Senate
25 June 1931

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- MINISTERIAL CHANGES
TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT
- Issue of Licences
QUESTION
- ADMINISTRATION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF POTATOES
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2)
QUESTION
- TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT
STATUTORY RULES
SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1931-32
- Second Reading
SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 3)
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Budget and Economy Plan

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

page 2985

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL CHANGES

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

– There have been some changes in the Ministry, but no official announcement can he made in regard to them in the Senate until certain preliminaries have been carried out.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister give the names of two other Ministers who are expected to resign from the Cabinet at any moment?

Senator BARNES:

– So far as I know, no other Minister is likely to resign.

page 2985

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Issue of Licences

Is it a fact that an order has been issued by the Government or by a Minister to suspend the issue of licences under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1029?
Is it a fact that in some cases licences have been renewed, and that in other cases a renewalhas been refused?
What is the intention of the Government in respect to these licences?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– No such instruction has been given so far as I am aware.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I give notice of the question for to-morrow.

page 2985

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I should like to know if there is any truth in the rumour that Mr. Harold Nelson, member for the Northern Territory in another place, has been appointed Administrator of the Territory, and, if so, when his duties will commence?

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware of Mr. Harold Nelson’s appointment to the position.

page 2985

QUESTION

EXPORT OF POTATOES

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– On the18th June, Senator J. B. Hayes asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets the following questions, upon notice: -

Has he seen an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph pointing out that there is a good and practicable market for our potatoes in the East?
Will the Minister have inquiries made, having regard to the following points: - (a) Quantities likely to be absorbed; (b) probable price; (c) varieties most suitable; (d) cost of freight and charges; (e) present facilities for shipping and best ports to consign to?

The Minister for Markets has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

Yes.
Inquiries by the Department of Markets as to the prospects of extending Australian trade in the East in all lines of produce capable of being shipped from the Commonwealth have been proceeding for some time, with good results. I am having special inquiries made, regarding potatoes particularly, on the lines desired by the honorable senator.

page 2985

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– On the 11th June, Senator E. B. Johnston, asked the following questions, upon notice -

Is it a fact that petrol produced by the Commonwealth Oil Refineries is retailed, in Sydney and Melbourne, at a lower price than first-class imported petrol?
In view of the fact that the Commonwealth owns a controlling interest in the Commonwealth Oil Refineries, why are not their products marketed in Western Australia, equally with the Eastern States?

I am now in a position to furnish the following reply: -

The Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited advises that C.O.R. No. 2 has for some long time past been sold at1d. per gallon less than the other companies’ No. 2 brands, although it is stated to be in every regard equal to any second grade spirit on the market. I am advised that generally C.O.R. first grade is being sold at the same price as the other companies’ first grade.
The opening up in Western Australia is included in one of the future stages of the company’s development, but it is not possible to carry it out immediately. It is stated that it would require a large capital outlay, and that it is considered inexpedient for the moment to ask the shareholders for an increase in the capital - the funds which are accumulating being necessary for the requisite extensions and additions to the refinery.

page 2986

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL

(No. 3).

Assent reported.

page 2986

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2)

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 2986

QUESTION

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Regulations: Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received, from Senator Sir George Pearce, a letter intimating that this afternoon he intends to move “ That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 10 a.m. to-morrow “ for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely “ The action of the Government in issuing regulations under the Transport Workers Act 1928-29 overriding a decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.” Is the motion supported?

Four honorable senators having risen in their places.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.12]. - I move -

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

Senator Barnes:

– I rise to a point of order. I direct attention to Standing Order 418, which reads -

No senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections on members shall be considered highly disorderly.

The expressed intention of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition is to discuss regulations which, he declares, override a decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and. Arbitration. The imputation that this Government is endeavouring to override a decision of the Arbitration Court is offensive to the Government.

Senator Sampson:

– It is true, nevertheless.

Senator Daly:

– That remark also is offensive to the Government.

Senator Barnes:

– Most certainly it is. Whatever offence this Government may be guilty of in the eyes of honorable senators opposite, it certainly is not guilty of an intention to flout an instrumentality of the Commonwealth, the decisions of which are supposed to be almost as sacred as the word of God. The imputation conveyed in the letter of the right honorable gentleman is offensive to the Government, and, I suggest, also to its supporters. I, therefore, trust that you will rule the motion out of order under Standing Order 418.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– I certainly have no intention of saying anything that will be offensive concerning either House of the Federal Parliament, any member of it, any House of the State Parliaments, or any statute. My letter to you, sir, does not contain any such suggestion. It contains merely a statement of fact which, if opportunity is given to me, I shall be able to prove.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am somewhat surprised at the raising of this point of order. I have read carefully the letter sent to me by the right honorable gentleman, and I fail to discover in it words which go beyond what might be regarded as fair criticism, such as is offered in this chamber to a much greater extent almost daily. I, therefore, cannot sustain, the point of order.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.My letter to the President states that the latest regulations issued by the Government under the Transport Workers Act override a decision of the Arbitration Court. I propose to prove that they will have this effect if not disallowed. When they were issued there were no regulations in force, because of the disallowance by the Senate of previous regulations that had been gazetted by the Government. As no regulations were in force it follows that the conditions set up by the decision of the Arbitration Court were reverted to. For the information of honorable senators I will indicate, briefly, what were those conditions. In its order of the 22nd October, 1928, the Arbitration Court deleted from existing awards, which bound members of the Waterside Workers Federation, all reference to preference in employment; and, again, in a judgment on the 5th May, 1930, the court refused the application of the federation to reinstate preference in its awards. I direct particular attention to this express order of the court, deleting preference in employment to members of the Waterside Workers Federation, and also to the court’s refusal of the application to have preference reinstated. There is no ambiguity about the decision. This Government has always claimed that it stands for arbitration. At the last general election Labour candidates made a definite promise to the electors that, if Labour were returned to power, it would safeguard and stand by the principle of arbitration, the fundamental principle of which is that judgments of the Arbitration Court shall be observed. This Government is now ignoring Parliament, and is using its regulation-making power to override a decision of the Arbitration Court. In the Melbourne Argus of the 6th May, 1930, there appeared the following report of a decision by Judge Beeby : -

Judge Beeby, in the Arbitration Court yesterday, refused an application by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia for an order for preference to unionists. He indicated that in refusing the application he was influenced by a judgment given by the late Mr. Justice Higgins in similar circumstances in .1918.

Judge Beeby, in a considered judgment, said that in 1028 members of the federation, under the direction of its management committee, refused to offer for employment at several ports, including Melbourne, Adelaide, and Brisbane. Shipowners and stevedores thereupon notified the federation of their intention to engage non-union labour after a named day. [n some ports federation labour persisted after that day in refusing to offer for employment, and volunteer labour was enrolled. When calling for labour employers gave undertakings that, subject to efficiency, volunteers would be given preference of employment over members of the federation, and that SuCh preference would continue if and when the strike ended. Some time later the federation declared the strike off, and its members again attended the picking-up places in search of employment. Employers honoured their promise made to volunteers, and, later on, an application was made by the federation for a variation of the award by inserting a clause to provide for complete preference to unionists. “ Following the course taken by Mr. Justice Higgins in a similar set of circumstances in 1918,” continued Judge Beeby, “I directed the registrar of the court to inquire and report upon the actual number of volunteers engaged before the strike was declared off. Counsel for the federation asked for an order for preference of employment, which would, if granted, lead to the immediate dismissal of all volunteers and the restoration of control of waterside labour by the federation. 1 anticipated that the federation would submit some reasonable proposal for the sharing of work with the volunteers until, in the course of time, they had been absorbed by the federation, on an agreement somewhat similar to that which closed the history of the 1917 strike. But no suggestion of compromise was made. I was asked to grant the union full preference without any alternative proposals. During the proceedings it was frequently suggested that the inability of many members of the federation to obtain employment on the waterfront was a continuation of punishment inflicted by the court. This is an entirely erroneous statement of the position . . .” “ The industrial history of the federation had made it impossible to legalize control by the federation of waterfront labour. The present situation is, therefore, entirely of the federation’s own creation, and is in no way a punishment inflicted by the court.” “. . . In his judgment, Mr. Justice Higgins said, in effect, that the discrimination against the federation was to be limited to reputable men engaged as volunteers. I am forced to the same conclusion in this case ; but as none of the parties asks me to make any similar order, I can only determine whether an order for absolute preference to members of the federation, in terms of section 40 of the act, should be made. I think that it should not, and the application is, therefore, dismissed.”

In the face of that judgment, the Government has now issued a new set of regulations which provide expressly for the granting of preference to those who, under paragraph b of section 3, are members of the organization known as the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, an organization that is bound by an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Is not that a direct and complete overriding and setting aside of the judgment of that court? The Government professes to stand for the Arbitration Court; yet, instead of asking Parliament to amend the Transport Workers Act, as it promised the electors it would do, it has availed itself of its regulation-making power to make regulations that override the judgment of that court. I suggest that there could not be a more complete case of a government interfering with the jurisdiction of the court and setting aside its judgment.

It is necessary that I read the regulations, so that they may be laid upon the table of the Senate, thus enabling me, at a later stage, to invite the Senate to disallow them. They read as follows: -

page 2988

STATUTORY RULES

No. 73.

Regulations under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929.

I, the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Regulations under the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929, to come into operation forthwith.

Dated this 18th day of June, 1931.

Isaac A. Isaacs

Governor-General

By His Excellency’s Command,

Parker Moloney

Minister of State for Transport

Waterside Employment Regulations

These Regulations may be cited as the Waterside Employment Regulations.
In these Regulations, unless the contrary intention appears - “ returned soldiers “ and “ returned sailors “ mean returned soldiers and returned sailors as defined in sectioneighty-one a of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1930 who were, at any time during the first six months of the year 1930, the holders of licences under Part III. of the Act in respect of any ports to which the Act applied at any time during that year; “ the Act “ means the Transport Workers Act 1928-1929; “ transport work “ means work in or in connexion with the provision of services in the transport of goods which are the subject of trade or commerce by sea with other countries or among the States.
– (1.) No person shall give priority in employment, engagement or picking-up for transport work at ports in the Commonwealth to which Part III. of the Act applies, except to transport workers (being waterside workers) who -
1. are available for employment, engagement or picking-up at those ports; and
2. are members of the organization known as the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, an organization bound by an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration applicable to employment for such work.

