Senate
17 July 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1931

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 4033

QUESTION

FEDERAL MORATORIUM

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to pass legislation providing for a Federal moratorium that would be applicable to all the States in the Commonwealth, on the lines followed in New SouthWales?

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

– Not that I know of.

page 4033

QUESTION

WHEAT INDUSTRY

Guarantee of 3s. a Bushel.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Leader of the Government state what is the intention of the Government concerning the resolution carried by the Senate last week, affirming the desirableness of redeeming the pledge given to the wheatgrowers for the payment of 3s. a bushel with respect to all wheat grown in the year 1930-31?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Government has no special intention regarding the matter so far as I am aware.

page 4033

QUESTION

SYDNEY CITY COUNCIL

Purchase of Motor. Cars

Senator DUNN:

asked the Vice-Presi dent of the Executive Council, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the All-for-Australia and civic reform aldermen of Sydney City Council recently endeavoured to commit the council to the purchase of American-made “ Dodge “ cars, in preference to Canadianmade cars?
  2. Is it a fact that in view of the Trade Treaty between Canada and Australia, the Sydney Labour aldermen succeeded in defeating the Nationalist and All-for-Australia aldermen, and carried a decision to purchase Canadian cars?
  3. Will he cause the full facts of this case to be made known for the information of the people of Australia ?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Government has no information in connection with this matter.

page 4033

QUESTION

LAUNCHING OF CAPE OTWAY

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Shipping Board, in order to effect economies, did not desire any official ceremony at the launching of the recently-built steamer Cape Otway at Cockatoo Island?
  2. Is it a fact that correspondence passed between Senator Dooley (Assistant-Minister for Works), of the Scullin Government, and the Board, in which the Minister indicated thathe would like to be present, and the outcome of which resulted in an official launching and ceremony?
  3. Will the Prime Minister place on the Table of the Senate all correspondence, including letters and telegrams, which passed between Senator Dooley and the dockyard manager in connexion with the launching of the Cape Otway?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. and 2. It was originally intended that no ceremony of any description be held in connection with the launching of the Cape Otway. Later, the Assistant Minister for Works was, at the request of the Government, present at the launching of the vessel. The ceremony arranged in connexion with the launching was of the simplest character possible, and involved the dockyard in very little expenditure.
  2. I am not aware of any correspondence which passed between the Assistant Minister for Works and the manager of the dockyard, regarding the matter.

page 4033

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES

Dispute Between Government and Governor

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Was the Government responsible for, or in any way identified with, the cable message recently forwarded to Mr. J. H. Thomas, British Minister of State for Dominion Affairs, with a view to influencing him in coming to a decision in respect of the dispute between the New South Wales Government and the Governor of that State?
  2. Will the Minister lay upon the table of the Senate any correspondence bearing on this matter?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to 1.

page 4034

QUESTION

RIVERINA AND MONARO MOVEMENTS

Attitude Towards Unionism

Senator RAE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been called to the statement made at the Queanbeyan conference of the Monaro movement, by Mr. Chas. Hardy, of the Riverina movement, reported as follows in the Canberra Times, of 16th July: - “ It was said that these movements were opposed to unionism, but this was not the case. He, at all events, regarded the Australian Workers Union as the best and most common-sense union in Australia, and as such he approved of it, but the unions had been honeycombed, and were to-day dominated by men who did not know the true spirit of Australians, and had become pawns in the political game “.
  2. Can he inform the Senate if the Australian Workers Union is one of the unions which has become “ honeycombed “ in the manner described?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the matter by the honorable senator.
  2. The honorable senator’s question seeks an expression of opinion which it is not customary to give in answer to questions.

page 4034

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

Markets for Australian Products

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– Information is being obtained in reply to questions asked upon notice’ by Senator Elliott, relating the actionto secure a reduction in the working costs of the Commonwealth Railway Department, as well as in regard to representatives of the Government abroad who are endeavouring to secure markets for Australian products.

page 4034

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– by leave - In fairness to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) I wish to correct an impression that I conveyed respecting him at a late hour last night after a gruelling day’s debate. During the course of my remarks on those provisions of the Financial Emergency Bill that relate to the gold bounty, I alleged that the right honorable gentleman was not supporting an amendment that had been moved by Senator Johnston. Later, however, he showed by his vote that he was doing so. I regret having conveyed that wrong impression of the righthonorable gentleman’s attitude towards the proposal, and trust that he will accept my apology for having done so.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Hear, hear! I do so.

page 4034

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives, intimating that Mr. A. E. Rowe, M.P., had been appointed a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in the place of Mr. J. B. Chifiey, discharged from attendance.

page 4034

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Report on the Wine Industry of Australia, by the Hon. John Gunn, Commonwealth Director of Development, and R. McK. Gollan, Department of Trade and Customs.

Export Guarantee Act - Return showing assistance granted, to 30th June, 1931.

Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931; No. 86.

page 4034

LOAN BILL, 1931

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

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would preventthe bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

page 4034

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE)

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

Motion (by Senator Dooley) agreed to-

That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

page 4034

NORTH AUSTRALIA ORDINANCE No. 6 OF 1931

Workmen’s Compensation : Motionfor Disallowance

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

.- I move-

That North Australia Ordinance No.6 of 1931, relating to compensation to workman for injuries suffered in the course of their employment, and for other purposes, be disallowed.

The enactment of this ordinance indicates the state of mind of the Government in relation to the condition of Australia generally, as well as an entire lack of appreciation of the difficulties of those who are situated in. the outback. It is not my intention to labour the matter. In my opinion the Senate should reject the ordinance on principle.

The new ordinance does not to any great extent vary from that of 1923 ; but, light though the extra burden may be, we cannot afford for economic reasons to impose any additional charges on those who are engaged in one of our primary industries in the interior. According to my reading of the ordinance, an effort has been made to bring this legislation into exact line with that introduced into this Parliament dealing generally with employees of the Government, disregarding altogether the disabilities from which the people outback are suffering and the conditions under which they are carrying on their operations at the moment. I shall show that, as a result of the passing of this new ordinance, another burden will be added to those that are already being endured by increasing the cost of insurance against accident to workmen. Honorable senators know that no business man and no primary producer carries his own risk with respect to workmen’s compensation.

Before dealing with the effects of the new ordinance, may I say that there is a very fair ordinance in force at the present time. It was passed in 1923, and has worked to the satisfaction of the employees as well as the employers. Although that ordinance imposes on the primary producers a far greater burden in relation to the expense necessary to obtain insurance cover than does legislation of a similar character in the neighbouring States, the pastoralists have been content to labour under that disability, believing that it was only in line and in harmony with legislation of the States of New South “Wales and Queensland, where similar conditions prevail. I shall compare the premiums charged under the South Australian legislation, which is up tn date in the matter of workmen’s com pensation, with the existing rates under Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances. In making this comparison it is necessary to take into consideration the difficulties under which the pastoralists in Northern Australia, who are far removed from the centres of population, are operating, and also the present unprofitable prices of cattle. Under the South Australian act the premium rate for borers for oil and water is 33s. 6d. per cent., but under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances of 1923 the premium rate for those engaged in the same class of work is 50s. 3d. per cent., or an increase of approximately 50 per cent. For carters and carriers, other than parcel delivery vans, the premium rate under the South Australia Act is 50s. per cent., but under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances of 1923 the rate for that class of work is 75s. per cent., or a clear increase of 50 per cent.

Senator J B Hayes:

– “What are the rates under the ordinance recently promulgated ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I shall deal with those later. The rates for those employed in the droving of cattle or sheep under the South Australia Act are 30s. per cent., hut under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances at present in operation it is 45s. per cent., or an increase of 50 per cent. For those employed in dam sinking, where no blasting is involved, the minimum premium is £2 10s. and the rate 22s. 6d. per cent., while under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances an employer has to pay 33s. 9d. per cent, for similar cover. For dam sinking, in which blasting is necessary, the minimum premium is £5 and the rate 40s. per cent., while under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances of 1923 it is 60s. per cent., or an increase of 50 per cent. For the general protection of farmers and pastoralists the rate under the South Australia Act is 30s. per cent., but under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances it is 45s. per cent. For well cleaning, where no well sinking is involved, the rate under the South Australia Act is 55s. per cent., and under existing ordinances for Northern Australia and Central Australia it is 82s. 6d. per cent. For well sinking, other than artesian boring, the minimum premium under the South. Australia Act is £5 and the premium rate 55s. per cent., but under the Northern Australia and Central Australia Ordinances it is 82s. 6d. per cent. For those engaged in work associated with windmills the rate under the South Australia Act is 22s. 6d. per cent., and under the ordinances to which I am referring 33s. 9d. per cent. Notwithstanding the disabilities under which pastoralists and others in Northern Australia and Central Australia are labouring, their liabilities are already greater by at least 50 per cent, as compared with those engaged in similar occupations across the border in South Australia. What is to happen under the latest ordinance which the Minister claims is necessary in order to bring it into line with the protection afforded employees in other parts of the Commonwealth under legislation passed by this Parliament in 1930? What will be its effect upon those engaged in pastoral undertakings in Northern Australia if this ordinance becomes operative? At present the rates charged in Northern Australia and Central Australia are 50 per cent, higher than those in operation in South Australia, but if this ordinance is not disallowed the rates will be increased by a further 50 per cent. It is impossible for pastoralists to carry this risk themselves, and, consequently, they must pay for cover through some insurance company. No one objects to the payment for the highest possible benefits ; but, in view of the conditions under which important developmental work is being carried on in this part of the Commonwealth there should be a reasonable limit in the matter of workmen’s compensation. Some honorable senators may think that the increases are comparatively slight, but in view of the disabilities under which the pastoralists are now operating they impose still further burdens which the employers should not be asked to carry. Although the lessees in Northern Australia and Central Australia are already at a great disadvantage in the matter of transport facilities, the Government now proposes to place further burdens upon them. Beef was selling in the Adelaide market last week at approxi- mately 18s. per 100 lb. in the yards. Small as the increases may appear to some, they constitute a further burden which, added to those Which they are already carrying, will be the means of restricting the development of this great hinterland. The Lessees Organization has not been officially notified of the increases, as the details of the proposed rates are being considered by the insurance companies ; but the members of that association have estimated that the increase in the premiums will be approximately 50 per cent, over the rates they are now paying and a clear differentiation of 50 per cent, as between the pastoralists in Northern Australia and those in South Australia. Clause 5 1 includes these words, “ not including any allowance paid in respect of children of the worker “. This is not to be found in section 62 of the existing ordinance, and the provision also differs from any State workmen’s compensation legislation. Complaints have also been made concerning section 9 12 which makes it possible for a claim to be made after six months. It seems monstrous that an attempt should be made to perpetrate such an injustice in a country of such tremendous distances, where the difficulties of pastoralists are already great owing to the lack of transport facilities. There should be some limitation of their liabilities in this matter. Clause 6 provides for certain medical benefits and hospital treatment, the cost of which shall not exceed £100. Under the New South Wales act the amount for this purpose is limited to £25, and, although the amount under the Western Australia act is £100, it is proposed under a recent amendment of that legislation to reduce it to £52 10s. It is amazing to realize that it is proposed to make these people in outside areas liable to an expenditure of £100 on medical benefits while the amount in New South Wales is only £25, and in Western Australia it is proposed to reduce it to £52 10s. Apparently the Government does not appreciate the difficulties under which pastoralists and other employers in the Northern Territory are carrying on their operations. This is the time when the Government, instead of hampering their operations, should be doing all it can to assist them. At present beef, which is worth only from 15s. to 18s. per 100 lb. in Queensland, is being sold at 2½d. per lb. overseas, of which a Id. a lb. is absorbed in freight and other charges.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The cost of droving is enormous.

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– Yes, very heavy expenses are incurred in sending the cattle to the rail head. At present the price of cattle in Queensland is about £5 per head. “When the Minister “was communicated with ‘by a representative of New South “Wales he endeavoured to justify this ordinance on the ground that the rates are similar to those in the act covering Commonwealth employees generally. I cannot understand the mentality of a Minister who considers that the rates applicable in the more settled portions of the Commonwealth should be applied to struggling settlers in the great hinterland. Apparently the Minister or his advisers have no knowledge of the conditions under which work in Northern Australia is being carried on. He has no knowledge of the difficulties or he would make the ordinance simplicity itself, and place as light a burden as possible on these men, both in order to develop the country and to encourage employment. “What inducement will there be to employers to engage labour to develop the territory if this ordinance is in existence? Its provisions will place a further burden on those who are endeavouring to develop the country in respect of every person they employ. This is not the time to place obstacles in the way of the development of the territory, or to do anything which would make it more difficult for men to obtain employment. The Minister said that the ordinance previously in operation in Northern Australia was entirely out of date. There is no justification whatever for such a statement. Even under the old ordinance the liabilities were greater than those imposed by corresponding legislation in South Australia. The idea of putting the whole of Australia under one class of ordinance, while characteristic of some politicians, is entirely unworthy of the Minister. His object should te to make conditions as easy as possible in the territory, in order that the country may be developed and employment provided for the maximum number of men. An honorable senator who has interested himself in this matter has handed me a letter from which I read -

Surely the two cases are not analogous. li the Government finds that out of its existing revenue it cannot meet expenditure placed upon it by such legislation, it has the power to raise the necessary funds by taxation. A private employer, however, has not this power, and if his business is not prosperous, he must either go out of business at once or pay the costs out of capital, which is equivalent to paying them out of losses, and leads to bankruptcy.

The condition of these men is critical. Already development is stationary, while if these new conditions obtain, unemployment will become rife. It is difficult enough for settlers to keep their present employees working without imposing additional burdens upon them.

It is indeed pathetic that the Minister should view this matter as he does. The conditions in other parts of Australia should not be made to apply to those who are developing our outback areas. The Senate would be justified in disallowing the ordinance, not because it would make a tremendous difference, but because it would place a further burden on settlers whose lot, even now, is not particularly happy, and also because it would react to the detriment of all concerned. If the Minister holds that industries which cannot be carried on under de luxe conditions should not be carried on at all, well and good; but if we are to develop the country we ought to make the conditions of those who settle there as easy as possible. I ask the Senate to agree to the disallowance of the ordinance.

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– I trust that the Senate will not agree to the disallowance of this ordinance. I point out, in the first place, that the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance for the Northern Territory is based on the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act. The compensation payable under the ordinance is almost identical with that payable under the act mentioned. In taking the Commonwealth act as the basis of the ordinance to apply in the Northern Territory, the Government was actuated by a desire for uniform legislation. A similar ordinance is now being drafted for application to the Territory for the Seat of Government. The Northern Territory

Lessees Association has objected to the ordinance on the ground that its provisions in respect to compensation are too generous. It has suggested that the Queensland act, rather than the Commonwealth act, should form the basis of any ordinance which should apply to the Northern Territory. I propose, therefore, t.o give a comparison of the old ordinance and the new. Under the old ordinance, the compensation in respect to the death of an employee with dependants ranged from a minimum of £200 to a maximum of £750. The new ordinance substitutes £400 for the previous minimum of £200, and leaves the maximum untouched. The Queensland act referred to by the lessees provides for a minimum of £300 and a maximum of £600; the Western Australian act provides for a minimum of £400 and a maximum of £600. In New South Wales, the minimum is £200 and the maximum £800 plus £25 for each child under sixteen years of age. It will be seen that there is not a great deal of difference. I point out that as the Commonwealth act applies to all Commonwealth employees throughout Australia, it therefore applies to the Northern Territory, Thursday Island, and the Northern portions of Queensland and Western Australia. By passing the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act, the Senate approved of the rates of compensation payable thereunder to Commonwealth employees. The honorable senator who now asks that this ordinance be disallowed was the Minister in charge of that legislation.

Senator McLachlan:

– Not in its present form.

Senator DOOLEY:

– He is now making a right about turn. The honorable senator referred to the struggling settlers who would be adversely affected by this ordinance. One would imagine that they are small settlers with holdings of only a few acres, on which they run a cow or two, a few fowls, and perhaps some pigs, whereas, in fact, their holdings comprise many thousands of acres carrying hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of head of cattle.

Senator Guthrie:

– I do not suppose that one of them is making ends meet to-day.

Senator DOOLEY:

– The whole argument of Senator McLachlan was on behalf of the employers. Apparently, his heart is bleeding for the struggling employers. But what about their employees ? Why should the dependants of a man employed by a private employer not receive the same compensation that would be paid to a person employed by the Government? The question for us to decide is whether such a state of affairs is just or unjust.

Senator McLachlan:

– Or whether it. is economically sound.

Senator DOOLEY:

– I take it that on economic grounds honorable senators opposite would object to the payment of compensation altogether.

Senator J B Hayes:

– No one says that.

Senator DOOLEY:

– On many occasions the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) has said that industry is too much loaded with overhead charges and government interference. I take it that, workmen’s compensation is one of the overhead charges or loads that industry has to carry. Honorable senators opposite disregard altogether the claims of the employees; but I point out that they are just as essential to industry as are the men who employ them. Moreover, the loss to the dependants of an employee is not less than that to the wife and family of an employer.

Senator Guthrie:

– No one disputes that.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Then why differentiate between one employee and another ?

Senator McLachlan:

– If the ordinance remains, there will soon be no employees at all.

Senator DOOLEY:

– In ‘ that case, there would be no employers either. This ordinance makes for uniformity in relation to the laws affecting compensation in the Northern Territory; it places on the same footing the employees of private employers and those of the Government. The only argument advanced against the ordinance is that the industry cannot afford to pay the rates therein set out. The logical conclusion of the argument of the Opposition is that because an industry cannot afford to pay compensation it should not be paid at all, either by the governments or private employers. I take it that Senator Mclachlan would not have sponsored the previous legislation had he not believed in compensation.

Senator Sampson:

– Is there any great difference between the old ordinance and the new one?

Senator DOOLEY:

– The following information bearing upon that point has been supplied by the Northern Territory Lessees Association. I have not had time to check the figures, but I assume that they are correct: -

The difference in the scales of compensation is not sufficient to justify the Senate in disallowing this ordinance. The Lessees Association advances, as one reason for objecting to the ordinance, the fact that pastoralists in the Northern Territory are in a bad way financially. The same argument may be applied also to the Commonwealth. The ordinance is in conformity with most of the provisions in workmen’s compensation acts of the different States, and, therefore, should not be disallowed.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [11.49]. - Senator Dooley and the Government, defend this ordinance by stating that it is based upon a Commonwealth act. They lose sight of the fact that if an accident happens to a postal employee in the Sydney General Post Office, hospitals, as good as any to be found anywhere in the world, doctors, nurses, and all other requirements are readily available. The position is entirely different on cattle stations in the Northern Territory, hundreds of miles from railway or telegraph lines, doctors, nurses, or hospitals. This is why in surance companies charge higher premiums under our workmen’s compensation acts to employers in the Northern Territory as compared with the premiums charged to employers in our capital cities. They impose the higher rates because of the additional risk, in the case of accidents, to employees in those remote places.

Senator Dooley:

– That argument would apply irrespective of the rate of compensation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Of course it would. I am endeavouring to show that if this ordinance is not disallowed, insurance companies must necessarily charge higher premium rates, because premiums are based upon the probable risks as well as upon the benefits specified in the schedule. There is a difference also between the risk to government employees in the Northern Territory and employees on cattle stations. For the most part, government employees live in Darwin, or on some section of the railway or telegraph line. Certainly they are not to be found on cattle stations.

Senator Dooley:

– Some are employed on government bores.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No doubt some are thus employed; but, if an accident happens to any one of them, they have the means to get the injured man quickly to a doctor and hospital. These bores are on the stock routes, but the men do not live there. As a rule, they patrol the stock routes in a motor car. Their head-quarters may be at Newcastle Waters or at the Katherine, where there is a hospital. Men working on cattle stations have no such convenience in the event of an accident. They may be hundreds of miles from the railway line.

Senator Rae:

– For that reason they run a greater risk.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Of course they do. That is why the insurance companies charge a higher rate of premium on the insurance policy. Obviously it is a much more serious matter if an employee breaks his arm at a place like Lake Nash Station than if he had a similar accident in the Sydney General Post Office.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Several lives have been saved lately through the use of the aeroplane.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.That is so. Senator Dooley made a most unjust accusation against honorable senators on this side when he declared that, if we had our way, there would be no compensation payable to employees. What warrant has the honorable senator for making that statement? The existing ordinance was made by the Bruce-Page Government, which had a majority in both Houses. The point taken by Senator McLachlan is a perfectly good one. The honorable senator stated that, if these compensation benefits are to be increased, as indicated in the new ordinance, it will be impossible for station-owners in the Northern Territory to employ anybody.

Senator McLachlan:

– It is becoming almost impossible in South Australia already.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Of what practical value will this ordinance be to any employee if employers in the Northern Territory are unable to provide work?

Senator Barnes:

– Is there any information dealing with the number of accidents in the Northern Territory?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I suppose the risk of accidents there is as great as anywhere else ; but the deathrate is very low.

Senator Guthrie:

– That is due largely to the healthy climate.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– Yes, and to the healthy nature of .the occupation.

Senator McLachlan:

– And the strong type of men out there.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I appeal to the Government not to, in this way, add to the burdens of those men who are endeavouring to develop the Northern Territory. Action along the lines of this ordinance will bring about their ruin, and certainly it will mean an increase in the number of unemployed.

Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia

– This ordinance is, we may assume, an attempt by the Government to give employees in the Northern Territory a fair deal ; but I am afraid that its only effect will be to further increase the burdens upon the pastoral industry. If it is not disallowed employees on the Western Australian side of the border, in the same latitude, and subject to the same risks, will be treated less favorably than it is now proposed to treat employees in the Northern Territory. The Western Australian legislation was passed by a Labour Government, and now the Federal Labour Government wishes to go one better. No one who has any knowledge of conditions in the Northern Territory will suggest that employees there are called upon to live under more hazardous conditions, or work harder, than employees on the other side of the imaginary lines which divide the territory from Northern Queensland or the north-west of Western Australia. It is, therefore, to be regretted that this Government should seek to place a further load on an industry which, if it is not vanishing, is in deeper and more troubled waters than any other industry in this country. These additional burdens can have only one result - they will eventually destroy the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. From the tone of Senator Dooley’s remarks, one would gather that station- owners in the Northern Territory are mem of ample financial means, and well able to stand up to this additional impost. Let me tell him of my experience just over the border in the north-west of “Western Australia. Many years ago I rode up to what proved to be the homestead of one of these “ opulent “ stationowners. The structure consisted of several bags sewn together, and stretched over a ridge pole. I concluded that it was an out station or a fencer’s camp, and, when I asked to be directed to the head station, the man I was addressing said, “ This is it. There is some tea, sugar and other tucker in the bottom of that hollow log. You can go and cook yourself a meal if you like. I’m hanged if I am going to wait on you.” That man, I remind Senator Dooley, was one of our “opulent” station-owners, engaged in the arduous business of opening up the northwest of Western Australia. All through that portion of- the continent there are many others in the same position, so, if the Government is genuinely desirous of helping in this work, it should not pile unnecessary ‘burdens upon those whoso lot is cast in that not more unpleasant spot, the Northern Territory.

This differentiation by a Commonwealth Labour Government compared with what has been imposed by other Labour governments in Western Australia and Queensland will pile expenses on people %ho have already expended all the resources in their possession, and have exhausted all the credit at their command. As Senator Guthrie has said, although the Federal Government has had charge of the Northern Territory for twenty years, the population has dwindled. Why has the population dwindled ? Because industries in the territory are stagnant. And why are they stagnant? Because they cannot pay. If they were able to pay, the population would be on the increase. I earned my living in Northern Australia. I spent a good while in the Gulf country of Queensland, which, climatically, is infinitely worse than any portion of the Northern Territory known to me. I suffered from fever for months in the Gulf country, and I know the type of country where men work for whom Queensland Labour governments have provided a much more reasonable workmen’s compensation schedule than a Commonwealth Labour Government thinks it necessary to impose on the settlers in the Northern Territory.

Much has been said about the lack of success of government enterprises. With the exception of a few hotels in Western Australia, which are not subjected to any competition, a brick-yard in New South Wales, and other such insignificant enterprises, no government enterprise in Australia has ever earned for the Treasury a profit worth a button. It is fallacious to suggest that a government enterprise can compete with a private undertaking. What did Mr. Alec. McCallum, the gentleman who was responsible for the passing of a burdensome workers’ compensation . act in Western Australia, find himself obliged to do with the State implement works >at North Fremantle? I, along with Mr. Bath, Minister for Lands, had something to do with the establishment of those works. At that time Labour thought that if the works could be carried on as they should be, they would effect a saving of 25 per cent, to the farmers of Western Australia. But when the build- ‘ ing was erected, the unfortunate wreckers to be found among the Labour party began their fine work, and put into operation their policy, with the result that even a Labour government found it impossible to run that enterprise at a profit. Mr. McCallum was forced to recognize that Labour’s effort had resulted in a failure, and he was obliged to ask the Farmers Association of the State to share the management of the works. That is but one sample of the many failures of government-controlled industries in Australia. Of course, it is easy enough for a government to conduct an enterprise so long as the patient taxpayer can be relied upon to make good whatever loss accrues. It is, however, time we gave the men in the Northern Territory, who are holding the fort for us in our pleasant places in the south, a chance to exist, if not to prosper. But that cannot be done by passing ordinances of this description. . Why should the workers in the Northern Territory be given better treatment than that which has been accorded by Labour governments in

Queensland or Western Australia to workers separated from them by an imaginary line? We should do nothing to discourage the settlement in the Northern Territory of a class of men who will enable us to maintain our hold of that country. We cannot establish to the nations substantial credentials for our claim to hold the territory if we hold it empty, yet we shall keep it empty if we make it impossible for its settlers to make ends meet, let alone prosper. Instead of heaping burdens upon the people who are willing to pioneer the Northern Territory, we should be indulgent to them, because in that way only can we help to make the territory flourish, ,and have it peopled by a contented white race. When the industry is flourishing then call upon it to pay, but not before. We should not issue ordinances which make it harder and harder for the pioneer to succeed.

On the grounds of humanity there is no intelligent reason for piling burdens on these people. Some time ago I asked for figures relating to the revenue derived from the Northern Territory, and if I recall them correctly, they show that the territory is a veritable millstone around the neck of Australia. It will never be otherwise, never stand on its feet, never cease coming constantly to the Commonwealth Treasurer for aid, and never be self -sustained unless we lighten the burdens of its settlers and give them a chance to carry on. I should like to see an analysis of the income tax paid by the men who reside in Australia to the north of a certain parallel of latitude, and who are to be called upon to bear this extra impost, although already they are having the hardest of hard times. Of course there are two classes of people in the territory. In addition to the workers there are the wasters, the men who wreck and smash industry and ruin enterprise, with the result that machinery capable of providing considerable employment is now lying unused and rusty, and the workers that could have been employed are scattered far and wide, and perhaps to-day are on the dole. The spectacle of Vestey’s idle million pounds works is one of the saddest sights. It is the workers of the Northern Territory upon whom we depend to see that the northern part of this continent is held firmly for a white race; but settlers cannot be kept there if we heap burden after burden upon them. It is about time honorable senators flung aside all their predilections formed outside this chamber and got down to solid and earnest business. The ordinance now sought to be disallowed is not fair to the pioneers of the Northern Territory, and I shall vote for its disallowance.

Senator CRAWFORD:
Queensland

– I do not think that the Senate should disallow an ordinance, except for very substantial reasons, and I do not think that a sufficient case has been made out for the disallowance of this ordinance. Senator Lynch has spoken of his experiences in Queensland many years ago, but the conditions have changed considerably since then. There are mot many parts of Queensland to-day which cannot be reached in the course of a few hours by aeroplane services. I have no knowledge of the type of men employed on the Northern Territory cattle stations. I have read only one book dealing with life in the territory and that was Mrs. Aeneas Gunn’s book, We of the Never Never. I do not suppose that the men employed on the station where Mrs. Gunn resided differed from those employed on. other stations. That being the case, it seems to me that their conditions are similar to those applying to citizens generally of the Commonwealth, and that they are entitled to every reasonable protection which can be afforded to them by a workman’s compensation ordinance. I understand that for the most part aborigines supply the labour required upon cattle stations in the territory and that aborigines Ure excluded from the provisions of this ordinance. I do not think that a sufficient case has been made out to justify the disallowance of the ordinance.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I congratulate Senator McLachlan on the way in which he has handled a bad case for the disallowance of this ordinance. In very eloquent language he has spoken of the struggles of the settlers in the Northern Territory and of the hardships that will be inflicted upon them by the ordinance he seeks to have disallowed. The honorable senator has been ably supported by Senator Lynch. That honorable senator argued that the poor, struggling settlers of the Northern Territory would practically he forced off their holdings if this ordinance became law. Let us consider whom it will affect. The Assistant Minister (Senator Dooley) has stated that some of these settlers hold thousands of acres. Unless I am mistaken, many of them hold hundreds of thousands of acres.

Senator Rae:

– Their holdings are reckoned in square miles.

Senator DUNN:

– That is so. The owners of Vestey’s, and of Victoria Downs and other large stations, are to be found in the vicinity of King Williamstreet, Adelaide; Hay-street, Perth; Collins-street, Melbourne “, and O’Connellstreet, Sydney. I suspected “ a nigger in the woodpile “, when the motion for the disallowance of this ordinance was moved by my esteemed friend Senator McLachlan. A few months ago I saw in the Sydney Sun a very fine photograph of the honorable senator, which did ample justice to his good looks. He was there shown as the chairman of directors of a big insurance company. I have no quarrel with him on that account, but congratulate him upon being able to hold such positions under the present social system.

Senator McLachlan:

– Wc do not undertake this class of business.

Senator DUNN:

– But the honorable senator is sympathetic towards those who do.

Senator Lynch expressed a desire to see the income tax assessments of these struggling settlers in the Northern Territory who will be affected by this ordinance, if it is allowed to operate. I should like to see the assessments of the wealthy companies - such as Vestey’s, the Tanami Gold Mining Company, and others - who are to-day draining the Northern Territory of everything that is profitable, and who, when there is nothing further to be gained from it, will treat it like a sucked lemon. All the arguments that have been adduced by honorable senators opposite have been in the interest of the wealthy insurance companies, mining companies, and squatters. I anticipate that my friend, Senator Guthrie, will become very heated when he supports the disallowance of this ordinance. I shall not blame him; that is his privilege. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) said that workmen would go to the Northern Territory and break an arm so that they might benefit from this additional compensation for injury.

Senator Pearce:

– I did not say that. Senator DUNN. - If the honorable senator denies my statement, I withdraw it. Any workman who leaves the coastal belt for the Northern Territory so that he might obtain greater compensation benefits will be adopting a policy of s.i.w. When a man is injured in a mine or on a station, whether it be in the Northern Territory or elsewhere, and he is covered by accident insurance, he has to submit to a careful medical examination. My experience has been - and I speak from the workshop point of view - that the average injured worker cannot “ put anything over “ the medical officer. Both the insurance company and the policy-holder arc protected. Clause 14 of the ordinance reads - ( 1. ) Where notice has been given of an injury to a workman, or any workman is receiving weekly payments under this Ordinance, any such workman shall, if so required by the person to whom the notice has been given or who is paying the weekly payments, submit himself for examination by.’ a medical referee.

Listening to Senators Lynch and McLachlan and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), one would think that any workman injured in the Northern Territory will get a bagful of gold for nothing. Their arguments are amusing. The ordinance goes on to say - and if he refuses to submit himself to the examination, or in any way obstructs the examination, his right to compensation shall be suspended until the examination has taken place. (2.) A workman shall not be required to submit himself for medical examination otherwise . than in accordance with this ordinance and the regulations or at more frequent intervals than are prescribed. (3.) The medical referee or legally qualified medical practitioner to whom any matter is referred shall, as prescribed, give a certificate ns to the condition of the workman, and his fitness for employment, specifying, where necessary, the kind of employment for which he is fit, and such other information as the person who required the examination requires. Any such certificate given by a medical referee shall be conclusive evidence as to the matters so certified.

