Senate
23 June 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MAINLAND AND TASMANIA
REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
- Fourth Report
AUSTRALIAN STAFF CORPS
QUESTION
- ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS
QUESTION
- LAVERTON WIRELESS PLANT
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938
- Second Reading
PAPERS

The President (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) took the chairat 11.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2535

QUESTION

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MAINLAND AND TASMANIA

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

– Can the PostmasterGeneral inform the Senate as to when telephonic communication between the mainland and Tasmania is likely to he restored ?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– I regret that I am unable to inform the honorable senator exactly. A vessel which the Government has under charter for the purpose of preserving the cable has been despatched fully equipped and ready to deal with the matter. It is assumed that some craft taking cover from the gales that word prevalent in Bass Strait during the week, dragged a portion of the cable and interfered with it in some way or other. Every effort is being made to have repairs effected as speedily as possible. If I receive any advice either this evening or to-morrow I shall communicate with the honorable senator.

page 2535

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Fourth Report

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I bring up the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, and move -

That the paper be printed.

At the last meeting of the committee, a resolution was carried unanimously expressing appreciation of the invaluable service rendered tothe committee by retiring Senator J. G. Duncan-Hughes. The committee also placed on record its appreciation of the excellent services of Mr. Edwards, who had filled the position ofsecretary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2536

AUSTRALIAN STAFF CORPS

SenatorFOLL. - On the 22nd June, SenatorCollett asked the following questions, uponnotice: -

What is theauthorized establishment, by ranks, ofthe Australian Staff Corps forthe year1937-38?

Was financial provision to meet thecost ofthat, establishment included in the Appro- priation Act of the year mentioned? 3.Didthe appropriation alsocoverthat amount oftheannual increment ofpay in eachrankand appointment oftheauthorized establishment?

Are thereany vacancies in the establishment; ifso, why have not the requisite appointments and promotions beenmade inorderto fill suchvacancies?

Haveany annual increments of pay, which may havebeen due,been withheld; if so, why?

The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answersto the honorable senator’s question : -

page 2536

QUESTION

ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

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

Hasthe attention of the Minister been called to an article in the Sydney Sun on the 19th instant under the captions “Sydney a City toBomb” “Australia’s Weak Air Force and’ Obsolete Guns could not prevent the ‘ Sky Haiders ‘ from Raining Destruction “ - wherein it was stated (referring to the mobile 3-in. anti-aircraft gun)”Here was force: here was salvation! They did not know that the gun, made in Australia, is of a pattern which has long since goneto the scrap heap inEngland “?
Isthis latter statement correct?-

SenatorFOLL. - The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s question : -

Yes.
The mobile 3-in.anti-aircraft gun is a very serviceable and efficient weaponandlarge numbers of these weapons are in use throughoutthe British Empire at the present time. Anti-aircraft guns of largercalibre are now beingmanufactured inGreat Britain to supplement the 3-in. gun defences, but there is no intention to scrap the latter weapons when the larger guns are available. Orders have already been placed with the Munitions Supply Board for a number of the latest type of large anti-aircraft guns and action is being takento produce theseat the earliest possible date.

page 2536

QUESTION

LAVERTON WIRELESS PLANT

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice - 1.Referring to the reply toaquestionby SenatorBrown somemonths ago in which it was stilted that the wireless plant at Laverton was rapidlybecomingobsolete - Has this plant been displaced byan up-to-date wireless plant or is it still in use? 2.If still in use is it the intention of the Defence Department to lay down amodern wireless plantatLaverton in the near future?

SenatorFOLL. - The Minister for Defence has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s questions : -

The reply to the honorable senator’s questions is, that a substantial proportion of the obsolete plant has been replaced and the remainder of the new equipment is in process of being installed.

page 2536

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22nd June(vide page 2489) on motion by Senator A. J. McLachlan -

That the billbe now read a second time.

SenatorLECKIE (Victoria) [11.38].- Considering this bill from a national viewpoint, I am first impressed by the fact that, in the discussions both hore and in the House of Representatives, too much attention has been paid to small grievances, or small alterations and additions, rather than to the magnitude of the measure, its purpose, the obligations of the Commonwealth and tax- payers generally under it, and its likely benefits. If, in the opinion of honorable senators generally and of the public of Australia, the obligations are likely to outweigh the benefits, they have a right to object to it; but if, on the other hand, the effect on the national and social wellbeing of the people, by reason of the benefits to be conferred, will be sufficiently great to warrant the assumption of those obligations, well and good. We must have in our mind a clear picture of both the responsibilities to bc assumed and the benefits that are likely to accrue. It seems to mc that the financial obligations of the Commonwealth are so great that the closest examination is demanded of the burden that the scheme, if it becomes operative, is likely to impose. The actual cash obligations are the greatest which the Commonwealth has ever undertaken in respect of* a single proposal, with the exception of the expenditure involved in flic prosecution of the war. The initial deficit in respect of health and pensions will amount to no less than £281,000,000. The argument that insured persons will pay the whole cost of the scheme is absurd ; they will be responsible merely for their own contributions. The Commonwealth, which represents the whole of the taxpayers of Australia, will have to find £281,000,000. Certainly, that will be spread over a given number of years, but oven in the beginning the outlay - with ihe alterations that have been made - will bc £1,000,000 a year on the health side, :ind, in respect of pensions, £1,000,000, rising to £10,000,000, at which the amount will be stabilized. I do not think that the people of Australia realize the magnitude of the financial responsibility of the Commonwealth, or that the Labour party appreciates the immensity of the contribution to be made by the Commonwealth, or the expenditure in which it would bc involved were the scheme to be on a non-contributory basis.

From a business viewpoint, the first matter requiring attention is the solvency of the scheme. Should it prove to be not solvent or workable, the benefits to be conferred on insured persons would have to be discontinued. We must ensure the permanency of the scheme. Therefore, the first consideration is, what it will actually cost, and whether the proposed exemptions and other smaller concessions will interfere with its solvency. Any action in either this or the House of Representatives which jeopardized its solvency, would be most dangerous. The next point to be considered is, whether the proposed benefits in respect of social, moral and health welfare, will be equivalent in value to the sacrifices to be demanded of taxpayers in order to ensure the success of the scheme.

I cannot understand the attitude of the Labour party towards the bill. I should have thought that that party would have supported the bill, but they endeavoured to alter it in particular directions, with a view to improving it from their point of view.

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

– The opposition of the Labour party to a measure, designed primarily to benefit those whom its members are supposed to represent in this Parliament, amazes me. I cannot understand the argument of the Leader oi the Opposition (Senator Collings) that the employee will pay not only his own contributions but also those of the employer. Although J believe that the payment of compulsory contributions by insured persons will engender in them a feeling oi self-respect and security, I do not believe that, in the long run, the insured persons will pay very much of the contributions. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) stated that courage, self-respect and self-reliance are impossible for the persons involved in this bill. Is not that statement an absolute slur on the people whom the Labour party is supposed to represent? I thought, as a matter of fact, that the workers, as a class, had any amount of courage and selfrespect, and therefore it is beyond mc to understand why the honorable senator should say that it is impossible for them to possess those qualities.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I rise to a point of order. I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it was impossible to develop self-respect and self-reliance in the slums. I cannot allow the honorable senator’s statement to pass without challenge, and I ask that it be withdrawn. I did not say under this bill that courage, self-respect and self-reliance were impossible in the class I represent. I said that it was ridiculous to talk of fostering those qualities simply by compelling people to make compulsory contributions under the scheme. I said that it was impossible to develop courage, self-respect and selfreliance in people who were harassed all the time by want and insecurity which this bill did nothing to remove.

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

– Some employ experts to dodge taxation.

Senator LECKIE:

– The Leader of the Opposition is endeavouring to dodge his responsibility by opposing this scheme. He is seeking to enable the workers to dodge just payment for the benefits they will receive. There are many who are opposed to expenditure of large sums of money for defence purposes, but they are not allowed to avoid their irrigations to contribute towards the »-it of our defence system. The numbers of the Christian Science denomination, who object on religious grounds to being brought under this bill, cannot evade their obligation to contribute towards a scheme that will benefit other members of tho community. The solvency of the scheme mUst be assured.

When the Treasurer and prominent government officers and oversells experts first undertook to formulate this proposal, they must have been appalled by its magnitude. The Government must have great faith in the Australian people and in the loyalty of its supporters, otherwise it would not have launched such a gigantic scheme, involving as it does heavy expenditure and enormous responsibilities. I congratulate the government upon its earnest attempt to protect not only the health, but also the physical and moral well-being of the Australian people. X am glad to learn that provision has been made to protect the rights of pensioners in that pensions cannot be assigned in any way. Had that protection not been afforded we would Iia ve found, as has been found in respect of invalid, old-age and war pensions, that in time of extreme need pensions had been assigned to others. I congratulate iiic Government upon the courage it has displayed in bringing the bill before Parliament, and, although the cost to the taxpayers will be heavy, I believe that r.he .people will realize that the Government has done a good job, and that eventually the scheme will be of inestimable benefit to a vast majority of the Australian people.

Senator E. B. JOHNSTON (Western Australia) [12.19”. - I followed the plain and comprehensive speech of the Leader of the Senate with a good deal of interest. I congratulate the Minister - it- is in regard to this measure about the only bouquet I can offer him - upon the fact that lie introduced the bill in his own eloquent language, instead of adopting the usual practice of reading a speech that had been delivered in the House of Representatives on the same bill. I regard! that as an indication of the honorable gentleman’s good leadership, and of a desire on his part to uphold the dignity of .the Senate, and to ensure that it shall be restored to its rightful position under our Constitution. The Minister’ dealt at some length with the manifold advantages of the scheme, such as medical and disablement benefits, sick pay and pensions, that will be available to those fortunate enough to come under it. As I listened to the Minister, I wondered - my wonderment has increased ever since this measure was introduced iti the House of Representatives - why small farmers, graziers, small land-holders, storekeepers and other self-employed persons, who comprise the most important section in Australia’s economic life, have been excluded. I refer more particularly to those living in outback country areas many of whom arc struggling against adversity in an endeavour to make a frugal living on the land. Whyshould they be excluded from the benefits of this scheme, while at the same time, as taxpayers, they will be compelled to contribute towards the benefits of others? There is no justification whatever for this extraordinary omission. I have perused the policy speeches delivered before the last general election by the leaders of the political parties supporting the Government, in which a scheme of national insurance was forecast, but I find no mention of the exclusion of small farmers, graziers, storekeepers and others. Why should this important section of the community be deprived of the right to participate in the benefits enjoyed by others? Dressmakers and others conducting small businesses, while not receiving any benefits themselves from the scheme, will have to contribute towards the cost of benefits for their employees. I attended many political meetings during the last general election campaign in Western Australia, and assisted not only the Senate team of which you, sir, were so distinguished and popular a member, but also candidates of the United Australia party and Country party for the House of Representatives. - In the speeches I heard at political meetings or over the air, no suggestion was made of the introduction of a national insurance scheme under which hardworking primary producers, while not benefiting themselves, would have to contribute towards the cost of providing benefits for others. Under the heading of “ Health “, the Australian Country party’s platform provides for -

A contributory scheme of national insurance against old age, casual sickness, invalidity, maternity and accident.

They are very desirable objects, which, would appeal particularly to residents in country districts. Producers and others living at a long distance from centres of. population, would be very anxious to be brought under the provisions of legislation based on that desirable and comprehensive plank of - the Country party’s platform, which does not suggest a scheme of national insurance to benefit merely a majority of those resident in’ the cities and towns to the exclusion of those living in the rural areas. I would be surprised to learn that any member of the Country party or its supporters ever interpreted that plank to mean a scheme such as this. That plank in the platform of the Australian Country party conveys to my mind at least that any national insurance scheme sponsored by the Country party would afford protection to those who produce 97 per cent, of the commodities we export, and who” form the real backbone of Australia’s stability. Why should the primary producers be expected to provide benefits for those who work under more favorable conditions in cur sheltered secondary industries? Sir Earle Page, when Treasurer in the BrucePage Government in 192S, introduced a bill to provide for national insurance on a comprehensive scale; but, unfortunately, the Government of which lie was a member was defeated before the bill could be passed. The succeeding Government, led by the right honorable member for Yarra (.Mr. Scullin), had sufficient , difficulties with which to contend during the depression period to prevent it from proceeding with legislation dealing with the subject. National insurance has always been dear to the heart of the leader of the Country party, and I believe that had -he been in Australia at present he would have opposed the exclusion of the primary producers from this scheme. In his policy speech delivered at Grafton on the 30th September, 1937, he said -

Under the scheme proposed by the Government, approximately 2,000,000 people would bo insured, and taking dependants into consideration the total number of people to benefit would be in the vicinity of 3,000,000.