Penalty: Ten pounds or imprisonment for one month. (2.) Notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding sub-regulation, it shall not be an offence to employ, engage or pick up returned soldiers or returned sailors for transport work in priority to the persons specified in the last preceding sub-regulation.

– (1.) Not less than half an hour before the commencement of any picking-up proposed to be effected at a picking-up place on private property at any port to which Part III. of the Act applies, a notice of the picking-up shall be posted in a conspicuous position outside that place by the person proposing to effect the picking-up. (2.) At the conclusion of any picking-up to which the last preceding sub-regulation applies, the person who has effected the pickingup shall, in a manner capable of being heard or understood by all present, announce the fact that the picking-up is finished. (3.) Any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this regulation shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Ten pounds or imprisonment for one month.

– (1.) Any picking-up place specified in the last preceding regulation may, after the posting at that place of a notice in accordance with that regulation announcing that a pickingup will be effected, be entered by any person to whom priority is required to be given under regulation 3 of these Regulations or who is a returned soldier or a returned sailor for the purpose of being picked up for transport work and any such person may remain in that place until the conclusion of the pickingup is announced in accordance with the last preceding regulation. (2.) Any person who hinders or prevents the entry, in accordance with this regulation, of any person to whom the last preceding subregulation applies, into any picking-up place specified in the last preceding regulation, and any person who ejects or attempts to eject any person to whom that sub-regulation applies, from that place prior to the conclusion of the picking-up, shall be guilty of an offence.

Penalty: Ten pounds or imprisonment for one month.

Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to -

That the document quoted by Senator Sir George Pearce during his speech be laid upon the table.

Document laid upon the table.

Debate on original motion resumed.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– I regret that the point of order which I raised at the outset of the speech of the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition was not sustained. The wording of his motion and the remarks that he has made upon it convey an erroneous impression. When the case was before the Arbitration Court the Waterside

Workers Federation asked for preference to members of that organization. The judge, in making his award, said -

The act prescribes that the court may (section 40) (1 ) (a) direct that, as between members of organizations of employers or employees and other persons (not being sons or daughters of employers) offering or desiring service or employment at the same time, preference shall, in such manner as is specified in the award or order, he given to such members other tilings being equal. and (section 40) (2) -

Whenever, in the opinion of the court, it is necessary for the prevention or settlement of the industrial dispute, or for the maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society, to direct that preference shall be given to members of organizations as in paragraph (a), sub-section (1) of this section, as provided, the court shall so direct.

The application of this section of the act should not, in my opinion, be governed by the predilections of those charged with its administration, but by the drawing of a correct inference of the intention of the legislature from the words used, considered in their context. The context clearly indicates that the policy of the act is to encourage organization of employees and employers for the purpose of entering into industrial agreements, and facilitating the exercise by the court of its conciliatory and arbitral powers. The inference to be drawn from the words used is, that the court should, after inquiry, first form an opinion whether or not, in each dispute before it, the granting of preference is necessary to the maintenance of industrial peace in the industry “ or necessary for the future welfare of society “.

Following upon that His Honour said: “ No order for preference is made.” The matter was left for adjustment by the employers and employees. Recognizing that the work on the waterfront “was not being carried on as satisfactorily and peacefully as it might be, this Government, on assuming office, issued regulations in order to improve the position. Notwithstanding the pertinacity of the Government in issuing regulations framed with the sole object of preserving industrial peace on the wharfs, the Opposition persists in disallowing them. The Senate, which is functioning far from the waterfront, is adopting the role of disturber of the peace, and is endeavouring to obstruct the peaceful conduct of the transport industry, which is of great importance to this country.

– It is the peace of death to the volunteers.

Senator REID:

Senator REID:

– The honorable senator would like to persuade us that all the criminals on the waterfront are working at other ports of the Commonwealth. The same amount of work is being done at Port Adelaide to-day as formerly, and if the volunteers engaged there live in other suburbs, the metropolitan area as a a whole derives a benefit from the expenditure of their wages. The volunteers do not live in Port Adelaide, because they know only too well that their lives would be at stake if they did. I hope that the Senate will always find time to take any action that may be necessary to uphold the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is now asking us to do. The Government, in gazetting regulations in defiance of the decision of the Arbitration Court, is acting at the behest of trades hall authorities in Melbourne or Adelaide, because the licensing system is not applied to Sydney. If I had my way I would take other drastic action against this Government if it persisted in defying the Arbitration Court and the Senate. I understand this is the seventh set of regulations that has been gazetted to ensure the employment of a few members of the Waterside Workers Federation, which, for many years, had an absolute monopoly of all work on the waterfront, and prevented considerable numbers of genuine wharf labourers from securing employment. I hope that the Senate will take the necessary action to disallow these regulations.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- No one regrets more than I do the necessity for this debate. I thought that long ere this the Government would have recognized its duty to this chamber. I support the motion because the intention is to uphold the decisions of the Arbitration Court, and the rights of the Senate. No one ever contemplated that a body of men entrusted with the government of this country would deliberately lay themselves out to violate what is an essential and very important constitutional power given to this- branch of the legislature - the right to disallow regulations. The Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) has hinted that a disallowance of these regulations will be likely to result in disorder on the waterfront. The honorable senator painted a very graphic picture of the conditions that obtain at our various seaports, and spoke somewhat feelingly of the peace which, he said, has existed since this Government gazetted the first regulations giving preference to members of the Waterside Workers Federation.

All honorable senators know that for many years prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act the trade and commerce of the Commonwealth was dislocated from time to time by the refusal of members of that organization to obey awards of the Arbitration Court.

Senator Barnes:

– Work is now proceeding smoothly.

Senator PAYNE:

– Since the passing of the Transport Workers Act there has been continuity in our transport services, and an era of peace. But for many years previously, as the honorable senator well knows, the conditions were very disturbed, because of the defiant attitude of the waterside workers towards awards of the court. Not only did they refuse to work under conditions laid down by that tribunal, but they also, by acts of violence, prevented other men from working. There is now peace because, as Senator Reid has pointed out, the volunteer workers are law-abiding citizens. Even when an injustice is done to them, as has lately been the case by the gazettal of regulations by this Government, they do not resort to acts of violence. The Senate would be failing in its duty if it did not take a definite stand against this flagrant defiance by the Government of the statutory authority given to this chamber under the Acts Interpretation Act. Senator Daly quoted section 2 of the Transport Workers Act in support of his argument, but carefully omitted all reference to section 3 of the principal act, which authorizes the Government to make regulations. In its amended form that section now provides that regulations made under the act shall be “ not inconsistent “ with the act. The act itself provides that all workers on the waterfront shall be licensed. It contains no reference whatever to the granting of preference to any class of workers. I suggest, therefore, that the regulations gazetted recently by this Government, giving preference in employment to a certain section of workers, are absolutely inconsistent with the act, because, as I have shown, all that a person who wishes to secure employment on the waterfront has to do is to take out a licence and make application. This is a point which is worthy of consideration-

Senator Daly:

– It would be if there were any substance behind it.

Senator PAYNE:

– There is behind it as much substance as there was behind the argument of the honorable senator in relation to section 2. I am supporting the motion, and, at the proper time, I intend to vote for the disallowance of the regulations. I feel strongly on this matter, and will always enter my protest against any action by the Government or by Parliament which may make possible a repetition of our experience in those disastrous ‘ years prior to the passing of the Transport Workers Act. As honorable senators well know, for about seven years the transport services between Tasmania and the mainland were entirely dislocated every year just when there was a reasonable expectation of substantial revenue being secured by Tasmania from tourist and other seasonal traffic. There is peace on the waterfront to-day in spite of these regulations; but, unless a firm stand is taken by the Senate, there is a possibility of a recurrence of those outbreaks of lawlessness which, some years ago, characterized work on the waterfront.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [4.15]. - The Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) mentioned that there was peace on the waterfront at the present time. That is true; but the honorable gentleman knows that it is practically a peace of death, because, unless these regulations are disallowed, the volunteer workers will be prevented from securing employment on the wharfs, and will be in danger of starving to death. He knows also that, on several occasions, volunteer workers have been assaulted and mobbed by members of the Waterside Workers Federation; but, being themselves law-abiding citizens, they have not retaliated when members of the Waterside Workers Federation have been picked up for employment. That is one reason why there is peace on the waterfront. The honorable senator said, further, that the intention of the arbitration system was to encourage organizations. I fail to see what bearing that argument has upon this motion, because if awards of the Arbitration Court are to be defied with impunity - and that, I contend, is what this Government is doing in gazetting these regulations - the growth of industrial organizations will be discouraged. In any case, the volunteers are an organized body of unionists.

Senator Rae:

– Representing the employers.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.They are no more the representatives of the employers than are the members of that Shearers Union which the honorable senator has ‘been so active lately in promoting. Members of the Australian Workers Union apply to that union the term which the honorable gentleman would apply to the volunteer workers on the waterfront. I repeat that the volunteers are a registered body of trade unionists, working under awards of the Arbitration Court, and, therefore, are entitled to every consideration, even at the hands of this Government.

The Leader of the Senate overlooked entirely the- fact that the court deliberately struck out of its award preference to unionists. The honorable senator read portion of a judgment by Judge Beeby on the application to reinstate the principle of preference. I advise him to read the previous judgment, so as to be quite conversant with the reasons which actuated the court in striking out of the award all reference to preference to unionists. Senator Daly, in a somewhat involved argument, endeavoured to justify the action of the Government by stating that the previous Administration had, by legislation, limited the power of the court. I should have no objection if this Government took the same course, and introduced a measure to give effect to its industrial policy. My quarrel with the Government is that, instead of giving effect to its election pledges, it is using its regulation-making power to interfere with awards of the court. Parliament has full power to limit the ambit of the court’s functions, and legislation to this end would ‘be a perfectly legitimate exercise of that power. Senator Daly also made special reference to the conditions obtaining at Port Adelaide. I have been deluged with letters, for the most part written by waterside workers, including returned soldiers, bringing under my notice the many difficulties that confront them. One letter is from a returned soldier living in Port Adelaide.

Apparently, he is one of those who went out on strike. This is what he says -

I am glad to see the Senate are taking a firm stand. Now, to begin with two or three hundred, and my own case, I am going to state a few facts. Well, we were all union men at the outbreak of the trouble, and we could not volunteer for work, not for fear of ourselves, but for our wives and children and homes that have taken us years to get’ together. Well, we stood out with the rest and got well in debt of course, and while so doing, along came a job somewhere else which we were able to do. Of course, we took it and pleased with it. Of course we had to pay into the different unions that sent the men to work. While this was going on one of the men went and saw the union official about the wharf union. They were told it would be all right. When the job was finished they would be able to pay and square up what was owing and things would be all right. Well, when they wanted to pay up they were told that they were dumped out of the union and would not be able to get in the union again until such time as it pleased them to open their books, and then they would have to pay £5 to join again, and, of course, there is not many men in receipt of government rations has got that much to pay to join a working man’s union. Of course, there are a lot of things I could tell the Senate or the other party, but I am no good at writing letters and explaining. There is one thing I can tell you, and that is I was a staunch Labour man one time, but never more, and I can safely say the same of hundreds of others I myself have met alone. Well, to begin my case I am going to try and explain. To begin I am a native of South Australia and an honest working man. I served over three years of the war and I also hold the two transport workers’ licences, yet I am not able to join the returned men volunteers or the union, and I can tell you there are a lot of the same way.

I presume that his licence was not taken out within the period fixed by the regulations. His letter continues -

So I ask, is there not a way to let us men be able to get. work on the waterfront. We are all married men, and good men at that.

That man is barred from obtaining employment under these regulations. He is entirely unknown to me, and his letter was not in any way solicited by me. It shows that, even at Port Adelaide, there are hundreds of working men who are not in agreement with the stand that the Government is taking up or the regulations that it has brought in.

Senator Daly:

– Is there a postscript to that letter appealing for a donation?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.There is not an appeal for a donation. The letter has the ring of honesty, which suggests to me that he is not the kind of man who appeals for a donation. The fact that when he found that he could not continue his work on the wharf, on account of the strike, he obtained work elsewhere, shows that he is not the sort of man who would live on anybody else if he could avoid doing so. I read that letter as conveying an indication to the Government that it is injuring, not only the volunteers, but also other men who honestly desire to work. Obviously, there are two things wrong, one of which is that the number of men who wish to work on the wharf is considerably greater than the number required. Is there not a call for constructive statesmanship on the part of the Government in the interests of men who seek a living on the wharf, rather than for the destructive and restrictive regulations that are being brought forward? Both the volunteers and the members of the Waterside Workers Federation are working men. Instead of trying to cause still further discord and to set one class against another, why should not the Government depute a Minister to attempt to bring about a reconciliation between all the men, and to secure a working arrangement with the ship-owners under an award of the court that would assure peace on the waterfront with some measure of justice, continuity of employment, and a guarantee that we would not witness a repetition of the outbreaks on the waterfront from which Australia suffered for a period of ten years.

I have no desire to press the motion to a division, and, therefore, ask leave to withdraw it.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 2996

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1931-32

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [4.30]. - The motion for the first reading of this bill affords an opportunity for the discussion of matters of general interest.

I should like to know whether some general indication can be given of what is in the mind of the Government in regard to the programme which is to be placed before us. I know that it is somewhat difficult in the case of a government that is so kaleidoscopic as the present one, to make plans very far ahead; but I understand that a number of bills are coming forward that are connected with the decisions arrived at by the Premiers Conference in Melbourne, and that those measures are regarded as urgent. So far as I can judge the feeling of the Senate, I believe that they will be given a speedy passage here. But I have seen in the press the statement that the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) had indicated that the Government intends to introduce some time in July the budget for the new financial year, and that in it will be featured some of the measures under which the Government proposes to give effect to portions of the Melbourne plan. As I understand that plan, it embodies proposals for a conversion loan that will effect a general reduction of interest rates, and also proposals for the reduction of old-age, invalid, and war pensions, and the salaries of members of the Commonwealth Public Service. The budget will contain the whole of the financial proposals of the Government for the year. Obviously, it is somewhat difficult even for a government to forecast in July what is going to happen throughout the year.

I suggest, with a due sense of responsibility, that the Government should not ask the Senate hurriedly to pass an Appropriation Bill covering the whole of the financial year, within a month or two of its commencement. Should anything be needed to buttress that request, I point to the experience of the year that is just drawing to a close, and remind the Senate that we passed the last budget in August, 1930; but, as everybody knows, as events developed and the financial position became steadily worse, that budget was in no way a reflex of the financial transactions of the Government during the year, and was useless as a guide to the Parliament in relation to the expenditure to which the Government was committed and the revenue that it was likely to receive. I am not in the confidence of the Government, and do not know what are its plans. But I suggest that so much of the legislation giving effect to the decisions of the Melbourne Conference, to which the Government has committed itself, as can be separated from the budget, should be so separated, and that there should be no desire on the part of the Government to compel a hurried discussion or acceptance of the budget as such. That will not, I submit, inconvenience the Government; the Senate has never at any time shown any unwillingness to meet the convenience of the Government in passing necessary supply bills. Witu our financial position as it is, no one yet knows what is likely to be the result of the acceptance by Parliament of the proposals adopted at the recent conference of the Commonwealth and State Ministers held in Melbourne. We all have certain anticipations as to what the result will be, but the experience of the past year shows that, in financial matters, we are treading on shifting sands. Because of the abnormal conditions which now exist we cannot tell from month to mouth exactly what our financial position is likely to be. In asking Parliament to commit itself, early in the financial year, to the budget as a whole, the Government would be acting as if it could see twelve months ahead, and committing itself to estimates of revenue and expenditure covering a whole financial year. I submit that it is not wise to ask the Senate to commit itself in that way. I am not making this suggestion in a critical spirit; rather, am I urging upon the Government, in all seriousness, that, in so far as these matters can be kept separate from the budget, they should be kept separate. If we increase the sales tax or the primage duty, or reduce pensions or the salaries of public servants, those increases and reductions will be reflected in the budget; but I trust that the actual measures to give effect to those proposals will be separated from the budget, so that the Government will not have to ask the Senate to pass the budget for the next financial year in a week or a day or two, on the ground that it is urgently necessary to give immediate effect to them. It would not be fair to ask the Senate to do that, nor would it be in the interests of honorable members of another place, who, of course, are quite able to look after themselves. If that is the intention of the Government it will be acting unfairly to this chamber. I am prompted to make this suggestion, because I see in the proposed early presentation of the budget that that is possibly the intention of the Cabinet. Has the Government yet come to a decision in this matter? I quite admit that it has a most difficult path to tread, and repeat that I am not offering these suggestions in a critical spirit. I recognize that there is a tremendous lot to be foreseen, and I make this proposal in order to facilitate discussion of the measures the Government desires to pass. They should be separated from the budget. Each should be submitted on its own merits without any attempt being made to rush the budget through without that consideration which the Senate is entitled to give to it.

I submit, also, that the adoption of this suggestion would have a further important effect. We are hopeful that our credit both in Australia and abroad will be improved as a result of the action which is to be taken by the Government. If the scheme propounded by the President of the United States of America is accepted and implemented by the European nations, it may have such an important bearing upon the purchasing power of the people of Europe that our national income may be supplemented, and, perhaps within a few months, an entirely new situation may arise. That, again, is a reason why the budget should not be hurriedly passed. We should take one step at a time. The experience of the last twelve months indicates the wisdom of such a course. Before the debate closes I trust that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes) will intimate that it is the intention of the Government to act upon these lines.

Two great tasks confront Australia. One is financial reconstruction, ‘ and the other, economic re-habilitation. The Government is now tackling the problem of financial reconstruction - largely governmental - and I am heartily in accord with the steps it proposes to take. But before this country can be put properly upon its feet a phase of our economic life must be tackled. In that regard there is not a very great deal that governments can do unless it is to get out of the road and allow society to reconstruct itself. If governments will get out of the way society will re-adjust and re-construct itself much more readily than if in a paternal manner they endeavour to force the pace. I am afraid that much of our present difficulties is due to the paternal kind of legislation under which the Government is interfering with everything. I do not blame the Parliament as much as I blame the people; there has been too great a disposition on the part of the people to come to governments and parliaments for everything. But there are some things in regard to economic reconstruction which Parliament can and must do. I shall mention only two. There is first of all, the tariff. I suggest to the Government that in the matter of economic reconstruction the tariff is going to play a most important part. Apparently the Ministry has decided to insist upon the duties imposed in the tariff schedule now before another place. Its action in this regard has apparently been endorsed by a majority of members in that chamber, and if it likes the Government can pass through the House of Representatives the schedule in its present form. Knowing the Senate fairly well, I venture to say that neither that tariff schedule, nor anything like it, is going through the Senate as it stands. The Senate will insist on such an adjustment of duties as will give Australia some chance of economic reconstruction. Under such a tariff as that now before another place, this country cannot get on sound lines of economic reconstruction. The Government knows that the Senate has an undoubted and constitutional right to effectively voice its opinions with respect to the tariff, and the sooner it gives this chamber an opportunity to express its will upon the subject, the sooner we shall face the task of economic reconstruction. I would say to our friends in another place, who think as I do on fiscal matters that, having made their protests - and made them without avail - the best service they can render the country, is to let the tariff come to the Senate as quickly as possible. I feel that I am speaking for every honorable senator on this side, when I say thai we shall not unduly delay its passage through this chamber. We shall express our will and there is no doubt as to the direction in which that will will be expressed. It will be in the direction of reducing duties in a most decided way in order to ease the burden which those now in operation place upon industry. It will then be the responsibility of the Government to determine its attitude with respect to requests for amendments that will undoubtedly be made by this chamber. Whatever the intention of the Government may be, the sooner the Senate gets an opportunity to deal with the tariff - the sooner that important matter is settled one way or the other - the sooner shall we be able to enter upon a policy of economic reconstruction. The tariff is one of the fundamental principles affecting economic reconstruction, and economic reconstruction is impossible until that matter has been settled one way or the other.

Another phase of economic reconstruction is the artificial protection of industry. This Parliament cannot deal with that matter. It can be settled only by the people themselves, and they should be consulted at the earliest opportunity. It is useless to appeal to the Government in that regard, and I would not ask it to go back upon the promises which the Labour party made on the public platform. It is, however, very important that in the economic reconstruction of this country we should alter the present policy of proceeding in a vicious circle. That policy has been one of increasing the cost of production, and then raising the tariff. An increase in the tariff results in an increase in the cost of production. There is a further increase in wages, a further reduction of hours, a further improvement in labour conditions, and a yet higher cost of production. This is followed by a further increase in customs duties. And so we go round and round in this vicious circle. The old simile of a dog chasing his tail best describes the situation. This policy has been pursued without any benefit to the workers of this country. Although the nominal wage has been steadily increasing, the actual effective wage has remained stationary. The workers may have gained some advantage in the matter of hours and conditions of labour, but they have paid for it bitterly and dearly by the enormous increase in unemployment. Side by side with the tremendous increase in customs duties there has been a simultaneous increase in unemployment. We have this spectacle facing us to-day. It is a most striking object lesson to Australia, and particularly to the working man: “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it “.

That is the lesson we learn from Queensland and New South Wales. Queensland was the first State to pursue the hard road of economy and of government retrenchment. When we on this side speak of government retrenchment, our friends opposite get a cold shiver down their backs. They ask - and there appears on the surface to be some logic in their reasoning - how the position with regard to unemployment can be improved by discharging workers? They argue that dismissals will only add to the ranks of the unemployed. Similarly, they ask how unemployment can be decreased by increasing the working hours per week. In reply, I direct their attention to these two States, side by side, which have pursued exactly opposite policies. In Queensland a policy of economy has been followed to a greater extent than in any other State. Workers were discharged from the railways and from other government employment and instead of the hours of labour being shortened, the working week has been increased from 44 hours to 48 hours. Queensland suspended rural workers awards and allowed industry to have more or less free play. The New South Wales Government, on the other hand, refused to discharge surplus workers from the railways, and instead, instituted a system of rationing. It also reinstated a 44-hour week in the railway service. It refused to liberate any industry in the State from the operation of -the Arbitration Court awards. Even rural industries were not exempted from such control’. I point out, moreover, that these two opposite policies have been working in like communities - the same kind of people were affected and the two States had similar resources. It is well that the startling results of the operation of those two policies should be known to honorable senators. With like economic conditions affecting their industries, so far as the demand for, and prices of, their goods were concerned, we find that, after eighteen months’ experience of the hard road, Queensland has the lowest percentage of unemployment in Australia - 13 per cent. - whereas in New South Wales, in which State, according to the arguments of the Government, everything should be better than in Queensland, the unemployed workers represent 30 per cent., or more than two and a half times the percentage of Queensland.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.We may theorize as we like, but an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. These facts concerning Queensland and New South Wales stare us in the face. What is the use of weeping maudlin tears of sympathy for the unemployed if, by our actions and our voices, we continue to do things which stern facts show only increase unemployment ? If we refuse to give the necessary medicine to the patient because it is unpalatable, he will not recover.

The facts which I have given point the way that we should follow; but I despair of any appeal to the Government along those lines being successful. Senator Rae shakes his head and refuses to be converted. Even the stern logic of what is taking place in his own State, where 30 per cent, of the workers are unemployed, and the number is steadily increasing, will not shake his faith and cause him to do those things which will bring salvation to those whom he represents. Nothing short of an appeal to the people will enable us to get on the road which will lead to restoration of prosperity in this country.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE Senator Rae and myself are not one bit the worse for having in our younger days worked fairly long hours in healthy, honest employment. No one can say that 48 hours work a week in ordinary employment injures any man, either physically or morally.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Throughout Australia 48 hours a week is practically the limit. The Assistant Minister’s own State is a shocking example of the penalties which the people are paying as a result of the application of the Lang policy in restoring the 44- hour week. The Government of Queensland has shown that, by allowing a certain amount of freedom in industry, the terrible problem of unemployment can be effectively met. Unemployment in Queensland to-day is very little worse than the average for the Commonwealth before the present crisis occurred. In 1929 about 12 per cent, of the workers of Australia were unemployed ; the percentage in Queensland to-day is only 13 per cent, whereas in New South Wales it is already 30 per cent., and is increasing month by month.

No State in the Commonwealth, not even excepting Western Australia, has greater natural resources than are possessed by New South Wales. That State possesses almost every industry possible in Australia - mining, pastoral, and manufacturing. Indeed, it stands pre-eminent among the States as regards manufacturing industries. Notwithstanding its natural advantages, New South Wales has an awful story of unemployment to tell. The most tragic side of the present crisis is the increase of unemployment. To that problem every man worthy of the name of politician, let alone statesman, must devote his mind, because, unless it is grappled with, tragedy will overtake every State. Surely the example of Queensland contains some lesson for the rest of Australia: There must be some explanation of Queensland’s more favorable economic position. When I compare what has been done in the several States, I am forced to the conclusion that the policy deliberately followed by the Queensland Government, unpopular, and, theoretically, illogical as it is, is the explanation. I sympathize with those who contend that retrenchment will increase unemployment, because, on the surface, that appears to be the inevitable result. When we speak of lengthening hours it would appear that we are advocating something which will increase unemployment, because it is logical to argue that, if the working week is reduced from 48 hours to 44 hours, more men will be required to produce a certain quantity of goods. Against those theories, we have the stern facts which I have mentioned. Queensland, by pursuing a policy which, theoretically, should increase unemployment, has decreased it, whereas New South Wales, by pursuing a policy which, theoretically, should reduce unemployment, has increased it.

Of all the States, New South Wales has gone to the greatest extremes in the artificial regulation of and interference with industry. In the matter of the regulation of working hours, the fixation of wages, workers’ compensation, employers’ liability, child endowment - indeed, everything that the mind can conceive to cure our ills - New South Wales has gone the farthest. Yet any man who has a soul must groan within him when he hears the terrible stories of destitution and starvation such as I heard recently in Sydney. Notwithstanding all the efforts that are being made by the Government, through the dole and otherwise, by private charity, by the churches, and by the practical expression of that great public spirit for which every State is noted, decent working men and women and their families are suffering and starving in sunny New South Wales. During the last week-end my soul revolted at the tragedy with which it was confronted.

Why humbug ourselves into believing that by following the path indicated by the Government, we shall restore prosperity? Why not be honest with ourselves, and inquire whether after all that path is the right one? I am not dogmatic in this matter ; as a student I have earnestly endeavoured to find the right road. It appears to me, from a comparison of the effect of the policies pursued by the Governments of Queensland and New South Wales, that Queensland has pointed the way out. The conclusions which are being forced upon me are contrary to many of the ideas that I have held for many years, but the logic of facts is a sterner teacher than is any theory. There may be other explanations of Queensland’s more favorable position.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is so; and I realize that it means that an enormous sum of money is circulated throughout the State. The sugar embargo is, however, not the only explanation of Queensland’s greater prosperity.

SenatorFoll. - Nor does the right honorable gentleman wish to refer to the Wiluna gold mines.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is all to the good.

I do not apologize for having seized upon this opportunity to ventilate these matters. I again say that I hope the Government will give us some indication of what its programme is, because I think every honorable senator would like to take a very active part in the conversion loan campaign. It is a matter that cannot be very long delayed, and when Ministers are conferring I hope that Senator Barnes will point out that honorable senators do not want to be tied up with the tariff or something of that kind when, that campaign does eventuate. I think it is the desire of all honorable senators of the Opposition to be in their respective States to take part in that campaign, and urge the conversion of existing stocks into 4 per cent, securities.

SenatorR. D. ELLIOTT (Victoria) [5.7]. - I was pleased to hear Senator Pearce strike a note of warning concerning what appears to be the deliberate policy of the Government - that of waiting until the last moment before introducing measures of importance in the Senate, and allowing very little time for their consideration. For instance, we were assured that it was essential that such an important measure as that relating to the sending of £5,000,000 in gold overseas should be passed almost immediately upon its introduction. This Supply Bill, too, has come down to us at the last moment, and we are asked to get it through without delay, to enable the public services to be carried on at the end of the financial year. The Government has made almost a science of this policy of giving the Senate insufficient time for the consideration of measures.

Senator Pearce referred to the existing conditions as shifting sands, and he issued another note of warning - that the financial policy of the Government should be dealt with in a more intimate way by the Senate than is normally possible. In that connexion, I hope that something may come of his suggestion that we should not be obliged to deal with the budget in conjunction with the Melbourne conference resolutions. I wonder if the unstable and uncertain conditions in which we are living to-day may not be summed up in the following: -

Like the unsubstantial pageant of a dream the world of yesterday has drifted into the wonderful reality of the present; but now already the landmarks by which men set their course melt and grow misty before their eyes.

I am afraid that the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) is optimistic in regard to the separate consideration of the Commonwealth budget from the measures to give effect to the Melbourne conference resolutions. Any one who can read between the lines may see that it is the intention of the Government to confuse the issue by not having its budget dealt with on its own merits.

I am not so optimistic as Senator Pearce is as to the results likely to be achieved by giving effect to the Melbourne conference resolutions; because, desirable as these results may be, we are not likely to get anywhere so long as the present Government is in office. A discredited government, like a discredited individual, can get nowhere, regardless of how good its intentions may be. The situation is plainly indicated by the financial authorites on the other side of the world, and it may be interesting to quote the opinion expressed by the London Observer in its issue of the 17th May. It is as follows : -

The Senate has rejected the bill reducing Australia’s statutory gold reserve. After Sir Robert Gibson’s evidence, the vote was inevitable, and debate was limited to the Opposition Leader’s speech. The Senate’s action does not produce a crisis, as another bill authorizing shipments of gold to meet obligations would be in order, and might pass. Besides, Australia could renew her bills in London on tolerable terms if a National Government- as distinct from a Nationalist Government with an agreed financial policy were formed before the debt becomes duo.