Because the Government proposes to increase the compensation payable to workmen in the Northern Territory who are injured, there is a howl. I am confident that there would have been no mention of a motion for the disallowance of this ordinance had it not affected the poor struggling settlers, who carry on operations in the Northern Territory from King William-street, Adelaide, O’Connell-street, Sydney , Hay-street, Perth, and Collins-street, Melbourne.

Senator Lynch was very emphatic in his denunciation of this proposal of the Government for the benefit of the workmen in the Northern Territory. He was just as bitter and venomous on this occasion as he was a few years ago, when, as a member of the Federal Labour party, he denounced the very people whom to-day he so ably champions. Therefore, one does not take much notice of his remarks. It is true that I am younger than he is. I realize that he has carved for himself a niche in the development of Australia, and has done very valuable work as a pioneer; but he must admit that there are in the Northern Territory also very many fine citizens whose only shelter is a humpy made of bags. Argument along those lines will not carry him very far.

I shall do what I can to assist the Government on this occasion. I believe, however, that the ordinance will be disallowed, because the Government is treading on the corns of those struggling settlers whose head-quarters are in the financial centres of the capital cities of the Commonwealth.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

.- I hope that this ordinance will not be disallowed by the Senate. I impress upon those honorable senators who may be disposed to vote for the motion that the mover (Senator McLachlan) did not advance substantial grounds in support of it. He said that insurance rates generally in the Northern Territory are higher than they are for similar classes of insurance in the States. As pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), that is due to its isolation, the difficulties of communication and transport, and generally the conditions under which the people in that part of the Commonwealth live. But these difficulties are experienced by the workers as well as the employers in the Northern Territory. In determining whether the burden shall be placed upon the employers or the employees, we ought to be guided by the capacity of those who assume responsibility for the burden. A great deal can be said in favour of giving full consideration to those conducting the pastoral industry in ‘the Northern Territory; but that is not the only industry covered by this ordinance. It applies to all industries in the Northern Territory. When the Gold Bounty Bill was under discussion some months ago we were informed in this chamber, or in another place, that the payment of a gold bounty would result in a revival of gold-mining in the Northern Territory. The employees engaged in that industry are covered by the compensation provided under this ordinance, as also are the employees in other industries. The number of accidents in the pastoral industry is so small as to be almost negligible. Any one with experience of the back country knows that fatal or serious accidents among those associated with the handling of stock or carrying on ordinary station work are rare. There is not the same element of risk in the pastoral industry as there is in those undertakings where complicated machinery is employed. Moreover, only those who are expert in the handling of stock or in carrying out the numerous duties associated with pastoral work offer themselves for employment. I have a good deal of sympathy with pastoralists, working under adverse conditions, because I am engaged, although only in a small way, in stock-raising in South Australia. I realize what a fall in the price of their product means. We ought not to be too anxious to make permanent conditions during periods of depreciated prices, particularly when there is more than a hope of prices rising in the near future. Although beef ie selling at the Adelaide abattoirs at only 18s. per 100 lb., there were times when it was 52s. 6d., 55s., and 60s. per 100 lb. When those rates were ruling honorable senators opposite did not advocate a more generous scale of compensation to the workers engaged in the pastoral industry.

Senator Guthrie:

– Those prices prevailed for only a short period.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– From about 1915 to 1928 the price of beef in the market at the Adelaide abattoirs did not drop below 35s. per 100 lb.

Senator McLachlan:

– The honorable senator is one of the King William-street farmers to whom Senator Dunn referred.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I am prepared to back my knowledge of practical farming and stock-raising - although it may not be extensive - against that of the honorable senator, who discontinued his association with rural activities many years ago. The honorable senator, who did not give any practical reasons why this ordinance should be disallowed, said that it provides for highly increased rates of benefits as compared with those in the ordinance of 1923. Senator Lynch would have us believe that it provides for wide and sweeping changes in the matter of compensation, and that under it workers engaged in the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory would receive rates of compensation very much higher than those provided for under State legislation. He referred to a variation in the rates and conditions prescribed under the Queensland act and those under the ordinance we are asked to disallow. In the case of death this ordinance provides for a minimum payment of £400 and a maximum of £750. The Queensland law provides for a minimum of £300 and a maximum of £600. In the matter of weekly payments for total or partial incapacity, the Commonwealth law provides for compensation at the rate of662/3 per cent. of the employees earnings, with a maximum of £3 10s. per week. Payments are also provided in respect of children under the age of fourteen years at the rate of 5s. each per week. In the event of death, the total liability of the employer under this ordinance is the same as under the Commonwealth Workmen’s Compensation Act, namely, £750. There is a proviso that in the case of permanent or total incapacity the liability is unlimited. Under most of the State laws there is unlimited liability for the total incapacity of a worker. In South Australia the workers may take advantage of the Masters and Servants Act if they find that they can secure higher compensation under that statute than under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Queensland act is the same as the Commonwealth law, in that it provides for a weekly payment of 662/3 per cent. of the employee’s earnings;, it also provides for a minimum payment of £2 and a payment of 5s. per week in respect of each child under the age of fourteen years, subject to a maximum payment on that account of 30s. a week. The total liability of the employer under the Queensland act in respect of permanent incapacity is £750, or £50 more than is provided under this ordinance. Honorable senators opposite should tell the whole story. They have quoted only those sections which support their arguments, and have refrained from citing instances where State rates are higher than those provided in this ordinance.

Senator Lynch:

– Are those the figures quoted by the Minister ?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– They have been hurriedly obtained by me from the records. Senator McLachlan was, I think, the only member of the Opposition who took a serious interest in the Workmen’s Compensation Bill passed by this chamber in August last. When that measure was introduced by Senator Daly, who was then leading the Government in this chamber, Senator McLachlan said it was almost a replica of the measure he had twice introduced as a member of a previous administration, but which was not passed by another place. On that occasion the honorable senator said it was unwise to increase the benefits under any scheme of compensation during depression; but he did not offer any real opposition to the bill. If this motion is carried, it will not have any serious consequences; but why should there be any differentiation between the amount of compensation payable to an employee of the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory and that paid to a citizen in other than government employment in the territory?

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I had almost concluded my remarks when the luncheon adjournment arrived. I should however, like to deal with one point raised by Senator McLachlan. The honorable senator said that if this ordinance were disallowed, the ordinance of 1923, which he claimed provided a reasonable scale of compensation, would be restored. That is not so. If this motion is carried there will be no ordinance providing for workmen’s compensation in the Northern Territory.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– This ordinance repeals the previous ordinance.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Clause 7 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 reads -

The repeal of an act or part thereof by which a previous act or part thereof was repealed shall not have the effect of reviving such last mentioned act or part thereof without express words.

Senator McLachlan:

– Does the definition include ordinances?

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– Yes. The disallowance of this ordinance, section 3 of which provides for the repeal of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinances 1923-26, will not restore the ordinance of 1923, because by virtue of Ordinance No. 6 of 1927, the Acts Interpretation Act is made to apply to all ordinances dealing with the Northern Territory. That is the advice I have received from the legal advisers of the Crown. Section 4 of that ordinance reads -

Subject to this ordinance the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and sections 1 to 8 inclusive of the Acts Interpretation Act 1904, shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to all ordinances, including this ordinance, as if an ordinance were an act.

Under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and Ordinance No. 6 of 1927, it is clear that if we carry this motion we shall not restore the 1923 ordinance and the scale of workmen’s compensation provided thereby. It would have the effect of leaving the workmen employed by private employers in the Northern Territory without any provision at all for compensation.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– That condition need not obtain for 24 hours.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– I have a vivid recollection of the vigorous protest made by the right honorable senator and the members of his party against the efforts of the present Government to implement a certain policy by regulation.

Senator Sir George PEARCE:

– The motion does not propose to disallow the 1923 ordinance.

Senator O’HALLORAN:

– If this motion is carried, it will nullify the 1923 ordinance, which is repealed by this ordinance. I repeat that by disallowing this ordinance we shall not restore that of 1923. Senator McLachlan said that while there was no great difference between the ordinance of 1923 and the one now under review, the existing ordinance imposes hardships on pastoralists. Even if that risk were present - and I do not admit that it is, because the figures which I have quoted show that the difference is so small as not appreciably to affect the cost of insuring employees or the obligations imposed on employers - we should simply be transferring the burden from the employer to the employee. While some of the employers in the Northern Territory may not be in a strong financial position, and therefore, may be unable to meet heavy demands for workmen’s compensation, I submit that they are in a better position than are their employees, whom the Government seeks to protect under this ordinance, to meet the situation which would arise, because of injury or sickness contracted in the course of their employment. I submit that these three points constitute a case which is overwhelmingly in favour of the continuance of the ordinance, and, therefore, I confidently appeal to honorable senators not to support the motion, but to allow this reasonable attempt to provide a scale of compensation, similar to that provided by the Senate in the case of government employees, a»d substantially similar to the provisions of the legislation of the States, to remain.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Referring to the objection of Senator O’Halloran that there would be no law in force in the Northern Territory to provide for workmen’s compensation in the event of this motion being carried, T point out that the ordinance states that the act applies only to the extent to which it is applicable. No one’ will dispute that the power to disallow an ordinance has always been vested in either House of this Parliament, _ and that such disallowance merely connotes that the former position is reverted to. Apart from the legal aspect of the question, I emphasize the point made by the Leader of the Opposition by way of interjection. that it would be competent for the Government to revert to the provisions of the 1923 ordinance forthwith. The Minister’s statement that an ordinance in similar terms was being drafted to apply to the Territory for the Seat of Government betokens a lack of appreciation of the distinction between the conditions which prevail in this centre and those which obtain in the NorthernTerritory. The Minister twitted me with having made a right-about turn with regard to workmen’s compensation. It is true that I introduced a bill to provide for workmen’s compensation for Commonwealth employees, but that bill was not proceeded with. The present Government, however, enlarged the benefits to employees, which that bill provided for, and a measure was passed through this Parliament. I emphasize that that legislation applied only to Commonwealth employees. I thought that the measure which I had the honour to introduce was the last word on the subject; but the present Government went further. I suggest to honorable senators that in the present economic state of the country they should halt before supporting de luxe legislation which will apply to this vast hinterland in the Northern Territory.

Senator Rae:

-Why should not the workers there be given some consideration ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– They are entitled to the best that the country can afford, even as in Queensland the workers are entitled to the best that the great sugar monopoly of that State is able to give. I ask whether that industry is conferring anybenefit on Australia as a whole, or whether it is only depriving the rest of Australia of an opportunity to earn a crust. We have frequently heard it. urged that an industry which cannot afford to provide decent conditions for its employees should perish. If that is the policy of the Government, well and good, but it is not the policy of those who have regard to Australia’s economic position, and desire to see the country prosper.

Another point raised was that the provisions of this ordinance would press only on the employers. I thought that I had made it clear that it would press also on the employees. Senator O’Halloran knows something of the conditions of the pastoral industry in South Australia. He probably is aware that not one pastoralist in that State is paying award rates, merely because he cannot afford to pay them. That statement may come as a surprise to the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) ; it is a fact, nevertheless.

Senator O’Halloran:

– It is not literally correct, although substantially so.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– The statement has been vouched for by the pastoralists themselves. I know what is happening in the cattle industry of Queensland. The pastoralists there are paying wages which they are ashamed to pay;but the cattle industryis in such a position that they cannot pay more. The rates paid to men on the cattle stations are only about £2 a week. If the Government persists in pursuing the policy of placing burdens on industry, then industry must collapse. I am charged with not having given reasons in support of my motion. Surely there are economic reasons sufficient to warrant the Senate in agreeing to the motion. Instead of taking action which will increase the cost of production in primary industries, we should endeavour to reduce those costs, for only in that way will this country rehabilitate itself. I charge those who would vote for the maintenance of this ordinance with disregarding economic facts.

Senator Carroll:

– What is the difference between the two ordinances?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I shall deal with that presently. Although Senator Dunn made some flattering references to myself, he ignored the real issue. I am utterly at a loss to understand the meaning of the mystic letters used by him, “ S.I.W.” I wish to make it clear that I have no personal interest in the Northern Territory or in any insurance company doing business there. I am not concerned even in the gold industry, but I am concerned with easing the lot of the few people engaged in the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory. Senator Dunn said that he would like to see the income tax assessments of our Northern Territory pastoralists. Let me tell the honorable senator that, so uncertain is their income, no income taxation is collected from them.

Senator O’Halloran:

– What about the non-resident primary producers?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– They are much in the same position. Senator O’Halloran appears to have some fetish of revolt in his mind against those who have embarked their capita], as I believe Senator Guthrie at one time did, in Northern Territory enterprises, but do noi live upon their properties. Whatever may be said of them, the fact emerges, and Senator O’Halloran, in his concluding remarks tacitly admitted, that all these people are enduring extraordinary hardships.

Senator O’Halloran:

– No greater than their employees.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– My honorable friend is very solicitous for the welfare of the employees. Are we not all of the same mind? Do those honorable senators who intend to vote against the motion realize that, if these additional burdens are placed upon the industry, they may have the effect of handing over the business to the aborigines, to the detriment of white employees? I desire all employees to have good conditions, but surely we must have some regard to the economic conditions in this industry? For Senator Carroll’s benefit, I may state that, even under the 1923 ordinance, the premiums charged by insurance companies to employers in the Northern Territory were 50 per cent, higher than in the neighbouring State of South Australia.

Senator O’Halloran:

– How do the rates for Queensland and South Australia compare ?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I cannot say at the moment. I am not sure if I heard the Assistant Minister (Senator Dooley) aright, but I understood him to say that the 1923 ordinance contained no provision for compensation to an employee whose sight was impaired in the course of his employment. I invite the Minister to again look at the schedule, which, I think, was lifted from the South Australian act. The provision is almost identical with that in the present ordinance. I may add that, if there was no such provision, I, for one, would not countenance allowing any employer to avoid his obligations. This ordinance also enacts -

Where total incapacity for work results from the injury, there shall be added to any amount payable under the foregoing provisions of this schedule an amount of seven shillings and sixpence per week in respect of each child totally or mainly dependent upon the workman at the time of the injury who is under the age of fourteen years, and the payment of that amount shall be continued during such incapacity until the child in respect of whom the payment is received attains the age of sixteen years.

Need we be surprised that the insurance companies increase their premium rates if they are expected to carry such liabilities? There are others which I could mention, but all I need say is that, because of these increased obligations, the insurance companies must necessarily make the premiums higher, and the present is no time to do this. There is no risk of the employees being unprotected if this ordinance is disallowed, because the Government could in ten minutes re-enact the ordinance of 1923. If we wish to see the Northern Territory developed t& any reasonable extent, we cannot afford to disregard the economic conditions obtaining in the pastoral industry there.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– What would be the total amounts of the increase in insurance premiums?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– I have already stated that it is 50 per cent, above the rates charged in South Australia. I cannot say what will be the aggregate amount, but if it is only £5,000, it should not be imposed on the industry.

Senator R D ELLIOTT:
VICTORIA · CP

– It will not be £5,000.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It is the principle against which I am fighting.

Senator Barnes:

– It would represent about 4s. 9d. per employee.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– If this further burden is placed upon employers ki the Northern Territory it will imperil the chances of a number of persons who ordinarily obtain employment in the industry there, and unless the economic conditions of the industry improve, I fear that some of the properties may be abandoned.

Question - That the motion be agreed to - put. The Senate divided. (President - Hon. W. Kingsmill.)

AYES: 13

NOES: 9

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 4049

LOAN BILL 1931

Secondreading.

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The appropriation, of £15,000,000 sought by this bill is required to cover the revenue deficit accumulated at the 30th June, 1931, which amounted to £21,049,771. As there is already loan authority for £7,000,000, thetotal amount now asked for is £22,000,000. It will be seen that there is a difference between the total amount asked for and the total deficit. This balance is required to meet any final adjustment of accounts for the past financialyear, and will also be available towards the estimated current year’s deficit.

Included in the deficit of £21,049,771 is the amount of £3,834,149, covering interest paid by the Commonwealth on behalf of the State of New South Wales. As this matter is at present sub judice, I do not propose to discuss it,beyond saying that the Commonwealth cannot be expected to hear this burden. In respect of these loans, for which Commonwealth securities are issued, it is not possible for the Commonwealth at present to do more than pay sinking fund charges. It is hoped that they will be extinguished within ten years, but no provision of that nature can. be made at present. The present rate of payment towards liquidation of our public debt is £4,000,000 per annum.

Any sums recovered from New South Wales on account of interest payments will, of course, be used to redeem some of the securities issued in respect of this loan. I do not think that this bill can be regarded as a controversial measure. The money authorized to be raised is necessary to carry on the affairs of the Commonwealth.

Senator Ogden:

– Is the Treasurer going on to the market to borrow it?

Senator Crawford:

– It has already been borrowed.

Senator BARNES:

– I understand that the banks are willing to provide whatever money is authorized to be raised by this bill.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [2.48]. - As I understand the position, this bill is to authorize the turning of an overdraft into a loan. We have, I believe, an overdraft amounting to within. £1,000,000 of the amount which this bill covers. The measure, therefore, except to the extent of £1,000,000,will simply convert an existing overdraft into a loan.

Senator Barnes:

– That is so.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.Then we cannot help ourselves, but I trust that, when we pass this hill, we shall not be like Dick Swiveller, and say “ Thank God, that’s settled “.

I was wondering whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate was prepared to make a statement on behalf of the Government as to the position in regard to New South Wales. I am not now referring to the amount of money which is the subject of a lawsuit. I am referring to an extraordinary request which, according to this morning’s newspapers, the Premier of the State is said to have made to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance. If the Government is making a statement on the subject in another place, I ask Senator Barnes to arrange for a similar statement to be made in the Senate.

Senator Barnes:

– The matter being confidential, I shall not be in a position to make any statement upon it.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I do not know that I can do much good by commenting on. the subject, but it certainly reveals an amazing state of mind that a man who keeps out of the Loan Council, and thereby cuts himself off from financial co-operation with the other States, should have the brazen effrontery to approach the Commonwealth for assistance which can be given only by, and at the expense of, the other States. I leave the matter there.

Senator RAE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– I take this opportunity to protest against this proposal to get still further into the mire by borrowing, and to continue a policy which has been largely responsible for our present position.

Senator Barnes:

– This bill is to give securities to the banks for moneys already advanced.

Senator RAE:

– I would not give them a penny worth of security. They have already swindled the country to such an extent that it is time the whole host of private banks were absolutely abolished. Nothing less than that will ever do anything towards lifting Australia out of its present depression.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The honorable senator’s party nearly abolished one bank in New South Wales.

Senator RAE:

– I am not restricting my remarks to New South Wales - that State will be able to take care of itself, I think, in the future - I am dealing with the subject apart altogether from State considerations. I say that the whole of the private banking business is a huge confidence trick worked on the people of this country, and that this proposal will further accentuate the evils which have already resulted from the system. I think, also, that until we decide to make the Commonwealth Bank the only bank in Australia, and abolish all these fraudulent institutions living on the credulity of the public, nothing can be done to help Australia out of its present depression.

Senator Payne:

– Shame!

Senator RAE:

– I know that honorable senators will pooh-pooh that idea, but the time will come, possibly when they are as old as I am, when they will see a universal demand to wipe out these institutions which have fastened like excrescences on the people of this country and, because of their credulity, are virtually robbing them.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In discussing this matter, I ask honorable senators to keep to the terms .of the bill, and to couch their remarks in language which is, at all events, courteous.

Senator RAE:

– I have said nothing discourteous about any honorable senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– An honorable senator is supposed to use courteous language in talking of people inside or outside the chamber.

Senator RAE:

– Would you tell me, Mr. President, in what way I have been discourteous to any individual ?

The PRESIDENT:

– In the first place, the honorable senator made charges about robbery and fraud. Such language is not usually employed in any parliament.

Senator RAE:

– It is regrettable that there should be a prohibition on the use of the English language in this chamber. I can find no further terms with which adequately to express my opinion of the action of the banks. I am not charging individuals, as such, with fraud or dishonesty. I am contending that the banking system is one which enables banks, by the fraudulent use of the people’s credit, to enrich private corporations and individuals at the expense of the country generally. I have made no reflection on any individual, except to the extent that individuals are part of the system I condemn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Will the honorable senator now kindly connect his re marks with the bill?

Senator RAE:

– I thought I had done so. This is a proposal to authorize the floating of a loan of £15,000,000. If it is not, the bill bears a false title. Surely I cannot be blamed for using language which the bill itself employs. It is a measure to authorize the raising of £15,000,000 through the banks and, therefore, I say that it is perpetuating a system which is so largely responsible for the financial collapse of Australia. I. take the opportunity to protest against the continuance of the system, because I believe that our debts can be discharged by other means than those provided for in this bill. The debts themselves to a large extent are, I think, fictitious, but they are all due to a system by which Australia is robbed of a fair return for its products in order to benefit foreign bankers, who virtually control the private banking institutions of Australia. Until we sever ourselves altogether from this private banking system which results in the plundering of the people of their possessions and makes them all bondslaves of big financial magnates in Europe and Great Britain who, to a large extent, control our banks here, we shall never get out of the morass, but sink deeper and deeper into it. “For that reason, I shall vote against the hill.

Senator LYNCH (Western Australia; [2.54]. - The material feature of this bill is that certain of the States of the Commonwealth have to stand guarantee for the interest owing upon the debts of New South Wales. I protest in a most emphatic manner against this. I see no just or fair reason why States that are poorer in many, in fact all respects than the State of New South Wales should be called upon as in the terms of this bill they are called upon to do, to-pay interest on behalf of that rick State.

The PRESIDENT:

– The bill contain* no reference to New South Wales. The discussion of the transactions between that State and the Commonwealth is really forbidden by the fact that matters of the past are sub judice, and those that are intended are not covered by the bill.

Senator Dunn:

– On a point of order. In view of the fact that you, Mr. President, allowed the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) to refer to Mr. Lang, Premier of the State of New South Wales, why have you pulled up Senator Lynch?

The PRESIDENT:

– The right1 honorable the Leader of the Opposition merely referred to the position of New South Wales and passed on. Honorable senators will be in order in making a passing reference to the matter, but will not be in order in making it the main subject of debate on this bill.

Senator LYNCH:

– I realize that, Mr. President, but I presume that the Senate will have the right to reject the bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– Quite so.

Senator LYNCH:

– And before that stage is reached, we shall be within our rights in stating our reasons why the bill should be rejected?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator LYNCH:

– One reason for rejecting the bill is that it places in a disadvantageous position the State which I have the honour to represent in this chamber, inasmuch it will be called upon to make good default on the part of another State better able to pay than mine. The Minister said in his speech that the amount of this loan has been increased, because the Commonwealth has been obliged to come to the rescue of the State of New South Wales, and I “ think I am entitled to ask why that State has got into such a position that it finds it necessary to beseech such help and succour. I represent a State as I said which in point of varied richness and natural fertility, is not to be compared with New South Wales, and I am almost inclined to vote against the bill for the sake of issuing a warning that no State must look upon the Commonwealth as a milch cow, as New South Wales has done and is doing. I say again frankly that the Commonwealth cannot stand being a milch cow to any spendthrift and improvident State.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:

– The honorable senator is now discussing a matter that is sub judice.

Senator LYNCH:

– It was mentioned by the Minister, and is covered by the bill.

Senator Rae remarked that the present banking system was responsible for our parlouS condition. I remind him that there are States, of which Queensland is one, that have had an opportunity of which they have not availed themselves, to establish a State bank. The Labour party in Queensland, having abolished the legislative council, could have established one of these institutions, yet did not do so. I also remind the honorable senator that, in Russia, which he holds up as the bright example of the world, the rates of interest charged to the Soviet government on money that it borrows, according to the Soviet official Year-Booh, are 8 per cent., 10 per cent, and 12 per cent. The honorable senator wishes the Senate to believe that all that we need do in order to put Australia on the high road to prosperity is to abolish the private banking institutions or so cripple their power that they will be a nullity, so to speak, in the economic life of this country; yet that system of finance is encouraged in Russia to a much greater extent than in Australia.

Senator Guthrie:

– And Russia has repudiated all her debts to Great Britain.

Senator LYNCH:

– She will pay nothing that she can get out of.

The PRESIDENT:

– I should like honorable senators to realize how easy it is to stray into channels that are not indicated by the title of the bill. I ask them, as a matter of courtesy, to keep as close as they can to the subject under discussion.

Senator LYNCH:

– Not being like the old philosopher, who could balance nine angels on the point of a needle, I cannot keep within narrower bounds. I am asked to approve of the bill, and am giving reasons why I should not do so. Surely that is permissible under the Standing Orders!

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not recognize the honorable senator’s remarks as a reason for disagreement with the bill. The honorable senator may proceed.

Senator LYNCH:

– I realize that the object of the measure is simply to change the form of the promissory notes ; to consolidate the debts represented by floating treasury-bills, and to have them covered by a loan from the banks - who, by the way, are willing to lend the money, for the sole reason that the plan adopted by the Premiers Conference in Melbourne is in process of acceptance in its entirety by the Federal Parliament. Among the debts is that to which the Minister referred. The Commonwealth has to come to the rescue of New South Wales, the richest State in Australia, but the greatest cadger at the present time.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– That statement is not correct.

Senator LYNCH:

– What else is it -doing, if it is not holding out the hat to, and seeking charity from, the Commonwealth Treasury, which is finding the utmost difficulty in paying its own way? I come from a State whose area is one- third that of the whole continent. But its natural resources are insignificant alongside those of New South Wales, and I object to its taxpayers being imposed upon in this way for the benefit of that State as provided in this bill. That is the reason for my presence in this chamber. Attention must be called to those acts of political injustice and downright debauchery that are going on in New South Wales, which to-day is the political madhouse of Australia. Yes, they are having high old times, and have the consummate cheek to ask others poorer than themselves to pay their bills. For generations, the practice has been for the rich to help the poor; but we are living in a topsy turvy age, in which the practice seems to be that the poor must help the rich.

Senator Guthrie:

– Help the robbers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator LYNCH:

– They are . political robbers. It is about time that we called a halt, saddled the right horse, and told these people - who, by the way have sympathizers in this chamber - that the sooner they put their house in order and make up their minds to live decently and according to the standard of the old Village Blacksmith, by nothing but honest labour, the better it will be, not only for them but also for the fair name of Australia.

I support the bill grudgingly. But if the Government asks this chamber later on to agree to a measure giving a second dole to the richest State in the Commonwealth, I shall vote against every line in it. I would vote against this bill, but’ that I wish to save that State, and inferentially the good name of Australia, from being further smirched in the eyes of the world.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to labour this question.

An Honorable Senator. - Do you intend to stick to the bill?

Senator DUNN:

– So long as the President will allow me.

The PRESIDENT:

– I suggest that, if honorable senators have any comments to make regarding persons with whom the bill is not directly concerned, they make them the subject of a substantive motion. That course is open to every honorable senator.

Senator DUNN:

– I am prepared at all times, Mr. President, to recognize your authority, and to appreciate and accept your advice. But just at the moment I refuse to take it, because-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may not refuse to obey my call to order.

Senator DUNN:

– I accept your advice in the spirit in which it is given. Perhaps other honorable senators may need it more than I do. I wish to confine my remarks to the bill. I have in my hand the rule book of the Australian Labour Party. Rule No. 6, in the section devoted to taxation and finance, reads, *’ The restriction of public borrowing “. Having pledged myself to give effect to that plank, I intend to vote against the bill.

I regret, Mr. President, that you were unable to prevent Senator Lynch from attacking New South Wales. I assume that you gave him a good deal of latitude because you regard him as a man who is grown old in years. I respectfully offer you my sympathy.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I feel that I should be lacking in my duty to my State did I not reply to the statements regarding it that have been made by Senator Lynch.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask the honorable senator not to make that the principal subject of his speech.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I shall make only a passing reference to the matter. Whatever censure may be deserved by certain persons in New South Wales because of their management of the finances of that State, no honorable sena tor has the right to attack the State as a whole, nor its people, because they are unfortunate in the government that they have at the present time.

Senator Ogden:

– They elected that government.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I point out to my honorable friend that governments are elected before they perform acts of injustice and maladministration ; but when they next go to the country they meet the fate they deserve. I have no doubt that when the opportunity presents itself the people of New South Wales will judge in the right way the government that they have to-day, and will hurl it into political oblivion.

A certain amount is required by the Government to discharge the calls that have been made upon its funds because of the failure of New South Wales to square up to its obligations. If I thought that any of the money which is to be raised under this bill was to be utilized for the further relief of the Government of New South Wales, I would vote against the measure. It is rumoured - and the rumour is confirmed by a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of to-day - that an application has been made to the Commonwealth Government by the Government of New South Wales for further relief in certain directions. I hope that this Government will have the courage to refuse that request; otherwise it will not deserve to continue in office. Being a New South Wales representative, I feel the position very keenly. The sooner the government in that State is made to face up to the position, and to realize that it cannot continue along the road that it has chosen, the better it will be for its people.

Senator Dunn:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable senator is making an attack upon New South Wales, and I contend that he is thus contravening the ruling of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator having touched upon the matter, must now proceed with his discussion of the bill.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– I frankly admit that I rose for the purpose of making that reference to my own State. If any portion of this money is to be expended in still further relieving the government of that State, I shall vote against the bill. I require an assurance from the Minister that the measure relates only to the expenditure that has actually been incurred.

Senator Barnes:

– The bill makes provision for the raising of about £700,000 more than is immediately required.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Is there any intention on the part of the Government to use the money in the direction that J have indicated ?

Senator Barnes:

– I do not think that there is.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Under those circumstances, I shall vote for the bill, because I feel that we must allow the Government to raise the money that it requires in this direction; otherwise the Commonwealth itself would have to default - and that is unthinkable.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) summed up the situation very clearly when he said that this is a bill to convert an overdraft into a loan, and that that overdraft has been given by some bank or banks. In view of the attacks that have been made upon the banking system of Australia this afternoon, 1 ask the Minister to indicate what bank or banks has or have accommodated the Government. If the accommodation has been given only by the Commonwealth Bank, there is no point whatever in the criticism that has been levelled against the banking system.

Senator Barnes:

– So far as I know, the Commonwealth Bank is the only institution concerned.

Senator CARROLL:

– The honorable senator who made the attack on the banking system singled out the private bank- ing institutions as being unworthy of a place in the economic life of this country, and expressed the opinion that the Commonwealth Bank had been the saviour of the situation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will remember that I called Senator Rae to order for pursuing that line of argument.

Senator CARROLL:

– Having received the assurance of the Minister that the Commonwealth Bank is the only institution with which the Government has an overdraft, I have no desire to pursue the matter further.

Question - That the bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 24

NOES: 2

Majority . . . . 22

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4054

FINANCIAL EMERGENCY BILL

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

page 4054

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Barnes) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday next at 3 p.m.

page 4054

ADJOURNMENT

Tariff at Canberra Hotels.

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator DUNN:
New South Wales

– During the discussion on the Financial Emergency Bill, under which the allowances of members of Parliament, the salaries of public servants, and the pensions of invalids, the aged and returned soldiers, have been reduced, stress was laid upon the fact that the reduction in invalid and old-age pensions would not be felt, owing to the reduced cost of living. If the cost of livinghas been reduced to the extent some suggest, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Barnes) request the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr. Blakeley) to arrange for a reduction, commensurate with the reduced cost of living, in the tariffs of the Canberra hotels ?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.25 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 July 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310717_senate_12_131/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant