House of Representatives
25 May 1921

8th Parliament · 1st Session



The Clerk announced the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, and also that of Mr. Deputy Speaker.

page 8605

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING SPEAKER

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am sure thatwe all deeply regret the cause of the absence of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is suffering a bereavement which will probably keep him from the House for the rest of the week. Mr. Speaker himself, I understand, is not yet well enough to attend, and in all probability will not be here for some little time yet. In these unfortunate circumstances I move -

That the Honorable Frederick William Bamford do take the Chair of the House to act as Speaker for this day, and for. each day on which Mr. Deputy Speaker is absent.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– I have much pleasure in proposing that Mr. Charlton, the honorable member for Hunter, do take the Chair until the return of Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr CHARLTON:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I decline the nomination, preferring to see Mr. Bamford in the Chair.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I understood that that was the position.

Question received in the affirmative.

Mr. Acting Speaker took the Chair at 3.3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 8605

QUESTION

BUILDINGS AT CANBERRA

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Iask the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories whether he has received the plans and specifications of the Convention Hall and Hostel at Canberra; and, if so, has he any statement to make to the House about it?

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Works and Railways · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The Advisory Committee has presented a report, together with sketch, plans, and designs. These will be submitted to Cabinet at its next meeting.

Mr Riley:

-When will that be?

Mr GROOM:

– This week, I hope.

page 8605

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA COMMISSION

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to a letter in this morning’s Melbourne newspapers, signed “ C. R. Rolleston, Lieutenant-Commander, R.N., retired,” in which the writer states that he wrote to the right honorable gentleman regarding the Commission that is lost, stolen, or strayed in what was German New Guinea, and received an acknowledgment of his letter ? Does the Acting Prime Minister intend to allow LieutenantiCommander Rolleston to interview him, or has he anything to say to the House about the Commission?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I received a communication from LieutenantCommander Rolleston, which had, I think, to do with the causes of his resignation from the Commission. I have sent two radios to the Administrator of New Guinea, but have had no reply yet.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Then they must be lost.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– If the Commission is doing its work, it is lost for the time being. In the interior of New Guinea there are not the up-to-date appliances for communication that we enjoy in these more favoured regions.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– The Commission has a wireless plant with it.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– That may be so, but I have not been able to get into touch with the members of the Commission.

page 8605

QUESTION

LOAN TO QUEENSLAND

Relief of Unemployment: Development of Burnett Lands

Mr HIGGS:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, with a view to relieving the distress caused by unemployment in Queensland, where there are 5,000 men out of work, he will advance to that State, by way of loan, a portion of the £2,000,000 to be expended by the State Government upon the construction of a railway through the Upper Burnett, Callide Valley, and Prairie Lands, Mr. H. S. Gullett having reported that it is estimated that three years will be’ occupied in the construction of this railway. Will the right honorable gentleman, advance, say, £250,000 forthwith, and the balance of the £2,000,000 in instalments of £250,000 every four months?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Much as I should like to help the unemployed, who I know to he numerous throughout the Commonwealth, as well as in Queensland, I cannot advance money for the purpose desired. Many objects are very desirable in themselves, and among them the proposals which. Mr. Gullett has recommended. No one questions the merits of these proposals-, but, notwithstanding that admission, it is impossible for me to make loan funds available for the railway referred to, and I much regret to have to say “No” to this request. The other day I had a telegram from Mr. .Stopford, the representative of Mount Morgan in the Queensland Legislative Assembly, who asked me if I would contribute pound for pound in connexion with the offer of the Queensland Ministry of £1,000 per week in reduced railway freights for the assistance of the miners, but it must be clear to any one who considers the matter calmly that it is the function of the State Government to deal with these matters. I have no money to spare for that purpose. I very much regret to have to refuse these requests, and I hope that something may turn up soon to set these industrial enterprises going again.

Mr J H Catts:

– The honorable member is like Mr. Micawber.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– My suggestion is that those concerned with these industries should be allowed to settle their differences round a table. I believe that if they were permitted to do that, the miners of Mount Morgan and of other places would soon be at work again.

page 8606

QUESTION

FELLMONGERING INDUSTRY,

Mr JOWETT:
GRAMPIANS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he has yet received a report of the proceedings of the conference at which I introduced a deputation of fellmongers to Sir John Higgins last week for the purpose of discussing with him the question of the release of fellmongered skin wools from the restrictions imposed upon the sale and export of wool as the result of the resolution which was adopted by this Parliament about three weeks ago. I also ask whether he has received any advice of the result of the meeting yesterday of the Federated Fellmongers of Australia when that body passed a strong resolution requesting that fellmongered skin wool should be freed from those restrictions. Further, is he aware of the very serious state of the fellmongering industry in Australia at the present moment, and of the fact that no less than four fellmongers’ establishments have closed, and have announced their intention not to re-open until the industry has been freed from these restrictions?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have not received the information of which the honorable member speaks. As he is aware, the fellmongers saw me in conjunction with the Acting Prime Minister a little while ago. As the result of that interview a further interview was arranged with Sir John Higgins, at which one of my officers attended. He reported to me that the fellmongers were fully satisfied with the results attained at the conference, and were prepared to continue operations.

Mr Jowett:

– They held a meeting yesterday at which they said they were not satisfied.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have mentioned the last official intimation which reached me. if any new development has arisen, I shall he glad to look into it. The sole desire of the Government is to carry out the scheme decided upon by Parliament in a manner that will benefit the industry without placing any undue obstacle in the way of any branch of it.

page 8606

QUESTION

PRICE OF BUTTER

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether it is a fact that Australian butter is being sold in London for 190s. per cwt., whilst the same quality of butter is being sold in New South “Wales for 196s. per cwt., and in Victoria for 205s. 4d. per cwt.., and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to insure that the people of this country shall be able to purchase Australian butter at the same price as that at which it can be purchased in London?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The only Australian butter upon the London market at the present time of which I have any knowledge is butter which was sent home as the result of the Imperial contract for the purchase of that commodity. . The British Government paid 274s. per cwt. for that butter, and, of course, we have no control over the price at which they shall sell it. If they feel obliged to sell it at a lower price than that at which they purchased it, the matter is one over which we have no control whatever.

page 8607

QUESTION

SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr McGRATH:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer whether it is a fact that 3,000 words of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister in this Chamber were cabled to England at the cost of the Commonwealth, and whether, later on, 4,000 words of that speech were cabled from Colombo at the cost of the Commonwealth. I also desire to know whether it is true that the Commonwealth is paying for advertising the right honorable gentleman?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I believe that the statement which has been published in at least one newspaper here, to the effect that 4,,000 words of the Prime Minister’s speech were cabled from Colombo, is a pure invention. It is not correct at all.

page 8607

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER: EXPENSES IN LONDON

Mr J H CATTS:

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any sum has been allocated for the expenses of the Prime Minister in London, and, if so, what is the amount?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– No sum of which I am aware has been allocated.

page 8607

QUESTION

RIOT IN SYDNEY DOMAIN

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether inquiries have been made into the allegations that Defence motor cars were used in the Sydney Domain upon the 6th inst. in connexion with a riot which took place there, and that liquor was distributed from these motor cars amongst certain disturbers?

Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
Assistant Minister for Defence · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The statements in question, so far as I am informed, are absolutely incorrect. There were no Defence motor cars used upon that occasion. As a matter of fact there was only one Defence motor ambulance out of the garage upon that day.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The fact that the Defence ambulance was there shows that the riot was engineered by the military.

page 8607

QUESTION

UPPER BURNETT, CALLIDE VALLEY, AND PRAIRIE LANDS: PAPER

Railway Construction

Mr HIGGS:

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread interest taken in Queensland in the proposal to open up the Upper Burnett, Callide Valley, and Prairie Lands, the Minister will have printed Mr. H. S. Gullett’s report on the proposal that the Commonwealth Government should lend to the State of Queensland the sum of ?2,000,000 for railway construction?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I lay the report on the table. I thought that there was a Printing Committee here to supervise proposals for printing. Personally, I have no objection to Mr. Gullett’s report being printed.

Mr Higgs:

– Will the honorable gentleman move that it be printed?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I will. At the same time I understood that these matters were dealt with by the Printing Committee. No doubt there is very much interest exhibited in Queensland in Mr. Gullett’s report, and as there are demands for it, I move -

That the report be printed.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Surely to goodness this matter will be referred to the Printing Committee before the motion is carried. If it be not, and the members of the Printing Committee are worth their salt, they will resign, because, by the adoption of the motion, we shall have taken their functions out of their hands.

Mr Blakeley:

– What nonsense!

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– I have no objection to the paper being printed, but seeing that we have appointed a Committee to deal specifically with the question of the printing of papers, the matter should surely be referred to it.

Mr. ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. F. W. Bamford). I would point out to the honorable member that it is a common practice here for a Minister to move that a paper be printed. . Whenever that course is adopted the matter is entirely taken out of the hands of ihe. Printing Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative,

page 8608

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Erection of Buildings

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I ask the Minister for Works and Railways whether it is a fact that up to the present no cottages have been completed at Canberra, and that very few have actually been started. Further, will he take the necessary steps to see that the erection of these cottages and the carrying out of other works is expedited by getting the necessary labour at the Capital site?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– The position is that I did not receive a report from Canberra last week, but three cottages near the power-house were almost completed several days ago. Altogether in that area ten cottages have been authorized. Progress is taking place rapidly with regard to the other twenty.

Sir Robert Best:

– Authorized by whom ?

Mr GROOM:

– Authorized under an appropriation by Parliament, and by Ministerial authority.

Sir Robert Best:

– Were they .recommended by the Public Works Committee ?

Mr GROOM:

– No. The sum involved in their erection is less than £25,000.

Sir Robert Best:

– So that is the game, is it?

Mr GROOM:

– The honorable member knows what is the practice, of Parliament. In addition, authority has been given for the erection of seven cottages for the men who are employed at the brick works. But the progress’ now taking place with respect to the erection of these buildings is as rapid as possible.

Mr MATHEWS:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-Is .it .the . intention of the Government to .proceed with the erection of houses an.d other buildings at the Capital site without submitting those works to the Public Works Committee ?

Mr GROOM:

– The Act specifically lays it down that any works involving an expenditure of £25,000 and upwards must be .referred to the Public Works Committee.

Mr Mathews:

– But are you going to keep these matters ;down to less than £25,000 ? _

Mr GROOM:

– The practice as set forth in the Act will be followed in ‘connexion with all works a.t the Federal Capital.

Mr Mathews:

– ‘You will be defeating your own object if you try to do things in this way.

page 8608

QUESTION

WAR GRATUITIES

Mr McGRATH:

– With respect to the cashing of .soldiers’ war gratuities, is the Acting Prime Minister now in a position to make his promised statement?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I shall do so to-morrow. I expect to complete matters with that object to-day.

page 8608

BASIC WAGE AND CHILD ALLOWANCE

Mr BLUNDELL:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In connexion with the regulations having to do with the basic wage and the payment of the child allowance, I wish to know whether widows employed in the Commonwealth Service have been specially excluded from the benefits of the payment of the child allowance.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– I am not aware whether that is so or not, but will make inquiries if the honorable member will put his question on the business-paper.

page 8608

QUESTION

WOOL EXPORT AND LOCAL SALES

Mr GREGORY:
DAMPIER, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In connexion with the comparative restrictions placed on the export of wool from Australia at present, is it not a fact that absolute freedom is given for the sale of wool within Australia, providing that such wool is not intended for export ?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– There are no restrictions of any kind in regard to the sale of wool within Australia. That is to say, any wool can be bought or sold. However, if the buyer wants to export it he must show that he has paid the Bawra reserve price for it, or he will be. required to enter into an undertaking, if the person concerned is sending it for consignment abroad, that he will not sell it abroad below the Bawra prices. Beyond those points ‘there ‘are, I repeat, no restrictions.

page 8609

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL BOARD

Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

  1. In regard to the undertaking of the Minister made to the Leader of the Opposition last November (Ronsard, page 7029) to announce the conditions and terms of agreement under which the Federal Capital Board was to work, so that honorable members might have an opportunity to consider the matter before finality was reached, has the Minister carried out that undertaking, and, if not, will he now supply the information?
  2. Is the Board occupying its time making a detailed investigation as to the strength of a temp’orary bridge over .the Molonglo, erected to carry a maximum weight of 3 tons, on the assumption that it is a permanent structure intended to carry heavy traction engines and unlimited weight?
  3. If the Minister is having a report made as to this bridge, will he at the same time consider the report of Mr. Commissioner Blacket on the bridge which preceded it, and which was swept away by flood?
Mr GROOM:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - ,

  1. On the 9th November, 1920, speaking upon a motion of adjournment moved by the honorable member, I outlined the scope of the Committee’s functions. Owing to correspondence with Mr. Griffin as to being a member of the Committee being protracted, I was unable to announce the final arrangements to the House before the session closed. The duties intrusted to the Committee were published in the Commonwealth Gazette of the 2nd February, 1921, and copied by the daily newspapers.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to No. 2.
Mr J H CATTS:

asked the Minister for Works, and Railways, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, notwithstanding Mr. Sulman’s statement in “ Building “ that he refused to accept any fees or honorarium as chairman of the Federal Capital Board, the Government are pressing Mr. Sulman to depart from his intention and accept payment?
  2. If so, is this in the interests of economy or is the object to have better control of the Board?
  3. Is it now proposed to pay the departmental officers on this Board an amount additional to their ‘departmental salaries; if so, how much?
  4. What is the estimated cost of the abovementioned Board1 per annum, including fees, travelling expenses, and other expenses incidental to its activities?
Mr GROOM:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. No.
  2. See No:. 1.
  3. The fees being paid are as indicated in my reply to the honorable member’s question on 11-th May, 1921. There has not been any proposal put forward to pay the Commonwealth officers who are members of the Committee a special allowanec.
  4. On the basis of expenditure up to date about £2,500 per annum.

page 8609

QUESTION

EX-WARRANT OFFICER LITTLE

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Whether the Minister has noted the circumstances of ex-Warrant Officer F. H. Little’s discharge from the Australian Imperial Force and the manner in which that discharge is now affecting his claims for gratuity, and how it may further prejudice his future applications for Government appointments?
  2. Has the Department conclusive and substantiated proof concerning unworthy conduct of ex-Warrant Officer F. H. Little while on service abroad?
  3. If not, will the Department issue a clean discharge to F. H. Little?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows: - 1, 2, and 3. Ex-Warrant Officer Little and another soldier were returned from Egypt in June, 1916, under orders of the General Officer Commanding in Egypt, their services being no longer required, Allegations had been made against these men of corrupt practice, and in a preliminary hearing in their presence a native contractor, his manager, and also his cashier made statements that the soldiers had on several occasions demanded and received money from them; the accused men reserved their defence.

As the evidence was verbal and not documentary, it was considered difficult to prove the case, and, consequently, trial by court martial was not ordered, but it was, nevertheless thought inadvisable that the men should be- retained in their positions and they were returned to Australia where they were discharged.

As the issue had not been tried and’, further investigation was then impracticable, flies men were given the opportunity of. re-enlisting with the rank they held on . their return. Warrant Officer Little did not take this opportunity, but the other soldier re-enlisted and gave further service abroad.’

Warrant Officer Little, as there had been no conviction, was givena “ good “ character on his discharge certificate. The reason for discharge given was, “ Services no longer required” - this was the only reason provided by the regulations which was applicable,as the period of his enlistment had not terminated, and was also a reason given at the time in respect of honorable discharges where the other reasons provided by the regulations were not applicable.

Payment of war gratuity was made, by direction of the Central War Gratuity Board, for the period 21st October, 1914, to 18th July, 1916, i.e., from date of embarkation to date of discharge. The Board, under section 8 of the War Gratuity Acts 1920, ordered that the balance was to be withheld. An appeal by Little was later considered by the Board and dismissed.

page 8610

QUESTION

MONT PARK HOSPITAL

Employment of Returned Soldiers

Mr McGRATH:

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

  1. Are sixteen returned soldiers who are employed at the Military Hospital, Mont Park, working sixty-two hours per week?
  2. Is it a fact, as reported, that they’ have not received any public holidays, such as Christmas Day and Good Friday, for the last two years?
  3. Is it a fact, as reported, that the extra ls. per day allowed to other members of the military staff has not been paid to the returned soldiers at Mont Park?
  4. Will he take the necessary action to have these apparent injustices remedied?
Sir GRANVILLE RYRIE:
NAT

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow: -

  1. No. The staff at No. 16 Australian General Hospital are on duty for an average of fifty-four hours per week.
  2. In an institution of this kind it is impossible to make special arrangements for a greater proportion of the staff to be given leave on public holidays. The staff at No. 16 Australian General Hospital are granted twenty-one days’ annual leave and two days’ leave per week. All leave due has been taken.
  3. The staff are paid according to rank in accordance with regulations covering pay to members of the home service. Any differentiation in pay is not as between returned soldiers and non-returned soldiers, but as between those performing clerical duty and those employed on attendant duty, the former receiving 6s. per week extra.
  4. In view of the answers to questions 1, 2, and 3, no action is proposed.

page 8610

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL DESIGN

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

asked the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

If he will inform the House who were the officers who were concerned in the making of the “ Built-up design “ or “ Departmental Plans” for the Federal Capital?

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– Full particulars will be found in Parliamentary Paper No. 65, printed in 1912, copy of which I now lay on the table.

page 8610

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Living Allowances: Settlement of Soldiers: Scales of Pensions

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

With regard to the abolition of living allowances to soldiers’ widows and mothers, will he inform the House whether this is done by the Commission for Repatriation acting on its own initiative or on instructions from the Minister ?

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Living allowances to soldiers’ widows and mothers have not been abolished.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · FSU; CP from 1920

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

  1. In what number of estates resumed or purchased for settlement of soldiers has reappraisement of values taken place in (a) New South Wales, (b) Victoria, (c) Queensland, (d) other States?
  2. What is the total amount written off in connexion with such re-appraisement?
  3. Does the State or the Federal Government bear this apparent loss?
Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– The Repatriation Department is not in possession of this information, the purchase and valuation of estates being entirely within the jurisdiction of the State Governments. A request for the desired information has been forwarded to the several States. I may add that any such writing-off would not be a matter for the Commonwealth, but would be an act of whatever State might be concerned, for which procedure that State would have to bear full responsibility.

Mr FOLEY:
for Mr. Burchell

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

Whether he will have a return prepared and submitted to Parliament showing full particulars of ex-soldier land settlement in Western

Australia, separate figures to be given for exmembers of the Australian Imperial Force and ex-Imperial soldiers?

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– Returns from the Department of Lands and Survey, Western Australia, show statistics up to 30th April, 1921, as follow : -

Mr CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD

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

Will he furnish a statement, for the purpose of comparison, showing the maximum scales of war pensions payable by Australia, Great Britain and other parts of the Empire, as well as by our Allies in the late European war, in respect of -

disabled soldier ; (b) widow of soldier; (c) widowed mother of deceased soldier; (d)disabled soldier, his wife and three children?

Mr RODGERS:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP; NAT from 1917

– I ask the honorable member to defer his question. A statement covering this matter is being prepared, and will be furnished to-morrow.

page 8611

QUESTION

WHEAT AND FLOUR

Sales to South Africa

Mr FOLEY:
for Mr.Burchell

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he is yet in a position to make his promised statement relative to the sale of “ B “ grade wheat and flour to South Africa?

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The South African Government have intimated that the claims of the purchasers of the alleged inferior wheat and flour are being thoroughly checked on behalf of the Government, and full particulars will be forwarded as early as possible. Until these claims are received and carefully investigated here, I am unable to make a statement in regard to the matter, but honorable members may rest assured that full information on the subject will be made available as soon as possible.

page 8611

BREAK OF RAILWAY GAUGES

Mr GROOM:
NAT

– On the 19th May the honorable member for Nepean (Mr. Bow- den) asked me when it was likely that a report would be received from the Uniform Gauge Commission. I have made inquiry, and I am advised that it is at present impossible to give a date upon which the Commissioners’ report will be received. I am also informed that the work of the Commission, which was appointed in February, 1921, is progressing rapidly. Much of the information required by the Commissioners has to be obtained from the various States and the Commonwealth railways officers. Whilst some of the information is in the hands of the Commissioners, there is a good deal to be supplied to them before they can complete their report.

page 8611

COTTON SEED AND RAW COTTON

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– On 5th May the honorable member for Nepean (Mr. Bowden) asked the Minister for Health if arrangements had been made for the fumigation of raw cotton on its importation into this country to prevent the introduction of disease. I replied that I was not aware, but that I would make inquiries and let the honorable member know. I am now in a position to furnish the honorable member with the following information: - All cotton containing seeds is either fumigated or subjected to treatment for the removal of the seeds, which are afterwards destroyed. Cotton which has been partially treated, and from which all seed has been removed, has not hitherto been fumigated, except when examination suggests the advisability for so doing, but consideration is now being given to the practicability of fumigating all imported raw cotton.

page 8611

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Taxation - Seventh Annual Report of the Commissioner, years 1916-17 to 1919-20.

Ordered to be printed.

Defence Act - Regulations Amended - Statutory Rules 1921, Nos. 94, 96, 103.

Public Service Act - Promotions of G. W. Bingham and F. G. Hayward, PostmasterGeneral’s Department.

War Service Homes Act - Land acquired under, in New South Wales, at -

Balmain, Goulburn,Kiama, Windsor, Wollongong.

page 8612

TARIFF

In Committee of Ways and Means?

Consideration resumed from 20th May (vide page 8603). division v. - textiles, felts and furs, and manufactures thereof, and attire.

Item 105-

Sir ROBERT BEST:
Kooyong

– Iregret that the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) has taken every opportunity to refer to the woollen manufacturers as the shocking example of those who have made exorbitant profits. The honorable member stated that as in some cases the profits made by the woollen manufacturers ranged from 20 per cent. to 45 per cent., and that in one instance it was 90 per cent., he was desirous of having the duty reduced so that manufacturers would be prevented from making undue profits in future. In other words, assuming ‘the figures are correct, the effect would be that those who made small profits were to be punished alike with those who had been more fortunate. If the honorable member will look into the history of the woollen industry in Australia - I speak particularly as regards Victoria - he will see that the early experience of those who embarked in this industry was disastrous “We admired those who endeavoured to establish the industry in Australia with great courage and enterprise under difficult conditions; but it must be remembered that during the first years they suffered heavy financial losses, and, in many cases, capital had to be written down, and companies reconstructed. Even during 1914 the average profit earned did not exceed 2½ per cent. ; and if the honorable member for Dampier will take the trouble to average the profits made by these manufacturers from the beginning up to the present time - notwithstanding the very lucrative period of war - he will find that they had made a, totally inadequate profit as compared with other manufacturers.

Mr.Gregory. - That was my complaint; we could not get their earlier reports.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I admit that early reports were not available; but I can assure the honorable member that, as an ex-Minister for Customs, and one who has had occasion to give some attention to this matter, the experience of the woollen manufacturers during the early stages was surrounded with many difficulties ; and why they should be selected for special animadversion it is difficult to say. At most, the charge is that they made certain profits during the war period, but nothing like those made by manufacturers abroad.

Mr Foley:

– If undue profits were made abroad, that is no justification for local manufacturers making excessive profits.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Perhaps not; but it is better that our manufacturers should make that profit rather than that the foreign, manufacturers who send their goods here . But I beg honorable members to bear in mind that during the wax period the woollen manufacturers of Australia were under the rigid control of the Government.

Mr Riley:

– That does not say much for the Government.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Their factories were practically taken over by the Government, who fixed the price to be paid for the output.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– For a time.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– For the whole period. The Government fixed the price to be paid for the woollens manufactured, and the proprietors of these undertakings were instructed to go ahead with the manufacture of cloth, flannels and blankets, with the result that for a considerable portion of the war period many manufacturers were working three shifts per day, because it was essential that they should put forth their best efforts. When it is said that during a’ period of three years woollen manufacturers made profits amounting almost to their capital representing upwards of a million of money -honorable members must recall that, for a time, they were working three shifts, and the profit made should really be spread over a normal period of eight or nine years. The price at which they were to be paid for their output was fixed by the Government, and they were therefore, justified in going full speed ahead and making as much as they legitimately could, and is there any one in this House who will say that the manufacturers were responsible or blameworthy?

Mr Riley:

– For military cloth only.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– They were not allowed to produce anything else.

Mr Riley:

– They were in the State of New South Wales.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– I do not think so.

Mr Riley:

– Yes.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Then it must have’ been very little. When I speak of cloth I include blankets and flannels and everything of the kind required for war purposes. I speak subject to ‘correction, but I believe that the whole of the output of every description was taken by the Government. If some, was permitted to go into private channels, the’ amount was very small indeed. Honorable members should bear in mind that what the manufacturers did was done under rigid Government control, and my honorable friend was, therefore, not justified in ,the severity of his censure. I remind honorable members again that the local manufacturers’ profits were comparatively small when compared with the profits made by manufacturers abroad whose imports were pouring into Australia.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The Government’s orders were a perfect godsend to the local manufacturers.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is so. They could not have carried on had not the exigencies of war enabled them to benefit by a vast output. They had been struggling in the past, but, the Government fixing prices, they produced to the beet of their ability, and, as I have said, they worked their machinery three shifts to meet the demands made upon them.

Mr Hill:

– They had the advantage of being able to secure their wool at a price below the flat rate.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That is so, but I remind the honorable member that the Government, in fixing the price of their goods, had due knowledge of and regard to that fact.

Mr Wienholt:

– Their profits were so great in one instance that the Government stepped in and took 80 per cent. of them.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The honorable member refers to the production of wool tops, but I am speaking now as to the production of cloth. The imports of woollen goods for the year ended 28th February, 1920, were valued at upwards of £2,000,000.

Mr Gibson:

– Because of the high prices.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That, to some extent, was the reason; but I point out that the imports of woollen goods for the year ended 28th February, 1921, were valued at £6,675,000, or more than three times the value of the previous year’s importations.

Mr Gregory:

– Woollens alone?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Yes, “woollens, or containing wool, n.e.i.” The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) said something about the price, but there was very little difference in the price during the twelve-month periods ending 28th February, 1920, and28th February, 1921. Under the existing Tariff, during the twelvemonths ofits operation, the imports of woollens and goods containing wool were more thanthree times the previous year’s importations, and reached in value the vast sum of £6,675,000. That is a circumstance which cannot be ignored in the consideration of the Tariff. Since the war there has been a vast extension of the woollen trade. Our home consumption represents only2½ per cent. of the Australian clip.

Mr Hill:

– How much greater would the local consumptionhave been had the woollen mills sold direct to the retailers instead of to Flinders-lane?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– That question is hardly involved in the present discussion, but I may say that there is much fallacious argument indulged in concerning the cost of distribution. It is believed to be very high, as the rate is frequently said to be from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., but if honorable members asked the woollen manufacturers whether they could afford to distribute their own goods, even if they were paid the extra cost mentioned, which the wholesale houses now get, they would tell them that they could not do so.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The trouble is in many cases that they have not sufficient capital.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– Of course they have not.

Mr Hill:

– Not to distribute for cash?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– My honorable friend will remember that it is the special duty of the distributing houses to distribute all classes of goods, and they are, therefore, able to distribute any particular class of goods more cheaply than the manufacturer of those goods could hope to do. There are, no doubt, individual instances where, if persons could buy at the mills, they could obtain cloth more cheaply than under existing conditions, when the cost of distribution has to be added. But if there were no organized commercial system of the distribution of goods, the result to manufacturers would be disastrous.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Some mills distribute every yard of cloth they make.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– In individual cases that may be so; but that assumes the possession by the manufacturers of capital and organization for the purpose. I have said that at present the local consumption represents only 2½ per cent. of the Australian clip. For years we have sent away greasy wool to the extent of something like 97½ per cent. of our clip. That is a grave reflection upon ourselves. I am not an idealist ; and while I would not say that it is possible within the next ten, twelve, or even fifteen years for us to expect to send away, the whole of our wool in fabric form, I do say that we should work towards the realization of that ideal as fast as we can. We should send away our wool in wool tops or yarn, and ultimately, I hope, in cloth, or other manufactured goods. It is only by giving the greatest encouragement to our woollen manufacturers that we can hope to do so. We have been pleased to learn that a considerable amount has been expended since the war in laying down woollen mill plants in this country. We have the assurance of the Minister, who speaks officially, that there is every prospect that other woollen mill plants will be laid down in the near future. Bear in, mind, this expressed intention is on the basis of the existing schedule, which is a reason why it should not be reduced.

Mr Richard Foster:

– We want more competition badly.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– We want every competition, and this is the way to secure internal competition, which is what we want. If we can get plant after plant installed in Australia by the encouragement of this great key industry, we shall be making great strides. The fact that it is a key industry, and that British manufacturers and others desire to establish woollen factories in Australia, which is the objective of a Tariff, more than justifies the Tariff now proposed. I have heard the complaint that it is insufficient for their purposes - that they could invest their capital with much greater confidence if they received greater encouragement. We have before us, however, the proposal set out in the schedule; but, nevertheless, I feel justified at this stage in pointing out that there are considerable importations of coatings, trouserings, and other like piece goods which are entering into serious competition with the output of our own mills. We have to look at this matter from a broad stand-point, and since British manufacturers are turning their attention to Australia, where our wool is immediately available for their use, and where every facility for working it up is offered, I can only say that, if they are. going to establish plants here, and bring out skilled workmen to lay down new industries, we should be prepared to afford them every encouragement. We have to look not only to the establishment of newwoollen mills, but also to associated industries such as fellmongering, glue making, tanning, and other industries that are directly associated with that now under consideration. I have pleasure in supporting the Minister’s proposal.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Then the honorable member is not going to move for an increased duty?

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– No; if I remember rightly the schedule before us provides “for only a very small increase in the General Tariff.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It provides for an increase of 30 per cent.

Sir ROBERT BEST:

– The duty in respect of imports from Great Britain is the same as that in the Tariff of 1914, but there is a slight increase in the general Tariff. In the circumstances, therefore, the Minister’s proposals are very modest, and I shall support them.

Mr JOWETT:
Grampians

.- I desire to speak on behalf of a very important Australian industry which has already been much antagonized.

Mr Richard Foster:

– We have beard the honorable member speak against the Australian woollen industry.

Mr JOWETT:

– The honorable member has never heard me say a word against the Australian woollen mills.

Mr Richard Foster:

– We have heard the honorable member complain of the prices charged for Australian woollens.

Mr JOWETT:

– I have said a great deal as to the prices which the people of Australia are charged for their clothes; but this matter is altogether different from the question of the prices at which the Australian woollen mills sell their products. I hope, therefore, that the honorable member will withdraw his observation that he has heard me say anything against Australian woollen mills or the prices charged by the mills themselves.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I will.

Mr JOWETT:

– I wish to refer briefly to the charge that is constantly being made that during the war the woollen mills of Australia made very large profits. I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) refer to this aspect of the matter in his opening remarks. Many of us are exceedingly anxious that the woollenindustry of Australia shall be developed to a much greater extent than it has been, and since the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster) and, possibly, others may be under the impression that I am opposed to the expansion of the woollen industry, I propose to quote certain remarks made by me at a conference, held on 10th December last, as the result of efforts made by my friend, Mr. Stirling Taylor, Director of the Bureau of Commerce and Industry, to inaugurate a campaign for the purpose of increasing the number of woollen mills in the Commonwealth. As a delegate to that conference it fell to my lot to move the following resolution : -

That this meeting cordially indorses the proposal of the Prime Minister to have inaugurated a propaganda for the purpose of largely increasing the woollen and worsted manufacturing industries of Australia.

In support of that motion I am quoted as having said with reference to prices -

We enjoyed, during the war, the benefit of the cheapest wool in the world. We should also have obtained the benefit of the cheapest clothes in the world. What is the cause of the high prices of suits? It is due to the fact that too great a percentage of the cloth is imported and the natural remedy is to encourage the increased manufacture of woollen and worsted goods here. The time has come for the citizens of Australia to be interested in the project by good propaganda work, and, in endeavouring to have mills established, we should, as far as possible, concentrate our efforts on country towns.

The actual fact with regard to the prices charged by woollen manufacturers in Australia is that during the whole period of the war and subsequently they sold their cloth at the cheapest prices at which cloth was procurable in any part of the world. That is their record for the last seven years.

Mr Gregory:

– But is it a fact that during three years of the war their profits actually exceeded the amount of their capital?

Mr. JOWETT.It may be; but taking the returns for such a short period as three years, one might arrive at a totally exaggerated view of the profits of any industry.

Mr Foley:

– Then why cavil at the rigid control?

Mr JOWETT:

– I am dealing, not with the question of rigid control, hut am dealing entirely with the question of the desirableness of increasing the manufacture of woollen goods in Australia. I rose mainly to reply to the campaign of antagonism to the Australian woollen industry which has been so sedulously fostered in different parts of the Commonwealth, on the ground that the local mills are charging excessive prices for their cloth. As a matter of fact, their prices during the war and subsequently were below those charged in any other country.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Seeing that certain mills during the war wiped out their capital cost, should they not be selling much cheaper at the present time?

Mr JOWETT:

– It may be that certain mills did wipe out their capital post during the war, but that, of course, cannot apply to mill-owners who have not yet built their mills. I am dealing with the question of the extension of the industry which is so highly desirable in the interests of the whole of the people. I confess that I took up shares in the industry, not that I desired to make any profit, but rather to encourage its expansion. I certainly hope that the industry will be profitable; unless it is, we cannot expect an expansion of it.

Mr Brennan:

– Does the honorable member think that if no woollen goods had been imported during the war we would have been assured of woollen goode at cheap rates here?

Mr JOWETT:

– I do not know. I am not at all sure that if no woollen goods had been imported we should have got our clothes any cheaper. Even if the Australian woollen manufacturer had not raised his prices by one penny per yard, I do not thank we should have been able, under the circumstances, to buy our madeup articles at prices lower than have prevailed. The trouble is not the price charged by the manufacturer.

Mr Considine:

– Who is the culprit?

Mr JOWETT:

– The trouble arises between the persons to whom the manufacturer sells his cloth and the purchasers of suits of clothes’. As to the question by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster), I can only say thatI am not somuch concerned with what has been done by those woollen manufacturers who have made large profits during the war. There is no doubt that these manufacturers are much stronger financially than ever before; but my deep concern is for the prospects of mills which we hope to see established in the future. . It would not matter whether countless millions had been made during the past few years; we have to consider what reasonable prospects there are of fair profits in the case of mills which are to be established. We must remember that our local mills manufacture only a very small quantity of the wool produced in Australia.

Mr Considine:

– What do you consider fair profits?

Mr JOWETT:

– I- am not now discussing the question of fair profits ; no doubt we shall have an opportunity to consider that matter at some future time, when I hope all honorable members will confine themselves to the subject under discussion.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Is not 10 per cent. a fair profit?

Mr JOWETT:

– The honorable member may think so, but I candidly say that I would not invest my capital, nor would I advise my friends to invest theirs, in a venture if the maximum profit had to be 10 per cent.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I mean the dividend.

Mr JOWETT:

– In the present state of the world’s industry and commerce, I do not think peoplecould be induced to invest if the profits or dividends were limited to 10 per cent. If I wereconsulted by a friend as to whether he should embark his capital in a new venture, requiring new machinery and plant, and faced with all the other initial ‘difficulties, and it was understood that legislation would be proposed to limit the profits or dividends to 10 per cent., I should either shrug my shoulders and walk away, or advise him not’ to take up such a foolish speculation. In my opinion, such limitation of profits and dividends is the surest way to hamper industrial enterprises.

Mr Richard Foster:

-Is not 10 percent a very good thing?

Mr JOWETT:

– I can only repeat that if the honorable member thinks so, I do not, under the circumstances.

Mr Livingston:

– Why not share the profits with theworkmen in the mills?

Mr JOWETT:

– Ifthe honorable member favours such a step, no doubt he will have an opportunity at some time orother in this Parliamentof moving to that effect, but that is not the proposal before usnow. We are considering the establishment of new mills, involvingthe purchase of new machinery and’ plant, for the manufacture of more of our wool than is manufactured at present. It is well known that during the war the prices charged by the woollen manufacturers to their customers were lower than in any other part of the world; and this, I take it, is, at all events, some reply to the charge of making undue profits.

There is another aspect of the question which I think it very important we should note.No doubt, during the last three or four years the people of Australia have had to pay extortionate and unjust rates for their clothes. I do not propose to go into details now to show how that position has arisen, except to say that, as far as I am aware, there is not one tailor in Victoria, at all events, who is able to buy his cloth at the mills; there is not one mill able to sell its output to the retail tailor.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– The mills say that they have no cloth for sale.

Mr JOWETT:

– The process is that the mills have to sell to the large wholesale houses in Flinders-lane, Melbourne, and York-street, Sydney - that is the position into which the industry has drifted. By some . means or other the original’ cost of the cloth, after leaving the mills, and as between the wholesale house and the tailor, is almost lost or hidden in the multitude of added charges.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– It is not the cloth, but the wool.

Mr JOWETT:

– I am inclined to think that it is the cloth as well as the wool. Many cases have been brought under my notice of cloth sold by the manufacturer at an exceedingly moderate price, and yet it is unobtainable by the retail tailor except at a very greatly enhanced price. In my opinion, these excessive and extortionate prices, which are still being charged, are due to a set of circumstances entirely independent of the manufacturing cost of the cloth ; and, therefore, I do not think it is fair to charge the manufacturers with taking undue advantage of their position during the war. By way of illustration, I wish to show the extreme difficulty of the position from the point of view of both the wool-grower and of the ultimate consumer. At present, raw wool is selling at the lowest price known for many years - almost at the lowest level - yet it is found that the prices of various articles of clothing, instead of decreasing, are actually increasing. I do not think the manufacturers are getting any more for their cloth.

Mr Riley:

– There is” an honorable understanding.”

Mr JOWETT:

– I am not prepared to say even that; the reason may be one quite independent of that suggested.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The manufacturers’ overhead costs have increased enormously.

Mr JOWETT:

– There is no doubt about that; so much so that, while the manufacturer may be getting his wool cheaper, it costs more than it did to turn out the cloth. That, I understand, is what , the manufacturers say. However, I have been asked by tradesmen in country towns to lay before the Committee some considerations involved in this matter ; and I think it is only proper that we should be fully advised of the facts. One tradesman in a country town informs me that for flannels, which last year cost him ls. 6d., he is now charged 2s. 3d. This tradesman does not buy from the manufacturer ; as I have already indicated, he cannot do so. This same man gives several similar instances, but with these I do not propose to engage honorable members. I am informed, however, “that there has been a general rise in the cost of cloth and flannel, as compared with last year, although wool is now very much lower in price. The explanation given is that a good deal of this cloth is made from wool that was [bought prior to the 30th June last.

Mr Riley:

– Three years ago, probably.

Mr JOWETT:

– That may be so.

Mr Mathews:

– Even if that were so, they ought to average the price, and be fair.

Mr JOWETT:

– I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, and now that it is possible to buy the raw wool so much, cheaper, and in view of the fact that, so far as we know, manufacturing costs have not increased very materially during the last twelve months, the time ought not to be far distant when the cost of cloth and flannels to country drapers and storekeepers should be greatly reduced>

Mr Richard Foster:

– Prices ought to be reduced now, because for a long time mills have been buying on handtomouth methods.

Mr JOWETT:

– In that case we ought to have cheaper clothing before long. It is perfectly clear that we cannot expect a revival in the wool industry, or any revival in the manufacturing industry, until the people of Australia, particularly those whose incomes are not large, are able to obtain clothing at reasonable prices.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– We hope to see a good many new mills established in country districts at an early date.

Mr JOWETT:

– I hope so, too. Therefore, I intend to support the proposals of the Government as outlined in this item. At present prices for clothing - and this is what concerns people particularly - are preposterous. Apparently there are in the trade some , people who, if they got the cloth for nothing, would not allow the general public to have clothing at a reasonable price. I have in my hand an account from a tailor for the making up of two suits of clothes for a friend of mine, who, in the ordinary course of business, obtained elsewhere the suit lengths with the object of having the material made up.

Mr Mathews:

– By a Collins-street firm, I suppose.

Mr JOWETT:

– No, not by a Collinsstreet firm. For the making of these two suits of clothes the tailor’s account amounted to £16, or £8 per suit.

Mr Mathews:

– Do not forget the trimmings.

Mr JOWETT:

– I give the trimmings in, too. Perhaps my friend’s tailor also provided the sewing thread.

Mr Foley:

– That firm ought to be under Vice-Regal patronage.

Mr JOWETT:

– As a matter of fact, I believe it is. Indeed, I hardly know of any firm of standing that is not under Vice-Regal patronage.

Mr Mathews:

– That would be a fair price for a good tailor to charge.

Mr JOWETT:

– The honorable member for Melbourne Ports, who, I believe, knows a good deal about the business, declares that £8 per suit would be a fair charge for the making up of material. I do not agree with him. But here is the difficult position in which we find ourselves. The whole world is suffering because people are being charged preposterous prices for clothing, and there is a general disinclination to buy new suits of clothes until prices recede to a reasonable level, with the result that mills are partially idle all over the world. Australia is probably the one country in the world where the woollen manufacturers are fully employed. I am delighted to think that, as regards Australia, this is so. But so long as people are prepared to pay preposterous prices - I note that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, referring to the case I have just quoted, says the price is fair - so long will this deplorable state of affairs continue. This brings me to another point. The other day while walking down Collins-street with a friend, I mentioned this particular case, and he said to me, “Well, I cannot get a suit of clothes from my tailor for less than £14 14s.” I then took him to an establishment, not far away where suits of clothes are advertised as made to order for £5 5s. It is quite likely that they may not be made in the same expensive fashion as my friend’s suits are, but in the shop windows we saw a splendid display of exceedingly good tweeds - Australian tweeds,. I suppose - suits being advertised at £5 5s., made to order after measure.

Mr Mathews:

– Those suits never see an inch-tape.

Mr JOWETT:

– There was a very fine range of good tweeds.

Mr Mathews:

– I will wager anything you like that suits made at that price aTe never touched by the hand of a journeyman tailor.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot see how they would be worth any more, though I may be a bad judge.

Mr JOWETT:

– ‘It is suggested by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports that these suits- advertised at £5 5s. to measure, could not have been made to measure or cut in the ordinary fashion and sold at that’ figure.

Mr Mathews:

– The suits you get for £5 5s. now are fit only for iron-holders.

Mr JOWETT:

– The cloth is excellent, and it is idle to suggest, if I may say so, that because the suits are sold at £5 5s. they cannot be cut and measured in the ordinary way.

Mr Mathews:

– They are made of blotting paper. *

Mr JOWETT:

– No. They are made of good cloth. No doubt the honorable member will remember reading some evidence given by a tailor before a Royal Commission in Sydney not very long ago. This man advertised suits of clothes made to order for £5 5s.

Mr Richard Foster:

– They would be made in a factory.

Mr JOWETT:

– That may be so. This man stated in his evidence that he was charged only 28s. 6d. for these suits, which he bought from a manufacturer of ready-made suits. I suppose that they were cut up and made up by machinery, but they did not cost that tailor more than £1 8s. 6d. per suit.

Mr Mathews:

– I cap assure the honorable member that the tweed must have been stolen, and that nothing could have been paid for the making up of the suits.

Mr JOWETT:

– I do not believe that the tweed was stolen, or that no wages were paid for the making up of the suits. The makers simply did not demand exorbitant profits for the services they rendered.

Mr Mathews:

– It is a fairy yarn.

Mr JOWETT:

– It is not. ‘ This evidence was given before the Fair Prices Commission in Sydney, as the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Riley) can bear me out.

Mr Riley:

– That is correct.

Mr JOWETT:

– I am reminded by the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson) about the information furnished to those honorable members who paid a visit to the Commonwealth Woollen Mills at Geelong. We saw the wool from which the cloth was made. It was good Australian’ wool. We saw the cloth in every process of manufacture. It was good cloth. The manager assured us that it was sent to the Commonwealth Clothing Factory to be turned into civilian suits of clothes for returned soldiers at a cost of under 30s.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– I will get the honorable member one of those suits if he will undertake to wear it.

Mr JOWETT:

– I regret that I cannot accept the kind offer of my honorable friend - at least not on the spur of the moment. I merely mention these facts in order to show that the actual cost of the cloth is not the greatest element in the price of a suit of clothes. The colossal difficulty is how to arrive at a remedy. My own view is that the high prices which so many people are willing to pay are due to ignorance and folly on the part of those consumers who will not take the trouble to go from one district where high prices are asked into another district where they can buy to advantage.

I support the proposed duties in the schedule, but there are one or two articles now imported which escape high duties which are serious competitors with the product of our own woollen mills. One is cotton tweed. This, I understand, is made wholly of cotton, but is got up in such a fashion that people buy it under the belief that it contains a certain amount of wool. It is a serious competitor with our own woollen tweed3. The very name “tweed,” when applied to cotton goods, is a fraud.

Mr Richard Foster:

– It is a competitor because cotton tweeds are worn by people who cannot afford to buy a better article.

Mr JOWETT:

– It is a competitor because some people cannot tell the difference between cotton tweeds and woollen tweeds. Another article is a worsted cloth or flannel which contains an admixture of cotton, and is bought by people under the ‘belief that it is composed entirely of wool.

Mr Mathews:

– A small percentage of cotton is not hurtful.

Mr JOWETT:

-Possibly; but when a woman who is buying flannel for her children wants woollen flannel, she ought to be able to get it and not a cloth made partly of cotton. Considerable quantities of goods which are imported under the Tariff heading of woollen-piece goods contain cotton.

Mr Fowler:

– Considerable quantities of such goods are made in Australia.

Mr JOWETT:

– That is another point, hut we are not now dealing with goods manufactured in Australia. In any case, even if some of the mills in Australia use a certain proportion of cotton in the manuf acture of blankets or flannels, it is done because they are obliged to compete with similar imported goods. A higher duty should be placed on woollen goods containing cotton in order to discourage their importation. We cannot expect increased sums of money to be invested in our woollen mills, which are engaged in the manufacture of cloth wholly from wool, if they are to be called upon to compete with imported goods which people buy under the belief that they are composed entirely of wool, but which contain both wool and cotton.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The importer should be compelled to state on the article what it contains.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Under the Commerce Act, a flannel or material of that kind must be described. If an article contains cotton as well as wool, it must ‘bear that impress on it when it comes into the country.

Mr JOWETT:

– Yes; but what steps are taken to insure that the nature of the goods is stamped on the article when the housewife buys it?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– Unfortunately we have not the constitutional power to control that, but it is within the purview of the States.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The States can do it?

Mr Foley:

– They are doing it.

Mr JOWETT:

-Is it impossible for the Commonwealth to protect the woman who goes to buy cloth made of wool to be made into clothes for her children ? The sale of woollen goods adulterated with cotton in such a way as to lead the purchaser to believe that the article is pure wool amounts to fraud, for I say unhesitatingly that usually no man or woman willingly buys flannel or worsted goods in the knowledge that they contain cotton.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– There are some well known mixtures of wool andcotton, such as Vyella.

Mr JOWETT:

– One person in. ten may know that the article she is buying is partly wool and partly cotton, but in rpgard to the bulk of cotton mixtures, I believe the people are having imposed upon them a mild fraud. I would have preferred a proposal to place a higher duty on worsted goods, and all others containing cotton, than is imposed on purely woollen goods.

Mr Richard Foster:

– What are the unfortunate people to do who cannot buy woollen goods?

Mr JOWETT:

– The unfortunate people are those who are defrauded into buying something that is not all wool, and they ought to be protected.

Mr RILEY:
South Sydney

.- I was pleased to hear the last two speakers say that they are anxious to protect the manufacturers, but I heard not a word from them about the protection of the public. Factories for the manufacture of woollen goods have been established in the Commonwealth, but of what advantage to the people were they during the war? They were of no help to the country at all, because they regulated the price of their goods according to the price of the imported article. If imported cloth cost 30s. or 35s. per. yard, the price of the locally made article was raised to the same figure. There was no competition between the manufacturers,and the fact of having these industries in’ our midst did not help to keep prices down. We have been told that some of the factories worked three shifts during the war; if so, they were trebling their turnover and profits, and could afford to be generous by reducing the price to the consumer. In answer to a question I asked during the war, I was told that the highest price received by the Commonwealth Woollen Mills at Geelong for best navy-blue sergewas 6s. 6d. per yard. That factory is operated under model conditions; it pays the highest prices for its wool, and the highest wages for its labour. Yet of the three prices of material given to me in answer to my question, the highest was 6s. 6d.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member makes me smile.

Mr Lister:

– The cloths quoted in the reply to the honorable member were hot the best made by the factory.

Mr RILEY:

– My question related tothe best cloths, and the prices I received varied from, I think, 5s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. I understand that the lowest figure at which cloth could be purchased from. the private woollen mills during the war was 12s. to 13s. per yard, or 100 per cent. more than was being received for the product of the Commonwealth Mill at Geelong.

Mr Gregory:

– Were we not told that the Geelong mill was producing at 4s. per yard?

Mr RILEY:

– At any rate, the Geelong mill was making a profit at half the price which the private manufacturers were charging. I am anxious to see industries established in the Commonwealth; but what protection has the consumer if the manufacturers are to combine to manipulate prices? I would be prepared to give local industry every encouragement if we could make some law to provide that when manufacturers, in combination, raise the price of an article, the duty on imported articles shall be removed, in orderto allow foreign competition to operate. To-day the manufacturers are asking for a duty of 45 per cent. on woollen goods ; and when we give them that they do not care what happens to the consumer. As a Parliament we shall be neglecting our duty if we have regard to the interests of only one section of the community. I do not care what duty is imposed, so long as the local consumer gets a fair deal ; but during the war the manufacturers gave the Australian public no consideration. Manufacturers in other countries had to pay high prices for their raw wool, high freights, and high wages, whilst the local manufacturer had to pay no freights, received his wool at a reasonable price, and had not to contend with any considerable increase in wages. But, on account of the way in which they treated the public, I have lost a good deal of my faith in them. When they say that they cannot sell their products except through Flinders-lane and York-street, they disclose a lack of organizing capacity. I believe the real explanation is that they are in combination with the wholesalers. If a person applies to a mill for two or three lengths of cloth for suits, he is referred to Flin- ders-lane or York-street. I am told by a gentleman fromChina that in that country there is an unlimited market for Australian woollen goods. Therefore, we ought to encouragethe establishment of manufactories in Australia; but, when; we do that what guarantee shall we have that the purchasing public of Australia will derive any advantage? Unless the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill which will give this Parliament some control over prices of goods protected by the Tariff, we shall not be justified in imposing high duties. I represent a working-class constituency, in which the people cannot afford to pay eight guineas for a suit of clothes. During the war they were robbed by the manufacturers, and even now they cannot buy clothes because of the high prices. In New South Wales the manufacturers are doubling their establishments, and some of them have made 100 per cent. profit. This Parliament will not do its duty if it keeps the Tariff rates high and allows what I have complained of to continue. I shall vote for the 45 per cent. rate in this case, but on the understanding that the Government will bring down a measure which will enable us to reduce it in the event of a combination to keep up prices.

Mr FOLEY:
Kalgoorlie

. - I am not surprised that the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) should ask for high duties on all imports, but I cannot agree with some of the statements made by the honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett). He said that during the war Australian manufacturers had had a bad time. As a matter of fact, that is not so. He drew attention to the rigid Government control thatwas then applied to their industry, but that eontrol did not affect the production of woollen manufactures for sale tp civilians. It applied only to the production for military purposes, and the effect pf it was thatour soldiers were better clothed than any others, Had it not been for our rigid Government control, we should have had to pay much more for military clothing. During the war. Australian manufacturers had this great advantage over British manufacturers, that: they couldbuy their wool at the first appraisement, that is, they got it at the lowest price for which wool could be obtained within the Empire. Should not Australian consumers have benefited on that account ?If with up-to-date machinery and wool at a very low price our manufacturers could not produce cheaply, if is worth considering whether anything is to be gained by a high Tariff on woollens, and whether it will not result in the people of Australia having to pay high prices for clothing. I know of a draper in Perth who bought flannel in New Zealand at 18s. and sold it to a man in Sydney for 22s., by whom it was sold to a Melbourne firm for 28s. ‘before it had left New Zealand. A high Tariff could not prevent dealings of that kind, which increase the price of clothing. Only 2i per cent, of our wool is manufactured in Australia, and I would like to see more manufactured here; but Australian manufacturers should give fair terms to the Australian users of woollens. If the establishment of woollen mills here is to mean only the making of a few millionaires at the expense of the general community, I say that we shall gain little or nothing from it.

Mr McGrath:

– Cannot we deal with millionaires here better than abroad? The men belonging to your party, of course, would not deal with them.

Mr FOLEY:

– Interference to prevent imposition upon the public is as likely to come from me as from the honorable member. I have never lost an opportunity to do what I could in. the interests of the community at large, and when the occasion arises my honorable friend will find that he is not the only one fighting for the people.

Mr McGrath:

– The flag would be waved and you would drop down.

Mr FOLEY:

– The flag that was waved when I was elected is the best flag that has been flown in Australia.

Mr McGrath:

– You got in on the flag.

Mr FOLEY:

– I am proud of my connexion with the flag. I would sooner be associated with it than, with the red flag. The honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett) said that our manufacturers were at a disadvantage when compared with those of other countries, because the latter used a certain quantity of cotton with their woollen goods; but a little later* he told us that Australian manufacturers also used cotton, and that they did this because their competitors abroad did it. If it is wrong to adulterate woollen goods, it is as wrong for Australian manufacturers as for British manufacturers to do it; but there is no thing in the Tariff to prevent it from being done. Some of the State laws require the quality or contents to be marked on all articles exposed for sale. Such laws prevail in ‘Western Australia, New South Wales, and, to some extent, in Queensland, and the sooner they become general throughout Australia the better. I hold the view that there is no reason for increasing the duties on woollens. A suit of clothes such as in 1914 a working man paid £5 10s. for-

Mr Mathews:

– £3 10s.

Mr FOLEY:

– Very few working men in Western Australia paid less than £5 or £5 10s., and for suits of the same material they would to-day pay £11 or £12. That is not right. The present high prices will not be reduced by the imposition of a high Tariff. I know of no argument to support the raising of duties on woollens. If our factories are working to their fullest capacity, as they were doing during the war, the profits must be ample, and I do not see why Australianmade cloth should not be sent to Great Britain for sale. The present conditions should induce British woollen manufacturers to establish mills here. The rates of wages have greatly increased in Britain since the war, and now do not differ” much from those paid here.

Mr Mathews:

– I do not think that the employees are paid less in Great Britain than in Australia.

Mr FOLEY:

– That being so, should not our manufacturers increase their plants, and do all they can to manufacture goods for export?

Mr Mathews:

– There are other factors to be taken into account.

Mr FOLEY:

– I am for keeping out foreign-made goods; but we have had an object-lesson during the past three years at least. Japan was sending stuff here. She had the greatest chance in the world of dumping her products upon Australia, but she has “missed the ‘bus” upon every occasion. Everbody knows that the manufactured goods which come from Japan can absolutely be torn into threads. After “Japanese cotton goods have undergone a single washing one is able to see through them. I have no doubt that there has been profiteering in woollen goods. I do not care whether it has been our manufacturers or our distributors who have been guilty of this practice, but certainly the people of Australia have not been getting their goods at a price which would have given the local manufacturer a fair profit, whilst allowing a reasonable cost for distribution. The duty of the Government will not end until the consumer has been protected from further exploitation in the matter of woollen goods.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.- Every honorable member will appreciate the need which exists for building up an industry like the woollen industry. It is an industry which ought to be established in our midst. We have the raw material in abundance, plenty of labour is available, and there is no reason why we should not establish a big woollen industry here. Indeed, I ann satisfied that if it be established upon right lines we shall become very big exporters of woollen goods. But the industry will not be built up by spoon-feeding. It must be established upon a sound and solid basis.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– How are we to build it up if we do not spoon-feed or shovel-feed it?

Mr GREGORY:

– But the honorable member must realize that prices are abnormally high to-day - that they are 200 or 300 per cent, more than they were in pre-war days. With the natural protection which our manufacturers enjoy, and seeing that the wages now being paid in the Old Country are pretty well equal to those which are being paid in Australia

Mr Austin Chapman:

– What about the wages paid in Japan?

Mr GREGORY:

– We are not getting woollen goods from Japan. I am prepared to give our manufacturers a margin of 15 or 20 per cent, in excess of the duty levied upon goods from the Old Country.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Wool tops are being manufactured in Japan from Australian wool.

Mr GREGORY:

– But the Japanese have not sent them here.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– They will do so.

Mr GREGORY:

– I hope that later we shall have a discussion as to whether our preferential Tariff ought not to be extended to include goods from Canada, and New Zealand. I desire that goods from the United Kingdom shall be admitted at a lower, rate of duty than is here proposed. Consequently I move -

That after “30 per cent.” in sub-item (f) the following words be inserted: - “And on and after 26th May, 1021, ad. val. British, 25 per cent.”

Mr Mathews:

– Does the honorable member think that he has any hope of carrying his proposal?

Mr GREGORY:

– I do not care. I want the honorable member’s constituents to realize that my object is to reduce the cost of living. In this connexion I propose a little later to quote a letter from a draper which was published in the Argus only a short time ago, in which he points out that flannels and blankets could not be supplied here - that an ordinary draper could not get the goods he wanted, either from the local merchant or the manufacturer. As the Minister knows perfectly well, I quoted a portion of that letter in my general remarks upon the Tariff.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– Does the honorable member say that we cannot manufacture sufficient blankets for our own requirements ?

Mr GREGORY:

– Yes; that is the awful position.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– How shall we overcome it?

Mr GREGORY:

– The following is an extract from a letter from the Chamber of Commerce in Sydney to the Minister upon this subject: -

Prior to the war, a satisfactory pair of double-bed blankets was sold by the Australian manufacturer at about 13s. 6d. per pair delivered. The lowest grade English doublebed blankets could, at the same period, be landed, duty at 25 per cent, paid, for about lis. 6d.

Mr Richard Foster:

– When was that ?

Mr GREGORY:

– Just prior to the war.

Mr Lazzarini:

– They were nearly all cotton rags.

Mr GREGORY:

– The letter continues -

But these were very rough, and so obviously inferior to the local article that the Australian blankets always sold in preference.

The letter, which was written in 1920, goes on to point out that the wholesalers could not get from the local manuffacturers a supply of blankets in excess of onefourth or one-fifth of their orders. It says -

The second phase is that local blanket manufacturers have informed the wholesale and retail traders of Australia that they will not receive more than one-fifth or one-fourth of their orders. A low-grade English blanket costs, at present, 37s. 6d. per pair at the mills.

With a 25 per cent. duty these could not be landed under about 52s. 6d. and 63s. respectively. The duty is about11s. in the one case, and 13s. in the other.It will be seen, therefore, that, though the rate of duty is unchanged, the amount collected will be from five to six times the pre-war figures.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ANTI-SOC; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917; LP from 1922; NAT from 1925

– The blankets one can purchase to-day are dearer than those quoted by the honorable member.

Mr GREGORY:

– Can the honorable member give me any reason why they should be dearer? It is not the cost of wool.

Mr Richard Foster:

– They should not be dearer.

Mr GREGORY:

– I have been trying for a little while to obtain the figures which were quoted by Senator Russell in answer to questions which were put to him regarding the cost of woollen goods, Before this debate closes, I hope that I shall be in possession of those figures, so that I may be able to show what was the cost of the Government-manufactured article. Honorable members will then see how the Australian manufacturer took every advantage of the abnormal conditions which prevailed during the war period.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Did not the British manufacturer do likewise?

Mr GREGORY:

– But the British manufacturer had to pay an enormous price for his wool as compared with the Australian manufacturer. When we entered into an agreement with the Old Country for the sale of our wool, it was stipulated that our manufacturers should get their wool at the appraised price. In England, however, our wool was sold at 200 and 300 per cent., and in some instances at 400 per. cent., in excess of the appraised’ price. I am not endeavouring to build up a case for the British manufacturer, but I desire to give him a fair deal. If, in addition to the natural protection which our manufacturers enjoy, we grant them a protection of25 per cent., we shall be doing something to conserve the welfare of our own manufacturers. Ablanket which cost 15s. 6d. before the war ought not to cost more than 22s. 6d. or 23s. today. A similar remark is applicable to flannels. In this connexion I desire to quote the letter to which I previously alluded, and which was published in the Argus some time ago. The writer was, of course, dealing only with the cheaper class of flannels.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member knows that at that time there was a shortage of blankets caused by the Government ordering the manufacture of flannels.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The position which is set out in that letter is not the position which obtains to-day.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am not affirming that it is.My contention is that the requirements of our own people should bc our first consideration. When the Minister knew that it was absolutely impossible to insure an adequate supply of blankets to our people, and when the cheaper class of flannels were urgently required by them, he made no effort to supply their needs. It is true that he has not increased the duty upon woollen goods coming from the United Kingdom levied under the 1914 Tariff, but upon many other lines he has increased the cost of living to the people. Unless we reduce the cost of living, how shall we get back to normal conditions, when many persons who are now unemployed were employed in the mining, pastoral, agricultural, and other industries?

Mr Mathews:

– It is not by way of the imposition of duty that we can hope to reduce the cost of living, but by attacking high profits.

Mr GREGORY:

– The honorable member does not believe in competition. I do. I strive for the building up of individuality among the people.

Mr Lazzarini:

– There is no such thing as competition in the commercial world to-day. Everything is controlled by combines and understandings:

Mr GREGORY:

– The wider we open the door the more we induce competition. I do not believe there is an honorable member in this House who would advocate a Free Trade policy. Living conditions in Australia are better than in other countries, but we must take great care not to cut off the huge sources of production which have helped to build

Australia’s prosperity. The Mount Morgan mines have closed down. In 1918 that industry turned out more than £1,000,000 worth of copper .and gold. The Mount Cuthbert mines also have closed. They, too, during one year produced more, than £1,000,000 worth of metal. These great mines employed more than 10,000 people. I think that I am making a reasonable computation when I say that every one of those employees carried at least five other people on his back. The Mount Lyell mines have also ceased activity. With the shutting down of these great producing sources it follows that business people involved must be either ruined or compelled to remove elsewhere. Moreover,, our railways are made unprofitable ; and if, owing to the cessation of great producing activities, railway revenue falls away, how can the Governments concerned continue to pay employees reasonable wages to meet the high cost of living? When this Parliament makes its. contribution to the maintenance and increase of the cost of living by means of the Tariff, we merely accentuate Australia’s wretched condition. Labour has its rights; and I, for one, would strenuously fight for the maintenance of those rights. But if lower -wages must now be accepted by labour - as I believe they must be - we must do our part by whatever means are possible in reducing r the high cost of living as it bears upon labour. The only way is to bring about more competition. We must endeavour to destroy combines and honorable understandings, whether they be among manufacturers or merchants. It is preposterous,, for instance, that a pair of boots costing 12s. or 13s. in the factory should cost a buyer 30s. in the shop. That is due to want of competition.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Are there not enough boot manufacturers in Australia? Is there not a glut of boots on the market?

Mr GREGORY:

– Australia surely ought to he exporting boots all over the world. Hides may be purchased now for next to nothing. Honorable members opposite will, perhaps, appreciate the following letter which was recently published in the Argus. The writer says -

Notwithstanding the glut of wool, and more particularly of the lower-priced wools, the people of Australia are still without supplies of woollen goods in the popular qualities, such as natural flannels and flannel mixtures from ls. 3d. to 2s. 6d. a yard, ‘blankets at moderate prices, and tweeds suitable for every-day wear. These are not imported goods, but goods that have for years past been successfully made in large quantities by Australian mills. Winter is now approaching, and no supplies are to be obtained, and people everywhere are asking, “What is the reason?” During the war, and since its conclusion, supplies were unavoidably curtailed, the consequence being that considerable quantities are urgently required for immediate use, but up till the present none seems to be available, nor (as far as can be ascertained) are likely to be. Is there any reason for this continued scarcity, and, if so, what is the reason? I am to-day in receipt of a letter from a leading Melbourne warehouse, which I enclose as proof of the correctness of my statement, informing me (in response to an order for-these goods) that they are still una’ble to supply men’s flannel undershirts, ot natural flannels by the yard, adding that “ flannels are unprocurable *in Melbourne.” It is safe to say that thousands of working men in Victoria alone will want flannel shirts this winter.

Mr Mathews:

– Does the honorable member believe that the Argus gives a “ damn “ whether the working man has a flannel shirt this winter or not? .

Mr GREGORY:

– When I notice the way in which some honorable members opposite cast their votes upon questions of this kind,, .1 wonder whether they care at all about the poor- working man. However, I am not quoting the Argus, but a letter which appeared in its columns; and I would not be quoting it but that all the information which I have obtained goes to bear out the statements of the writer. He continues -

And hundreds of shops are in the same position as ourselves, not having a yard of low or medium priced flannel in stock for their customers. Further, there are practically no stocks of moderately-priced men’s ready-made suits, in either the wholesale or retail trade, and, as I am given to understand, there are none of the cheaper makes of strong tweeds available to make them with. Again I say, “ What is the .reason ?” The time has come now when ample supplies should be forthcoming. As further proof of scarcity, I enclose advertisements from leading retailers (which are typical of many others), showing that their lowest quoted lines are: Flannels, 2s. lid. yard; 1) (or double-bed) blankets, 57e. 6d. pair.

I do not know whether honorable members are aware of the exact nature of the proposal emanating from the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures. That body is asking, in regard to cotton tweeds, that there be an increase of 6d. per yard, plus 60 per cent. Honorable members are here to see a reasonable thing done by the Australian manufacturer, but it is our duty also to safeguard the interests of the people. Personally, I would not stand for any such proposal as this. Where there are high rates of duty, the people have to pay, and they have to pay twofold. The difference between the amount paid in 1913 and the sum which the public had to pay for the same goods in 1920, owing to increased duties, aggregates £127,000. In 1919-20 the Commonwealth authorities collected £1,103,000 in duty upon woollens alone. But before those goods could get to the people their prices were increased by 50 to 60 per cent. Without doubt, the Australian manufacturer has taken fullest advantage of the world’s market conditions.

Mr Considine:

– The honorable member for Grampians (Mr. Jowett) stated that the Australian manufacturer of woollen materials was not responsible for the high prices charged to the public. It must be the man in between .

Mr GREGORY:

– Even that journal which has been doing so much in advocacy of prohibition, namely, the Industrial Australian, showed that the woollen mills of Australia had made a profit amounting to more than the equal of the whole of their capital in less than three years. Was that not abnormal ? It demonstrates that these people have taken full, and, indeed, undue, advantage of the opportunities afforded by the condition of the world’s markets.

Mr Lazzarini:

– What did the Coats people “rake off” from the people of Australia, and from all over the world, during the war?

Mr GREGORY:

– Their profits were enormous - terrible, in fact. The Imperial Government should have forced them to disgorge. There should have been special legislation passed to meet such circumstances. The country would have been justified in demanding that every penny of those abnormal war-time profits should be sequestrated to the Crown. I would make it a criminal offence for commercial combines to fix the price of any commodity.

Mr Mathews:

– If the Australian woollen manufacturers make excessive profits we can tax them here, but we can not deal with such firms as J. and P. Coats.

Mr GREGORY:

– I quite understand that. The honorable member does not advocate high duties for the purpose of placing money in the hands of those controlling these industries,, but with the idea of improving the conditions of those engaged in similar undertakings in Australia. The honorable member who has just interjected believes that in assisting to encourage local industries he . is improving the conditions of the workers in Australia.

Mr Mathews:

– That is so.

Mr GREGORY:

– Does the honorable member believe that by imposing high duties the working people of Australia have received any benefits? Within the last two or three days at a conference of the Labour, party - I think it was in Sydney - one of the leading members of the party said that the working people were no 1 better off, although they are receiving higher wages, than they were before the war.

Mr Mathews:

– The honorable member cannot judge the whole party by the expression of some crank.

Mr GREGORY:

– No. But it shows that there are members of the party to which the honorable member belongs who believe that the wage-earners are no better off to-day than they were five or six years ago. The position in Australia is exactly the same as it is in other countries. T have in my possession a statement made by a Canadian manufac’‘turer during the war period, who said that his factory was not built for the honour and glory of God; but for the purpose of making profit for the shareholders. The Canadian Council of Agriculture states -

The twenty-six cotton mills in Canada pay less to their employees than trie woollen mills, but they get more in return in the form of profits. It has already been shown, from the evidence submitted at “Ottawa, last year, that the Dominion Textile Company actually realized 310 per cent, profits on its capital in the year. 1918. The returns to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics show that 25.8 per cent, profit was earned in 1918 upon the capital of the entire Canadian cotton industry. The Canadian cotton manufacturer is not only grinding these profits out of a poorly paid lot of employees, but also out of every man, woman, and child throughout the Dominion who enters a shop to buy some sort of cotton goods. He enjoys Tariff protection on his manufactured product to the extent of 25 to 32½ per cent. ; and, in addition, may import his raw materials, such as raw cotton, dyes, &c, free. In the fiscal year 1918-19 some 112,000,000 lbs. of raw cotton, valued at $34,000,000 entered Canada free of duty. In this way twenty-six cotton plants in Canada reap the benefit of both Free Trade and Protection, and in doing so, pay as little as possible to labour, and extract as much as possible in the form of profits.

Mr Richard Foster:

– By whom was that written?

Mr GREGORY:

– The statement was issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The following is most important, and applies more particularly to this Parliament: -

For forty years Canada has had government by a class, the class, namely, that was interested in factories. The factory was their only idea. So long as that was left intact they were willing to surrender all else, and pay any blackmail to farmers and labour alike. They lost all political principles, and missed the very aim of life. One of themselves spoke the truth in the sordid expression, “ A factory is not run for the glory of God.” Neither did he know how true a thing he said nor how submersive it was.

I believe that in many instances honorable members have been very much impressed by the statements made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene) who,, in collecting his facts, has to depend to a large extent on the assistance of his officers. I have no desire to reflect on the Minister for having made a statement which, on the evidence submitted, has been shown to be incorrect, but he took me to task when I made a statement concerning the first Tariff schedule which I had before me, and rightly so, because I was slightly in error. Honorable members will recollect that when the Minister was introducing the Tariff he pointed out that Free Trade England allowed certain portions of her trade to drift to other countries, and that many men were beneath the sod to-day because of that fact. He went on to say -

The manufacture of cardigan jackets and other knitted woollen goods is a case in point. These garments were’ sorely needed by the troops in the first bitter winter in France, when they went down in hundreds of thousands to pneumonia. England had the wool and the machinery for the manufacture of cardigan jackets, but she had not got, and for a time did not produce, the knitting needles for the machines.

That point was questioned at the time by several honorable members. I have before me a copy of a letter from Colonel H. C. Fernyhough, for Director of Equipment and Ordnance Stores, “War Office, dated 28th July, 1920, in which he says -

With reference to Board of Trade letter No. I.M. 2189 of the 22nd ultimo, I am directed to inform you that exhaustive inquiries have been made respecting the statement which accompanied your letter. It is probable that the trade were largely dependent on Germany for the supply of hosiery needles before the war, but no difficulties were experienced in obtaining supplies of cardigan jackets from the trade, and, as will be seen from the attached statement, no delay took place in meeting demands from France during the early part of the winter 1914. During the period 1st August, 1914, to 31st March, 1915, contracts were placed for over 3,000,000 cardigan jackets, and the whole of this quantity was duly delivered to time, with but very few exceptions.

Mr Mathews:

– That is one man’s statement, which may be contradicted by another.

Mr GREGORY:

– That is a statement from the War Office.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I will give the honorable member my authority for my statement.

Mr GREGORY:

– The Minister gave us to understand that men were lying beneath the sod because knitting needles were not available, and that, of course, would impress some honorable members, but it would not have much weight with those who gave the matter careful consideration. I was anxious to quote that letter to prove that the Minister was wrongly advised.

Mr Richard Foster:

– I am not so sure about that. We could not get them at any price.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am not dealing with the position in Australia. I am referring to the position in England, and so was the Minister.

Mr Richard Foster:

– There is no increase upon the former British preferential duty.

Mr GREGORY:

– There has been an increase since Parliament last dealt with the Tariff.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It has been 30 per cent. since 1914.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am referring to the increase in duty since the House last dealt with the Tariff. Parliament was not consulted in 1914, and in dealing with increased rates of duty we have to compare the existing rates with those imposed by Parliament, and not by the Minister.’ I am quite aware that a short validating Act was passed by Parliament, but the individual increases . were not before honorable members. The reasons for any decreases or increases which have been made since 1911 should’ be fully explained to honorable members; but, up to the present, no such information ha3 been given by the Minister. We have always been under the impression that as. industries were established, and we became self-supporting, the duties would decrease; but such has not been the case.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does not the honorable member realize that if we reduce our Customs duties, the revenue will suffer.

Mr GREGORY:

– That is not so. The Treasurer (Sir Joseph Cook) knows that if the duties are too high he will not get any revenue at all from this source, and that the abnormal conditions which prevail to-day are not likely to continue for any time.. We are likely to receive an enormous revenue from Customs duties this year; but I. do not think the Treasurer is foolish enough to deny that next year’s revenue from Customs will be 25 per cent, or 30 per cent, lower than it is this year, because, with the imposition of heavy Customs duties, and reduced primary production, it will be impossible for the people to purchase to the same extent.,,

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– The honorable member should cheer up; we have had a good rain.

Mr GREGORY:

– The interjection reminds me that without the increase of our primary productions, and the revenue from them all, any discussion we may have about the building up of Australian industries is absolutely useless. I would do nothing to injure Australian industries, but I want to see fair conditions for the people of this country, and at the same time to give some help to the Motherland. .

Mr FOWLER:
Perth

.- The debate on this item is an echo, though a very faint one, of some of the Homeric struggles we have had in this House in the past over the same item. I do not know whether interest in the Tariff has declined, but it has seemed to me that we hear much less on both sides of Tariff questions than we used to do when Tariffs were under consideration in this House iri years gone by. It may be that we have all become such convinced Protectionists that there is now only one side to any Tariff question. It may be that the Government are in such an impregnable position that a few honorable members like myself feel that it is quite” futile to attempt even to criticise them. However, on this particular item I believe it is the duty of honorable members who represent large sections of middle and working-class people to make some protest against what appears to me to be a quite unreasonable increase of duty. The manufacture of woollen fabrics from Australian wool is one which we all desire to see developed. Fer many years past, I have heard of only one method by which it can be developed, and that is by imposing Customs duties on imported articles that come into competition with the products of local factories. I am afraid that the stimulus given to the local industry in that way has not been very effective up to date. If we make the Tariff wall too high, instead of stimulating Australian production we shall create such an artificial and unnatural atmosphere for it that it will languish rather than increase in strength. We heard in past years a great many arguments, put sometimes with a good deal of force, as to the necessity for protecting this and other Australian industries against the sweated and pauperized labour of Great Britain. That was always a very strong argument in- the mouths of extreme Protectionists in the old days, when Tariffs were under discussion. They pointed triumphantly to the low wages paid in Great Britain and the long hours of labour there. They contrasted these with Australian conditions, and showed to their own satisfaction that Australia needed Protection on that account. « That argument has gone by the board. The workers in Great Britain are to-day obtaining as high wages and working as short hours as are workers in Australia, in this industry in particular. Now that that argument has disappeared, the industrious propagandists who are able to produce a book like that before me, which is called on the outside The.. Australian .Tariff Handbook, but which on the inside gives a list of industries that need Protection, have been deprived of their strong argument relating to the sweated and pauperized labour of Great Britain, and are compelled to turn to a remoter part of the world to discover a reason why the duty on these goods should be raised still higher, they have discovered that there is danger to this industry from Japan. I suppose that by-and-by, when in the course of events that danger no longer exists, these industrious people will have to travel still further, perhaps to the planet Mars, in order to fortify Australian Protection with another of those menaces which have played such an important part in scaring these people of Australia.

Mr Considine:

– “We shall have wiped out both Protection and Free Trade by that time.

Mr FOWLER:

– I hope before I sit down to make a suggestion which, if adopted, should wipe out one of the worst evils at present existing. I think I may claim to have a fairly extensive knowledge of Tariff matters. I was a member of a Royal Commission appointed in 1904 to go into the whole question of rearranging the Tariff for Australia. The work of that Commission continued until 1907. It took the members of the Commission all over Australia; witnesses- of every kind and class were examined at considerable length; and the Commission reported to Parliament the result of its investigations. There was a difference of opinion on the Commission.. I can claim that I represented that body of opinion in Australia, stronger then than now, which .regarded the interests of the consumers as of some little importance. I was prepared to recognise the necessity of protecting Australian industries against ‘ anything and everything in the nature of unfair competition from the outside world. I still maintain that attitude. If ‘ I can discover that there is unfair competition from the outside world against any Australian industry, that industry will have my protection. But beyond that, I want to say at once, I am not prepared to go. I believe that Australian brains, muscle, and energy are equal to the. best in the world. , I believe that, given a fair deal, they canstand against any competition. It seems. to me that those industries in Australia that have best succeeded in the past are those that have had the least measure of Protection.. ‘So it will undoubtedly be, so long as Australia remains free and independent.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN” (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I remind the honorable member that sub-item f is before the Committee.

Mr FOWLER:

– l am keeping a great deal more closely to the question than did some of the speakers who preceded me; but, coming directly to the subject of discussion, I want to remind the .Committee that, as a part of the work done by the Tariff Commission, there is a volume before me giving reports and recommendations signed by four members of the Commission, of whom I was one. I look at the volume with mingled feelings of pride and regret, because I happen to have written most of it myself. I was nearly killed in the process; and if I had had the least idea that it was going to receive so little consideration as it did in subsequent years, I am not sure that I would have sweated my brains very much over it. In this volume there are some observations on Tariff matters that are still of some little interest. One of the observations has reference to the woollen industry, and to the so-called competition that it had -to- meet at that particular time from Great Britain. With other members of the Commission I went into the question of the cost of sending our wool to Great Britain and bringing it back here in the manufactured form. We found that in those days the cost of shipping our wool to Great Britain, the handling of it at the ports, putting it on the railroads, the cost of railage to the factories in England, the cost of sending it back to Australia in the manufactured form, with all charges for insurance, commission, and everything else, represented a natural protection of about 2’5 per -cent, for the Australian-manufactured article. That natural protection has been very much increased of late. I can safely- say that in regard to these1 woollen goods it ‘represents to-day no less than 30 per cent. I am putting it at a low figure, and, therefore, “ I say . that the actual protection which the Government are proposing for the benefit of the woollen manufacturers of Australiais 60 per cent. If that is held to be not more than enough I shall be very much surprised, indeed. During the war Australian manufacturers had a magnificent opportunity to commend themselves to the people of Australia. I say without hesitation that the bulk of them failed dismally and disastrously to do so. They not only had their pound of flesh, but, speaking of the bulk of them, they wrung every possible drop of blood out of the unfortunate consumers as well. They have thereby done more to injure the cause of Protection in Australia than anything that has everbeen brought against Protection by those opposed to that fiscal policy. That line of action by Australian manufacturers has gone further to open the eyes of the Australian public to some of the evils of the system than anything else that has happened. If the local manufacturers had done the fair thing by the consumers of Australia, as they could well have afforded to do and still have secured handsome profits, I should have been one of the first to say, “You have vindicated yourselves in circumstances of some little temptation and I am prepared to trust you to a greater extent than ever in the future.” I say now, however, that I am not prepared to trust them to give a fair deal to the consumers of Australia without some method of enabling the consumers to protect themselves. When we look around the shops at the present time and notice the cost of woollen goods, blankets, flannels, and tweeds, we find that the prices asked for them are more than double what they were in pre-war times. We begin to wonder how it is that this is tolerated by the Australian public. The cost of the raw material of the industry is down lower than it was in prewar times, and yet to-day the public are paying higher prices than they did before the war for the products of these factories. I say without hesitation that in some cases at any rate there is more profiteering going on in Australia to-day than there was during the war period.

Sir JOSEPH COOK:
Treasurer · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917

– Does the honorable member say that the price of the raw material is down below the pre-war price ?

Mr FOWLER:

– Yes. The price at which wool can be secured to-day is lower than it was for several years before the war.

Mr Hill:

– It is the same with almost every primary product.

Mr FOWLER:

– The price of the raw material is lower than it was before the war, whilst the price of the manufactured article is more than double what it was before the war. Why? The cost of labour has slightly increased; but the volume to which I have already referred shows that the cost of labour play3 relatively a very small part in the production of an industry such as this, where the greater part of the work is done by machinery. In this case it amounts at the most to about 30 per cent. Thus, if the labour costs were doubled, that would not by any means justify the doubling of the price of the manufactured article to the consumers of Australia.

While I am inclined to be reminiscent on this topic, I would remind honorable members that I think I was the first to attempt, in relation to the protection of Australian industries, to give some protection to the consumer. When the Australian Industries Encouragement Bill was before the House, a good many years ago, I endeavoured to secure the insertion of clauses which would make the protection of the Australian manufacturer consequent upon fair wages being paid in the industry, and fair prices charged to the consumer. That attempt, owing to our constitutional limitations, failed. I want, however, to suggest to the Minister a method by which that same object could be secured under this Tariff. I suggest that there could be established a body that would keep a watch on the prices of Australian-made goods in relation to prices for the same classes of goods in Great Britain and America - the two countries from which our competition principally comes - and that when that body reported that prices in Australia did not bear a fair relation to the cost of goods being sold in those two countries, the protection afforded should automatically come down. In that way we would secure the protection of. the consumer.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have promised to introduce a Bill somewhat along those lines.

Mr FOWLER:

– If the honorable gentleman has made that promise, I am not so much concerned as to whether or not the protection is high-

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have definitely promised the House to bring in a Bill, not to do exactly what the honorable member suggests, but to do something, at all events, on the lines mentioned by him.

Mr FOWLER:

– I am not concerned with the details, as long as the Minister accepts the principle.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have already promised to do so.

Mr FOWLER:

– I know that the Minister has indicated his intention- to move in some way or other to protect the consumer, but I am not aware’ that he has given any particular indication of how he is going to achieve that object. I am suggesting a method, because, as has been said from aH sides during this debate, the old-fashioned natural competition is almost at an end in all parts of the world. There are Combines that are international in their operation, and there is no doubt that the Australian interests in- regard to production and, at all events, wholesale distribution, have learned their lesson, in that respect, from the outside world.

Mr Considine:

– They are in harmony with economic evolution.

Mr FOWLER:

– We want economic evolution to evolve on sound lines, and, where necessary, we should give it a little fillip. I am at one with the honorable member in that regard. If the consumer is to be protected in some adequate way, then I am not so much concerned as to whether or not the protection is high. I think, however, we ought to make the Tariff wall against the Mother Country a little lower than we are doing. It is of no advantage to make the wall so high that in most cases neither the Mother Country nor any other country can get over it, and then to add an ornamental coping and describe that as a preference to the Mother Country. That is in the nature of what we are doing in this Tariff. Taking into consideration the natural protection that Australia on account of her isolated position enjoys, and is likely to enjoy for all time, a very moderate duty is ample for any industry that has a chance- to struggle along.

Mr Considine:

– If that is the case, why do you want a Tariff at all ?

Mr FOWLER:

– I do not want a Tariff in the sense that the honorable member suggests. We have before us a Tariff schedule that we are trying to put into shape, and if the honorable member and I were free to carry out our ideas, the alterations might be more drastic than the Committee would be inclined to adopt. I want again to suggest that if we are going to give preference to the Mother Country, it should be something more genuine than is proposed in this Tariff. In the majority of cases the duty is practically prohibitive, so that no preference whatever is given. Now that the objectionable conditions of labour in Great Britain upon which Protectionists used to dilate have disappeared, we might very well be far more generous than we are. I recognise, however, that it is useless for me to attempt to move in that direction, and just as useless to speak; but I am glad to have from the Minister the promise that he proposes to give the consumer some little consideration in connexion with this Tariff, and with that promise for the meantime I shall have to be content.

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- I should like to deal very briefly with the closing observations made by the honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Fowler) as to the inadequacy of the preference we are giving to Great Britain. If there is one thing in regard to which I feel strongly it is that where we are giving preference it should be given as far as possible to Britain. 1 propose to show to what extent the preferential provisions of the Tariff in regard to woollen goods have thrown into British hands the great bulk of our import trade. Taking the figures for last year, I find that our total importations of woollen-piece good3 were valued at £3,437,230, and that of those imports no loss than £3,331,081 “worth came from the United Kingdom. That is to say, out of a total importation of practically three and a half million pounds worth of woollenpiece goods, only £106,000 worth came from countries other than the United Kingdom. These figures, I think, are sufficient proof - if proof were needed - that the preference given under the Tariff to British goods is effective.

In regard to this great industry, which of all others should be native to Australia, I believe we should be able practically to cut off our importations and to become exporters of woollen-piece goods. I hope to see that position established; I hope that we shall be able, not only to cease importing woollen-piece goods, but to become exporters.

Mr Richard Foster:

– The honorable gentleman is very optimistic.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I believe that to be a possibility, nay, a probability, of the future. I am very hopeful that the rates which we are providing in this Tariff will be effective in that direction. A great deal has ‘been said about the profits that were made by the woollen mills during the war. Those who have followed the history of our .mills, and have tried to get down to the true reasons for those profits, will have found that at that time the mills were practically not manufacturing for civilian purposes. Practically the whole of their machinery and energies were at that particular period thrown into the making of khaki cloth and flannels required for war purposes. They had .been accustomed to working on a definite percentage on turnover which gave them a very moderate profit. The balance-sheets of the various woollen mills operating in the Commonwealth show that before the war their profits were very moderate. They set to work, no doubt, to make their contracts with the Defence Department on the basis of profit in relation to turnover to which they had been accustomed. I do not believe the woollen manufacturers themselves realized at the time that by throwing, as they practically did, the whole of their energies into the production of one class of goods they would make more money than they had done before on the same basis of profit in relation to turnover. Instead of having every day to change their looms from one .class of manufacture to another, or to spin different classes of yarns for different classes of manufactures, they were able to keep the whole of their plant running as one unit concentrated on the turning out of one particular class of material. I do not think they realized that in doing this, working their mills twenty-four hours a day instead of eight, they would make very much more money than they had done before on the same basis of profit in relation to turnover. I cannot conceive of a more magnificent example of the benefits of massed production than those figures show. You cannot ,get the best results from the manufacture of any particular class of goods unless by massed production.

Mr Prowse:

– That is no argument” for this Tariff.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– To my mind, it is a very substantial argument in its favour. If we can so build up our industries that they specialize and concentrate’, instead of turning from one thing to another, we shall be able to get our goods at a very much lower price, and the manufacturers will be able to make more money. That is an ordinary business proposition which the honorable member will not dispute.

Has any honorable member given consideration to the history of the woollen industry in Australia? It was, I believe, about the first manufacturing industry to be established here. Its history goes back to 1801. The first woollen mill in Victoria was started in 1867, but the industry has been of very slow growth. In 1908 there were in the Commonwealth exactly as many mills manufacturing woollen goods as there were when the war broke out in 1914. There had been no expansion. There had been a little growth in their output, and a slight increase in the number of hands employed ; but there they were - twenty-two factories in 1908 and twenty-two in 1914. For that lack of growth there must have been a reason.

Mr Fowler:

– In Victoria, when the duties were highest, the industry was at its lowest ebb.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am not arguing on that point; I am saying that if this was such a magnificent industry for the reaping of profits, surely there would have been found many people falling over each other to invest in it. But the facts are against that view; they show that during this long period of our history the growth of the woollen industry has been practically negligible. During the war-

Mr Richard Foster:

– Before the war the profits were not unreasonable.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– They were not; they were not only not unreasonable, but, having regard to the risks- of any industrial enterprise, they were less than in most. During the war, it is true, the woollen mills made large profits, and the public got very little material, indeed, from the mills. As I have already explained, the whole of the energies of the mills were devoted to turning out goods for the Defence Department, and for civilian purposes the deliveries were very small. I remember that during the somewhat chequered period, when I presided over the Department which controlled prices, it was over and over again suggested that we should endeavour to control the prices of Australian woollen goods. But when we came to investigate the position, we found that practically all the woollen piece goods that were being used by the public were imported; there was scarcely any Australian stuff on the market because of this concentration of the mills on military work. If we had tried to follow the comparatively small portion of the Australian production through the various ramifications of the trade, we should have lost it. What really was the cause, and what I believe is very largely the cause of the tremendous prices being charged to the public for woollen clothing, and woollen garments generally, is that we are still getting a large amount of material from abroad. The retailer, if he has a certain amount of Australian stuff, has got it at a cheaper rate than that at which he gets the imported, for the local manufacturer does not get anything approaching the price that the importer pays for the stuff from overseas. It is a fact that this local material gets mixed up with the imported material, and, I believe, is very often sold as imported by the tailor. The public are not getting the benefit of the fact that we are turning out a large percentage, at all events, of Australian goods. If we can build up this industry so that we may get practically the whole of our consumption from Australian mills, we shall soon see an alteration in that state of affairs. So long as we have the stream of imported material coming in, we shall never get the full benefit of our local manufacture. If I accepted the amendment, the only result would be to make it easier to import and more difficult to manufacture, and to put the day of benefit to the consumer so much further away - to put off the day when the Australian mills will turn out the whole of our requirements. I feel very strongly that, if we would only seize it, we have a unique oppor tunity now to send this industry bounding along the road of prosperity; I mean prosperity from the point of view of production. I wish to see this industry develop in Australia; I wish to see Australia become an exporter, not so much of raw wool as of manufactured woollen goods; and I believe that the day is not far distant, if we will only take our courage in both hands, when that object may be gained. As I have stated, the whole history of the industry is such that one feels that unless we are prepared to give a fair measure of protection, increased protection if honorable members like, on that which we had before the war, we cannot hope for any better results in the future than in the past.

Mr Fowler:

– Surely we do not need practically 60 per cent. of protection?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I deny altogether that we have anything approaching that protection.

Mr Fowler:

– I can prove it absolutely - up to the hilt.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I deny it altogether.

Mr Fowler:

– Under this Tariff the protection is practically 60 per cent.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– And the reason for my denial is a very simple one. If the honorable member will take into consideration the cost of moving the goods from one part of Australia to another, and set it against the cost of transit to and from Britain, he will find that there is precious little difference between them.

Mr Fowler:

– Have not imported goods to be moved about Australia in the same way?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I am talking of wholesale transactions, and I repeat that if the honorable member will do as I suggest he will find that there is precious little difference; indeed, I know a great number of cases in which the Australian cost is the greater. I have often heard of the natural protection of which the honorable member speaks, but if he examines the position with an unprejudiced mind, he will find that that protection practically disappears in ninetynine cases out of one hundred.

I do not know that it is necessary for me to say any more at this stage, except that I hope the amendment will not be accepted. I do not propose to raise the British preference rate over the 1914

Tariff, but leave it exactly where it has been for seven years. I think that the proposal in the Tariff is a very moderate one in the circumstances, and I ask the Committee to adopt it.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I wish to give notice that I intend to move a further amendment with the object of raising the duties to 35 per cent., 45 per cent., and 50 per cent. Australia is the greatest woolproducing country in the world. I do not say that as a Labour man, but merely repeat what is said by my honorable friends opposite, and by the press which supports them. By those honorable members, and by that press, we are told of the marvellous wealth that is represented by our wool production. I can well remember the time when we were told that the only use for our wool was to export it, and that we must have Free Trade in other commodities, so that ships might bring the latter here at substantial profit, and thus be able to take our wool back to the Old Country at lower freights. That was the argument we used to hear thirty or forty years igo. I have heard all sorts of statements as to the probable effect of high Protection upon the workers of Australia. I do not think the workers pay the tax at all, so it is of no use to talk to me about the condition of .the poor worker under Protection. If there were no taxes they would get so much less in wages. Our taxation, we are told, is about £11 per head, representing about £44 per year for the average working man and his family. I arn satisfied that if this taxation were lifted he would get £44 less in wages every year. What occurred during the war in the woollen industry? You could go into any of the warehouses in Melbourne and buy material, such as is in the sample I am now exhibiting, very fine tweed, though, perhaps not quite so good in some respects as the best West of England tweed. If I had my way I would not allow one yard of tweed to be imported. I would insist upon the people of this country wearing the Australian material. During the war the warehousemen in this country sold every yard of this material as imported cloth. I have no consideration for the manufacturers at all, although large sums of money have been spent in my division upon the erection of establishments, equipped with all the necessary machinery for manufacturing the raw material into the finished product. My Only concern is for the men and women who work in such establishments, and who sent me here. Among the manufacturers I have many friends, and, of course, speaking personally, I would not like to see them ruined, hut for manufacturers generally, I have no concern whatever. Australia produces immense quantities of raw product in the form of wool, and if we have not the power of organisation to handleit and develop our industries as is done in other countries of the world, then we must be unworthy of our trust.

Mr Prowse:

– I agree, but we ought to develop our industries without artificial aids.

Mr MATHEWS:

– We are told that we do not want artificial help in the building up of our industries. The time for high prices has passed, and so we should do our utmost to assist in the establishment of all those new companies which, we understand, are about to be launched for the development of the textile industry in Australia. In a statement issued by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry recently there is a list of twenty-two woollen textile manufacturing companies that have been registered in Australia since the beginning of 1920. I should like to place that list on record. It is as follows : -

The following companies registered since 1920 are in course of formation : -

This does nob take into account the firm registrations or the rapidly increasing knitting concerns in the various States. It is evident that the people who are associated with these companies can see an opportunity presented for the development of the industry in Australia, but apparently the Government cannot see it. In the beginning of 1918 I introduced to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator E. D. Millen) a deputation asking the Government to spend £5,000,000 in the woollen industry for repatriation purposes. If the Government had done that, they would have been in a better position to-day to repatriate our returned soldiers. The argument used at the timewas that the woollen industry did not offer employment to a large number of men.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If every country town in Australia had a woollen mill turning out some form of woollen goods, it would add to the stability of these inland tows, and (considerably ease the labour question. I am asked why, with all our natural protection, we cannot do this or that. When recently I had the pleasure of visiting the Yarra Falls Spinning Mills, I took the opportunity of asking the manager whether he was doing anything in the direction of working up the by-products of the woollen industry, and I mentioned the production of lanoline. He said, “ No; for several reasons.” First of all, he showed me a large pit, into which was drained all material that would at some future time be absorbed in the manufacture of lanoline, but he told me that it would not pay an establishment like his to introduce the necessary machinery for the treatment of these byproducts. He said that it would take all the different establishments combined to do so. This is one of the reasons why competitors on the other side of the world can hold their own against us. If we could only treat the whole of the byproducts associated with the woollen industry, our position would be considerably improved; but before we could hope to treat these by-products effectively we would need to increase our manufacture of wool into piece goods at least tenfold. However, in the near future, I hope that everything associated with the sheep, except, perhaps, its baa, will be used up by our manufacturers. Those countries which undertake the production of woollen goods to the fullest extent lose very little of the by-products of the industry. To illustrate my argument, let me refer to the operations carriedon by the Maize Products Limited in Melbourne. The company loses nothing in the treatment of maize. It applies such a high degree of perfection to its manufacture that it has even established a coopering branch for turning out its own barrels. If we could so manage our woollen industry that the by-products could be put to use, we certainly would be doing something beneficial to Australia.

I do not intend to protract this discussion. We ought to make up our minds as to whether we are Protectionists or not, whether we intend the duties we impose to give us an article producedin Australia or an imported article, or whether we are merely seeking to establish a revenue Tariff. Ihave been reminded in this House on several occasions, “ Do not forget we want revenue.” I want no revenue through the Customs. No Protective duty is effective if it produces revenue.

With the knowledge I have of the woollen trade, I feel that we have arrived at a stage in Australia when we ought to produce a commodity fit for any one to wear, and at a price cheaper than that at which it can be imported.

Mr.Gregory. - Then we do not require the duty.

Mr MATHEWS:

– ‘The honorable member will persist in that line of talk. I admit that during the war the duty on woollen goods was inoperative, and that even to-day it is to a certain degree inoperative. But the honorable member knows as well as I do the peculiar condition of all the industries in the country which is our greatest competitor in respect to the manufacture of woollen goods. Unfortunately, it seems that the coal miners of Great Britain are beaten ; and if their wages come down, then wages will come down right throughout Great Britain; and the same conditions will follow in Australia. As a matter of fact, the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) is anxious to see the cost of living kept down, so that wages may be reduced.

Mr Gregory:

– Yes; in order that we may carry on our industries.

Mr MATHEWS:

– If we lower the cost of living we lower the wages of the workers. The honorable member has said most emphatically during this debate that he was anxious to avoid adding to the cost of living in Australia, because he realized that wages must come down.

Mr Gregory:

– Otherwise our primary industries could not be carried on.

Mr MATHEWS:

– The honorable member is anxious to see wages reduced so that certain advantages may not be lost to some industries.

Mr Gregory:

– The mining industry, for instance.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Surely the honorable member has an instance in the metal mines. Every one will know it within six months; perhaps within three months.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Before the workers of Australia allow their wages to be cut down by one cent. I hope there will be an industrial upheaval unparalleled in the history of this country, because it will be good-bye to existing organizations the moment a start is made to reduce wages. There are thousands of men in the Labour movement hoping for this, not for the reason advanced by honorable members opposite, but because they believe that it will bring about a crisis that will upset our present economic system.

Mr Richard Foster:

– Rubbish!

Mr Austin Chapman:

– That is what I call bunkum.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Honorable members are very innocent. We have honorable members here who wish to see costs kept down so that wages may be cut down. It is the old Free Trade bait at which the workers of Great Britain bit,, and by which they were caught. What is the position of the workers in the Old Country under Free Trade, especially in the woollen industry and in agriculture? There are people in England - we know them as the submerged tenth - who are poorer than any other people in the world.

Mr Gregory:

– The honorable member would not think it fair if I said that his action is taken merely for the purpose of increasing the profits of . the mann- ffacturers

Mr MATHEWS:

– I have been told that such is the case. I admit that the effect of these duties will be to increase the profits of the manufacturers unless the Parliament or the people of Australia prevent it. It is up to this Parliament to prevent it or to the people of Australia to demand that this Parliament shall prevent it. If Parliament has not the power to do it, then the people must give it the power.

Sir Robert Best:

– If the manufacturers are to make profits, it would be much better for the profits to go to Australian manufacturers rather than to foreigners.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Yes, and we can tax the Australian manufacturers out of all the abnormal profits they are making. If I had the opportunity I would do so.

Mr Brennan:

– Is there no submerged tenth in New York or Berlin?

Mr MATHEWS:

– Of course, there is. There is no virtue in Protection as protection, just the same as there is no virtue in Free Trade as free trade. I am not a Protectionist because I am a Labour man, but I am a Labour man because I know that the workers are the only persons in a country worth considering, and I use a Protective policy as a means to an end. No halo surrounds the word Protection as far as I am concerned. I repeat that we can tax the manufacturers of Australia if we choose to do so, but, unfortunately, honorable members opposite are not too keen on taxing the big profits of either the manufacturers or the importers.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– That is not fair.

Mr MATHEWS:

– Honorable members opposite know that importers have made big fortunes, and they know that while we can tax the local manufacturer, we cannot tax the importer. I intend to move an increase to this duty, because I am satisfied that the one -great chance Australia has to pay its enormous debt is to utilize its great natural product, wool, by establishing factories for its treatment in all its phases. Unless something is done to pay our debt, there will be a crisis, and it is because I want to avoid that crisis that I suggest a method by which we can do so. Every town in Australia should run a woollen mill, not only to supply local requirements, but also for the purpose of exporting woollen piece goods, and also for the treatment of the by-products of the industry, and this can be done when we organize the industry properly.

Mr WIENHOLT:
Moreton

.- I have no intention of going over the ground that has already been traversed by other honorable members, nor am I egotistical enough to think that anything one could say would affect a single vote; bub I wish to take the opportunity upon the proposed duty on such an essential commodity as woollen goods of making my position quite plain. I dissociate myself altogether from the Protection mad policy that is now being carried into effect in this ‘ Committee. The Minister (Mr. Greene) has already earned for himself the reputation of being an Australian McKinley, but if I may be so bold as to say it, and, without offence, I think that by the time we have gone through the Tariff we shall be able more properly to compare him with the Chinese Emperor, Shih Hwang Ti, who built the famous Wall of China to block his Empire out from the rest of the world. There are two considerations in particular which appeal to me. Both the last speakers, who used the words “ Australian genius and Australian industry,” and the honorable -member for Perth (Mr. Fowler), with whose speech I am very much in accord, made plain that we have not only the finest wool, but also, I. believe, in the true Australian worker, the quickest and most intelligent worker in the world, with the possible exception of the American, about whom I cannot speak. Having these two advantages, every claim for a big protective duty is nothing short of a vote of want of confidence in the Australian raw material, the Australian manufacturer, and the Australian worker. When dealing with these already big, and, in many cases, prohibitive duties, we should have regard particularly to the man with a family. Every tax placed upon him under the Tariff may be increased threefold, fivefold, or tenfold, according to the number of his children. He is the one person above all others for whom we should have regard. When I see the Committee going “protection mad” I have at least this consoling thought that, just as the pendulum is swinging to one side now, so surely will it swing to the other side later. I am pleased that a motion for the reduction of the duty has been submitted by the honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory). In supporting the amendment we wish no ill to the woollen manufactories, far from it. There is one mill in my own electorate, but that fact does nob prevent me from voting on these duties according to my principles. I hope the amendment will be well supported, and that we shall have a fair chance of reducing the duty to a reasonable rate.

Mr LISTER:
Corio

.- I listened with very great interest to the remarks made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews). Although I take exception to some of his statements, I think that on the whole he has contributed to the debate something of value, and has given a lead which the Committee should follow. He stated that he was interested only in the workers engaged in the woollen industry, and had mo particular concern in the persons who have invested their money in it. A statement of that kind is extremely unfortunate, because if ever there was a time when the co-operation of capital and labour wa3 necessary it is now. We cannot develop the industries of the Commonwealth without the aid of capital, and I was surprised .at the remarks of the honorable member, because later he made a special plea for an increase in the Tariff in order ito assist the various companies who have recently -started manufacturing in .Australia. I recognise as much as does any other honorable mem’ber the necessity for developing the woollen industry, and I intend to’ support the amendment to be proposed by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, because I recognise that if the industry is to progress it must receive even greater protection than it has had in the past. The Minister (Mr. Greene) made that clear when he emphasized the stagnation in the industry over a period of years just prior to the war, and he rightly argued that if woollen manufacture were the gold mine which some people believe it to be, much more money would have been invested in it, and there would not have been the cry that has been heard so often lately that the industry is at a standstill, and must be further encouraged. Only a little time ago we had evidence of the interest that other countries are taking in the woollen industry, and we read of visitors from Japan purchasing some of the best stud sheep that money could procure. That action indicates to me that before long we shall have an active competitor in a people whose workers are employed at wages and under conditions very much below those ruling in Australia. For that reason we would be justified in giving further protection to an industry which means so much to the Commonwealth. Some honorable members have taken exception to the proposed duty because they allege that some manufacturers have been making inordinate profits. The Minister in his remarks effectively disposed of that argument. During the year 1914 the percentage of profits to turnover in the woollen industry was 12.93 per cent., which no honorable member will say was exorbitant. Other honorable members have complained of the so-called greed shown by the manufacturers during the war period. Yet, during the years 1915-16-17, the percentage of profit to turnover increased to only 17.59 per cent. Having regard to the fact that in order to get the big turnover the mills were running three shifts, and that the overhead charges were correspondingly decreased, and that the machinery was deteriorating rapidly and could only be replaced at very high prices, that was not an excessive profit. In regard to the cost of manufacture, I know of material manufactured in the mills , at Geelong and sold at a cost price of11s. per yard, but re-sold to the retailer at from 25s. to 27s. per yard. The increase appears to be very great, but I am told on most reliable authority that if the manufacturers themselves were to undertake the distribution of their product theycould not place it on the market at the price at which the wholesalers are selling it to-day.

Mr Considine:

– That is a nice fairy tale.

Mr LISTER:

– I am told that it is true.

Sir Granville Ryrie:

– The honorable member must be “ soft “ to believe that.

Mr LISTER:

– No stretch of the imagination is required to believe that statement when one realizes that the manufacturers deal with very few lines. If they had to send their travellers all over the Commonwealth to handle only their products, the cost of distribution would be greater than it is through the medium of the wholesale houses. One explanation of the profits made during the war period was that owing to the demand for war material the products of the mills were standardized. The mills were turning out only one quality and size of blanket, and that enabled them to produce larger quantities, and naturally make greater profits.

Mr Gregory:

– Why did they double their price?

Mr LISTER:

– They entered into a contract with the Defence Department at a price that was considered fair. Instead of turning out blankets of thirtyfive different grades and sizes, which naturally would have necessitated a considerable amount of extra work, they concentrated on one standard line. Then, although forty qualities and sizes of flannels wore made before the war, only one was made during the war. It is this that probably explains the profits made by the manufacturers.

Mr McGrath:

– Should they not under those circumstances have sold more cheaply?

Mr LISTER:

– Their prices, as has been stated by several speakers, were considerably below those at which similar articles could be obtained anywhere else. They were prices at which the Defence Department were very pleased to get their supplies. Let me read a letter headed “A warning to Australia,” which is printed on page 184 of the Australian Tariff Hand-book, 1919. It reads -

In the January, 1909, issue of the Textile World, of America, appeared a letter from the Montreal Woollen Mill Company of Canada, explaining the difficulty in which the company found itself. The letter was dated 23rd December, 1908, and, addressed to the editor of the journal, read: - “Dear Sir, - . . . We have been in business for the past thirty years, and have always paid good interest on the capital invested until the last four years. Since the present Liberal party came into power they have lowered the duty from 50 to 23½ per cent., and have practically annihilated the woollen industry. During their stay in power they have, through their Free Trade policy, been the cause of 75 per cent. of the woollen mills closing, and it they stay in power much longer there will be none left, and the once biggest Canadian industry will be no more. We have during the past four years lost money, but have been hanging on, expecting a change in the Government which did not come, and we have now decided to liquidate our plant while we can pay 100 cents on the dollar. Do you know what secondhand woollen machinery is in the States? If same is low enough, we may be induced to move our machinery, and go over, providing we could secure a good location at a reasonable figure.

The Montreal Woollen Mill Co

I should not like the Australian woollen industry to he in a position of jeopardy similar to the Montreal Company, and when the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Mathews) moves to increase these duties I shall support his amendment.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

.- It seems to me that the woollen industry is one of our chief industries, and one that we should do our best to develop. That the employees in it have not been giving a fair deal, and that the manufacturers have been charging too much for their goods, is not a reason for withholding support from it. We know that the manufacturers did not play the game during the war, and that they are not playing it now. We know, too, that the employees have obtained practically what they asked for from Wages Boards and the Arbitration Court, and that they have not been playing the game. As a result of the slowing-down policy and profiteering, many of our industries are likely to break down in the near future. The harmless public is being penalized by two profiteering gangs : the employees do not care what wages are, so long as these are continually ascending, and the manufacturers merely pass on any increases granted by Wages Board or the Arbitration Court, with the addition of, perhaps, 10 per cent., and then ask for further assistance under the Tariff. These two profiteering gangs should be brought to i their knees. But the circumstances which now exist should not prevent us from doing what is reasonable to develop the woollen industry. If properly developed, it would be worth upwards of £100,000,000 to Australia. We manufacture about 3 per cent. of our yearly wool product.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– No; we utilize for manufacturing in Australia only2½ per cent. of our production of wool.

Mr Bowden:

– We manufacture 50 per cent. of our requirements.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– No; nothing like that; only 12 per cent. of our requirements. Australia produces onefourth of the world’s wool and between 62 and 64 per cent. of the world’s fine wool, and every member should do what he can to put the woollen industry on a proper footing. We have the climate necessary for the manufacture of woollens, and the Bureau of Science and Industry has been instrumental in starting about thirty-three companies, with a registered capital of about £3,600,000. Many of these companies, like two in my district, are merely waiting for machinery. It is in this matter of machinery that the Government can assist the woollen industry. We wish to know how we can best get the machinery that we need. We have every reason to go ahead with the development of this industry. The time has arrived when the electric power which may be generated by some of our rivers must be taken into consideration. I understand, that an application has been made for a lease in connexion with a hydro-electric power scheme on the Kiewa River. That scheme will provide power for the greater part of Victoria, and the Morwell scheme will furnish the balance. Other States are about to develop their water-power in the same way, and, therefore, it seems to me that we can proceed to establish the woollen industry in our midst with the greatest degree of confidence. I am inclined to grant a preference of 5 per cent. to the woollen goods of the United Kingdom, in addition to the Minister’s proposal) hut I do not care what duty is imposed upon those coming from foreign coitntries.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– In this schedule we have given Britain a preference of 15 per cent.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– One honorable member has referred to a nation which is paying only half-a-crown per day to its labourers.We cannot possibly hope to compete with such nations; and for that reason I am prepared to impose a very substantial duty indeed upon goods entering the Commonwealth under the general Tariff.

Mr McGRATH:
Ballarat

.- During this debate I have been struck by the remarkable attitude which has been adopted by certain members of the Country party, and particularly by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook), who talked about the two gangs of profiteers - the manufacturers and the workers. You, sir, will remember - as, indeed, all of us do - the time when the workers of this country were obliged to resort to the weapon of the strike in order to enforce their demands for better Wages or for improved industrial conditions. But after years of agitation, Arbitration Courts andWagesBoards Were substituted for that weapon, with the result that to-day every concession that is obtained by the wage-earner is obtained by constitutional methods. In the woollen industry there is a Wages Board consisting of three members, of whom the chairman is usually a representative of the employers. Yet the honorable member for Indi had the temerity to stand up here and impute that the workers are a gang of profiteers. Need I remind him that at the last election it was the workers who put him where he is to-day, by giving him their second preference votes.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Are they not going slow?

Mr McGRATH:

– A greater slander than that the workers of Australia are guilty of going slow was never uttered by an honorable member. The Assistant Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Ryrie) has recently been amongst the Egyptian workmen, and he knows, as well as anybody, that one Australian workman does more in three days than the workman of any other country does in a week.

Mr Considine:

– That is not true.

Mr McGRATH:

– The Australian workers have adopted constitutional methods to obtain redress of their grievances, and because they are now getting a decent wage the honorable member for Indi has the temerity to term them a gang of profiteers. I am ashamed to think that any honorable member would utter such a slanderous statement upon the workers of Australia.

Mr Mathews:

– No doubt there is trouble in the bacon factory.

Mr McGRATH:

– Probably that is the explanation. The honorable member for Indi may be perturbed about his profits. Did he ever hear of a workman’s will being sworn for probate purposes at £1,000? Certainly not. The worker gets only a bare living out of his wages. It is men like the honorable member and others of his class who can die worth £10,000, or £20,000, or £30,000. I hold no brief for the manufacturing class of this country. I am a Protectionist, but I know only too well how they acted throughout the war period. They made immense profits.

Mr Considine:

– So did members of the importing class.

Mr McGRATH:

– Both the importing and the manufacturing classes took advantage of war conditions to exploit the people. They talked about the conscription of human life and about equality of sacrifice, but whilst our men were away in the fighting line they were intent upon increasing their bank balances. Nevertheless I shall vote for the increased duty which is proposed. If the war has taught us anything, it is that Australia ought to be a manufacturing country. During the war period we were scarcely able to import a single thing, and we demonstrated our capacity to manufacture articles which we had previously imported better than can any other country in the world. There were no soldiers overseas as well clad as were our Australian soldiers, who were equipped throughout with articles produced in the Commonwealth. The boots supplied to our troops were infinitely better than were the boots supplied to the troops of any other nation. There is no reason why we cannot produce sufficient for all the woollen requirements of our own people. I admit that if we impose a very heavy duty upon woollens we shall not he able to supply our people with cheap articles. But that is the fault of the people themselves. We have repeatedly asked them to clothe this Parliament with the constitutional power to enable it to establish more Government woollen mills than those at Geelong. As a returned soldier I was able to purchase a suit length of cloth from those mills for 26s., and if we possessed the requisite constitutional power every other individual in Australia could be supplied at the same price. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister) has said that it costs another 12s. per yard to distribute that cloth. Of course it does if we play into the hands of the Flinders-lane merchants.

Mr.Gregory. - If we do what the honorable member suggests we might get into a similar position to that which is occupied by the Cockatoo Island Dockyard.

Mr McGRATH:

– The administration of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard is still under investigation. But I can quite imagine any State or Commonwealth enterprise being made a failure if Ministers wish to bring discredit upon it. We established the Commonwealth Bank, but fortunately Ministers were sympathetic towards that institution, with the result that it has proved a big success, and that it upheld the credit of this country during five years of war. Similarly our Commonwealth Woollen Mills were established by Ministers who desired to make them a success. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding that we have Ministers side by side with vested interests which desire the failure of the Commonwealth Woollen Mill, . the latter has been a gigantic success. And if such is the case with respect to one establishment in Geelong, the same should be applicable to others if established throughout the Commonwealth.

Mr Lister:

– If they were equally capably managed.

Mr McGRATH:

– If private enterprise can secure capable managers, and if the Commonwealth can secure a capable manager at Geelong, the same should be possible in regard to the establishment of Commonwealth mills all over Australia. All that is required is a man of sympathy, a man with a belief in the venture, one who is as capable of giving a fair deal to the employees as to the Commonwealth. It would be no satisfaction to me to vote for a reduction of duties in order that certain importers might become a little more wealthy by bringing woollen goods into this country. I would prefer to see Australian manufacturers getting richer rather than manufacturers outside of Australia, together with a few importers in our various capital cities. If there must be a monopoly, let the monopoly be an Australian one, where Australians will benefit, and where, in any case, they will be more easily got at and controlled by the Commonwealth authorities. Honorable members on this side are consistent. We candidly admit that Protection is no cure for Australia’s industrial evils. I have no doubt but that it will increase the cost of living. But, at any . rate, I am not like members of the Country party, who go for Protection upon Australiangrown sugar, bananas, onions, citrus fruits, and currants and raisins, while upon all those things which do not directly concern their non-manufacturing districts they are “true blue ““Free Traders.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– I am glad I am not like the honorable member, at any rate.

Mr McGRATH:

– And I am very glad I am not like the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook). I look upon myself as a better Australian than the honorable member, who spent the whole of his time in addressing the Committee to-night in slandering Australians; who said that they were not giving a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; who imputed that they were incompetent workmen.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– Twenty per cent. of them.

Mr McGRATH:

– And that they were not able to hold their own with workingmen in other parts of the world. I am surprised that the honorable member should have displayed such disloyalty to his own country. I have faith in Australia. We have great opportunities because. we have the means to produce almost everything we require. Yet we hear the honorable member for Indi, and others like him, decrying the Australian workman, talking about the go-slow policy, and direct action, and Bolshevists. Well-known English firms, such as Cadbury’s, come out here and establish their factories. Would they do so if they believed that our workmen were of the type indicated by the honorable member for Indi ? The time is not far distant when Australia will not only be manufacturing all her own requirements of woollens, but will be exporting them to various parts of the world. It is with that in mind that I intend to support the Government’s proposals.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:
Wakefield

– I intend to vote in support of the proposals of the Minister (Mr. Greene). The Tariff is, in effect, the Tariff introduced - so far as the matter of preference to the United Kingdom is concerned - in 1914. On the basis of the Tariff as it exists to-day, Australia is likely to be benefited by the establishment of branch factories of well-known British firms. One reason why I intend to vote as I have indicated is because I believe that the most effective method by which we can secure reasonable prices for the consumer is by competition - that competition being participated in by some of the most efficient firms in the world. I give my support to the Minister’s proposals, .also, because the Committee has been assured of the intention of the Government to prevent exploitation by manufacturers, so far as may be humanly possible.

Mr Bowden:

– As far as may be constitutionally possible.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I thank the honorable member. That is so. I believe in being fair all round. Some honorable members opposite have referred to the Commonwealth mills, and to the wonderful way in which they can produce remarkably cheap materials. All I wish to know is, why did they not do so during the war?

Mr Riley:

– They did.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– They inaugurated a flat rate, and the other mills had no say; they had to accept or reject that rate. It has been asserted that in three years some of the Australian mills wiped out the whole of their capital costs. That meant, in certain instances, at least, the making 0f profits as high as 33 per cent. And, if that was so, the Com monwealth mill also made a profit of 33 per cent. If there was any profiteering at all, it was shared in by the Commonwealth establishment. I am not complaining of the profits made by the private mills., because they did not fix the prices ; and, going back over a period of years, it must be .admitted that those mills did not make undue profits.

Mr Riley:

– The Government fixed a flat rate only in respect of military materials, but Australian manufacturers could sell other than those for whatever prices they liked.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– A flat rate was fixed for military materials, and, in order to meet the demands upon the mills, those establishments worked three shifts.

Mr Riley:

– Making cloth for civilians.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Very little was made for the civilian members of the community, because the Government commandeered the mills to the tune of three shifts per day for a considerable period. If these mills did so well that they could wipe out their capital cost in three years, which they otherwise could not have done in thirty years, it is time a reduction in price was made.

Sir Robert Best:

– It is more like nine than three years.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Some did it in three years, and the honorable member knows it. If these mills were able to defray their capital cost in such a short period, surely they are in a better position to extend their operations than they have ever been before.

Mr Prowse:

– Why give them a 30 per cent, protection?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– There is the other side of the question, and on this point I am sure the honorable member for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) will support me. Since 1914 the overhead costs of these industries have increased by ‘60 per cent., and taking that into consideration with the other points I have mentioned concerning the assurance that big British companies are likely to establish mills in Australia it would be indiscreet and altogether unwise to amend these rates. In view of the altered conditions we should be obtaining material from Australian mills at a lower rate than we are. There has been very little reduction in the price of tweeds, flannels, and blankets unless it has taken place within the last few days.

Mr Riley:

– Wool has dropped in price.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Yes, especially blanket wool, and not only are we not getting a cheaper article, but the supply of blankets and flannels, particularly is altogether inadequate. What is the reason?

Mr Gabb:

– Because they are not working three shifts for. the public.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– It is not that. Many of the operatives will not work on Saturday.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Tell that to old women and not to us.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I am telling what I know to be a fact. Many are not working on Saturday because they earn sufficient in five days to keep them going.

Mr Riley:

– That does not apply to factories; they work on Saturdays.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– It applies to Lobethal, in South Australia, where they have difficulty in getting many of the operatives to work at all on Saturdays.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– Where are the men and women who worked three shifts?

Mr Gabb:

– They never worked three shifts per day at Lobethal.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– I did not say they did; I was referring generally to mills on war work, but the manager at Lobethal informed me that the employees would not work on Saturdays. It should be the policy of woollen mill proprietors to come as near as possible to the consumers in the matter cf distribution, and if honorable members are anxious to see the cost of living reduced they should do something in that direction.

Mr Anstey:

– Why not cut out wages?

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– The mills should come as near as possible to the ccnsumers by re-arranging their methods of distribution. The honorable member for Kooyong said it was a difficult matter, and would be altogether too costly for individual mills to deal with retailers. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister), who cannot see beyond the boundaries of Geelong, holds a similar opinion. I forget the figure he mentioned, but I know it was extortionate.

Mr Lister:

– It was 12s. a yard.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– That is nonsense.

Mr Lister:

– I know that the cost of manufacturing certain cloths is 12s. a yard, and that the material is sold to-day at from 25s. to 27s. per yard.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– Does that apply to Geelong?

Mr Lister:

– To mills generally.

Mr RICHARD FOSTER:

– If it applies to Geelong the mills there need tuning up. Let me inform the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Prowse) that if the imposition of a duty of 30 per cent. will be the means of British manufacturing industries becoming established in Australia, and our people receiving cheaper woollen goods, the dut y is more than justified. In the matter of distribution I may inform honorable members that the Lobethal mills in South Australia have never sold their goods to the wholesale houses, but have gone to the distributors in every part of the State. Perhaps it would interest the honorable member for Corio to know that this factory has not only distributed its goods in South Australia, but its representatives have come over the border into Victoria, and sold their product in competition with goods manufactured in Geelong, notwithstanding that the honorable member says that the Geelong factories cannot afford to meet the cost of distribution. If the Lobethal mills can afford to distribute their product others can. With additional mills established in different parts of the Commonwealth production and competition will increase, and the natural result will be that woollen goods will be sold to the consumer at a lower rate.

Mr ANSTEY:
Bourke

.- I intend to oppose the amendment for a reduction in the rate, and to support one for an increase in the duties proposed by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Greene). I am going to oppose the amendment for the reasons put forward by the Free Trade member for Swan (Mr. Prowse), and I cannot support the proposed rate submitted by the Protectionist gentleman who now occupies the position of Minister for Trade and Customs. I have already given my reasons for supporting the highest Tariff that may be submitted to enable our raw material to be worked up in Australia instead of being sent to other countries for that purpose.From the beginning of this discussion I have npt heard any stronger reasons furnished for the imposition of a high Tariff than those submitted by honorable members who are opposed to high duties. I desire to see industries established in the Commonwealth, not in the interests of the capitalist or the workmen, but in the interests of the country generally, but not necessarily under a capitalistic regime. I want to see a self-sustained country with manufacturing industries which will furnish us with a large variety of occupations capable of keeping men fit, so that they will always be in a position to defend our country. I feel that these industries are necessary, and not merely to the capitalistic State. A change is coming and it may come to-morrow, next year, or even the. year after, when we transfer this capitalistic State to a Bolshevik paradise, when the honorable member for Barrier (Mr. Considine) and the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) will be the Trotskys and Lenins of this new world, the honorable members for Kooyong (Sir Robert Best) and North Sydney (Sir Granville Ryrie) will have to demonstrate their loyalty by kissing the red flag. Even in that State, and under the system changed from that which we have to that which we desire, the woollen industry will still be necessary. It will be as absolutely essential to the Bolshevistic State as it is to the capitalistic State. The Red armies of tomorrow will need to be supplied with clothes, and, therefore, I support it. I have heard the honorable member for Indi (Mr.. Robert Cook) and the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Eoster) talk of the scandalous conduct of the workmen of this country who will not work. They go so slow that their employers are dying of starvation. I listened again to the arguments put forward by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Prowse), who told us that in this industry people put in 10s. and draw out£1.He told us that people who started in the industry have, out of their profits, doubled and trebled their capital in two or three years. This was in a particular State where half the country and two-thirds of the population are under the domination of the odious Labour party. One honorable member tells us that the workmen will not work, or work so slowly that the bosses cannot make any money, and he is answered by the honorable member for Swan. The honorable member for Wakefield tells the Committee that the slower the workmen work the more profits the bosses make. What an absurdity! Then there is another country, England. The honorable member for Wakefield believes in the establishment qf industries in this country and in a Tariff of 40 or 45 per cent. against Jap, Jew, and Gentile, but, apparently, he desires competition from Free Trade England. What can it matter to Australia from which country products come that enter into competition with locally-manufactured goods? If our porta and our markets are flooded with products from overseas, how can we be good Australians if on the one hand we say that we must protect the products of Australia and on the other we wave the flag and say that it does not matter what goods are brought here from a particular part of the earth? So far as the exclusion of products from outside is concerned, we have as much right to exclude them if coming from one country as from another. The Minister has told us what has occurred under the Tariff which we had before, which, I believe, was 25 per cent.

Mr Riley:

– Forty-five per cent.

Mr ANSTEY:

– No ; we are not coming down. The Tariff now proposed is higher, and not lower, than the previous Tariff.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– The previous Tariff was 25 per cent.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Even with that Tariff in this country, where nobody works, bosses made millions of profits. There are other countries where the people work, we are told, from early morn to late at night. We read in the newspapers that the cotton-spinners and weavers of England are accepting a 40 per cent. reduction in wages. Workman after workman, and organization after organization, are accepting reductions in wages, in order to get a chance in the markets of the world. This is in a country where there is little or no competition between the “ Micks “ and the Methodists, an actual paradise where every one is loyal to the Government. Yet, according to the Minister for Trade and Customs, capitalists are leaving this paradise and coming to this country where no one works, where some men are earning 8s. a day for shovelling 2 tons of sulphur in. a week, and where we are told that men are getting £17 a week to play poker in a boiler, where men on the wharfs are earning £2 per day, and the bricklayers, who previously laid 2,000 bricks a. day, now lay nothing. I can tell the honorable member for Swan, who has told us this story, that under the Tariff it is apparent that we are getting the finest class of immigrants we could get.

Mr Prowse:

– What story did I tell the honorable member?

Mr ANSTEY:

– I do not know how the honorable member made it out, but I sat here and listened to his story that capitalists in the woollen industry put a certain amount of capital into it and drew it out over and over again in profits in something like two or three years.

Mr Prowse:

– I made no reference to that at all.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Well, I have not been outside the chamber, I have not been downstairs or upstairs. I have a distinct recollection of hearing such a statement, and I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the honorable member for Swan did not tell the Committee that enormous profits were made by certain people who engaged in the manufacture of woollens.

Mr.Greene. - I say, frankly, that I cannot remember.

Mr Gregory:

– Does the honorable member withdraw?

Mr ANSTEY:

– No, I do not. The Minister is so dependent on votes from the Country party’s corner that he dare not controvert anything said by honorable members of that party. I distinctly remember that the Minister this afternoon answered arguments, which now, apparently, were never used. Did not the honorable gentleman explain the circumstances in which men in certain industries made profits?

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I was answering the honorable member for Dampier.

Mr ANSTEY:

– The honorable member for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) and the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Prowse)are birds from the same nest, and we need not argue which of them told the story to which I have referred.

Mr Gregory:

– The honorable member had better apologize to the honorable member for Swan.

Mr ANSTEY:

– I apologize to the honorable member for Swan and heap my deadly insults on the honorable member for Dampier. Here we have a Tariff that is furnishing us with the most desirable class of immigrants-. It is no longer necessary for us to have a forced system of immigration. We need no longer spend scores of thousands of pounds and send immigration agents abroad to various countries of the world to bring workmen to this country when we discover that the imposition ofa 40 per cent. Tariff will bring out, great capitalists from England to engage in our industries. If we put on another 20 per cent. we shall bring capitalists from all parts of the world to enjoy the results pointed out by the honorable member for Swan.

Mr Prowse:

– What did I point out?

Mr ANSTEY:

– I am wrong; I refer to the honorable member for Dampier. The honorable member wants to reduce the duty. He would cut down the enormous profits made for the bosses in this paradise by workmen who do very little work ; where we are cursed with all sorts of obnoxious doctrines, with conflicts of various sects, where men will not work, ot play poker in a boiler, or shovel 2 tons of sulphur a week for 8s. a day, and go to the factory only five days in the week, and work only one out of thefive, and where the less the workmen do the greater the profits of the bosses. Why should honorable members furnish such arguments as these? A Tariff, to be worth anything at all, should be such as will maintain the industries of the country. Accordingto some of our honorable friends opposite, there is no country where working men work fewer hours per day, do less work, and get more pay than they do in Australia. There is no other country in which capitalists engaged in industry are making greater profits, and there is no country in the world to which capitalists are more anxious to come than, this Australia of ours, where, according to the arguments we have just heard, no man ever works. Surely that i3 a strong argument in favour of a Protectionist Tariff. The honorable member for Dampier says that he is a Protectionist - that he wants a Tariff that will keep out importations from every country except Great Britain. He desires, however, that imports from Great Britain should be allowed to come in free. I do not want to see imports coming in from any country. The fundamental policy of our people should be to make Australia self-contained so far as her industries are concerned. I care not by what methods we secure it, or under what system we live - that should be our fundamental gospel.

Mr Gregory:

– Will the honorable member tell us in what’ way these .Protective duties have improved the conditions of the workers of Australia?

Mr ANSTEY:

– The honorable member puts that question to me despite the fact that he himself has furnished a clear and distinct argument in support of the contention that a Protective Tariff benefits the people of the country. The honorable member says that in all other countries the workers receive low wages and work long hours, whereas in this country they receive enormous wages, and do no work.

Mr Gregory:

– I did not say that.

Mr ANSTEY:

– Then the honorable member differs from some of Es confreres. The honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook) has put forward that view, and the Assistant Minister for Defence (Sir Granville Ryrie) indorses it. The honorable member for Dampier spasmodically adopts different views. There have been a number of manufacturers about the precincts of this chamber who look at the Tariff from the point of view of their own interest. . I do not object to any one coming into the lobbies and trying lo convince me that a certain view is right, especially if they come along with the right sort of argument. Manufacturers have furnished many reasons why there should be a higher Tariff to protect the industries . in which they are interested. The views of some of these gentlemen have been- expressed by the honorable member for Corio (Mr.

Lister). He has told us that woollen manufacturers in this country can pay high wages to workmen who will not work - do not forget that they do not work; they simply look on whilst machines do the work for them - and that they can make good profits by turning out cloth which they sell for 8s., 10s., or 12s. per yard, as the case may be. The general public, however, do not get that cloth for 8s., or 10s., or 12s. a yard. What they have to pay is something like three times the price charged for the cloth at the factory. The people who make the most profits out of the products of our factories are not the manufacturers, who put their brains and their money into their enterprises, nor the workmen employed in those factories, but warehousemen, who do not employ one labourer or invest one penny in the process of manufacturing goods, but simply draw into their warehouses the products of various factories, and sell them over the counter loaded with the blackmail which they levy on the general community.

Mr Gregory:

– Is not the manufacturer to blame? When he is given special protection; should he not see that the consumers, in turn, get some benefit?

Mr ANSTEY:

– Yes. But in the absence of massed production it is impossible for many of our manufacturers to sell direct to the people. Massed production in a country like this is of the greatest importance. Where you have a lot of little industries growing under the influence of the Tariff, the men conducting those industries and possessing only a small capital find themselves very largely at the mercy of the ‘ wholesale establishments. I know of a manufacturer in this city - not in my own constituency - who could not induce any of the wholesale houses to handle his product. In his predicament he went to a man in Smith-street, and said, “ Will you try to place my goods ?” The Smithstreet business man agreed to do so, and placed them all over Australia. No sooner had he done so than the big wholesale houses told him that if he put out any more of those goods they would refuse to supply him with other materials that he required. He was blackmailed, and could do nothing. That state of affairs is not due to any failure on the part of the Tariff. It should be part of our national policy to provide common storage for the output of our factories as a protection, against the Flinders-lane people and that class of retailers who charge the people three times the factory cost of the goods they sell. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. J. H. Catts) recently brought into this building samples of ladies’ stockings made in Australia. The employees in the factory receive good wages, and the proprietor is able to get a fair return on his capital by selling these stockings at 12s. per dozen. That is the factory cost, but the people have to pay four times that price for them. The factory cost is doubled, in some cases it is trebled, by the wholesale houses, and then the retailer has to get his profit. I am quite prepared to admit that, given a monopolistic industry, you get exploitation, but the exploitation of the people of Australia is carried out for the most part by ‘ men who do not put a penny into manufacturing enterprises. It will be necessary for the Government to take other action to protect the people in that respect. Despite the high wages paid, the alleged indifference of our workmen, and the fact that we are told that they work only a few hours per day, the actual costs of the output of our factories are as low as costs in any ether country. What we have toprotect ourselves against is not the cost of the products as sold at our factories, but the exploitation to which (he people are subjected after the goods leave the factories. The argument raised by those who are opposed to the Minister’s proposal, and also raised by the Minister himself, affords me an opportunity to show what this country can do, and to state once more that I am prepared to support the Minister or anybody who raises the Tariff one step higher, not for the benefit of any individual, be he the investor of capital or the man who labours, but fundamentally with the object of establishing industries. Under any and every method, I support the establishment of industries which can be better carried on here than in any other country in the world.

Mr LIVINGSTON:
Barker

.- I regard the woollen industry as one of the most important in this country. It is well known that Australia produces not only the finest class of wool in the world, but also the best class of workmen. We are an educated people, SO per cent, of whom are able to have accounts in Savings

Banks or other banks. The foundation of this industry is the grower of wool, and then comes the shearer. We know that every shearer is paid according to the result of his labour, as I believe every man in every industry should be paid. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) has told us that few working men, when .they die, leave any estate subject to probate duties; but I can inform that honorable member that in my district many of the landholders started as shearers. They have achieved their present position because they have always been allowed to do their best as good men; and this shows that every man should be paid according to the results of his labour. I should like to? see the woollen industry so established as to make every man employed in it a shareholder in the business and in the profits, for this provides the strongest incentive for him to give of his best. In Australia to-day the great mistake is made of always starting new industries in the big cities. Why should not the manufacture of wool be conducted in our big wool centres, where there is water running to waste, and every facility for successful operations? All that , is required is to take the workmen there, and house them at cheap rents. When Mr. Smail came to Australia to select the best sites for woollen mills, he traversed the whole of the country, including the south-eastern portion of South Australia, which he described as the best place in the world for the purpose. In that part of Australia there is the necessary water, wood, wool, and so forth; but Mr. Smail pointed out that there were no conveniences for working men, including cottages and schools. This had to be admitted; but I pointed out to Mr. Smail that in South Australia we had the most beautiful stone to bc found in any part of the Empire, and that we can build more cheaply there than elsewhere. It would ‘be easy, I said, to remove the workmen to the mill 5 in the country, and provide schools and other conveniences. However, the tendency is to take all industries i;ito the big cities; and under any immigration policy we may adopt, we must endeavour to get the people, on to the land in the country, for unless this is done Australia can never progress. We require the establishment of many industries, but we cannot hope for them if an educated people is ground down without a proper share of the proceeds of the work they do. What is required is a system something like that adopted at the Sunlight soap works and Cadbury’s cocoa factories in England. If the workers in England can be given a share in the profits, why not in Australia? Weall know that the men who are the best paid do the best work. The honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lister) submitted that the manufacturers of wool should be the distributors.

Mr Lister:

– I did not say that.

Mr LIVINGSTON:

– When the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) said that that was what the honorable member had contended, the latter offered no contradiction. We all know that it is impossible for manufacturers to do the distributing work; there must be distributors as well as manufacturers, as there have been from time immemorial. I do not believe in low wages, because, in my opinion, our Australian workmen are capable of earning every shilling they receive, and more. As to the proposed duty on onions, if there is a country in the world that can grow this commodity it is Australia, especially in the Western District of Victoria and the south-east of South Australia. Onions and potatoes are to-day £3 per ton, and living in. Australia is cheaper than in any other country. We have every necessary of life here, and all that is wanted is proper distribution. So far as food is concerned, there is the greatest trouble in the matter of distribution ; but I hope that before long we shall have cheap woollen goods, for, goodness knows, clothing and blankets are very badly required at the present time.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- It is my intention to oppose the amendment for reduction of duty, and to support the schedule. I understand that one honorable member on this side intends to move for even a higher duty than that proposed by the Minister; but if such an amendment is submitted, I shall oppose it. While a Protectionist, I recognise the truth of the statement made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Wienholt), who said that if we go in “ red hot “ for Protection, the pendu lum will, in due course, swing back. With that point of view I agree, and I shall oppose any proposed increase which I think gives undue Protection to any particular item. However, my purpose in rising was not to state my attitude in regard to items, but to answer a statement made by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster), who, in a somewhat similar spirit to that displayed by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook), complains that the workers do not seem prepared to do a fair thing.

Mr ROBERT COOK:
INDI, VICTORIA · VFU; CP from 1920

– I said some of them do not.

Mr GABB:

– The honorable member for Wakefield also had a complaint against the woollen mills because the demand for blankets and flannels is not being met. When he said that, I interjected, “Why cannot they work three shifts?” meaning the mills, and the honorable member replied, “They will not work even one shift,” meaning the Workers. Then the honorable member went on to’ refer to the Lobethal Mills. We have done some curious things in South Australia in regard to changing names under the influence of that pseudo-patriotism so much abroad, and the place that was called Lobethal is now known as Tweedvale. This is in my electorate, and I know the class of people engaged at the woollen mills. They are an industrious country community, affording an example of what honorable members in the Government corner describe as the decentralization of industries. If I am not mistaken, the mills were established in that district because of the known industrial habits of the people, settlers of German origin, and I resent the accusation by the honorable member for Wakefield that they are lazy.

Mr Bowden:

– Do they work on a Saturday ?

Mr GABB:

– I cannot say; but if they do not, that innovation must be of recent date. If my memory serves me right, during the war that mill was never worked three shifts, and when I interjected that three shifts might be worked now, I had in mind the fact that if in wartime the mills in near metropolitan areas were worked three shifts under pressure for the military authorities to supply military needs, the same mills might now work three shifts to -meet the keen demand for blankets and flannels for civilian purposes mentioned by the honorable member for Wakefield. I am satisfied that employees are available to work the metropolitan mills three shifts, if the” owners want to do so; but probably the present high prices suit the managers and shareholders, and they are not keen on bringing down the cost too rapidly. A prominent member of the Senate said the other night that wool f ot blankets was recently sold to the manufacturer as low as ½d. per lb., and that the average price was about 3d. I am prepared to accept his statement, because he is intimately associated with the woollen industry, and is, probably,, one of the most prominent woollen experts in Australia. Certainly he is not a Labour man, and therefore, it. cannot be said he would make any statement against the mill-owners unless the position was as he stated. It is up to the woollen manufacturers of this country, if there is an extra demand for blankets and flannel, to try and meet it. I believe in Protection to help our manufacturers to establish industries, but I also want fair treatment for the employees and the consuming public. I hope the schedule will stand, because I am confident that if there is one business in which we can hold our own with the rest of the world, it is the production of woollen goods, provided we give our manufacturers sufficient protection to enable them to become well established.

Mr PROWSE:
Swan

.- The honorable member for Indi (Mr. Robert Cook) made some reference a few minutes ago to two Combines that were co-operating in connexion with this item. The exact language used by him does not concern me very much, though it seems to have perturbed some honorable members. Reference has also been made to a statement of mine. The honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. McGrath) says he is glad that he does not belong to the Corner party. I am sure that we do not envy him his position. He made it clear that he was quite satisfied that the Tariff increased the cost of living, and he is so consistent that he is going to vote for increased duties on these items. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Poster), to my mind, was just as inconsistent. ‘He recognised that if effi ciency were insured under a reasonably competitive system, there ‘would be no need for this 30 per cent. Tariff, but because other manufacturers propose to come to Australia to join in the Combine to exploit the people of Australia, . he is going to vote for the increases. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey) is prepared to defend the working man, whether right or wrong, and he pointed out that the warehousemen are exploiting the people. But what does the warehouseman exploit the people out of? Do not honorable members see clearly that there is a defectiveness within Australia? And is an increased Tariff to remedy this state of affairs. Are we going to continue covering up our incompetence by increasing the Tariff indefinitely? The manager of the Bureau of Commerce knows that, whenever he is prepared to go on with his woollen mill scheme, he can have £1,000 of my capital to help the project; but I still will argue that 25 per cent, duty, together with the other loaded charges in our favour as against manufacturers at the other end of the world, is ample. Honorable members cannot raise, the blacklabour question in regard to this industry, as they have done in regard to other industries. Our competitors employ white labour^ paid at the same rate .of wages as our own workmen. As a matter of fact, their coal is dearer, and their facilities generally are not so good as in Australia. In these circumstances, I cannot see why, by asking for increased duties, we should declare our inefficiency. The mere fact that honorable members opposite are asking for such high protection is an admission of inefficiency. The honorable member for Bourke drew attention to certain figures which I submitted two or three days ago in connexion with this item, but I may point out that I was not then referring to companies. I mentioned that the Commonwealth Government, under the War Precautions Act, had commandeered twenty-two of the mills already in existence in Australia, with a capital of £1,144,000, and operated them for two years and four months at a profit of £1,177,000, thus making it possible within that period, to pay off the whole of the capital cost, and have £63,000 to the good. These are, the industries for which increased protection is now asked. It might be said that they were operated under exceptional circumstances ; but they did not work- longer than eight hours a Shift. This Shows clearly that woollen manufacture is a natural secondary industry to Australia. It is a libel to say that members of the Corner’ party are Free Traders. If it can be shown that any industry honestly needs protection, we are prepared to concede it. We are ready to consider this question of Tariff duties from all stand-points. There are other industries to be considered, and we want honorable members to apply to them the same line of argument as they would use for their own pet industries. In the interest of Australia I hope that they will do so.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- I am opposed to any reduction in these duties.

Mr Wienholt:

– Will you support an increase ?

Mr LAZZARINI:

–One at a time is said to be good fishing. When the proposal for an increase is before the Committee it will be time to state my position in that regard. Honorable members who ask for a reduction of the duty on woollen goods argue that the local manufacturers do not require the protection given and ought to be able to compete with outside goods on a smaller duty, but they lose sight of the fact that the question of the high cost of living or high price of commodities is not solved by the adoption of either a Free Trade or a Protective policy. If we develop our industries by imposing a high Tariff we are justified in doing it, so long as we take steps to prevent the local manufacturer from fleecing the people by making excessive profits, but I repudiate the suggestion of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Prowse) that honorable members of the Labour party are looking to Protection to solve the question of the high cost of living. Whether we adopt a policy of Protection or Free Trade we shall always have control of prices by Combines either inside or outside Australia. The honorable members for Dampier (Mr. Gregory) and Swan (Mr. Prowse) have spoken of the overhead charges of sending our raw material away and bringing it back again in the manufactured state; and it is a disgrace to think that our primary products - wools, metals, and other lines - have to go abroad and be brought back as finished articles.

Mr Prowse:

– Does the honorable member imagine that the Australian consumer will get his clothes cheaper by the increased duty? «

Mr LAZZARINI:

– The Labour party will see that he gets his clothes at a reasonable rate.

Mr Prowse:

– But why is the honorable member prepared to give the woollen mills conditions under which they will he allowed to exploit us further?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I am not prepared to do so. If the honorable member and others had followed our advice nine months ago when we put forward certain suggestions the manufacturers would not be doing this. I have had a long experience in the retail trade, and I know that the Combines and Trusts that bind the retailers most effectively are the importing firms. Of course, we realize that these Combines are but the natural development of the growth of commercialism, but nevertheless we must deal with them. The honorable member for Swan has claimed that the manufacture of woollen goods is a natural secondary industry for Australia. He is quite right, and I shall give my support to a duty which will afford it some protection. If a still higher duty is proposed I shall give the matter consideration when the time comes to do so.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- I have listened to the debate on this particular item of the Tariff with a good deal of interest. It has been rather amusing to listen to the arguments put forward on both sides, in the main justifying the item in the schedule or an increase in the duty. One honorable member sitting in the corner has denied the allegation that his party is a Free Trade party. It appears to me, after listening to the debate, that there is not a Free Trader in the House.

Mr Hill:

– Except the honorable member.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– I am not a Free Trader, nor am I a Protectionist. lb seems to me that honorable members want protective duties on the goods they have to sell, and a reduced Tariff or none at all on the commodities or articles they wish to purchase or use.

Mr Prowse:

– There are very few items which the farmers sell that can be protected by ordinary methods.

Mr CONSIDINE:

– The honorable member’s party has been very loud in demanding Protection for primary products, and in asking for Free Trade on agricultural machinery and other items. Other honorable members urge that the present Tariff should be maintained, or that the duties should be higher still. We are treated to the statement that the Australian worker works a jolly sight harder than do workers elsewhere. It is a very dubious compliment from my point of view to hear it said that the1 Australian engaged in any industry can produce more profit foi” the employing class than do <his fellows in other countries. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) takes up the same attitude as myself when he says that lt is a case of tweedledum and tweedledee to the working classes, having regard to the conditions under which they are living at present whether they have Protection or Free Trade. That being the case, why should the representatives of the working class support either policy? I think it was Sir George Reid who labelled the Labour party as “ fiscal atheists “ because they supported either Free Traders or Protectionists so long as their own programme was carried out. I do not agree with the stand-point taken up by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Anstey),, but the reason he advanced for representatives of the working classes supporting a Protective Tariff was to my mind the most logical. He said that it would help to develop the country industrially by causing fresh industries to be established, which in time the workers might take over and utilize in their own interests, instead of helping their political and economic enemies to increase their opportunities of exploiting the great masses of the people. My duty, as a representative of the workers, is not to take sides in matters that are the exclusive concern of the two divisions of the exploiting elements, the importers and manufacturers. If our contention is correct, that the workers, as a class, are exploited in the factories, mines, and workshops, that the fiscal issue is only a question of a high Tariff and high wages or Free

Trade and low wages, and that the worker receives, on the average, only sufficient to keep him and his family, irrespective of whether the Protectionist or the Free Trader rules, my duty, as a working-class representative, is not to take sides with either section of the exploiters, but to say, “ Gentlemen, settle it in your own way,” and to point out to the workers that it is their duty to organize themselves with a view to altering the economic system, eliminate profit making, and utilize the machinery of wealth production in their own interests. In this way they will put an end to these controversies that mean nothing to them.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.- I have moved a reduction of the duty on woollen goods imported from the United Kingdom, and not one argument has been advanced to show that the duty proposed in the schedule is necessary for the carrying on of woollen manufacture in Australia. The last duty imposed by this Parliament on woollens was 25 per cent., which I ask shall be continued.

Mr Gabb:

– The honorable member has not adduced any argument to prove that the additional duty is not necessary.

Mr GREGORY:

– It has been shown that the manufacturers have made enormous profits, that during the war they did riot care a straw for the interests of the people, and that flannels and blankets are almost unobtainable in Australia today. I am asking for a little concession to the Old Country. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Richard Foster) said that he would support a 30 per cent, duty because of a statement made by the Minister (Mr. Greene) regarding the pro’bability of large firms in England establishing woollen factories in the Commonwealth. In 1891 the Victorian Parliament, which was strongly Protectionist, imposed a 30 per cent, duty on woollens at the instance of the then Minister for Customs (Sir Robert Best). Can ‘anybody say that that high duty was beneficial either to Victoria or to the woollen industry? I am satisfied that it was not. When one compares the Tariff of that period and the destitution prevalent in Victoria at about that time, with the great progress made in New South Wales under a more rational policy, he is justified in assuming that heavy protective duties were not good for Victoria, and will not be good for Australia duringthe next few years. Not long afterthe passing ofthe McKinley Tariff in America, Congress went to the country, and the party responsible for the high duties was ignominiously defeated. I am satisfied that the same result will follow the imposition of this Tariff in Australia. I commend to the attention of honorable members the article on “ Imperial Protection “ by M. C. Coates, at page 20, in the book which the Minister has provided for the use of members, and which has been prepared by one who seems to be making a living out of high Protection. If honorable members realized the sacrifices made by the Old Country they would feel that it was their duty to give a little extra preference to our kinsmen overseas. If my amendment is defeated I shall move a further amendment to provide for a reduction of the duty a few years hence. I have always had the impression that these protective duties are needed for only a certain period, and I shall take further action accordingly.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted in sub-item f be so inserted (Mr. Gregory’s amendment) be agreed to - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 8

NOES: 31

Majority . . . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

.- I move-

That the following words be added to subitem F: - “And on and after 26th May, 1921, British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

Mr Hill:

– Why not make it . 100 per cent. ?

Mr MATHEWS:

– It might be a sen- sible thing to do that. My reason for moving the amendment is that, after the late war, as after all wars, the commercial world is in a disturbed condition, and I am fearful of what may take place. I wish Australia to be prepared to meet eventualities; and, in my opinion, if we give this protection, we shall have outside manufacturers coming here to establish industries instead of . confining their operations to Great Britain and other countries.

Amendment negatived.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.- I suggested to the Minister the other day that leather cloth, which in’ the 1914, Tariff is included in item 105a, should beplaced again in that position, instead of in item 105h. I ask the Minister if he has considered the suggestion?

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I have considered it, and have decided that in all the circumstances the article should be dutiable at the rates provided in item 105h. A small duty is imposed on it, as it is an article which comes into direct competition with Australian leather. I move -

That the item be amended by adding the following words: - “i. Piece goods dutiable at a higher rate than that payable under this subitem, imported for the manufacture of waterproofed piece goods, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, on and after 26th May, 1921, ad val., British, 10; intermediate, 20; general, 25 per cent.”

Honorable members will see that waterproofed cloth prepared with rubber, oil, and so on is dutiable at certain rates. It happens that a very light woollen material, which is not manufactured in this country, is used for waterproofing, and under the item as it stands is dutiable at 30, 40, and 45 per cent., the same rates being applicable to waterproofed cloth under subitem h, that is, the raw material for waterproofing is dutiable at the same rates as the finished article. What I now seek to provide is, subject to departmental by- laws, that If piece good, come in at a higher rate than these, they are to be charged at the rate in the new sub-item, that is to say, we allow manufacturers of waterproofing to get the raw material at a lower rate of duty thanischarged on waterproof . They have the benefit of the difference between the rates on waterproof material, namely, 30, 40, and 45 per cent., and those now proposed. The proposition, is, I think, a fair one. I have looked into it carefully since the Tariff waa framed, and I recommend the Committee to accept it.

Mr GREGORY:
Dampier

.I hope that the Minister will report progress.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– I desire to finish this item to-night.

Mr GREGORY:

– I suggest that amendments of the schedule which involve the insertion of new sub-items should be placed upon the business-paper.

Mr.Greene. - That would give rise to a nice state of affaire.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– But is the method which is being followed fair to the Committee? We have not the knowledge that is possessed by the Minister, He makes a statement, and we have to swallow it.

Mr.Greene. - lt is a lower duty, and not a higher one, that is proposed.

Mr GREGORY:

– I wish tocontest the right pf the Minister under departmental by-laws to effect transfers from one item to another. I can cite instances in which, notwithstanding that Parliament has imposed specific duties upon certain articles, those duties have been remitted by the Minister. Under items 174 and 404 of tho schedule, I intend to raise this matter.

Mr Mathews:

– Does the honorable member suggest that it should be made an urgent matter?

Mr GREGORY:

– I submit that it ought not to be within the province of the Minister to saythat an article shall not boar the duty which has been ‘ imposed upon it by Parliament.

Mr.GREENE (Richmond- Minister for Trade and Customs) [10.23]. - I appreciate the difficulty of tho honorable member in following these alterations. But the particular alteration which I have proposed is a very simple one. We cannot put amendments upon the notice-paper because of the serious effect that practice would have upon thq revenue. Those matters are kept absolutely secret in my own office. Only a few of my trusted officers know what amendments are to be proposed. We do not even give the Clerk ofthe House prior notice of them;Nobody knows what is going to be proposod untilI rise and propose it.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– That is only in respect of a reduction of duty.

Mr GREENE:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

– It applies both to a reduction and an increase of duty. If a man outside knows that a reduction is going to be proposed, he will hot take anything out of bond. Upon the other hand, if be is aware that an increased duty is likely to be levied upon any artice, he will take it out of bond as fast as possible. The honorable member for Dampier (Mr, Gregory) will, therefore, see that there is a very good reason why these amendments cannot be placed upon the notice-paper, In this particular instance, thereis a class of raw material which is imported for the purpose of being manufactured into water-proofed goods. Under the Tariff, tho same rate is charged upon this material as is levied upon the finished article. The latter, therefore, gets no protection whatever, and the amendment is designed to give it a certain measure of protection,

Amendment agreed to.

Mr MATHEWS:
Melbourne Ports

– I desire to move the insertion of a new sub-item j relating to cotton goods in imitation of woollen, and I wish the rate of duty to be fixed at 35 per cent. under the British Preferential Tariff, 45 per cent.under the intermediate Tariff, and 50 per cent. under the general Tariff.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– I rise to a point of order. Under a ruling which was given by the Chairman of Committees only last week, I submit that it is not competent for any private member to move the insertion of a new item.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Atkinson:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– The honorable member for Maranoa is quite right. The ruling given was that it is not competent for any private member to move for the insertion of a new item in the schedule. My difficulty is to know whether the item which the honorable member for Melbourne Ports wishes to insert is connected with any item which is already in the Tariff. If it be an entirelynew item, he will not be in order in moving it.

Mr JAMES PAGE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · FT; ALP from 1903

– We have already placed a duty upon cotton goods.

Mr MATHEWS:

– We have coming into Australia to-day, in imitation of woollen goods, goods which are made entirely of cotton . Unless we place some duty upon them, the object which we have in view will be defeated. I hope that the Minister will do something in the direction which I have suggested before the Tariff reaches the Senate.

Mr GREENE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; NAT from 1917

.- This matter has been brought under my notice only within the last day or two. I have not, therefore, had time to look into it. At the present moment, . I do not feel disposed to take any action in the direction suggested. But, later on, if it be found necessary to take action along the lines suggested by the honorable member for MelbournePorts (Mr. Mathews), I will reconsider the matter and acquaint the Committee with my decision in due course.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 8654

ADJOURNMENT

Delayed Delivery of Telegram

Motion (by Mr. Greene) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CONSIDINE:
Barrier

.- I have been asked to bring before the Postmaster-General a matter for serious oomplaint, having to do with the Telegraph Department. It is contained in a letter from the Secretary of the Australasian Coal and Shale Employees Federation, which is as follows -

I am enclosing a wire and a letter handed to me a few days ago at Lithgow. I think it nothing shortof a wandal for a telegram to be kept locked up in a drawer in the post-office for about a week. The wife naturally felt keenly the loss of her child. Her grief, however, was accentuated by what she believed to be the callous treatment of her husband in failing to come home in response to her telegram, -which was carefully locked up at the postoffice. Lithgow. Oan you do anything to shake the Postal authorities up?

The telegram referred to in that communication was despatched from Young to Mr. Ackley, caro of the Lithgow Mine, and it is dated, at Lithgow, 29th April.

It is signed by Mrs. Ackley, and states -

Baby died this morning. The wire was not delivered to Mr. Ackley until 7th May. The letter explaining the position, as written by Mr. Ackley to the Secretary of the Coal and Shale Employees Federation, states -

Concerning this wire, I have beencalling three times a week regularly, and did so this week. I called yesterday and got a letter from Mrs. Ackley, asking me why I did not come home to foi things up. When I read tie letter, I saw there was something wrong. I went back to the post-office and told them there was a death telegram there for me. The young man looked for twenty minutes, and came back and told me there was no wire there for me. This morning I saw the postmaster. He had a look, and came back with this wire, and told me that it had been locked up in a drawer. Very hard?

I ask the Postmaster-General if he will make full inquiries into this matter. I need not stress the hardship which has been imposed upon a bereaved family by, apparently, gross carelessness.

Mr WISE:
Postmaster- General · Gippsland · NAT

– If the honorable member will let me have the telegram, together with the other particulars, I shall have full inquiries made into the whole of the circumstances to-morrow.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 May 1921, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1921/19210525_reps_8_95/>.