256 (ASS EMBLY.]

Australia may be properly represented a;the forthcoming sugar inquiry. 'I here isonly one other matter I desire to touchupon. That does not appear in the Speech,but it is upon the Notice Paper for dis-cussion. I refer to the power the Gov-ernment desire to sell the State tradingconcerns. I shiall keep for another timeany remarks I wish to make in regard tothe sale of those dear old friends of ours,and I think when they are gone 1 shouldlike to wear a crepe hand in their memory.The point I wish to stress is thlis: if theGovernment in their endeavour to get ridof the State trading conuerns 'will use thesame zeal and the same energy as 1 feel surethe majority of members of this House willuse in giving the Government power to sellthose concerns, then Iam certain we shall nothave long to wait until those concerns aredisposed of. Probably I know a great dealof what goes onl in the commercial world,and I say nothing has created more dis-satisfaction and more dissention in West-ern Australia than have the State tradingconcerns. To my knowledge thiey ha*lprevented the establishment here on a per-manent fixed basis of many industries; andI' think if the State Implement Works hadnot been in operation the ;McKay Har-ves-ter people would have been here, not toassemble the various parts of their mach-ines, but to make the whole lot of themafrom the beginning. I congratulate theGovernment on their effort in this newdirection, and I trust they will he success-ful eventually in disposing of the Statetrnding concerns. But in addition to theState trading concerns, I want to see everyone of the State hotels disposed of.

The Mlinister for Country Water Sup-plies: They are one of the activities in-volved.

Hon. Sir WILLIAM,% LATHLAIN- Iain more than delited to hear it. inmy opinion, if there is anything undigni-lied for a Government and Parliament toenter into, it is the beer trade. Before sit-ting down I should like to express sym-piathy with 'Mr. Parker and 'Mr. Cornell intheir respective illnesses, and to offer toMr. Alisop, M-Nr. 'Macfarlane, and Sir CharlesNathan a very hearty welcome to this Chain-her. Two of thein are new coleagues, ofmine, and I am sure we shall be able towork together in harmony, not only for thesolution of our own problem., but moreparticularly for the benefit of Western

Australia a~i a whole. In collelusion may Iorler to you, Sir, my sincere and heartycongratulations upon your elevation to theAncient Order of Knight Bachelors, Itis a very great privilege to me to welcomeYou as a brother in that order.

On motion by Hon. J. Nicholson, debateadjourned.

House adjourned at 8.520 p~m.

7'ncsday, .2nd September, 1930.

Questons: Raiway conflrmictlon .. ..Ucenees mducioeri coinpeusatti tund

Addrness-ln-repiy, fifth day .. .. ..

PAGEZ

..157

The SPEAK-ER took the Chair at 4.30)pam., and read prayers.

QUESTION-RAILWAY CONSTRUC-TION.

Mr. WILSON asked the Minister forWorks: 1, How ninny and which railwaysare under construction ? 2, Row many mnenare employed onl each?

The MlNISTER FOR WORKS replied:1, Four. Pemiberton-Westeliffe, 122 men;Kulja Eastward, 1013 men; Meekatharra-Wiiunn, 67T men; Lake 0-race- Karlga rill,'202 men. 29, Answered by No. 1.

QUESTION-ICTENSES REDUCTION,,COMPENSATION rUND.

'Mr. MARSHALL asked the AttorneyGeneral: What was the total amount offunds standing to the credit, at 30th June,1930, of the compensation fund inauguratedunder the Licensing Act and operated on bythe Licenses Reduction Board?

The ATTORNEY GENERAL replied:£8,721 3s. lid.

156

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.] 157

ADD~ssS-IN-REPLY.

Fifth Day-Amendment.

Debate resumed from the 28th August.

MR. GEUTFITHS (Avon) (4.37]: InSaturday's issue of tbe "West Australian"I read a somewhat humorous article whichlikened the Address-in-reply to the passageof a ship, indicating its various calm andstormy periods until it reached smoothwaters under the aegis of the Minister forWorks. It is now forecasted that theplolitical weather is set fair with the shiptinder the direction of the member for Avon.I assure the House that during the 30 or 40minutes of my speech I shall not attempt toreproduce anything likely to cause an upl-roar.

Mr. Panton: You never do.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I consider the condi-tions are too serious to justify the bicker-ings of political groups or leaders. ThisHouse should consider the gravity of theexisting financial position and bring itsthinking apparatus to bear to the end thatwe Mi~ht devise mleasures to bring us oat oftile financial morass. I should like to com-pliment the Leader of the Opposition uponhis manly specall. Unidoubtedly it was asensible, decent, reasonable speechl, the kindwanted in this House at the present stage.I cannot altogether congr-atulate the memberfor South Fremantle (Mr. McCallum), be-cause the latter part of his speechl savouredof the sort of thing we hear onl the Es-planade just before election day. Themiddle portion of his speech, when he spokeof thle indebtedness of Australia to the OldCountry, was onl a distinctly higher plane,and he is to be congratulated for havingdirected attention to the matter, although itshould not have been necessary to do so.The fact of the mlatter is that onl all sidesis a nising demand that Australia should betreated, not as a naughty child who is fail-ing- to fulfil its obligations, but as one whohas given service that is entitled to receI'veconsideration. The member for South re-mntle dealt very ably with this phase ofthe question. Let me direct attention to anarticle which appeared in "The Mirror" onthe 23rd August, in which two )-oints weredealt with, "How much does Britain oweus?" and "Australia's burden remains thesame, while Britain gives concessions toforeigners." In the article eomparisons weredrawn, as was done by the member for

South Frenmantle, between the position ofAustralia in its relation to the Old Countryand the position existing between Englandand the United States, showing that whilewe were paying 5 per cent, interest and alittle over 1 per cent, in sinking fund, GreatBritain was being charged for the first 10years 3 per cent. and for the balance of theperiod 31, per cent., with a sinking fund of1/2 per. cent. The paper inquired why thereshould be this differentiation, and why theconcession had not been passed on to Aus-tralia, particularly as France bad had two-thirds of her deb~t rebated and very muchthe same position obtained with regard toJugo-Slavia. Montenegro, Serbia, etc. Theyhave been placed in the position of payingwhen they canl and bow they call.

Mir. Mai-shall: They r-epudisted their wardebt obligations and nothing has been saidabout it.

The Minister for Railways: Waiting foryou to draw attention to it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS :The article con-tinues-

Australia in. pay' ing her war loans frontBritain in 3.5 years at 5 per cent, ontrastthis with Britain's 62 years period at 3 and3Y, per cent, with the Uniited States, and the69 years' terms; eranted also to France andItaly, or with tile pay-as-you please to thePortuguise.

The article concludes-Australia will n~ever take the knock, but if

there are any eoncesvio,,s to be given, we feelthat we should at least receive as much as tileFrench, Italians, and Portuguese. ... Aus-tialin has paid jill inistahments of its war debits.How much has France paid? Britainl wroteoff no less than, £34,000,000 of tile Ita'iau wardebt. Ilow touch rebate did she grant Aus-tralia ? During the war years the HughesMlinistry sold our wool output to the British

Governmnent at a flat rate of Is. 3d. rer 11).How reuch profit did the British Governmentmake by reselling to Yorkshire spinners at upto 5s. per lb.? 'Mr. J. At. Keynes says, '"Sofar as ean be nseertained, B~ritain made aprofit ef over £160,000,000 oil tllis trailse-tioll.'

There wvere also our gold and our wheat.The Prime Minister has gone Home, as holsaid, to speak in the name of Australia, notas a mendicant, but as a representative ofa great nation which has met all its obliga-tions and will continue to meet them. Wehope-and I think it will be so-that he willstress the points now occupying the mindsof the people as to whether something better

138 [ASSEMBLY.]

cannot be done for Australia. I hope hewill maintain that attitude when he gets toBritain. When Sir Otto Niemneyer came toAustrlia-I am not sure of the pronuncia-tion of his name-

Mr. Marsmhall: Among the manty foreign-ers.

Mr. GRIFFITIHS: -it appeared to theaverage man that he had come in the role ofa bailiff, although he had been invited bythe Federal Government.

31r. Alarsha I: How do you know

3Mr. GIIIFF1lTI1S: I noticed that thewi~wnbei for South Fremantle said Sir O ttoNientever never mentioned to the I'rcnlierathat so tar ats this country was concernedthere were things, on, the other -inle of tileledger, Ile asked why' somiething had 110L;,eni said regardinig the adverse trade bill-taIce of' (;yea Britain relatively to an out-side cuintr ' . The -Minister for .Mines ratlherpointedly interjected that one country,lileanhllg ourselves, was a lborrowing coa-

Irand( t lit other, nmel y, England, 'vasa lending nat ion. On that asp et I wvi-hto stre's oneI or' two respects in which Grt-atI ritaini is in a different positioni from thatof Australia. (reat Britain'., income is

largely made lip of interest and dividendsi(irawn fronut a broad. If in, I hee latter ,carsshe had had to depi ad upon her tradea lone, -lie would be in allao't a wolse ui-lionj than, Australia is iuj to-doy. it is tileintecrest and tile dividends, upo;n her acen-

nua ted wealthI tinat hiave- en ab1led hier toc-arry her burdoi as well as hue i, oitAs, showi Rig the growth of feeling in regardto) that phase of the iihjeet, I may pointout that no later than this morning Mr.Fenton, the Federal M1inister, is reported isslittingr that lie cannot. speak authoritativelyregarding the possibility of the reductionof wvar ,lelats. The iflele fact of this ipro-jiOtUeenit, howev'er, shows how~ much thex',after is* exercising the minds of the people.Again, Mr. A. S. 2teClintoek, probably'rhoing the remarks of the member for

South Fremantle, expresses himself to muchthe same effect in a letter to the "W~est Ans-tralian." Next, we find from the cablegramsfliat tlue London "Referee," in a leader en-titled "Our Grave Responsibility to Aug-tralin," comments on-

the iniquity of treating Australia like anaughty childi thronghiout the Press world andthreatening tier with pains and penalties.

During thle wvar Australia sent Britain morethan, t2,1100,000 worth of gold each year, andixas only paid 1£3 17s. lid, an ounce in BritishIhahior 01011ev.

The membtier for South Fremantle furthrlated that the Governor's Speech was pra-

tieally emp1 ty. I dto not know that that is,t bad thing. As a rule we get our ]egkla-live p.rogramlme too full. If at certain lieor action could lie decided upon in Partia-ijient. and if then MAinisters could be allowedto) get to work in their ollices, it would blebetter for the country. La,t session, asin other ,essions, we passed a mnl-hier of laws seeming to have a. tendencyt(, curtail liberty, to i(.trict the people, andto add to the expenlses of trade and conm-illerce. In reference to our trade withGreat Britain ajid the great noise madenl)(ut our adverse tragic balanee, one muustireeber that UIrent Britain i.s, so to speak,lyivin on hier own fat. According to cer-mtaifiures which I have olbtained fromVAzriOus 'year lbook.,, there are only threeuounti-jes in the world taking more froam(.reat Britain than they sJt to hier: adtlo,e three countries are Brazil, Juan andtireeee. For the Year. 1924 to 11128 in thetotal of' her fore ign trade Britain had ailadverse balance averaging £407,000,000 perannuma. If Britain did not receive anl anl-inual income of £130,000,000 from shipil,Aand,( a further £265,000,000 from hier owntfat in dividends anda interest earned over-

ealargely from British possessionis, hierdcifts to foreign countries would soon be-comne more alarming than Australia's prc-sent embarrassmtent in overseas obligations.in the widest Imperial sense, Britain's ('oRIP

inercial results are the Empire's profit indlos's: and sihnce we, as a British courin,s-upply Britain with a substiantial portionof her credits, we are entitled to say thatBritain'q foreign debts are draining the Em-pire. In a period of five years a total of2.000 millions sterling has thus been drainedfromt the Empire into foreign treasuries.For example, the United States of Amerielain the (fuinqueninium collected almost 800mnillionq sterling of surplus trade balancefrom1 Britain. Litle Denmark collected 200illions sterling, merely for feeding Brit-

ain with brealdasts. That sum was repre-gelnted by eggs and bacon and buttered toast.We as, a people are concerned in those facts,inasmuchl as they affect the question of the

[2 SEPnr3situ, 1930,].5

Eire~~itt bring kepit solvent and going. A-rutrrds preferenltial trade betwveen lit-iu i.itn ourselves, I may revert to the mat-le. of bacon and eggs for Britain's break-test.

31r. Mlarshiall: A lot of peolple are PotVottia- bacon and eggs to-day.

Mr. U IFFITHIS: That is so, and the.ani tiing, applies iii Western Australia.'To come down from the general to the par-tii-ular, the supplying of bacon to Britaineoum.eras us. This country has a bigp open-in'~ for export trade in that respiet notonlyh wvith Britain, buit with countries lyimitto tur north. I refer to Java. Jap)an. andChina. People who should know hanve told11L.' that there are certain parts of the pigiii ureilt demand in Java, other parts; inlgreat demiand in Japan, and still other partsin -ent demand in China. That trade isthi-r, to lie donne. T would like to knowfromu the* Minister for Agriculture whethers'nrethinz cannot be done in reg-ard to theStork TDepartment. I put to the previousMinister for Agriculture certain questionsregarding the working of the department.In the replies the questions were largelyevaded. I had found that damnaging reportshad been made regarding our Stock Depart-iaent's certification of animals and productsexported. Our certificates, it was alleged,1Pad not been found reliable. A Dutchmantame here fronm Java, andi upon his returnto that country strongly advised his Govern-macnt to prohibit certain importations fronmAustralia. This wams eventually donie, I uin-derstand, though I was iRot able to gatherdefinitely front the aistrers to mny questionswhether it was actually so. However: Ihave it onl reliable authorityv that in thecNorth there is room for conLSiderable imi-prox-eulent iii stock inatters, that certain dis-eases are prevalent there, and that tuber-culosis is more rife anonr4A the cattle thanisz generally allowed by those in authority to12_ the case'. Since last we met a good de~1ia s been published about trouble between

Air. 'Murray-Jones and other officers of theStock Department. Many of us would liketo know whether anything Ims been donein -regard to that matter. Is 'Mr. Mfurrav-JTones to be reinstated? Is the departmentto go on as it has been doing, or are stock

T~air6 to be placed under a separate head?

Mr. MarshaiII : Wh'lat dloes the MNinisterSav ! ArE v-on suplporting him?

M1r. GRITFFITHlS: Some months ago afervent appeal was sent out to the farmersto grow Imore wheat. From travelling inthe country districts and talking with thefarmers, 1 find that they% regard that ap-peal as rather a grimi joke. They are toldto grow more wheat. when it is bringing3s. 21'd. or .9s. ad. per bushel and it doesnot pay to grow at 4s. The farmers quotethose figures and say, "Yet you peopletalk to us about growing more wheat!"

'Mr. M1arshall: Who talks about it?Mfr. (4BIFFTHS: You people dto.Mr. Marshall: No.Mr. GREITHS: Mr. Scullin, your

leader, does.Mr. Marshall: But he -was prepared to

give the farmers a decent guarantee fortheir wheat.

Mr. GRIFEITHS:- We know all aboutthat.

'Mr. "Aarshall: How much wheat do yougrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: Order!Mr. GRIWFTITHS: Tf the hon. memiber

interjecting is not earning his salaryv inthis Chamber, I certainly am earningwine. I pi- a son of mine on the landand expended a eutniderable amount indoing so. The (restion now arises in mymind whbether T hare done wiselly in put-ting" him there, seeing the condition intowhich the wheat industry has got. Whenone sees the Federal tariff schedules,raising ditties by 500 and even 1,000 pecent., thus greatly increasing the cost ofproduction, a man begins to wonderwhether hie dlid right in putting his son onthe' landr. Everyone says, "Reduce thecost of production." How is that to bedone when everything used by the man onthe land is subject to the tariff?

Mr. Sleeman: ' Machinery should not hesubject to the tariff. It should be madehere.

ML~r. GRIFF4ITRS: The farmers' re-quiremients are subject to the tariff, andtherefore there can be no talk of reducingvthe cost of production. Certainly there isno talk of reducing wages, seeing that thefartner-

M1r. Mlarshall: The farmners are veryanxious to reduce wages.

Mr. 6-RIh'FITHS: To reduce the wagesof men they do not employ?

Mr. 'Marshall: Yes.

1.59

160 1 , [ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Order! I must askthe member for Murcison (Mr. Marshall)to keep order. He will have an oppor-tunity of replying to the statements of themember for Avon.

MrX. GRIFFITHS: How is the cost ofproduction to be reduced? Can taxationhe reduced? The farmer is subject to twoland taxes now, thanks to the Federalregime, and he has also to bear two in.-come taxes. There seems no immediatehope of reducing the land tax. With theincome tax we need not be much con-cerned at the present juncture, as thefarmner has practically no income to tax.Mixing with the farmers, going out amongstthem, I know what their difficulties are.It is all very well for members opposite totry to be funny about these things. Atone place I saw a whole trainload of mia-chinery being taken away, tinder the con-ditions of hire-purchase agreements. Thefarmers concerned had not paid their in-stalmnents, of course. They had not beenable to pay.

Mr. Sleeman: What is the name of themachinery firmn concerned?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Never mind aboutthe name of the firm. The bulk of themachinery merchants are quite reasonable,but there are certain firms who take ad-vantage of the law an(I thus practicallyforce men off land. They begin a scramble,and the consequence is that all the credi-tors; rush in and try to secure paymentof their debts. Thus any equity vanishes.There is another matter to which I willask the House at a later stage to give someattention, and to agree to the appoint-wnent of a select comittee. I refer to thlework of trustees. 'While mninny reputablefirms of the cityv have carriedI out trustee-ships, I am afraid the great bulk of thoseconerned have not had munch experience ofcountry conditions, with the result thattheir lack of knowledge does not tend tomake a success of their trusts. The effecthas been felt most detrimentally in certaindistricts, and I trust something will be doiiein this regard. Then there is the questionof water supplies. A more equitable sys-tem is required for certain districts in par-ticular. In the country beyond Westoniaand around Burracoppin, I found that meniwho went on virgin blocks were loaded withthe responsibility of paying water rates, iftheir properties were within a. certain dis-tance of the scheme. In the early stages

of development it is naturally impossiblefor such farmers to pay water rates. Dur-ing the last year or two the goldields watersupply scheme has become the property ofthe State, seeing that it has been paid for,and there is no further necessity for dis-bursenments on account of interest and sink-ing fund. In these circumstances 'some-thing should be done to secure a re-arrange-nieat regarding rating imposts. How thatcan he done is for the department to de-ternine. Sonic wretched anomalies exist.One man may be called upon to pay Os.8d. per 1,000 gallons for excess water, yet onpractically the same class of land anotheris charged 2s. 6d. per 1,000. 1 understandin sonic instances this has been done becausethe p)art of the scheme affected was builton the constructional cost basis, and 1 donot think that is the correct. way. The sys-temn was introduced, I anm told, by Mr. IV.D. ,Johnson when Minister for Works someyears ago, and under it the imposts variedin accordance with the cost of materialsutilised. It would not be so bad if timeagriculturalI industry were flourishing, butin view of the unfortunate circumstancesobtaining to-day, something should be donein an endeavour to secure a mowe equit-able basis. Despite these disabilities westill hear the advice tendered to the farmersto grow more wheat. Grow more wheat-at a loss! That advice is tendered, withoutany, provision having been made for a re-duction in the cost of production. As tothe question of taxation, I have alreadypointed out that the farmers are taxed re-garding everything they use, almost fromthe cradle to the coffin. From time to timepeople submit analyses of the cost of macli-ulery per acre, showing the cost as small.It is not any particular excess that iseharged that hurts the farmers, so much asthe additional burdens from all direction..There are the vermin tax, the twvo landtaxes, the two income taxes-practicallyevery impost is doubled. The trusteeshipquestion which I nientioned a few minutesago adds to their difficulties. While sometrustees carry out their work well, othersare far from satisfactory. Without wish-ing to decry any particular individuals whohave held trusteeships, certain informationhas been brought under my notice thatsuggets the necessity for an inquiryv. Forinstance, one trustee may have 100 clients.Naturaly a fee has to be levied for theannual inspections. I have been given to

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.] 161

understand on good authority that one mrancarried out an inspection on 33 farms inone week. I understand he gets £:7 10s.for every inspection so that he received atotal of £247 10s. Hon. members will seewhat a nice little return he gets under thatheading. When the costs were worked outone fanner found that he had to submitto a fee of £49. When these additionalcharges. are added to the already heavyburden the man on the land has to p)ay: isit any wonder that our farmers are gettinginto -difficulties. The trustees work on the.basis of a charge of 5 per cent. on thevalne of the operations of a fanner. Ishall elaborate on the position at a laterstage and give the House some details whenI ask them to agree to the appointment ofa select committee to investigate the posi'-tion. I hope by that means to secure agreater degree of fairness and to enablefarmers to tide over their troubles withless difficulty than they are confronted withat present. Every protection should be ac.-corded the fanuers at the present junc-ture. The finances are stringent and natur-ally the farmers are pushed. I do notsee that there is any possibility oftheir getting out of those difficultiesinside a year or two, and, in thecircumstances, should some creditor beo-come anxious and rush in to secure hismoney, then nearly everyone swarms in,and that is the end of the farmier himself.With reference to the Federal tariff, theeffects of the added imposts are not onlyfelt by the people of the State but ourtrade is being seriously prejudiced. Thatis particularly so with regard to foreignicountries. Owing to the tariff imposts wehave lost a good deal of trade with lavarunning into about £500,000 per year. Weare likely to lose a large proportion of ourtrade with New Zealand. We nearly lostour butter trade with Java because of thesugga~tion to impose additional duty onthe importations of coffee. Wiser counselprevailed and as the tariff war not increased,we have been able to maintain that trade.Belgium, France, Germiany, Italy and Japanare other countries against whom Austra-lia is busily engaged in building up a hugetariff wall. Our exports to those countrieshave represented about £65,000,000 worth,while our imports have represented about£15,000,000 leaving a favourable halance tothe credit of Australia of about £E40,000,000.

It may be urged that this is a Federal mat-ter, but as against that, wve must realisdthat our people are those who must suffer.should we antagonise people living in theeountrie I have referred to. We have losta certain amount of trade already and weshall probably lose more. Speaking to arepresentative of the "Sydney MorningHerald" the other day regarding coal sup-plies and machinery froin New Caledonia,the head of a large French concern said thathe could procure his requirements morecheaply from Europe than, he could fromAustralia. It may be said that he was look-ing for the cheapest market, but it must be'borne in mind that we have to compete withother countries, otherwise we will lose moretrade. It is estimated that trade represent-ing upwards of L50,000 worth of goods isdlone with New Caledonia each year. Eventhough that trade may be done with twvoor three firmns only, it would appear thatthe business will he taken from Australiaand will go to Europe if the tariff wvall con-tinues to be raised against foreign countrici.We shall not be able to supply the goodsat anything like the price at which theycan be obtained in foreign lands. A mianfrom New Guinea spoke to me about drugs[lhat could not be produced in the BritishEmpire, hut were procurable only in Russiaand other countries. On those drugs therewas a duty of *500 per cent. What with theNavigation Act and the additional cost offreight, it is cheaper to bring timbier fromthe Baltic to Adelaide than it is to takeit from Launceston to Adelaide. With allthese things hampering our activities, is itany wvonder that Australia is not enjoyingprosperity, and that the primary producersnie labouring under hardens they cannotearr'? Regarding timber freights, the pricefrom Launceston to Adelaide is 9s. and fromthe Baltic, 3s. 6d., thus demonstrating thatit is cheaper to import from the Balticthan from Launceston. The same appliesregarding importations fromi Vancouver, onwhich a saving of 3s. 4d. can be shown.This anomaly is ascribed to the operationsof thb, Navigationi Act. When T was speak-ing about the Federal tariff and the burdenof these duties, I was asked if I was a free-trader. I replied that I was not, but thatthe tariff-run-mad policy now adopted inAustralia had made a lot of people thinkhard. I aid that even wild tariffists were

[ASSEMBLY.]

%;:.derin'r where it wrould end. Canadzajpar- thle hi.-le-t ivazes of any country inth- ,1.World and vet it can compete with its

ri-acro. i the river-the United State,.Wf Amnerica. Last year Canada exported a

itiias the value of the whole of her pro-cmNii 1914. Hler tarillf ranges from 5 to'ier cent. mdv., That is dlifferent fromW' Of tile extraordinary tariff inposts that

Lebeen aninouinced in Australia recently.S:,'of tire items, arc extraordinary. Aboutmonth, IIgn a quantity of goods, which

iiued for making c hildren's hats, wereit-tnrted into Australia. They cost 2s, 8d.

a.zen in Java. The duty amounted to 60s.a loizen-or an impost of 2,250 per cent.It *ently a finin imiported a number of

nit-voscicglass slides, the duty onl which)V.. Is. a dozen, or £132 onl thle consign-jureu:t. compared writh £15 1s. 2d. underthe old rate, and £?22 I7-, Od. at the new

alvilorern rate. The goods- -were invoiceda* 75 10S., thle duty amionting to no lessthu £1.M-50 7, or nearly 70)0 per cent. ad ralorem.When speaking- to a chemist recently, afr'end of mine was informed that babies'feeding bottles, which in pre-war time,; cost7 . (iii. a dozen andI were sold at 1q. each,

fle ost 24s. a dozen and had to be soldaT 6. d. each. Then we Irate that incidentof the young fellow who was employed ona t.rni at Tarniin. His uncle died in Indiaand his aunt sent over sonie second-hand1clothingz to the boy, thinking it would lieu-rfl for him. In all, there were about

iutsuits that would cost about 25s4. toeach, new in India. The duty on each

su: was 25s,., plus 45 per cent. I mnade an.ipeal to the Minister for Customs regard-

i!.- that matter and( 1poiinted out the iniquit-oti' position in which thre lad was placed.Here was ii lad working hard in the bushwh-i had thiingsN sent out to him for himtu -ise and the duty on the clothing amountedr, 11,:- times its value, He would hare hadt,. pay just as, much or more in duty forth.ige second-haind clothes as if he hadlir',--ht them new in Western Auastralia. Theiteni dealing with suits stipuldates the rates]?r- suit ait 15s., plus 25 per cent., for Eni-ti-lj, and 30s., plus 45 per cent., foreigni. In

s~"of such a duty, what is. the positionIf our primary industries. We have the

tn2-6t, Wool inl the world, t he most np-to-dateim .-hinery ani we undobtedly bare mnenc'i1'ble of turning out the work. in view

at' such~ haridiei p-, however, how can ourinciLt~nesi coml11lete inl tie world's miarkets?~Iii the days befoire Federation, thirty rears- ,_n , ins in Vivtoriq were able to -omlpete'Sitl oPutside rcnint'acturers. It is tiace theywere oil their feet andl able to do withoutany further aNSirtancet frian the tarif. To-wards the endl of last sv~siui, wvhen speak-in- in the IHous~e I mntioned. the fact thatI had been disappointed because the Gov-ernient had not hiciuglit down certain leg-islatioi. lRon, miemubers roar think I wva4alluding to the 'Narranionr railway, but thething- I was referring to niore particularlyhiad been half promised for a number ofyears; that was in regardl to anl amndmentof the hire-purchase syttemn. I want togive tie iouse an instance of what canhappen under the existing system. A cer-tairn tractor was bought for £125 cash which,with the accommnodation, given, would Tunto £465. The purchaser took charge of thistractor and put it to work. But very soonit went hopelessly out of order. He up-Itroaclied tihe firm and claimed that somec-thing should be done by them to put it inorder, because of their _guarantee. How-ever, lie was told( that the period covered bythe guIarantee had expired. He then re-minded the firm that they bad not delivered.the tractor until 32 days after he hadl signedthe hire-purchase agreemient. Eventually,after a lot of haggling-, they agreed to dothe necessarv work for half cost, which was£30, the full cost of the al 'terations being£60: and they agreed to gire himl aceorn-3Uodation at 14 per cent. He got the ma-chine going again, but then found that thetracks were wrong' . They were descwribed. as;Bell's City tracksi, but they were riot suitableat all. He went hark to the firm and askedfor a remedy, declaring that failing anyrelief hie would send the machine back. Thefirm said thnat even if he did send it backthey~ would -still hold hini respomisible forthe full payment. In the end they aigreedIto pint him in other tracks, for £00b. Theyfitted other tracks at that east, and againphis5 14 per cent., but it was then foundthat the gearing- was; out of order and thercachine woculd rmot work. That mian ha;now% colnllettd ll[ his4 paymntts except £150,andi hre is; at present xecsdin his, mindais toi whether lie- should throw the thing onacre Side. Hie was to)ld hr the firm that itdid not aclatter what eolli he mig-ht. take,

[2 SEpTnasu, 1930.] 11

lie would have to pay the balance. Themachine is no good, it wvill not work, butstill he has to accept the responsibility forit. Immediately afterwards they issued awrit against him for £50, aind he had toconie down to Perth and go on his kneesto get somebody to stand behind him. Thetttatter is now deferred until after harvest.Of course that sort of treatmentwould not be imposed up1onl him byany of the old established firms; I thinkthis was one of the new firms set up here.

Mr. Marshall: Did he sign an agreementfor tile 14 Iper cent. ?

Mr. GRIFFITHS: He had to, for hehad 1,200 acres of crop to go in, and solie was right up against it. The firmn didnot deliver the tractor until 32 days afterbe signed the agreement. I hope some-thing- will he done to remedy the system.lNeither 1, nor anybody intere.Aed in a farm,wants to see anything unjust done; all thatwe ask is a fair deal for both parties, thevendor and the purchaser. In 191S Ibrought before the House the example of aman who had bought~ a harvester for £118and paid £91. He was unable to pay thebaance within the stated time, and so thevendors seized the machine and held hhnresponsible for the balance. It had to bepaid, and they had the harvester into thebargain. In such a ease it ought to bepossible to arrive at some equitable arrange-mnent. As I have said, we do not want any-thin.- unreasonable, but we do want a fairdeal for the purchaser. We have arrivedat the position where our farmers are toldto grow more wheat, and are expected todo it. It seems to me that while the ex-Premier the other nighit declared that agreat deal of the blame, practically thewhole of the blame, for our position hasbeen put onl the Federal Government, it isclear that the Federal Government are toblame for a lot of it. Of course for ourown present position there is blameattaching to ourselves, but the majorpart of it canl be traced to the Fede-ral Government, ndl to Federationgenerally. Take the period from 1890 to1901. During those 11 years this State,or colony as it then was, was able to carryout a vigorous public works policy, morespirited than at any . time since, aind wefinished up with an accumulated surplusamounting to 16s. 2d. per head of our

population. Tasmania also had a creditbalance for the same period, an accama-lated surplus representing 18s, 2d. periead. of her population, while all the other

States showed deficits, Victoria to the ax-tent, of £3 ds. 2d. per head of her popula-tion. Then came what was known as theBraddon clause period. At that time uursurplus of 16s. 2d. per head of the popu-lation had fallen to 2s. 4d. per head of 6diepopulation, although we had been cairryingout a more restricted public works policy.In about 1909 there was held the conferencewhich decided on the iniquitous per capitapayments arrangement. That arrangen:entwvas entered into, and under it wve foundourselves wholly unable to pay our way,though we had a special grant of 9230,060Ureducible by £C10,000 annually. We begpanto get into debt, and in 1923 we were be-hind to the extent of £1.8 17s. 4d. per htmdlof our popuflation. But this distres,tuLstate of things did not appertain to theother States. All those States that had beenbehind at the time we entered Federatinhad flow surpluses to show. They had bene-fited by Federation. It has been said lier!repjeatedly that before Federation came wein Western Australia had the goldfleld, toloock to. But those goldfields lbenefited T~ot

only us, but Victoria, New South Wa'e.i,and South Australia also, and that verymaterially. So whlen miembers say we v rethen in an exceptionally good period, I re-mnind them that the other States were .ret-ting the benefit of it, and that during thatt ime we here carried out a spirited publicworks policy very largely from revenue,which was not done by nyi other of theStates at that time, and has' not been donesince. So whilst T have said here that itis not right to blame everything onl to Felier-ation, one has to admit there is a great depalin the irguiment in regard to our havingseparate dominion status. We have had "10years of Federation. We hare been goi ngfrom bad to worse, until it is now saidlwe have no hope of getting out of our dim,-calties. In those circumstances perhaps itwould he as well to remind members ofsome of the thinlgs that have happened tous. At the pre-Federal conventions speakerafter speaker was emphatic in declarinathat the weaker States would have to beprotected. Sir John Forrest, 'Mr. JohnHenry, Sir George Turner, Sir EdmundBlarton, "Mr. C. C. Kingston, Mr. AlfredDeakin, Sir Josiah Symon, Sir .William

16-4 (ASSEMBLY.]

Lyne, Sir Edward Braddon, and others all of years complete control over Customs anddeclared that when they went back to theirrespective colonies they would have to eat-phasise that on no account should there lieallowed loopholes to permit of any FederalTreasurer spending money extravagaIntly.Mr. Deakin pointed to the possibility ofarsenals being built out of money thatshould have been returned to the States assurplus revenue. In regard to the buildingof arsenals, Sir George Turner said-

IMv only object was to throw the onus onIte Federal Treasurer of making provision forthis payment in order to prevent hint fromtIbeing extravagant and giving way too easily,ais Treasurer, to every- demand for expenditurewhich will undoubtedly be made upon [Lim Asthe Bill stands, lie will have ample power tospend money in the erection of arsenals andmilitary colleges, and matters of that kind,which will eat up a large portion of the rev-vnue. There can he no doubt that lie wouldhe extremely liable to have pressure broughtto bear upon him to spend mioney' in militaryand other directions, especially iii times whenthere is anything like a war scare.

-Mr. C. C. Kings ton and others were par-ttany emphatic that any surplus revenuemnust be returned to the several States. 'Mr.Kingston said-

We have been at great pains to provide forthe proper representation of the StLteq hutall these constitutional provisions sem to meof little importance indeed so long as youleave the absolute control of the States'purse strings in, the hands of the FederalTreasurer; and that is what you do unless youprovide for somethine in the shape of a dtis-tinct return to the States. You place a trem-e,,dous power in the hands of the Federal Gov-ermient and the Federal Parliament in en-abling then, to regulate the mode of distri-bution of whatever surplus they' may have leftamongst the various States.

That is an example of what was said t,1he Convention over and over again, and IPin sure those great menl would turn intheir gr-aves if they could know what hasinken place since then.

r.Marshall: They would go hack wil-lingly if the 'y had to listen to you.

Mr. GRIFFITHS : The hon. membersometimes drives mae mad. The DisabilitiesCommission took evidence here and reportedthat Western Australia had not benefitedfromn Federation. It was deemied impossibleto give relief from customs wvithout injuringthe secondary industries of the EasternS'tates. The only effective -way to removethe disabilities was to restore for a period

Excise. Mr. Entwistle, a member of theCommission, stated that Western Australiashould nlever have entered into Federation,hunt that, having done so, the only remedywas secession. We are some 2,460 milesfrom the Federal capital. We have fivemembers out of 76 in the House of Repre-sentatives. Victoria has 20 and New SouthWVales 28, and those 48 constitute a majorityin the House. East is east and wvest is west.This is essentially so when a comparison ismade between the industries on one side ofthe continent and those over here. EasternAustralia is mainly industrial, whereas West-Australia is a country' of primary industry.The jpeople over there do not understand ourtroubles or disabilities. They can have noconception of them. What chiance have fivemembers of speaking in counsel over therewhen there are 70 other members to voteagainst them? Theirs is only like a voicecry, ing in the wilderness. I sav after 30years' experience, we should know wvhere westand, and whether we are getting ally bene-fit fromi Federation or only troubles. I havebeens told we require more information be-fore wve can bring our disabilities before theFederal people. In 1004 the late Mr. Fred-erick Monger moved a motion in this Housethat action should be taken with the idea ofgettinz separation fromt the other States.In 1925 the Government published a reportheaded "Federation and Western Australia."This was a case prepared by the AdvisoryCommittee appointed by the State Govern-nient for submission to the CommonwealthRoyal Commission. It dealt with thefinances of Western Australia as they wereaffected by Federation, and was presentedby the Hon, Norbert Keenan, K.C. Thisdocument showvs that the committee went toan immense amount of trouble and based itsfindings upon documentary evidence. Itwas pointed out that an enormous loss hadoccurred throught what the "Sunday Times"refers to as the g-Old steal. Mr. Keenan alsotouched upon the invasion of the SavingsBank realms of operation. The report goeson to say, when speaking of agriculture,that-

This industry, like that of mining, sells itsproducts in the world's markets, and there-fore obtains a very limited if any benefit atall from the high Customs tariff. If indeedits product is sold locally at a parity of theprice in the world's market, as is the case sofar as wheat is concerned, then the high this

[9- SEPTEMBER, 1930.]16

tonis duty' produces nio advantage whatever.The only possible advantage at any tinis itcould produce would arise froml the fart thatby reason of them creation of secondary indus-tries, the population would be availab)le as alocal market, and this p~opulation would 1)eprepared to pay a higher price for the productthan the buYer in the world's market wouldpay.

The report also points out that this countryis bound to a policy of immigration and landsettlement. It says-

Lastly, the State of Western Australia Sax-sShe is engaged in a policy of immigration andland settlement which is of the highest imn-portance to Australia, as a whole. Up to nowshte has borne almost the entire burden ofCarrying out this policy. The timec has comewhen she cannot face the costs of continuingto do what is national work for Aulstralia. as aWhole out Of her attenuated resources. Un-less the Commonwealth n-uthorit v comes to heraid, the position must be exanined carefullyand lte cost now being icurred must be dras-tically at down.

Five years have gone by since that reportwas furnished, and miany other Commissiontshave sat in the mueantimne. There was theAustralian Economic Commission. consistingtif experts ini the Eastern States. This sat.in 1929. There was the Bruce-Page Gov-ernmnent inquir 'y into the 'economic effectsof the Australian tariff. There was theBritish Econoroic Committee. known as theBig Four, the Disabilities Comiion, tileRoyal Commission din the Feder-ul Consti-tution. and numerous other inquiries. Ever~yyear there is also held a conference of ?~re-in. at which has been loudly voiced the

protest of Western Australia, t-nacerning"itatters. appertainling to this State. I donot know what mnore inforniation is re-quired. It iay be, as was suggested at arecent mnecting, that we might be able tobring the information more up to date.Now, see how prices compare between 190].and 1925. A four-furrow stumip jumpsnouldboard plough in 1901 cost £25, and in1925 the cost was £62: in the case of a seed.drill the p-rice is £40 and £77 respectively;a Oft. harvester £90 and £147 respectively;ya ehaffeutter £60 and £120; a seed grader£15 and now £35:. wire-netting rabbit-proofper mile £30 as against £E52 10s.; barbedwire £14 as against £29 10s.; and galvan-ised corrugated iron per ton £20 as against£30. Even since 192 prices have gone up.Where is this going to end? It is timie we

[7]

had a say in miatters. It is Lime we didsomuething, to induce the people in the East-ern, States to look upon this State in thepioper light. It may, of course, be hopelessto attemipt to (10 so. We are told it is dis-loyval to talk of sceession, or to leave theVest of Australia in its present difficultposition. I think it was 'Mr. Yates, ofS 'oulth Australia, who, when speaking re-uently of the amendments of the Constitta-nion, said he did not believe they were asdrastic as they) ought to be, and that hev' ould rather the Prime Minister hadbrought down a straight-out propositionfor unification. Some time ago I was talk-ing- to a gentlemian and he said, "Your ownMr. Collier does hot believe in unification.Hfe says it would ruin Western Australia."In 1926 the Leader of the Opposition, theanP'remiier, returned from a conference inMelbourne. The Bruce-Page Governmentwere in power. He denounced their iniquit-ouis financial pro posals and quoted certainsuggested alterations Wo the Constitution.I have here an extract from one of the news--pil pet-s as follows:-

When the Bruce Goverunient was iii powerho denounced their iniquitous FInaflCial Agree-ment whiCli they forced down the throats ofthe State Premriers. He also fulminatedagainst the atrocrious policy of the FederalParliament, both parties, in collecting largesumis from mnaterial imported by the States fordevelopmtental purposes, and Putting thosem~oneys out of Western Australia's loans intothe Federal revenue. It was a monstrous tilingto do and lie was right.

In January, 1928, the es-Premier was visit-ing the Eastern States. While in Mfelbournehe was interviewed by the 'Melbourne"Herald," and] according to that papersa id-

When Federation was decided upon andW~estern Australia, after protesting that whathad happened would happen, joined the union',everyone hoped, pnhilaps believed, tha-t theFederal Parliament would be the. centent tohitid the States together, leaving thent to f Lt-

fil their proper functions without interferencefront a body that has its circumscribed area.of Government. How different hias it turnled.out. We have six States, poor and needyT,and a rich bloated Commlonwealth enldinig eachrear with fat surpluses that aid the signmanual of bad government.

Mr. H. W. M'ann: That is ancient his-torv.

165

166 [ASSEMBLY.)

'Mr. G-H IYFITHS: He goes on-

Bit by bit the Federal authority is growingat the expense of the States. We are driftingas sure as fate towards unification. Thatmuens ruin. This enormous country eqnnot begoverned from it Political cenktre by men al-mnost entirely ignorant of conditions in thefar corners of the land.

There is no equivocation about that. I havehere an extract from his policy speech atboulder in March last. Referring to thepolicy of the Labour Putty and the quse-tion of uniheation-and this is not ancienthistory-M1r. Collier said-

We are out to resist legitimiate encroach-ments on the rights of Western Australia ir-respective of the source front whichl theyemtanate.

He confirms his own interjeetion in thisiParliament when the present Premnier wvasmaking a secession speech. Here are hissignificant words--

I think wve would be Justified in going toany lengths in resisting Federal ciieramneet.

if that ine-att anything it me1ant thlat weuould be justified in taking any steps to getout of the strangulating effects of Feder-ation, and in protecting the sovereignty ofthe State.

'%r. Munisie: What are you going to doabout it'

Mr. GRIFFITHS: WVestern Australia isin an impossible position. WVe have no hopeof getting relief from the Federal people.It is time we agitated. We should not sitdown and take things as they ate. Weshould make a big, noise ad attempt to _,etdominion status. We should see that somie-thing is dlone for us at this stage.

Mr. Pantoit: You did not think that inawhen the Financial Agreemientt was beforeusg.

Mr. ORIFFITHS: I did think that way,when the Financial Agreement was di-i'issed, and] I spoke strongly upon it. Itdid not matter to ine what Governmnent w - s.in oltice at the time.

Mr. Panton: The Leader of your party(lid not do so.

,M1r. GRHIFFITHS- We have had thegold steal and the sugar ramp.

Mr. Panton: One of your lparty MAPlthat, Billy Hughes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: We have had the lpi-emnetal embargo, which forced uts to go-nil

out- cuneentrates to At. lxc-ttlaz, and piu.-tit-ally ruined our ba~w inietia n tvThere was the emtbargo uponl our flurl furthe benefit. of the Vietd1Wl mnillers. Thewas the leather emibargo. Until a protestwas made w-ctould not get sutficielt spaceLu se-ntd our leather away' . The bhips werecrowded out. Victoria aindt Tauiaa tooktile soace. on (lhe shtips, and a violent pro-test wa,,s required front us before we could'et at fair 411ii. We. also tried to dto su._le-thing- with regard to timber freights. The

pepeover there Stoppted the ships frotimcrulng here. They pitt a veto oticoal and oin goods coining here, andincereased thle freight onl our timiber.It many have been a coincidence, hnutthis happened when Mr. Watt was in(barge of affair's in the Eastern States.Then again, in connection with the savingshank, a gross injustice was done. Notonly was there competition so far as themoney market was concerned, but the comi-petition was responsible for an increasein the rate of interest, and deprived theGovernment of the use of money thatmight. have been devoted to the openingup of our areas. I think two millions wentinto the Federal savings hank in an earlystage of its career. That auini migltt vrywell have been in the hands of the StateGovernments, and it would have been util-ised for developmental purposes. Thenionv wvould have been available at a lowrate of interest. Then there was the re-moval of the camip at Jhlackboy to Broad-meadows. When we had an excess of re-cruits for the oversen forces, what hap-penedl? They' were taken away but wewere not credited with the 25.s. per capitagrant. The Federal people kept that. Thatwas hlow our patriotism was rewarded!Next we have all the duplications thathave taken place since the inauguration ofFederation. Dr. Maloney asked a ques-tion. [Tt the House of Representatives tosecure information to show the nulmber ofoficial,; employed in the Commonwealthservice in the years 1.913 and 1929 regpect-ively, officers who were in receipt of£1,000 per annumn and upwards, as 'well asthe names, positions and salaries of thoseofficials. The return that was providedshowe-d that in the Health Department in19)13 Dr. Cumpston was the Director ofQuarantine at a salary of £1,000 and in1929 he 'was in receipt of £1,800 and 11

166

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1030.]

other officers with him, were all in receiptof upwards of £1,000.

Mr. Munsie: Your party were in power-at that time.

Mr. GRIFFITHIS: The duplication of-work there will be seen. We bav-e a HealthDepartment doing very good work and thePerth 'Municipal Council has also itshealth officers wvho attend to the welfareof the conmmunity. The officers under Dr.Cmnpston drawing £1,000 or upwards ofthat amount were in receipt of salaries total-]ing- £15,036. Not only has there been thatduplication, but each officer in receipt ofa high salar'- has created branches andhas working for him a number of officialsdrawing salaries below £1,000. In 1913 inu:1 the Commonwealth depart men ts therewere :33 officers drawing salaries totalling-£52,805, whilst in 1929 the number of offi-cers was 181 and the salar~y list was-C286,789, There has also been duplicationin the Works lDepartment, and I noticedin the paper the other day that the stand-inw committee on public works is on itswar' over here to inquire into the questionof establishing a telephone exchange atMarlands, 'Why send that committee over]here when there is such a clamour for cut-tig dlown expenses.?

Mir. Panton: How mnanY are comingover?

Mr. (,RWETT1{S: T do not know andI do not care.

The 'Minister for Lands: That has beencancel ted.

Mr. (41RJFFITHS: I am glad to hearit. I notice that a committee has, been ap-1)ointed to inquire into the many ulvuplica-tions that exist. I hope the result of itsinvestigations will be the abolition ofmany Federal departments. There is noneed for two savings banks, two PublicWorks Departments, two Electoral De-partments, two Fisheries Departments, andmany others the duties of -which can easilybe carried out by the States. On the Federalcapital there has been spent over £11,000,000 and on bounties an enormous sumnof money, almost convincing uts that theFederal Governments have gone bountyinad. Bounties have been provided for al-most every confounded thing. We in thisState clamoured for a gold bonus butfasiled to get it.

Mr. Munsie: And it would have beena good thing for the -whole of Australia ifit had been given to us.

M1r. GEIFFITHS: A return was pro-vided in the Federal Parliament at the re-quest of M1r. Gregory showing what amounthad been paid by the Commonwealth inbountiesi, bonuses, subsidies or assistanceto industries, primary and secondary, ineach State in the. past seven years. Theconcessions under the Bounty Acts weregiven on cattle export, shale oil, iron andsteel, sulphur, canned fruit, wine export,cotton and cotton yarn.

Mr. 'Munsie: Anything, about butter?Mr. GRIFFITHS: -No, and I inight in-*

formi the lion. miember that I do not agreewith the Paterson butter scheme. The totalof the bounties paid on the articles I enumn-erated came to £3,620,226, and out of thattotal in the ,even years Western Australiagot the munificent amount of £37,745. Thatmioney was principally for cattle, iron and-Steel, and wine expor t. New South WValesreceived just under £2,006,000. The assist-anice rendered under the Export GuaranteeAct in the same seven years came to£066,103. Under that Act assistance wasgliven to canned fruits, brown millet, hopindustry, citrus fruits, Doradillo grapes,Chner. grapes, dried fruits and hierd test-mx1l.' 'Western Australia received £6 for

('hancz grapes, and £60 for herd testing, atotal of £86 out of the £366,30.4. Otherdirect ass4istance was given for the guaran-teed price for cotton, petroleum prospecting,prospecting for precious metals, losses offruit pools, eradication of cattle tick, andriderpest compensation. Thnt total camne to£E987,014, and Western Australia receivedfromn it £E56,378. Of that amount £41,375was paid as compensation at the time of therinderpest outbreak here. That payment,however, wvas for the benefit not only ofWestern Australia but for the whole of theCommonwealth. Then in addition, advances-which are repayable-were made in theseven years for Wire and -wire netting andas loans to Tasmanian apple growers. Thistotal came to £C737,434. Western Australiareceived £394,048 as an advance for wireand wire netting, but the amount has to berepaid. Queensland also availed herself tothe extent of £1.90,619 for wire and 'wirenetting. The indirect assistance to indus-tries which is not allocable to States came to£12,796,062. In that list there appears theamount of £48,104 against the trans-Australian railway. I presume that half ischargeable to this State and half to SouthAustralia. But this Particular vote is the

[ASSEMBLY.]

biggest fraud ever perpetrated not only onWestern Australia hut on the States as awhole. Then the Government of the daygrandiloquently tell us that we were given92,000,000 a year for the maintenance ofmain roads. WVhat happened ? The FederalGovernment took from us £3,330,000 by theimposition of a 4d. tax on petrol, and theygave back to the States £2,000,000 of theirown money. In that way there was paidinto Comnuiwealth revenue no less a sumthan £1,330,000. I suppose bon. memberswill criticise what I have said, hut it cannotbe denied that I have told the truth. Wehear it said that it will be impossible for usto escape from the Federation and that ifwe should get out, it will be impossible forus to finance ourselves? I have heard allsorts of wild talk on this question, hut if wego into figures, we realise what the State isdoing to-day and that there is nothing tofear in the way of our not meeting Statedebts, sinking fund and other payments,special grants, old age pensions, war in-terest and sinking fund on wvar services, theloss on the running of our section of theKalgoorlie to Port Augusta railway, andmany other things. We are paying all theseto-day through the Customs and by meansof direct taxation and there is not the slight-est fear of fresh burdens being added to theshoulders of the people in the event of seces-sion coining about. It should also be re-membered, as far as the Post. Office is con-cerned, that the land which was acquired,and on which the building was erected, costthe Federal Government £152,000. A gooddeal around it was resumed at the same timeand -the value of the whole. of that property-would be in the neighbourhood of £300,000.As a matter of fact, I have been told by avaluator that the figure would be consider-ably in excess of £300,000. If it came to amatter of the transference of the post andtelegraphs hack- to the State, I have yet tolearn that the Federal authorities would byforce attempt to secure the unearned mecre-inent-the difference between what they paidfor the land and its value to-day. We as aState would have the power to tax them onthat unearned incremnt. At any rate; theproperty should revert to us at the price at'which it was originally purchased. As tothe trans-Australian railway, only half ofit runs through our State and that questionshbould be capable of adjustment. The Comn-monwl ath has no source of revenue otherthan tbe States. It is from the States that

they take money and then hand it back. Itrather amuses me when I hear people speakabont the generosity of the Commonwealth.Their contributions to the 'States are :.:adefrom money taken from the States in thefirst place. 'We are aware that ab~out£11,000,000 has been sunk in the Federalcapital; there is £11,00,00 of defici4 inthe Northern Territory; something like£1,000,000 has been sunk in the Qodnadatta.railway: I suppose £8,000,000 to £10,000,-000 was sunk in the Common-wealth hip-ping venture; the War Service home-, acostly failure that ultimatel-y had to behanded over to the States, cost somethinglike £12,000,000. All those things had to befinanced by the States, end if it came to anassessment of what we have contributed toproperties in the Eastern States as com-pared with what has been provided here, Iam sure we shall be well on the right sideas -regards payment for the trans- Australianrailway and the post office. Customs andexcise are estimated at £2,630,000; directtaxation in the shape of land tax, j -uconietax, amusement tax and probate duty, etc.,totals £0970,000. 1 do not know whether itis generally realised that the Commonwealthhave been taking nearly £1,000,000 a yearby way of direct taxation from this State.Comparing the position with that which ex-istedl when 3Mr. Pr-atten was Minister forCustoms, the cost to-day is at least 23 percent, up, which on £10,000,000 represents atotal of £2,500,000. That is a -moderateestimate of the difference between the Prat-ten tariff and the present tariff. The suigurembargo is costing Western Australia wellover £400,000 a year, aud there are variousother bounties and bonuses to which we hiaveto contribute. Some people might ask whatwe could do apart from the Federation. Wewould revert to the pre-Federal position,though possibly we would have to pay alittle heavier taxation. It must he remern-hered that in pre-Federal days Western Aus-tralia imposed neither income tax nor landtax, and there was no Strangling NavigationAct or other burdens with which we areoppressed to-day' . During the ten y'aqrsprevious to Federation the State enjoyeda successful term and was able to baLinceits ledger. To-day we have two land taxes,two income taxes and two lots of p~ro-bate duty to pay. We have two savingsbanks;, two Public Works Departmcut,-in faet, erery thing is duplicated. Areasonable revenue tariff would en ddle

[2 SEP1EMrEK, 1930.]16

the State to carry on successfully and attainits destiny. It is impossible to develop theState under the present high costs imposed'by Federal policy. Other States were ableto develop their territory with cheap labourandi cheap material, while we are disadvan-tagvel by having to undertake our develop-menit with costs at peak levels. Oil thefigurcs I have quoted, there wov~uld be abalance in favour of the State of C2,699.000,representing the excess taxatiot' we are pay-ing to ,the 'Conirnonwsalth to-day. Thatsnm, if the State were an independent domi-nion, would not go into the Treasury, butwould permit of duties being reduced sothat the burden of government would faillmore equitably upon the primvary produtters.The Government would be able to buy thegold produced, and with that backing couldraise the necessary funds to develop thecountry. It has been, suggested that to ad-vocate secession amounts to disloyalty. Letus be loyal to this State. There was noquestion of disloyalty here during the wvar,but there was in Sydney.

Mr. Panton: It was a question not ofloyalty to the State, but of loyalty to theCrown.

.t11r. GRIFflWETS: 'We are told thatFederation is an indisqsluble union underthe Crown. We aire not asking to break

awyfrom the Crown. We are asking forthe freedom 'New Zealand enjoys. N\ewZealand and Australia combined for waroperations and out of their joint serviceAnsac originated. Rhodesia, being dJIs-tant from the South African capital andhaving problems of its own, refuses to jointhe union; yet that dominion is just asloyal as the rest of South Africa, probablymore so. 'Newfoundland will not join theCanadian union, knowing she is hotter off asa separate entity because her problems aredifferent from Canada's. The Simon Comn-mission recently presented its report on thefuture government of India, and advocatedthat Burma should remain apart, becauseof distance fromt the equivalent of our

Canberra and] because of the different prob-lems confronting Burma. To govern Weal -

emn Australia from Canberra. is like tryingto govern Moscow from London. The Can-hei'ra authorities do not understand us anddo not want to. When visiting Sydney in1918, 1 was introduced to the theu Premierof New South Wales, Mr. W. A. Holman,

and the Treasurer, M1r. Fitzpatrick. Discuss-ing the war, I told them that the people ofthe Eastern States dlid not know that theEmpire -was at war. Mr. Hohuran said,"BLut look what we have dlone." I toldhim that his State had not been affected aswe had been. I had seen eight large vessels,going out of the heads that morning carr-ing cargo to the South Sea Islands, and Ithought of our miserable one-or-two-steamiers-a-muonth service, our timber, wheat and woolheld up at Premantle for lack of shipping,and apples that could not be exported buthad to be consumed locally. I told themI had visited Sussex-street and seen thewarehouses stuffed with goods branded withall sorts of imposs-ible names, showing thatSydney was doing the South Sea Islaindtrade of which Germany had been deprivedby the war. Big emporiums were sellingmore expensive outfits than ever before, duc,to the free spending of money paid in theshape of war allowances. Speaking to thewife of a private citizen, a cultured, well-read lady, I mentioned Western Australia,and she asked about the voyage across. Sheknew so little about Western Australia shewas unaware that trains had been runningfor 12 months. She said, "You couild nothave come across by rail; the line has notbeen built." If she had been a black fromNorth Queensland or from the Territory, Icould have understood her making such aremark. The people of the Eastern Statesarc so engrossed in their own big schemesthat they overshadow everything else. Weare neither known nor understood by them.The Royal Commission which inquired intothe disabilities of Western Australia nderFederation and was presided over by ainax-Federal Treasurer, thu British EcDonic

Commission. known as the Big Four, andthe committee of experts which in 1929, atthe request of the Prime 'Minister, conductedinquiry into the econom-ic $llets. of the Aus-tralifin tariff, each in turn either specificallyor grene rally drew attention to the peculiarand -unenviable position of Western Aus-tralia, as a State of thec Commonwealth. Thelast-mentioned committee comprised sucheminent authorities as J. B Brigden, MT.A.,Professor of Economics, D. B. Copland,.M.A., fl.Scs., Professor of Commerce in theMelbourne University, E. C. Dyason, B.Sc.,BAIM.E., member of the Stock Exchangle,.Aelbourne, L. P. Ciblin, ILfA., the Ritchie

169

170 [ASSEMBLY.]

Profesor of Economics inl the Univ'ersity of to ipay £40 or £:50 for water of wvhih theyMelbourne, and C. 11. Wickens, I.S.O.,F.I.A., F.S.S., Con.monwealth Statisticianarid Actuary, and they niade the followingassertion:

The unequal vffeets; between States areprohably' the most embarrassing citlsetluelteesof the tariff. .. .... ere Australiat 01k- sittillIcompact (eonoNiV unit . d....fifferences he-iwee,, areas wvould Ie less inmportant. But

wi Oulr diverse gn'ographi al cnition s and(,tr F.deral sa'vatent of governmtent, such is notIII, a:se . . . . It i to h e iot iced t hat thesubsidies to Victoria a adl Queenishand a rt twiceats gren t as t host to %N'tstern Australia, MouthAustralia, and Tasinifai. . .. So it clomes

1about that tin,' saline two States, Victoria :oulQtUTeenslad, bo0th get the greate(St ilcrease toincomte pqr ]lead ,a(]i pay least for it. NewSouth Wnlei is inl a middle position, and theother three States receive least :rid( pavmtost, with Wevstern Australia ini a soiul -whatworn' position titan South Australia and Tais-Inia i.

Commlittee after commiittee has reported tothe sitne effect. Whether we agree aboutsepession or not, the tiale has come whenwe should imike as minch noise as possiblewith the idea of bargatininig. ALre we to sithalp;Icsslv and submit to the present imipos-sjlY. posiIion?

Mr. Sampson: We want to get out.

M.r. GRIIFFITHS: We must at least at-tenmpt to get out, and if we fail to accom-pilisht that, we shall probably iuspire a ulorcreasonable framne of iad in some of thewvise muen of thle Eas;t, so that they wrillconsider the position o? Western Australiaandl treat it on lines of equity a ad justice.

Sitting q uspended from 6. 15 to 7.30 Pa.

lrr. N'IUFF1THS: Bef(,re tea, I alludedto tine futility of growing wheat to be soldat 3s. 21/d. Per bushel when 4 s. is knownto be near the limit of pavabilitv, and TmentIioned certain thirmtrn I hiorugh Muth r --duetions inighit be cifecteni in the cost ofprodiictioti. Those things are largely tinesubject of Federal jurisdiction. I rally mn-tion water rates. Since the g-oiddelds wanter4ohlene has becoime at ioqessioii of' WesternAustralia, the amnounit represented by pay-merit if inrterest and sinking fund nightwell hav-e been diverted towards eaing theposition of farmery so situated tint theyranittt vitilise the water for stock, theirlands, LOA being- sufficiently developed. ';uchfarmers might well be relieved of having-

use only a small portion. The principlieof charging onl a construction Lost basiswvas, in fact, introduced by Mr. W. D.,Johnson when aI mnlu'r of a previovs Go-erment. This has caused exrraoi linlry,anontalies in rating generall.N and itt re-gar-d to excess r-sLnntg One ext-?itniolt mnightcartly a ra te of 4 d1 . peiritcre, and( a fewmiles further cast, in the, saint, traet ofCounitry, a paralPsl ext nwnoan m]ight carryaI rate Of IMi. f.1 olne case eceSssfe

was charged at 2s. 6d~. Per thousand gal-lons, and in another ease tit tis. 8,1. A rocken teimtelit mreently coumt ruitol -ill. e lierapnioney- , perhaps ait l'A per cent., is loadedLImP with a rate of seven or eight per cent.It his bceenj nsse,,ted in this Chamber thatthe farmer never pays water rates. Weknow there aire cases in wiihl collecti.onshtave not been made. 'Nevertheless, finnWater Supply Department have tile firstgrip on Ih li a d. Tit spite of statementsthat the farmers have been treated lenientl.%,

Iknow of naa\- instances where settlershave been forced oft their lands for non-payikeiit of wvater rates. Anmothle, itemi thatlnrgdly enters inito c-ost of production iiinterest. Indeed, interest iThat present en-

Dogig everybody's attention, especiallyfromn thme Imperial aspect. I have already'nmentioned the ease of a Perth firni eharg-ig, 14 per cent, for a little extra time in

paying for a tractor. Interest is now cost-ing the farmer is4. per bushel of wheat.That sonids a big figure, but I )lave it onthe excellent authority of a bihi official ofthe Agricultural Bank. If the interest lue; -tion (-am lbe mianaged at nlIb something shouldhle done to reduce that rate. The authorof a work oit the national isation of creditspeaks of the terrible burden of compoundinterest, and( gives the illustration of Josephborrowing £1 iti the day' s of Pharonli. Tileauthor states that there is not enough goldill thle world 11ow to repay thatt loan Of£l wvjth 5 pe ent. compjound initerestadded. We knowv that ait 8 per cent. coi-pound interest a debt doubles itself in.seven ve.ar-s. For the muart outback, in tltenew area, along- the Faitern Goldfilds&w.:lway, sornething will have to he done.

Wehave been, used to good tinies, and fairprices, halve helped farmers over their dinti-eultieq; but in tlte districts I have mnen-tioned the settlers now find that credit i.,extremely restricted, and that failure tomeet a promissory note for agericultural

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.]11

mnacinery means seizure, whereupon thecreditors come down like a flock of vultures.The provision of credit at reasonable ratesof interest is absolutely essential. From theexisting situation, unless it be remedied,only one result can accrue. No-w I wishto make my attitude clear regarding districtallowances. I said quite plainly andfrankly, both before the election. and since,that I considered a district allowance ivdllwarranted in the case of people situated at,say, Kalgoorlie, where living is expensive.I told the railway men at ALerredin that Idid not believe in cutting out the districtallowance. When it conies to drawing theboundary line, there is some difficulty. Onthe question of hours, I told the men atMerredin, I must join issue with them. Iwas also questioned regarding long serviceleave. A friend of mine is in the tramn-ways, and I know the opinion of the tram-way men as to long service leave. Theysay that it is a farce, that it is no good tothem. It would be far better if some sceewere adopted such as that evolved recentlyby Mr. Shillington for the tramway sys-tern. Many of the tramway men are infavour of that scheme, where, by sonmeform of point contribution by employeeand employer, provision is made for thepayment of an amount to a manrupon his retirement. Some old friendsof mi ne in the -railway service7 menwhom I knew on the goldflcldis, have3come to me and mentioned that theywere employed int the service 'lurinagthe time when Western Australia w~as underthe regime of floxning-street, before tiecera of seif-governincrit. They have infortncrime that there is now a likelihood of theirbeing put out. It seemis hard that men inVull vigour should he removed, aind pos.sibly replaced by inferior mien. I can sairanthoritativejy that many of the old guards

vnthe railways are very fine wien indeedl,and that the performance of their dutiesi inthe van compares favourabl 'y with that Asome of the younger men by wham theywould be perhaps replaced. -Later I shallask tile House to appoint a select cominnuteeto go into the question of trusteeship forFarmers. A host of difficulties -onfront kite.farmers, and [ hope my' proposal for .committee of inquiry will receive supporthere. The idea is not to do) harm to any-body. but to try to ensure fair play for the,settlers.

MR. KENNEALLY (East Perth)17.41]: At the outset of my remu rki I de-sire to congratulate the new 'Ministers upontheir assumption of office, even though dunring the currency of the session it may henecessary for we to criticise, and seriouslydisagree to, actions they may take. Indeed,that applies to some actions which the newMinisters have already taken. At the sametime it is to be hoped that in the interestsof the State generally, the Government willreceive--fromn this side of the House I thinkI may say they will-the measure of sup-port which their actions and thme interestsof the country demand,

Hon. P. Collier: WhIo wvilt he the judgeof that?

Mr. KENNEAI.LY: Some of the bestcritics of the Government and of individualMlinisters are the Ministers themsel-es. TheLeader of the Government, early in his pre-sent Premiership, indicated that he has notmuch faith in his Ministers; he will noteven trust them to operate alone. Then wehave the fact that the Minister for Agt-culture, when visiting Pinjarra, took theopportunity at expressing his opinion ofthe Premier in return. I am using the verywtirds of the 'Minister for Agriculture whenI say that he described the Treasurer as be-in;. empty. The Minister should be a fairlyg-ood judge.

The Attorney (iieneral: The Treasurer, orthe Treasury?

Mr. KENEALLY: The Treasurer.The Attorney General: I think it should

have been, the Treasur-y.Mr. KPJNN2EALLX : [t has appeared in

print.Mr. Ang-elo: No one c.an accuse. the 'Pre-

muier of being empty.M1r. KENNEALLY: There is little need

for bon. members to get excited a~bout thi9,.I amn not agreeing with what the Ministerfor Agriculture said.

Thme Attormney General: Is reported tohave said.

Mr. KENYRAUXL: I am inclinedl toagree with the hon. joeiniler who interjectedthat no one could accuse the Treasurer ofbeing empty. Sometimes in this House Iwish that wve could justly accuse the hon.g-entlemen of being empty. The previouss~peaker purported to speak 'with authorityon the question of long- service leave. I

171

[ASSEMBLY.]

would be sorry to think that the views; -x-pressed by that hon. member represent theviews of the tramway men of this State.The hon. member said he could speak forthe tramway men. Ile asserted that theview held by a large number of them isthat long- service leave is a farce, and nogood. I claim to hare better credentials en-abling me to speak for the trawway menof this State than the member for Avon0Mr. Gritfflths). That being so, I have nohesitation in assertinig that what the lion.memiber said about tram-way men havingexpressed themselves in that way was in-correct, and at this early stage I take theopportuiity to deny the statement made byhint. In these days we hear a lot aboutnew cries in connection with the industriallife of the community, such as that in timesof ,stress like these, everyone should he pre-pared to assist. That appeal has been madethroughout the State by members sitting onthe Government side of the House, and ithi's been made by others who themselves areslow to practice what they preach. Onemain cry that -we hear is that the cost ofproduction in this country must come down.Inseparably associated -with that cry, inthe opinion of those who utter it, is theidea that wages must come down. The onlymethod they can see by whkrich the cost ofproduction can be decreased is by reducingthe wagles of the workers. It is at thatpoint that we propose to join issue with hion.members sitting behind the Government. Itmay possibly be safely argued, and admit-ted, that the cost of preduetion can comedown, and that if it -were decreased, pyro-v'ided that in bringing the cost down noinjustice were done, it would be beneficialto the community. I am one of those whobelieve that the cost of production P0an comedown, and I propose before concludin-g whatremarks I have to offer this even ir.g, tosuggest a method different from that ad-vanced hy those advocating an attack onwages. The suggestion that the cost of pro-duetion must come down apparently indi-cates to certain hon. members that theretms be a reduction in the wage standardsof our wvorkers, and at the 'iame timne therevm.st be an increase in the hoursi of labour.The Government are proceeding- to giveeffecvt to that idea. I mentioned theother evening to the Premier, by wayof interjection, thant the policy of

the Government was being giver.etict to, and so it i . The policy of theGovrrument to secure a xec(tion in thtecost of production iiiaans an increase in tnt!hours, of work, a le;3ening of the wage stan-dard, and the raking away train the Stt~temployees of rights theyv have enjoyed fortie last 35 x'eam, Incidlentally let sue Statet'it if the Government are looking- for in-dustrial peace, they are turning their eye-Fin) the wrong direction. If the Governmentdesire the co-operation of the workers, a.;they have suggested on many occasions, theywvill not persevere with their attack on thestaiidards of that section. Insofar as theapplication of the Government policy is anattack on the standard of the workers, itwvill meet with the hearty opposition, notco-operation, of the workers. Even now,before the Government go too far alongthe wrong road, there is time for them toact in such a mianner as to secure the eo-operation of the workers of this State. 7'0-day there is time; to-morrow it may be toolate to (10 so. Once the Government of aState declare industrial warfare on theworkers of that State, that Government can-not blame them if the workers at every op-portunity endeavour to retaliate against theindividuals that struck the blow. As repre-sentatives of the workers, we will not tacitlypermit anyone, acting apparently at thadictates of the Employers' Federation ofWestern Australia, to make ati attack onthe standards of the workers without tint-ting up the necessary fig-ht to prevent thesuccessful accomiplishiaent of suich an at-tack.

The Attorney, Generail: Have you abani-donied your faith iu arbitration!

Mr. KENNEALaLY: -No.

The Attorney General: Dun you think thoArbitration Court wNill do what is wr~ong?

M1r. KEN'NEALLY: I hope the hon.mrtember, who has some knowledge of the in-dustrial conditions; I refer to, will realiseit has remained for the present Govern-iacat, after certain conditions have operatedfor over 35 years, to make an attack uponstndardls so created. It has remained forthe Government writh which he is asqoei-ated to take action before the expiration ofan award and to make an appeal to thecouirt for an early henrina7 Fo that, in a hrTiel way, the attack may be made.

[2 Sevrnresn, 1930.] 7

The Attorney General: DO YOU think theArbitration Court would (1o what -was an-just9

31r. KENNYEALLY: I ann dealing with.an attack miade by the Government.

The Attorney General: Do you think thecouit would do what was unjust?

Mrh. KENNEALLY: After an experienceof 35 years of these standards in operation,it has remanined for the present Govern-inent, despite a motion carried by thisHouse that the standards should remain,to lead an attack on the workers. Thatbeing so, they cannot complain if the work-ers suitably respond to the challenge throwndown. Therefore, I say that peace in in-dustry and the co-operation of the work-ers, about which the Government havespoken so glibly, will not be securedthrough the measures adopted to dlate.W1hen we talk about the cost of production('din1ing d]own, and when we consider thepeople who can visualise that result onlythrough at rednction in wage standards, Iam remninded to some extent of what to.okplace after the outbreak of war. You wvillrecollect. 'Mr. Speaker, that the war broughtwith it shortly after the commencement, arrnpid rise iii the price of commodities. Itwill be remembered that the workers, on thatocasion abided by arbitration, concerning,which the Attorney General so glibly speaks.The resuit was that the workers had to wauitfeur long periods before their wage stan-dlards were so fixed as to make manifestMet increase in the prices of comnuoditie ,.The experience was that we had thespectacle of the workers constantly chasing,p-1rices. BY the time they secured one deter-ipination following upon an application todie court, the workers had had to wait solong that already' prices were two or threes-tations ahead. Tn those circumstances the:workers were always chasing prices andnever catching- them. Now that the chasehas proceeded so far the workers are askedto turn round and take the lead in chasingprices downhill. That is what they areasked to do after they have chased priceshalf way up the hill without having beenable to catch them! The answer to such arequest is plain and deliberate. The answeris; that the workers have conducted an un-successful chase after prices for q;o longthat they are prepared to continue to chaseprices over the top of the hill xnl follow

p nies down the other side, rather than turnround half way up the hill, after havingtunsuccesstully chased prices so far.

The Attorney General: The court eon-tvolled the chase up, why should it not con-trol the chase down?

Mr. KENNEALLY': The two questionsupon whicht the Government are appealingto the court relate to phases that have notbeen before the court for mnany years, andthe Minister knows it

The Attorney General: What does thatmatter ?

Mr. IMINNEALLY: Not much to the'Minister, because he has no hesitation inleading, an attack on standards that werecreated .35 years ago.

The Attorney General: It is not an at-tack; it is a matter of putting the question'before the court.

Mr. KEN NEAtLY: It is an attack onpeople who have had to work bard to estab-Lsh the existing standard, and it is left forthe Government. of which the AttorneyGeneral is a member, to lead an attack onthe standard with a view to reducing it.1 hope that will he taken for -what it is, achallenge to the workers of this countrythat the -workers will not tolerate. If theGovernmnent desire industrial peace, theyare going the wrong way about maintain-ing it. If they find themselves in a bg

Hon. P. Collier: A Serbonian bog.MNr. KENNEALLY: It will be worse

than a Serbonian hog; it will be one frontwhich not even a iman like the late ChiefJustice Higgins would be able to extricatethem. It will be useless for the Govermentthen to ask for the co-operation of theworkers, which they' now seek. There havebeen occasions-Government members knowof it-wheu the workers of this State havebeen appealed to in the proper mnanner. Inthose circumstances the workers have beenprepared to meet a serious position in aman ner wvorthy o f the people of WVostcrrnAns1iralia. 'They' are always prepared todo that. As a matter of fact, the Ministerfor Agriculture appreciates that aspectarising out of an incident that tookplace recently. Until such time asthey sought the co-operation of theworker, they-, could not get anywhere .As soon as they dlid that, what appearedto be a difficulty was swept away. Theaction taken then indiceated in th~at par-

173

(ASSEMBLY.]

ticular instance that the Government wereprepared to ,seek the co-operation of thewTorkers Now, however, the whole aimand object of the Government seems to bean attack on the workers' wages and stand-ard of conditions. That being so, they can-not object if the workers resent it to theutmost of their ability.

The Attorney General: Do you mean thatthey will refuse to abide by thle decision ofthe Arbitration Court?

Mr. KLENNEALLY: As the hon. ilnen-her is prepared to lead an attack on theirstandards, .9o will the workers be preparedto resent that attack. If the hon. memberproposes to use alt the power of the Gov-ernment to bring- about what they desire,the workers cannot be blamed if they useall the force they have at their commandto defeat that objective.* The Minister for Works: The Govern-tnent have asked the Arbitration Court tofunction. What is wrong with that?

Mr. KENNEALLY: T will tell Ihe 'Mill-istr when I deal with remarks he made.I shall endeavour to 'show where his atti-tuldk Was at fault.

The Minister for Works: Is it wrong toask the Arbitration Court to act?

Mr. KENNEALLY: it is wrong to attackstandards that have operated for 35 yearsand that hare never been before the Courtfor decteruination since.

The Minister for Works: It is not anattack merely to ask the court to function.

Mr. McCallum: That is an attack so fa ras yon can go under the lnaw. You cannotattack thein any further under the law.

The Attorney General: W~e mnight be ableto pass an Act of Parliament.

',%r. MeCalluna: That would be anotherthling.

Mr, SPEARER: Order! I must askhon. nmembers to maintain order. The mem-her for East Perth has the floor.

Mjr. KENNEALLY: I propose to dealwith the phase as to how the cost Of Pro-duction can come down, in a way that willnot mean an attack on wage standards.At the conclusion of his remarks the mem-ber for A-von (Mr. Griffiths) said that thequestion of interest should receive atten-tion. I propose to base nay claim, almostentirely on the Government giving atten-tion to interest and profits. you neverhear or read any remarks in the directionof attacking interest or attack~ing Profits,on the part of those who are alwayvs claim-

in- that the cost of production must comadown and wages must be made the butt.The interest charges in this country, andin every country for that matter, makethemlselves manifest in every activity oflife. In the ranks of this State there existsa condition of affairs that the previousGovernment endeavoured to remedy bymneans of a Fair Rlents Bill which they pro-posed to pass, hut which they were pre-vented by the Legislative Concil frompassing. The previous; Governmentattempted to deal with the question of rentcharacps in this country, and we, were ableto show where rent charges. had trebled iiia1 very Short period, and inl solve instanceswvithoutL the expernditure of an additionalshillinge onl the propert tfor which theywere charged. These rent charges makethemselves ninifest4 throughout the life ofthe commnunity. If a person paying rentfor a h1ouse is suddenly called upon to payanl additional amoun111t in rent, naturally itmeans that thet wanges coming to the workerper inedium of the Arhitration Court awardmust lie ne-tased. It means a chargre onindustry, the obviation of which wouldrender assistance to industry:. and that in-dust my. whetlwr prinmur- or second at y,naturally renuires every assistance. Tllesamne applies in regard to the pet-son whorent- a shop. We gsiy thant sn-and-sn- kecl-;a shop. That is a misnomer, for the shopkeeps him, or alternatively, he goes bank-rupt. if a grocer is in possession of a1shop -and is payig 30s. a week for thatshop, and if his rent is suddenly raised to, he does not pay the additional 30s. him-

self, hot miust necessarily ge0t it from thllcommodities hie sells in order to make aliving. Time result is that the extra 30s.is paid , not by the shopkeeper, but by theworking people who have to purchase thecommodities of life front the grocer it,order that they may live. Is it anywonder that in thlose cireulmqtauces, withtpr-ices increasing in the manner indicated,the worker', lot naturally becomesharsher by virtue of the fact that the in-creased cost of commodities reduces the pur-chlasing power of his money, and so auto-matically reduces his, wages' Therefore,whether it be in interest for a house or fora shop, the same thing applies. Possibly itapplies even more manifestly in regard tomoney loaned to industry, whether that in-dustry be secondary or primary. The resultis that Tight throughout the piece we find

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.]17

the interest charges of this community arepractically crippling the life of the corn-zounity; and in order to create a positionby which those interest charges may be Main-tained, we are asked, from the workers'point of view, to accept a diminution of thepurchasing power of the money they re-ceive, in order that the interest charges mayremain sacrosanct. In these circumstances,can we blame the workers when they refuseto accept the doctrine promulgated by manyin the community, principal among whomare members opposite? The position in re-gard to interest charges is worth addi-tional attention. I have already saidthese interest charges apply whether it bea shop or a dwelling or money loaned toindustry, primary or secondary, that is be-ing considered. Those three items representlarge aggregations of interest. But there isanother aspect to be considered, and that isthe interest in so far as it applies to themioney borrowed by both the Commonwealthand the States in regard to their loan comi-mitments. I want members to give just alittle attention to the average interestcharges on Commonwealth and State loansf rom -the year 1912 to the year 1929. Ifmemcnbers. will give attention to that aspectof interest charges, aind if they are in aposition to analyse the effect that thosechlarges have on industry generally, I amthinking we shall get a few converts fromthe other side of the Chamber in order thatwe may not be alone in trying to fight thisinsidious propaganda for the reduction ofwages.

Mr. Panton: You arc optimistic.'Mr. IjENNEALLY: I am optimistic be-

cause I am a great believer in the theorythait there is an element of fairness in allhumankind, that it is only necessary topoint out wvhere difficulties do arise in orderto secure at least some co-operation, even ifit is mierely in a modified form of the attackom the standards of the workers of the com-munity. I have here a return showing thleaverage rates of interest payable on Stateand Commonwealth public debts from 1912to 1929. 1 find that in 1912 the averagerate per cent. was £3 11s. 1d.; in 1913 itwas £3 11s. 6d.; in 1914, £3 11s, ad.; in1915, £ 3 17s. 3d.; in 1916, £3 16s. ad.; in1917, £3 18s. 6d.; in 1918, £4 2s. 3d.; in1919, £4 4s. lid.; in 1920, £4 8s.; in 192-1,£E4 11s. 3d.; in 1922, £4 14s.; in 1923,£4 14s. 6d.;, in 1924, £4 1s. 5d.; in 1925,;C4 17s. id.; in 1926, £4 19s- 3d.; in 1927,

£4 l9s. l0d.; i 1928, £5 Os. 3d.:- and in1929, £5 Os. 6d. I -should like to point outthat we have not yet got to the peak; he-cause I am giving the average rate from1012 to 1929, and as the loans that werenegotiated earlier at a. lower rate of interestmature, they will have to be negotiated forthe higher rate of interest; and unless therate of interest recedes from what it is atthe present time, when we are paying 6 percent., by the tue those earlier loans are allnegotiated at the hig-her rate, the averagerate for the whole of the loans, Comniun-wealth anid State, will be 6 per ceuL insteadof £5 Os. 6d., as indicated here. I want top)oint out that that is having and will con-tinue to have a tremendous effect upon theindustries of the Commonwealth. As a miat-ter of fact, were we in a position to say thatthe average interest rates payable 5on ourloans, Comm ion wealth and State, were thesame to-day as they were in 1912, we shouldhave an amount of £16,000,000 less to payin interest to the bondholders. When peopleask how can we release industry from thebondage in which it is placed at the presenttime, 1 say we can release industry if onlywe will give attention to the question, not ofthe reduction of wages, but of the strangle-hold that interest has on the industries ofthe Commonwuiealth. I suggest to ity friendsopposite that the time has come when theyshould give more attention to the questionof the reduction of interest and interestcharges than they are giving at present;and give less attention than they are givingat present to the attack on the standards ofthe workers of this country. I say thathonestly, believing that it would be in thebest interests of the State.

Member: How do you suggest they shouldgoa about it?7

Mr. KENNEALLY: I hope to be able togive a lead that may or may not be followedby the bon. member.

MrI. Angelo: You say that rents haverisen considerably during the past six years.Why did not you tackle that question whenyou were in office?

Mr. KENNEALLY: The hon. membergives me a very good opening, which I antsure he did not intend to do. We endeav-oured in two ways to give effect to the policyI have been indicating. We introduced aFair Rents Bill so as to have some controlover the rapacity of the people who ownproperty, and we were opposed at everyturn by members opposite.

175

[ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. Angelo: But I mecan the interestcharges.

M1r. 1{ENNEALsLY: Even though we badthe numbers to get the Bill through the As-sembly, the friends in another place of mem-bers Opposite were able to thwart our pur-pose in that respect. Also we introducedwhat was known' as 'the anti-pro-fiteeringBill, a measure miaking it possible for anyperson dissatisfied. with the charges imposedon any commodity to appeal to a tribunal,which would then fix the price to be chargedon that conunodity.

The Attorney-General: But you have beenttalking about interest charges.

M1r. KE-NNEALLY: And the hion. mem-ber who was interjecting was one of thosethat passed that measure.

Mr. Angelo: But you are right off thetrack.

Mr. KENNEALLY: It shakes my faithinl humankind, in the theory that if you putup a reasonable proposition there are alwayspeople who will take the reasonable view.I can see that I should have excluded fromthat Category the Attorney-Genera].

The Attorney-General: You were talkingabout interest on loans.

.Ar. KENNEALLY: I was speakingof the interest on loans, and I -wanted topoint out that that is one of the last thingswhich in the opinion of members oppositewe should speak about at all; becabse intheir opinion the interest on loans shouldbe sacrosanct. We do not believe that. Weare of opinion that the interest charges onloans are just as subject to attack, andshould be just as subject to attack, as arethe wages of the worker.

11r. Airgelo: Why did not your side,xv.lien inii te, attack themt?

MrI. KENXEALIN: If the hli. mclii-her will a'k that question at the con-clu.,ion of my rem arks, it will indicate thathr is not salislfied that we did make thelit kt -arv hmole. In the mneantimne, what Iwi~h to direct attention to is that if wewce p layiLUr the al~n'v rate of inlterei (Onlloaii now as we were paying in 1912 therewould be 026,000,0001 less per ;miiiin iF1-

terest for this Comnnonwealth to find tomeet its obligations.

Mr. Angelo: We admiit that.Mr. KEM'_NEA LJY: I ami glad to hear

it. Still, I wvisht to point out to mnembersthat a fair amounit of our difficUlty re-cently created would have been obviatedhad we had to raise 4C16,000,000 leis for

interest charges this year. Our loan com-mitments at present total £1,100,0OOQl.

_1r. Angelo: Had the cost of productionbeen the samie now us in 1912 we would notlie in our present position.

i11r. SPEAKER: The lion. mnember for(3ascoyne must ce-ase interjecting. Themnember for East Perth has the floor.

Mr. KENNEALLY : The lion, me~mberseems4 to desire some information. He savsit the cost of production wvas the same ASin 1912 we would have no cause for com-plaint. Apparently in his opinion we shouldreturn to the pie-war stage.

Mr. Angelo: I think we shall have to, in,everything.

Mr. 17ENNEALLY: That leaves no loop-hole for escape. It he agrees that we haveto ievert to pre-war stage in everything, Isuggest we should do it with regard to in-tercst, If we do it in regard to interest, Ipropose to show that we can easily get backto pre-wvar stages in the mnatter of wage.,paid to the workers. In fixing the basicwage from year to year, the ArbitrationCourt takes into consideration differenttn imodities, the rentals charged to theworkers who have to be housed, the cost ofclothing, food and groceries and upkeepgener-ally. If interest will let go its holdupon' these commtodities, and if we revert tothe lpre-war stage in the mnatter of interest,ilie -ubnequent decisions of the ArbitratioLCourt, which takes into consideration theccst of the commodities required by theworker, must he reflected in the basic w.agefinding. If the basic 'rage is reduced theamount received per week by the work,'.,will maintain his wage standard by pre-servinr to him the same purchasing powerto enable him to buy the comimodities that14J p~urchased in 1912. There will thus In.2 o reduction in the wage standard.

Mr. Angelo: 'Meat, wool and wheat haver-'ime down to the pre-war stage oiready.

I1-Tr. KENNEALLY: That is an incorre.?t4 ateinu

Thfin. P. Collier: Meat on the hoof, per-haps.

Mr. Angelo: T mena that the prodacer iqomdv Lyrttiiu pire-w ar prit-es.

Mr. K-ENNEALLY: The lion. mevniw',had better come over her. His trouble i,;that the anti-profteerin4Z Bill was~ not nia.drlaw lost session. Had it been passed the

[2 SE'PTEMBEB, 1939.117

effect of the reduced value of stock wouldbe made manifeit to the consumer. Whilsttile producer is not receiving an exarhitantrate for hi* stock on the hoof, the ecosumeris getting- his meat very little cheaper thanwhen the producer was getting a higherrate.

My. Angelo: There has been a reductonof between 30 and -10 pe-r cent. during thelast three months.

Mr. Willeock: Wholesale but not retail.Mr. Angelo: Yes, retail.Hon. P. Collier: We shall have to ]ive

on kangaroo.Mr. Brown: You can buy mnutton for 3d.

lb.Mr. 'Munsie: The neck.Mr. SPEAKNER: Order! I would remind

the House that the member for Eas.t Perthhas the floor. Interjections are disorderly,and I .nmust ask members to refrain frommaking them.

Mr.. IiEXXEALLY: Membe~s oppositesay we should get back to pre-war stagesin everything. They attack the wages ofthe workers, and their only desire is toget back to the pre-war stage in somethings. That is where we join issue withthem, and will perhaps join issue very sari-0usly with thhqn. H tlwp wagi'a, of theworkers ax-e to be attacked, the interest onmoney should he attacked. The interest-earning power of money is what is causingthe major portion of the trouble fromwhich this country is suffering,

Mr. Doney: We quite agree.Xx. ENNEALLY: I hare another re-

cruit. IT we agree we should join in aneffort to see that the wrage standardl of theworkers is not attacked, but that the earn-ing power of money is attacked. Thisshould he reflected in the interest chargesfor accommnodation for the members of thecommunity. If that move isq successfullymade, the workers will not he so much con-cerned aboat the amount of money' theyhandle per westk. 'W-hat concerns them moastis the purchasing power of the moneyregarding the acquisition of the commod-ities upon which they lire. If the existingejrnmng power of money' is reduced . andreflects itself through the activities of thecommunity to the extent of reducing thecost of all essential commodities, includingrtent, that will be made manifest in the di'-cisions of the court in regard to the wages

of the workers. 'We shall then get baick t"the glorious state mentioned by the mnemberfor Gascoyne, the pre-war stage in every-thing.

Mr. Angelo: Come out of the clouds.What about the interest charges?

Mr. EKNNEALLY: rUnder that systemthe standard of wages will not be the firstline of attack by the Government. Thebuon. nmember wants to know how wre are toget down to the question of interest charges.I have one or two suggestions to make. Wemust attack the interest charges. We shouldhave no more regard for interest chargesthat are peynabie to the bondholders in thecommunity than we should have for themoney payable to other people with whomwe have entered into similar arrangements.

The Attorney General: What about theI~onulholders not in the community?

'Mr. KENNE ALLY: They can be con-trolled also, if proper action is taken. 'Wehave a bond with the workers. Some mem-bers opposite would say to the civil servant,"We have entered into an undertaking topay you so much, but we now want you towork for less." They -would say to theworkers,- "Yes, we said we would pay youso imst, but you must work for less-" Ifthey are going to interfere with the under-taking they have made with thie workerswhy Whould they not say to the bondholdersthat they are no longer entitled to observethe undertaking- they% made with them? Whatargumnent can members opposite have infatvour of interforing with the one stand-ard, the standard of living, if they do notalso express a willingness to interfere withthe other standard, the standard of interest?

Mr. Angelo: Y-ou do not suggest repudia-tion of interest upon our engagements?

The Attorney General: To the English1lenders, and others?

Mr. KEN-NEALLY: I would not regardthe bondholders in this community as moresacrosanct than I would other people in thesame position. If we are prepared to tearup the scrap of paper with our civil ser-vants and our undertakiD.g with them, andto pick theal outZ asQ a special class andattack their standard of living, why mustwe not attempt to reduce the interert.charges of mnoneyed people in this comn-inanity? T refuse to subscribe to such anidea.

177

178 [ASSEMBLY.]

AIr. Angelo: The greatest proportion ofour loans came from the Old Country.

Mr. KENXEAI.LY: Because my friend'spredecessors mnade this possible.

The Attorney General: We owe miost ofour indebtedness to people ott of WesternAustralia.

Hon. P'. Collier: -Not the War loans.The Attorney General: More than half.

Are we to pass an Act of Parliament re-(lucing- the rate of intev.t on Joans? Isthat the suggestion?

Mr. Munsie: No, hie is not so stupid asthat.

The Attorney General: Otherwvise, whatdoes the hon. member mean?

Mr. KENNEALLY: Members oppositespeak glibly enough when attacking thestandard of the wvorkers. As soon as; theysee that other standards are to be tackledthey adopt a different attitude. In otherwords, they' are carrying out the job theyhave been put there to do.

The Attorney General: No, we are askingwhat you mean.

Mfr. KENNEAULLY: They are protectingthe interests of people who 'are looking tothem for protection, the moneyed people.

Mr. Ang-elo: That is nonsense.Mr. KENNEALLY: In their attack upon

the standard of the 'workers, they aredoing what they are told to do.

Mr. Angelo: 'More workers voted for ruethan did capitalists.

Mr. KENNEFALLY: The hon. Mmriber'-electorate is a large one, arid possibly manypeople did not know himn. Those who sa 'that the wages of the worker must be re-luced and tme eo4t of production broughtdown, must showv that they are preparedto have their own lot reduced.

Mr. Angelo: G'ive us time.Mr. KENNEALLY: Last week I read

a report b * the managing director of abanking institution. After bemoaning theposition of Australia and pointing to thegreat difficulties through which it was pass-iug, he went on to say that, despite these-difficulties, he hiad great pleasure in an-mnoning the usual dividend of 15 per cent.

Mr. Sleenran: That was not the PrimaiyProducers' Bank.

Mr. RENNEALLY: I also read the re-port of the managing director of the WestAustralian Newspaper Company. He de-plored the present conditions, but woundup by saying that the company had madea profit of £86,000 for the year. I looked

in vain for a suggestion that this money,or even portion ot it, would go towvards re-ducinig Australia's liabilities or those ofthe State, or would be used in any wvayto mitigate the diffieulties in which thieState found itself.

Mr. Angelo: They might reduce the priceof the paper to Id.

Mr. I{NEALLY: Only (quite recently,or compfarativelyA recently, the advertisingrates of that samne newspaper wvere coin-siderably increased, and we know also thatsince the war corumenced, the price of thepap)er has been by 1040 per cent, higher.There are a few eases that can bemultiplied, it necessatry. We never hearthose people say that they are pre-pared to join in', that they too must assistin a crisis like this. No ; when they saythat everyone must assist they mean every-one except themselves. We are not pre-pared to subscribe to that policy. Wesay that we are right, and as far as we caniwe will resist those attacks. But if there isat co-operative effort made in order to getlback to tire pro-war standard in eveny way,it will be found that the support of thisside of? the House will not be lacking. (twill hie found also that whilst the move-ment is centralised on the wage standard,as at present----

The Attorney General: Unfortunatelythe wvage standard has gone for the peoplewho have no Jobs at all.

M[r. KENNEALLY: The hon. member.should be anI authority on that consideringthurt there are four times the nunmber of?those unfortunate people now as there wverewhen his Government took over. Thartbrings rue to the Premier's 'Work for all"cry. The way he is getting work for allis by creating four times as many unein-layed as, there were when lie took over,and by aiwiving at those figures he takescredit for having placed in employmnentmany people who are simply working forsustenance.

Mr. Angelo: The same thing applies allover the State.

The Attorney General: What is the goodof attacking the standard of living. Itonly applies to a percentage of the people.

.%r. KENNEALLY: First of all the At-toriney General says that they are notattacking the standard of living, and nowhe says that the reason they are attackingthe standards of the workers is becausethere are certain people out of employment,

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.) 17

aird he wants to bring all down except hisfriends the companies.

The Attorney General: They are suffer-ing already.

M[r. KENNEALLY: Now his plea goesupl for the suffering companies. 'The At-tornrey General brings to my mind the posi-tioin at the present time with regard to on-employment. As he says, there are manypeople in this community who have no workat all. Whilst I am prepared to admit thatthat constitutes no valid reason why thestandards of the other wvorkers should beabrought down, -at the same time I say itis regrettable to know thftt not only in thisSt;ate, but in all the States there is a greatnumber of men and women out of workentirely. But I want to voice a protestalso against the system that is beingadopted to place those people in employ-ment. At the present time the Govern-ment are handing over to local authoritiessimply the sustenanepe that the men wouldotherwise draw front the Government, andthe Government are throwing on the localauthorities this obligation, and so gettingthemselves out of a difficulty, by not supple-iinting the amount *of assistance that hasbeen handed over in the shape of moneyfor the provision of employment.

The Attorney General: Do you disap-prove of that9

Mr. KENNEALLY: I say candidly thatthe Go'-ernuent are not doing what theyfirst of all undertook to do.

The Attcorey General: Do you disap-prove of what the Government are doing?

Mr. KENNEALLY: I disapprove of theattitude of the Government.

The Attoi-ney General: It was originallysuggcested by a former member of yourGov-erninent who introduced a deputationasking us to do it.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The bon. memberwill not get out of it in that way. At theoutset the Government agreed to assist thelocal authorities to find the money by whichthey would be able to employ men out ofwork, and the Gover-nment at the presenttime are not paving one penny towards,pinCjg those people in employment. Takethe system of relief that is offeringlust now; take a man with a wifeand th-ce children, a five unit family.Under the present Government as undlerthe previous Government, relief isgranted to the extent of s per unitper day, making 7 s. per unit per week. A

five unit family would be entitled to 35s.per week sustenance for doing nothing.What is taking place now is that the Gov-ernment are committed to the expenditureof that 35s., and alt they are doing is topany the money to local authorities to findwork for those who need it. It is not thefunction of local governing bodies to findwork for people. We wvere told by thePremier that there should be work for alland the Government's responsibility shouldbe to find work. Nowv we find. that theGovernment are saying to the local govern-ing bodies, "This is not our job, it is yourjob; we will give you the sustenance wewould otherwise have to pay and you mustfind the money to provide the work."

The Attorney General: What a frightfulthing to do! It was actually recommendedto us by an hon. member on your side ofthe House.

MrV. RENNEALLY: I do say it is nota very humane thing to do to tell theworkers, to whom work for all was pro-mised, that the idea of carrying out thepromise to provide work for all is to paysustenance to a local governing body andiastruct that body to provide the work.What is taking place is this: There are menin this community who are working underthat scheme, in the first place with the localauthority and in the second place under. theGreenrmount proposition. When the Green-mount work was started, it was begun onthe basis of permitting a man to earn theamount of sustenance he was in receipt of,plus rent he would pay, plus fares to andfrom the work and plus the* necessary fevOtshillings to take him to the next half day'spay. That is how it commenced. Whatis taking place to-day?9 The Governmentfound that by employingZ a man with themaximum number of childron- the familyof seven units-it was eating uip too muchmoney and the figures were not showinga suifficient number in supposed employ-mient. Then the 49s. man was cut out andthe 49s. man was cut out, and the lower re-lief man was substituted so that on appear-ance it would look as if a greater numberof men were being employed on the scheme.These men are not permitted to earn any-thing like what they were earning at thetime they started on the job. To the manin employment, the landlord looks for thepayment of rent. When these men are in

180 [ASSEMBLY.]

employment the argument is advanced that iqp to-morrow for, say, the Greenitount job,at Greenmounmt the work permits them to earnthe amount of sustenance they would beentitled to, plus rent and fares. That isnot asking too much. Hon. members op-posite cannot deny the justice of a claim

-like that. The system that should be adoptedshould be to make the minimum of thesustenance the amount that a man shouldhe in receipt of, pins his rent and fares.We find, however, that is not being done,and I am asking whether it is a fair pro-position to pay less, and whether hon. mem-bers opposite consider it a fair thing to sayto the local governing bodies, "As far asyou are concerned, vwe simply hand you overthe relief, and you can employ these peo-ple." It may be said that if a man doesnot like it he can object to it, that he neednot take it. If a man objects to it anddoes not take it, his sustenance wvill be cutoff. The result is that he has to accept theoffer of the job, even though it means onlysustenance. Now comes the main point Iwish to make. If a man is not working,possibly he can live on the Is. a day thatis, granted, but I think hon. muembers willagree that when a man is working, to askhim to work and feed himself on Is. a dayis asking more than can humanly lie done.Therefore I say to members opposite thatthe time has omne when there should be acomplete revision of that system. If a manis in receipt of sustenance, and cannot getwork, it is difficult enough to live on Is. aday, but if a man is in work and has tobe at wvork each day it is absolutely impos-sible for him to get fit enough to performthe work and do justice to himself and hisemployer on Is. per day.

The Attorney General: But lie does nothave to go to work each day for sustenanceonly.

Mr. liENNEALLY: My friend now ismaking the sante mistake as before.

The Attorney General: I repeat he doesnot have to work each day for sustenanceonly.

M~r. KENNEALLY: MyN~ friend is try-ing to controvert what I have already said.

The Attorney General : I am making adefinite statement; I am not trying to con-trovert anything.

Mr. KEYNEALLY: Tf le honi. membermay know the difference, but he hias notindicated that hie does. If a man is picked

what happens ! le does the work for the weekand gets is. per day whilst doing it, and ifthat is news to the hon. member I cannot helphis lack of knowledge. He is a member atthe Government that is doing this. There-fore I repeat that the man does have :ogo to work with only Is. 13cr day for sus-tenance.

The Minister for Works: That luan getspaid his first week's wages after lie wjrksoa week.

-Mr. JiENNEALLY: Of course he does.I should not expect anything else to ha:1j-pen.I

T;,e Attorney General: But you have beenarguing to the contrary.

Mr. KENNEALLY: What the Ministerignores is the fact that until the mau hasworked a wveek, he does not get the week'spay, and I repeat that during tile first weekh,. has to work with only Is. per day forFustenance. l~sibly the two Ministers, theone fin charge of the department and theother wxho is assisting him, will now be ableto see the proposition.

The 'Minister for Works: A 'nan does notget sustenance at all. so he does, not get isper dlay. He is paid daily watges.

Mr. KENNEALLY : I repeat that hedoes get sustenance. Take a Juan and *hiswife receiving 14s. per week. What he getsfor the first wveek lie is working is 14s. s-is-ten lice.

Thel Attorntey General: When?

Mrl. KENNEALLY: At the coinme,:c-muent of the week. That ha.s to carry hin.over the full week. After he hans worked atueek hie collect, tile week's wages, it ll'a

of £ 3 s.The Attorney General: But if a mat:- was%

not on sustenance at all, he wold not g-etanything at the beginning of the week.

.Mr. KENNEALLY: I know the 'Ministerwould not wish that at Jan should he in theworse position, but I do not think he isprepared to claim that Is. a dlay is-mficient to provide sustenance to keep a manfit for time wvork lie is called upon ii do0or su(ch a job as that at Greenluount.

The Attorney General: Of course I wouldilot.

Mr. KENN EALLY: Now that the positionhas been made clear, I hope further con-Fideration will he given to the men con-

[2 SEPTEMBER, 1930.3

eeriied. No matter how much we differ or.polities, we can agree that it is almosthiuianly impossible for mien to work onsustenxance of is. a (lay, and we can uniteto see that conditions are improved. I doriot intend to rail at landalords. They makeit awkward for the worker, but when deal-ing with various cases of distress that havecome under my notice recently, acting invarious capacities, I have found that verycftea the landlord cannot help himself. Twomeni separately were occupying rooms inone house. They were out of work. Thelandlord told them they had to get out. Iwas brought into the ease and, on makinginquiries, I found that the landlord wasrenting the house. He was in work at thetime he let the rooms, and when the twomeii lost their work, he allowed them toremain for a considerable time collecting norent from themn. Suddenly he found himn-self out of work and wvas placed iii theposition of having- to muake the r~ooms aveil-able for tenants who could pay in orderthat he mnight pay his own rent. So we can-riot always blame the landlord. We miustrcalise that when the landlord knows histenant is working, he has a natural desireto collect some of the money due to him.In all employment provided under a schemesuch as this, we should aimi at masking thesustienance plus the rent the minimumi.amount of p~aynient. I wish to direct theattention of the Minister in charge of un-employment to the fact that the ieliet oilic..ip situated in a locality that is undesirablerrom the fact thtat there is a large sehoolivitl'in a few yards of it. This neesszitateshundreds of men who attend the office toobtain relief intermingling with school ehil-dren of both sexes. It should be neces-sarys only to bring this miatter under notirefor the Minister to realise that some otheracrcomnmodationi should lire obtained fo:' therelief office. I know that an office had to hesecured in a hurry and the fact that theschool teacher's residence was available madeit possible to remove the ol~ce there, hut Ias.k the M.Ninister to secure some other placeso that the unemployed shall not be inter-spersed with the school children. Variousstatements have been made by the Premieron the question of the disabilities snifered bythis State under Federation. Quite recentlythe Premier decided to take the platform infavour of secession.

The Premier: Do you deny me the rightto mry owni opinions? I am riot a unitica-tiomist. I must stand somewhere.

Hon. 21. IF. Troy: It suits you to play thegamne. You are not a secessionist.

Mr. KENNEA-LLY: Certainly the Pre-inier has a right to his own opinions, but Ihave yet to learn he has made out a case tojustify his attitude. It does not take a verykeen eye to detect the game the Premier isjplaying. He promised work for all, and heknew when he promised it that he had nohope of fulfilling the promise.

The Premier: You have no right to saythat.

Mr. KENKEALLY: At the time he madethe statement he had a very shrewd idea thathe would not be called upon to fulfil thepiromise, and he got the shock of his lifew'hen lie found himself in the position ofhaving to give effect to his promise.

The Premier: Why speculate You. area gambler.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The Premier gamb'ledon that occasion by promising work for all,and now he has been placed in the positionof givingo effect to his promrise. As soon ashe assumed office, however, he found him-self in a pretty tight corner and was unableto give effect to the promise made to thepeop-le-. Like a well-knownt historical identity,lie looked around and decided that the bestwvay to get out of the dilemma was to pro-ceed w-ith the erection of a few inidmills,so that he could knock them down, andwhilst engaged in knocking them down, thepeople would forget the promaises he hadmade.

The Premaier: What childish nonsense youare talking!

Mr. L{ENNEALLY: Then the Premiershould he able to understand it.

The Premier: Tell us about unification.Mr. l{ENNEAT4LY: Ever since the Pre-

rmier made hits promise, his idea has beento rail at Federation, forgetting for thenonce that Federation was in operation atthe time he made his rash promnise. Hisidea, is to rail at Federation in the hopethat the people will forget the promise hemade and is unable to fulfil.

The Premier: What about unification,?Mr. KENNEALLY: I think we can cor-

rectly describe the Premier as a Federationparanoie. He gets obsessed with the ideathat Federation is responsible for all thefaults of Western Australia, his ou-n in-

[,% SSEMBLY4]

eluded, and thus he wishes to bide from thepeople the fact that hie is unable to carry outthe promise he made.

The Premier: Tell us about unificationand your attitude to it. That is the safestthinez for you to do.

Mr. KE'NNEALLY: At the right timeand in the right place, it will be adequately,deal1t with.

The Premier: Adequately dealt with!Mr, KENINEALLY: When it is being

dealt withi, the Premier will find somethingelse to rail at, in order to keep from theminds, of the people the promise he madeto them.

The Attorney General: Will you answer-on the same occasion or on different occa-sions all the other questions put to you to-night about the repudiation of interest?

Mr, KENNEALLY: I have a recollectionthat the Attorney General was not too wil-1kg& to answer questions on one or two oc-casions.

The Premier: Did he repudiate interestto-night?

The Attorney General: Yes.Mr. Munsie: He did not do anything of

the kind.M1r. KENNEALLY : There are some

things that members would like to attributeto me but -will not be permitted to do.

Mr. McCallum: They cannot get awayfrom their own promises.

Mr. KENXNEALLY: Of course not. Iwsish to say a few words about the statementsmade by the Minister for Works on Thurs-dlay evening. He dealt with the question ofdistrict allowances. Those allowances havea history ranging back some 35 years andthey have bee t1he subject matter of dadi-,;onls not only by Governments and respon-sible bodies but by this House. The stand-ards created by district allowances have notbeen attacked until the present Governmentdecided to attack them. No doubt the Gov-ernment will endeavour to justify their ac-tion. They ask whether we are not pre-iparedl to trust the Arbitration Court. Myreply is it has remained for the present Gov-ernment whilst an award 'was current torush to the court almost immediately aftertaking the reins of office in order to fightstandards that have existed for 35 years.

The Attorney General: That is not ananswer to the quesztion you put to -yourselfjust now.

Mr. -McCallun: They wvanted precedenceover all the other eases.

Mr. KENNEALLY: They, were in sui-lha hurry to hit the workeors that the;' madea sp~ecial application to the court to gainprecedence over other orvanisations whichhad been waitimr to hanve their cases heard.

Mr. Patrick. : us.t as, the Premier ofSouth Australia did.

Mr. KEN-NEALLY: That is characteris-tic of the hon. mnember. The Premier ofSouth Australia did no such thing.

M.Patiick: He has applied to the Arbi-tration Court.

Mri' KENNEALLY: It is no use giv-ing the lion, member information if he willnot profit by it.

The Attorney General: Does your silenceto the question imply consent or the re-verse'? Do you trust the Arbitration Court?

Mr. KENNEMUILY: I wish my silencecould be emulated by the Attorney General.

The Attorney General:, I only interjectedbecause you had paused.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The employees towhom the district allowances apply haveno option but to go to the centres to whichthey are directed by the authorities. I havebeen told that if they do ]iot like to gothey need not go. They have to go or leavethe service, because that is ona of the con-ditions, of their cemploylment. If a man isworking- in Perth and is told to go to Kal-goorlie he must go or leave the service. Wecannot, therefore, say that if a man is notsatisfied he need not go to the place towhvich he is directed. There are disabilitiesfrom which these people suffer in outsideplaces. I have been to most of the centreswhere these people arc employed, Hf mem-hers were similarly placed, they would real-ise that rather than receive any benefit asa result of the district rates, they were actu-ally out of pocket, because of the extraexpense to which they were put and thedisabilities under which they suffered inthose particular centres.

The Premier: Geraldton, for instance?Mr. KENNEALLY: Geraldton is not re-

cognised to the extent it should be. In thelast application to the court for the intro-duction of new district rates, the union alp-plied for them to he mnade applicable to(Jeraldton, where no rate-i wivee previouslypaid. The result of the application wasthat the court granted a rate for Gerald-ton. Employer-like, the Government, assoon as they assumed office, rutshed in hefore

[2 SEPrEMBER, 1030.) 8

the expiration of the award given by thecourt, with an application that the courtshould alter its decision. The award ismade for three years with the right of theparties to apply within 12 months. TheGovernment rushed in straight away.

The Minister for Works: It is followingthe union.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The Government arcnot following the union.

Mr. Angelo: They haver just learnt; a trickfromi it.

Mr. KENNEALLY: They are leading theunion thus time.

The Minister for 'Works: This time?

MR.ENNEALLY:- They rushed to thecoiurt almost as soon1 as they were consti-tuted a aovernment in order to hit tbe stan-dard of those traditional opponents oftheirs, end then turned round and asked forthe co-operation of the workers in the hardtimes that lie ahead.

The 'Minister for Works: Whom do youweani by traditional oppo"Cites?

Mr. KENNEATLY: The Minister mustknow what I mean by traditional opponents.It he does not know, I am unalile to tellhim.

The Minister for WVorks. I have been aworker all my life.

Mr- UIENNNALLY: If lie hbs been aworker hie has strayed into the wrong rump.He seems to hie hopelessly lost.

Mr. A ngelo: It the workers had worked.as hard as he had there would be no callfor a reduction in wages.

Hon. P. Collier: How the bun. membermnut have toiled!

Mr. KENIqEALLY: Many memberswould not care to live in the houses of somoof those people who are dray. it_ districtallowances. There is a lack of conveniencesfor womenfolk and other disabiliti.ezs uphas an absence of metdical facilities, aid soforth. Although these allowances have beenin operation for 36 years, the Governmentare claiming not for a modification, but fortheir total abolition. The employees haveno 'enjoyment in these centres, and safferthe disability of being unable to find em-ployment for the growing members of theirfamilies. In this way extra cost is thrownupon the employee, because very often hehas to keep his family when they havereached the age at which in other centres

they would be earning something for there-selves.

MAr. Angelo: Too much enjoyment somne-times ]eads to medical attention.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The hon. miembernay be an exponent of that. If hie has nothad plenty of enjoyment his lolc beliehim.

The Minister fur Works: What. does theordlinary worker, not employed 1w t'ic Gov-eminment, rec-eive by way oif distrit Alow-andes

.11r. KENNEALLY: I ia dealing with.the lack of facilities in these centres.

The Attorney General: You might say"nothing" to that.

Mr. Withers: There is no analogy between-the two.

IMr. KENNEALLY: We are becomingace UStomied to one Minister asking a ques-tion and another answering it. It becomesqulite educational.

Trbe Attorney General: Is the answernews to you?

1Mr. 'KENNEAI.LY: It is quite a friendlything for one Minister to nswer a question-asked by another. Evidently the answer is.to be accepted as coinng f rom them both.I was denling with the lack of facilities inthese different centres. There is a lack ofeducational facilities, and the opportunity ofemployment for memibers of a famiily. Itis the opinion of this newly formed Gov-eriuinent that these district rates should bewithdrawni Croni the workers. Then thereare the climatic conditions to be considered.These and the other mnatters 1 have men-tioned are to be thrown aside, and a sys-kin which has operated for .35 years is togo by the board. This is being done becausethe Government-which were fortunateenouigh temporarily to voin into offie, fromwhich I think they will be relieved if theydo niot quickly get a 'move on-think thetime has come to abolish the allowances.

The 'Minister for Works: Has the Arbi-tration Court, in any award, given districtallowances to employees outside the Gov-erment service?

Mx. KENNEALLY: Possibly that is whythe Minister is pinning his faith to thecourt He thinks it will give him the de-sired relief. Any amount of district allow-ances are operating outside Governmentemaployees.

183

1% [ASSEMBLY.]

The MNinister for Works: is there an'rt.ter disability for a miner in Kalgoor-1k! than for a rail-way man there?

.r. Wilecock: If not, bring the minerup to the railway man.

The Attorney General: Why dlid you notdo; 4:0?

-Mr. Willeock: We did not try to drag,tlfp Ether fellow down.

r.KE'NNE ALLY: If the -Minister flindsit lihcult, onl account of the line of de-nu:vation, to discover a remedy, 1 suggesttin . instead of trying to do away with theallc~wauces, he should have applied for are-.ijustment.

The Minister for 'Works: The court hasto :ieeide that,

Mr- KENNEA.LLY: He could. have ap-1lid for anl adjustment in the directionre "Lxred.

The 'Minister for Works: That is for thecourt to decide.Ur. KENKNEALLY: He held up the ter-

rible example of the district rate beingnwle availalble in Mrerredin ait Is- 6d, aclay, and asked why it should not also applyto Kellerberrin.

Th-e Minister for Works: That is correct.W1:.erc are there any of these disabilitiesin M1erredia or Kellerherrin?

'. KCEYXEALLY: If it applies to Met'-rt'Jin, why not to Kellerberrin? I mayatford, an even more ridiculous illustrationthan that referred to by the Minister. fa dlistrict rate is to apply to Keflerherrin,wlir' should it not apply to INfaylands !Thi:se who have had to do with districtall. .wanues realise there must be a lineih;: v.n as to where they shall operate. Ali!. has been drawn. Ii the Minister foundtE: the line was not in thle correct place,lit- -ould have applied to the court for anCi: ti-stracot of the rates, not for their aholi-tiw:. The Government are now applyingfrry' thet total abolition of the allowances.

The -Minister for Works: They are not.Mr. I{ENNEALLT: The department is

appldying for their abolition.The M3inis4ter for Works: Except in the

-N. tbh-West.,,r. KE7N'NEALLY: At Port Hedland.Mr. Panton: That is aw-fully witty.Mr. KEXNEALLY: Where it proposes

tr. reduce the rate from 35s. to l.The Minister for Works: That is light.

That is not total abolition, but an altera-tion.

Mr. KENN2EALLY : The North-West ex-emptions would not represent five per cent.of thote in receipt of district allowances.

Thle Minister for Works: That is becauseof the disabilities; and isolation in thoseparts. You have been talking a lot aboutdisabilities.

Mr. KENNEALLY : The Governmentare applying- for the abolition of the rate,as they apply, say, to Merredin and Keller-berrin. If the Minister were sincere inwhat hie said. the other evening, and founddifilealtY because there were differentialrates applying to different persons in dif-ferent localities, lie would liave applied foranl adjustment and not for a total abolition.In recent years the court has granted newdistrict rates. They n-anted a district rateof 9d. per day at Lake Grace, where no ratepreviously exsisted.

The Minister for Works: N o. Theygranted a district allowance at Newdegute,not at Lake Grace.

Mr. KENNEAtLLY: The M.%inister ismnaking a mis-statement. I happened to he1l-e union's advocate ii kte case, and I re-

1cet-acrd I defy successful contradiction-that the coiurt made an award in which94~. per day was granted to emnployees sta-tioned at Lake Grace. The Minister canfind that in thle last railway aw.ard issuedby the Arbitration Court. If thle Ministerknows thi;, it does not become him to tr yto mislead the House by his initerjection'.Tin additioit, the court granted increaseddistrict rates where they had previously ex-isted.

The MAinister for Work,-'- And when trwCo0mnnistuoncr of Bitways' went to thlecourt to gel the di,tu'ict rates abolished, thetinrertnmezt stopped the Commissioner.

district rate was incrc'a-' tfromc ]-;. 6ds.2s. The 'Minister's last interjection is very(Illightelting. Let nit inforni himl that t6.*Conmisioner of Railwayvs did not approachthje court for the abolition of district Tat-';.The Minister's; interjections show that heknows nothing about the matter. Hle has beenthree minutes in hig 'Ministerial poqition, andknow., everything. 'Nevertheless, there scent.;to be a fair :uiaut hie has yet to learnabont his own department. His last inter-jee-tioit shows that he talks of soniethinTlie knows nothing about, since the Commi-sioner did not go to the court for the pm'r-

184

[2 SEFTSMBEO, 1930.1

pusc stated by the Minisiter. Not having-gone to the court for that purpose, natur-ally he wa,. not prevented by the Govern-miert from. carrying out the purpos-. whichhie never had. Undoubtedly, however, thisis portion of the general onslaught uponconditions,. It is wvelt for the workers toknow that.

The Minister for Works: There are :@oineworkers besides those wrorking for the Ucr-enment, you know. Quite a lot, in fact.

Mr. KE'NXEAtjY: If the hon. memberremains Mfinister for Works much longer,there will not be many men workting for theGovtrnment. The other evening the Pre-ndcr asked why the member for East P--rtiwve-,t to No\rthamn.

The Premier: By Jove, you got a greatret-option there!

Mr. NENNEALLY: I did, As a matterot fact, I went to -Northam because, as the,weniber for 'Northanm knows, of those tw-owemorable occasions when he and I hadledthyv contests.

The Premier: Are you not satisfied?

Mr. .KENNEALLY: No. I like to renewold acquaintances. .1 refrained from gojug-to Northam until the member for that con-stituency decided to go astray with regardto promnises lie made to the people of thisState. When he so decided, I made up mymind, instead of rushing to other parts oft',]( country for the purpose of condemningthe Prem-ier's action, to go to Northern anddeal with the question thmere.

Tlhe Prc-ni'er: Who askedi you?

Mr. KENNEALLY: I consented to goto Northanm provided the proposed meet-ing was a public meeting, advertised assuch in the Press, and held in the town hall.so that everyone could attend. Those eonj-ditions being complied with, I went to Nor-thain and addruessed a very large meetinog.aind a mepetingx not consisting wiml *y of sullporters of the party to which T have thehnmour to belong, but comipising many ye-pre-ventative people who I know formerlytnjipoxrted the Premier. I placed the posi-tion with regard to district rates. nd length-ened hours before the people of 'Northern,and they carried a motion condemning theaction of the Premier and] his Mfinisters inthat respect. The motion was carried uin-nnousir lby that public meeting. There-fore, I can easily understand wshy the Pre-

Imier showed some discontent at the fact ofmy happening to be at Northam.

The Premier: I did not. I heard you hadlive or six jpeople at that meeting.

Mr. KENNEALLY: That statement islike some statements made by the Premier's

clegues, not altogether truthful. If thePremier lied to step just outside his ownfront door, he could have ascertained thatinstead of their being five people present,hundreds attended the meeting. Possiblythe hon. gentleman knows that.

The Premier: I do not know it.Mr. KENNE.ALLY: If he does not know

it. I withdraw My remark. Had he madeany inquiries he would know that the attend-ance at that meeting was to be counted notin units, but in hundreds. Time motion con-deming the Government's action was carriedunanimously by a mieeting that numberedhundreds.

Mr. Angelo: And if the Premier went upthere he could get a motion carried unianiin-onsly too.

M1r. KENINEALLY: Yes, if he spoke upthere in the same way as he spoke here theother evening. I was taken to task by the"'West Australian" for having made a cer-tamt statement. I want to repeat that state-ment here. I said that in Western Australiawe are suffering to a large extent from whatis known as the depression complex. ThatcomnplexP as I have already outlined, hasmade itself manifest to such an extent as tojeopardise the best interests of the State. Isay wre are adding to the depression by talk-ing at every possible opportunity about howbad things are and how very bad they aregoing to be. Such talk in itself affects theState detrimentally. The same thing hastaken place in South Australia, where theGovernment of the day, taking the initiative,began to talk about depression and the worsetimes that were coming.

Mr. Angelo: But South Australia has hadaibout seven yearsi of drought.

Mr. KENNEALLY: Still, it did not easetheir position to talk constantly about thedepression. At 'Northam I tried to sound anote of warning that talking of depressionand the worse times that are coming is nota means of getting over our difficlties. Aman might have an idea of investing £1,000in a business or building a house for £600,but hearing a few people talk of the terribletimes that are and of the worse times thatare coming, he comes to the conclusion thathe bad better not invest his money. By that

18.5

[ASSEMBLY.]

very action the volume of unemployment inthis State is increased, because otherwisethat money would have been spent and socreated work.

M1r. Angelo: No. It would have been lentto the federal Government at 6 per cent.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The man decides notto invest his money, and by virtue of thatfacet unemployment is being added to andthe position made mnore difficult for those incontrol.

The Premier: You say there is virtue insuch statements?

Mr. KENNEALLY: 1 am not dealingwith the Premier as to anything connectedwith virtue at all.

The Premier: You said, by virtue of thetact.

Mr. KEN NEALLY: Presently we canargue whether that word is used correctlyor not. At the moment I say we are doingourselves no good by virtue of the fact thatwe are always talking depression.

The Attorney General: Surely you arenot accusing the Premier of having becomea pessimist?

Mr. KENNEALLY: No. Except whenthe Premier is dealing with secession, he isnot a pessimist; but as, soon as he gets thesecession bug he ceases to he the optimistlie is generally acknowledged to be. Anotherdirection in which the Government are ap-pealing for reduction of the standards ofthe working people is the hours of labour.The question of the hours of labonr has along and rugged history in the affairs of theCommonwealth and of the States. -Memberswill recollect that -Mr. Justice Higgins, whendealing with the Engineers' ease in the Fed-eral Arbitration Court, decided to conductan exhaustive inquiry with regard to hoursof labour. At that time he notified employ-ers and employees that he intended to con-duct that inquiry and to give a decision asto the working week. He did conduct theinquiry, in spite of the fact that the P rimeMinister of the day directed him that hewas not to do it. The reply of JusticeHiggins was characteristic. He said thathe was the Judge of the court and thathe would act in his judicial capacity. ThePrime Minister then hurriedly put throughlegislation making it neceissary for threejudges. to sit when the question of hourswas going to he determined. He madetwo youthful additions to the bench-oneaged] 72 years, and the other pretty well asold. They were appointed to give a deter-

miniation onl the, question of hours. I sup-yose it was considered that they would neverbe called upon to work the hours and there-tore would be competent, at that stage oflife, to give a decision as to the hours to beworked by other people. In any ease, theinquiry went on, because Justice Higginssaid that after lie had commenced the casethe leg-islation could not he made retroactive.Accordingly hie decided to go onl with tileinquliry and to give a determination. Hledid so, and( his judgment has become famous.He took evidence as to conditions operatinginl almost every part of the habitable world.After having analysed the evidence so ob-tained, he said that whereas it was claimedpreviously that Australia was in the van in.respect of hours of labour and conditions,things had so changed in (then) recent years.that Australia, instead of leading, was trail-ign behind in nmnny respects. As the resultof thle exhaustive investigation which he hadmnade, he decided that 44 hours was a suit-able week for the people of the Common-wealth. And so lie decided with regard tothe application before him. The object ofthe employers onl that occasion was the sameas that of the Government onl this occasion.They were anxious to upset the determina-tion of the court. 'No sooner wvas it giventhan the employers appealed against it,knowing full well that under the amiendinglegislation rushed through by the then Prime-Linister, W. 21. Hughbes, the appeal would]be determined by three judges of the FederalArbitration Court. Onl appeal they got thedetermination upset. The Western Aus-tralian Government are now mlovingr in ex-actly the same way.

The Attorney General: How do you makethat out-. We are asking the coiurt to de-cide. Have you no confidence in the courtI

.Mr. KENNEALLY: Those people saidthey were asking the court to determine,just as the Government to-day say they areasking the court to determine, the issue,but by undue haste in going there--

Tile Attorney General: There was no un-due haste.

Mr. KENNE ALLY: I will leave that tothe people to determine. I will leave it tothem to say how long the Government havebeen in power, and how long it took themto lodge the claim. The other night thepremier raid it was not the Governmentthat took the action, hut the Commissioner.Two nights after the Minister for Works

[2 SEPTEMBER, 2930.]17

said that it was a Government decision, andthat he took full responsibility for it.

The Attorney General: What are youafraid of?

Mr. KENNEALLX#: I ask what the Pre-mier is afraid of.

The Attorney General: Are you afraidthe court will not be just?

Mr. KENNEALLY: I ask why the Prve-nuier was afraid to say it was the responsi-bility of the Government. I put it to theAttorney General that the Government werein undue haste to get to the court, but hedenies it. I defy him to point out any-other means by which the Governmentcould have got to the court more quickly.

Hon. P. Collier: They acroplaned there!

The Attorney General:, Are you afraidof the court? Do you think the court wouldhe unjust?

My. KENNEALLY:- I am afraid ofmembers such as those sitting on the Gov-ernment side of the House who, as soonas they obtain a position of power7 are pre-pared to use that power to make an attackon the standards of the workers of thecountry.

The Attorney General: To get a decisionof the Arbitration Court.

_r KENNEALLY: I say the Govern-mnent had no mandate from the people.

The Attorney General: No mandate togo to the court?

Mr. KENNEALLY: No mandate tolengthen hours of work.

The Attorney General: We are not; we-are going to th court.

Mr. KENNREALLY: The Governmenthave rushed to the court before the awardexpired, and seek to increase the hours oflabour.

The Attorney General: If the court saysit is right.

Mr. KEjNNEALLY: That is one way theGovernment propose to do away withi un-employment. Their method is to give fourhours extra labour to those6 already in emi-ploynment. and thus do away with unemiploy-mnt in the commnunity! In other wordstheir niethod is to increase hy one-twvelfththe number of hours that are being workedby the people in employment, but in doingso they will render more people idle. Thatis the way the Government do away withunemployment!

The Attorney General: Do you think youwould do away with unemployment ifworking hours were shortened 9

Mr. KENNEALLY: I think I can con-vinice the Mlinister that there would 'bemore chance of relief -from the position inwhich we find ourselves if that methodwere adopted.

The Attorney General: We would findrelief if everyone did less work!

Mr. KENNEALLY: Belief would besecured if the Government gave attentionto that aspect in preference to increasinghours of labour.

The Attorney General: You think thatif everyone did a little less work we wouldgeet out of our troubles more quickly

Mr. KENNEALLY: If we gave atten-tion to the right of the worker to benefitas the resuilt of the inventive genius ofman, we would have a better opportunityof getting out of our present difficultiesthan if we increased the hours of labour.

The Attorney General: That is anotherway of saying: Less work, more prosperity.

Mr. KENNEALLY: The Minis tnr canput it that way if bie so desires: he isspeaking for the moment, not .1. I willgive credit to the members of the CountryParty for having placed their cards onthe table. At a conference held in Perth,a motion was carried unanimously tihatthe 48-hodr working week should .be re-verted to if they took offic. Our Nation-alist f riends wvere not game to do that.Some of their candidates on the hustingssaid that they would not interfere withthe hours of labour. It will be interesting,and I think amusing, to see how thosemembers act to give effect to their state-merits.

Hon. P. Collier: The other half of theGovernment party were contaminated.

The Minister for Works: When was thisconference held?

hon. P.'Collier: Those conferences havebeen held during the last 20 years. Youhave always been at that point.

Mr. KENNEALL-Y.: The question hasbeen raised as to whether less work repre-sents a method by which a solution of ourproblems may be arrived at. I have al-:ready indicated that the solution of theproblem does not lie in the direction ofincreased work. I 'ask hion. memberswhether inventions that have been madeduring the lest 50 -years should not bepermitted a part in reducing the hours of

187 .

[ASSEMBLY.]

labour of the worker. Let us consider ourprimary industries and the old method ofsowing a crop.

The Minister for Agriculture: That wasnot done in 44 hours

Mr. KENNEALLY: Let us considerboth the old cropping and reaping methodsand compare them with those now applied.I ask our faTrpiug friends to visualise thenumber of men those inventions have doneaway withi.

The Minister for Works: Have theyshortened the hours of labour in the agri-cultural industryI

Mr. KENNE ALLY. 1 ask them to con-sider not only the number of men whoseservices have been dispensed with, but theincreased yields made possible as a resultof the inventive genius of man made mani-fest in the machines now in use.

The Minister for Works: Are we to as--sume that they have shortened the hoursof labour on a farm?

Mr. KEN NEAtLY: I want our farmingfriends to give attention to that phase,and to ask themnselves whether there is nota semblance of an argument there in fav-our of making the benefits of inven-tions applicable to mankind in gene-ral. I can give a number of otherinstances of improved machinery do-ing away with labour. Let lion.mleliwiM, go to the loco. workshops at Mid-land Ju ncetion, and inspect rihe oxy-weldingplanit there. Let theIL consider how mannymnen that plant has done away With, hlowmunch miore easily the work is performed.Let Ilhetti consider the new method em-ployed in cutting steel plates that formely3required many wen at number of days; todeal with, and which can hle tit 110W11

ninmost ais nmany muomcnts as days, were for-invily rcsluireL. Let them ask themsulvc~swhether the lengthuning of hours, Of lbourlioiild runl coneiurrentl N wit-h the iunstallation

of new inventions. Is, it not unreasonable topaut up) an argunmnt in that respectl Wecannlot agree that side by side with thoseinventions there is any necessity for mento work long-er hours.

Mr. Angelo: Then whby has the cost ofpr oduction gone up?

III% KEX'YEALLY: I have already toldthe hon. member; I thought he was awakceat the time. Ile had to agree with me inone suggestion I made. I do not want hintto go haick on his compact. Then let hon.

members consiider latter-day electrical ap-pliances. I do not know whether meanberihave had an opportunity to inspect the Yal-bourn electrical porwer house in \Titoria.There, l100 miles fromn Melbourne, poweris generated and conveyed to the metropolisto do work that previously required 1,000mieli or more to perform.

3 r.* Wells: It takes 1,000 men to miakemachinery like that.

Mr. Willcock: But that is done oncteonly.

_r. KENNEALLY: The interjection bythe member for Canning (Mr. WNellsj) is.scarcely apropos. I was dealing with thepoint that as the result of the manufactureof machinery making man-saving powerpossible, there is a system not of trades-ninahip, but of specialisution, renderingit possile even in the manufacture ofmnachinery, which required the services ofa large number of men, to have machinesen pable of manufacturing machinery. Thathas done away with the eniplovament of alarge number of fitters and others. If theseinventions were not labour-saving aplpli-anees. they would not be regarded as worthwhile by the commercial community to-day.Are we to be told that alongside the instal-lation of labour-saving appliances, -we mustnecessaimrly agree to the lengthening of thehours; of the workers in order to reduce pro-duction costs?

Mr, Brown: What about certain periodsof the year when the crops are taken off ?

Mr. KEKNEALLY: In taking off thec-rops, there is still the benefit of machinerywhich has been made possible by the in-ventive genius of man, to which I have a]-rea dy referred. M1embers repres entingfarmingv districts know that as a result oIthe use; of that machinery, fewer men arerequired for the work than ws 4 possible inearlier days.

M.Brown: You don't know what youaire talking about!

Mr. KENNEALLY: Of course not! Ifthe harvester has not done away with thenecessity for the employment of a numberof men in garnering the crop, I do not knowwhat I amn talking abhut. I think I -rinc4afeir leave it at that, because time 1-on.niemznber'ts Country Partyv friends will in-formn him correctly and quietly when they'get him ontside. They will point oiat tohim tChat modern machinerY hasq doiie '

[3 SEPTEMBER, 1930.] 189

with a lot of the labour that was necessarypreviously.

Mr. Wisn Don't take any notice ofhim'

Mr. ICENNEALLY: I suggest that tinetime has come when the workers of thecommunity-and I include the farnersamong them-should receive Some benefitmade possible by latter-day conditions, in-stead of arguing that there slhould be longerworking hours at this stage of our exist-ence, hon. members should agree that thetime has come when the working hoursshould be fewer, and when the workersshould receive all the benefits possible fromthe inventions of man. At the outset Imentioned I was sorry at the attitude dis-play- ed by the Government, because tine co-operation some of them had asked of theworkers will be rendered very difficult, ifnot impossible. If a person is asked by amanl who has a club in his right hand withwhich he proposes to strike him at the firstopportunity,' to extend co-operation andassist him Whenever possible, naturally thatperson wvill ask the other to get rid of theclub first before consideration can be givento the request. But while he is using theclub, naturally you decline to assist him.

Mr. Angelo: Which is the man with thi'club?

Mr. KENNEALLY: And that will be theattitude of the wvorkers to-day. While theGovernment hold the club aimed at their in-dustrial standards, and are prepared to usethat c 'lub, the workers are not prepared toassist the Government in the difficultieswith which they are confronted; becausethey themselves have their own difficultiesto attend to without the assistance of theGovernment's club. If the Government de-sire to co-operate, as some of their mem-hers say, let them get rid of the club.Whilst they attack our industrial standardsthey will find us quick to retaliate.

Mr. Angelo: Is the Arbitration Courtthe club V

Mr. KENNEALLY: My friend would notknow the club if he saw it, so I need notattempt to explain it. I have expressedviews regarding the attitude of the Govern-ment in respect of district allowances andhours of labour. I think even at this stageit is possible for the Government to recedefrom the position they have taken up inthat respect. There are members on the

Government side who wvhen onl the hustingswere asked certain questions about hoursand other industrial conditions, and saidthey were not prepared to adopt the policyrow being adopted by the Government.Knowing that is a fact, and believing thate~5L no'%., linaisy members on the Governmentside, if not many membiers of the Govern-ment, are prepared to realise that they havestarted off on the wvrong foot, I propose togive them an opportunity to place them-selves right with the comnmunity in that re-spect. Holding the views I do, I move anamendment to the Address-in-reply:-

That the following words be addcd:-''butregret the action of the Government in attack-ing the established industrial standards of itsemployees, especially in the matter of hoursof labour and the payment of district allow-ances.'I'

I submit that amendment to the Address-in-reply in the hope that the House willcarry it and so indicate that it is not pre-pared willingly to engage in an attack onthe standards of the Workers of this com-munity.

On motion by the Premier, debate ad-

House adjoutrned at 9.50 p.m.

Tegielative Council,Wednesday, 3rd September, 1Q030.

Question : State Implement Works..Leave of Absence .. .. ..papers: Coflue coal, railway contractsAddress-In-reply, seventh day . ..

The PRESIDENT took thep.m., and read prayers.

PAO189.. S

.. .. 1901.90

.. .. 10

Chair at 4.30

QUESTION-STATE IVWLEflNTWORKS.

Hon. A. LOVEKIN asked the Ministerfor Country Water Supplies: In view ofthe merger of the firms of H. V. McKayand Massey, Harris Co., Ltd., is it the in-