16th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. J. Cunningham) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 595
The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of letters from Senator Cameron requesting his discharge from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and from the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) nominating Senator Large, in accordance with Standing Order No. 36a, to fill the vacancy now existing on the committee.
Motions (by Senator Collings) - by leave - agreed to.
That Senator Cameron be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
That Senator Large, having been duly nominated in accordance with StandingOrderNo. 36 a, be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
page 595
The PRESIDENT announced the receipt of a letter from Senator Collings requesting his discharge from further attendance on the Library Committee.
Motion (by Senator Collings) - by leave - agreed to -
That Senator Collings be discharged from further attendance on the Library Committee, and that Senator Armstrong be appointed to till the vacancy on the committee.
page 595
Appointment of Returned Soldiers
– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware that the Commonwealth Public Service Board is calling for applications from young men in Victoria, who are eligible for enlistment in the Australian Imperial Force, to be trained as junior linemen in his department? Could not some of the young returned soldiers be trained to fill those positions, instead of being allotted dead-end jobs in munitions establishments ?
– Earlier in the day, Senator Brand intimated to me that he intended to ask that question. The matter comes within the purview of the Public Service Board, which has furnished the following reply : -
Yes. Such applications have been called for in order to meet departmental requirements for linemen who, until recently, . have been drawn almost wholly from returned soldiers. There is such a large percentageof older men in the ranks of linemen that it is desirable to recruit some youths and draft them as linemen after suitable training. These trainees will provide only a portion of the number of linemen required, the balance being recruited from returned soldiers. Consideration will be given to the suggestion that suitable young returned soldiers be trained to meet departmental requirements of men as linemen.
page 595
Report by Major-General Sir Iven Mackay.
– Can the Minister representingthe Minister for the Army say whether a copy of Major-General Sir Iven Mackay’s report on the Australian defences will be made available to honorable senators?
– I shall submit the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for the Army and supply an answer later.
page 595
asked the Minister for Information, upon notice -
– I referred the honorable senator’s questions to the Minister for External Affairs, who has supplied the following answers: -
page 595
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
– The Treasurerhas suppliedthefollwinganswerstothe honorable senator’s questions: -
page 596
asked the Minister representing the Treasures, upon notice -
-The Treasurer has supplied the following answer : -
Such a request has been received, but in view of the very great increase of employment arising out of the unprecedented expenditure programme of the Commonwealth it is not proposed to make such a grant this year.
page 596
– On the 13th November, 1941, Senator Arthur asked the Minister representing the Treasurer the following questions, upon notice: -
The Treasurer has supplied the following answers : - :
page 596
Debate resumed from the 19th November(vide page 520), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– I invite honorable senators to study carefully the alterations of sales tax legislation contemplated by this bill. It is obvious to any honorable senator who makes a close study of the schedules of this bill that the decision to increase the rate of sales tax on certain commodities has been arrived at very hastily and that, as the result, grave injustice will be inflicted on. certain industries. The imposition of substantially increased rates of tax on essential foodstuffs and household requisites will bear harshly on people with large families. In spite of the fact that the imposition of this tax has caused considerable inconvenience and expense to the commercial community, it provides a very good means of raising revenue on a just and equitable basis in time of war if it be applied only to luxury goods. I point out, however, that this impost can be abused. The rate of 20 per cent. to be imposed on certain goods is abnormally high and the increase of the tax on certain commodities from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. must have a detrimental effect on many industries. I propose to confine my comments to some important items included in the schedule and, when the bill is in committee, to move amendments in regard to them. I particularly draw the attention of honorable senators to Division II. in the Second Schedule, item 3, sub-items 1, 2 and 3. There, as honorable senators will observe, the tax of5 per cent. has been increased by 100 per cent. This increase will inflict great hardship on the fishing industry. Sub-item 1 includes boats and accessories for use in the fishing industry: subitem 2 covers crayfish pots; and sub-item. 3 covers engines for use in the fishing industry. Asis well known the fishing industry has been established on the coast of practically all. Australian States, but owing to the increased prices of the requirements of the industry as the result of. the war fishermen are facing considerable hardships. They are experiencing great difficulty in securing new boats. The Government of which I was a member received repeated requests for assistance by way of bounty for the. construction of wooden vessels for the fishing industry. Several have already been built in Australia. The difficulties of the industry have been further added to by the commandeering of many of their best boats for naval purposes. The increase of 100 per cent, in the sales tax on boats and other equipment required by fishermen is excessive. If this decision was arrived at hastily I trust that the Government will not be obstinate and refuse to accept the amendment which I propose to move in committee. If it is not prepared to forgo the sales tax on these essential requirements it should at least agree to their retention in the 5 per cent, schedule. The rate of tax on tinned fish, of which Australian sales are considerable, has also been increased by 100 per cent. It is interesting to note that the imports of fish preserved in tins during the financial year prior to the war amounted to 30,000,000 lb., valued at £1,182,845. Those figures give honorable senators some indication of the big demand for tinned fish in this country. The restrictions which were placed on the importation of tinned fish from the United States of America as a. means of conserving dollar exchange have brought about an increased demand for the local product. Fish is an essential commodity and not a luxury. In hotels, restaurants and private houses fish is very much in demand, particularly on Fridays. I urge the Government to reconsider the tax imposed on that item. It is unnecessary to remind honorable senators that the people outback have to rely largely on tinned foods. Already the cost of production of tinned foods has increased owing to the war and the proposal to increase the. tax by 100 per cent, will add greatly to the problems of those who live in the more remote parts of the country. I am at a loss to understand why the Government has decided to increase from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent, the tax on tinned meat of Australian origin- Owing to shipping difficulties the Minister for
Commerce (Mr. Scully) is confronted with the .problem of securing extra space tor ihe storage of meat. In order to relieve the position a large quantity of meat is now being canned in this country. It is proposed on the one hand to help the industry and on the other to increase .the sales tax on its products which must adversely affect sales. It is also proposed to double the rate of tax on coffee, coffee essence, cocoa and cocoa essence. It is admitted by medical men that cocoa is an essential beverage for women, particularly young mothers. The tax on Australian cider is also to be increased by 100 per cent. The Minister for Commerce announced recently that the committee which inquired into the apple and pear acquisition scheme has strongly advised the Government to expand the- Australian cider industry as a means of utilizing the surplus production of apples which can no longer be exported owing to shipping difficulties brought about by the war. In that instance, it is proposed to increase the rate from 5 per cent, to 10 per cent. Also, in the same schedule are fruit juices, including orange and pineapple juices. Recently, the Government was requested to assist the citrus-fruit industry, particularly in New South Wales and South Australia, owing to the reduction of exports caused by the shortage of shipping. In view of these facts, one would imagine that the Government would be most anxious to assist the fruit industry. Instead, however, it proposes to increase the rate of sales tax on fruit juices by 100 per cent. Further, Ave know that fruit juices are recommended as -health beverages.
It is also proposed to increase the rate of tax on building materials from 5 per. cent, to 10 per cent. I remind honorable senators opposite that sales tax was originally imposed on building materials at a time when- flats and expensive buildings were being erected on an extensive scale throughout the ‘Commonwealth, and when the industry could thus afford to make this contribution to revenue. During the war, however, and particularly during the next twelve months, the demand for homes for workers on the lower levels of income will increase. The State governments are now considering various housing schemes in order to relieve the shortage of homes for workers. The permission of the Capital Issues Advisory Board must now be obtained for the erection of buildings of a greater value than £1,500. The increase ofthe sales tax rate on building materialsby 100 per cent. will increase the price of homes, and this will hear unfairly on. people” on the lower ranges of income. In view of those facts, I cannot understand why the Government should seek to increase the rate of tax on building materials at all.
Many of the items which it. is proposed to transfer from the 10 per cent. to the 20 per cent. schedule are essential commodities. They may appear to be unimportant, but actually they are required extensively in the home, particularly by large families. They include soap, toothpaste, wringers, carpets, carpet sweepers, lawn.mowers, garden hose and cutlery. A rate of 20 per cent. on such items is very considerable, and will represent a serious impost on the many thousands of our young people who are about to marry. The Government could have raised the revenue it required in a more equitable way than by increasing the sales tax on such commodities. Most of the articles affected are essentials in families. I sincerely hope that, the Government will accept the amendments which honorable senators on this side propose to move at the committee stage. If it cannot agree to exempt these items altogether, we request that it will at least allow such articles to remain in the 5 per cent. schedule, because all of the articles concerned are essential household requirements or foodstuffs. According to figures supplied by the Treasury, it is estimated that, during the year ended the 30th June, 1941,90 per cent. of incomeearners in Australia received £400 or less. That section of income-earners really represents an overwhelming majority of the consuming public of Australia. I again appeal to the Government to accept the amendments which honorable senators on this side propose to move in the committee stage.
– Winning the war is rather important.
– That is so, but othermethods are open tothe Government to raise the revenue it requires. In any case, honorable senators opposite, I presume, were just as anxious eleven months ago to win the war as they are to-day. Consequently, I take this opportunity to remind some of them of the views they expressed when the sales tax schedules were considered by this chamber in December last. On that occasion, Senator Collings, who is now the Leader of the Senate, at page 933 of Hansard, said -
Without repenting any portion of my budget speech, I may say that the Opposition believes thatthere is an alternative to ever-increasing indirect taxation.
Immediately the honorable senator enters the Cabinet, however, he gives unequivocal support to a proposal to increase the rate of sales tax on foodstuffs and other essential commodities from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent.
– The honorable senator has not yet realized the fact that we are at war.
– We were at war on the 12th December last, when the honorable senator made that statement. On that occasion, also, Senator. Brown, at page 933 of Hansard, stated -
I look upon the sales tax as a. tax which has caused more trouble than it is worth to the business community. Even in war-time, the Government should seek to raise the money which it needs by other means, instead of by increasing the worries and troubles of the business community and causing the expenditure of energy which would bo better expended in other directions. The sales tax, like other indirect tax. reduces the wages of the workers.
On page 935, Senator Brown said -
I contend that the taxation of income is the fairest form of taxation.
Then we come to Senator Cameron, who is now the Minister for Aircraft Production. I think it necessary to remind the Minister that, in order to be consistent, he should vote against this measure. On page938 Senator Cameron said -
I can just imagine the Minister making those remarks, in his usual “ Yarra Bank style . of oratory, to delegates attending conferences of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I remind him of the?e statements’ in the hope that he may consider them when he votes on this measure.
– The honorable senator does not understand what he reads.
– If the Minister wishes to challenge the accuracy of Ilansard and claim that he did not make these statements, he i3 quite at liberty to do so.
– I challenge the honorable senator’s ability to understand “ bread-and-butter “ English.
– On page 93S the Minister said -
On page 929 he said - “ . . Why should this infamous tax be imposed when the services of many people, who are now out of work, or are employed in non-essential industries, could be utilized in increasing the production of essential commodities
On page 940 the Minister said -
I make that protest, because, after my long experience in the industrial movement, I am certain that there will be an increase of industrial disputes and strikes, if this tax, which, I am informed, will reduce wages by at least 5s. a week, be imposed . . .
I remind honorable senators that these statements were made on the 12th December, 1940 - only eleven months ago. I shall return, for a moment, to statements made by Senator Brown, because in the following passage, he refers to an item which I have mentioned, namely, household requisites : - . . Looking through the list of socalled luxury items, I see such appliances as vacuum cleaners, mechanical floor polishers and scrubbers. In a hot climate such as that of Queensland domestic technical appliances are certainly not luxuries. They are used in thousands of homes and, in many instances, are purchased on terms. A tax of . 15 per cent, will considerably add to their cost.
I invite the honorable senator.. fo go back to Queensland and tell the women there that, after all, wringers are luxuries, and that it has been decided to increase the sales tax on them to 20 per cent. As a rule I do not indulge in the practice of referring to Hansard to ascertain what honorable senators have said from time to time, but in considering a measure such as this, it is perhaps as well to remind honorable senators opposite, who now occupy the treasury bench, of the strong views which they expressed against the sales tax only eleven months- ago. I suggest to them that they should not be pig-headed and that they should agree to certain amendments reducing the sales tax on some items from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent,., and removing others from the 5 per cent, schedule and placing them on the exempt list. If that be done the Government will receive wholehearted support from the Opposition.
[3.46J. - in reply - In replying to the very moderate criticism which has been levelled against this measure, I should like to emphasize “ that- this Government, like its predecessors, does not favour controversial .legislation such as this. However, it is realized that revenue must be obtained. The sales tax was introduced originally in 1929. by the ‘Scullin Government at, .a time of emergency. A promise was then given that when the financial position of the country improved sufficiently the sales tax legislation would be removed from the statute-book. Successive governments formed by the parties now sitting in opposition did not fulfill that promise when the time came, but continued to impose the tax, and to-day it is a recognized means of obtaining revenue. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) that the items on which he proposes to move certain amendments can be ‘better dealt with on their merits at the committee stage. In my second-reading speech I endeavoured to make it quite clear, that exemptions from sales tax covered items coming within the ordinary regimen of the average worker.
– What about scones and pastry?
– Such things are not vital to the health of the people. Quite a lot has been said by honorable senators about the tax on fish, and that matter will be fully discussed when the item is reached in committee. One aspect of this -measure which should not be lost sight of is the fact that there is a” big responsibility on officials of the department to see that when the new schedule comes into operation there will not he a repetition of what occurred on the last occasion. Obviously when the new rates are imposed manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers will have stocks on hand. So far as I can ascertain, until now no adequate steps have been taken to see that the now rates are not charged on stocks on hand when a new schedule becomes operative. However, some measure of control is exercised by the Prices Commissioner.
– Will the Prices Commissioner permit the tax on fish to be passed on?
– At a later stage I shall give the Senate a brief resume of “ the method employed by the Prices Commissioner in handling such increases as these. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is unfortunate that legislation of this kind is necessary, but I repeat that items in every-day use are exempt from the tax. The schedules of exemptions are very extensive, and can fairly be said to safeguard the vital interests of those engaged in primary and secondary production. Agricultural machinery and other equipment in use by men on the land, dairying machinery, poultry farmers’ gear and equipment, bee-keepers’ appliances, foodstuffs, beverages, bread, meat, fish, bacon, dried vegetables and numerous other commodities are exempt from sales tax. I hope that when the act is reprinted the schedules will indicate the rates of sales tax applicable to the goods named in them. Like Senator Leckie, I am amazed at the opposition to this bill, as he was surprised at the silence of Ministers regarding the budget proposals. A large number of bills has -to be considered’ before Christmas, and the Government desires to have an opportunity to consider them fully as “soon as possible.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Amendment of First Schedule).
– 1 notice that exemption from sales tax is to be granted in respect of uniforms of members of the Australian Army Nursing Service. I presume that all materials used by nurses will be exempt from the sales tax, but I should like the Government to consider the exemption of their cabin trunks and suit cases, which are a. necessary part of a nurse’s outfit. These trunks and cases are now subject to sales tax at the rate of 20 per cent.
.- -This clause provides for the exemption of uniforms and certain equipment of members of the defence forces, including nurses, but the trunks and suit cases mentioned by the honorable senator are nol; items ordinarily issued by the Defence Department. They are usually purchased by the nurses out of their allowance, and the Government is not prepared to amend the clause in the direction sought.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 -
The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Division I., sub-items (].). (2) and (3) of Item 3. Item 4. Divisions III. and IV.) sub-items (1), (0). (fi), (S), (10). (12). (14) and (15) of Item 10, Divisions VI. and VIII., and Items 38, 39, 4.1, 4:2. 45, 40, 47 and 48.
– I move -
That the words “sub-items (1), (2) and (3) of Item 3.” be left out.
Sub-items 1, 2 and 3 read as follows : -
If the amendmentbe accepted, those particular items, which are essential to the fishing industry in Australia, will be taxedat the old rate of 5 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. If the Government desires to go further than that, I shall have no objection.Will the Minister in charge of the bill inform the committee what he meant when he said that fish was exempt from sales tax?
– I understand that the effect of this amendment would be to reduce from. 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. the sales tax on certain material essential to the conduct of the fishing industry. Now that we have reached the stage when business men count for little in the community - I have neither anything to hope fornor anything to fear - I can speak with a freedom that in other circumstances I may not have enjoyed. For years this country has been labouring under a tremendous disadvantage. Round its shores are some of the best fishing grounds in the world, and to a great degree they are unexploited. Efforts have been made by every State in Australia to do something to develop a sea sense in our people. We have vast areas of most valuable fishing grounds in the waters around Australia. In 1927 the Commonwealth Government, took this matter up with some seriousness, in conjunction with the State governments, but the progress has been slow. We have expended large sums of money in attempting to develop this industry. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) told the Senate this afternoon how much money has been expended in. the importation of fish products from overseas. If we do not develop a. sen. sense among the people, some other nation will do it for us. Nobody recognizes the fact more than does the Opposition that the Government needs revenue; but, I appeal to the Government to accept the amendment of the
Leader of the Opposition unless a tremendous loss of revenue would be involved.
Experts in the catching, curing and canning of fish have been brought to Australia in order to give to us their advice, and a vessel specially constructed for fishing has been built at a cost of over £10,000 in an effort, to encourage the development of the industry. Although this amendment may appear to the Minister in charge of the bill to be a minor matter, I assure him that the principle involved is most important. Those engaged in the fishing industry are merely eking out an existence at present, and may be resorting to practices of which we do not, approve. Crayfish, whiting and tuna are presentin our waters in large quantities, and the harvest could easily be gathered if the industry were properly organized. One of the scientists who was brought to Australia from Canada is skilled in the purse-seine method of fishing. If the loss of sales tax, which acceptance of this amendment would involve,be only a few hundreds, or even a few thousands, of pounds, I suggest that that loss should be sustained in the interests of the development of the fishing industry, which is essential to the safety of the nation and to the welfare of the people of Australia. The public need fish meals, and, in Queensland, particularly, fish products are a necessary part of the diet of stock. So far asI can see now, I shall not ask for any other concession in. regard- to this measure. I think that I know what is in the minds of those who are in charge of the finances of the country. They probably expect that representations will be made to them on behalf of deserving cases here and there. I could make representations on behalf of scores of deserving cases, and could point to anomalies in this schedule which ought to berectified, but, in my opinion, none of them is of so great importance to the futureof this country as is the need to foster and develop the fishing industry. At various times in my home imported salmon has been placed before seven or eight people, and even then there has been sufficient left to provide a cold fish luncheon on the following day. For that fish I have paid, perhaps, 10s. or l1s.; but had I attempted to set before the same diners Australian tuna, or locally caught whiting, the cost would have been from 16s. to fi. The Leader of the Opposition has given to us some illuminating figures regarding Australia’s importations of fish. I am not sure that those figures would influence me greatly but for the fact that I regard the fishing industry as of great importance to the safety of this country. It is a na’tural industry which can bc greatly developed, although in the past it appears to have been neglected by us. I urge the Minister to give way, and to accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition.
Senator SAMPSON (Tasmania) [4.7 J. - In my youth I had a good deal to do with fishing and fishermen. The per capita, consumption of fish in Australia compares unfavorably with that of most European countries, as well as many Asiatic countries. The fishing industry of Australia should be developed, and the consumption of fish encouraged, because Australians are high on the listof peoples subject to goitre. The reason is largely lack of iodine in their food. Fish contains iron, and is a. preventive of goitre. In Bass Strait there are many kinds of surface swimming fish, but the fishing industry there has not been developed to any considerable degree, although during recent years some fish has been canned under great difficulties. The development of this industry is a vital necessity to us as a nation. Quite apart from the value of fish as a food, is the importance of the fishing industry to the defence of Australia. The existence of a few hundred thousand fishermen around our coasts to-day would make a tremendous difference to the defences of this -country, and would provide a source from which men required by our Navy could be obtained. The proposal of the Government is not opposed in any factious spirit. The Opposition knows well that the Government must obtain revenue to meet its commitments. I recall a trip which I made to Canada in 3928 when certain aspects of sales tax legislation were investigated. Those of us who made that trip met members of about three dozen different boards of trade, which are the equivalent of our chambers of commerce. The members of every such board, as well as other individuals in the various towns that we visited in the nine provinces of Canada, cursed the sales tax vehemently. All were agreed that although it had been introduced as a. war measure the tax would never be abolished. We little dreamed then that within a year or two the sales tax would be introduced into Australia. When we were in the House of Commons at Ottawa, a member of the Government of Canada told us that the reason that sales tax would never be abolished was that it provided an easy means of obtaining revenue. I agree with him that revenue derived from this source is “easy money”, and for that reason I predict that the sales tax has come to stay in Australia also. . No government will ever get rid of it, because it provides “ easy money “. Nevertheless, the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) is worthy of consideration by the Government, and I ask the Minister in charge of the bill to weigh carefully the views that have been presented.
Senator J. B. HAYES (Tasmania) [4.12 J. - I join with other honorable senators in appealing to the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay). The. fishing industry of Australia should be developed. There are thousands of tons of fish in the waters around our coast, yet fish is dear in the shops. Some time ago, I had occasion to visit the works -of the fishing industry on Flinders Island. The people there have spent thousands of pounds in establishing an industry to can tuna. I saw a few tons of beautiful fish brought in. When canned, tuna is of considerable value as food. Moreover, tuna is easily caught, although it is true that a special vessel is required. Unlike Senator Sampson, I do not know a great deal about fishing; but fishermen with whom I- have conversed have told me that strong vessels are needed for catching tuna, and that they have found difficulty in raising money to purchasethe necessary craft. I believe that they appealed to the Commonwealth Government for assistance.
– That is so.
SenatorJ. B. HAYES.- Notwithstandingthe difficulties which fishermen have to face, such as working night and day inall weathers, and the heavy cost of suitable vessels, when they ask for Government, assistance in order to develop an important industry, the only reply that, they receive is that the sales tax on fishing vessels has been increased.
– They ask for bread and are given a stone.
– I do not think that the fishermen would have any reason to thank this Parliament for that measure of assistance. By the time that they pay for their boats, nets, gear and other requirements, their total expenditure will be considerable.
– Persons engaged in other industries have to pay for gear and the machinery of production. They realize that there is a war on, and would not thank the honorable senator for the plea thathe is putting up on their behalf.
– I know that there is a war on, and that the Government must obtain money, but I point out that these people desire not only to make a living for themselves but also to make fish available to the people at cheaper rates. The people of Australia desire to buy more fish than they, now consume, but the price is too high. I do not think that the Government will obtain much additional revenue from this tax, for it is not likely that many ships will be built, within the next two or three years. The revenue from this tax will be so small that the Government might well accept the amendment.
– Listening to thestory which has been repeated by honorable senators opposite, my patience became almost exhausted. I remind the Senate that when Admiral Henderson visited Australia in 191.1, he advised Australia to establish its own fishing fleets. In later years a Labour government in New South Wales heeded that advice, and established a. State trawling industry. Its development would not only have provided fish for consumption by the people but it would also have provided a means of teaching Australians necessary facts about their own coast-line. However, a government with the samepolitical outlook as that of honorable senators opposite, sold the trawler when it assumed office in New South Wales. I emphasize thatthe sale was made, not to Australians, but to Italians. When I read in to-day’s newspapers that more enemy mines had been found off the coast of Australia, I almost became sick when I remembered that Italians, not Australians, had been encouraged to become acquainted with our Pacific coast-line. Honorable senators opposite now make an impassioned plea on behalf of those engaged in the fishing industry, but although they had a majority in this Parliament since 1916, what did they do to ensure continuous supplies of cheap fish to the people? What action did they take to see that vessels were made available to those who desired to engage in fishing?
– What does the honorable senator himself propose to do?
– What I should have done had I had the opportunity which was available to honorable senators opposite for many years is not possible to-day. Any ships that can be built now are required for the transport of Australian produce to other countries. There should have been in operation a continuous shipbuilding policy, in order to provide trawlers for those engaged in fishing along our coasts, and to enable them to become acquainted with our coast-line. Had that policy been pursued by previous governments, the situation to-day would not have been so serious as it is. Honorable senators opposite supported previous governments which did nothing to encourage this industry, but almost as soon as a Labour government assumes office they make submissions on behalf of Australian fishermen. They complain of adding to the costs of those engaged in this industry, but I remind them that everyone in the community will have to pay additional taxes. The proposals of the present Government do not place on the people so heavy a burden as they would have had to bear under the proposals of theFadden Government and for, that reason they should be grateful for the change of government. I agree with honorable senators opposite that fish should bc much cheaper than it is. The fault lies, not with the present Labour Government, but with previous governments, which did nothing to assi.it the fishing industry or to provide cheap fish for the people.
.- A perusal of the first schedule, under which certain items are exempt from sales tax, indicates fairly clearly the intention of the Government to exempt from sales tax equipment necessary for the production of foodstuffs. For instance, under item 11 of the first schedule, equipment, used by poultry fanners such an incubators and other machinery is taxed at 5 per cent. Similarly, under item ‘7 of the schedule, the equipment necessary for the production of dairy produce is exempted. I find it very difficult to see any difference between the equipment required by fishermen to get fish and put them on the market and equipment necessary to produce poultry. A logical approach to this matter would have resulted in these items being placed on the exempt list. The amendment, however, does not propose that, because they are already on the 5 per cent, list; but it does propose that they shall be left where they are. I join with other honorable senators in urging that the tax on this item be allowed to remain unaltered. The increase of tax on these commodities is likely to retard the development of the fishing industry in Australia and to increase the price of fish to the consumer. It seems rather inconsistent of the Government to exempt fresh fish from sales tax and, at the same time, to double the tax imposed on equipment necessary for the recovery of fresh fish. . The committee would, be doing a service to the country if it acceded to the request of the Leader of the Opposition to amend the bill in the way he has suggested.
– I have no wish to embarrass the Government in its proposals for raising revenue with which to finance the war; but as so little is involved in the acceptance of the amendment nroposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator MeLeay) I intend to support it. In response to representations made in the House of Representatives, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) has already met one-half of the objections that we have raised against the proposed penalizing of the fishing industry by allowing sub-items 4 and 5, covering nets, netting, cotton hemp, twine and other materials used for repairs, lines, hooks, floaters and sinkers for lue in the fishing industry, to remain in the 5 per cent, schedule. These sub-items are similar to the first three. It was always the policy of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page), as Leader of the Country party, to endeavour to assist the establishment of industries large or small, particularly the primary industries of Australia. Whilst he invariably sought to impose duties on imports from the Mother Country, he always fought consistently for the admission of machinery and equipment for the establishment of Australian factories free of duty or at the lowest possible rate. The fishing industry is an important Australian primary industry. Apart from pearling the fishing industry is the only industry carried on in northern coastal waters, where fish arc abundant. From Sharks Bay in Western Australia, far remote from the large centres of population, whiting are sent to the Melbourne market in cold storage. Although the Government is anxious to help this industry, the amount of revenue involved in the acceptance of the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition is so small that I trust his appeal will not pass unheeded.
– If there be one thing that we should do more than anything else it is to foster a sea sense among the people. The British fishermen go into the Arctic regions in order to supply the demand of the British public for cheap fish. There are no more industrious or hard-working people than the men who man the British trawling fleets. They have played an important part in the defence of their country and they are continuing to carry on their great work to-day in spite of its dangers. To a lesser degree these remarks apply to the fishermen in Australia. Why should the Australian fishing industry be left to be manned to such a great degree by foreigners who gain an intimate knowledge of our coast-line? Apparently we have no means of countering the subversive activities of alien fishermen similar to those by which other countries curb undesirableactivities on the part of their alien inhabitants. It is difficult to understand the Government’s attitude towards this matter. As has been said by other honorable senators, the revenue involved in the acceptance of the amendment, proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) is not large. The development of the fishing industry means a great deal to this country and will mean much more as the years go by. The high price of fish places it beyond the reach of the average working man. There should be no reason why this form of food should not be obtainable at a price whichwould enable it to be included in the diet of every Australian citizen.
– What is the reason for the high price of fish?.
– Because the development of the industry has been retarded. The industry has suffered from the failure of successive governments to adopt long-range plans forits development. Here is an opportunity for the Government to encourage an industry the importance of which is becoming more and more apparent. It should do everything to foster this important Australian activity and not discourage it by imposing increased sales tax on its requirements which can only have the effect of still further increasing the price of fish.
– Before the war complaints were made by fishermen on the Western Australian coast-line from Esperance to Sharks Bay, that they were unable to make a livelihood on account of the competition of alien fishermen. That problem was solved in Western Australia by the internment of most of the alien fishermen. Australian fishermen who donot resort to the dubious practices of Their alien competitors have now been given a chance of earning a livelihood.Fishermen have also frequently complained against the unfair competition caused by the importation of Aberdeen smoked cod and had dock, which they call English fillet. The export of that class of fish has been stopped by the home authorities and our fishermen arc now able to make some headway. At Esperance a number of old-age pensioners are eking out an existence by fishing. However, the Government now says to the fishermen of Australia - In future you shall have to pay an extra 5 per cent. tax on all the gear you need to carry on your industry”. In that way, it nullifies the benefits which our fishermen areenjoying as the result of the war conditions already mentioned. The proposal contained in this bill is not just a matter of anextra1s. on a fishing rod or a threepenny piece on a gut line; it goes much further than that.The fishing industry is one of our important primary industries which, in its present stage, needs careful nursing. As the proposal of the. Government to increase the sales tax on the essential requirements of fishermen will have a detrimental effect on the industry, I support the amendment.
– Item 3, fishing equipment, covers boats, including oars, sails, lifebelts, lifeboats and other similar accessories, crayfish pots and engines for use in the fishing industry. Computed on a sales value of £60,000, the revenue involved in the acceptance of the amendment is £3,000. The original proposal of the Government was that the whole of item 3 should be removed from the5 per cent. to the 10 per cent. schedule. Because of representations made to it in the House of Representatives the Government agreed to allow sub-items 4 and 5 to remain at 5 per cent. because it acknowledged that nets, lines and such equipment were goods the replacement of which could not be avoided. They are subject to heavy wear and tear and thus depreciate quickly. In contrast to these goods, boats and engines for boats are notquickly wasting assets, and the sponsors of the original representations realized that it was not unreasonable to expect the postponement of replacements until better times or, if that course were not followed, that the goods should bear the normal rate of sales tax which is borne by other production plant.
Furthermore, labour arid plant of the kind used to produce such goods as boats and engines is urgently required for the production of the necessaries of war. In these circumstances, the Government is justified in declining to accept the amendment. The gravamen of the criticism directed against this proposal is that the proposed increased tax will still further increase the already high price of fish. This proposed alteration of the rate of tax has no bearing on the price of fish. I agree with the honorable senators that, for sonic reason unknown to us, the price of fish is scandalously high. No Government has yet been able to put its finger on the cause. Even in the metropolitan areas a reasonable meal of fish for three people costs 5s. or 6s. The price of fish will not bc affected by the proposed increased tax on this item. Senator James Mclachlan said that there are many items in the schedules which should be exempt. Undoubtedly any honorable senator can point to some items in the schedules which, in his opinion, should not be taxable. It has been said that the amount of revenue involved in the acceptance of the amendment is not very large. I point out that in these difficult days every penny counts and the Government lias to secure revenue wherever it can in order to finance the war effort. In view of that this item is surely not worth the controversy that has arisen over it. I appeal to honorable senators opposite to give to the Government the. same co-operation which honorable, senators on this side of the chamber invariably gave to the previous Government during its period of office. Senator McBride might sneer, but the truth is that no financial measure of the Government of the day was opposed by honorable senators on this side when they were in opposition. Certainly, we criticized the Government’s measures, just as honorable senators opposite are criticizing this measure In plain language, I “wheel it up” to the Senate that this is .part, of a considered budget, and a scheme designed to enable us to do what all of us want done, namely, the financing of the tremendous project in which the Government is now engaged. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
– In my earlier remarks I did net touch upon one, or two features of this proposal, which we are prone to overlook. No honorable senator on this side desires to thwart, the Government in its efforts to raise tthe revenue it requires. But I should willingly subscribeto some other proposal that would affect the community as a whole rather than a proposal of this kind which solely penalizes an industry which is vital to the future development and welfare of this country. I could speak at considerable length on the fishing industry in other countries, and show how some of those people with whom we may come in close contact before we are much older are developing their sea waters to-day. The Minister (Senator Keane) has indicated that the amount of revenue involved is only £3,000. No great hardship would be inflicted on. the community if the Government were prepared to forgo that amount. Let us have regard to the history of the fishing industry in other countries. The people of England and Scotland, from where my forbears came, depend largely on the food of the sea for their nutriment. In recent years, Russia, Norway and Sweden have developed the industry to an amazing degree. Our northern neighbours are not far behind them. They are developing the industry on the most modern lines. Their fishing craft venture far out into the Pacific Ocean. Why? In order that they may familiarize themselves with the waters bordering on the lands of their southern neighbours. At the same tunc we have fumbled and fooled with the industry. When I was a Minister I did my best in its interests, and my predecessor. exSenator Daly, did much to develop it. We have embarked on all sorts of forms of manufacture in order to serve a population of 7,000,000. We have sunk enormous capital in various ventures, and have ladled out information upon numerous projects. Yet to-day we say that we must take this sum of £3,000 from an industry which is developing our waters and helping to supply our people with health-giving food. The development of the fishing industry is a project which should appeal to Australians as a whole. However,, it has been ‘ neglected. The last thing I desire to do is to vote against the Government on a financial measure ; but I appeal to the Minister to make this gesture to those people in order to assure them that we shall not inflict further burdens upon them. I have seen the efforts of our fishermen at Port Lincoln, and further south, and have been impressed with their humble enterprise. No large company is engaged in the industry, although Melbourne .capital Iras been invested in it in South Australia and, to a smaller degree, in Western Australia. Off the coast of New South Wales and in the Great, Australian Bight we have some of the finest, fishing grounds in the world. Even in a time of war we should not, for the sake of the sum of £3,000, place further burdens on this industry which, despite all our past efforts, is sagging. We have brought, men from overseas to advise us on the industry, and have engaged in scientific research for that purpose. Wc have also sent men abroad to learn what they could of the industry, whilst some of those engaged in it have gone abroad for that purpose at their own expense. I have seen an apparatus in Melbourne into which whiting is fed at one end and comes out at the other end filleted and wrapped in paper. That fish is being supplied to practically’ all the hospitals throughout Victoria, and the man who embarked on that venture was one of ‘those who went, abroad at his own expense to learn the latest methods in the industry. That is the sort of enterprise Ave should encourage. At Hobart, the harbour is practically choked with fish; there one sees barracoota, in shoals like floors of steel. We know .also that tuna exists in our waters in tremendous quantities. I believe that the Minister is convinced by the arguments of honorable senators on this side. At the same time I realize that, as a Minister, he has to stick to his task. However, I appeal to honorable senators, irrespective of party, to agree to the amendment. I shall not regard the carrying of the amendment, because of the greater numbers of the Opposition, as a victory over the Government, but as an indication that wc realize that this industry is essential to the future welfare of this country and for the better feeding of the people. At a time like the present we should not engage in minor party disputes; I know that some honorable senators- opposite regard the development of this industry as of vital importance to our economic welfare. The right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), when he was Prime Minister, and ex-Senator Daly, when ho was a Minister, co-operated with me in obtain-big more information in regard to the industry. At that time two conferences were called, and, subsequently, when I became a Minister, I succeeded in getting something done. 1 have never regarded this matter as a party subject. I have devoted -much time and care to the problems of the industry in order to see whether we can stimulate a seasense in our people. Without such a sense I do not look to the future of this country with very great hope. We should get in touch with our sister Dominion of Now Zealand, and co-operate- with it in the development of . the industry. Byour combined efforts wc could produce a supply of fish from. Australian waters which would be amazing. The sum of £3,000 involved in this clause could, I venture to say, bc saved very easily by the Government. It could be saved on petrol through the use of a few more gas-producers. 1 repeat that the industry is in its infancy. A few days ago I noticed in the Melbourne press a statement that a conference of Ministers had been called for the purpose of considering the development of the industry.. Mr. Thompson lias done much good work on the scientific side, and the captain, whom we brought here from overseas has also done an excellent job. Let us encourage these “ little chaps “ in the work they are doing. When one drives along the coast one sees lonely fishermen catching crayfish in the inlets here and there.’ People need that fish for food, and we should give every encouragement to those fishermen. If we realize the need to encourage the industry, why should wc propose to do something which will affect it adversely? We are now asked to increase the rate of sales tax on a few bits of machinery and plant used in the industry. I appeal to the committee not to agree to the clause, but to return it to the House of Representatives with the intimation that this chamber stands for the development of this national industry.
– And let us ask them who sold the Government trawlers.
– That is beside the point. When. I was a Minister I did everything in my power to develop the industry. Unfortunately, the Endeavour was sunk, and with it all our valuable records disappeared. If I stand alone, I shall vote for the amendment. I again appeal to the Minister not to place this deterrent upon the industry.
– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.
– I rise at this stage solely for the purpose of making an appeal to honorable senators opposite to have some regard, if possible, for the fitness of things. I ask them to give the Government a chance to do first, things first. When Senator Gibson so conspicuously crossed the chamber to get Senator A. J. McLachlan a glass of water, during his impassioned appeal on behalf of the fishing industry, I thought that the action was not merely kindly, but also was exceedingly fitting. I suggest to honorable senators opposite that in these parlous times when the situation is as bad as we know it to be at present, at least wo should have some regard for propriety. Honorable senators should not waste their eloquence, or the time of the committee, or spoil the Government’s opportunity to get on with the task that has been entrusted to it, for the moment at any rate, on an amendment of this description. What are the facts? Not one honorable senator, on this side of the chamber at least, does not realize the great importance of the fishing industry; not. one senator on this side of thechamberhas not given attention to the problem of increasing facilities for the establishment of that industry; and not one honorable senator does not know that there is a. war on. The people of this country are looking to us to get on with the job. If honorable senators have nothing important to contribute to this debate, and arc prepared to co-operate with the Government and allow it, toget on. with its task, there should be no impassioned appeals such as we have listened to on two occasions this afternoon from an honorable senator who is no more sincere in his estimation of the value of the fishing industry to this country than is the Government. Even Russia has been dragged into the discussion. What support does the honorable senator think that he would get if he were to make an appeal in Russia on behalf of the fishing industry such as that which he has just made here? The honorable senator also mentioned Norway - a country which is already under the domination ofthe monster to whose destruction we are devoting all of our energies. What reception would the honorable senator receive in that country if he were to make there an impassioned appeal on behalf of the fishing industry? Senator Amour said something this afternoon which should have been sufficient not only to silence most honorable senators opposite, but also to stem the flow of Senator A. J. McLachlan’s oratory. The item which is the subject of this discussion has been carrying a sales tax of 5 per cent. up to the present without protest from honorable senators opposite. They wait for this Government, which has been in office for only a few weeks, and is confronted with the tremendous task of passing its budget. We do not suggest that this budget is the last word in financial wisdom, but we do claim that it is indecorous to waste valuable time in this way. What will the people think when they learn that this chamber wasted at least an hour talking about fish? Honorable senators opposite who have participated in this discussion, particularly Senator A. J. McLachlan, have said in effect: “Get this industry going; never mind what happens to the Avar effort”. Although the Minister in charge of the bill made it quite plain that the Government could not and would not accept the amendment which has been moved, honorable senators opposite continued to treat this matter as if it were one of paramount importance. Is the work of Ministers who have so recently assumed office to be hampered, and our war effort to be obstructed by the discussion of a piffling matter such as this? I repeatthat the Government will take first things first. It will render unto Caesar those things which areCaesar’s. It will carry out. its various tasks in what it considers to be their correct order of importance. At the moment, our aim is to get this budget through because money is required to carry on the war effort. In the interim we do not propose to tinker with the fishing industry.
– If the Loader of the Senate (Senator Col lings) is looking for support in this chamber, I suggest to him that’ the fewer the speeches of the kind which he has just delivered, the better. Speaking personally, I resent very much the schoolmasterly and dictatorial attitude which the Leader of the Senate has taken up on more than one occasion since this. Government assumed office. Last week, I asked the honorable senator a perfectly reasonable question-
– Order ! The honorable senator must confine his remarks to the amendment now before the committee.
– Although I listened closely to what the Leader of the Senate had to say a few minutes ago, I did not hear him make one reference to the fishing industry. I merely wish to point cut-
– I rise to a point of order. I do not know how long my speech occupied, but I am sure that it was only a few minutes, and not once did I depart from the subject of the fishing industry.
– That is not a point of order. An honorable senator is not entitled to interrupt the speech of anotherhonorable senator unless he has a. definitepoint of order to raise.
– I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Chairman. This is not the first occasion on which the honorable senator has adopted a dictatorial attitude.
– I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the honorable senator is ignoring your direction thathe should confine his remarks to the amendment before the committee.
– The honorable senator will not be in order in continuing his speech on those lines.
– Then I shall say this: This chamber has the responsibility of carefully reviewing this and other items contained in the sales tax schedule. With clue respect to the Leader of the Senate,” who said that he would not alter one comma in the bill-
– I object strongly to such misrepresentation. I said nothing of the kind.
– Honorable senators should have at least some knowledge of the Standing Orders. If an honorable senator has been misrepresented by another honorable senator, he has an opportunity by means of a personal explanation to correct- any misstatements.
– The Opposition has a duty to perform in reviewing the Government’s financial measures. As an indication of the necessity for honorable senators on this side of the chamber to peruse legislation introduced by the Government, 1 draw attention to the fact that when an income tax bill was hastily introduced into the House of Representatives, it contained so many defects that when attention was called to them by the Opposition the bill was -withdrawn. Therefore, it ill-becomes honorable senators to suggest that the Opposition is deliberately obstructing legislation, or is indulging in. practices calculated to hamper our war effort, merely because honorable senators on this side of the chamber desire to do something for an industry which is vital to this country. I again suggest to the Leader of the Senate that if he is looking for support from honorable senators on this side of the chamber, he should adopt a less dictatorial and less angry attitude when we submit constructive argument.
– I am sorry if I imparted any heat in my observation?, but I feel very strongly on this question, and I suggest to the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) that in his effort to whip us into submission, he simply drew a red herring across the trail. Perhaps on this occasion a red herring is rather appropriate, and there is nobody more capable of drawing red herrings across the trail than the Minister. I assure him that my observations were not made in a party spirit. If I were the only one holding the view which I expressed I should still vote against the item. It may be that I am the cause of all this trouble, but I do feel that in the interests of the nation the amendment should be agreed to, or we shall do an injuryto an important industry. I suggest to the Leader of the Senate that two wrongs do not make a right. My conscience was offended when the 5 per cent. sales tax was originally placed on this item. As the honorable senator knows, that imposition was made in very gravecircumstances indeed, but the wrong should not be perpetuated. Nobody recognizes more than I do the burden which has been cast on honorable senators opposite who have just takentheir places on the treasury bench. However, I urge them to look upon this matter in a broad sense. It appals one to think that for a mere £3,000 a Government would take this action against an expanding industry. Honorable senators opposite surely are not seeing things in their proper perspective. I realize that similar arguments could be advanced in relation to other items, but this industry is of national importance. It is vital to the future of this country. I askthe Minister in charge ofthe bill to review the matter again before finally rejecting the amendment, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) does not wish to obstruct the Government. I believe that honorable senators opposite hold the same views on this amendment as we do; if theydo not, they are not acting in the best interests of Australia.
– In pursuance of the direction you have given, Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity of putting myself right with myself at least. On the one hand, Senator Foll objects to my schoolmasterly attitude,and suggests that if I were less dictatorial and less angry, the Government might get the support of the Opposition. On the other baud, if I do not mendmy ways, apparently we shall lose that support.
– I said that I spoke for myself.
– I deny that I have been scoolmasterly and dictatorial, and most certainly I was not angry.
Apparently’ honorablesenator’s areso unaware of the great virtue of earnestness that they are inclined to mistake earnestness for anger. The type of earnestness which Senator A. J. McLachlan exhibited does not impress me at all. Neither was I impressed by Senator Foil’s speech in which he mentioned not one word in regard to the fishing industry. I confined my remarks to the discussion of the position of the fishing industry. If we are to understand that we cannot get the co-operation of honorable senators opposite because they do not like my manner, the colour of the eyes of honorable senators on the Government side, or the cut of their clothes, we shall know how much reliance can be placed on their boasted willingness to cooperate. I makethe definite statement now that as long as I am leader in this chamber I do not propose to allow derogatory remarks to hemade concerning the Government or the party of which I am a member without protest. If my sincerity is questioned, I shall retort in the most effective languagethat I can command. Whilst, I have great respect for Senator Foll, I have no intention to let honorable senators “get away” with any reflections that they may care to cast upon the Labour party or Labour principles. I shall resent such remarks, and I remind the Opposition that the Government intends to adhere to its programme of legislation until effect has been given to it.
In discussing the position of the fishing industry, Senator A. J. McLachlan appropriately made a remark about a red herring, yet he took us to Russia and Norway. He said that if honorable senators on the government side acted in conformity with their conscience, they would not, favour the increase of the sales tax on the equipment required by those engaged in the fishing industry. I resent that insult.
– I did not intend to insult the Leader of the Senate nor any member of his party. I object to his remark and ask that it be withdrawn. I deprecate the heated nature ofthis debate.
– I ask that the words to which exception has been taken be withdrawn.
– If I have said anything which Senator A. J. McLachlan considers to be a reflection upon himself, and if hedesires me to withdraw it, I am prepared to do so without reservation; but I point out that the honorable senator said that honorable senators sitting on the Government side, if allowed to vote according to their conscience, would support the amendment and not the proposal of the Government. That was the insult that I resented. I withdraw the remark to which exception has been taken, and leave the honorable senator to the contemplation of the situation.
– Honorable senators sitting behind the Government, like honorable senators of the Opposition, when they were in office, support the decision of the Government in this matter. The discussion has revealed that one member of this chamber is an expert on the subject of the fishing industry, and henceforward we shall know Senator A. J. McLachlan as the piscatorial senator. I listened to his remarks with great interest. When the Scullin Government was in office, ex-Senator Daly did valuable ministerial work in encouraging the development of the fisheries of the Commonwealth. The sum of £3,000 may not seem large, but all of the revenue budgeted for by the Government is required. When the Opposition was in power, its legislative proposals were, for the most part, fully supported by the Labour party, although some of the measures “got under their skins”. I urge that this item be agreed to, and I have no doubt that, when world conditions become normal, an adjustment of the sales tax favorable to those engaged in the fishing industry will be made.
.- The Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) both seem to resent any criticism of their taxation measures by the Opposition, but I point out, that, only eleven months ago those Ministers were much more emphatic than any member of the present Opposition in their objection to the application of the sales tax to the fishing industry. They should be prepared to give and take a little in these matters, and should not become over excited.
– I ask honorable senators not to discuss the attitude of the Government and of the Opposition, but to confine their remarks to the clause and the amendment.
– I should not have risen but for statements made by the Leader of the Senate. Only six weeks ago the previous Government reviewed the sales tax as it applied to the fishing industry, and decided in its wisdom that it would not be in the best interests of Australia to impose sales tax on equipment used in the industry.
Question put -
Thatthe words proposed to he left out. he left out (Senator Mcleay’s amendment).
The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Brown.)
AYES: 15
NOES: 13
Majority . . . . 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
– I move -
That the words “Divisions ITT. and IV.,” be left out with a. view to insert in lieu thereof the words “Division III., Items8. 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 “.
If my amendment be agreed to, item 10, sub-item 1, of Division IV. - “ Fish of Australian origin, including crayfish, prawns, crabs and other marine animals, marketed in tins, jars or similar containers would remain in the 5 per cent. group, and not be placed in the 10 per cent. group as proposed by the Government. I shall not discuss the amendment at length, except to say that an increase of the sales tax on these important items of foodstuff, which are the product of a recently established industry, would be unwise, especially as the revenue involved is not likely to be considerable.
– All that the amendment seeks to achieve is the retention of certain fish foods in the 5 per cent, list. By the vote just taken, the committee has decided that boats, nets and other equipment used by fishermen shall be subject to a sales tax of only 5 per cent. I suggest that, in order to be consistent, the fish which is produced by that equipment should be placed in the same category. As some honorable senators may think that this is a small item, I point out that during 1939 fish to the value of over £1,000,000 was imported into Australia. I trust that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
– In this item an annual revenue of £10,500 is involved. The plea put forward for retaining in the 5 per cent. list canned fish and. imported fish preserved by the cold process is that these foodstuffs are consumed largely by persons in remote portions of the Commonwealth. That is true in some degree, but the greater proportion of this class of goods is disposed of in the metropolitan districts. Indeed, some of these goods rarely, if ever, are seen in the outback. They really come within the category of luxuries. There are no means by which the fish consumed in outback districts can be segregated from the luxury lines which are consumed in the big centres of population. The cost of excluding the whole item would be out of proportion to the relief afforded to the people of the outback. For these reasons, the Government is unable to accept the amendment.
SenatorE. B. JOHNSTON (Western Australia) [5.27]. - I voted against the Governmenton the previous item because a definite principle was involved. Under normal conditions I am opposed to the sales tax altogether. It, is a. form of taxation which can be justified only under abnormal conditions. To its credit, previous governments did not increase the rate of tax on the items now under consideration, hut the responsibility for doing so rests with the Government which has introduced these proposals as part of its budget plan. Unless some very definite principle be involved. I do not propose to deal in detail with a long list of amendments, and say”I shall support, this” or “I shall oppose that”. I should like to see this class of legislation removed from the statute-book altogether, but if it be a part, of the policy of the Government, Iam pledged not to harass this, or any other government, during the war, where no question of principleis involved. I shall therefore vote against, the amendment, and also against most of the other amendments which have been foreshadowed. The responsibility for raising revenue rests with the Government, I do not like this means of raising money, but 1 realize that a nation at war must, have revenue. Unless good reasons exist I am not willing to support any action which would deprive the Government, of hundreds of thousands of pounds under existing war conditions.
Senator leckie (Victoria) [5.29].- I do not know whether I misunderstood the Minister, but I think that he said that £10,500 is involved in this item.
– Yes.
– If that,beso, it means that fish to the value of £200,000 is canned in Australia eachyear. Surely, the Minister is wrong in saying that so much revenue is involved; otherwise it must be admitted that this industry is well-established in Australia. I ask the Minister not to misinform the committee as to the magnitude of the industry. On the face of it, his statement is wrong.
SenatorKeane. - The revenue involved is £10,500 on a sales value of £210,000.
.- I wish to make my position clear. I. intend to support the Government on this item. I was prepared to test the committee on the previous item, because, as Senator A. J. McLachlan pointed out, an important principle was at stake. However, I realize the obligation of the Government to obtain revenue; thu means it devises to that end are its responsibility. The Government has decided to enter this field in order to obtain the money that it needs, and, for my part, I shall oppose the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
– I propose to move that item 15, Division IV., be left out because I am opposed to increasing the sales tax on Australian cider. For some time campaigns Iia ve been conducted with the object of inducing the people of this country to use more apples. Suggestions have been made that greater quantities of apples should be consumed either in evaporated form or as cider. There is no more wholesome beverage than Australian cider if it be properly made. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) may remember that John Ridd, the hero of R. D. Blackmore’s novel Lorna Doone, made a habit of drinking 2 gallons of cider every night before going to bed. He must indeed have been a “he-man” to consume that quantity. I submit that the Government’s proposal is unsound from a health point of view. I add that I am not commercially interested in the production of cider.
– The honorable senator may not discuss item 15 at this stage, but at the appropriate time he may move for the re-consideration of the clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Amendment of Third Schedule).
.- Can the Minister state how much revenue would be lost by retaining in the 10 per cent, schedule the goods included in subitem 12, which comprises tooth paste, dental paste, dental powder and preparations of that kind? What reasons actuated the .Government’s decision to increase the tax on these goods?
– On the basis of a sales value of £300,000, the loss of revenue if dentifrices were retained in the 10 per cent, field would be £30,000. Tooth brushes, which are of far more importance in dental hygiene than dentifrices, were included in the 20 per cent, field hy the previous Government. Dentifrices are not essential goods. Dr. August A. Thomen, lecturer in medicine, College of Medicine, New York University, says of them -
It should be more generally known that no toothpaste or tooth powder can have any therapeutic (curing) action of any definite significance whatever … lt can be proved conclusively that a quarter teaspoon of baking soda and an equal amount of table salt in a half glass of water will accomplish as much as the most costly dentifrice no matter how high sounding a. name it may have or how enthusiastically it may be sponsored on the radio . . . If one- uses toothpaste it should be regarded .merely as a more or less pleasant-tasting luxury . . . Any dentifrice which will remove tartar, prevent decay or inhibit or cure pyorrhoea or other mouth diseases either is a downright fake or. is not safe to use.
The Government does not believe that a legitimate claim, can be made for the treatment of tooth paste differently from other toilet articles.
.- Although I am obliged to the Minister for the explanation he has given and accept his figures as correct, the information that has been supplied to him on this subject is so utterly opposed to opinions expressed hy medical authorities as to make it appear that his quotation was a rather fortuitous discovery. I should have thought that the honorable senator would have realized that, according to most authorities, the general health of the people depends to a very great degree upon their dental health. The committee should not agree to the imposition of a tax that will increase the price of tooth pastes. Every one realizes how important is the proper care of teeth, particularly of children in their early years. However, as the Minister has told us that no less than £30,000 would be lost if an amendment to retain these items in the 10 per cent, class were agreed to, I shall not do anything further in the matter.
– Does sub-item 12 include pastes or sterilizing agents used for the purpose of combating pyorrhoea and dental diseases of that kind, or does it refer only to cleansing pastes ?
– It covers cleansing pastes only.
Clause-agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.
Thirdreading.
Motion (by Senator Keane) proposed -
That the bill be now read a third time.
.- This bill affects every member of the community, particularly every business man. It is impossible for the ordinary layman to follow the vast number of amendments that have been made to the sales tax legislation since it was first passed in 1930. If anybody asked the Minister for a copy of the Sales Tax Acts it would be necessary to provide him with no fewer than 36 measures. I trust that when this bill becomes law, the principal acts will be reprinted in consolidated form so that any business man may have the whole matter at his fingers’ ends. I can understand the Government’s object in bringing downan amending bill because, by doing so, it confines the debate to the particular clauses that are to be amended ;but I see no reason whythe legislation should not be published in consolidated form immediately after this bill becomes law.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a third time.
SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1941.
Secondreading.
Debate resumed from the 19th November (vide page 521), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bills be now read a second time.
– As these nine bills are complementary to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classification) Bill which the Senate has just passed, I do not propose to delay their passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bills read a second time.
– On a point of order, is it permissible to proceed with these nine bills when the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill has not yet been passed by the Parliament? I remind the Senate that that bill has still to go to the House of Representatives for consideration of the amendment made in it by the Senate.
– In the circumstances these measures should not be proceeded with. The Senate could allow the bills to go into committee and progress could then be reported on the first clause.
Bills committed pro forma.
page 614
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.
– I move -
That thebill be now read a second time.
The object of the bill is to validate, up to and including the 31st March, 1942, the collection of duties set out in the customs tariff resolution of the 2nd July, the 25th September and the29th October, 1941. The proposals of the two former dates were introduced by previous governments, and the last mentioned by the present Government. Since this. Government assumed office, time has not permitted the debating of these proposals in Parliament nor the full consideration of the proposals of the 2nd July and the 25th September, 1941, by the present Government. This consideration will be given as early as practicable; but unless validation be agreed to, the proposals of the 2nd July, 1941, will lapse as from the 3rd January, 1942, and the revenue will be seriously affected. The object of including the 25th September and the 29th October, 1941, proposals in the present bill is to bring all customs proposals at present before Parliament into line as regards the period of validation, namely, the 31st March, 1942.
Debate (on motion by Senator
McLeay) adjourned.
page 615
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.
Motion (by Senator Keane) proposed -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay ) adjourned.
page 615
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to validate, until the 31st March, 1942, the collection of the special war duty imposed by the proposals of the 2nd July, 1941. The special war duty was imposed for wartime revenue purposes. It is not possible to debate the proposals at this stage, but it is necessary to validate collections made thereunder in order to safeguard the revenue.
Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.
page 615
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.
. - 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 2nd July, 1941. The period of validation is the sameas for the customs tariff proposals, namely, until the 31st March, 1942.
Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.
page 615
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time. ‘
. - I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The customs tariff (New Zealand) preference proposals, introduced on the 2nd July and the 29th October, 1941, provide for the imposition of a special duty on chewing gum confectionery of New Zealand origin, and the bill seeks to validate the collection of duty thereunder until the 31st March, 1942.
Debate (on motion by Senator McLeay) adjourned.
page 615
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Keane) read a first time.
.- I move -
That the billbe now read a second time.
The excise tariff proposals covered by the bill were introduced on the 2nd May, 1940, the 20th August, 1940, the 2nd July, 1941, and the 29th October, 1941. The two first-named were reintroduced on the 21st. November, 1940, and the 11th December, 1940, respectively. The proposals, which were first introduced on the 2nd May, 1940, embodied increased duties on petrol, and formed part of a previous government’s budget proposals for 1940-41. Those of the 20th August, 1940, gave effect to a previous government’s decision to grant protection to local producers of petrol and petrol substitutes from indigenous shale and coal. The proposals of the 2nd July, 1941, provided for the duty-free delivery of locally refined petrol to members of the diplomatic corps located in Australia, consular representatives, &c. Previously, duty-free delivery of petrol to these officials applied only to the imported refined petrol. The proposals of the 29th October, 1941, embodied increased excise duties complementary to the present Government’s budget proposals for 1941-42. The four schedules mentioned arc still in the proposal stage, and it is intended that the period of validation be the same as for the customs tariff proposals, namely, until the 31st March, 1942.
Debate (on motion by Senator . McLea y ) a d jou rued .
Sitting suspended from 6.5 to8 p.m.
page 616
Debate resumed from the 19th November (vide page 537), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the following papers be printed: -
Estimates of Receiptsand Expenditure (Revised)and Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c. (Revised), for theyear ending the 30th June, 1942” and “Budget 1941-42 (Revised) Papers presented by the Honorable J. B. Chitley,M.P., in connexion with the revision of the Budget 1941-42.”
– Prior to the adjournment of this debate yesterday, I was saying that had the previous Government taken heed of what happened during the last war and in the post-war years, it would have realized that the general public requires something more than mere promises, in order to ensure a 100 per cent. war effort; that the workers require something tangible, such as an instalment of the much talked of new order. Had steps been taken to provide such an instalment most of the troubles which were experienced by the previous Government would not have occurred. If some ameliorative conditions had been introduced the Government would have been accepted in good faith and a much better war effort would have resulted. I am pleased to see that Senator Foll who was absent when I spoke yesterday is now in the chamber. The honorable senator commenced his dissertation - probablydiatribe is a better word - by stating that this budget was not nearly so good as the Fadden budget because all the good points of the Fadden budget had been omitted. However, the honorable senator did express one view concerning which the Opposition is apparently unanimous, namely, that compulsory saving should be introduced. That is rather strange ina party which has no caucus. I must join issue with Senator Foll and all honorable senators opposite who believe in compulsory saving. I believe that the man on the basic wage will have to endure certain privations if he is compelled to save something out of his meagre earnings. Probably his wife will have difficulty in balancing her household budget. That is” bread and butter “ economics. It seems that quite a number of honorable senators opposite are still living in the days of the rope’s end and the marline spike. They should realize that those days are. past, and will not return. I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate by speaking at length, because I haveno desire to waste time.
– The honorable senator is wasting time now.
– I am glad that the honorable senator has interjected because he has reminded me of a story which I told yesterday, and which I wish to amend, showing the ramifications of the circulating sovereign. I pointed out that when I contributed money to a trade union that money was put in a bank and. the union received the current rate of interest for it. The money would then be loaned to an employer. Then, should I happen to lose my employment 1 might have to apply for work at a factory ‘the construction of which I had assisted by means of my contribution to the union. I might be successful in getting a job provided the employer was satisfied that I could show a 15 .per cent, or 20 percent, return for the money which he would have to spend on my wages. I should like to amend that story slightly, because at. present, under the cost-plus system, any one can get a job. That system has been responsible for much of the trouble to which reference has been made in the course of this debate. Had the system not been introduced I am convinced that the people of Australia would have been saved many millions of pounds, and the need for more stringent taxation might not have arisen.
In conclusion I make a suggestion which would have been useful to honorable senators opposite had they still been in occupation of the treasury bench, and which no doubt will be of some assistance to the members of my party who are now charged with the responsibility of carrying on the government of this country. The real solution of all our industrial troubles lies in the need for the calling of a conference of representatives qualified to speak for various interests including trade unions, employers, manufacturers, and even bankers. Such a conference could be charged with the responsibility of deciding upon a reasonable standard of living. Wages could then be fixed in accordance with that standard and prices could be pegged to prevent undue rises. The only changes permissible in wages would be increases or decreases in accordance with cost of. living figures prepared by the Statistician. That is a little more bread-and-butter, economics. I am satisfied that this Government is doing what its .predecessor failed to do, namely, it is giving the workers a small instalment of the muchtalkedof new order.
– Which end of the new order?
– I do not think that honorable senators opposite will attempt to prevent the Government, from giving that, little instalment to the workers, nor do I think they will prevent the Government from, giving a much larger instalment in the supplementary budget which is to be introduced early in the new year. I believe that this Government will achieve a. 100 per cent, war effort; I believe that, it will inspire confidence. In fact it has already inspired confidence in the masses of the people, and it is the force of opinion outside of Parliament which deters honorable senators opposite from putting up a serious fight, against this Government’s proposals. I sympathize with- honorable senators opposite. I realize that they have to fill in their time-sheets, and satisfy their bosses-; but even if they do so, when, the next general elections are held they will face defeat and pay ‘their own election expenses as well.
, - Small differences of opinion were responsible for the defeat of the budget introduced by the Fadden Government, and because of that defeat the Labour party now finds itself in occupation of the treasury bench. The present budget is in some respects complimentary to the previous Government. By that I mean that the structure of this budget is similar to that of the Fadden budget, but whereas the Fadden budget was built on sound foundations, this budget does not observe the same sound financial principles. I should like to make a comparison between the two budgets and hr doing so I realize that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) had a tremendous task in preparing a completely new budget in the short time at his disposal. I realize, also, that to’ some degree he had to follow decisions arrived at by the previous Government. There is no doubt that this budget will give the people a great deal to think about. It provides for’ the expenditure in one year of £325,000,000, which is an extraordinarily large .amount for a country with a population of 7,000,000. In addition, it is stated that in the near future a supplementary budget will be introduced. In preparing this budget th( Government bad to accept the advice of its military advisers as to the sums which should be expended in the war effort during the next twelve months. The irreducible minimum of war expenditure is given as £217,000,000. At this juncture I should like to point out to honorable senators opposite that the Government is in just as precarious a position as was the Eadden Government; it has a majority of two in the House of Representatives. and those two honorable members are just as likely to desert this Government as they deserted the Fadden Government. Although Senator Aylett remarked that members of the Opposition, in seeking the formation of a national government, were endeavouring to put life back into a corpse, he may find that the present Government will be forced to ask the Opposition to help it in securing a 100 per cent, war effort. I defy the Government to obtain such an effort while it is balanced on a political knife-edge, and may at any time be compelled to face the electors. Members of the Opposition will be glad to assist in carrying on the governmental affairs of this country at this difficult and critical period. The day after the present Government took office, I had a conversation with one of its supporters. As he seemed to have a worried appearance, I asked him if anything had happened to his .5on. who is serving with the fighting force.’ overseas. He replied, “ No. I have just had a letter from my son, who is in an officers’, training school at Moascar, some distance outside Cairo, and the trend of his letter was that he was working from daylight till dark. Among those attending the school are Indians, South Africans, Australians, Britishers, Free French, and soldiers from other sections of the Allied Forces. All are working together in harmony with the one object of defeating the enemy. My son said that he could not understand why politicians in Australia who were all of one nationality were squabbling and trying to get- at. each other’s throats”. The’ writer of that letter gave some idea of the thoughts of the men who are fighting for us overseas. They realize that we should put party politics into the background at this critical time. I suggest that if parliamentarians could pull together in the same way as the Allied troops overseas, a maximum war effort would be assured. In the event of a national government now being formed, I contend that it should be established on the basis of an electoral majority, and not on the basis of party political cunning and intrigue. In other words the decision of the people should bc sought.
The budget provides for an increase of £7,500,000 in the pay of the members of our fighting forces. I admit that that is a popular action on the part of the Government. The previous Administration realized the desirability of such an increase, and provision was made for it in the Fadden budget by means of deferred pay. There is no way in which we can assess the amount that should be paid to those who are prepared to risk their lives in the defence of this country. They are worthy of any remuneration that a generous public can give to them. I claim that the proposal of the Fadden Government to provide the increase in the form of deferred pay was an admirable one. During the last war, I enjoyed my periods of leave most of all when I had little money. The hospitality extended to the troops was so great that they suffered no serious disadvantage in not having their pockets full of cash. We should not overlook the fact that our fighting forces in the Middle East comprise troops in receipt of varying rates of pay. Australians in Cairo during the last war, were willing to pay for food double, and sometimes three times, the’ prices which the British “ tommies “ could afford to pay. Actually, the Australian soldier was no better off financially than his British confrere. Probably, our troops overseas would prefer to have the extra pay to spend at the present, time, but many of those who served in the last war would have been glad of a lump sum on their return, to Australia to assist them in re-establishing themselves in civil life.
The increase of invalid and oldage pensions is also a very popular move on the part of the Government. This is not an increase at which we should cavil, but 1. suggest that the Government might have considered whether the extra money expended should not have been used for providing pensions for widows and orphans. The increase .to 23s. 6d. a week will cost £1,022.000 for the remainder of this .financial year, and the cost of the proposed increase next year tei 25s.’ a week will be £3,100,000. This amount, would go a. long way to assist, widows and orphans in the direction indicated. I doubt whether this is an opportune time for such an increase of the invalid and old-age pension. We ha ve been told that every .penny of revenue is needed for the prosecution of the war, and we should ask whether we can afford to expend such a. large sum in increasing pensions. War requirements come first with regard not, only to expenditure, hut also planning for the post-war period. Next, to our war needs comes improved social security. The previous Government was well aware of the need for measures to improve social security, and consequently it introduced child endowment. Certain social measures could be brought down now ‘whilst others must wait until after the war. Legislation providing for unemployment insurance could well be introduced at present, because employment and wages in Australia have never been at a higher level than now, and there is an excellent opportunity to establish a fund which would be of the utmost value when employment in the war industries ceases. I advocate a system of unemployment, insurance whereby the contributions to the fund would be made by the employers, employees, and the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and the Leader of the Senate (Senator Collings) have stated that it is essential to use up sonic of the large floating wage fund now in Australia. By using some of that money for unemployment insurance, we need not interfere with our war effort. The prosecution of the war to a successful conclusion would still remain our first consideration. When the present Government took office it had the advantage of the experience and achievements of its predecessors during two years of wai-. In that period there had been a change-over from civil production to war activities. There was much planning and preparatory work to .be done before Australia’s war industries got into full swing. Before the outbreak of war Australia had a small permanent force, and a Militia which, on paper, represented a force of 35,000 men. During the two years of war approximately 400,000 men have enlisted .for service overseas and in Australia. The raising of that force has meant a tremendous amount of organization in the preparation of camps, the supply of equipment, the training of instructors, and all the other activities associated, with the equipping and training of a modern ‘ army. The personnel of the Navy also has grown, and to-day the number of men in that arm of our fighting services is three times what it was when war broke out. In September, 1939, the Royal Australian Air Force consisted of two and a half squadrons, containing S22 officers and other ranks; the personnel is now eighteen times what it was then. In collaboration with Great Britain and the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Menzies Government participated in the Empire air training scheme which provides for the training of an unlimited number of air pilots. Before the present Governmnent took office, arrangements had been made for the expenditure of £60,000,000 in connexion with that scheme. The objective set before Australia at the inauguration of that scheme has been maintained’; indeed, Australia is ahead of schedule. It is only fair that the people of this country should know what the situation was when the present Government took office. I congratulate the present Minister for Air (Mr. Drakeford) in that during the short time he- had been in office, he has been able to establish a special army co-operation school. Such an institution has been needed for some- time. Present-day strategy appreciates the heed- for the fullest co-operation between the air and the ground personnel in both attack and retreat. As the result of the establishment of this school we shall be able to train men in those necessary operations.
When war broke out Australia had nine factories for the manufacture of munitions of war; in September of this year there were more than 100 annexes making munitions. The value of the munitions produced in Australia when war broke out was under £2,000,000 a year; this year the production is valued at £32,000,000. The previous Government had planned ahead, and it hoped to produce in 1941-42 munitions valued at £76,000,000. In 1939 there were only 12,000 employees in government munitions factories, compared with 58,000 in July of this year. The previous Government had made arrangements whereby the number of such employees would be increased to 170,000 by June, 1942. It is estimated that 200,000 men and women are now engaged directly or indirectly in the manutacture of munitions.
– Where will those workers be obtained if the present recruiting appeals are continued?
– I answer that interjection by asking where the Government hopes to get the 400,000 workers mentioned in the Treasurer’s budget.
I agree with Senator Large that adequate supplies of machine tools are essential before Australia can hope to make any great advance in the production of war materials. The previous Government was aware of that fact. The men who were set the task of equipping Australian factories with the machine tools necessary for the manufacture of munitions and other war materials, including aeroplanes, had to overcome many obstacles. In 1939 only four companies in Australia were manufacturing machine tools; to-day there are 131 such establishments. A tremendous effort and a proper system of co-ordination were necessary in order to achieve that result. Senator Large, who knows a great deal more about this subject than I do, will agree that what has been achieved would have been impossible without those tools.
– Some machine tools which are required cannot be obtained.
– That is so, and Australian workmen will make them, but I repeat that two years ago there were only four companies in” Australia making machine tools, compared with . 131 companies engaged in that work to-day. Twelve months ago only about 10 per cent. of the machine tools required for the manufacture of munitions were produced in Australia, whereas to-day 70 per cent, of such tools are of local manufacture.By the end of December, 1943, theprevious Government hoped that all of themachine tools required would be obtainable in Aus tralia. I have no reason to fear thatthe present Government will fail tocontinue the good work begun by its predecessors
Until shortly before thecommencement of the war Australia had notcommenced to manufacture aircraft. I think that I am right in saying that Australia is the only country which hasproceeded from the manufacture of stationary engines directly to the manufacture of aeroplane engines withoutpassing through the intermediate stageofthe manufacture of motor-car engines. Australian workshops were asked to produce aeroplane engines, and they respondedby producing them. These engines are now being made in Australia by mass production methods. To the end of September last Australian factories had produced aeroplanes valued at over £.10,000,000, and had delivered over 1,000 aeroplanes to the Air Force for either reconnaissance work or training purposes. Moreover, the previous Government had made arrangements to produce 500 more aeroplanes by the 31st January, 1942. During the financial year 1941-42 Australian factories expect to produce aeroplanes, including bombers, to the value of £20,000,000. A good deal has been said about the Beaufort bomber. I am pleased to see that only yesterday the Minister for Aircraft Production (Senator Cameron) visited the works in Sydney, where he was able to see the progress that had taken place in the manufacture of aircraft. The credit must go to a previous Government for laying the foundation of this industry.
– It received a great deal of assistance from the Labour party when in opposition.
– That is so; but the Government of the day was responsible for the policy of the country, just as the present Government is responsible to-day.
In my opinion, the tremendous development of Australia’s war industries would have been impossible without the active co-operation and the organizing experience of such companies as General
Motors-HoldensLimited, Australian Consolidated Industries Limited and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. The wonderful results that we have achieved are, in great measure, due to those well-organized concerns. In saying that, I include their employees, without whose active co-operation no industry can succeed. In these large industries there has been the fullest cooperation between employers and employees. It is interesting to note that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, at which honorable senators opposite point the finger of scorn at every possible opportunity, charging it with profiteering and with taking advantage of the needs of the country in time of war to enrich the pockets of its shareholders, madea total profit, in 1940 of £2,373,761. In the same year its distributed profit amounted to £1,282,006, upon which a tax of £1,091,755 was paid. In 1941, after a. year of war, and naturally a year of great expanding business in the production of war materials, the total profit earnedby the company was £3,513,290, ofwhich it distributed £.1,550,214, and paid in tax an amount of £1,966,076.
– Onwhat capital were those profits earned?
– Probably the honorable senator knows more about the capital of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited than T. do. I have not the figures before me. It will be seen from the figures which I ‘have just cited that the tax imposed upon the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited in 1941 exceeded its distributed profits by over £400,000. We have also to remember that this company has already expended on machinery for use only in the production of materials of war no less than £1,500,000. We have often been told, and I think it is a fact, that the bulk of the machinery which is in use for war production will be of very little use when we reach the transition stage from war-time to peace-time activities. This is a time of great prosperity in Australia ; but we must all realize that it is a false and very dangerous prosperity. The fact that we are far removed from the theatres of war is apt to let us view with complacency the tremendous struggle that is going on overseas. At present Russia is bearing the full brunt of the onslaught of the German hordes. We have bad successes in Syria and Irak; the news from the Atlantic in the past few weeks has been much brighter; help from the United States of America is increasing week by week, and our own troops overseas, with the exception of the gallant defenders of Tobruk, are enjoying a temporary respite. All of this is apt to create a feeling of complacency which makes it difficult to bring home to the Australian people the important fact that large numbers of reinforcements are needed and that a great deal of money is necessary to carry on our war effort. We know that our troops will shortly be engaged in the Middle East, and, therefore, we should take the greatest possible advantage of this brief breathing space to build up our reinforcements and train them so that they will be fit to take the place of those who are killed or wounded when our troops once again engage the enemy. In view ofthat, a full review of the man-power position is most necessary and urgent. We should find out exactly where the available man-power of Australia can best be placed in order to further the war effort. Duplication takes place in many walks of life, and it is highly desirable at this critical stage in our history that men should be weeded out of jobs which do not give them scope for their abilities.
The proposal of. the Government to establish a long-term mortgage bank branch of the Commonwealth Bank fills a long-felt want among the country people. The sooner it is established, the better it will be appreciated by primary producers. Senator Darceymentioned that a friend of his, a Queensland farmer, hadbeenbadly treated and put of his property by the banks because he could not pay off his mortgage. His experience was entirely different from mine and from what has been told to me by many primary producers.
– The honorable senator does not doubt the truth of whatSenator Darcey said?
– Probably the hon orable senator was misinformed. I have found that the banks and financial institutions in the north-west of Queensland, the work of which I am conversant with, have greatly assisted the primary producers by writing off debts and interest accounts.
– To what banks does the honorable senator refer?
– I am referring to the private banks as a whole and financial brokers. The private banks have written off the debts of farmers to a much greater amount than any of the State governments.
– Did the honorable senator hear the story told by Senator Johnston?
– Yes ; he related his experiences. I am giving mine. My experience is that the banks and financial houses have treated extremely generously those who have played straight with them. I can produce undoubted proof that they have done that in the past and that they are still doing it. Many farmers in the north-west ofQueeusland, owing to droughts, were forced fo secure heavy overdrafts and -lost their stock through rain coming at the wrong time. They have been restocked and their commitments have been reduced considerably by the institutions that financed them.
I notice that it is proposed to reduce the vote for the Department of Information by £S0,000. I trust that this will not involve any reduction of the service provided by the News Bureau in New York. The bureau referred to has done a wonderful job for Australia and the proposal to reduce its vote is a great mistake. This budget, provides for an expenditure in 1941-42 of £324,965,000. The means to be used for the raising of this huge suan of money are much the same as those intended to be used by the Fadden Government. In this respect the structure of the two budgets is very similar, but their, foundations differ very considerably. After paying taxes at the present rates collections would amount to £164,965,000, That leaves a gap of approximately £160,000,000, of which £66,000,000 it is hoped will be raised by borrowing, as was done last year. In regard to borrowing, the difference between last year’s budget and the revised budget now before us is that last year we were building up the war effort to its peak. The peak has not yet been reached, . but. we are getting very elo.se to it. This extra borrowed money could be absorbed in industry, but once the peak is reached, it is questionable whether it could be so absorbed without having a disastrous effect on the economic and financial equilibrium of industry. After the £66,000.000 has been borrowed, there still remains to be found an amount of £94,000,000, or £13 a head of the population. The income tax imposed on incomes up to £1,500 is to remain unaltered; but, in” respect of incomes in excess of £2,500, the tax is to rise very steeply to 16s. Sd. in the £1. I have nothing to say against that. I realize that the Government has to find the money by some means or other to wage the war and that the methods that it uses are entirely its own concern. Whether or not there will be repercussions is the Government’s affair. The people on whom this high rate of tax is imposed will simply have to “ take it”. I presume that they will “take it” and carry on with a smile. I point out that from those people in receipt of incomes in excess of £2,500 per annum the Government, in what I term this conscription of wealth, will receive in taxes only £6,000,000. Wealth is more evenly divided in Australia than in any other country. An enormous amount of income in Australia will not be taxed under this budget; “but I suggest that a considerable proportion of the revenue required by the Government could be drawn from that field without causing serious disability to the people concerned. I shall deal with that aspect later. I propose now to address myself briefly to the Government’s company tax proposals. This tax will operate harshly on many grazing interests which are run as companies. The profits of the grazing industry are not static. It depends for profits upon favorable seasons which are unpredictable. Very often it> happens that graziers will suffer losses for three consecutive years and in the fourth year, owing to favorable seasonal conditions, may show a profit of 20 per cent. From my reading of the budget these grazing companies will be taxed at the rate of:,78’ per” cent! on profit over ‘16 per cent., and at the rate of 6 per cent., rising for every 1 per cent, of profit above 6 per cent, up to 16’ per cent. That rate of tax will make it very difficult for such companies to recover the losses incurred in bad years. It is well known that a grazier in some years will experience losses for perhaps two or three consecutive years but he expects to make up the losses in bad years in his one good year.
– He will not be taxed if he makes losses.
– I am pointing out that in the good year he will be taxed at this exorbitant rate, and will, .therefore, have no opportunity to make up the losses he incurs in had years. That means that the bulk of his profit above 6 per cent, will be taken from him. Thus, over a period of four years he will show an average annual profit of only 1$ per cent. Obviously, in view of the precarious nature of the industry, that is too low a rate of profit, especially as he may be paying 6 per cent, on borrowed money.
After allowing for the revenue to he raised by taxation and borrowings an amount of £7.5,000,000 remains to be raised. Approximately £3,000,000 of that sum is to be raised through the sales tax. As I have already said, that is the Government’s responsibility. However, I have always maintained that the sales tax places an unfair burden upon the family man. After raising £S,000,Q00 by sales tax, the sum of £72,000,000 must still be raised under this budget. It is at this point that- the foundation of this budget differs entirely from that of the Eadden budget. The Fadden budget contained concrete proposals by which it was intended to raise that amount However, this budget is very vague in that respect. This Government has given no indication as to how it will raise that £72,000,000. We are told that it will be forthcoming from loans and credits, al though we have already budgeted to raise £66,000,000 in that way. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has suggested that the people on the lower levels of income will provide it voluntarily through the purchase of war savings certificates or by subscriptions to loans. That is very vague.
We have been given no surety that that amount will be provided. As it is so large a sum, however, definite proposals should be placed before Parliament to show us how’ the Government intends to raise it. I suggest that it could easily be raised out of the increased wages bill which, from figures I have secured, increased in 1941-42 by from £140,000,000 to £150,000,000 above the pre-war -level. That is a huge reservoir of money from which a considerable proportion of this amount of £72,000,000 could be secured. On this point I bring to the notice of honorable senators the following report of a statement made by the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, when speaking at the recent annual federal congress of the Returned Soldiers League held in Brisbane : - “ Wc arc making conditions too profitable for eligible men to enlist,” said the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Forgan Smith, at the opening of the 26th annual Federal congress of the Returned Soldiers’ League. “ There is more money- in circulation in Australia to-day than ever before,” he added. “The whole nation will soon have to be mobilised on a war footing. We must bo as ruthless fis the .enemy.”
The congress unanimously carried n motion urging the Federal Government to conscript all industry, man-.power, and wealth, and use them for the war effort.
That is the view of a Labour, premier. I suggest that the Government might make conditions less profitable for men eligible to enlist whilst, at the same time, providing more money for the soldiers. I hope that the Prime Minister’s expectations that a large proportion of the £72,000,000 will be forthcoming in voluntary contributions. Extension of time granted.’] The country urgently needs money. I hope that the great majority of our people by the end of this year or *by the beginning of next year will have realized how critical our position is, and that it will be brought home to them that they must divert their expenditure on nonessential civil goods to war loan3. In order Jo overcome this difficulty the Fadden Government proposed -to inaugurate a compulsory loans scheme. Personally, I think that that is the only way in which we can obtain revenue from the excess amount of money that is now in circulation. We must realize that we are at war.
In a time of peace industry could be speeded up for the production of additional commodities the purchase of which would absorb that excess spending power and restore general financial equilibrium in the community, but as we are now asking for a curtailment of civil expenditure that money cannot be expended on the purchase of commodities. For that reason I believe that the Government must eventually resort to compulsion by way of additional taxes or forced loans, in order to withdraw that excess amount of money from circulation. Party politics cannot justify a decision not to ask people earning less than £1,500 per year to give more in direct taxation. Portion of the £72,000,000 for which the budget does not provide should be spread in a sliding scale over all wage-earners, including the large group of workers earning under £400 per year, and who earn about 70 per cent, of the total private income of Australia, which amounts to £560,000,000. If the Government had decided to increase taxes on those incomes it would . not only have secured a considerable proportion of the amount it must still raise, but would also have found that the majority of the people concerned would very gladly make a contribution to the national revenue in that way, if only for the reason that all sections of the community were being asked to do likewise
– People with incomes below £1.500 will be given an opportunity to contribute to revenue by buying war savings certificates.
– I am a Yorkshire man which they say is worse than a Scotsman. I should like to have something more definite than that. I believe that when the people of Australia realize our necessity for getting this revenue they will willingly accept, a tax if it be imposed on all sections’ of the community alike.
– But that would not have been the case under the Fadden Government’s compulsory loans scheme because of the differentiation between State taxation rates.
– Yes, but the total taxation in each State would have been the same.
– But the return to each State would not have been the same.
– That is because the Labour governments in certain States would not, agree to the Commonwealth Government’s proposal. Had the Labour governments agreed to the scheme, everything would have been all right. As it was, Mr. Fadden had to do the next best thing, which was compulsory loans. I suggest that the Government should work out what contribution can be made by each individual without inflicting hardship, and that, those contributions be collected by means of a compulsory savings scheme, or directly, by means of taxation. Every Australian who is in receipt of more than what is essential to purchase- the necessaries of life should contribute. Such a scheme would distribute the burden equally over the community. No particular class should be called upon to pay more than any other class. This war is not the special task of any particular section; it is the task of everyone in the community. It requires the co-operation of every man and woman throughout Australia. .Without that co-operation, a 100 per cent, war effort cannot be achieved. The men and women in our fighting services are giving their best in an endeavour to win this war; they are doing their 100 per cent. Until we have the co-operation and wholehearted support of every section of the community, it will be impossible to achieve the maximum effort which this country so urgently requires.
– I have listened with interest to speeches made in the course of this debate, and in connexion with other financial legislation, which has just been passed through this chamber. It seems to me that there is no real opposition to this budget. Senator Cooper, who has just spoken, might easily have been speaking from this side of the chamber. He made a thoughful speech, free from vindictiveness. It seems to me that the feeling underlying the speeches made by some other honorable senators opposite is that the only thing wrong with the budget is the fact that it has been introduced by a Labour Government rather than by a government formed by the parties of which they arc members. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber cannot be blamed entirely for the fact that a Labour Government; is now in occupation of the treasury bench. Since the beginning of the war - in fact since my entry into this chamber four years ago - constant quarrelling has been going on in the United Australia party and the United Country party. The culmination was the defeat of the Fadden Government. Honorable senators have themselves to blame for what has occurred. I arn sure that the people of Australia, will bc disgusted with the present attitude of the Opposition in view of recent happenings. Honorable senators opposite complain of disunity and lack of co-operation, yet in their own ranks Ave see outstanding men occupying back benches. The position is ridiculous. There is no doubt that the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) is head and shoulders above those who were scheming constantly to undermine him, and eventually succeeded in .depriving him of the Prime Ministership of this country. Generally speaking, the people of Australia are pleased that there has been a change of government. There was considerable dissatisfaction throughout the length and breadth of this country with the previous government and the occupation of the treasury bench by the Labour party has been welcomed. Tb( criticism of the Labour Government’s financial proposals offered by the exMinisters was a little vindictive, and served only to strengthen the impression that these gentlemen are disappointed at the impositions which the Government proposes to place on high incomes. Safeguarding the rights of those in receipt of high incomes seems to be their only concern, and this criticism is hardly warranted at a time when this country is fighting for its freedom and, perhaps, for its very existence. When the people of Australia read the remarks of honorable senators opposite, particularly the three ex-Ministers, I am sure that it will be felt that the present Opposition is well qualified to hold that job permanently. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McLeay) complained that the Government was over-taxing, over-borrowing, and using the credit of the nation to too great an extent; but he cannot have it all ways. This budget provides for the raising of an additional £15.000,000 by way of direct taxation. The criticism voiced by the Opposition yesterday in this debate was that large incomes were being unjustly taxed, and to-day, in regard to other financial measures, the complaint was that the Government’s taxation proposals would bear too hard upon the working people. Their attitude is obviously inconsistent. As a matter of fact, the people on low incomes pay a large amount in indirect taxes. For instance, customs and excise duties yield £50,000,000 annually, and the sales tax yields £26,000,000. “ That is a total of £76,000,000, of which at least £50,000,000 is derived from the working people of this country. That is a substantial contribution. Although I am a great believer in direct taxation, the position to-day is such- that the Government has no alternative but to bring down a budget such as this. I am confident that it will appeal to the people of Australia. There has been no real opposition to it in this chamber or in the House of Representatives. I was astounded by the criticism offered by the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that it is not iu harmony with the thoughts which are uppermost in the minds of the people generally. This country is faced with great difficulties, and our first responsibility is to win the war. When I listened to the speeches made by honorable senators opposite, who appeared to be so concerned about individuals in receipt of high incomes, T wondered what our soldiers in Egypt or Tobruk would think if they heard them. They would have been disgusted to think that in times like these such concern could be felt for that small and privileged section of the community.
– What does the honorable senator mean by a high income?
– This Government has not altered the Fadden Government’s taxation proposals in respect of people receiving £1,500 a year or under. Surely that is a large enough income in these times. It is true that to some degree the increased taxation on high incomes will be reflected in industry; but the
Government is faced with the task of improving our Avar effort by every possible means. Our sole aim must be to defeat Hitler and his hordes, which, are menacing the freedom of the people of democratic countries* When honorable senators opposite express so much concern for people on high incomes, they are out of tune with the people generally. Recently, I spent a few days in Sydney and Melbourne, admiring the beautiful homes in the suburbs. It is no exaggeration to say that many of the workers who are doing the real work of this country to-day would be quite happy to live in the garages of some of these palatial residences. Honorable senators opposite would do well to show a little more concern for the working people of this country, who are making the real sacrifices in this war. I should have appreciated also some reference by the former Ministers in this chamber to the effect that the war is having on industry. Many people will be placed in an extremely difficult position because of war repercussions. Obviously, when honorable senators opposite were in occupation of the treasury bench, they were not fully seised of the ramifications of this war and how it affects the people, particularly in Queensland and outback districts of other States. I am disappointed with the attitude of the previous Government in regard to this aspect of the war. I am disappointed at the failure of the previous Government to bring about a policy of decentralization in Queensland in regard to war expenditure. I believe that the present, Government will endeavour to spread that expenditure as much as possible so that the manpower in country centres will not be depleted. Despite Senator Foil’s long parliamentary experience and his ministerial service, he had little to say regarding the new principles embodied in the budget. The only criticism he offered was that a certain person, who, on his recommendation, secured a position at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory, had not done any work there. The only inference to be drawn from the honorable senator’s remark was that there were men in Australia who were willing to “sponge” on the country at a. time when we could ill-afford conduct of that kind. If people were loafing about in Lithgow, it is probably due to a state of affairs brought about to a large degree by the previous Administration.
– Is it not my duty to pass on information of that kind?
– When Labour senators desired to assist a Minister in such a situation, they invariably got into touch with him personally, and in justice to Senator Foll I admit that he invariably dealt with such cases satisfactorily. The matter to which I have referred should not have been brought before the Senate in such a way as to imply that ministerial supervision had been lax.
The budget has been so framed as to distribute the burden of the cost of the war among those members of the community who are best able to bear it, and I consider that the Government has succeeded to a large degree in achieving its objective. It has been blamed for not having ‘ adopted the proposals of the previous Administration regarding compulsory loans and post-war credits. Under the proposals of the previous Government many anomalies were noticed. It was intended to raise the revenue required for war purposes in such a way that while Queenslanders were paying high taxes, people in Victoria would-be receiving interest on war loans. The present Government could not approve of such an unjust, proposal. It has been stated that the Government, has gone too far in relieving the tax burdens on persons on the lower incomes. The Government has appealed to the people generally to spend their money wisely and realize fully that every penny that can be saved is required for war expenditure. I have no doubt that the workers will respond well to the appeal of the present Government to refrain from wasteful expenditure. Most workers place their savings in the savings banks, and thus it, becomes available to the Government through the medium of the war loans. The Government would be well advised to make a special effort to produce a complete understanding on the part of the people of what the Empire is fighting for and what it is fighting against. The previous Government failed in this respect and I hope that the present Administration will use whatever facilities it has at its disposal to create a psychology among the people that will lead to a maximum war effort. I was somewhat concerned when I noticed that the vote for the Department of Information was to be considerably reduced. We might take a leaf out of the book of the enemy and realize the value of propaganda for war purposes.
I urge the Government to take into serious consideration the effect of petrol rationing in Australia. Much more than has been done could be accomplished to assist various industries in this country. The previous Government appointed a committee which made certain recommendations relating to the production of power alcohol, and I hope that the present. Government will pay heed to them. There are no technical difficulties in the way of manufacturing a satisfactory motor spirit from sugar cane, and other primary products. In Brazil the production of sugar is very little greater than that of Australia, yet that country now produces about 70,000,000 gallons of power alcohol annually. The Government of Brazil encourages the development of producer-gas units. Wood or coal is used in these units, eucalyptus trees having been found to provide the best wood for this purpose. On the 16th July last, according to the United States of America journal Business Week, a law was passed in Brazil compelling all owners of ten or more trucks or buses to operate one in every ten vehicles with this fuel, the Government providing the equipment necessary for hundreds of trucks operating in outlying districts where petrol is always scarce.
The Opposition has not advanced any sound reasons why objection should be taken to the increase of the invalid and old-age pensions. There is an abundance of foodstuffs in Australia, and the Government will be called upon to expend thousands of pounds shortly in providing storage accommodation for commodities for which we cannot find a market overseas. Senator James McLachlan was surprised recently when I stated that pensions had been increased only to the extent of half a loaf of bread a day. Therefore I do not anticipate that the honorable senator will offer any serious opposition to the increase. As soon as possible the Government should give favorable consideration to the introduction of a pension for widows, butI realize that all available revenue is now needed in financing the war effort. I feel sure that the budget will receive the endorsement of the people generally, and I urge the Opposition to give to the Government every opportunity to put its policy into effect. I have no doubt that the people of Australia will be quite satisfied with the work of the Labour Administration in bringing about a maximum war effort, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a. later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 627
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.
SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1941.
In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 614).
Bills agreed to and reported without requests or debate; report adopted.
Bills read a third time.
page 627
– by leave - When changes of the sales tax were announced in the budget the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner made an announcement as to the prices adjustments that would be permitted on account of increased sales tax. The terms of that announcement were as follows: -
On sales tax up to and including 10 per cent. retailers would be permitted to add the gross profit margin operating prior to the budget. For goods on which the sales tax is higher than 10 per cent. retailers would be permitted their normal gross profit margin on the first 10 per cent. of the sales tax and thereafter only the actualamount of sales tax. All goods in stock on which sales tax had been paid at the old rates must be sold at current prices. In accordance with the prices regulations retailers are required to keep accurate records showingthe date on which any increases resulting from increased sales tax are brought into operation and the stock position atthat date. These records should be available for inspection by officers of the Prices Branch at any time.
In thecase of proprietary lines affected by the sales tax, it would be necessary for the owners to make application to the Prices Commissioneror to the Deputy Prices Commissioners inthe States before raising their prices on account of increases in the sales tax.
I am further advised by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner that the methods of checking increases of prices made by retailers on account of increased sales tax are as follows : - In the first place, many individual complaints are investigated by officers of the Prices Branch, and this serves to act as a sample inspection of what retailers are doing. In the second place, the Prices Commissioner makes a periodical check of the total gross profit margin being earned by retailers in order to ascertain whether the prices regulations are being observed. Some retailers have already been prosecuted on account of increases of gross profit margins, and there isno large emporium in Australia whose accounts andgross profit margins have not been subject to careful check by officers of the Prices Branch. In the third place, the retail prices of proprietary lines and the margins available to retailers are under strict control.
I remind honorable senators that the sales tax does not apply to the basic foodstuffs entering into the cost of living regimen of the basic wage-earner.
page 623
Motion (by Senator Collings) put -
That so much of Standing Order No. 134 be suspended as would prevent the moving of a. motion, at once, for the rescission of the Orders made by the Senate this clay in connexion with the date fixed for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the following bills:-
Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) . 1941 ;
Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941;
Customs Tariff (Special War Duty) Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941 ;
Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941;
Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Validation Bill (No. 2)1941; and
Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1941.
– There being present an absolute majority of the whole number of members of the Senate, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Senator Collings) put -
That the Orders of the. Senate made this day fixing the resumption of the debate on the following Bills as Orders of the Day for the next day of sitting, be rescinded: -
Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941 ;
Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941;
Customs Tariff (Special War Duty) Validation Bill (No. 2)1941 ;
Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Validation Bill (No. 2) 1941 ;
Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Validation Bill (No. 2)1941; and
Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1941.
– There being at least one-half of the whole number of members of the Senate voting in favour of the motion, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.
page 623
Debate resumed (vide page 615), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 623
Debate resumed (vide page 615), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 623
Debate resumed (vide page 615), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill bo now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 629
Debate resumed (vide page 615), on motion by Senator Keane -
Thatthe bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 629
Debate resumed (vide page 615), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 629
Debate resumed (vide page 616), on motion by Senator Keane -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 629
Department of Information :Censor ship of Speeches in Parliament; Position of Mr. J. Williams.
Motion (by Senator Collings) proposed -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I regret that the Minister for Information (Senator Ashley) is not present, because I take this opportunity to refer to a report published in the Courier-Mail last Wednesday in which he dealt with the censorship of speeches in this Parliament. He referred to the arrangements which I made when I was Minister for Information whereby the Chief Publicity Censor was brought to Canberra for the purpose, not so much of censoring members’ speeches, but of obviating unnecessary “delay in the final release of reports of speeches for publication, in the newspapers.The present Minister has altered that arrangement. He proposes, in conjunction with Mr. President, and Mr. Speaker, to act as censor of speeches delivered in this Parliament. That arrangement may be entirely harmless, but I suggest that it is far better to have a censorship authority divorced altogether from a political atmosphere particularly when speeches delivered in this Parliament are under consideration. I think that deletions from speeches made in this Parliament were made on only two occasions during my term as Minister for Information. Consequently, the chances are that the new machinery set up by the Minister will not be called into operation at all. I am hopeful that that will be the case.. However, it is advisable that the censorship should be entirely dissociated from any form of political influence. Honorable senators are aware that Mr. Bonney, who was previously editor of the Melbourne Argus, has been appointed Chief Publicity Censor.
I think that the Minister in the report to which I have referred did an injustice to Mr. J. Williams, the former Acting Director of the Department of Information, in referring to that gentleman’s association with the department. The Minister said -
I also appreciate that I may have had the benefit of this gentleman’s advice officially if he had not decided to resign the position of Acting-Director immediately after touring the Netherlands East Indies with the former Minister fur Information (SenatorFoll).
The inference to be drawn from that statement is that Mr. Williams merely remained inthe department until such time as he had an opportunity to visit Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies, and on returning from that trip, immediately relinquished his position as Acting Director of Information. That is not the case. The facts arc that as Minister, I was faced with a very serious position in the department by the reason of the fact that the late Mr. Jenkins, whom I appointed with the approval of the Government, as Director of Information, suddenly became seriously ill. He had been Chief Publicity Censor, and in that capacity, over a period of fourteen months, he carried out most difficult work in building up the department. As the result of those labours his health was impaired. Consequently, he took a holiday. Later, he received a medical certificate to the effect that he could resume his duties. He came to Sydney, but I had no opportunity to see him because he was taken ill and entered hospital, where he lay at death’s door for some weeks. Afterwards I was able to get him back to Melbourne, but he failed to make a recovery and died. Mr. Jenkins’ association with the department wasvery sad. Upon his death, I was faced with the difficult position that I had no Chief Publicity Censor, and no Director of Information. Consequently, I requested the board of directors of the Courier-Mail to make Mr. Williams’s services available to the department for a period of three months, in which period I hoped to be able to sort things out and decide upon the form which the administrative side of the department should take. The board of directors of the CourierMail replied that it could not release Mr. Williams to take the job permanently, but would make his services available as Acting Director of Information for a period of three months without cost to the Government. He took up that position in an honorary capacity. At the end of the period of three months, Mr. Jenkins was still alive, but it was not known whether he would recover. Although I was anxious to appoint a permanent director, I decided to refrain from doing so until I knew definitely whether Mr. Jenkins would be able to return to work. Consequently, at my special request, Mr. Williams stayed on with the department for a total period of seven months in a purely honorary capacity. I make itclear that it was at my request, and my request only, that Mr. Williams stayed on. He did not hang on to the job, as might be inferred from the Minister’s statement, inorder to get a trip to the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya. Mr. Williams received an individual invitation to make that trip from the Governments of the Netherlands East Indies and the Straits Settlements, just as I, myself, and individual newspaper editors did. In addition, Mr. Williams was invited in his dual capacity as managing director of the Courier-Mail and as acting head of the Department of Information. It was known at the time that he was unable toremain permanently with the department. On his return from his visit to the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya, he remained with the department for a few weeks, although during that period his executive was getting into difficulty owing to his absence. Subsequently, I was able to secure the services of Mr. Holmes, who, at that time, was head of the National Travel Association, and whom I regarded as possessing excellent qualifications for appointment as head of the Department of Information. With the approval of Cabinet, I appointed him head of the department for the duration of the war, or until the department ceased to exist. Mr. Williams then returned to the CourierMail. Throughout his seven months’ association with the department, he did excellent work, in respect of which he placed not only the Government, but also the nation, in his debt. We are also indebted to his executive for having made his services available. I make these facts clear in case any misunderstanding should arise as theresult of the Minister’s suggestion that Mr. Williams merely stayed with the department in order to avail himself of the opportunity to make a trip to the Netherlands East Indies and Malaya and then immediately left it.
– in reply - I shall see that the honorable senator’s remarks are brought to the notice of the Minister for Information (Senator Ashley).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 November 1941, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1941/19411120_senate_16_169/>.