14th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 295
The following papers were presented : -
Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. -
No. 11 of 1936 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union; and Commonwealth Naval Storehousemen’s Association.
No. 12 of . 1936 - Commonwealth Storemen and Puckers’ Union of Australia.
No. 13 of1936 - Arms, Explosives and Munition Workers’ Federation of Australia.
No. 14 of 1936 - Arms, Explosives and Monition Workers’ Federation of Australia; Amalgamated Engineering. Union;and Australasian Society of Engineers.
Commonwealth Public Service Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1936, No. 116.
Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1936, No. 121.
page 295
– Can the Acting Leader of the Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) make a statement on the adjournment of the Senate to-day concerning the manufacture of motor engines in Australia. Will he also give the names of the companies financially interested in the industry ?
– I regret that it will be impracticable to make the information available to-day. A statement will be made on the subject at an early date.
page 295
– Has the Acting Leader of the Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) received a report from the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) regarding the trade war between Australia and J apan ?
– I am not aware of the existence of a trade war between the two countries mentioned. The Government does not propose to make a statement on the subject until the negotiations now proceeding are completed.
page 295
– I desire to aska question on the subject of trade treaties and should like a straight-out and not an evasive answer.
– The honorable senator must withdraw the word “ evasive “.
– I said that I would like a straight-out and not an evasive answer.
– The honorable senator must withdraw the word at once.
– I am not imputing motives.
– Order !
– If you propose to put me out again I withdraw it. We axe getting very finicky if we are not permitted to use the English language.
– Order !
– Surely I am entitled to say that the proceedings are becoming rather finicky. I ask the Minister representing the Minister directing negotiations for trade treaties to state the number of treaties between Australia and European countries which have been arranged by Sir Henry Gullett, and the names of the countries with whichsuch treaties have been made?
– I ask the honorable senator to give notice of that question.
page 295
-Has the
Acting Leader of the Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a paragraph published in this morning’s Canberra Times stating that Mr. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State in the United States’ of America, said that the Kellogg-Briand Pact should be superseded by a new international peace pact. As the Government is a signatory to that pact, does the Minister consider that there is any international value in the Kellogg-Briand Pact being superseded by another international peace pact?
– As was stated by an honorable senator last night, if the nations of the world have not peace in their hearts, no such pacts are of any value.
page 296
Consumptionand Importations
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers: -
page 296
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.
. - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
In the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer, the Government’s works proposals were announced for the year 1936-37, including those financed from revenue, trust and loan funds. Details of these works will be found on pages 276- 287 of the Estimates. Corresponding details are set out in the schedule to the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill.
Thisbill deals only with the new works chargeable to the revenue account. A further bill will be submitted later to provide for certain works expenditure which the Government proposes should be paid for out of loan moneys. The total proposed expenditure on public works, &c, in 1936-37, as detailed in the budget speech and in the Estimates, is £7,684,305, as compared with £5,236,537 actually expended last financial year, an increase of £2,447,768. New expenditure is to be provided for as follows : -
The bill now submitted proposes an appropriation from revenue for new works as follows: -
The increase of the proposed appropriation for revenue works in the current year over expenditure in 1935-36 is £953,297.
The amount required for defence is £1,117,772 and is in addition to the amount of £1,952,000 which will be expended from the Defence Trust Account which, as honorable senators know, is financed from the excess revenue receipts of previous years.
The appropriation recommended for postal works is £1,750,000. A much greater amount could profitably be devoted to this service which is definitely reproductive. The necessity, however, for a balanced programme, with due regard to all interests, forbids a greater allocation to these works. A further £600,000 for postal works will be included in the works loan hill for the year. The total proposed expenditure for postal, telegraphic and telephonic works is thus £2,350,000.
The increase of £278,709 in the provision for territory works is due mostly to the necessity for a developmental policy in regard to both the Federal Capital
– As was stated by an honorable senator last night, if the nations of the world have not peace in their hearts, no such pacts are of any value.
page 296
Consumptionand Importations
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers: -
page 296
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.
. - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
In the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer, the Government’s works proposals were announced for the year 1936-37, including those financed from revenue, trust and loan funds. Details of these works will be found on pages 276- 287 of the Estimates. Corresponding details are set out in the schedule to the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill.
Thisbill deals only with the new works chargeable to the revenue account. A further bill will be submitted later to provide for certain works expenditure which the Government proposes should be paid for out of loan moneys. The total proposed expenditure on public works, &c, in 1936-37, as detailed in the budget speech and in the Estimates, is £7,684,305, as compared with £5,236,537 actually expended last financial year, an increase of £2,447,768. New expenditure is to be provided for as follows : -
The bill now submitted proposes an appropriation from revenue for new works as follows: -
The increase of the proposed appropriation for revenue works in the current year over expenditure in 1935-36 is £953,297.
The amount required for defence is £1,117,772 and is in addition to the amount of £1,952,000 which will be expended from the Defence Trust Account which, as honorable senators know, is financed from the excess revenue receipts of previous years.
The appropriation recommended for postal works is £1,750,000. A much greater amount could profitably be devoted to this service which is definitely reproductive. The necessity, however, for a balanced programme, with due regard to all interests, forbids a greater allocation to these works. A further £600,000 for postal works will be included in the works loan hill for the year. The total proposed expenditure for postal, telegraphic and telephonic works is thus £2,350,000.
The increase of £278,709 in the provision for territory works is due mostly to the necessity for a developmental policy in regard to both the Federal Capital
– As was stated by an honorable senator last night, if the nations of the world have not peace in their hearts, no such pacts are of any value.
page 296
Consumptionand Importations
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers: -
page 296
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.
. - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
In the budget speech delivered by the Treasurer, the Government’s works proposals were announced for the year 1936-37, including those financed from revenue, trust and loan funds. Details of these works will be found on pages 276- 287 of the Estimates. Corresponding details are set out in the schedule to the Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill.
Thisbill deals only with the new works chargeable to the revenue account. A further bill will be submitted later to provide for certain works expenditure which the Government proposes should be paid for out of loan moneys. The total proposed expenditure on public works, &c, in 1936-37, as detailed in the budget speech and in the Estimates, is £7,684,305, as compared with £5,236,537 actually expended last financial year, an increase of £2,447,768. New expenditure is to be provided for as follows : -
The bill now submitted proposes an appropriation from revenue for new works as follows: -
The increase of the proposed appropriation for revenue works in the current year over expenditure in 1935-36 is £953,297.
The amount required for defence is £1,117,772 and is in addition to the amount of £1,952,000 which will be expended from the Defence Trust Account which, as honorable senators know, is financed from the excess revenue receipts of previous years.
The appropriation recommended for postal works is £1,750,000. A much greater amount could profitably be devoted to this service which is definitely reproductive. The necessity, however, for a balanced programme, with due regard to all interests, forbids a greater allocation to these works. A further £600,000 for postal works will be included in the works loan hill for the year. The total proposed expenditure for postal, telegraphic and telephonic works is thus £2,350,000.
The increase of £278,709 in the provision for territory works is due mostly to the necessity for a developmental policy in regard to both the Federal Capital
Territory and the Northern Territory. It is proposed to inaugurate a programme of works, extending over some years, with a view to the eventual transfer of all Commonwealth departments to Canberra. Additional funds are also being provided for the development of the Northern Territory, particularly in respect of mining. Full information with regard to the specific works proposed to be undertaken during this year will be made available, if desired, during the committee stage of the bill.
For many years it has been the practice to deal with the new works proposals of the Government as soon as possible after the budget speech hasbeen delivered, and without waiting for the general budget debate. This course is being followed by the Government this year in view of the desirability of commencing the proposed new works at an early date. Having regard to the fact that the total proposed expenditure on public works considerably exceeds that of last year, it is particularly desirable that the new works should bo considered promptly. I commend the proposals of the Government to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Colli ngs) adjourned.
page 297
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan) read a first time.
Senator A. J. McLACHLAN (South
Australia - Postmaster-General) [11.22] . -I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This is a comprehensive measure designed to give effect to the majority of the relief proposals which were announced in the budget speech. For purposes of convenience the bill has been divided into the following six parts: -
I. Preliminary.
I propose at this stage merely to deal with the main features of the bill, leaving detailed information in regard to individual clauses to be dealt with in committee.
Part II. of the bill deals with invalid and old-age pensions. Legislation passed in 1933 provided for the adjustment from time to time of the rate of invalid and old-age pensions in accordance with variations of the cost of living. The rate of pension was increased in July, 1935, from 17s. 6d. a week to 18s. a week in consequence of an increase of the cost of living index figures. The present rate of pension still stands at that increased figure, namely, 18s. a week
As was announced in the budget speech, the Government, after giving consideration to the improved position of Commonwealth finances, decided to introduce legislation to liberalize the conditions in regard to the rate of pension. Part II. of the bill gives effect to this decision by the introduction of a new scale of price index numbers, as follows : -
The immediate effect of this alteration will be to increase the maximum rate of pension from 18s. to 19s. a week with a corresponding increase of the limit of income plus pension from 30s. 6d. to 31s. 6d. a week. When the bill becomes law every pensioner, irrespective of the present rate of his pension, will receive an automatic increase of 2s. a fortnight.
As was stated in the budget speech, the increased rate will give pensioners greater purchasing power than they have enjoyed in any previous year since the introduction of invalid and old-age pensions.
Provision is also made in the bill for the maximum amount which may be received by a pensioner by way of income and pension to be increased by the amount of the increase of the rate, namely, 2s. a fortnight.
In addition to providing for an immediate increase of the maximum rate of pensions the new table will operate to the advantage of pensioners in other ways. For example, under the existing scale the maximum rate of pension would fall to 17s. fid. a week as soon as the price index number fell below 1400, whereas under the amended scale the maximum rate will not at any time be less than 18s. a week, and will fall to that amount only if the price index number falls below 1340. On the other hand, the price index number would require to rise to 1800 under the existing scale before the pre-depression maximum of £1 a week would be reached, but under the amended scale pensions will be increased to £1 a week in the event of the price index number reaching 1640. The bill also provides for an increase of the rate of pension payable to pensioner inmates of institutions from 5s. to 5s. 6d. a week, equivalent to the highest amount at any time paid to this class of pensioner. The balance of the increase, 6d. a week, will be added to the amount paid to institutions for the maintenance of pensioner inmates.
In order to assist honorable senators to appreciate how materially pensioners will he assisted by the increase proposed in the bill, the following table, showing the cost of certain commodities in 1929 and the cost of the same commodities at the end of June, 1936, has been compiled: -
The average decrease of the cost of the food items enumerated is about 17 per sent.
Another interesting fact is that the average rent of four and five-roomed houses in the six capital cities declined by 39 per cent, between 1929 and the second quarter of 1936. Again, the decline of the price of clothing during the same period was 21 per cent, in the six capital cities.
Part III. of the bill deals with maternity allowances. Under the existing law the maternity allowance is £4 for a first child, with an increase of 5s. in respect of each previous surviving child under fourteen years of age up to a maximum of £5. The bill provides for an increase of the amount of the allowance from £4 to £4 10s. for the first-child, and to £5 where there is any previous surviving issue under fourteen years of age. It also provides for an increase of the limit of income. Under the existing law an allowance is not payable in any case in which the income of the claimant and her husband for the twelve months preceding the birth exceeded £208, unless the claimant is the mother of previous surviving issue. Under the bill the amount of the allowable income is increased from £208 per annum, equal to £4 a week, to £221 per annum, or £4 5s. a week. The additional income allowance of £13 per annum in respect of each previous surviving child under fourteen years is being retained, with a limit of £312 per annum or £6 a week - instead of £299 per annum or £5 15i3. a week, as at present. The following table will illustrate the operation of the proposed amendments : -
Part IV. deals with salaries and wages. The Financial Emergency Act of 1931 reduced the salaries of Commonwealth employees as part of the plan for the rehabilitation of government finances. Those reductions ranged from 18 per cent, in respect of salaries up to £250 per annum to 25 per cent, on salaries over £2,000 per annum. In accordance with the intention to restore the salaries us Commonwealthfinances permitted, restorations totalling 10 per cent. were made daring the years 1933-34 to 1935-36 inclusive. The effect of this was to free all salaries up to £485 per annum based on the 1930 standard, from financial emergency reductions, namely, reductions other than those due to cost of living adjustments, provided for by ordinary rules and regulations. The number of officers whose salaries were thus fully restored was approximately 25,000, leaving only 1,900 still subject to reductions under the Financial Emergency Act. In view of the general improvement of Commonwealth finances, provision has been made in. this bill for a complete restoration of the salaries of all Commonwealth employees to the normal rates; the reductions made by the Financial Emergency Act will cease to apply. In those cases in which, under the ordinary legislation governing the payment of. salaries to the employees concerned, such salaries are subject to automatic adjustment in accordance with cost of living variations, the adjustments will continue to operate; the salaries of Commonwealth employees will revert to those rates which would ordinarily have been payable at the present time had the financial emergency legislation not been introduced. The cost of living reductions, based on 1930 standards, represent approximately £1,300,000 per annum.
In respect of members of Parliament and Ministers, however, the bill provides for only a partial restoration; the allowances will be increased by an amount equal to10 per cent. of the normal rate.
The reductions then operative will be -
On allowances of senators and members of the House of Representatives - 5 per cent. ;
On salaries of Ministers, including the salaries of the President, Speaker, Chairman of Committees and Leaders of the Opposition - 7½ per cent.
Part V. deals with war pensions and service pensions payableunder the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act. Provision is made in this part for an increase of 3s. a fortnight in the pension payable in respect of the children of incapacitated members of the forces. Under the law as it stands the amount payable to totally-incapacitated members is 12s. a fortnight in respect of each child. The bill provides for an increase of the amount of pension to 15s. a fortnight. Pensions payable in respect of partially incapacitated members will be correspondingly increased. Thus, the pension for a child of a member whose disability is assessed at 50 per cent. will be increased from6s. to 7s. 6d. a fortnight. In other words, all pensions payable in respect of children will be increased by 25 per cent.
The bill also provides for an increase of the maximum amount ofservice pension payable under the provisions of the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act passed last year. Under the act the amount of service pension payable to unmarried members of theForces is 36s. a fortnight. Provision is made in this measure for that pension to be increased to 38s. a fortnight. The pension payable in respect of married members of the Forces is 30s. a fortnight, and a similar amount is payable to the wives of such members. These pensions are being increased to 32s. a fortnight in each case. The limit of income plus service pension i.« being correspondingly increased from £79 6s. per annum equal to 30s. 6d. a week, to £81 18s. per annum, or 31s. 6d. a week. It is proposed to provide several other minor concessions with a view to removing anomalies in the existing legislation. These will be incorporated in a separate bill to amend the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act.
Part VI. relates to relief to primary producers, and contains provision for payment, through the State governments, of a subsidy of 10s. a ton on fertilizers used in respect of the production of primary produce, other than wheat, during the year ending the 30th June, 1937. In making provision for the continuance of the subsidy, the Government has had regardto its great value to the primary producers of Australia, other than wheatgrowers. The subsidy has given a tremendous stimulus to the use of artificial fertilizers, particularly for top-dressing, and has convinced graziers, pastoralists and other producers of the importance of regular dressings of fertilizer for the improvement of their pastures. Fertilizer subsidies were paid at the rate of 15s. a ton in respect of previous years, commencing in 1932. The following figures show the growth of the quantity of fertilizers used in the succeeding years : -
It is satisfactory to note that manufacturers of artificial fertilizers have assisted in the extended use of fertilizers by reducing prices. Since the inception of the fertilizersubsidies, the price of superphosphate, which is the principal fertilizer used,has been reduced by approximately £1 a ton. Having regard to the benefits derived from this subsidy, the Government has decided to continue the bounty in respect of artificial fertilizers used during the year ending the 30th June, 1937; but because the price of superphosphate has been reduced considerably since the scheme was first introduced, and improved conditions exist in the industries mainly affected by the subsidy, it has been decided to reduce the rate from 15s. to 10s. a ton. It is estimated that the cost on this basis will be approximately £315,000, which represents a considerable reduction of the amount which is estimated to be payable in respect of fertilizers used during the year ended the 30th June, 1936. The fertilizer subsidies were commenced in the depth of the depression when the prices of primary products had fallen very low. The amount provided for the first subsidy, which was at the rate of 15s. a ton, with a minimum of 1 ton lots,was £250,000. Since that time conditions improved considerably, and it is thought that the provision of a subsidy on the basis of 10s. a ton, with a minimum of half-ton lots and at a total estimated cost of £315,000, is reasonable.
All the proposals contained in this bill may be discussed on the motion for the printing of the papers relating to the budget and the Estimates, and I ask the Senate to give the measure a speedy passage, as it is almost essential that it should be agreed to to-day.
– The Opposition willingly agrees to the suggestion of the Minister (Senator A. J. McLachlan) that the passage of this bill should be expedited. Its members are as anxious as he is that some of those who will be assisted by this legislation shall derive that assistance as early as possible.
I express the disappointment of the Opposition that the Government, with its abounding revenue and considerable surplus, did not see its way to increase the weekly payment to old-age and invalid pensioners by 2s. instead of1s.a week, in order to bring the amount up to £1 a week.
– The pension will automatically be raised if the cost of living increases.
– The Leader of the Country party (Senator Hardy), like many other supporters of the Government, seems to be obsessed by the idea that the reduction of the cost of living is a wonderful blessing to those individuals in the community who in their oldage are forced to accept less than £1 a week. If there is anything other than pure sophistry in the argument, it applies with equal force to those other individuals who will benefit from this legislation. The idea that the feelings of those who are condemned to spend their declining years on less than £1 a week will be soothed by the knowledge that the cost of butter has fallen a few decimal points of a penny per pound, seems to me to be based on an utter lack of sympathy with these unfortunate people. I understood the Minister to say that the additional 1s. a week to be paid in respect of pensioners who are inmates of institutions will be divided between the pensioners and the institutions.
– That is so.
– I am sorry that that provision is included in the bill. The extra1s. should have gone to the pensioners. Institutions have no right to be making a profit out of pensioners.
Honorable Senators. - They do not make profit out of pensioners
– At any rate, they have no right to be decreasing their loss at the expense of the pensioner inmates. These institutions should be made a charge against the general community, and not against the unfortunate pensioners.
Whilst expressing great pleasure that the salaries of public servantswill be fully restored, I desire to know upon what date the increases will be paid. Will the same expedition be shown by the Government in regard to the Public Service as is to be shown in regard to the pensioners?
– That will depend upon the expedition with which the bill is dealt in this chamber.
– Well, the Opposition will be right behind the Government in letting the Public Service receive the benefit of this measure at the earliest possible moment. At this stage, as I desire to expedite the passage of the bill, I have nothing to add, and I propose to be equally brief when the bill is in committee.
– I have very few comments to make, and I do not propose to fire any political ammunition at the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings). I can readily understand his difficulty in finding any ground for constructive criticism of the proposals now before the Senate. A sure test of whether a government is wise and successful in administration is its ability to lift from the community the emergency burdens imposed by another government. This bill leaves little doubt that this Government is able to lift the burdens which were imposed by the Government of 1931, and, what is more important, relieve the community of burdens without at the same time imposing others to replace them. The tax remissions are an example of what this Government has been able to do.
I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition as to the relative unimportance of the cost-of-living figures. A guide to monetary standards of the country is essential, and it is the cost of living index which indicates the purchasing power of money. The necessity for a cost-of-living standard is shown in the fixing of Public Service salaries. I understand that, due to the fall of the cost of living, Public Service salaries will still be £1,300,000 less than they were before the operation of the financial emergency legislation. Yet, according to the Leader of the Opposition, the decline of costs of living is insignificant. In fact, the honorable senator would ignore the effect of living costs so long as falls meant reduced salaries, but if price levels rose, he would claim that pensions must increase proportionately. To-day, when reduced prices mean reduced wages and reduced pensions, the honorable senator declares that the price index cannot be taken as a reasonable or logical guide and makes of it a political football.
In relation to war pensions and service pensions, a serious anomaly exists in the making of sustenance payments during the period in which applicants are in hospital for investigation. Under the repatriation provisions there are two classes of pensioners. There is the pensioner who claims that his disability is due to war service and who applies for a war pension. He is admitted to a repatriation hospital in one or another of the capital cities for investigation. Immediately he is admitted, even if he is without a job, he is presumed to be suffering a 100 per cent. disability, and during the whole of the period in which he is in the hospital he receives a full sustenance payment of approximately £2 to £4 a week according to whether or not he is a married man. The applicant for a service pension is a border-line case. He, also, is admitted to a repatriation hospital for investigation, but he does not receive sustenance while he is there. There we have the ridiculous anomaly of two men lying side by side in hospital, one receiving full sustenance, and the other receiving none. That is a definite hardship on the applicants for service pensions. The view taken by the Repatriation Department is that the applicant for a service pension makes his application on the grounds that he is permanently unemployable, and, therefore, is not entitled to sustenance. Men who apply for a war pension may also be unemployable, but they arepaid sustenance. I could tell the Senate of men who, although desirous of applying for a service pension, refrain from doing so because they wouldnot receive sustenance while their case was being investigated in the repatriation hospital.
– The honorable senator realizes that many of the applicants for service pensions are also applicants for war pensions.
– I do, but only one application can be made ata time. The limit of the permissible income in respect of a service pension is about £80 a year, but there are men who are capable of doing very light work, such as odd jobs in gardens, by which they earn about £30 or £40 a year. Such men might desire to apply for a service pension, but they generally are afraid to do so because they are not prepared to cause hardship to their families by sacrificing even their slight income as they would have to do if they went into hospital for two or three weeks to have their cases investigated. 1 am sure that when the Government decided to provide service pensions for border-line cases it was not its intention to debar from benefit such men as I have mentioned. There is a great deal of technical argument about the matter. I have asked questions as to what amount would be involved in extending to service pension applicants the same sustenance rights as are given to war pension applicants, and I have no doubt that in time I shall receive the information. I propose to deal more fully with this matter when the Appropriation Bill is before the Senate, but, in the meantime, I trust that the Government will give the fullest consideration to the points I have raised, and take action to remove the hardship which is operating, and which, I am sure the Government did not intend should exist.
In the House of Representatives and also outside the Parliament there has been considerable criticism of the exclusion of wheat-growers from participation in the fertilizers subsidy.
– The wheat-growers receive another bounty.
– The Leader of the Opposition has argued previously that it isonly fair that the wheat-farmer should participate in the subsidy, but for guid ance in debate on this question, the fact should be remembered that this subsidy was not granted as a form of financial assistance, nor was it the intention of the Government to try, by the payment of the subsidy, to bridge the gap between the cost of production and the selling price. The Minister has already explained that the subsidy was given to provide superphosphates to certain primary producers in order to instruct them regarding the value of such aids. Those who criticize the Government for excluding the wheat industry might say that it should be paid the subsidy in order to encourage it to use fertilizers, but I remind them that there is no need to do this. Wheatgrowers have for many years realized the value of superphosphates. There is need, however, to instruct the dairymen, the producers of fat lamb, and other small farmers as to the benefit of using fertilizers. Indeed, one of the greatest problems which Australia must face in the near future is an intensive policy of pasture improvement. I impress upon honorable senators that if the wheat industry participated in the amount of money set aside for the payment of the fertilizer subsidy, the rate would be cut down from 10s. a ton to less than 5s. a ton. The proposal contained in the bill is correct, because it ensures that the subsidy will be distributed amongst those industries which need education in the use of fertilizers.
.- Whilst I realize the necessity to pass this bill to-day in order to enable the pensioners to receive their pension increases next Thursday, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without protesting against the exclusion of the wheat industry from participation in the fertilizer subsidy. Perhaps there is a lot in what Senator Hardy has said in regard to educating pastoralists and graziers in the use of superphosphates, but I maintain that that necessity should arise only once, and that after one year’s application of superphosphates they should realize the advantages to be gained from top dressing. I, therefore, say that the wheat-growers should be granted this subsidy. I have yet to hear any one say that the wheat-growers are making any more profit than the dairyman, the fruit-grower, or any other primary producer; and I do not believe that any of those industries are profitable at present. Wheat prices at the moment are fairly good, but we have no guarantee that they will remain so. Moreover, it usually happens that when wheat prices rise, the farmers have already sold their grain, and the merchants reap the benefit of the improved market. As a matter of fact, wheat-growers have been left out in the cold. They have to rely on the success or otherwise of the referendum for the amendment of the Constitution if they are to get assistance in the future.
It may be argued that this year they do not require further assistance, but it is unfair that they should be excluded whilst every other branch of primary production is included. I hope to have an opportunity to pursue this subject further when the Estimates come before the Senate.
– I desire to protest on much broader grounds than those taken by the honorable senator who has just resumed his seat (Senator Marwick), who dealt largely with the exclusion of wheat-growers from participation in the superphosphate benefits to bo distributed under this measure. My objection is that the bill represents many of the Government’s financial proposals for the current financial year, and sufficient time is not allowed for its adequate discussion. The budget debate which gives to honorable senators the opportunity to survey the whole field of government policy is usually taken before the introduction of the operative measures, and honorable senators then have a second opportunity, if they wish to take advantage of it, to express opinions on the various matters contained in the bills. But what is the position to-day? I cannot compliment the Government on its proposal to pass a measure of major importance at such short notice. The bill seeks to render operative government proposals which have not even been discussed in this chamber. It was placed upon the table of the Senate at about half-past eleven o’clock this morning and we are expected, Ipresume, to pass it by four o’clock this afternoon. I doubt that any member of this chamber, apart from Ministers, unless he had prior warning of its introduction, has even read the bill, which is a highly technical one and calls for careful scrutiny. I am not suggesting that the Government is not, by it, giving effect to principles which are expounded in the budget speech; but surely we are entitled to have a reasonable opportunity to examine and compare it with the numerous existing acts which are affected by it. I challenge any honorable senator to say that he has been able to do all this. “ And answer came there none ! “
– I have the original acts before me.
– Has the honorable senator compared provisions in the various sections of this bill with relevant sections of the original acts ?
– No.
– The honorable gentleman has not done that because there has not been sufficient time to study the bill in any detail. I put it to the Senate that this is not the way to conduct the business of the country.
The only argument that has been advanced for the passage of this measure to-day is that in Melbourne there is to be a holiday next Thursday afternoon, and it is desired that payments authorized in this bill may be made on Wednesday. Why should a holiday in Melbourne govern payments to be made to persons in all parts of Australia ? If the Senate thinks fit to pass the bill to-day, I do not wish to delay its passage and so hold up payments, but I fail to see why it should not follow the ordinary course, that is to say, be debated on the second reading, and further considered after the lapse of a few days. This course need not interfere with payments to be made under it, because provision may be made for the payments to date from next week, so that not one penny would be lost by any persons who will participate in benefits under it.
– I thought the honorable senator objected to retrospective legislation?
– It would hardly be retrospective if provision were made for payments to commence from the middle of next week. I protest against honorable senators being asked to pass this important bill without having had a chance to study its provisions, or, alternatively, suffer the odium of endeavouring to hold it up. In the circumstances, I do not propose to discuss it fully. Indeed I am not competent to do so, nor is anyone else in this chamber.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), the Leader of the Country party (Senator Hardy) and Senator Marwick, whom w« were all glad to hear speak for the first time in the Senate, have directed attention to a few of the principles in the bill, but I submit that what has been said, up to this stage cannot be regarded as adequate discussion of a measure which involves material alterations of the amounts payable to invalid and old-age pensioners, of the amount of maternity allowance, of salaries and wages for Commonwealth employees, of war and service pensions, and of the amount provided for relief in respect of primary production. Surely all these matters are of sufficient importance to warrant reasonable thought before proposals dealing with them are passed by the Senate.
I make no apology for my present unpreparedness to discuss the bill. How can any honorable senator be expected to deal with a measure which he saw for the first time less than half an hour ago? All that I have been able to do is to glance at its various provisions; but I cannot pretend to do1 full justice to it, nor can any other honorable senator. Let us consider briefly its proposals relating to payments to invalid and old-age pensioners. Surely they are of sufficient importance to warrant more thought than is possible if the bill is to be passed this afternoon.
– The additional ls. a week represents an increase of £760,000.
– The Treasurer has estimated that the increased cost, due to the net increase of the number of pensioners, over and above the expenditure for 1935-36 will he about £600,000, and that the additional ls. a week will mean an increase of £760,000, making a total . increase to pensioners this year of £1,360,000. The aggregate payments will reach £13,980,000 as against £12,800,000 last year. I suppose allowance is made for a certain number of pensioners who, in the natural course, will drop out during the year. A total expenditure of approximately £14,000,000 justifies full and thoughtful debate. I should say that provision for pensions is one of the outstanding problems that face the Commonwealth. At the present time we have in Australia two notable English experts whose business is to advise the Government with regard to national insurance. Their visit is due largely, I understand, to a feeling that the ever increasing cost of pensions is becoming a burden on the community which can hardly be borne.
– If war broke out, the Government would be able to find hundreds of millions of pounds; yet it cannot afford to feed its people.
– My views on this subject are on record in Hansard, and I think are well known. I have never attempted to hide them. When I entered this Parliament fourteen years ago the expenditure on invalid and old-age pensions was £5,500,000; this year it will be about £14,000,000. How can we go on increasing in this way without eventually finding ourselves in difficulties ?
– It may be solved on a different basis under a national insurance scheme.
– If there is that probability, is it desirable at the present moment to expand the expenditure ?
– I hope that the honorable senator is not going to make a provocative speech.
– Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that I should not even speak to the bill, because hie colleagues may be tempted to reply, and so hold up the passage of the measure! But I assure him that I am not trying to be provocative. All I claim is the right to say what is in my mind on this important subject.
– Expenditure in respect of other social services has increased largely in recent years.
– The honorable senator might also remember that there has been an abnormal increase of payments for subsidies and other forms of assistance to primary industry. That burden also might become intolerable.
– So also might the assistance rendered to secondary industries by the customs duties. At the moment, I am discussing payments to invalid and oldage pensioners, and I am pointing out that, compared with fourteen years ago, the total expenditure today represents an increase to about 250 per cent. Is it suggested that this amount is to keep on growing, with the possibility that fourteen years hence it may reach £35,000,000? We should, I think, take notice of what is being done in other countries, whose financial position is comparable with ours, and we should endeavour to decide what is fair in all the circumstances. I regret that the Government has increased the amount payable to pensioners this year, because the number of people who are being induced to lodge claims is steadily growing, and the burden on the community is becoming much heavier.
– Is the honorable senator aware that the Government of New Zealand has increased pensions to £1 a week?
– That may be so, but I invite the honorable gentleman to look at the figures for Great Britain, Canada and other parts of the Empire. If he does, he will find that the figures for Australia have always been very similar to those for New Zealand ; but I think that the act is being administered in a more liberal spirit in Australia than it is in New Zealand with the result that the percentage of applicants to population is higher in this country than in the sister dominion. May I add, with all respect to the honorable senator and his party, that I am not prepared to follow the lead of the present Government of New Zealand? Such a scheme should be brought into operation - if at all - by the Labour party, because it is the policy of that party to increase pensions. There must, however, be a point beyond which pensions cannot be increased. On one occasion, when on a public platform, I was asked why I was opposed to an increase of pensions, and I asked the questioner if the rate should be increased to 20s., 25s., £2 10s., or £5 a week, or whether he would suggest any other limit. He informed me that he was not there to answer questions but to ask them.
– The budget proposals have been before us for over a week.
– Does that mean that we have had sufficient time to prepare speeches on the important subjects embodied in this bill? Has the honorable senator his speech in his pocket?
– I had prepared some information on pensions, and other subjects.
– Did the honorable senator know yesterday that we would be expected to pass this bill this afternoon? Does he think that this is the proper way to handle important financial proposals? He does not answer and I respect him for declining to do so.
The increase in respect of maternity allowances for this year is relatively small, being only £42,000. The restoration of salaries and wages represents only £84,000 for the portion of the year and £110,000 for the full financial year. There is a good deal to be said in favour of this restoration; public servants are full-time employees, and, speaking generally, their salaries and wages are their only source of income. I support the restoration proposed. I am in favour of the restoration of a further percentage of ministerial salaries but am opposed to the increase of the allowances of members of Parliament. When elected on the last occasion I said that I was opposed to the increase of members’ allowances, and I intend to adhere to what I then said.
I shall always receive sympathetically any proposal to restore the payments to returned soldiers and their dependants, because ex-soldiers have rendered a very valuable service to the community. Generally speaking, Australian exsoldiers have been treated very fairly, and probably better than those of any of the other dominions. That is as it should be, because in rendering service of the highest value many men became partially or totally incapacitated. I would oppose what I considered an unjustifiable increase of such payments, but I always study the claims of returned soldiers and their dependants with a great degree of sympathy.
I do not propose to discuss at length the assistance to be rendered to primary producers, but I remind Senator Arkins who interjected concerning the payment of bounties, that under this measure the subsidy to be paid on fertilizers is to be decreased from 15s. to 10s. a ton. The amount to be appropriated this year is £310,000 as against £434,000 last year. Whilst expenditure in other respects is being increased the appropriation for a subsidy on fertilizers is being reduced. Expenditure which leads to increased productivity is worthy of the most careful consideration.
– I suggested that we may be studying the subject from the wrong angle.
– The honorable senator mentioned the amount expended on bounties, but I direct his attention to the assistance rendered to secondary production under the tariff. I do not wish it to be thought that I am disparaging the budget as a whole. I am merely suggesting that the budget debate should have preceded a discussion of this measure which embodies many of the Government’s financial proposals for the current year. Had the proper course been followed we could have criticized those proposals which deserve criticism and applauded those worthy of commendation. But we have only one set of proposals before us, and the inevitable result of a speech such as mine is that I shall be charged with criticizing the budget as a whole when I am not doing anything of the kind. The remission cif taxes has undoubtedly - been extremely well received throughout Australia. Although I have urged a remission for some years I have some doubt as to whether such a large remission should be made, in view of the problems with which Australia is now confronted. I feel personally that the Government is not justified in making suchheavy remissions of taxes as are proposed in the budget. I am afraid my remarks will not please honorable senators -opposite, but I feel that our needs in the matter of defence are so great that they over-shadow all other considerations.
.- -It is not often that I find myself in agreement with Senator Duncan-Hughes, but in this instance I can support some of the complaints he has made. On one occasion, you, sir, referred to the British Navy as the silent watchdog of the Mother Country, and, possibly, if the Government persists with its present policy of asking this chamber to dispose of important measures in a few hours the Senate will also be regarded as a silent watchdog. Expediting the passage of this bill in accordance with the Minister’s request, necessarily means that the debate must be curtailed, and if similar requests are made in connexion with other important measures this chamber will- soon be regarded as the silent Senate. I agree with Senator Duncan-Hughes that tho budget should have been considered first, and that measures to give effect to the Government’s financial policy should be dealt with later. I cannot, however, support many of the statements made by Senator DuncanHughes, particularly his contention that the appropriation for invalid and oldage pensions is becoming too heavy a burden upon the community. He appears to be distressed because the Government proposes to grant pensioners an additional ls. a week. If I understood the honorable senator aright he considers that the money which the pensioners are to receive should be expended on defence. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber do not offer any serious opposition to the proposal to expend £8,000,000 this year for that purpose, because we believe that this country should be defended. But while a country has the men and material to defend it, the Government should see that its aged people receive sufficient to sustain them in reasonable comfort in the declining years of their lives. I have never heard the members of the true-blue Tory party mention the loss which this country sustains by the short-sighted policy of governments in not using the man-power available to increase production. The increased expenditure of £760,000 on invalid and old-age pensions is a mere bagatelle compared with the loss Australia sustains by the inefficiency of go- vernments in dealing with the unemployment problem. It is admitted that, at times, there have been over 200,000 persons out of work, and if their productive capacity be valued at the low figure of £100 each per annum, it represents a sum of £20,000,000, which, in ten years, would be £200,000,000. If valued at as low as £50 a man, in ten years time their total production would be valued at £100,000,000. Although the Government is to be complimented on its action in making a partial restoration of the reduction applied to invalid and old-age pensions, yet it has not gone far enough. The rate should have been increased to £1 a week, the money to be provided from the sum set aside for the reduction of the accumulated deficit. As I understand it is the desire of the Government to pass this bill without delay, I shall reserve my further comments upon this subject until a more appropriate time. However, I join with Senator Duncan-Hughes most wholeheartedly in his protest against the methods adopted in bringing forward this bill before the discussion has taken place on the Estimates and budget papers.
.- I rise merely to congratulate the Government on its successful management of the finances of this country, which has enabled the measure now before the Senate to be brought down. This is not the first occasion upon which the Government has been able to introduce a measure effecting restorations of the reductions applied to invalid and old-age pensions, war pensions, and public service salaries. This additional relief must be very gratifying, not only to those of us who are associated with the Government, but also to members of the business community and those engaged in industry and commerce.
– In introducing this hill this morning, the Postmaster-General (Senator A. J. McLachlan) informed us that an opportunity would be afforded to honorable senators to discuss the provisions contained in it on the motion for the printing of the Estimates and budget-papers. I remind the honorable senator that by the time the Estimates and budget-papers are next under discussion, the bill, which is now before us, will have been passed intolaw and no opportunity will be afforded to alter or amend its provisions if we desire to do so. I join in the protest voiced by Senator Duncan-Hughes against the methods adopted in the introduction of legislation into this chamber. Honorable senators are desirous of maintaining the dignity and importance of this chamber. Therefore, every facility should be extended to us to discuss fully all measures with which we are asked to deal. Until the Minister delivered his second-reading speech on the bill this morning honorable senators were unaware of its contents. The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday, and if the method used in the South Australian Parliament of making available to all members of that Parliament a Hansard proof of the speeches delivered in both branches of the legislature were in operation here, honorable senators would have been aware of its provisions, and would have had time to study carefully the second-reading speech of the Minister who introduced the bill in the House of Representatives. The. expense of the adoption of such an innovation would be very small indeed, because the whole of the proceedings in both Houses of the Parliament each day is in print by the following morning.
– Difficulty would have been experienced in this particular instance because the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives after eleven o’clock last night.
– Nevertheless, I commend my suggestion to the favorable consideration of the Government.
The. Leader of the Country Party said that the fertilizer subsidy was not intended to be a form of financial assistance to producers. I think the honorable senator is wrong; there is not the least doubt that a subsidy of this sort must be regarded as financial assistance, as the use of fertilizer definitely improves the carrying capacity of pasture lands. 1 cannot agree with Senator Marwick that the subsidy should be extended to growers of wheat. The Government has, in the past, greatly assisted wheat-growers by direct bounty, and under its rural rehabilitation scheme, is now helping them to overcome their financial difficulties. Instead of reducing the fertilizer subsidy from15sto 10s. a ton, the Government should have continued it at the higher rate and imposed a quantity limit; that is to say, the subsidy should have been paid only in respect of, say, a maximum of 20 tons for each applicant. Every honorable senator interested in the pastoral industry knows that at the present time graziers who are in a position to pay the full price for fertilizer are taking advantage of the subsidy. Small graziers and market gardeners are in an entirely different position.
– I think my learned colleague from South Australia (Senator Duncan-Hughes) was rather extravagant in his criticism of the Government for having brought forward thisbill so hurriedly, and not affording honorable senators greater opportunity to consider its provisions. The bill does not contain many clauses, and the matters contained in them are perfectly simple. To say that this bill has been hurriedly placed before us without giving us adequate opportunity to consider it is not quite correct. Ever since the budget speech was delivered honorable senators and the people generally have known, with some degree of certainty, what measures the Government proposed to introduce to give effect to its financial policy. Even weeks before the budget speech was delivered, practically every journal in Australia was speculating as to what it would contain, and many of the proposals which actually appeared in the budget were accurately predicted. There has been ample time to study the provisions of this bill and to give proper consideration to the matters embodied in it. I compliment the Government upon its proposal for a partial restoration of invalid and old-age pensions. I do not agree with many of the comparisons made by Senator Duncan-Hughes with regard to the amount paid to pensioners, despite the fact that the total annual commitment is very large. Honorable senators will be presented with an opportunity to discuss this matter at greater length when a measure dealing with national insurance is introduced into the Senate.
I think the Government could have been more liberal in respect to the maternity allowance. Nothing can be gained by considering migration schemes until we have dealt adequately with the people already in the Commonwealth. As one means of stemming the alarming fall of the birth rate, the maternity allowance should be increased. I should also like to see steps taken to curtail or abolish the present unrestricted commercial traffic in contraceptives.
I agree with Senator James McLachlan that certain primary producers who are not in financial difficulty are deriving benefit from the fertilizer subsidy, though I have no doubt that that difficulty could be overcome. The wheat-farmers in the north-western portion of Western Australia are in a very precarious position this season. When honorable senators representing Western Australia left that State four weeks ago they had high hopes of a successful harvest in that area, but, unfortunately, conditions have altered, and the wheat-farmers are facing a very difficult position.
Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.
– I agree with Senator Duncan-Hughes that the procedure adopted in connexion with this bill is not the most desirable way to deal with important legislation. Although it is not a new departure, I hope that in future important financial matters of this nature will be discussed with the Estimates. I disagree, however, with the honorable senator’s remark that honorable senators have not studied the bill. I invite the honorable senator to study my copy of the budget speech, with which this measure is closely allied ; if he does so, he will see that I have sufficient material for a lengthy discourse. I regret that the old-age pension has not been raised to £1 a week; but I realize that the Government is responsible for seeing that the national accounts are squared, and I congratulate it upon having raised the pension by1s. a week. Although the Government has not gone so far as the Opposition would desire, it has gone a long way, and I hope that the bill will receive a speedy passage in order that the benefits which it confers ou public servants and others may be enjoyed by them as early as possible.
- in reply - Despite what Senator Collings said, the cost of living constitutes a real item in the budget of this country. In respect of public servants it represents a reduction of their salaries by £1,300,000 per annum, and therefore it cannot be dismissed as negligible.
There has been some criticism regarding the haste associated with this measure. In the abstract that criticism may be justified, but I remind honorable senators that all the proposals contained in this bill are also contained in the budget and estimate papers. With Senator James McLachlan, I regret that the measures themselves have not been made available to honorable senators. When for a short period I sat on the other side of the chamber a ‘ few years Ago, an effort was made to have placed ou the files of honorable senators measures which were introduced into the House of Representatives, so that honorable senators could familiarize themselves with their contents. This bill received a remarkably speedy passage through the other chamber. Although not brought forward for discussion until about 11 o’clock last night, it had been passed through all stages by 12.30 a.m. to-day. In giving a whole day to the measure the Senate cannot bc accused of undue haste.
– The bill has been before us for less than three hours.
– The other chamber disposed of it in one and a half hours.
– It had been introduced the previous day.
– I shall bring before the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) the suggestion that bills introduced into the House of Representatives be made available to honorable senators, and he will, no doubt, confer with you, Mr. President, on the matter.
The Senate was glad to hear the dulcet tones of Senator Marwick, a new senator from Western Australia, who referred to the exclusion of wheat from the benefits under the fertilizer subsidy. It may interest the honorable senator to know that most of the expedients which have been suggested have been tried and found wanting. Since this bill was drafted there has been a proposal to limit ils benefits to persons with a certain maximum income. That is a rather objectionable method, and other ways to overcome the difficulty will be sought. I emphasize that the fertilizer subsidy has led to a reduction of the cost of fertilizers, whilst the results which have been achieved through the education of the people as to the benefit to be derived from the use of superphosphates are most encouraging.
Senator Hardy referred to war pensioners. I have had this subject looked into, and now inform the Senate that sustenance payments are made available by the Repatriation Commission in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation regulations. Where the necessity for treatment of Avar disablement, or the supply or repair of artificial limbs, or the investigation of applicants for acceptance of disabilities as being due to war service, prevents an applicant from following his usual occupation, sustenance may be paid at a rate not exceeding £2 2s. a week to a soldier, 18s. in respect of his wife and 6s. a week in respect of each of his children. Under the bill now before the Senate, the amount payable in respect of each child will be increased to 7s. 6d. a week. Nearly every applicant for a service pension has already had his case investigated for war pension purposes, and at the time of that examination was given the benefit of the sustenance allowance. Those who regard themselves as permanently unemployable are already prevented from following their usual occupations, but not by the exigencies of treatment or investigation. They are, therefore, not eligible under the regulations for the sustenance allowance. I shall however take an early opportunity to bring to the notice of the Minister for Repatriation the observations of the honorable senator.
Senator Duncan-Hughes raised a matter of some concern when he referred to the rising charge on the revenues of this country for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions; but I remind him that the country is committed to these payments.In effort to deal with this subject,the Government has taken steps to investigate national insurance. Some years ago, when I was a member of the Bruce-Page Government,I had the opportunity to examinesome proposals which were then made, but were not proceeded with because of the burdenthey would have placed on industry.I agree that the whole subject of pensions must be watched carefully, in order to avoid serious dislocation of the country’s finances, in which event the old-age pensioners would be in a much worse plight than at present. Having regard to what has been done for other sections of the community, the proposals in respect of pensioners are only just. In committee, I shall be happy to give any further information desired by honorable senators.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a. second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Cla use 1.1 (Citation).
– I have received inquiries as to when the restoration of salaries to public servants and the increase of the rate of invalid and old-age. pensions will come into operation, andI should like the Minister to supply me with that information.
– The increases will come into operation on the next pay day, and will be paid for the whole of the fortnight preceding that clay.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 (Definitions).
– This clause provides for a reduction of the amount of the fertilizer subsidy. Can the Minister informme what percentage reduction of the prices of fertilizer has occurred since the subsidy was first instituted?
– I think that 1 mentioned in my secondreading speech the actual reduction of the price of fertilizers
– What I am now seeking is the percentage reduction. .
– An average reduction of more than 20 per cent.has taken place. In 1832, the price of superphosphate in Victoria was £1 10s. a ton, whereas to-day the price is £3 10s. a ton. It is the same in New South Wales. Tasmanian users of superphosphate pay the highest price in Australia, and in that State the reduction has been only 15s. The price has fallen by £1 in South Australia, and it can be taken that the average fall throughout Australia is £1.
– That indicates that although the rate of the subsidy is to be decreased, the value of it is little different from what it was two years ago.
-I t is of considerable value, at any rate.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 (Amount payable to each State).
Senator PAYNE (Tasmania) [2.361. - The Minister in charge of the bill (Senator A. J. McLachlan) expressed the hope that no attempt would be made to secure any amendment of this bill, and when one honorable senator was referring to the financial relief given hitherto to primary production by means of the fertilizer subsidy, the Minister asked that honorable senators defer any criticism until the budget was being debated. I. must point out, however, that the Senate is asked to pass a clause which will effectively reduce the amount of assistance given to primary producers by way of fertilizer subsidy. My knowledge of the benefit which has been conferred on the small farmers in Tasmania makes me loath to let this clause pass without making some observations as to what will be its effects. To a great number of primary producers in Tasmania the subsidy has been a godsend. In some industries conditions to-day are brighter than they have been for some years, but the condition of the orchardists is practically as bad as it ever was. Honorable senators will realize of what assistance to these orchardists the subsidy has been. Many small fanners were induced by it to put their land to better use, and, in my opinion, they shouldbe encouraged still further to improve their holdings.
– At the expense of the Government !
– I have heard the honorable senator say that Australia relies almost entirely on the primary producers. It is unwise to diminish the assistance that has been given hitherto, unless we are satisfied that it is not helpful to individuals.
– But the assistance to be given in the current year is to be greater in volume than it has been in the past.
– If the honorable senator argued that way with a Tasmanian potato-grower, who uses perhaps 1 ton or 2 tons of superphosphate a year, he would probably receive a rude contradiction. An increase of the amount of fertilizer available does materially help the small men, who use only a limited quantity of it. The only conclusion to be reached is that the small farmer will be receiving less assistance this year than he did last year. The small farmers out-number the men who work large holdings, and who will not be hurt by having taken from them some of the assistance they have been getting in the past; the rise of prices will help them to carry on. I hope that we shall have another opportunity, when considering the Estimates, to give closer examination to this matter, with a view to making arrangements for a continuance of the subsidy on the basis of last year.
– I support the remarks of Senator Payne. I regret that the Government has seen fit to reduce the amount of the fertilizer subsidy by 5s. a ton, because the subsidy is the only means by which many sections of primary production have been able to receive any assistance from the Commonwealth Government. Those sections consist of the small farmers, market gardeners, the occupiers of certain pasture lands, haygrowers, and particularly, the barleygrowers of South Australia. Of course, a certain percentage of the barleygrowers, attracted by the higher prices, will be able to transfer to the production of wheat. They all, however, have had a hard time in the past, and the assistance given to them by means of the fertilizer subsidy has been very valuable.
What is more, the subsidy has enabled the Government of South Australia to open up land in the south-eastern portion of the State and on Kangaroo Island, where there is a good rainfall. By improving the country with top-dressing and the sowing of grasses, it could be made to carry two or three sheep to the acre ; this could be the means of placing people from the outlying dry areas, where agriculture has proved to be a failure, on better land. Accordingly, it is with keen regret that I regard the decision of the Government to reduce the rate of the subsidy by 50 per cent.
.- It seems that there is a little misunderstanding about this provision. To my mind, the Government has been fairly generous. After all, the fertilizer subsidy was initiated as an experiment, and its purpose was primarily educational, I gather that the experiment has been a great success; it has encouraged mcn to put fertilizers on their pastures and has brought home to them the great value of superphosphate -for improving the productivity of land,. If the subsidy had not been granted, the farmers might never have realized the benefit to be derived from the use of fertilizers: Apart altogether from that aspect, the fact remains that whereas last year farmers had to pay £3 15s. a ton for superphosphate, this year they are able to buy at £3 a ton. Where, therefore, does the hardship lie, especially when one considers that the prices of primary products have risen? The only criticism I have to offer is that the subsidy will be paid to men in a fairly comfortable condition, who would be using superphosphate even without this assistance from the Government. There should he some limitation as to the persons who may be paid the subsidy.
The net result of the proposal in the bill is that farmers will get superphosphate at £3 a ton as against £3 15s. a ton some time ago.
– That is the result of the adoption of mass production methods by manufacturers.
– As the PostmasterGeneral has reminded me, this lower price is due to mass production methods, and manufacturers have been able to give to primary producers the benefit of the economies which they were able to effect.
– The action of co-operative companies was also a contributing factor.
– I am glad to hear that it was.
– It was never intended that the fertilizer subsidy should be regarded as a financial grant to primary producers.
– It was intended as an educational experiment to demonstrate the value of top-dressing of pasture lands ; the majority of farmers already realized the importance of the use of superphosphate in ordinary agricultural operations. The Government has dealt fairly liberally with the primary producers in this matter.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 312
Bill received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator A. j. McLachlan) read a first time.
page 312
Secondreading.
Debate resumed from the 16th September, (vide page 134) on motion by Senator Brennan -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– Having examined the bill I am satisfied that it is merely a machinery measure, which may be passed without comment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.
page 312
Debate resumed from the 16th September (vide page 133) on motion by Senator Sir George Pearce -
That the bill be now read a second time.
. - I shall be glad if the Minister in charge of the bill will inform me of the. meaning of proposed new section 42 which reads -
If the board is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the appointment be made, the board may appoint to any office in the Commonwealth Service, without examination or probation, any officer of the Territorial Service or the Commonwealth Railway Service, or any member of the police force of the Territory for the Seat of Government.
It seems to me that this provision is capable of two constructions, and without wishing to appear unduly suspicious I ask whether under cover of it some particular appointment is contemplated. I may add that I have an idea that such an appointment is to be made.
– What is the honorable senator’s anticipation ?
– I have no intention whatever of disclosing to the Leader of the Country party my information or its source. My purpose is to obtain information from the Minister if I can get it. Under the Public Service Act and regulations appointments to the Commonwealth Service are made following the passing of examinations. I have not had the opportunity to confer with members of the Public Service, but I fail to see why certain persons are to be permitted to enter the Commonwealth Public Service without passing the prescribed examination. If the Minister can satisfy me upon the two points I have raised, I shall have no further comment to make on the bill.
-Clause 11 of the bill deals with the permanent appointment to the Commonwealth Public Service of returned soldiers who have not passed the prescribed examination. I remind honorable senators that many of the persons to benefit under this provision were absent from Australia for four years during a very important period of their lives. Yet the proviso to clause 11 appears to nullify what is provided in respect of the permanent employment of returned soldiers. It reads -
Provided that any such appointment shall be to a position the duties of which are similar to those which the returned soldier has been performing or performed, and.
Under this proviso many returned soldiers in temporary employment, and particularly linesmen, may be unable to receive promotion, and others, new appointments.
– This measure is to provide more particularly for the permanent appointment of employees in the Postmaster-General’s Department whose services were dispensed with during the depression.
– It will apply to returned soldiers who may have been employed temporarily for two years or who are still temporarily employed. My complaint is that the proviso nullifies the benefit which the clause purports to confer.
.- The proposed amendment of section 84, sub-section 9, paragraph c, of the principal act clears up a misconception. A number of temporary returned soldier employees in non-clerical positions in the Postmaster-General’s Department will be affected. The list of men eligible for transfer to the permanent establishment will in consequence be augmented, but there is no certainty that their positions will become permanent. There are already men on that list with several years of continuous satisfactory temporary service, some of whom are responsible for the training of juniors who, when they have completed their apprenticeship, will be permanently appointed. While realizing that it is necessary to have a leaven of qualified juniors, these ageing digger breadwinners have a prior and moral claim for consideration. Will the PostmasterGeneral (Senator A. J. McLachlan) given an assurance that their absorption in the permanent staff will be speeded up, even if it involves the suspension of junior appointments for a period ?
. - in reply - Apparently the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) senses something sinister in the proposed amendment of section 42, which reads -
If the board is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the appointment be made, the board may appoint without examination or probation any officer of the territorial service or the Commonwealth railways service to any office in the Commonwealth service.
– If the board is satisfied that there is no one else in the Service with the requisite qualifications.
– All that is being done is to add certain words to that section to empower the board to deal in the same way with members of the police force of the Territory for the Seat of Government.
– Who is awaiting appointment ?
– I am assured by the responsible officers that no particular appointments are proposed. The whole responsibility rests upon the Public Service Board, and the amendment is merely to enlarge the scope of the section so that members of the police force of the Territory for the Seat of Government may be placed in exactly the same position as any officer of the Territorial Service or of the Commonwealth railway service. In moving the second reading of this bill, the Leader of the Senate (Senator Pearce) said -
The clause will merely confer eligibility on members of the police force of the Federal Capital Territory for appointment to the Commonwealth service, but before any such appointment is actually made it will be necessary for the Public Service Board to satisfy itself that it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the appointment should be made.
I remind Senator Allan MacDonald that during the depression our predecessors had to dispense with the services of many temporary employees, principally from the Postmaster-General’s Department ; they included a number of returned soldiers. Some very sad cases were brought under our notice, particularly of men who had discharged their duties satisfactorily over a long period. Strong representations were made on their behalf in an endeavour to get them back into the Service, but when I brought the matter under the notice of the Public Service Board I was informed that until the law was amended, as is now proposed in clause 11, it was prevented from recommending appointments.
– This amendment is to overcome that difficulty.
– That is what it is designed for.
– Why not delete the proviso to clause 11?
– I shall deal with that point later. Immediately this measure becomes law, approximately 150 men can be permanently employed in the Postmaster-General’s Department. Positions are vacant, and we are ready to employ them. In moving the second reading of the bill, the Leader of the Senate said -
It is also proposed that returned soldiers who have,given satisfactory continuous temporary service in a non-clerical capacity for at least two years should be eligible for appointment to positions of a non-clerical nature in the Commonwealth Public Service, notwithstanding the fact that they have not passed the prescribed examination. Under t he existing law, returned soldier appointees must have been temporarily employed for a continuous period of not less than two years.
I f they have been temporarily employed at any time for two years, they are eligible for permanent appointment. The existing provision has been interpreted to mean that the period of two years must have been completed immediately prior to appointment.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 (Permanent appointment of returnedsoldiers).
. -When the bill was being drafted was the significance of the word “ continuously” fully considered? The continuity of the service of a temporary employee may he broken because of illness. If the clause is left as it stands, he will be precluded from being permanently appointed to the service unless he has had twoyears of unbroken service. It is quite possible that service which has lasted continuously for a period of 22 months may be terminated on account of illness. After a short time the man may secure a fresh appointment and serve for another long period. Is it just that such a man should be deprived of the opportunity to secure permanent employment?
.- I had hoped that this clause would have been more liberally drawn. I know of a number of returned soldiers who have given eminently satisfactory temporary service to the Commonwealth departments in clerical positions.
– The clause now under discussion deals with appointments to non-clerical positions.
– I am concerned because of the insertion of the word “ continuously “, whether it applies to clerical or non-clerical employees. Often before a temporary employee has completed two years’ services his engagement is terminated, and after a short period he is appointed to another temporary position. This practice has resulted in the returned soldier being placed in an unfair position, because he is not given an opportunity to qualify for permanent appointment. Some men have rendered good service for broken periods up to five years. One man, after being employed in a Commonwealth department for 23 months was put off, only to secure another temporary position within a very short time. I feel sure that that was never intended when the original act was framed. Something shouldbe done to remedy that evil. If a man has given satisfactory service for periods aggregating two years he should be given an opportunity to secure permanent employment. It seems that this can be achieved only by the omission of the word “continuously” from the clause.
– I direct the attention of honorable senators to the present law. Section 84, sub-section 9, of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1932-1934 reads -
In the making of appointments to positions in the Commonwealth Service of a non-clerical nature the order of preference to returned soldiers shall be as follows: -
returned soldiers temporarily employed in the Commonwealth Service who have passed the prescribed examination ;
returned soldiers employed under the Australian Soldiers Repatriation Act 1 920 or under the War Service Homes Act 1918-1920, who have passed the prescribed examination ;
Returned soldiers who have been tem porarily employed continuously for not less than two years, but have not passed the prescribed examination, and in respect of whom the chief officer certifies that their duties hare been performed in a satisfactory manner :
Provided that any such appointment shall bv. to a position the duties of which are similar te those which the returned soldier has been performing.
Honorable senators .will, therefore, see that this amendment is designed to cure what I consider to be a technical defect in the wording of the principal act. The alteration has been made to permit the Public Service Board to make new appointments to vacant positions. If this clause is passed as it now stands it will confer a great benefit on returned soldiers. Many of them will be employed in the department under my control, where vacancies already exist. I cannot see why exception should be taken to the insertion of the word “ continuously”. Honorable senators have complained that after serving for almost two years returned soldiers have been discharged only to be re-employed almost immediately. In the department under my control largo numbers of men had to be put off because of the depression, and in a number of cases a considerable period elapsed between the date of the termination of their services and the date of their re-appointment. That hiatus, deprived them of the rights they would otherwise have had under the provisions of section 84. Honorable senators will see that in sub-paragraph (t) of proposed new paragraph c the words “have been temporarily employed” are used to make clear that it is referring to something which happened in the past, and that in paragraph 2 the words “ since becoming returned soldiers . . . were temporarily employed continuously for not less than two years “ are used. The distinction which has been made in the proposed amendment is in connexion with the words “ have been “ and “ were The amendment is designed to confer immediate benefits on returned soldiers.
– I hope that this amendment will clear up the difficulty which has existed in the past in connexion with the permanent employment of returned soldiers in the Public Service. That difficulty has been most apparent in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. I know of a number of cases in which the present law has operated unfairly against returned soldiers. I sincerely trust that these disabilities will now be overcome. As Senator Hardy .has pointed out, the present provisions of the act operate unfairly against a temporary employee who, having almost completed the qualifying period for permanent employment, has had his service terminated because of ill-health.
– Sick leave would not break the continuity of his service. In that ease the officer would be granted leave of absence. Senator Hardy in that respect pushed his illustration too far.
– Nevertheless, the act operated unfairly against a temporary employee who may have had broken periods of service aggregating up to four years. It may be that a man has been put off at definite periods in order to break the continuity of his service. I have known of that happening.
– That is done in private enterprise in order to evade awards.
– It is done also in the Public Service. I should like to see tlie word “ continuously “ eliminated.
– The Government could not agree to that. The bill provides for nearly all the cases which have arisen in my department.
– I am pleased that something definite is being done, and that wrongs are being righted. We were told before that everything was being put right; but they were not put right. lt is strange to find government departments, particularly the Postmaster-General’s Department, setting themselves up to defeat the objects of the legislation passed by this Parliament. The whole purpose of the legislation was to put these men back into employment, but they were not put back. I mention the case of a man who was eligible for appointment in New South Wales being offered a position in Victoria or South Australia and told that he would have to pay his own transfer expenses. It is wrong that mcn should be subjected to such treatment. When the legislatue deliberately enacts a law to provide that certain things shall be done, it is not right for any department to put obstacles in the way. Returned soldiers have had to jump a thousand hurdles before regaining their positions.
-Would the honorable senator expect a department to employ men for whom there was no work available ?
– At the time that they were denied work, young men were being given employment. There are more ways of killing a dog than by choking it with butter, and there are more ways of keeping returned soldiers out of the Public Service than appear on the surface. I regret that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department should make such efforts to keep returned soldiers out”.
– That is not correct.
– That is how it appears to me. I thank the PostmasterGeneral (Senator A. J. McLachlan) for what he has done in one case, but I do not thank the department. I hope that the bill will clear this matter up, as it is not right that returned men should be hindered in every possible way by those who administer the act.
– I am astonished at the violence of the honorable senator’s language. I take it that he understands that employment in the Postmaster-General’s Department does not rest with that department. All employment, dismissals and fresh appointments are in the hands of the Public Service Board. That is as it should be. There is no desire on the part of the authorities controlling the Postal Department to keep returned soldiers out. From conversations with the departmental heads, I know that they are in favour of appointing these men, who cannot, however, be taken on if there is no work for them to do. I remind Senator Arkins that not long ago there were hundreds, if not thousands, of men in the Public Service doing the work of juniors. The Government is pleased that conditions have improved; but when it desires to appoint these returned soldiers it is faced with the provisions of section 84 of the act. Sub-paragraph (ii) in clause 11 meets the difficulties which have been brought under the notice of the Government. The word “ continuously “ is common to the old act and the bill. I ask the committee to accept the bill as it is. The key word is “ were “. If a man is off duty for, say, two months on sick leave his absence from work is not regarded as interfering with his continuous service. The act is administered generously, and I am confident that the bill will not injure any one whom it is designed to help.
.- In the Public Service there are numbers of ex-soldiers who, by reason of age and condition of health are not required to contribute to the superannuation fund. As regards those to whom new paragraph (c) (ii) applies, I desire to know, first, whether, before appointment, they will have to pass a medical examination, and secondly, whether, having passed that examination, they will be required to contribute to the superannuation fund.
– Section 84, sub-section 8 of the principal act, reads -
Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, a returned soldier may be appointed to the Commonwealth Service, although not free from physical defects due to service in the war, if it is certified by a medical practitioner approved by the board that the soldier is free from such physical defects as would incapacitate him for the efficient discharge of the duties of the position to which he is to be appointed.
Provided that if in addition, the medical practitioner certifies that any physical defect of the returned soldier is likely to prevent continuance of efficient service up to the age of 60 years, the returned soldier shall not, if appointed to the Commonwealth Service, be deemed to be an employee within the meaning, and for the purposes, of the Superannuation Act, 1922-1934.
– That is a cross-word puzzle.
– The provision is only just to the other contributors to the fund. Under the proviso which I have just read, I have been able to overcome the obstacle in a few cases in which returned soldiers, although suffering from physical defects, were not in ill health to the extent of affecting their expectation of life.
– Were they appointed in the terms set out in (c) (ii) ?
– Yes .
Senator ARKINS (New South Wales) ambiguities, intricacies, difficulties and mazes of the legislation ore put there not to assist returned soldiers to obtain appointments in the Public Service, but to keep them out.
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reportedwithout amendment; report adopted.
Senate adjourned at 3.44 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 September 1936, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1936/19360918_senate_14_151/>.