Senate
27 November 1947

18th Parliament · 1st Session



The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m. and read prayers.

page 2776

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen the report in to-day’s press that butter manufacturers may be permitted to increase the moisture content of butter for local consumption by 2 per cent.? Is there any truth in this report, and if so will the Minister take steps to prevent this daylight robbery?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I have no knowledge of the matter referred to by Senator O’Flaherty but from my experience of those controlling the butter industry, I should not think for a moment that they would permit anything that was not in the best interest of that industry and of the people. However, I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and furnish a reply as soon as possible.

page 2776

QUESTION

STATEMENTS INCITING REVOLUTION

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– In view of the statements that have been made by a Mr. Breheney, of Launceston, at public meetings, inciting revolution in this country, will the Minister acting for the AttorneyGeneral consider what action should be taken to prevent this man or any other Fascists in this country from endeavouring to provoke violence against a government that is acting for the Crown?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– I have not seen the statements referred to by the honorable senator, but if he will provide me with particulars of them I shall have them examined. I can assure him that there is adequate law in this country against the advocacy of revolution, and that drastic penalties are provided for individuals who are found guilty of that type of action.

page 2776

QUESTION

TUBERCULOSIS

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– On Wednesday the 19 th November, Senator Critchley asked the following question:-

Last year, the Australian Government made available to the State governments the sum of £250,000 for the purposes of assisting the dependants of sufferers from, tuberculosis. Can the Minister for Health say whether the various State governments have accepted the grant and, if so, what amount has been applied for by each State?

During the last financial year, the amount of money allocated under section 6 of the Tuberculosis Act was for the period from the 1st January, to the 30th June. For this period, half of the amount of £250,000, namely £125,000, was allocated. The amounts allocated were as follows : -

All States accepted these grants with the exception of Queensland. For the financial year, 1947-48, two States, namely Queensland and Tasmania, have applied for portion of their grants. The remaining States had a balance from the amounts drawn in the previous year, 1946-47, and, no doubt, will apply for their portion of the grant at a later stage.

page 2777

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Newcastle Airport

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Last week I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air ,a question relating to commercial, airport facilities for the City of Newcastle. In his reply, the Minister stated that the existing facilities were inadequate and could not be made adequate for this service. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that 10 miles from Newcastle ‘there is one of the biggest airports in Australia, which would be quite suitable for the needs of the people of Newcastle? Will the Minister give further consideration to this question and have the facilities at this airport examined, with a view to permitting interstate aircraft to pick up and set down passengers there?

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– I undertake to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation, and to recommend that inquiries he made on the lines indicated.

page 2777

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mining MACHINERY

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– In August last, certain companies in the Northern Territory booked shipping space for mining machinery required in the Territory. The machinery was not loaded because, under instructions from Canberra, the space was re-allocated to lighter cargo. Once again space has been booked in Melbourne for this machinery on a vessel leaving that city shortly for Darwin, but I understand that intervention has- again occurred and that other cargo is to be substituted. I am informed that this has been done upon instructions received from Canberra. Will the Minister for Supply and Shipping have a searching investigation made of this matter to ascertain the reason for the change?

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am surprised to be informed that mining machinery has been off-loaded upon instructions from Canberra, because there is no dictation from this city in regard to the despatch of cargo to Darwin or any other part of the Commonwealth. However, I shall have inquiries made. If cargo space reserved for mining machinery has been re-allocated to other cargoes, I can assure the honorable senator that it has been done for good reasons. Probably the change was made so that high-priority commodities such as food could be carried.

Senator O’flaherty:

– Is beer food ?

page 2777

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Senate whether there is any truth in the report published in la3t night’s Sydney Sun that the Minister for External Territories (Mr. Ward) has reported to the Government that the International Labour Organization, as at present constituted, is just an excuse for governments to give joy-rides to loyal supporters? Will the Leader of the Senate ask the Prime Minister to table the report of the Australian delegation before the conclusion of the present sessional period ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The honorable senator’s concluding question is an awkward one and I am unable to answer it offhand. In reply to his question as to whether I am prepared to verify a statement which appeared in the press, I inform that I am never prepared to verify press statements. I do not propose to ask the Prime Minister to table the report of the Australian delegation. How- ever, if the honorable senator desires certain information from the Prime Minister, I shall be pleased to submit his request to the right honorable gentleman.

page 2778

QUESTION

WAGES IN TASMANIA

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– As the Tasmanian Legislative Council has again refused to pass a measure to establish rural wages boards, notwithstanding that the wages of farm labourers in that State are as low as £2 10s. per week, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform me whether the Government is prepared to inserta clause in contracts for the supply of primary produce to government instrumentalities to provide that the rural basic wage must be paid?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture for reply.

page 2778

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator AYLETT:

– In view of the serious inconvenience caused to telephone subscribers in Launceston because of the insufficiency of exchange installations in that city, can the Postmaster-General inform me what steps are being taken to improve the position? Have plans been drawn for the construction of a. telephone exchange at East Launceston to relieve the congestion of traffic, and if so, what progress has been made in its erection ?

Senator CAMERON:
ALP

– I shall make inquiries as to the present position and inform the honorable senator of the result.

page 2778

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DISPOSALS COMMISSION

Mount Chalmers Copper Mine

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that at a Commonwealth Disposals Commission sale at Mount Chalmers copper mine in Queensland last week, equipment which cost £12,000 five years ago was sold for £6,000?

    1. If so, will the Minister ascertain the extent to which the plant in question had been used, what it would cost to buy to-day, and whether, in all the circumstances, a reasonable figure was obtained at the disposals sale?
Senator ASHLEY:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The plant was installed in 1941, and had been in use for some time. As much of the plant was special purpose equipment it is not possible to state its present day cost. Mining interests and industrial concerns throughout Queensland, as well as sugar mills, local authorities, builders, &c., were strongly represented in the crowd of more than 300 which attended the sale. Many of the items were eagerly sought, and where ceiling prices were reached a ballot was taken. Only in the case of items which had restricted use was there little demand. Buyers would be required to dismantle much of the equipment and transport it to other locations, and this factor would have a considerable bearing on prices. Under the circumstances the Commonwealth Disposals Commission considers that the prices obtained were fair and reasonable.

page 2778

QUESTION

PRODUCTION

Joint Committees

Senator COOPER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to statements made by the United Kingdom Information Service that in Great Britain, war-time joint production committees are being revived to provide for the fullest possible interchange of views between employers and the workers’ representatives?
  2. In view of the importance of attaining maximum production in all branches of industry in Australia will the Prime Minister state whether the Government has considered the question of the setting up of similar committees here; if not, will he give urgent consideration to the proposal?
Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

  1. My attention has been drawn by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, to recent announcements that the United Kingdom Government is encouraging the extension of joint production committees in industry.
  2. Such committees are established by direct arrangement between employers and unions, the part played by the Minister of Labour and

National Service in the United Kingdom being merely to facilitate such activity by affording full information and advice to the parties, fu Australia information as to the operation nf joint production committees is available to any employer or union from the Department of Labour and National Service, which will give any advice or assistance required in -establishing and operating such a committee. So far Australian industry has shown little desire for joint production committees. It must be realized that this activity is a matter primarily for joint action between the parties themselves. The Government, through the Department of Labour and National Service, encourages the parties to take this action and assists with ad ice where such is sought.

page 2779

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Treatment of War Widows

Senator TANGNEY:
through Senator Nash

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

In view of the special circumstances of public hospitals, and because of the overcrowding, will the Minister consider treating war wi lows and their dependants in repatriation hospitals where there ave vacant beds and facilities for specialist out-patient and other medical attention, which are difficult to obtain elsewhere?

Senator CAMERON:
ALP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answer : -

The matter of granting treatment to war widows and children of deceased ex-servicemen in repatriation hospitals and out-patient clinics has been under consideration by the Repatriation Commission for some time. Treatment in hospitals can only be provided where beds and hospital staff are available to treat and nurse patients. Treatment of children would require special provision. In general, at the present time the shortage of necessary nursing staff precludes the treatment in repatriation general hospitals of some ex-service personnel for war-caused disabilities, and for the same reason the Repatriation Commission is not in a position to admit war widows and the children of deceased exservicemen to its hospitals for treatment. War widows and the children of deceased exservicemen receive certain medical benefits per medium of friendly societies, and also under an agreement with the British Medical Association. Shortage of essential medical staff also precludes the giving of medical treatment at repatriation out-patient clinics. The Repatriation Commission will keep the matter of medical treatment of war widows and the children of deceased ex-servicemen under review, and will advise me when the availability of adequate staff and other considerations will permit of such treatment being undertaken.

page 2779

QUESTION

BANKING

Statement by Senator Nash : Newspaper Comment.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

- by Leave - When speaking to the motion for the second reading of the Banking Bill, I said - t am reliably informed that Mr. J. H. Fairfax, who is a director of the Sydney Morning Herald, is also chairman of directors of the Bank of New South Wales: that Mr. E. W. Fairfax, another director of that newspaper, is also a director of the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited.

I reveal these facts to honorable senators and to the people of the Commonwealth so that they may know that there is a link between the banking interests and the press of this country.

The following day, the Sydney Morning Herald made passing reference to the above statement, and the editor in a footnote said -

Senator Nash makes false statements which have been repeatedly corrected in our columns. Neither J. H. Fairfax nor Dr. E. W. Fairfax is a director of the Sydney Morning Herald, nor is cither in a position to influence the paper’s policy.

If that is a statement of fact, I accept it. 1. merely .,1… this opportunity to say that I made my statement on reliable authority. The Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems heard evidence on oath at Sydney on its thirtieth day of sitting, on ihe 2nd April. 1936, from Alfred Charles Davidson, general manager of the Bank of New South Wales. At page 360 of the minutes .if evidence, he was asked -

Does your directorate represent different fields of commerce and industry?

To that question, Mr. Davidson replied -

Individual directors do not, in their positions as directors, represent different fields of commerce and industry. That is, they do not sit at board meetings as representatives of particular interests. In constituting the hoard, the general aim is to ensure a wide diversity of knowledge and experience among the directors. The primary consideration, however, is that the individual directors shall be men of sound judgment and ability in practical affairs. The personal qualities of such men naturally result in their services being sought after in other fields, but they cannot be said in any way to represent those fields on the board of the bank.

Mr. Davidson then proceeded to give the names of other directorships held by directors of his bank, and included in the list he submitted was the following: -

  1. H. Fairfax - Australian Mutual Provident Society; John Fairfax and Sons Limited (proprietors of Sydney Morning Herald) (private company) ; Royal Insurance Company Limited (local board).

I make this explanation in justice to myself in order to show that I made my original statement on reliable authority. I believe that I have shown that at the time the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems was conducting its inquiry, Mr. J. H. Fairfax was a director of the Bank of New South Wales.

page 2780

GOLD TAX SUSPENSION BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2710), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · QUEENSLAND · NAT; CP from 1935

– The object of this bill is to suspend the tax imposed upon gold in 1939 as a war measure. It was believed that owing to a sharp rise in the price of gold immediately following the outbreak of the war, a tax could be justifiably levied upon gold production j and it was provided that tax should be imposed at the rate of half the amount by which the price of gold exceeded £9 per fine oz. At present, the price of gold is £9 17s.’ 7½d. per fine oz. Through this tax the gold industry made a very substantial contribution to our war effort. During the eight years it operated, collections totalled approximately £6,000,000, and that contribution was made to Consolidated Revenue when the industry was going through a very difficult period.