Under this measure benefits will be provided for 1,850,000 persons; but wives and families will be excluded from medical benefits, and dependants come only very slightly into the measure to the extent pointed out by the Leader of the Senate in his very lucid speech. I cannot help thinking that the present measure is less national in its character than that proposed by the Leader of the Country party (Sir Earle Page) in his policy speech, since the latter obviously intended to cover the wives and families of insured persons totalling 3,000,000, as compared with 1,850,000 people to be covered by the provisions of the measure now before the Senate. It seems to me that this measure has been introduced largely because the rising cost of invalid and old-age pensions is regarded as conveying a threat to national solvency. In 1928, the pensions bill of the Commonwealth was £8,250,000; this year it is estimated to reach nearly £16,000,000. In 1909-10, there were 65,492 pensioners and the pensions bill amounted to £1,497,330 ; to-day, there are 311,000 pensioners and the total pensions bill is estimated at £15,850,000, or more than ten times the cost at the inception of the scheme. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has estimated that, on the present rate of increase, the number of pensioners in 1978 will reach 625,000, and that the pensions bill will be £32,000,000, a greater amount than Australia has any prospect of being able to afford at that time. These figures show the need for a real scheme of national insurance which will be just and equitable in its incidence, particularly so far as the persons engaged in the primary industries - farmers, graziers and, particularly, small farmers - are concerned. After the long debates that have taken place in the House of Representatives on. this measure, and the very comprehensive speech of the Leader of the Senate in introducing it to this House, I do not propose to review the whole of the features of the bill; I wish, however, to refer to some of the anomalies disclosed by a study of the measure, which, in my opinion, show an utter disregard, if not a wilful neglect, of the interests of the men and women on the land, who are the mainstay of Australia’s stability and prosperity, and the producers of all our real wealth. This measure covers wageearners of the Commonwealth in receipt of incomes up to £365 per annum; but the whole of the farmers of Australia are entirely excluded from its benefits. As a representative of a primary producing State, I refuse to accept as a national scheme any proposal which denies to farmers earning up to £365 per annum the same benefits at the same cost as are to be provided for city wage-earners on a similar income. The benefits of this measure are denied to the farming community and other small employers, many of whom have no taxable incomes at ail and have to work hard for long hours in order to wrest a frugal existence from the soil. I regret that this Government, which I would like tobe able to support, because the Country party is included in its composition, should have brought forward a scheme of national insurance which affords no protection whatever to those Australian farmers whose income corresponds to that of wage-earners who are to enjoy the benefits of this measure. Until this bill exempts from payments in respect of their employees, small employers and those small farmers, I intend to oppose it. I intend to move in committee an amendment which will exempt from contributions, in respect of their casual employees, all farmers whose taxable income is less than £208 per annum. We have recognized that principle in other respects. It was embodied in the legislation providing for the payment of the wheat bounty. For at least one harvest only those farmers who had no taxable income were eligible to receive it. It was found, however, that the bounty had to be paid to the majority of the wheat farmers in Australia. No administrative or other difficulties arose in connexion with the payment of the bounty; a wheat farmer simply applied to the Taxation Department for a certificate to the effect that he had no taxable income, and an application lodged with the proper authority, supported by that certificate, entitled him to participate in the bounty. Since the farmers of Australia are to get no benefits under this measure, the least we can do to assist them is to say that those in receipt of a taxable income not exceeding £208 per annum - that is a very low figure, and I should prefer a higher one - shall not be expected to contribute to the national insurance fund in respect of their employees, many of whom are employed only casually. When this Parliament has recognized the position of the wheat farmers during successive years by the granting of bounties only to those who have no taxable income, surely that measure of consideration should be repeated in this measure. It is surprising to calculate the number of people on the land, in small scattered rural homes in Australia, who are excluded from any benefits under this measure, but, at the same time, will be expected to contribute to the national insurance fund for the insurance of somebody else. These people, in the past, have shown their unselfishness in so many directions that there is no selfishness in their desire to enjoy this particular exemption, which is almost necessary for their continued existence on the land. It is the last straw that breaks the camel’s back, and the financial position of one primary industry is at a breaking point. The following statistical tables, compiled from the 1933 census figures, and the 17th report of the Commissioner of Taxation, show the number of farmers, graziers, and others engaged in the agricultural and dairying industries of Australia, and also those who work on their own account, who will be penalized by this measure by being excluded from its benefits, and the number of farmers and pastoralists who paid income tax in the assessment year 1933-34:-

Australia. - Numberof (a) Employers and (b) Persons Working on their Own Account in the Agricultural Pastoral and Dairying Industries enumerated at the Census of the 30th June, 1933.

Taxpayers, Farmers and Pastoralists, Australia.

The number and percentage of taxpayers described asFarmers and Pastoralists assessed for Federal Income Tax in 1933-34 (i.e., on income earned in 1932-33), were as follow : The figures given which relate to Resident individuals and companies for Australia as a whole are published in the Seventeenth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation.

This table shows that there are 272,620 independent farming people who may be regarded as supporters of the Country party in politics, and who, therefore, may look to that party to represent them in this Parliament. This bill does not confer the slightest benefit on any one of those 272,620 Australian producers, or - and this is more important - on their wives or families. Though they are excluded from its benefits they will have to pay a contribution for every person they may employ. Of that number 110,450 are classified as employers, the remainder being classified as working on their own account. I have been assured, however, by a courteous officer of the Statistician’s Department that, included in the latter, are many farmers who operate their farms as family concerns. They and their wives and families are just as much entitled to the benefits of this bill as is anybody else. Only by living frugally, and with the assistance of their wives and families, are they able to continue on the land. It is difficult to believethat even these 162,170 farmers, who are classed as working on their own account, do not from time to time employ casual labour. Some of these people will be called upon to contribute directly and all of them will have passed on to them a portion of the cost of the scheme to secondary and other industries.

I oppose the bill because it penalizes every farmer in Australia without con ferring upon him any corresponding benefits. I refuse to accept as a national scheme of insurance one which excludes from any benefits 272,000 persons who are engaged in wresting their living from the soil, and their wives and families - a scheme which, at the same time, levies on many of them contributions which they can ill afford. According to information supplied to me by the Statistician’s Department, only 12,977 of those people pay federal income tax. Thus, 259,643 producers, the sturdy yeomanry upon whom the nation’s stability depends, have no taxableincome, and should, in my opinion, be relieved of the liability to contribute to the insurance fund provided under this measure.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– To be deserving of the name “ national “, which has been attached to this bill, the Government’s proposals should cover the whole of the 272,000 Australian producers who are working on the soil on their own account, or with labour; or at least, it should cover the major portion of them - those whose incomes do not exceed £365 per annum. There are 260,000 small rural homesteads scattered throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth, and the farmers in charge of them have no taxable incomes, yet they are asked to make contributions towards the insurance fund because of the semi-casual or other labour which they employ. It is proposed that even those with no taxable income shall make the same contribution of1s. 6d. a week for each employee as is proposed for those who will benefit under the scheme. Employees in other walks of life will pay only1s. 6d. a week each for full insurance under this measure, and, in my opinion, the primary producers are entitled to expect equal benefits from this Government for an equal contribution. I reject this measure, because it excludes the small farmers and cultivators of the soil from any of the benefits, and because, once more, it asks the farmers to pay for protection for others that they will not receive themselves. We should consider the state of the farming industry in Australia to-day. It is unable to accept this new burden. When we remember that (1,000 farms in Western Australia alone were abandoned by. their owners during the last few depression years, because they could not make a living on them, bow aro those who have remained on their holdings to pay for the insurance of the labourers whom, at certain seasonal periods, most of them must employ? I know that many small farmers find it difficult to eke out a frugal existence. According to the report of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry, many of them are insolvent, the value of their assets being less than the amount of their liabilities. To compel such men to pay for insurance for others, while they are refused any insurance for themselves, is to inflict on them an injustice which is entirely opposed to Australian sentiment and to which I shall not be a party.

Manufacturers and others will, no doubt, pass on the extra cost to be imposed on them by this measure. The primary producers alone will be unable to recover one penny of the added burden. Many of the farmers are in dire distress, and are much worse off than the employees on whose account they are asked to contribute, both directly and indirectly. The Government should alter the bill qit. the lines of an amendment, which I have foreshadowed, providing that farmers and other small employers whose incomes do not exceed £208 per annum- I should prefer a larger amount to be fixed - should be exempt from the payment of the employer contributions. Some such relief should be given to the people engaged in the great primary industries, which, unlike the secondary industries, aro entirely unsheltered. Many thousands of these producers sell in the open markets of the world, and cannot pass on the costs which they have to meet on account of the tariff, let alone the new burden contemplated in this bill. The wheatgrowers and the wool-growers will be doubly penalized by the measure. They will have to make contributions on behalf of their employees, and will be unable to pass on any portion of the cost of the contributions, when selling their products overseas; but their own costs of. production will be increased, arid they, will carry ti. new burden, in addition to that imposed by the tariff, through having the extra costs passed on ‘ to them, in consequence of this legislation, by manufacturers and others engaged in secondary industries. 1 repeat that the farmer will pay for something that he will not receive. He will pay directly and indirectly a large proportion of the cost of this scheme, but he will receive no benefit whatever under it.

I wish to be fair to the Government. I have read in the press that another bill is to be introduced next September to give some insurance, on a voluntary basis, to small employers. It is said that they are to pay 4s. a week, instead of ls. 6d. a week, as proposed under the present bill, and, if they have reached the age of 45 years, they are not to be brought within the scope of the scheme. I noticed that the Minister in his secondreading speech did not refer to the second proposal which has been outlined in the press. This is a most unsatisfactory one, and would not, in return for similar contributions, confer the benefits to be provided under the present measure. I deprecate dealing piecemeal with a scheme that is supposed to be a national one. All proposals under a national health and pensions insurance scheme should be considered simultaneously. I also deprecate the haste with which this measure is being passed in the dying hours of the session, as the Senate is now constituted. This measure will be carried on the votes of senators, who, in many instances, failed to secure re-election at. the polls. Such action is opposed to my ideas of democratic government. Australia’s greatest democrat. Sir Isaac Isaacs, has expressed a similar view through the press, during the last few days, in regard to the Inter-State Commission Bill, and I am heartily in agreement with him.

Senator Ashley:

– The matter has never been placed before the electors in this way.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– No. The electors of Western Australia were told that this was to be a national scheme of insurance. When Government candidates addressed large gatherings of farmers, we were not in a position to inform them that they would be called upon to contribute to the cost of this scheme, although they would not come under it. We never dreamt that the Government’s bill would be so manifestlyunjust.

The producers of Australia, as a class, will be unfairly penalized by this measure, under which, whilst excluded from the benefits of the bill, they will contribute towards the cost of their employees’ and other people’s employees’ insurance, and will also pay a heavy part of the cost of the contributions of the manufacturers, merchants, and distributors engaged in secondary industries. The cost of production will be increased in Australia, and a burden second only to that of the tariff will be placed on the already overloaded backs of the primary producers in our export industries, who now have the utmost difficulty in finding markets overseas. The organized primary producers of at least three States, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, have already expressed varying measures of opposition to this bill in its present form. I have before me a copy of a letter sent by the Queensland Council of Agriculture to the Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, which states -

The Queensland Council of Agriculture, which represents tho whole of the organized farmers of this State, is deeply concerned with the legislation now before the Federal Parliament dealing with national insurance.

While the council is favourably disposed towards a national scheme which would include all income earners and which would deal equitably with all concerned, it desires to draw attention to the unfair advantage which apparently, judging from tho information given by the Treasurer when presenting the bill, would be experienced by tho farming community if the measure be passed in its present form.

It is a recognized fact that the average fanner does not make a net earning equal to that of the basic wage, and this is substantiated by the last annual report of tho Commissioner of Taxes in this State, which discloses that of the 20,000 or more dairy farmers in Queensland only 717, or one in every 28, earned, incomes from personal exertion and/or property sufficient to be taxed for State income tax purposes. Yet there does not appear to be any provision whereby this class of worker can receive any benefits from the scheme.

It does seem, however, that his already unremunerative income will be further taxed by having to subscribe ls. Od. per week for each employee he may engage.

Whilst other sections of industry are already discussing ways and means of passing on this extra expense in the cost of commodities or services, the- primary producer in many cases will be unable to do so and, presumably, will have to bear not only the full expense of the direct contribution, but also the added cost of his requirements.

I have to say, therefore, that my council would be pleased to get an assurance either that the conclusions arrived at regarding the provisions of the bill are incorrect and that it caters for the farmer equitably with other workers, or alternately, that the position will be reviewed and that he will be given the consideration which is his duc.

The Parliamentary Country party of Queensland has also passed a motion strongly opposing and condemning this measure. In the last issue of The Land is a report pointing, out that the heavy burden to be placed on the primary producer, because of the introduction’ of the Commonwealth Government’s health and pensions insurance scheme, was stressed by speakers at a meeting of the executive of the Farmers and Settlers’ Association of New South Wales. A motion, on the lines of an amendment which I propose to submit, was carried as follows -

That wo ask the Government to exempt from liability, under the national insurance scheme, small employers whose income docs not exceed the basic wage in the respective States, without penalizing their employees.

Pew organizations of producers in the Commonwealth have been more consistent in their general support of this Government in the past than has the Western Australian Primary Producers’ Association, with which I have the honour to be associated, but this measure asks too much of it. At a recent meeting of the political and general executive of Sio organization, which represents the farmers of Western Australia, the strongest opposition was expressed to this bill on the ground that the farmers are unfairly treated under the proposed legislation. The following motion was passed by the general executive, and endorsed by the political executive of the organization: -

As the Federal Government hae not yet made adequate provision for the rehabilitation of the wheat and wool industries, we cannot support the national insurance scheme, which must impose added costs upon those already overburdened industries.

The parliamentary leader of the organization, the Honorable C. G. Latham,

M.L.A., i6 not only the leader of the Country party in Western Australia, but also the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of that State. In the full reports published in the primary producers’ newspaper, many of the arguments that I have used to-day in opposition to this measure, have been set out, and the reports have not disclosed, nor has the correspondence that I have received from Western Australia shown, that a single farmer in that State supports this bill. I admit that, in advanced countries, it is recognized that there should be a proper system of national insurance, but the present proposal of the Government stands condemned because of the contributions to be levied on small farmers, the large majority of whom have no taxable income, and are unable in their present distressed circumstances, to meet the cost of the scheme. It stands condemned also because the farmers as a class. are unjustly excluded from benefits.

The Minister for Defence, Mr. Thorby, visited Western Australia some time ago, in order to inquire into the necessity for a grant for those who had suffered from drought for two or three years, but the farmers did not receive any grant as the result of the Minister’s visit and inquiries. The farmers of Western Australia have decided, through their political organization, that t-hey are not prepared to act as wood and water “ joeys “ for the rest of Australia, as far as this scheme is concerned. Farmers with small incomes should not pay the employers’ contributions. Farmers and other producers earning less than £365 a year should receive the benefits of the bill for the .same contribution, namely, ls. 6d. a week, as the wage-earner with a similar income. I regard these two points as vital, and intend to vote against the measure unless those two conditions are unequivocally met.

Showing the distressed state of the wheat industry, and its inability to bear any portion of the burden of this bill, I quote from pages 99 and 100 of the second report of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry the following table, which gives an estimate of the total debtsof wheat-growers alone, throughout Aus tralia, at the date of the publication of the report: -

The commission has considered it desirable to segregate the debts of the wheat-growers under main headings according to the class of creditor.

The following table gives the analysis of the total debt “of £151,459,270:-

Other sections of our primary producers are almost as badly off in respect of the heavy debts they carry. As the result of this report, the Government at the 1934 election promised to provide £20,000,000 in respect of farmers’ debt adjustment, and the following very attractive advertisement appeared at that time in the Western Australian press : “ Cash this on the date of the election - £20,000,000 for distressed farmers, (signed) Lyons and Page “. From the form of that advertisement, the farmers were entitled to infer that this amount of money would be paid in cash by the Government were it returned to office. On its re-election, however, the Government asked Parliament to approve of the expenditure of only £12,000,000 in this respect. That, of course, was a generous amount, and I would give the Government full credit for going to that extent had the amount been paid. Had that amount been made available quickly in cash, the whole of the rural industries of this country could have been rehabilitated, but I am sorry to say that up to the 12th May last, when I asked a question on the subject in the Senate, a sum of only £4,103,000 - a fairly substantial sum, I admit - has been disbursed. For the coming financial year the Government can find only £2,000,000 of the balance for which parliamentary approval has been given for this purpose, as compared with the provision of £2,500,000 for the current financial year, whilst we do not know when the balance of £6,000,000 is to be provided. The Government cannot yet find this large sum which Parliament has authorized for farmers’ debt relief. In these circumstances, how can the farmers of Australia, who are already overburdened with debt, be expected to carry the additional burdens represented by their contributions to this scheme, particularly when, as a class, they will receive no benefit from it whatever ?

That is the gravamen of my charge against the Government in respect of this measure. As the Senate is now constituted, the bill will probably be passed by this chamber, and, that being so, the best we can do is to endeavour to improve the scheme. With that object in view, .1 propose to move amendments in order to give relief to those 260,000 farmers who have no taxable income, or whose income is less than £208 annually.

I wish now to deal with the proposal to compel subscribers to existing superannuation and similar welfare schemes to pay contributions under this scheme. No one doubts the financial stability of existing benefit schemes organized in connexion with such institutions as banks and insurance companies, under which subscribers are entitled to benefits exceeding in value those to be provided under this scheme. In this respect, I have received quite a large number of telegrams from interested persons who wish to be allowed to carry on their .existing schemes, with which they are entirely satisfied. From an officer of one of the leading banks in Perth, I received the following telegram : -

Western .Australian staff request you to use your influence in excluding bank officers from provisions National Insurance Bill. Staff fully satisfied with own pension fund.

In this respect I hope that in committee honorable senators will accept the amendment foreshadowed by SenatorDuncanHughes in his very interesting speech last night. The present satisfactory schemes under which bank employees contribute in respect of pension benefits should not be interfered with any more than those affecting permanent government employees. The benefits provided under these existing pension schemes are equal, if not superior, to those proposed under this scheme, and therefore, I urge the Government not to interfere with the contributors to such funds, many of whom obviously cannot afford to pay to two insurance schemes.

Like other honorable senators I have been requested by the Christian Science Church to support the following amendment of this measure in order to enable members of that church to conform with their religious beliefs by being excluded from this scheme in respect of medical benefit : -

Where an employee, otherwise within the scope of this act, makes an application for exemption and establishes to the satisfaction of the commission hy certificate from a duly constituted Christian Science branch church or society that he is a member or adherent iti good standing of such brunch church or society, the commission shall grant him n certificate of exemption from those provisions of this act which relate to medical benefits, but such certificate may be cancelled at tin; request of the said grantee.

As this proposal seems to be justified, I shall support it.

In respect of the medical side of the measure much dissatisfaction has already been expressed, not only by members of the British Medical Association, but also by residents of remote country districts in Western Australia, who are afraid that this scheme will make it even more difficult for them than is the case at present to retain doctors in their midst. Even with the aid of substantial subsidies from the State Government, remote communities in Western Australia have found it very difficult, since the depression, to attract medical doctors to settle among them. I hope that the Leader of the Senate will inform me whether or not such fears are justified. In any case, I have received numerous telegrams from residents in important country districts in Western Australia, pro- testing against the Government’s proposal in this respect. One telegram reads as follows : -

National insurance entirely unsuitable as now proposed. Will have effect of driving away country medical practitioners. Northern District Hospital’s Association. Adam, Acting Secretary. Wyalkatchem.

On behalf of the . Roads Board, - Dowerin, the following telegram was sent to me: -

Inform till Western Australian representatives enter strong protest conditions national insurance bill affecting country hospitals and doctors. Suggest withdrawal present measure and Framing new clauses protecting these interests in collaboration with country representatives.

And from the Primary Producers Association District Council, in the north-eastern area of the wheat belt, I received the following telegram: -

Combined meeting Primary Producers’ Association and Wheat Growers’ Union here yesterday carried resolution emphatic protest resent proposals national insurance. Objection tei exclusion farmers and self-employed persons. Medical benefits must include whole families. Country doctors definitely will not remain in districts under present unsatisfactory pro posals. Government promise of future amendments not acceptable. Show this message all Westralian representatives and senators, please.

I notice that the Government has undertaken to refer the matter _ of fees to bc paid to doctors, including members of tho British Medical Association, for investigation by a royal commission. Doctors in country districts ave now doing excellent work, and 1 know from personal experience that their services are invariably at the disposal of any one who needs them, whether or not the patient is in a position to pay. I recall that on the death recently of a very popular doctor with a large practice at Narrogin in Western Australia, where he worked night and day for the benefit of the community, Iiia family was left in a difficult financial position owing to the fact that debts to him amounting to thousands of pounds were outstanding.

Senator McLeay:

– That doctor would have welcomed a. scheme of national i insurance

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I do not think so. The point I stress is that the large majority of the people whom a doctor in such a district would be called upon to attend do not come under the provisions of this scheme. If the farmers and producers, and small settlers in this well populated district were brought under this scheme, the honorable senator’s contention would possibly be correct. That is what I want the Government to do. My objection to this bill is that it has not done so. I notice, however, that the whole subject of medical benefits and payments, with which I do not intend to deal at any length, i3 to be referred to a royal commission. The Government has acted wisely in making this decision, but it would have acted more wisely still had it proceeded no further with the bill until the report of the commission had been made available. That would have made possible the incorporation in the measure of any recommendations relating to the British Medical Association and other medical practitioners which the commission saw fit to make. If the Government desires to act fairly by the medical practitioners, especially those practising in the outlying parts of Australia, it will have to increase considerably the payments proposed in the agreement with the British Medical Association. As things are, we are being requested to pass a bill without knowing what it will cost the public in respect of one of its most vital sections, namely, the provision of scientific, professional and medical services. This is important, even though, unfortunately, most of the people resident in our outback rural areas are not to be covered in that regard. I wish to see proper payment made . to the medical practitioners who will be called upon to assist in the carrying out of this measure, if and when it becomes law.

I wish to refer briefly to the attitude of the women of Australia to the bill. In Western Australia, and, in fact, in all the States of the Commonwealth, the women have taken .a very great interest in this measure, and have expressed their views very forcibly upon the degree of sex discrimination inherent in the scheme. A conference of women was held in Western Australia on the 8th June last, at which the following women’s organizations were represented: The National Council of Women, the Abolition of Poverty Campaign Council, the Girls Friendly Society, the Labour “Women’s Organization, the Mothers Union, the Women Christian Temperance Union, the Women’s Section of the Primary Producers Association, the Australian Federation of Women Voters, and the Women’s Service Guilds of Western Australia Incorporated. The conference carried three brief motions protesting against various provisions of this bill. I ask permission to have them incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - I believe Senator Collett referred to those resolutions in his speech yesterday.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– In that case I shall not press my request. I point out, however, that the conference expressed keen disappointment that the Federal Government had not seen fit to introduce a measure of national insurance applicable to citizens in general, as has been done in no less than 30 countries in the world. The women emphatically protested against the bill, inasmuch as it embodied in its provisions sex discrimination, non-provision of medical benefits for wives and children, and discrimination in old-age pensionsas between men and women. The conference also complained that the measure was sectional, and not national, in its application, and considered that the hill should recognize -

The principle of motherhood endowment.
Complete equality to contributors with respect to both contributions and benefits.
Complete medical services, to include dental and optical services.

The conference was not prepared to accept the amendment which the Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, announced in the House of Representatives, that an employed woman who had been a contributor before marriage should have the option to contribute1s. 6d. a week in order to qualify for an old-age pension of 20s. a week at the age of 60 years. Objection was taken to the optional character of this suggestion, and also to the anomaly it created by not covering women for sickness and disablement as an equal contribution covered men. It was pointed out, too, that no provision had been made in the bill for widows, numbering, at the last census, 89,000, who are unemployed. [Extension of time granted.] I thank the Senate for its consideration. The conference called upon the Senate to delay the passage of the bill until members of the Parliament had had an opportunity to return to their various States to discuss the measure with their constituents, or, alternatively, to reject the bill. It also strongly protested against the provisions of clause 76 (3), which raised moral objections to certain women.

Senator Dein:

– They could have left that unsaid.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That is their protest, and I support it in every respect. Those are not the only protests I have received from women electors. Only yesterday honorable senators from Western Australia received a telegram which indicated that even the latest proposals of the Government were entirely unsatisfactory. This communication, which was from Mrs. Olive Evans, chairman, Women’s Campaign Committee, Perth, read -

Women of Western Australia emphatically protest against inequalities and injustices national insurance measure; strongly urge vote defeat of bill on grounds sex discrimination, limited application, inadequate benefits, and forgotten mothers.

It must be evident, from what I have read and said, that this measure is not acceptable to fully representative gatherings of every description of women’s organizations in Western Australia. The position of women under the bill is entirely unsatisfactory. Western Australia, the State which you, Mr. President, and I, have the honour to represent in this chamber, led all the other States in giving votes to women. Moreover, the social legislation of that State has always been directed towards giving women equal status with men.

The PRESIDENT:

– That subject is some distance from the subject-matter of the bill.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I respectfully submit, sir, that it is not. I point out that the State of Western Australia has always sought in its legislation to observe sex equality, whereas the Commonwealth Government has departed from that principle in this bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– This is a bill for social insurance, and not an electoral bill.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am aware of that fact, but in the social legislation of Western Australia, an endeavour has been made to preserve sex equality.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator will be in order in referring incidentally to that matter, but he may not overload the debate with extraneous matter.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I defer to your ruling, and shall not continue that argument, except to say that I support tho protest that the women of Western Australia have made in regard to the provisions of this bill. Their communications certainly strengthen my opposition to the measure in its present form. I shall vote against the second reading of this measure, and unless my wishes are unexpectedly complied with at the committee stage, I shall vote against the third reading of the bill.

Whilst I cannot support the measure, I appreciate the work done by the Treasurer, Mr. Casey, and other members of the Government. I refer ‘particularly to the Leader of the .Senate (Senator A. J. McLachlan) who has put the measure, Avith all its manifest imperfections, clearly, lucidly, and eloquently before the Senate. Sir Walter Kinnear and Professor Brigden have shown great courtesy in explaining the bill to honorable senators. I have a strong feeling, however, that Sir Walter Kinnear’s experience of national insurance in Great Britain, a country with a congested industrial population, has not altogether fitted him to propose a suitable measure of national insurance for Australia, a country of huge distances, sparse population and unsheltered primary industries in which the people have to produce wheat, wool and other products for sale in the open markets of the world. Sir Walter Kinnear has given us great assistance and advice, but I am sure that the very different conditions prevailing in Great Britain imposed on him a superhuman task to make suggestions to meet our particular and varying circumstances.

I oppose the bill because it is unjust to the women of Australia, and imposes upon the residents of the country districts of the Commonwealth, and particularly those in primary-producing areas, a burden which they will be unable to carry. The farming population of this country has unwillingly, but unselfishly, carried the incubus of the tariff; it cannot afford to carry, either directly or indirectly, the financial responsibility of this tattered form of partial and sectional insurance under which it will receive no benefits whatever and in respect of which it is once more being called upon to pay the piper without having any say whatever in calling the tune.

I am willing and anxious to support a real system of national insurance, but the 272,000 farmers, graziers and rural producers of the Commonwealth must be included within its protection and benefits. A scheme which, in a primaryproducing and exporting country like Australia, excludes a quarter of a million primary producers and farmers from its benefits, cannot truthfully be called national in its incidence.

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made on this important national subject. Senator Johnston read more telegrams and messages on the bill than any previous speaker. If we take notice of all the letters and telegrams we receive and allow our judgment to be warped by them, we shall finish up with a very s.trange bill.

– Despite its length, the honorable senator’s argument was not convincing. In legal matters the Government is guided by the advice of officers who are held in high esteem by the legal profession throughout Australia. Moreover, the Leader of the Senate is himself a legally qualified gentleman. I am prepared to trust such advice.

Turning from the legal aspect, the Leader of the Opposition objected to the hill being based on the advice of actuaries.

Senator Collings:

– I did not; I said that the actuarial aspect had overshadowed the claims of social justice.

Senator McLEAY:

Senator McLEAY:

– I nail the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) down to the statement, “ shoves taxation on to the workers “. The Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation, Mr. Ewing, recently issued an excellent production containing information in relation to the assessment of income taxes,- Commonwealth and State, for the financial year 1937-38. If the Leader of the Opposition is reasonable enough to listen to and to analyse the figures which I am about to read he might withdraw the statement that the workers will have to pay the lot. The following table sets out the total taxes, State and Commonwealth, paid in Queensland - I have chosen Queensland because more than half of the Opposition senators are Queenslanders - on a net income basis for the year ended the 30th June, 1937, by a resident taxpayer with a dependent wife and two children - .

The Commonwealth and Queensland company tax is £215 16s. 8d. on every £1,000 of net income. This amount is based, so far as Queensland income tax is concerned, on a rate applicable to companies, showing a return on capital of from 6 per cent, to 7 per cent. Ordinary companies making a higher percentage of profit are taxed at a higher rate, exceeding 5s. 3d. in the £1. The calculations in the foregoing table are made on the particular net incomes as set out in the respective tables. Prom the not incomes the allowances for dependants and the statutory exemptions have been deducted and the tax shown is that payable on the resultant taxable income.

The table shows that the people who are making money in this country con tribute more than liberally to national insurance. It refutes the argument of the Opposition that the whole of the expense is being borne by the employees. Senator Gibson made the point, by interjection, that those persons who will benefit from national insurance virtually pay no ‘ Commonwealth income tax at all. The taxpayer earning £365 with dependent wife and two children does not pay any federal income tax. That point is worth bearing in mind. I now present a table showing federal tax payments for 1936-37, in groups, as a further proof of my contention -

The last group paid more than one-third of the taxation received. I deny, therefore, that the moneyed men in this country will not contribute to national insurance. I trust that those figures will silence my friends in opposition.

The National Insurance Bill now before Parliament is the result of the most exhaustive examination that the Cabinet and its helpers could have made. The Government has been criticized in the past for not pushing on with a national insurance scheme, and now, when it has brought one forward, it is being criticized for rushing it through.

At this point I desire to pay tribute to Sir Walter Kinnear, Mr. Lindsay and the staff who worked on the bill and gave the Ministry the benefit of their years of experience in national insurance work. Notwithstanding some of the cheap jibes that have been made against Sir Walter Kinnear and Mr. Lindsay, I want them to go back to England realizing that the great majority of the Australian people consider themselves fortunate to have had their services and advice.

I do not propose to go into the matter raised by Senator Johnston, because that and several other points that have been raised, although they could provoke an interesting discussion at this stage, can more properly be considered in committee. I do, however, desire to make reference to the attitude of some honorable senators, particularly Opposition senators, who tried to find fault—–

Senator Ashley:

– That is our job.

Senator McLEAY:

– On the contrary, the job of the Opposition is not merely to find fault, but to offer something constructive. That is what I am trying to do, but honorable senators opposite, by their constant interjections, are doing their best to prevent me. The Labour party of Australia has rendered the greatest disservice to the wage-earners who come within the scope of this bill by its opposition to the bill. I say in all sincerity that members of the party have betrayed the people whom they profess to represent. It is amazing how honorable senators opposite have been carried away by the propaganda of vested interests. Senator Pearce yesterday challenged Senator Brown, who was interjecting, with the question, “Are you in favour of the bill?” Senator Brown replied, “ Yes ; I want to improve it.” Yet, all that the Opposition has done is to do its best to kill the bill.

Senator Brown:

-Who has tried to kill the bill?

Senator McLEAY:

– The Labour party in the House ofRepresentatives voted against the second- and third-readings and its members have shown that they will vote for any amendment which has for its purpose the defeat of the measure. Senator Ashley said that this bill should be considered by the new Senate. With what object? With the object of defeating the bill. If Labour senators try now to make out that they want the bill to be passed, all that I can say is that they are trying to mislead the public. How the Labour party tried to defeat a measure designed to do more for the workers of this country than has ever been attempted in a measure in this Parliament, will go down in history.

I wish to heartily commend its character in so far as it removes any suggestion of an old-age pension being a charitable allowance. Such an idea degrades a system of old-age pension. I should look upon a person who qualified under this act to receive a pension as being just as fully entitled to it as is a CommanderinChief of the British Forces or the Chief Justice of Great Britain, or of any other part of the Empire, to receive a pension under any other system.

Senator Dein:

– Then why is indigence a qualification?

Senator CUNNINGHAM:

– Another outstanding personality, Sir Joseph Cook, said -

I regard old-age pensions very much as a form of national annuity given to men who are entitled to demand it as a right and not as an act of mercy or charity. That is the only real basis on which the system can rest.

But there has been a change, and an altogether different outlook has developed. At one time, the old-age pension was regarded as a right, and not as charity.

Senator Dein:

– It should be, but it never has been.

Senator CUNNINGHAM:

– A former Prime Minister of Australia, the Bight Honorable S. M. Bruce, in his policy speech in 1928, uttered these -words - lt has to be recognized that oven under the conditions existing in Australia the wages of the workers are not sufficient to enable then to safeguard themselves against sickness, unemployment and old age.

Well, has the income of the wage-earners so increased that they can now afford to contribute towards the cost of medical benefits and pensions? Have things so much improved that we can get away from the principle laid down by an ex-Prime Minister of this country only a few years ago? Recently, when a bill was before this chamber to provide for the restoration of Parliamentary allowances, Sir George Pearce, who had drawn his allowance as a senator for 37 years, and as a Minister for 25 years, stated -

I am leaving this chamber without a competence

Yet, only two years ago, when referring to the old-age pension, he stated -

There are many who, because of their thriftlessness and because they have never denied themselves every form of pleasure and luxury, have, by their own act, brought themselves within the pension class.

We will defend Australia.

Wo will develop and protect Australian industries to ensure our capacity to resist aggression and to enable us to be a selfreliant people.

We will make the employment of the Australian people a major measure of national policy.

We will make the Commonwealth Bank a bank for the nation.

We will initiate action to develop oil supplies within Australia, as a major measure of national security.

We wilt apply the forty-hour week principle.

We will enable the primary producers to organize on a Commonwealth basis for their mutual protection against exploitation.

We will establish a system of unemployment allowances.

We will provide pensions for widows who have children dependent upon them.

We will make soil erosion a matter for national attack.

We will give young persons opportunity for training and employment.

I shall compare those points with the utterance of the Prime Minister, at Deloraine, a week after Mr. Curtin had delivered his speech. The Prime Minister advocated a contributory scheme of national insurance, the cost of which was to be borne by the employees, the employers and the Commonwealth Government. There was no equivocation about that. The Prime Minister went on to. say -

Any proper system of national insurance, if it is to preserve the dignity of labour by makin;; its benefits a matter of acquired right, and not a matter of public benevolence, must provide for contributions from government, employer and employed. The insured person thus pays only a relatively small portion of the cost of the benefits he receives, but he receives those benefits as of right.

A non-contributory system, not only would not bc an insurance system at all, but it would also tend to destroy the good work of friendly societies and other benefit associations which have been of such great value to the people of Australia. for very many years.

I tell you quite frankly that it is utterly impossible to establish an enduring system of national insurance paid for solely out of the funds available to the Commonwealth Government. Do not be led away by those who are not above promising something for nothing.

That is the policy on which this Government was re-elected last year. We now have a death-bed repentance on the part of the Opposition, which alleges that the Labour party has already proposed a health insurance scheme on a contributory basis, but this claim is too late. If the Labour party had had the courage to place such a scheme before the people at the last elections, and had been able to give effect to it, I should have been the first to congratulate it, but no mention was made of such a scheme on the hustings as far as Western Australia is concerned.

I cannot agree with Senator Ashley that the return of many additional Labour senators to this chamber is to be regarded as a definite expression of the opinion of the people of Australia. With all due respect to the new senators, whom I shall welcome, because they have been rightfully elected in accordance with the Constitution, we cannot ignore the fact that in a great number of instances their return was purely a “ fluke “.

I recently had occasion to write to my family doctor forwarding to him a remittance, and I asked him his personal opinion, as a friend, of this national insurance scheme. . He began his reply of eleven or twelve pages, in a friendly spirit, by thanking me for my regular remittance and he then proceeded to discuss the difference between this scheme and that in operation in Great Britain. Unfortunately, he is under an erroneous impression, which is shared by Senator DuncanHughes, that because the doctor under the British scheme receives a capitation-fee of 9s. for each patient, it was ridiculous to fix the capitation-fee under the Commonwealth scheme at only Ils. a patient He forgot, of course, that under the British scheme the fee covers more services than it will in this country. The medical man in Great Britain has to add the cost of administering anaesthetics, and the cost of attendance upon cases covered by the workmen’s compensation law. Comparing the two fees on an Australian basis, the British doctor receives the equivalent of only about 7s. 6d. for each patient, as against lis. in Australia.

The suggestion was made by another honorable senator that the salary limit of persons to be compulsorily brought under the scheme should be £5 or £6 a week, instead of £365 per annum. The contract rate as arranged between the British Medical Association and the friendly societies is £364, and it was solely for that reason ‘ that the income basis of £365 was adopted in respect of this scheme. That is a plain and simple answer to the objection raised by the honorable senator, and he need have no fear of ambiguity arising so far as this aspect is concerned.

I commend this measure to honorable senators. I feel sure that when medical fees and other matters are investigated by the royal commission, any difficulties arising in those respects will soon be overcome. As reasonable men, and in view of the excellent services they are already rendering to the country, the members of the British Medical Association, I feel certain, will co-operate wholeheartedly in this respect and thus enable the scheme to be based on the soundest of foundations.

Senator PLAIN:
Victoria

, - I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this measure. It may be far from perfect, but time and patience supplemented by future experience will no doubt enable us to overcome the difficulties pointed out by honorable senators. This is the roost humane legislation that has yet been placed before this Parliament. On the occasion of my last visit to the Old Country, I made it a point to mingle as much as possible with my friends, who are working people, in an endeavour to ascertain their general reaction to the British national insurance scheme, and I heard nothing but .the greatest praise for that scheme which, I point out, is not quite so good as this one. I feel sure that, once it is given a fair trial, the workers of this country, regardless of what their representatives in this chamber may say, will be as favorably disposed towards it as the workers in England are towards the British scheme.

I am very pleased that the Government has promised to introduce a supplementary scheme to provide for the insurance of small farmers and small business men, thereby giving to those sections of the community as great assistance as will be extended to the masses of the people under this measure. “When that supplementary measure becomes law, this Government will have accomplished more for those sections of the community, which are really responsible for the prosperity of the country, than has yet been done for them through any other enactment of this legislature. I am most anxious that this measure should be put through this chamber as quickly as possible, in order that it may be placed on the statute-book before the date of tuy retirement as a senator arrives.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– National insurance has been the subject of inquiry by various parliaments and royal commissions during the last twenty years. In ,1928, the Bruce-Page Government actually introduced a measure to establish such a scheme, but owing to the defeat of that government at the ensuing elections, it was not placed on the statute-book. Whatever may be the views of honorable senators regarding the principle underlying the particular scheme now before us, we must give credit to the present Government for progressing so far in the matter as to place so comprehensive a measure as this before us. Its preparation has involved a tremendous amount of work, and the more one examines it the more one realizes the magnitude of the task accomplished by the Government. Although I do not agree entirely with the bill, I heartily congratulate those who have been responsible for its introduction. At least it is a beginning, and an earnest of the Government’s desire to improve the lot of the great numbers of our people. I understand that 1,850,000 persons will come directly under the scheme, whilst it will indirectly affect 3,000,000 people, or practically half of the population of this country. This, however, is only the first instalment of legislation of this kind, because the Government has promised to introduce a supplementary scheme to extend the benefits embodied in this scheme to other important sections of the community, including small farmers and small business people.

Briefly, this scheme provides free medical attention, sickness benefits, widows’ pensions, allowances in respect of children and orphans, and superannuation pension for females at the age of 60, and males at the age of 65. The people whom it will benefit most will be those whom members of the Opposition claim to represent directly, namely, workers in industry who are mainly in receipt of the basic wage. For that reason I regard this scheme purely as an industrial workers’ benefit scheme. It will embrace the majority of employees, including boya and girls and women, engaged in our factories and workshops. Probably one of the greatest advantages which will accrue from it will be the inculcation of a health sense among our people. It will certainly help in a material way to improve public health generally. All honorable senators recognize that mostpeople are reluctant to approach their doctors until they are practically forced to do so, and we are all familiar with instances in which patients, afflicted with serious illness, are told by their medical advisers that had they sought attention earlier their complaint could have been completely cured. Such experiences emphasize the influence which this measure will play in establishing a health consciousness among “our people. Another important aspect of the scheme is that it will tend to dispel that fear of insecurity and of sickness, the existence of which among many sections of the community has been brought forcibly home to me in my travels, particularly in Queensland. In conversing with wives and mothers one makes acquaintance at first hand with this problem. What is likely to happen when the husband becomes ill and is unable to provide for the family, the wife, in many cases, does not know. A constant underlying fear is in the hearts of many parents of this country owing to the possibility of the sickness of the breadwinner, and the consequent failure of the family income to- materialize. This measure will undoubtedly give a sense of security to family breadwinners and lessen the sense of financial strain. People who at present do not know where their next shilling is likely to come from in case of sickness will, when this scheme becomes operative, know that at least a few shillings a week will be available for the family needs.

It is also gratifying to know that this scheme will give a greater sense of security in relation to pension payments. We are all well aware that during the depression period of a few years ago, the Government was unable to maintain, from national resources, the existing statutory obligation to pay a pension of 20s. a week to persons who had been led to expect that this source of income, at least, would not fail them. I believe that under this scheme, the National Health Commission, which will not be subject to the exigencies of political policy, will be able to assure all subscribers that the benefits for which -they are contributing will be available notwithstanding any temporary economic difficulties through which the country may be passing.

This bill does not go as far as I should like it to go, but it is the commencement of a national scheme of insurance. I regret that provision cannot be made to cover unemployment. Our first duty is to assure, as far as possible, employment for our people. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth Constitution does not make it practicable for this Parliament to implement an effective unemployment insurance scheme without the cooperation of the State governments. At prosent State taxpayers are contributing fairly heavily ito State unemployment insurance and relief funds of one kind and another. In Queensland, approximately £3,000,000 will be contributed this year in the form of relief tax, presumably for the relief of unemployment. The relief tax in Queensland is the highest in the Commonwealth, ranging from 3d. to lid. in the £. There is also a compulsory unemployment insurance fund to which contributions are made by both the employer and employee at the rate of 6d. a week each. I believe that if the unemployment insurance scheme of Queensland and also the amount of money raised by the relief tax could, by some means, be co-ordinated with a truly national insurance scheme, much greater benefit would be obtained by the people for the expenditure involved. I trust that it may be possible, »at some future time, to secure the co-operation of the State governments in the formulation of an unemployment insurance scheme of a truly national character. Any such proposal would, of course, have to be considered in conjunction with existing State schemes, but it would undoubtedly be to the benefit of the people of Australia if this important subject could be dealt with by one authority.

It is obvious that the cost of this scheme will fall principally upon the primary and secondary industries of Australia which, together, will have to find about £13,000,000 annually for it. This amount works out at about £2 a head of the population and will mean in the State of Queensland approximately an additional £2,000,000 a year, which amount, when added to the £3,000,000 raised from relief tax, will make a total under the two headings of £5,000,000 to be. found from productions.

As a representative of the Country party, I must express my regret that so heavy a proportion of this cost will fall upon primary producers, especially those who have to sell their products at world parity prices on the export market. In my opinion, such producers who, in a state like Queensland, are engaged in cotton-growing, peanut-raising, dairyfarming, sugar-growing, tobacco-growing, and other forms of primary production, should either be exempt from contributing to the scheme as employers or else should be enabled, by some means, to participate in its benefits. That observation applies also to small shopkeepers. Many of the people to whom I am referring receive, to my personal knowledge, a net income of less than £200 a year, and they will be seriously burdened by having to contribute as employers, at a similar cost to that of the employee ; but as their operations are of such a nature as to oblige them at certain periods of the year to engage outside labour, it will be obligatory upon them to make such contributions. On any considerations of equity they should undoubtedly be entitled to exemption. I know many small graziers in north-west Queensland whose individual incomes have not aggregated £200 for the whole of the last eight years. Sitting suspended from5.47 to 8 p.m.

Senator COOPER:

- Senator Ashley said that many graziers could well afford to pay this tax, as they would be in England, or elsewhere, enjoying their incomes from this country, but I point out that about 98 per cent. of the graziers in Queensland work their own properties, and reside on them with their wives and families; and, as I have shown in many cases, their net income for a number of years has not been equivalent to the basic wage. The day of the absentee squatter has passed.

Senator Ashley:

– I referred to large tracts of country in New South Wales, not Queensland.

Senator COOPER:

– I come now to the provisions relating to medical services. Doctors in the cities are in close contact with their patients, but in sparsely populated areas, settlers may be hundreds of miles from the nearest doctor. In my opinion this bill should provide for medical attention to people living in remote districts, particularly those which can be reached only by aerial doctors. I have in mind the Australian Inland Mission, an institution which, with money subscribed by the public, augmented by a subsidy from the Queensland Government, has established at Cloncurry, Queensland, an aerial medical service for inland areas. As both employers and employees in these areas will be called upon to make contributions to this scheme, they should be provided with better medical facilities than they now enjoy. This legislation should embody a provision to give financial assistance to organizations of this kind. A case which demonstrates the value of the aerial medical service occurred near my home in north-western Queensland this year. In a small township, 130 miles from the nearest railway, a number of children suddenly became very sick. Tropical rains had fallen, making the road to the rail-head at Winton impassable. Fortunately, a pedal-wireless apparatus had been installed in the township, and communication was established with Cloncurry. Immediately, a doctor flew from Cloncurry, diagnosed the ailment of the children as infantile paralysis, and communicated by private telephone with Winton. On the following day an aeroplane was sent from Brisbane with a second doctor and nurses to take three of the children to hospital in Brisbane. Eight other children were kept in isolation in the township. Had it not been for the pedal-wireless service, and the fact that a flying doctor was available at Cloncurry, all those children would have been seriously stricken with infantile paralysis. The funds of this scheme should be made available to assist organizations of this kind. A subsidy should be given to the Australian Inland Mission to provide more doctors and more aeroplanes to extend the great service that it has inaugurated. That is the only feasible way for outback people, who will be compelled to subscribe to the scheme, to obtain prompt medical attention. In these areas, roads are often impassable to resident doctors, whereas flying doctors can cover great distances in only a few hours. I ask the Leader of the Senate to bring these representations under the notice of the Treasurer and I hope that some action will be taken in the direction that I have suggested.

Senator Cunningham seemed to be perturbed about the effect of the scheme on returned soldiers who receive benefits from the Repatriation Department. I also have given some thought to the matter. There are many returned soldiers in receipt of sums varying from a few shillings a week to the full amount of pension, who come within the income limits proposed in this measure. I sought the advice of the officers who drafted this bill and obtained from them the following information in respect of war pensions : -

The provisions of the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill, in so far as they affect returnedsoldiers in receipt of benefits under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-1927, are contained in clause 97 of the bill.

Those provisions may be briefly summarized as follows: -

– War Pensioners.

War pensioners, if engaged in insurable employment, will be brought under the scope of national insurance, but if the benefits paid in respect of any war pensioner and his dependants (wife and children) under the Repatriation Act are at least equivalent to those provided under national insurance, he may, within a specified time, apply to the National Insurance Commission for exemption. Exemption will, in such circumstances, be granted. Unless he so applies, however, he will be insured.

Note. - Benefits received under the Repatriation Act will be assessed actuarially for comparison with the benefits provided under the National Insurance Bill, viz., health benefits, comprising -

Medical benefit, i.e., free medical atten tion and medicines;

Sickness benefit, i.e., 20s. per week from the fifth day of sickness and continuing for 26 weeks;

Disablement benefit, i.e., 15s. per week from termination of payment of sickness benefit and continuing while incapacity for work due to sickness lasts;

Additional benefits, which may be pro vided by approved societies out of disposable surpluses revealed at each quinquennial valuation, and which may include increases in the rates of sickness benefit and disablement benefit, free dental treatment, ophthalmic treatment, hospital treatment, &c. Pensions benefits, comprising -

Superannuation pension at the rate of 20s. per week from the age of65, in- cluding free medical treatment for life;

Widow’s pension at the rate of 15s. per week for life, or until remarriage;

Orphan’s pension, 7s. 6d. per week until fifteenth birthday.

Combined health and pensions benefits - Dependent child’s allowance at the rate of 3s.6d. per week for each dependent child under fifteen years of age and payable while sickness or disablement benefits, on old age or widow’s pensions are payable. (b) If a war pensioner, after having been granted exemption, has his benefits under the Repatriation Act reduced to the extent that those benefits are less than the benefits payable under national insurance, he may apply for cancellation of the certificate of exemption and admission to national insurance.

The war pensioner insured under national insurance will not have hie benefits thereunder reduced in any way. He will be entitled to draw the full benefits to which he is entitled under the Repatriation Act, and also the National Insurance Act.

– Service Pensioners.

Insured persons in receipt of service pensions are treated somewhat differently from returned soldiers in receipt of war pensions.

Where a returned soldier in receipt of service pension becomes entitled to benefit under national insurance, he will be paid the difference between his service pension and the appropriate benefit under national insurance, if the latter is the greater. If he falls out of employment, the Repatriation Commission will keep him in insurance under the National Insurance Act, by paying the contributions due on his behalf as a voluntary contributor, so that he may be kept in full insurance and entitled to all benefits under the National Insurance Act. When he reaches the age of 05 years, his service pension will be terminated, and he will then become entitled, by virtue of his insurance, to the superannuation pension of 20s. per week, and medical benefit for life, under the national insurance, but such termination of bis service pension does not affect in any way the continuance of the rights of his wife and children to benefits under the Repatriation Act. The wife and children of a service pensioner will also be entitled to benefits under the National Insurance Act, by virtue of the husband’s insurance, in addition to any benefit to which they may he entitled under the Repatriation Act.

Senator Gibson:

– How is it possible to discriminate between the qualifications of two doctors?

Senator COURTICE:

– I admit that it is difficult to do that; I am merely pointing to a weakness in the provision relating to medical benefits. It is no exaggeration to say that health conditions in the plant and animal kingdom receive more attention than the health of human beings will command under this scheme. In the industry with which I am associated, diseases among plants are the responsibility of every person engaged in that calling. No trouble is spared to eradicate them. Can the same be said of the health of human beings under this scheme? Is it not true that thousands of young Australians in urgent need of dental treatment in order to ensure their health in later life, will not be able to get it? I am a firm believer in national health insurance, but I do not approve of the Government’s proposals, and, as I have said, I strongly protest against its interference with our present system of old-age pensions. I resent the suggestion that an old-age pension is a dole. I agree with the following statement made by Mr. W. J. (later Sir William) Lyne, when he introduced the Old-age Pensions Bill in the New South Wales Parliament nearly 40 years ago: -

It is equitable that deserving persons who, during the prime of life, have helped to bear the public burdens of the Colony by the payment of taxes and by opening up its resources with their labour and skill, should receive from the Colony pensions in their old age.

In a work which deals with the life of the late Richard John Seddon, who introduced in New Zealand the old-age pensions bill which was passed in 1898, the following passage occurs: -

He took the human view that those who had brought up large families and worked hard all their lives for a daily wage, had done their duty by the State. He held, too, that it was impracticable to, try and compel the working man to set aside part of his wages towards a pension scheme during a period when every penny ho earned would, in the ordinary course, be spent in the upbringing of his family. Such expenditure, Seddon maintained, was every bit as much for the benefit of the State as would be a forced contribution towards a pension scheme.

That is as true to-day as it was then. I believe that those who have grown old in the service of this country should be given the pension as a right when they are no longer able to earn their own livelihood.

Senator Grant:

– Are they not now receiving it?

Senator COURTICE:

– Yes, but this bill will disturb the existing system.

Senator Grant:

– It will not.

Senator COURTICE:

– If through unemployment, after passing the prime of life, any one is unable to pay his contributions, he will not receive this pension.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator COURTICE:

– I had a little more respect for members of the Country party until, within the last few days, notwithstanding the honest and sincere opinions they had expressed privately and in the House of Representatives, they showed that they were quite prepared to vote against their convictions when the whip was cracked. The protests voiced by all sections of the people throughout this country against this measure are the reason for their perturbation.

Senator Dein:

– Those who are to come under the scheme are not complaining.

Senator COURTICE:

– That may be. But I remind the honorable senator that the payment of1s. 6d. a week will prove a very serious matter to the average employee, particularly the casual worker. It would be far better if the money were expended in the proper upbringing of the wives and families of bread-winners. The exactions that are to be made from the workers, and from industry generally, would be spent to greater advantage if it were devoted to the relief of unemployment, and the provision of better medical treatment for women and children. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will delay the passage of the bill until next month, so that we may have an opportunity so to improve it as to make it acceptable to the people of Australia. For the reasons that I have given, I intend to vote against the second reading.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– There is no doubt that the Government will be subjected to a good deal of criticism for having introduced this measure ; but it cannot be said that it has not been sufficiently debated by both Houses of this Parliament because the consideration of- it has extended over a period of about five weeks. The debate in the House of Representatives occupied 100 hours, of which 57 hours was devoted to the second reading - 22 hours to speeches in favour of the measure,. 22 hours to speeches against it, and about twelve hours by speakers who adopted a neutral attitude. It reached the Senate two days ago, and has occupied our attention ever since. Had any honorable senator desired an extension of time he would have been permitted to continue beyond the time allowed by the Standing Orders.

Numerous reasons have been advanced for the introduction of this legislation. Before dealing with them, I wish to offer my meed of praise to the Government for having brought it forward, to Mr. Casey, for his absolutely magnificent handling of it in the House of Representatives, and to Sir Walter Kinnear and Mr. Lindsay, for the assistance they have rendered to both Parliament and the people. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) has said that the scheme has been propounded in order to avoid a revolution.

Senator Collings:

– I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it is a measure of insurance against the flaring up of revolution caused by undeserved poverty.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.Is not that the same thing? I do not think that the people have in their minds any idea of revolution, and I am positive that there is no need for it.

Senator Collings:

Many schemes have been suggested from time to time to relieve distress among the masses of the people. Some of them have been tried and found wanting ; others have not yet been tried. The greatest of all remedies, I suppose, is Christianity. Many people say that if we lived according to the Christian code, every one would be healthy, happy and employed. Perhaps there is a great deal in that, but we are still a long way from the millennium. I do not think that the people are quite ready for it-

Senator Collings:

– Christianity has never been given a chance.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.No one has done more for the. relief oi sickness and human, misery than have certain groups of earnest Christian workers. Then we have the temperance advocates, who say, “Do away with the drink traffic, and all social evils will be cured.”

Senator Collings:

– The abolition of the drink traffic would certainly help.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Prohibition was tried in the United States of America for fourteen years. At the end of that period, there were 6,000,000 unemployed, and more misery and crime than ever before in the history of the country. Henry George advocated his single tax system as a cure for all social evils. In his book, Progress and Poverty, he sought to show that if all taxation was raised from the land, there would be no unemployment or poverty, and the people would be happy and contented. That scheme has not yet been tried.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch). - The honorable senator is getting away from the subject.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Would the President think that I was straying from the subject if I pointed out that a great many people in this country think that the social evils of poverty and unemployment are due to the existence of the capitalist system? Those people seem to think that, if they could produce bank notes by simply turning a handle, every one would be prosperous and happy.

Senator Collings:

– That is how bank notes are produced now.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Yes, but their number is limited. The honorable senator and his friends want to turn them out in unlimited numbers. We must deal with the position as we find it to-day, and I maintain that the bill now before us represents a step in the right direction. I do not think that its sponsors claim perfection for it. It is merely the beginning of what will be a much greater scheme. Everyone knows that you must build the walls of a house before you put on the roof. This bill represents the foundation and the walls of the structure. The bill has come iu for a great deal of criticism, and while I do not object to constructive criticism, I believe that many of the critics of the scheme have sought to destroy it rather than to improve it. The whole scheme rests upon an actuarial foundation, and while the layman may by amendments upset its actuarial equilibrium, he would find it hard to restore the balance again.

Many honorable senators have criticized the contributory provisions of the scheme.’ I do not believe that the average Australian has any objection to paying for what he gets. Approximately 2,250,000 persons in Australia are covered by industrial insurance, upon which the annual premiums amount to £5,000,000. That indicates that Australians arc prepared to pay for their benefits. There are, in addition, a great many members of friendly societies, who contribute annually £1,500,000. It has been suggested that people would be better off as members of the friendly societies than as contributors to the national insurance scheme, but that is not so. Under industrial insurance, for every 15s. a person pays in he takes out £1, while members of friendly societies, on an average, receive £1 in benefits for each £1 they pay in. Under the national insurance scheme, however, male contributors will, on an average, take out £3 6s. for each £1 contributed, whilst women contributors will take out £6 for each £1 contributed. It would be very difficult to find a better insurance scheme, and why there should be any objection to it I cannot understand. At the present time, the per capita costs for social services throughout Australia, are: -

– Does .the honorable senator not think that the Government ie in a better position to provide the money than the small farmer who does no’t possess it?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– Employers have to contribute ls. 6d. weekly for each employee,, and if they wish to come under the scheme they will have to pay 3s. a week for themselves, or a total of 4s. 6d. a week which is unreasonable. The position of those engaging casual employees presents many difficulties, as the first person to engage a casual employee in any week will he responsible for the contribution in respect of that employee for that week. No doubt attempts will be made by those employing casual labour to avoid being the first employer, and that will result in many casual employees being deprived- of employment.

There should be some definite direction - it may be given by the commission later - as to how employers’ contributions in such cases shall be paid. An employer who has to pay an employee’s contribution of ls. 6d. for, san,two hours’ gardening in the morning will feel that he has been unjustly treated. The whole system of engaging casual employment will have to be altered, otherwise many of those who now obtain a living by casual work will lose their employment. Small but irksome anomalies such as I have mentioned may cause the scheme to be unduly criticized, but I hope that a projectembodying so many important benefits will not be jeopardized by anomalies that can be removed. I remind the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) who said that the Government has not received a mandate from the people for the introduction of this legislation, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) stated in his policy speech that the Government intended to introduce a comprehensive scheme of contributory national insurance as soon as the necessary investigations had been made. Moreover, the principle has been discussed for about_ fifteen years, and the people were fully aware that at the earliest opportunity the ‘Government would introduce a -system of national insurance. I trust .that the members of the Opposition will .decide to support the second reading .of the bill; and seek to improve it in committee as they consider necessary. ;

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. P. J. Lynch) unrobed and speaking from beside the chair. - I propose to say a few words on this important measure, because the electors of Western Australia, who sent me to represent them in this Parliament, have forbidden me to speak on their behalf after the clock strikes 12 midnight on the 30th June. When I was elected President of the Senate, I made it quite clear to my constituents that I was not accepting this office to the neglect of the interests of those who sent me here. Honorable ‘senators will, therefore, realize that I am entitled to participate in the debate, as any presiding officer may do, although I believe that such participation ought to be indulged in sparingly. If any honorable senator, acting within his rights, should suggest that I am transgressing the Standing Orders, I shall only have to resume the chair and sit in judgment on myself. There is an old Roman saying that no man is a just judge in his own cause, and if I transgress the rules of debate, any honorable senator who objects and is not satisfied may appeal to the Senate as a whole. Except in the committee, I have not used this right in the past, and I am availing myself of it now, at the second-reading stage, because I desire to take the only opportunity afforded me to speak as I feel on the essential features of this measure. In a country like Australia, where the people enjoy freedom of speech, it is only right that a bill of this description should be discussed from every aspect, and its weaknesses, if any, made known; and, if it can be shown to be against the best interests of the public, it should be rejected.

This bill is about the most advanced piece of legislation that has been introduced in any Parliament in Australia during the last 75 years, since the establishment of responsible government in the mother State of New South Wales. It represents the greatest step forward ever taken in this country towards social equilibrium. Those who have expressed the contrary opinion are disposed to under-estimate the value of the measure, but I would point out to them that there are various ways of assessing public measures. If an important proposal of this nature is regarded by the people as being obnoxious, the public halls throughout Australia are always available for indignation meetings, yet I have not heard of any large halls in the capital cities, or anywhere else, having been engaged for public protest against the passage of this bill. It is true that objections have been taken to it by a number of estimable individuals, who have taken it upon themselves to represent the views of their fellow citizens. This has happened in connexion with many other proposals to which effect has been given, and which have, eventually, proved to be of great value in the public interest. Take the federal aid roads scheme, for instance.

Senator Brown:

– The honorable senator had better confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I accept the mild rebuke. 1 merely desire to indicate that some people go too far in expressing what they claim to be the will of the people. When the petrol tax was first imposed, for the purpose of providing revenue for road-making purposes, loud protests were heard ; but good roads have been provided, and we now hear nothing of those protests. If citizens, -who desire to obtain benefits such as those to be conferred under this bill, had the choice of entering one of two doors - one that of a private company, and the other that of the Commonwealth Government - would they have any difficulty in choosing? The overwhelming majority of the reflecting citizens would desire to pass through the door opened to them by the Commonwealth Government, and by nobody else. I have made inquiries concerning the results obtained under the national insurance scheme in Great Britain, and, having regard to the standards of living in the Old Country as compared with ours, the’ benefits offered under the scheme now before the Senate, allowing for the purchasing power of our currency, are 50 per cent, greater than those provided in Great Britain.

What will be the foundations of this scheme forty years hence? That is my deep concern at the moment. The super.structure can look after itself, but we should give earnest consideration to the security of the foundations. We must have regard to the population figures shown in the Commonwealth Year-Booh. These are significantly referred to as “ vital statistics “. They are vital, because they mean life or death to us and to our country. We have been warned that, judging by the present and recent trend of the figures, and assuming that the rate of migration will not materially; change, the population of Australia will have begun to decline in considerably less than forty years. Therefore, in less than forty years, the foundations of this scheme will have begun to crumble, and, with a definite decline of the population, the position will become sadly worse. I do not desire to assume the role of a prophet, but I remind honorable senators that sixteen years ago I drew the attention of the people of Australia to the then menacing decline of our birthrate. The press of this country took no notice of my warning, but it is time it ceased making money for shareholders, and addressed itself to some of the questions that so vitally, if not mortally, affect the welfare of Australia. Whereas the birth-rate was about 40 per thousand in the ‘sixties, it is now less than 17 per thousand, and I pointed out sixteen years ago that if that rate of decline were maintained Australia’s birth-rate in another 20 years would be ‘as low as that of France. To-day it is “lower. Four years before the outbreak of the great war, France had a birth-rate of 18 for every 1,000 of its population, and at that time deaths in that country exceeded births by 20,000 annually. I should be wanting in my duty if ‘ I ‘did not direct public attention to this state of affairs, which clearly shows1 that Australian parents of to-day are not living up to the example set by their more worthy forebears. This problem, I submit, lies at the very root of the success of this scheme of national insurance. I remind honor.orable senators that in introducing the measure in the House of Representatives the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) explained that the necessity for legislation in respect of national health and pensions insurance has arisen largely because of an insufficient inflow of young wageearners to industry. From estimates supplied to me to-day by the Statistician’s Department, I find that if our birth-rate of 50 years ago had been maintained, Australia’s population to-day should be 4,500,000 more than it is. If Australian women of to-day were like .their mothers, and not merely spurious imitations of them, we should have a population to-day of about 11,000,000. The . “ he-maids “ of society who encourage the devilish practice of birth -control are as bad as those barren fig trees of women who live only for pleasure and selfish indulgence. Perhaps this subject is a painful one. St. .Paul has said that there are certain matters which should not be so much as mentioned in the presence of men; but this sadly distressing subject cannot .be dealt with without saying painful things. We must face this subject frankly when we see this canker, in all its repulsive ugliness, eating the very heart of the nation. and retarding progress. At the outbreak of the Great War the population of Australia was a little over 6,000,000. After 300,000 men had gone to the front and we were obliged to estimate how many more able-bodied men we could send to reinforce them, we found that hardly more than: an additional 200,000 could be raised. Thu3, as a nation, we were confronted with the fact that we could not call upon more than 500,000 fighting men to defend this country, and unless we face this problem frankly now, we may have to face a similar position should we come into conflict with a foe within the next -30 or 40 years. In that case this legislation, together with the rest of our statutes, will prove to be merely food for termites and worms. Therefore, the only construction that can be placed upon this baneful development in this young country is that those who thus rebel against nature’s law have left this country with 300,000 fewer defenders than it should have to-day. Should our birthrate continue to decline, all our efforts to insure the welfare of our people will prove futile, because we shall not have sufficient population to enable us to carry on our industries efficiently. That is not merely my opinion ; it is supported by the best authorities. France, I suggest, offers a sorry example in this respect. When the Great War broke out, that country had a population of only 40,000,000, as compared with Germany’s population of 70,000,000. Germany was rich and ‘ powerful, mainly because it looked to the maintenance of its birthrate. As the result of an evil which we are countenancing in Australia to-day, France was obliged to send out an S.O.S., and, I suggest, it would have been justly repaid for its error in this respect, had those countries which subsequently came to its aid, decided to let France stew in its own juice. They might well have said, “You have neglected to fill your cradles. Our children must not be sacrificed for your defence “. When asked for his opinion of France’s future, the “ Tiger “ Clemenceau declared, “ My beloved France needs larger families”.

From my humble place in public life. I say that Australia, too, needs larger families, or it will find itself in a predicament similar to that which confronted France at the outbreak of the Great War; unable to defend itself, it will perish unless other nations come to its aid.

The responsibilities of citizenship are not being accepted by the manhood and womanhood of this country. The vital statistics issued by the Statistician tell us that 420,000 married couples in this country have no children, and that in 26S,000 other homes there is only one child. The homes in which there are either no children, or only one child, with no companion to play with, represent more than half of the total number of homes in this land.

Senator Collings:

– Men and women will not rear children to be shot.

Senator LYNCH:

– The Statistician’s figures also show that in 1921 the average savings bank a’ccount averaged £11; today the average is £33. As the savings went up, the birth-rate went down. Wherein, then, comes the argument : “ We can support children ? “ The Leader of the Opposition is welcome to whatever comfort he can get from those figures. The country is on the road to perdition and ruin.

Senator Collings:

– Not under the Lyons Government, surely?

Senator LYNCH:

– I was not referring to any government, but was directing attention to the fact that if the womanhood and manhood of Australia - it is called; manhood, but I should call it something else - did their duty, we should not find so large a proportion of married couples with no children or, at most, one child. I have already referred to the defence aspect of the falling birth-rate. Had the population increased at the rate at which it was increasing 40 years ago, there would to-day be well over 300,000 new defenders of this country. The burden on the budget would be lightened, and this country would have- a better chance to hold its own when danger comes.

– I am not. I am merely pointing out the weak position in which we shall find ourselves unless we radically alter our methods and outlook in a manner that I shall presently describe. We are reasonable men, or, I presume, we should not be here. Our actions should be dominated by sweet reasonableness, and nothing else. I want this subject to be looked at fairly. I shall probably tread upon the corns of some people, but I shall make no apology for doing so, for I wish to bear witness to the truth as I see it. I ask whether the great primary-producing industries of Australia can possibly, under existing conditions, bear an increased burden of taxation? Is it right that they should be asked to do so? What will happen if additional burdens are loaded upon the people on the land? I say that they will not be content to remain the wood and water joeys of society! They will leave their farms. And if they do and join the heedless throngs in the cities, what will be the result to this country?

In dealing for a moment or two with the situation that faces our industrial efforts, the small income citizens, and the income of this country generally, I shall quote as an authority that responsible authority, Professor Giblin. In his book, Lewers to John Smith, he points out that in 1928, which was before the depression, the income of the people of Australia was about £650,000,000, whereas the total amount of money required to pay wages was, on the basis of court awards and returns by trade union secretaries, £605,000,000. Out of our total income, taxes amounting to £44,000,000 had to be paid. In addition, the people saved about £50,000,000, but the figures cannot cover this. How is it done? He explains.

Yet a constant agitation is going on for a higher, and still higher, share of industry. On this point I had better give Professor Giblin’s own words, from page 17 of his book: -

Of course there are lots of things wrong in the present distribution of wealth that badly want remedying. Plenty to do in that direction. But the important point here is that oven if they were remedied your wages as a unionist would not be any higher - possibly a bit lower.

I hope those remarks will sink in a long way from Canberra. Professor Giblin went on to say -

If you want more wages the country must produce more wealth. Here and now in Australia in 1930 for you as a unionist there is no other way.

I remind honorable senators that the professor is not upon the same side of the political fence as that on which I normally find myself. If honorable senators want further evidence of Professor

Giblin’s political predilections, I remind them that he wears a red tie. The reddest flag that flies at Moscow is not half so red as that tie ! There is not the least offence, I hope, in this reference to his tie; I liked it. It is rather a symbol of his democratic principles Every one who knows Professor Giblin’s depth of mind, also realizes that he would not put his pen to any statement unless he was satisfied that it was downright correct.

Senator Collings:

– I hope that honorable senators will not forget those remarks when next they jeer at the red book and the red flag.

Senator LYNCH:

– I hope not. Professor Giblin pointed out that organized labour of Australia was receiving more in wages than was labour not organized, and that the major share of the wealth produced by industry in Australia, goes to the organized section of the workers. The unorganized section of labour - the men on small farms, or running small businesses - receive far less a» their share than they should receive. It is their under-payment now and hitherto that makes Professor Giblin’s figures balance. In quoting Professor Giblin I know I shall be misunderstood. By the grace of the mortgagee, I work a small farm. During an election campaign on one occasion those who were opposing me circulated a fable that I was not paying good wages. I had, therefore, to get declarations, signed before a magistrate, from the men who worked for me. I published those to the world. They indicated that my employees were, not only receiving much higher wages than other workers in the district, but more than my miserable farm could pay. I have treated the men who worked for me well, for the simple reason that I myself was a worker in this country for many years. I want to say, however, that the men engaged in developing our primary industries should get a little more consideration than they arc at present receiving. They should not be shot at from every angle. A journeyman who becomes a bootmaker, or a small employer of labour - that is, a man who rises from the ranks - is no less a good man because he once received a journeyman’s wages.

In some parts of this country, the idea is prevalent that because a man is an employer of labour he is necessarily wealthy; but that it is not the case. We always hear of the few successes, but not so often of the failures. Many employers of labour are not so well off as the men whom they employ. If, at this stage in our affairs, we set out to change the whole system of industry and, particularly, if we impose undue burdens on the people endeavouring to develop our primary industries, we shall quickly make it impossible for them to continue their operations. I remind honorable senators of the old saying : “ One man may lead a horse to the water, but twenty men cannot make him drink.” If the employing class decides that conditions are impossible and that, therefore, they will return to the ranks of the workers, the’ last position of this country will be much worse than its first. It is no use for us to say to the employers, “You are all right, carry on.” That will not remedy the situation which faces us. We can increase the wealth of Australia in only one way and that is, by persistent, patient effort, in a spirit of national goodwill. Is there any other way to increase our wealth? I say emphatically, “ No “. If we make the burden of the people in rural areas too heavy they will simply leave their homes. I know what I am talking about. I am trying to grow wheat on hungry land in Western Australia that is worth only ls. an acre. .That wheat has to be sold on the world’s markets in competition with wheat grown under immeasurably more favorable conditions. How am I able to do it? Only by working longer and harder than other people. If this is to continue possible, it is necessary to give proper consideration to the’ settlers who labour under such - difficult conditions. If conditions become more arduous than at present, will the rural settlers carry on? Do not be deceived! They will not. What happened in this country when the Holman Government fixed the price of butter and milk? The cattlemen simply decided to dry off their cows.

Every Australian should look upon his brother as an equal, not as an inferior. If I were asked whether the primary producers of this country could produce more, I should answer with an emphatic “ No ; they are already up to their limit “j but if I were asked whether the secondary industries could “produce more, I should just as emphatically answer “ Yes “. The reason is shown in the records of the United States of America. That country extracts from overseas buyers of its secondary products no less than £200,000,000 each year. What is Australia’s record? This country’s total export of manufactured products is not worth £4,000,000 a year. That means that America gets £9 of foreign money as compared with the 18s. we receive for secondary products. Canada too exports £90,000,000 worth of manufactures. On that basis we should be exporting £60,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. Labour conditions are the same, if not better, than they are in Canada; yet secondary production in this country still stagnates. Should we not be ashamed of ourselves? Unless we can do better, it is time that we threw up the sponge. If the people of this country think that they can continue indefinitely to live on its primary producers I tell them that those producers will not for ever rise early and work late unless they get a fairer deal. Bather than continue in an industry that does not pay, they will join the happy throngs in the cities which prate about the brotherhood of man. In all earnestness, I say that the time has come when our secondary industries must produce more. Australia has iron ore awaiting manufacture, and timbers equal to the world’s best; indeed, its natural resources are beyond computation. Why does the country not produce more? On my farm in Western Australia I have implements of Canadian manufacture, but what do we send from Australia to Toronto and other Canadian cities and towns? When an attempt was made by a government, of which I was a member, to commence shipbuilding in Western Australia, the rates and conditions fixed by. the Trades Hall in Perth were such that we refused to go ahead with the project. The conditions made the establishment of that industry impossible. On another occasion when H. V. McKay proposed to produce harvesting machinery in Western Australia, the same authorities refuse to co-operate, and so that industry was lost to Western Australia. The result is that Western Australian farmers still get harvesters from eastern Australia. What, is the reason that Australia cannot export more in manufactures? Some years ago, in dealing with the dairying industry, 1 found that the dairymen of Denmark were sending butter to London at prices which made competition difficult for our dairymen. But I found that land suitable for dairying in Denmark was as cheap as or cheaper than land in Australia. If our dairymen could stand up to that competition, and hold their own, why cannot our manufacturers do the same? If only we could broaden the area of production - if only our secondary industries could produce to the value of £60,000,000 !

The manager of the Cockatoo Dockyards told me on one occasion that 35 different awards had to be observed by him. He said that by the time a sheet of iron was lifted from a lighter and placed in a ship’s side it had to pass through five or six sets of rules, each covered by a different award. It is time that this kind of thing was brought to an end. If Australians think that the primary producers will continue to hang on to their holdings, irrespective of the treatment they receive, they are making a great mistake. The men on the land have no protection. The cold blasts of competition blow upon them from all points of the compass. I have felt them. I love Australia; to me it is the one country in the world; but I am not so patriotic as to allow myself to accept an unfair burden which other people do not share.

Senator Collings:

– Is the honorable senator for’ or against the bill?

Senator LYNCH:

– I realize that honorable senators have been most patient, and I thank them. I wish to place on record the high standard of the craft guilds of the Middle Ages. They had many admirable features. Lipson, in his standard Economic History of England, said, on page 1,279 -

The fundamental and perennial interest of the medieval craft guilds lies in the fact that they represent a vital stage in economic evolution, and enabled us to discern how industrial problems were handled and solved in the

Middle Ages. These problems, and it must be acknowledged, differ widely from our own, which are at once more complex and involve larger issues. But in the effort to provide a fair remuneration for the worker and to reconcile the conflicting claims of producer and consumer, were developed principles of industrial control and conception of wages and prices to which we may perhaps one day return.

Similarly, Mr. F. Robinson, in his book, The Spirit of Association, said -

The first object of these trade societies was to secure a high quality production. . . . Shoddy work and bad materials had but little opportunity of finding a way into the markets and shops of mediaeval England. (Page 78). A sense of responsibility to the community generally was very strongly marked in many of the craft ordinances. (Page SO).

Again he said -

Nevertheless, when all the aspects of guild activity are weighed in the balance, we cannot fail to conclude that the guilds and companies contributed much which was valuable to the social, religious and industrial welfare of our own country, and bore a share, the importance of which can hardly be overrated, in building up our civic and national life. The guild brethren had a vision, and they formulated ideals. If the vision was narrow, the ideals were often unattained, yet the part which they played in the history of associative effort has been of immense service to civilization. (Page 111).

Will not history take a friendly turn by repeating itself in this land? I earnestly hope so.

If the members of the craft guilds in the middle ages could make common cause with their employers, there is no reason why similar action should not be taken in these days. If people in all walks of life were more willing to exercise a spirit of sweet reasonableness, they would find that many who, they think, are opposed to them are not so bad after all. Honorable senators should remember that the people who sent them here have an 6pen franchise. It is not uncommon to find the various members of a family voting in different ways; one man may vote for one party, and his brother for the other party; and so, too, may mother and daughter differ. Surely those are not evil-minded who vote for one party as against another? Surely parties voted for in this way cannot be saints on the one hand and devils on the other? I hope that this bill will usher in a brighter era in industry, and that a better spirit will reveal itself in the relations between employers and employees. We need more goodwill and mutual regard for each other if Australia is to advance.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

. - iti reply - After the eloquent speech of the President (Senator Lynch) I feel almost dumb. His address appealed to all, but I imagine that it would have made a special appeal to a jury of matrons. In the few minutes at my disposal, I shall endeavour to concentrate on the more important points raised during the debate. I shall pass by various suggestions, with which I hope to deal more fully in committee; but there are a few matters of outstanding importance to which I desire to refer. I do not propose to try to search the hearts of honorable members opposite with regard to this measure, because I am incapable of understanding whether their opposition to the measure is due to jealousy by reason’ of the fact that this forward movement in social reform comes from a government of which I am a member, or ‘whether it is simply political manoeuvring. Whatever the reason, one can scarcely harmonize the speeches of honorable senators opposite with their protestations of goodwill towards the people whom this measure will affect. My diagnosis is that a large percentage of those who, both in this chamber and in the other branch of the legislature, oppose this measure, do so merely for political reasons. They desire to exhibit a certain amount of solidarity, but evidence is not lacking that some of them oppose this measure with their tongues in their cheeks. Others have frankly refrained from voting on certain important issues. I do not propose to discuss the bill in a partisan way, because its introduction has been actuated by the highest motives. The Government has been charged with acting hastily, and exhibiting a lack of consideration. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) suggested that the Government has not even considered the constitutionality of the measure. I do not intend to traverse all of what has been said about the history of national insurance in thi& country. My colleague from South Australia, Senator Duncan-Hughes, pointed out that the report of the royal commission which thoroughly investigated national insurance, was the basis of a bill which bad made substantial progress in this Parliament when the dissolution occurred in 1928. For some years before the introduction of this bill, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) was active in influencing the Government to bring down a national insurance measure. Before this bill was introduced every preparation was made. Every source of information was tapped by the Government, both here and abroad. The national insurance schemes in England and Europe were closely scrutinized before the details of our bill were finally settled. The Government has had the assistance of experts from Great Britain.

In passing, I pay tribute to Sir Walter Kinnear. That gentleman, who rendered wonderful service in the preparation of this bill, has been in Australia twice to investigate national insurance; not only the industrial aspect of it, but also the aspect which concerns those sparsely populated areas to which I shall make later reference. Sir Walter Kinnear has investigated national insurance schemes in other British countries, in British Columbia for instance. He has now had the high compliment paid to him of being called by the Government of the United States of America to put upon a sound footing the national insurance scheme which was introduced into that country.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) expressed doubt as to the constitutionality of this bill and expressed the opinion that the Government had not given that aspect sufficient thought. It would be a poor lot of governments which would not inquire into the constitutional aspects before proceeding to set up a royal commission, to draft a bill, to send men overseas to obtain information, and to bring experts to this country. I assure the honorable gentleman that the constitutional aspect has had the consideration not only of the present Attorney-

General, but ako of his predecessors. Moreover, in order that I, humble as I am in my profession, should not be misguided! by my own, preconceived convictions, I took care to ensure that this bill was framed in such a way as to make it impregnable, as I see it, to attack on the ground of unconstitutionality. I do not desire to use more of my time in dealing with this aspect of the matter, because I believe that what was said by the Leader of the Opposition was intended as a smoke screen. The Leader of the Opposition, for political or other reasons, did not want to discuss the merits of the bill. Before leaving the subject, however, I remind the honorable gentleman .that there are other powers in the Constitution besides that contained in placitum xiv. There is the appropriation power, under which we can appropriate from the Exchequer moneys necessary to implement this measure. We arc bringing clown two other measures to enable us to levy contributions from the employer and the employee respectively.

I shall be pleased when the minor constitutional matter mentioned by Senator Leckie arises in committee, to explain to him the grounds on which the AttorneyGeneral, the law officers of the Commonwealth, and I, are of the opinion that clause 188 is absolutely constitutional.

One of the charges made by the Leader of the Opposition was that this measure is not complete, that it should contain provision for unemployment insurance. Honorable senators who have read the two reports furnished by Sir Walter Kinnear and Mr. Ince, know that the two schemes are distinct, that they are based on different statistical facts and actuarial calculations, and that in any event there would have had to be two bills to give effect to unemployment insurance as well as to health and pensions insurance. Senator Pearce . pointed out that unemployment insurance is so inextricably mixed up with the affairs of the States that it is essential, before anything in the nature of legislation for unemployment insurance can be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament, for an arrangement to be reached between the Commonwealth and the

I shall deal with the point raised by Senator Abbott in connexion with Christian Scientists when he moves the amendment he has forecast. I believe thatI shall be able to satisfy him that it can be met in the administration of the scheme, although not perhaps to the limit desired. Provision has been made for certain exemptions, and any extension of them would cause difficulties with the medical profession. If there were 30,000 or 40,000 Christian Scientists in Australia, their withdrawal from the scheme would mean the loss by the medical profession of £22,000. I shall prove to the honorable senator that if the Christian Scientists form approved societies they will suffer only to the slightest extent. He has spoken . of them suffering for conscience. They will suffer no more than the Quakers suffer when they pay Commonwealth income tax, in the knowledge that a portion of the revenue so derived will he used for purposes of defence.

I regard as of extreme importance the position of the small man, to whom Senator Johnston referred as the £208 a year man, who has to employ labour for a time. On the face of it, a glaring injustice will be done to him under this scheme. The Government recognizes that, and is prepared to give a certain undertaking. It is not possible to graft on to this contributory scheme another scheme of insurance which would place the small farmer or business man in a much better position. The Government is now. and has been for some months, considering the position. An examination is being made of the facts by skilled officers, and the Government hopes to be able shortly to submit to Parliament a scheme which will be financially sound, and will mitigate the injustice of this scheme in respect of the small man. This is based on certain statistical facts, which must be maintained until it has been worked out actuarially. Whatever is done must be done separately. However, an amendment is to be moved, and I shall then have an opportunity to give the honorable senator a little more detail concerning the matter. Senator Duncan-Hughes and. Senator Cunningham asked how the figure of £365 as the maximum income permissible under this scheme had been reached. I am informed that that is the figure stipulated in the majority of the agreements between the friendly societies and the British Medical Association.

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

– My information is that it represents the maximum figure, and that the average figure is nothing like so high.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– A note supplied to me is to the effect that most of the agreements between the friendly societies and the British Medical Association stipulate that the contract is not to apply to persons earning more than £364 a year. That is the basis upon which the arrangement was made between the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and the doctors.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister’s time has expired.

Question put -

That the bill be now reada second time.

The Senate divided. (President - Senator the Hon. P. j. Lynch.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 5

Majority .. ..16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 2594

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Sent of Government Acceptance Act and Sent of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinances of 1938 -

No. 20. - Canberra Community Hospital.

No. 21. - City Area Leases.

No. 22. - Hospital Tax.

Senate adjourned at 11.20 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 June 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1938/19380623_senate_15_156/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate23 June 1938

QUESTION

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MAINLAND AND TASMANIA

Senator GRANT:TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Fourth Report

Senator McLEAY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN STAFF CORPS

QUESTION

ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

LAVERTON WIRELESS PLANT

Senator BROWN:

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

Second Reading

Senator LECKIE:VICTORIA

Senator COLLINGS:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator CRAWFORD:QUEENSLAND

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Abbott:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Ashley:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Abbott:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator Collings:

Senator LECKIE:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Ashley:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator McLeay:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator Dein:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

Senator McLEAY:South Australia

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Brown:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Ashley:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Ashley:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Duncan-Hughes:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Ashley:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Collings:

Senator McLEAY:

Senator Collings:

Senate
23 June 1938

Senator GRANT:
TASMANIA

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator McLEAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator LECKIE:
VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
South Australia

Senator COURTICE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
Western Australia