Any one who has recently been to the other side of the world realizes that that is the general impression of our position in the minds of responsible people in Great Britain to-day. The insecurity of tenure among employers and employees, brought about by the actions of the Commonwealth Government, has had the effect of shaking the confidence of people overseas in this country, and it will not be restored while the present party is in control of the treasury benches.

Senator Pearce also urged that the Government should keep out of enterprise. We have not to look very far to find that the effect of governmental participation in industry is to kill the enterprise of the individual. That country is greatest which gives full play to the skill, energy and intelligence of its people in the development of its resources. The effect of the policy of interference in enterprise on the part of the Commonwealth Government is to put people in the position of refusing to take added responsibilities upon themselves. To-day, because the future is too uncertain,’ very few honorable senators would care to take upon themselves one additional burden, even if it meant assisting in the development of Australia’s great national resources. Nothing that the present Government has done inspires confidence. Its efforts have achieved the opposite result. Even the figures in regard to the unemployed are unstable. A month ago I heard the Prime Minister say that the number of unemployed in Australia was 300,000, with 700,000 dependants. But last week he said that the number was 360,000, and a few days later, the Attorney-General said that it was 400,000. Are Ministers proud of the way in which these “ magnificent “ figures are going up ? Or are they showing an utter disregard for the misery of hundreds of thousands of people in Australia to-day? It almost looks as if they are clutching these people in their hands, squeezing their life-blood out of them and watching it with joy as it drips to the earth.

The party which occupies the treasury benches to-day is misnamed. It calls itself the Labour party, but it has done so much to bring about the present state of unemployment in Australia, and it is showing such an utter disregard for the unemployed, that it has no further right to sail under false colours or claim to be representative of the working people of this country.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Although I do not admit the correctness of the honorable senator’s statement, I will say that any party has a right to coalesce with another in order to help the country out of its difficulties and bring about a decrease in unemployment. Honorable senators of the Opposition realize that their duty is to the Commonwealth, no matter into whose hands the reins of government may fall. While they regret keenly the growing list of starving in this country, so well endowed with natural resources, they realize that thousands of people have not the wherewithal to live because of the restrictions imposed by the present Government.

Senator Dooley:

– The honorable senator surely does not hold the Australian Labour Party responsible for the unemployment throughout the world?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Our country is too well endowed with natural resources to compare the position here with the general world position. If they had any vision at all, our Ministers would be seeking an outlet for our primary products, instead of being content to sit back. They have certainly asked the farmers to produce more wheat, but they have done nothing to create a market for that wheat. There are still great markets, even in the United Kingdom, for Australian products, and, notwithstanding the dumping of the produce of certain other countries, we are still able to compete in the British market. That is, however, a subject it would take me too long to deal with to-day, although I may say that the officials at Australia House are totally inadequate to express even the conditions in Australia.

Senator Daly:

– Who made the contracts with the men in Australia House?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– I understand that an influential supporter of the Ministry has submitted a report on Australia House which cannot be misunderstood by any one. Even if there are contracts which have to be observed there are ways by which men can be retired or brought back to Australia to make way for men with keener minds and intellects who can adequately represent Australia at the heart of the Empire. If ever there was a time when Australia needed adequate representation at the heart of the Empire it is to-day.

As indicated by the right honorable Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), governmental participation in industry kills development, and, as a consequence, removes all possibility of relieving the great unemployment problem we have in Australia to-day. The initiative of the private individual is necessary for a country’s success. The more a government keeps in the background, making way for the initiative and courage of the individual, the better for every one concerned. Prosperity is created by producers and traders so that politicians can take the credit. The most business-like thing our Government can do is to keep entirely out of business, giving scope to the initiative of the individual.

The Leader of the Opposition also appealed for the consideration of the tariff in this chamber at as early a date as possible. Knowing nothing of the working of the Government’s mind, of course, I am really not in a position to express an opinion, but if Ave can judge the future by the past, I prophesy that the tariff will be discussed in this chamber well after Christmas. In another place, Ministers are deliberately delaying the passage of the tariff. They are bringing forward certain measures as a result of the Melbourne conference, and very soon they will discover that it is quite impossible for them to put these measures into operation while Parliament is sitting, and so they will get supply and seek an adjournment. I am afraid they will remain in office until something radical is done by the Senate to show that we interpret the view of the people of Australia, which is that they have no longer confidence in the present Government, and that they realize there will be no development in Australia until the present Government gets out of office. There is a responsibility upon honorable senators to-day.

Senator Daly:

– Will the honorable senator coalesce with Ministers?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Just as the present Government is unable to interpret the views of the people of Australia, upon the proper way in which affairs should be conducted, I am unable to interpret the words used by the honorable senator.

It may be of interest to take a bird’s-eye view of the financial position of Australia. According to statements of either the Prime Minister or the Treasurer, while our revenue has declined by 28 per cent, in the last eleven months, governmental expenditure has decreased by only 2 per cent. This Government waited until the Commonwealth was on the brink of a financial precipice before it took any action to stop the drift. Consequently, I am afraid that it will be impossible for the Senate to give to the hurried legislation which will be before this chamber shortly, that mature consideration which the serious position of Australia demands. We are told that our national income has declined to the extent of £200,000,000, and that all governmental expenditure has gone up from £187,000,000 to £198,000,000, an increase since 1927-28 of £11,000,000. We are informed further that the total deficits of the Commonwealth and all the States, at the end of the present financial year, will be in the vicinity of £30,000,000, and that the deficit of the Commonwealth is estimated at £14,000,000. I am afraid that when the final figures are presented, our total deficit will be nearer £17,000,000. Our short-term debt amounts to £63,000,000. The Prime Minister has admitted that our credit overseas has been stopped, and the Australian banks have intimated that they cannot give further accommodation. Mr. Scullin has told us that when he was in London in September of last year, he opened up negotiations with financial authorities there for the funding of our floating debt in the United Kingdom, and there appeared to be every prospect of success until the press of the Mother Country published cable reports of certain utterances by the radical section of the Australian Labour Party. As a result, Commonwealth credit completely vanished. Our position is in marked contrast to that of the Dominion of Canada. Only a week or two ago the Canadian Government went on the market with a 4$ per cent, conversion loan of £51,500,000 to redeem a maturing 5£ per cent. loan. It was oversubscribed in 24 hours, notwithstanding the fact that the new issue was subject to taxation. By way of contrast, our 5£ per cent, securities due this year are quoted at a price which gives a return to the investor of £21 12s. 6d. per cent.

We have no hope of funding our floating debt on satisfactory terms while the present Government remains in office. This Ministry is not actuated by any sincerity of purpose for the working people of this country. If it were it would take definite action to stop the drift in finances or, failing an appeal to the people, throw responsibility upon the Opposition in this Parliament. This could be done without jeopardizing the decisions of the Melbourne conference, because the Government is already committed to support the resolutions of that gathering. Even if this Parliament does pass the necessary emergency measures its apparent lack of sincerity will prevent it from giving full effect to a policy calculated to rehabilitate this country. By refusing to give public servants an opportunity to participate in the sacrifices necessary to restore the finances of the nation the Government has almost discredited the Public Service of the Commonwealth. I am quite sure that if the Government had frankly placed its difficulties before the various organizations of the Public Service all Commonwealth employees would have willingly consented to help the Government. I believe that a change of Government would mean a substantial reduction in the volume of legislation. I could almost wish that our substantial reduction in the volume of this chamber, would follow the lead of a clergyman, who, in opening a session of Parliament in America, is credited with having said - “ O Lord, give us fewer and wiser laws “.

Senator Reid:

– Surely the honorable senator does not expect wiser laws from this Government?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Frankly, I do not. With this Government, drift instead of drive, seems to be the order of the day. As has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), we very badly need faith and initiative, if we are to stop the financial rot that has set in. The drift will not be checked by this Government. I wish I could feel that it’ sincerely represented the interests of the working classes. Unhappily, I have many opportunities to realize how our working people are suffering. I happen to have an office in Melbourne, and not a day passes without my being interviewed by fifteen or twenty starving men who are desperately searching for work and are grateful for ls. or 2s. to help them on their way. I have looked, recently, into the eyes of 1,000 or 1,500 unemployed persons - men and women with hollow cheeks - and I could not help feeling that if this Government were sincere in its purpose, there would be some hope for these unfortunate people. But we know only too well that nothing of a practical nature will be done for them while this Ministry occupies the treasury bench. To believe in the inevitable logic of events is as dangerous as it is to leave things to chance. That, unfortunately, is what this Government has been doing ever since it assumed office.

I am wondering if honorable senators realize that our public debt per head of population is £180 or per family of five persons, £900, and that the interest liability per family is £45 per year-

Senator Daly:

– Shame!

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It is a shame. The annual interest bill on the public debt is somewhere in the vicinity of £59,000,000, plus exchange, and the weekly interest charge is £1,250,000. The net cost of all governments in Australia is £152,500,000. The Commonwealth is responsible for £84,000,000, the States £120,000,000, and municipal authorities £36,000,000. This makes a total of £240,000,000, but if we deduct certain revenues amounting to £88,000,000, the net cost is £152,500,000. This means that in 1929 the cost of government per head was £23, and per family of five, £115.

I am wondering also if all of us understand fully what a restoration of confidence would mean to individual citizens, apart from the effect which it would have upon our ability to fund our floating debt. Do we realize that, if every Australian citizen with a savings bank account released 5s. per week, there would be an increase in the circulation of money in Australia amounting to £1,250,000 a week?

Senator Foll:

– What about the New South Wales Government Savings Bank ?

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– This Government, I regret to think, is doing little or nothing to overcome the difficulty in New South Wales, due to the closing of the State Government Savings Bank. It stands idly by watching the misery and hardship inflicted upon depositors. Up to the present it has done practically nothing to relieve the situation. It is disgraceful that one of the greatest financial institutions in Australia should have been forced to close its doors. This Government issued writs against the Governmen t of New South Wales in. connexion with its default to the Commonwealth but, up to date, it has not executed the writs. Again we have ample evidence of a positive lack of regard for the public welfare or any evidence of sincerity of purpose on the part of this Government.

But I am digressing from the point to which I was directing attention, namely, the effect upon the Commonwealth of a restoration of confidence in governments. If confidence had been restored by definite action in regard to the New South Wales Savings Bank, the depositors in that institution would to-day be operating their accounts to the undoubted benefit of the people of Australia. If every person in this country were to spend an extra ls. per week, this would mean the circulation of an additional £17,000,000 per year, and if there were an extra expenditure of ls. per day, a circulation of £120,000,000 per annum. Consider what would be the effect of that additional money in circulation upon the unemployment problem. Unfortunately, because we have in power a government in which the people have lost confidence; they will not spend one penny more than is necessary to meet their current needs.

– Relatively, the land values in Brisbane and Sydney are the same.

Senator RAE:

– The valuations are not at all in proportion. I can cite an instance of a block of land in Queenstreet, Brisbane, that was recently sold for £200 a foot, while similar land in Sydney has been sold at £1,500, and, in the case of many other sites, up to £1,000 a foot.

Senator Thompson:

– Including a big building.

Senator RAE:

– No; I am giving only the price of the land. Land values in Sydney and the metropolitan area increased to a tremendous extent, and during the same time, building operations became so active that £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 was being annually spent on new buildings, resulting in over-building and empty offices and shops. The position which developed was similar to that which followed the reaction of boom values some years ago. I know of a man who paid £1,200 for a house, which was later sold for £500 or £600. That was a reaction to the boom values created during recent years.

– I understand that the day before the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales closed a sum of money was rushed over, but it was then too late.

– Nevertheless, that Government had a much better start than the Lang Government had.

The better position of Queensland to-day is probably due to other factors than the retrenchment policy of the Moore Government. The right honorable gentleman says that there is a Nationalist Government in Queensland; that it inaugurated a policy of retrenchment; that there is now less unemployment in Queensland than in New South Wales, where a similar policy was not followed; and he then arrives at the conclusion that that favorable result is due entirely to the retrenchment that took place. Other causes might have contributed to that result. The Leader of the Opposition admits that the Moore Government took over a surplus from its predecessors, and that Queensland benefits considerably from the sugar embargo. In my opinion, the favorable position of Queensland is due more to the sugar embargo than to anything else. The highly-protected sugar industry is confined almost entirely to Queensland, and that State controls the price of sugar. The sugar industry affords as good an example as it is possible to find of government interference in an industry bringing prosperity to those engaged in it. I do not say that the policy adopted in the case of the sugar industry could be followed generally. It is clear that other, industries help to keep the sugar industry going; the Commonwealth as a whole subsidizesan industry which is confined to one portion of its territory. It is curious that those who declaim most against governmental interference in industry are the most ardent supporters of the sugar embargo. They know that if they voted against government assistance to that industry, they would not again be returned to this Parliament.

The right honorable senator also referred to the greater freedom that exists in other countries in regard to conditions in industry, and said that in Australia, paternal government had been carried to excess. The United States of America is a country which is an example in excelsis of private enterprise : in no other country does individualism make a greater appeal. Honorable senators will not deny that the United States of America has far greater resources than are possessed by Australia. It has huge natural advantages in the shape of magnificent navigable rivers, and has huge deposits of coal, iron, oil and copper ; while it is admirably suited to the production of sugar, cotton and other products. Indeed, of many of the products used in both art and industry throughout the world, the United States of America supplies nearly 50 per cent. Its great cities, instead of being confined to the seaboard, as is the case in Australia, are scattered throughout the country. Yet with all these natural advantages there are 8,000,000 persons unemployed in the United States of America, while 20,000,000 more are in only partial employment. In the face of these facts Senator Elliott contends that we should go a long way towards solving our financial problems by selling our railways for half their capital value. I remind him that the railways of Great Britain do not pay to-day, and that only by the granting of governmental assistance from time to time indirectly by means of legislative enactments have they ever paid. Similarly, the railways of the United States of America and Canada have paid only because vast areas of the people’s land have been given to them on the land grant system. Not many years ago a number of the private railways of Canada were nationalized to prevent them from becoming bankrupt.

Another point about this insane idea of selling our railways which, in my opinion, is more serious than any that I have mentioned, is that it puts into the hands of private owners an immense political power which they would not hesitate to use to their own advantage.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to S p.m.

Senator RAE:

– I was extremely pleased to hear what Senator R. D. Elliott had to say about the probable effect of a change of government. It was most refreshing. If he believes that a mere change of government from Labour to Nationalist will restore confidence it is a tribute to his political innocence. The trouble to-day is not a lack of confidence in governments, but a universal lack of confidence in the system under which we are living. “What Senator Pearce said about the tariff may be appropriate; no doubt tariff revision is required, but I do not think that any honorable senator is in a position to affirm that a mere fiscal system will provide a remedy for the great financial crisis which has afflicted the whole world. There are all degrees of tarffism in force - from allegedly freetrade and revenue tariffs up to the most pronounced protectionist - and none of them provide a panacea for the ills that have overcome mankind. While the effects of government may accentuate the crisis and make conditions worse in one country than in another, other factors of greater importance play their part. These are fundamental factors which in our party strife we are apt to overlook. I agree with Senator Elliott that our allegedly Labour Government has done nothing substantial to relieve unemployment, and I do not think that all its newfound plans will have any better result. An opportunity will be afforded to us later to debate those measures.

Senator Thompson:

– The Labour Government has done nothing in England in that direction.

Senator RAE:

– It is not for want of trying, but I do not think that the Labour Government of England has tried on right lines. The proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating thereof, and evidently Labour has failed as the honorable member says. The fact that the depression in Great Britain has been accentuated in nearly every department of industry, goes to show that its causes are much deeper than can be accounted for by the mere differences between parties in control of a nation’s affairs. Every government attributes the obstacles it meets to the sins of its predecessors, and every opposition declares that it is the fault of the Government that prevents prosperity from being brought about. I think, however, that the fact that a world crisis exists, and that every country is suffering to a greater or less degree, goes to show that there are causes at work much more fundamental than we are willing to admit in the ordinary discussion of these matters. I think that those who believe that there is to be some relief from the Hoover offer are anticipating more than is likely to be realized, but I trust it will lead to a permanent cessation of war debt payments. A clean slate in that direction throughout the world would do something to remove the present crisis; but I am profoundly convinced that the capitalistic system must be destroyed before any better system can be erected in its place. I, therefore, offer no apology for saying that the measures by which we are attempting to cope with the present crisis are a mere tinkering with a grave evil. They can do nothing but prolong the agony a little longer.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Would the honorable senator prefer a Soviet system?

– The honorable senator certainly showed it by his references to the capitalistic system.

Senator Rae:

– My enmity is against capitalism.

Senator PAYNE:

– What is the difference? Every one knows that the country with the greatest amount of capital, provided it is wisely used, is the most prosperous. Capital is given to us so that it may be used for the benefit of the community, and as a rule it is. Some misers may hoard their money, so that it cannot be employed for the general use, but they are very few, indeed. The average man who has a little capital invests it, and it is, therefore, available for use in the development of industry.

.- I desire to direct attention to certain matters that affect civil aviation, in the development of which, for several reasons, Australia lags behind the rest of the world. I realize that the principal difficulties with which we have to contend are the extraordinarily high cost of the machines in Australia, and, what is more important, the needlessly high price that is charged for the fuel which is used in those machines. Fortunately, on the other side of the world aeroplane engines designed for the use of crude oil are being tested out; and if they prove successful there should be a considerable advance in civil aviation in Australia.

It was my privilege to visit Great Britain last year, and while there I availed myself of every opportunity to investigate the operations of the different aircraft factories, not only in England, but also on the Continent. Australia offers exceptionally good conditions for the development of civil aviation, and in the future much more attention will have to be paid to the use of aircraft as a means of transport. The facilities that were placed at my disposal by not only Government officials, but also the principals of the aircraft industry and of aeronautics generally, enabled me to obtain information relating to the development of flying in Great Britain and Europe.

As honorable senators are aware, aviation received its greatest impetus between the years 1914 and 1918. Prior to the war, flying was more or less in the experimental stage; but the necessities of the war compelled the making of rapid progress by practically every European country which was engaged in that death struggle. During the war period practically the whole of the stimulus given to aviation was the result of the use of aircraft for war purposes; consequently, the manufacturers of aircraft engines and parts concentrated their attention on the manufacture of war-like machines. But as the development of the air force reached such a point that it was possible for governments to allocate a certain sum for the development of civil aviation, these huge factories were obliged to experiment in the construction of aircraft for civil transport purposes. A certain amount of attention had already been paid to private flying. It was my privilege to visit Croydon aerodrome on different occasions. There, one can see a regular fleet of probably fifty air liners arriving daily from almost every European capital, and landing their passengers and freight with no more concern than is displayed at Australian seaports when vessels discharge their passengers and freight. I also visited the Paris aerodrome, where similar conditions prevail. Unfortunately, civil aviation and private flying have not developed nearly as rapidly in Australia as they have in other countries. Our aero clubs throughout Australia are doing splendid work, but they must have every encouragement and assistance. In Great Britain, despite the unsuitability of the climatic conditions, there are scores of private owners who use their aeroplanes in very much the same way as we use motor cars in Australia. It was not an unusual sight to see a family arrive tit the Croydon Aerodrome from Birmingham, Manchester, or some other town 200 miles distant from London. They would visit the theatre in the evening, spend the night in London, and return to their home on the following morning. The result is that private flying has received a tremendous impetus during the last few years. His Boya! Highness the Prince of Wales has set an excellent example by travelling extensively by aeroplane, not .only in Great Britain, but also in various continental countries.

In addition to the services over th» shorter air routes to Berlin, Paris, Brussels and other European centres, there is a regular air service from Great Britain to South Africa and to India. Only a few weeks ago, but for a mishap which occurred to the Imperial Airways machine at Timor, the first air mail from Great Britain to Australia would have arrived here within ten or eleven days, compared with the five weeks that are occupied through the usual channels. A little later a Dutch aeroplane arrived io Australia, bringing mail matter from the Old Land in record time.

The developments in regard to aviation that the present generation has witnessed surely show that this new method of transport has come to stay. I hope that the air services in Australia will not be obliged to languish because the Government for the time being states it is not able to give assistance by way of a subsidy, such as that which has been requested by Australian National Airways Limited. In far Western Queensland, where the Qantas machines are operating, thousands of passengers and tons of freight have been carried practically without mishap. The company which is operating in Western Australia has probably been more successful than any other similar concern in the world, and I believe has been free from any fatality. These facts indicate that rapid progress is being made in the development of aviation.

This leads me to another matter that I wish to mention. I understand that strong representations have been made to the Government to grant assistance to a company that is endeavouring to build light aeroplanes in. Australia. Assistance i3 being sought by means of a heavy duty on light aeroplanes that are brought into Australia. I am ready at all times to give encouragement to an Australian industry, provided it is able to fulfil requirements and to supply a commodity at a reasonable cost. But what actually is the position in regard to the construction of aircraft in Australia? Only one firm is attempting to manufacture light aeroplanes. I understand that a certain amount of experimental work is being carried out by the Commonwealth Government at the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. While I have no desire to throw cold water on the schemes of the gentleman who is in charge of the construction work at that dockyard, we should proceed very carefully in view of our experience in connexion with the building of two Widgeon machines, neither of which was satisfactory, at a cost probably four times as great as the price at which the machines could have been purchased in the Old Land. There should be close investigation of the matter before it is decided to impose a duty upon light aeroplanes that are brought into Australia, as has been suggested to the Government. As a result of representations made to the Government the duty is not at present operative.

I particularly wish to bring under the notice of the Government the extent to which research work is being carried on in Great Britain. It is estimated that approximately £500,000 is spent by the aircraft manufacturers of Great Britain in laboratory work alone. The British Government provides an annual vote of £150,000 for research purposes at the Farnham works in connexion with the construction of aeroplane engines. I visited the Handley Page and De Haviland works in England, and saw the tremendous amount of research that is being undertaken by those companies. I also inspected a safety device invented by Mr. Handley Page, with the object of making aeroplanes fool proof. This invention, which consists of a safety slot, cost the company approximately £50,000 before it was adopted by the British Government or by any of the Dominion governments. The object of the invention is to enable an experienced pilot to safely land in the event of the engine “ stalling “ when the machine is at a considerable altitude. Instead of endeavouring to conduct practically the whole of our research work in Australia the Government should appoint an officer, actively associated with the civil aviation branch of the Defence Department, to keep in close touch with the research work that is being undertaken on the other side of the world. Unfortunately, owing to the economies which the Government has had to effect in our overseas representation, there is at present no officer in London actually in touch with the research work that is being undertaken. The association of British aircraft manufacturers issues a weekly pamphlet, of which I am privileged to receive a copy, which gives a good deal of information; but the development of aircraft is making such rapid progress that Australia should have in London a liaison officer to watch the development and progress overseas in aircraft construction.

– Irrespective of our past relations with any country, it is foolish for us to take action which will result in other countries retaliating against us, and thereby injuring our primary industries. There is very little sentiment in trade.

Senator Daly:

– Trade cannot be obtained unless we are prepared to pay for it.

Senator FOLL:

– I take it that the honorable senator means that the Government took action to prohibit the import of certain goods in an endeavour to rectify the trade balance. Fortunately, the position in that respect has improved considerably; but the prediction which Senator Daly made, when Leader of the Senate, that when the trade balance had been adjusted unemployment would decrease, has not been fulfilled.

When the Prime Minister was in England last year he made some excellent speeches in favour of empire trade reciprocity. At the same time Senator R. D. Elliott was acclaimed the new leader of the movement begun by the Empire Preference League to encourage trade within the Empire. Although the

Imperial Conference held in London lasted for several weeks, it ended in a failure. No concessions were granted to the dominions by the Labour Government of Britain, because that great stalwart, Mr. Philip Snowden, although one of Britain’s ablest men, is a rabid freetrader.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– He is a most stubborn man.

Senator FOLL:

– That is so. Even when the other members of the British Cabinet seemed inclined to agree to Empire preference, Mr. Philip Snowden said that there should be no duty on imports. When a huge deputation of lace workers from Nottingham approached him with a view to the Government granting some protection to the British lace-making industry against cheap importations from Belgium and elsewhere in order to prevent many factories from having to close down, this man of iron said that he preferred to see them closed, and that British workers should be thrown out of employment, rather than that he should depart from the sacred principles of freetrade, which, in his opinion, were essential to the well being of the country. With a British cabinet prepared to accept such views, what chance was there of the Imperial Conference coming to an agreement regarding Empire trade reciprocity? When the Prime Minister, the AttorneyGeneral, and the Minister for Markets, who were in England at the time, realized that it was impossible to make any arrangements for Empire trade reciprocity, they should have turned their attention to some of the continental countries, and endeavoured to make trade treaties with them. Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy offer wonderful opportunities for the disposal of some of our primary products. Many European countries, when framing their tariffs, have regard to countries rather than to items. They frame their fiscal policy to give protection against definite competitors. The Government would do well to follow the same policy. The United States of America has framed its tariff with the definite object of excluding Australian goods, and at the same time that country takes advantage of every opportunity to dump its own manufactured goods into

Australia. We should be justified in retaliating against that country when framing our tariffs. On the other hand, where we find a likely market for our products - whether it be the Motherland, a sister dominion, or an American or European country- - we should endeavour to encourage reciprocal trade with that country.

I was hopeful that, as the result of the world tour of the Minister for Markets (Mr. Parker Moloney), he would be able to negotiate a number of trade treaties which would benefit the primary producers of this country. We have waited in vain for the promised trade treaty with Canada. Numerous questions have been asked in both Houses of this Parliament regarding the negotiations for a trade treaty with that dominion, but it would appear that no material advantage to Australia is likely to result from the Minister’s visit overseas. I do not blame the Australian delegates to the Imperial Conference for that conference breaking down. It was doomed to failure from the beginning, because of the attitude of the British Government towards freetrade. Another Empire economic conference is to be held at Ottawa next year; but it also is doomed to failure if the personnel of the British Government remains what it is now. So long as the British Cabinet adheres to its freetrade principles, there is no chance of the Mother Country adopting a policy which will protect her own industries or give concessions to the British dominions. The British Labour Government is not likely to grant concessions to Australia because it is kept in power by the freetrade party, and, like the Federal Government in Australia, it is determined to hold on to office at all costs.

The speeches of the Prime Minister in England made a favorable impression in that country. It is a pity that on his return to Australia he did not maintain the high standard which he set in England. The result is that Australia has continued to drift for many months, thus making our financial position much worse. Had the Prime Minister taken a firm stand on his return, instead of flirting with inflation and fiduciary note issues, I am convinced that London financiers would have been willing to fund our London indebtedness at a lower rate of interest than we shall now be called upon to pay. Listening to some of the speeches delivered in this chamber and another place one would be justified in thinking that there is an organized hostility to Australia among overseas financiers. That is not so. But when a party, like the Federal Labour party, passes resolutions in favour of repudiation, and the Labour Premier of the Mother State states that he will not pay the amount owing by his State, can we wonder that overseas financiers will not lend further money to Australia unless some surety is given for its return? When I was in London I found that there was no lack of money for investment, provided that governments were prepared to act sanely, and in keeping with the best traditions of British finance. The other dominions like South Africa and India, which cannot be said to be more truly British than Australia, can go on the market and get money readily enough. But Australia has done everything possible to discourage confidence and destroy its credit overseas. If, in spite of the organized hostility within the Government party itself, the Government’s economy plan is put into operation, indicating to the people overseas that Australia is willing to make further sacrifices in order to maintain its solvency, I believe that there will be a change in the attitude of overseas investors towards our country. I join with others in hoping that the conversion loan will be a success. We are all to take part in it, free from party politics. A successful conversion would be, I believe, the turning point in the history of Australia, because it would induce those who are interested in Australia’s credit overseas also to play their part in rehabilitating the finances of our great country.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I should not have spoken at this stage had not my views upon the tariff been so much out of harmony with many of those expressed by previous speakers. I think it would have a most harmful effect if the impression got abroad that honorable senators are waiting impatiently for the tariff to be submitted for their consideration in order that they may tear it to shreds and tatters. It would have a most deterrent effect upon manufacturers contemplating the installation of plant and the employment of workers either in the establishment of new industries or in the expansion of those already existing. I do not believe that the people of any country can become prosperous by depending solely upon primary production. Even now Australia is dependent to a great extent upon its secondary industries. If we had not had them, we should have been obliged to go without a great many things which we are able to obtain at the present ‘time. We should not have had the money to pay for them.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– Has it been suggested that honorable senators are opposed to secondary industries?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– No ; but it has been suggested very definitely that some honorable senators are not prepared to give them effective protection.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– We are not prepared to maintain the tariff with its present ridiculously high rates of duty.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– It would be a serious mistake to finalize the tariff while the industries of the world are practically in a state of flux, or until the industrial conditions of other countries as well as our own become more stable. We should not, in such circumstances, be in a position to decide what duties are necessary to give fair and reasonable protection to our secondary industries.

Senator E B Johnston:

– Would the honorable senator apply the 20 per cent, economy cut to the tariff?

Senator CRAWFORD:

– I do not know how that could be done. At present we are confining the 20 per cent, cut to the employees of the various Governments of Australia simply because we have not the money to pay the salaries they are now receiving.

– If Great Britain gave Australia preference, £1 for £1 in return for the preference which we give the Mother Country, our financial position would be very materially improved. But Australia is not the only country which is being compelled, by force of circumstances, to endeavour to become more and more self-contained.

Practically all nations are giving their attention to this matter. I am afraid that we are too apt to forget that, of all countries, Australia could, with the least difficulty, become self-contained. We have an area larger than Europe, excluding Russia, and within our territory we have every range of climate and practically every class of soil. In addition, we have great natural resources in minerals and timber. If we had to do it, we could live in comfort without importing any commodities’ except, perhaps, a few drugs. Europe is not in the same favoured position. Its area, excluding Russia, is smaller than that of Australia, and yet it has 25 different tariffs. Until there is a change of Government in Great Britain the overseas market for our surplus primary products is just as likely to become less, as it is likely to become more, favorable. I am aware that many people are inclined to treat the Russian five-year plan very lightly. I regard it, on the contrary, as a serious attempt to bring Russia into the front rank of primary producing and industrial nations. It is possible that, in the course of a few years, the Soviet system of government will break down, but if Russia can keep its industrial plan going for another three or four years, agricultural methods in that country will be completely transformed and the Russian agriculturist, instead of being the most primitive in the world, will be the most up-to-date. And since that country has hundreds of millions of acres of first class wheat land, her assault on the world markets cannot be disregarded. There is also the possibility that Russia will, one day, become a serious competitor against Australia in the London butter market. Consequently, I take the .view that we should be making a great mistake if we did not provide sufficient protection for our secondary industries. I do not see how it is possible to ensure the employment of many additional people in our primary industries. We must, 1 think, depend upon the establishment of new, and the expansion of existing, secondary industries. We should not be over-hasty in deciding what action shall be taken with regard to tariff items. It will be time enough, when we have before us the tariff accompanied by the reports of the Tariff Board and such other information as may be afforded to us, to decide what is fair and reasonable for the protection of Australian industry. An announcement at this stage of an intention to reduce drastically certain duties would create a very bad impression and would not be helpful in restoring confidence or providing employment for those who are out of work and, as a consequence, are in deep distress.

Senator DALY:
South Australia

– I agree with a great deal of what Senator Crawford has said and, on the other hand, I disagree with much that was said by Senator Poll and Senator Elliott. The fiscal policy of the Australian Labour Party is apparently very much misunderstood. Senator Craword put his finger on the real problem which, at the outset, confronted this Government when he asked how could we expect to meet our obligations overseas if we did not take some action to check imports. I have in my possession the second annual report of the Development and Migration Commission, which, I suggest should be studied carefully by all honorable senators, so that they may appreciate to the full what we were getting for our wheat, wool, and butter from those countries which, according to certain critics, have enacted legislation in the nature of reprisals against the Australian tariff. The previous Government decided, in order that we might export butter - I refer to butter, because it was one of the items mentioned by Senator Crawford - that consumers in Australia should pay a premium of 4d. a lb. for the right to eat Australian butter.

Senator Sir GEORGE Pearce:

– If the honorable senator is referring to the Paterson butter scheme, it would be well to remind him that that was a private arrangement between the management of the Australian butter factories.

Senator DALY:

– I am surprised that Senator Pearce should deny that the Government of which he was a member did nothing to assist that scheme.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– We did not pass any legislation dealing with that matter. The scheme is an understanding between the various butter factories.

Senator DALY:

– I shall not challenge the accuracy of the right honorable gentleman’s interjection. All I wish te emphasize is that, under the Paterson butter scheme, consumers in Australia have to pay an additional 4d. a lb. in order that the factories may export the imaginary surplus.

Senator Reid:

– It is a very real surplus.

Senator DALY:

– It may be of interest to honorable senators to learn that, in the year when the Paterson butter scheme was launched, Australia imported butter to the value of £549,548. While we were forcing the consumers in Australia to pay an additional 4d. per lb. for the right to eat the butter that was produced in this country, and were exporting our surplus production, we were importing over £500,000 worth a year. When we sold our butter to France we were paid for it partially in olive oil, of which £40,000 worth was imported into Australia, despite the fact that the State which I represent produces the best olive oil in the world.

Honorable senators opposite claim that the actions of this Government have resulted in the closing of the financial markets of the world to Australia; that Great .Britain and Europe have lost confidence in us, and that there is no hope of our obtaining either money or anything else. I invite them to read this second annual report of the Development and Migration Commission, which was presented to Parliament during the regime of the BrucePage Government, it shows that we exported our wool to France, and received in payment £729,000 worth of artificial silk. Sausage casings were mentioned by Senator Elliott, in a comparison that he drew between New Zealand and Australia. Does the honorable senator know that in the year 1927-28, when these statistics were taken out, we imported into Australia £500,000 worth of sausage casings?

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) expressed some concern regarding the budget. As soon as it is possible to do so - probably within a month - the budget will be placed before Parliament. As in the case of previous budgets, the budget about to be introduced will cover the whole financial year.

I regret that the Leader of the Opposition made some disturbing remarks regarding the tariff. The tariff schedule has been in operation for some months, but it is not giving the results that the Government expected. The reason is that although there are persons in the community who are willing to expend capital in establishing or extending industries, they fear that the present Government might not remain long in office, and that another government might pursue a different fiscal policy altogether. The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition will strengthen their fears. I hope that by the time the tariff reaches the Senate the right honorable gentleman will have become sufficiently patriotic to realize that the development of this count’/ is of prime importance, and that he will not do or say anything to discourage persons with capital from developing our secondary industries.

Senator Foll said that civil aviation has not made as much progress in Australia as in some of the older countries. That may be so ; but I do not think that there is any cause for serious complaint about the progress aviation has made in Australia. Regular air services operate along a number of routes in different parts of the country. Unfortunately, accidents sometimes occur, and it is then that the machines belonging to the Defence Department are used to do work which cannot be done by private enterprise. These machines have recently been utilized in the search for lost aeroplanes. While I am not prepared to contradict the statement of the honorable senator, I see no reason for discontent regarding Australia’s progress in aviation. Personally, I think we have done remarkably well. I should like to see aeroplanes used more for commercial purposes; but in a country whose population is small and widely scattered, that might not be profitable at present In my opinion, Australia has no reason to complain of any lack of progress in aviation matters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to appropriate the sum of £2,409,780 for the services of the Government for the month of July. No attempt to forecast the effect of the proposed economies has been made for the reason that the budget, although nearing completion, has not yet been finalized.

The following appropriations are, therefore, ‘based on the estimates for the current year: -

Departments and services, other than business undertakings and territories of the Commonwealth, £679,510.

Business undertakings, post offices and railways, £835,010.

Territories of the Commonwealth,

£45,260.

These amounts total £1,559,780, which leaves a balance of £850,000.

Of this latter sum, £100,000 is .required for refunds of revenue, and £7 50,000 for an advance to the Treasurer, mainly for the purpose of exchange on a remittance of interest to London in July. A portion of this amount is required for the continuance of uncompleted works and services in progress on the 30th June, 1931. These are works which have been approved by Parliament in previous appropriations. As it is expected that the Senate will shortly have an opportunity of discussing the financial position, it is not my intention to enter upon a discussion of that subject at this stage. Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) asked for what period the Government proposed to seek Supply. I then assured him that it would be for a period not longer than two months; probably only one month. As I have stated, the bill is for Supply for the month of July - a period which will be of very great importance to this country. As honorable senators know, an agreement was arrived at by the Premiers at a conference recently held in Melbourne, as a result of which they hope Australia will emerge successfully from its present financial troubles. In order to give effect to the decisions of the conference, a number of measures will bc brought before Parliament, and it if hoped that they will be passed before the period covered by this bill has elapsed. The right honorable gentleman expressed a desire, on behalf of the Opposition, to help to make the conversion loan a success. The Government appreciates thai offer of assistance. The legislation necessary to give effect to the decisions of the Premiers Conference will have to be pui through this Parliament, and the Parliaments of the States, as speedily as possible. This hill will grant Supply for the time necessary to do that. Before further Supply is required, the budget will have been introduced, and honorable senators will then have an opportunity of discussing the Government’s financial proposals.

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

page 3028

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 3)

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

page 3028

PAPERS

The following papers were presented :-

Arbitration (Public Service Act) - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. -

No. 12 of 1931. - Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers Federation of Australia.

Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rule* 1931, No. 59- No. 67- No. 08.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act - Rules of Court amended - Sta.tu.torv Rules 1031 No. 71.

Lands Acquisition Act - Regulations amended -Statutory Rules ls,31, No. 02.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 09.

Northern Australia Act -

Central Australia - Ordinance No. .1 of 1931 - Income Tax.

North Australia - Ordinance No.8 of 1931 - Income Tax.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act - Ordinances of 1931 -

No.1 - Encouragement of Primary Production.

No. 2 - Crown Lands.

No. 3 - Interpretation.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931 - No. 61 -No. 70.

Sales Tax Assessment Acts -Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No.63.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act . and Seat of Government (Administration) Act-

Ordinance No. 11 of 1931 - Liquor (No. 2).

Dentists Registration Ordinance - Regulations.

page 3029

ADJOURNMENT

Budget and Economy Plan

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now Adjourn.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [10.32]. - I should like to correct a misapprehension the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) seems to be under as the result of some of my remarks this afternoon. I was not pressing for the early passing of the budget. On the contrary, on the basis of a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) that the budget would be brought in and passed during July, I wanted to know whether any of the measures in the economy plan were to be included in that budget. I suggested that they should be kept separate because I was under the impression that the Senate would not agree to pass the budget in July. Experience has shown that it would not be advisable for the Senate to give the Government Supply for the full twelve months, and, in the circumstances, I thought it advisable for the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Barnes) to let his colleagues know thatif any of the economy proposals connected with the general olan were in the budget, it would be better to separate them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 June 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310625_senate_12_130/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate25 June 1931

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL CHANGES

Senator BARNES:Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Issue of Licences

Senator BARNES:ALP

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator RAE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DOOLEY:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

EXPORT OF POTATOES

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES

Senator BARNES:ALP

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2)

QUESTION

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Barnes:

Senator Sampson:

Senator Daly:

Senator Barnes:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

The PRESIDENT:

STATUTORY RULES

Isaac A. Isaacs

Governor-General

By His Excellency’s Command,

Parker Moloney

Minister of State for Transport

Waterside Employment Regulations

Senator BARNES:VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

Senator DALY:South Australia

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator DALY:

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator Payne:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator DALY:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:QUEENSLAND

Senator Barnes:

Senator REID:

Senator Barnes:

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

Senator REID:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator REID:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:

Senator Daly:

Senator REID:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Barnes:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Daly:

Senate
25 June 1931

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator BARNES:
ALP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

Senator DALY:
South Australia

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator RAE:
New South Wales

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania