House of Representatives
4 July 1923

9th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. Speaker (Rt. Hon. W. A. Watt) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 626

SYDNEY MINT

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that the Treasurer controls the coinage of all currency in the Commonwealth. Will he see to it that the Sydney Mint is given a fair share of the work i Last year, that mint showed a loss of £7,000 on working expenses because so large a proportion of the coinage had been given to the Victorian . Mint.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I shall look into the matter.

page 626

QUESTION

TRADE RECIPROCITY WITH CANADA

DriedFruits.

Mr FOSTER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible to proceed immediately with the consideration of a section of the reciprocal trade arrangement proposed to be entered into with Canada? I have in mind particularly the section covering dried fruits. Some other countries are trying to get in ahead of us, and the matter is of vital importance to this country.

Mr BRUCE:
Minister for External Affairs · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · NAT

– Negotiations are still proceeding in connexion with the reciprocal trade treaty with Canada, and it is obvious, therefore, that I can say very little publicly with regard to it at this moment. I can assure the honorable member that if it were possible to make a start with the reciprocal arrangements by considering the treaty in sections, the Government would do so. The matter to which the honorable member has referred is vital to Australia, and one of the most important in connexion with the negotiations.

page 626

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr COLEMAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to pictures of starving unemployed receiving bread rations appearing in this . morning’s issue of the Sun Pictorial, side by side with a picture showing the arrival of immigrants? Is the honorable gentleman aware that similar conditions exist in New South Wales, and is he’ yet satisfied that there is an alarming amount of unemployment in Australia? If so, will he take steps to expedite the construction of various public works, including the building of Canberra, in order to afford relief in a critical situation?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– I very much deprecate the asking of questions of this character. We have had a very, considerable discussion already in this House on the condition of unemployment in this country. I repeat, what I have previously said, that there is no undue or unprecedented amount of unemployment in Australia to-day. There is, as there will always be, some unemployment due to the ebb and flow of trade at different seasons of the year.. It will- be a very bad thing for Australia if the impression that this country is- menaced with a great wave of unemployment is created by what is said on the floor of this House.

page 626

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Report on Expenditure on Air Services.

Mr. BAYLEY, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts, presented the report of the Committee upon expenditure on air services.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he will have the printing of the report expedited in order that honorable members may have a chance of perusing it before they are asked to resume consideration of the Air Force Bill ?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– No doubt the honorable member’s wishes in that regard can be met.

page 627

QUESTION

CONVERSION LOAN

Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Treasurer if it is his intention to treat old subscribers to the Conversion Loan in the same way as new subscribers? I understand that the honorable gentleman proposes offering more favorable terms to those who will contribute towards the proposed £21,000,000 loan than were offered to those who converted in the first instance. Will he give more liberal conditions to those who did convert?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– I think the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) is under a misapprehension regarding the terms offered. The old subscribers will be treated with the utmost fairness, and will be allowed to convert if they so desire.

ADJOURNMENT- (Formal).

Sugar Control.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I have received an intimation from the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Bamford) that he intended to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ Sugar Control.”

On behalf of the House, I have made arrangements for an adjournment within twenty-five minutes to enable the Address-in-Reply to be presented to His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, and in view of this the honorable member for Herbert now wishesto withdraw his intimation and lodge it again to-morrow. I think this will meet the convenience of honorable members, as it will give them an opportunity of considering the matter he proposes discussing.

Mr Charlton:

– To-morrow is private members’ day.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That does not affect the position.

Mr Charlton:

– If such a course is followed objections may be raised.

page 627

QUESTION

BANANA CROP

“Bunchy Top.”

Mr J FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · NAT; UAP from 1931; LP from 1944

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

What steps have been taken by the Bureau of Science and Industry to investigate the disease in bananas known as “ bunchy top “ ?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Health · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– The Director of the Institute of Science and Industry has recommended that the necessary funds be provided, and that recommendation has been referred to the Treasury, to ascertain whether such funds can be made available.

page 627

QUESTION

BUTTER IMPORTS

Mr CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the fact that his letter of the 15th June to me contained a statement that his Department had obtained a report from the Commonwealth Dairy Expert, in which it was stated that the expert was informed that one of the reasons assigned for the importation of butter from New Zealand was the use of Queensland timber, which was said to have in some cases resulted in wood tainting -

Is it a fact that Queensland hooppine has been used for very many years for butter boxes in tremendous quantities for Commonwealth and over-sea trades without any. such complaint having been received by the butter factories or exporters ?

Will the Minister cause inquiries to be made and take steps to have the statement as regards tainting refuted if found to be incorrect?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes; inquiries are now being made as to the place of manufacture of the boxes complained of, and results will be communicated to the honorable member.

page 627

QUESTION

SULPHUR IMPORTS

Mr HILL:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether any sulphur other than the 500 tons admitted duty free for the Sulphide Corporation has been similarly admitted, or admitted at less duty than is provided under item 275 of the Customs Tariff 1921; if so -

by what provision was it so admitted; (b) to what extent was the duty reduced; (c) for what purpose was the sulphur imported; (d) by whom was it imported; (e) what was the quantity or quantities?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

Yes-

  1. Tariff items 275 (A) (2) and 404.
  2. As regards delivery under item 275 (A) (2) the reduction in duty was £2 10s. per ton, and as regards deliveries under item 404 the reduction was from £2 10s. per ton to 10 per cent, ad valorem, equalling approximately a reduction of £2 3s. per ton.
  3. In addition to the 500 tons for the Sulphide Corporation, sulphur has been delivered under item 404 for the purposes and to the companies and in the quantities shown hereunder, Viz.: -

For ore concentration at Broken Hill- 1,043 tons - Broken Hill Prop. Co. Ltd. 1,218 tons - Amalgamated Zinc (De Bavay’s) Ltd.

This concession is a temporary one, and will be withdrawn immediately locally-produced sulphuric acid is available. The additional works and machinery are in course of erection at Broken Hill, and supplies of acid will be available shortly.

For the manufacture of superphosphate in South A ustralia - 844 tons - Cresco Fertilizers Co. Ltd., Adelaide. 917 tons- Wallaroo, Mr Lyell Co., Adelaide. 1,300 tons - Adelaide Fertilizers and Chemical Co., Adelaide.

This concession is a temporary one, and will be withdrawn immediately locally-produced sulphuric acid is available. A plant costing nearly £100,000 is in course of erection at Port Pirie, and will be shortly completed. It is expected acid will be available in October or November next. The superphosphate companies in South Australia have already completed lengthy agreements with the Electrolytic Zinc Company to take the locally-produced sulphuric acid as soon as it is ready.

For the manufacture of superphosphate in Western Australia - 6,478 tons -

Cuming Smith and Co.

Mr. Lyell Mining and Railway Co.

In addition, small quantities have been . delivered free under Tariff item 275 (A) (2) for various purposes such as the manufacture of sheep dip, fruit sprays, treatment of evaporated apples, rubber manufacture, all of which required sulphur in the form of free sulphur, which is not produced in Australia.

  1. See reply to (e).
  2. dee reply to (c).

page 628

QUESTION

WIRELESS BROADCASTING REGULATIONS

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Will he make provision under the Wireless BroadcastingRegulations for the protection of homing pigeons against destruction by contact with aerial wires by issuing a regulation making it compulsory that corks be fixed on the aerials every 18 inches - similar to regulations at present existing in England?

Mr GIBSON:
Postmaster-General · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · CP

– Provision as suggested has not been made, as it is considered such a regulation is unnecessary. If, however, it is found to be necessary later on, a suitable amendment may be made. The English regulations in my possession do not contain the provision referred to.

page 628

QUESTION

MARBLE IMPORTATIONS

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Whether he will have the provisions of section 8 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act applied to Italian marble importations both of rough and finished marble, with a view to fostering the marble industry in Central Queensland, which is at present reported to be practically at a stand-still, owing to the existing inadequate protection?

Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

– This matter was inquired into last year, when it was found that the landed duty paid price of Italian marble was not less than the wholesale selling price of Australian marble, under which conditions no dumping duty was chargeable. The position is again being inquired into by the Tariff Board, with a view to ascertaining whether any alterations have taken place that would justify action under section 8 of the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act.

page 628

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CURRANTS

Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether an offer of £14 per ton preference on Australian currants and raisins was made by the Canadian Government, on a reciprocal basis.
  2. If so, has the same been considered by the Tariff Board?
  3. Will the House be given the conditions, of such preference, with an opportunity to discuss the same?

Mb. AUSTIN CHAPMAN.- The answers to the honor able member’s questions are as follow : -

  1. Yes; subject to reciprocal concessions.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes; when the negotiations have been finalized.

page 629

QUESTION

STUD STOCK

Mr FORDE:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it correct, as reported, that the Right Honorable W. M. Hughes, speaking as Leader of the Nationalist party in the recent elections at Maryborough, Queensland, said: - “There is only one way of improving our herds, by breeding from high-priced animals….. The Nationalist Government will introduce legislation designed to assist the producers by defraying the cost of transportation and quarantine of stud stock”?
  2. If so, in view of the definite promise made in the foregoing report, will the Prime Minister reconsider the decision of his Cabinet not to honour the promise made by the Leader of the Nationalist Government before the General Election ?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter will receive consideration.

page 629

QUESTION

BOILER PARTS

” Staggered Heads.”

Mr GABB:

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Whether a decision has been made in regard to restoration of duty on “ staggered heads “?
  2. If so, what is such decision?
Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The decision makes” staggered heads “ liable to duty under Tariff item 178 (c) at271/2 per cent, or 40 per cent., according to origin.

page 629

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN JAMS

Mr MACKAY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. What is the percentage of Australiangrown fruits processed into jams and canned fruits for export?
  2. What are (a) the estimated quantity of added sugar contents per pound of jam and canned fruits, and (b) the cost of such sugar?
  3. Is it a fact that a rebate of import duty is granted by the British Government on all Aus tralian jams and canned fruits containing sugar produced in the British Dominions?
Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

– The information is being obtained.

page 629

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CABINETS

Mr.C. RILEY asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

Will he please state what special advantages are claimed by his departmental officers for the adoption of the box-pattern public telephone cabinets, in New South Wales; and

Whether he will consider the advisability of altering this type of cabinet so as to provide more comfort and convenience to the users of these public telephones?

Mr GIBSON:
CP

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

  1. The use of the box pattern of public telephone cabinets in New South Wales is limited to certain special cases. Among the advantages of this type of cabinet are that it is suitable for exposed or lonely places, and prevents the cabinet being used for purposes other than telephone . conversations.
  2. It is not considered necessary to alter the Department’s practice where the necessity only warrants the box pattern of public telephone cabinet being used.

page 629

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CHARLTON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Are the statements true which are reported to have been made by Mr. John Thomson, Nationalist member, Parliament of Western Australia, on his return from the United Kingdom, adversely criticising the actions of the officials of Australia House in connexion with immigration matters? .
  2. Has he also noticed the report of the further statements of this gentleman that -

    1. The warmest friends of the Premier of Western Australia could not wax enthusiastic over the type of immigrant at present reaching that State ; and
    2. Documents . and reports which have reached Government officials in Perth indicate that large numbers of immigrants who apply at Australia House for selection are sent to these agents to have their papers filled in. In one month an agent put through 500 applicants and, presumably, collected from shipping companies a bonus of £1 on each?
Mr BRUCE:

– I have seen a report in the Melbourne Argus of 2nd July regarding; certain statements alleged to have been made by Mr. John Thomson, but am unable to agree with the opinions expressed.

page 630

QUESTION

FRUIT POOL

London Agents

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. When the fruit “ Pool “ for 1921-1922 was established, did the former Prime Minister (Mr. W. M. Hughes) notify to the other members of the “ Pool,” and, if so, on what dates, the policy of the Government as to the appointment of a sole . selling agency in London?
  2. What were the reasons for the Government adopting this policy?
  3. Has such policy been changed by the present Government, and, if so, when was any notification given to the members of the “ Pool “ prior to the abandonment of the former policy of the Hughes Government?
  4. Have the States which are members of the “ Pool “ been informed of any change of policy, and have they approved of such change?
  5. Who is responsible for the recommendation to change such policy?
  6. What was such recommendation, and by whom and when was it made?
Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
NAT

– The information is being obtained.

page 630

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING LINE

steamer “ fordsdale.”

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the -Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether his attention has been drawn to recent criticisms in the press, particularly the newspapers of New South Wales, concerning the naming of the Commonwealth -steamer Fordsdale?
  2. Will he inform the members of this House who was responsible for the selection of the name Fordsdale, and the reason for naming the largest cargo vessel yet built in Australia after a small town in Queensland?
  3. Will he soo that the names chosen for Commonwealth vessels to be launched in the future are of a typically Australian character?
  4. Will he, whenever practicable, give members of the Commonwealth Parliament an opportunity of suggesting the names of vessels of the Commonwealth Line before such vessels are launched?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The general manager states that he followed the usual practice in naming various classes of steamers alphabetically. In the selection of a name for the “ F “ class steamer mentioned, what was considered a suitable locality was taken from the Postal Directory.
  3. It isnot known what is meant by a name of typical Australian character, but the honorable member can rest assured that, in the selection of names, Australian localities will be chosen.
  4. This is not considered advisable, but the general manager will be glad to receive any suggestions which may be forwarded direct to him.

page 630

QUESTION

MISS ETHEL CAMPBELL

Free Railway Pass

Mr BAYLEY:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether he will grant a pass on the railways, for the period of her stay in Australia, to “ The Durban Angel,” Miss Ethel Campbell, in recognition of the splendid work she did amongst the Australian troops who called at Durban?

Mr BRUCE:
NAT

– If the request is made, the Commonwealth Government will follow the practice usual in similar cases, and approach the State Governments.

page 630

QUESTION

NEW STATES

Amendmentof Constitution

Mr THOMPSON:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Whether certain letters have been received from the Governments of New South Wales and Queensland, inviting the Commonwealth Government to take action to bring about - the amendment of the Constitution- in order to facilitate the creation of new States in New South Wales and Queensland?
  2. If so, what action, if any, has the Commonwealth Government taken to comply with the suggestions or -proposals made by the States referred to?
Mr BRUCE:
NAT

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In both cases the respective Governments were informed of the action it was necessary for them to take to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.

page 630

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Lands Acquisition Act -

Land acquired at Merrylands, New South Wales, for Postal purposes.

Railways Act - By-laws Nos. 25 and 26.

War Service Homes Act -

Land acquired at Orange, New South Wales.

page 630

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL

In Committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Bruce) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth Shipping Line and for other purposes.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered-

That Mr. Bruce and Mr. Groom do prepare and bring in a Bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Bruce, and read a first time.

page 631

NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL

In Committee (Consideration resumed from 3rd July, vide page 595)..

Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Time for making payments).

Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter

.- The clause provides that the Treasurer may make payments into the National Debt Sinking Fund at any time during the financial year. Seeing that the Bill provides for annual contributions to the fund, surely the payments should be made as early as possible in the financial year. The Commission might be able, if it had money in hand, to take advantage of favorable circumstances, but might be prevented from doing so if the Treasurer was not disposed to make the annual payment until perhaps ten or eleven months after the commencement of the financial year. Why is it left to the Treasurer to make the payments whenever he likes during the financial year ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– The Treasurer of the day will be the Chairman of the National Debt Sinking Fund Commission, and the clause is so worded that payments may be made at such times as the Treasurer may determine, having regard to the condition of the revenue. The matter must be left in his hands, because he is responsible for the whole of. the finances of the Commonwealth. It would be inexpedient and possibly detrimental to the interests of the Commonwealth to fix a definite date for making the payments.

Clause agreed to,

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Merging of Loans Sinking Fund into National Debt Sinking Fund).

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

I think the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) promised yesterday to inform the Committee of the amount of money already in the Loans Sinking Fund, which, by the passing of this clause, will be merged into the National Debt Sinking Fund.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– The amount standing to the credit of the Loans Sinking Fund is £2,270,000, of which £968,000 has been invested in new loans.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 -

The Commission shall purchase at par all Commonwealth stock and bonds accepted by the Treasurer in payment of probate and succession duty, and, if surrendered before the date of maturity, all Commonwealth stock inscribed in the name of the Public Trustee.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- I move-

That the word “ par “ be omitted,, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ current market rates.”

I propose this amendment, because I am opposed to the Government doing anything to encourage those who try to avoid payment of taxation. As I said when speaking on the second reading, executors of estates very often purchase stock at £92, and with it pay succession duties at its face value of £100. It may be objected that this is not the proper time to raise the question, but if this amendment is accepted, it will, I take it, be an instruction to the Treasurer and the Treasury officials that cannot be lightly regarded. I do not wish honorable members opposite to imagine that I am advocating repudiation. If this amendment is carried, I shall move a new sub-clause providing that where a testator held bonds before death, they shall be accepted in payment of dutyat their face value. My object now is to reach those who endeavour to dodge taxation in the way I have indicated. A second reason why I submit this amendment is that I desire the Commission to have full freedom to do the best it can with the funds intrusted to it. As between the Treasurer and the Commission, I would rather leave such matters to the latter. I quite expect that those honorable members who represent big interests will oppose this amendment, but I consider it my duty to submit it.

Mr WHITSITT:
Darwin

– I trust the amendment will not be accepted, for the simple reason that trustees and executors have no legal right to trade in bonds until probate is granted .

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I regard the amendment as a very fair one. If bonds are bought by executors at ?95, and tendered at their face value of ?100 in payment of duty, the Government is at a loss of ?5, and it is only fair that for such a purpose bonds should be taken only at their value on the market. Executors of estates and others are much inclined to “ get at “ the Government in this and other ways, and it is for the Treasurer to protect the revenue. It is quite right that where a testator has invested in bonds, these should be accepted in payment of duty, but the advantage should not extend to others.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 3.5 to 3.45 p.m.

page 632

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH: PRESENTATION OF ADDRESSINREPLY

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– I have to report that, accompanied by honorable members, I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in-Reply to his Excellency’s Speech at the opening of Parliament, agreed to by the House on the 22nd June. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:-

Mr. Speaker and Gentlemen, ;

I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Bepresentatives in ‘ reply to the Speech which I delivered on the occasion of the opening of the second session of the ninth Parliament of the Commonwealth, and desire to thank you for your expression of lovalty to His Majesty the King.

“NATIONAL DEBT SINKING FUND BILL.

In Committee: (Consideration resumed) .

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– The honorable member for Angas has proposed as an amendment that Commonwealth stock and bonds, accepted in payment of probate duty, need not be taken over by the Sinking Fund Commissioners at par.- I remind honorable members that the prospectuses of the Commonwealth loans have contained an unconditional promise that stock and bonds would be accepted at par in payment of probate duty. That promise was inserted to make the bonds more easily negotiable, and thus encourage people to subscribe to the loans. The only effect of the proposed amendment would be to embarrass the Treasury,’ because whatever the Sinking Fund Commissioners may do, the Treasury is bound by the terms of the prospectuses to accept such stock and bonds for probate (purposes at par.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Cannot Parliament amend those conditions?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– We cannot alter that contract ; it is part of the terms upon which the public were induced to subscribe to the loans. Moreover, the Sinking Fund is protected by the provision that in respect of all bonds cancelled a payment of 5per cent, shall be made to the fund. The clause as drafted is a proper one. The suggested amendment would not affect the Sinking Fund.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

. -Manyrichpeople, now deceased, were too lacking in patriotism during their lifetime to subscribe to Commonwealth loans, and it is quite likely that those who are administering their estates are following the same policy. The executors or lawyers or others, who control the estates of such deceased persons, finding they are required to pay ?10,000, ?15,000, or ?100,000 as probate duty, purchase Commonwealth bonds at ?95 or even ?91. The bonds are paid into the Treasury in payment of probate duty, and are accepted as worth ?100 each.

Dr Earle Page:

– That is done under a definite contract which the amendment will not alter.

Mr FENTON:

– The amendment isso drafted that it will provide an opportunity of exposing the practices I am describing. Although the Treasurer professes tobe careful of every penny of Commonwealth funds he is prepared to perpetuate a bad arrangement made by his predecessors. We have no objection to bonds ‘bought by a person during his lifetime being accepted at par value in payment of probate duty on his estate.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– They mustbe accepted.

Mr FENTON:

– Yes. But we object to executors of men who, in their lifetime, were too mean to contribute a penny to the Commonwealth loans, buying up Commonwealth bonds and paying off £100 of probate duty with stock that cost them, perhaps, only £91.

Mr Austin Chapman:

– The amendment will not alter that condition.

Mr Mackay:

– The fact that the bonds cost the executors only £91 does not occasion any loss to the Commonwealth when it accepts them at par in payment of probate duty.

Mr FENTON:

– But the Commissioners to be created under this Bill will be required to pay the Treasury £100 for such bonds. Why should not the Commissioners ‘be able to go on the market from time to time and purchase bonds at current rates?

Dr Earle Page:

– That power is given in succeeding clauses.

Mr FENTON:

– Yes. But the Treasury may accept in payment of probate duty bonds of a face value of £500,000, but worth in the open market many thousands of pounds less. Yetthe Commissioners are required to purchase those bonds from the Treasury at par. It is distinctly wrongs to bind the Commissioners in that way. If past Treasurers made a bad bargain there is no justification for perpetuating it. Let the Treasury bear its own burden, and not shift it to the shoulders of the Commission. If unreasonable conditions were promised to those who took up Commonwealth, stock it is time they were withdrawn. It will be remembered that we said that these loans should be free from Commonwealth income tax, but we now are agreed that it is undesirable to continue that practice, because huge sums are paid to loan subscribers every half year by way of interest, and the Commonwealth is unable to tax those sums.

Mr Whitsitt:

– The Labour party were responsible for the first war loan.

Mr FENTON:

– I do not care who was responsible for it. As we grow older we should become wiser.

Mr Whitsitt:

– It was silly of the Labour Government to make the firstloan tax free.

Mr FENTON:

– I am prepared to to agree with the honorable member, but I say that it is equally silly to pass in this Billa clause to provide that bonds which have been bought at £95 shall be accepted by the Treasurer at their face value of £100. We should not tie the hands of the Commissioners under this Bill. Under this provision, the Treasurer may be cheated out of £5 on a £100 bond. That is not fair, and if we made a mistake in the promises given upon the floating of these loans, it is about time we rectified that mistake. The amendment should be agreed to. It would liberalize, the Bill, untie the hands of the Commissioners, and -be of great advantage to tha taxpayers of this country.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- I hope that the Treasurer will not persist in the attitude he has adopted, for the reason that obviously a wrong will be done to the people if the clause is agreed to as it stands. The amendment submitted by the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) embodies a wise provision, and, notwithstanding the assertion of the Treasurer that it would violate, an obligation entered into by the Commonwealth, it should he carried. The Treasurer states that there is an obligation towards those who hold our bonds. I grant that there is such an obligation to the original holders of the bonds. No honorable member on this side has any desire whatever to repudiate the obligation of the Commonwealth towardspeople. But there has been trafficking inthese bonds, and the amendment, if agreed to, will enable us to deal properly with cases in which trafficking has taken place - not dishonestly, but as a good business proposition. Solicitors and trustees of estates have been carrying on this trafficking for years past. If “ A “ purchases bonds at £98 in the ordinary course of investment, and when he dies they are included in his estate, no one would object to their being accepted at par. What we object to is that he should not take up bonds until it is expected that he will shortly die, and should then purchase them at £91 or £92, knowing that in ten or twelve months, or in four or five years, they will be worth £100. The Treasurer, by accepting the amendment, could provide against trafficking in bonds to the loss of the Commonwealth. I object to people who hold bonds for which they did not subscribe out of a sense of patriotic duty, but which they purchased - as a business proposition, being given the same advantage as original holders of bonds. The Treasurer has not dealt with this phase of the question. He dealt with the obligation to original holders of bonds, and we agree that that obligation should be honoured, but, in the case of trafficking in bonds, the Commonwealth Government should take action to protect the people. I hope the Treasurer will accept the amendment. We look to the honorable gentleman for the proper protection of the people’s interests. Under the clause as it stands, a hardship will be imposed upon the people of Australia in order that wealthy people may make money out of the Commonwealth, which they should not be allowed to make.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) has pointed out that the sinking fund would not suffer, because 5 per cent, would be paid into the fund on all redeemed bonds. Honorable members on this side are thinking, not only of the money that goes into the sinking fund, but of the people who have to find the money to pay interest on these bonds, and to pay whatever will be paid into the sinking fund. If the Treasurer will agree to the amendment, and in this way can get £100 for £92, he will have to tax the people of the country 5 per cent, only on £92, instead of £100. This will cut both ways. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) clearly indicated that he did not intend that his amendment should apply to original holders of bonds. They should be given the benefit of all promises made to them. When Sir Joseph Cook was Treasurer, I asked him why he did not go on the market and buy war bonds for £92 or £93 instead of acceptingbonds at par. His reply was the same as we have heard by interjection this afternoon, that the Commonwealth lost nothing by. the action he took. It is obvious that if £100 is paid by the Commonwealth for a bond quoted at £95 it is bad business, because the buyer loses £5. Treasury bonds are gradually getting more into the hands of the large investors, who probably did not put a penny into the war loans when the bonds were issued, but who, when the market fell, saw an opportunity to make a good deal by purchasing them. The very fact of a lot of Commonwealth securities being on the market causes a slump, and if the Treasury would purchase them at the market rate it would tend to stabilize the bonds. The amendment has everything to recommend it. Its acceptance ‘ would not jeopardize the interests of the Commonwealth in any way. All that could be said against ‘it would be in favour of conferring a privilege upon big investors and people who probably failed to subscribe to the war loans.

Mr GABB:
Angas

.- The only argument advanced by the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) against the amendment seems to be a weak one. He bases the defence of his position on the prospectus that was originally issued ; but I ask him if the prospectus was intended to encourage the executors of estates to purchase bonds on the open market, and ten-‘ der them in payment of probate duty. Certainly it was not. There was an agreement between the original purchasers and the Government, and I am quite prepared to have a sub-clause inserted for the protection of those investors, but I do not wish the Committee to play into the hands of executors of large estates. I do not. expect the amendment to be carried, because I feel sure that the Government which sold the Commonwealth Woollen Mills will again look after the interests of “ big business” on the present occasion.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope that the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) will reconsider his decision. The pledge was given to the original subscribers that the bonds would be repurchased at par, and it should be fulfilled.

Dr Earle Page:

– No alteration in this Bill will affect the Treasury in that respect.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– An amending Act overrides an existing measure to the extent of its inconsistency with it. I regret that the Attorney-General (Mr. Groom) is not present. There should be no difficulty in arranging that where the holders of bonds are not the original holders the bonds should be accepted, not at par, but at their market value. If persons were made aware of such a condition when they entered the market, there would be no injustice done to them. Rather than press the clause through Committee, might we not postpone it for the present?

Dr Earle Page:

– The Government are bound, no matter whatever this Committee does, to accept bonds and stock at its face value.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No doubt, the original purchasers are entitled to par value, but where’ investors have bought bonds with a view to making money out of them, this Committee should take action to protect the financial interests of the Commonwealth. I venture to’ say that any legal man could easily draft a provision that would protect the Commonwealth without inflicting hardship on a single bondholder.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- Are not honorable members opposite raising objections in the wrong place ? Although the conditions applying to bonds tendered in payment of probate duty may need amendment, this is not the proper time to do anything. The Treasurer, under another Act, is compelled to accept bonds in payment of probate duty.

Mr Fenton:

– Not under another Act.

Mr C RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931

– Under the loan conditions.

Mr Gabb:

– We are trying to protect the Commission.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am not sure whether the obligation to accept bonds in payment of probate duty was imposed by a Loan Act or by a special Act dealing with ‘probate duties. At any rate, the Treasurer is compelled to accept the bonds, and, having done so, the Commission should also accept them at par.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Does the honorable member argue that the Treasurer is compelled to’ accept these bonds in connexion with the sinking’ fund ?

Mr GREGORY:

– No, but in payment of probate and succession duties, and having provided for that, surely it is wise to accept them on the same basis in connexion with this fund.

Mr Blakeley:

– Does the honorable member approve of the custom which has arisen ?

Mr GREGORY:

– No. There is a good deal in what has been suggested by honorable members opposite, as it would be very unfair if the executors of a deceased person, whose estate was worth £100,000, purchased bonds below par and handed them over at par in payment of probate and succession duties. But an amendment of this clause would not affect the position. What is needed is an amendment of the Probate and Succession Duties Act. Whilst the Treasurer is compelled to accept, at par, bonds in payment of probate and succession duties they should be accepted at par as payment to the fund to be established under this measure.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- An amendment in the direction indicated would weaken the Bill. I quite agree with the opinion expressed by the honorable’ member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), that if there is an anomaly in another Act it cannot be rectified by amending this clause. Honorable members appear to have lost sight of the fact that the Government have made themselves responsible for acceptance, at par, of the bonds issued, and sooner or later, irrespective of the price at which they may have been available at intervening periods, they will have to redeem them at their full value. Although wo are dealing with this phase of the question under this Bill, Parliament has already passed an Act under which bonds are accepted at par. If a mistake was made, it was in allowing the payment of probate and succession duties to be made on the par value of bonds; but that has nothing to do with this provision. What is the law at present must stand until amended.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) contends that if a mistake has been made in another Act it should be perpetuated. Reference has been made to the sharp practices adopted of some persons, and because honorable members on this side have criticised such actions, it is suggested that we are adopting an unreasonable attitude. When the succession and probate duties were under discussion in this House some years ago I endeavoured to carry an amendment somewhat similar to that indicated by the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb). Those living in Sydney and other large commercial centres are aware that there are men living on the business of trafficking in stock, and who are robbing the taxpayers whenever the opportunity offers. They are really tax dodgers, and I am surprised at the honorable member for Forrest supporting such actions. In Sydney and elsewhere there are men who, whenever a wealthy person dies, go to the Supreme Court and ascertain the value of the estate, arid then on behalf of the executors’ solicitors, make arrangements with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Willis, or some other gentleman dealing in these securities, to purchase bonds at, say, £95, and then dispose of them to the Government at £100. Honorable members on this side are fully aware of what is being done, and if these sharp practices can be prevented the liability of the taxpayers will be reduced. The honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb), and the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton), have brought under notice a defect in the Bill which is worthy of consideration. In a few years the market value of loans may decline,, and in that event why should individuals, and not the Government, get the benefit ? The man who is dead will not trouble about it. The amendment is wise, sound, and logical, and members of the Opposition ought to be commended, even by the Treasurer, for proposing it. If the executors of a deceased man have to make a payment to the Treasurer of £3,000, and if .they do it by means of bonds purchased at £94 per £100, revenue is lost to the extent of £180. I put a few hundred pounds into war scrip, and paid face value. Why should the executors of a deceased man, who did nothing during the war but make profits by doubling rents and profiteering in goods, be allowed to evade payment of probate duty by buying bonds at less than par? This clause is another unsound financial proposal which has emanated from the Government. It would be easy for the Treasurer to say that a clause would be framed to meet the views of members on this side. Whether he does this or not, members of the Opposition will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have done their duty.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- If members of the Committee were discussing a Probate Duty Bill the arguments of members of the Opposition would be relevant, but it appears to me that we are occupying time discussing something which should be the subject-matter of another Bill. The amendment, even if agreed to, would not abolish any privilege which those paying probate duty would otherwise get, for the reason that the Treasurer must accept Commonwealth bonds at par in payment of pro bate duty. The clause merely provides that the Treasurer shall be credited with an equal amount when handing the money over to the Sinking Fund Commission. It seems to me that we have got the clause a little out of perspective, and are discussing points which properly have relation to a Probate Duty Bill, and not to the Bill under discussion.

Mr MANN:
Perth

.- I agree that bonds should not be purchased for the deliberate purpose of avoiding payment of probate duty, but I cannot see that the obligation already entered into can be cancelled. I understand that probate duty is paid under another Act, the provisions of which have a bearing on the matter under discussion. If that Act is altered in the future to provide that the Public Trustee must accept bonds only at their market value, instead of at their face value, the Sinking Fund Commission, if compelled to buy at par, would be at a disadvantage. I suggest that the difficulty could be overcome by adding the words “ at par “ after the words “ accepted by the Treasurer,” so that the clause would read -

The Commission shall purchase at par all Commonwealth stock and bonds accepted by the Treasurer at par in payment of probate and succession duty.

This would maintain the present position, and, should the Estates Duty Act be altered to achieve the end desired by members of the Opposition, the Sinking Fund Commission would still be protected.

Mr. FENTON (Maribyrnong [4.32].- I think the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) might take an example from previous Treasurers who, when an anomaly in a Bill, whereby the revenue would be depleted, has been pointed out to them, have undertaken to submit the necessary amendment. If the Treasurer would make such a promise the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) would, no doubt, be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Gabb:

– Such a promise would meet only half the case.

Mr FENTON:

– I admit that. If the amendment is not accepted by the Committee, will the Treasurer be prepared to accept an amendment to strike out the word “ shall “ and insert “ may “ in its place ?

Mr Mann:

– The object of the clause is to protect the Public Trustee. The alteration of the -word. ‘ ‘ shall “ to “ may “ would not do that.

Mr FENTON:

– I believe in the responsibility being placed upon the proper shoulders. If the ‘ Treasurer is prepared to accept bonds in payment of probate and succession duties-

Dr Earle Page:

– Whether the Treasurer wants to accept bonds or not is beside the question; he must accept them for two reasons, because an Act of Parliament says so,, and because a definite contract has been entered into.

Mr FENTON:

– Does such an undertaking apply to men who, not having taken any part in subscribing to war loans, buy bonds when they see their death looming ahead, so that, through their’ executors, they may once more “ get at “ their country by evading payment of portion of their probate duty]

Dr Earle Page:

– The contract “ holds so long as the bonds are current.

Mr FENTON:

– I am surprised that the Treasurer should shut his eyes to such glaring anomalies, which simply permit and encourage trafficking and gambling at the “ death knock “ with the bonds of the Commonwealth. An assurance was given to persons who purchased bonds when loans were floated, or perhaps at a later period, that they would be accepted in payment of estate duty; but for the Government to permit others, who take up bonds at the last moment, to so use them is to connive at defrauding the public revenue. There are certain people in every State capital who, when they read of the death of some wealthy person, offer to purchase, for a commission, bonds with which the probate duties may be paid.

Mr Watson:

– Striking out the word “par “ will not obviate that.

Mr FENTON:

– It is well known that when certain of the war loans were floated compulsion was threatened in order that wealthy people, and those in control of valuable estates, should not evade their duty to assist the country financially.

Mr Watson:

– What is your suggestion ?

Mr FENTON:

– I suggest that the Treasurer, as other Treasurers have done in similar circumstances, shall give an undertaking that at the earliest possible moment he will introduce legislation to remove these anomalies. The Treasurer, however, says nothing, but, apparently, takes the view that he has no power to act in the manner suggested, although he has the care of the public finances. Such an amendment of the law would, I believe, receive unanimous support as an honest effort to make people pay their just dues. Why should the Treasurer be allowed to lay this mandate on the Commission ? Why place difficulties in tlie way of the Commission? I remind the Treasurer that from the Corner where he himself used to sit the warmest approval is given to the suggestion that he should promise to introduce at the earliest opportunity such legislation as I have suggested.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- This clause refers to probate and succession duties, but I think I am right in saying that there are neither under the law of the Commonwealth, and that the Treasury does not accept bonds’in’payment of such duties. There is an estate duty, which is distinct in character as well as in name, from a proba’te and a succession duty, and, therefore, I suggest that the clause as drafted will not achieve the object intended. So far as I know, there is no law of the Commonwealth which enacts that bonds shall be accepted at their face value in payment of duty, but there was the clear and definite undertaking in prospectuses which became a contract with the bond-holders, not that the bonds subscribed for by a holder would be accepted in payment of duty on his estate, but that all bonds would be accepted at their face value in payment of estate duty. There was a contract, not that the subscriber’s bonds would be accepted, but that any Commonwealth bonds would at all times be accepted from anybody at their face value in payment of duties. This condition largely affects the market value of the bonds, and an alteration of it would involve a repudiation of a definite promise and- undertaking. Many members of the Committee think that the promise was foolish, just as very m’any think that an error was made when the interest on certain loans was made free of taxation. But the undertaking having been given, it must be observed, and no amendment of this clause can affect it. The only way in which it can be withdrawn is by passing a special measure to provide that the Government shall not be bound by any undertaking given in the Commonwealth Loan .prospectus. I doubt whether this Committee would be prepared to pass legislation of that character.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I am prepared to accept the amendment suggested by the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Mann) that the words “ at .par “ be inserted after “ accepted “. If that amendment be made, and legislation such as was outlined by the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) be enacted subsequently, the clause will !be perfectly in order. The contention of the honorable member in regard to the use of the words “probate and succession duty” is strictly correct, but it has ‘become customary to use those words in our legislation, and, so far as I know, they have not been questioned hitherto. The -whole of the argument intimated by the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) is beside the question. A definite contract was made on the prospectuses that bonds would be accepted at par in payment of probate duty, and no matter into whose hands the bonds “fall the contract persists, and must be honoured ‘by the Commonwealth. When the Treasurer transfers those bonds to the Sinking Fund, and they are cancelled, he has to pay the Commissioners 5 per cent, on the face value of the stock.

Mr Prowse:

– Will not the Treasurer agree to the suggestion made by the honorable member for Kooyong to make the wording of the clause strictly legal?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– In order that’ there may be no ambiguity about the wording of the clause, I suggest that it be postponed.

Clause postponed.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Investment of National Debt Sinking Fund). -

Mr GABB:
Angas

.-Clause 17 provides that the Commission may apply the National Debt Sinking Fund in purchasing or redeeming any Commonwealth securities, Or in redeeming any other portion of the debt, and that repurchased or redeemed securities, shall not be reissued, “‘but shall be cancelled.” The clause now before the. Committee seems to contradict the preceding clause, for it provides that the Commission may invest any money standing at the credit of the fund in the purchase of securities, “ and may at any time sell such securities.”

Mr Paterson:

– Look at sub-clause

Mr GABB:

– That sub-clause says that the Commission shall invest moneys only, if it is more profitable so to do than to purchase or redeem Commonwealth securities. It is hardly likely that it will be profitable for the Commission to dispose of Commonwealth bonds, and buy up other bonds, but even if there should be a possible benefit to be derived from that policy, it is debarred by the definite provision in clause 17 that Commonwealth securities, when purchased, shall be cancelled.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

.- Clause 17 and 18 deal with two different matters. The former sets out the exact purposes of the Sinking Fund, and states that securities which have been repurchased or redeemed shall not be re-issued, but shall be cancelled, and the amoun<t of the debt reduced accordingly. Clause 18 deals with the investment of funds in the possession of the Commission. It may not be wise, at a particular time, to redeem a debt and cancel it, and the Commission is given power to invest money when greater ‘ benefit will accrue to the fund by so doing. This provision is inserted in the interests of the fund’ rather than of the Treasurer. There may be occasions when, owing to high market prices or the imminent maturity of bonds, it will be better for the Commission to invest the funds at its disposal than to employ them in the redemption of stock.

Mr Mann:

– Will the Commonwealth pay double interest on money so invested ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– No. The 5- per cent, interest provided for in clause 9 applies only to bonds that are cancelled.

Mr Mann:

– When the Commission is buying, it must state whether the pur- chase is for the purpose of cancellation or investment?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Postponed clause 16 -

The Commission shall purchase at par all Commonwealth stock and bonds accepted by the Treasurer in payment of probate andsuccession duty, and, if surrendered before the date of maturity, all Commonwealth stock inscribed in, the name of the public trustee.

Upon which Mr. Gabb had moved -

That the word “ par “ be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ current market rates.”

Question - That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 34

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments (by Dr. Earle Page) agreed to -

That after the word “ accepted “ the words “ at par “ be inserted.

That the word “ and,” line 3, be left out.

That the words “ and estate “ be inserted after the word “ succession “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing Orders suspended.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) proposed -

That the report be now adopted.

Mr WEST:
East Sydney

.- I move -

That the Bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 18.

Sub-clause 3 of clause 18 provides that, the Commission may invest any moneys to the credit of the Fund by placing such moneys on deposit in any bank. The opinion is gaining ground very strongly in this country that all financial transactions of the ‘Commonwealth Government should be carried out through the Commonwealth Bank. I do not wish to go into the history of the Bank or to refer to the proposals which sooner or later must be considered by this House to extend its powers. Honorable members know that the time will shortly arrive when the Commonwealth Bank must be lookedto to perform . many functions which it does not at present perform. I desire by the recommittal of clause 18 to give honorable members an opportunity to provide that all transactions under this Bill shall be carried out through the Commonwealth Bank. We have agreed to the appointment of Commissioners of the National Debt Sinking Fund, who will fee servants of the people, as we are ourselves, and I propose that we should instruct those Commissioners to conduct our financial affairs solely through the Commonwealth Bank. I know that honorable members on this side, and a great many on the other side also, agree with my contention that the financial affairs of the Commonwealth should be carried on through this Bank.

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon W A Watt:

– Order ! The honorable member is not in order in discussing the merits of the amendment he desires. He may only give his reasons for the recommittal of the Bill.

Mr WEST:

– I am not able at this stage to enumerate the advantages of the proposal I intend to make, but I believe that it is ‘the opinion of the people generally that all the Government’s financial business should be done through their own Bank, of which all the members of this House are shareholders.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I regret to find it necessary to oppose the recommittal of the Bill for the purpose suggested by the honorable member for East Sydney (My. West). The reason is that it is unnecessary and impracticable to do what he suggests. Under -the Bill it is provided that the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank shall be one of the members of the Commission. It is not our intention that anything shall be done under this Bill through any other bank if the Commonwealth Bank is available. Honorable members are aware that the Commonwealth Bank is the bank of the Federal Government and practically the whole of the financial work of the Government is done through that Bank. I point out that much of the Fund will be located at times at places where there may be no branch of the Commonwealth Bank. If the honorable member’s suggestion were adopted it might on occasion be impossible to take advantage of favorable opportunities for the investment of these funds in, say, New York, India, or other places. The amendment which the honorable member has expressed his desire to move , would unduly restrict the opportunities for investment of these funds. Honorable members would be well advised to leave the matter in the hands of the Commission they have themselves provided for in the Bill.

Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong

.- Unless the Treasurer can explain a difficulty which has occurred to me, and which has been referred to by honorable members on the other side, I would ask him to consent to the recommittal of clause 18. Sub-clause 2 of clause 17 provides that-

Repurchased or redeemed securities shall not bere-issued, but shall be cancelled, and the amount of the debt shall be reduced accordingly

Sub-clause 1 of clause 18 provides that -

Subject to this section, the Commission may invest any moneys standing at the credit of the National Debt Sinking Fund in the purchase of any securities of, or guarantees by, the Government of the United Kingdom, or the Government of the Commonwealth, or the Government of any State, and may at any time sell such securities.

As I understand the matter at present, I find it very difficult to reconcile these two provisions - one saying that if a Commonwealth security is purchased by what is called repurchase, it shall be cancelled, and the other saying that such a security may be sold. It may be that there is some explanation of the apparent inconsistency, but at present I am unable to find it.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer · Cowper · CP

– I regret that the honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Latham) did not hear me make’ a detailed explanation of these provisions. Clause 17 deals with quite a different matter from that dealt with in clause 16.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman has already spoken.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- I regret that the Government are unable to agree to the recommittal of clause 18. The National Debt Sinking Fund is going to benefit to the extent of one-half the profits of the Commonwealth Bank, and, in the circumstances, it is but right that all possible Government financial business should be done through that Bank. The Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) has said that it may be necessary to invest these funds in some part of the world where there is no’ branch of the Commonwealth Bank, but the circulars issued by the Bank from time to time contain a long list of agencies, including the finest hanking institutions in all parts of the world. As the Bank will materially assist the Fund for the extinction of the national debt, honorable members shouldbe unanimous in the desire to see that all the financial -business of the Government is done through that institution.

Mr WHITSITT:
Darwin

.- At times the Commonwealth Bank may have more money available than it can profitably invest, and it is reasonable to give the Commission power to place money standing at credit of the National DebtSinking Fund elsewhere at a higher rate of interest than might otherwise be obtained. The Commonwealth Bank cannot transact all Commonwealth business.

Mr Mahony:

– It can.

Mr WHITSITT:

– Then why has it not been instrumental in renewing or redeeming all Commonwealth loans ? Because sufficient capital was not available. Private banking institutions have ‘ been in existence a longer period than the Commonwealth Bank, and have taken a considerable time to secure the business which Lhey now handle. The Commonwealth Bank will undoubtedly grow, but it is possible that occasions may arise when it may have more money on deposit than itcan satisfactorily place. In these circumstances I trust the motion of the honorable member will not be agreed to.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

. -I trust the Government will not persist in objecting to the recommittal of the Bill, because until that is done we cannot fully discuss the point raised by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. West). If the Treasurer (Dr. Earle Page) will allow the Bill to be recommitted, and will submit an amendment tothe effect that all the business possible shall be handled by the Commonwealth Bank, it will satisfy honorable members on this side. One half of the profits derived by the Commonwealth Bank are to be placed to the credit of the National Debt Sinking Fund, and if business is done through private banking institutions the profit of the Commonwealth Bank will consequently be reduced.

Question - That the Bill be recommitted - put. TheHouse divided.

Ayes . . . . . . 24

Noes . . . . . . 36

Majority . . . . 12

In division -

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

Question so resolved in the negative.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 641

COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING BILL

Second Reading

Mr BRUCE:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Flinders · NAT

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The measure provides for handing over the Commonwealth Shipping Line and the Cockatoo Island Dockyard to a Board. A Bill dealing with the transfer of the Line to an inde- pendent Board was introduced into this House some time ago, but was not proceeded with. The whole position was considered at very great length in November, 1921, and, after a full review of the circumstances, the House clearly expressed the opinion that the Line should bc retained, but it was quite apparent, from the attitude then adopted, that honorable members were of opinion that an alteration should be made in the method of control. I do not propose to review the history of the Line from its inception, as a full statement of the financial position of the Line at 30th June, 1921, and its transactions to that date, was given in the course of the debate referred to. I wish, however, to refer very briefly to the circumstances in which the Line came into existence, and the benefit it has been to Australia. The vessels which formed the nucleus of the fleet were purchased in ‘ 1916. Honorable gentlemen will remember that that was the period when the German submarine campaign first began to assume an intensive character. As a result of that campaign Great Britain waa forced to employ the greater part of her shipping tonnage in supplying her imperative needs in connexion with the war. Ships were needed for the transport of troops and munitions of war, and for carrying the food supplies of Great Britain and her Allies. It became apparent that Australia, owing to her isolation, and her great distance from the markets of the world, would soon be placed in a position disastrous to her primary producers, and the country as a whole. In those circumstances the then Prime Minister, Mr. W. M. Hughes, when he was in England, purchased fifteen ships, which were known as the “ Austral “ boats. For them the Government paid £2,052,000. The submarine campaign ‘continued, and its effects became more serious. In those circumstances, the ships that had been purchased were able to render invaluable services to Australia. The 1915-16 wheat harvest was coming to hand, and this country had a large quantity of exportable goods which, but for the Austral line, could have been moved from Australia only with the greatest difficulty. Owing to the increasing pressure exercised by the German submarines, a shipbuilding campaign was commenced all over the world, and ships

Mr. Bruce. * * j were constructed of wood, concrete, and almost anything that it was thought would float. Australia, in conjunction with other nations on the Allied side, took her part in trying to supply the tonnage imperatively required at that time. I would remind honorable gentlemen that that was the reason why the Government first went into the shipbuilding business, for the impression is abroad that shipbuilding was regarded as a field for Government activity, and was sought out and desired by the then Government. The facts were quite otherwise. Shipbuilding in Australia was commenced in order to try and help Australia and the Allied cause generally by producing more shipping for the prosecution of the war and the transport of Australia’s surplus produce overseas.

The record of the Line’ was set out very clearly in the debate in this House in November, 1921, and I do not think that there were at that time any critics who did not admit that the Line had rendered very great service” to Australia. The question at issue was, What should be done in the future? There were three alternatives before the House - the Line could be sold, it could be continued on its existing basis, or it could be handed over to a separate control. There can be no question but that the view of the House was that the Line should be continued under a separate control freed from political influence. The Government now propose to give effect to that view.

Grave doubts were expressed at that time as to the probable financial results of the operation of the Line during the few following years. The world was in the throes of a very severe shipping slump, and, naturally, the Australian Line suffered with every other line. In the year 1921-22 there was a very large loss on the working of the Line, and the estimated result for the present year also shows a very severe loss.

Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does the Prime Minister’s remark refer to the .whole of the Government ships, or to the Bay Line only?

Mr BRUCE:

– To ‘ the whole of the Government’s ships. The actual figures for the year 1921-22 show that the excess of gross expenditure over gross earnings was £548,100. To that has to be added interest, which amounted to £130,397, and depreciation, taken on a basis of 5 to 10 per cent., according to the character of the vessels, which totalled £493,072. The net result for the year was a total los3, including interest and depreciation, of £1,171,569. For the present year, 1922- 23,- the estimated result is as follows: - Excess of gross expenditure over gross earnings, £516,800; interest, £360,000; and depreciation, £749,350; making a total loss of £1,626,150. It will be noticed that the excess of gross expenditure over gross earnings is smaller for the year 1922-23 than for 1921-22, although the total loss is very much greater. I shall explain the reasons for that before I sit down. The estimated gross loss for 1922- 23 is nearly £500,000 more than the actual loss for 1921-22. Those figures are, of course, very alarming at first sight, but I suggest to honorable members that they are not nearly so serious as they appear to be. There are many reasons why such a large loss ‘should be shown.

I propose to deal with the different factors which have contributed to bring about the loss experienced by the Line in the last two years. During the period with which we are dealing, the shipping world suffered from a disastrous depression such as had never previously been experienced in the history of shipping. The situation arose from the cessation of war; the return of the millions of troops to their respective countries; the consequent “release of tonnage, and the trade depression which followed shortly after Peace was declared. There was a heavy increase in the amount of shipping available, and, at the same time, a heavy decrease in the tonnage to be lifted. Owing to the world’s circumstances at the present time, and the prevailing stagnation of trade, much less carrying is required than was necessary in pre-war days, and, as a consequence of the intensive efforts to increase the world’s shipping during the war, there is a larger amount of shipping tonnage available than is necessary to meet the world’s requirements. The value of shipping, therefore, has been materially affected. I do not propose to weary honorable gentlemen with a long list of depreciated values, but I shall cite one example. In March, 1920, a new 7.500-ton cargo steamer was worth £258,000. In June, of 1922, a new steamer of the same character was worth £62,000. These values have nothing whatever to do with construction costs; they are occasioned entirely by the immense amount of idle tonnage. In June, 1921, there were 2,500,000 gross tons of British shipping tied up in British ports, and 30,000 officers and men of the mercantile marine were unable to find employment. That condition of affairs continued through the year 1922, and it is only within the last few months that a better outlook has arisen. The effect of these circumstances, which were even more pronounced in other parts of the world, on shipping values can be readily imagined. There are indications that the future will be a little brighter than the period I have been reviewing.

A further indication of the serious position in the shipping world during the last two years is to be found in the fact that many shipping companies, which were formed in Great Britain when abnormal freights were being earned, have not only lost their capital, but, when wound up, have owed to their ‘banks two, three, and even four times as much as the value of the assets upon which the banks had advanced the money. All the old established shipping lines, notwithstanding their strong reserves, have had to . refrain from paying dividends, or have paid them by drawing on reserve accumulated over many years. I wish honorable members to bear these facts in mind when they are considering the financial results of the operations of the Commonwealth Line.

Another factor which I wish to bring under the notice of honorable members is that a great part of the Commonwealth Government’s shipping tonnage is quite unsuitable for the trade in which it has been employed. That was brought about by reason of the fact that, under the pressure of war circumstances, Australia attempted to build ships - not only attempted, but succeeded in building very good ships, which bear creditable comparison with those produced in other parts of the world, both as to their character and cost. They are not, however, suitable for the overseas trade in which the Commonwealth Government Line is engaged, and consequently have contributed very materially to the losses experienced by the Line. There was a direct loss of £168,618 in 1921-22 on the working of the “ D “ and “ E “ boats, which were built in Australia, and taken over by the Line. If interest and depreciation are added, the total loss on those boats for that year is £448,893. For the year 1922-23, it is estimated that they will lose, on their ordinary working expenses, £186,900, which, with interest and depreciation amounting to approximately £320,000, will make a total loss for the year of £506,900. That is a very great proportion of the losses to which the line has been subjected. The next point is that the figures I have given include interest and depreciation charges. Those naturally have been quite abnormal owing to the high values at which the ships were ..taken over, and they have not yet been written down to their present-day values. For example, the interest on the excessive valuation of the ships for the year 1922 amounts to £130,397, and in 1923 to £360,000, and the depreciation on the excessive valuation involved a loss in 1922 of £493,072, and in 1923 a loss of £749,350. It must be remembered also, when considering the circumstances of the Line, that the ships are on the Australian register, and are subjected to certain charges that ships on the British register have not to meet. Wages, victualling, and repairs cost approximately twice as much. However, I do not propose to deal with the figures in that connexion, because under the Bill the ships will remain on the Australian register, and we shall not be relieved of those charges in. the future.

This Bill proposes to hand over the Commonwealth ships to a Board, which will dispose of unsuitable tonnage. It is clearly hopeless to continue our efforts to run vessels which, as I have shown, involve tremendous losses. What we require for Australia is a line with tonnage suitable to our trade, a line which can be conducted on a reasonable basis of expenses, and will give1 an indication of what are proper freights to be charged by other lines. It is proposed, therefore, that one cause of a great deal of the loss, namely, the unsuitable tonnage which the line has had to carry, will be removed when the transfer is made to the Board. Next it is proposed to write the line down to presentday value so that there will not be an excessive burden of interest and depre- ciation. The vessels which the Commonwealth Board will retain will be on a valuation that places them in fair competition with any other well conducted lines, and there is no reason, under these circumstances, why they should not earn reasonable interest on the money invested. Two of the principal causes of the loss during the last two years will, therefore, be eliminated under the Bill.

To bring home to honorable members how much those interest and depreciation charges amount to, I may say that, on the present valuation of the line, interest and depreciation for one year amounts to £1,428,510. When the line has been written down in the manner proposed, the burden will be reduced to £420,265. In the case of the “ Bay “ and the “ D “ and “ E “ vessels, and of several of the others, we have had a valuation made by first-class ships’ valuers, and on the basis of that valuation the Government ara handing the ships over to the Board. We have not had valuations made of some of the older ships, but the price at which they are to be handed over to the Board has been determined by sales that have taken place of tonnage of the same character, with the same period of life, due regard being paid to all the circumstances, including cost of survey, &c. The ships are all shown in the schedule to the Bill. The value of each ship is not set out, only the total value of the whole being shown. It is impossible to state in a schedule or elsewhere publicly what valuations are set on the various vessels. A great number have to be disposed of, and we cannot let any prospective buyer know exactly what our valuations are, but any reasonable information that honorable members desire confidentially will, of course, be at their disposal.

The present position is that the book value of the whole of the ships is £12,766,58S, and it is proposed to write that value down to £4,718,150, a depreciation of £8,048,43S. I agree that at first sight these figures are appalling, but I venture to say that if honorable members permit me to put before them what has happened to other countries, they will come to the conclusion that there is nothing excessive in the amount to be written off.

I now ask honorable members to turn their hands, and to look at the followto the figures that have been placed in ing: - Our Shipping Line has been running for seven years - the most critical period the shipping world has ever seen. The Line has rendered incalculable service to Australia, and I think that, in comparison with the results in other countries, Australia need not be at all ashamed of its result. The two countries of which I wish to say a word or two, so that we may sec the position' in perspective, are the United States of America and Canada. In the United States of America during the war an attempt was made to establish a mercantile marinecommensurate with that country's seaborne trade. At the time of the armistice the United States of America had con trol over 2,358 vessels, with a deadweight tonnage of 10,033,206 tons. After the armistice attempts were made to dispose of this fleet, but quite unsuccessfully. At the 30th June, 1921, the fleet had cost $3,070,599,513, which, roughly, represents £600,000,000. The average monthly loss incurred was $13,000,000 - somewhere between £2,000,000- and £3,000,000. In March, 1923, America had a fleet of 1,416 vessels, of a dead-weight tonnage of 9,810,307 tons. Of those vessels only 389 were in commission, the others all necessitating expense without ever putting to sea. At that time the annual loss on the fleet was estimated at $50,000,000, without allowing for interest or depreciation; this means that the simple running and layingup costs were causing a loss of, roughly, £10,000,000 a year. As to the actual loss experienced in depreciation, there are two figures that I would like to submit. The actual cost of the fleet to America was in the region of £614,000,000 sterling, and the value of it to-day is probably about £200,000,000 sterling, which shows a loss of £414,000,000 on that shipping adventure, or considerably more than Australia's total war debt. There is another figure that I shall give when I am presenting the summary of the position. Canada also went into the shipping business, and operated under the name of The Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited. It was only in 1919, the year after the war, that Canada commenced operations, although the Government had been previously building vessels. The building went on till 1922, when there had been acquired a fleet of sixty-four steamers at a cost ' of £14,000,000. This represents an average cost of £38 per ton dead weight, whereas to-day new tonnage of that character . could probably be built for £12 or £15, and old tonnage of similar character bought at £10 a ton. It will thus be seen that there is a loss of probably £28 on every ton of shipping that the Canadian Government possess. The disposal of the greater part of that fleet is contemplated. It is proposed to dispose of all the smaller vessels under 4,000 tons, numbering about thirtyseven - more than half the total number - retaining only the larger vessels, representing 261,000 dead-weight tons. For the year ending 31st December, 1921, the actual loss on -the working of the Canadian Line, *i.e.,* excess of -outgoings over incomings, was £340,000, and inclusive of depreciation, the loss was about £1,800,000. For the year ended 31st December, 1922, the loss on workingwas £476,000, and if depreciation be added, the total loss was about £2,000,000, making a loss for- the two years of £3,800,000. To that must be added a further £1,000,000, representing accrued interest since 1920, which has never been brought to account. These figures relating to the shipping enterprises of the United States of America and Canadian Governments are of considerable interest when estimating the results . of the Commonwealth shipping venture,, and it is well to summarize them for comparative purposes - I quoted more modest figures a few moments ago when I said the value of the United States of America fleet 'had depreciated from over £600,000,000 to £200,000,000. But the summarized figures, which have been extracted from American journals, and appear to be quite accurate, reduce the present market value of the fleet to £60,000,000. Having regard to the great services which the Commonwealth Shipping Line rendered to Australia at a critical time, I contend that its establishment was justified, and was a stroke of genius which brought inestimable benefit to Australia. Furthermore, studying the .record of its operations, with due regard to the unprecedented circumstances in which it has worked during the last two years, I think its results have been very satisfactory, especially -in comparison with the experiences of the other two countries I havequoted. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- What about the exenemy vessels ? {: .speaker-F4B} ##### Mr BRUCE: -- They are included in the statement I have made. The only shipping figures excluded are those in regard to the wooden ships which were built for Australia. The Government are of' opinion that the wooden tonnage had nothing to do with the operations of the Commonwealth Shipping Line as such. Those wooden vessels were built as a direct war measure, on the responsibility of the Government; their capital cost and the Josses on their operations constituted a war enterprise that must be regarded as quite apart from the Commonwealth Shipping line. The Cockatoo Dockyard, which also is to be handed over to the Board, was originally taken over 'by the Commonwealth from the State 'of New South Wales in 1913, primarily to meet the requirements raf the Navy. The dock at Cockatoo Island was the largest in Australia, and it- was imperative that the Navy should have such a convenient and up-to-date repairing yards. A Royal Commission, appointed by this Parliament, investigated the operations of Cockatoo Dockyard. in 1920, and, after a complete review of the position, recommended that the value of the plant, machinery, and equipment should be written down to £400,000, although the capital cost had been approximately £2,275,000. The valuation placed upon it by the Royal. Commission appears to have been fairly accurate, because during the last two years the profit on the operations of Cockatoo was about equal to a return of 5 per cent, on a capital of £400,000, plus depreciation on plant and machinery of that value. The actual profit for the year ended 30t'h June, 1922, was £40,326, exclusive of interest ana depreciation, and the estimated profit for the present year is £51,000. Those figures appear to confirm the valuation made by the Royal Commission, and it is at that capital value that the Government propose to hand over the plant, machinery, and equipment to the Board. "We are of opinion that Cockatoo should be conducted by the authority that will operate the Shipping Line, and we believe that better results and greater economy will be effected thereby. At the present time the Commonwealth Shipping Line has officers attending to repairs and other work sent to the dockyard, and there is a duplicate set of permanent officials of the dockyard doing practically the same work. It is not unusual for a shipping line to have control of its own repair yards, and we therefore propose to bring these two activities - the dockyard and the shipping line - under the same authority. Of course, the requirements of the Navy must not be overlooked. The greater part of the Navy repair works must be done at Cockatoo, where is established the only machinery in Australia capable of handling large turbines; I am told that the machinery at Cockatoo is better than any other dockyard machinery in the southern hemisphere. The Government must keep some control over that dockyard for Navy and Defence requirements, and the policy we are adopting appears likely to meet those requirements, insure efficient management of the dockyard, and permit of greater economy in the operation of that establishment and the Shipping Line. Garden Island, where a great deal of work is being done for the Navy, also enters into consideration. The Royal Commission recommended that the repairs and other work done at Garden Island for the Navy should be restricted to such as could be done by naval ratings, but that recommendation has not been observed, and a large civil staff is employed at Garden Island in carrying out repairs which could be more effectively and economically done at Cockatoo, where the machinery is more efficient and up-to-date. The Government propose that the Royal Commission's recommendation shall be put into operation, and that all major work for the Navy shall be done at Cockatoo. To carry out the transfer from direct Government control, the Bill provides for a Board, to consist of not less than three and not more than five members. Our intention is that at the outset three members only shall be appointed, and that these shall be primarily concerned respectively with the Shipping Line, repair work at Cockatoo, and the finances of the undertaking. {: .speaker-KMU} ##### Mr Marks: -- Will the Cockatoo representative be a naval man? {: .speaker-F4B} ##### Mr BRUCE: -- He may, or he may not be; I shall deal with that later. It is contemplated that the members of the Board shall devote the whole of their time and attention to the work intrusted to them. We do not propose to create a Board that shall meet occasionally, leaving the actual work of management and control to a manager responsible to it. The members of the Board to be appointed under this Bill will be the actual managers and controllers of the enterprise. It may be found, after some experience of the operations of the Board, . that a fourth member will be necessary. It is almost impossible at this stage to say with exactitude what the volume of the work will be, and whether or not three men will be able effectively to handle it. Therefore some latitude in regard to *personnel* is necessary, and the Bill allows discretion to the Government to appoint from three to five members, as may be found requisite. One member of the Board is to hold office for five years another for four years, and a third for a period not exceeding three years. The purpose of that variation in term is to give continuity of management, so that the whole of the. members of the Board shall not retire automatically on the same date. A similar arrangement has been made in connexion with other Boards appointed in recent years, and I think it tends to give effective control and efficient management. The remuneration of the mem bers of the Board is not defined in the Bill; clause 8 says merely that each director shall receive such remuneration and travelling allowances as the Governor-General may fix. I am convinced that the suggestion will be made that wc should limit the amount to be paid under the Bill. Before honorable members urge that suggestion I wish them to give a little thought to the matter, and consider the magnitude of the enterprise which will he taken over by the Board. It is essential if the enterprise is to be successful that the Government should secure the services of the very best men whom it is possible to obtain. We should follow in this matter the same path as that which we followed at the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank. At that time the House felt that the Bank would be of such vital importance to Australia that the services of the very best man available must be secured as manager. Consequently a clause similar to that which appears in this Bill was inserted in the Commonwealth Bank Bill, and experience has shown that it was a wise provision. I urge the 'House to follow the same course in connexion with the establishment of the Board under this Bill. The ships to be handed over to the Board are all specified in the schedule to the Bill. The exact valuation of each of the ships is not set out in the schedule, but there is set out the total amount of £4,718,150, which I have previously referred to as the figure at which they will be valued when handed over to the Board. Of the ships set out in the schedule it will be for the Board to determine which are to be retained and which are to be sold. The Government do not propose to dictate to .the Board the action which they shall take in this regard. From the experience I have now gained of this Line, and the' information I have as . to the working results of each ship, I am fairly certain that the "D" and "E" boats will not be retained, because the losses on them have been very severe indeed. On the other hand, the " Bay " Liners most certainly will be retained, as they are a very great asset to the Line, and are rendering very important service to Australia. With respect to the others, and the cargo boats in particular, their retention or dis- posal will to a great extent depend upon the results of their operations, but obviously a number of them must be retained for the ordinary services of the Line. I have stated the price at which the ships are to be handed ' over to the Board. All other assets of the Line, as at present constituted, will be taken over by the Board at a valuation. The figure £4,718,150 includes only the ships themselves and the ordinary gear attaching to them. I have already stated that the Cockatoo Island Dockyard will be handed over at a valuation of £400,000 for buildings, outside structures, plant, machinery, and equipment. That is the valuation arrived at by the Royal Commission in 1920. In the case of the Dockyard, all stock and goods other than actual equipment and standing gear will be taken over by the Board at a valuation. In exchange for these assets the Board will issue debentures to the Government for the total amount of their valuation. The debentures will carry a fixed interest rate of 5 per cent. One hopes that in the future profits will be earned by the Line. There is no reason why that should not be so when it is established on a proper basis of capitalization and operates only vessels suitable for the trade in which they will be engaged. In the event of there being any profits from their operations, the Board will be entitled to retain the whole of them until they have accumulated reserves to an amount equivalent to 25 per cent, of the total capital at the time outstanding. The Government are desirous of insuring the strength and stability of the Line. I am sure that the Souse will agree that it is a wise provision that, before any profits are taken from the Line, an opportunity should bo given to build up the necessary reserves to put it in a really strong financial position. After the reserve funds have reached an amount of, at least, 25 per cent, of the capital for the time being outstanding, 50 per cent, of the profits may be retained by the Board to further increase reserves, and 50 per cent, must be handed over to the Treasurer of the day. He will place the money in a trust fund, and it will then be for the Government to decide whether these profits are to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue or employed in redeeming the Line's debentures and reducing its capital. The next matter that we have to consider in connexion with a Line of this character is the working capital. I remind honorable members that in providing itself with working capital this Line will be in a position different from that of an ordinary business or commercial concern, for the reason that the Government are taking its debentures as a first charge over the whole of its assets for the full value of those assets. It is clear that a Line so placed will not be in a position to go to a bank or other financial institution and obtain an overdraft in the ordinary way. To overcome that difficulty it is provided in the Bill that the Treasurer shall, out of the Consolidated Revenue, advance to the Line a sum for working capital, or shall guarantee an advance by a bank for working capital for the Line of an amount which shall not exceed 25 per cent, of the capital for the time being outstanding. This provision should enable the Line to secure all the working capital it requires. One hopes that in the future it will accumulate profits and i be able to provide its own working capital out of its own finances. In order to insure that the Line may have the working capital it requires, these provisions are inserted in the Bill. I think it is only fair and just that the Commonwealth should provide working capital for the Line in the way indicated, in view of the fact that we are taking up debentures as a first charge over the whole of the assets of the Line, and that it will not be in a position to offer any security to any outside financial ' institution that might be appealed to for an advance. Additional capital can only be raised in the future by the Board with the consent of the Treasurer. As to one form of capital which the. Board will have, I want to make the position quite clear. The whole of these assets are being handed over to the Board.- It is contemplated, and is, in fact, absolutely necessary that a certain number of ships should be disposed of. It is not provided in the Bill that in the event of the disposal of any of these vessels repayments to the extent of the amounts thus secured should be made to the Government and debentures to a similar amount cancelled. It is proposed to leave any sums that may come into the possession of the Board from the disposal of any of the ships belonging to the Line in the hands of the Board. It will be for them to invest the money in tonnage of a more suitable character; but the Board will have no power to raise additional capital without the consent of the Treasurer for the time being. There is another provision in the Bill to the following effect: - >The income, property, and operations of the Board shallbe subject to the like rates, taxes, and charges that would be payable under the laws of theCommonwealth or a Stateof the Board were carrying on business as a trading corporation formed by private individuals. That provision has been inserted for the reason that the Line will not be a State instrumentality. ' With regard to State instrumentalities, I think the principle should be preserved inviolate that they should not be subject to ordinary taxation, municipal and other rates. But where the Government, as in this case, are conducting what is really a trading adventure, it is only right that the enterprise should be subject to the ordinary taxation and expenditure which a similar concern in private hands would have to meet. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- Will that include State income tax? {: .speaker-F4B} ##### Mr BRUCE: -- All the taxes which an ordinary trading concern would be subject to. If this course is followed, I venture to suggest that any reproach against the Line and the results of its operations, based upon the fact that it is not subject to the charges that a private firm or business enterprise would have to meet, will immediately disappear. If this Line canbe run successfully, and show good results, after meeting all the ordinary commitments which any private business concern would have to meet, it will afford some justification for support of a principle which honorable members opposite hold very dear. {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- Does the right honorable gentleman propose that the Line should be regarded as an ordinary company, in the matter of the payment of income tax? {: .speaker-F4B} ##### Mr BRUCE: -- Yes. The only other point I wish to refer to is the fact that the balance-sheet of the Board will have to be submitted to the Treasurer, and will be placed before Parliament. This is a matter of some importance, because there is no Board of directors in the world, and no persons controlling businesses, except those who are in charge of businesses of their own, who are not subject to the control of some one outside. This Parliament will, of course, be the controller of the Board proposed to be established under this Bill. The Board will be like the ordinary Board of directors of a company, free from political influence or interference in the management of the Line, but it will be judged by the results of its operations, and will report to the Parliament that will have created it, and which may take any action to put an end to its functions, or in any other direction that in its wisdom it may determine to be advisable. An opportunity will be afforded every year to this Parliament to reconsider the views it holds concerning the Board and its activities when the annual balance-sheet of the Line is submitted by the Treasurer. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- Private concerns, as distinct from State instrumentalities, do not publish the whole of their operations, but publish only accounts of profit or loss. Will that be the course followed by the Board under this Bill? {: .speaker-F4B} ##### Mr BRUCE: -- Yes ; the Board will publish their own balance-sheet, and the only figures that will appear in the published accounts will be any losses incurred, or any profits which the Treasurer may be in a position to pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I commend the Bill to the House. I think that it will afford an opportunity for the conduct of this Shipping Line and the Cockatoo Island Dockyard upon an efficientbasis, and will remove from consideration those things which, at the present moment, are rendering it quite impossible for the Line in any year to show a profit, or prove that it is working efficiently, and assisting the people and producers of Australia. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Charlton)** adjourned. *Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m..* {: .page-start } page 651 {:#debate-25} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-25-0} #### ESTIMATED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE FOR 1922-23 {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Treasurer [8.0].- {By leave · Cowper · CP , I desire to make to the House an approximate statement of the financial position of the Commonwealth as at the 30th June, 1923. Such an early statement has been rendered possible only by reason of the fact that the Treasury officials have been working day and night, and its production at such an early stage reflects great credit upon the ability and high calibre of those officers. Honorable members will find that the figures disclosed in tlie financial statement circulated are very satisfactory, as for the past year the revenue has exceeded the expenditure by £1,266,158 after allowing for £312,000 which has been applied towards recouping the losses which were sustained in connexion with the Fruit Pool, and making an advance to the Fruit Pools of an additional £551,000. The net result has been achieved, first of all, by a reduction in departmental expenditure - which, for the year, was £407,563 less than voted by Parliament, and £778,173 less than the amount actually expended then. . The estimated departmental expenditure was £15,858,948, and the approximate expenditure £15,451,385. In addition, the Commonwealth revenue has shown a substantial increase upon the estimate. Notwithstanding the total decrease in departmental expenditure, it will be seen from the figures circulated' that in two or three instances increases have occurred. Parliament shows a decrease, as the figures in the statement show an actual expenditure of £60,158 for 1921-22. The estimate for 1922-23 was £61,128, and the approximate expenditure £58,258. In the Prime Minister's Department, the actual expenditure for 1921-22 was £538,671 ; the estimate for 1922-23 was £404,049, and the approximate expenditure £391,050. The expenditure in the Department of the Treasury for 1921-22 was £1,319,852, the amount voted last year was £1,229,384^ and the approximate expenditure for 1922-23 £1,303,542. The increase was not due to any unnecessary departmental expenditure, but to the fact that £99,964 has been included in the Treasury expenditure in consequence of our financial position in London necessitating the Government pay ing 3 per cent, on an overdraft at present standing at £6,000,000, as it was not opportune to float a loan in London. It was, therefore, necessary to take a special vote for the interest, as a special appropriation applies only to interest on loans actually raised. In addition, £10,000 ha3 been advanced to pay outstanding liabilities in connexion with the working of detained enemy vessels which were used prior to their inclusion in the fleet. The only other Department which shows any increase is that of the Trade and Customs, in which the expenditure was £831,805, and the estimated expenditure £786,608, showing an increase of £45,197, occasioned by the compensation paid to H. V. Legg" and Co. in respect of the manufacture of sheep dip budgeted for at £6,000, which had to be increased by £13,400 on account of the decision of the arbitrator, and also the expenses which arbitration involved. In addition, there has been an increase of £6,000 in administering the Commerce Act, rendered necessary by increased activities in connexion with fruit, meat, and dairy produce. There was also an advance of £8,000 to the Commonwealth meat industry in connexion with a new organization, which is in the nature of a loan, but will appear as a revenue item later. Finally there was £9,300 Customs and Excise duties short collected on rice, but that is an item which will also appear on both sides of the ledger. In special appropriations it will be seen that there is an amount for compensation to retired Defence Department officials amounting to £50,000, and £200,000 has been set aside to be placed into a trust fund to meet compensation payable to those taxation officers who may be retired. An amending Taxation Bill will be introduced to cover the whole question. There is also £500,000 which the House voted a few days ago for main roads development, which has been found out of revenue. This amount has been paid into the Main Roads Development Trust Account in accordance with a measure passed on the 22nd June. The principal increases that have occurred in war services are first of all those occasioned by the conversion loan, set down at £183,636, which represents the amount of the cash bonus to be given to those bond-holders who came into the first conversion. There is an increase in the interest and sinking fund, as the estimate for last year did not apply. War pensions have increased from the estimate of £6,750,000 to a total f £7,134,966, an increase of £384,966. This was occasioned by the more liberal pensions provided in certain directions by the amending Act passed last year, and by a slight increase in the number of pensioners. The total expenditure out of revenue for war services special appropriations and ordinary votes for the two years was: - Actual in 1921-22, £64,195,699 ; estimated in 1922-23, £61,362,443; and the approximate expenditure, £61,707,935. The increase is due to the facts mentioned. In addition, there are losses of £312,000 on the first two Fruit Pools, the total loss on the 1921 Pool being £75,000, and that on the 1922 Pool £237,000; as well as an additional advance of £551,000 against the current Pool. A considerable proportion of this will be collected. Before leaving the subject of Fruit Pools it may interest honorable members to know exactly the amount of payments to growers and canners, and the total expenditure of each of the Pools up to date- {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Foster: -- And the approximate balance in hand. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- I cannot give that at the moment, but will supply "the details later. The particulars are: - The total revenue of the Commonwealth was £63,837,093, the estimated revenue £58,657,000, showing an excess of revenue over the estimate of £5,180,093. The chief item of revenue which shows a variation as compared with the estimate is in connexion with Customs and Excise, where the increase was £5,222,128. This in crease has been brought about owing 1 to the volume of imports being greater than anticipated, but in this connexion it is necessary to sound a note of warning, because the returns for the last few months show that the buoyant position is not likely to be maintained. It would therefore be unwise to expect in the future such a large return from this source as was received during the past year. The revenue from the Post and Telegraph Department was £142,273 in excess of the estimate, due to the increased business of the Department, but there was a decrease in the revenue from income taxation of £245,483. Tn answer to certain views expressed in this House this afternoon, I desire to read two clauses in the prospectus of the Commonwealth 5 per cent, loan maturing in 1928, which has just been issued. They are - {: type="1" start="12"} 0. Owners of Stock or Bonds who have already applied for the Conversion of their holdings of 5 per cent. 1923 Stock or Bonds into the Commonwealth 5 per cent. Conversion Loan 1948, in accordance with the Prospectus dated 11th April, 1923, may now re-convert such holdings into Stock or Bonds of the 5 per cent. 'Loan 1928 at par. 1. Persons who so re-convert their holdings into the 5 per cent. Loan 1928 will receive from the Commonwealth, on the 15th September, 1923, a cash bonus of £1 for each £100 of Stock or Bonds re-converted. This cash bonus will be in addition to the cash bonus of equal amount which has already been paid by the Commonwealth in accordance with the Prospectus of 11th April, 1923. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- That means that the loan will be for five years instead of twenty-five years. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- No. A small percentage of those who applied for the original issue may apply for a portion of the second, and the provisions I have read are to meet the case of those who would rather invest their money for a short than for a long term. Our information is to the effect that the number of persons who desire to do this may be large, but the aggregate amount involved is small. There is no question about the right of those who have taken up the twenty-five years' conversion loan to retain their holding. Any one who desires may take up the 5 per cent, loan, which has a currency of five years. A tion, which I have outlined, is contained complete statement of the financial posi-in the following statement : - {: .page-start } page 654 {:#debate-26} ### MEAT EXPORT BOUNTIES BILL- *In Committee* (Consideration of Governor-General's further message) : {: #debate-26-s0 .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · EdenMonaro · NAT -- I move - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of an amendment extending the period for the slaughter of beasts in respect of the export of which bounty is payable under a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounties on the export of beef and cattle from the Commonwealth. The message relates to an additional appropriation to cover small amendments in the Bill already introduced. The increase amounts to £3,000. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported, and adopted. {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 28th June *(vide* page 493), on motion by **Mr. Austin** Chapman - >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON:
Hunter .- The Bill 'before the House is similar to that passed in August last year. There is a slight alteration in regard to the canning and shipping subsidy, in -which there has been a reduction of about oneeighth of a penny. The reason for passing a Meat Export Bounties Bill last year was that there was a glut in the market abroad, and Australian producers were unable to dispose of 'their meat. That condition of affairs arose largely as a result of the war, and also because the limited quantity of meat required was supplied from the Argentine. When the Bill was under consideration I expressed the fear that the proposed bounty might be regarded as a precedent, but the Minister of the day said, most emphatically, " The bounty will not continue for one hour after the end of the present year." Now it is proposed to extend tlie provisions of the Bill for another year. I do not object, but from the point of view of the 'Government, which says that all business should flow through its natural channels, the situation is different. The public desire consistency above everything. When the Prime Minister **(Mr. Bruce)** and other members of the Government state that their policy is, " No interference with business, which should be allowed bo run in its natural channel," and yet do something along socialistic lines every week, one wonders why so much condemnation is heaped upon the Labour party for its Socialistic policy. Last week a wheat guarantee was proposed. That was a very proper thing, and I take no exception to it. This week the proposal is for a bounty to meat producers. I take no exception to that either, but again I recall the statement made by the Prime Minister to a deputation which I had the honour to introduce to him recently. The members of the deputation asked that something should be done to regulate the coal trade, because men in one portion of the industry were in a state of semi-starvation. The Prime Minister said it was -'not his duty, nor Avas it the policy of his Government, to interfere m any way with the ordinary channels of ,trade. He told the members of the deputation that they must pursue their own course, and that there had been too much interference in the past. Although this is the declared policy of the Government, we find that when a question arises .which does not concern the poorer classes in the community, but is of importance to wealthy people, trade is not allowed to go along quietly in its natural channels, but is assisted by the Government and Parliament. Of course, it is the duty of the Government to give assistance to all our industries which require it. When the Bill was before the House last year, the meat industry was in need of assistance, for the men. in the meatworks, to avoid unemployment, were prepared to accept a reduction of 12s. per week in their wages. It is obvious, therefore, that there was some justification for the measure; but while that is so, and while we are providing a bounty which is estimated to cost the Commonwealth this year about £160,000, it is opportune to remind the Government that another course of action might have been taken. Probably a market could be . found in Australia for a large quantity of the meat produced in Queensland. ThatState produces- about half the output of Australian meat. The latest returns available show that the number of head of cattle in Queensland is 7,047,000, and that the total in the whole of Australia, including the Northern Territory, is only 14,530,000. In addition, a considerable quantity of meat, chiefly for export, is dealt with at Wyndham, in Western Australia, and by Vestey Brothers in the Northern Territory. If the people who are producing Australian meat cannot get a) payable price for it, we should ask ourselves whether something is not wrong at home. Let us look for a moment at the position in Australia. The people of this country were considered at one time to be a meateating people. Statistics show that in New South Wales in 1912 the average consumption of meat per head per annum was 273 lbs; in 1917-18,- after the war, the average consumption per head in that State was only 160 lbs. What has come over the people -to cause them to eat 113 lbs. of meat less per head than they ate in pre-war days? The answer is to be found in the high cost of meat, which prevents the people from purchasing as much as formerly. The consumption of meat in Queensland was 161 lbs. per head per annum in 1918, and 204 lbs. per head per annum in 1921, which is the last year for which I have been able to obtain statistics. It will be seen that the people of Queensland consume more meat now than they consumed before the war. The explanation must be that the people of Queensland are able to purchase more meat than the people in the other States. {: .speaker-KEV} ##### Mr Fenton: -- They can get cheaper meat than the people in the other States. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- That is correct. I invite the attention of honorable members to the following comparison of retail prices : - That clearly shows that the people of Queensland can buy meat more cheaply than the people of any other part of Australia, and it explains the larger consumption per head in that State as compared with the other States. I doubt whether the prices I have given are quite accurate, because I pay much more for meat than the prices I have quoted. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr Manning: -- The figures the honorable member has given for .Sydney and Melbourne are absolutely -wrong; is he sure he is right about the Brisbane figures? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I shall leave it to the honorable member to show where the figures err. Our people are paying high prices for meat, while the man who raises the cattle is, we are told, receiving only *£2* per head. If this be true, then the man on the land is not getting a fair return . **Mr. Corser.Some** men on the land are getting no more than 35s. per head. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No man can alford to rear beasts for such returns. It appears to me that, in the situation, the Government have some part to play in the way of providing meat at a cheaper rate. If the Government can interfere by providing a subsidy on exported meat, then they are in duty bound also to interfere in providing a market here, so that we in Australia may be supplied at lower prices. Doubtless I shall be told that this is a State matter, as, indeed, it is. In to-day's *Argus* it is reported that a deputation asked the Minister for Trade and Customs recently whether he would permit British ships to carry frozen meat from Queensland, and he agreed to do so. The trouble is that live meat may not be brought from the northern State to Victoria, though live meat may be brought from New Zealand. It is contended that every precaution must be taken to prevent the importation of tick into this or any other State, and to that end these restrictions are imposed. In the case, of New Zealand, there are no such restrictions. This statement also appears in the *Argus -* >Owing to the restrictions imposed by the Victorian Government on the importation of live stock from Queensland, an experiment of importing -cattle from New Zealand has been tried. Live stock in Queensland is selling as low as £2 a head, whereas the highest price realized for the New Zealand cattle in Melbourne was £45 10s. a head. Victoria, however has refused to suspend the restrictions imposed on Queensland live cattle, and to overcome this difficulty the Commonwealth was asked to assist in the transport of chilled or frozen meat to Victoria. ' {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Foster: -- I suppose you know that the £45 was given for a prize bullock? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Then let me ask how much would an ordinary bullock from New Zealand fetch in the market here? {: .speaker-KFP} ##### Mr Foster: -- The top price was £23. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- I accept the ho*,orable member's figure; but does he contend that if bullocks can be bought for £2 per. head in Queensland, it costs £21 to land them in Victoria? {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- The Victorian Government will not allow Queensland beasts to come in at all. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Yes ; there is an embargo. There was recently a Premier's Conference, which dealt with many matters of little importance, but not with such as affect the daily life of the people. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Surely the honorable member would not allow tick cattle to come here? {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- No; hut although all the cattle in Queensland are not infested, with tick, no cattle from that State are allowed to enter Victoria. Surely a proper system of inspection ought to be sufficient to prevent the entry of infested beasts. {: .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr Corser: -- Cattle are sent from Queensland to . South Australia' without any restriction. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- That is quite true. Mr.Foster. - Tick will not . live in either Victoria or South Australia. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- It is idle for the honorable member to pursue that line of argument; the question before us is why meat . is so dear in this country, while, on the other hand, the producers are receiving prices so low. Where does all the profit go? This is a matter of vital importance to the welfare of the country, and the Government ought to take some steps to bring it under the notice of the State Governments with a view to a remedy. All the facts show that ' the time is near when, in the place of so many State Governments there must be one Government in order to insure uniformity of law. If we are one people with one destiny, it is only fair that all imaginary boundaries and other obstacles to the natural flow of trade should be removed as far as possible. If there were a market here, with meat at a reasonable price, more meat would be consumed, . and there would not be above one-third of the quantity available for export. Under such conditions the producer would get better prices, and the people cheaper meat, and more of our citizens would be employed in their own country. Now, in order to save the meat industry, we are asked to vote another bounty of £160,000. This is hitting the public in two ways - with a bounty and with exorbitant prices. This is surely a matter of sufficient importance to deserve the. serious attention of the Government. But there is a disposition to take it for granted that we have no market here in Australia, and must look overseas. If we continue on these lines, the precedent now set must continue to be followed, notwithstanding that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Bruce)** has told us that this is the last occasion on which such a measure will be introduced. If there was justification for a measure of the kind twelve months ago, and there is justification for it to-day, does any one say that twelve months hence, if the conditions are no better, we shall allow this industry to perish ? {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- No. {: .speaker-JXA} ##### Mr CHARLTON: -- Certainly not; we cannot afford to allow the industry to perish, for that would mean striking at the vital interests of Australia. If we do not approve of a bounty, it is our duty to find a market for- our beasts, and that can be done by reducing prices, and enabling the people to consume, as they undoubtedly would, nearly all the meat raised. Wetalk of populating the Northern Territory, and about the suitable cattle areas there, but what inducement is offered to graziers if we have to depend on markets overseas. There are quantities of beef entering Great Britain from countries which are not connected with the Empire, and yet we are asked to provide a bounty in order to keep the industry on its legs in Australia. It is a lamentable state of affairs, and things seem to be getting worse year after year. If at any time our communication with the Old. Land was interfered . with, in what position would we find the wheat, wool, and other industries of Australia? We have had a satisfactory financial statement from the Treasurer, but how long will such conditions continue if we find ourselves without markets for our produce? The producers and the community generally are not having a fair deal, and it is our duty to protect them, while restraining those between who are gaining outrageous profits. What are the " natural channels " of trade, of . which we hear so much? The phrase appears to mean' that all trade matters must be . left in the hands of a few people who, apparently, are above and outside the laws passed by this Parliament. More attention must be paid to that aspect of the question; it is not sufficient to decide that, because we have no market for certain ' products, bounties must) be paid. Until we legislate in the way I have suggested, the present conditions must continue. If these producers of beasts have to, remain in business, they must be enabled to at least eke out an existence, and the only alternative to legislation is further bounties. I take no exception to assistance being granted to the producers under the circumstances. Their position is not due to drought, but due to the absence of a home market, and unless something definite is done within the next twelve months, I can see no hope for them. Such are the problems we have tosolve in order that we may get out of the groove into which we drifted during wartime, for otherwise we shall find ourselves " right up against it." We shall not always be in our present sound financial position, and the time may come when we shall be unable to grant bounties or guarantees, or to meet a loss of £300,000 or £400,000 per annum on Fruit Pools. The sooner the Government realize the position, and co-operate with the States with a view to finding a remedy, the better it will be for the country. {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING:
Macquarie .- I have listened, with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on a subject to which too much publicity cannot be given. It is very difficult for those not conversant with the facts to understand why the Government should propose to pay a bounty on meat exported from one portion of the Commonwealth whilst cattle are being imported into another portion and sold at a very high price. That clearly is an anomaly which should not exist, and every effort should be' made to terminate it. I was not in Parliament last year when a Bill similar to that before us was before this House, but the conditions then were very different from those that 'obtain to-day. The position of . the . cattle-raiser now is appalling. The shortage of meat in the southern States is due entirely to drought conditions; had the season been more favorable, the present high prices in Victoria would not have been ruling. I, as a member of the . Meat Council, with the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. J. Francis),** and other members of the House, have been endeavouring to relieve the Melbourne market by representing to the State Government of Victoria that they can, without the slightest danger to the herds ofthat State, relax the stringent conditions now imposed upon cattle imported from Queensland. ' Victorian authorities fear that if Queensland cattle are admitted to Victoria there will' be a risk of introducing the tick. I do not question the honesty of their motives, but I think there is a lamentable ignorance on thesubject, and that the possible danger of tick infestation . is exaggerated. The present stringent conditions could be relaxed very considerably. Before cattle can be shipped from any port in Queensland, they must pass out of the tickinfested area. Although I am interested in cattle - to only a very small extent - I would be the last to urge any Government to take the slightest risk of introducing into its territory a curse like the cattle tick. But there is a large area of Queensland which is entirely free of tick, and from that area cattle have been passing . into New South Wales for a ' number of years, subject to the precaution of dipping before . they cross the border. At the present time more than 1,000 head of cattle are reaching the Sydney markets' every week from those parts of Queensland which are not tickinfested. {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- Is there any tick in New South Wales! {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- There is tick in one corner of the State, but the area is very restricted, and the pest is not increasing. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The' area is not restricted, and the trouble is increasing very much, especially in the Bangalow district. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- The honorable member is referring to an area of which I have not a very intimate knowledge, but I do know of clean areas of Queensland from which cattle have been coming into the New South Wales market for years, and there is no record of tick having been introduced into the latter State by them. It has been stated to-day that although the cattle tick is found in New Zealand, the cattle from the Dominion are imported into Victoria. The circumstances of New Zealand are entirely different from those of Queensland. The tick, although irritating, is not in itself, a menace to the cattle; the danger comes from the tick infected with the red-water fever, and as that disease is not known in New Zealand, if there are ticks there they are comparatively harmless. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The veterinary officers have pointed out that heavy tick infestation, even amongst cattle from the scrub country, creates a certain inflammation of the tissues of the animal, and renders the meat, at any rate, not very good for human consumption. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- The tick may be fairly compared with the mosquito. If mosquitoes are present in sufficient numbers they are very irritating, but they are not a menace unless they are infected with malaria or some other disease. Similarly only cattle tick which are infected with the red-water fever are dangerous to cattle. The Victorian Government stipulate that cattle from the clean areas of Queensland coming through New South Wales must not cross the border into Victoria unless they have been resident three months in New South Wales. In company with other honorable members, I waited upon the Victorian Minister for Agriculture a few days ago, and asked him to ease the restrictions on the importations of Queensland cattle. He said that nothing would be done which would render possible the introduction of cattle tick into Victoria. That attitude is regrettable, but there is no remedy for it except by publicity and moral pressure. It is practically impossible to bring live cattle from Queensland into the Victorian market, which, however, can be more easily and economically supplied with chilled and frozen meat. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- How can it be transported ? {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- There is a fair tonnage of refrigerated space on the boats running between Queensland ports .and the southern States. Unfortunately, frozen meat is placed on the Victorian market under a very great handicap, because the people are prejudiced, unduly I hold, against it, and prefer to pay a very high price for fresh meat. {: .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr Prowse: -- It would cost more to bring frozen meat to Melbourne than to send it to London. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- I cannot imagine that any ship-owner would prefer the responsibility of keeping his chambers cool all the way to London if he could get the same price' per pound for carrying the meat from Queensland to Melbourne. Indeed, it would be profitable to pay on meat sent to Melbourne the same freight, Id. per pound, as is being charged on meat shipped to London. Unfortunately, the prejudice against frozen meat extends to chilled meat, and with less justification. Would any honorable member care to eat meat that had not been chilled ? Those who have visited the Sydney abattoirs know that the meat, as soon as the animal heat has passed out of it, is put into the chilling chamber; otherwise, unless there, was a cold frosty night, the meat would not set thoroughly, and it could not be cut to the best advantage. All the best meat that comes into the market goes through the chilling process. Apart fro.m the prejudice against chilled meat, there is difficulty in placing it on the markets of the southern States. If chilled meat is sent in large consignments some of it must be frozen on arrival. Chilled meat on being removed from the ship's chambers should be placed straight upon the market. That is why Australian meat is at such a great disadvantage in London in competition with meat from the Argentine. Can nothing be done to induce the Victorian Government to assist in making ' Queensland meat available for. the people of Victoria? Through the courtesy of the Honorary Minister **(Senator Wilson),** I have these particulars of the refrigerated space available on boats that visit the Queensland coast : - *Kanowna,* 250 tons; *Wyreema,* 500 tons; *Wyandra,* 200 tons; *Canberra,* 300 tons; *Cooma,* 130 tons; *Bombala,* 130 tons; total, 1,510 tons. , In addition, there are the " Bay " steamers, which are not restricted by the Navigation Act and engage in this trade. The *Esperance Bay,* which left Brisbane on the 2nd June, had 34 tons of meat for Melbourne; the *Moreton Bay,* which was to have sailed on the 30th June, had 210 tons booked for. the same port, and the *Jervis Bay,* which is to sail on the 28th July, has so far 100 tons of meat booked, and it is probable that quantity will be considerably increased. That meat is coming into the Victorian market. {: .speaker-KYV} ##### Mr E RILEY:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Is( it for export to London ? {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- Is it likely that merchants would incur the cost of double handling and double freights involved in bringing meat from Queensland into Melbourne and re-shipping it to London? There has been practically no export of beef from Melbourne since 1917, with the exception of supplies taken by vessels for their own use *en voyage.* The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Charlton)** quoted prices at which, he said, meat was being sold in Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne. If his figures in regard to Brisbane and Melbourne are not more accurate than those for Sydney, they are not worthy of attention. As a matter of fact, the price he quoted for sirloin roast in Melbourne is less than the price paid per pound for the whole beast- in the Melbourne market. The honorable member asked also why meat has not been cheaper. I can speak with knowledge of the trade. If the wholesale butchers got their meat for nothing they could not put it on the market ' in Sydney ' and Melbourne, under the present system of distribution, at a price which would enable the public to obtain cheap meat. It is not many months since good fore-quarter beef, though not extra prime,/ sold in Sydney at -fd. per lb. At the same time I was paying ls. per lb. for sirloin roast. At that time, also, fore-quarter beef was being put into the digesters and made into manure because there was no market for it. It may be fortunate for Australians that they are in a position to pay big prices for what they want, and they therefore insist upon rump steak and sirloin roast. They all want hind-quarter beef, and the retail butchers can sell three times the quantity of hind-quarter beef that they sell of fore-quarter meat. The public prefer hind-quarter beef, and it has to be sold by the butchers at a price which must practically cover the cost of the whole bullock. The Leader of the Opposition said that beef is cheaper in Queensland, and more of it is used there. It is obvious that the more cheaply beef can be got on to the market the more it -will be used. The Leader of the Opposition, quoting the figures for 1921, the latest available, informed us that Queensland had half the cattle in Australia. New South Wales has 3,538,000 head, Victoria 1,750,000 head,' Western . ^Australia -893,000 head, and the Northern Territory 656,000 head. The balance of the cattle, making up a total of 14,530,000 head, were in the other. States. I may say that I was one of those who strongly urged the Government to pay a subsidy on the export of beef. I was very glad to find that they did so last year, and propose to do so again. Notwithstanding the statement made last year that the subsidy would not be continued, they have realized the necessity of continuing to pay it again this year. The price of prime beef in Queensland for export at the time the subsidy was decided upon was 13s. per 100 lbs. dressed weight. Dressed meat, when treated in accordance with . conditions in Queensland, has briskets and shins taken off, and the 100 lbs. weight is reduced sometimes to 82 lbs., and generally to 80 lbs. The price paid for first class beef was 13s. per 100 lbs., 10s. per 100 lbs. for second class, and 4s. per 100 lbs. for rejects and condemned. These prices were for bullock beef only. Prices for cow beef at the time were : First. quality 10s., and second quality 8s. 6d. per 100 lbs. Mcn used to country conditions know that secondquality beef is good station beef. Station people use it, and never look for extra prime beef. The percentage of bullocks condemned was 4 per cent., and of cows was very much, higher. We have to bear in mind that the stock routes in Queensland leading into the trucking stations were in such a deplorable condition that although cattle left the stations in prime condition when they reached the meatworks they were often very emaciated, « and two-thirds of the »beef, and in many cases 80 per cent., had become second-grade beef. I speak of facts within my own knowledge. I have heard of prices of 35s. and £2 quoted for bullocks, but I say that when men out in the cattle country back from the railways reckon the expense of droving into the railways and trucking, they very often do not net 25s., and sometimes not even £1 per head. I know of a draft of 580 head sent from one station that 'gave a net return of 24s. per head, and of a second draft from the same station that gave a net return of only £1 per head. That is the condition of affairs in which the Government are proposing to give relief. The subsidy proposed is. on the exported weight, which is 80 per cent, of the dressed weight, and probably does not average £1 per head. The Minister for Trade and Customs, in introducing the Bill, said that his departmental officers anticipated that, whilst the expenditure in the form of the meat subsidy last year amounted to £120,000, it would this year amount to £160,000. I interjected at the time that I thought the estimate -was much too high. I have gone" into the matter since, and I believe that it is considerably in excess of what will have to be paid. It. is not anticipated that 'exporters in Queensland will have anything like the same number of cattle to export this year as they had last year. There are two reasons for this. One is the condition- of drought which existed over a great deal of country, and the other is the fact that a considerable number of cattle are coming into the southern markets. Last year, owing to the drought conditions, almost the whole of the cattle were sent into the Queensland meat works. A fortnight or three weeks ago about 1,000 head per week were coming into the Sydney market alone, and that meant 1,000 head upon which the Government would pay no subsidy. "Unfortunately, the number of cattle coming into the southern markets as frozen or chilled meat is not sufficient, but no subsidy will have to be paid on them. I wish to say that the owners of cattle, when they sell to the meat works, do so on the understanding that they will get the Government subsidy. That is a point which needs to be made perfectly clear, because it shows that the subsidy is going to the growers,'' and not to the meat works. The meat works give the owners of cattle exported certificates for the amount of their meat that has been, exported, and the owners collect the subsidy from the Government in accordance with those certificates. The cattle coming into the Victorian market are not being exported, and consequently the Government will not have to pav the extra Jd. per lb. on them. I was assured at the last meeting of the Australian Meat Council, by two representatives of the exporters, that the exporters here, though they are not sending this meat abroad and so earning the subsidy, are making good the amount of the subsidy that would be paid on this meat if it were exported, to the growers, who will be none the worse off. It would, of course, be unjust if the exporters did not do so, but it i& only fair to say that the representative of the exporters at the meeting; to which I have referred said that they were making- good the subsidy to the growers. It is the considered opinion of the men' constituting the Australian Meat Council, who are in a position to know the facts, that the subsidy this year will not amount to more than £100,000. I hope that we are wrong in our estimate, and that the departmental estimate will be reached, because, if that should be so, it will be proved that we have many more good-conditioned cattle than we think we have at the present time. The increase in the number of cattle which, it is anticipated, will be exported as the result of the recent rain3 is very much exaggerated. Any one with experience will know that rain falling in June has very little effect in the fattening of cattle before the end of October. We have heard a good deal of talk about the desire of the Government to help the." beef barons " and.no one else. I point out that there is a difference between the subsidy being paid this year and that paid last year. Last year the Government insisted that, if the subsidy were r/iven, a reduction should be made in freight and killing charges. In many cases those deductions were shared by the employees. When the Prime Minister was answering a deputation I introduced to him in Sydney early in April last, he laid it down as a condition of the payment of the subsidy that the shipping companies must reduce freights by Jd. per lb., and the meat works must reduce their charges by £d. per lb. The reduction in each case will go to the grower. That really meant that the. grower was to get Jd. per lb. on exported beef. A very difficult proposition was placed before us. The trouble was that both the meat export companies and the shipping companies had reduced their rates- in the previous year, and they were asked now to make further reductions, although the Government proposed to give only the same amount of subsidy. Great exception was taken to that, and if it were not for the fact that growers and exporters are combined in the Australian Meat Council, and were able to meet the overseas shipping companies as representatives of that organization, 1 have no hesitation in saying that the reduction in freights would not have been granted. The next time the Prime Minister has a job of that kind to do, I hope he -will find some one else to undertake it for him. The position is that the shipping companies and meat works have- accepted the conditions laid down so. that the growers will get id. per lb. on all their meat exported this year. These two reductions of £d. per lb. are equal to the subsidy, and if £100,000 is paid by way of subsidy this year £50,000 will be saved to the growers in the reduction of freight alone. This represents a very considerable advantage. * By giving a bonus for canning, we enable the canners of meat to continue their operations. The price of meat at Brisbane for canning was 8s. per 100 lbs. ; for boned beef, first grade, 10s. ; second grade, 6s. ; and 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. for rejects and condemned. Since that time, unfortunately, the demand for boned beef and, canned beef has practically ceased, and if it were not for the Government subsidy nothing would be done in this direction. Some little time ago a question was raised concerning British Army and Navy contracts for Australian canned, meat. At that time I was in touch with two of the exporters in Sydney, and I said to one, " I believe that if you got the meat for nothing, you could just about compete successfully for those contracts?" He said, "We are getting the meat we are canning for nothing now." That was less than three months ago. They were only canning fore-quarter beef. They gave £d. per lb., and that was covered by the beef extract and fat, and the meat that was actually going into the tins cost them nothing. If they could be certain that that condition of affairs would continue 'for the rest, of the year, they could compete for the contracts, but no business men would enter into contracts over a period of time on the anticipation that they would continue to get the meat they canned for nothing. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- But is it not a fact that they got the contracts ? {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- Not to my knowledge. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- And when the rains came they dropped them. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- After the rains the price of cattle was bound to go up, and they could not expect that they would continue to get the meat they canned for nothing. Recently in New South Wales store cattle were regarded as a liability instead of an assets. Australia is not the only country placed in this position, as the Sou,th African Government have had to pay a subsidy of *id.* per lb. on meat exported from that country in order to meet the situation. To give an instance of how the drought is affecting the growers in Queensland, I may mention that there a company, the directors Ott which I am personally acquainted with, which in normal seasons has an output of 6,000 or 7,000 fat bullocks, but this year is handling only 150, with no . possibility of any increase. Reference has been made to the export from the Northern Territory. This is confined to live cattle, as Vestey Brothers' works are not in operation. The growers recognise the seriousness of the situation, and in an endeavour to find outlets for their produce have sent delegates abroad. These representatives of the industry are taking advantage of, shall I say, the extended animation given in consequence of the payment of this subsidy, in an endeavour to open up fresh markets, and if that cann'ot be done, they will have to consider .whether the number of cattle in the Commonwealth will not have to be reduced. If that were done, it would mean that all land suitable would have to be used for sheep. At present, under normal seasonal conditions, we are able to consume five-eighths of our meat, and the other three-eighths has to be placed in other markets. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 -- Lower shipping freights for chilled beef would enable meat to be exported to Great Britain as it is from the Argentine. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- No-; the conditions are entirely different. In the first instance, it takes less time, for vessels to cross from ,the Argentine to Great Britain than to cover the long distance from Australia, and they have not to pass through the extreme heat of the Red Sea. Chilled beef can only be car- >Tied with a variation of *i* degrees in temperature, and even if that can be maintained, it is very difficult for such a perishable cargo to be safely carried, as there is always the risk of defects arising in the machinery. It has -been unsuccessfully tried, and was regarded as such a dangerous experiment that before the shipping companies trading with. South America would consider changing the construction of their vessels - chilled meat cannot be caried in the space occupied by frozen meat - they asked that cargoes should be guaranteed for ten years. The South American growers 'are in a better position than those in Australia ; but, not- withstanding that, their position is unsatisfactory. They have increased their herds during the last few years to such an extent that they are now in a position to supply a reasonable European demand if they export only 4 per cent, of their cattle. If we cannot open up new markets, we cannot proceed indefinitely as wo are going. The number of cattle is hot being increased, as already large numbers of cows 'are being speyed, which will help to minimize the risks of overproduction. It is essential, however, to have a payable export market, and thus place the industry in a. sound financial position . {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- .Some of the Queensland coastal country is unsuitable for sheep. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- Yes ; but a great deal of it could be used for that purpose. If we were to reduce our cattle so that we would have no margin for export we _ would be in a very unsatisfactory position, and living, as it were, on the border line. On the other hand, if we i increase the number to too great an extent, and have a surplus for which there is no export market, cattle will not be worth anything. If our herds are decreased to too great an extent, the price of meat will be unduly high. {: .speaker-JLY} ##### Mr Anstey: -- We are giving $d. per lb. to the exporter, and the consumer pays 8d. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- The meat on which a bonus of ½d. per lb. is paid is bringing only a low price, and is not coming to the local market. It may pay the exporter, who -fixes the price at a rate which will give a margin of profit, but the growers cannot produce cattle at the price paid to them. I_have already emphasized the necessity of bringing in chilled meat, and in doing that the consignments should follow each other as quickly as possible. {: .speaker-KZA} ##### Mr West: -- We do not want chilled meat. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- The whole of the meat offered for sale in the best butchers' shops is chilled. There is, however, a difference between frozen and chilled meat, but the difference 'is not as great as some believe. The objection to chilled meat is based largely on prejudice. I do not think there is an ounce of meat consumed in this building which is not chilled. To enable a continual supply of chilled meat to be available we have asked the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Austin Chapman)** to remove the restrictions imposed under the Navigation Act which debar overseas shipping companiesfrom entering into the coastal trade, as far as beef is concerned. If' space is not available in the coastal boats permission can be obtained *y* but the difficulty is that space may be available in coastal craft a few days before, or a few days after, shipment is to be made. It is desirable that the restrictions concerning beef should be entirely removed. i {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- Would that not apply only to Brisbane? {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- A large . supply comes from Queensland, and it should be permissible to employ overseas vessels on the coast for this purpose. Coastal shipping could be used exclusively from that point northwards. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr Austin Chapman: -- That has been arranged. {: .speaker-KMS} ##### Mr MANNING: -- I have detained the House longer than I intended, but I trust that as a result of this discussion something will be done to bring about a cessation of the extreme prices ruling in Victoria, and a discontinuance of the' anomaly of importing cattle into Victoria from New Zealand to be sold at high prices, while the subsidy is being paid in other parts of Australia. When in Adelaide, Perth, Sydney, and Brisbane I found that the conditions there are similar. South Australia has been referred to, but that State can be excluded from the beef trade, as the cattle brought into Adelaide .must come in on the hoof. I am very glad that the Government have brought this matter forward, and I trust that the conditions next year will not warrant the grower approaching the Government for a renewal of the subsidy. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia -- I was very pleased to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he would not raise any objections to this measure, but that, on the other hand, fie would support it. The extensive electorate which I represent comprises nearly 74,000 square miles - almost as large as Victoria - and in that area there are thousands of cattlemen who ' to-day are in a very bad way. Many of them are struggling graziers who have been miners, shearers, or farm labourers, and who by their diligence have been able to invest their savings in the cattle business. Unfortunately these men, like many others, entered the industry during boom times, when they purchased their stock on a rising market, and to-day it is not worth one-fourth of what they paid. The Queensland Government also purchased a number of cattle stations when the price of cattle was high, and they now find that, owing to the drop in prices, they are faced with serious losses. Although I recognise that everybody in the industry is entitled to a fair return, I am speaking more particularly on behalf of the smaller men. In normal times "employment is found for thousands 'of workmen in the cattle industry. To-day on the cattle stations in Queensland - a similar position exists in other parts of Australia - where previously twenty or thirty men were employed, there are only now two or three. Many of the properties have not paid working expenses during the last three or four years. With regard to the smaller men,- they are in a very impecunious position. They have not got the .security the others hold, and consequently cannot get loans. In my travels through Central Queensland many of them have asked me to try to get the opossum season opened, so that they could catch opossums for a living. Others have asked me to use my influence to get them a job, so that they could earn something to keep their homes together. That is the position of many of the poorer men in the cattle industry, not only in Queensland, but also in other parts of Australia. Any measure that will provide a bounty to help the big meat works to re-open will play an important part in finding a market for Australian cattle. The bounty that was paid as a result of the Act passed last year went chiefly to Queensland, which received £100,444. £6,274 was paid to New South Wales, and £643 to Victoria. These figures show that Victoria exports very little beef, and that the bounty will not have the eff ect of .increasing the cost of meat to the consumers in that State. The export of beef from Victoria is infinitesimal, because local consumption absorbs practically all that is * produced. Of the total bounty of about £121,000, Western Australia received £9,741, and the Northern Territory £214. The bounty afforded relief amounting to 6s. per 100 lbs. For an average beast of approximately 600 lbs. the bounty is £1 16s. The Government subsidy amounts to only 2s. Id. per 100 lbs., or 12s. 6d. for an average bullock, the remainder being made up by $d. reduction in shipping freights, and Jd. decrease in treatment charges. At the conference held last ' year, the meat workers in Queensland agreed to a reduction of 12s. per week in their wages, with a view to having the meat works re-opened. Their work is arduous", and they deserved all they previously got. In my electorate alone there are two large meat works, which give employment to 500 men, who are responsible for supporting probably 1,500 people. Thus the meat works afford a direct livelihood to lr,500 people, and an indirect livelihood to many more. Of the thirteen meat works in Queensland, eleven of them started operations shortly after the passing of the Act. These -works employ approximately 4,000 workmen, who, in addition to a large number of small graziers and numerous workmen and others, get a livelihood as a result of the *operation* of *the* works. The 4,000 workmen probably keep relatives and dependants to the number of 12,000. Honorable members will see-, therefore, that the meat industry is of great importance to the northern State, where there are 7,000,000 cattle out of 14,000,000 in the whole of Australia. Some of the coastal lands in Queensland are not suitable for sheep raising. Consequently,, it is not possible to adopt the suggestion made by the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Manning),** that Queensland should raise sheep instead of cattle. That could be done in some- areas, but along the coastal1 lands sheep will not thrive, because of spear grass and other pests.. In many of the back-country areas sheepowners took to cattle-raising during the war because of the high. prices offering. I find that only 20 per cent, of the cattle killed in Australia are exported., and 80 per cent., are used for local consumption. Yet the producers are depen-dent for- a fair return for their cattle upon the export price. That is a wrong state of affairs. I have always- stood for an Australian Meat Pool', which would give a fair and reasonable return to the meat producer for his labour. Among the meat producers of Queensland there are men who are only a few years removed from the labour market, and are struggling to get a living. They have a right to a living rate of wage. I have never found any body of workers who have objected to giving a fair and reasonable return to the producer for his labour. The Labour party stands for equitable and just treatment for all sections of the community. It is opposed to sectionalism. It does not believe in the wealthy classes being permitted to exploit the poor, but approves 'of fair treatment for all. Consequently I can consistently support any measure that will give the meat producer a just reward for his labour. From February, 1915, until November, 1920, the whole of Australia's output of beef was taken by the Imperial authorities under a. contract. A flat rate of 4-Jd. per lb. was paid for it. While Australia sent the whole of her exportable beef to supply Imperial troops, the Argentine showed more shrewdness, and sent only second class beef for that purpose, reserving her first class beef for special customers in 'Great Britain. She retained those customers after the war, but Australia lost touch with many of her .former customers. The result was that when the war ended, and there 'was a huge surplus of meat on the British market, Australia could not sell her beef, hut the Argentine had special customers, and did not experience the same depression as was felt by Australia. One important circumstance in favour of the Argentine is that she can guarantee continuity of supply. Australia being a fortnight farther away from the world's markets 'has difficulty in this respect. Therefore we have to recognise that the Argentine is a very formidable competitor. One must admit, also, that the Argentine has improved its herds very considerably. During the last ten or fifteen years considerable sums of money have been spent in building up the herds by introducing stud stock at high prices and in improving transport facilities. Australia has not kept pace with the Argentine in that direction. The Argentine has gone in for breeding early maturing beasts. One merely has to see photographs of Argentine and Australian bullocks at three years of age to realize the* difference in the two types. The Argentine has also beaten us in the matter of railway transport. We have it on the opinion of A. W. Pearse, F.R.G.S. that cattle railed to meat works in Argen-tine are more carefully handled than cattle are in Australia. Cattle railed to market are loaded at one end of a train in Argentine. There is a Judas Iscariot - a trained beast - who walks through the train from one end -to the other, and the other animals follow him. In Australia each truck is loaded separately. In Argentine, ' when the train is full, a slide is let down, and each , truck is properly loaded. If the train does not arrive at its destination in thirty-six hours, and if the cattle are not properly watered, the railway authorities have to pay to the owners of the cattle the cost of feeding and watering. At intervals the cattle are drawn under a shower hath alongside the railway station and given a bath to cool them and keep them in good order. They are all dehorned when calves, and it is not possible for them to injure one another, as cattle do in Australia. After being handled at the meat works the carcasses are not put into a semirefrigerating car, such as is sometimes used in' Australia, and sent some distance to- the ship, but are loaded from the meat works into the vessels with a minimum of handling. The quarters, moreover, have a 'better covering than is provided in Australia. Cattle are driven considerable distances to railway stations in Australia, and sometimes, when trucks are not available for them, them may have to wait for two days without a drink of water. After the cattle are put into the trucks, days and days are occupied in getting them to the meat works, aud because they are not dehorned when calves they knock one another about, and their hindquarters are always bruised by the horns of other cattle 'and the jolting of the train. Argentine is a formidable competitor, due, in a large degree, to the foresight displayed by those interested in the meat industry there. It is possible in Australia to bring the industry up to date, and I believe events are tending in that direction. It will be necessary to have a self-supporting organization, which' could be financed very easily if - a. small impost were made by the owners themselves of so much per head on cattle, say, 11/2d. per head on 8,000,000 cattle, to return £50,000 per annum, and another on, say, 48,000,000 sheep at the rate of 1/4d. per head to return a similar amount. This would provide a fund of £100,000 with which to carry on propaganda work, similar to that so vigorously undertaken in the Argentine. The Argentine producers, realizing the abnormal profit made by retailers, have started 3,200 meat shops in Great Britain. Meat is shipped over with 'the greatest expedition, packed in the most acceptable form, and it is retailed to the public, who every day read propaganda matter in the press and on posters showing the wonderful advantages that follow the consumption of the Argentine production. Australia has largely neglected that side of the business, and, consequently, there are many people in England to-day who do- not know that Australian meat is sold in their shops. If Australia were given preference by Great Britain the difficulty would be partly solved, but such preference appears to be directly opposed , to the settled policy of the Old Country, at any rate, so far as . foodstuffs are concerned. Personally, I do not think that any appreciable preference will be given. {: .speaker-JX7} ##### Mr AUSTIN CHAPMAN:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · PROT; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917 -- Chapman. - It is worth trying for! {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I admit it would be a good, thing if we could get it. The British public, if they have any gratitude in them, could in this way show their appreciation of what 400,000 Australians did in the great war, many of whom are to-day engaged in the cattle industry here. I have no doubt that if the question could be put to the great mass of the people they would be prepared to give preference to Australian over foreign meat, but we know that in such matters the ruling powers in England have all the say. However, there is 'no harm in trying, though it does not do to depend on a preference that may never be realized. I have ref erred to the way in which, the Argentine producers improve their herds, and I submit thatAustralians should pay moreregard to that phase of the question!. There are many difficulties in the way of cattle-raisers in Australia doing so ;. and we remember that many of them expected that this Nationalist Government would fulfil a promise made per medium of the honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** as leader of that party during the election campaign. The right honorable gentleman, addressing a meeting at Maryborough on 9th November, 1922, in support of the candidature of the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser),** had this to say- >There is only one way of definitely improving our herds - by breeding from high-priced animals. The initial outlay is the cost of transport and quarantine. The Nationalist Government will introduce legislation designed to assist the producers by defraying the cost of transportation and quarantine of stud stock. A great many interested in the cattle industry expected that that promise would be honoured. The Brisbane *Courier* had a statement dealing with the matter over the following big black headlines : - {: .page-start } page 666 {:#debate-27} ### IMPROVEMENT OF STOCK Assisting Primary Producers. nationalist government's offer. {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Will Pay Transport and Quarantine Costs The ex-Prime Minister considered that promise to be good political propaganda. Mr.FORDE. - I stand by everything I said during the election campaign, though I am afraid that the . honorable gentleman is not able to stand by his Canberra speeches of a few years ago. That promise made by the ex-Prime Minister decided many cattle-owners to support the Nationalist candidates, believing they would be- materially assisted' in the way indicated, and thus be able to improve their herds. But what has happened ? Many organizations of cattleowners in Queensland wrote asking the present Prime Minister **(Mr. Bruce)** to, honour the promise made by his predecessor, and the- reply received was an expression of regret that' nothing could bedone in that direction. The cattleowners of Queensland wish to know whether there is any code of honour observed by the present composite Ministry. They also wish to know whether the alleged Country party's representatives, who agreed to form this Ministry, are prepared to conserve the interests of producers. If in private life a man. makes a definite promise to a friend to do something, the promise is honoured, and when the Leader of a great party gives a definite undertaking, his successor, leading the same brand of Government, ought to see that it is carried out. The cattleowners have a just grievance against the Prime Minister in this regard, and under the circumstances it is no wonder that the following was written by **Mr. William** Beak, Secretary of the Australian Polled Hereford Cattle Association, Rockhampton : - . . naturally the members of the association are under the impression that the promise made by the late Prime Minister that all the expenses connected with imported stud stock should be paid by the Federal Government should apply to them, and that it will be carried out. To the dismay of the members of that association, the promise has not been carried out, and that is why I asked the Prime Minister to-day whether it was his intention to reconsider the decision of his Cabinet. 1 The reply was that the matter would receive consideration, and I can only hope that the pledge will be met. The cattle-owners are much in the same position as the sugar-growers of Queensland, who were made definite promises only to see them broken - promises made by men who were only seeking by subter-1 fuge to gain a seat in Parliament. lt is generally thought that Australia plays an important part in influencing the British meat market, but one has only to study the figures showing the numbers of cattle in the various countries of the world to realize that, after all, this country produces only a small proportion. According to the Review of Messrs. Weddell and Company for 1922, the numbers of cattle in the various countries, so far as can be ascertained, is as follows: - {:#subdebate-27-1} #### Australia, 14,000,000; New Zealand, 3,323,223; Canada, 0,810,869;. South Africa, 1,800,000; Argentine, 26,000,000; Uruguay, 9,000,000; Brazil, 30,000,000; United States, 65,352,000; United Kingdom, 12,061,625 It appears that Argentine raises twice as many, Brazil more than twice as many, and the United States of America five times as many cattle as Australia, so that our position in the cattle world is not as big as *one* would imagine. If Australia does not place any cattle on the English market, that market is very little influenced. At the same time, we export 20 per cent, of the cattle we raise, and it is our duty to the cattle-raisers to get the best possible price for them. It is also our duty to improve our methods of production - an opinion held by many influential men in the industry. That is why, in Queensland, the Labour party recognised that it was necessary to organize men engaged in rural industries, and give them that assistance and moral support that would enable them to build up an organization to help to solve the many problems with which they are confronted - problems similar to those that have to be faced by the meat industry. The Government have been charged with inconsistency in their policy regarding bounties and subsidies, and I agree that the Government have been inconsistent in some directions; but two wrongs do not make a right. When I was a member of the State Parliament in Queensland, I, with other, Central Queensland members, made representations to **Sir Joseph** Cook, then Acting Prime Minister, and asked! him to give a subsidy of £1,000 per week to enable the Mount Morgan mine to be reopened, and thus provide employment for 1,400 men, and indirectly support altogether some 14,000 people. On account of this mine £2,000 per week was paid in freight alone to the Queensland Government, not to mention the income tax paid by those engaged in mining and subsidiary industries. . The reply of **Sir Joseph** Cook was that it would be economically unsound to pay any subsidy towards the' re-opening of the mine. Apparently the right honorable gentleman, had no regard for all those thousands of people dependent on the industry, many of whom at that time were reduced to living on rations. The Labour Government of Queensland, however, believed it was perfectly sound to give a subsidy of £1,000 per week to enable the mine to be re-opened, and the course they took created *prosperity* at ' Mount Morgan where previously adversity had prevailed. The present inconsistent Government do not know where it stands; one day they deprecate bounties and subsidies, and the next we find them proposing those forms of assistance. The Queensland Government's grant of £1,000 per week was really a rebate on railway freights, and, as I say, it brought prosperity to Mount Morgan. The Commonwealth refused to give assistance to provide employment for 1,400 men, which would have indirectly furnished a livelihood for 14,000 people. The importation of cattle from New Zealand has an important bearing on the Queensland cattle industry. It seems anomalous that an export bounty should be necessary to help that industry while boatloads of cattle are being imported from New Zealand to be killed and sold in the Melbourne market. Of one boatload of 720 cattle which left New Zealand 606 arrived in Melbourne in good order, and 114 died on the voyage. Those sold in Melbourne brought prices ranging from £20 to £45 10s. per head, and I understand that a further shipload of 700 head is due. These high prices were realized at a time when many small cattle-owners in my electorate cannot get 35s. per head for their beasts. Many of these men are almost suffering from melancholy, because they have put the whole of their capital into their holdings, and can get no return. One told me that he was so desperate that he felt like destroying himself. That feeling of depression exists amongst many small cattle men all over Queensland, and no doubt in many other parts of Australia also. Shearers and others have sunk their savings in the industry, they have overdrafts at the bank to the limit of their credit, and the banks are pressing them, and will not take over the properties because .they cannot realize on the stock. Yet cattle from New Zealand are realizing high prices in the Melbourne markets. It is not right that this should be happening while the Victorian Government are preventing the importa- tion of cattle from Queensland. If cattle from the northern State were admitted into Victoria, the latter would be assisting a sister State to realize on thousands of head of cattle which to-day are unsaleable. We are told that Queensland cattle are not admitted to Victoria because of the existence of the tick pest in the northern State. It is true that the tick pest is found in Queensland, but it is also prevalent in New Zealand. The statement that all ticks in Queensland are conveyers of the red water fever is riot correct. Comparatively few of the cattle in. Queensland are infected with that disease. In parts of Queensland the cattle have tick, and are dipped periodically, but they do not suffer from red water fever. The position of Queensland in that respect is similar to that of New Zealand, but cattle from the Dominion are admitted into .Victoria. I called upon the State Minister for Agri- culture in Victoria, and endeavoured to prevail upon him to lift the restrictions which prevent Queensland cattle from entering his State, provided that such cattle are dipped before leaving Queensland and are killed' within forty -eight hours of landing. He refused to do so, and said that * the admission of cattle from New Zealand was sanctioned by the Commonwealth, and not by the State Government. It would be in the interests of the cattle industry of Queensland if we could expand in the southern States the trade in chilled meat from Queensland, but I am told that there is not sufficient insulated tonnage on the coast. {: #subdebate-27-1-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Yes, and that confirms my belief that the Commonwealth Line of Steamers has an opportunity to render great service to the producers. If a Commonwealth' steamer were made available to bring chilled meat from Queensland to Melbourne at the lowest possible freight, it would be rendering a great service, not only to the cattle-producers of Queensland, but also to thousands of Consumers in Victoria, who would be able to get first class beef at a reason-' able price: I hope the Government will seriously consider this suggestion. I placed the proposal before the general manager of the Commonwealth Line of Steamers, end he mentioned the difficulties in the way. He said that there is a shortage of insulated tonnage ; that all the present available tonnage is engaged in the overseas trade; and that, in order to carry chilled meat from Queensland to Melbourne, it would be necessary to place a special boat in commission, which would involve certain expenditure in fitting the boat for the Inter-State trade. It is the duty of the Commonwealth Government to incur that expenditure in order to make a boat suitable for the chilled meat trade now, and in future years, and thus provide the people of Melbourne with meat at a reasonable price, and assure to the Queensland cattle-growers a better return for *heir labour. It has been stated that certain meat prices quoted by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Charlton)** were not correct. I received yesterday from' the State Trade Commissioner in Queensland a telegram, in which he quoted the prices of various cuts of beef. He mentioned that in Queensland rump steak is Sd. per lb.; Angliss and Company, of Melbourne, charge ls. 6d. per lb. ' Sirloin of beef is 6d. per lb. in Brisbane; Angliss and Company charge ls. .per lb. Silverside of cornbeef is 5d. ner lb. in Brisbane; Angliss and Company, Melbourne, charge lOd. per lb. All round the price of meat is twice as high in Melbourne as in Brisbane. It is the duty of the Government to try to bring foodstuffs to the consumers at the lowest possible price, and to eliminate the profiteer. It is obvious that too much profit is made by the middlemen! who handle the farmers' produce, and that has forced the producers to form pools and establish co-operative distributing agencies in order to bring the product directly to the consumer. When the Labour Government came into power in Queensland they found that many butchers were making abnormal profits, and that the consumers were being robbed. The Labour Government came to their assistance by establishing seventy-two State butcheries. The Prime Minister **(Mr( Bruce)** said .only --a week ago that all the State enterprises in Queensland had been dismal failures. As a matter of fact, the State butcher shops in Queensland have experienced six good years out of seven, and have made a total profit of £140,686. They were not established for the purpose of making great profits, but they certainly have yielded a fair return on the capital invested. The profits have been applied to the establishment of additional butcheries and to bringing existing butcheries uptodate. The producers lost nothing through the establishment of State butcheries - on the contrary, in many instances, they gained - whilst the consumers were "saved £3,000,000 by being able to get cheaper meat. Honorable members' will realize the salutary influence which the State butcheries have had on the rapacious private butchers, who had been ' charging the people the maximum, prices they were able to extort from them. The competition of the Stat© butcheries caused a reduction of prices by 4d. and 5d. per lb., and led to an increased consumption of meat. They continue to compete successfully with private firms. The- Queensland State Trade Commissioner told me in Melbourne last week that residents of a suburb of Brisbane had about six or eight months ago asked him to establish a local State butchery. The private butcher in the district, on being asked to sell his shop, demanded a price -much in excess of the value of the business. The Commissioner decided to start in opposition, and within six months the private butcher offered to sell out for less than half the price he had originally quoted. The State butcheries in Queensland are being conducted on business lines at a minimum cost and with the maximum of benefit to the consumers, as is proved by the fact of meat being half the price in Brisbane, that is charged in Melbourne. Honorable members will understand that I feel keenly about the _ importation of cattle from New Zealand "to Victoria and their sale at from! £20 to £45 per head at a time when thousands of people in Queensland are compelled to sell their stock from 35s. to £2 per head. On the 5th April, 1922, when the export bounty came into operation, the home consumption price of Australian beef in England was 3Jd. per lb. for hind-quarters and 2£d. per lb. for fore-quarters, c.i.f. and e., London. The unavoidable charges which had to be met were: - Shipping, 1 3/8d. per lb. ; works treatment and piao- ' ing f.o.b., 1 3/8d. per lb.; insurance, exchange, and commission, £d. per lb., or a total of 2£d. per lb. These charges had tol be met out of a London c.i.f. and e. price of *3d.* per lb., leaving fd. per lb. for the Australian cattle-owner, which is equivalent to 18s. 9d. on a 600-lb. beast for the beef exported from Australia. Honorable members will recognise that such a price is insufficient to pay the cost of production, and cattle-raisers cannot afford to continue to employ labour to carry on their industry. That is why -I' beseech the Government to do all they possibly can to induce the Victorian Government to lift the embargo at present existing against the introduction of Queensland cattle into this State. They should also see that there shall be no further introduction of cattle from New Zealand whilst we have in Australia millions of cattle whose owners are looking for a ready market, and wish to do business with their fellow Australians if they possibly can. A good deal of apprehension exists amongst cattle-owners in - my electorate concerning this subsidy. One, writing from Central, Queensland, enclosed the followingextract from a letter sent to him by Thomas Borthwick and Sons, of Brisbane : - >As regards the Commonwealth Government subsidy, we have to advise that so far nothing definite has been fixed, and we- are waiting some official notification from the Government. You will understand, of course, that in all per head purchases the custom has been for the purchasers to collect the subsidy. However, until matters are finally fixed we will not discuss this point. On receiving that, I waited upon the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Austin Chapman),** and urged that the cattle producers should receive the subsidy, and not Thomas Borthwick or other agents. The Minister wrote to me on the ' 9th June, last, in the following terms : - >In reply to your personal representations regarding the Commonwealth subsidy on beef and live cattle, I beg to inform you that it has been decided to pay the following subsidy: - > >On live cattle exported between 1st January, and 31st December, 1923 - 10s. per head. > >On frozen beef slaughtered between 1st March and 31st October, 1923, and exported on or before 31st December, 1923, except in regard to certain destinations in the East, when exportation to 31st March, 1924, will be permitted -1/4d. per, lb. > >On canned beef slaughtered between 1st March and 31st October, 1923, and exportedon or before 31st December, 1923 -1/4d. per lb. > >The bounty will . be calculated upon the weight of fresh beef from which the canned beef is produced, and the bounty will only he paid to the purchaser upon his producing a certificate from the cattle-owners indicating that the price received for 'the cattle included the bounty. I think it is very necessary that the Minister should see that the Act is carried out in its entirety, and that middlemen and auctioneers generally do not get the bounty, which should go to the producers. I am very pleased to be able to say that the Queensland Government have recognised that assistance should be given to struggling cattle-raisers throughout that State. The Premier made a promise that, in addition to the 10s. per head bounty offered by the Commonwealth Government, he would give a bounty of the same amount in order to encourage the export of live cattle. The Queensland Government recognise the extent to which the future prosperity of the State depends upon the cattle industry, and also gave a 20 per cent, reduction in railway, freights on cattle to market. Honorable members on this side believe that a . fair deal should be given to all sections of the community, and that all workers, whether on the land or in city factories, should receive a fair return for their labour. That is why I have never met any body of industrialists or unionists not prepared to concede fair and reasonable returns to the primary producers. The only people whom I have found unwilling to concede a fair measure of prosperity to the primary producers are the wealthy middlemen who are to be found behind the present Commonwealth composite Ministry, and support the secret National Union, a body that was so severely condemned some time ago by certain honorable members on the other side, who to-day are Silent concerning those people. Labourites and unionists throughout Australia believe in a fair deal for the man. on the land, whether he be cattle-raiser, wheatgrower, or cotton-grower. It is, therefore, not surprising to find those representing Labour in this Parliament prepared to give a reasonable return to the cattle-producers of Australia, so that they may be able to carry on an industry which has been of great service to this country. It- gives employment to 500 men in my own electorate, to 4,000 directly in the meat works in Queensland, and to many thousands in other parts of Australia. I hope that the Bill will have an easy passage through this House, and that when the period over which it is to operate expires the position of the cattle industry will have so improved that there will be a good market for its product, and the reintroduction of a measure such as this will not be necessary. I hope that those engaged in the industry will be able to secure a reasonable return without Government assistance of any kind. That is what they desire. They do not wish to lean on any Government. Travelling amongst them, one realizes that to-day many of them are practically bankrupt. Even those in a large way of business are not making working expenses. They have large overdrafts, and have had to put' off. hundreds of workers because of the serious depression in their industry. I would not advocate the payment of a bounty to 'men having hanking accounts of £50,000 or £100,000. The number of such men is very few. The majority of the cattle-raisers about whom ' I am concerned are men who have come off the labour market and are now struggling for existence. I am satisfied that the workers of Australia are prepared to assist them over the period of depression through which their industry is at present passing. {: #subdebate-27-1-s1 .speaker-K6S} ##### Mr CORSER:
Wide Bay .- It is not my intention to delay honorable members very long. Honorable members oni this side have been in touch with the Government, on' this subject, and the Minister for Trade and 'Customs **(Mr. Austin Chapman)** kindly promised that the subsidy would be continued. He never had any idea of paying the subsidy to any one hut the cattle-owners, and so no one can claim to have persuaded him to do something which he all along intended to do. For some time past, the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. J. Francis),** the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Manning),** and I have 'been taking up this question, .knowing its vast importance to Queensland during the present stress on the cattle industry. We waited upon the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, and put before him the Queensland point of view. We said that we did not believe there Would be any risk of the introduction of the tick through bringing cattle from Queensland into Victoria, provided they were dipped immediately (before shipment. We -pointed out how much better it would be for the people of Victoria if they could get their meat at -first hand from -Northern Queensland ports. It has been said that it is possible to get chilled meat from Brisbane to Melbourne, but the cheapest meat to be obtained in'- Queensland is that grown on the northern coast country of that State. It would cost an enormous sum, in proportion to the value of stock at the present time, to convey, by railway, stock from that country to Brisbane and have it treated there for export . to Victoria, and the stock would lose considerably in condition.. The appearance of meat from cattle that are trucked for hundreds of miles by train is never as good as that of the meat of cattle travelled to market on the hoof. In the Argentine, no cattle are trucked by train to the meat works. They are taken to the meat works on the hoof, and the Argentine meat, when shown in the.. Smithfield Market in London, compares more than . favorably with Australian meat. If, in the interests of Victorian consumers of meat, the Victorian Government could he persuaded to alter their regulations, and allow live cattle to be brought from Queensland to this State on the condition that they were dipped immediately before shipment, they would be conferring a benefit upon the people of this 'State. A further precaution might 'be taken against the introduction of the tick if, on their arrival here, the cattle were isolated and killed promptly. Cattle driven from tick-infested districts in Queensland are not prohibited from entering into South Australia, which State is a large consumer of Queensland cattle, and yet there is not tick pest in South Australia. Why should cattle brought in the same way to Victoria, and dipped before they leave their Queensland stations, be likely to introduce the tick into this State? The Government have been very good in altering the shipping regulations so as to permit of oversea vessels bringing meat from Queensland to -Victoria. Unfortunately, the oversea vessels call only at Brisbane, and dp not touch the other ports, where meat is available atthe cheapest rate. If the Government would arrange for vessels to visit the northern ports they would be able to pick up the best beef produced from cattle which had arrived at the works on hoof, and this would enable either frozen or chilled beef to be made available in a more satisfactory condition than meat brought from Brisbane. If the regulations were amended so that Victoria would not suffer, the consumers in this State would be supplied with meat at about half the price at present being charged. On several occasions honorable members opposite have referred to the " beef barons" of Queensland, but although I have been in that State since boyhood I have seen very few who have amassed great wealth from pastoral property in late years. To prove this assertion, I need only mention that the Queensland Government acquired station properties, on exceptionally good terms, and, al though they possess the land, and do not have to pay taxes or interest,their losses- have amounted to considerably over £1,000,000. In addition to the other advantages which they enjoy, they control a number of butcher shops, from which meat is distributed. I wish to again impress on the Government the' necessity of providing vessels other than those in the Inter-State trade to carry frozen meat from the northern . ports of Queensland if we cannot get the prohibition lifted by the Victorian Government concerning live stock coming into this State. {: #subdebate-27-1-s2 .speaker-KEQ} ##### Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP .- I agree with what has been . said by the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Manning)** and with a good deal of what has been said by other honorable members in connexion with this important question. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Charlton)** referred to the great discrepancy between the price which the producer gets and that which the consumer has to pay. His remarks would apply with equal force to such commodities as milk, butter, and fruit, because,although it is generally assumed that the middleman makes excessive profits, the main reason for the discrepancy in price is the lack of organization in distribution. Those who live in the cities and suburbs will have noticed four or five tradesmen's carts in the same street delivering their wares, where one would be sufficient to meet the requirements of those in the locality. This is a matter which . the Federal Parliament cannot remedy to any great extent, but I drew the attention of the Minister of Agriculture in New South Wales to the matter, , and said it was the duty oftheState Government to act. If a movement were made in this direction the producer would secure a better price for his commodity, and the consumer would also be able to obtain it at a more reasonable rate. I do not agree with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Charlton)** that the subsidy will be a benefit only to the wealthy cattle-owners in Australia. The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** has pointed out that such men are few in number, as the bulk of the cattle-owners are struggling men. The payment of this sub sidy will mean the difference between failureand success to many graziers in Queensland and in other parts of the Commonwealth. It is not necessary for me to repeat the statements made by the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Manning)** regarding the cost of production, distribution, and shipping, because we know thatthe cattle-owners have, not for some time been receiving anything like what it has cost them to produce, meat. Unless the Government come to the rescue of the industry, many . will be ruined, and the consumer will eventually have to pay, because a reduction in our herds means higher prices for meat. The Leader of the Opposition and the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Forde)** referred to the difference in the cost of meat in Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, but I do not think their figures in relation to Sydney were accurate, as the difference between the price of meat in Sydney and Brisbane is very slight. The honorable member for Capricornia endeavoured to show that cheap meat was available in Brisbane owing to the Queensland Government establishing meat shops in Brisbane, which he said have been supplying the people with cheaper meat than other parts of Australia. What are the facts ? Queensland can produce meat more cheaply than New South Wales or Victoria, because there are large tracts of country which are available at comparatively reasonable rates. The honorable member did not mention that in order to make meat available at a lower rate the Government commandeered a number of cattle from the owners. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That is not so. {: #subdebate-27-1-s3 .speaker-KEQ} ##### Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES -- The Government sold the commandeeredmeat in their shops and shipped a quantity of their own at a higher price and at the same time incurred, a loss. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That went into the meat works. {: .speaker-KEQ} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- The action of the Government was most iniquitous. The regulations which prevent Queensland meat from coming into the southern 'States should be amended', and an effort made to suspend the regulations under the Navigation Act so that oversea vessels could pick up meat at Brisbane. Meat would also be available in Sydney or Melbourne at lower prices if cattle could be brought into those States and dipped and slaughtered twenty-four hours after arrival, thus preventing any danger from tick. The honorable member for Capricornia spoke in a disparaging manner concerning the members of the Country party, and said that we did not intend to help the Queensland producers in securing a subsidy on export beef. When a vote is taken I think he will find that we are all prepared to render assistance. The Meat Council, of which I am a member, has already been successful in having the freights reduced by -Jd. per lb., and the works have agreed to make a similar reduction in their charges. An honorable member opposite, said that a subsidy should not be paid because it was giving assistance to one section of the community while similar assistance was denied others. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-KEQ} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- The statement -nas made by an honorable member opposite. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I was referring to the inconsistency of the Government. {: .speaker-KEQ} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- I thought the honorable member was referring to the advance of £8,000 to the Meat Council, and I interjected at the time that this money is only on loan and will be repaid. The object of granting the loan was to get the Meat Council in operation, and the industry established on' a firm foundation. If the whole of the money were given to the Meat Council, it would be an excellent investment, seeing that the council already has the concession and has done much to establish the industry. I hope the Bill will be passed, for I feel sure it will do much to stabilize the industry and save it from destruction. {: #subdebate-27-1-s4 .speaker-KF9} ##### Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 .- I am pleased .to note the Government's attitude on this question. I welcome the Bill because it will clear the way for assisting other industries in accordance with the platform of the party to which I belong. It may possibly be the beginning of a change of heart by a Government composed of different sections of the community. The Government may be showing sweet reasonableness at last. A doubt must arise in the minds of some honorable members as to whether the bounty would be given so freely by the Government if big interests were not behind the industry. With that I have no fault to find. If any industry is in a parlous condition - and I frankly admit that the meat industry in Australia is in that condition to-day - it is the duty of the Government to go to its assistance. Such action being in accordance with the principles for which my party stands, I can adopt no other attitude, as a Labour man, than to support the Bill. While the position of cattle-growers in Western Australia is not as bad as it is in* Queensland, if it were not that the Western Australian Government of which I had the honour to be a follower had established meat works in the Kimberley district of my electorate, growers would be selling very little to-day. The action of the State Government saved those men from want. I was recently at Wyndham, which is 2,000 miles north of Fremantle, and is nearer, in fact, to Java and Singapore than to Fremantle.. The meat works under the Government supervision were working continuously throughout the season. They employ 200 men, and treat 1,500 cattle a day. The wages disbursed for the season, amount to £60,000. Wyndham is 13 degrees south of ' the equator, and I found fifty Australian women there, with the bloom of Australian womanhood upon them. By establishing meat works under Government ownership at Kimberley the State Government, has done something which private enterprise would not have had the courage to do. By this means it has assisted to promote the White Australia policy in the northern part of Western Australia. In the Northern Territory, 25X) miles from Wyndham, there is a meat works run by the big combination - of Vestey Brothers. These works to-day are not turning a wheel, although' at the Western Australian Government works the hum of industry can be heard. The State steamer *Kangaroo,* as far as I have been able to learn, is the only' steamer that calls regularly at Wyndham to ship cattle. Black-labour boats belonging to private companies carry cattle to Singapore, but because the distance between Derby and Wyndham is over 500 miles, and there is a 32-ft. tide at Wyndham, which makes it difficult for a boat to get into the harbor, they do not call regularly at that port. The State boat, on a recent trip, took 300 cattle .on the hoof to Java', and several hundred tons of frozen beef, as well as a large number of sheep to Singapore. The Western Australian Government has guaranteed to send sheep to ' the Straits Settlements Government throughout the sheep season. As' a result of that . guarantee the price of mutton has been reduced to the people of Singapore by 5d. a lb. That has happened because a Government in Western Australia, which is anti-Socialistic, has adopted a Socialistic enterprise. Of the 300 odd cattle which were taken across the line to Singapore, which is 1 degree 17minutes north of the equator, not one was lost. In a voyage from Wyndham to Fremantle, a distance of 2,000 miles, fourteen cattle were lost out of 606. That, however, is a very small loss when we consider the long journey and the rough weather that has been experienced on the Australian coast during the last four weeks. Although cattle can be shipped from Kimberley to Fremantle without such restrictions as are imposed in Victoria as against Queensland cattle, high prices are maintained in Perth. Various reasons are given for this. It cannot be alleged that there is any shortage in Kimberley, yet in Fremantle to-day the price of beef is unduly high. Some people, members of my own party, for instance, allege that Cattle Rings ' are operating in Australia. If that is so, there is certainly an arrangement among the . wholesale men of Fremantle to stint the market there, and in Perth and other metropolitan areas. I fail to see how the people can be saved from the effects of such operations unless the Government has the courage to undertake the , retail distribution of meat, as is done with such beneficial effects in Queensland. The market in Manila is also being exploited successfully from Kimberley. People in Manila are prepared to take an inferior class of cattle, and second grade stock isbeing supplied, at considerable profit to the growers, to that market. Notwithstanding the advantages enjoyed by the cattle industry in the Kimberley district, the men who are raising stock inform me, and I believe them, that their position is by no means good. The squatter in Western Australia wants Government-owned boats, just as the beef barons in the eastern States ask for a Socialistic bounty on their cattle. I ask leave to continue my remarks to-morrow. Leave granted ; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 674 {:#debate-28} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Case of Rev. J. B. Ronald Motion (by **Mr. Groom)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 .- I regret that there is need to bring before this House the saddest case of injustice over experienced in the history of the world. I am alluding to the action of the . late **Mr. Robert** Harper in unjustly and falsely accusing the Reverend **Mr. Ronald** of a debt of £36 to the Parliamentary refreshment room for drinks supplied to him. It . is my intention to read to this House a true statement of the facts. The following is a letter from the President, to Reverend **Mr. Ronald,** showing the discharge of his indebtedness many years ago:- >Melbourne, 3rd July, 1923. Reverend J. B. Ronald, 6 Ruskin-strect, St. Kilda, Victoria. > >Dear **Sir. -** I have to' acknowledge receipt of your communication relating to an account covering certain meals, refreshments, &c, supplied to you while you were a member of the House of Representativs, and, in reply, am forwarding the following particulars: - > >Period covered by account - August, 1903, to August, 1905. > >Nature of supplies included in account - The total amount covers a period from August, 1903, to August, 1905. This case can, perhaps, be compared' with that of Jean Galas, championed1 by Voltaire, who was accused of the murder of his son and was hung. Three years afterwards he was proved to be an innocent man. I do not know how many years the Reverend **Mr. Ronald** will have to wait until justice is done. Three J ustices of the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria stated definitely that the law should be amended in order to give this gentleman an opportunity to obtain justice. Of the ten witnesses who gave evidence against him, nine suffered punishment in prison for perjury. Another person outside was sentenced to five years and six months for conspiracy. That man was Paddy Hill, and lie did not darc to enter the Court. The remaining witness was so severely censured by the late Judge Hodges that he must have felt, a mighty mean man. Couched in the judicial and cool language in which the legal fraternity delight, the records speak of **Mr. Fuller** to his very great detriment. In regard to Davies and Campbell, the former is dead, and also the manager of that firm, Clark Desmond. Ballinger, the foreman of the jury, was accused of dining with **Mr. Harper** while the case was proceeding. Judge Hodges is gone, and also **Mr. Justice** Barton, **Mr.** Justice Griffith, and **Mr. Justice** O'Connor. These men heard the appeal, but stated that the inconsistency of the law did not allow this unfortunate clergyman to appeal. **Sir John** Madden, **Sir Leo** Cussen, and **Sir Thomas** a'Beckett all stated that the law should be amended. I introduced a deputation to **Mr. John** Murray, the then Premier of Victoria, who stated that tlie law would be amended, but time passed and illhealth overtook him, - and to his regret and to every honest man's regret, he was unable to carry out his promise. The Judges were favorable to tho immediate amendment of the law. As the result of a dream of mine, as I joyously informed tho Parliament of that day, **Mr. Harper** promised to settle £1,Q00 on the Reverend **Mr. Ronald.** I did not wish the world to know that I had quarrelled with my sister, tout **Mr. Harper** unjustly allowed the facts to be published in the columns of the press without my permission. In his letter to me he instructed me to send the Reverend **Mr. Ronald** to his solicitors, and I did so. The solicitors informed him that nothing could he done, but through the kind offices of **Mrs. Harper** - a good woman - tho daughter of a good father, an allowance was made to **Mrs. Ronald** of the interest on £1,000 during her life. But **Mrs. Harper** has a frail life, she being seventy years of age. Tho late **Mr. Harper** lied about the Reverend **Mr. Ronald,** and is now facing his Maker. **Mr. Ronald** is the father of four sons who enlisted for war service. One paid the supreme penalty, and an other was the youngest officer of his rank . in the Australian ]Forces. A gentleman, who will not permit me to mention his name, publicly approached **Mr. Ronald** and said, "Are you **Mr. Ronald?"** and the reply was "Yes." He said, "Why do you not carry this matter to "England?" **Mr. Ronald** stated that he had been trying to do so, but that **Dr. Maloney** was acting as treasurer and could not collect sufficient money. That gentleman, the next day, paid **Mr. Ronald's** passage to England, and placed a sum Of money to his credit for expenses f.o enable him to journey to the Motherland to plead for justice. **Mr. Ronald** ultimately returned with a message from His Majesty the King of England and the Emperor of India to this effect - " That restitution he made to the Reverend J. B. Ronald, dated the. 26th March, 1920, and to be submitted to the Governor-General and **Ms Ministers."** A request was made to the Prime Minister to receive a deputation, but I am sorry to say that he did not see his way clear to do so, because,' as he stated, it was a matter' concerning the 'State. The State Premier took up the absurd position that it was a matter ' appertaining to the Commonwealth. I ask, in God's name, why should justice be bandied about between the State and Federal authorities? Is there not enough common sense among honorable members for them to realize that the law is manifestly unjust, especially since three Judges of the State have insisted that it should be altered? This man's life is wrecked. I remember that the late **Mr. John** Murray, once Premier of Victoria, after the deputation to' which I have referred, said to me, " In God's name, **Dr. Maloney,** can you tell me how Fuller escaped ? " I replied that I could not, but that Fuller was a Federal member, a lawyer, and a wealthy man. A little restitution has been made to Mr.'. Ronald's wife, hut she had to work hard to keep the roof over the family during all those long and weary years. Perhaps honorable members may blame me, but at the great meeting in the South Melbourne Town. Hall I . declared that, if any man had done to me what had been done to **Mr. Ronald'** and I could not obtain justice, I would have killed him; and my conscience does not blame me for having said that. No one knows better than myself how the time of members of Parliament is taken up with a thousand and one things; but surely, before we separate, this Parliament can do something to- see that justice is done. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.7 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 July 1923, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1923/19230704_reps_9_103/>.