COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
SPEECH B3Y
Rt. Hon. R. G. MENZIES, Q. C.,
ON
BUDGET 1959-60.
[ Fromn the Parliamentary Debates," 20th August, 1959.]
Mr. MENZIES ( Kooyong-Prime Minister)
[ 8.01.-Mr. Chairman, the Budget
speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer
( Mr. Harold Holt) emphasized at the
beginning and throughout and at the end
that the twin purposes of this statement of
financial policy for the year were expansion
and stability. I want to repeat that
expression-expansion and stability-because
it seems to me that unless it is borne
in mind a great deal of the significance
of this Budget may be unseen.
Let me take the words in their reverse
order. The purpose of stability is to avoid
inflation and so ensure an adequate volume
of investment in government securities-a
type of investment that is not attractive if
inflation is on-and of capital investments
from overseas, which I rather gathered this
afternoon is not very well regarded by
some honorable members on the other side
of the chamber but which is admirably
regarded by people in this country. Not
only is the purpose of stability the doing
of those things; its great function is to
preserve the value of money internally, because
the preservation of the value 01
money, that is to say the value of wages,
salaries and income of all kinds, is essential
for-social justice ' and also clearly essential
for a spirit -of -confidence in the country.
7341/ 39. Recently, Sir, when I was in France I
had an opportunity to have a discussion
with Monsieur Rueff, who had prepared a
report for the French Government upon
French financial and economic reconstruction.
The report of his committee was
adopted by the Minister for Finance and
the President of France. Those recommendations
have been put into operation,
and the financial and economic recovery
of France in the last eighteen months has
been most remarkable. If any one has an
opportunity to read that report, he will
find that at its very centre is the whole
idea of stability. France had been suffering
grievously from runaway inflation, unrestrained
and incapable of being checked
because of political instability. Within the
last eighteen months, as I have indicated,
the recommendations made by this committee
have been put in hand. Those responsible
have set about arresting inflation,
and the result has been quite phenomenal.
Inflation, although it has not been unrestrained,
although it has come under a
very remarkable degree of restraint in Australia
in the last few years, remains a constant
danger as long -as increased production
does not cope with increased costs.
I should just like to say, apropos of -this,
that in the welter -of comnments -and -criti-
2
cisms about the present Budget I found
the very thoughtful speech of the honorable
member for Richmond ( Mr. Anthony)
very refreshing, because he directed his
mind to this great central problem of inflation.
I shall say a little more about it,
because what has troubled him has
troubled my colleagues and myself in the
course of preparing the Budget. But in
that speech there was a genuine and perceptive
observation on the Budget. All
these other observations that I shall deal
with in a moment completely missed the
point, the point being that stability is
essential to expansion and that stability
and expansion are the keynotes of the
financial policy of this Government.
It is quite clear, Sir, that some honorable
members may have overlooked the fact
that expansion is not the product, of inflation.
Inflation is its enemy. Its achievement
depends upon creating and maintaining
a spirit of optimism and confidence in
Australia's future, and upon guarding
against an excessive optimism which may
regard with contempt the menace of rising
costs, particularly in respect of actual or
prospective export markets. I say that
because I want to lay a foundation for the
approach of the Government to this matter.
These observations I have made have never
for one moment been absent from the mind
of the Treasurer or the minds of those
who sat with him in the preparation of this
Budget. Now I turn for a moment to the Opposition.
Members of the Opposition, of
course, have secured almost prescriptive
rights over a long term of years to professional
gloom. This gloom, valiantly
maintained frequently under very difficult
circumstances, has endured right through
the most remarkable period of expansion
in Australian history-a period that has
been marked not by disaster of the kind
prophesied by the Opposition but by a
record investment in this country from
overseas, an investment not made by fools
but by shrewd people who like to see a
country with a future and stability. That
period has been marked also by high levels
of employment, rising real wages, a phenomenal
increase in the amfenities of life, a
remarkable expansion of productivity in
basic and secondary industries, high solvenicy
in primary industries, and under and supporting it all a record expansion of
vital developmental public works and a
corresponding industrial expansion.
I pause there, Mr. Chairman, to. emphasize
this point: There are those who
rather choose to divide the volume of
investment in the country into investment
on public account and investment on
private account. In our country and in
this age there can be no such artificial
division, because without great public
works for the development of power,. water
supply and transport there could not be
the private expansion, the investment of
private capital, that we have seen going
on over the last ten years. The two things,
to coin a phrase, go hand in hand.
The Leader of the Opposition ( Dr.
Evatt) overlooks the fact-it was not overlooked
by my young friend from Richmond
-that we are budgeting for a substantial
deficit, a deficit of œ 60,000,000, at a time
when the state of the economy is in no
great need, as we thought a year ago it
may be, of some special stimulus. From
the viewpoint of pure national economics,
and even though the Leader of the Opposition
has said the dead opposite, there was
much to be said for a cash balanced
Budget. Under these circumstances I think I
ought to occupy a few minutes by pointing
out to the committee why we did -not go
for a cash balanced Budget on this occasion
-why we accepted a deficit. I will state
the major reasons. In the first place, to
balance the Budget, to bring out a dead
balance on this occasion, we would have
had to make no increase whatever in social
services or repatriation benefits and no tax
reductions of any kind, but, on the contrary,
if honorable members will examine
the figures, probably some increase in taxes.
Mr. Ward.-The Government could
have taken something out of excess profits.
Mr. MENZIES.-My friend always has
some wonderful scheme for taxing profits;
but it is a tax.
Mr. Ward.-You promised an excess
profits tax in 1950.
. The CHAIRMAN.-Orderl The honor-
Able member must remain silent.
Mr. MENZIES.-That would seem most
improbable. I wonder how many honorable
members would have been content, or
how many people in Australia would have
been content, with a Budget this year in
which there were no increases whatever in
social services or repatriation benefits, and
no tax reductions of any kind but, as I have
said, quite probably some increases in tax.
That is a very powerful consideration for
a Government to take into account.
The second thing I want to say is that
every Budget deficit must be considered
in relation to the total volume of the Budget.
If, before the war, when the total Commonwealth
Budget was below œ 100,000,000,
until 1939, when I myself introduced the
first œ 100,000,000 Budget, anybody then had
said Let us have a deficit of œ 60,000,000,
this would have been regarded as sheerly
ruinous finance. But to-day with a Budget
which moves around the vicinity of
œ 1,600,000,000 in this country, œ 60,000,000
must be looked at in proportion and atlso
looked at in proportion to the total national
earnings, the total national income.
The third thing is that the heavy increase
in the basic wage-and there was
quite a substantial increase in it only recently-
in our opinion made it proper to
add substantially to the social service and
repatriation payments which will, in the
result, this year rise by œ 21,000,000. We
could not do that and, at the same time,
budget for a cash balance.
Finally-and I think this is legitimate
consideration-the willing acceptance of the
Australian public, who have co-operated
and behaved so magnificently in these years,
and the willing acceptance by the public
of past measures and their marked success
as a result of public co-operation, deserved,
in our opinion, some recognition in the
taxation field and therefore we have
given it.
Mr. Ward.--You have given 9d. a week
to the basic wage earner.
The CHAIRMAN.-Orderl The right
honorable the Prime Minister is speaking.
Mr. MENZIES.-You could not be more
right, Sir, and with your very kind permission
I will continue. It is interesting
that I should continue because I just want
to make this point that when the Budget
is disclosed to the committee-the Budget
of the entire Government, delivered by the
Treasurer--one looks to the Leader of Her
Majesty's Opposition ( Dr. Evatt) to deliver a pungent and pointed attack on it. Therefore,
as the Leader of the Government, I
think I owe the right honorable gentleman
the courtesy of having a glance at the
attack, if I may so describe it, which he
made on this Budget. I will begin by quoting
one of his expressions. It is inimitable,
but I quote it. He said--
This process of slugging the great bulk of
taxpayers has been going on cvery year continuously
since 1950-51.
Mr. Ward.-Hear, hear!
Mr. MENZES.-On one occasion at
any rate, the Leader of the Opposition has
support on his own side. Having delivered
hinlself of this trenchant expression, he then
went on to say-
The single man with average earnings paid
Is. 9d. in the œ 1 income tax in 1950-51
He now pays 2s. 4d. in the œ 1 and the Treasurer
proposes to reduce this to 2s. 2id.
Mr. Chairman, that statement is, of course,
grossly misleading and-unless I were to
accuse the right honorable gentleman of
inadvertence, which I would not dream of
doing-deliberately misleading, and I will
show how. Anybody listening in the other
night-if anybody ever listens in to these
lucubrations of ours-must have been
struck by the statement that here was a man
with a small income who must pay more
tax and yet, so the Leader of the Opposition
declared, this wretched Government says
it is reducing the tax. Therefore, I point
out this simple but cogent fact: In 1950,
average wages were œ 575 a year; in 1959
they are œ 1,040.
Mr. Ward.-Inflation has run riot, that is
all it is.
Mr. MENZIES.-AII right; do not dig
yourself a trap too soon. The first point
I want to make is that the right honorable
gentleman compares the rate of tax as if
the income had stood still. Now that, of
course, is a grossly misleading proposition
to put to the people. I will further illustrate
the truth by reference to the case selected
by the right honorable gentleman of the
single man earning average wages. In
1950-51, he earned œ 575 and his income
tax was œ 47 14s. or, as the right honorable
gentleman said, Is. 9d. in the His net
income after tax was deducted was therefore
œ 527 6s. a year. To-day he earns
œ 1,040 but under this Budget he will pay
œ 109 3s. tax or 2s. Id. in the His net
income therefore, after tax is deducted, wvill
be not œ 527 but œ 930.
Mr. Griffiths.-Now express it in
terms-~ Mr. MIENZLES.-1 know that honorable
members opposite are upset and terrified to
hear a plain statement on these matters.
1 do not mind; the dog barks but the
caravan moves on. The right honorable
gentleman or his faithful myrmidons cannot
escape by saying that increased average
wages merely reflect changes in the cost of
living. The basic wage, by reason of several
decisions, has now risen to 16 per cent.
more than the change in the C series index
would produce while the rise in average
wages, as everybody knows, further
reflects the competition over a period of
years for available labour.
Mr. Ward.-What are you quoting, the
Richardson report?
Mr. MENZIES.-I am quoting myself.
Am I to be told that the noisy gentleman
who interjected has refused the salary
recommended by the Richardson committee?
What humbug!
Mr. Ward.-At least I do not get œ 15
a day expenses, free of tax.
The CHAIRMAN.--Orderl The honorable
member for East Sydney has not got
the floor.
Mr. MENZIES.-He has not recovered
from the rebuke he received this morning.
Then the Leader of the Opposition says that
our taxation changes are made to favour
the rich.
Mr. Ward.-Hear, hear!
Mr. Clay.-Hear, hear!
Mr. MENZIES.-I knew that two of you
would say that. The charge made by the
Leader of the Opposition is, as usual, easily
answered. The last Labour Government,
which was enriched by the presence of the
honorable member for East Sydney, among
others, produced its last Budget for the
1949-50 year. I take again the example
selected by the Leader of the Opposition,
the person without dependants, in order to
make-a comparison. That Budget provided
rates of income tax affecting all ranges of
income, and presumably expressed the
Labour Government's view of a proper
graduation of the tax. This is a reasonable assumption, I think, that one ought to be
able to make. Our 1959-60 Budget-the
one before us-lays down rates of tax
which represent a reduction, compared
with Labour's rates, of more than 60 per
cent. at the bottom of the scale-that is on
the lower incomes-ranging down to 19 per
cent, at the top of the scale,. on the highest
incomes. And this Budget, it should be
remembered, is presented by a Government
which is accused of slugging the poor. I
hope honorable members will follow my
point. In fact, I think I might repeat it.
Mr. Ward.-I neither follow it nor
believe it.
Mr. MENZIES.-I would not expect you
follow it, and the rest of your remark is,*
therefore, irrelevant. If you do not follow
it, how can you either believe it or disbelieve
it? Our 1959-60 Budget, I repeat,
lays down rates of taxation which repre-,
sent a percentage reduction on the rates
provided by the Labour Government when'
it was last in office of 60 per cent. on the
lowest taxable income, tapering down to 19
per cent. on -the highest incomes.
Mr. Ward.-That is a lot of rubbish!
The CHAERMAN.-Order! I will not
warn the honorable member for East
Sydney again. If he interrupts again, I will
name him.
Mr. MENZIIES.-These are simple facts
that are worth pondering on. They promote
a question in one's mind. Does Labour
propose-because if so we ought to knowthat
whenever income tax is reduced the
steepness of an already steep scale should
be violently increased at the cost of middle
incomes and higher incomes? If so, then
let us be clear that savings and investment
will be impaired, and the means of future
employment will therefore be lessened.
We certainly have not been unfair to the
lower income earner. . Let me . put it in
another way, so that he who interjects may
read later on. In 1949-50, when Labouwas
in office, again taking the case of the
person without dependants whom I have
been discussing, the tax payable on a taxable
income of œ 5,000 was fifteen times as much
as that payable on an income, of ; 1,000.
This was under a Labour administration, an
administration which, by its own profession,
did not slug the poor or pander to the rich.
In the considered judgment of the Labour
Government, fifteen times as much tax ought
to be paid on œ 5,000 as on œ 1,000. In this
Budget, so. much reviled by Labour, the tax
on œ 5,000, for the same person, is not fifteen
times as much as on œ 1,000; it is, in fact.
sixteen times as much-and this Budget is
presented by a Treasurer who panders to tht
well-to-dol
Mr. Pollard.-lt must have been a
mistake. Mr. MENZIES.-Now, Reggie, don't
start giggling, because it creates the wrong
impression. Taking the case of a person
with a dependent wife and two children, the
tax on œ 5,000, under Labour, was 21
times as much as the tax on œ 1,000;
in this Budget it is 29 times as
much. Yet these people with imperfect
memories have the nerve to come along and
attack this Budget as if we were paying
off these mythical rich supporters of ours.
Now I turn to another topic-the loan
market. I am interested in this topic, because
the Leader of the Opposition made a
powerful speech about it before the last
election. He had some strong views on
it. I thought they were rather fanciful,
but still they were strong. One thing that
will strike the informed observer on public
finance is. that but for a dramatic improvement
in the loan market, last year's deficit,
which ended up at about œ 30,000,000.
would have been much greater, and ; t
would have been difficult to provide any
concessions in this Budget. Is the right
honorable gentleman pleased about the fact
that the loan market yielded over
œ 200,000,000 for the first time in modern
history? Of course he is not, because only
last year his great story to the Australian
people was that we were ruining the bond
market, and he propounded some rather
fanciful means of dealing with the situation.
Now, the bond market being so healthy, he
turns back to treasury-bills, those wondetful
things,. those I 0 U's, those promissory
notes, as the proper source of finance for
his projected. vastly increased payments out
of the Treasury.
Let'me remind honorable members, let
me remind everybody, if possible, that the
right honorable gentleman has attacked
every proposal in this Budget for improving
the revenues. I think that is right, is it not? He has, I repeat, attacked every proposal
for improving the revenues. He has
demanded increases of many millions of
pounds in payments out. He has, I think.
though I would not be dogmatic on the
point, advocated bigger and better reductions
of tax. To meet this remarkable combination
of financial proposals, he is for
inflationary finance, naked and unashamed.
To support this ruinous policy, to justify
his recourse to treasury-bills, the direct
creation of funds by the Reserve Bank,
what does he say? He harks back to the
war, about the financing of which he ventures
some very quaint ideas. He said
this-Treasury-bills were the instrument whereby to a
very large extent Australia's war effort was conducted.
Without the treasury-bill system the
nation would have been ruined by excessive interest
rates Honorable members will recall that he drew
a charming comparison between 1 per cent.
on a treasury-bill and 41 per cent. or 5 per
cent. on some other security, and pointed
out bow much money we were losing, how
much money we were giving away. Therefore,
I take it that his doctrine on this
matter, which so profoundly affects this
country, is that you pay less interest on
treasury-bills than on bonds and therefore
you should finance by treasury-bill. This
has a noble simplicity about it. To what
extent he is going to do it, he does not say,
though he is, if I may say so, clearly in a
rather carefree mood on that topic.
. Well, Sir, 1 will make three comments.
The first is in relation to Commonwealth
cash and conversion loans raised from the
public, and many of us can remember standing
on street corners and in other places
advocating these loans-very properly. I
myself even made a speech at the Melbourne
Zoo and for the first time had interjections
made to me by a real, live lion.
Mr. Ward.-Is that the loan that failed?
Mr. MENZIES.-They all succeeded. I
thought that that was your proudest boast.
Mr. Ward.-Not the one that you
supported. Mr. MENZIES.-I supported them all,
and they could not all have failed, because
Commonwealth cash and conversion loans
raised from the public during the war
amounted to œ 1,058,000,000. We know
that because, naturally, they have been
maturing very heavily since 1956-57. As
have had occasion to say before, this
country is still called upon to pay for the
war, which is something that is occasionally
overlooked. But there it was. The loan
raisings in that period were œ 1,058,000,000.
Treasury-bills were extensively used, as they
always are, in advance of revenue and
market borrowing, but the outstanding
treasury-bills at the end of each financial
year during the war increased, on the
average, by about œ 70,000,000, or a total
for the war period of œ 343,000,000, as compared
with œ 1,058,000,000 from the loan
market. If those figures are compared, honorable
members will see at once that the overwhelming
bulk of the moneys raised by
borrowing during the war were raised from
the market on the ordinary terms of a public
loan issue. Of course, on top of that-as
everybody will agree and nobody will complain
or did complain-taxation reached
astronomical heights. There was all-round
rationing and investment was controlled so
as to assist bond issues, and there was conscription
of labour, of course. That doe.
not seem to support the idea that treasuryhills
represent the be-all and end-all of
public finance. As I had some recollection
in my mind of the views of the predecessor
of the Leader of the Labour Party on that
matter, and as the right honorable gentleman
is very addicted to quoting the late
Mr. Chifley, I might take the opportunity of
stating his views, as he put them to the
House. Mr. Polard.-Which you ridiculed at the
time. Mr. MENZIES.-On the contrary. Do
not start saying things like that.
Mr. Pollard.-You complained about
every increase in taxation during the war.
Mr. MENZIES.-You know perfectly
well that on the use of treasury-bills, as on
taxation, I gave the late Mr. Chifley my
warmest support.
Mr. Ward.-Only after he was dead.
Mr. MENZIES.-Ahl You know, you
can say that, but anybody who reads Hansard
"-and I suppose some melancholy
creature will, some day-will know how
right I am in what I have been saying, and
there are honorable members here who
know that that is the truth. Mr. Ward.-I was here.
Mr. MENZIES.-But I said honorable
members Now, Sir, all I want to say is
that the late Mr. Chifley did not share the
theory of the present Leader of the Opposition,
because, on 17th June, 1948, having
had a question put to him, not from my
side of the House. but from his own, he
said this-
From time to time, loans are raised by the
Loan Council on behalf of the Australian and
State Governments. In August, the Loan Council
will prepare its programme for the coming financial
year. Surplus moneys, which may be available,
are used to redeem treasury-bills which are really
IOU's. When a loan has been over-subscribed
and the money is being retained for use at a later
date, the Commonwealth uses it to redeem
treasury-bills, and the Commonwealth Bank has
not then so many of them outstanding against
the Government. In my opinion, that is the
proper method of financing government. Whether
in war or peace, it is not sound finance never
to redeem treasury-bills.
That was the view of a man so frequently
quoted, but his successor has made a speech,
or has read to this committee a speechwhoever
composed it, I do not knowthe
whole essence of which was: Why do
you bother about loan issues? Why do you
bother about paying these rates of interest
that you ought to pay on public borrowing,
when you can get it all cheaply from the
Commonwealth Bank? I leave that topic.
Opposition members may squirm and
mutter and do whatever they like about
it, but there it is. I have great faith in the
good sense of the people of this country
to pass their judgment.
I turn from that, because time marches
on, to say something about medical health
and medicine. The right honorable gentleman,
I thought, was * a little vague on that
topic, and he well might ' be. I just want
to say something about this Government
that has no sympathy with -people. Our
record is clear. We have proved our goodwill
by action. We are now entitled to
take steps to bring our schemes under
reasonable financial control and prevent
obvious abuses. In the last full financial
year of the Labour Government, what did
it provide? Professing that its heart bleeds
for people in need or in illness, what did
it do? It provided œ 5,885,000 for hospital
benefits. It provided nothing for
medical benefits, nothing for any pensioner
medical service, œ 149,000 for pharmaceutical
benefits, and œ 151,000 in
lespect of tuberculosis. That adds up, as
you will see, to a substantial sum, but now
let me go on.
In the latest full financial year of this
Government that is supposed to have no
appreciaiion of social needs, we have provided
œ 14,800,000 for hospital bencfits,
œ 7,679,000 for medical benefits,
œ 3,806,000-for the pensioner medical service,
œ 20,972,000 for pharmaceutical benefits,
and œ 7,261,000 for the great tuberculosis
campaign. I shall put it in another
way. In the last three years in office of
these lovers of the distressed, they managed
to find œ 15,000,000-taking it to the
nearest million pounds-under all these
heads. In our latest three years-not our
-last three years, but our latest three years
-we have provided not œ 15,000,000 but
œ 142,000,000. Sir, I do not need to say
any more on that topic. These figures are
more eloquent than any words of mine
Ncould be.
I now turn to the Post Office. The
Leader of the Opposition attacked increased
postal charges as a measure of social injustice
but, Sir, the fact is that with rapidly
rising standards of living and increasing
population, the demands upon the Post
Office are multiplied whilst scientific developments
require more and more capital
expenditure if an admittedly efficient
organization is to hope to match demand.
In the absence of loan moneys available to
the Commonwealth, the Government is confronted
by a choice. I say in the absence
of loan moneys", because there are those
who apparently do not know that we do not
have loan money. The loan raisings, over
these years, have gone to the States. Therefore,
this idle reference that is periodically
made to carrying capital works of the Post
Office on the loan account is completely
Smeaningless because there are no loans.
So, what is the use of talking about a loan
account? But in the absence of loan moneys, the
Government, as I have said, is confronted
by a choice. It can either maintain present
postal and telephonic charges unaltered and
transfer the necessarily growing burden of
Post Office capital works to the general
taxpayer, or it can ask the users of the
Post Office to pay a little more so that the
standard of service can be maintained and
raised. That, put in its simplest form, Is the question that presents itself to any
Government. Believing, as we do, that -the
Post Office must develop, and that its proper
need for capital expenditure will grow, we
have preferred some changes in customers'
rates to a transferance of the general growing
burden to the ordinary taxpayer.
But, Sir, the Government has, particularly
in the past few days, considered with
great sympathy representations that have
been made as to the effect of the proposed
new charges for bulk postage. That is not
one of the major items in the list that was
referred to in the Budget, but it is not inconsiderable.
The present rate applicable
to bulk postage of newspapers and periodicals
is 21d. per 8 oz. on the aggregate
weight of the papers. The proposal had
been to increase this charge to 5d. for each
8 oz. with a minimum of 2d. for each
article. We have been convinced by the
evidence pat before us-and I think we
were all a little in the dark on this matter
until these representations were made very
broadly-that many of the small publications
produced by a large number of community
organizations would be seriously
disadvantaged by the retention othe
minimum charge of 2d. per article. In crder
not to penalize these organizations, we propose
to forgo the proposal to charge a
minimum of 2d. per article. The increase of
5d. for 8 oz. will stand, subject to what I
am about to say; but it has been pointed out
to us also that many newspapers and
periodicals are sold on an annual subscriptiop
which, in fact, contains a postal charge.
In order not to penalize the proprietors of
such newspapers and to permit them to
make any necessary adjustments, the rate of
5d. per 8 oz. will operate not from 1st
October, 1959, as had been intended but
from 1st March, 1960. I might add
that notwithstanding ' these changes, there
will still be a substantial loss to the Post
Office on the carrying of bulk mail. That
is something that perhaps is not very widely
appreciated. Sir, I want to say now just a word or
two about pensions. The Leader of the
Opposition has said that they are eaten
away by creeping inflation. Over the past
ten years, we have sought to meet this
position partly by frequent adjustments in
pension rates and, more importantly, by
measures to stabilize the economy and the
currency. But what is the right honorable
gentleman's prescription. His prescription
is to adopt inflationary finance, and to use
a depreciated and depreciating currency
to increase welfare payments. The Leader
of the Opposition referred to child endowment.
I do not want to say very much
about this.
Mr. Peters.-I. would not if I were you.
Mr. MENZIES.-It was introduced by
us, you know.'
Mr. Stewart.-In 1951.
Mr. MENZIES.-You have your dates
wrong, dear boy. It was in 1941. But
what is that? A mere decade! The fact
is that child endowment was introduced by
us to redress some of the anomalies of
basic wage provisions. Later on, in 1951,
we applied it. to the first child. Since then,
let it be remembered, the arbitration tribunals
have made large additions to the
basic wage on the principle of the capacity
RY AUTHORITY: A. J. ARTHUR, COMMON' of-industry to pay. In doing. this, it is
quite clear to anybody who has followed
the proceedings, that the family needs of
the wage-earner have not been ignored.
To add substanially to the burdens of industry
by. raising child endowment, either
by. increased pay-roll tax or from the taxpayers,
. would have an additional effect
upon the capacity of industry to pay.
Sir, I conclude by saying this: If, as the
Leader of the Opposition constantly says,
we in this Government which I have the
honour to lead, look after the few and
Labour . looks after the many, I wonder
how it comes about-that Labour, the party
of the many, has been in office-under a
free democracy-for only seventeen years
out of 58 years of federation. Perhaps
Labour's answer is that the people are
gullible fools. If so, I hope honorable
members opposite will say it, in plain
terms, at the right time to the Australian
people.
WVALTH GOVERNMENT PRINTER, CANDERRA