Senate
11 December 1940

16^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- LAND ACQUISITION
QUESTION
- ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE STATEMENTS
QUESTION
- NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M
QUESTION
- RABBIT VIRUS
QUESTION
- MARCONI SCHOOL OF WIRELESS
QUESTION
- BOMBING OF GREAT BRITAIN
QUESTION
- SIXTH MILITARY DISTRICT
QUESTION
- MILITARY BATES OF PAY
QUESTION
- HEARING-AIDS FOR EX-SOLDIERS
QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCES
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2) 1940
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1940
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
STATES GRANTS BILL 1940
- Second Reading
DEFENCE EQUIPMENT BILL 1940
WHEAT TAX, (WAR-TIME) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WHEAT TAX (WAR-TIME) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
WHEAT INDUSTRY (WAR-TIME CONTROL) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
WHEAT TAX (WAR-TIME) ASSESSMENT BILL, 1940
- Second Reading
LOAN (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
APPLE AND PEAR (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1940
- Second Reading
WIRE NETTING BOUNTY BILL 1940
- Second Reading
MORGAN-WHYALLA WATERWORKS AGREEMENT BILL 1940
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
- Alleged Subversive Statements
- Canberra, Thursday
NOT DOING THEIR JOB
PAPERS

The President (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes) took thechair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 873

QUESTION

LAND ACQUISITION

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

-In view of the delay which has occurred in connexion with the acquisition of land in South Australia for munitions works, can the Minister for the Interior say when finality is likely to be reached ? Will he, in order to expedite settlement, send a responsible officer to South Australia so that the owners of the land may know how much they are likely to receive for land compulsorily acquired from them, and when the money will be paid ?

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

– There hasbeen some delay associated with the acquisition of land in South Australia due to a variation of the areas proposed to be taken over by the Department of Supply and Munitions. However, a decision in the matter was reached last -week, and the necessary notices will appear in the next issue of the Commonwealth Gazette. On the publication of such notices, claims may be sent in by the landholders concerned, and I promise that there will be no delay in dealing with them. In reply to the second part of the honorable senator’s question, I do not think that any good purpose would be served by sending a special officer to South Australia; out should any landholder whose land will be acquired desire it, the Government will make an advance to him of up to 75 per cent. of the Government’s valuation of his land.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Was it necessary to surround these properties with barbed wire?

Senator FOLL:

– Yes, because valuable and dangerous explosives were on the land.

Senator UPPILL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– If the Minister finds that settlement of claims could be expedited by sending an officer to South Australia, will he take steps to do so!

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Yes.

page 873

QUESTION

ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE STATEMENTS

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the following questions of the Minister representing the Prime Minister: -

Is the Prime Minister aware that the New South Wales District of the Australian Journalists Association was to-day refused permission by the Public Service Board to be represented by counsel at the inquiry which is proceeding into statements about establishing a dictatorship which were allegedly made by Mr. L. A.Robb, Secretary to the Governor of New South Wales?
Docs the Prime Minister know that the Australian Journalists Association was endeavouring to protect the interests of its members who had reported Mr. Robb’s remarks, and were called as witnesses at the inquiry in which public servants inquired into the utterances of a public servant who was prosecuted by a public servant?
Is the Prime Minister aware that this inquiry is being held behind closed doors, whereas Mr.Robb’s remarks were made in public and concerned the public and this Parliament? 4.Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Robb and other interests, except the Australian Journalists Association and the journalists concerned, are being represented by counsel?
Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that this denial of natural justice to the journalists does not result in a public service inquiry developing into a white-washing tribunal at the expense of the journalists who have established a reputation for accuracy?
Isthe Prime Minister aware that Mr. Robb and others at the soldiers’ congress carried a vote of thanks and confidence inthe press, after Mr. Robb had been shown a copy of his speech the morning after he made it, and that Mr. Robb made only one minor alteration?
Will the Prime Minister take steps to hold an inquiry, open to the members of the public, in the interests of the preservation of parliamentary and democratic institutions?

Senator McLEAY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I shall bring the honorable senator’squestions under the notice of the Prime Minister this afternoon.

page 874

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That Standing Order No. 68 be suspended up to and including Thursday, 19th December next,to enable new business to be taken after 10.30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of senators present, and no dissentient voice being raised, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

page 874

QUESTION

RABBIT VIRUS

Senator UPPILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister in charge of Scientific and Industrial Research, upon notice -

Is the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research continuing its investigations into the question of virus or any other means for the extermination of the rabbit pest?
If so, can the Minister say what progress has been made, or when the method of extermination is likely to be released for practical use by land-owners?

Senator COLLETT:
Minister without portfolio administering War Service Homes · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Minister in charge of Scientific and Industrial Research has supplied the following answers : -

Yes. Investigations are being continued with the virus disease.
The experiments are still in progress, but it is hot possible at the present stage to say when definite results will be available.

page 874

QUESTION

MARCONI SCHOOL OF WIRELESS

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is not the Commonwealth Government a controlling shareholder of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, and therefore also of the Marconi School of Wireless?

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

The Commonwealth Government is a controlling shareholder of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited.

The Marconi School of Wireless isa department of Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited. Any matters relating to the school can be raised and discussedby the government directors at board meetings of the company.

page 874

QUESTION

BOMBING OF GREAT BRITAIN

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

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

Has any information been received from Great Britain regarding the progress made by the defence authorities in combating night bombing by the German Air Force?
Ifso, will the Government make such information available to the people

Senator COLLETT:
UAP

– The Minister for Information has supplied the following answers : -

and 2. The Commonwealth Government is constantly in touch with the authorities abroad with a view to the latest information of this description being made available to the people, and the honorablesenator can be assured that all such information that can be released for publication is made available at the earliest practicable moment.

page 874

QUESTION

SIXTH MILITARY DISTRICT

EXPEITDITURE.

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

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

What is the estimated cost of the construction of the tennis court for the officers of the Sixth Military District, Hobart?
Is this an essential military expenditure?
Are fishing trips to Lewisham and other places a military activity; if not, will the Government issue instructions that official cars are not to be used for other than military purposes ?
Did the Army seek advice from the

Postmaster-General’s Department before barracks were constructed at Low Head, Tasmania?

What is to be done with the said barracks now they are not required;

SenatorFOLL. - The Minister for the Army has supplied the following answers : -

The estimated cost of the tennis court is £150, but it is not solely for the use of officers. It is part of a proposal for two courts - one for officers and one for other ranks. Meanwhile both officers and other ranks will use the one court.
Not an essential military expenditure, but it may be classed as a desirable recreational facility.
Strict instructions are already in force to prevent the issue of army vehicles for other than strictly military purposes.
No barracks were constructed at Low Head. Hutted accommodation was temporarily provided there for the guard which has now been removed.
The hutted accommodation will be moved for use elsewhere.

page 875

QUESTION

MILITARY BATES OF PAY

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

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

What are the daily rates of pay for the private soldier in the British Army, the Australian Imperial Force, the Canadian Expeditionary Force and the New Zealand Expeditionary Force?
What allowances do the wives and children of members of each force receive?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– Inquiries will be made and a reply furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

page 875

QUESTION

HEARING-AIDS FOR EX-SOLDIERS

Senator BRAND:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What types of hearing-aids are being authorized by the Repatriation Commission?
Are these hearing-aids the best instruments available in Australia for the assistance of the deaf?
If not, what is the reason for not authorizing the purchase of the best type of hearing-aid for ex-soldiers?
If the reason is that purchase of some types may be a strain on funds in a nonsterling country, is there any reason why the commission should not take advantage of the instruments already in this country and which have been brought out in good faith by firms to meet the need of ex-soldiers through the Repatriation Commission ?

Senator COLLETT:
UAP

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

The Repatriation Commission authorizes the purchase of hearing-aids of Australian or British manufacture.
These hearing-aids cover a wide range of styles eminently suitable for all classes of aural disability, and are quite capable of adequately fulfilling all requirements. 3 and 4. See answer to No. 2.

page 875

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Allowances to Members or Parliament

Senator LAMP:

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

What are the names and rank of mem bers of the Commonwealth Parliament serving in the Australian Imperial Force or other forces ?
What pay and allowance do they receive ?
What are the names of members of the various State Parliaments serving in the AustralianImperial Force or other forces?
What pay and allowance do they receive?

Senator FOLL:
UAP

– I am advisedby the Minister for the Army that as research is necessary before the information requested can be collated an immediate reply is not practicable. An answer, however, will be furnished to the honorable senator as early as possible.

page 875

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2) 1940

Motion (by Senator Foll) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1939, as amended by the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1940.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Public Service of the Northern Territory is distinct from the Commonwealth Public Service. Officers in the former are appointed under the Public Service Ordinance 1928-39 of that Territory. Although the conditions of service and salaries are to a large degree based on those prevailing in the Commonwealth Service, there is no entrance examination for appointment, the practice being to select the best candidates offering. The Minister for the Interior is the authority by whom appointments are made. At present, there are approximately 150 officers in the Service of the

Northern Territory. Representations have been made from time to time as to the need to allow officers of the TerritoryService the right of entry to the Commonwealth Public Service or to be transferred to Commonwealth positions in the States, instead of remaining indefinitely in the Northern ‘Territory. In 1937, the Payne-Fletcher Committee, which investigated certain matters connected with the Northern Territory, supported the principle embodied in the bill. The Commonwealth Public Service Board was requested to investigate the staffing of the Northern Territory Service, and to report as to whether some scheme could bp evolved to improve the present position. After conducting an investigation, the board intimated that it supported the opinion that the public interest would best be served by placing the departments in the Northern Territory, with certain exceptions, under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. Subject to legal considerations, the Government has agreed in principle to the appointment of permanent officers of the Northern Territory Service to the Commonwealth Public Service, under section 42 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The exceptions referred to are the officers of the Education, Police and Prisons Branches of the Northern Territory Service, some of whom have no counterpart in the Commonwealth Public Service. Section 42 of the Commonweatlh Public Service Act provides -

If the board is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of the Commonwealth that the appointment be made, the board may appoint to any office in the Commonwealth Service, without examination or probation, any officer of the Territorial Service or the Commonwealth Railway Service, or any member of the Police Force of the Territory for the Seat of Government.

In section 7 of the Act, “ The Territorial Service “ is defined as follows “ The Territorial Service “ means the Public Service of any territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, including a territory governed by the Commonwealth under a mandate.

It is proposed that 40 or 50 officers shall be transferred to the Commonwealth Service and that future appointments shall be made under the Commonwealth Public Service Act. In addition to clerks and typists, it is proposed that permanent officers of the legal, mining, “lands, survey and drafting staffs may also be transferred. To enable the transfer to be effected, it is necessary to repeal sub-section 3 of section 4 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910, and to make provision in the Commonwealth Public Service Act for the Administrator of the Northern Territory to be given the powers of a chief officer under that act. Sub-section 3 of section 4 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-40, which it is proposed to repeal, reads -

The Minister may appoint, or may delegate to the Administrator to appoint, such officers as are necessary for the Administration of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act or of this act for the proper government of the Territory.

Senator FOLL:

– Customarily, after the Minister delivers his second-reading speech, the debate is adjourned and honorable senators are able to study it in Hansard. As Senator A. J. McLachlan pointed out, the machinery for the transfer of the Northern Territory service to the Commonwealth Public Service Board will be contained in an amendment of the Commonwealth Public Service Act. The only desire of the Government, the administration of the Territory and the Commonwealth Public Service Board is to strengthen the service, and, if possible, to improve the conditions of officers in the Northern Territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 879

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1940

Motion (by Senator Foll) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1939.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

Motion(by Senator Foll) agreed to -

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

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - There being an absolute majority of senators present and no dissentient voice being raised, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill (on motion by Senator Foll) read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 879

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing

Committee on Public Works: - Mr. Badman, Mr. James, Mr. Jolly, Mr. Martens, Mr. Sheehan, and Mr. Stacey.

page 879

STATES GRANTS BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia -

Minister for Supply and Development) [3.46].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to implement the recommendations contained in the seventh report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, which was tabled in the Senate on the 21st November. As honorable senators are aware, legislation was passed in 1933 setting up the commission as a deliberative body to inquire into and report upon applications made by any State to the Commonwealth for the grant of financial assistance in pursuance of section 96 of the Constitution. During the last six years the commission has examined the claimsof South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania for Commonwealth grants, and on each occasion the commission’s recommendations have been endorsed by this Parliament.

The commission has now examined the applications of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania for financial assistance from the Commonwealth during the current financial year 1940-41. The proposed grants, compared with those paid last year, are as follows: -

As these figures show, it is proposed this year to make special grants to the States totalling £30,000 more than the amount made available last year. However, the total amount originally assessed last year by the commission was £136,000 greater than that shown above ; but a deduction of that amount was made by the commission in order to adjust a special advance to Western Australia in 1937-38. The commission’s total assessment for last year was, therefore, £2,156,000, compared with which the grants now recommended, viz., £2,050,000, represent a reduction of £306,000. I shall deal with this reduction when I come to the question of the grants to the individual States. The following statement shows the grants recommended by the commission since making its first report. In each case these grants have been paid by the Commonwealth -

A significant fact revealed by these figures is that, whilst the total of the grants reached a peak figure of £2,750,000 in 1935-36, they have now become more or less stabilized. This I regard as highly satisfactory from the viewpoint of both the Commonwealth and the States. So long as the present system continues, of course some fluctuations in the amounts of the grants will be unavoidable.

The principles upon which the commission bases its assessments of grants have been fully discussed in the Senate in previous years. These principles, which have not been changed, are set out fully and clearly in the seventh report. It will be sufficient to remind honorable senators that the grants which the commission recommends are determined by the amount of financial help necessary to make it possible for each claimant State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States, or, in other words, to maintain a fair Australian standard. This involves a comparison of the budgetary results of the claimant States with those of the non-claimant States. After taking into account such factors as relative severity of taxation, expenditure on social services, costs of administration, &c., in thi several States, grants are assessed on a basis which places the claimant States in a position comparable with that of (he non-claimant States. In short, the policy of the commission, which the Government has accepted in the past, is to assess grants on the basis of financial needs as indicated by an examination of the finances of all States, claimant and nonclaimant alike.

It must, however, be remembered that, in order to make such a comparison, full statistical information is necessary. For this reason the recommendations contained in the present report are based upon the financial results of 1938-39, which is the latest year for which the necessary information is available. Whilst I do not propose to deal at length with the report, I direct special attention to several points.

Last year the commission felt that the claimant States were not making sufficiently strenuous efforts to improve their financial position, and, consequently, imposed the so-called “nominal penalties “, on account of current policy, of £22,000, £22,000 and £23,000 for South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania respectively. These deductions were made because the commission believed that the claimant States should be able to improve their position in time of prosperity. The commission feels that in the present circumstances this might be difficult to accomplish and, consequently, corresponding penalties have not been recommended this year.

In order to make the necessary adjustments which I have mentioned earlier the commission finds it necessary, as a preliminary step, to estimate the taxable capacity of each State. This estimate is based primarily upon the amount of federal income tax assessed in each State. However, gold-mining profits are not, subject to federal income tax, and to this degree a certain amount of taxable capacity was not included in the estimates. Because gold-mining profits are, in some cases, subject to State income taxation, the commission has, this year, corrected its estimates of taxable capacity to take account of that, fact.

For some time the representatives of South Australia have maintained that that State was being penalized by the way in which the commission used federal income tax assessments in its calculations of relative taxable capacity. South Australia stated that the extra taxation levied on property income, as compared with the amount levied on personal exertion income, was far greater in the case of federal income tax than in the case of the income taxes of the States ; and, consequently, the taxable capacity of the States was being estimated on the basis of a tax system which was quite unlike that which the States actually did or could apply. This year the commission has endeavoured to meet this criticism, and has made a correction to its calculations along the lines suggested by South Australia. The method of correction- is somewhat complex: the details are clearly set out in the report.

I now wish to refer briefly to the grants which have been recommended for each State. One reason why the total of the grants this year is £106,000 less than that assessed for last year is that in 1938-39, the year on which the comparative calculations are based, the deficits in the non-claimant States were considerably heavier than in the previous year. Because of drought, bush fires, &c, the comparable deficits of the standard States rose from ls. 6d. a head in 1937-38 to 13s. a head in 1938-39. Because the commission’s assessment is based upon the relative financial position of the States, these heavy deficits in the standard States have tended to reduce the grants payable to the claimant States, but this tendency has been wholly or partially offset by other influences.

In 1938-39 South Australia also suffered from drought, and the primary industries in that State received a severe shock. For the first time in four years that State had a deficit. The commission has allowed South Australia £10,000 more than last year on account of economy in administration, and the penalty for loan losses of the past has been reduced from 6 per cent, to 5 per cent, of normal taxation, thus assisting the grant by £39,000. Taxation was relatively more severe than, in the previous year, hut the benefit of this was largely offset by higher expenditure on social services. The net effect of all these factors is to give South Australia a grant of £1,000,000, which is approximately the same as the £995,000 paid last year.

The net amount paid to Western Australia last year was £595,000. This figure was recommended by the commission after deducting from the £731,000 assessed the sum of £136,000 in order to cover the repayment of a special advance in 1937-38 to meet drought conditions in that year. The grant proposed this year is £650,000, which is higher than the net amount actually paid last year, but lower than the amount assessed. This reduction is due mainly to two causes: First, higher expenditure on social services in Western Australia; and, secondly, the more favorable budgetary position of Western Australia compared with the standard States. This latter fact was largely due to the continued prosperity of the gold-mining industry, which, despite the effects of a prolonged drought, allowed the economic position of Western Australia to be well maintained in 1938-39.

In 193S-39 Tasmania’s economic progress was well maintained despite the set-back in other States. This is the main reason for the lower grant to that State. Taxation was substantially increased in 1938-39, and this tended to offset the effects of the higher deficits in other States. The net result of all these factors is to give Tasmania a grant of £400,000 this year, compared with £430,000 last year.

Considerable evidence i3 available that the work of the commission is thorough and impartial, and that all matters affecting the financial needs of the claimant States have been investigated. The Government, therefore, believes that the amounts recommended by the commission will adequately meet the needs of the claimant States, and, consequently, as in past years, it has decided to accept the recommendations of the commission.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– This bill may be described as a hardy annual. When the subject of assistance to the claimant States is under consideration the Senate functions as a States’ House I commend to the claimant States the recognition of the fact that Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have never opposed these grants. I still believe that we have not yet arrived at a scientific method of deciding what disabilities the claimant States suffer as the result of federation. It is entirely wrong that those States should be placed each recurring year in the position of mendicants. Despite the remarks of the Minister (Senator McBride) in his second-reading speech, it seems to me that the State which does its best to put its own financial house in order is penalized under the present method of arriving at the amount of compensation to which it is entitled. The most extravagant of the claimant States is able to present the strongest plea for assistance, if it has the largest deficit. I gathered from the speech of the Minister, and from the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission itself, that an attempt is being made to investigate the system of allocating the grants. As in the case of similar bills, the Opposition will not delay the passage of this measure.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– The claimant States have taken years to convince the Commonwealth authorities that in assessing the amounts of the grants from the Commonwealth, allowance should be made for the varying economic conditions prevailing in those States. But, even now, the method adopted in arriving at those amounts is unscientific. The Treasurers of the States are prevented from preparing their budgets until they know the amounts of the grants to be received from the Commonwealth. The largest grant is given to the State which has been most extravagant in its expenditure. If Tasmania cuts down its expenditure it is penalized accordingly. For weeks the Treasurer of Tasmania had to postpone the opening of the State Parliament this year because he could not ascertain the amount of the grant to be allotted to that State. Consideration should be given to the important fact that Tasmania does not share in the war expenditure. A good deal of friction has arisen between Victoria and New South “Wales as to the distribution of that expenditure; but, as Tasmania receives no portion of defence expenditure, it seems to me that is has the strongest reason to complain about the amount of its grant. Until a scientific method of determining the amounts of the grants to the claimant States is found I fear that they will continue to be penalized.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

. If the second-reading speech of the Minister (Senator McBride) had been circulated, we should have been in a better position to discuss the bill. I understood the Minister to say that the Commonwealth Grants Commission had been operating over a number of years, and that the conditions under which it was carrying out its work were becoming more stabilized than in the past. He stated that the principal functions of the commission had undergone no change. If the methods by which the commission works have now become stabilized, I see no necessity for this body to travel through the smaller States every year with a train-load of secretaries and attendants.

Senator McLeay:

– That is an exaggeration. No tribunal works more economically than this commission.

Senator AYLETT:

– Members of the commission, like Ministers, take their private secretaries with them. I suggest that a saving could be effected if the commission made recommendations for the next five years. It hears practically the same evidence every year. During the year before last Tasmania was considerably penalized because the standard of its social services was higher than in the other States. The Minister said that one of the reasons why higher grants were to be given to Western Australia and South Australia was that taxes in those States had increased, and that they had deficits. It was necessary to raise their taxes to improve the standard oftheir social services, but I point out that those States receive increased grants this year because they have raised the standard of their social services. In the previous year, however, the commission victimized Tasmania because the standard of those services in that State was regarded as too high.

Senator Darcey has remarked that it is impossible for the Treasurers of the States to prepare their budgets until they know the sum that will be granted to them by the Commonwealth. Consequently, at certain periods of the year, developmental works are brought to a standstill, until such time as the Treasurer is advised! of how much the grant will be. This year, Tasmania will suffer hardship because lack of shipping facilities will prevent the export df its products to the other States. In recent years Tasmania has benefited considerably from tourist traffic. Prior to the outbreak of war about. 50,000 passengers travelled each way annually between Tasmania and the mainland. From November to April in the 1937-38 tourist season, the number of passengers carried by overseas vessels was 5,700, and during the same period of the 1938-39 season the number was 7,700. These figures are additional to the Easter cruise passengers who numbered 950 in 1938 and 2,219 in 1939. The passenger traffic between Tasmania and the mainland is considerable, and augments by hundreds of thousands of pounds a year the revenue of Tasmania. Owing to a shortage of ships, practically the whole of that trade will be lost this year, but that fact had not been taken into consideration by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its recommendation for this year.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– It will be dealt with at the next inquiry.

Senator AYLETT:

– That is why I am pointing, to these anomalies, and urging that the grant should be made on a fiveyear basis.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– That might cause a great injustice to Tasmania.

Senator AYLETT:

– It would not if the grant were adequate. The Government of Tasmania would be prepared to accept it on the basis of a five-year period. Indeed the grant is decreasing so rapidly that the Government of Tasmania would bc wise to accept payment on that basis.

Senator McBride:

– Does the honorable senator think that Tasmania should be given a grant, whether it is needed or not?

Senator AYLETT:

– If the Minister will study the causes of the disabilities of tlie States, he will find evidence to support a grant to Tasmania of not £400,000, but £1,000,000. Tasmania has stronger grounds for receiving assistance from the Commonwealth than has any other State because so many of its citizens, after receiving their education and training in> the island State, migrate to the mainland in order to obtain employment. The Minister cannot deny the justice of this claim. It would be better for the grant to be made on the basis of three or five years than that the commission should undertake a trip annually to Tasmania merely in order to obtain endorsement of evidence already in its possession.

Senator LAMP:
Tasmania

.- I am disappointed at the amount proposed to he granted to Tasmania this year, and I thought that the Minister for Supply and Development (.Senator McBride) would have given reasons why the Commonwealth Grants Commission had fined that State £30,000. Having read the report of the commission, I cannot find in it anything which would lead me to believe that this reduction is fair. In the introduction to its sixth report the commission stated -

The fundamental principle underlying the previous assets of tlie Commission is expressed in its Third report as follows: -

Special grants are justified when a State through financial stress from any cause is unable efficiently to discharge its functions as a member of the federation, and should bc determined by the amount of help found necessary to make it possible for that State by reasonable effort to function at a standard not appreciably below that of other States.

– That amount should be taken into consideration as revenue from taxes, notwithstanding that most of it comes from the other States. The money is used for social services and the good of the people generally. In my opinion, the report of the commission is not based on the evidence placed before it; rather do I think that the commission gives to the necessitous States what it thinks they will accept, and no more.

On numerous occasions, my colleagues and I have pointed out that Tasmania is the school from which the other States draw some of their most valued citizens, but the Commonwealth Grants Commission has never taken into consideration the co=t of education in Tasmania. In 1938 Tasmania’s loss of population was 1,153 ; in the following year, it was 124. Between January, 1901, and June, 1939, the total natural increase of Tasmania’s population was 121,449, but the State lost 57,703 by migration to the other States. The commission should recognize that the bench. of Tasmania’s education system is reaped largely in the other States. I could continue in this strain, but I realize that it would be useless, because no notice is taken of the arguments put forward in support of the better treatment of Tasmania. Representatives of that State hope that in future Tasmania will receive a fixed grant for a number of years.

The recent budget proposals will impose additional hardships on Tasmania, benn use the majority of its taxpayers come within the salary range, £200 to £600. The additional levy on such incomes will reduce the purchasing power of those taxpayers, and will be reflected in decreased business. The State Treasurer has asked that these matters be taken into consideration, but nothing has been done. As I have said, it seems useless to present to the Commonwealth Government any evidence to support Tasmania’s claim for a larger grant.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– Honorable senators will recollect that, for a number of years, the subject of grants to the necessitous States has been discussed in this Parliament, and that the conditions governing such grants were left to the judgment of the Parliament, which is the final arbiter in the matter. Each year the question has arisen as to whether the larger States should make these contributions to the less fortunate States, which, through no fault of their own, have been unable to balance their budgets. Honorable senators recognize that “Western Australia and Tasmania have suffered special disabilities under federation. The terms of reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission provide that inquiries may be conducted into the disabilities suffered by any of the Australian States, and that recommendations shall be ?r>ade to the Government with respect to the grants to be paid. Obviously, it is very difficult for the commission to determine the actual disabilities suffered by a State such as Western Australia, which has a large undeveloped area, and to decide what financial assistance should be rendered. Honorable senators representing Tasmania have spoken, with some justification, regarding the disabilities experienced by that State, and I am sure that the suggestions brought forward today have some substance. When inquiry was being made into Tasmania’s finances the Treasurer, Mr. Dwyer-Gray, and many other witnesses were examined, and round-table conferences were held in order to reach a just conclusion. Obviously, it would be impracticable to adopt Senator Aylett’s suggestion that the commission should be disbanded and grants to the claimant States be fixed by the Government for the next five or ten years. Should that be done, South Australia, for instance, which might experience a successful year, would receive a fixed grant, even though some of the States which indirectly provided, the money, had experienced adverse conditions. Obviously, a. policy under which a State which was showing a deficit would be obliged to contribute to the revenue of another State which showed a surplus on the year’s activities, could not be tolerated. We should have confidence in the commission, because it desires to deal justly with the claimant States. The commission is beyond the realm of party politics, and I am prepared to accept its recommendations. In effect the commission is an umpire, the decision of which we should accept without complaining. Senator Aylett seemed somewhat perturbed concerning the position this year. It is not for us to anticipate the findings of the commission, but rather to expect that they will be reached without bias, and with due regard to the circumstances of each claimant State. Obviously, the commission must determine whether a. State has controlled its financial activities in a business-like way, particularly in regard to expenditure. When the commission was constituted, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) gave an undertaking that its recommendations would he honoured. There is no reason why the undertaking then given should be departed from. Even when a grant to a claimant State has been reduced, we should accept the decision of the commission unless we can point to a definite injustice. Senator Aylett referred to the movement of young people from Tas mania to the mainland States. To what degree the commission should take that factor into consideration is a matter for its determination. I do not know whether corrective measures can- be taken; but it must be evident that with the huge defence expenditure now being undertaken, the less-populous States cannot offer the same facilities for employment as are provided in other States. I am afraid that the movement of young people to highly industrialized States will continue. This is not a new problem; it has been raised in this chamber on several occasions. There may be some aspects which have not been taken into account by the commission, but I am sure that all the points raised here to-day have been brought under its notice by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), and now that a decision has been given, it should be adhered to. Some honorable senators have expressed fears that Tasmania will suffer, but I submit that it is not our responsibility te anticipate what the commission will do; rather should we believe that justice will be done.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I agree with Senator Aylett that we should eliminate the expense now being incurred by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Am I right in assuming that that was the honorrable senator’s suggestion ?

Senator Aylett:

– That is quite correct. The members of the commission should be debarred from making annual trips.

Senator BROWN:

– I am not so much concerned with whether annual trips are made as I am with the necessity to conserve revenue to the greatest possible degree. I do not know the annual cost of the commission, but I do know that its members are paid fees and travelling expenses, and no doubt the total annual cost is considerable. Surely, after such a long period, the Commonwealth Government should have acquired sufficient knowledge of the disabilities suffered by the claimant States to fix the average annual amount to be payable to each State. I am sure that the States would agree if the Commonwealth Government said, “ In view of all the information that we have accumulated, we consider that, say, £500,000 annually is a fair amount to be paid during the next five or ten years “. Why is it necessary for members of the commission to make long trips, and why should heavy expense be incurred each, year in printing voluminous reports? Admittedly, economic changes may take place from time to time, but surely it should be possible to reach an understanding with the claimant States, and to fix .a flat rate for a definite period. Perhaps the Commonwealth Government could offer a lump sum and so end its liability for all time.

Unlike many other commissions, such as the petrol commission and the banking commission, which have cost this country hundreds of thousands of pounds, the Commonwealth Grants Commission has earned its money, because it has brought in reports which have been acted upon by the Government. This perennial discussion on grants to Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia provides this moral: Many difficulties would be overcome if the States were abolished. Senator Aylett pointed out that Tasmania expended huge sums on education and that its young men and women were forced to go to the mainland for work. The Labour party has advocated among other matters that education should be under the control of the Commonwealth. That would lessen Tasmania’s difficulties.

During the war all the States, with the exception of Victoria and New South Wales, will suffer a disability to the degree that, although the people in those States will be taxed heavily, relatively little of the millions of pounds that will be raised for war purposes will be spent outside Melbourne and Sydney. Queensland is neither a mendicant nor an indigent State. On the contrary, intelligently governed by a Labour administration, it is prosperous. It is the queen State of the Commonwealth and is making rapid progress. Nevertheless, it could be retarded in its development by unwise government in the federal arena. Queensland will not share greatly in the war expenditure. Honorable senators opposite may say that we should take a national point of view; we do so, but, if the people of a State be taxed heavily for national defence purposes and the money raised be expended elsewhere, those people cannot be employed fully and the State revenue will have to carry an extra burden. Years ago the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, showed clearly the disabilities under which Queensland labours. He showed that Queensland gave to the Commonwealth much more than was returned to it by the federal authorities. Tasmania suffers similarly and its sufferings will be added to while the war is in progress. It is to be hoped that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take cognizance of that fact in assessing the grant to the State next year. Rather than have the commission continue its peregrinations through the countryside, I support the suggestion made by Senator Aylett that the commission should be disbanded and that the claimant States should be given a fixed grant over a number of years.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– in reply - The Government appreciates the solid support given by Parliament each year to the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The support given by this chamber shows that the Senate is capable of functioning as a States’ House in the way in which it was expected to function when federation was adopted. The commission has not attempted for some years to assess disabilities. It has made its recommendations for assistance on the basis of actual financial needs of the claimant States. Whilst in a particular year aclaimant State may feel that, owing to internal conditions, it is entitled to a greater grant than in the previous year, I call attention to the fact that ali financial assistance is based on the relative position of the claimant States as compared with the standard States, namely, New South Wales and Victoria.

I concede the truth of Senator Aylett’s submission that it is difficult without notice to deliver a reasoned speech on this or any other subject, but honorable senators do not strengthen their case by making extravagant and inaccurate statements. For example Senator Aylett inaccurately alleged that members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission travel with a trainload of private secretaries. If the honorable gentleman had any interest in the commission he would ascertain the facts before making such a flagrantly inaccurate charge. None of the members of the commission has a private secretary. There is a secretary to the commission. The commission is one of the most economically conducted commissions that we have ever had ; its cost, including that of the secretary and the permanent staff, would not exceed £5,000 per annum, which is a trivial amount compared with the valuable services given in dealing with the expenditure of millions of pounds.

Senator Aylett glibly said that there should be a fixed grant to the claimant States for a period of five years. The honorable senator may be sincere in his advocacy of that suggestion, hut I doubt whether the Tasmanian Government would agree to the proposition. Indeed it is likely that Tasmania would be severely handicapped if that were done. Senator Aylett tried to make the Senate believe that the grants to Tasmania had decreased continuously over the years whereas in 1934-35 Tasmania received exactly the same amount as it is to receive this year and in the intervening period the grants to that. State have widely fluctuated. A good point was made by Senator Herbert Hays when he pointed out that it was likely that the claimant States next year would be entitled to larger grants than this year, because of the increased prosperity which will result in Victoria and New South Wales from war expenditure. As I pointed out earlier, the grants are computed on a relative basis, and vary according to the conditions in the claimant States.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has not been unmindful of the disability caused to State Treasurers through being unable to budget for the year until its report is published. On this occasion the States were perfectly well aware of the recommendations of the commission because they were released for publication on the 2nd October.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– ‘Could not the commission manage to furnish its report earlier by commencing its inquiries at an earlier date?

Senator McBride:

– The commission has already examined that possibility. However, it must wait until relatively late in the year before it can obtain information with regard to certain matters which have a vital bearing on its recommendations. Dealing with the suggestion that the grants should be fixed for a period of years the commission, in paragraph 15 of its sixth report, stated : -

It has been urged in responsible quarters that a formula should be evolved so that special grants may be automatically fixed for a term of years. This question has engaged our close attention, but we are convinced that neither a constitutional amendment nor an automatic formula can solve tlie problem. Our conclusion is that the relative financial positions of the States fluctuate so considerably from year to year that any constitutional change or the use of a fixed formula may speedily become inapplicable and unjust, lt is clear that a fixed formula could not take full account of the relative effects of changes in prices, in wages, in fluctuations of trade, in unemployment, in the effects of droughts, floods and bushfires, in movements of population, as well as in tlie effects of external influences on the economy of the nation. We are of opinion that no specific formula can he devised which will provide automatically for these and other changes. Another factor to be borne in mind is the changing position caused by the uneven growth of Federal and State responsibilities in relation to their financial resources. We believe that financial adjustments in the form cif special grants cannot be fairly assessed without a searching annual review of the finances and economic conditions of all the States. If Parliament is to be informed adequately concerning the basis of special grants to the States, all the economic movements we have mentioned, and their effects on the finances of the States, must be kept under constant observation and a year-to-year assessment made. An essential feature of this task is the building up of principles and methods of measurement which can be applied to fluctuating financial and economic conditions.

The commission is doing a very good job. I am sure that not only the Government, but also this Parliament appreciate its work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 887

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Secondreading.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to appropriate for defence and war expenditure on works and armaments an amount of £2,928,376, which represents the excess receipts of the Consolidated RevenueFund during 1939-40. By the Defence Equipment Act of 1934 a defence equipment trust account was established, into which various amounts have since been paid with the approval of Parliament, with the object of relieving the revenues of later years. The purposes for which amounts standing to the credit of this account may be used are: -

for naval construction;
for the purchase of arms, arms ments, aircraft, munitions, equipment, machinery, plant, and reserves of ammunition and oil fuel; and
for defence works and buildings and the acquisition of sites therefor.

An amount of £35,809 remained in the trust account at the 30th June last from the excess receipts of 1938-39. This was set aside last year for expenditure on defence equipment, and with the amount of £2,928,376, which it is now proposed to appropriate for a similar purpose, a total of £2,964,185 is available from the trust account for expenditure on works and armaments in 1940-41. Details of the items on which this amount is to be expended will be found on page 353 of the Estimates. The policy of treating excess receipts in this way has been approved by Parliament in a number of instances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 888

WHEAT TAX, (WAR-TIME) BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In introducing this measure the Govern ment has given proof that it is fully aware of the importance of the wheat industry in the Australian economy, and of the peculiar difficulties confronting the industry in war-time. Despite successive attempts to arrive at a stabilization plan in conference with representatives of the State governments, it was, unfortunately, found quite impossible to reconcile the various views expressed. However, the Government realized the pressing need for the stabilization of the wheat industry from a national standpoint. It determined, therefore, that the industry should be stabilized by the introduction of a plan under the National Security Regulations. The essential features of this plan for the stabilization of the wheat industry are as follows: -

There will be a guaranteed price of 3s. 10d a bushel, f.o.b. ports, for bagged wheat. This means the return to the grower will be the guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel, less all costs including receiving, handling, railage, storage and placing on board.
This guaranteed price will apply to a marketed crop of 140,000,000 bushels. This means actually a crop of 160,000,000 bushels for Australia, as about 20,000,000 bushels each year is retained on the farms for seed and other purposes, and is not marketed.
A fund will be created into which surplus market realizations will be paid in years of good prices. This fund will then be used to meet the deficiency resulting from payments to the industry in years when the realizations are less than 3s.10d. a bushel, f.o.b. In those years when market realizations exceed 3s.10d. a bushel, the surplus will be divided equally between the fund and the grower.
That all wheat harvested as grain will be marketed through the Australian Wheat Board.

The Commonwealth Government’s liability with respect to the guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel f.o.b. ports is limited to a marketed crop not exceeding 140,000,000 bushels.

In order to provide for control of the acreage to be sown early in 1941, it is necessary that all existing wheat farms should bc registered, and that all persons desiring to grow wheat for grain on such registered farms shall be licensed to do so. Growers applying for licences to grow wheat will be -required to give an undertaking that they will not sow more than the acreage allotted to them, and that they will comply with such other conditions as circumstances may compel the Government to impose.

The underlying principle of the Government’s plan is to stabilize the industry. It is not proposed that registration of farms not at present growing wheat will be permitted at some future date. The interests of the bona fide wheat-grower must be safeguarded, but further expansion cannot be allowed.

Three bills are to be submitted. The first is the Wheat Industry (War-Time) Control Bill 1940 which amends an act passed last year, keeps it operative for the period of the war, and makes amendments necessitated by the wheat stabilization scheme. The second is’ a bill to tax wheat. This is to ensure that in years of good prices the excess price above the guaranteed price will be shared between the growers and the fund from which the guarantee is paid. The third is a machinery measure for assessment and collection of the tax.

– There is no limitation of wool production.

Senator ABBOTT:

Senator ABBOTT:

– The proposal of Senator Gibson would not injure any one. Under it, men engaged in wheat-growing in a small way would be protected, whereas others would have to look after themselves. However, as I have said,I appreciate the sincere effort of the Government to give some measure of stability to a deserving section of the community.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– I should like to know what quantity of wheat a farmer has to produce before he can obtain a licence.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) - by leave - agreed to -

That in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1936, the following senators be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: - Senator Brand, Senator Cooper and Senator Lamp.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to8 p.m.

page 894

– The wheat has been sold, but not shipped.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am not concerned about that. If the carry-over totals only 35,000,000 bushels there is no need for a limitation of production.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The Minister for Supply and Development, (Senator BcBride) closed his second-reading speech by saying that the Senate would appreciate the merits of the Government’s wheat proposals. I do not appreciate any proposals which I have not had the opportunity to study. We have heard the Minister’s second reading speech, but have not been supplied with a copy, and none but the Minister and his collaborators know precisely what is intended. Nobody who tries to understand what is meant can appreciate anything that is incompletely and inadequately presented. What are the Government’s proposals. There are three bills which provide us with very little information, and apart from press reports and regulations, which have been issued from time to time, we have had no opportunity to learn exactly what is intended. I do not suggest that a book should be written, but it should be possible to reduce to simple sentences in three or four pages what is intended.

– No. I do not support any private monopoly be it in respect of finance, sugar, wheat,, timber or any other commodity. I. believe that the people should own and control the means by which they live, and that private monopolies should be absolutely excluded from industry.

I now propose to discuss Labour’s aims in regard to wheat and to contrast its policy with that to which the Government asks, us to give our blessing by supporting this measure. Labour has three essential aims: The first is to stabilize the wheat industry as a whole and to place it on a sound economic basis ; and secondly, to protect the small growers. The Government, on the other hand, intends that the small growers shall either be driven out of the industry altogether, or be reduced to the level of the dole, condemned, with their dependants, to exist for- the rest of their lives upon the very least that those in control are prepared to award them through the medium of unemployment councils, arbitration courts- and similar tribunals. Labour’s third aim is to ensure that this vital primary industry, which is of such economic value to Australia, maintains a reasonable productive capacity. The Government proposes to eliminate from the industry altogether all of the growers who are now working land “ which is claimed to be unsuitable for wheat. To accomplish Labour’s aims, several guarantees and safeguards are necessary. Palliatives are not sufficient. I emphasize that the Government’s scheme is nothing more than a palliative; it will merely prolong the agony of the wheatgrowers, who, in the meantime, will be gradually starved off their holdings. Labour proposes that plans must be made for the future, and that, in this time of stress, we must not only consider the position as it is affected by the war, but also take into consideration tlie probable world position after the war. That represents Labour’s argument against the restriction of production. Labour says that, so far as is humanly possible, we should increase production, and, at the same time, increase our storage facilities. We cannot have too much of the things we need, but the danger always exists that we may not have sufficient of those commodities.

Senator Gibson:

– Does not the honorable senator realize that Canada now has on hand a surplus of 834,000,000 bushels of wheat?

Senator CAMERON:

– I am dealing with ‘ the Australian industry and not with the Canadian wheat industry. I fail to see any logic in the honorable senator’s interjection. I do not suggest that he is trying to mislead us, but he has simply made a bald statement without attempting to supply any evidence in support of it. Labour will safeguard the small farmer, and prevent the production of wheat from falling into the ownership and control of a few. That is a vital point. All of the schemes, palliatives, bonuses and expedients which have been adopted by this Government in the past have been designed solely to centralize control of wheat production in the hands of a few. I repeat that the object of this scheme is to drive out of the industry the small grower, or to allow him to remain in the industry only on a basis on which he will work for a small commission, or wage, in the interests of the private banks. Labour’s policy can be summed up as follows : -

A compulsory wheat pool established by the Federal and State Governments in cooperation, and controlled by the growers. The objects of the pool are - 1. (a) to control the disposal of wheat in Australia; (b) find markets overseas.

Guarantee of 3s. 10jA. per bushel on 3,000 bushels free on rail at ports for a period of five years. (a) In view of war conditions it may be that wheat will have to he stored in great quantities until favorable conditions will enable it to be shipped overseas. Wheat may therefore have to be stored by stacking of bagged wheat or in silos. The expense of all the storage and handling charges will be taken out of the pool and will not he deducted from the guaranteed price of 3s. 10id.

Millers will pay a set price of 4s. per bushel regardless of any increase or decrease in world prices, to ensure that the public will obtain bread at a reasonable and stabilized price.

I have often directed attention to the fact that the cost of producing wheat, in terms of labour time and gold, was never lower than it is to-day, yet the price of bread, in terms of depreciated currency, was never higher.

When there is an increase in the price of wheat above 3s. 10½d. a bushel, half of the increase will be set aside to enable the pool to repay advances made to it, or to build up a reserve or requisition fund.

Thus should, wheat go to 4s. 10-Jd. - fid. extra will go to the growers, and fid. into the pool.

The scheme to be financed through the Commonwealth Bank guaranteed by the Commonwealth Govern ment.

The scheme suggested by the Labour party is tentative, and, if possible, would be improved. In the following statement a comparison is made between the proposals of the Government and those of the Labour party: -

Under Labour’s proposals agents’ fees will be eliminated and consequently there will be no commission to pay which the farmer is being forced to pay to-day.

When the farmer is protected to the fullest possible extent by the Commonwealth Bank, there will be no interest for him to pay, quite apart from agents’ fees. One can imagine the happy position the farmer would be in then compared with his present plight.

Under the Menzies scheme now operating a farmer has to take his wheat scrip, which has always been negotiable upon issue, to an agent, who takes his commission before the farmer can liquefy his scrip.

That, I suggest, would be a substantial and much appreciated improvement.

The Menzies Government guarantees 3s. lOd. free on board, which means the farmer pays all handling and storage charges at silos and stacks. Labour proposes to pay the farmer’s charges out of the pool and the guarantee of 3s. 10½d. is on rail at ports.

Under tho Menzies scheme the guaranteed price of 3s. lOd. may be on only 1,500 to 2,000 bushels to the small man and probably 50,000 bushels to the big grower. Half the increase over 3s. 10d. would bo shared in the same ratio, the big man getting the bulk, whereas under Labour’s scheme the small grower is guaranteed ;i fixed price of 3s. 10id. free on rail on 3,000 bushels and half the excess above that amount will be paid on 3,000 bushels to each grower alike.

Under the Menzios scheme there is a definite danger of elimination of the small growers.

The “big” man, in this case, would be the private financial interests. It cannot be denied that the ex-Leader of the Country party (Mr. Archie Cameron) said that the small grower would have to be eliminated -

Compulsory curtailment in regard to acreage allowed under crop may easily prove disastrous to the small man-

That is true. It is proposed by the Government to license farmers, and to determine how much wheat they shall grow. The Labour party claims that there should be no such restriction, and that the farmer should be allowed to produce a maximum quantity of wheat for his own requirements and to assist in the war effort. That would not be possible if restrictions were placed on the production of the essentials of life, particularly wheat -

Under Labour’s proposal for a guarantee on the first 3,000 bushels, economic considerations will govern the acreage that will be put under cultivation, and should stabilize the industry-

It is proposed that those who grow the wheat, and are best able to judge what should ‘be done as a contribution to the national effort, should be consulted. The matter will not be decided by half a dozen merchants, agents or monopolists. The Labour policy is to heed the voice of the man at the bottom who grows the wheat, not that of those at the top who make fortunes out of the labour of others. The statement comparing the proposals of the

Labour pasty with those of the Government concludes as follows : -

The Menzies decision also to take power to decide what portion of the farmer’s crop shall be cut for hay is another danger. It is an unsound and unfair proposal.

Again, the Labour party would have government from below rather than from above. Instead of a few monopolists controlling wheat production, and reducing the small growers to the lowest level of existence, the growers themselves should decide the conditions under which the wheat shall be produced. The Opposition does not appreciate the proposals of the Government, in the light of the fact that thousands of growers have been reduced to the level of paupers. In all sincerity, I suggest that the Government would be wise to hasten slowly, and consider every step it takes, before it attempts to give effect’ to the policy embodied in these bills. Otherwise, the industry will be in a more serious plight than that in which it finds itself to-day.

Senator UPPILL:
South Australia

– I support the bill. The stabilization of the wheat industry has been discussed in this chamber many times, and during the last ten years various conferences between Commonwealth and State governments and representatives of the wheat-growers have been held with a view to arriving at the most effective means to stabilize the wheat industry. I do not agree with the remarks of Senators “Gibson and Abbott and some honorable senators opposite regarding men engaged in wheat-farming in a small way. This is a war-time measure, and it is our duty not to interfere unduly with the industry as that might cause its disorganization. Big farms which are suitable for. growing wheat are not always suitable for other purposes, because of lack of adequate water supplies, or for other reasons. The difficulties of the man farming in a big way may be just as great as those of the small wheat-grower. Indeed, I predict that many small growers will come through the present crisis better than those who are farming on a much bigger scale. I warn those who have opposed the bill against interfering unduly with the industry at the present time. As I have said, this is a war-time measure, and many alterations may have to be made after the war is over. For several years the price of wheat has caused concern, chiefly because many European countries which formerly imported wheat endeavoured to become more selfcontained and increased their local production of wheat. Some even became exporters of wheat. At the same time the main wheat-farming countries - Canada, the United States of America, Australia and Argentina - continued to produce as much as before ; they even increased their production in the expectation of new markets being found after the war.

Senator Gibson:

– In parts of Canada the country is suitable only for growing wheat. ‘

Senator UPPILL:

– That is true also of parts of Australia. That is why I suggest that we should be careful not to “interfere unduly with the present organization of the industry. This bill conforms largely to what is known as the Wilson-Uppill plan, which I have expounded in this chamber previously. That plan, I believe, has the approval of the people generally; it has been accepted by the Labour party, various associations of wheat-growers throughout the Commonwealth, and practically every section of business and trade; it has also received the endorsement of the South Australian legislature. In the circumstances, the scheme now before us, which is almost identical with the Wilson-Uppill plan, cannot but have my approval. Reference to Hansard will show that about two and a half years ago Senator Wilson introduced into this chamber a bill which embodied the main principles contained in this proposal, with the exception that it was to operate in peace-time and did not interfere with the then existing trading conditions. As I have said, merchants and farmers and other sections of traders accepted the proposal, which provided for a stabilized price of 3s. 3d. a bushel f.o.r. at shipping ports. The proposal now before us provides for a stabilized price of 3s. lOd. a bushel f.o.b. shipping ports, which is practically the same price. Under the Wilson-Uppill plan it was proposed that farmers should pay into a fund to be established 50 per cent, of . any price in excess of 3s. 8d. a bushel, and be entitled to draw from the fund when the price of wheat fell below 3s. 8d. a bushel. A similar provision is embodied in this measure. It was confidently expected that the Wilson-Uppill plan would be selfsupporting over a number of years, but the Commonwealth Government was to be asked to contribute 3d. a bushel to compensate for tariff disabilities. That proposal was in accordance with a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Wheat. This measure provides for a guaranteed price of 3s. 10d. a bushel, and for the money derived from the flour tax, together with an amount to be obtained from other sources, if required, to be paid into a fund in order to stabilize the price at 3s. lOd. a bushel. With the exception that the plan now before us will operate under war-time conditions, it does not differ greatly from the plan to which I have referred. The Government’s proposal involves a restriction of production in that it is proposed to peg production at 140,000,000 bushels a year, which is the average crop for the last five years. Notwithstanding what has been said by some honorable senators opposite I hold that the granting of a guaranteed price necessitates some measure of restriction. Even though wheat prices have been low for several years, the world stock of wheat on the 1st July, 1940, was greater than at any time since 1927. The following table shows the world stock of wheat in each year since 1927 : -

Those figures show that, although wheat prices have been abnormally low during those years, the world stocks of wheat have increased gradually. They emphasize the need for restriction if a guaranteed price is to be offered. I agree with Senator Gibson that unless care is taken difficulties may arise in the administration of this scheme. Its administration should be in the bands of a competent person who understands his job; otherwise it will be easy to disorganize the work of many farms. It may be that over a number of years a wheat-grower has sown an average of 400 acres a year, but his holding may be so sub-divided that in one year he sows 380 acres and in the following year 420 acres. Any attempt to force him to sow 400 acres every year might involve heavy costs in alterations of fencing, &c, and give to his stock less satisfactory access to water supplies. In the control of acreage every care should be taken not to interfere with the economic working of farms.

Senator Gibson:

– In these days farming is a scientific process.

Senator UPPILL:

– I agree with Senator Gibson that the provision requiring farmers to cut a certain proportion of their crop for hay may cause difficulties in some circumstances. I realize that the Government must have this power and I do not oppose it, but I emphasize that the success of this provision will depend largely on the administration of the scheme. Senator Cameron referred to land values. Generally the price paid for land is determined by its quality, its distance from the railway, and similar considerations. I know that mistakes have been made in the past, but, in the main, these factors have been taken into consideration in the price paid. It is not worth while tinkering at matters of this kind. It is not necessary to delay the passage of the bill because its purport has been thoroughly discussed by me, and by other honorable senators, on many occasions. I emphasize, however, that the fall of the price of wheat, together with bad seasons, war difficulties, and the handling of the crop by the Government, have been serious setbacks to the farmers. Things have reached such a stage that bankers will not advance money to primary producers, and it is necessary for the Government to come to their rescue. Associated with the fate of the wheat industry is not only the welfare of the farmers, but also of the manufacturers and distributors, machi nery and other farming requisites. The farmers should be encouraged to give some attention to sidelines. The cutting of hay in good seasons is desirable, but it i3 a matter which must be handled very carefully. The farmers do not expect to make huge profits ; their main objective is to keep -in business .as are other sections of the community to-day. I am sure that farmers are quite willing to play their part in Australia’s war effort so long as the returns for their labour enables them to carry on. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

.- The consensus of opinion expressed in the course of debate on this measure is that the stabilization of the wheat industry is advisable, but that production should not be limited. I agree with what Senator Gibson said, and I know that the figures that he quoted in regard to Canada are correct. This year, Canadian wheatfarmers have produced an enormous crop, in addition to a carry-over of 850,000,000 bushels, but production is not being restricted. Restrictions are being placed on the sale of wheat by allowing farmers to sell only one bag in four. Apparently the Canadian farmers believe, with Senator Abbott, that when the war is over millions of people will be on the verge of starvation, and will have to be given bread. For that reason it is good policy for us to continue to produce wheat some of which can be stored in silos. I once read that when an Egyptian tomb was opened, wheat thousands of years old was discovered, and, that when it was planted, the seed germinated showing that grain will keep indefinitely. It will be recalled that the Royal Commission on the Wheat Industry of which Professor Wadham was a member, stated that at that time mortgages on wheat lands in Australia totalled £161,000,000, yet the government of the day was issuing postage stamps bearing the inscription “ Grow more wheat “. The farmers took the advice offered and grew more wheat, with the result that the price dropped to 2s. a bushel. The royal commission found that of that 2s. received, ls. lOd. was absorbed in meeting interest charges. Interest charges constitute the greatest burden which primary producers, business people and governments have to bear. There is an axiom in economics to the effect that price levels are governed by the amount of money in circulation. It is ridiculous to say that there is an overproduction of wheat when millions of people are only half fed, or are practically starving. If there be a surplus of wheat, it should be given to the people because bread is the staff of life. Feed the .hungry and there will be no need to build silos. The Commonwealth Government has decided to assist Australian wheat-farmers, but it is not obtaining the necessary money from the right source. It is merely piling up more interest charges, and when the price of wheat is stabilized, where will the money go? Not to the farmers, but to the bankers. I know of primary producers in Tasmania who have not seen a wool cheque or a wheat cheque for years. We live in a money economy, and all problems are related to money. A nation cannot carry on without money or bank credit. Why not employ the workless on building wheat silos because all the wheat grown may soon be required. Over-production of wheat started many years ago when a war seemed imminent. Italy produced wheat at a cost of 9s. a bushel as also did France, where surplus wheat was coloured green so that it would not be consumed. Limited production commenced after the last war, when farmers in England were fined for growing too many potatoes, despite the fact that millions of people were inadequately fed. The Sir James Orr commission on nutrition reported that 4,500,000 people in England had only 4s. a week to spend on food, while 6,000,000 had 6s. a week, and 9,000,000 had 9s. a week for the same purpose. Therefore, 19,’500,000 people had an average of only 6s. 4d. a week with which to buy food at a time when food was being destroyed, milk poured down the sewers, and production was being limited. That is what occurs under orthodox systems of managing a nation’s economy. Orthodox systems will have to be discarded because, after the war, conditions will have changed. In listening to a debate in the House of Representatives I heard interesting statements made by competent wheat-growers who stated that this year’s wheat crop has been barely sufficient to provide seed for next year. Restriction of production at a time when people are starving cannot be justified, and is contrary to the principles of economics. I support this bill because the wheat-growers should be assisted. In Western Australia last year I met a man whose family had occupied a holding of 1,000 acres for twenty years, but conditions were so bad that he walked off in desperation. As Senator Uppill knows, a resolution was passed in the South Australian Parliament by seventeen votes to thirteen asking that the Commonwealth Bank be used not only to finance the war, but also to rehabilitate the primary producers. That is the only logical thing to do. While this Government is taking a step in the right direction, it is not doing sufficient to save the industry. The royal commission which inquired into our monetary and banking systems reported that the Commonwealth Bank could advance interest-free money to the Government, or to others, which includes the wheat-growers.

Senator Gibson:

– The royal commission did not say that the Commonwealth Bank should issue the money, but that it could do so.

Senator DARCEY:

– The royal commission was not in a position to dictate to the Government as to what it should do. Apparently, it expected the Government to have the common sense to give effect to the findings of the commission.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– These bills are necessarily restricted to the period of the war because the constitutional power required to enable the Government to do what it intends to do is wanting in ordinary times. Perhaps it is just as well that that should be so, because we shall be able to see the effect on the great wheat industry of what is proposed by the Government. It is of considerable importance to the country that this industry should be protected and the growers enabled to carry on. The industry is one of the fundamental economic foundations of this country. When it crashed in company with the wool industry in 1929, the whole economy of this country tumbled a’bout our ears, a fact which is not recognized by a number of our people even now. Let these great primary industries on ordinary occasions suffer and the manufacturing industries in the great cities will suffer in direct proportion to their suffering. I, in common with Senator Gibson, have a horror of restriction of production. To my mind it is wrong and the only justification that this Government or any other government has to interfere with the production of wheat is the fact that politicians are largely responsible for the unhappy plight of the wheat industry to-day.

Senator Keane:

– Politicians on the honorable senator’s side.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Oh ! Go back to the days of Adam Lindsay Gordon, when the doctrine of sub-dividing large estates was preached in the South Australian House of Assembly. Gordon used to recite a piece of doggerel -

And now it’s all U.P. with the squatter,

The people are crying aloud for the land.

They’ ve made it hot, hut they’ll find it hotter

When they plough the limestone and sow the sand.

That is what happened to the wheat industry. Government after government, hunting for the popular vote and following the theory now held by the Labour party, advocated sub-dividing, for wheat production, large pastoral areas in South Australia outside the Goyder line of rainfall. The same thing happened in Victoria andNew SouthWales. I can speak authoritatively only of those three States, but I have no doubt that in Western Australia there are areas which are used for growing wheat on which wheat should never have been grown. Those areas may be suitable for the wheat in the years of plenty, but not in the average year, because the rainfall is insufficient.

Although I deplore restriction of production I do not think that the policy of the Government differs materially from the policy enunciated by Senator Cameron, who, if I understood him clearly, advocated limitation of the quantity of the wheat on which a home consumption price should be paid. That policy would have precisely the same effect of limiting production as would result from the Government’s licensing scheme. Under that scheme, no person who is not at present engaged in the pro- duction of wheat may be licensed, but the scheme does not interfere with those persons who are established in the industry, although in the fullness of time the scheme will eliminate those who cannot produce wheat economically.

I congratulate my South Australian colleague, Senator Uppill, although I do not agree with some of his views, upon the Commonwealth having decided to give effect in principle to the plan which Senator Wilson from time to time put forward as being acceptable to wheatgrowers. We do not want a full-dress debate on the wheat industry now, but there is a great deal more in the trouble which besets the industry than meets the eye. The decline of the wheat industry dates back to 1929. For a period of years, prior to 1929, the industry had been reasonably prosperous and profitable to the growers, but at that time the three great European importing countries, Germany, Italy and France, decided to limit their imports of wheat.

Senator Cameron:

– Why?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– Because they wanted economic nationalism, the principle of protection carried to the extreme. Broomhalls, the greatest authority in the world on the production of cereals, have estimated accurately that in the years which followed it cost Germany, Italy and France £250,000,000 more to supply what Senator Darcey described as the staff of life to their peoples, than it would have cost had they imported their grain requirements.

Senator Crawford:

– Where would Italy be to-day if it were not for that policy?

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– But for it the world might have been at peace to-day. At all events, the Italian soldier would have had more stomach for fight if he had been nourished by good Australian wheat. The people of Europe are undernourished, as Mr. S. M. Bruce said on one occasion. They are being fed with artificial food. Why should people suffer when good food is going to waste? Why should Germany resort to the chemical treatment of its own grain in order to render it unfit for human consumption so that it will be available for chicken food?

The Government is making a legitimate attempt to grapple with the wheat industry’s problems. One thing is perfectly clear. It is of no use to make the wheat industry a political plaything. The debt burden of many wheat-farmers renders their position impossible.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– Fifty per cent, of the wheat-farmers bought their land at peak prices.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– And they are continuing to do so. Sometimes that is caused by a desire to keep families together. “When the sons or daughters of farmers marry they are apt to buy neighbouring farms at inflated prices in order to remain in the same neighbourhood. Money for the purchase is obtained by mortgaging the formerly free property of the parent. When prices slump the farmer who has done that faces almost insuperable difficulties. The prices paid for farm lands are far too high.

Minister for Supply and Development) [10.7]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a machinery measure which is necessary for the successful functioning of the war-time wheat marketing scheme. The principal act of 1939 expired on the 1st December last, and this bill is designed to extend the scheme to cover the war period. At the same time, some necessary amendments have been made because of the Government’s stabilizing scheme.

The Wheat Industry Assistance Act 1938 provided that all moneys collected under the Flour Tax Assessment Act 1938 shall be paid into the wheat industry stabilization fund. After providing for the special refund to Tasmania, for general tax refunds, and for payments approved by the Minister in connexion with the removal of wheat-growers from marginal areas, the amount of money in the wheat industry stabilization fund was payable to the States in proportion to their wheat production, and the States paid out the sums received by them to the wheat-growers.

The Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Act 1939 provided that the moneys should be paid to the Commonwealth Bank in repayment of advances, and not to the States for distribution to wheatgrowers. The effect was that the flour tax collections were taken in as part of the realizations of the wheat pool, and advances are made direct to wheatgrowers by the Wheat Board. The advances to wheat-growers are made by the

Wheat Board from funds supplied by the Commonwealth Bank. The flour tax collections, together with the amounts received from the sale of wheat, are paid to the Commonwealth Bank in repayment of such advances. This provision of the principal act is continued in the present bill. It is desired to ensure that there shall be continuity for the proper disposal of the moneys raised by means of the flour tax, as under the Government’s plan of stabilization this tax will continue to operate.

The bill also provides for the creation of a new trust fund - the Wheat Industry (War-time) Stabilization Fund - into which will be paid the moneys received from the tax of 50 per cent. on the free on board price of wheat in excess of 3s.10d. a bushel. Provision for this tax is made in the Wheat Tax (War-time) Bill. The Wheat Industry (War-time) Stabilization Fund will be credited with : -

The moneys remaining from the flour tax after repayment has been made of the advances made by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to the Commonwealth ; and,
All moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which have been collected under the Wheat Tax (War-time) Assessment Bill 1940.

The moneys to the credit of the new fund will be used to make up the guaranteed price of 3s.10d. a bushel free on board, and in repaying to the Commonwealth Bank any advances made to the Commonwealth to enable it to pay such guaranteed price. The bill, when enacted, will remain operative for the duration of the war and for six months thereafter. I commend it to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 907

WHEAT TAX (WAR-TIME) ASSESSMENT BILL, 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the provisions of the Wheat Tax (Wartime) Bill, 1940. It provides that the tax shall be payable by the wheat-grower, andwill be collected by the Australian Wheat Board by deduction from compensation due to the grower on account of the acquisition of his wheat by the Commonwealth. The amount of the tax will be assessed by the Wheat Industry Stabilization Board to be constituted under the National Security (Wheat Industry Stabilization) Regulations. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Tax payable by person from whom acquired).

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– As this legislation will remain in force for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, I should like to know how accumulated funds will be disposed of should the Wheat Board cease to function at the conclusion of that period.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– Although this legislation will operate only for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, it is hoped that should the scheme prove its worth, the States will co-operate with the Commonwealth to continue the scheme after the war. However, should the States refuse to co-operate, the scheme would be abandoned and in that event, any accumulated funds would be distributed. All money derived from the flour tax would be allocated to the States for payment to the wheatgrowers, and any balance remaining in the fund would be distributed to the wheat-growers individually.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 908

LOAN (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE (South Australia-

Minister for Supply and Development) [10.20]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the raising of moneys to be loaned to certain States, and the payment of moneys to those States for drought relief purposes. As the result of prolonged drought conditions throughout Australia it was found by September last that immediate action was necessary in order to avoid excessive losses of live-stock and extreme hardship in the areas affected. There was still a possibility that the position with respect to live-stock in a number of districts would be improved by favorable rains, but over a. large area the position with respect to feed and crops was regarded as hopeless, and that, should unfavorable conditions continue for another two months, heavy stock losses appeared unavoidable unless special provisions were made. On the 27th September last, a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers was held to discuss the subject of drought relief, and the problem received further consideration at two subsequent conferences of representatives of the Commonwealth and the States. At the request of the Commonwealth the State governments prepared and presented outlines of the proposals which it desired should operate in the respective States. Those proposals were considered by the Commonwealth to be reasonable and sound, and a drought relief plan acceptable to the Commonwealth Government and the governments of the States was agreed upon.

The main points of the plan included the provision of finance for drought relief purposes, and the assurance that any moneys so provided would be used in the best interests of drought-stricken farmers. The amounts totalling £2,770,000 required by the individual States concerned to put their proposals into effect are shown in clause 3 (2) of the bill. Of this sum the Commonwealth has already made £950,000 available to enable the States to meet cases of immediate urgency.

With the approval of the Loan Council, the Government decided that the necessary money should be raised through a Commonwealth loan, and that the Commonwealth should then make the sum of £2,770,000 available to the States by way of loans to be repaid on an instalment basis over a period not exceeding seven years. Interest would be payable by the States on moneys so loaned to them by the Commonwealth at the rate payable by the Commonwealth on moneys borrowed for this purpose. The bill embodies an arrangement by which the Commonwealth will meet portion of the interest which would normally be due by the States on the principal of the moneys loaned to them. This interest contribution, the administrative costs of raising the Commonwealth loan, and a straightout grant to drought-affected wheatgrowers, which is the subject of a further bill, may be regarded as the Commonwealth Government’s contribution to the cause of drought relief in Australia. Honorable senators will notice that the States are being allowed a period of four years in which to make their first repayments of principal. In fairness to the States they must be given an opportunity to recover some of the moneys which they in turn will loan to the drought-stricken farmers. It will be appreciated that when a farmer has suffered a year of severe drought, it will be at least three or four years before he is in the position to repay money advanced to him during or following the drought to enable him to carry on. The bill also provides for the appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of moneys necessary to meet the Commonwealth’s contribution to the States by way of interest payments to which I have previously referred.

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

– This measure involves an important principle to which our attention should be given. I commend the Government for its action in introducing the bill, and T am sure that every member of the farming community will welcome it. This afternoon reference was made by an honorable senator to the cost of various royal commissions, and I take this opportunity to remind the Government of the existence of two reports by royal commissions which have been completely overlooked. When discussing legislation passed through this chamber, the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator McBride) referred to constitutional limitations, and for that reason I think it opportune that I should remind him that it is time that the Government gave some attention to the findings of the Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform. I make that suggestion in all sincerity, because I am confident that the time will come when, by war exigencies, we shall be forced to exercise the greatest possible economy in Commonwealth and State spheres. I am sure that Senator Darcey will agree with my remarks about the other royal commission to which I shall refer. A great deal has been said in this chamber from time to time concerning the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems. The action which the Goverment is now taking could have been taken by implementing portion of that commission’s report. I refer to the recommendation for the establishment of a long-term mortgage department of the Commonwealth Bank. Such a department would be one of the greatest benefits, to the farming community. Instead of this money being loaned to the States, and payments to individual farmers becoming, as they do, a matter of political patronage, the farmers could go to the Commonwealth Bank and obtain a long-term mortgage to meet expenses caused by the present disastrous drought. I know of farmers in my own electorate who, month after month, have to send to the Riverina, 400 miles away, for wheaten hay or oaten hay in order to keep alive their cattle in the Hunter district. Those persons have managed without any income whatsoever, and have been forced to draw upon their own resources, and to mortagage their properties to the private banks.

Senator AMOUR:
non-Communist · New South WalesLeader of the Australian Labour party

.-This bill provides for payment of £2,800,000 to the States, which in turn will make the advance to farmers who have suffered owing to the drought conditions. The States are being allowed a period of four years in which to make their first repayment of principal. The bill is good. Nevertheless, I object to one section of the community being given special consideration year after year. I should like the Government to indicate that it has a proposal to set aside £2,800,000 or more for the purpose of assuring men who lose their employment in secondary industry of assistance until such time as they are re-employed, the money so advanced to be repaid after four years on terms similar to those provided for the repayment of the money to be advanced under this legislation. That would be a fine gesture, and it is time that it was made. We have seen one depression and we shall see another. When it comes there should be some provision to enable those who will lose their employment to be given something more than the dole. Loans on the basis of the loans provided for in this measure would be practicable. At present the industrial worker who loses his job has only one straw at which to grasp - the Mont de Piété or some other money lending concern, which charges exorbitant rates of interest. The farmer needs assistance and I, therefore, welcome this measure, but he is no more entitled to assistance than is any other member of the community.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

Senator Collett:

– Does the honorable senator know how much of that money has been expended on debt adjustment?

Senator AYLETT:

– Only £6,317,000 up to the 30th June, 1939. Has the balance been distributed in the last eighteen months?

Opposition Senators - No.

Senator AYLETT:

– Why not?

Senator McBride:

– It was never intended to distribute that money to the farmers.

Senator AYLETT:

– If the Government really desires to assist the farmers, it should be courageous enough to make a direct grant.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I emphasize the point made by Senator Aylett, namely, that the drought-stricken farmers should be helped with a grant direct from consolidated revenue. By that means, those in the best position to pay would do so. That would be equitable, because, when seasons are prolific and profits are large, the people who will be asked to lend this money to the Government reap most of the profits. It is a perfectly legitimate request that in times of distress the sources from which profits are drawn should be the sources from which relief is provided. As Senator Aylett rightly said, the lending of this money to the farmers will add to their burdens, and tighten their chains of economic servitude. This is not a proposition for relief; it is a proposition to prolong the agony, to bleed the farmers white and to reduce them to the lowest level possible. Probably when that level is reached, as it was reached in the United States of America, there will be repudiation, and the people who will make this loan will hold up their hands in holy horror and point to the poor starved farmers as being recreant to their trust. If the Government were sincere and intended to give the farmers relief, it would give the money to them and not lend it. All that the farmers ask is that they get hack from the pool a little of the money that theyput into it. I should not be doing my duty to the people who need help if I did notpoint that out.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

– This measure hasbeen introduced as the result of a conference between the Commonwealth and the States, with the exception of Tasmania. That conference agreed upon the manner in which these funds should be allocated. I understand that the Premier of Tasmania did not desire to share in the allocation. The sum of £2,770,000 will be accepted by the States as a loan from the Commonwealth, and the manner in which the funds will be disbursed will be decided by the States. They can distribute the money as they think fit, either by way of loans, or as straight-out gifts.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I support the measure because it will be the means of assisting many of our citizens who are faced with destitution. However, the Government has been dealing with this problem in piece-meal fashion for the last ten years. During that period the man on the land has been making superhuman efforts to overcome his difficulties. Surely the time has now arrived when the Government should endeavour to provide a permanent solution of this problem. If it is not studied from a national viewpoint, it will constantly recur. In this time of stress, when the Government possesses extraordinary powers, and the people are prepared to accept drastic legislation in the national interest, the Government should take this opportunity to handle it on a permanent basis.

Senator McBride:

– What does the honorable senator suggest that the Government should do?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The capital values of the areas involved throughout Australia must be re-appraised. Most of the trouble is due to the fact that the people now in difficulty either paid too high a price for their properties, or because most of the holdings are not sufficiently large to yield a reasonable return. Unless this problem be dealt with on a permanent and nation-wide basis with the object of arriving at a definite solution, the day will come when our internal debt, like our war debt, will reach overwhelming proportions.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

– in reply - I assure Senator

Abbott that full consideration will be given to the points he has raised. I point out, however, that the mortgage bank will not be designed to relieve a situation of the kind with which we are now dealing, because some of the farmers who will qualify for this assistance will have no equity with which to provide security for a loan. Senator Cameron does not fully appreciate the problems of the man on the land, or he would not suggest that the recipients of this money will not appreciate it because it is in the form of a loan.

Senator Cameron:

– I did not say that. .

Senator McBRIDE:

– Every one realizes that farmers in need of assistance will be only too pleased to accept aid in this form. In any case, applicants will realize that they will be obliged to pay interest on the money advanced. If they are not prepared to accept assistance on that basis they need not do so. There can be no doubt, however, that farmers in necessitous circumstances will be only too pleased to avail themselves of this assistance, and when better times return they will cheerfully repay the money.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 911

STATES GRANTS (DROUGHT RELIEF) BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum of £1,000,000 which will be made available to the States as grants for the purpose of drought relief to wheat-growers. Provision for this amount to be paid to wheat-growers, whom the drought has seriously affected, was included in the amended budget proposals. Allocations to the individual States will be determined by the Governor-General in Council after the Minister has conferred with Ministers representing the six States. The methods to be adopted by any State to alleviate hardship suffered by wheat-growers within its boundaries in consequence of drought must be approved by the Commonwealth bef ore a grant will be made to that State.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this bill. Without being ungracious may I say that this measure is the result of collaboration between the Opposition and the Government parties with a view to improving the budget.

Senator Keane:

– What precautions will be taken to ensure that none of this money will be made available to persons who are not in necessitous circumstances ?

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– in reply - The principles upon which the States propose to distribute the money must be approved by the Governor-General in Council upon the Minister’s recommendation. That is the only way we can ensure that the money will be distributed only to those persons who are deserving of the assistance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Payment for financial assistance to the States).

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

. -Is this sum of £1,000,000 part of the unexpended balance of the grant of several millions made available some years ago for the relief of primary producers?

Senator McBride:

– It is a separate grant.

Senator Darcey:

– Will this money be paid directly to applicants? Previously applicants were required to indicate into which bank they would like the money paid, with the result that in many cases it was handed over to the first mortgagee and the claimant did not receive any of the money at all.

Senator McBride:

– This money will be allocated among the States which will distribute it on a basis satisfactory to the Commonwealth. I cannot say exactly how the payments to claimants will be made.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Conditions of grant).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- On two occasions bounties have been granted to wheat-growers, regardless of whether they were rich or poor. The bounty was paid even to members of this Parliament. I am in hearty accord with the main purpose of the clause, but careful classification of the growers is desirable. Well-to-do wheat-farmers would suffer no great hardship if they experienced an unfavorable season.

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

– I can only repeat that the grants must be approved by both the States and the Commonwealth. The bounty referred to by Senator Keane had no relation to drought relief. The Government does not intend to grant assistance under this measure to any person who does not actually need it.

Senator Armstrong:

– Will this Parliament have an opportunity to consider the conditions under which the money will be made available to the States for the purpose of drought relief?

Senator McBRIDE:

– That matter will be determined by the Executive.

Clause agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 912

APPLE AND PEAR (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and. Development · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum of £750,000 for the repayment to the Commonwealth Bank of advances made by the bank for the purposes of the National Security (Apple and Pear Acquisition) Regulations. By October, 1939, it was apparent that, owing to war conditions, the normal channels of marketing apples and pears would not be available for the 1940 crop. Those fruits did not appear in the priority lists of the Government of the United Kingdom, and it appeared extremely doubtful whether any of our. apples and pears would be exported to the United Kingdom.

The Government was forced to consider new methods of disposal and marketing, and it was decided that acquisition by the Commonwealth of the 1940 crop of apples and pears, as from the 1st March, 1940, was the only means to avert chaotic conditions in the industry. Provision for an acquisition scheme was made by regulations which were promulgated under the National Security Act in November, 1939.

It was necessary that finance should be provided for the Marketing Committee of the Australian Apple and Pear Board, which was the body charged with the administration of the 1940 acquisition scheme. Under normal marketing conditions, apple and pear growers receive assistance from outside persons or firms in the form of cash advances, fertilizer supplies and orchard requisites, for the production and harvesting of the coming crop. It was necessary that the Commonwealth, having decided to acquire the 1940 crop, should come to the assistance of growers to enable customary practices in regard to the production and harvesting of that crop to proceed.

It was decided that advances should be made to growers, and that such advances would be offset against realizations from sales of fruit acquired. As a first advance, the Government agreed to make payments to individual growers at the rates of 2s. a bushel on apples and 3s. a bushel on pears, payable in two instalments, on 75 per cent. of the assessed crops of apples and pears. Crop assessments were made in January, 1940. As an inducement to growers to pick their fruit in its best condition, and expedite delivery to the marketing committee’s agents the Government later agreed to pay growers a further advance of1s. a bushel on both apples and pears of prescribed quality delivered to the marketing committee. Funds were also required by that committee to provide for costs involved in the packing, transport and marketing of the fruit and for administrative and publicity expenses.

In accordance with regulation 25 of the National Security (Apple and Pear Acquisition) Regulations, arrangements were made with the Commonwealth Bank to advance sums totalling £3,078,125 for the above-mentioned purposes, subject to the following conditions: -

A guarantee in pursuance of the regulations to be furnished for the full amounts of advances made by the bank.
The clearance of outstanding indebtedness before the 31st December, 1940.
Interest on advances to be charged at the ruling rate for rural credits advances.

Although the marketing of the 1940 apple and pear crop has not been completed, it is apparent at this stage that the operations of the marketing committee in respect of that crop will result in a substantial loss.

Honorable senators are asked to approve the appropriation from consolidated revenue of the sum of £750,000, which will enable the Government to honour its guarantee to the Commonwealth Bank in respect of the deficiency between realizations from sales by the marketing committee of fruit which the Government acquired, and the total amount expended by the marketing committee in the administration of the acquisition scheme from moneys advanced by the Commonwealth Bank.

It is not anticipated that the sum which the Government will he asked to pay the Commonwealth Bank by the 31st December, 1940, by reason of this deficiency will reach the figure of £750,000 which is now before honorable senators. It is desired, however, to avoid the necessity for a further request to Parliament, in the possible event of the amount for which approval is sought at this stage having been understated.

A number of factors have operated to prevent the 1940 acquisition scheme from being a financial success. Honorable senators will remember the unprecedented weather experienced in all States in late March and early April this year. Not only was the estimated crop reduced by about 3,000,000 bushels, thereby upsetting the earlier assessments on which advances had been paid, but the abnormal conditions also had a detrimental effect on the size and quality of the fruit. The keeping properties under cool storage conditions were affected to such an extent that considerable repacking was necessary later in the season and costs were thereby greatly increased. Further quantities of fruit on which advances had been paid were lost at that stage. Moreover, the weak condition of many varieties, after removal from store, depressed prices, resulting in a fall in the anticipated proceeds from sales. Increased freights and insurance costs further inflated the marketing costs.

Fortunately the Government was able to arrange for the shipment to the United Kingdom this year of about 2,000,000 cases of apples and pears at very satisfactory prices.Whilst this figure is much less than 50 per cent. of normal pre-war exports to United Kingdom and continental markets, the realizations from such shipments were an important addition to those from sales of the balance of the crops.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I protest against the action of the Government in asking the Senate to consider this measure, unless further information is supplied regarding it. The bill has become necessary as a result of bungling administration. The matter has been investigated by the Auditor-General, and senators are entitled to be notified beforehand of the introduction of the bill so that they may be able to investigate the position and view the proposal in proper perspective. I understand that the bungling occurred, in the first instance, over the assessment of the crop. The Government proposes to pay to the growers 2s. a case in respect of 75 per cent. of the assessed crop. Probably because of seasonal conditions, the crop did not prove to be as bountiful as was expected. The fruit in many orchards was not picked at all. The Government paid at the rate of 2s. a case for large quantities of fruit which it did not receive; instead of paying for, say, 75 cases which it actually received, it paid for 100 cases. There is something wrong when such things occur, and this Parliament should cause an investigation to be made. I protest strongly against the. introduction of this measure at this stage. I ask that consideration of the bill be postponed until to-morrow, so that we may obtain further information concerning it. The Minister informed us that 2,000,000 cases of apples and pears had been shipped to the United Kingdom, but he did not indicate the proportion of apples to pears. I understand that the. apples realized 10s. a case, f.o.b. I submit that this Parliament should be given further information before it is asked to agree to the expenditure of this huge sum of money.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- In accordance with the policy of the. Labour party, I support the granting of assistance to whatever section of primary producers needs it, but I was amazed to hear the Minister say that the anticipated loss this year on this scheme will be about £750,000. Not many weeks ago the Minister told us that shipping space for fresh fruit would’ not be obtainable. If that be so, it is probable that a similar position will arise next year. With war expenditure amounting ‘ to £186,000,000 this financial year, I suggest that this policy needs examination. I speak as a consumer. In the city where I live, apples and pears cannot be bought under 6d. or 8d. a lb., notwithstanding that the quantity of fruit produced is so great that it cannot be disposed of. Why is there a loss of £750,000 on this scheme at a time when the people of Australia cannot obtain fresh apples and pears? I am credibly informed that large quantities of fruit have been destroyed. If the loss last year, when shipping was available, amounted to £750,000, I shudder to think what future losses will be. I ask the Minister to inform us how many growers are concerned, what shipping space is available, and what proposals the Government has in mind for dealing with next year’s crop?

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The scheme covered by this bill has not the approval of the fruit-growers of Victoria, as will be seen from a communication which I have received from the Wantirna and Vermont Branch of the Fruit-growers and Primary Producers Defence League of Australia. It reads -

We, the growers in tlie Melbourne metropolitan districts of Vermont and Wantirna, wish to bring before your notice the reasons why we are opposed to the acquisition of apples and pears.

At the outset we wish to state that, in common with most fruit-growers, we fully realize that although we are willing to carry on without financial help, some assistance will be necessary to certain apple and pear-growers in Australia if they ave to carry on until the end of the war.

We contend, however, that such assistance can bo given more cheaply and to better advantage to all by means other than acquisition.

We wish to state emphatically that we are not grower speculators. We have for many years disposed of the fruit we have grown by the most economical form of marketing, that is by direct sales to consumers and retailers. It is from knowledge so gained that we have reached the conclusion that any acquisition scheme must be unfair and uneconomical.

Senator Lamp:

– What rot!

Senator CAMERON:

– That may be ihe opinion of the honorable senator, buI arn giving the views of persons who are directly concerned. I submit that their opinions are worthy of consideration. The letter proceeds -

In support of this we advance the following points : -

It is generally realized that the apple and pear industry is a very difficult and complicated one to handle; how difficult only those who grow, pack and sell their own fruit can fully realize. In the first place there are multitudes of values. When the fruit has been reduced to varieties, grades and sizes, there are also values within those varieties, grades and sizes. Some packs have that little bit extra in appearance and quality which renders them more attractive to the best buyers, who are prepared to pay considerably more for these packs.

High quality is not the result of accident, but of good orchard practice. We claim that it is to the best interest of all to encourage the production of better, and still better, produce. This, it seems to us, will best be encouraged by returning to the producer a price in keeping with the quality of the article lie produces, rather than by acquisition.

Fruit is highly perishable, and we submit that it is only tlie grower who understands the keeping quality of the fruit he grows, also the time to market it in the best condition.

The Melbourne metropolitan growers are tlie pioneers of fruit cool-storage in Australia, and we claim that our knowledge of this branch of the industry is unrivalled in Australia. Out of this knowledge we realize that any scheme which destroys a grower’s personal interest in his fruit is under a tremendous handicap for this reason alone.

Senator McBride:

– I rise to a point of order. The letter’ which the honorable senator is reading has nothing to do with the bill the object of which is to provide money to compensate the Commonwealth Bank for moneys advanced by it to finance a previous scheme.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - I am not prepared at this stage to rule that Senator Cameron is out of order, but I suggest that he should curtail his quotation.

Senator CAMERON:

– I am willing that the letter be incorporated in Hansard without being read, but if that is not acceptable to the Senate, I feel that it is my duty to read it.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator may proceed.

Senator CAMERON:

– The letter continues -

Orchardists adjacent to Melbourne are under a very high production cost, and only manage to carry on because our marketing costs are low and because our fruit is marketed in perfect condition, and, therefore, commands the highest prices.

Under acquisition these marketing advantages are lost to us and we are paid the same price in the orchard as are those districts on low production costs and high marketing costs. The result is that the pool makes a considerable profit on our fruit, which goes to offset the loss on fruit from the low-production costs districts. It has also the effect of upsetting a marketing system built up over many years - a system which is definitely to the advantage of grower, retailer, and last but not least, the consumer.

It should be realized that it is the consumer who must be satisfied. That is the essence of all good business. We contend that the consumer has not even been considered under the last year’s acquisition scheme, and if the same people are to have charge again next year, better results will be unlikely.

It is not reasonable to expect us to willingly allow the orderly and successful marketing system we have built up to be scrapped without recompense for an expensive and unwieldy experiment which is being handled by men who, we contend, are just learning now what our fathers learnt years ago. In support of this statement we respectfully request that you will thoroughly investigate the operations of the Acquisition Committee, and we submita few mistakes they have made which have come under our notice in Melbourne markets.

Reasons for Inquiry.

By the raising of prices of apples in the Queen Victoria Market on the 1st March by 2s. to 3s. per case, which was 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. increase, the Acquisition Committee fulfilled the fears of buyers, who naturally resented what they considered to be exploitation by a monopoly.
In the early stages of the scheme locally grown fruit of the lesser wanted packs was stale and shrivelled on the selling floor because the lowest price acceptable was 5s. a case, irrespective of quality. This fruit could have been readily cleared had market price been accepted. Poor people could not afford the prices asked and this antagonized them.
After the big fall of Jonathons, bestquality Jonathons were practically withheld from sale so as to quit windfalls. This antagonized the quality fruiterer, who could not supply customers who went without apples rather than buy poor-quality fruit.
Many sales were lost because pears, which are essentially a hot-weather fruit, were almost unprocurable during March and April, and then only in a green state. Much heavier supplies were on the market during the winter months, when they were not so popular.
Although March, April and May are the best and most economical apple and pear selling months, sales effected were considerably less than they should have been, because of the aforementioned reasons. This necessitated the cold storage of fruit, which was sold at reduced figures in the following three months.
Locally-grown fruit, which could have been sold in open cases at a low marketing cost, was wrapped and packed in new cases for the Melbourne market. The extra marketing cost of this fruit to the pool was approximately 1s. 6d. per case.
Tasmania fruit, which had been packed for us long as six mouths, was offered without repacking, even if known to contain a large percentage of faulty fruit. Had growers offered such fruit for sale, they would have been prosecuted, and rightly so.

What is the use of advertising and boosting goods unless one delivers quality which will ensure repeat orders? How can the surplus be disposed of if the price asked is so high that it eliminates one large section of consumers? Most people do not buy all the fruit they would like to. They buy what they can afford. Thus,1s. buys 4 lb. of 3d. apples and increases sales by approximately 20 per cent. over 4d. apples.

Summary of Case.

We believe that if the Government does not proceed with the acquisition of apples and pears -

That the Government will be saved a lot of unnecessary expense.
That the crop will be marketed more economically.
That there will be considerably more sales effected.
That the growers will receive a higher net return ( at least cost of production ) .
That consumers will benefit considerably by-
1. Better-quality fruit, because the grower’s interest in his produce will be reinstated, and fruit inspection enforced.
2. ) Lower prices, because heavy overhead charges will be removed.
3. Competition, which is the life of the trade, will be restored.

That communication was forwarded to me to be presented to the Government for its consideration. I do not claim to be an authority on the growing of apples or pears, or on the method of their disposal.

Senator Lamp:

– Does the honorable senator support the statements which he has read.

Senator CAMERON:

– I do not support anything to which I have not given the fullest consideration. If I were an experienced grower and could speak from experience, I could say whether I could support the statements, but when a communication is sent by an influential section of the community, it is my duty as a representative of the people to bring the communication before the Government for its consideration. These are the views of men directly connected with the subject-matter of the bill now before the Senate, although they may not be the views of the Government. Had the Government given more consideration to the views of those directly concerned, a great deal of dissatisfaction would have been avoided.

Senator Lamp:

– These are the people who are sabotaging the scheme.

Senator CAMERON:

– The honorable senator has no proof that the scheme is being sabotaged; I do not accept mere statements as proof.

Senator McBride:

Senator Cameron:

– No; I merely stated a case.

Senator AYLETT:

– The people who prepared the statement, which was read by the honorable senator, waited until mines in Bass Strait prevented Tasmanian growers from reaching the mainland market before they showed their hand. The growers in Victoria and in New South Wales should know that if sufficient ships were available to take the Tasmanian crop to the mainland, where it could be sold in open competition, Tasmanian growers would sweep the market. Especially in this crisis, we must have orderly marketing, not only of apples and pears, hut also of all commodities. The need for orderly marketing will be demonstrated more than ever in the coming season because a quantity equal to the 2,000,000 cases of apples and pears, which were shipped to the United Kingdom last year, will in all probability remain in Australia this year. The Apple and Pear Marketing Board, therefore, will have to dispose of at least 2,000,000 more bushels this year than last year. No doubt there will be a loss on the fruit, but with proper administration it ought to be kept down to a minimum. The prices for the ensuing year will not be so bad when cost of cases, packing, &c, are added.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Appropriation for repayment of moneys advanced by Commonwealth Bank).

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

.- Will the Minister (Senator McBride) tell me what interest had to be paid on the money to be appropriated under this bill ?

Senator McBride:

– The Government had to pay interest at the rate of33/4 per cent.

Senator DARCEY:

– Why was interest charged when all the profits of the Commonwealth Bank go back to the Government?

Clause agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.45 a.m.

Thursday, 12 December 1940

page 919

WIRE NETTING BOUNTY BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Leckie) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator LECKIE:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to restore the payment of a bounty on the production of wire netting in Australia. Prior to the 3rd May, 1940, bounty was payable at the rate of 9s. 7d. a ton, but owing to the definition of “duty of customs” in section 3 of the principal act passed in 1939, the imposition of a special war duty under the customs tariff (special war duty proposals), which came into operation on that date, had the effect of cancelling the bounty previously payable.

In section 8 of the principal act the rate of bounty is prescribed at 9s. 7d. a ton, but it is provided that if the rate of duty be increased such reduction shall be made in the rate of bounty as is equivalent to that increase. The rate of duty under the intermediate and general tariffs prior to the 3rd May, 1940, was £5 a ton, and the special war duty proposals imposed an additional duty of 10s. a ton. As the increased duty was more than the rate of bounty the payment of bounty ceased. Wire netting is free of duty under the British preferential tariff, and the special war duty would not apply to any importations coming under that tariff. Actually wire netting is not being imported into Australia, and, consequently, no special war duty is being collected. Thus the increase of duty is only theoretical and does not give any advantage to Australian manufacturers.

The Tariff Board’s report of the 30th May, 1939, expressed the opinion that the bounty could be withdrawn without detriment to the wire netting industry, but the Government decided to continue the bounty in order to afford the Western Australian Netting and Wire Company Limited, Western Australia, a reasonable opportunity to establish its operations on a firm footing. That company suffers the disadvantage of having to pay full freight on wire rods procured from the eastern States and to sell the finished product at the common c.i.f. price which applies to all main cities in the Commonwealth.

Without the bounty the position of this company would be gravely affected. Moreover, the Government is of opinion that it is sound and expedient for national reasons to encourage manufacture, wherever possible, in more than one State, especially if the State concerned be far distant from other sources of Australian supply, and is a substantial user of the product being manufactured.

Clause 2 of the bill makes provision for the amendment to operate as from the 3rd May, 1940, the date on which the special war duty proposals came into operation. Clause 3 amends the definition of “ duty of customs “ by excluding any duty expressed by a customs tariff or customs tariff proposal to be imposed as a special war duty of customs. The definition, as amended, reads - “ Duty of customs “ means the duty of customs chargeable in pursuance of any customs tariff or of any customs tariff proposal introduced into the House of Representatives, but does notinclude any duty expressed by the customs tariff or customs tariff proposal to be imposed as a special war duty of customs.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– I support the measure principally because it seeks to encourage an industry which is being firmly established in Western Australia. Indeed, the manufacture of wire netting is one of the few secondary industries established in that State. The State Government is giving every support to that industry. It has been said that the Netting and Wire Company of Western Australia is linked financially with the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Actually, there is no connexion between the two firms. I also point out that under this legislation profits are limited to 6 per cent.

I take this opportunity to emphasize the need, from a defence point, to decentralize industries. I have prepared much material to show that this measure is thoroughly justified. However, as honorable senators unanimously support the bill, I shall not, at this late hour, delay its passage through the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 920

MORGAN-WHYALLA WATERWORKS AGREEMENT BILL 1940

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McBride) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to validate the agreement of the 20th November between the Commonwealth and the Commissioner of Waterworks for the State of South Australia for the purchase of water under what is known as the MorganWhyalla water scheme. This scheme provides for the building of a pipe line, with the necessary pumping stations and reservoirs, from Morgan, on the River Murray, to Whyalla, on the western side of Spencer’s Gulf, and is designed to provide a water supply to the districts as. far north as Port Augusta, and to new industries at Whyalla which can only be established at that centre provided an adequate supply of water is made available.

The agreement is for a period of twenty years, and provides for the purchase of water for Commonwealth railways purposes at Port Augusta at the rate of 2s. 4d. for each 1,000 gallons. The Commonwealth has agreed that, regardless of the quantity of water used by the Railways Department, it will make minimum payments to the State, during each year of the currency of the agreement, equivalent to one-half of any loss that the State may incur during the year in Working the undertaking, but not exceeding the sum of £37,500 in any year. Should the loss in any year not exceed £25,000 the Commonwealth will not be called upon to make any payment under the minimum payment clause of the agreement, but will be required to pay only for water actually used.

Debate (on motion by Senator Collings) adjourned.

page 921

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till 11 a.m. to-day.

page 921

ADJOURNMENT

Alleged Subversive Statements

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

– In moving -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I ask honorable senators who intend to speak at this stage to make their remarks as brief as possible. The officers of the Senate have had a very busy day, in consequence of the House of Representatives sitting throughout last night, and have yet to prepare for the meeting of the Senate to-day.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– In view of the hour, I should not attempt to discuss at this stage the subject which I am now about to raise, but for the fact that probably I shall not have another opportunity to do so. I draw the attention of the Senate to a state of affairs developing in Australia which is entirely inimical to the best interests of this country. I shall preface my remarks by quoting the following statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) : -

It would be, in ray opinion, a cardinal error to assume that if this war lasts for three years, we will at the end at it revert to just the same economic structure and life as we had last year.

When it is realized that on the war hypothesis I have stated (that is, a three years’ war) we will have behind us three years of intense experience of financial control, of trade control, of price control, of bulk selling and of bulk buying, it will be at once seen that nobody can foretell what changes of a permanent kind in the relations between government and business may be produced by the present struggle.

The government is not hostile to change hut it desires that whatever change comes about should be for the good of the Australian people.

With every word of that statement I entirely concur. However, there are individuals who do not view with satisfaction the possibilities outlined by the Prime Minister. For example, a gentleman, who was very much in the public eye some four years ago, has, recently, together with others who agree with his views, resumed activities of the kind which previously won him notoriety. I refer to Mr. Eric Campbell, who, when he was leader of the New Guard, said -

The spiritual and moral inspiration of Fascism is the hope of civilization. Politically, it is the only possible evolution of democracy.

I do not know whether honorable senators are aware that there exists in the two principal States of Australia an active organization whose objective is to overthrow that form of government to which we who belong to the British Empire are accustomed. Whatever the political colour of the government of the day may be, I shall strongly object to its being attacked by such methods.

Men are being drilled and armed for no other purpose than to interfere with the orderly forms of government at a time considered in certain quarters to be appropriate. If honorable senators desire confirmation of my statement, I suggest that they confer with some of the men concerned in the movement to which I refer with whom they are acquainted. If they get in touch with the heads of some of the big firms in Sydney and Melbourne, it will be found that they have key men who are known only by numbers, and are drilled in the use of arms, so that when, in the opinion of their employers and of those who have made these subversive statements, their business is threatened by a government which would not be pliable to their demands, action could be taken. A definite demand is being made to arm the branch of our defence forces which is willing to undertake home defence duties. Members of rifle clubs are being specially detailed for their ordinary practice and are to be given a distinguishing mark, so that in time of trouble they will be available. The kind of trouble referred to is similar to that which may be expected from the governments overseas which are responsible for the present war. Ths Investigation Branch of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department has an elaborate organization which is doing very effective work, and it should be asked to inquire whether what I have stated is correct.

My information has been obtained from some of the men who are doing the duties to which I have referred. They are brought together at night by means of secret information. They are taken to places obscured from the public gaze and are drilled in the arts of war.

Senator Dein:

– Is this taking place in Sydney ?

Senator COLLINGS:

– In New South Wales and Victoria. I do not know about the other States, because the capitalist order of society has not been developed so viciously in those States as it has in New South Wales and Victoria. I know that when Eric Campbell was operating, it is little short of a miracle that there was not a clash of armed forces in Sydney. Honorable senators need not appear to be surprised. On the 22nd November, the following statement was published in the Sydney Morning Herald : -

Canberra, Thursday

Mr. Menzies should take full powers to himself and become a dictator. If he did so and the members of other Parliamentary parties did not support him, we returned soldiers would see that he was able to carry on.

Mr. L. A. Robb, New South Wales president of the Returned Soldiers’ League, said this in Canberra to-night at the Federal Congress of the League.

It has been said that this was merely a statement by one man who had no- support from the organization in whose name he spoke. The newspaper report continues -

After a debate characterized by bitter criticism of politicians, the congress decided to appeal to all political parties in the Federal Parliament to submerge their differences and agree to the immediate formation of a National Government for the duration of the war.

Senator COLLINGS:

– The Assistant Minister knows something about the force to which I have referred, and I do not propose to argue with him. The report continues -

The congress began the debate immediately after a visit to the House of Representatives.

page 922

NOT DOING THEIR JOB

Mr. W. D. Sharland (South Australia) said:

After watching to-day the fashion in which Parliament operates, I am disgusted and amazed.

Delegates: So are all of us.

Mr. Sharland: If this is the best that democracy can manage, the sooner we have a dictator the better. Not just a few, but the greatest number are not doing their job. We will have to ‘tell them that, unless they do it, we ourselves will take over the Government.

That man is a liar, and all honorable senators should resent his remarks. Honorable senators on both sides of this chamber are doing their job to the best of their ability. At least, I am trying to do mine, and I resent remarks of that kind. The report continues -

Mr. L. A. Robb: Every individual member of Parliament should be compelled to take the oath of allegiance separately. That is the only way in whichwe can make sure that they will all swear allegiance to the King. ( Applause. )

I say there is one man in particular in the House to whom this remark applies, and I call upon him to take notice. All of us here know who he is. How the devil do we expect the job of winning the war to be carried on by such fellows?

When the soldiers overseas return they will be so fed up with the political situation that they will take over the Government, and when they do, we soldiers of the last war will say God bless them, and stand at their side.

The stage is set and the scene is laid for the establishment of Fascism in this country. These persons at the conference were not talking without their book. I am sure of that.

- Mr. Robb made that statement in Canberra at the federal congress of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, which was assembled at the Seat of the National Capital. There is no doubt that a faked photograph was taken of the Parliament in session, and that the figures of members were eliminated from the picture in order to justify a statement that the House was empty, and that members were not carrying out their duties. On the authority of the Prime Minister

I say that Australia will never return to the conditions existing before the war. There are people in this country who are definitely determined that the forecast of the Prime Minister shall not come true. I am confident that the Prime Minister has no sympathy with the proposals to which I have referred, but he did say, and we all believe, that we shall never return to the conditions that existed before the war, but that there will be in the future a different and, we hope, a better order of society. It may be a modified form of socialism or it may be - although I hope that it will not be - some form of communism. But if these interests are not checked it will definitely be a Fascist organization. There are men in this Parliament, particularly in the other branch of the legislature, who are not behind encouraging the Fascist idea that is already abroad in the community. I should not be half so demonstrative if honorable senators opposite did not sit in their places, with smug looks of satisfaction and indifference on their faces, and, by interjection, suggest that there is nothing in what I say. There is not a man connected with big business in New South “Wales or Victoria who does not know that the organization referred to in this paragraph is definitely at work trying to put into operation what is said here.

Senator McBride:

– Nonsense !

Senator COLLINGS:

– I could give to the Minister the names of some of them. I have in mind one particular gentleman who is connected with the operations of the political party to which the Government and most of its supporters belong. At the moment, I shall not indicate him by name ; I shall make the revelation at the appropriate time. The quotation continues -

After a debate characterized by bitter criticism of politicians-

What impudence on the part of the congress to indulge in bitter criticism of politicians !

Senator Collett:

– Why?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Just because we do not do the job according to their views - they referred, not to Government supporters, but to members of the Opposition - they indulge in bitter criticism of politicians. Because we on this side have at least the semblance of political honour and decency, we resent this criticism. The paragraph reads -

After a debate characterized by bitter criticism of politicians, the congress decided to appeal to all political parties in- the Federal Parliament to submerge their differences and agree to the immediate formation of a national government for the duration of the war.

Senator Collett:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator COLLINGS:

– There is this wrong with it - the Government parties were allegedly seeking the formation of a national government, while the party to which I belong was opposing it. The congress was not attacking the Government; it was attacking the Opposition. This element will not get away with attacks on the Australian Labour party without protest. The report continues : -

The congress began the debate immediately after a visit to the House of Representatives.

Having taken a photograph of the House of Representatives, when most of the members were in their places, they, or their photographer, faked the negative to make it appear that only one or two members were in their places.

Senator Collett:

– Does the honorable senator accuse the organization of doing that?

Senator COLLINGS:

– Either members of the organization or their photographer. If the Assistant Minister thinks he can intimidate me by getting me to say either this or that so he can pin me down to certain words, I assure him that he is making a mistake. I shall see this thing through to the limit. Every opportunity that presents itself in this Parliament I shall use as I become possessed of the facts.

Senator Dein:

– See that they are facts.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I shall continue to read from the Sydney Morning Herald. Under the heading “ Not doing their job,” the following paragraph appeared : -

Mr. W. IX Sharland (South Australia) said: After watching to-day the fashion in which Parliament operates, I am disgusted and amazed.

What would happen if, during our deliberations in this chamber, some person in the gallery rose and said : “ After watching to-day the fashion in which Parliament operates, I am disgusted and amazed “ ? I imagine that the Usher of the Black Rod would immediately be despatched to escort the offender out of the building. Honorable senators opposite would resent such a statement if said in their hearing. But they dismiss this newspaper report without protest because they know by whom it was said and to whom it referred ; it referred not to them, but to us. The paragraph continues : -

Delegates: So are all of us.

The congress was not a gathering of a few persons, but a big delegation drawn from all parts of Australia.

Senator Collett:

– ‘How many delegates were there?

Senator COLLINGS:

– The honorable senator is a fighting pacifist.

Senator COLLINGS:

– I am like the Irishman who said, “ I believe in peace, and will go to war to get it “. The report of Mr. Robb’s statement continues : -

That is the only way in which we can make sure that they will all swear allegiance to the King (applause). I say there is one man in particular in the House to whom this remark applies, and I call upon him to take notice.

Was that a threat of personal violence to an unmentioned individual? There are 36 members of this chamber and 74 in the other branch of the legislature every one of whom is under suspicion. I cannot identify the man to whom the remark was intended to apply, but if I am told that I am the man, there will be something doing. If Mr. Robb thinks that he can make me alter my conduct in this chamber he is at liberty to try. The report goes on to say -

All of us here know who he is. How the devil do we expect the job of winning the war to he carried on by such fellows.

When the soldiers overseas return, they will be so fed up with the political situation that they will take over the Government, and when they do, we soldiers of the last war will say God bless them and stand at their side.

Will they stand at their side with their hands folded and empty? That statement contains a definite threat of force. All honorable senators remember the sad day in this chamber when the news came that France had collapsed. They remember other sad days when we were informed that one after another European country had also collapsed. A new word has recently been added to our language; every one knows what it is to be described as a “ Quisling “ or a “ Fifth columnist “. There may have been other reasons for the collapse of France, but I say definitely that one of the reasons for that collapse was the existence of numbers of “ Fifth columnists “ who had been at work to undermine the French nation. If we allow such things to happen in Australia, and the people in our midst can make statements of that nature in order to gain publicity, the Government will have to get its investigation officers on the job quickly, or we shall have in Australia an army of “ Quislings “ and “ Fifth columnists “ who will endanger the nation. I ask the Leader of the Government to ensure that the gentlemen who, through no fault of their own, are on trial are permitted to be represented by counsel. There should be a public inquiry, as only by that means will the uneasiness that exists in the minds of the people be removed. Had this man Robb been an ordinary member of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, and not the private secretary to the Governor of New South Wales, there would not have been this whitewashing inquiry, which is merely designed to protect a man who is quite capable of protecting himself. I hope that the Commonwealth Investigation Branch will be instructed to inquire into the whole of the circumstances, and, if necessary, I can give officers of that branch some useful information. I trust that the Prime Minister will instruct the Public Service Board to give these young fellows a chance. The New South Wales branch of the Australian Journalists Association is prepared to brief counsel to defend them, knowing that they are honorable men, and that their employment is at stake. At least let justice be done.

Motion (by Senator Dein) proposed -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes.)

AYES: 12

NOES: 10

Majority . . 2

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The result of the division is, “ Ayes “ 12, “ Noes “ 10. There being less than 13 senators voting in the affirmative the question is resolved inthe negative.

AYES

NOES

Senator AMOUR:
Communist · New South WalesLeader of the Australian Labour party, non

– In supporting the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), I should like to mention that Mr. Robb made the statements attributed to him, which were supported by Sharland and Thackaberry, onthe 21st November, and on the 24th November he denied having made them. That denial was published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 25th November, and at the end of the article in which they were denied the editor of that newspaper added the words, “ We are satisfied that Mr. Robb was not misreported in the Herald “. He at least stood by the men responsible for the report. The unfortunate feature of the matter is that the statements complained of were made at a returned soldiers’ congress. I do not know whether the returned soldiers were having a merry party, but the fact remains that pro-Fascist statements were made and the pressmen who reported the proceedings have been arraigned before a court, and gestapo methods are being employed. In Germany the Gestapo would adopt tactics similar to those being adopted in this case.

Senator McBride:

– What aboutthe O.G.P.U. in Russia?

Senator AMOUR:

– I am no more in favour of the O.G.P.U. than I am of the Gestapo. It is interesting to note that about the time the statements were made Sir Walter Citrine, general secretary of the British Trade Union Congress, speaking at the annual convention of the American Federation of Labour, which he attended as a delegate, said: “I want you to make the American workshop democracy’s first line of defence. Britain will fight until the dictatorships in Europe are abolished.” While that appeal was being made to the workers of the United States of America to assist Great Britain in its war effort, persons like Robb, Sharland and Thackaberry were telling a conference of returned soldiers in Canberra that the Prime Minister of this country should be set up as a dictator. A precedent for subversive activities was established some time ago when members of the New Guard, led by Colonel Eric Campbell, drove in motor cars to Banks town and battered people with iron bars.

Senator Foll:

– Was that when De Groot opened the Sydney Harbour Bridge?

Senator AMOUR:

– It was before De Groot was placed in an asylum for being so stupid as to out the ribbon which was to be severed by the person who was to declare the bridge open. It is interesting to note that Brigadier-General Lloyd, who was associated with Colonel Campbell in. the New Guard organization, is now a general in our Military Forces. De Groot is now an officer in the military forces. The New Guard is not a defunct organization. It is still in existence, and people such as Robb and his associates, are endeavoring to stir up public opinion. Gestapo methods have undoubtedly been employed in connexion with the inquiry now being held into the statements attributed to Mr. Robb, and the “ third degree “ is being used. Gestapo methods have even been introduced into this Parliament because, knowing that it was my intention to pursue this matter further, Senator Dein, acting on behalf of the Government, attempted to stifle discussion by moving “ That the question be now put “. The Government does not like the spotlight to be focused on this subject, but I assure honorable senators opposite that there are forces in Australia which will drive out of this country all Fascists and others such as Mr. Robb, guilty of subversive utterances. There are many who profess patriotism, but who have no hesitation in letting their country down. In other countries traitors havebeen found in all classes of society. We must banish the Leopolds and Quislings in our midst. I am confident that unless the Prime Minister gives an assurance to-morrow that some action is to be taken against Mr. Robb, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) and members of his party, will soon have an opportunity to control the business of this country. People engaged in subversive activities should he placed in an internment camp - where they belong.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

– On the 11th December Senator Clothier asked the Minister for Supply and Development the following questions, upon notice: -

Will the Minister state the number of employees, (a) male and (b) female, engaged on munitions work in the Commonwealth?
Will he give the figures also for the various States?
Will the Minister state the amount of salaries and wages paid to. these employees in each State?

I am now in a position to supplythe following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: -

The latest figures of employees in the munitions factories and annexes under direct governmental control and in the principal establishments engaged on service aircraft construction are (a) 25,330 males, (6) 5,837 females.
Males: New South Wales, 6,368; Victoria, 17,015; and South Australia, 1,947. Females: New South Wales, 475; Victoria, 4,335 ; and South Australia, 427. These figures do not take into account annexes which are in course of coming into production or the many thousands employed throughout the Commonwealth directly or indirectly upon work connected with the production of munitions and aircraft components carried out by firms under contract or sub-contract arrangements, as information under this category would be difficult if not impossible to collate.
The approximate amount of weekly salaries and wages paid is: New South Wales, £41,938; Victoria, £110,349; and South Australia, £12,203.

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– I do not intend to enter into a controversy with honorable senators opposite concerning statements alleged to have been made by the president to the New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia,

Mr. L. A. Robb, but it ill.becomes them to associate Gestapo methods with the inquiry which is now being held into his alleged utterances. In view of the fact that Mr. Robb is virtually on trial, honorable senators opposite have not displayed good taste in discussing the case, and are suggesting that Gestapo methods are employed, because the method of the Gestapo is to punish people on the mere assumption of guilt. Honorable senators opposite have declared Mr. Robb guilty before his case has been decided.

Senator Amour:

– Our objection is to the inquiry being held behind closed doors.

Senator FOLL:

– At the moment, I shall not discuss that aspect of the matter. The inquiry was ordered by the Government, of which Mr. Robb is an officer. If he has made unwise or subversive statements, I am certain that he will be punished. I have known Mr. Robb for 25 years, and I have a deep knowledge of the extraordinarily fine work that he has done for his fellow-members of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia, and I refuse to listen to any statement on the subject until the result of the inquiry is known. “Why, then, should he be condemned as he has been by some honorable senators opposite merely for the sake of political kudos? I was not at the conference at which the statements alleged to have been made were uttered. I, like every other honorable senator, have had to depend on what I have read in the newspapers. It is a breach of privilege for honorable senators to try to prejudice Mr. Robb’s case. Whatever be the result of the inquiry, nothing can alter the fact that he has given enduringservice to his fellow returned soldiers in the highest position which the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia can offer. As a man, Mr. Robb has earned and gained the respect of the community. Until the case is determined, he should be given a semblance of British justice and not be treated as guilty before the decision of the tribunal is known.

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

– in reply - Matters raised by honorable senators will be brought to the notice of the appropriate Ministers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 928

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Seventeenth Report on the Commonwealth Public Service, by the Public Service Board, dated 10th December, 1940.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at - Fortitude Valley, Queensland - For Postal purposes.

Red Head, New South Wales - For

Defence purposes.

Taxation Acts- Twenty-second Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, year 1938-39 - Land Tax, Income Tax, and Estate Duty; and year 1939-40- Sales Tax, Flour Tax, and Wool Tax.

Senate adjourned at 1.50 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 December 1940, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1940/19401211_senate_16_165/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 December 1940

QUESTION

LAND ACQUISITION

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FOLL:Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator UPPILL:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

QUESTION

ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE STATEMENTS

Senator COLLINGS:QUEENSLAND

Senator McLEAY:Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

RABBIT VIRUS

Senator UPPILL:

Senator COLLETT:Minister without portfolio administering War Service Homes · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP

QUESTION

MARCONI SCHOOL OF WIRELESS

Senator CAMERON:VICTORIA

Senator McLEAY:UAP

QUESTION

BOMBING OF GREAT BRITAIN

Senator BROWN:QUEENSLAND

Senator COLLETT:UAP

QUESTION

SIXTH MILITARY DISTRICT

Senator LAMP:TASMANIA

QUESTION

MILITARY BATES OF PAY

Senator BRAND:VICTORIA

Senator FOLL:UAP

QUESTION

HEARING-AIDS FOR EX-SOLDIERS

Senator BRAND:

Senator COLLETT:UAP

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES

Senator LAMP:

Senator FOLL:UAP

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (No. 2) 1940

Second Reading

Senator FOLL:Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

Senator ABBOTT:New South Wales

Senator Foll:

Senator ABBOTT:

Senator Foll:

Senator ABBOTT:

Senator Foll:

Senator ABBOTT:

Senator Foll:

Senator KEANE:Victoria

Senator A J McLACHLAN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FOLL:Minister for the Interior · Queeusland · UAP

Senator Collings:

Senator FOLL:

Senator FOLL:

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1940

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

STATES GRANTS BILL 1940

Second Reading

Senator COLLINGS:QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

Senator DARCEY:Tasmania

Senator AYLETT:Tasmania

Senator McLeay:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator McBride:

Senator AYLETT:

Senator LAMP:Tasmania

Senator McBride:

Senator LAMP:

Senator McBride:

Senate
11 December 1940

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · QUEENSLAND · UAP

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator UPPILL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931

Senator COLLINGS:
QUEENSLAND

Senator McLEAY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator COLLETT:
Minister without portfolio administering War Service Homes · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

Senator McLEAY:
UAP

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COLLETT:
UAP

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

Senator BRAND:
VICTORIA

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator COLLETT:
UAP

Senator FOLL:
UAP

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queeusland · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

Senator LAMP:
Tasmania

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Supply and Development · South Australia · UAP

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

Senator GIBSON:
Victoria

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

Senator McBRIDE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP