

– They are subjected to State taxes and many other forms of expenditure, but they certainly have security of tenure. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce) adjourned.

page 978

ADJOURNMENT

Duty on Oregon.

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CHAPMAN:
South Australia

– I desire to bring under the notice of members of the Government and the Senate representations which have been made to me from the South Australian Master Builders and Contractors Association in connexion with the duty on

Oregon. The position is set out in the following extract from a letter which I have received from the secretary of that association, under date 1st December, 1930 : -

We again approach you in reference to the duty on imported Oregon. The building trade in this State is at a standstill, and rents have fallen to such an extent that Lt will be impossible to stimulate trade whilst we are adding on extra charges. We have practically no bush mills in this State, and Oregon must be used for roofing, &c. We do not know of any work where hardwood has replaced oregon, and given extra employment in the mills . . No extra employment has been given to employees in bush mills in this State, but extra unemployment has been caused by this overloading, which means about £16 per house, which has to be carried for all time.

The position is well known to most honorable senators. Oregon costs approximately 4s. per 100 super feet in the country of origin, and the present rate of duty is 12s. 6d. per 100 super feet, a duty of between 300 per cent. and 400 per cent. In 1927 the Tariff Board, with evident reluctance, recommended that the duty on Oregon be increased to 5s. 6d. per 100 super, feet, but the Government of the day increased it to 8s. I, and many other honorable senators, strongly protested against this action. That duty was operative until the 26th of July of this year, when the present Government increased it to 12s. 6d. per 100 super. feet. The tariff schedule which imposes this excessive duty has not yet been brought before Parliament. Strong representations have been made to the Government by honorable senators, and also by honorable members in another place, who have pointed out that a large number of timber firms have been seriously affected by the increased rate. Some time ago several’ firms in South Australia sent their representatives to Canberra to place the position before the Government, but their representations were ignored.. By collecting this duty without the approval of Parliament, the Government is acting the part of a despot of the worst type. Its action also is a gratuitous insult to this chamber, which should be given an opportunity to discuss the numerous tariff schedules that have been laid on the table from time to time since the accession to office of this Government. I am firmly of the opinion that the Senate will not pass this particular duty. On the 10th June last, the quantity of oregon in stock or afloat was estimated at 63,000,000 super, feet. On this subject the Tariff Board reported -

After having given their utmost consideration to the matter from all aspects, the board is of opinion that an increase in the present rate of duty -

It was then 8s. per 100 super, feet - on undressed oregon in sizes 12 inches x S Inches or over would be neither justifiable nor desirable.

Yet, in the face of this recommendation, the Government, on the 26th July, tabled a schedule carrying an increased duty of 4s. 6d. I may add that the then ruling rate of 8s. was a compromise approved by the trade; but, as regards the last increase of 4s. 6d., the Leader of the Senate (Senator Daly) admitted that only one timber firm had made a request to the Government. Those firms which held large stocks of Oregon have benefited from the imposition of the increased duty; but other firms, with depleted stocks, are at a disadvantage. They are compelled to pay the. higher rate, and are, therefore, unable to compete on even terms with business rivals. It has been stated that the gain to firms with stocks on hand amounted to £150,000. It may interest honorable senators to know that the firm which approached the Government with a request for the increased duties had previously opposed any such action. We heard allegations of “logrolling “ over the business, but the Leader of the Senate has stated that only one firm approached the Government. I have spoken to the representatives of several firms which had small stocks of oregon on hand when the new duty was imposed, and they have advised me that the additional duty which they are called upon to pay means that their price for

Oregon loses them orders which otherwise they would be able to secure. Some of these firms are now threatened with ruin. If they are forced out of business, a considerable number of men will lose their employment. Now the builders, in their turn, are complaining bitterly about the added cost of building. We are told that for the average worker’s home the increased cost, due to the duty, works out at about £16. Since the workers must eventually pay more for their homes, costs of production will be increased at a time when nearly every one agrees that, if Australia is to recover from the present depression, costs should come down. Senator Colebatch drew attention to this matter some weeks ago. The honorable senator realized that, although Western Australia has practically an unlimited supply of hardwood, and presumably might benefit from the duty, it is impossible to use that class of timber for certain building construction. I strongly protest against the increased duty, and I urge the Government to take early action to remove, it. We are all liable to make mistakes. In this matter the best course for the Government will be to admit its mistake and rectify it at the earliest possible date.

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

– Senator Chapman has complained very feelingly about the injustice, as he describes it, pf the Government’s action iri increasing the duty on imported Oregon. I remind honorable senators that representations with regard to this matter were made from many quarters.

Senator Sir HAL COLEBATCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The representations came chiefly from timber merchants who had big supplies.

Senator BARNES:

– The honorable senator is wrong. Some of the firms which he has in mind may have had fair supplies of Oregon when the increased duty was imposed. The requests came chiefly from bush timber-millers and organizations of employees, who urged that the tariff onoregon should be increased so as to prevent it from competing with local timber for certain classes of work. The Government’s aim, in increasing the duty, was to encourage the use of Australian timbers in all work for which it is suitable.

Senator Chapman:

– At a conference of all parties interested, the duty of8s. was accepted as a compromise.

Senator BARNES:

– With the information at its disposal, the Government considered that 8s. per 100 super feet was not sufficient to meet the situation, . so it imposed the rate now in force.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at9.16 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 December 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1930/19301204_senate_12_127/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 December 1930

QUESTION

CHRISTMAS RECESS

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Senator BARNES:Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:

QUESTION

QUESTION DISALLOWED;

Senator CHAPMAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

LAND TAXATION

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

QUESTION

INFLATION

Senator PAYNE:TASMANIA

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

PAPER-PULP INDUSTRY

Senator PAYNE:

Senator DALY:through Senator Barnes · ALP

QUESTION

MILITIAFORCES

Senator SAMPSON:TASMANIA

Senator BARNES:VICTORIA · ALP

PETROL PEICES

Senator DALY:through Senator’ Barnes · ALP

Senator LYNCH:

Senator LYNCH:

QUESTION

FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Senator CARROLL:Western Australia

Senator Rae:

Senator CARROLL:

Senator Rae:

Senator CARROLL:

Senator Dunn:

Senator CARROLL:

Senator Lynch:

Senator CARROLL:

Senator LAWSON:Victoria

Senator Daly:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Sir William Glasgow:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Daly:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Daly:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Dunn:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Rae:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Rae:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Hoare:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator Rae:

Senator LAWSON:

Senator O’HALLORAN:South Australia

Senator Sampson:

Senator O’HALLORAN:

Senate
4 December 1930

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator BARNES:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · ALP

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CHAPMAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DALY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator PAYNE:
TASMANIA

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator Barnes · ALP

Senator SAMPSON:
TASMANIA

Senator BARNES:
VICTORIA · ALP

Senator DALY:
through Senator’ Barnes · ALP

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

Senator LAWSON:
Victoria

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia