Senate
3 April 1941

16th Parliament · 1st Session



The President(SenatortheHon.J.B. Hayes) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 602

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

What would be the pecuniary gain orloss -

to a man with a wife and two children under the present child endowment proposals on a salary where the disallowance of exemption for one child would make his income taxable;

to a man with a wife and three children on a salary of £600 per annum ;

to a man with a wife and three children on a salary of £1,000 per annum?

Senator LECKIE:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · VICTORIA · UAP

-The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers : -

The following figures are baaed on the Commonwealth income tax rates at present in force for income from personal exertion. No account is taken of State taxation, because it is assumed that the States will not withdraw their concessional deductions: -

Extra tax would be £7 to nil, depending on thesize of his taxable income as a result of the withdrawal of the concessional deduction. This could in any case not amount to more than £50. The payment of £13 endowment would make the net benefit £6 to £13.

Assuming for the sake of simplicity that his only remaining concessional deductions were £100 for a wife and one child (i.e., ignoring probable deductions for State taxation and insurance, &c.),thenetbenefit would be £6 per child receiving endowment, a total of £12.

On the same assumption as for (b), the loss per child is £1, making a total of £2.

page 602

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Censorshipof Addresses

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Who are the censors who act for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and what are their qualifications for the positions which they hold?
  2. How many broadcast addresses have they censored since the outbreak of the war?
  3. Will members of the Senate be allowed to examine such addresses, and, if so, will they be supplied with copies if requests are made for same?
Senator McLEAY:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The information is being obtained, and will be furnished to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 602

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has the inquiry that has been conducted by the Tariff Board into shipbuilding in Australia been completed; if not, can the Minister state when such inquiry will be completed and a report made to the House?
  2. Will the Minister furnish each honorable senator with a copy of the report immediately it is available?
Senator LECKIE:
UAP

– The Minister for Trade and Customs has supplied the following answers: -

  1. The inquiry has been completed, but the report has not yet been received.
  2. It is not the practice to circulatereports of this nature until they have been tabled in Parliament and the motion for their printing agreed to.

page 602

QUESTION

WOOL TAX

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Who are the parties to the wool levy agreement?
  2. What amount did each party agree to contribute by the agreement?
  3. What has been contributed to date by each party ?
  4. Have any of the parties to the agreement defaulted in their payments in any way to date?
  5. If the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, which party has defaulted, and for what amount?
Senator McBRIDE:
Minister for Munitions · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The Minister for Commerce has supplied the following answers : - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Nothing is known of a wool levy agreement.This may refer, however, to the tax imposed under the Wool Tax Act 1936 on all wool grown in Australia and shorn on or after the 1st July, 1936. This tax is for the purpose of financing the Australian Wool Board in its efforts, by publicity and research or any other means, to improve the production of wool in Australia and increase and extend the use of wool throughout the world. The levies provided for under the Wool Tax Act 1936 are - For each bale of wool, 6d.; for each fadge or butt of wool, 3d.; for each bag of wool, Id. The amount collected in 1938-39 was £84,399 4s. 6d.

page 603

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Senator AYLETT:

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

  1. Is the Marketing Board under the apple and pear acquisition scheme endeavouring to sell the fruit at a profit, or is it satisfied to cover costs?
  2. Is it the policy of the Marketing Board to show a small loss and get as much fruit as possible into consumption?
Senator McBRIDE:
UAP

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

  1. During the period of heavy supplies the Apple and Vear Marketing Board is endeavouring only to cover costs, but this does not necessarily apply in every instance, as prices must bc regulated according to demand. The basis of the financial aspects of the scheme is that total realizations from sales should cover advances to growers, presentation costs and other expenses.
  2. The board is endeavouring to get as much fruit as possible into consumption, but not necessarily at a loss. The board has been instructed to dispose of the greatest quantity of fruit at the lowest possible prices.
Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Are the control and arrangements of sales under the apple and pear acquisition scheme, from the grower to the distributor for local sales, the same in each State?
  2. What is the rate of commission paid to the agent or agents in each State?
  3. What is the rate of commission per case for interstate shipment?
Senator McBRIDE:

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

  1. No. The arrangements which bare been set up have regard to the conditions in each State.
  2. Rates of commission vary according to the circumstances and services provided. In the capital cities, the following rates apply: Sydney and Melbourne, 7i per cent., with a minimum of 6d. a case; Brisbane, 10 per cent., with a rebate of Id. a case between 4s. and 8s., and lid. a case over 8s.; Adelaide, a discount of 6d. a case to authorized wholesale merchants; Perth, 3d. a case, plus 3h per cent.; Hobart, distributor’s service fee of 5d. a case.
  3. The rates “of commission on interstate shipments are the 6ame as in 2 above, except that, in Sydney, an extra id. a case is payable for receiving and delivery charge.

page 603

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1941

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd April (vide page 469) on motion by Senator Collett -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Since midnight last night I have had an opportunity to peruse the bill. The Minister (Senator ‘Collett) accurately described its purpose in his secondreading speech. It merely extends to those serving in the present war .benefits granted to soldiers on their return from the 1914-18 war. The Opposition support the bill and will assist to give it a speedy passage.

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of this measure. I draw its attention to the desirability of beginning the work of constructing war service homes earlier than was done at the termination of the last war. Many mistakes were made in connexion with the previous scheme, and, owing to faulty administration the cost of the houses proved a serious disadvantage to returned soldiers who occupied them. I suggest that the Government should launch its construction policy before the majority of the men return from the present war. The wive3 and families of many members of the Australian Imperial Forces are living in rented properties, many of which are not entirely satisfactory to them. I should think that it would he a simple matter for the consent of the soldier to be obtained to a contract of sale, so that his wife and family could begin occupation of a war service home during his absence. The family would not only save rent but a contribution would also be made towards the accumulation of an asset for the soldier on his return. There must be hundreds of men, who have enlisted in metropolitan areas, to whom the benefits of repatriation in the form of facilities for land settlement or other such assistance would not appeal, and I take it that these men would be entitled to the benefits of the War Service Homes Act. At the termination of the last war there was such a rush of building activities that contractors’ prices, the cost of land, and the prices of bricks and timber, rose steeply. After the first rush of building activities due to the construction of annexes to factories and workshops for the manufacture of munitions, and for the carrying out of other defence contracts, it is possible that the building trade will slump slightly, and the construction of war service homes on an extensive scale would probably check that slump, and keep carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers and similar workmen in steady employment.

Senator Aylett:

– “Would the honorable senator suggest that the members of the Australian Imperial Force who desire war service homes should enter into commitments now?

Senator ALLAN MCDONALD.Yes. A permanent resident of a metropolitan area could sign a contract for a building or give authority to his wife to sign it on his behalf, so that the erection of a home could be commenced immediately. The proposition is simple. If ray suggestion be adopted we should immediately make a great contribution towards the solution of an important part of our post-war problems. I commend the Government for introducing the bill.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– I should like to know whether members of the Mercantile Marine will be entitled to the benefits provided under this measure.

Senator Collett:

– Yes.

Senator FRASER:

– As an occupant of a war service home myself, I agree with much of what Senator Allan MacDonald has said. When the war service home construction programme was under way after the last war the demand for homes and the best construction materials was very keen, but it must be admitted that the best materials were not put into many of the homes then built for returned soldiers. In addition, the average price of a war service home, of from £800 to £900, which was influenced largely by the high cost of materials and labour, was too costly for the average returned soldier, with the result that a demand arose for a reduction of values. I commend the Government for introducing the bill. I am pleased that it has not decided to wait until the cessation of hostilities before attending to this problem. Whatever steps it takes in that direc tion now will reduce our difficulties after the war. If we hesitate, as was done after the last war, to attend to this problem, we shall find that the same difficulties will arise. Another evil associated with our war service homes programme after the last war was the activities of speculators. Values reached such a high level that many soldiers were forced to abandon their homes. They realized that they could not pay off their home in their lifetime. I urge the Government to commence this scheme immediately.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I again urge that in all cases an opportunity be given to honorable senators to peruse the Minister’s second-reading speech before measures are proceeded with. Under the present practice in this respect honorable senators find it impossible to to analyse properly even an innocuous measure of this kind. The bill is excellent, because it is designed to give immediate relief to the wives and children of soldiers who are now fighting abroad. Honorable senators know that this section of the community is now being scandalously victimized by rent racketeers. That is certainly the case in Melbourne, despite recent legislation passed by this Government, and I have no doubt that the position in each of the other capitals is just as bad. I support Senator Allan MacDonald’s remarks on that aspect of the problem. The Government should indicate clearly the procedure under which it is proposed to undertake this scheme. The Minister will recall the malodorous handling of this problem after the last war, and the scandals then associated with the supply of material and the building of war service homes. Whilst this scheme appears to be excellent, I should like to know what precautions the Government intends to take in order to avert the repetition of those scandals. Will these homes be built by private contract, or by the department itself? Have any sites yet been selected for these homes? We do not want to see the spectacle of unsuitable land again being unloaded on the department. This bill is some instalment towards the rectification of present appalling housing conditions in this country. In Melbourne there is a definite shortage of 30,000 homes. This proposal should at least tend to relieve that position, and, at the same time, remove some of the anxieties of members of our fighting forces who wish to safeguard the welfare of their wives and families.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– I endorse the remarks of Senator Keane concerning the practice of asking honorable senators to deal with measures before they are given an opportunity to examine the Minister’s second-reading speech. I have raised this matter on several occasions. Again I ask why the practice followed in the South Australian Parliament cannot he adopted here, and proofs of the previous day’s proceedings placed in the party rooms. Failing that a copy of the Minister’s second-reading speech should be furnished to honorable senators immediately after it is delivered, or, at least, before the hill under consideration is proceeded with.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– On a previous occasion I was chided by Senator James McLachlan when I urged that war service homes should be made available free of interest. At present occupants of war service homes find that, owing to interest rates, they will take an unreasonable time to pay off the cost of their homes. Surely, we have reached the stage in the financial development of this country when we can afford to provide these homes free of interest.

Senator Fraser:

– Our national credit could be utilized for that purpose.

Senator BROWN:

– Yes. We have already been informed that our national credit has been used to some degree in financing our war effort. In this matter also the Commonwealth should act upon the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems. Surely, we could provide a few million pounds from that source and so obviate the burdens now imposed upon members of our fighting forces.

Senator CUNNINGHAM:
Western Australia

– This is an important bill. I do not oppose it; but I regret that it has been brought down in circumstances which will not permit hon orable senators generally to go thoroughly into our housing problem. All citizens, whether they are members of our fighting forces or their dependants, are entitled to equal treatment so far as the provision of housing is concerned. Particularly is that so at a time when the shortage of houses is so acute. Why could not the provisions of the Commonwealth Housing Act he made applicable to that section of the community which is covered by this measure? Now that we appear to be in the habit of overcoming national problems which previously appeared insurmountable, surely we can smooth out this problem. Parliament should review the housing problem as a whole. No reason exists why a special concession should not be made to members of our fighting forces and their dependants in this matter. In addition, the easy payments allowed to that section should be extended to all sections of the community. It appears wrong that we have so many acts of Parliament dealing with the problem of housing. The cause of the trouble appears to arise from our practice of continually grouping people into sections, and dealing with them in sections. As the National Parliament we should deal with the housing requirements of the community as a whole. I hope that next session we shall be given an opportunity to review existing housing legislation, as a whole, including even this bill.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I wish to comment briefly on the speeches made by the two returned soldier senators. I support the bill - nobody could justify opposing it - but I cannot see eye to eye with Senator Allan MacDonald. I agree that it would be of great advantage if the Government could inaugurate a housing scheme immediately, because of the shortage of housing accommodation in Australia. It is necessary that a scheme should be undertaken to provide houses for soldiers upon their return from this war, but I do not agree with the principle of asking soldiers who are now abroad, and their wives, to enter into heavy commitments. It would be much wiser if the Government built the houses and let them at a reasonable rental to the soldiers’ wives and families.

Senator Allan MACDONALD:

– That is no good. I want to see every ex-soldier in his own home.

Senator AYLETT:

– Nobody wants to see ex-soldiers occupying their own homes more than I do. If the honorable senator would extend to me the same courtesy that I always extend to him when he is speaking, he would be able to appreciate the point that I am about to make. Not only do I wish to see adequate housing provided for soldiers, but also for all those connected with our war effort. I hope that this Government will make it possible for all workers and soldiers to own their own homes, but I do not wish to see men who are abroad at present entering into commitments, paying deposits on homes, partly paying them off, and then having the misfortune not to return to Australia. In such cases wives and families of soldiers would not have sufficient means to complete the purchase of their homes.

Senator Allan MACDONALD:

– Soldiers’ widows are entitled to war service homes.

Senator AYLETT:

– That is so, but they have to pay for them.

Senator Allan MacDonald:

– In such cases the payments would be much less than they would otherwise be.

Senator AYLETT:

– That may be so, but the question is whether a widow could afford any payments at all.

Senator Allan MACDONALD:

– She would have to live somewhere in any case.

Senator AYLETT:

– Of course. As Senator Fraser pointed out, during the last war many homes were built at a high cost. A period of deflation followed, and in a few years, the capital cost of the homes could not be realized. The same might happen again, and even if it does not, there will still be the difficulty that I have mentioned. A widow may not wish to live in a particular place. She may consider that she would have better opportunities elsewhere. If the property were put on the market it would not realize the full price, and perhaps she would not get an amount equal to the deposit paid.

Senator Allan MACDONALD:

– She would get something back, whereas she would get nothing at all if she had been paying rent.

Senator AYLETT:

– As has been pointed out very clearly by honorable senators on this side of the chamber, there would be a distinct possibility of the widow losing the whole of her investment. It would not hurt the Government to build homes and let them at reasonable rentals until such time as the soldiers returned to Australia. Upon their return, the soldiers could then decide whether they would enter into agreements to purchase homes. I do not think that the honorable senator’s proposal is very wise. A scheme along the lines I have mentioned should be adopted.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– <The interest rate charged to occupants of war service homes precludes any possibility of them ever owning them.

Senator Cooper:

– Thousands of returned soldiers now own homes in Australia.

Senator AMOUR:

– And thousands have lost their homes. That is something that should be borne in mind.

Senator Cooper:

– Only a very small percentage.

Senator AMOUR:

– That is not so. 1 asked the department to supply me with the number of war service homes in the Belmore, Canterbury and Bankstown area, and it took me three hours on one day and three hours on another day to drive around in a motor car and merely look at them. When Senator Cooper says that only a small percentage of returned soldiers have lost their homes, I invite him to take a look at Vilmy-street in Bankstown. There is hardly a returned soldier left there. There are probably as many war service homes in the Canterbury area as there are in the whole of Queensland. When it is seen that a soldier has no chance whatsoever to meet his commitments, the Government should reduce the interest charge. Many of the war service homes were built for about £900, and originally the occupants had to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent. That charge was subsequently reduced to 4 per cent. What chance did the occupants have to purchase their homes? They were barely able to meet the interest charge. When the depression came - and another depression will come - many of them lost their homes.

Senator COOPER:

– Was not the period of payment extended ?

Senator AMOUR:

– That did not relieve the position entirely. The occupants would have been in a far .better position had they not been obliged to meet the heavy interest charges. If I had the power I would put all returned soldiers who have lost their homes back into them. Many of the houses formerly occupied by returned soldiers are let privately to-day at 15s. a week. The tenants nave the same service as was given to the returned soldiers, but they have not to pay rates and taxes. The digger tenant who in many cases sacrificed his health during, his war service, had to pay the rent, and, in addition, he had to pay rates and taxes. He could not avoid such commitments. The Government probably has in mind offering homes that have been vacated to soldiers returning from this war.

Senator Collett:

– -I shall burst into tears in a moment.

Senator AMOUR:

– There is no need for the Minister to do that. The honorable senator’s sympathy for returned soldiers is nought. I know what will happen. The facts must he faced. It is impossible for these people to -pay off the cost of their homes in 37 years. They may pay for twenty years without reducing the principal appreciably. I urge the Government to do something of real value, and reduce the rate of interest paid by occupants of war service homes.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I rise to protest against the remarks made by the Minister administering War Service Homes (Senator Collett). The Government -would have us believe that its only concern is to provide for the welfare of returned soldiers, but at the same time it is associated with a scheme under which interest charges exceed the capital cost. It is capitalization of patriotism, or, in other words, patriotism plus profits. It would be quite an easy matter to erect homes for returned soldiers or nurses, and for the occupants to pay the exact cost of construction, plus the usual administrative charges. Nothing can justify the charging of interest. To-day volunteers for military service are being sought all over the Commonwealth. Men are wanted to fight for the Empire. They will respond to the call, fight for the Empire, and when they come back and ask for homes, the Government will say, “ Yes, provided we can make a maximum profit out of you “.

Senator Collett:

– Come back to earth.

Senator CAMERON:

– It is not a question of coming ‘back to earth. It is callous and brutal, more particularly as it affects those returned soldiers who find themselves unable to keep up their payments. They are thrown out of their homes and reduced to the level of the dole. That is likely to happen to a far greater degree after this war than it did after the last war. The protest made by Senator Amour and others is timely and the Government should give it serious consideration. If honorable senators opposite think that this system will operate in perpetuity and that the interest charges will be paid indefinitely by soldiers returning from this war, they will be sadly disillusioned. The Government would be well advised to heed the warning and to see if it is not possible to provide these homes at cost. The returned soldiers are not asking for something for nothing. If they can pay they will do so. They should not be asked to enter into an undertaking in which interest charges exceed the capital cost, and so provide more money for financiers who stayed at home.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I have before me the Commonwealth Housing Act of 1927-28, passed by the Bruce-Page Government. At that time a housing scheme had been placed before the electors at no fewer that -three elections. That Act involved an appropriation of £26,000,000 for a Commonwealth housing scheme, but I understand that up to the present only £300,000 has been expended in that direction, and that that amount has been expended in New South Wales only recently. I understand that the housing problem is serious even in Canberra, where more than 400 new houses are required. The act provided that the funds of the Commonwealth Savings Bank be used to finance the housing scheme. It is interesting to note that the Commonwealth

Parliament passed the act long before the Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems made its report.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The subject which the honorable senator is discussing is not relevant to the bill.

Senator DARCEY:

– The extension of the war service homes scheme will create a new asset for Australia and the constructional work will absorb a large volume of labour. I agree with Senator Cameron that the building of houses for returned soldiers should be financed by the Commonwealth Bank free of interest so that men who fought in the war will not be compelled to pay part of its cost. I hope that the returned soldiers for whom houses are built by the War Service Homes Commission will have the properties transferred to them at a figure representing the actual cost of the land and building.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I appreciate the Government’s action in submitting the measure to Parliament so that provision may be made for the erection of homes for soldiers, airmen and nurses engaged in the present war. Some consideration, however, should be given to the housing needs of soldiers in industry. Much of the present-day industrial trouble is caused by the shortage of houses for the workers. Senator Keane stated that. 30,000 new houses are needed in the suburbs of Melbourne. I know that there is a serious housing shortage in New South Wales. Many workers in munitions and arms factories are compelled to travel long distances daily, in some instances 30 miles, to reach their work. I shall cite one example: A workman rises at 5 a.m., walks to a bus stop, catches a bus at 6 a.m., and reaches his work at 7 a.m. He does not return home till 8 p.m. Men who travel long distances to and from work spend practically all of their time working and sleeping. They have no leisure or recreation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter which the honorable senator is discussing does not come within the scope of the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Government should, make provision for proper housing accommodation for the workers engaged in war industries. Already the

Government of New South Wales is providing about one-fifth of the necessary accommodation. Where, say, 500 houses are needed, only 100 are being built, and’ the consequence is that disputes have developed over the question : “ Who is to occupy the houses ? “ The factory managers consider that the skilled men in the higher grades should be given preference, but such a decision naturally causes dissatisfaction amongst those in the lower grades. The only solution is for the Government to make adequate provision for the housing of employees in the war industries.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator ASHLEY:

– Having had experience in connexion with the eviction of ex-soldier.s from war service homes, I hope that better provision will be made for those who return from the present war and desire to establish homes.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– In view of the fact that the bill makes provision for returned soldiers, sailors, airmen and nurses taking advantage of the War! Service Homes Act, I hope that the administration of war service homes will be better than it was after the last war.

Senator Collett:

– When does the honorable senator suggest that the administration was bad ?

Senator ARTHUR:

– From 1931 to 1934.

Senator Collett:

– Am I to understand that the honorable senator considers that there has been a marked improvement since 1934?

Senator ARTHUR:

– I shall mention a few anomalies of the scheme. A number of returned soldiers who had entered into obligations to purchase homes from the War Service Homes Commission were forced, owing to the depression, to vacate their homes in 1931. The War Service Homes Commission still held them to their obligation to pay interest on the principal. They received letters from the commission demanding payment although the houses were occupied by civilians whom the commission charged an exorbitant rent, but the rent received by the commission was not charged to the credit of the returned soldier.

Senator Collett:

– What does the honorable senator mean by the expression “ not charged to the credit of the returned soldier “ ?

Senator ARTHUR:

– The rent received by the commission was paid to its credit and the soldiers were not credited with that amount of rent. I have in mind a war service homes estate at Littleton Village, Lithgow. In that district the War Service Homes Commission entered into the real estate business and increased rents. During the depression many persons were compelled to vacate the commission’s houses because of the high rents charged.

Senator Collett:

– They were civilians ?_

Senator ARTHUR:

– Yes. When the civilian tenants vacated the houses the commission did not take adequate precautions to keep the properties in good order. Windows were broken, doors torn off and stoves taken away. The houses got into such a deplorable condition that the commission was compelled to spend a considerable amount of money on repairs before the houses could be let again. I hope that there will not be a repetition of that state of affairs in the event of another depression occurring. The Government should pay particular attention to the policy of the commission of keeping returned soldiers and civilians who have purchased war service homes on a deposit of 10 per cent, of the valuation tied to the obligation to make payments on the houses although they were forced to vacate them during the depression. There are many such houses in Sydney, Lithgow and Newcastle. If the information that has been supplied to me regarding these anomalies is correct, the Government should take action to ensure that they will not recur when the extended scheme operates. I believe that my informants are as honest as are the “ rubber stamp “ public servants who were placed in charge of the administration of war service homes at its inception.

Senator DEIN:
New South Wales

– I believe that the bill will make a useful contribution to the problem of housing the Australian people. Admittedly mistakes were made after the last war in the administration of the war service homes scheme, but I do not think that they will be repeated, because the commission has since gained a great deal of experience. In the early stages of the scheme many mistakes were made because houses were badly designed and their construction was faulty. I have first-hand knowledge of war service homes estates near Sydney and I claim to possess some knowledge of valuations. Some of the cottages are worth about 75 per cent, of the valuation placed on them by the commission. They should be revalued and sold at the highest price that can be obtained. The homes constructed in the later stages of the scheme were of a much better type. The designs are better, and generally they are a good class of property. The number of homes erected under this scheme is 37,385, but more than 400,000 soldiers enlisted in the last war. Many of the returned soldiers preferred to buy homes without the assistance of the commission. If, say, 10 per cent, of the soldiers returning from the present war apply for homes to be provided by the War Service Homes Commission they will receive special concessions. I should like to learn whether concessions are to be made to soldiers who already own homes or who prefer to buy them without the assistance of the commission. That opens up a wide problem which must bc considered on very broad principles.

Senator Amour referred to the fact that repayments are made over a period of about 37 years, but 37 years is little in the life of a well-constructed cottage. Payments have to be spread over that time because weekly repayments of principal and interest are smaller than the rent that would be charged for similar houses in different circumstances. Many occupants of war service homes in Sydney are purchasing their homes on weekly payments which are from 25 to 50 per cent, less than they would have to pay on a rental basis. I have always found that the War Service Homes Commission has administered the department most sympathetically. The fact cannot be disguised that frequently through their own fault many returned soldiers have forfeited their homes. Every representation that I have made to the commission on behalf of these men has been treated fairly and sympathetically. Nevertheless the proposed new scheme will be better than the old one because the commission has profited by the mistakes made in the first scheme.

Senator COLLETT:
Minister administering War Service Homes · Western Australia · UAP

in reply - I am grateful for the commendation of this bill given by the Leader of the Opposition (SenatorCollings), and also for the other contributions to the debate. I regret that there was insufficient time in which to supply all honorable senators with copies of my second-reading speech. Complaints that Ministers’ second-reading speeches are not distributed recur, but the remedy lies more or less in the hands of honorable senators themselves. I shall not endeavour to reply to honorable senators individually. Reference was made to previous errors. The mistakes of the past will not be repeated. In essence the scheme is to provide returned soldiers with an opportunity to acquire a home, which he can call his own, on the bestpossible terms. It is not proposed to buy large blocks of land and to erect houses, an error made in the early days of the first scheme, because it is recognized that the soldiers will want to exercise their own choice as regards the site and cost of their homes. Senator Dein gave the salient facts about repayment. The purchasers of homes are given the easiest possible terms, at the low interest rate of 4 per cent. The terms result in five and six-roomed houses being available at as low as one-half of the rental paid for similar houses obtained in the ordinary way. During occupancy the purchasers are paying for the ultimate possession of their own home. The building of houses in anticipation of them being required by soldiers on their return to Australia is not practicable. If there is any obligation to be assumed it must be assumed by the soldier. If he does not return, his widow has certain privileges. Senator Aylett hit the nail on the head when hesaid that it was not in the interests of a soldier or of his family to have a wife assume liabilities which he may not be able to meet in the future.

Senator Fraser:

– Is it not a fact that had houses been available immediately after the termination of the last war, ex-soldiers could have invested their deferred pay in homes instead of spending the money in other ways ?

Senator COLLETT:

– I admit that, but that was not the fault of the commission or of the Government. The fault lay, rather, in another quarter. The honorable senator’s experience of building materials was similar to mine, but mistakes will be avoided in the future. I assure Senator Keane that his complaint about the lack of supervision in the past will be met under the new conditions. An ex-soldier will choose his own site and type of house. There will be no room for speculation. The provision of homes free of interest is an academic subject which I will leave with those who liketo indulge in fanciful thinking.

Senator Brown:

– What about providing homes free of principal?

Senator COLLETT:

– I leave that subject with the other. I think that each State has a housing scheme. I shall not discuss consolidation of those schemes with that of the Commonwealth, but I point out that the War Service Homes Commission is the agent of the Commonwealth housing scheme. The cost of the administration of the commission is less than 10s. per cent., which is economic. Senator Amour lamented generally about the weaknesses of the scheme, but perhaps he will admit that he himself has benefited very greatly from it. In the depression, there was a dislocation because blocks of houses in the distant suburbs were vacated when work became scarce and men flocked to the cities, giving up any hope of retaining not only occupancy, but also rights to retain ownership. From what I have seen of the records, the commission gave most sympathetic consideration to all cases. The rents received from the letting of the houses to civilians have been credited to the accounts of the mortgagor applicants . Senator Cameron’s contribution to the debate I group with Senator Brown’s remark as a subject for academic discussion. Senator Arthur’s retrospects I leave where they should be left: with the honorable senator. I thank Senator Dein for his commendation and assure honorable senators that the Government and the commission have past errors very much in mind, and will take action to ensure that they shall not be repeated. On the subject of whether the returned soldiers generally have regarded the war service homes scheme as being advantageous to them, I shall quote the following extract from the report of the committee which investigated the subject of war service homes in 1932: -

During the inquiry, many tributes were paid by witnesses to the War Service Homes Commission and its agents and representatives. It was generally acknowledged that the administration was sympathetic and helpful and that every consideration was being shown to deserving clients who had been adversely affected by the depression. Occasionally, a witness deplored what was described as the peremptory tone of a letter regarding arrears or frequent inquiries about his income, but these were no more than the inevitable sequel of the business methods which must be adopted in a large organization. It is notoriously difficult for a creditor or a mortgagee to satisfy his clients, and it speaks volumes for the commission that the tributes paid to its administration greatly exceeded the complaints.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Definitions).

Senator ALLAN MacDONALD:
Western Australia

– In view of the fact that thousands of married soldiers serving abroad with the Australian Imperial Force must still be paying for homes under hire-purchase agreements or on mortgage, would it be possible for the War Service Homes Commission to take over their debts which, I suppose, are being repaid at rates of interests of 6 or 7 per cent. ? After having liquidated the original debt, the commission could charge the soldiers concerned 3½ or not more than 4 per cent., which is the amount which the Government pays for money it borrows. That would represent a great saving to the soldiers.

Senator COLLETT:
Minister administering War Service Homes · Western Australia · UAP

– The question raised by the honorable senator has nothing to do with the clause, but if he will discuss it with me later, I shall see what can be done.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 611

CHILD ENDOWMENT BILL 1941

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2nd April (vide page 494), on motion by Senator Leckie -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- Again I voice my perennial complaint that copies of the second-reading speeches of Ministers on important bills are not supplied to honorable senators. Since second-reading speeches are usually prepared by Ministers with the assistance of their departmental officers, a few extra typed copies could be distributed without difficulty. Many questions arise as to how child endowment payments should be made, and who should be eligible to receive them, and one is not easily able to find answers to these questions by a perusal of the bill.

I welcome this measure, because it marks a milestone in the social history of this country. It is amazing that after many years, this scheme has been introduced by a government of the political colour of the present Ministry. No doubt the credit for the introduction of the scheme will be claimed by the Government, and I have no complaint in that regard. The onus of financing it will also rest on the present Ministry, but this legislation could not have been passed without the active cooperation of the Labour party, which has advocated child endowment for the last 40 years. Unlike the present Government, the Labour party has not been in office for 25 years, and, therefore, it cannot be said that it has been dilatory in regard to this measure. The bill was introduced primarily, I believe, as the result of the recent abortive basic wage decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. My only reason for that utterance is that the working people of Australia were relying on a favorable decision by the court, but the judgment was of a negative character. The Government has acted wisely in submitting this proposal, which, I believe, will be welcomed in thousands of homes. Thousands of mothers will bless this Parliament for an epic act in the midst of the greatest war in which the Empire has ever been engaged. Despite colossal war expenditure and unprecedentedly high taxes, this Parliament will furnish to the mothers of Australia the well-deserved and necessary assistance for which the bill provides.

I should have liked the measure to have applied to all children up to the age of sixteen years. Perhaps, at some future time, an amendment in that direction will be embodied in the scheme. I regret that the payment will not be slightly higher than that proposed. It may be possible to liberalize and widen the scope of the scheme when normal conditions are again experienced in Australia. In season and out of season it has been urged that the present wage system does not make fair provision for married men, but I point out that that position will not be altered by the passage of a child endowment scheme. Although this legislation will afford relief to married workers, the fight for an adequate basic wage will continue.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

– This measure is an invitation to the workers to ask for an increase of the basic wage.

Senator KEANE:

– It is an invitation to them to press for industrial justice, because they still contend that the basic wage is inadequate. The combined effect of this calamitous war, a wholly unsatisfactory decision by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, and the fact that a shrewd government is in power, has been to provide the people of Australia with this excellent scheme of child endowment. The interest bill of the Commonwealth has grown to more than £1,000,000 weekly. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Spender) when interviewed in Melbourne recently said : “ We have decided to have a mechanized unit. It will cost £30,000,000.” He made that statement calmly, as though the money were already in hand. One would imagine that Australia did not have to meet an interest bill of £1,000,000 a week, whether the war be won, lost or drawn. Therefore, I confess that the Government has been courageous in introducing this measure. Had the Labour party been in power it would probably have submitted a similar scheme. My friend Senator Darcey is fighting strenuously for the release of additional national credit, in order to finance certain activities, but I do not think that at any time he has suggested that social services should be financed by inflation of the credit of this country. Owing to our huge war expenditure, the gradual drying up of the loan market and our heavy overseas indebtedness, I consider that the Government will be forced to proceed somewhat on the lines advocated by Senator Darcey.

Senator Allan MacDonald stated that he welcomed the bill and thought that it would be of great assistance to the working people ; but it will be recollected that, only four days ago, the honorable senator said that if there were a little more restraint by the workers in spending their money there would be less talk about wage-slaves. I do not believe that there are wage-slaves in this country. Australian workers are not the kind of men who are likely to become wage-slaves, and I suggest that men like Senator Allan MacDonald are not sincere in their professed regard for the welfare of the workers.

I was very worried when I noticed that supporters of the Government in the House of Representatives were doing their best to wreck this bill, because the employers are to be required to contribute a moiety of the cost of the scheme. When the next federal general elections occur, the people will be reminded that the only party that solidly supported child endowment was the Labour party. That is my answer to Senator A. J. McLachlan, who is always clever and never abusive. If he used some of his oratorical and persuasive powers in his own caucus, the workers might obtain further social reforms. If members of the Opposition in this chamber remained silent during the discussion of the machinery bills relating to child endowment, it was because they knew that the Government had thus committed itself to a scheme which the Labour party had strongly supported for a great many years.

The Minister who moved the second reading of the bill said that the Government of which he is a member took credit for its introduction. I have no complaint to make about that, but, in 1931, when the Labour party waa in office, it was not actually in power, because it was unable to pass vital measures through the Senate. At that time the greatest industrial crisis ever experienced in Australia had to be faced by the Scullin Government, -which was forced to reduce the invalid and old-age pension and to cut down the wages of government employees by 25 per cent. Although Senator James McLachlan and other honorable senators opposite were 100 per cent, behind the action taken by the Labour Government at that time in fearlessly reducing the wages of public servants, the United Australia party was foul enough to misrepresent the motives of the Scullin Government at the ensuing elections. I do not forget those things. But whenever I am talking of child endowment I shall be fair to the Government and admit that it brought down this legislation. However, we would not have this measure now before us but for the co-operation of the Opposition in both Houses. Honorable senators opposite are not solid on the matter ; they want to wreck child endowment because some employers might lose a little of their income.

Senator Dein:

– The Opposition is divided on this matter.

Senator KEANE:

– We have displayed absolute solidarity, to-day we are marching to victory with child endowment, one of the greatest planks of the Labour party’s platform about to become, at long last, an accomplished fact. At the same time some disgruntled honorable senators opposite are fighting to the last ditch for the boss. When this scheme is put into operation the boss will find that his staff is more contented ; and the women of this country will bless every member of this Parliament for passing this legislation. We can now afford to forget the recent unfortunate decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. We had a long debate on that subject several days ago when I moved the adjournment of the Senate, but we did not get much opposition from honorable senators opposite. Had I been dictating the tactics of the Opposition I should have divided the Senate in order to see exactly whether honorable senators opposite really believe that the present basic wage is adequate. I compliment the Government upon making this measure allembracing. I am delighted to see that its benefits will apply to the illegitimate child, the children ‘in. our orphanages and the children of some aborigines. All of those children are to share in these benefits; that is a wise decision. I sincerely hope that this allowance will be remitted to mothers through the post. I understand that that will he so. An investigation will show that that system is more efficient and less costly than that under which recipients are obliged to to collect their allowances at post offices, when many mothers would have to walk long distances and suffer irritating delays in long queues. The unfavorable features of that system have been avoided in the payment of widows’ pensions in New South Wales. Those pensions are posted to recipients, who thus have not the responsibility of leaving their little ones at home while they go out to collect their pension. That system is easily the more effective and economical.

I support this measure wholeheartedly. I have always advocated child endowment. I believe that when the clouds of war have cleared away it will be possible to improve this scheme. The Government has done a job which has been long overdue, but which, I again emphasize, will evoke from the workers a recognition of the fact that this national parliament is doing something in the interests of every mother in this community.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– The object of this bill is the greater care and protection of child life. That is as it should be ; but in my opinion the bill does not go far enough in that direction. Possibly, in the light of further experience, it will be improved. The bill has been rendered necessary mainly as the result of a diminishing birth-rate and the imperative need of a greater supply of man-power for our workshops and for the battlefield. We cannot shut our eyes to that fact. The birth-rate has been steadily diminishing, and the advent of war has made imperative a supreme effort on our part if we are to survive this conflict. Intelligent men, regardless of party, realize that to be the position, and have stressed it over and over again.

The hill will be found, much sooner than many of us imagine, to be inadequate to accomplish the objective we now have in mind. It has been rendered necessary also because of a growing realization that a virile and trained manhood is the nation’s greatest asset. The real asset of a country is not money, land, gold, timber, or any other product; the asset which creates all other assets is a virile and trained manhood and womanhood. There is a growing realization of that fact. I feel thankful for it, because it will be followed by what this bill endeavours to do, namely, the provision for greater care to be taken of that valuable national asset. Hitherto, no great effort has been made in that direction. Any one who has read the industrial history of not only Great Britain hut also of Australia, knows of the brutal exploitation of child labour over many years, the criminal neglect of governments in that respect, and the appalling poverty of parents. The Labour party has fought against those evils not for 40 years but for decades. Now we find that a change is taking place. If the population of Australia were as great as that of India, or China, or some other countries, and man-power was as cheap here as it is in those countries, we would not be considering a child endowment scheme to-day. “When conditions change in those countries as the result of the inevitable reactions to exploitation and neglect of poverty, and their birth-rate diminishes to the same degree that it has diminished in Australia, we shall find that the governments of those countries will establish child endowment schemes; in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), they will make a virtue of necessity. This bill is merely a palliative. Prospective parents have still a vivid memory of the last Great War, the period of comparative prosperity which followed it and the subsequent long period of unprecedented suffering and misery caused by unemployment. On a previous occasion I directed attention to the appointment by the British House of Commons in 1938 of a royal commission to inquire into the conditions under which people live in what are known as the black areas in England. That commis- sion reported that those conditions were not anything like as good as conditions in those areas 50 years ago, and that the slums which had come into existence there as the result of poverty and the aftermath of the last war were as bad as any to be found in Asiatic countries. Those memories are still vivid in the minds of prospective parents, when they think of what is happening to-day. We are now engaged in the greatest war the world has known; it is bound to involve the destruction of millions of lives. Consequently, parents and prospective parents are asking if the aftermath of this war will be similar to that which followed the last war, when promises were made in the names of governments that the world would be made safe for democracy and a place fit for heroes to live in, but the very antithesis occurred. Prospective parents cannot but bear these things in mind. They are wondering whether, as was the case over twenty years ago, this war will be followed by a terrible aftermath. The last war was followed, first, by a period of prosperity while the damage that had been done was being repaired in order to enable countries to carry on. That involved the speeding up of production. I remind honorable senators that wars always cause acceleration, and as a result of this war, vast improvements and extensions are being made, particularly in those secondary industries which are assisting us to make a maximum war effort. At the end of this war we shall find that our industrial development has greatly exceeded that which occurred in pre-war years. Therefore we shall be in a position to increase the productivity of the human unit to a degree far greater than was possible before, but side by side with that progress, we may have, as we have had before,, appalling poverty. Prospective parents cannot study such problems as intelligently, closely and critically, as can honorable senators, but there is that feeling current that the position may not be as the Government says that it will be, but possibly very much worse. Such fears always have a detrimental effect on the birth-rate. A diminished birth-rate always follows from a general feeling of insecurity, doubt and danger. That happened during the last war, and it will occur again. It has now been admitted by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court that the basic wage is insufficient to provide for a family unit of five. We on this side of the chamber have been saying that for many years. Senator Keane has emphasized that wages do not represent the value of the wealth produced by the workers either individually or collectively; wages represent the remuneration which is paid in accordance with the influence of the workers in the community. The Labour party has held for years that the present rate is insufficient, and consistent with whatever opportunities we have had, we have brought the matter under the notice of governments and arbitration courts. As Herbert Spencer once said in one of his fine philosophical writings, no one can escape the consequences’ of his acts. Regardless of the laws passed, or what is said in Parliament, a government cannot escape the consequences of its acts. Employers are much more concerned in making profits than in the preservation of child life. Although in their own homes, employers may be ideal fathers, in the factories where they control the children of others they ar;e usually the very opposite. At home they do their best for their children; but in the factories they exploit to the limit the children of others. No one can escape the consequences of his acts. Employers have by means of legislation and propaganda victimized those who would organize strikes, and by other means have controlled food, clothing and shelter, which are necessary to maintain and stimulate the birth-rate. Our diminishing birth-rate is the result of such a policy. All these things to which I have referred are in the minds of millions of prospective parents to-day. The Government should take a long-range view, of the position, and try to realize, as I would like it to realize, that the aftermath of this war will be very different from that of the last war.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The honorable senator must connect his remarks with the subjectmatter of the bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– I am endeavouring to point out that fears and uncertainties in the minds of prospective parents will have the effect of restricting the birth-rate. The object of this bill is to assist to increase the birth-rate, if possible, and to provide for greater care and protection of child life. Unless the Government goes as far as it should go in this matter, I am certain that the results which it desires will not be achieved. For example, the school leaving age should be raised. In Victoria, where it is fourteen years, it should be raised at least to sixteen or eighteen years iu order that children may be physically and mentally equipped to engage in the battle of life. To-day, prospective parents are thinking of dead-end occupations and the difficulties of placing children in continuous employment.

Senator Leckie:

– Does the honorable senator think that this measure will help at all?

Senator CAMERON:

– It is a move in the direction of social progress. I du not suggest for a moment that it will not help. What I do say is that it will not. help to the degree that will ultimately be found necessary. I hope that in the light of our immediate experience, the Government will realize that a great deal more should be done. During this war, more so than in the last conflict, we should act up to the Christian maxim that life is sacred. We should provide for the maximum care of our children and we should also provide the maximum facilities for them to be trained. This bill provides for the payment of 5s. a week in respect of all children after the first child. While we admit that that is something, it is, in fact, insufficient. Prices are increasing and will continue to do so. The effect will be a progressive reduction of the purchasing power of the 5s. to be granted. We are prepared to support the Government to a degree, but there is still room for improvement, and a need to add continually to the structure until it is such that child life is as secure as it can possibly be. Children should not be allowed to enter factories until they reach an age at which the work will not affect their health. Our main objective should be the greater care and protection of our child life. If that be provided we in Australia, having opportunities far greater than peoples in other parts of the world, should give a lead to the Empire, so that after the war we can say we have laid the foundations of a future order of society in which unemployment, poverty and misery that have been so prominently associated with our social life in the past, will be unknown.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– I welcome this bill because it does not discriminate between States. For once the people of the eastern States will derive no more benefit under this bill than will those in the less populous States of the Commonwealth. Western Australia will get its share.

Senator Leckie:

– Western Australia very often gets more than its share.

Senator CLOTHIER:

– If it does, it is because its representatives fight like tigers. However, this measure cannot arouse State jealousies, and that is one reason why I have pleasure in supporting it. The bill is designed, not only to protect the children of this country, but also to make contented parents. In times gone by we have all seen children living in most depressing circumstances. The 5s. a week which is to be paid in respect of all children in a family after the first child, will make a big difference in almost every home in which there is a family. I am also gratified to find that the bill provides for the payment of the money to be made to the mothers, because if the payments are made in that way, the money is more likely to be used for the benefit of the children. I also support the provision for the cancellation of payments should the children leave this country. I do not know what the position would be should they subsequently return, but I surmise that, as is the case with invalid and old-age pensions, endowment will again foe payable. A regrettable omission is in respect of the exclusion of endowment on the first child of a widow. This measure will be very popular, not only with the families who will benefit, hut also with the trades-people generally, because a greater amount of money will be circulated, and in that way the whole community will derive advantage. The scheme might be amended later to include widows with one child, or the Govern ment might consider introducing a scheme of widows’ pensions. I regard the amount of the endowment, 5s. for each child, as insufficient. I should prefer the payment of 5s. for the first child, 6s. for the second and 7s. 6d. for the third and subsequent children. I welcome the bill because I have advocated child endowment for many years. I am pleased that all the States will share in the endowment.

Senator LAMP:
Tasmania

.- I congratulate the Government upon the introduction of the hill. The need for child endowment reminds me of the following : -

Father: Du you like your new sister, Tommy ?

Tommy: Yes, she is all right, but there are lots of things we needed more.

The child endowment scheme will assist to relieve the situation in many families, as summed up by Tommy. I believe, with Senator Cameron, that the greatest asset of a country is highly skilled and developed man-power. Therefore, there should be linked with child endowment a move to make the school-leaving ege uniform throughout Australia. In most of the States, the school-leaving age is fourteen years, but I consider that it should be made uniform at sixteen years. Child endowment will be paid on account of children under sixteen, years, but the operation of the measure will not prevent a child from going to work at fourteen years. The child’s mind is most receptive between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years. Leaving school at fourteen years, children earn more money doing unskilled work than they can earn learning a trade. A boy or girl of fourteen years can get a wage of 4s. or 5s. a day for unskilled work, but learning a skilled trade he or she will be paid a wage of perhaps 2s. 6d. a day. In his book, The Next Step, Mr. A. B. Piddington, K.O., who was chairman of the Royal Commission on the Basic Wage, discussed the school-leaving age and quoted from the report of the Royal Commission on Apprenticeship in New South Wales in 1912. The following quotation is taken from that report: -

In my recent report dealing with factory life, I recommended that the school-leaving age, except in cases of actual necessity, should be raised from fourteen to sixteen, and this appears to me both to be the only hope of increasing the readiness of boys and their parents to come back to the ambition of skilled tradesmanship, and also to be the only remedy for a serious mischief, which I shall now mention. In most trades, the apprenticeship term being five years, the employers- especially the better class of employers - prefer not to have boys until they are sixteen, when their strength is come on them, and when the five years’ time will give the employer the advantage of the apprentice up to the end of his minority, and after he has attained almost full manhood energy . . .

The motive of the appeal for a uniform school-leaving age is to guide children when leaving school into skilled trades in which they will become craftsmen and real assets of the country. That is most important, because at the present juncture there is a great scarcity of skilled man-power. Child endowment will be of lasting benefit to the community, but I think that the efficacy of the scheme could be improved by the Commonwealth Government bringing pressure to bear on the States to make the school-leaving age sixteen years. I shall conclude with the following quotation from Mr. Piddington’s book: -

Progressive minds who study the relation of the sexes are often heard to urge the recognition of women as an independent economic unit. It is unnecessary to go into this wide question, but if the old belief that a nation’s greatness may be measured by the status of its womanhood, much remains to be done with regard to working mothers; and their right to child endowment could not fail to increase their importance in the home and also in the community. There is ground for the impression that the wives of the working men, as a result of present social conditions, hare not, speaking generally, the same status in their own circle that wives in more fortunate circumstances enjoy. Nothing but good can come of any policy which increases the respect and influence in the home and in political and social action of these incomparable women.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I welcome the bill, although I consider that it is many years overdue. It does not contain all that I desire, but I regard it as the most important measure that has been introduced since I became a member of the Senate. Now that a start is being made with child endowment, Parliament will be able to enlarge the scheme in the near future. The Assistant Minister (Senator Leckie) stated in his secondsreading speech that the payment of endowment in respect of the first child* was unwarranted.

Senator Leckie:

– I did not say that it was unwarranted.

Senator AYLETT:

– That was my interpretation of the words used by the Assistant Minister. He based his argument on the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration that the basic wage is sufficient for the needs of a family unit of a man, his wife and one child. There are tens of thousands of breadwinners in Australia who do not receive the basic wage, and there are thousands whose only income is what they receive in social service payments. These two classes of persons should be entitled to receive child endowment for the first child. There are also the widows left with one dependent child. Their income is probably not one-half of the basic wage, but they will not be entitled to draw child endowment.

Senator Dein:

– I think that most of the States have widows’ pensions schemes.

Senator AYLETT:

– I do not want charity provided for these people. It is true that widows with young children receive charitable allowances under State legislation. I consider that charitable allowances tend to have a demoralizing effect on some people. Although I am grateful to the Government for having introduced the bill, I hope that in the near future the scheme will be extended so as to provide endowment for all children under the age of sixteen years, or at least that payment will be made in respect of one child when the father does not receive the basic wage. Many young married couples are more in need of child endowment when the first child arrives than they are after the birth of the second or third child. When the first child is born they are paying rent and probably meeting time-payment charges on furniture in an effort to establish a home. No doubt the operation of the scheme will give a great stimulus to the birth-rate, which has been steadily declining for some years. We cannot expect people to bring children into the world when they cannot be sure that a means of a livelihood will be available to them. I intend to comment on the criticisms of two or three honorable senators opposite who, I am sure, would have liked to have wrecked the bill. They argued that child endowment should be paid out of Consolidated Revenue. My answer is that it will be paid out of that fund. Although those honorable senators criticized the method by which the Government intends to raise the bulk of the money required for child endowment, they did not submit an alternative proposal.’ The Government has been guided by the advice of experts, who examined various proposals for raising the money required, but they arrived at the conclusion that the only practicable method was a pay-roll tax. The Labour party has not had the assistance of expert advisers, and in this case it is prepared to accept the recommendations of the Government’s advisers.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator AYLETT:

– The Opposition’s desire to see child endowment legislation on the statute-book is so great that it accepted the Government’s claim that a tax on pay-rolls is the only means by which to raise the money with which to finance the scheme. Industry must be prepared to set aside reserves to provide for the maintenance and replacement of its man-power in the same way as it sets aside reserves for the maintenance and replacement of its plant and equipment. I was amazed at the opposition shown to this legislation in the ranks of the Government’s own supporters. Had it not been for the solidarity of the Labour party in support of the Government yesterday when the Pay-roll Tax Bill was before the Senate, I dare say that we should not have had the privilege of debating this measure to-day.For 25 years child endowment has been a plank on the Labour party’s platform, but during the last election campaign, when child endowment had a prominent place in the policy speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), members of the Government accused the Labour party of trying to bribe the electors, and said that during a war was not the time for social improvements. I am glad, but a little astonished, that the Government has now come to our way of thinking. This bill does not go so far as I should like, but I welcome it in the hope that, with a further accession of wisdom, the Government will bring down amending legislation in order to include in the benefits first-born children and to strengthen the scheme in ways which have been suggested by members of the Opposition.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Child endowment will be of great benefit to the present generation of children and mothers, but its full effect will be felt in the future. Improvement of the quality as well as of the number of its people should be the aim of every country. No one would deny that the Australian-born child is our best immigrant. It is imperative, therefore, that the Government should do everything possible to assist in rearing healthy Australian-born children and in fitting them to take a useful place in the community. The approach of honorable senators to this subject has been facilitated by the Parliamentary Librarian, Mr. Binns, and his staff, who for our benefit listed the literature of all countries on this subject. I thank the Librarian for what he has done.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– In the House of Representatives the Minister for Labour and National Service ‘(Mr. Holt), who had charge of the bill, gave the history of social and industrial legislation. A beginning was made in the House of Commons in 1795 by Pitt the younger, but practically nothing was done until the end of the last century and the beginning of this century, although legislation forbidding the employment of children in factories was passed in 1834. In many countries, systems of child endowment are in force. The Russian scheme is not compulsory, but it consists in the State taking charge of and rearing the children. The objection to such a system is that the children are removed from parental control and are deprived of the filial love that has such an important bearing on their upbringing. All will admit that in social and industrial legislation Australia leads the world.

Senator Cameron:

– But that is no argument against further improvement.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.No, but we still lead the world and that is something of which we should be proud. Our arbitration system provides a reasonable standard of living, but experience has shown that we cannot rely on it to assist in the rearing of children in the way that they should be reared, especially if the family be large. Statistics show that practically half of our adult population refuse or are unable to assume the responsibilities of matrimony. In those circumstances irb is impossible to compute a wage which would satisfy the needs of everybody. Children are our greatest asset and their birth must he encouraged. For that reason I am prepared to support the bill which is now before the Senate. My principal regret is that the Government neglected to tate this opportunity to overhaul the whole of our industrial and social legislation. What a splendid opportunity this would have been to end the controversy over the basic wage! Since its inception the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has whittled down the basis on which it computes the basic wage from a family unit of seven, consisting of a man, his wife and five children, to the unit of three, consisting of a man, his wife and one child, but the basis is by no means pegged. That is one aspect of wage fixation that should, be settled. Another aspect .is the conflict between the decisions of the Commonwealth and State arbitration courts. We have seven parliaments each of which is supposed to be the master of those for whom it legislates, but they are powerless to restrain unions from using the Commonwealth court.

Senator Keane:

– The way in which to settle that problem is to abolish the States.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Whatever be the remedy it should be applied. Honorable senators will make their own deductions from the unequivocal statement by a judge of the Queensland Arbitration Court when he fixed the basic wage in that State and when he said that the Commonwealth child endowment scheme was not considered. I have no doubt that the judge knows his own business and that he was right, but it appears that this social legislation will involve Australia in the expenditure of £13,000,000 per annum and that within a short period expenditure will be further increased by another £20,000,000 as the result of determinations by the Arbitration Court. These anomalies should have been removed before child endowment was introduced. Australian parliaments have laid down so many laws relating to the welfare of the industrial sections of the community that departmental officers either cannot intrepret them intelligently, and if they do other officers disagree with their interpretation.

Dissatisfaction has been expressed regarding the method by which this scheme is to be financed. No doubt a good method has been chosen by the Government, and it is equally certain that the cost will be passed on by those who will be required to contribute the tax. Taxation has already reached a very high level in Australia and this year many employers will find it necessary to meet the pay-roll tax, not out of profit, but out of capital. I have some sympathy with manufacturers and distributors who will claim that the child endowment tax is an impost upon them, because they will be paying tax to provide for the children of persons who are in some cases much better off than themselves. Child endowment should be determined on a salary or wage basis, and on a graduated scale. It should apply to the first child, and the payment should increase as the number of children increases. The argument has been advanced that it would be difficult to determine the amount of child endowment to be paid on a salary or wage basis ; but I claim that, since a formula has been evolved for the fixation of the basic wage, it should be possible by means of the same formula to decide at what wage or salary a man should be able to maintain his own family. An argument used against that contention was that it would require more to finance that scheme and to employ the necessary staff for the job, than the extra money that might be raised would be worth. To my mind, that argument is grossly exaggerated. Considering that the adult population of Australia is about 4,500,000, and that the public servants throughout Australia number nearly 400,000 - there is about one public servant to every twelve persons in the community - the statistical position should be fairly well tabulated and annotated.

Senator Collings:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that there are too many public servants ?

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– No; I merely say that it should not be difficult to knock over the Aunt Sally that has been erected. So closely are the affairs of citizens investigated by public servants, that, a short while ago, a gentleman whom I know, whose income runs into four figures, and who, unfortunately, overlooked the fact that he had received interest to the amount of 24s. on a sum which he had in a savings bank account, was requested by the taxation authorities to include that interest in his income tax return.

We have been told that the financial basis of this legislation is temporary, and that eventually the payments under it may have to be taken from Consolidated Revenue. That is the source from which I contend the money required should be raised from the outset. If all classes are to reap the advantages of child endowment, they should all help to pay for the’ scheme. Spinsters and ‘bachelors should be taxed on a graduated scale. The present basic wage is stated by the court to be sufficient for a man, his wife and one child, and, therefore, I see no reason why bachelors and spinsters should not contribute to this tax. The people of Australia are now being taxed to the limit, and it will be necessary to explore fresh avenues by which revenue can be raised.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator JAMES McLACHLAN.The bill provides that child endowment shall he payable to aborigines and halfcastes if they are living under conditions comparable with those of the people of Australia generally, but it will be difficult to ascertain the nature of their living conditions. In South Australia there are two aboriginal mission stations, and I think that the total loss incurred by them is £12,000 a year. The .birth-rate is increasing rapidly among aborigines and half-castes, and their inclusion in the scheme will prove costly.

I have always been a sincere advocate of child endowment. I welcome this measure, and I hope that on a future occasion amendments on the lines that I have indicated will be embodied in the statute.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– I wish to associate myself with the passage of this epoch-making legislation. It is a most amazing measure, owing to the source from which it springs. The reactionary parties which are now in office, and have been in power for many years, have brought down a measure which one would have expected from the Labour party. Certainly the war has revealed strange bed-fellows. In Europe we find Mussolini and Hitler cheek by jowl, and in the United States of America President Roosevelt is seen walking arm-in-arm with his opponent, Mr. Willkie. In Great Britain Labour and Capital are also walking together. In the last twenty years the United Australia party and the Country party have produced legislative results of a negative character, but war-time conditions have now forced the Government to recognize the claims of wageearners on the bottom rung of the social ladder. I am almost inclined to forgive honorable senators opposite for their past political sins, in view of the splendid job they have done in introducing this child endowment scheme. I congratulate the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) who was in charge of the measure in the House of Representatives. I had an opportunity to read his second-reading speech, and I mention, incidentally, that no such opportunity was afforded to me in this chamber. The Minister surveyed social conditions in Australia, and his address was an acceptable addition to the collection of notable speeches made in this Parliament. This measure constitutes an important step. in the right direction, but, until the Government deals effectively with the problem that arises from the need for an increased population in Australia, it will have only half performed its task. European dictators have offered various inducements to the people of their respective countries to increase the population. Marriage loans and other inducements have been offered, and the populations of those countries have increased by leaps and bounds. But here in Australia, where one would expect the population to increase normally, we find that during the last ten years, mainly because the standard of living has been allowed to decline, our vital statistics have become most disturbing indeed. If, in supplementation of child endowment, the Government approaches the problem of the birth-rate with a view to encouraging, first, early marriages, and, secondly, the rearing of large families, it will do much to retain power. This is the kind of legislation which the Labour party wishes to see placed on the statute-book. Personally, I do not care which party initiates it. In fact, if this Government brings down more legislation of this kind the need for the Labour party might disappear altogether. I give that tip to the Government.

Senator ABBOTT:
New South Wales

– Like honorable senators generally, I am pleased that this measure has been introduced and I am sure that it will be given as easy a passage through this chamber as it had through the House of Representatives. I also look forward to the day when it will be possible to provide child endowment in respect of the first child in a family, and also when this problem will be tackled as a national responsibility by making it solely a charge upon Consolidated Revenue. I take this opportunity to remove a misapprehension on the part of some honorable senators opposite. From the moment this scheme was suggested not the slightest danger has existed that any section of the parties forming this Government would obstruct this measure. Consequently, any suggestion to the contrary is most unfair. If a difference of opinion has arisen among government supporters in connexion with this bill it arose solely in respect of the method by which child endowment should be financed. I, myself, would prefer that the scheme be financed solely from Consolidated Revenue, without any aid in the form of a pay-roll tax. In the present changed circumstances of the world, all of us, regardless of party, must realize the necessity for doing everything we can in order to preserve democracy and our freedom. We want to retain those things because they are so necessary to our well-being and happiness. The welfare of our children, and the future and prosperity of our country are as vital as is any other factor to the greatness of this young nation. There fore, after the present great menace has disappeared from the world’s horizon, all parties must take their faith in their hands, and, regardless of cost, do what is right in order to establish better conditions in this country.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– Several days ago I received a telegram from a friend of mine, who is the father of eleven children, all of whom are under the age of sixteen years. Under this scheme an extra £2 10s. a week will be added to that family’s income. Undoubtedly that father has earned this benefit, which will now enable him to meet many obligations which he has hitherto been unable to meet. He informed me that he had been badly dunned by people to whom he owed money. Consequently, he is happy to think that he will now be in a position to feed and clothe his children and. to meet his obligations. That is also the point of view of thousands of other fathers in this country. Those of us who have had to struggle for a crust know very well that an extra few shillings makes towards happiness in a home, especially where there are a number of children. On the other hand there are the gentlemen who have been sending us telegrams protesting against the method by which it is proposed to finance this scheme. They were not opposed to the scheme itself. Personally, I am not very worried about them, because I know very well that the cost will be passed on. As the result of this scheme there will be a gain to the workers, although it will not he so great as those who wholeheartedly support the measure imagine. I believe that the workers in the aggregate will not gain very much. Indeed, when we allow for the increased cost of living which must take place during the next twelve months, it is questionable whether the workers as an economic class will gain anything at all. However, it will mean a gain to those workers who have children. In the past, political parties have found it very difficult to face the task of introducing child endowment. Many honorable senators opposite have contended that the single man should be asked to provide the aid needed by the married man in order to support his children. Naturally, that proposal was bitterly opposed by those who were to be taxed; therefore, political parties, which depended very largely on the votes of single men, have hitherto declined to carry out a project of that kind. The effect of this scheme will be that whilst single workers will still only be able to purchase what they can now afford to buy, married workers will receive, in addition to their present wages, the allowances to be paid under this scheme. I do not say that that is wrong. If we face the position frankly, we must admit that we should deal with human beings at least as sensibly as, say, a man would deal with his cattle. If a man owns a larger number of cattle than his neighbour, he makes provision for the additional number. However, society has hitherto refused to provide food, clothing and shelter for those families numerically greater than others. It has so far insisted that married men should be paid only the same wage as the single men. Now, as this legislation shows, we recognize that it is right and just that a greater income should be received by parents with children than by single men.

Some theoreticians contend that legislation of this kind makes for the servile State, whilst others claim that it brings us nearer to the co-operative or socialistic commonwealth. Personally, I believe that this bill has been forced upon the economic ruling class of this country, because it is essential, in order to placate the workers and keep them in a state of quiescence, to afford them some relief in the difficulties which confront them. In war-time, as Senator Cameron has so ably pointed out, the dominant economic classes of society are prepared to bring about these reforms, although they would not dream of doing so in peace-time. We know that in a time of war the minds of men tend to become plastic, and it is then possible to bring about reforms which cannot be effected in a time of peace. When on the one hand social conditions are normal, the people as a whole are inclined to be conservative. At the same time vested interests exercise tremendous power and it is very difficult to secure reforms of this character. On the other hand, in a time of war governments generally are more than ready to do something of this kind, because they recognize that such reforms are long overdue, and, in any case, are essential in order to pacify the people and give them to understand that capitalist democracy is capable of such reforms. I hope that this legislation is an earnest indication of further social reforms, in respect of unemployment and widows’ pensions. If we are to convince the people that a capitalist democracy is capable of looking after them as effectively as totalitarian governments, it is incumbent upon this Government not to rest on its oars but to introduce further reforms of this kind. I hope that the Government, should it remain in power, will continue this good work, and accepting the ideas of Senator Darcey, and those who support him, will utilize means other than taxation to finance such reforms. I feel convinced that circumstances will compel such reforms. I am very pleased to note that honorable senators opposite have abandoned their psychological outlook of a few years ago. I recall that when legislation to provide relief for the unemployed was introduced .into the Queensland Parliament political colleagues of honorable senators opposite described that measure as the “Loafers’ Paradise Bill”. In addition, as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) pointed out last night, the maternity allowance established by the late Mr. Andrew Fisher was described by a predecessor of honorable senators opposite as a sop to profligacy. A few years ago men who hold the Tory view-point of honorable senators opposite were bitterly opposed to all kinds of social reform. I speak from long experience as a union organizer. I know the attitude that was taken up only a short while ago by employers of labour generally, and supporters of honorable senators opposite,. on all such matters. I am pleased to learn that, even at this late stage, there is a recognition of the rights of the mothers and the children of this country, and I trust that as a result of constant agitation and pressure by honorable senators on this side of the chamber the Government will, in the near future, take steps to supplement this necessary social reform.

Senator A J McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Government appears to me to have laid a very popular legislative egg. The question which now arises seems to me to he whether responsibility for the production of this egg belongs to the other side or to this side of the chamber. The expressions of opinion that have fallen from the lips of honorable senators opposite during the day have convinced me that the cackle which we heard was not really an expression of what honorable senators actually thought. However, the hope that I have to express in regard to this very important egg is that it will prove fertile. Senators Keane, Cameron, and several others directed attention to the fact that, for many years, nothing was done in these legislative halls to bring about this necessary reform, to which all parties in this chamber subscribe. Why? The party of which Senator Keane and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) are such distinguished ornaments held office from 1912 until 1918 in both branches of this legislature, and did nothing in this direction. The BrucePage Government had the subject investigated, hut had to stay its hand because the proposal then contemplated was said to be beyond the constitutional power of this Parliament. All parties support this bill in principle. We are placing in the bands of the mothers of this country power to do great good, and it is our responsibility to see that our legislative efforts are not frustrated. A heavy burden rests upon the Government to see that this legislation does not fail as did other important social legislation within recent years. That legislation would also have been of great benefit to the community. The Leader of the Opposition made a passing reference to an inquiry into certain constitutional matters by a royal commission presided over by a fellow barrister of mine in South Australia. The opinion expressed by that commission has been confirmed by such distinguished jurists as Sir Edward Mitchell, Mr. Justice Owen Dixon, and the present honorable member for Barton (,Mr. Evatt). It appears to me that this is an opportunity to obtain some reform in that regard. All shades of political opinion are represented in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, and I think that it devolves upon this Government, the leader of which is no mean constitutional authority, to see that this is not an empty gesture. The State parliaments could give to this Parliament certain additional powers, and I believe they should do so. It would be most unfortunate for this Parliament and for the people generally if the State legislatures declined to do so. This aspect of the matter apparently has not been ignored in the House of Representatives, but in this chamber little or nothing has been said concerning it. I cannot let this bill pass without impressing upon the Government the necessity to get something done. There was never a better opportunity than the present to do so, because to-day in our tremendous war effort all parties are in complete harmony. When this measure ‘becomes law it will clear up much of the unrest that exists at present and to a degree - I wish to be clearly understood on this point - it will put our wage system on a slightly better basis than it is at present. As I stated previously this matter is inextricably related to our wage system, and any failure would bring about a state of confusion in this respect in this country which I hesitate to contemplate.

Senator ARTHUR:
New South Wales

– If I understood Senator A. J. McLachlan aright he anticipates certain constitutional difficulties involving the passage of legislation by the State parliaments. In view of that possibility, and of the fact that the result might be inability to give effect to this legislation, consideration should be given to motives which may possibly be behind the introduction of this measure. Why should a government that has always ignored the humane side of our social life suddenly decide to introduce a measure such as this? Provided that there are two children or more in a family this measure may be regarded as supplementary to the basic wage. We must then consider the marital condition of the adult male population throughout this country. We find that 60 per cent, of our male population is married and the remaining 40 per cent, single. Of the 60 per cent., 40 per cent. have no children at all. Therefore we find that children numbering 1,800,000 are actually spread amongst very few people. I recall that on one occasion as a commissioner on the Board of Trade I participated in the fixing of a basic wage in New South “Wales. When we were on the eve of making a declaration in regard to the basic wage figures showed a minimum wage of £3 16s. and a maximum of £4 2s. When it became known to the public, the Holman Government, on the night of the 10th October, 1919, introduced a measure similar to that now before the Senate and passed it in one sitting. Obviously, the object was to prevent the employers in New South Wales from having to pay an increase of the basic wage of from £2 18s. 6d. to £3 17s. An extra ls. a week would have represented an increase of £1,000,000 a year in the wages bill of employers, and the whole basic wage position would have been disturbed. The bill introduced by the Holman Government went to the Legislative Council, which was then comprised almost entirely of Tory representatives, and the council referred the bill to a select committee presided over by the late Sir Joseph Carruthers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must discuss the bill.

Senator ARTHUR:

– I am merely directing the attention of the Senate to the fact that this is not the first child endowment bill that has been introduced in this country. The Holman Government introduced a similar measure, merely to allow employers to evade the payment of a higher basic wage. At this stage T should like to give a very solemn warning. If this bill be passed, will a position similar to that which I have referred arise when the basic wage is to be fixed next June? Will the judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court who fixed the wage to be paid to a man with his wife and one child reduce the basic wage and thus save large numbers of employers from paying an increased basic wage as was attempted in 1919 ? It has been said in this chamber and published in the press that this bill is not, in the interests of primary producers. That, is an old car-call, and it will not stand close analysis. The facts are that in the primary industries of this country few wives of wage-earners will receive child endowment, because those industries employ very few persons, and consequently there are few wives of wageearners in rural areas. For instance, how many wives whose husbands are engaged in the wool industry will receive the benefits conferred by this bill? It is also well known that very few; of the married men employed in the dairying industry work for wages. It was shown that, in the whole western districts of New South Wales, fewer than 100 persons would be affected. If endowment is to be paid to mothers in this country, its application should be equitable throughout all industries. Under this measure, certain industries will receive no benefit at all.

Senator Leckie:

– All mothers will be on the same basis.

Senator ARTHUR:

– In primary in? dustries very few wage-earners will be affected. I made an official investigation of this matter and submitted a report to the Government of New South Wales. Few mothers in rural areas will be affected by this bill. ‘Certainly it will be a godsend to some persons. It will be of great relief to some of the mothers in Canberra, where the birth-rate is higher than in any other part of the Commonwealth. The wife and eleven children of a man who was a resident of the Australian Capital Territory and was killed recently have, so far, not received a penny. That is an example of what is occurring in the National Capital. I congratulate the Government upon departing from its original proposal to put this very essential social service under the control of the Pensions Department. I hope that later the Government will see its way clear to establish an independent department of social services. The administration of the New South Wales scheme forms only part of the functions of a department and consequently all sorts of anomalies have crept in. A separate department set up to administer a Commonwealth child endowment scheme would receive the closest co-operation of all sections of the community. I am glad that the bill has been introduced and that the great reform of child endowment is now in sight. For many years the Labour party has fought for this reform, but it has always been opposed by the Tory interests who, I suppose, will now claim the credit for the introduction of child endowment.

Senator LECKIE:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

in reply - I thank honorable senators for the kindly way in which they have received the bill. Neither I nor other members of the Government desire to take any credit for the introduction of the measure. Members of this chamber and the people whom we represent outside are united in an effort to place child endowment on a proper basis. Most of the criticism directed at the bill has been non-party, but occasionally in the debate the old Adam of political bias has obtruded. I deprecate such obtrusion. I think that all of us can take credit for possessing the ordinary human emotions and desire that the children of this country shall have the best chance possible to become useful citizens. Senator Keane commented on the method of paying the endowment. This question has caused the Government much concern, and it has been investigated from every angle. The Government has no objection to mothers having the endowment money paid into their savings bankaccount. If they wish the endowment to accumulate for, say, three months or six months, they may adopt that method. The Government will take every precaution to ensure that the mothers’ convenience will be studied in making the payments. The Government’s only concern will be that the money is paid to the mothers entitled to receive it and that it is used properly. Many mothers may desire to allow the endowment money to accumulate for some years for the purpose of providing a fund for the higher education of their children when they complete their primary education. No slur will be cast on any mother. If a mother does not want to call at a post office to collect the endowment, she may authorize the money to be paid into her savings bank account.I was intrigued by the statement of Senator Keane that the boss has all his sympathy. The only senator who caused me some sorrow was . Senator Cameron, who is prone to paint doleful pictures.

Senator Cameron:

– I thought thatI painted a bright picture.

Senator LECKIE:

– If the honorable senator painted a bright picture, then his favorite colour is black. Senator Lamp advocated the introduction of a uniform school-leaving age throughout Australia, but I would point out that the Commonwealth Government has no right to interfere with the State governments in that matter, because the fixation of the schoolleaving age is entirely within their province. With reference to the comments of honorable senators regarding the basic wage, the Government has indicated to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration the standard family unit for which the court must have regard when determining the basic wage.During the last 25 years the size of the standard family unit has varied. Now the court will be relieved of considerable worry, because the unit will be indicated by the Government. Senator Abbott said that he wanted child endowment to be made a national responsibility. I do not think that it can be described as other than a national responsibility.

Senator Abbott:

– I meant that the whole of the money required for child endowment should be a charge on the Consolidated Revenue.

Senator LECKIE:

– Actually, the whole of the money will come out of Consolidated Revenue. Succeeding governments will be bound by the act to raise the money required for the operation of the scheme. Senator Arthur gave the impression that families in the country districts are smaller than those in the cities. From my experience, I should say that on the average, families in the country districts are 25 per cent, larger than families in the cities. The honorable senator also stated that very few families would benefit from child endowment. I would point out that the 1,800,000 children in Australia have 800,000 parents; therefore a very large number of families will benefit.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Administration).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- Does the Government intend to set up a new department to administer the child endowment scheme or will it he administered by the pensions department?

Senator LECKIE:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

– It is not the Government’s intention to establish a new department, and it would not he politic to do so, when there is already functioning a department experienced in the payment of pensions, allowances and the like. A special officer will be placed in charge of the administration of the act.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 29 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 626

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Report No. 2 ‘ of the . Printing Committee brought up by Senator Cunningham read by the Clerk, and - by leave - adopted.

page 626

RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1941

Debate resumed from the 2nd April (vide page ‘482) on motion by Senator Leckie -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COURTICE:
Queensland

– The bill provides for an amendment of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act of 1940 which has become necessary because of serious disturbances in the world markets for raw cotton and their effect on the incomes of raw cotton producers in Queensland. In the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1940 provision was made for payment of a bounty to those engaged in the production of raw cotton in Australia. Had the industry been able to continue normally, there would have been no need for the introduction of the bill, but the effect of the wide fluctuations of the price of cotton have reduced the income of cottongrowers in Queensland. The introduction of the bill is appreciated by the 4,000 cotton-growers in that State. Associated with the bounty bill passed last year was an understanding between the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments that the industry was to be stabilized on a basis which would be of lasting benefit not only to the industry itself, but also to Queensland and the whole of Australia. So far the condition of the cotton-growing industry has not been satisfactory.. Efficiency demands improved cultural methods. To that end the Queensland Government has agreed to expend about £750,000 on the provision of irrigation and other services. It is anticipated that irrigation and the use of fertilizers will improve both the yield and the quality of the crop. In order that Parliament may keep a close eye on the development of this industry the Government should ensure that it is efficiently policed and that periodical reports are made to Parliament concerning the progress that is being made. The Queensland Government is sincere in its efforts to stabilize the industry, and, if the Commonwealth Government co-operates with it, permanent benefit should accrue. It is necessary that the industry be protected in every way possible. It is one of the few primary industries of this country which is not dependent on overseas markets. As against that, however, Queensland growers have to accept for their product world parity which is much below their cost of production. In the circumstances the Government is justified in paying them a bounty which will raise their returns sufficiently high to enable them to operate profitably. This measure, which is designed to ensure that the purpose of the bounty bill passed last year will be fulfilled, will, therefore, be welcomed by the growers, especially since, encouraged by that legislation to expand their operations, they have increased the acreage under cotton from 40,000 to 80,000 acres or by 100 per cent. The bounty has also had the effect of increasing the number of growers from 2,000 to 4,000. Honorable senators must realize the importance of the cottongrowing industry to this country.

Senator BROWN:
Queensland

– I support what was said by Senator Courtice. Subsidies are often unsatisfactory, but the bounty provided in the Raw Cotton Bounty Act, and in this bill, will assist the development of the cottongrowing industry at a time when other primary industries are languishing owing to an absence of markets. The cotton-growing industry in Australia, fortunately, is not dependent on overseas sales, and it is therefore capable of great expansion. Admittedly the development of the cotton-growing industry runs contrary to the ideals of many Country party parliamentarians, because it is a trend towards self-sufficiency. The Labour party is not scared of self-sufficiency. It believes that Australia’s requirements of cotton should be grown in Australia. In 1940 Australia’s cotton-spinners required 60,000 bales of raw cotton lint, an increase of 100 per cent, on their requirements for 1939, and the estimated requirements for 1941 total 100,000 bales. During the year ended the 30th June, 1940, Australia produced 5,661 bales of raw cotton lint, and the seed cotton received at ginneries totalled 8,605,496 lb., from which 2,819,467 lb. of lint was ginned. Even to the extent of providing money free of interest for ten years the Queensland Government has encouraged cotton farmers to develop their industry. In 1940-41, 1,185 applications for advances were made by settlers, compared with 788 in 1939-40. The Government’s developmental programme includes the conservation of water for irrigation in the cotton-growing areas of the Callide and Dawson valleys. There is room for greater co-operation between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government in the development of the cotton-growing industry. A necessary step is the provision by the Commonwealth Government of a guaranteed price in order that the growers shall not be dependent each year On a bounty. That is something for the future; meanwhile, the bounty provides a very necessary encouragement to the growers to continue in production, and I am pleased that the Government has decided to assist an industry the value of which to Australia will be as great in peace-time as it is now.

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I congratulate the Government upon having anticipated a request from the Cotton-growers for further assistance ‘by bringing down this bill. This legislation will assure the growers that they may carry on safely. Unlike many other primary industries, the cotton-growing industry is not dependent on overseas markets. Australia’s requirements of cotton are sufficiently great to enable the industry to expand enormously. Last year production totalled 8,000 bales, whereas this year the crop is estimated to yield about 15,000 bales. Our annual consumption of cotton totals 70,000 bales, but one would be rash to estimate what that consumption will be a year or two hence in view of the immense requirements of cotton in the war industries. The increased market for cotton is a development of the war. Another development of the war, however, is a reduction of the value of the bounty which was passed last year. Unless this bill be passed, owing to the closing down of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, on the prices of which the bounty was computed, and the huge carry-over of cotton and consequent slump of cotton prices to about 2d. sterling per lb. in the United States of America and in other American countries the growers will suffer. Honorable senators realize that under white labour conditions in Queensland . we cannot hope to grow cotton at such low prices. It has become necessary, therefore, that the Commonwealth Government assure those engaged in the production of - cotton that for a number of years they shall have a stable price which will encourage them to stay in the industry, and induce others to forsake other pursuits in favour of cotton-growing. Under the assistance given by the Government of Queensland the industry in that State has made great progress in the last twelve months. Scientific methods of production have been applied and the State Government has made available instructors who give their assistance to growers in the best methods of sowing and cultivation. I am confident that within a few years the cotton industry will be one of the largest primary industries in Australia. The market is available and we can manufacture the finished article. There is no reason, therefore, why we should not expand our cotton-growing industry to such a degree that it will be able to supply the whole of our needs. If that bedone there will be a great field of employment for our people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 628

TRADE AGREEMENT (SOUTHERN RHODESIA) BILL 1941

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd April (vide page 496) on motion hy Senator Leckie -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– Trade agreements such as that provided for under this measure are highly desirable, and I hope that with the passage of time more of them will be completed, to the mutual benefit of the contracting parties. As a bargain has already been entered into with Southern Rhodesia, the Senate must either ratify the agreement as it stands or reject it. Tb,e Opposition intends to accept the agreement as a whole, because it believes that such agreements promote good international relations. The agreement discloses a degree of reciprocity between the contracting parties which is admirable. Australia takes very little risk of losing under the agreement, and it has a good opportunity to derive much advantage from it. Tobacco is the principal commodity involved. The Scullin Government made a brave and successful attempt to improve the tobacco-growing industry in Australia, as a result of which a great expansion of the industry occurred. A radical alteration was brought about when the late Sir Henry Gullett delivered a smashing attack on the industry, and caused it a considerable amount of difficulty.

This agreement grants to producers of Southern Rhodesian tobacco a preference of 9d. per lb., as against tobacco imported from other countries. This preference will not seriously affect the Australian industry. Probably the agreement will, to some extent, be pleasing to the tobacco combine, but, having regard to the healthy condition of the industry in Queensland, and the fact that no difficulty is experienced in disposing of the whole of the Australian leaf, I think that the possibility of injury to the local industry is remote. Whilst we cannot expect a twoway bargain to operate only in one direction, we hope that the arrangement will not affect the local industry detrimentally. When the measure was under consideration in the House of Representatives, no opposition was expressed to it, and I trust that it will be agreed to by the Senate unanimously.

Senator FRASER:
Western Australia

– Although the bill requires the ratification of this Parliament, and cannot be amended, I should like the Minister (Senator Leckie) to tell us what the affect of the measure will be on the Australian tobacco industry, and, particularly, on the industry in Western Australia. I realize that agreements of this kind are reciprocal, but I trust that there will not be a repetition of the position that arose in connexion with the tobacco industry in Western Australia on a former occasion.

Senator LECKIE:
Assistant Minister · Victoria · UAP

in reply - Honorable senators opposite need not be apprehensive as to the effect that this measure may have upon the local tobacco industry, because the interests of the growers are to be protected. The present production of Australian leaf now totals only 5,500,000 lb. and the total consumption is about 26,500,000 lb. Therefore an excellent market is available for the whole of the Australian leaf that can be produced, and there is little danger of injury to the local industry. The price of Australian leaf is now 25 per cent, higher than formerly, and the effect of this legislation may even be to assist the local industry. The lowest duties at which Southern Rhodesian leaf would be imported would be 4s. 3d. per lb. for the manufacture of tobacco, and 6s. 5d. per lb. for the manufacture of cigarettes. These rates will apply only if the Southern Rhodesian leaf is used in conjunction with the prescribed minimum percentages of Australian leaf. Failing incorporation with the required quantity of Australian leaf, duties of 5s. 9d. and 7s. lOd. per lb. respectively will be chargeable. As the price of Australian leaf will be about 2s. 6d. per lb. this year, there is no danger of its being displaced by imported leaf.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 629

EMPIRE AIR SERVICE (ENGLAND TO AUSTRALIA) BILL 1941

Second Reading

Debate resumed fromthe 2nd April (vide page 496) on motion by Senator Foll -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– I have perused this short machinery bill, which is necessary in order to overcome certain technical difficulties arising from the fact that the Civil Aviation Board has ceased to exist. The Opposition will support the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 629

AIR FORCE BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is an amendment of section 8 of the Air Force Act 1923-39 relating to the non-applioation of the Superannuation Act to members of the Air Force appointed or enlisted after the 3rd September, 1939, solely for service in time of war. Section 8 was inserted in the Air Force Act 1923-38 by the Air Force Act 1939, and this amendment of that section is designed to make it clear that officers and airmen appointed or enlisted in the Air Force for the duration of the war and any period thereafter shall also be excluded from the operation of the Superannuation Act. That effect was intended when section 8 was originally introduced into the act in 1939, but it was subsequently found that it did not completely cover all classes of personnel enlisted for service during the war. The short amendment proposed in this bill will correct the position. Honorable senators will appreciate that the

Superannuation Act is an act designed primarily to provide superannuation pensions to servants of the Crown on their retirement, and that the Superannuation Fund was not intended to be applied in granting pensions to members of the Air Force who were enlisted solely for war service. Pensions payable in respect of cases of death or invalidity of members of the Air Force who are appointed or enlisted solely for war service will be governed by the provisions of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-40.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– Like some of the preceding bills which we have just dealt with, and those to follow, this measure is simple. Its purpose is to prevent the Superannuation Act from applying to airmen, and certain officers of the Royal Australian Air Force, because they are covered by the Australian Soldiers.’ Repatriation Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 629

CUSTOMS TARIFF (SOUTHERN RHODESIAN PREFERENCE ) BILL 1941

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 (Victoria - Assistant

Minister) [4.5]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The effect of the duties proposed is to reduce by 9d. per lb. the rates imposed on tobacco of Southern Rhodesian origin entered to be locally manufactured into tobacco and cigarettes. The proposals are consequent upon the Trade Agreement (Southern Rhodesia) Bill 1941 which was dealt with earlier, and are necessary to give effect to the agreement so far as the Commonwealth is concerned. As I have already stated the proposals will take effect from a date to be fixed by proclamation, when the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by the respective governments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 630

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1941

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 provide £10,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. This is one of the recurring measures periodically submitted to Parliament for the purpose of appropriating an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid therefrom at the rates already approved by Parliament. The total amount appropriated by Parliament to date for this purpose is £165,000,000, and the balance of this appropriation now remaining is sufficient only to meet pension payments to the end of the present financial year. Although Parliament is being asked to approve the appropriation of £10,000,000 which is the usual amount appropriated, this sum will not be withdrawn from revenue immediately. Payments from revenue to the trust account are made only periodically as it becomes necessary to meet the payments to pensioners. This bill relates to pensions arising out of both the 1914-18 war and the present war. The basis of payment of war pensions has already been established by Parliament and this measure merely approves the provision of funds for the purpose.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 630

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1941

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 appropriate £19,000,000 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of invalid and old-age pensions. This measure is similar to those submitted to Parliament periodically for the purpose of appropriating an amount from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid at rates already approved by Parliament. The total amount appropriated to date for this purpose is £257,000,000 and the balance of this appropriation now remaining is sufficient only to meet pension payments to the 31st May, 1941. Although Parliament is being asked to approve the appropriation of £19,000,000, which is approximately one year’s expenditure, this amount will not be withdrawn from Consolidated Revenue immediately. Revenue is only drawn upon for payment to the trust account as required to enable pension payments to be made as they become due. This bill has no relation to the rates or conditions under which invalid and old-age pensions are paid, but merely approves the provision of funds for that purpose.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 630

WINE GRAPES CHARGES BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator MoBbide) 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 shortage of shipping space caused by war conditions has curiously affected the Australian wine industry in that it is no longer able to ship its surplus production to the United Kingdom. The position of the industry has caused the Australian Wine Board, and other organizations associated with it, grave concern, and recently the Government gave the board authority to use the funds collected under the Wine Grapes Charges Act for the purpose of publicity work within the Commonwealth in an effort to reduce the surplus. It has been found that the Wine Grapes Charges Act, which was passed in 1929 in order to provide funds to enable the Wine Overseas Marketing Board, now designated the Australian Wine Board, to carry out its functions under the Wine Overseas Marketing Act, does not cover grapes used in the manufacture of brandy. That act provides for the imposition of a levy, upon the owner of a winery or distillery handling not less than 10 tons of grapes, in respect of all fresh and dried grapes delivered for use in the manufacture of wine, or in the making of spirit for the purpose of fortifying wine. When that legislation was being drafted, it seems to have been understood that the words “ grapes used in the manufacture of wine or in the making of spirit for the purpose of fortifying wine “ would, in their application to the levies “prescribed be taken to include brandy grapes. The legal opinion does not support that view, but, on the contrary, points out that although brandy is obtained by the distillation of grape wine, the various processes involved in the manufacture of grapes into wine for the purpose of producing brandy are merely parts of the process of producing brandy and, therefore, as the act now stands, the levy cannot be imposed on any grapes delivered for use in the manufacture of brandy. It must not be overlooked, however, that the manufacture of wine and brandy is closely allied and that frequently brandy spirit is used for the for’tification of wine. All advantages aris ing as the result of the disposal of the exportable surplus of Australian wine are shared by all interests concerned in wine production, and any difficulties which arise from over-production of wine and consequent inability to dispose of the surplus, react to the same extent on brandy-makers as on wine-makers. In consequence of this position, the Australian Wine Board has recommended that the Wine Grape Charges Act be amended to provide that the levy applicable to grapes for wine and fortifying spirit shall also apply to grapes for brandy. The bill now before the Senate has been framed to give effect to that recommendation. It has also been noticed that some producers are converting their grapes into a concentrated grape juice and are holding this juice for manufacture later into wine either in Australia if occasion demands, or overseas, if export opportunities arise. In order that there may be no doubt in the matter, it is desired that the law should state clearly that grapes used in the manufacture of this concentrated grape juice are subject to levy on the same basis as those used in the production of wine. During the past five seasons, the annual output of grape brandy has averaged 427,000 proof gallons. It would be difficult to arrive at the precise quantity of fresh grapes necessary to produce that quantity of spirit, but it can be taken that approximately 15,000 tons ‘ would be involved. The revenue received under the Wine Grapes Charges Act has averaged £9,000 per annum over the past five financial years. If the provisions of the act be extended, as is now proposed, an additional revenue to the board of approximately £1,850 can be anticipated. The actual rates at present imposed are - fresh grapes 2 s. 6d. a ton, dried grapes 7s. 6d. a ton, which represent only 50 per cent, of the maximum levy permissible under the act. In the administration of the present act difficulties have arisen in some instances in assessing the amount of levy payable owing to some wine makers and distillers being unable to state with any degree of certainty what quantities of spirits have been used in the fortification of wine and the production of brandy respectively. The suggested amendment will remove that disability.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 632

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1941

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 this bill is to ensure that the duties set out in the customs tariff resolutions of the 21st November and the 11th December, 1940, shall operate until Parliament has had an opportunity to ratify them. The collection of duties under the resolutions is valid only until the 21st May and the 11th June, respectively, and it is considered advisable to validate collections until the 3rd July to allow reasonable time for Parliament to deal with them. It is not proposed at this juncture to discuss the tariff schedule item by item.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 632

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) VALIDATION

page 632

BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

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.

This bill is incidental to the Customs Tariff Validation Bill and proposes to validate until the 3rd July, 1941, the exchange adjustment alterations made by the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals of the 11th December, 1940.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 632

CUSTOMS TARIFF (SPECIAL WAR DUTY) VALIDATION BILL 1941

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 (Victoria - Assistant

Minister) [4.34]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is introduced for the purpose of validating, until the 3rd July, 1941, the collection of the special war duty imposed by the proposals of the 21st November, 1940. The special war duty was imposed for war-time revenue purposes. It is not possible to debate the proposals at this stage and it is necessary to validate collections made thereunder, in order to safeguard the revenue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 632

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION

page 632

BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator LECKIE (Victoria - Assistant

Minister) [4.37]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill provides for the validation of the collection of the protective duty imposed on lifting jacks of Canadian origin by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference)

Proposals of the loth December, 1940. The period of validation is the same as for the Customs Tariff proposals, namely, until the 3rd July, 1941.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 633

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL 1941

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 (Victoria - Assistant

Minister) [4.41]. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the Senate on the 11th November, 1940, provide for the imposition of a special duty on chewing gum and chewing gum confectionery of New Zealand origin and the bill seeks to validate the collection of duty thereunder until the 3rd July, 1941.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 633

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the measure is to amend sections 8, 48 and 72 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1940. Under section 8 of that act it is provided that the act shall not apply, inter alia, to any person employed solely in the Naval or Military Forces. It is considered desirable to extend this provision to include persons employed solely in the Air Force, and clause 3 of the bill provides accordingly. The extension is owing to the development of the air section of the Defence Forces. Clause 4 contains a proposed amendment of section 48 of the principal act, which provides for prior government service of an officer as specified to be reckoned as service in the Commonwealth PublicService. With regard to paragraph a of this clause, the principal act provides that where a person becomes an officer of the CommonwealthService and his service in the Commonwealth Service is continuous with, inter alia, permanent service in the Police Force of the Territory for the Seat of Government, his prior service in that force shall be reckoned as service in the Commonwealth Service. The amendment provides for the substitution of the words “ Australian Capital Territory”, the name by which that Territory is now known, in lieu of the words “ Territory for the Seat of Government”. Paragraph c of clause 4 will place members of the Air Force on the same footing as members of the Naval and Military Forces in regard to the counting of prior service in cases where they are appointed to the Commonwealth Service. Paragraph d provides for the insertion in section 48 of the act of a new sub-paragraph e, in order to cover the cases of officers appointed to the Commonwealth Service from the permanent staffs of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Repatriation Commission, War Service Homes Commission, and the High Commissioner’s Office, London. Officers employed with these bodies were accorded superannuation rights and eligibility for furlough by Parliament in 1937, and it has been represented to the Government that, in view of the status thus conferred, steps should be taken to ensure that should any such officer be appointed to the Commonwealth Service without any break in his employment, his service with the former body shall be regarded as service in the Commonwealth Public Service for purposes of furlough and sick leave. The Government considers it equitable that this provision should be inserted in the Commonwealth Public Service Act.

No alteration is being made ofthe existing practice governing eligibility for appointment tothe Commonwealth Public Service of officers of the Commonwealth bodies mentioned above, but it is felt desirable to provide that any officer actually appointed to the Commonwealth Public Service from any one of the bodies mentioned shall carry with him the credit of his permanent service with the former body provided there is no break in continuity.

Proposed new sub-paragraphf is to provide for the counting of prior service in the case of an officer of any of the bodies mentioned in the proposed new subparagraph e who is appointed to an administrative or executive office in connexion with any of those bodies, for example, as a repatriation commissioner, and subsequently, without break in service, is appointed to a position under the Commonwealth Public Service Act.

The addition of proposed new subparagraph g is necessary consequent on the passing of the Supply and Development Act of 1939. The purpose of the amendment is to confer on persons employed permanently underthe Supply and Development Act rights similar to those conferred by section 48 of the Commonwealth Public Service Act on persons employed permanently in a civil capacity in the Department of . Defence under the Defence Act. Under paragraph c of sub-section 1 of section 48 the prior service of such a person in the Department of Defence, who, without any break of employment, becomes an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service, is reckoned as service in the Commonwealth Public Service for the purpose of furlough and sick leave. As many persons previously employed permanently in a civil capacity under the Defence Ad are now in the Department of Supply and Development, it is considered desirable to extend the provisions of section 48 to them. Paragraphs b, e andf effect consequential variations of section 48 of the acceptanceof the other amendments of the section already explained.

The existing provisions of section 72 of the Principal Act cover the granting of leave of absence to (a) officers serving in an expeditionary force, (b) officers called up for service in the Citizen Forces, and (c) officers under agreement with the Minister of Defence for service as munitions workers. They do not, however, contain authority for the granting of leave to officers for the purpose of service in other forces or to engage in other war service as required under present conditions. It is considered desirable, therefore, to amend the act in the manner proposed in the bill. The classes of case not now covered, but for which it is desired to have authority to grant leave on the passage of the bill, are the following : -

  1. Officers serving in the Air Force or the Naval Forces, other than the Citizen Forces.
  2. Officers serving in the forces of the United Kingdom or of other parts of the Empire.
  3. Officers employed in. other work or employment considered necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of the Commonwealth and the territories of the Commonwealth, or the efficient prosecution of the war; for example -

    1. Officers employed on Red Cross duty overseas.
    2. Female officers employed as full-time members of Voluntary Aid Detachments.
    3. Officers employed outside the Commonwealth service in munitions or aircraft production work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 634

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1941

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

Sitting suspended from4.54 to 8.7 p.m.

page 634

LOAN BILL 1941

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) [8.8].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

In this bill, the authority of Parliament is sought for the appropriation of £50,000,000 for war expenditure and for the raising of a corresponding amount of loan moneys to finance that expenditure. When the supplementary financial statement was submitted to the Senate in December last, I indicated that the estimated war expenditure for 1940-41 would be £186,500,000. At the same time, I stated that, after allowing for £62,000,000 being provided from the revenue of the current financial year, and £3,500,000 from balances in defence trust accounts at the 30th June, 1940, it would be necessary for £121,000,000 to be raised by means of loans. Loan appropriations, which have already been passed by Parliament for war expenditure, are sufficient to meet this expenditure, but further appropriations will be necessary to enable war services to be carried on during the early months of next financial year.

War expenditure for the present financial year financed from all sources, including revenue, trust funds, and loan funds, totalled £92,500,000 to the end of February, 1941. Provisional figures for March indicate an expenditure of about £20,000,000, making a total of about £112,000,000 as compared with £186,500,000 originally estimated for the year. The monthly rate of war expenditure during the early months of this financial year was not in proportion to the budget estimate, but the rate is rapidly increasing. Moreover, our overseas war expenditure has not yet reached the pro rata proportion of the budget estimate, mainly because of the fact that financial adjustments with the British Government for the maintenance of our troops in the Near East are somewhat in arrears. It is anticipated, however, that expenditure under this head will be substantial during the closing months of the financial year. It is possible, however, that the actual expenditure for the year will be somewhat less than was originally estimated, but at this juncture, it is impossible to forecast the extent of the decrease. Liabilities carried forward at the 30th June will, of course, have to be financed in the accounts for next year. As when a loan bill for £20,000,000 for war purposes was brought down in June, 1940, this bill makes no provision for details of the appropriation now sought. As then explained, it is . not practicable to indicate specifically the manner in which war appropriations will be expended. Considerable elasticity of appropriation is required to enable the Government to meet any emergency, and for that reason a wide authority is again sought on this occasion.

If honorable senators are desirous of more details in regard to various phases of our war expenditure, I have no doubt that the Ministers of the Service Departments will be pleased to furnish such information as can readily be supplied. I submit the bill for the favorable consideration of honorable senators.

Senator COLLINGS:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– There are two important reasons why the Opposition does not propose to discuss this measure. In the first place we have given a promise to the Government that we shall not in any way impede the passage of such financial measures as it considers necessary to enable it to carry on Australia’s war effort. We have kept that promise to the letter since it was made at the outbreak of war. Secondly, as we were not anticipating the introduction of this measure, honorable senators on both sides of the chamber have made their transport arrangements. It is not our fault that the bill has been brought forward in this way. In spite of my announcement of our determination not to impede in any way the Government’s financial proposals in connexion with our war effort, we are still not in agreement with the proposed method of raising the money. But that, of course, is the Government’s responsibility. We on this side of the chamber are of the opinion that more effective use could be made of the Commonwealth Bank, but, for the reasons which I have indicated, I do not propose to repeat what I have said previously. I hope that the bill will have a speedy passage.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I do not wish to delay honorable senators at this stage of the proceedings, but we are now asked to approve a bill which involves the raising of £50,000,000. I remind the Minister for Supply and Development (Senator McBride) that the people of Western Australia are most disturbed at the meagre consideration which they have received in the matter of war expenditure. In a newspaper published in Perth last week it was pointed out that during the past few months the excess of departures over arrivals from Western Australia to the eastern States was more than 1,000 a month and in some months the total had reached 2,000. The reason for such extensive migration is that our skilled workers and artisans are moving to the eastern States where they can get remunerative permanent work in munition factories. Week after week, and month after month, the population of Western Australia is being depleted owing to the departure of these people. I am pleased to learn ‘that, with loan money, the Government has built a large munition factory in South Australia. A few weeks ago a complaint was made concerning the disparity between defence expenditure in New South Wales and in Victoria, and almost immediately, in order to satisfy the people of New South Wales, the Government decided to construct huge munition factories, not only near Sydney, but also at Newcastle.

Senator McBride:

– The Government had plans made to do so long before complaints were made.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That may be. I applaud the Government for endeavouring to decentralize the manufacture of munitions so that, should one or two of our capital cities be bombed, the production of munitions would not be stopped entirely. But what has been done for Western Australia, a State which comprises nearly one-third of Australia? There are no munition factories in Western Australia, and the expenditure incurred in that State on defence works has been negligible. If a man in Western Australia wishes to contribute to the war effort practically the only way he can do so is to enlist in the Australian Imperial Force, and that is why the percentage of enlistments in that State is about 50 per cent, higher than the average for Australia, including Western Australia. That was disclosed by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden) when he visited Western Australia last December, where he made a better impression than any other Australian public man has done. If the Government wants to do the fair thing by the people of Australia, it should decentralize its war industries and build in Western Australia at least one munition factory capable of employing from 10,000 to 15,000 artisans similar to the large factories in eastern Australia. The people of Western Australia are as loyal as are any in the Commonwealth, and as they are wholeheartedly behind our war effort, they should not be neglected in the matter of war expenditure. If the Minister for Supply and Development, who is an Australian with a national outlook, will visit Western Australia, I am sure that he will understand the justice of our claim. I trust that some of the money to be appropriated’ under this bill will be used to establish a large and complete munition factory in the western State. I do not know why our war industries should be located in the most densely populated centres. For instance, it has been decided to build a new naval dock in Sydney Harbour, right in the centre of what is probably the most densely populated area in the Commonwealth. Should an enemy bomb that dock, the people living in the vicinity would be in great danger. I remind honorable senators that the late Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, who recommended the construction of a naval dock at Sydney, urged the construction of two docks of equal size and importance, one of which was to ‘be at Fremantle. The Government expended £1,000,000 on preliminary work for the Henderson Naval Base, and then abandoned the project. The construction of a munition factory in Western Australia is a matter of urgent national importance. I invite the Minister for Supply and Development to again visit Western Australia to ascertain whether some of the £50,000,000 to be raised could be expended on a large and modern munition factory in Western Australia on the lines I have outlined.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I shall relieve honorable senators by telling them that I do not intend to speak at great length on this subject. A measure involving the raising of £50,000,000 should not be allowed to pass without comment. I understand that, in the House of Representatives to-day, the Government was asked why this amount could not he obtained through the Commonwealth Bank. I have not calculated the amount of interest to be paid on the amount involved in this instance, but when I made a similar calculation in connexion with the first war loan of £20,000,000, I found that the interest bill on that sum amounted to £600,000 per annum. Now the Government intends to borrow an additional £50,000,000 on similar terms. This morning, I asked three important questions which were not answered. I now realize why they were not answered. The questions were -

  1. Is it a fact that, under the National Security Act, the Government has the power to take over the whole Australian banking system f
  2. Is it a fact that paragraph 504 of the report of the Royal Commission on Banking states that the Commonwealth Bank can lend interest-free money to the Government?
  3. Is it a fact that the Government will not give Parliament a chance of discussing this commission’s findings because its findings do not conform to the Government’s financial methods?

I protest strongly against the manner in which this Government is borrowing money. Last week, I drew the attention of the Senate to certain aspects of the last war loan. We were told that the loan was to be raised through the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks. That was not the case. The manager of the Bank of New South Wales has said that the private banks provided the whole of the £20,000,000, which means that the Commonwealth Government conspired with the private banks, enabling them to obtain £20,000,000 and to lend it to the Government at 3i per cent.

The PRESIDENT:
Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes

– nOrder! The honorable senator is not in order in saying that the Government conspired with the private banks. That remark must be withdrawn.

Senator DARCEY:

– I withdraw it. The interest bill on a previous loan amounted to £600,000 a year, and the in terest bill on the proposed loan of £50,000,000 will be an additional impost. This money could be raised through the Commonwealth Bank free of interest. In the circumstances, the Government is not doing its duty to the taxpayers.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I support the statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings) that the Opposition is not in agreement with the Government’s policy for the raising of the loan which the bill, if passed, will authorize. To indicate the policy of the Australian Labour party I shall quote two planks in the party’s platform under the heading, “ Taxation and Finance “ -

Naval and military expenditure to be allocated from direct taxation.

Restriction of public borrowing.

Senator McBride:

– The Labour party did not know when it included those planks in its platform that this country would be engaged in a great war.

Senator CAMERON:

– When the Labour party framed that portion of its platform it foresaw that certain interests were prepared to capitalize war so as to create an interest return in perpetuity for many persons who will take no part in the fighting. The Labour parity’s policy has been supported in many quarters, because in the light of experience many are realizing that Labour’s policy is right. Even orthodox financiers, as Senator Darcey would describe them, are becoming converts to Labour’s policy. I quote the following from an article in Sound Finance, a monthly review published in Sydney, which appeared in the issue of the 10th March last: -

The most fundamental of all the facts in relation to the war is that the real cost must be borne now. No portion can be postponed until the years after the war, much less shifted to a generation still to come. There is no such thing ns making posterity pay.

The intention of the Government in framing the bill is that posterity shall pay interest to persons who invest their money in war loans. The article continues -

The fighting forces must be fed and clothed and their fighting equipment must be provided by us. No portion can be produced by our children (excepting those already at work) or by generations yet unborn. We cannot dispose of a. single- pennyweight of the hurden. We can distribute the burden, but only among those now living and producing or receiving income. The whole art of war finance is in distributing this burden efficiently and equitably . . .

If the whole of the war effort was financed out of taxation, it would be obvious that the whole burden was borne by the taxpayers in proportion to the taxes paid by each. For this and other reasons it would be a good thing if the whole of the war effort could be financed in that way.

If loans are resorted to, the burden is not shifted to posterity, as many - in fact, most people - seem to imagine. The lenders accept burdens which would otherwise be spread through the whole community by taxation. That does not shift the burden to generations still to come. It merely shifts the burden from the community as a whole to a section of it, the lenders. The whole burden is borne by somebody or some sections living while the war is being fought. Posterity comes into the picture only in this way: Coming generations will be made to bear taxation in order to pay interest and eventually to repay the loans to the descendants of those who lent during the progress of the war. To recognize that is to realize, not only that it is impossible to shift the burden or any portion of it from the existing community as a whole to any succeeding generation as a whole, but also that ultimately the whole of the war effort must be financed out of taxation.

I have claimed repeatedly in the Senate that the debtor section- (the workers - are being compelled to pay tribute in perpetuity to the creditor section. My last quotation from the article is the following : -

Why not rely entirely upon straight-out taxation in the first place? This should bc done to the taxable limit. But what is the taxable limit? The absolute limit is the whole of the national income less sufficient to maintain the physique and morale of the community. . . .

Why should we rely upon taxation to the utmost to finance the war? Firstly, it is the most equitable method. Secondly, it is the most certain way of withdrawing income from consumption as the output of consumption goods (due to the transfer of resources to the war effort) declines. Thirdly, it leaves no post-war problem of finding interest for bondholders. It should be obvious that if we allow war debts to grow apace, taxation will have to bo high after the war as well as during -the war period, so that the interest bill can be met.

I commend those extracts from Sound Finance, a journal which is not associated with the Labour party, for the consideration of the Ministry and honorable senators opposite. The bill provides that a sum of £50,000,000 shall be raised by loan. In other words, deferred taxation is to be paid in perpetuity by those least able to pay it. It will not be taxation based on the principle that those most able to pay will pay the most. I agree with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour party does not accept the Government’s policy of capitalizing the war in the interests of investors - not the fighters or the workers - but those people who sit at home and profess to be ultrapatriots. Not only do they wave flags, but they also control the press and the radio with the object of conveying the impression that they are even greater patriots than those who are doing the actual fighting or are carrying on essential war work. Their motto is patriotism plus profit, and the more profit they make the more patriotic they are.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I protest against the closing stage of this period of the session being used by the Government to bring before the Senate fifteen bills, including that now under discussion, which seeks the sanction of honorable senators to the raising of £50,000,000. No opportunity has been given to honorable senators to examine the bill. When the Government invited the moneyed people in this community to subscribe £20,000,000 to the first war loan at a time when the British Empire and Australia were engaged in the greatest war in history, the Government experienced the greatest difficulty in raising the money. The moneyed people should have provided the Government with a sum equal to twenty times £20,000,000. Fifteen bills have been hurled at honorable senators since 4 o’clock this afternoon. The manner in which Ministers are handling the business of this chamber is an outrage. There has has been ample time during the last month for the Government to have introduced machinery bills and given honorable senators sufficient time to have examined them. It seems to me that the members of the Government parties in this chamber are prepared to subscribe automatically to everything done in the House of Representatives. I am not prepared to adopt that attitude. If the House of Representatives was prepared to accept without question the bill authorizing the raising of £50,000,000 because the money is required for defence purposes I am not prepared to support the bill on such specious grounds. I want to know whether the money is to be raised through the Commonwealth Bank, the rate of interest to be paid and the purposes to which the loan money is to be applied. The Ministry is being influenced by astute political leaders opposite and it has allowed the Senate to be subordinated to the House of Representatives. The Senate should be superior to the other House. Because no information has been furnished by the Government as to the method of raising the ?50,000,000 and its expenditure, I am not prepared to acquiesce in the request of the Government that the Senate should pass the bill in the last hour of this period of the session. I intend to vote against the second-reading of the bill as a protest against the procedure being adopted by the Government. When the Senate is asked to deal with a large number of bills in a limited period the Government should prepare a roster showing the order in which the bills are to be considered.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 17

NOES: 3

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

, - This clause reads -

This Act may be cited as the Loan Act 1941.

The word “ may “ makes the retention of the existing title optional. In my opinion, the word “profiteering” would be more appropriate than the word “loan”.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator James McLachlan). - Order! In this instance the word “ profiteering “ is most inappropriate and I ask the honorable senator not to use it. If he objects to the clause, he can signify his disapproval in gentlemanly language.

Senator CAMERON:

– So far as I am aware, the word “profiteering” is not vulgar. It aptly describes the bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– As it is derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, I shall not allow the honorable senator to use it.

Senator CAMERON:

– If you, Mr. Chairman, object to the word “ profiteering”, I shall substitute the word “ appropriation “, because an appropriation as a rule takes from the people a good deal more than the Government is entitled to take. The word “may” implies that an honorable senator is at liberty to suggest an alternative title. If this were a loan in the ordinary sense, no objection could be taken to the bill. In the circumstances, however, “ profiteering “ is a much more suitable word.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Authority to borrow ?50,000,000).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- This clause provides an illustration of my earlier contention. The bill was placed in honorable senators’ hands less than half an hour ago, and I confess that I am not familiar with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1940, to which reference is made in this clause. As the result of the Government’s dilatoriness, I am not in a position to inform my mind on the subject. To ask honorable senators to authorize, without proper consideration, the raising of the colossal sum of ?50,000,000 is to treat this chamber as a joke. I deplore the manner in which the Government is now conducting the business of the country. Despite its much-vaunted handling of the finances of the Commonwealth, the Government experienced the utmost difficulty in persuading the rich to subscribe to the previous loan. I do not deny the necessity for raising money, but I object to the manner in which the Government seeks legislative sanction for the flotation. Whilst I am a member of this chamber, I shall protest vehemently against each attempt to make the Senate a “ rubber stamp “ to approve the work of the House of Representatives. I shall vote against the clause.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– This clause empowers the Government to issue £50,000,000 in the form of treasury-bills, and I shall be interested to learn whether the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) proposes to use that method to raise the money. A treasury-bill is an undated IDU, which is issued by the Government. Recently the general manager of the Bank of New South Wales deplored the fact that treasury-bills in London returned only 10s. per cent., whilst the Commonwealth Government paid 35s. per cent, for the same accommodation in Australia. At any time, a treasury-bill can be presented to a bank and converted into cash. The banks, however, place treasury-bills in their cash reserves, and lend to the Government ten times the amount which they represent. Briefly, that describes the treasury-bill “ racket “, and no Minister will venture to deny it. I am not concerned as to how the money will be expended, but I should like to know how it will be raised. Does the Government propose to float a loan on the open market and invite subscriptions from the public? The general manager of the Bank of New South Wales, in praising the loyalty and patriotism of the private banks in the present crisis, declared that they had subscribed the whole of the £20,000,000 of the first war loan. I ask the Government whether that statement is correct. The committee has the right to be told by the Government how it intends to raise this £50,000,000. Paragraph 504 of the report of the Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems says that the Commonwealth Bank can issue interestfree money. I pointed that out earlier to-day, and when it was questioned I referred to paragraph 530 of the same report. The chairman of that commis sion was a high constitutional authority and a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. That paragraph states, in effect, that ultimately Parliament is responsible for the control of finance and for the good government of Australia. The report of the commission states that if at any time there is any difference of opinion between the Commonwealth Bank Board and the Commonwealth Government as to the policy of the board, a free and frank discussion should take place. Should their opinions still be irreconcilable, the Government must take the full responsibility and tell the Board how to act. If the Government wants £50,000,000, it needs only to apply to the Commonwealth Bank Board for credit to that amount. Any one with any financial knowledge at all knows that no money raised by the methods proposed in this bill ever reaches the Treasury. All that the raising of a loan implies is that the Treasury has the right to draw cheques. That is how this country is financed. 1 strongly protest against this £50,000,000 being raised through any channel other than the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I emphasize that if this war does not last beyond the lifetime of this generation, it will be paid for fully by this generation in terms of man-power and materials. That submission is incontrovertible. Then why the necessity to borrow? Like Senator Keane, I protest against the attempt to rush this bill through the Senate. I know that for years it has been, the custom on the eve of Parliament rising to rush legislation through this chamber, but in the light of what is taking place an emphatic protest should be make against such procedure. To expect this committee to be more or less, in the words of Senator Abbott, “an animated rubber stamp “, is to expect something which Senator Keane and I do not propose to accept. If other honorable senators on this side of the chamber are prepared to be “ animated rubber stamps”, we are not.

Senator Courtice:

– We accepted the proposals when the budget was under consideration last December.

Senator CAMERON:

– This is not the budget. It is a proposal to borrow ?50,000,000. It is one thing to give power to the Government, but the way in which the Government intends to use that power is another. If the burden were to be distributed equitably, I assume that honorable senators who are now dissenting would agree to the bill. But equity is not intended in this bill. From whom is ?50,000,000 to be borrowed? From the persons who have been able by devious methods well known to all-

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator James McLachlan). - From whom the money is to be borrowed is not set out in this clause.

Senator CAMERON:

– The language is not so clear and explicit as I think it should be. The clause reads -

  1. The Treasurer may, from time to time, borrow, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 191 1-40, or under the provisions of any act authorizing the issue of treasury-bills, moneys not exceeding in the whole the amount of ?50,000,000.

It is about as clear as mud. “We want to know precisely what the Government intends to do. I assume that the Government intends to borrow money in the ordinary way which you,’ Mr. Chairman, and I, as common-sense individuals, understand and, if that is done, it simply means that rather than tax those who should be taxed to pay for our war-time effort, the Government is saying in effect : “ We shall not tax you, but lend us your money which will give us the right to pay for services and purchase materials which we require, and we undertake to pay back not only what we borrow from you, but also interest. Therefore, you will remain at home receiving interest on the money which you have loaned while your fellow Australians will he fighting overseas on your behalf. They will be making all the sacrifices and you will be making all the profit”. That is exactly what it means, and we, as Labour men, who for years and years have denounced this system as infamously fraudulent, would be lacking in our duty if we did not register our protest. On those grounds I join with Senators Darcey and Keane.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– On a point of order. Is the honorable senator entitled to say that the system under which money is borrowed is fraudulent?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that Senator Cameron used the word “fraudulent” in that way.

Senator Herbert Hays:

– He said that the money was being raised in a fraudulent way.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Was that the expression used by the honorable senator?

Senator CAMERON:

– I was not reflecting on Senator Herbert Hays. I think that he is quite an honest man.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Did the honorable senator say that this money was being raised in a fraudulent way?

Senator CAMERON:

– Yes, emphatically.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Then I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the remark.

Senator CAMERON:

– With due deference I withdraw the expression. I shall say that in the past money has been raised in a manner which is seriously suspect to all intelligent people.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– On several occasions in the last few days I have listened to Senator Darcey speak on the subject of finance. It appears to me that what he advocates is uncontrolled use of the printing press. If he had his way, as I understand his remarks, he would simply put the Note Printing Branch at work to issue ?50,000,000 worth of notes and thereby bring about uncontrolled inflation, the results of which we saw a decade or so ago in Germany and other Central European states. If the printing press were set to work as apparently desired by the honorable senator, and that not inconsiderable body of public opinion which stands behind him on financial matters, no one would suffer more than the workers and those who are dependent on wages and salaries for their subsistence.

Senator Darcey:

– On a poinit of order. I have never made use of the words “ printing press “ in this chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

– That is not a point of order. The honorable senator, if he so desires, may make a personal explanation when Senator Johnston has concluded his speech.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Frankly and freely I admit that Senator Darcey has not used the words “ printing press “, but I have often listened to the honorable senator and my interpretation of what he has had to say is that he is an advocate of uncontrolled inflation. If this is not so, will the honorable senator state exactly how the money would be raised by him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! Senator Darcey’s method of finance is not before the chamber.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– As I see it, Senator Darcey desires that this £50,000,000 be raised not by the legitimate means of a loan from the hardearned savings of the people, as is properly desired by the Government, but by recourse to the printing press.

Senator Cameron:

Senator Darcey has never said that.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Not in so many words, but by implication. I know that the honorable senator’s policy will never be applied by this Government, in whose financial policy I have every confidence. But, if it were followed, those who would suffer most from it would be the . workers and all people who are dependent on fixed wages and salaries for their subsistence. The prices of all commodities and of all the necessaries of life, particularly the imported, would rise higher and higher, and the thrifty worker would find that the value of his savings hank account and his insurance policies had depreciated. At any rate the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden) has told us that we have already used the national credit to the danger line. Under this bill we shall use the credit of the Commonwealth to the fullest degree. I commend the Government for the policy it is adopting, and urge it to stick to the margin of safety and not to be misled by those who would subject the people of Australia to the miseries of uncontrolled inflation.

Senator Darcey:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. - For two and a half years I have been trying to teach Senator Johnston the fundamentals of banking. I have never used the words “ printing press “ in this chamber, but I direct the attention of the committee to a letter which Senator Johnston forwarded to the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) on .behalf of the social credit group, which shares my views on financial policy.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator has explained that he has never used the words attributed to him by Senator Johnston. The committee accepts his assurance.

Senator Darcey:

– During the course of his remarks Senator Johnston maligned me.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Johnston withdrew the Words to which the honorable senator took exception.

Senator Darcey:

Senator Johnston sent a letter to the Treasurer, who is now the Acting Prime Minister, at the request of people -in Western Australia who hold the same ideas on finance as I do. One of the paragraphs of that letter referred to the use of the Commonwealth Bank to finance the war effort. In his reply, the Treasurer said -

The letter from Senator Johnston practically explains what the Government is already doing. It is using the national credit.

Later, the Treasurer said that if the suggestion made by Senator Johnston were given effect it would result in the financial ruin of Australia. Senator Johnston now comes along with all this tarradiddle about printing notes. In Australia, there is only about £65,000,000 worth of notes, and, according to a statement issued by the Commonwealth Bank Board, only £15,000,000 worth of notes is held by the associated banks. How, then, can the associated banks lend £20,000,000 to the Government?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator i3 going beyond a personal explanation.

Senator Darcey:

– My intention in rising was merely to point out the idiocy of the honorable senator’s remarks.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- In accordance with my promise during the second-reading debate on the bill, I intend to vote against this clause for what I suggest is a sound reason. I reiterate that I do not intend to be placed in the position of being merely a recording angel for another place. The clause reads -

The Treasurer may, from time to time, borrow, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911-1940. or under the provisions of any act authorizing the issue of treasury-bills, moneys not exceeding in the whole the amount of Fifty million pounds.

I have already said that I am not conversant with the provisions of the act mentioned in the clause. This hill was not in our possession until about an hour and a half ago. The handling of the business of this chamber by every party is a disgrace to the Parliament of Australia. Since 1.30 this afternoon no fewer than fourteen bills have been thrown to honorable senators, who are expected to pass them without comment. This may be a most dangerous bill. I do not know if it is or if it is not. As a protest against the muddling way in which the business is handled in this Parliament, I shall vote against every clause in this ‘bill and every other bill brought before the Senate tonight. Honorable senators may think that I display a little heat in regard to this matter; I make no apology for it. Every honorable senator on this side of the chamber has had to fight for his rights. The Opposition has co-operated with the Government in securing the speedy passage of its war legislation. It has agreed to the industrial dilution of labour-

Senator McBride:

– On a point of order. There is nothing in this clause dealing with the industrial dilution of labour.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the clause.

Senator KEANE:

– I oppose this attempt to bludgeon through this chamber bills which we have not even been given an opportunity to consider. My Leader may say that our party has agreed to the bill. I have not heard the subject matter of this bill discussed at meetings of my party for many months. I repeat that I will not be a mere recording angel for another place. I propose to divide the committee on every clause of every bill brought before us to-night, not necessarily because I am opposed to the measures, but because of the methods adopted by the Government in rushing them through this chamber in the dying hours of this period of the session. Some day I trust that the voices of those who want the business of this chamber to be conducted in a proper way will be listened to. I shall not rest content until that is done and the prestige of this branch of the legislature is once more restored to its former level.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– Another reason why I am opposed to clause 3 is because borrowing involves the payment of interest, which, in turn, increases prices, particularly of commodities produced in Australia. I submit that in time of war there can be no justification for any process which brings about an increase of prices to the detriment of those who have to pay them. In economics the value form of prices is, in my opinion, the most difficult subject to understand. It is difficult because most people take far too much for granted. They assume when in the name of the Prices Commissioner it is said that increased prices are necesary that the increase is a legitimate charge.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable senator is not in order in discussing prices.

Senator CAMERON:

– I wish to point out, if I may, that my objection to the borrowing of £50,000,000 is that it involves the payment of interest. Interest is profit, and the interest and profit are passed on to prices.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no mention of interest in this clause.

Senator Keane:

– The Government does not get money by means of loans for nothing.

Senator McBride:

– The Government has already received a lot of money on loan free of interest.

Senator CAMERON:

– The wording of the clause implies that interest is to be paid on the money borrowed. As an experienced chairman, and one who has been a member of the Senate for a number of years, you, sir, will recognize that all sentences, including those used in the drafting of bills of this kind, are elliptical, that is to say, they leave something to be understood. So, when the word “ borrow “ is used, it is implied that interest shall be paid. I suggest that that is the only construction which you or I, as close and observant students of these things, could place on the wording of the clause. If interest has to be paid an increase of prices must result.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have already reminded the honorable senator that I shall not permit the question of prices to be discussed.

Senator CAMERON:

– I have no wish to discuss prices. My only wish is to understand, if I can, precisely what is meant by this clause.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The only way in which the chair can assist the honorable senator is to suggest that he ask the Minister a question, and give him an opportunity to answer it.

Senator CAMERON:

– Our experience of asking questions has not been as satisfactory as it might be. This clause is very ambiguously worded, and for that reason due allowance should be made. We should know precisely what we are doing. As the clause is worded at present, it may mean anything. We, as the representatives of the people, have the right and, in fact, a duty to demand that, before we cast a vote on any provision contained in a bill, we should know exactly what it means. As this clause is ambiguously worded, and it is difficult to say exactly what is meant, surely it is within the province of any honorable senator to place his own construction on the words used. As the clause stands at present, we are asked, in effect, to buy a “ pig in a poke “. Prices will be increased if this bill be passed. Increased prices will mean a reduction of wages, which, in turn, will result in industrial disputes and strikes, the very last things we desire. Therefore, in directing attention to this clause, and what it is likely to lead to, we are assisting the Government. If the clause be passed it is likely to have a detrimental effect on our war effort.

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator McLEAY:
PostmasternGeneral · South Australia · UAP

– I declare that the LoanBill 1941 is an urgent bill.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the ‘Bill he considered an urgent bill.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator, James McLachlan.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 8

Motion agreed to.

AYES

NOES

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the time allotted an connexion with the consideration of the billbe as follows: - For the committee stage of thebill - until 9.35 p.m. this day.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 8

Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Purposes for which money may be expended).

AYES

NOES

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time allotted for the consideration of the committee stages of the bill has expired.

Question put -

That the remainder of the bill, including the title, be agreed to, and that the bill be reported without amendment.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Senator James McLachlan.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of bill and title agreed to and bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator McBride) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I reiterate that I am not opposing this measure because I realize that the Government must have money, but my opposition to the procedure which has been adopted will continue during the remainder ofthe proceedings in this chamber to-night as a practical protest against the Government’s method of handling business. To hand a bill to honorable senators who are in complete ignorance of the act which it mentions, the use to which the money will beput, and the procedure by which it is to be raised, is beyond the bounds of reason. I recollect that in May and December of last year honorable senators scrambled through the consideration of measures that should have been given very careful attention, in order to oblige the House of Representatives and help Ministers in the discharge of public business. Had the Ministry adopted a commonsense method of presenting business to this chamber, no troublewould have occurred here this evening. The Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) should prepare a roster setting out a. list of the bills due for consideration so that honorable senators would have an opportunity to discharge their duties properly. Many honorable senators left for their homesthis evening in ignorance of the fact that fourteen bills were to be introduced into this chamber after we had completed our consideration of the child endowment measures. If they were present now, I venture to say that these divisions would have been fairly closely contested. Some honorable senators are prepared to follow slavishly the wishes of the House of Representatives. I am not willing to do so for the reason that I have announced.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - Order! The honorable senator should confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator KEANE:

– My two colleagues and I are protesting not against the actual legislation, but against the method used by the Government in presenting it to this chamber. I am amazed that any honorable senator on this side of the chamber should so lightly take his responsibilities as to vote with the Government-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator must not continue in that strain.

Senator CAMERON (Victoria) [9.46’J. - As Senator Keane has said, honorable senators on this side of the chamber have given the Government, for all practical purposes, full powers to raise money in order to organize a maximum war effort. But I feel justified in registering a protest, against this bill, because it proposes to raise money by a method which will have a detrimental effect on those persons least able /to pay. Public moneys should be raised on the principle that those in the best position to pay should make the greatest contribution. This bill provides for a complete reversal of that precept. Actually, the wage-earners, who, unlike the employer, are unable to pass on taxes, will be called upon to contribute the majority of the amount that the Government seeks to raise. That is the very antithesis not only of equitable procedure, but also of the policy to which every honorable senator on this side of the chamber has pledged himself. Those honorable senators of the Opposition who have voted with the Government on this measure have, in effect, voted for a reduction of the purchasing power of wages.

Senator Courtice:

– Does the honorable senator accuse the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of doing that?

Senator CAMERON:

– If the cap fits any person, I am not particular whether he wears it or not.

Senator McLeay:

– The honorable senator apparently does not realize that we are at war.

Senator CAMERON:

– I do, but I also realize that many people with whom the honorable gentleman is prominently associated are using the war as a means of making profits at the expense of the wage earners and of those Australians who are fighting overseas. I protest against the capitalizing of our war effort in the interests of investors - those persons who profit by public loans, contracts and high salaries, the whole plundering gang that would rob the people whom they ask to fight and work for this country. I have been a member of this chamber for nearly three years. When I first came here I was prepared, as a political neophyte, to accept the procedure laid down by the Government in the belief that I was doing what was expected of a person in my position. But, now that it is apparent that my acquiescence in’ this method of conducting public business is to be used for ulterior motives, I protest and shall register my vote against the Government on every possible occasion. The Senate is expected to give reasonable consideration to every bill that comes before it. How is that possible when bills are rushed from the House of Representatives, to use a term, of which Senator Johnston is fond, like sausages from a machine? As the result of its acquiescence in this procedure, this chamber has come to be regarded as being of little consequence. The gentleman who has the privilege to misrepresent Australia in the United States of America once said that the Senate was composed of persons who were habitually drowsy-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– My objection to the procedure in this chamber is based upon criticism that has been levelled at it. If other honorable senators are content to be regarded as being of no account-

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is again out of order. He must address himself to the bill.

Senator CAMERON:

– I submit that my remarks have reference to the bill because this measure was placed before us at practically a moment’s notice. I wish to register my objection as dispassionately, clearly and emphatically as I can. I submit for your consideration, Mr. President, that persons in our position, are expected to give reasonable attention to every bill that comes before us. If we continue to acquiesce in the Government’s unsatisfactory methods, we shall be as much to blame as those who are primarily responsible. I can only register my objection by saying that from now on I shall not acquiesce in that procedure as I am expected to do. If any honorable senator on either side of the chamber prefers to do so, that is his responsibility, not mine. I am responsible for what I do, and they are responsible for their own actions. I realize my responsibility in this matter; I shall vote against the bill.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put -

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 14

NOES: 6

Majority . . . 8

Motion agreed to.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

AYES

NOES

page 647

BERRY FRUIT-GROWERS BELIEF BILL 1941

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Beading.

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to enable the Commonwealth Government to make loans, not exceeding £20,000, to the State of Tasmania for the purpose of helping that State to alleviate hardships suffered by berry fruitgrowers in consequence of damage to their crops by frost and hail. During October and November of last- year, berry fruit crops in Tasmania were severely damaged by frost and hail with heavy losses to the growers of those fruits. Representations were made to the Commonwealth Government by all Tasmanian members and senators that the Commonwealth grant financial assistance to enable that State to alleviate the position of the growers affected. Similar representations were also made by the Tasmanian Government. The Commonwealth Government feels that misfortunes of this character, which are of a State, or, local nature, are the responsibility of the State concerned, and is unwilling to make a direct grant.

The bill has been framed along the lines of the Loan (Drought Relief) Act passed during the last session for the alleviation of hardship suffered by primary producers in consequence of drought. The loan to be raised for that purpose was to be apportioned to all States except Tasmania which was not, at that time, an applicant. The rate of interest payable by the State of Tasmania to the Commonwealth is specifically stated at 31/4 per cent. Honorable senators will observe, however, that this bill provides for the arrangement included in the legislation previously mentioned, under which the Commonwealth will meet a portion of the interest which would normally be payable by the State on the principal of the money loaned to it. The Treasurer is empowered to make a concession of the full amount of the interest for the first year of the loan, and a concession of half the amount in subsequent years. The conditions of repayment of the loan are the same as those in the Loan (Drought Belief) Act, viz. - by four equal annual payments, the first to be made not later than four years, and the last not later than seven years after the making of the loan. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Declaration op Urgency.

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

– I declare the Berry Fruit-growers’ Relief Bill 1941 is an urgent bill.

Motion (bySenator McLeay) put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

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

AYES: 14

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 8

Motion agreed to.

AYES

NOES

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the time allotted in connexion with the consideration of the bill be as follows: - For the remaining stages of the hill - until 10.30 p.m. this day.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I protest againstthe motion. Under this bill, we are asked to votethe sum of £20,000 forthe assistance of berrygrowers in Tasmania whose crops, the Minister (Senator McBride) has informed us, have been damaged by frost and hail. I do not know whether the berry-growers in Tasmania have suffered loss because of a storm; indeed, I do not know whether there are any berry-growers in that State. I protest against the action of the Government in declaring this bill an urgent bill. More particularly in view of the fact that the Government has received the fullest co-operation from the Opposition in expediting the passage of urgent legislation, I protest against the Government’s action in slamming business through the Senate in this way. I and my colleagues who are now resisting those tactics have never been disloyal to any decision of our party caucus. The BerryFruit-Growers’ Belief Bill was never mentioned at any of our caucus meetings. The Government knows beforehand its legislative programme,yet it persists in the muddling practice of bringing down measures of this kind in the dying minutes of a session. I am not prepared to acquiesce in that practice. Therefore, in protest, I shall vote against the measure.

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
Tasmania

.- The objections to this bill which some honorable senators opposite have raised cannot be supported by facts. The Minister in charge of the measure explained quite clearly the necessity for the measure. Inquiry into the circumstances of the berry fruit-growers of Tasmania has been made by both Commonwealth and State Government representatives. In any case, the money is to be advanced as a loan which the fruitgrowers will repay in due course.

Senator Keane:

– Why was not the measure submitted to us last week, when we had time available to deal with it?

Senator HERBERT HAYS:

– Some measures had necessarily to be left for to-day. There is nothing mysterious about this bill. The Government of Tasmania has agreed to supplement by another £10,000 the amount now to be provided and under similar conditions.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

. -Senator Herbert Hays’ statement that we have been given the necessary information on which to pass a vote on this bill is not correct. It is true that the Minister made a second-reading speech on the measure, but we have not been supplied with a copy of the notes he used, and it is not possible for honorable senators to retain in their minds the details of such a speech. If the Government desired to expedite the business of the Senate it should have supplied honorable senators with typewritten copies of the Minister’s speech and it could easily have done so. We should then have been in a position to debate the bill intelligently. I have told members of the Government on previous occasions, but apparently it is necessary for me to repeat my words, that I am not prepared to accept the statements in a secondreading speech simply because they are made by a Minister. I expect from a Minister the same consideration that I would be prepared to accord him were he in my place and I in his. It is unreasonable to expect us to pass a bill of this description within a few minutes of its introduction. All we ask is that we shall be given a reasonable opportunity to debate the various measures presented to us. Like many measures which come to us from the House of Representatives this is a skeleton bill. It may be quite all right, but it may not be all right. I do not attribute any ulterior motives to the Government in this connexion, but I must insist that we be given a reasonable opportunity to study the merits of the various measures placed before us. I know of no other deliberative assembly in which such a reasonable request would be refused. That the Government has not seen fit to comply with our desires shows that it regards us as of no account whatsoever. Any old thing, it seems, is good enough for honorable senators on this side of the chamber! I assure the members of the Government that I am rather fastidious, if not exactly a political epicurean, and this kind of treatment is not good enough for me. If it is continued, the members of the Government will have to submit to the painful process of being disillusioned as often as may be necessary.

Senator COLLINGS:
QueenslandLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition will support this bill. We know that there is a State called Tasmania, that berries are grown there, and that the berry-growers have suffered severely. It is for this reason that the Government has introduced this bill.

Senator DARCEY:
Tasmania

– I also support the bill, but I wish to know why discrimination is being shown against Tasmania. Why is this money to be made available by way of loan instead of by gift?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. J. B. Hayes). - The honorable senator may not, on this motion, discuss the merits of the bill. He must confine his remarks to the proposed allotment of time.

Senator DARCEY:

– I intend to support the bill.

Motion put.

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

AYES: 13

NOES: 6

Majority . . . . 7

Motion agreed to.

AYES

NOES

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I support the bill and shall try to enlighten the honorable senator who has said that he knows nothing about the measure, or the urgent necessity for it. I wish, first, to pay a tribute to the great interest which the honorable member for Franklin (Mr. Frost) showed in this measure in the. House of Representatives. I. believe that he was principally responsible for persuading the Government to make money available by way of loan for the assistance of the berrygrowers and other fruit-growers. These people suffered severe hardships through the adverse weather conditions of Tasmania during this season. This has been acknowledged by the Government of Tasmania as well as by the Commonwealth Government, for, while the Commonwealth Government is making available a sum of £20,000, the Government of Tasmania is providing £10,000 to assist these people. The berry-growers make their living on small holdings, in rough country not suitable for other occupations, and if their crop fails they, at once, find themselves in great distress. The adverse weather conditions of the last growing season ruined their crops.

Senator Cameron:

– Adverse weather conditions also ruined many applegrowers in Victoria, but they will not receive a loan from the Government.

Senator AYLETT:

– Numerous applegrowers in Tasmania also suffered severely. Unless the Government comes to the assistance of the berry-growers they will not be able to maintain their operations. Honorable senators will recollect that the wheat-growers of Victoria were granted considerable assistance last year, and no one squealed about it. Myonly complaint about this measure is that insufficient assistance is being provided.

The Government and the people of Tasmania are grateful for the loan of £20,000, although they would have preferred a grant of that amount. However, knowing how badly the fruit-growers need assistance, the State government will gladly accept the money on loan. I strongly approve of the bill, my only regret being that the amount is not greater and that it is not to be advanced by way of grant instead of loan.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I should like the Minister ‘ (Senator McBride) to say at whose instigation this bill was introduced, to what areas it will apply, when the alleged storm occurred, when the Government became aware of it, and why it took so long to bring forward this simple measure.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Loans to State of Tasmania).

Senator KEANE (Victoria) [10.28). - I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to explain the conditions which will apply to these loans. I resent his noncompliance with my respectful request in respect of clause 1, and I hope that he will be courteous enough to explain this clause. I particularly desire to know why loans are necessary, the rates of interest that will apply to them, and the terms of repayment.

Senator McBRIDE:
South AustraliaMinister for Supply and Development · UAP

– As I said in my second-reading speech, these loans will be at 31/4 per cent. Arrangements will be made for the growers to receive advances under conditions similar to those which apply to drought relief assistance to other primary producers.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 650

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the determination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 650

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator McLeay) agreed to-

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator by telegram or letter.

page 650

ADJOURNMENT

Health of Workers in Explosive Factories - Parliament : Business ; Answers to Questions; Personal Reflections on Senators ; Sittings - Information Supplied to Western Australia - Activities of Department of Information.

Senator McLEAY:
Postmaster-General · South Australia · UAP

– I move -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

To-day Senator Cameron asked the Minister for Supply and ‘Development (Senator McBride) the following question -

What precautions, if any,are being taken by the Government to protect the health of workers employed at the Explosives Factory, Maribyrnong, Victoria, working among chemicals, fumes and dust which are injurious to health.

I am. now in a position to inform him that the principal medical officer and the medical staff are keenly alert to the dangers associated with such occupation, and in one particular section special officers with special apparatus are investigating dust particles. In addition, special exhaust machinery is being installed to convey dust particles from machines to the open air. All protective and remedial measures will be taken to minimize risk.

Senator KEANE:
Victoria

.- I regret the unpleasant role that some honorable senators on this side have been compelled to adopt this evening, and I now ask the Leader of the Senate to arrange that, when we re-assemble after the Easter adjournment, there will be an orderly schedule of business, so that we shall not have foisted on us, as has been done to-day and on numerous occasions in the past, numbers of bills to be dealt with without any opportunity for their proper discussion. Slavish adherence to decisions made in the House of Representatives is not in the interests of satisfactory legislation. This is the senior House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and its authority should be recognized. During the period that will elapse before we again assemble here it may be possible for the Leader of the Senate to devise means by which more bills will be initiated in this chamber. I wish to make it clear that I shall not be a party to the passing of legislation that I do not understand. If I were to say otherwise, I should not be truthful. Honorable senators on this side are prepared to accept decisions arrived at by the party to which they belong, but many of the matters which have come before us to-day had not been seen by the party until they were placed before us for almost immediate approval. In order to avoid a repetition of such unsatisfactory procedure, which is unfair to this Parliament and to the electors, I ask the Leader of the Senate to take my suggestion into consideration.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I have a good deal of sympathy with the protest of Senator Keane, but the Senate will not receive proper recognition merely because three members of a large party make a protest in the dying hours of a period of a session, when most of the members of that party are absent. I agree that proper time should be devoted to the consideration of the measures that come before us. I say to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Collings), who has frequently voiced a similar objection more vigorously even than Senator Keane has done to-night, that the rushing through of a dozen or twenty measures in a few hours could be avoided by a refusal to assist in the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order to permit that to be done. That might necessitate adjourning the sitting, but it would enable proper consideration to be given to the measures.

Senator Aylett:

– The honorable senator always votes for the “ gag “, as he did to-night.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– That is incorrect. The honorable senator has sat in his place while motions to permit bills to be dealt with in all stages without delay have been allowed to pass without protest, yet he now talks about the “gag”. This chamber should have the same opportunity to consider and deliberate upon the measures that come before it as has any legislative council in a State with a bi-cameral parliamentary system. If a dozen bills were submitted to the Legislative Council of Western Australia at the last minute, that chamber would, except, perhaps, on the eve of Christmas, refuse to deal with them immediately, but would continue its sittings until they had been dealt with in a proper manner. There would be no suspension of the Standing Orders to allow them to be rushed through.

Senator Aylett:

– We would do that here were it not for the “gag”.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The honorable senator has never tried to prevent the suspension of the Standing Orders, under which these measures are rushed through; but should such action be taken, I shall support it. We should tell the House of Representatives that we are not prepared to remain at its beck and call while it proceeds with its business in a leisurely fashion, and then deal with twelve or fifteen bills in one day. I commend Senator Keane for having made a protest against the procedure which has been adopted, and I hope that the time will soon come when we shall not agree to the suspension of the Standing Orders in such circumstances, but will insist on the business of the Senate being dealt with in a proper manner.

Most honorable senators believe in the principle of “ one man, one job “. I direct attention to the fact that a lot of journalistic work is sent to the West Australian newspaper each week by a gentleman named Gilbert, who is a publicity officer attached to the Prime Minister’s Department, and was, I understand, part author of a publication entitled The Case for Union. There are at Canberra some of the cleverest and most up-to-date journalists in Australia, who are paid proper award rates and are dependent on their journalistic work for their livelihood. That being so, it is wrong that an officer of the Prime Minister’s Department, -who probably receives a good salary as a public servant, should do this work week by week. I protest also against some of the alleged “ news “ that is sent to the West Australian by this official. Items are sent - the kind of material which we might expect from an amateur civil servant dabbling in journalism - taken wholly from the Sydney daily papers. The activities and speeches of our Western Australian Minister (Senator Collett) and the actions of Western Australian members of this Parliament receive, in Gilbert’s columns, no notice at all, even on matters vital to our State. I should like to know whether Mr. Gilbert has permission from his departin ent to do this work, and, if so, why it was granted, since the public of Western Australia could get more accurate news from Canberra from some of the trained journalists here in the press gallery and know what is going on. I know something of the finances of the West Australian, and know that it can afford to pay a proper journalist to do this work. It has no need to utilize the services of a public servant, who should otherwise ‘be fully employed, when it can get all that it requires from journalists who are paid proper award rates.

Senator FOLL:
Minister for the Interior · Queensland · UAP

– I shall read a statement in connexion with the advertising activities of the Department of Information, similar in terms to that made by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Fadden) in the House of Representatives (vide page 70S).

Senator COOPER:
Queensland

– I ask the Leader of the Senate (Senator McLeay) to circulate to honorable senators the answers to questions on notice which have not yet been replied to.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– In regard to the proceedings in the chamber this evening, I want it to be understood that no discourtesy was intended to you, Mr. President, or to any honorable senator. I felt that I was justified in demanding an explanation of the bills submitted, and in this I was only exercising the privilege which I hold in common with all other senators. During the two years that I have been a member of the Senate, I have never reflected upon any honorable senator in a personal way, though I have been as critical as I thought the circumstances justified. On several occasions, however, Ministers of the Crown who, if they have no respect for themselves, should have respect for the positions they hold, have reflected upon me in a personal way. I have always acted in this chamber in support of the policy to which I am pledged, of which I approve and of which I am proud. On no occasion have I departed from any of the decisions reached by the party to which I belong, or from its policy.

My protest to-night was directed against the procedure adopted. I understood Senator Johnston to remark that we should have protested before to-night. We have protested. I think he too has protested. On different occasions we have said to the Government with courtesy and reasonableness, “Give us a little more consideration, treat us as we should be treated “. Surely in voicing our protest we should not be forced into a debate in which there are recriminations and the attributing of ulterior motives. I hope that as a result of the protest which, in my opinion, was justified, Ministers in this chamber will confer with their colleagues in Cabinet and try to convince them that members of the Opposition in this chamber should receive the consideration which Ministers in the House of Representatives extend to the Opposition. In an emergency, I am prepared to accept in good faith within limitations that which I may be asked to accept, but I do not think that any member of the Opposition in this chamber is prepared to do that indefinitely. I trust that our protest will not go unnoticed and that there will be no necessity for a repetition of the protest which has been made to-night.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I protest against a long adjournment of Parliament. I consider that the Government should call Parliament together soon after Easter. Such a course would be of much advantage to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber and to the country generally.

Senator Foll:

– The re-assembling of Parliament is a matter of arrangement between the parties; that has been the custom for some time.

Senator AYLETT:

– The Minister’s reply is news to me. Parliament should meet more frequently instead of adjourning for periods of two or three months. Members and honorable senators would then have greater opportunities to consider the legislation introduced. I have protested on several previous occasions against the rushing of bills through the Senate. There is an appropriate time to protest,but it is not during the secondreading debate on a bill. Senator Johnston, who has just made a similar protest, has voted twice to-night in favour of the use of the guillotine in order to rush business through the Senate. When I make a protest I do not talk one way and vote in another. 1 trust that the Government will keep Parliament in session more frequently during the war. Members of the House of Representatives and honorable senators desire to ventilate grievances in Parliament and to endeavour to obtain from Ministers information which they cannot get when Parliament is in recess. I do not think that we can fulfil out duties properly when Parliament is adjourned for long periods.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 653

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented ; -

Papua - Annual Report for year 1939-40. Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. -

No. 5 of 1941 - Amalgamated Engineering Union; Australasian Society of Engineers; Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen; Australian Workers’ Union; Boilermakers’ Society of Australia; and Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at - Corbie Hill, New South Wales - ForPostal purposes.

Darwin, Northern Territory - For Defence purposes.

Seymour, Victoria - For Defence purposes.

National Security Act - National Security ( General ) Regulations - Orders-

Prohibited Places (3).

Prohibiting work on land.

Taking possession of land, &c. (49).

Use of land (7).

Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m. till a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 April 1941, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1941/19410403_senate_16_166/>.