House of Representatives
30 April 1930
12th Parliament · 1st Session
- MEMBER SWORN
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- CUSTOMS TARIFF
- CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
- AEROPLANE CRASHES
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- ASSENT TO BILLS
- GERMAN NATIONALS : PROPERTY RIGHTS
- PAPERS
- WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL
- COTTON INDUSTRIES BOUNTY BILL
- ADJOURNMENT
Mr.Speaker (Hon. NormanMakin) took the chair at3 p.m., and offered prayers.
page 1237
MEMBER SWORN
Mr. KILLEN, as member for Riverina, made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.
page 1237
QUESTION
NAVAL CONFERENCE
Mr LATHAM:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA
– When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to make a statement regarding the result of the recently concluded Naval Conference in London?
Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP
– I have received only brief communications stating the main principles that have been accepted, and I think it would he more satisfactory to honorable members to await a detailed statement until the return to Australia of the Minister for Trade and Customs, who represented the Government at that gathering.
page 1237
QUESTION
WOOL SALES AND AUSTRALIAN CREDIT
Mr WEST:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– The newspapers report that the strongest competition of the season was experienced at the woolsales in Melbourne and Sydney yesterday. In Melbourne 4,000 bales were offered, the majority of which were sold at an advance of 7½ per cent. on previous prices. At the Sydneysales an advance of 10 per cent. was maintained. Will the Prime Minister and the members of the Government cause this information to he widely circulated in order toremove pessimism from the minds of the Australian people, and educate them to a recognition of the fact that Australian credit can safely be utilised for the purposes of the nation ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– The satisfactory prices realized at the wool sales is good news for the Australian people. No doubt it has already received wide publicity; if it requires more, the question of the honorable member will no doubt supply it.
page 1238
CUSTOMS TARIFF
Increaseofprices
Mr HILL:
ECHUCA, VICTORIA
– I draw the attention of the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs to the following letter I have received from the Secretary of the Pyramid Co-operative Society Limited, Pyramid Hill, Victoria -
Seeing now that there is so much controversy over the tariff, I would like tocall your attention to what is taking place as far as the primary producers of the north are con’ corned.
Since the tariff went through Lysaght’s have increased the price of galvanized iron 30s. per ton, and I am enclosing a letter received from Messrs. Edward Duckett & Sons this morning raising cartridges1s. per hundred. This, we think, is ridiculous, and it is only one of the many ways the country is going to be fleeced unless some drastic action is taken by the primary producers throughout Australia.
PS. - The cartridges referred to are colonial and loaded by Nobel Cartridge Company, Deer Park, Victoria.
If the facts are as stated, what action does the Minister propose to take against firms that are exploiting the tariff?
Mr FORDE:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP
– The letter quoted by the honorable member does not state whether the prices were increased by the manufacturers or by the retailers. Freetrade propagandists are trying to blame the manufacturers for increases made by retailers on the pretence that they are due to the higher tariff, although, in some instances which have been brought to my notice, the duties on the articles affected have not been raised. If the honorable member will bring to my attention definite instances of exploitation of the consumers by the manufacturers, the Government will give them serious consideration.
Mr GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA
– I wish to know from the Prime Minister if, when he gave the House the assurance that the Government would take drastic action in the event of increased prices being charged as the result of recent tariff changes, he had in. view the prices ultimately paid by the consumer ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– I have made it clear, not only in reply to questions, but also in speeches that I have delivered on the subject, that the’ only power at present possessed by this Government to prevent exploitation is the power to deal with manufacturers who abuse the privileges given to them under our policy of protection by removing the duties which benefit them; but I have also indicated that I hope that we may be given greater constitutional powers which will enable us to carry out investigations, and to take action to prevent consumers from being exploited, not only by the manufacturers, but also by the distributors.
page 1238
CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Medical Services
Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY
– I quote the following telegram from the Age of the 29th April -
page 1238
AEROPLANE CRASHES
Doctor Flying to Alice Springs
ADELAIDE, Monday. - Receiving an urgent message that Mrs. A. Kilgariff, of Alice Springs, was in a critical condition, the result of blood poisoning, Dr. Jungfer left Parafield aerodrome on Sunday morning in a plane piloted by Captain Jukes. Near Orroroo, when in a thick fog, the machine crashed into the side of a bill. The occupants escaped with minor injuries, but the plane was wrecked.
Another plane was obtained, and as the result of a wireless appeal, Dr. W. J. R. Mabin, of Hawker, and Captain Jacques left Hawker at daylight this morning with a supply ofserum. They are flying via Mark, Oodnadatta and William Creek.
The plane arrived at Alice Springs at5 p.m. The doctor visited the patient immediately, and is understood to be operating tonight.
As the medical officer resident in Central Australia is in the southern capitals on leave, what provision has the Minister for Home Affairs made to ensure medical attention for the people of that remote province?
Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Ministers, and, I am sure, all honorable members, regret the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the recent crash of a plane which was conveying a doctor to Alice Springs. Prior to December last no doctor was stationed at thatcentre. Dr. Kirkland was appointed, and took up the position in December last At that time three months leave of absence was due to him. After spending a few months in organising the medical services in Central Australia, three months’ leave of absence was granted to him. In future, when the resident doctor is absent from Central Australia a locum tenens will he appointed.
page 1239
QUESTION
DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY
Stabilization PROPOSALS
Mr STEWART:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA
– Has the Government yet come to a decision regarding the proposals for the stabilization of the dried fruits industry which were submitted to it last December by the Australian Dried Fruits Association?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– Those proposals were referred to Mr. Gunn for investigation, and I am expecting his report at any time.
page 1239
QUESTION
ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY
Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT
– Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to make a statement to the House regarding the proposed Anglo-Egyptian Treaty?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– The negotiations in connexion with the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty were adjourned over Easter. Difficulties were experienced at one period, and it looked as if rather serious obstacles would have to be faced. The British Government has been in constant communication with this Government, and we have made very clear our views about the safeguarding of Australian interests. I am glad to say that the British Government was in entire agreement with us in this matter. I gather from the latest reports that a satisfactory agreement is likely to be reached, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement on the subject shortly.
page 1239
QUESTION
RESEARCH SHIP DISCOVERY
Mr D CAMERON:
BRISBANE. QLD · NAT
– Can the Prime Minister make a statement to the House regarding the work of the research ship Discovery during its recent voyage to the Antarctic ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– I am not to-day in a position, to make a statement, but’ I expect in the course of a day or two to be able to place the report before honorable members.
page 1239
QUESTION
IRON AND STEEL SUPPLIES
Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– Prior to the Easter adjournment I read in this House a telegram to the effect that a Perth trader had alleged that the manufacturers of iron and steel were refusing to supply him with material because he was outside the combine? The Prime Minister assured me that inquiries would be made into the case. I should like to know whether they have been completed?
Mr FORDE:
ALP
– The matter has been submitted to the Collector of Customs in Western Australia, with instructions to make an immediate investigation, and to report to the head office. When that report comes to hand, the desired information will be furnished to the honorable member.
page 1239
QUESTION
NORTHERN COAL-FIELDS
Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Is the Prime Minister prepared to state what further steps, if any, are being taken to settle the coal trouble on the Northern coal-fields ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– I presume that the honorable member refers to steps taken by this Government?
Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
– Yes.
Mr SCULLIN:
– No further steps have been taken by this Government since the last question on the subject was asked in this House.
page 1239
QUESTION
EXPORT OF MEAT
Mr STEWART:
– Has the Prime Minister’s attention been called to the report in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald of a debate in the Victorian Legislative Council on a motion of adjournment by Mi”. Edgar to discuss the refusal of the London County Council to purchase Australian meat. The report reads -
Mr. Angliss said that the position was really more serious than Mr. Edgar had stated. He knew that if the London County Council had its way, Australian meat would not be purchased for consumption in any of the workhouses, hospitals, and similar institutions under its control. Australian meat would bo practically excluded. . . Mr. Richardson declared that in the action of the London County Council he saw the hand of retaliation upon Australia for the heavy increases in the Australian customs tariff.
Has the Prime Minister any knowledge of such action on the part of the London County Council as was referred to ; if not, will he make inquiries into the matter ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– The matter has already been taken up by the Department of Markets, and a cable was despatched yesterday asking that full inquiries be made.
page 1240
QUESTION
APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORGENERAL
Mr GULLETT:
– I wish to know whether, in his policy speech on the eve of the last general election, the Prime Minister made any reference to a recommendation to His Majesty respecting the appointment of an Australian as Governor-General ?
Mr SCULLIN:
ALP
– I made no reference in my policy speech to any matter relating to the appointment of the GovernorGeneral. It would have been most improper to bring that appointment into public controversy, particularly into the controversy raised by a general election.
Mr LATHAM:
– The Prime Minister has expressed the view that it is undesirable to discuss the principles upon which a Governor-General for Australia should be appointed. Is the right honorable gentleman prepared to apply that rule to the member’s of his own party, including the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) ?
Mr SCULLIN:
– The rule applies to every honorable member, including the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr GULLETT:
– Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that a government is justified in bringing about a change in the traditional procedure of appointing a GovernorGeneral without reference of the matter to the people of Australia?
Mr SCULLIN:
– Two points are raised by that question. In reply to the first part of the question : No change has been made in the traditional procedure connected with the appointment of a GovernorGeneral. The Government has acted upon correct lines, those which have always been followed, and no amount of political propaganda will induce it to depart from them. The answer to the second part of the question is that this Government has not appointed a Governor-General.
page 1240
QUESTION
UNEMPLOYMENT AT DAR WIN
Mr WHITE:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA
– The following is an extract from a paragraph appearing in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald under the heading of Unemployed Locked officials in office; demonstration at Darwin.” : -
About100 unemployed besieged the Government Resident’s office to-day, and demanded work or full sustenance.It was statedthat a number of men were receiving £1per week as the Government dole, which was deemed insufficient.
The men surged into the Government Resident’s office, banged the doors, and locked them on the inside, with the declared object of holding prisoner those in the office, including the Government Resident, the Chief Health Officer, the Crown Law Officer, and two members of the Commission.
The Government Resident statedthatno money was available, but the men decline that they will camp on the verandah till their demands are met.
In view of that incident, what action does the Government propose to take, first, to protect the representatives of the Government, and, secondly, to deal with unemployment at Darwin ?
Mr BLAKELEY:
– Yesterday an unfortunate incident did take place at Port Darwin. A number of officials were locked in a government office for a short period ; but when the police inspector arrived on the scene the doors were opened, and the officials were set free. A number of unemployed made a demonstration, and, when we received our last information on the subject, some were still doing so by remaining on the office verandah. The position, however, is well in hand, and we do not anticipate further trouble. The Government is doing everything within its power to make employment available at Port Darwin, and negotiations to that end are now proceeding.
page 1240
QUESTION
MARKETING OF WHEAT
Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– Has the attention of the Government been called to the speeches made by members of the British Government indicating the possibility of a wheat marketing board being set up in England, and regulations being made compelling English millers to use in their flour a certain percentage of English and Scottish grown wheat? Is it the intention of the Australian Markets Department to make representations to the British Government asking that a certain proportion of Empire-grown wheat may also be gristed ?
Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– This matter was brought under my notice nearly a week ago, and the authorities overseas were communicated with immediately. We are awaiting their reply.
page 1241
QUESTION
AIR MAIL SERVICES
Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936
asked the Postmaster-
General, upon notice -
- Is it intended to have air mail services from Sydney to Melbourne and from Melbourne to Hobart?
- If so, what is the approximate date of commencement?
Mr LYONS:
Minister for Works and Railways · WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
- Provision has already been made in an agreement with Australian National Airways, Limited, for the carriage of air mails between Melbourne and Sydney in the event of that company’s contemplated service between those cities being established. Should a stabilized aerial service be inaugurated between Melbourne and Hobart, consideration will be given to the question of its utilization for the conveyance of mails.
- So far as is known neither of the companies concernedhas yet definitely determined the date of commencement of the services mentioned.
page 1241
QUESTION
DEFEN CE ADMINISTRA TION
Mr CROUCH:
through Mr. C. Riley
asked the Minister for Defence. upon notice -
- What are the separate costs of (a) the Naval Board; (b) the Military Board; and (c) the Air Board?
- What expense would be saved by combining these three boards?
- Has each board a separate (a) secretary and staff, and (ft) accountant and staff, and. if so, how many do these constitute, and what is the expense of each respectively?
- What are the contingencies costs of each board?
- Is it practicable to combine these three boards, in the interests of economy and efficiency ?
Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936
– I regret the information is not yet available, but 7 hope to be able to furnish the honorable member with a reply to-morrow.
page 1241
QUESTION
FEDERAL CAPITAL
Leases at Manuka Shopping Centre: - Roadconstrcution Costs - Griffin Plan - Cost.
Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936
asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice -
- In view of the statement made recently to the Public Accounts Committee by the secretary of the Federal Capital Commission that the deplorable condition of the Manuka shopping centre was due to holders of leases there being backward in developing their leases, will the Minister supply a list of names of any leaseholders within a radius of threequarters of a mile of Manuka centre who have failed to fulfil their lease conditions and who have either surrendered or forfeited their holdings?
- What is the extent of the leases on which no development has taken place and what were the causes of this slow progress?
Mr BLAKELEY:
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
- In answer to a question by the Public Works Committee as to why the Commission had provided services at Kingston earlier than it had done at Manuka, the secretary to the Federal Capital Commission stated that this was due to the fact that the former area had developed more quickly than Manuka because lessees there had built upon their leases more rapidly than had been the case at Manuka., thus making ready for the Commission to do its part in providing the auxiliary services. As soon as the progress at Manuka was sufficiently advanced the Commission provided the same services in that subdivision also. The following is a list of leases, with names of leaseholders within a radius of threequarters of a mile of the centre of Manuka, who failedto fulfil their lease conditions and who either surrendered or forfeited their holdings : -
Section 20, Block 9 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section26, Block 14- T. J. Coy.
Section28, Block 11 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 1.9, Block 12 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 19, Block 13 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 19, Block 14 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 19, Block 15 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 24, Block 4- H. Willis.
Section 24, Block 9 - The Canberra Building and Investment Company Limited.
Section 24, Block 10- T. M. Woods.
Griffith .
Section 4, Block 2 - J. L. Sweetnam.
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the cost per square yard of the various kinds of roads that are being constructed at Canberra? 1. What is the approximate life of each of such kinds of roads? 2. What are the names of the roads the materials of which are wholly Australian? {: #subdebate-17-0-s3 .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. The cost per square yard of the various kinds of road being constructed at Canberra, and the approximate life of each kind, arc shown in the following table: -
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Whether **Mr. J.** S. Murdoch, Federal Capital Commissioner, is identical with the official who was mainly responsible for the " built up " plan of Canberra, prepared by the departmental board? 1. Was this " built up " plan severely condemned by the architects and engineers of Australia in a petition to **Sir Joseph** Cook, then Prime Minister? 2. Is it a fact that **Mr. Blackett,** K.C., in 1916, acting as a royal commissioner, inquired into the conduct of **Mr. Murdoch** and the departmental board towards **Mr. W.** B. Griffin, the designer of Canberra, and found that the reasons why **Mr. Griffin** performed no substantial part of his duties under his contract were - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. That necessary information and assistance were withheld from him, and his powers usurped by certain officers, including **Mr. J.** S. Murdoch. 1. That he **(Mr. Griffin)** and his office were ignored, his rights and duties under his contract denied, and inaccurate charges of default made against him. 2. That the Minister and members of the departmental board, of which **Mr. Murdoch** was one, endeavoured to set aside **Mr. Griffin's** design and substitute their " built up " plan ? {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- The replies to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. **Mr. J.** S. Murdoch, Federal Capital Commissioner, was a member of the board appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. K. O'Malley, on the 27th June, 1912, to investigate and report as to the suitability of the designs selected and purchased as a result of the international competition. The board was constituted as follows: - Colonel D. Miller, Secretary for Home Affairs, chairman; Colonel P. T. Owen, Director-General of Works; C.R. Scrivener, Esq., Director of Commonwealth Lands and Surveys; G. J. Oakeshott, Esq., Commonwealth Works Director for New South Wales; J. S. Murdoch, Esq., Senior Assistant, Public Works Branch; T. Hill, Esq., Commonwealth Works Director for Victoria. It is not correct to suggest that **Mr. Murdoch** was mainly responsible for the city design prepared by the board, as he acted thereon under ministerial direction and in collaboration with the officers mentioned. The design was prepared in view of lack of unanimity in the opinions of the judges in the competition regarding the prize design and the criticisms that it insufficiently regarded the natural features of the site and would involve very great expenditure in its execution. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Opinions amongst professional men differed considerably regarding the board's plan. An organized petition was submitted at the instigation of a certain periodical, requesting that the Griffin plan be adopted. On the other hand, the president of the New South Wales Institute of Architects commented as follows regarding the board's design : - " I think that most of us admit that it is a good plan. In one or two particulars, however, it might have been improved. . . . " These, and some others, however, are possible defects which do not greatly mar a plan which is practically and aesthetically good." Other prominent architects definitely dissociated themselves from the petition. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. It is true that **Mr. Blackett,** K.C., as a royal commissioner, inquired in 1910 into various issues relating to **Mr. Griffin,** and that his findings included the reasons mentioned by the honorable member, except that these were not specifically directed against **Mr. Murdoch** in the manner indicated by the honorable member. The royal commissioner's report, however, also indicated that the general difficulties that had arisen in regard to **Mr. Griffin** were due primarily to the unsatisfac tory and indefinite arrangements between the parties concerned, for which the then Minister was responsible. It might be stated that the Minister for Home Affairs, in answer to a question in Parliament on the 26th September, 1917, indicated that after expert advice upon the findings of **Mr. Blackett,** he disagreed with many of the opinions expressed in his report. After this investigation the Government declined to take any action against the departmental officers. {: .speaker-JPV} ##### Mr BLAKELEY: -- On the 14th March, 1930, the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Keane)** asked what would be the total cost of the completion of the whole design of the Federal Capital, and I promised to ascertain whether it would be practicable to obtain the information for him. I have now to inform him that it is not possible to supply any figure which might reasonably be taken as the probable cost of completing the whole plan of Canberra. The design for the Federal Capital provides, perhaps, for a population of over 100,000. Progressive development will need to be undertaken as the population increases. This would involve the periodic extension of roads, water supply, sewerage, electrical services, stormwater and other provisions. Moreover, the time will arrive when it will be necessary to construct permanent buildings for accommodating the Public Service. In the plan sites are reserved for buildings which would not be required for official purposes for a great many years; and at the present time even the first of the permanent office buildings has not been finished, its construction having been postponed for economic reasons. The design of the city provides, also, for the construction of dams on the Molonglo River in order to provide for the formation of artificial lakes, with ornamental high-level bridges. The scheme for such ornamental waters will be very costly, and it is questionable whether the whole of it will ever be carried out. No definite estimates are yet available for the works involved, as their design and construction have, of course, been postponed for the present. In addition, the railway service through the city is a work provided for in the plan, but it has not been proceeded with for various reasons, principally economic ones up to the present, and it cannot be stated definitely when it will be gone on with. It will thus be realized that the schemes already carried out in Canberra form only a small proportion of the ultimate development that will occur, and it must be assumed by analogy with the growth of other cities in Australia that the population of Canberra will continue to increase, even if at a moderate pace, involving fresh expenditure upon works and services. The building of a city cannot really ever be said to be completed, and even within the limits of the sketch design which constitutest he approved plan of Canberra, it would be impossible to give anything but a purely speculative estimate of the cost as so many features are involved over such a long period of time. Any estimate would also be materially affected by the extent to which private enterprise might contribute towards the cost, and the number and nature of institutions which it: may be necessary to establish at the Seat of Government. The capital cost of Canberra to date is approximately £.10,000,000, but it is probable that the rate of expenditure during the next few years will be comparatively low. {: .page-start } page 1244 {:#debate-18} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-18-0} #### NOTE ISSUE {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KDJ} ##### Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many£1 notes issued by the Note Issue Branch of the Commonwealth Bank to 1st April, 1930, have not been returned for cancellation after having been issued for - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. between one and two years; 1. between two and three years; and 2. three years or more? 1. How long must these be outstanding before they are deleted from the bank's return as destroyed or lost? {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
Treasurer · DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Bank has suppliedme with the following information: - We are not able to furnish particulars asked for in respect of notes outstanding on 1st April, 1930. Particulars of £1 notes outstanding at the end of January. 1930, were, however, approximately as follow : -
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 asked the Prime Minister, *upon notice -* >In view of the fact that the *Federal Guide* is now four years old and since the last issue many departmental alterations have taken place, with the result that the publication is not as useful as it should be, is it likely to be brought up to date? {: #subdebate-19-0-s1 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
ALP -- The estimated cost of printing a revised edition of the *Federal. Guide* is £150. It. is not considered that the need for a revised edition is sufficiently urgent to justify this expenditure being incurred at present. {: .page-start } page 1244 {:#debate-20} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-20-0} #### POSTAL DEPARTMENT Deficits and Surpluses - Telephone Charges {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-KDJ} ##### Mr ELDRIDGE: asked the PostmasterGeneral, *upon notice -* >Will he inform the House - > >What were the deficits and surpluses of each year in the Postal Department from the inception of federation to the last financial year showing the amounts and the name of the Minister and chief postal official for each year; > >What increases have been made in the charges for use of telephones, giving the years when such increases were made? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-F4O} ##### Mr LYONS:
ALP -- Profit and loss accounts have only been prepared by the department from 1912-18 onwards and the results have been as follows : -
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; FLP from 1931 asked the Treasurer, *upon notice -* >What amount of the land tax collected is in respect of - > >City and town lands: > >Land used for pastoral purposes; and > >Land used for agricultural purposes? {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-KVS} ##### Mr THEODORE:
ALP -- The latest information available in respect of land tax on town lands and country lands is set out on page 26 of the Twelfth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, Parliamentary Paper No. 17 of 1929 (second session). This return shows that the tax assessed in respect of town lands held at 30th June, 1925, totalled £1,509,703, whilst the tax assessed in respect of country lands totalled £984,969. Particulars of the tax assessed in respect of land used for pastoral purposes as distinct from land used for agricultural purposes are not available, nor arc the actual tax collections analysed so as to distinguish between town and country lands. {: .page-start } page 1245 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### IMPORTATIONS OF" MARMITE {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-K7U} ##### Mr CROUCH:
through Mr. C. Riley asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What quantity and value of the food product known as " Marmite " was imported into Australia last year? 1. Is it a fact that a similar product is made in Australia; if so, what is its name? 2. Can he see his way to give further tariff protection to this product, in order to support the Australian manufacturer, the allied barley producers, and other trades associated with its production? {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follow : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is not possible to supply this information, as "Marmite" is not recorded separately in the statistics. 2 and 3. It is understood that a couple of somewhat similar products are made in Australia, and an application for tariff assistance is receiving consideration. {: .page-start } page 1246 {:#debate-23} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-23-0} #### PUBLIC SERVICE High-salaried Officers - Appointments. {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-KLM} ##### Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936 asked the Prime' Minister, *upon notice -* >Will he furnish a comparative statement showing *(a)* the number of officials in the Commonwealth Public Service in 1013 and 1929 respectively, who were in receipt of salaries of £1,000 per annum and upwards; (6) the names, positions and salaries of such officials ? {: #subdebate-23-0-s1 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
ALP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are contained in the following statement: -
ALP -- On the 9th April, the honorable member for Corio **(Mr. Lewis)** asked the following questions, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been invited to a paragraph appearing in the *Argus* of the 2nd instant, in which the following statement is attributed to Councillor Evans : - " A young man could not afford to go on the land and pay the present cost of farm implements." 1. How does the cost of farm implements to-day compare with the cost fifteen years ago? 2. How does the percentage increase of farm implements for the same period compare with the percentage increase in the cost of living, cost of materials and labour. 3. How does the cost of farm implements in Australia compare with the cost in South Africa and New Zealand. I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. A comparison of the selling prices for the years 1915 and 1930 of individual machines made by a leading Australian manufacturer shows an average increase of 39 per cent. in the 1930 prices over those of 1915. 2. The percentage increase in the cost of living for the year 1929 (the latest available) when compared with 1915 shows an increase of 43.3 per cent. The cost of materials used in the manufacture of agricultural implements is not available, but the Metal group and the Building Material group cover some of the items used, and comparing 1929 with 1915 the index number of the former group shows an increase of 48.9 per cent. while that of the latter group indicates an increase of 37.0 per cent. The latest available figures relating to cost of labour are for 1927-28. Comparing 1927-28 with 1915 in relation to wages and salaries in the agricultural implement industry the 1927-28 figures show an increase in the average wage per employee of 84.8 per cent. 3. No further information is available than that already furnished to the honorable member. {: .page-start } page 1251 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### DUTY ON CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
ALP -- On the 3rd April, the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Marks)** asked the following question, *upon notice -* >What was the amount of customs duty on cinematograph films received under(a) Intermediate Tariff and (b) General Tariff, for - > >The year 1920-27, and the period 1st July, 1927, to the 24th April, 1928, when the respective duties were1d. and 11/2d. per lineal foot. > >The period 25th April, 1928, to the 14th June, 1928, when the respective duties were 1d. and 2d. per lineal foot. > >The period 15th Juno, 1928, to the 21st November, 1929, when the respective duties were1d. and13/4d. per lineal foot; and > >The period 22nd November, 1929, to the latest date, when the respective duties were 21/4d. and 3d. per lineal foot. I am now able to furnish the honorable member with the following information -
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- I lay on the table of the House the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the German Reich regarding the release of property rights and interests in Australia of German nationals subject to the charge created in pursuance of the Treaty of Versailles, and move - >That the paper be printed. By this agreement, in order to give effect to recommendations of the Young Committee with regard to liquidations, the Commonwealth Government agrees, subject to the provisions and stipulations set out, to release all property rights and interests of German nationals subject to the charge created by the Peace Treaty, but not liquidated. Property which is the subject of an agreement for sale is to be considered as liquidated, and consequently the agreement does not refer to ex-German plantations in New Guinea which have Seen finally disposed of. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Latham)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1251 {:#debate-29} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented - >Reparations - Agreement relating to Repara tions concluded at the Hague Conference. January, 1930. Commonwealth Workmen's Compensation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 40. Export Guarantee Act - Return showing assistance granted to 31st March, 1930. Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at Fitzroy, Victoria - For Commonwealth Bank purposes. New Guinea Act - Ordinance of 1930 - No. 10 - Mining (No. 2) (in substitution for Ordinance tabled on 12th March, 1930). Post and Telegraph Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, Nos. 25, 27, 28. Spirits Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 35. Lands Acquisition Act - Lands acquired at Boorahbin, Western Australia - For Defence purposes. Public Service Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1930, No. 34. Treaty of Peace (Germany) Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules, 1930, No. 39. {: .page-start } page 1251 {:#debate-30} ### WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL Message recommending appropriation reported. *In Committee* (Consideration of GovernorGeneral's message) : Motion (by **Mr. Forde)** agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for any act to provide for the payment of bounty on the export of fortified wine, and for other purposes. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. *Ordered -* >That **Mr. Forde** and **Mr. Theodore** do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution. Bill brought up by **Mr. Forde,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This is a bill to provide for the payment of a bounty of1s. 9d. a gallon on fortified wine exported from Australia. Bef ore going into the details of the proposal it would be well to review what has been done by the Commonwealth Parliament to assist the wine industry in the past. The Wine Export Bounty Act 1924-28, which expires on the 31st August of this year, is to be repealed. Under that act the rate of bountyis1s. a gallon on fortified wine exported, with the exception of wine sent to Canada, on which a bounty of1s. 9d. a gallon is paid in order to encourage trade wi th tha t countryi n A ustralian wi nes. The present bill provides for the payment of a bounty at the rate of1s. 9d. a gallon on fortified wine exported to any country. The original act, which was passed in 1924, came into operation on the 1st September of that year, and provided for a bounty of 4s. a gallon on fortified wine exported. That wine con- tained fortified spirit on which duty was paid at, the rate of1s. 3d. a gallon of wine. This duty was not returned to the exporter in the form of a drawback, so that the actual bounty received was 2s. 9d. a gallon on wine exported. The 1924 act was amended in 1927, and the amending act was assented to in April of th at year. It provided for the reduction of the bounty from 4s. to1s. 9d. a gallon as from the 1st September, 1927. At the same time it was notified that a drawbuck at the rate of1s. 3d. a gallon would be allowed on and after the date of reduction. The total amount of bounty and drawbacks paid to exporters was, therefore, 3s. a gallon, as against 4s. a gallon in the original act. In 1928, the wine industry was again reviewed, and the Parliament passed an amending act which provided for a reduction of the bounty to1s. a gallon. This has operated from the 9th March, 1928, and will continue until the passing of this bill. Under the 1928 act, the total amount of bounty and drawback received by wine exporters is 2s. 3d. a gallon on wine exported. The actual amounts paid to exporters under the three acts were respectively:-
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Does any government other than that of Australia provide an export bounty for wine? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- To the best of my knowledge this Government is the only one that does so, but I shall make inquiries on that point, and if I obtain different information I shall let the honorable member know. {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr Hawker: -- Will the Acting Minister also make inquiries as to the duty paid on fortified wines in other countries of the world? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I have already obtained information on that point, and I shall let the honorable member have it in due course. Does the honorable member suggest that the taxpayers of Australia should provide the money for the increased bounty? {: .speaker-KOC} ##### Mr Hawker: -- No, but the honorable member for South Sydney **(Mr. E. Riley)** has suggested that this is the only country which provides a wine bounty. Mr.FORDE.- The people who drink wine in Australia help to provide the money for the bounty, and those who do not drink it do not make any contribution to the fund. There is great possibility of developing a trade in wine with Canada, and the Government intends to do everything possible to exploit this market, and to induce the Canadian people to buy larger quantities of our wine. The newly appointed Australian Trade Commissioner to Canada has gone to some trouble to visit the wine-growing districts of Australia in order that he may thoroughly inform himself of the situation. He has also been in close touch with the Wine Export. Control Board so that he may have all the information necessary to enable him to put the position clearly to those interested in the wine business in Canada. {: .speaker-L1T} ##### Mr Yates: -- An industry which has, within a few years, received more than £1,000,000 in bounties should be able to do its own commercial travelling. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The exportation of bottled wine to Canada increased from 182 gallons in 1924-25 to 1,585 gallons in 192S-29. Bulk exports also have increased during the same period to 7,799 gallons, making the total exports of bottled and bulk wine in 1928-29, 9,384 gallons, worth £3,005. Honorable members will see that our wine trade with Canada at the present time is very small, and that there is a great possibility of that market being substantially increased. The quantities of Australian wine imported into Great Britain and cleared for home consumption during the last three years have been -
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- The repeated interjections of the honorable member for "Warringah **(Mr. Archdale Parkhill)** are most disconcerting, and I ask him to restrain himself. Moreover, the wheat marketing scheme is not covered by this bill, and the discussion of it is disorderly. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- Can we not make suggestions? {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! I shall name the honorable member if he offends again. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Part of the Government's legacy from its predecessor was an accumulated deficit of over £5,000,000. With the prevailing temporary 'sion, where was the Government to get the money with which to pay the increased bounty of ls. 9d. per gallon on fortified wines exported? The Government decided to ask the industry itself to bear the burden. During the five years ended 1929, the average amount of revenue received from the excise duty on spirits used for fortifying wine was £354,992 per annum. The Government considered that this was a fair contribution for the wine industry to make to Consolidated Revenue, and that the increase in the bounty from ls. to ls. 9d. should be financed by increasing the excise duty on spirit used for the fortification of wine. Sweet wines are fortified by the addition of grape wine spirit, and it is on these fortified wines that the bounty is payable. Up to the 13th March last, the duty on fortifying spirits made from doradillo grapes was 5s. per gallon, and on spirit made from any other grape, 6s. per gallon. The difference in favour of doradillo grapes was introduced to encourage wine-makers to purchase those grapes, which were a glut in the market. This concession has substantially assisted the doradillo growers to market their product. By raising the duty to 10s. and lis. per gallon, respectively, the increased amount so derived will be sufficient, at the present rate of consumption in Australia, to pay an export bounty of ls. 9d. per gallon on the expected average export of fortified wine during the period covered by the bill. The consumption of wine in Australia is rapidly increasing, owing to its displacement of other alcoholic stimulants, and, probably, by advertising and other propaganda, wine-makers may be able to enlarge further the local market for their product. The revenue derived from the increased excise duty on fortifying spirit will thus be augmented, from year to year, sufficiently to pay the bounty on export. One feature of the bill which honorable members should bear in mind is that the whole of the bounty will be paid by the wine industry itself, and the whole of the revenue at the old. rate of duty on spirits for fortifying wines, averaging for the last five years a gross return of £354,992 per annum, will go into revenue, and out of which a little more than half the drawback will be paid. There is room for improvement in the marketing of Australian wines in Great Britain. Hitherto this trade has been entirely uncontrolled, and the wine has been placed on the overseas market in a haphazard manner. Reports have been received that wines sent there on consignment have been hawked by brokers and others to be sold at cut-throat prices. Some consignments of wine were sold in the auction room at slaughter prices. Thus the market was injured, and the export business was without stability. The Wine Overseas Marketing Board, which was created last year, has control over wine export, and has power to issue licences to exporters under specified conditions. These regulations will set out the conditions under which the home market is to be stabilized. The board, which will soon be operating, determines such matters as the minimum price at which wine exported is to be sold and the regulation of quantities for export. In the past the export market has at times been glutted, because of the non-regulation of supplies, and naturally the action of holders of wine on the other side in selling at cut throat prices, in order to get ready money, has had a detrimental effect upon the whole of the overseas market. Since the Government has announced the proposed increase in the bounty, the wine buyers in Great Britain have cabled to their customers here demanding a re-arrangement of prices so that they may get some of the benefit from the increased bounty. If that were permitted it would largely nullify the benefits that should accrue to the Australian wine industry. Some of the oversea buyers have suggested that the increased bounty should go into their pockets. Unfortunately in the past that has to some extent been the practice, because the growers of grapes and wine makers have not always received the full benefit of the bounty. This anomaly will in the future be rectified, because the Wine Overseas Marketing Board will take steps to ensure that there is a. proper balance maintained as between the exporter and the buyer abroad. The duty of 5s. -and Gs. a gallon on fortifying spirit represents ls. 3d. a gallon or 2£d. a bottle. The increased duties raise the impost to 2s. 4d. a gallon or about 4j)d. a bottle, or a difference of 2¼d. a bottle or about id. a glass. Compared with the excise duty on beer of ls. lOd. a gallon or about 3¾d. a bottle, the wine consumers are being much, favoured. The quantity of alcohol in a bottle of fortified wine is four times that contained in a bottle of beer, and to put the two articles on an equal basis, so far as their alcoholic contents arc concerned, the duty on a bottle of fortified wine should be from ls. 2d. to ls. 3d. a bottle instead of 4¾d. a bottle. The increase in excise should not mean an increase in the price to the consumer. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- The old, old story. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- J. am giving the opinion of experts in the industry. A few years ago wine makers were receiving 10s. a gallon for the cheaper class of fortified wine. Now they are selling ordinary sweet red wines, or what are termed the bread and butter lines of the wine industry, at from 5s. to 6s. a gallon. Yet the price to the consumer has remained practically unaltered. In view of the fact that the retailer is obtaining wine at about half the cost of what he was paying a few years ago, how could he justify an increase in price to the consumer ? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Is the Acting Minister suggesting that the retailer will pay the bounty? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I feel sure that the. retailer will be prepared to stand this increase of ls. 3d. a gallon or id. a glass on wine. There is absolutely no justification for increasing the price to the consumer. The previous Wine Export Bounty Act provided for the termination of the bounty in three years; this bill provides for a period of five years. » It will, therefore, give greater stability to the industry by safeguarding the interests of the winemakers, the grape-growers, and the workers in the industry. No change will take place, so far as the export trade is concerned, until 1935, and it is probable that at the end of that period the scheme will be continued. Those interested in the industry can be confident that, so long as the industry itself contributes the amount required to pay the bounty, a case for the extension of the period will be unassailable. The success of the scheme depends to a large extent upon those engaged in the industry itself, and I believe that they are now organising and regulating the industry, aided by the Commonwealth Government through the Wine Export Marketing Board. Although there may appear no reason at present why the term should not be longer - and it has been suggested that it should be for ten years - the position of the trust account may require reviewing at the end of the five-year period. Clause 4 of the bill provides for a trust account, known as the "Wine Export Encouragement Account," which shall bc kept in the books of the Treasury. This provision has met with the approval of most of those engaged in the industry. The amount of extra duty collected on account of the increase of 5s. a gallon on spirit used for fortifying wine will be paid into this account each month. If the amount standing to the credit of the account is not sufficient to pay the bounty, the deficiency will be made up from the Consolidated Revenue, and adjustments made from year to year. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -What will happen if the wine-drinkers go on strike? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- That contingency will be dealt with when it arises. If a surplus is shown after claims for bounty have been paid, it will be applied to repay any amount taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and any remainder will be utilized for the encouragement of the export wine trade. It has been found necessary to tighten up the provisions relating to the prices to be paid for grapes and fortifying spirit used in the production of wine for export. Discounts, rebates or compensation given in order to secure sales will not be allowed. It has been the practice of wine-makers to pay for grapes by extended payments, and these sometimes cover a period of one year. In the case of co-operative companies the payments may extend over a much longer period. The bill provides that, a bond, guarantee, or cash deposit may be required to ensure that reasonable prices for grapes or fortifying spirit shall be paid within a specified time; failing that, the Government will have power to withhold the bounty. Provision is also made in the bill to protect not only the growers, but also the workers in the industry. The bounty acts relating to sulphur, power alcohol and cotton all contain a similar provision. It covers all labour in wineries and distilleries as well as that employed during vintage time. In conclusion, I wish to stress the point that, without this legislation, the wine industry would languish, and ruin or unemployment, would face thousands of those engaged in the industry. The amended excise tariff schedule, providing for an increase of duty on fortifying spirit, will supply the fund from which the bounty will be paid, and the increased bounty will become operative as from the 13th March, the day on which the schedule was laid on the table of the House. Those who are not consumers of wine shall not contribute in any way to it. I feel sure that the bill will commend itself to honorable members, and will have a speedy passage through this House. {: .speaker-KXT} ##### Mr Paterson: -- Is there in the measure any reference to the drawback of 2s. 4d. a gallon ? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- No; but provision is already made in the Excise Act for allowance of drawback of duty paid on spirit contained in fortified wine exported from Australia. According to calculations made by the department the amountwill be approximately 2s. 4d. per gallon of fortified wine exported. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Paterson)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1257 {:#debate-31} ### COTTON INDUSTRIES BOUNTY BILL {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 28th March *(vide* page 688), on motion by **Mr. Forde** - >That the hill be now read a second time. *[Quorum formed].* {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- At the outset of my remarks I wish to make it clear that the party which I represent does not regard this as a vital party measure. Therefore, the views that I shall express are my own; I shall not speak on behalf of honorable members who sit *on* this side of the House. It is not my intention to follow the example set by the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** in his second-reading speech. He indulged in a somewhat sordid display of political partisanship, and endeavoured to show that the cotton industry, in both its primary and secondary- phases, owes its existence to-day to the activities and the influence of the Federal Labour party. It is my candid opinion that the people as a whole, but particularly the manufacturers and their employees, would occupy a substantially happier position without the establishment of the cotton industry on the extravagant lines proposed by the honorable gentleman. In any case, however, his claim that the industry owes its present position to the activities and the influence of the Federal Labour party is notsoundly based. All the action that has so far been taken federally by way of assisting the industry was put in train by the Bruce-Page Government. I shall oppose the bill, on the ground that it is part of an elaborate system of protection which, on the whole, is unwarranted, because it is excessive. I hold that view because the alleged benefits that will be conferred upon manufacturing industries and the workers engaged in them, as well as upon the people of Australia as a whole, by the establishment of this industry on the lines proposed by the Minister, will not nearly balance the burdens imposed by this and Other forms of assistance to the cotton-growing and spinning industry. In other words, I believe that the price which Australia will pay for the establishment of this industry will be much greater than the benefits that it will confer. Practically everybody, with, perhaps, the exception of the right honorable member for North Sydney **(Mr. Hughes)** agrees that costs of production, both primary and secondary, but particularly secondary, are excessive. The majority of people agree, also, that it is those excessive costs which have landed Australia in its present deplorable economic condition. Therefore, any action which is definitely calculated, as these cotton proposals are, to increase substantially our industrial costs is to be resolutely avoided. The various forms of assistance that have been and are to be given to this industry make up a list which is without parallel under the protective policy of this country. No other industry in the Commonwealth has had assistance covering the range of that given to the cotton industry. If it be established as the Minister wishes to establish it, the conclusion is inescapable that it will be easily the most expensive of our assisted industries. There is, first, to be payable under this legislation a bounty to the growers of ltd. per lb. of seed cotton. That represents 4.5d. upon every pound of cotton yarn of No. 16 count, which is one of the most popular counts used. Then it is proposed to assist the spinner who purchases the seed cotton and produces yarn from it. The bill provides for the payment of one-third of a penny per count per lb. of yarn spun in Australia. That represents 5.3d. per lb. of the resultant yarn of No. 16 count. It will, therefore, be seen that these two bounties combined represent assistance to the extent of 9§d. per lb. of yarn of No. 16 count. Let us see what that means in the form of an ad valorem duty. The landed price, duty paid, of this yarn 4.rom the United States of America is ls. 7d. per lb. Therefore, these two proposed bounties are equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent. But that is only the beginning of the assistance that this industry ia to enjoy. In addition to the subsidy that the producer of the raw material and the spinner of the yarn are to receive, an exceedingly heavy fixed tariff operates against cotton wearing apparel of the kind that will be manufactured out of this yarn. The consumer, therefore, will be subjected to three imposts in respect of goods that are made from locally grown cotton. The new duty imposed by this Government by its November tariff schedule, on cotton yarn of the number of counts per lb. that will be and is being spun in Australia, is 35 per cent. British and 55 per cent, foreign. Consequently the total tax in favour of cotton yarn spun in Australia from locally-grown cotton is 85 per cent, in the case of imports from Great Britain and 105 per cent, in the case of foreign imports. Approximately 75 per cent, of our imports come from Great Britain, and 25 per cent, from, other countries. Then again, exceedingly high duties operate, in respect of cotton wearing apparel. Any honorable member who takes the trouble to consult the November schedule will see that they are truly prohibitive in character. In some cases there are very high fixed or specific duties with an alternative ad valorem duty, while in other cases there is an additional ad valorem duty. So that, at every stage there is excessive protection of various kinds. I submit that the establishment and the extension of the cotton industry along those lines cannot fail to result in a substantial increase of our cost of living, with in turn a substantial increase of the basic wage, and generally of the cost of industrial production. I do not think that the price of any commodity bears more heavily than does the price of cotton upon the cost of living and the basic wage, and ultimately upon the cost of production. Cotton cloth, as we know, is, in the main, the clothing of the workers of nearly every country in the world, and of this country also. Cotton is to the clothing of the workers of Australia what bread 'and meat are to their diet. It is not possible to tax cotton goods heavily, as it is proposed to do in this bill, without adding substantially to the cost of . living and to the basic wage. The Acting Minister **(Mr. Forde)** made it clear that the steps now being taken, although by no means negligible, represent only the beginning of his programme for the encouragement of the cotton industry of Australia. In his second-reading speech, he pointed out that £11,000,000 worth of cotton is imported into Australia annually, besides £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 worth of cotton material imported as part of other commodities. The Acting Minister added - >A close inspection of the various items of the cotton importations indicates that there should ho comparatively little difficulty in having at least £7,000,000 worth of that £11,000,000 worth of imported cotton goods efficiently and economically manufactured in Australia within a few years. I direct the attention of honorable members to his use of the expression " efficiently and economically manufactured." Further, the honorable gentleman anticipated that by 1936 the cotton industry would be worth £4,000,000 a year to the Commonwealth. I have no hesitation in saying that cotton goods produced under the conditions outlined by the Minister will cost Australian wearers - mainly the workers - at least twice as much as would cotton wearing apparel made out of duty-free imported cotton yarn. In my opinion it would pay Australia infinitely better to continue to enjoy the benefit of relatively cheap cotton materials made from imported yarn than to establish this so-called national industry at such an exorbitant cost. It is coming to this with the more fanatical protectionists - that war is being made against anything being cheap in Australia. This is the only nation in the world which is definitely following a policy directed against cheap services or cheap goods being obtained by its citizens. The new sort of protection introduced by the present Government is really a disease. If we were following a sane policy we would' select a number of industries to protect. There are many industries for which Australia possesses special facilities. We should require first of all a sufficient market together with a suitable climate, adequate supplies of raw materials, geographical fitness, and other favorable circumstances. We should then set out to build up these selected industries as rapidly as we could, and give them every protection possible, subjecting them only to a proper amount of competition in the Australian market. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Does not the honorable member think that cotton might be regarded as such an industry? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- No, I do not regard cotton as one of the industries which should be chosen. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Would the honorable member leave economic security out of his calculations? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I do not know what the honorable member means by that. Perhaps he will tell us when he is speaking to this measure. I am sure he will agree that " economic security " is a somewhat indefinite phrase. If we were following a sane policy, we would, after having selected those industries which were to receive assistance, take steps to provide for those engaged in them the cheapest services possible in the economic sense. We would make the going for them as easy as we could, and not as difficult as possible by cluttering their path with other industries of minor importance, or industries for which time and circumstances are not yet favorable. Instead of adopting that policy, however, the Government is indulging its mania for having everything we need manufactured in Australia. It is absurd to set it before ourselves as an ideal, that a widely scattered population of 6,500,000 people should make for themselves everything they use. That policy is a reversion to the economic and industrial dark ages - to the old self-contained village life. In regard to many of the articles which we are endeavouring by an unnatural system of protection to have manufactured in Australia, our action is just as foolish, in the economic sense, as it would be for the Acting Minister to stay at home to make for himself a pair of boots. Indeed, to carry the thing, to a logical conclusion, he would need to run a farm on which to grow the leather to make the boots. That illustration, absurd as it is, really represents what the Government has been trying to do in many directions since .it assumed office. It is following a Robinson Crusoe policy. Put a man on a desert island, and lie will probably scratch along somehow, but he will get ultimately down to the level of the animals. I make this protest, not in the interests of a party whose policy is opposed to that of the Government, but as a. great believer in the protection of industry. 1 am a friend of the manufacturers. I believe that we should not hamper the desirable secondary industries of this country by loading them with the support of other industries which it is economically unsound for us to develop. The Acting Minister referred to the development of the cotton spinning industry in Canada. Though she did not grow any cotton, he said, she used annually in her factories 1S0,000 bales of cotton lint. On a *pro rata* basis, Australia would be using annually 130,000 bales of cotton lint, but instead of doing so, she was lagging far behind. That was what the Acting Minister said, and I am particularly pleased that he took the Canadian cotton industry as an example. It was most unfortunate for him that he did so. He was careful to confine his remarks to what Canada was doing, in the way of cotton spinning, &c. ; he said nothing about the assistance the industry was receiving, nor how it compared with that given to the cotton industry here. I propose to make that, comparison. I have already pointed out. that, taking the bounty and duty together, the protection afforded in Australia amounts to an annual duty on imported yarns of S5 per cent. British, and 105 per cent, foreign. I cannot think that the Minister could have been aware, when he referred to Canada, of the negligible protection under which that country has built up its cotton industry. As he pointed out, Canada grows no cotton, but imports all the lint she uses. I have no doubt, however, that in the eastern provinces of Canada cotton could, and would be grown if that country had a government with similar ideas to our own, and if the industry were under the special protection of the present Australian Acting Minister for Customs. But Canada is far too wise to try such an experiment, far too prosperous to have ever tried anything of the kind. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
ALP -- This is a. typical freetrade speech. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The Acting Minister taunts me with making a freetrade speech. In making this speech I am seeking to promote the best interests of the Australian manufacturers. I ask the Government not to load this huge burden on the back of Australian manufacturers; not to force upon the Australian consumer the most expensive cotton wearing material in the world. Australia has the equivalent of a protective duty of from So per cent, to 105 per cent, against imported cotton yarn. Canada has built up her great cotton spinning industry, which absorbs 180,000 bales of lint annually behind a protective duty of *7i* per cent. British, and 20 per cent, foreign. That represents the total assistance given by the Canadian Government to her cotton spinners. There has been no bounty, nothing beyond the import duty I have mentioned. That fact is so remarkable that I shall read to the House the item under which the duty is imposed in the Canadian tariff schedule so that it may be placed on record. I quote, from the Canadian tariff of the 15th September, 1928, and I understand that this item has not been amended since. It refers to cotton yarns, exceeding number 20, and not exceeding number 40, which are the sorts mainly manufactured here. Item 522e is as follows : - >Yarns wholly of cotton, exceeding number 20, and not exceeding number 40, not more advanced than singles : cotton sewing thread yarn and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery yarn, in hanks, composed of two strands or more; all yarns specified in this item when imported by manufacturers tor use exclusively in their own factories in the manufacturing or spooling of cotton sewing thread and crochet, knitting, darning and embroidery cottons, British 7i per cent., intermediate 15 per cent., general 20 per cent. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page: -- What is the total value of cotton goods produced in Canada. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I do not know, but it should not be 'difficult to obtain the information from the Canadian *Year-Booh.* While cotton spinning has languished to some extent in this country, in Canada it has nourished exceedingly. In that country there are no fewer than thirteen cotton spinning mills of first class magnitude. We must remember also that Australia enjoys a much greater measure of natural protection in regard to her industries than does Canada. We Australians have the protection of many thousand miles of more or less expensive transport, whereas Canada has the great cotton spinning mills of the United States of America lying just across her border. Comparisons are sometimes made between this country and Canada. It is sometimes asked why Australia has an increasing debt, and increasing taxation, one iu seven of its workers out of employment, and a large adverse trade balance, with very little prospect of adjusting it, while Canada has little or no unemployment - the position there in that respect is normal - a great trade balance in her favour, prosperous industries that are booming, and a decreasing national debt and decreasing taxation. It is also asked, at times, why of Australia's total exports only between 2 per cent, and 3 per cent, are manufactured goods, while Canada's exportation of manufactured goods amounts to 40 per cent., in value, of her total exports. I have no doubt whatever that the reason for these differences is that the cost of production is very much higher in Australia than in Canada. Yet in spite of this fact we are actually proposing to oblige the Australian wearers of cotton apparel to pay from two to two and a. half times as much for it as the Canadian wearers of cotton garments have to pay. This fact has brought me, most unhappily from a personal point of view, to the conclusion that I cannot support this proposal of the Government. The Acting Minister for Customs has prophesied, if not actually claimed, that within a few years from the inception of this great cotton developmental programme, cotton-growing in Queensland, which now provides seasonal employment for merely a few weeks in the year, for between 3,500 and 4,000 workers, will provide similar employment for between 25,000 and 30,000. That may be so, but all the facts make it abundantly clear that in order to provide this additional employment for a few weeks in the year, a definite and embarrassing financial burden will be placed upon about '4!t] 1,000,000 Australian trade unionists who wear cotton clothing. We cannot gel away from the fact that if we double the cost of cotton clothing to these workers we shall seriously embarrass other industries in this country. I assert, without fear of truthful contradiction, that more unemployment than employment will be created if this scheme is agreed to. In the last resort, this measure will cause far more suffering among the workers of Australia than it will afford relief or prosperity. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Is the honorable member aware that the cotton-picking season extends over six months in the year, and not a few weeks? {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I definitely contradict that statement. It may extend over six months, but it does not provide permanent employment for that period. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I did not say that it did, but it provides permanent employment for much longer than a few weeks. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- It does not provide employment in any given district for more than a few weeks. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Nonsense! The honorable member does not know what he is talking about. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- By asserting that the cotton-picking season provides permanent employment for six months the Acting Minister shows that he knows very little about the essentials of this industry. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Cotton-picking begins about April and continues until the middle of September in some districts. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- While it may be true that a number of large cotton-spinning firms will establish branches in Australia if this scheme is approved, it is also true that the workers of this country will have to bear the cost of these operations through having to pay greatly increased prices for their garments. I propose briefly to review the history of the present effort to revive cottongrowing in Australia. The story is extraordinarily interesting, although anything but satisfactory. The first unchallengeable fact that issues from any investigation of this subject is that the effort to reestablish the industry in Queensland was accidental. It rested upon an amazing miscalculation by a body of misguided enthusiasts and would-be money-makers. As we all know, the value of seed cotton at the termination of the war was very high. This caused a number of foolish amateurs and propagandists to dream that it would remain high indefinitely, and that, therefore, it would be possible to grow cotton by white labour in Queensland at world's parity. Many farmers in Queensland were encouraged to plant areas of cotton. Subsequently the BritishAustralasian Cotton Association Limited was formed with a capital of £550,000. Several ginneries were established and -two oil mills purchased. Only one of these was erected; the machinery for the other is still, I believe, lying unassembled in packing cases somewhere. The pretty bubble soon burst. Within a year or two, the price of cotton returned to something like the pre-war figure and the folly of this new enterprise was exposed. Since that time the story has been -most unhappy. Persistent political wire-pulling has been indulged in with the object, first, of pandering to the farmers for their votes, and secondly of securing for the shareholders in the British Australasian Cotton Association some return for their expenditure. I am strongly of the opinion that had the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments been wise they would have cut the loss immediately the mistake was discovered. They certainly should have advised those who had embarked upon this enterprise to discontinue their operations. Had that been done a few years ago this unfortunate industrial episode in the north would have been closed and practically forgotten. I say with all confidence that had this enterprise been stopped six or seven years ago the farmers in - Queensland who are growing cotton to-day would be better off than they are. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Nonsense. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- The continuance of the agitation for the support of this industry is due to a deplorable piece of political engineering which is now being . brought to a successful conclusion by the Acting Minister. It is true that the British Australasian Cotton Association would have suffered a loss had the business been wound up years ago, but- probably not a greater loss than they deserved to suffer because of their foolish and extraordinary initial miscalculations. I wish to say a few words about the districts in which cotton is being grown in Queensland, and I make no apology for speaking on this subject with a good deal of confidence. I have visited these areas twice; first, before there was a single cotton plant established there, in 1920. I went well qualified by actual experience in various kinds of agriculture and by observation and a sound knowledge of valuation work in large subdivisional schemes, to form a sound opinion on the project. I do not say that there has been any deliberate attempt to mislead this House as to the position of the farmers in these areas, but I assert definitely that cotton-growing is not essential to their welfare, nor to their future prosperity. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Many of them grow nothing but cotton. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- There is no parallel between the cotton-growers and the sugargrowers of Queensland, nor is there any parallel between the so-called cotton country and the tropical, low-lying coastal sugar-growing belt of that State. Cotton is being grown principally in the' Upper Burnett, and the Callide and. Dawson valleys, and these are in no sense tropical. The climate in these areas, is comparable with that of any rural district in Australia. It is in no sense harsh. It is not, as a matter of fact;' as harsh as that of Canberra. These' districts are as healthy, livable and congenial as any district in north or north-east Victoria. This is due to the fact that although they lie towards the Tropic of Capricorn, they have an elevation of from 800 to 1,700 feet. The rainfall, which is noted for its regularity, is from 29 to 30 inches a year. These districts are as beautiful as any part of the world, and make one of the loveliest, most extensive and richest series of creek and river alluvial flats that can be found in Australia. Beautiful, soft, undulating country runs back from the river valleys in such a way as to make it almost ideal for dairying, and the flats are ideal for lucerne-growing. Maize can be grown there as well as anywhere in Australia. In fact I know of no part of this Commonwealth which is so suited for the carrying on of conventional mixed farming on a satisfactory and profitable basis. On no economic ground can it be argued that there is any justification for growing cotton in these areas for the benefit of the farmers who live there at the expense of every Australian worker who wears cotton apparel. The position of these farmers is entirely different from that of the sugar-growers. The Acting Minister **(Mr. Forde)** may argue that cotton returns a crop at a very early stage and is, therefore, a suitable product to be grown in country that is being pioneered. "While it is true that a crop of cotton can be gathered within a few months of planting, the return from it is not nearly as quick as the return from dairying in similar districts. Tens of millions of acres of less desirable country in Australia have been pioneered without the help of cotton-growing, and without placing a heavy burden upon the whole community. On account of the unsatisfactory nature of the return, or the uncertainty of the crop, or the difficulty of getting pickers, even at the amazing rate of lid. to 2d. per lb., as against slightly more than a £d. in America- {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Cotton-picking in.America is all clone by black labour. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- That is not so. In Texas cotton picking is done chiefly by Mexican labour which it not black or coloured in the true sense. Do we propose to exclude every possibility of our manufacturing industries cutting down their costs? Would it not be better to have cheap imported cotton in the interests of our industries as a whole than to stimulate Australian production at exorbitant cost? The country in which the cotton is grown has a capital value to the farmers of very few pounds per acre. If it were located in Victoria or New South Wales it would be worth five or six times as much, because it would be used for general farming purposes, and cotton cultivation would not be thought of. , {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- It is all held on perpetual leasehold. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- Yes ; but I understand that the present Government in Queensland has given the leaseholders the right to convert to freehold. Already, without relying on cotton, the settlers are doing very well. One butter factory is situated in the middle of the area, and other factories are distributed in the surrounding districts. The Queensland Land Administration Board, in its report following an economic investigation of the Upper Burnett and Callide Valley lands, said of the Mundubbera district - >From a dairying stand-point the district compares favorably with the best dairying districts in the State. Witnesses who appeared before us had previous experience on the land, on the Downs, at Nerang, Lowood, Laidley, and Murgon. The concensus of opinion was tha't, with the aid of cultivation, a dairy herd in the Mundubbera district would return profits as good as in any of the other districts mentioned. Elsewhere the board reported - >We have already expressed the opinion that the Upper Burnett and Callide Valley lands are eminently adapted for a closer settlement scheme. Bich belts of country exist which bear comparison with anything to be found in other parts of Queensland, and if closer settlement could not succeed on such an area, the outlook for increased production in Queensland would be dismal indeed. The board recommended - >That the areas for new settlement in the Upper Burnett and Callide Valley be based on dairying rather than on agricultural pursuits. Agricultural pursuits, I remind honorable members, include the cultivation of cotton. The extent to which cotton aids these farmers has been very greatly exaggerated. In 1928-29 there were . 2,278 growers in Queensland, and nearly half of them had less than 10 acres under cotton. Presumably they were making a living out of dairying and other agricultural pursuits. As to spinning, I do not agree with a great deal that appears in the Tariff Board's report. With all respect to the board I say that it did not go deeply enough into the accounts of the only two spinning companies in Australia. For some years the George A. Bond Cotton Mills Limited has been the principal spinning enterprise fostered by the bounty. Unfortunately, the Tariff Board's report did not give any indication of the financial position of the spinning part of the enterprise, and while I was Minister for Trade and Customs I arranged for a special investigation to be made by a departmental accountant. Those inquiries disclosed that the cotton-spinning part of Bond's business was profitable with the thenexisting bounty of Jd. per lb., and without the new ad valorem duties of 35 per cent. British and 55 per cent, general. Had the board discovered as much of Bond's profits on cotton-spinning as was subsequently disclosed by special inquiry it would never have recommended an increase of the tariff. The special inquiry did not show that the Australian Silk and Cotton Mills Limited were making quite such good progress, but the greater proportion of the spinning was being done by Bond. The losses which forced that company into liquidation were due to the weaving rather than to the spinning side of the business. I have the greatest sympathy with the pioneer farmers in the areas where cotton is growing, and I am prepared, as I was when a Minister, to continue the bounty sufficiently long *to* enable them to change over gradually into dairying and. other rural industries for which their district is ideal and which would not require any subsidy from the Australian people. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- This is a diminishing bounty and will ultimately disappear. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I asked the Minister when he was moving the second reading if he would guarantee that he would never be a party to an extension of the bounty, and I am sorry that he did not furnish an answer; he will not furnish it now. In regard to this or any other bounty a Minister's declaration that, it will last only a few years is not worth the ink with which it is printed. Once a bounty is granted no man can foretell its duration. All we know to-day is that the cotton-growing industry is quite small, and should have been continued on a very limited basis until it had proved itself. Unfortunately, the November tariff and this bill are imposing upon industry as a whole a heavily increased burden. T have no hesitation in prophesying that these measures will lead to a great increase in the cost of cotton apparel, which will be reflected in an increased basic wage, and so far from assisting the workers of this country they will indirectly be a continual cause of unemployment. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Norman Makin: -- I understand that honorable members generally desire to listen to the conversation by wireless telephony between the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who will speak from No. 10 Downing-street. "I shall resume the chair at 7.30 p.m. *Sitting suspended from 5.16 to 7.S0 p.m.* {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay .- The bill provides for the payment of a bounty on the production of seed cotton, cotton lint and cotton yarn. I support it but regret that the *lid.* bounty is not continued, particularly in view of the importance of the cotton industry to the proper development of Australia. Japan is fully seised of the importance of the cotton industry. Since it cannot develop cotton-growing in its own territory it is developing cotton fields in Manchuria and South America. We have by experiment and experience discovered that Australia, and particularly Queensland, can grow cotton which is second to none in the world. Clear evidence of that is afforded by the returns from the sale of our cotton on the British market. Though the price obtained may not pay for production and shipping to Great Britain, still it is always above that of American middling. Much money has been expended by the Commonwealth and the Queensland Governments during the last few years in endeavouring to develop the cotton industry. Although some of the measures passed by those Governments have been of assistance, unfortunately others have been detrimental to the interests of the industry. Probably the greatest setback suffered by the industry during the last few years was due to misdirected legislative enactments by the late Queensland Government originated by interests whose ideas were foreign to Australian requirements and possibilities. A few years ago the Queensland Government entered into the field of cotton development by accepting an offer of a. guaranteed price. Later the State offered a guaranteed price which was almost immediately subsidized by the Commonwealth Government under agreement. Later on, chiefly because of the adverse conditions brought about by legislation, the cottongrowers became tired of State control and asked to be brought under Commonwealth jurisdiction. Appeals were made, and as a result a Commonwealth bill was introduced in 1926 providing for a bounty on seed cotton and yarn. The bill which has now been introduced is based on a further report made by the Tariff Board at the instance of the Bruce-Page Government. The board made certain suggestions which have been embodied in the bill. It provides for the payment, to the end of 1936, of £S00,000 by way of bounty to the primary and secondary industries. The legislation passed by the Bruce-Page Government in 1.926 provided for a bounty of £900,000 in five years, but of that amount £610,000 was not applied for by those engaged in the industry. Therefore only £190,000 represents new appropriation. It is to bo hoped that on this occasion, with the assistance that is being rendered by the Queensland Government, the cotton industry will be developed in the interests, not only of the growers, but also of Australia as a whole. A tariff has been imposed in order to give the necessary assistance to the cotton manufacturers, but as we produce to-day but little of the requirements of Australia, that tariff will chiefly be revenue productive for some years. It may be argued that it will hit the worker by increasing the cost of clothing and other requirements of him and his family. But if Australia is to develop, we must encourage new industries. This legislation will be justified if ultimately the industry is able to produce at a reasonable cost the cotton requirements of this country. I certainly would support any measure designed to develop the secondary industries of Australia. I regret that in introducing the bill, the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** made use of party propaganda and misrepresentation concerning the Bruce-Page Government's activities on behalf of this industry. I am quite prepared to give to this' or any other Government due credit for anything that it may do. But it cannot be the desire of the growers that the facts should be misrepresented by the Actin'g Minister. All that it was necessary for him to do was to put forward a case in answer to any opposition to the bill. The Acting Minister stated that the first real fillip was given to the cotton industry in 1920, when the Queensland Labour Government fixed a guaranteed price of 5-kl. per lb. for three years. When looking through some of the records of the Queensland *Hansard.* I noticed that on page 264 of *Hansard.* No 4j of 1922, **Mr. Theodore** stated that an arrangement had been made between the Agent-General and the British CottonGrowers Association whereby that association guaranteed a. minimum price of ls. 6d. per lb. - sea freight and insurance paid by the association - for cotton lint of good quality for five years from the 1st January, 1920. It is, therefore, apparent that the British Cotton-Growers Association, which in many directions has helped the dominions, was responsible for the fillip then given to the cotton industry, although the Acting Minister referred to it as being given by a Queensland Labour Government. The Acting Minister made that- statement in condemnation of the Bruce-Page administration, and in order to bolster up the credit of the late Queensland Government. He misrepresented the facts, and I consider it my duty to devote some time to explaining the position and the history of the cotton industry. The Acting Minister also stated that it was recognized that a bounty should take the place of the State guaranteed price; it being realized that for many years the Commonwealth and Queensland were working together under an amicable agreement in providing a guaranteed price for the growers for seed cotton. But, he said when the Commonwealth Government took control the price dropped, and there was not the same stability in the industry, and in consequence the Queensland growers asked the Federal Government to provide a bounty instead of a guaranteed price. That statement is not in accordance with fact; because the Queensland cotton-growers, harassed under the legislation introduced by the Queensland Labour Government, found it almost impossible to carry on. That legislation provided for the banning of ratoon cotton and for certain guarantees to the British-Australian Cotton Association Limited. It gave to that great combine a monopoly of the handling of the growers' cotton ; it prevented the growers from erecting a co-operative ginnery, and it, provided , for an agreement which lasted until 1926, under which the association had the right to gin all the cotton produced in Queensland, at a return to the association of lid. per lb. of lint. The association also had the right under the agreement, extending to 1926, of acting as sole agent for the sale of cotton on a commission ranging from lj per cent, to 2£ per cent on cotton seed other than that required for planting purposes; all by-products to be the property of the association. I have stated previously that certain State legislation had caused much trouble in the industry, but the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs endeavoured to lay that trouble at the door of the Bruce-Page Government. Actually the late Labour Government of Queensland was responsible for most of the trouble of the cotton-growers of that State and faulty grading was responsible for the balance. It brought about a reduction in the production of cotton and aroused much ill-feeling against it. Not only did the Queensland Government give the British-Australian Cotton Association a monopoly of the ginning of all cotton, but it appointed it sole agent for the selling of the cotton in Great Britain despite the fact thai the company's directors were the biggest buyer of cotton there. For that reason our growers were denied a full return for their cotton sold on the British market. In addition, the late Queensland Labour Government sold all the growers' cotton seed to the BritishAustralian Cotton Association. In 1923, the association was to have, under the agreement, all seed free ; in 1924 and 1925, seed at £1 a ton, and in 1926 seed at £1 10s. a ton. During that period seed in Great Britain was worth up to £13 10s. a ton. Yet the growers of Queensland, who in most cases were mixed farmers, and desired relief fodder during drought time, were required, in order to feed their starving stock, to pay the .association £7 10s. a ton for the offal after the oil had been extracted from the seed. That is another illustration of the mismanagement that brought about the trouble in Queensland. The State Labour Government also gave to this company a monopoly of the handling of the ginning, which has been a very big expense to the Australian grower. As a. result of that agreement. and also of the promise of the Government to ban the growing of ratoon cotton, the growers became considerably perturbed in Queensland, and resolutions were passed demanding an alteration of the conditions. It is not a fact, as the Acting Minister stated in his secondreading speech, that the Queensland growers, backed up by the Queensland Government, asked the Federal Government to pay a bounty instead of a guaranteed price. On the" 20th March, 1925, a meeting was held at Rockhampton of the Central Queensland District Cotton Council, at which the following resolution was carried - That this district council, representing 2,000 cotton-growers, endorses the activities of the Cotton Advisory Board and the Council of Agriculture in the desire for the de-control of the cotton industry, and supports the approach to the Commonwealth Government for a flat rate bounty of *lid.* per lb. on raw cotton for a period of years; the foregoing resolution to be forwarded to the Council of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home and Territories, the State and New South Wales Ministers of Agriculture, and Queensland senators. That a letter be sent to the federal members stressing the precarious position of the industry - That was prior to any action by the Federal Government other than in the direction of accepting liability for half the guaranteed price. The resolution proceeds - and the extreme destitution existent among growers concerned, the unsatisfactory grading returns, and the imperative necessity of decontrolling the industry, and the recognition of a co-operative marketing association upon which growers would have representation. That is one illustration of many that could be given of the fact that up to the time of the guarantee the industry was in a precarious condition. The resolution that I have read cannot be disputed, because it emanates from the city which is the coastal centre of the great cottongrowing districts and in the district of Capricornia. Therefore, it is hardly fair to say, as the Acting Minister did, that the industry commenced to suffer after the Federal Government had assumed control of it. So depressed was the industry at that time that the Central Queensland ' District Council passed resolutions in which the following passages occurred: - >Despite the weight of evidence clearly favoring ratooning, the interests of the farmers of Queensland have been sacrificed in the interests of a dictatorial combine. That is the British-Australian Cotton Association, which instructed the Queensland Government as to what it should put in. its legislation and what agreement it would require. The following further claims were made - >That the Government has failed in its protection of the farmers' interests by accepting the bald statement that ratoon cotton is not legal tender, and neglecting to make early departmental efforts by way of an independent inquiry following the despatch of trial consignments to various markets of the world . . . That the Government has no evidence to prove that the ratooning we desire encourages disease and pest infection more seriously than annual planting . . . Under the circumstances this district council pledges itself to exhaust every avenue of endorsement of its protest and desire for a royal commission of inquiry, and seeks the support of the Council of Agriculture and all district councils in furtherance of its efforts to give effect to such desire. Local producers' associations, numbering 30 or 40, also passed resolutions at that time expressing their dissatisfaction, at the state of affairs in the Acting Minister's own district, and I have copies of these resolutions. Large areas could not be picked because of the harassing restrictions of the legislation which had bee, passed by the Queensland Government. At the request of the growers, **Mr. Bruce** asked the Tariff Board to inquire into the industry. That inquiry was held, and the board submitted a report upon which action was taken by the then Commonwealth Government. The first request was for a bounty of l£d. During the investigation by the Tariff Board, however, a bounty of 2d. per lb. was asked for. The board reported in favour of that amount of bounty, but the late Government made provision for the payment of 1½d. per lb. In addition, however, it made provision for assistance to the secondary portion of the industry, although that had not been asked for by the growers, the Queensland Government, or any one else. Under the 1926 act sufficient provision was made to give an impetus to the secondary industry. Thus the late Government was the first to give encouragement to that portion of the industry. The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** now says that ultimately the whole of the assistance given by the Government will go to the secondary industry, and that the bounty to the grower will be dropped. The late Government provided for the payment of a bounty on yarn containing up to 50 per cent, of Australian cotton. This measure provides that the proportion of Australian cotton must be 100 per cent., thus increasing the advantages that are to be derived by the secondary industry. Very shortly no bounty will he paid to the grower. {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr Riordan: -- It will cease in five years. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- In 1934 the bounty for first grade will be Id. instead of 1½d. per lb. and for second grade ½d. per lb. One difficulty with which the grower has always had to contend is that of grading, and- unfortunately he has had to be content with the price paid for second grade. In subsequent years the bounty will be still further diminished, until in 1936 it will be .a half -penny for the higher grade and a farthing for the lower. It will thus be seen that this Government has seized upon the proposals of the 'last Government; it has adopted the rate of ltd. per lb. for one year and then a lower rate, and has even encouraged the idea of looking to our secondary industry for help in the future. That is the proposal which was adopted by the Bruce-Page Government, for which, for political reasons, it received the abuse of a certain member of this Parliament. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The late Government strangled the secondary industry by not protecting it. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- It was never asked to protect it. Such statements are merely good electioneering propaganda. Protection for the secondary industry was asked for only after the first bounty had been in operation. The Bruce-Page Government then referred the matter to the Tariff Board. Before the report of the Tariff Board received final consideration the late Government went out of office. It is on the results of that investigation by the Tariff Board that the present Government has based this bill. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The last Government had nine months in which to act, yet it did nothing. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- It was responsible for obtaining the information which has enabled the present Government to act. It must be realized that everything cannot be done in a day. I personally thought that the late Government exhibited tardiness in dealing with this matter. It cannot be denied, however, that the whole of the information was available for the present Government when it came into office. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- We did in one month what the last Government failed to do in nine months. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- That shows that all the necessary investigations had been made; but I make no excuses for the late Minister's handling of the matter. I was hoping daily that he would bring down a measure to give assistance to the industry. Although I support the provisions of this measure, I object to the party political feeling that has been introduced.I had hoped that the Minister would put forward a case that would destroy any opposition to the proposal; that he would tell the people of Australia of the advantage the industry is to them and that we grow the best cotton in the world ; that he would acquaint them of the wonderful areas in his electorate, and in Queensland generally, that can grow cotton, of the amount of labour that is employed in the industry, and of its value to not only Queensland, but also the whole of Australia. Instead of doing that, however, he dealt with' smaller issues. The Minister must realize that the Government and people of theState interested play an important part in the development of the cotton industry. There is in Queensland to-day a government which is assisting the industry in every way possible. The Commonwealth Government can do little other than give a bounty or impose protective duties. The Queensland Government has guaranteed 5d. per lb. to the cotton-growers of that State this year, and this has given an impetus to the industry. During the last few months it has made arrangements for taking over the cotton mills, ginneries, &c, of the British-Australasian Cotton Association, at a cost of £155,000, plus £18,000 for reconditioning the plant, and it will place these worksat the disposal of the farmers to work co-operatively. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- All the Queensland Government did was to guarantee a loan with the Commonwealth Bank. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- The Queensland Government did not merely guarantee a loan for the 5d. per lb. it has guaranteed the growers. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I am not speaking of that, and the honorable member knows it. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- The Acting Minister is trying to take away from the Government of Queensland any " kudos " to which it is entitled for its assistance to the cotton industry. All the Commonwealth Government is doing in connexion with the wheat pool is to guarantee the money which is to be raised from financial institutions. The Queensland Government proposes to assist the cotton-growers to a further extent by raising £250,000 to be used in helping present growers to enlarge their areas, and to place new growers on the land, if the Commonwealth Bank gives terms liberal enough to be passed on to the growers. The Acting Minister in his second-reading speech tried to show that his own Government was responsible for this plan, whereas it is the Queensland Government which is endeavouring to obtain from the Commonwealth Bank on reasonable terms an advance for, say, twenty years, of £250,000, to be administered through the State Agricultural Bank for the assistance of cotton-growers. Dealing with this aspect of the matter the Acting Minister said - >I have interviewed the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank and asked him whether he could make arrangements to lend the Agricultural Bank of Queensland on the security of an approved debenture tobe issued by that institution, the sum of £250,000 for the financialyear beginning the 1st of July, 1930. The Agricultural Bank of Queensland cannot issue debentures. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I said that it. was necessary to amend the State Agricultural Bank Act. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- The Acting Minister made no such statement. He said - >For the financial year beginning the 1st of July, 1930. What financial institution could obtain from the Commonwealth Bank an advance of £250.000 to be lent to the cottongrowers, and undertake to repay the money in one year .under existing conditions? The thing is preposterous. Yet the Acting Minister tried to make out that his Government was doing this thing. It is the Moore Government that is carrying our. negotiations, but it does not propose to repay the money in a year, and could not. lend to growers for so short a period. {: .speaker-K0A} ##### Mr Gabb: -- Is the honorable member supporting this bill? {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- I have already stated that I favour the bill; but if the honorable member had been in his place he would have heard me complain that the Acting Minister had, in the course of his speech, got so far away from the facts of the situation that it was necessary for me to correct him. The statements to which the honorable member objects as being parochial are those of his colleague, the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The honorable member seems to be annoyed that we are assisting the industry. {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- The honorable member is not giving the bounty of 2d. per lb. which he advocated. I am merely trying to put the Acting Minister right. He has had many opportunities of placing his view of the matter before the public, whereas we get only one chance to do so. The Acting Minister said' in his speech - >The money would be advanced to enable the fanners to clear land, &c. The proposition is under consideration by the Commonwealth Bank, and I have every reason to believe that a favorable reply will be received. The State Government applied for a loan, but so far the Commonwealth Bank will not make the money available, but the Acting Minister has got it into *Hansard,* and from there into the press throughout Australia, that the present Commonwealth Government was responsible for this proposal. He has been misrepresenting the position. The Acting Minister also said that in 1925-26 the Queensland Government paid £1S,771 more than its half share of the loss, as it guaranteed an additional half-penny per lb. over and above the price mutually agreed upon by the Commonwealth and State Governments, on condition that the Federal Government also contributed an extra half-penny per lb. As a matter of fact, the Acting Minister knows that the Bruce-Page Government did not shirk its responsibility to pay 50 per cent, of the extra price agreed on. This is what the late Prime Minister, **Mr. Bruce,** said on this matter, as reported in the press - > **Mr. Bruce** expressed surprise at the action **Mr. Forgan** Smith hud taken. No representations, he said, had been made by the Queensland Government to the Commonwealth Government on the subject. As the rates of the guarantee for the present season were adopted in agreement with the State Governments concerned (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia), it was most improper for the Queeusland Government to have announced its intention to increase the guarantee, subject to the Commonwealth Government taking the same course, without consulting either thu Commonwealth or the other State Governments, with whom the basis of the guarantee had been arranged. That statement was made on the eve of a State election in Queensland, and, though the extra guarantee was conceded, the growers, unfortunately, did not receive the full benefit of it. The following is an extract from a newspaper circulating in the Acting Minister's district. I quote from the issue of the 11th June, 1926, as follows : - >According to our so-called experts, the last ' crop, just harvested, was the best in the history of cotton-growing in Queensland. If the best crop is worth only 4-kl. per lb., what is the worst going to bring? Many growers did not average 4-id. The State Government promised the cotton-grower an extra half-penny 0J the eve of the State election. Many growers here prophesied that it would be taken out of them in the grading. They were right. Although the Government did promise the extra money on that occasion, the growers were deprived of the benefit by the manner in which the cotton was graded. When we consider that the cotton industry has been the subject of much controversy between the growers and different governments, we should not too harshly criticize the last Government because it failed to give a bounty to the full amount asked for. Moreover, it is only fair to say that while only 1½d. of the bounty of 2d. per lb. asked for was granted, yet the Government provided assistance to the extent of more than the extra *id.* by paying a bounty on the yarn produced by the manufacturers. Those engaged in the industry are confident, we are told, that if the present proposal goes through, the industry will be placed on a sound footing ; but they were equally confident of that after the 1926 proposals were carried. The Acting Minister has said that those 1926 proposals were responsible for the present depressed state of the industry; yet after the bill was passed the then Minister for Agriculture in the Queensland Government said - >In view of the approach of the coming planting season, the Minister for Agriculture and Stock **(Mr. Forgan Smith)** informed the press recently that it was desirable to take stock of the present situation in the light of last year's experience. The prospects ahead of the cotton industry were at the present time bright, and such as to afford encouragement to cotton - growers to increase their area. . . . The Queensland Cotton Board, operating under marketing organization legislation initiated by the Government, has been successful in improving marketing conditions generally. . . . Owing to the establishment of cottonmanufacturing industries in Australia the whole of the 1927 crop has been marketed within the Commonwealth at prices based on import parity..... This was done under the act which the Acting Minister has so roundly condemned. **Mr. Forgan** Smith also said: - >The department's officers are available at all times to advise intending growers and in the meantime it is hoped that every opportunity will be taken by farmers to avail themselves of the favorable prospects at present existing in this promising industry. The measure introduced by the BrucePage Government to which I have referred did a great deal for this industry; and the fact that the manufacturers later discovered that they needed additional assistance was no fault of that Government. The manufacturers asked, through the Queensland Cotton Board, for additional protection, and **Mr. Bruce** did not turn a deaf ear to their requests. He called upon the Tariff Board to make a complete investigation into the whole industry. It is upon the report that the board made at that time that these proposals have been founded. I sincerely trust that the" Commonwealth and Queensland Governments will work in harmony, with the object of developing the cotton industry along successful lines, and that efforts will not be made to gain a party advantage at the expense of the growers or the industry in general. Assistance should be given to the cotton -growers in a national spirit, and not with the object of making party political capital. The industry must be developed on both the primary and secondary side, and because I believe that this measure will do something to that end, I shall, while deploring the attitude adopted by the Acting Minister, support it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton .- Like the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** and the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser),** I protest against the extraordinarily childish display of political jealousy of which the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde)** was guilty in introducing this bill. It was unworthy of the Minister, and not in the best interests of the industry, and I am certain that it will be" revolting to the growers, who are fully aware of the assistance given their industry by the late Hon. E. Pratten, when he was Minister for Trade and Customs. I believe that the Minister, on reflection, must be sorry for the manner in which he introduced the bill. He should have endeavoured to create a spirit of goodwill, but speeches of the kind he delivered cannot possibly have that effect. I have always done my best to encourage the development of the cotton industry in Queensland, because I believe it to be one of the few remaining big industries which can be developed in Australia on both the primary and secondary side with advantage to the whole community. If the industry is developed along right lines, it will provide many new channels of employment. Hitherto, it has had a chequered career in Australia. The first efforts to develop it were made as far back as 1860, and ten years later the area under crop had increased from fourteen to upwards of. 14,000 acres. For thirty years it had many ups and downs. In 1903, and again in 1913, fresh interest was shown in the cotton crop, but a determined effort was made to resuscitate it in 1920, when the system of guaranteed prices was introduced by the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government at that time guaranteed the prices of cotton, and continued to do so until 1925 or 1926, when it withdrew its support and threw the whole responsibility for protecting the industry upon the Federal Government. Up to that time the Federal and State Governments had shared the losses incurred in the marketing of cotton at the guaranteed price. It was only after the Tariff Board had, at the request of the late Government, made a thorough investigation into the industry that comprehensive proposals were brought down by the then Minister for Trade and Customs, the late Hon. H. E. Pratten, with the object of putting it on a firm footing. Prior to that time endeavours had been made to establish the industry in Australia by growing the seed cotton here and marketing it overseas in competition with cotton grown in black-labour countries. A great deal of difficulty was experienced in selling our cotton on the London market. **Mr. Pratten** devised the scheme of granting a bounty for both primary and secondary cotton .. production. The measure he introduced provided for the payment of a bounty of £900,000 over a number of years. Of that amount £600,000 was to be paid in respect of seed cotton produced in Australia and £300,000 in respect of manufactured yarn half of the material of which had been produced in Australia. That policy showed the way to ultimate success. Many difficulties occurred, however, which could not possibly have been foreseen and neither the Minister nor the Government could fairly be held responsible. One of the chief of these was the failure of G. A. Bond and Company Limited, Australia's biggest cotton spinners, which was compelled to go into liquidation. That company failed, not because of the lack of assistance from the Government, but because of its over-capitalization and bad management. The Chairman of Directors of the company, **Mr. George** A. Bond, drew such exorbitant fees that after the company was forced to go into liquidation, the Courts of New South Wales were asked to decide whether the sums drawn by him were reasonable, and he was ordered by the court to refund approximately £90,000 to the company. Extraordinary and extravagant salaries were also paid to a number of relatives and friends of **Mr. Bond.** It was impossible to carry on the organization under such conditions. There is not the slightest doubt that had the company been conducted on proper lines, the measure of assistance granted to the industry by the Bruce-Page Government would have led to ultimate success and great stimulation of the cotton-growing industry in Queensland. The failure of this company, and the failure of certain large British spinning companies to establish branch factories in Australia, as **Mr. Pratten** was led to understand that they would do, compelled the Cotton Board to sell our cotton on the world's markets, instead of to the manufacturers in Australia. Fortunately a certain measure of success was achieved for some time while the factories operated, but unless some definite method of assisting the secondary side of the industry can be devised and more factories set up in Australia, real success cannot be obtained. The Acting Minister has been touring the country telling the people that a number of factories are to be established in Australia. I sincerely hope that that will be so; otherwise the industry cannot possibly be put upon a sound footing. The secondary side of this industry must be developed simultaneously with the primary side. I sincerely regret the tenor of the speech of the Acting Minister in introducing this bill, and suggest that he take a leaf out of the book of the late **Mr. Pratten. Mr.** Pratten's speech, reported in *Hansard* of 5th August, 1926, is a statesmanlike utterance entirely free from party political prejudice. That honorable gentleman was a very successful business man, and a great protectionist. I feel the House should dissociate itself from any statements purporting to blame him or his colleagues. He threw all his energy into devising a policy which would enable the cotton industry to be developed on the primary and secondary side. I should consider it unworthy of me, being continuously associated with him in handling this industry, if I did not pay my tribute to his endeavours to stabilize the industry in Australia. I wish to quote from the official report of a deputation which waited upon the late **Mr. Pratten** to request his assistance for the cotton industry, to show that those engaged in the industry had every confidence in him and appreciated his work. **Mr. G.** E. McDonald, the chairman of the Queensland Cotton Board at the time, in his introductory remarks to **Mr. Pratten** said - >Before dealing with the various subjects I would just like to say that on reading your' press statement yesterday, one could not help but bo struck with the wonderful achievement which seemed to bc imminent in regard to the influx of capital in the cotton industry. It appeared to be remarkable in so brief a time following on the legislation referred to, and I think it will be accepted that that legislation stands as a landmark in the interests of what I am sure will be accepted as une of the most important industries in the making that we have in the Commonwealth. After various other speakers , had expressed their appreciation of **Mr.** Prattern's work, **Mr. McDonald,** before the deputation withdrew, said this - >At the opening of this interview I expressed the appreciation of the board at meeting you. At the termination .[ would like to express a greater appreciation for the manner in which' you have met the request put before you. ] shall support this measure because I think that we should do everything possible to encourage the development of this industry in Australia, but I believe that it is essential that Commonwealth and State Ministers should work in harmony with those who are engaged in it.. We shall not be able to achieve real success while we have a Minister of the Commonwealth Government expressing himself as the Acting Minister did in introducing this bill. We must do everything possible to create a spirit of goodwill. Unless we can do that, nothing will save the industry from ruin. I am hopeful that with the establishment of other cotton manufacturing firms in Australia and with the development of cooperation and goodwill, this industry will, before long, be stabilized. I hope that the policy laid down by the late **Mr. Pratten** will be vigorously pursued, and that the Government will build on the structure he laid down. I trust that the bill will have a speedy and safe passage. {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper .- I should not have spoken on this measure unless I had been forced, through my absence from the sitting at which the Minister introduced the bill, to read his second-reading speech upon it. I found in the speech not a helpful explanation of the measure, but a series of extravagant party political statements made for propaganda purposes. These statements were not in accord with the facts, and were certainly not in keeping with the importance of the subject. The textile industry is one of the most important in a manufacturing .country. Great Britain was able to win her supremacy in trade and commerce largely through her textile industries. The Acting Minister **(Mr. Forde)** himself pointed out that roughly one-fourteenth of our total imports are cotton textile goods. These are valued at about £11,000,000 per annum. An industry of this magnitude should have been discussed with dignity, and not in the manner adopted by the Ministry in introducing this bill. In order to refresh my memory as to the facts of the case, I read the speech made by a former Minister for Trade and Customs, the late honorable H. E. Pratten, in introducing the Cotton Bounty Bill in 1926, and I advise honorable members who are interested in this subject to do the same. That speech was a most statesmanlike utterance, and one of the best that has been delivered in this Parliament on such a subject. It stands in striking contrast to the speech of the present Minister. It was entirely without party tinge. As the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** pointed out, the proposals which the then Government sponsored were submitted by **Mr. Pratten** on his own initiative; they were not suggested by the Tariff Board, which originally dealt only with the primary industry. **Mr. Pratten** himself was responsible for propounding a scheme to assist and establish the textile industry, and if honorable members will read his speech they will gain some conception of the position which that industry should occupy in the life of the community. Those who have read only the speech of the present Acting Minister for Trade and Customs will be unable to understand why this huge expenditure of public money is proposed. Not only is the speech filled with party propaganda and misrepresentations' of the actions of the previous Government, but it makes some extraordinary claims as to what this bill will do. For instance, he stated that it would give employment to between 25,000 and 30,000 seasonal workers. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- In several years' time. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- What time does the Minister suggest? Does he mean that 30,000 seasonal workers will be employed at the end of six years? To-day he said in reply to an interjection that the seasonal workers are employed for approximately six months in the year. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I said that the picking season extended over a period of six months. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the pickers would be employed for not more than a few weeks, and more than once the Acting Minister corrected him. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I said that the picking season extends over a period of six months; the period of employment will vary from one month to three or four months. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- Every time the Minister opens his mouth he makes a different statement as to the number of men who will be employed and the duration of their employment. In effect he says that in six years time the industry will have an annual value of £4,000,000, that 30,000 seasonal workers will be engaged in picking the crop, and they will be employed for roughly four months in the year. Presumably they will be employed at not less than the basic wage, which means that they will earn about £100 in four months; 30,000 people will earn £3,000,000 for picking, and this will leave £1,000,000 to cover the whole of the development of the industry between the ginning of the crop and the production of the finished article or fabric. The statement that he is now trying to evade is characteristic of him. He goes about the country and in the most expansive manner declares that 50,000 men will be employed on certain works. In the next town he increases the number to 100,000, but when he is pinned down to facts his boom bubbles are quickly pricked. If the 30,000 seasonal workers are to earn OnlY £2,000,000 the average earning per man will be about £60 a year. Nothing could do more harm to this industry than the extravagant statements that are continually made by the Acting Minister. In Brisbane recently at a conference where everybody was in favour of his proposals, the chairman of the Cotton Board, and **Mr. Webster** and others, rebuked the Minister for his excessive optimism and extravagant statements. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The right, honorable member is annoyed because he failed at that conference. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- I am annoyed only because this industry is being misrepresented in the eyes of the public. Great staple industries should not be used as political pawns; they should be recognized as the source of the well-being and prosperity of our people, and if they are to be exploited for the purposes of party politics, measures for their development, will not receive that general support to which they are entitled. Excessive optimism is 'characteristic of the Minister, and even his very sanguine associates at the Brisbane conference said that his statements were not warranted by facts. When the Minister moved the second reading of this bill, he was ready to put a factory in every district. He told the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** that one might be established at Ipswich and another would certainly be built at Rockhampton, and as a result of his statements the poor deluded people of that port expected wealthy people to come along immediately and start a factory. When he visited Rockhampton, however, he said that they must scour the world themselves for manufacturers who would establish themselves there. If the Minister will confine himself to facts, and deal with broad, general principles in a statesman-like and nonpartisan way, we shall advance more rapidly to the solution of our problems. All these industries that he is bolstering up are to provide more employment immediately; one day he says that 100,000 more men, and next day, 200,000 more men, will be provided with work. Despite these bombastic statements of the Minister for Trade and Customs, the Prime Minister deplores the fact that the percentage of unemployment is steadily increasing. I ask honorable members to contrast the policy of this Government in relation to cotton with that propounded by **Mr. Pratten** ou behalf of the BrucePage Ministry. Originally it was proposed, that the Commonwealth and State Governments should each guarantee a proportion of any possible loss that might be suffered by the growers, and the maximum liability of the Commonwealth in any year was in 1925-26 about £80,000. Yet when the Queensland Labour Government repudiated its responsibilities and all the growers had unanimously asked for government decontrol of the industry, because of the harsh treatment they had received from the State Ministry, the Bruce-Page Government introduced a bill for the payment of a bounty of £150,000 a year for six years. That is to say, the Commonwealth Government provided a bounty on its own initiative twice as great as any help previously given. **Mr. Forgan** Smith, then Minister for Agriculture in Queensland, welcomed the proposal, which he said was a better solution of the problem than he had previously dared hoped for. Up to that time the cotton industry had always been dealt with from the point of view of primary production. There was no expectation of the early development of the textile industry in Australia. The bounty was proposed by the then Commonwealth Government to enable the growers to carry on despite the fact that they had to sell their product in the markets of the world. The Tariff Board examined the industry from that angle, and reported in favour of a bounty on raw cotton. **Mr. Pratten,** however, urged that we should endeavour to ensure that Australian cotton should be converted into the finished article in Australian mills. He propounded a scheme to this end, and a further submission was made to the Tariff Board, which recommended a bounty on yarn at a flat rate of 6d. per lb. It ignored the fact that there are various classes of yarns. This bill provides for 41 counts. In spite of the fact that one kind of cotton may be thick and another thin and thus more difficult and expensive to handle and make, the board suggested a flat rate. **Mr. Pratten** decided that the best way to assist the industry was to pay a higher rate of bounty for the finer counts of cotton, and only a small rate for the thicker counts, and the principle he thus laid down as a result of his own observation, experience, and initiative, is preserved in this bill. He provided that the annual bounty of £150,000 should be distributed in the proportion of £120,000 for the growers 'of raw cotton, and £30,000 for the secondary producers. The manufacturers were to enjoy the bounty only until such time as they were able to supply approximately .the whole of Australia's requirements, when deferred duties of 20. 30 and 35 per cent, would come into operation. The bounty was to remain at the rate of ltd. per lb. for a number of years. The Acting Minister **(Mr. Forde),** who was then a private member, was always demanding that the bounty should be increased to 2d. per lb. Now that he is able to give effect to his own ideas he still proposes a bounty of 1-Jd., and even that will diminish. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- That is all that the Cotton Board and the spinners ask for. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- As the professed champion of the cotton-growers, the honorable member, when a private member, demanded a bounty of 2d. or nothing; as a Minister with an opportunity to give effect to a definite policy he proposes a bounty of lid. diminishing, to ½d. by 1936, and in respect of lower grades of seed cotton ld., diminishing to *id.* **Mr. Pratten** pointed out that his bounty of 1-J-d. on raw cotton and a further bounty to stimulate the manufacture of textiles were worth much more to the industry than the straight out bounty of 2d. per lb. which the honorable member for Capricornia demanded at that time. It will be remembered that at that time the Minister made a definite arrangement with the Australian manufacturers that they should buy the cotton ginned in Australia at a rate equivalent to that ruling at Liverpool, plus the cost of freight to Australia. {: .speaker-KV8} ##### Mr Stewart: -- Now that the Acting Minister is displaying a little sanity, surely we should not complain. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- The Acting Minister may display a certain amount of what the honorable member for Wimmera calls sanity, at the expense of the primary producer, but my complaint is that he is always willing to help the manufacturer at the expense of the primary producer. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The Government is acceding to the requests of both sections of the industry. {: .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr EARLE PAGE: -- I have a strong suspicion that on this occasion the grower of cotton is being simply used as a pawn in the interests of the manufacturer, whose aim is to bring about an increase of duty. At any rate, the proposal of the late Government was that a deferred duty should be imposed, to come into operation by proclamation. In the meantime the industry would be built up by means of a bounty. Under the present Government's proposals, however, there is operating, not only a bounty, but a duty of 35 per cent., 50 per cent., and 55 per cent., even before there is any actual production to wholly meet Australian requirements. This increased duty will undoubtedly increase the cost of -living of everybody in Australia who wears cotton goods, because it is quite evident that for at least a year or two we shall not be able to supply our own cotton requirements. The increased duty, together with the bounty, means, as' pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, a duty of 105 per cent, on all cotton goods included in the tariff schedule. No one would accuse the late **Mr. Pratten** of being anything else but a protectionist, and when he was Minister for Trade and Customs he considered that 20 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent, was reasonable protection to the industry. Canada has imposed a 7-J per cent, duty against Great Britain, and a 20 per cent, duty against the United States of America. It has thus been able to develop an industry which uses 180,000 bales of cotton every year, and in addition it exports overseas. Surely it must be evident to every member of the community that the cure for our economic ills is to be found, not in a continual increase of duties, but rather in the correction of the industrial and economic conditions of this country. We must cheapen the cost of production. In 1925 the late **Mr. Pratten** attempted to cheapen the cost of production by removing some 60 items of duty from the tariff schedule. Those duties applied to articles not made in Australia. I venture to say that if we were to remove the duties on the machinery and electrical equipment used by this and other industries not made on a large scale in Australia, there would be little need to impose additional duties on cotton importations. I support the bill. It does not deal with the question of increased duties. My chief complaint is that it provides for a declining bounty for the cottongrower. I shall express my views on the increased duties when the tariff schedule is before the House for discussion. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah -- There are some industries in this country which have been protected and from which the benefits to be derived are inadequate compared with the cost involved. I yield to no man in my desire to support and encourage secondary industries in Australia, but I contend that they should be built up on some scientific basis, and not assisted by duties and bounties devised in a haphazard and slipshod fashion. A recent publication, known as *Hie* *Australian Tariff,* contains these words - >Our conclusions on effects indicate that the total burden of the tariff has probably reached the economic limits, and an increase in this burden might threaten the standard of living. It is important, therefore, that no further increases in, or extensions of, the tariff should be made without the most rigorous scrutiny of the costs involved. The following is a further paragraph in regard to bounties - >Bounties are more economical tl,.. protective duties, and are preferable on all grounds except financial expediency. They should be adopted as the method of protection when the industry is in an early and experimental stage. If and when the industry is established a tariff duty could be substituted, and the amount necessary more accurately determined. With those views I entirely agree. This particular industry, before this bill is passed, should receive the closest consideration and investigation. It is proposed to expend anything up to £1,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, to establish the cotton industry. Let me remind the House that we have already paid bounties of £1,700,000 to the iron and steel industry, of £280,000 to the sulphur industry, of £300,000 to the cotton industry, and we are now proposing to pay another £600,000 to that industry, making £900,000 in all. We were told this afternoon that the total payments under the Wine Bounty Export Act have reached the enormous sum of £.1,313,677. There is, therefore, something over £4,000,000 involved in our endeavour to establish some four industries. I submit that those industries do not to-day indicate that they are worth the money that has been expended upon them. Not only is a bounty to be paid to the cotton-grower, but, as has been pointed out by the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page),** it is to be accompanied by a high duty. To my mind. cotton will be produced in this country only at a cost which will not allow any of it to be exported, and the secondary industries that use Australian cotton will need to extort excessive prices from the community to pay for the cost of manufacture. Considerable interest has been displayed in this House in regard to the grower of cotton, but not one word has been said in regard to the hundreds of thousands of people who will have to buy this cotton in the manufactured state. Are they not entitled to some consideration in this Commonwealth Parliament? Arc we not concerned with the cost of the cotton requirements of the working men of this country? Why should they be charged four and five times the price at which similar goods can be purchased in other countries? This legislation will mean a good deal to those interested in the cotton industry, but what will it mean to the ' woman who has to drag five or six children around with her while looking for the cheapest shop at which to expend the portion of his weekly wage given to her by her husband? Not one word has been said in this Parliament on her behalf. On the other hand, the Acting Minister has blithely advocated an enormous expenditure to establish an industry which must have only one effect, and that is to increase the costs under which the workers of this country are struggling, and these are excessive. I have done my utmost for many years to assist in establishing industries, but on scientific lines. I am not prepared to vote for the expenditure of public money, when the principal effect will be to increase the cost of living of hundreds of thousands of our workers, who are to-day finding it most difficult to obtain their bare needs with their wages. {: .speaker-KV8} ##### Mr Stewart: -- What does the honorable member mean when he uses the term " scientific lines " ? **Mr. ARCHDALE** PARKHILL.There are in almost every audience persons who are only too ready to treat with derision such a statement as that to which the honorable member draws attention. I do not blame him for asking this question; 1 refer merely to the manner in which his interjection was received. Any person who does not support an industry which a government backs with the people's money is charged in certain quarters with being unAustralian and unprepared to support Australian industries. Nothing ;s simpler than to vote other people's money, and it is an excellent means of making a good fellow of oneself. I am prepared to risk being misunderstood when I say that I wish to conserve the interests not only of the manufacturer and the grower of cotton, but also of that very much larger section, the great consuming public, which has to buy the finished article, and which is prejudicially affected by the establishment of an industry under unfavorable conditions. When I referred to a scientific tariff I had in mind the establishment of industries in conditions that arefavorable, and in such a manner that the cost of living will not be excessively increased thereby, but on the contrary, reduced. .The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** has pointed out that, on the reports of the Queensland Government itself, the land upon which it is proposed to spend all this money to produce this cotton at an excessive cost is. more suited to mixed farming, and the production of commodities that not only will be of value to the people of Australia, but will also have an exportable value, and thus bring into this country what is needed more than anything else, namely, new money. That is an additional reason why this measure should not receive the support that the Minister has sought for it. It has been pointed out, also, that not only is the bounty with which this industry is to be endowed excessively great, amounting to something like 9§d. per lb. for cotton of the No. 16 count, which is the most popular line, but also that its addition to the existing duty will bring the total protection to So per cent, in the case of British imports, and 105 per cunt, in the case of foreign imports. Yet Canada - where, according to the Minister, the conditions are not nearly so favorable as they are in Australia - has established its industry without thu aid of a bounty, and with a duty of only 7£ per cent. British and 20 per cent, foreign. Under these circumstances we should pause before we commit ourselves to the expenditure of this large sum of money, and ask ourselves whether it is worth while to confer a benefit upon only one State and, what is more, upon only the limited number of people who are engaged in the industry in that State, and the secondary industry that is connected with it. Surely it is the policy of this Government not to give concessions to little groups, but to consider the citizens as a. whole! Judged on that basis this legislation will be of no real value, except to the growers of cotton and the manufacturers, who will thus be enabled, as other persons engaged in industries that are similarly protected have been, to make profits. Let us consider for a moment the number of constituencies in which not a single elector will benefit. The only interest in the matter that will be taken by, say, a Ballarat elector will be the price at which he can purchase his cotton, goods. This bounty will cause a very considerable increase on the prices he has formerly paid. It is the working man with a large family who will be most affected by this bounty. If the representatives of the workers in this Parliament heap this grinding taxation on the backs of their constituents, I cannot see how they can escape their wrath when the people become alive .to its significance. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle .- Broadly speaking, I have found it very difficult for many years to justify the general principle of assisting industries by giving bounties. But in this case one cannot overlook the fact that a critical situation exists. Listening to honorable members opposite addressing themselves to this subject, one would imagine that they had never been associated with either the policy of giving bounties to industries or the policy of fiscal protection. During the last ten years, every action that has been taken in respect to the granting of bounties to assist a particular industry, or the imposition of duties that necessarily have the same effect, has altered the relativity of every other industry to the particular industry that has been favoured. Fundamentally, 1 do noi: see that there is very much distinction between the policy outlined by this bill and that which was laid down by the previous Government. That Government argued that it was desirable to support the cotton industry, which is located in Queensland, and as the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Archdale Parkhill)** has just said, does not. extend even over the whole of that State. But whatever objections may be raised to the support that this nation is asked to give to a particular locality, because of certain circumstances, those objections can be of no force when coming from him; because the honorable member himself supported a Government which considered those objections as of not sufficient, consequence. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- I did nol support, any proposals of this character. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- Honorable members of the Opposition are hopelessly divided upon this bill. Those who represent Queensland constituencies support it. whole-heartedly. The whole of their criticism has been, not of the bill, but. of the particular arguments which the Minister happened to use when he introduced it, which they regard as criticism of a certain party in the State of Queensland. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- Oh, no ! {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- If . I understood aright, the .honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** and the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser),** both supported this measure unequivocally, and their criticism was directed at what they described as the party political propaganda which they alleged was contained in the speech of the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde).** The whole of their argument dealt with, not the merits of the bill, but what they considered to be a castigation bv the Minister of the anti-Labour party in Queensland and those who support it. It is obvious, therefore, that between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** and the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** there is a gulf as wide as that which exists between a free trader and a protectionist, or a man who supports bounties and one who opposes them. The ground upon which I support this bill is that of national importance and national emergency. I propose to read an extract from a report made by the Tariff Board. I assume that that board, with its customary deliberation, and with that judicial temperament which in the last Parliament the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed for its members, investigated thi3 matter very carefully, and quite fairly. Dealing with the subject of national defence it said - >As lias previously been pointed out, cotton is a most important, in fact an indispensable commodity, in time of such national emergency; seeing that it not only plays a vital part, in the manufacture of munitions, but is also essential in many phases of defence equipment. Having in mind the place which cotton holds in the domestic, industrial, economic and national life of the country, the Tariff Board has no hesitation in expressing the view that the development and successful establishment of the cotton -grow ing industry in Australia is not only desirable but vitally essential to the welfare of the Com mon wealth. "What steps do honorable members opposite propose to take in order to assist the development of this industry, which is vitally necessary to the welfare of the Commonwealth? Do they propose that there should be done other than what is proposed to be done by means of this bill? That seems a reasonable and proper question. The bill itself merely extends principles which the previous Government laid down, actuated, probably, by the same reasons as move this Government. .Australia imports £11,000,000 worth of cotton goods each year. Our present economic difficulties are admittedly attributable to the fact that we have a gigantic adverse trade balance largely .due to the importation of goods which this country does not produce. Surely the rectification of that evil lies chiefly in the production of goods which we do not now make. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- But our secondary industries here cannot manufacture for export. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- In order to rectify our adverse trade balance the first thing to do is to produce for our own market many of the goods we have hitherto imported. But it is necessary for a country first to satisfy its own market before it can consider exporting. That is a fundamental principle which has been recognized by all exporting countries of the world. {: .speaker-KV8} ##### Mr Stewart: -- The trouble is that most of the manufacturers never go beyond the point of supplying the home market. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I hold no brief for our Australian .manufacturers except in so far as the industries in which they are engaged are essential to the security of the nation. I regard them merely as agents in the scheme of national existence. As persons they have been lacking in many of the qualities that might reasonably be expected of those who have received so many favours. This bill is designed not merely to stimulate a national industry; its paramount purpose is to assist in the establishment and development of an important, primary industry. It has also for its object the distribution of population throughout Australia. It does not aim to provide additional constituents for members who represent great metropolitan electorates. It will have a profound decentralizing effect. The cotton industry is located in rural areas. It is carried on in one of Australia's tropical States, and in that part of Australia which is most likely to be a danger spot in the future. If we do not people that area, how are we to hold it; and if we do not foster industries there, how are we going to people it? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- The Government which the honorable member supports has shattered our national defence force, and yet he asks how are we going to hold Australia. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- That is another matter altogether, and cannot properly be introduced into this debate. The honorable member for Warringah objected to this bill on the ground that it proposes to confer concessions on a particular group of persons. That may be true. but the objection applies to every form of protection conferred upon any industry by any government. The honorable member has been a supporter of many protective duties,1 and in the course of the speech which he has just concluded he professed to believe in a modicum of protection. Yet even the smallest degree of protection confers a concession upon some one, so that the honorable member's argument is defective. In the past, Parliament has at least tried to assist the cotton industry. The last Government endeavoured to do so through the instrumentality of the tariff, and by the pa.y: ment of a bounty. This Government is seeking to do the same thing in the same way. The' objection of honorable members opposite seems to savour of that particular kind of party propaganda which the honorable members for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** and Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser)** condemned in their speeches today. Australia needs a cotton industry. It needs a great variety of industries. More than that, it needs to be emancipated from its economic dependence on the great industrial nations of the world. Until that is done we shall- have to face, year after year, the difficulties which arise from an adverse trade balance, difficulties which bid fair to paralyze our national life. I am not at all impressed by the death-bed repentance of the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Archdale Parkhill)** as indicated by his plea for the workers of Ballarat. They have for a long time recognized the benefits of a protectionist policy. That policy has resulted in providing employment for hundreds of citizens of Ballarat in industries situated in that city. I am sure that those persons have a sufficient sense of reciprocity to recognize the need of fostering industries in other parts of the Commonwealth. When we can establish flourishing industries away from the great metropolitan centres of Australia we shall have gone a long way towards solving our unemployment problem. I hope that eventually North- Western Australia as well as Northern Queensland, may benefit under this bill. In that way we may build up a thriving primary industry in the tropical areas of Australia, together with an important secondary industry which will give employment to thousands -of persons far from the purlieus of Melbourne and Sydney. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-JVR} ##### Mr NAIRN:
Perth .- The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Curtin)** pleads for the support of this bill on the ground that it will assist us to meet a possible national emergency; in other words, that it will help us to provide ourselves with munitions of war. I do not think that he is sincere in that argument, or if he is, he does not express the views of his party. The Labour party in office has done all that it could to destroy the defence of Australia. That being so I am surprised to hear from a supporter of that party that the payment of a bounty on cotton is necessary in the interests of national defence. He may have been more sincere when he said that previous governments had initiated this policy. For my part I do not regard this as a party issue at all. I do not care whether the last Government favored this policy or not. I think that the whole system of bounties and ever-increasing tariffs is wrong, and is largely responsible for bringing about Australia's present unsatisfactory condition. Let us consider one or two industries that are being artificially stimulated. The wine industry has been mentioned in this House to-day. To that industry the Commonwealth has paid over £1,250,000 in the form of bounties, yet those engaged in it are wanting more and more. That has been our experience with nearly all these hot-house industries - the more stimulation they get the more they require. The sugar industry furnishes another example. It has cost the people of Australia millions of pounds to maintain a comparatively few people growing sugar in Queensland. Although Ave have a magnificent outside market for our sugar, particularly in Canada, our exports are negligible, and our own people are paying an extortionate price for the sugar they use. I have no doubt that our experience will be much the same with cotton, only worse. Cotton is used by almost everybody in the community, and particularly by the poorer members of it. It is also largely used in secondary industries. Increasing the price of cotton will have the double effect of making the cost of living higher, and of causing more unemployment hy making it more and more difficult to carry on industry at a profit. The whole system of excessive stimulation of industry is wrong. The admitted fact that this industry requires over 100 per cent. protection ought to be sufficient to condemn the proposal. I regard this as one of the most outrageous proposals of the kind ever brought before the House, and I intend to oppose it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- There appears to be considerable difference of opinion in this House as to who is responsible for the development of the cotton industry in Australia. Honorable members on both sides of the House have given the credit to the last Federal Government, but the first , .practical steps in that direction were taken by the Queensland Labour Government, of which the present Federal Treasurer was Premier. That Government was responsible, in 1920, for the measure guaranteeing a fixed price of 5£d per lb. on seed grown cotton in Queensland. At that time there were only 166 acres under cotton in Queensland. In 1922 the area had increased to 7,000 acres and the yield had increased to 3,755,056 lb. The policy of the Queensland Labour Government in guaranteeing the price of cotton resulted in the settlement on the land of over 6,000 cotton-growers, who provided employment for about 3,500 cotton-pickers in the season when the sugar, meat and wool industries of that State were not providing much employment. The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Archdale Parkhill)** said that if the policy outlined in the bill were put into operation it would increase the cost of cotton goods; but it seems to me that the unemployed people of Australia would be glad to work at making cotton goods here, even if the price were a little higher, instead of remaining out of work while cotton goods continued to pour into the Commonwealth from overseas. This party has done a great deal to establish secondary industries in Australia. In that regard its policy is in marked contrast to that of the previous Government, which showed no consideration whatever for those who were seeking to establish manufacturing concerns in the Commonwealth. I believe that the great majority of the people of Australia are whole-heartedly in favour of its policy. The cotton-growing industry has made remarkable strides in the last few years. In 1919, the year before the Queensland Cotton Bounty Act became effective, only 72 acres of that State were under cotton cultivation, and the yield was only 27,470 lb. of seed cotton. Comparative figures for 1920 are 166 acres and 57,055 lb.; and for 1928, 23,500 acres, and 12,218,066 lb. When the Cotton Bounty Bill was under consideration in the Queensland Parliament the members of the Opposition argued that the farmers of thai State would be penalized if they were obliged to grow high quality seed cotton. Prior to the introduction of the bill, experts had been sent to America to obtain information for the Department of Agriculture as to the effect of the boll weevil, and in consequence of their report the Queensland Government placed an embargo on the growing of ratoon cotton and guaranteed 5£d. per lb. for all seed cotton produced. In the following two or three years an agitation was maintained for a partial- reversal of the policy, and ultimately the embargo on the growing of ratoon cotton was withdrawn. Very large areas in Australia are suitable for cotton-growing. Practically half of the surveyed districts of Queensland are suitable for it. It can be grown in the districts near the Gulf of Carpentaria and right across into the Northern Territory, and also as far south as the New South Wales border. This Government would be well advised to encourage cotton-growing in the Northern Territory. It is necessary for us to increase our production in order to provide employment for our people, and as the Government has control of the Northern Territory, il could make land available to married people under liberal conditions. We could throw open for selection a great deal of country suitable for mixed farming, and I submit that we should do everything possible to bring it under cultivation. We cannot do very much to encourage cotton growing in the Gull of Carpentaria country as the are is within the State of Queensland, . but we should certainly do our best to develop the Northern Territory, and cotton growing has great possibilities in that regard. Ten years ago practically nobody was engaged in this industry in Australia, but in 1928 no fewer than 3.500 people found employment in it. In view of the decline in mining in northern Queensland I hope that the Queensland Government will encourage cotton production. I. do not believe that the results feared by the honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Archdale Parkhill)** will follow. The experts who were sent to America by the Queensland Government reported that cotton could be produced in Queensland as cheaply as in America. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- Then why do we need to provide bounties and heavy duties ? {: .speaker-KYZ} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- Although the industry has been established for many years in America, the honorable member must know that in the early stages of its development there, the Government practically prevented the importation of cotton by imposing almost prohibitive duties. Like the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, I hope that the passage of this bill may lead to great development in this industry, with the result that a large amount of employment will be provided and the area under cotton greatly extended. {: #subdebate-31-0-s10 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP -- The speeches on this bill delivered by honorable members opposite have been most disappointing. The subject is so important that I hoped that some constructive ideas would be expressed, but the hope was not justified. The speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** was palpably weak, and indicated to me that it was his influence that prevented the previous Government from introducing a comprehensive policy for the encouragement of this industry in Australia. The honorable gentleman did nothing but whine and complain. He predicted blue ruin for Australia if this bill received the approval of Parliament. But he has made similar statements so often that one may be pardoned for not taking them seriously. The honorable member has been, utterly inconsistent as a member of this Parliament. I remember that he said on one occasion that the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** was the most tragic Treasurer Australia had ever known, but very shortly after he was a cabinet colleague of his. {: .speaker-KFS} ##### Mr Gullett: -- I never brought down a bill mainly to benefit the electors in my own constituency. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The honorable member showed clearly while he held the portfolio of Trade and Customs that he was quite incapable of bringing down a bill that would benefit anybody. In 1928 he said - "lt is time we had a tariff holiday." It was possibly because of that utterance that he was placed in charge of the Trade and Customs Department and given the task of harmonizing the views of the socalled protectionists and the freetrade supporters of the last composite government. As a matter of fact he pleased nobody, and was partly responsible for the government of which he was a member being hurled into oblivion. I listened in vain for a constructive proposal from the members of the Opposition. The speech of the right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** was amusing. One expected something better from a man who had been Treasurer of the Commonwealth for many years, and who is leader of the so-called Country party, but all be did was to show petulance, pettiness, and chagrin, because this bill has been introduced by the present Government to do something which his Government failed to do, preferring, as it did, the products of any other country to those of Australia. The honorable members for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** and Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** delved into pettifogging side issues, but as they concluded by supporting the bill, I shall say nothing harsh against them. The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Francis)** expressed the opinion that harmony between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments would be necessary if this scheme were to be a success. I look for such harmony, and, fortunately, it prevails at the present time. The Queensland Minister for Agriculture **(Mr. Walker)** will' support me in saying that our negotiations in regard to this matter have been most amiable, and that we hope to co-operate in every way to make the cotton industry a success. The right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** and the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Latham)** sought to misrepresent my statements regarding the unemployment that would result from the policy of the Government. When moving the second reading of the bill, I pointed out that the cotton-growing industry gives seasonal employment to over 3,000 workers in Queensland, and I stated that the picking season lasts from two to six months. In some districts the crop is later than in others, and pickers, after working out one field, go on to another, and may get five months of intermittent work. Employment is not constant, because an interval may occur between the completion of the harvest on ohe farm and the commencement of picking on another. The statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that picking affords employment for only a few weeks in each year shows his complete ignorance of the industry. He seems disturbed at the thought that this industry will employ a considerable number of men in picking for several months. His attitude is what one would expect of him. If he had his way this bill would be jettisoned; he says that the proposal it contains will be detrimental to Australia, and will be productive more of harm than good. He is the gentleman who, as Minister for Trade and Customs, went to Queensland before the election, and made academic speeches to the cotton-growers, with a view to convincing them that if they voted for his party all would be well with them. To-day he expressed regret that this matter has not been dealt with on its merits and free of party politics. Those who are familiar with the subject know that the speeches made by the Nationalist candidates during the 1928 election campaign were positively nauseating. In effect, they said to the cotton-growers, " You have been waiting for some time for the protection of your industry. Vote for the Bruce-Page Government; Parliament will be called together in January, 1929, and shortly afterwards protection will be given to you." What happened? Early in 1928 the Queensland Cotton Board and the manufacturers sent a deputation to the then Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Pratten).** I give the deceased gentleman due credit for his fiscal views and his sympathetic hearing of manufacturers and primary producers who were seeking protection ; but, with his passing, all semblance of protection in the policy of the Bruce-Page Government disappeared. **Mr. Bruce** looked about for a shandy-gaff protectionist to appoint to the vacant portfolio, and found him in the person of the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett).** The Tariff Board recommended a bounty on seed cotton, increased rates of duty on cotton yarn imported into the Commonwealth, and increased ' rates of bounty on yarn manufactured from Australian-grown cotton, and also an increase of duty on linters but the late Government ignored the recommendation. The matter was referred to the Tariff Board in May, 1928, and the ' board did not start to take evidence till the following September. It presented its report on the 6th March,. 1929. The last Government had that report in hand for approximately seven months before the general election, and yet took no action. Honorable members opposite say that the present Government is merely carrying out the recommendations of the Tariff Board. That is true, but the last Government failed to do that ; it kept the report secret for seven months, and although I applied for it on many occasions it was withheld from me. But immediately after the present Government took office we considered the requirements of the cotton industry and decided to act upon the board's report. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett),** who was Minister for Trade and Customs in the last Government, opposes this bill which is largely based on the Tariff Board's recommendation, is it any wonder that our predecessors did nothing? When moving the second reading, I stated that at the present time the cotton industry employed approximately 2,800 farmers, 3,000 field labourers and pickers, 200 persons in ginneries, and 1,000 in manufacturing and distribution, making a total of 7,000. I pointed out that the duties imposed in November last affected £3,000,000 worth of the cotton goods imported annually, and if those goods were produced in Australia, employment would be given to 5,000 farmers, 8,000 field labourers and pickers, 500 ginnery hands, and 4,500 persons engaged in manufacture and distribution, making a total of 18,000. There is no reason why we should not manufacture all our requirements of cotton goods. The total imports are valued at £11,000,000, and when the Australian industry is able to handle £8,000,000 of that sum, the employment in all sections will be about 40,000, apart from those engaged in other pursuits indirectly connected with the cotton industry. Australia has the soil and climate to produce cotton superior to American middling. Why is it not doing it? The chief reason is that the industry has not had a fair chance in the past because of the policy of the party now in opposition. All the schemes of the honorable members opposite for the development of the cotton .industry were one-sided ; they did not go far enough. They dealt only with cotton-growing, and although they offered a small bounty to the manufacturer of yarn they failed to give him protection which would enable him to buy cotton produced in Australia and sell locally the yarn manufactured therefrom. {: .speaker-KXQ} ##### Mr Archdale Parkhill: -- Is not this bill based on **Mr. Pratten's** scheme? {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- **Mr. Pratten's** proposal did not go far enough, for it failed to give protection to the manufacturers. The present Government is giving that protection, and it is also offering a bounty to the cotton-grower and the manufacturers of yarn on a diminishing basis, so that it will expire at the end of 1936, when the industry should be able to stand alone. Both, growers and manufacturers have accepted this scheme as the best possible under the circumstances. Another reason why the industry is bound to prosper is that the Queensland growers have taken over the ginning plants and oil mills at a cost of £137,500. This will reduce ginning costs. The British-Australasian Cotton Growing Association was charging l£d. per lb. for ginning cotton, whereas the cost in America is approximately .55d. By co-operation and control of the industry by the farmer from the growing of the cotton to the sale of the cotton lint to the manufacturer, the industry should be put on a more profitable basis. The growers will get the profits from the oil mill, which was the most payable part of the plant owned by the BritishAustralasian Cotton Growers Association. The right honorable member for Cowper **(Dr. Earle Page)** made much of the fact that two years ago I advocated a bounty of 2d. per lb. on seed cotton. In 1926 the Tariff Board, after a thorough investigation of the industry, recommended a bounty of 2d. per lb. for five years and a diminishing bounty for the next five years. The Bruce-Page Government would not agree to pay more than l£d. per lb. I then advocated that the 2d: be paid as recommended by the board; alternatively, that a duty be imposed to encourage manufacturers to buy Australian cotton. That was the desire of the Queensland Cotton Board. But the last Government would not accede to it. The manager of the Cotton Board, giving evidence before ihe Tariff Board on the 31st October, 1928, said- >If circumstances render it impossible to make the conditions such as will enable the spinners to purchase the bulk of next season's crop, I would urge that if even for only one year the seed cotton bounty be increased to 2d. per lb.; £120,000 was appropriated for last year, and only £40,000 expended. A further £120,000 was appropriated for the present season, and the amount of bounty required will be about £80,000. > >The Commonwealth Government justifies their action in making the seed cotton bounty *lid.* per lb. instead of 2d. per lb. as recommended by the Tariff Board by stating that the Australian market would be available. No other reason was adduced in support of this action. Surely, in the circumstances, it is not too much to ask that the 2d. should be paid for one year, pending the definite establishment of the spinning industry. > >Although this may be digressing from the matters directly referred to to the Tariff Board, it is an aspect of the case to which I think the board, in justice to the industry, might give some consideration. The Tariff Board, however, while recognizing that there was a good deal in the claim of the manager of the Cotton Board, said that it could not recommend the payment of a bounty of 2d. per lb. on seed cotton for one year and it recommended tariff protection instead. Its recommendation to that effect is contained in its report submitted in March, 1929. The manager of the board made the request because the Bruce-Page Government had absolutely failed to give protection to the manufacturer of yarn. He could not buy cotton on the Australian market because of large importations of yarn, equivalent to 20,000 bales of cotton lint. As a result, the Queensland grower was forced to export his cotton and to sell *in* the Liverpool market. The honorable member for Moreton (Mr.Francis) and the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser)** pretended to-night to be much concerned about the cotton industry, but I ask them what did they do to help the cotton industry when they stood behind the Nationalist Government? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- The Acting Minister should not be so childish. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The honorable member displayed a childishness that is seldom seen even in a nursery. He Heclaimed that the Bruce-Page Government would do all that this Government has done during its short term of office. The Bruce-Page Government was in office for nearly seven years, yet made no attempt to assist the cotton industry in a comprehensive way. It lavishly expended public moneys with practically no result. It failed to give protection to the manufacturer, and he was therefore unable to purchase Australiangrown cotton, and the cottongrowers were forced to accept nearly 2d. per lb. less than the ruling price for lint because they were compelled to sell on the Liverpool market in competition with the products of black labour. This Government is assisting the cotton industry from a national point of view and ina statesmanlike manner. It believes that the Tariff Board was right when it stated that this industry was of great national importance, and was capable of giving employment to thousands of people in growing and picking cotton and in the ginneries, spinning mills and weaving and knitting mills of Australia. Because of the Government's belief in the future of the cotton industry it has now taken steps to give it adequate assistance. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Gullett)** has referred to the high cost of picking in Queensland compared with the low cost of picking in America by so-called white labour. **Mr. Webster,** the manager of the Queensland Cotton Board, has just returned from America, and his report gives the lie direct to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. **Mr. Webster,** in his report dated 10th January, 1930, says - >I well remember **Mr. Gullett** sayingat Biloelalast year that he was puzzled to know why the pickers in America gathered three and four times as much cotton per day as was gathered by the pickers in Queensland. **Mr. Gullett** remarked that America was a country of high wages and short hours, and that the picking was only partly carried out by coloured labour. This description is not accurate. In the first place the whole of the crop in America is harvestedeither by coloured labour or by Mexicans. Of the tons of thousands of pickersI saw in the fields I can say without hesitation that I could count on the fingers of my two hands the number of whites I saw employed in picking. Secondly the stories of the large tallies, such as 500 and600 lb. per day of which we have heard, are myths. No doubt on odd occasions a very expert picker working twelve or thirteen hours can make such a tally, and on occasions I met farmers who told me they knew of instances when it had been done. Some of them were a, little more expansive and were inclined to insist that it was not uncommon. I thought, however, the best method of informing myself as to the general picking rate of the negro and the Mexican was to go into the fields when the work was being actually carried out. **Mr. Webster's** report definitely proves that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was telling an untruth. {: #subdebate-31-0-s11 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The Acting Minister is not in order in attributing an untruth to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I ask that he withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I withdraw, andI amend my remark by saying that he was prevaricating. *[Quorum formed.]* In conclusion, I wish to say that it is the opinion of the Government that this measure, when in operation, will bring about considerable additional employment both in primary and secondary industries throughout Australia. We have established without doubt the fact that Australia can grow cotton and can manufacture cotton goods. It is estimated that we can manufacture at least £8,000,000 worth out of the £11,000,000 worth of cotton goods that are at present imported into this country each year. This legislation will be supported, not only by those who are growing and manufacturing cotton, but also by the great majority of the people of Australia who support the policy of importing less and manufacturing more in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and committed *pro forma.* {: .page-start } page 1285 {:#debate-32} ### ADJOURNMENT reparationagreement {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr SCULLIN:
Prime Minister · Yarra · ALP -- I move - That the House do now adjourn. 1 desire to make a short statement in connexion with the paper that I laid on the table of the House to-day. It will be remembered that on the 21st November last I laid on the table of the House the protocol signed at the first session of the Hague Conference. The documents which 1 laid on the table to-day comprise the final act and agreements signed at the close of the second and final session of the conference. They fill a bulky volume, and include a lengthy agreement with Germany, agreements with Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, a convention with Switzerland relating to the establishment of the Bank for International Settlements, and arrangements for the distribution of the annuities between the creditor powers. By the agreement with Germany, to which, of course, the Commonwealth is a party, the new scheme for reparation payments drawn up by the Young Committee and described throughout the agreements as the New Plan, is accepted as a complete and final settlement, so far as Germany is concerned, of the financial questions resulting from the war, and the German Government gives a solemn undertaking to pay the annuities for which the NewPlan provides. The creditor powers agree to cease the liquidation of the property of German nationals. The Commonwealth Government has concluded an agreement with the German Government relating to the property of German nationals, which I dealt with separately, and which the Government will shortly ratify. The agreements to which the Commonwealth of Australia is a party, and which it proposes to ratify, are - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. the agreement with Germany accepting the Young or New Plan as the final settlement of Germany's reparation payments : {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. an agreement with Austria for the final discharge of Austria's financial obligations under the Peace Treaty by the payments already made. (iii)anagreement with Bulgaria for the satisfaction of Bulgarian unpaid reparations by an average annual payment of approximately £465,000; 1. an agreement with Czechoslovakia for the settlement of their " liberation " debts by 37 annuities of 10,000,000 gold marks; 1. an agreement between the various creditor powers as to the division of the proceeds of German reparations; (vi)a similar agreement as regards Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Czechoslovak payments. {: #debate-32-s1 .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr LATHAM:
Kooyong .- With reference to the matter to which the Prime Minister has referred, I presume that the agreements which he mentioned leave the share of the British Empire substantially at 22 per cent. and that of Australia at 4 per cent. of the Empire reparation payments; that no alteration has been made regarding the share of Australia in the total payment? {: .speaker-F4Q} ##### Mr Scullin: -- That isso. {: .speaker-KZO} ##### Mr LATHAM: -- Then we may congratulate ourselves thatwe are approaching the end of anot very satisfactory result of the war, which was not entirely due to the views which were taken by those who on our own side negotiated the Treaty of Peace. It is often forgotten that Germany undertook to compensate her nationals with respect to the liquidated property, and that the suffering that has fallen on many of them in Australia and elsewhere is the direct result of her failure to give effect to that promise. Honorable members will be at one in deploring this particular effect of war in respect of private property. I hope that steps taken since at the Hague, at Geneva, and at London, may remove this risk from the future history of the world. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 April 1930, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1930/19300430_reps_12_123/>.