In the interests of our war effort, manpower was transferred from the industry to other industries more urgently in need of it. Now that we are again at peace, the industry requires every encouragement to enable it to increase production. The cost of production has risen considerably. Improved machinery of various types is being installed, because during the war low-grade ores were treated by special methods. It is necessary to give some incentive to the industry in order to stimulate production. Another factor to be taken into consideration is that gold plays a very important part in not only our own economy, but also that of the world as a whole. As a matter of fact, at the present time it is playing a large part in assisting, to some extent, to alleviate the shortage of dollars in those countries that are not working on a dollar basis. The countries of the British Empire that are working on a sterling basis need all the dollars they can possibly get, and gold is immediately convertible into dollars. There is no delay in negotiating the sale as there is in the case of other commodities, such as wool and meat. Gold is immediately convertible, and the price at which it can be converted is known. It is not only for the benefit of this country that it is necessary to increase the size of the Empire dollar pool. All honorable senators know, especially those who are engaged in primary production, of the acute shortage in Australia of American machinery. If we are to have the benefit of the improved types of machinery at present being manufactured in America, we must do all we can to produce the goods that will enable us to pay, not only for that machinery, but for the other goods it is so essential we should get from America. In addition, it is necessary to assist Great Britain to emerge successfully from the very critical period through which it is at present passing. The shortage of dollars in the Empire dollar pool makes it very difficult for Great Britain to buy the capital goods required to enable it to increase the export of manufactured goods. It is well known to honorable senators that it is essential for Great Britain to import foodstuffs from other countries, including America, and that i= yet another reason why we should do all that is possible to increase the size of the dollar pool.

Another reason for suspending this gold tax is to obtain increased production. If the gold industry is allowed to make a greater profit on the gold it produces, it will have an incentive to produce more. For the last two years the Opposition has been advocating this method of increasing productive capacity, not only in the gold industry, but in all other industries, and especially in the great manufacturing industries. It really amounts to a reduction of taxation. This tax has, I understand, been yielding approximately £550,000 a year. It is evident that the Government has now realized that a reduction of taxation in our large industries is a means of ensuring an increase in production in the shortest possible time. The Government admits that in all directions revenues are buoyant and have exceeded by many millions the estimate for the year 1946-47. Those higher revenues have not been due to anything the Government has done. On the contrary, it has done much to limit production by destroying all incentive to produce. I hope that this suspension of a tax is the beginning of a general reduction of the taxes which are hampering industrial expansion. The main factor in Australia’s present satisfactory position is the high prices now being received for our export commodities. Wool, wheat, and meat and other exportable products are selling in the world markets at the highest prices in this country’s history. The Labour Government is in no way responsible for those high prices. They are due to the fact that the world is short of goods, especially such primary products as Australia produces in large quantities and of which it has an export surplus. Revenues are so buoyant that substantial reductions of taxes could undoubtedly be made in other directions. It is evident that for some time ahead - twelve months or even longer - high prices for Australian primary products will continue. Surely the time is opportune for the granting of some greater incentive to our secondary industries to produce to the maximum of their capacity. The lag in the production of essential goods,, including building materials, is so great that some years must elapse before the demand can be met.

Senator Sheehan:

– Does the honorable senator attribute that lag to high taxes ?

Senator COOPER:

– I attribute it to high taxes to some degree. The fact that the gold tax is being suspended is evidence that the Government expects that thereby the production of gold will increase. That being so, surely it is logical to say that, if other big secondary industries were given a similar incentive to expand production, they would be stimulated to increase their output of urgently needed essential goods.

There was a time when our warehouses were full, and there was not sufficient money in the hands of the people to enable them to buy such goods. To-day, there is plenty of money in the pockets of the people, but there are not sufficient goods in the warehouses and shops to meet their demands. That is the reason why controls exist. If there were plenty of goods available we could do away with many of the irritating controls which, in the existing circumstances, are necessary. I maintain that an all-round reduction of taxes would greatly stimulate production. I go so far as to say that the suspension of the gold tax is twelve months overdue; the tax could have been suspended a year ago. Had that been done, I have no doubt that the output of gold would have been much greater. That would have enabled Australia to purchase more dollars before the dollar situation became so acute. There is no doubt that the Government was aware of the seriousness of the dollar position twelve months ago, and foresaw the likelihood of the present situation arising.

The gold-mining industry has done much to develop Australia. Much of the settlement which has taken place followed the finding of gold. Men will go anywhere in the hope of obtaining gold. So great is the lure of gold that men will deny themselves the comforts and amenities of the more settled areas and will proceed to places remote from railways and towns, and suffer many privations in order to seek it. These men are explorers as well as pioneers. Whereever gold is found new settlements spring up overnight; and as they develop more and more industries are established, with the result that soon an area which previously was practically uninhabited becomes a fairly closely settled district.

I pay a tribute to the men engaged in the industry for their record, not only during the war years, but also in the years preceding the war. I refer particularly to the lack of disturbances in the goldmining industry. Many miners work under difficult conditions, but they are so interested in their occupation and so anxious to develop the industry that they have a splendid record to their credit.

If the coal-miners had as good a record over the last seven or eight years as that of the men engaged in gold-mining, transport difficulties and shortages of essential materials would not now be holding up the progress of this country.

I emphasize that this bill provides only for the suspension of the tax on gold. That suspension is only temporary and the tax may be re-imposed at any time. It would be better to make the concession permanent, or at least to guarantee that it will continue for a fixed number of years. Gold-mining requires the expenditure of large sums of money in the provision of machinery and equipment. Moreover, such equipment may become obsolete in a few years because of the new professes that are continually being evolved. The knowledge that at any time the gold tax may be re-imposed is no encouragement to those associated with the industry. On the other hand, the granting of a permanent concession would create confidence, and would provide an opportunity to make long-range plans for increased production. I have no opposition to offer to the bill. On the contrary, I am glad that at long last the Government has agreed to reduce the tax on one big industry, because I know that it will encourage increased production. I. support the bill.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– I have pleasure in supporting this bill, the aim of which is to suspend the war-time gold tax. I regret, however, that the Government has not seen its way clear to abolish the tax altogether, a course that.I have urged on previous occasions in this chamber. Abolition of the tax would not involve the sacrifice of any substantial revenue. I understand that it produces only £500,000 a year. I do not know for how long the tax is to be suspended, but, at least, it is a worthwhile concession to the industry. .

The gold-mining industry is vital to the economy of Western Australia, and I believe that there is an obligation, not only upon the Government of that State, but also upon the Australian Government, to assist the industry in every way. Many people engaged in gold-mining would, no doubt, welcome an opportunity to dispose of their product on the open market, instead of being confined to the sterling bloc. When one considers the fabulous prices that are being paid for gold in some parts of the world, this desire is understandable. But consideration must be given to the preservation of the sound economic structure of this country. I believe that control of the sale of gold is essential in order that we may build up our gold reserves. Australia is exporting substantial quantities of gold to the United Kingdom to assist the homeland in its present economic difficulty. If we were to permit Australian produced gold to be sold indiscriminately on the open markets of the world the result would be that, although those engaged in the gold-mining industry would benefit considerably, Australia’s economy might be placed in a rather precarious position by the depletion of its gold reserves.

I believe that the Australian Government is under an obligation, not only to make this concession to the gold-mining industry, but also to foster gold production in every possible way. During the depression years, a gold prospecting scheme was introduced in Western Australia, under which the Government of that State made availaible certain equipment, provided financial assistance, and sent competent, mining men with prospecting parties seeking new fields. I believe that the scheme is still in operation. Whether or not many prospectors are taking advantage of it at present . 1 cannot say, but Ibelieve that further incentive could be given to the production of gold in Western Australia if the Australian Government were to make more financial assistance available to the Government of that State. I point out, too, that, because of the fixed priceof gold in this country, some consideration should be given to the increasing costs of production. For instance, one of the greatest difficulties on the Kalgoorlie goldfields is the provision of fuel. In the past, wood fuel has been used in the industry, but to-day wood has tobe brought from cutting areas as far as 100 miles away from the gold-fields. In addition, difficulty is being experienced in obtaining labour for wood-cutting. So great has this impediment been that representations have been made for the reintroduction of Italian labour. An investigation is now being made of the possibility of using coal instead of wood.

This would involve a haulage of approximately 500 miles from the coal-fields, and, in addition, substantial alterations would have to be made to boilers and other equipment. So, in regard to fuel and labour alone, production costs have risen considerably, and if coal fuel has to be used it may be that Commonwealth assistance will be essential in the interests of the country as a whole. Production of gold is vital to Australia, and to the Empire, in view of present world economic conditions. One of our most serious economic problems to-day is that of securing sufficient American dollars to make necessary purchases in the United States of America. In this country, therefore, there is an urgent need for the discovery and development of new goldfields and for greater all-round production.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) compared the record of those engaged in the gold-mining industry with that of workers in certain other industries. I point out that during the war years labour in the gold-mining industry was depleted by 75 per cent. I do not know whether the full man-power has been restored since the cessation of hos.tilities, but certainly there has been a substantial increase. In fact, I understand that during the hearing of an application before the Arbitration Court in Kalgoorlie for a new award, it was stated that in some gold mines the available labour exceeded requirements. Whether that claim is true, or not, I do not know, but that is the information that has beer given to me, and I place it before the Senate to show that in some instances production costs may be inflated for certain reasons. On the other hand, I have no doubt that there is a need for many employees in the gold-mining industry. Quite a. large amount of gold is being produced in areas other than the main goldfields at Kalgoorlie, and I feel that this Government should give favorable consideration to assisting and developing new fields. The bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be a prelude to the complete abolition of the tax.

Senator O’SULLIVAN (Queensland [3.59]. - I am pleased to support this bill. According to geologists, we still have untold wealth in gold-fields not yet tapped, and, naturally, the more gold that is produced the greater will be our economic strength. Probably nothing could contribute more to the alleviation of the dire consequences of the present dollar shortage than an increase of the production of gold. I believe that the measure should go even farther. The Australian Government could give greater assistance to prospectors and to the State governments to assist the production of gold. I am glad to see that in this measure the Government recognizes the impetus that can be given to production by the reduction of taxes. I trust that the wisdom which prompted this action will find further expression in other taxation remissions and that with reduced taxes greater production will result.

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have much pleasure in supporting this measure because I am confident that it will have a beneficial effect upon the gold-mining industry in Western Australia. It will be of particular benefit to prospectors in outback areas where transport facilities are lacking. One would have to visit these areas to know the difficulties under which prospectors work. The gold tax was imposed during the war, and, of course, those engaged in the gold-mining industry have had to pay other taxes as well. The Leader of the Opposition (Sena tor Cooper) has argued that all industries producing exportable goods should be given taxation relief, but I point out that the goldm in ing industry has had to bear this additional impost since the early war years. As Senator Nash has already pointed out, one of the biggest problems in this industry is the provision of adequate supplies of fuel. That applies not only to Kalgoorlie, but also to parts of the Murchison district and in other areas. The price of fuel is an important factor in the cost of production, but we are hoping that within a few years fuel costs will be reduced to a minimum. During the war, the price of fuel increased by at least 50 per cent. Wages have also risen substantially.

I am pleased indeed that the Government has decided to suspend this tax. It will relieve prospectors of an unnecessary burden and will induce them to extend their activities farther into the outback areas.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I support this bill because it will give an impetus to gold production in Australia. The more gold we can produce the more American dollars we shall have at our disposal, and consequently the more essential commodities such as petrol, machinery, &c, we shall be able to buy.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I regret that I was not present when the debate on this measure commenced. The Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley), who is in charge of the bill, has been called away to a very important conference with the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) in relation to petrol rationing, and he has asked me to take charge of this bill for him. As the Minister’s second-reading speech indicated, the object of this bill is to abrogate the gold tax, particularly in view of the rising costs in the gold-mining industry, and , also the necessity to earn dollars. I appreciate the general support that has been given to the measure. It is as well to remember that the gold-mining industry is not subject to income tax, nor are dividends paid by gold-mining companies subject to this tax. In addition, there is an almost complete exemption from sales tax of plant and capital equipment used in gold-mining, and most other requirements of this industry. As the Senate is probably aware, profit on the sale by a prospector of any mining discovery, is also free of income tax. The gold tax was introduced in 1939 by a government of which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) was a supporter. Senator Nash made some reference to the desirability of the Government providing further financial assistance for Western Australia. The Commonwealth already makes substantial grants in aid to those engaged in gold-mining in the various States; but, apart altogether from that, the Commonwealth makes substantial contributions to State revenues by the payment of tax reimbursement grants, and makes special grants on the recom mendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. However, the Government has become increasingly opposed to the payment of ad hoc grants, and prefers to have regard to the overall position of a State budget before coming to the financial aid of a State in particular matters. I appreciate that the bill has received the general support of the Senate, and I believe that it will afford a stimulus to the production of gold.

The Leader of the Opposition contended that full employment in this country had been brought about by the disbursement of the large revenues received by the Government. However, it is quite clear that the great development which has taken place in industry has been due mainly to the stimulus of war - indeed, it is one of the few beneficial effects of the recent war. Of course, this country was not ravaged by enemy forces, its principal role being that of producer and arsenal for the Allied forces engaged in the South-West Pacific. The preceding Labour Government took full advantage of the position, and the present Government has continued to avail itself of every opportunity presented in the im- mediate aftermath of the war, and Labour is entitled to credit for having seized its opportunities so promptly. During the war, it rightly pursued a policy of decentralizing industry, and that is largely responsible for the high degree of employment to-day.

Members of the Opposition referred to the desirability of making further reductions of taxes in order to stimulate production. In reply to their contention, I point out that the Government has already made substantial reductions on numerous occasions, and will review the taxation position from time to time. One factor which should be borne in mind is that revenue received from customs duties is likely to decline considerably because of overseas conditions and the difficulty caused by dollar deficits. I trust that I have replied to all the points raised in the course of the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Suspension of gold tax).

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I welcome the inclusion of this clause in the measure. When the original measure which imposed the tax was introduced, I resisted it, and I am gratified that the tax is now to be suspended. Its suspension will have a most stimulating effect on the production of gold, and, in particular, it will be of great encouragement to small prospectors. One of the worst features of the gold tax is that it imposes a heavy impost on every one engaged in gold-mining, including small prospectors who spend considerable time before they make a “ strike “. Very often, small prospectors work diligently for as long as twelve months before finding any gold, and the tax which they are called upon to pay does not take into account the fact that they have worked for long periods without earning anything. Because of that, it is most unfair. Suspension of the operation of the tax will result in a saving to gold-miners of 17s. per oz. won, which is a very considerable concession. ,

Despite the stimulus which the suspension of the tax will supply to gold-miners, I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) that it will overcome all the difficulties confronting the industry, of which the greatest are shortage of labour and lack of materials. He contended that the diminution of production of gold was due entirely to the operation of the gold tax, and he asserted that its elimination would overcome all the difficulties confronting the industry. I repeat that I cannot share his optimistic view. Only recently mining companies in Victoria which sought to develop a reef were unable to secure the services of skilled labour to carry out boring operations, and other companies which attempted to carry out similar work without skilled labour have been compelled to discontinue operations. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition constantly contends that the imposition of high taxes is responsible for retarding industry generally. Obviously, that cannot be true, because although companies are called upon to pay tax in accordance with the amount of profit they make, there is no evidence to suggest that they are seeking to diminish their profits in order to avoid payment of tax. In fact, the evidence is all to the contrary. I contend, therefore, that the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition can be dismissed as so much political propaganda.

The gold tax was originally imposed in order to secure additional revenue to prosecute the war, and that reason was fully appreciated by gold miners. However, as the war effort progressed, labour was withdrawn from the mines, and many of them went out of production. If the anti-Labour government which introduced the gold tax intended to paralyze the gold-mining industry, it could not have done so more completely, and it is to the credit of this Government that it proposes to suspend the imposition of the tax. This is but one of the first steps taken to reduce taxes, and as the expenditure which has resulted from war-time commitments diminishes, so will the Government make further reductions of taxes. I support the clause.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2785

WAR-TIME (COMPANY) TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November(vide page 2711), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the billbe now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill proposes to discontinue the operation of the War-time (Company) Tax Assessment Act 1940-41, a measure introduced during the war to levy a tax on war-time profits made by companies, and it links up with another measure. Two years have now elapsed since hostilities ceased, and there is no necessity to continue any further the operation of that act. I support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2786

WAR-TIME (COMPANY) TAX BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2711), on motion by Senator Asw ley -

That the bill Vie now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This measure, and the previous measure, were introduced as war-time legislation in 1939 by the right honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden), who was then Treasurer. Having regard to our experience in World War I., it was foreseen that, as the result of our need to expand production as much as possible in this country for war purposes, it was necessary to prevent companies from making undue profit under such conditions. There is no doubt that the companies which were affected by this legislation readily accepted the tax as part of their contribution to the nation’s war effort. Similar legislation, which was introduced in World War I., did not operate as satisfactorily as was hoped, and the lessons learned on that occasion were applied in this legislation. Consequently, this legislation operated very satisfactorily. We are now in our third year of peace, and no further need exists for this tax. Therefore, I support the passage of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without requests or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2786

STATES GRANTS (TAX REIMBURSEMENT) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2715), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- The basis of this legislation is the uniform income tax system. There is no doubt that since the conclusion of the last war the States have become very dissatisfied with the operation of uniform income tax. Payments made under that system to the States are not grants in the strict sense of the word, because such payments are made to compensate the States from vacating the income tax field. Prior to the introduction of uniform income tax, the States levied their .own income tax. Under this arrangement, the Commonwealth simply reimburses the States for the loss they have suffered in that respect.

Early in the war, the States realized that, in order to achieve victory, this country must marshal all its resources and man-power for a supreme war effort, and they co-operated to the fullest degree with the Commonwealth to enable it to achieve that purpose. As part of the common objective, the States also agreed that the central government should be the sole collector of income tax, and early in 1942 this was arranged by the introduction of uniform income tax. However, the States believed that the central government should be the sole income tax authority only for the duration of the war. That is the catch. The advantages of such a system during the wai1 were obvious, because it gave to the central government complete control of finance, whilst, at the same time, it was the means of releasing substantial manpower urgently required for war purpose’s. In addition, it established equality of income tax rates throughout the Commonwealth. That, in itself, was a great advantage because of the serious disparity between the rates of income tax imposed by the various States. The Commonwealth is now retaining uniform income tax, regardless of the wishes of the States, some of which are seeking to revert to the position obtaining before the introduction of the present system. However, under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has priority in the collection of income tax. That means that taxes imposed by the Commonwealth must first be paid ‘before a State can collect any tax which it might impose in this sphere. The States still have power to levy income tax, but, in view of the present high levels of taxes imposed by the Commonwealth, a State would indeed be foolish to levy income tax on its own account. Another aspect is that any State that did so would be refused reimbursement payments such as ure provided for under this measure, because such payments are now made on the condition that the States refrain from levying income tax. Therefore, the States, whether they like it or not, are forced to accept uniform income tax. Thus they are now subservient to the Commonwealth in the financial sphere.

In addition, the Commonwealth has practically sole power to levy indirect taxes, such as customs and excise duty, sales tax, &c. “With a few minor exceptions, the Commonwealth is in complete control in both the direct and indirect taxation fields. That power gives to the Commonwealth much greater control over the developmental policies of the State governments than it exercised prior to 1942. The relation between the States Hid the Commonwealth in the matter of lean moneys is entirely different from the relation between them in the matter of tax reimbursement. Decisions as to loans are taken by the Loan Council, on which there are representatives of the States and of the Commonwealth. The States are active participants in the decisions taken by that council. They have the opportunity to put their cases fully before it, and to have their applications fully discussed in the presence, not; only of the representatives of the State asking for the loan, but also in the presence of those of the other States. That position is very different from the position in regard to tax reimbursement. Tri the Loan Council they are partners, whereas in the matter of tax reimbursements they are in the position of mendicants.

This is very important in a large and potentially rich State such as Queensland. It will not be disputed that Queensland is capable of immense development, but there is undoubtedly a need for a certain amount of capital to achieve that development. As a State develops and becomes increasingly prosperous, so the revenue derived from taxation increases. As a result, its contributions to the central pool of taxation also increase. Consequently, its tax reimbursement from this pool should be increased and thus provide the further capital necessary for greater development. If a State were taxing on its own account, any increase in its prosperity would result in one of two things. Either it could retain the increased revenue from taxation, or it could give to its taxpayers the benefit of a taxation reduction.

  1. support the suggestion made in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). He suggested that a body similar to the Loan Council, on which each of the States should have full representation, should be set up to deal with uniform taxation, and that that body should be given power to make recommendations in regard to revenue requirements. Those matters could be dealt with before the budget was prepared and presented to Parliament; the allocation of moneys could be considered, as could matters relating to individual taxation. Parliament would then be called upon to decide upon such representations as this uniform taxation council, as it might be called, made from time to time.

After all. uniform taxation was intended in the first place to be only a temporary war measure, and I believe the time has now arrived when the whole position as between the Commonwealth and the States should be reviewed. There is much to be said on one side and on the other, and it would do a great deal of good if the whole matter were reviewed now that we are in the third year of peace.

It is necessary to bear in mind that it is the taxpayers of the different States who provide the revenue. It is true that Australia is a Commonwealth and that the people of Australia in general provide the money, but indirectly it is derived from the taxpayers in each State - and we still have sovereign States in this country. I ask the Minister in charge of the bill, when he is talking’ with the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), to see what, can be done to ensure that the suggestion put forward by the Leader of the Australian Country party is gone into and to ascertain whether some body of the kind suggested can be set up in order fully to review the position.

The bill now before the Senate provides for an increase of £5,000,000. That is undoubtedly due to the buoyant state of the Commonwealth revenue and to the amounts, which are large amounts in many cases, received over and above the estimate for the year 1946-47. I welcome this increase and I have no desire to impede the passage of this bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) is under a misapprehension regarding the genesis of ‘Uniform taxation. In the course of his remarks, he referred to the fact that the States had given up their right to tax in the fields of income and entertainment; he talked about an understanding that was come to between the Commonwealth and the States, and he said they had “ agreed “. Altogether he conveyed the impression that uniform taxation in this country was born of a complete agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, that everybody was in accord about it, and that it should have ceased within one year of the termination of actual hostilities. He left the impression upon the minds of honorable senators that a very unkind Commonwealth was persisting with this particular form of taxation.

I want to put to the honorable senator exactly what are the facts, and to do that it is necessary to go back to March or April of 1942. At that time Australia was in the greatest jeopardy. The Japanese were sweeping down through the islands, the battle of the Coral Sea was about to be fought, and this country was in a most perilous position. In those circumstances, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, convened a meeting of the Premiers of the various States and submitted a proposal that the States should vacate the fields of income and entertainment taxation for the period of the war and for one year thereafter. The point I want to emphasize is that every Premier representing every State entirely rejected that proposal. The proposal of the Prime Minister that this idea of uniform taxation should be limited to the period of the war and for one year after that, by way of agreement, was rejected in its entirety by the States. The Commonwealth was faced with the necessity of marshalling the country’s resources for total war. Having examined the position most rigorously, it found that it could not levy rates that would raise the re sources that were needed. Some States had very high rates on low incomes and low rates on high incomes, and the reverse’ obtained in other States. There simply was not elbow room for the Commonwealth to come in with a taxation measure that would do justice to all classes of the community. When its proposals were completely rejected by all the States, it investigated the position very thoroughly and evolved the present scheme. It considered that the Commonwealth had priority in assessments and it based a uniform taxation scheme on that point. It provided that, although the States could enter into those fields, if they did not they would be reimbursed in accordance with their collections in certain base years. That legislation was passed by this Parliament; and immediately it was attacked in the High Court by five States. That is a perfect demonstration of the fact that there was no agreement in the matter. Four States persevered with the attack, New South Wales dropping out and Tasmania never participating. The result was that a decision was given in favour of the Commonwealth. The High Court held that, not only during war-time, but also under its normal peace-time powers, the Commonwealth could, in levying taxes in those particular fields, give priority to its own assessments beyond those of the States, and moreover that it could reimburse the States under section 96 of the Constitution, which provides for grants to the various States, with or without conditions. The honorable senator will see that the picture he painted to the Senate was entirely erroneous. Uniform taxation was born in conflict with the States and certainly not in agreement with them.

Throughout the war period the reimbursement of the States took place on the basis of certain base years. Those were years when the intake of the States from their various sources of revenue was high, and it is unquestionable that that was of great benefit to them during the war period. Nearly every one of them derived vast financial advantage by reason of the high Commonwealth expenditure on the war; their railways derived the most extraordinary and unaccustomed profits from carrying war materials, troops an<l so on, and most of them built up reserves amounting to millions of pounds. Certainly that was so in the case of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

Senator O’sullivan:

– It was all in Australia.

Senator McKENNA:

– It was all in Australia. I point out that those reserves were built up during the war period.

I come now to the subject of uniform taxation and its reception by the people of this country. I say deliberately that there is no .business man or business section of the community that would revert to the old order under which people were taxed, not on a uniform level throughout the Commonwealth, but according to their geographical ^position as in ‘ one State against another. Every one now pays according to his income. No business man or company, and few wageearners would revert to the old system. Uniform taxation has been the greatest convenience in the taxation field that has ever come to the people of this country. It is certain that the Australian Government will not voluntarily go back to the old system, but that does not mean that the States are forbidden to enter the fields of income tax and entertainments tax. They have the legal right to do so, and always have had it, but a priority is accorded to federal assessments. I concede to the Leader of the Opposition that it would be practically and politically impossible for State governments to levy taxes in the income tax field in view of the nature of the Commonwealth assess^ ments. I am prepared to say that only State governments are opposed to the uniform tax, and I assure the Opposition that the abolition of the uniform tax system would be an unpopular issue on which to appeal to the country.

Senator Cooper:

– I did not say that I was against uniform taxation, but I did ask that the States should be given a chance to review its operation.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall tell the honorable senator the history of this matter. The question of reimbursement was taken up with the States in January, 1946, at a conference of Premiers. I attended that conference and, therefore, am familiar with the details of what transpired. On that occasion an agree. ment was reached whereby the total reimbursement to the States was increased from £34,250,000 to £40,000,000, an increase of £5,750,000. Agreement was reached between the Commonwealth and States as to the basis upon which that sum should be allocated between the various States. A formula was then evolved, which it was agreed should stand for seven years. It was decided that £40,000,000 should be the sum to be paid to the States in each of the years 1946-47 and 1947-4S. There was to have been no change Until after the 30th June, 194S. But despite that arrangement and the high measure of agreement reached at the conference in 1946, the States have been clamant for an increased grant. I concede immediately that there has been ground for their request.

Senator Cooper:

– It was based on the increased revenue in the hands of the Commonwealth.

Senator McKENNA:

– One of the grounds for the request is the rising costs which the States have to bear in many directions. It is true that there have been increasing revenues in the hands of the Commonwealth, but there have also been substantial reductions of taxes. The main reasons for the claim of the States for increased grants are rising costs, the incidence of the 40:hour week, and other factors, particularly in the field of industry. The Commonwealth might well have stayed fixed on the pact entered into for seven years. The formula provided that after the 30th June, 1948, the total amount df £40,000,000 should be increased on the basis of two factors, first, an increase of population and, secondly, an increase of the national income. There was a good deal of resiliency about the formula. In the light of certain circumstances which have since developed, and under pressure from the States, the Australian Government has agreed to increase the amount prematurely according to the formula agreed to so recently. As this measure indicates, the Australian Government is to provide a further £5,000,000 to the States. I am not prepared to say that the States are satisfied with that. Indeed, I believe that I should be right in saying that they would not he satisfied under any conditions. I am of the opinion, however, that the extra £5,000,000 gives a fair measure of justice to the States in existing circumstances. I am also prepared to acknowledge that the financial relations of the Commonwealth and the States is a difficult and complex field. It is a field in which I believe (hat it is impossible to evolve any fixed formula, because circumstances change from year to year. I fear that so long as there is a federation, with the Commonwealth and States, it will be an ad hoc problem to be looked at from time to time. I am not sure what the solution should be, although I have given a great deal of thought to the matter, as has also the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley). All persons who are concerned with the preservation of the federal system are gravely concerned with this question. I do not think that the Loan Council is the proper body to consider a matter of this nature, because it involves too much consideration of statistics covering a long period.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It is a matter for consideration by an interstate commission.

Senator McKENNA:

– “We already have in the Commonwealth Grants Commission an expert body which is doing a thorough job in connexion with the finances of the Commonwealth and the States. But that body has certain legal disabilities. It has no power to investigate the finances of non-claimant ‘States.

I regret that I have taken so long in my dissertation but I was impelled to do so by reason of the presentation of the case for the Opposition that uniform taxation was a matter of agreement between the Common weal fh and the States. The Leader of the Opposition did not say that the clamour in some quarters went so far as to charge the Australian Government with a breach of faith in continuing uniform taxation after the war had ended. I point out that the States lost their chance of agreement when they rejected the offer of the Australian Government in Australia’s greatest emergency in 1942. The Leader of the Opposition has not told us that. I conceived it to be well worth while to mention this matter because of the publicity that had been given to it. I am glad that the bill has the support of the Leader of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2790

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2716), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This is a machinery measure which provides, in part, for the extension of the zoning allowance system to Australian servicemen in Japan, a feature which I am pleased to see incorporated. The bill also makes certain amendments in relation to the tax instalment system. I have no desire to delay its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2790

PARLIAMENTARY ALLOWANCES BILL (No. 2) 1947

Second Reading*

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2716), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

.- This bill has been brought forward chiefly to bring into conformity with other allowances the allowance payable to the Leader of the third party in the House of Representatives. The third party, of course, is the Australian Country party. It is pleasing that the Government has decided to recognize the work that is involved in carrying out the duties of leader of that party.

Honorable senators will all agree with this provision. Whilst I am sure that the present Leader of the Australian Country party in the House of Representatives (Mr. Fadden) has carried out his duties without any expectation of any additional remuneration, I am glad that the Government, in its wisdom, has decided to show the appreciation of the Parliament of the work that the right honorable gentleman is performing. 1 heartily support the bill.

Question resolved in. the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2791

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1947

Second Reading

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to bring the provisions for control of patriotic funds under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. The existing provisions are the National Security (Patriotic Funds) Regulations under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act. The main activities of the funds are diminishing, and many have already been wound up, but others are continuing their ordinary operations, and will eventually go through the winding-up stage. Altogether, it is probable that, in some form or another, activities will continue for some time yet. It is therefore desirable that the provisions be removed from the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act. They are administered by the Minister for Repatriation and the Repatriation Commission, and the logical place for the provisions is in the repatriation legislation. The bill inserts a section in the Repatriation Act to enable the Governor-General to make the necessary regulations under that act. The existing National Security (Patriotic Funds) Regulations will be repealed, and the new regulations in the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Regulations will be on the same lines as those under which control has been exercised hu till now.

The response of the community to patriotic appeals was generous. Activities of patriotic funds were considerable as regards both magnitude and variety of purposes, and it will be of interest to honorable senators to give a brief account of the parts played by the funds and by the authorities under the controlling legislation. With the large number of interests eager to promote patriotic funds, it was advisable that there be a measure of control to ensure that the purpose of each fund was clearly defined; that the programmes of different bodies did not unduly overlap; that main appeals were reasonably spaced; and that all observed proper accounting systems. The legislation therefore provided that patriotic funds could be established for the purpose of providing comforts or financial or other assistance for - (a) members of the defence force or their families or dependants; (b) members of the forces of other dominions or of any allied country; or (c) Avar victims.

That was, in effect, the basic provision ; the other provisions then were directed to the appointment of patriotic funds boards in each State or territory of the Commonwealth, with power to grant approvals to applications; to establish patriotic funds; to give directions, where necessary, as to the management of the fund, the manner of obtaining subscriptions or contributions, the method of accounting, the furnishing of returns and balance-sheets at appropriate times; and for the Governor-General - later changed to the Repatriation Commission - to give directions as to winding up the affairs of a fund when desirable that it be wound up. The legislation was drawn up immediately after the outbreak of war. The States were informed in the matter, and. subsequently, the proposals were discussed at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers at Canberra in November, 1939. Complete control by the Commonwealth was opposed by some States, as they already had appropriate legislation to cover the position and considered that such legislation should be permitted to function freely. Further consideration was given to the matter, and an arrangement, which I shall explain, was agreed upon, for division of responsibility based on the extent of operation of the various classes of funds.

Funds are of the character of one or other of the following classes : -

  1. Australia wide, or operating in more than one State.
  2. Operating in a territory or territories of the Commonwealth.
  3. Operating solely within one State.

The legislation included a provision to the effect that where a State had satisfactory legislation to cover the requirements, the Governor-General may exempt funds of class C from the provisions of the Commonwealth legislation other than those directed to winding up, and may exempt the “ operations “ of any branch in the State of a fund of class A, i.e., operations as distinct from establishment of the fund and winding up. In five States such exemptions were approved. In Tasmania and in each of the territories - except Norfolk Island, which has a suitable ordinance - the Commonwealth exercises control over all funds, and also conducts the necessary administration with the parent bodies of funds of class A. The whole matter has been administered on that basis, with satisfactory results. That basis will be continued, and just to make the position quite clear I should explain that funds registered under the law of a State and which have been exempted from Commonwealth control in respect of their ordinary operations will not be interfered with in regard to those ordinary operations. However, all along the provisions have been that the Commonwealth must assume responsibility in the stage of winding-up of any fund, whether under Commonwealth law or State law.

Most of the patriotic funds bodies responsible directly to the Commonwealthhave co-operated wholeheartedly with the commission, and it can be said that they have accomplished with credit the work which they set out “to do. A total of £204,444,403 has been collected.; of this sum £15,684,189 was expended for the purposes for which the funds were established and £533,198 on administration. The last-mentioned sum represents only 3.399 per cent. of that expended for the purpose for which the funds were established. This is considered very satisfactory. Sums totalling £395,269 have been invested in Commonwealth bonds, &c., and the total bank balances as at the end of December, 1946, amounted to £3,831,747.

Many of the funds have already been wound up and others are in process of being wound up, but funds such as the Australian Bed Cross Society, the Royal Australian Naval Belief Fund, and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Fund will continue to function indefinitely. Continuance of the Red Cross Fund is understandable, as it is well known that it carries on its charitable work both in peace and war. As regards the other two funds, it should perhaps be explained that the Royal Australian Naval Relief Fund was established in 1913, its objects being to assist financially members of the Royal Australian Navy and their dependants who find themselves in straitened circumstances. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Fund, although established during the war years, has similar objects. There is also another fund which will continue indefinitely, the Gowrie Scholarship Trust Fund. This fund was established to perpetuate the memory of the only son of Lord and Lady Gowrie. The purpose of the fund is to provide scholarships at all Australian universities for Australian soldiers and their children. Even with funds which have not the long range purpose of those mentioned, the policy is to permit them to carry out ordinary operations for a reasonable time yet, if the particular purpose for which they were established warrants continuance, and not unduly hurry them to wind up their affairs. The work in connexion with the funds is proceeding satisfactorily, but, as I explained earlier in my speech, it is more satisfactory in every way that they now be covered under the Repatriation legislation, rather than the Defence (Transitional Provisions) legislation. I therefore commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 2792

STATES GRANTS BILL (No. 2) 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South. Wales · ALP

.- I move-

Tha.t the bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the payment during 1947-4S of special grants aggregating £5,042,000 to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Payment of those grants has been recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its fourteenth report, which wa3 tabled recently.

The commission recommended that special grants aggregating £6,050,000 be paid to the claimant States in 1947-4S, but added that these recommendations were made on the assumption that the amount of tax reimbursement to the States, £40,000,000, and the shares of this amount allotted to the claimant States, remain unchanged in 1947-48. The commission stipulated that in the event of any claimant State receiving more or less by way of tax reimbursement in 1947-48 than it received in 1946-47, the commission’s recommendation should be adjusted by the amount of such increase or reduction. In this connexion the Government has proposed legislation to authorize the payment to the States of an additional tax reimbursement grant of £5,000,000 in 1947-48 under the uniform tax plan. Of this amount, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania will receive £432,000, £423,000 and £153,000, respectively. In accordance with the recommendation of the commission those amounts must be deducted in order to arrive at the special grants which the commission considers should be paid this year. On this basis, the special grants recommended by the commission for payment in 1947-48 compare with those actually paid last year as follows : -

In calculating the grants the commission has each year adopted the principle of financial needs as being the most suitable and practicable guide. This principle was expressed by the commission in the following terms: -

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

In applying this principle, the commission adopts certain standards which are derived mainly from the financial position and practices of the non-claimant States.

This year, as in the last six years, the commission has adopted a balanced budget standard for purposes of arriving at the first approximation to the grant to be recommended. Adjustments to the grant so calculated have then been made to take into account the relative severity of taxation in the claimant States, and the relative liberality of their services, as compared with those provided in the budgets of the States not receiving special grants from the Commonwealth. Because the audited results of the States’ budgets on which the commission bases its calculations are not available for some time after the close of the financial year, the grants recommended by the commission for 1947-48 are based, in. the first instance, on the budget results of the States in 1945-46. The grants so calculated, which are referred to as assessed grants, are calculated as being the amounts which would have been required to give the claimant States a balanced budget in 1945-46, provided that their revenues and expenditures conformed to the standards adopted by the commission.

One unavoidable consequence of this procedure is that by the time an “ assessed grant,” is received it may, especially in a period of rapid change, be greater or less than the current indispensable needs of the State. To meet this position the commission adopts the principle of deferring part of the “ assessed grant “, or of adding an amount to the “ assessed grant “. The commission considers that a deterioration has occurred in the finances of each of the claimant States in the current year as compared with 1945-46, and has therefore recommended that an amount additional to the assessed grant he paid to each State. This year these additional amounts, which are regarded by the commission as advances upon the grants to be assessed in due course in respect of 1947-4S, aggregate £1,404,000, and are included in the total of £5,042,000 which, as I have already mentioned, the Grants Commission recommends should be paid this year.

The Government has carefully considered the fourteenth report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and has accepted the commission’s recommendations. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 2794

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1947

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2794

BANKING BILL 1947

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 2794

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BELL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2712), on motion by Senator Courtice -

That the hill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill is a machinery measure which seeks to continue the operation of certain regulations made, under the Trading With the Enemy Act 1939-1940. The original act was introduced on the outbreak of World War II., and is similar to the one enacted in 1914. Undoubtedly, it is necessary during war-time to safeguard the national interest by enacting a measure such as this, and the measure contains a provision that it shall cease to operate after the Governor-General has proclaimed that a state of war no longer exists.

The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Courtice) has intimated that certain regulations made under the Trad ing With the Enemy Act 1939-1940 must be continued until a’H property which passed into the control’ of the Commonwealth by reason of that measure has been disposed of in accordance with peace treaties, or other inter-governmental agreements. Many problems are involved in the disposition of enemy property, and the de-control, realization or liquidation of assets is likely to take a considerable time. The Government does not consider it appropriate to continue the regulations made under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946, but in view of the natural association between the prevention of trade with the enemy and control of enemy assets, it has been decided that Ihe regulations should be continued by re-enacting them, as from the 1st January, 1948. under the authority of the Trading With the Enemy Act 1939-1940.

No doubt the Government has thoroughly examined the position in regard to the disposal of enemy property, and for that reason the Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 - (.1.) After section fifteen of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “ 15a. - (1.) The National Security (Enemy Property) Regulations as in force immediately prior to the commencement of this section shall, subject to this section, be in force by virtue of this section. “ (2.) The regulations in force by virtue of this section -

  1. shall be amended by inserting in the definition of ‘ the previous Regulations ‘, after the word ‘ amended ‘, the words ‘ or under the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1940’; and

    1. may be amended or repealed by regulations made under this Act.
Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

. -I move -

That, after sub-section (2.) of proposed section 15a, the following sub-sections be inserted : - “ (3.) The power to amend the regulations in force by virtue of this section shall include the power to make such amendments as are necessary or convenient for carrying out or giving effect to Article six of the Agreement on Reparation from Germany, on the Establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparation Agency and on the Restitution of Monetary Gold, the terms of which agreement were recommended for signatureby the Paris Conference on Reparation, which concluded its meeting on the twenty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and forty-five, and to which Agreement Australia is a party. (4.) Regulations made by virtue of the last preceding sub-section mayprovide for -

vesting property in any person or authority or “enabling any person or authority to deal with, and transfer the title to, property;

conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter arising under the regulations;

defining the jurisdiction of any federal court, other than the High Court, with respect to any matter arising under the regulations; and

investing any court of a State with federal jurisdiction with respect to any matter arising under the regulations.”.

It willbe apparent that the necessity for the proposed new sub-sections arises in respect of reparations, principally from Germany.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2795

MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the salaries of Ministers of State. The Constitution made a temporary provision of £12,000 per annum for a maximum of seven Ministers, and left the way open for Parliament to make increased provision both as regards the number of

Ministers and the appropriation. On five separate occasions, increases have been made because of increased responsibility. The last occasion was in 1941, when the number of Ministers of State was increased from eleven to nineteen and the appropriation to £21,250. Prior to 1941, it was the practice to have assistant Ministers. There were about five assistant Ministers at the time and, thereafter, they were ranked as Ministers of State. That change was made at the instance of the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Menzies), who was the then Prime Minister.

Whereas the provision made in the Constitution 47 years ago represented an average of, approximately, £1,710 for each Minister, under subsequent provisions from time to time the average has not only not increased in keeping with rising costs, but also has actually been less than under the original provision. In 1941, the average was £1,120, and there has been no increase in the meantime. The whole of the appropriation for Ministers of State is not divided amongst Ministers. A proportion is paid to the Cabinet Fund to meet the expenses of Cabinet, and these expenses have naturally increased. The increasing responsibilities of Ministers, the many additional calls on their financial resources and the rising costs justify, in the opinion of the Government, some addition to the salaries provision. The bill proposes to increase the appropriation from £21,250 to £27,650. This increase of £6,400 a year is fully justified by present conditions. It is not large, and will represent only a partial adjustment of the decrease in the average remuneration which has been apparent for many years.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 2795

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South “Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill is to grant an increase of the rate of travelling allowance payable to members of the Commonwealth. Public Works Committee, and to permit. the members of the committee to travel by air. While travelling in the course of their duties, members of this committee are granted under the principal act an allowance of £1 a day for expenses. This rate was determined in 1913. The bill proposes to increase this amount to £1 5s. a day to meet present costs. This rate, however, will be reduced 75 per cent, for the period of a journey during which the travel fare paid provides subsistence.

When the principal act was passed in 1913, provision was made for the payment of the cost of conveyance on land other than by rail, travel by rail being provided by each senator’s gold pass. In view of the increasing amount of work being thrown upon the committee, it is now deemed to be desirable to permit, at times, travel by air. Accordingly, the limitation on the method of travel is being removed. The principal act ‘restricts the annua! expenditure of the committee to £2,000. To meet the increase in the travelling allowance and the cost of travel by air, the amount appropriated is being increased to £3,500 per annum.

Debate (on motion by Senator COOPER’ adjourned.

page 2796

ROYAL .STYLE AND TITLES BILL (AUSTRALIA) 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for an alteration in the royal style and titles consequent on the change effected under the India Independence Act 1947 of the United Kingdom. Under an amending royal proclamation dated the 13th May, 1927, a copy of which is published in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. 71, of the 30th June, .1927, the royal style and titles were as follows: -

George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

It is the practice to prescribe the royal style and titles in both the Latin and English tongues. The bill now before the Senate provides for the omission from the Latin version of the words Indiae Imperator “ and from the English version of the words “ Emperor of India “. As set out in the bill, the Parliament of the United Kingdom included a provision in the India Independence Act 1947 providing for this change in the royal style and titles. The Australian Government, in reply to a cablegram from the United Kingdom Government in June last referring to the position which had arisen and the action proposed so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, indicated that it did not object to the proposed change of title, but that it would be some time before the appropriate legislation could be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. Advice was subsequently received from the United Kingdom Government that pending the passing of the necessary legislation in the other British Commonwealth countries it was considered that the proper course was to defer the issue of a formal royal proclamation bringing the change into effect. His Majesty the King, however, approved a proposal that for all official documents issued in respect of the United Kingdom after the 15th August, 1947, i.e., the day on which the new Dominions of India and Pakistan were established, the words “ Emperor of India “ should be omitted and that the King’s signature should be “ G.R.” and not “ G.R.I.”.

Information received by the Australian Government indicates that the necessary legislation has been passed ‘by the Canadian and New Zealand Parliaments, and that in the case of South Africa an appropriate bill will be introduced during the next session of the Parliament. It is proposed that the date on which the omissions shall become effective shall be notified by the Prime Minister by notice published in the Commonwealth Gazette. This notification will be given after consultation with the Governments of the United Kingdom and the other Dominions. I commend the bill to the Senate for its acceptance.

Debate (on motion by Senator Coober) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.5S to S p.m.

page 2797

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported : -

Banking Bill 1047. Gold Tax Suspension Bill 1947. War-time (Company) Tax Assessment Bill l!)47.

War-time (Company) Tax Bill 1!)47.

page 2797

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1947

Second READING

Debate resumed from the 26th November (vide page 2713), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This bill deals with certain amendments of the sales tax, and provides for a reduction of the rate of tax from 25 per cent, to 10 per cent, on a number of articles, many of which may be regarded as unimportant in that they have little effect on the cost of living. Owing to the great number of bills passing through the Senate I have not had a great deal of time to study the details of this measure, but I notice among the items on which the sales tax is to be reduced is paint. I commend the Government on that reduction, because paint is an important commodity, especially in a State like Queensland where so many timber houses exist. As honorable senators know, timber dwellings must be painted at regular intervals if they are to be maintained in a state of good repair. There are other items in this category, and the reduction of the tax on them will be appreciated.

The time has come for a general overhaul of the sales tax with a view to its removal from a great many additional items. The tax was first imposed during the depression years as a means of raising revenue. The first act was copied from legislation in operation in Canada. In the first year in which that legislation operated the yield from sales tax was £2,000,000. Although non-Labour governments succeeded the Government which introduced the sales tax, they did not repeal it. During the war there was some justification for the retention of the tax, but now that all revenues are so buoyant the time has come for a review of the policy in relation to this impost. Front, a yield of £2,000,000 a year the- receipts from sales tax have increased progressively, until during 1946-47, the latest year for which statistics are available, the Treasury collected £36,000,000 from this source. For a number of years, the receipts from sales tax have exceeded the estimate by a considerable sum.

Sales tax bears particularly heavily on the family man, from whose income purchases for himself and his family have to be made. Men in the lower income groups find the tax oppressive, and therefore every effort should be made to relieve them of this burden. The incidence of the tax on country residents is in the nature of an additional penalty for not living in the large centres of population. I have not had time to analyse the bill in order to ascertain what classes of goods are still subject to this tax, but I notice that wireless valves and batteries for radio sets are still subject to sales tax at a high rate. The tax on these items may not affect city dwellers to any degree, but it does affect people living in country districts. People living on farms and stations cannot attend picture shows and other entertainments as easily as city dwellers, and therefore they must rely more on broadcast programmes for their entertainment. They should be granted some relief from this tax. I had thought, too, that the sales tax on domestic refrigerators would be abolished because a refrigerator is a necessity, not a luxury, in the northern parts of Australia and other areas where high temperatures prevail for most of the year. Unfortunately, refrigerators are so costly that they seem to be in the luxury class, but they are a necessity and, therefore, should be available to those who need them without the imposition of an unnecessarily high tax.

Not many years ago, when Labour was in opposition, members of the Labour party spoke of the day when every home would have as a part of its regular equipment a refrigerator, a radio receiving set and a hot-water system. How far short of that ideal we have come is made plain to any person who inspects the homes now being built. Even at double pre-war prices, the houses now being built do not include these amenities.

City dwellers who have the benefits of electric light and gas, and perhaps coal also, for lighting and heating may not appreciate the difficulties of people living in country districts who must rely on wood for fuel. As large quantities of wood have to be cut, many persons living in country districts have purchased small saw benches to cut the wood needed in their homes. Had the Government given more careful consideration to the items on which the sales tax is to be reduced, it would have had regard to the needs of these most deserving people, and removed the sales tax on saws and other items which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as luxury items. I regret that I have not had the time to study the details of this measure as they deserve, but I urge on the Government the necessity to reduce the sales tax on such articles as refrigerators, so that they may bc made available at the lowest possible price. It must be remembered the more costly the article- the greater is the sales tax payable on it. I also draw the attention of the Minister to the unfair method of assessing sales tax. Again I refer specifically to people living far from the capital cities and the sources of manufacture, particularly of household and farm equipment. It is most inequitable that, in addition to paying the original cost of an article, these people have also to pay freight, and then, on top of that, there is the sales tax, which is levied not only on the original cost, but also on the freight. That is imposing a heavy penalty on people who have done much for this country, and are enduring living conditions far less congenial than those enjoyed by most city dwellers. The freight factor has been mentioned many times in this chamber, but nothing has been done. The principle of charging sales tax on freight cannot be justified.

I shall be pleased if the Minister will give earnest consideration to the representations that I have made.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I find that the schedule to this measure makes no provision for the exemption of sales tax on hand tools of trade. I realize, of course, that these implements are often used by individuals other than tradesmen, but the imposition of sales tax upon tools that tradesmen require to earn their living is unjust. I should like to know whether the Government intends to exempt these articles from this impost-

Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I welcome these sales tax reductions. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) apparently is rather concerned about the reduction of sales tax on refrigerators. I point out that, if the manufacturers could reduce the price of refrigerators to levels that would bring them within the means of the working man, the sales tax would be reduced automatically. The price of a household refrigerator to-day varies from £S0 to £150. Anybody who can pay that much for a refrigerator can also well afford to pay sales tax.

I agree with Senator O’Flaherty that tools of trade should be exempt from sales tax, and I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter. I trust, also, that the Prices Commissioner will take adequate steps to ensure that the sales tax reduction shall be passed on to the public.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– Whilst I welcome the sales tax reductions proposed in this measure, I should like to emphasize to the Government the need for the abolition or reduction of this tax on domestic articles that make the work of the housewife easier and more congenial, particularly in country areas. -Women who reside in remote parts of this continent have to contend with many difficulties. In almost all industries, commendable action is being taken to make the lot of the worker easier, but I point out that the housewives of this country have scarcely anybody to fight for the betterment of their working conditions and for the provision of amenities. The fullest consideration should be given to every means of making their task more pleasurable. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) has mentioned refrigerators. That is a matter in which I am most interested. There is an urgent need for refrigeration in the vast outback areas of Queensland, and, no doubt, in the country districts of the other States. In these regions, refrigerators are not luxuries; they are necessities for the well-being of families and particularly for the care of children. For that reason they should be available at the lowest possible cost, and a step toward this end would .be complete exemption, from the sales tax.

I find also that whilst fittings for water tanks and other similar articles are exempt from, the sales tax, there is no exemption for parts and fittings for hot water systems. Just as refrigerators are necessities in hot climates, so in the colder regions of this continent hot water systems cannot be regarded as luxuries. I appeal to the Government to review these items with a view to reducing or eliminating completely the sales tax on them. We want more people in our sparsely populated country districts. We want to combat the drifts to the cities. We can only do these things by making living conditions in the outback better, easier, and happier. In approving of the concessions provided in this measure, therefore, I again emphasize the desirability of removing this impost, from essential household articles.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– I subscribe generally to the principle of the sales tax. It is probably one of the fairest of our taxes, because the person who spends the most money pays the most tax. Generally speaking, that means that those best able to pay do, in fact, pay the most. However, I should like to see a lessening of the rigidity of the application of the principle of the sales tax, because what may be a luxury in certain circumstances, may be essential under other conditions. Many articles which ease the drudgery of housekeeping may now be regarded as absolute necessities. The incidence of the sales tax tends, quite rightly, to curb expenditure on luxuries. It penalizes people who spend money in the purchase of luxury goods. But many articles that may be regarded as luxuries in the cities are absolute necessities in country districts, and I urge upon the Government the desirability of giving a more generous interpretation to the word “luxury”, by vesting in the prices authorities or officers of the taxa-tion branch discretion to determine whether or not, in individual circumstances, goods are luxuries or necessities, and assessing the sales tax accordingly. If it can be shown that a particular article, having regard to the circumstances in which it is to bo used, is not a luxury, but a necessity, then either a lower rate of tax should apply or the tax should be eliminated altogether.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Government is to be commended upon this measure, which reflects its desire to reduce indirect taxes wherever possible. I challenge .Senator O’Sull van’s statement that the sales tax is a fair impost. Any tax that is imposed upon articles regardless of the ability of the people to buy them is a bad tax. The sales tax to-day is levied upon many commodities that every member of the community must buy. The Government, realizing that, is endeavouring to reduce this form of indirect taxation wherever possible. I have the greatest sympathy for country residents, and I have endeavoured wherever possible to obtainamenities, including .refrigerators, for” them. The demand for refrigerators, however, greatly exceeds the supply. Just prior to leaving Perth to attend the present sittings of the Parliament, I rang Dalgety and Company in an endeavour to get a kerosene refrigerator for a person living in the country. I was. informed that there were 500 names on the waiting list for kerosene refrigerators. For electric refrigerators the waiting list is even greater. In any case the price of all refrigerators is excessive. I remind the Senate that shortly after the end of the war, the Labour Government sought from the people, by referendum, power to alter the Constitution to allow the Government to engage in industry, thereby utilizing the huge Government plant provided for war production in supplying peace-time requirements which were badly needed as a result of war. It was desired that the manufacture of household necessities, including specifically refrigerators, should be undertaken on a large scale. It was hoped that the price of refrigerators could be reduced to such a degree that they would be within the means of an ordinary family man. Now, members of the Opposition in this chamber are talking as they should have talked when the Government placed its proposals before the people. At that time, however, the Opposition parties fought the proposals and succeeded in defeating them. To-day, private enterprise is doing as much as it is able, but it cannot meet the situation.

It will be found that the sales tax exemptions and reductions provided for in this measure are largely in respect of articles that .ire within the means of most people in the community. The bill is a manifestation of the Government’s desire to lighten the burden of indirect taxation. I support the plea made by Senators O’Flaherty and Harris that the sales tax «n hand tools of trade should be reduced, i not abolished. I realize that the term hand tools of trade “ covers a very large number of items, and I note the assurance conveyed to us that the Prime Minister will consider this matter when a demarcation is made. Although I believe that the Government is following a proper policy in regard to sales tax, it should reduce sales tax on as large a number of items as possible. - .

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I support the Government’s proposal to reduce sales tax and to apply the exemptions mentioned in the bill. Although the bill proposes to reduce the sales tax payable on fish paste and other preparations manufactured from fish in Australia, it contains no indication that sales tax is to be reduced on materials such as fishing linos, nets, hooks and other gear used to catch fish. In the State of Tasmania we are endeavouring to build up a fishing industry, and plant for the refrigeration and treatment of fish has been imported at great cost. A large number of ex-servicemen who have been specially trained for the fishing industry at reconstruction training courses have entered the industry. Because of the necessity for encouraging the development of the industry, I think that the Government should consider reducing, if not removing entirely, the duty on materials used in the catching of fish.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - With the exception of the portion of the bill which provides for a reduction of the tax on paints, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) could not perceive any merit whatever in the Government’s proposal. He complained, in particular, that the Government should not continue sales tax on wireless valves and batteries. Of course, wireless valves are already exempt from sales tax, and whilst the Leader of the Opposition may not have had an adequate opportunity, as he explained, to examine in detail the list of goods affected by this bill, one would have expected that he would, at least, have noticed that wireless valves are exempt from sales tax. Apparently he has been misled by his staff in regard to this matter. With regard to wireless batteries, sales tax on this item has been reduced from 25 per cent, to 10 per cent., and even in prewar times the rate of duty applicable to it was S-A per cent., so that there has been an increase of only slightly more than 1 per cent, in the present rate of duty. Having regard to the Government’s financial commitments from 1939 onward-

Senator Cooper:

– And the rise of its revenues.

Senator ASHLEY:

– If the Leader of the Opposition would like me to deal with the subject of revenue, I shall do so.

Senator Cooper:

– The Minister should mention the buoyancy of the revenues.

Senator ASHLEY:

– That has been brought about because of the prosperity which we are enjoying, and, although I do not contend that all the credit for that prosperity is attributable to the Government, it should be given recognition for what it has done in bringing about the present state of affairs.

Senator Cooper:

– The Minister is hedging a bit now.

Senator ASHLEY:

– In view of the huge financial commitments of the Government since 1939, does the Leader of the Opposition suggest that it is unreasonable to add slightly more than 1 per cent, to the sales tax on refrigerators and wireless sets? If he does, I point out to him that the governments which he supported prior to the war, and which were in power intermittently for nearly a quarter of a century, did not attempt to reduce the sales tax on those items, and I think that in those days it was just as hot in Queenslandas it is now, and people certainly needed wireless sets then as much as they do to-day.

Senator O’Flaherty, Senator Harris and Senator Cooke mentioned their desire that sales tax on tools of trade should be reduced. Senator Cooke pointed out the difficulty confronting the Government when he mentioned the necessity for drawing a line of demarcation between tools purchased for use by tradesmen and those sold for casual use. It would be extremely difficult to determine which tools constitute “tools of trade “ and which do not. In almost every home one finds a hammer or a saw, and I suggest that SenatorRankin was thinking of such amenities when she referred to “ tools of trade “.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the subject of freight in connexion with the calculation of sales tax. This matter has been considered by successive governments and it has always been determined that the tax must apply to the last sale. However, I am prepared to bring this matter to the notice of the Government for further consideration.

Senator Murray drew attention to the fact that, whilst the Government proposes to exempt fish paste and other fish products from sales tax, no exemption is given from the payment of such tax on equipment used in the catching of fish. However, I invite his attention to the appropriate portion of the schedules which provides that -

Boats, including oars, sails, life-belts and so on, crayfish pots, engines for fishing boats, nets and netting for fishing, cotton, hemp, twine, and materials for their repair; lines, hooks, floats and sinkers, are exempt.

Senator Murray:

– What about sails?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Sails are exempt from sales tax, provided, of course, they are used by people engaged in the fishing industry.

Sales tax on refrigerators and other goods was fixed at 25 per cent. from the 1st May, 1942, to the 13th September last, but that duty has now been reduced to only 10 per cent. Honorable senators will realize, therefore, that a very substantial reduction has been made. If there is any other item which I have omitted I shall be glad to deal with it in committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I am not prepared to allow the bill to pass without dealing with the matter which I mentioned earlier, namely, the necessity for exempting tools of trade from sales tax. When I spoke a little while ago I forecast that the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Senator Ashley) would advance the excuse that it is not practicable to draw a line of demarcation between tools which should be regarded as “ tools of trade “ and those used for other purposes. In fact, I even predicted that the Minister would argue that because a hammer, an axe or a saw is to be found in most homes, it supports his contention of the difficulty of drawing a proper line of demarcation. But that is beside the point, because I specifically mentioned “ hand tools of trade “. A request similar to that which I am making now has been made to the Government on a number of occasions. In the State of South Australia a committee of citizens has been investigating the subject of taxation generally, and has forwarded to me a number of recommendations, which I have, in turn, transmitted to the Government. In view of that, I did expect that even if the tax on tools of trade were not abolished it would, at least, be reduced considerably. We have been told from time to time that the taxation statutes contain provision for a rebate on money expended on the replacement of tools of trade. However, that does not overcome the difficulty which I have mentioned, and, so far as the committee to which I have referred and I are concerned, those are simply excuses. Admittedly, tools of trade can be used for domestic purposes, but that should not prevent serious consideration being given to exempting tools of trade from the sales tax. My contention acquires even more force when we realize that the Government proposes to reduce the duty on some luxury goods from 25 per cent. to 10 per cent. So far as my request is concerned, does it really matter if tools are purchased by people for domestic use? After all, the people who buy such simple tools as saws, hammers and screwdrivers and are mainly working people, regard them as household necessaries. I again plead that, irrespective of the “ line of demarcation “ that has been puzzling the department for so long, hand tools of trade should be exempted from sales tax.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · New South Wales · ALP

– The matter raised by Senator O’Flaherty has been mentioned previously in this chamber, and also in the House of Representatives, as he is aware, and I am unable to do anything more than bring his representations to the notice of the Government. I regret that I cannot accede to his request now.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2802

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1947

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th Novem ber (vide page 2716), on motion by Senator Armstrong -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– This measure seeks authority for the borrowing of a sum of £13,000,000 for the purposes of housing construction under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I protest that we are called upon to consider the measure in view of the fact that it was received from the House of Representatives only last night, and the Minister for Munitions (Senator Armstrong), who is in charge of the bill, gave to the Senate very scanty information with respect to housing programmes. My complaint is still more justified when we remember that the measure was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 21st October last. One would have thought that, in the intervening period of five weeks, the Minister for Works and

Housing (Mr. Lemmon), through his representative in this chamber, would have conveyed fuller information on this matter than was given in the latter’s second-reading speech. The principal act, which was passed in 1945, authorized the borrowing of a sum of £25,000,000 for housing purposes under the Commonwealth and State agreement; and when this measure is passed a total sum of £38,000,000 will have been provided.

Senator Nash:

– A good job has been done in respect of housing.

Senator COOPER:

– That is exactly what I am trying to find out, but we have not been given any information that would indicate what sort of a job has been clone. We have not been informed as to how the money already disbursed under this legislation has been expended. We are merely informed that the money is being used for the building of houses. 1 agree that the need to overcome the housing shortage in this country is most urgent.

The bill, which consists of only four clauses, simply seeks authority to borrow this money and provides that it shall be expended for “ purposes of housing in pursuance of the agreement the execution of which is authorized by the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement Act “. We know that that legislation was passed two years ago, and that in the intervening period an amount of £17,810,000 has been expended, leaving a balance of approximately £7,000,000 of the original sum of £25,000,000, approval for the borrowing of which was given at that time. We are now asked to authorize the borrowing of an additional £13,000,000 for the same purpose. What proportion of this money is supplied to individuals to enable them to build their own homes, as is permitted under the agreement with the States? What progress are the States making under the agreement? As the Commonwealth is finding this money, is the Minister satisfied with the progress being made? How much of this money has been provided in respect of rental rebates ? I understand that a certan proportion of these funds can be applied for that purpose. In short, is the Commonwealth receiving value for this expenditure?

That is of great importance. It is quite easy to distribute a lot of money; but we should know whether the Government is satisfied that it is receiving value for this expenditure. Both Parliament and the people would like to have the answers to those questions, because every one in the community is affected by the present serious shortage of houses and realizes the need to overcome it as quickly as possible. At the same time, however, no matter how great the urgency, no one would agree to wasteful expenditure. The agreement with the States was put into operation in 1945, and the Department of Works and Housing has now grown to considerable proportions. I suggest that the Minister should furnish to the Parliament an annual report dealing with the activities of the department, as has been done by the War Service Homes Commission, which functioned independently before it was absorbed by this department. The commission in its annual report showed ‘ the number of houses that had been built, the amount of advances made, details of expenditure and administrative costs. The same practice should be followed by this department. Virtually, we are being asked, blindfolded, to authorize the borrowing of this money. The Opposition does not desire to delay the passage of the measure, or to obstruct the efforts of the department to overcome the present shortage of houses. At the same time, however, we have an obligation to the people to ensure that this money is being expended wisely. Up to date, we have not been furnished with any information that would enable us to pass judgment in that respect.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– My only complaint is that the Minister in charge of the bill (Senator Armstrong), when making his secondreading speech, failed to take the opportunity, of considerable value from a propaganda point of view, to indicate the progress made by the Government to date in its efforts to provide adequate housing for our people. Such a statement is more than justified in view of the many complaints one hears about the shortage of houses and the lack of building materials. When I was in Victoria re cently, I took the opportunity to visit many metropolitan suburbs and country towns, and I was impressed with the amount of housing construction which I saw in progress. I presume that a good deal of that work has been undertaken under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement as well as by the War Service Homes Commission. Recently, I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing with a view to ascertaining what progress had been made with housing programmes in Western Australia. The Minister supplied up to date information, but, unfortunately, I have not that information at the moment. In reply to a further question, which I asked on the 23rd October, I was informed that 1,090 houses have been constructed in Western Australia since the inception of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement in 1945. Many very real physical difficulties have had to be contended with, not only shortages of materials but also difficulty in obtaining sufficient labour. Taking those physical difficulties into consideration, it is interesting to note that in the State of Western Australia, as at the 30th September of this year, 1,090 homes have been constructed^ under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

I also asked how many houses were then under construction, and the answer given was 693. Over 1.000 had been erected and there were 693 under construction. I requested to be informed how many approvals had been granted for houses awaiting construction, and the answer to that was that there were 378 approvals awaiting permission to build at the 30th September, 1947.

It appears to me that the desire to borrow this £13,000,000 is an indication pf the speed with which building is being undertaken under the agreement. When a government of a different political complexion was in charge of the destinies of this country, there was at one time an appropriation of £20,000,000 for housing, but very few, if any, houses were constructed as a result. This Government, however, since the inauguration of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement two years ago, has achieved definite results. I do not think war service homes are really covered by this bill, but, if I am not out of Order, I should like to refer to that aspect of the matter. I asked the Minister how many war service homes had been constructed in Western Australia since October, 1941, and the answer given was 246. I also inquired how many war service homes were then under construction, and the answer was 152. I further asked how many approvals had been granted for the construction of war service homes, and the answer was that 390 war service homes had been approved but not then commenced. The criticism has been offered that insufficient progress is being made in the construction of war service homes. The Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, I understand, expressly provides that 50 per cent, of the houses constructed under that agreement are to be made available to ex-service personnel. The figures supplied to me revealed that 60 per cent, of the houseswere made available to those people.

I thought it advisable to place these facts before the Senate, particularly in view of the remarks that were made by the Leader of the Opposition. I am pleased to know that it is considered necessary to seek authorization for this loan of £13,000,000, and I hope that the progress that will be made in the immediate future will necessitate the grant of a further loan at no very far distant date.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– Nobody is likely to object to money being made available for this purpose. The only people from whom I have heard expressions of satisfaction about what has been done in the matter of home building are the supporters of the Government. The tens of thousands of people who are seeking homes do nui appear to be satisfied, and the man who has his own home is very far from satisfied when he sees his fellow citizens still shrieking for houses in which to live. It may be that the Government has done an excellent job, but it is not set out in the few words in the bill. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper) pointed out, when this money is made available the total amount advanced will be £38,000,000. Although we on this side of the Senate are only three in number, we represent a very substantial section of the Australian people.

Senator Ashley:

– The honorable senator told us that before.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– And I will say it again. We represent a very substantial section of the Australian people, and, speaking on their behalf, I object most strongly to being treated in this cavalier fashion. After all, £38,000,000 is a large sum of money, and the people are entitled to be told what has been done with it, what progress has been made, and what are the prospects for the future. Instead of that - and it is typical of this Government - it is said, “ We are going to raise another £13,000,000. Of what interest is that to the people? To hell with the people. We are running this country “. I submit that we are entitled to be given much more information about this matter than we have been given. If the Government’s record is such that it is entitled to praise and commendation, then I assure the Minister that that praise and commendation will be given. But first of all we must be put into a position in which we can form a judgment, and we can only do that if we are put in possession of all the facts and circumstances.

In Queensland, the Commonwealth Bank is doing excellent work in the assistance it is giving for home-building, but it is encouraging home-building for private owners by private enterprise. How it is proposed that this money should actually be expended is not indicated, and I am, therefore, not in a position to express either approval or disapproval. Accordingly, I urge the Minister to submit to the Senate at the earliest opportunity a comprehensive report of what has been done with the money up to date.

Senator KATZ:
Victoria

.- Senator O’sullivan said the workers were dissatisfied because other workers did not have houses to live in, but he was referring to those who owned their own homes. What is the cause of the shortage? At the moment there is a lack of materials, but when all the materials necessary for the erection of homes were available, private enterprise - which a moment ago he was eulogizing - never attempted to build sufficient bornes.

A moment ago we beard one honorable senator remark upon what he saw in the State of Victoria. As a Victorian representative, I can inform the Senate that in Victoria we have built more homes during the last twelve months than were ever erected in any previous year. But there is a vast difference between the homes that are being built to-day and the homes that were built years ago by private enterprise. In the outer suburbs of Melbourne one can see hundreds of homes being erected that are worth living in. One can go through the Western District of Victoria, down to Hamilton, and see in almost every town of any size decent homes being erected.

I cannot help but think of what private enterprise accomplished in the past in relation to the building of homes. There has been talk of depressions; but prior to the first depression in Australia, private enterprise, in trying to secure people to build homes, got the governments of the day - and they were not Labour governments - to build railways in Victoria. Many of those railway lines to-day are in the same state as they were when they were built 50 years ago. Therefore I think we should be well advised at all times to support measures of this description, which remove the task of home building, at any rate to some extent, from the hands of private enterprise.

In my opinion the real cause of the shortage of houses is not so much lack of labour, as the lack of materials. The Leader of the Opposition was very much concerned about the workmen of to-day being unable to obtain homes. The Sydney newspapers of this week reported that one gentleman in Sydney was building a palatial house in which three baths were installed, but the workers themselves are kept waiting for twelve months for a bath to be used by their families in their homes. The Commonwealth Government, in co-operation with the States, is making homes available. If the present rate of progress is maintained the shortage will be overcome and we shall never again find ourselves in the position in which we are to-day. I do not believe we shall ever again allow private enterprise to monopolize the industry and prevent the building of homes as it did in the past. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

. - in reply - I appreciate the comments that have been made by honorable senators and the advice so freely offered. I suppose there is some reason for honorable senators opposite to be critical of the fact that a flamboyant story of achievement was not told in the second-reading speech of the Minister, but I think they realize that Ministers have a habit of keeping a little bit in. hand so that they may have something left with which to reply. Very often - in fact it is almost the usual thing - the best eggs are left until the last.

Senator O’sullivan:

– They go bad if they are kept too long.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– A vigilant opposition never allows them to be kept too long; it keeps turning them over all the time. So to-night we find there is a story to be told of great progress made under this agreement that was entered into by the Commonwealth and the States in 1945. Senator Nash has told the Senate of some of the achievements, not only under this agreement, but also under the war service homes scheme.

I propose to answer first of all the queries raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cooper). Under this agreement, 10,000 houses throughout Australia have been completed. I propose to give the total figures and not to go into details at this stage. In the year 1946-47, 7,870 houses were commenced, and 4,880 were completed. As I say, 10,000 have been completed since the date of the operation of this agreement. The Leader of the Opposition was also anxious to know what was the position in regard to the rental rebate. That rental rebate does not come out of the money supplied under this act ; that amount of money comes out of the welfare fund, and at this stage the total is £37,000. The position, roughly, is that in about 21 per cent, of the homes occupied, rental rebates are applied. In those homes, the average rental rebate is a matter of about Ss. 2d., but if the whole of the amount of tile rental rebate is taken over the whole of the homes under construction it will be found that the average rental rebate paid is approximately ls. 2d. Although it is somewhat extraneous to this bill, there is provision for rebates being allowed to tenants in cases in which the family income is less than the economic rental of the home. The Leader of the Opposition also wanted to know whether the Government was satisfied with the progress that had been made. My reply is that the Government is satisfied. A most important part of its home-building programme is being carried out by the use of money that is made available to the States. Already 10,000 homes have been erected throughout the Commonwealth, in both city and country areas. The erection of 2,400 homes in country districts is evidence that country interests have not been overlooked.

The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the department should publish an annual report of its activities. As Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing in the Senate, I seem to be giving a weekly report to the Senate. If the Leader of the Opposition desires those weekly reports to be consolidated, I shall be happy to do so. Senator Nash pointed out that this bill does not cover war service homes but, if the Leader of the Opposition desires statistics regarding such homes, I shall obtain them and supply the information to him.

Senator Nash suggested that I missed an opportunity to indulge in some propaganda during my second-reading speech. Undoubtedly, he was right. The Government follows the English tradition of making understatements, rather than overstatements, because it believes that when the people realize what a marvellous job it has done it will be more appreciated than if the achievements had been overstated. The Government is setting out to overtake the shortage of houses and in the next twelve months 32,000 homes will be built. I believe that honorable senators belonging to all political parties are agreed that every effort should be made to overtake the shortage of homes.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Housing should be given number one priority.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– I shall not blame any particular political party for the present situation, but if subjected to great provocation I could say something on this subject. Suffice it now to say that we are suffering the effects of war and its dislocation. I believe that the Government has done a good” job and that the people are beginning to realize that fact. Commonwealth and State Governments, as well as private builders, have faced ninny problems with courage and determination, with the result that we can now look forward, hopefully, to the arrears being reasonably overtaken. If that stage can be reached within eighteen months or two years, it will be a good achievement. I do not think that we can hope for more than that. In reply to Senator O’sullivan, who said that £3S.000,000 was involved, I mention that the expenditure to the end of June next is estimated at £31,000,000.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In, committee:

Clauses .1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Authority to borrow £13.000,000).

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– I greatly appreciate the information which the Minister for Munitions (.Senator Armstrong) has supplied to honorable senators, but I should like him to let the committee know the average cost of the homes erected under this scheme. As a number of those homes have been built by private contractors, I should also, like him to inform the committee as to how many, or what percentage of the total homes erected, have been privately constructed. I should like him to state also the rate of interest charged on advances to private home-builders.

Senator ARMSTRONG (New South Wales - Minister for Munitions) [9.22”. - It would appear that I should have answered all the questions first, because they are becoming more difficult. I cannot state the average cost of the homes erected under this scheme. The cost cannot be ascertained b by dividing the total expenditure to date by the number ofhomes erected, because a good deal of the money has been expended on a longrange programme, which includes the cost of large tracts of land and its preparation for the building of homes. The Australian Government does not itself build homes under this agreement. It pays money to the States, which then make their own arrangements for the erection of homes. Although I cannot now give to the honorable senator the information he seeks as to the percentage of homes built by private contractors, I shall do so later. Some governments work through their own housing commissions whilst others make greater use of private contractors. The interest charge to State governments on the money advanced is 3 per cent. I think that those governments let it out at a little over 3¼ per cent.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Queensland

– The Minister has referred to the purchase of large tracts of land. Can he say whether the general policy is to permit individuals to own their own homes in due course, or is it intended that they shall remain tenants of either the Commonwealth or the State?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

– The Australian Government has not bought large tracts of land, but some State governments have used for that purpose a portion of the money advanced to them.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– What is the policy of the Government in regard to the individual ownership of homes?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Most of the homes are being built for rental, but in 1945 legislation was passed to enable tenants to purchase the homes in which they live. Under that act a person living in a home, the rental of which is beyond the resources of the family is granted a rebate. Tenants who wish to purchase homes may do so.

Senator COOPER:
Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

– In cases in which rental rebates are made, does the State or the Commonwealth bear the loss?

Senator Armstrong:

– The Australian Government meets three-fifths and the State Governments two-fifths of the rebate.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2807

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL (No. 2) 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Munitions · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments provided in this bill were considered by the Government prior to the introduction of the War Service Homes Bill, which became law on the 14th July, 1947; but at the time it was thought that it would be practicable to include all these provisions with other provisions relating to rehabilitation in the Interim Forces Benefit Act. However, that caused some difficulty in drafting, and the separate bill is now necessary. The first part of this bill is designed to take care of those ex-service personnel who continued to serve in the forces after the cessation of hostilities, and who are still in the forces. The second part of the bill limits the date up to which eligibility may be established by persons who enlisted after the cessation of hostilities on the 2nd September, 1945.

As the act is drafted at present, an ex-service man or woman is not eligible for assistance, irrespective of his or her service during the period of hostilities, until discharge from the services. It is considered that such a person should be given an opportunity to provide a home for his or her dependants while continuing in the services, just as he or she would be eligible if employed in a civilian capacity, and the amendment is designed to provide for that. The second portion of the amendment limits the benefits of the act to those persons who enlisted before the 1st July, 1947, in order to conform to the policy already established in respect of other forms of rehabilitation.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 2808

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Supply and Shipping · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill extends the principal provisions of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946 to the trades in the boot, shoe, sandal and slipper manufacturing industry which were subject to the National Security (Boot Trades Dilution) Regulations. In addition to the dilution schemes in the engineering trades, which are dealt with in the principal act which was passed by this chamber in August last year, the Commonwealth Government in June, 1942, after negotiations with representatives of employers and the Boot Trades Union, issued the National Security (Boot Trades Dilution) Regulations and thereby established a dilution scheme in the boot and shoe manufacturing industry. When the Government was negotiating with the parties concerning the liquidation of these war-time dilution arrangements, the representatives of the boot and shoe manufacturing industry arranged to have further discussions concerning the future of this particular scheme as their post-war problems arising from the operation of the National Security Regulations were not affected, as the engineering trades had been, by the trade training and experience which men had received while serving in the forces. Accordingly, the boot trades were not covered by the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act and the National Security (Boot Trades Dilution) Regulations have continued in force by virtue of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act.

The Government has now completed discussions with representatives of the employers and the union following representations by the union that the Government should restore normal trade practices in accordance with the dilution agreement. In making these representations, the union has agreed to the inclusion of provisions for the training and employment of suitable ex-servicemen in the hoot trades and their acceptance as recognized tradesmen upon completion of a satisfactory probationary period. I am happy to be able to inform the Senate that the principles which are embodied in the present measure are supported by both employers and the union representing the industry. The bill adds another part and schedule and makes consequential amendments to the act so that recognized tradesmen in the boot trades are entitled to the same priority in employment in their trades as recognized engineering tradesmen receive in the engineering trades. That is to say, in the case of engagements, by the provision in section 43 an employer may not employ on tradesmen’s work a person other than a recognized tradesman if a competent recognized tradesman is available and offering for employment, and in the case of dismissals or retrenchments by another provision in the same section that a recognized tradesman shall be the last to go unless a local committee otherwise permits and subject to an employer exercising his award rights regarding summary dismissal.

The bill also provides for ex-servicemen to qualify as recognized tradesmen by a probationary period of training in employment under the supervision of a local boot trades committee. These probationary tradesmen will receive the full tradesmen’s rate of pay during their probationary period. Applications by ex-servicemen for authorization of their employment as probationary tradesmen must be made, unless there are special circumstances, within six months after the date of discharge from the force or the same period after the coming into operation of these amendments, whichever is the later.

The control and overseeing of the scheme is exercised by a central, and, in each State, a local boot trades committee similar in composition and functions to the committees of union and employer representatives which administered the dilution scheme, and it is proposed that the representatives who are at present members of committees appointed under the National Security (Boot. Trades Dilution) Regulations should continue as members of the committee established by the bill. As the bill arises from the Government’s desire to honour the Commonwealth’s undertakings in regard to the restoration of trade practices and customs in this industry, I commend it to the Senate as a measure to be accepted by all parties.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2809

TRACTOR BOUNTY BILL 1947

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize an extension of the bounty for three years on the production of tractors of the internal combustion engine type. The Tractor Bounty Act was enacted in 1939 for a period of five years and in 1944, following an inquiry by the Tariff Board, wasextended until the 23rd October, 1947. The Tariff Board has recently conducted a further inquiry into the subject and has recommended the continuance of the bounty for another three years. The bounty rates recommended are as follows : -

These rates are the same as those applying under the 1939-44 act except that the class designated “ exceeding 35 brake horse-power but not exceeding 60 brake horse-power “ previously read “ exceeding 35 brake horse-power “. It is considered that the industry is deserving of governmental assistance in conformity with the accepted principle of helping worthy industries. The experience gained during the war by our engineering industries has increased the manufacturing potential of tractors in Australia. In addition, the acute shortage of foreign exchange to purchase tractors fromhard currency countries is another reason why the manufacture of tractors in Australia should be stimulated. Furthermore, the method of assistance, i.e., by bounty, encourages Australian production without imposing any direct cost burden on users most of whom are farmers. An impost on primary production is thus avoided. The bill appropriates for bounty payment the following amounts : -

These amounts should be sufficient to cover the following anticipated production : -

The amount previously allocated by the 1944 act was £100,000 per annum, but in this bill it is desired to provide greater elasticity and to grant sufficient funds to cover the anticipated production of tractors during the period in which the bounty will operate. A number of manufacturers are making every effort to increase their production.

The amendment of the bounty class designated “ exceeding . 35 brake horsepower “ to read “ exceeding 35 brake horse-power but not exceeding 60 brake horse.power” will not affect agricultural tractors, for whose assistance the bounty was primarily intended. Assistance for tractors exceeding 60 brake horse-power could, if and when necessary, be provided by a customs duty. There was no request for a bounty on tractors exceeding 60 brake horse-power. An extension for a period of three years is considered desira’ble as by the expiry of that time it should be possible to ascertain Australian production costs, and costs of imported tractors, on a more stable basis. Then the matter of government assistance to the industry could be placed on a permanent basis if found necessary. I commend this bill as one which merits favorable consideration.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cooper) adjourned.

page 2810

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes - Corrimal, New South Wales.

Lands Acquisition Act and Lands Acquisition Ordinance of the Northern Territory - Land acquired for Department of Works and Housing purpose!) - Darwin (near), Northern Territory.

Senate adjourned at 9.45 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 November 1947, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1947/19471127_senate_18_195/>.