House of Representatives
29 May 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. D. C. McGrath) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and offered prayers.

page 2417

QUESTION

TRANSPORT WORKERS ACT

Disallowance of Regulations - Address to Governor-General

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the disallowance by the Senate of the latest regulations under the Transport Workers Act, and the statement by the Prime Minister that the Government will give effect to its policy in regard to employment on the waterfront, will the Attorney-General state the intentions of the Government?

Mr BRENNAN:
Attorney-General · BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP

– The regulations recently gazetted have been disallowed by the Senate, but I understand, although I have not been officially informed, that a petition on the subject is to be presented by the Senate to the Governor-General. The whole matter will, therefore, receive due consideration by the Government.

page 2417

QUESTION

UNITED AUSTRALIAN PARTY

Criticism by Mr. Archdale Parkhill.

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Daily Telegraph of the 26th May published the following item : -

” SPARE PARTS PARTY.”

Parkhill on United Opposition.

Lyons Criticized

Describing the United Australian Party as “a party of spare parts,” Mr. Archdale Parkhill, M.H.R., warmly criticized the new Federal Opposition organization and the All for Australia League.

Speaking at the Warringah electorate conference at Nationalist head-quarters, he declared that the change of leadership in favour of Mr. Lyons had not been, nor probably would be, of much benefit. He added that he would not accept the position of Nationalist campaign director at the next election. “ Mr. Lyons,” Mr. Parkhill stated, “ will no doubt be employed to address meetings, but the work of leadership inside Parliament will still he carried on by Mr. Latham.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member vouch for the accuracy of the newspaper report?

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. Will the Government take steps to ensure that the prestige of this House is not lowered by a declaration that a certain honorable member has been appointed Leader of the Opposition when in fact, according to the statement of the honorable member for Warringah, he actually is not the leader ?

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

Mr. Speaker and the Government, in co-operation, will endeavour to preserve the prestige of the House.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– I rise to a personal explanation. The honorable member for Hunter misled the House when he said that he could vouch for the accuracy of the statement, because he cannot do so. It is utterly untrue in every detail. A pressman obtained the report clandestinely and unfairly, for he undertook not to report the meeting. His breach of faith would not have been so serious had he reported the proceedings accurately; but he made no notes, and afterwards prepared a garbled statement from memory. It was the grossest degradation of journalism that I have known for many years. I deny that I attacked the United Australian Party, and that the newspaper report is even an approximately true report of what I said. It is a gross distortion of my remarks.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the AttorneyGeneral read the following statement published in the Daily Telegraph of the 26th May : - “ The United Australian Party,” said Mr. Archdale Parkhill, “ is merely a party of spare parts, and it is a terrible thing that in the bitter political fight that is about to take place-

Mr Gullett:

– On a point of order. Having regard to the disclaimer by the honorable member for Warringah, I submit that the honorable member for Martin cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report he is reading, and therefore his question is out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In view of the denial of this report by the honorable member for Warringah, and the similarity of the question to one asked earlier, I rule it out of order.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– I am merely reading a report upon which I intend to base a question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have ruled the honorable member out of order.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– I dissent from your ruling.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must state his dissent in writing.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1931

– I give notice that I shall move -

That the ruling of the honorable the Deputy Speaker - That an honorable member cannot base a question on a newspaperreport of alleged utterances by another honorable member, the accuracy of which has been denied by that honorable member- be disagreed with.

Debate adjourned.

page 2418

QUESTION

MONETARY POLICY

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In this morning’s Canberra Times appears a cablegram from London regarding a speech delivered by Professor Gustav Cassel before the Institute of Bankers, in the course of which he is reported to have said : -

The greatest efforts should now bo made to secure rational control of the purchasing power of money. . . . It is time that the leading central banks agreed to end the depression by declaring their intention to supply the world so abundantly with the means of payment that a further fall in prices would be impossible . . The only possible remedy was a systematic reduction of the central bank requirement gold reserves.

Will the Assistant Minister representing the Treasurer take steps to ensure that before the Premiers’ Conference concludes its deliberations an opportunity will be afforded for the consideration of Profesor Cassel’s opinion?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Assistant Minister for Industry, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Assistant to the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · ALP

– The remarks of Professor Cassel are in accordance with the attitude he adopted at the Financial Conference in Brussels a few years ago against artificial deflation, and they support the financial policy of the Commonwealth Government. The basic feature of that policy is the absolute necessity to raise, rather than decrease, price levels, before any forward impetus to industry can be given.

page 2418

ALLFOR AUSTRALIA LEAGUE

Public Meeting - Premiers’ Conference - Names of Speakers

Mr KEANE:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has the AttorneyGeneral read in the Melbourne Age of yesterday a report headed -

page 2418

ALL FOR AUSTRALIA LEAGUE

Sinister Attitude

Seeking to Wreck Conference Plan

Is the Attorney-General aware that the league has convened a meeting to be held in Melbourne to protest against any governmental interference with the interest on Australian bonds ?

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– I have not had an opportunity to read or consider that report.

Mr BEASLEY:

– An advertisement has appeared in a Melbourne paper extending a cordial invitation to all members of the All for Australia League to attend a public meeting to be held at the Melbourne Town Hall, “ to protest against the proposals to repudiate by compulsion Australia’s internal bond obligations which are under consideration by the Federal and State Governments of Australia.” The advertisement states that the names of the speakers “will be announced.” The meeting has been temporarily abandoned, but as the incident is’ of historical importance, I ask the Acting Leader of the Government (Mr. Brennan) if he will endeavour to obtain the names of the speakers, so that they be recorded for the edification of posterity?

Mr BRENNAN:

– I shall give consideration to the question of the honorable member; but, as I have already stated, it appears to me undesirable to anticipate in any way the decisions of the Premiers’ Conference now sitting in Melbourne, or deliberations ancillary to that conference.

page 2418

QUESTION

TARIFF SCHEDULE

Duties of Textiles

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs prepare for the information of the House a statement of the amount payable under item 105 a, b, and c of the customs tariff schedule in accordance with the rates recently approved by this chamber, plus the surcharge, plus primage, and plus sales tax, so that the House may have an opportunity to realize the effect of the policy it has approved?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honorable member’s request entails the preparation of a lengthy return. Having regard to his recent emphasis of the need for economy, I shall first inquire as to the cost of procuring the information he requires. If the expense will not be unreasonable, I shall obtain the information for the honorable member.

page 2419

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Unemployment Relief

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Home Affairs inform the House why unemployed men in the Federal Capital Territory who are enrolled and entitled to vote at the election of members of the Advisory Council are not classified as local residents, and thereby are deprived of the right to food relief?

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Persons who have resided in the Federal Capital Territory for at least one month are entitled to electoral enrolment; but they are not entitled to the other privileges enjoyed by permanent residents.

Mr WARD:

– Will the Minister for Home Affairs inform the House as to the effect of the regulation which fixes the length of time that a person must reside in the Federal Capital Territory before he can be classified as a permanent resident?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– When the Canberra Relief Society was inaugurated some eighteen months ago, it was decided by the committee, which was representative of the residents of the Territory and of the trade unions in it, that a person must have resided in the Territory for six months before he could be registered for employment. I endorsed that definition. None other than those who fill that requirement can be registered for employment in the Federal Capital Territory.

page 2419

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to the following paragraph published in the Canberra Times of to-day: -

page 2419

TOBACCO DIRECTOR

Maybe Selected in America.

Members of the Select Committee on Tobacco, led by Mr. Thompson, M.P., requested the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday to ask the American Department of Tobacco Investigation to select for Australia a director at a salary of £1,000 per year, as a suitable director was unobtainable in Australia. Mr. Blakeley said that the request would be placed before Cabinet.

Has the Minister met a deputation such as that indicated?

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I have met no such deputation, and have no knowledge of the matter. The report is grossly exaggerated.

page 2419

QUESTION

CURRENCY ISSUES

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Crouch) has asked a series of questions of the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) regarding currency issues. The information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 2419

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Postal Number System

Mr CROUCH:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has the institution in Melbourne of the postal number system saved any time to the sorters or in the delivery of letters?
  2. Is it a fact that this is a useless fad copied from London by the Postal Director?
  3. When was it instituted?
  4. If it is a success, why has it not been instituted in Sydney and other State capitals?
  5. Is ita fact that many letters are delivered with the stamped notice “ delayed through omission of postal district number”?
  6. Is it a fact that many country and other correspondents are unaware of the postal district numbers, and are greatly inconvenienced by its operation?
  7. Was the system inaugurated in order to show that the director was capable of one brilliant idea?
  8. Will he consider its immediate abolition in view of its uselessness and inconvenience?
Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

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

  1. Yes. There can be no question as to the value of the system as a means of obviating missorting and delay to correspondents.
  2. No.
  3. 1st February, 1928.
  4. The conditions in other State capitals are dissimilar from those in Melbourne, and equivalent benefits are not so readily obtainable.
  5. If a letter is delayed through being wrongly addressed or because of the absence of the postal district number, this fact is brought under the notice of the addressee, in the hope that ho will co-operate in the department’s endeavour to conduct efficient service by notifying his correspondents of his full postal address.
  6. It is obvious that many correspondents must be unaware of a postal district number for a particular addressee, but they arc not thereby greatly inconvenienced. Letters are delivered so long as addresses are identifiable, but the addition of the postal district number is a great aid to the department in the treatment of postal correspondence.
  7. The system was inaugurated to render the postal service more efficient.
  8. There is no intention to abolish the system which is of considerable value.

page 2420

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT POOL

Mr GREGORY:

asked the Minister for Markets, upon notice -

In view of recent developments regarding the alleged promise of the Commonwealth Bank to finance the proposed Australian wheat pool, and make advances to growers to the extent of 4s. per bushel, will the Minister lay on the table of the Library all or any papers confirming such promise.

Mr PARKER MOLONEY:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As the correspondence on this matter took place between the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Bank Board, I will consult the Prime Minister and furnish a reply to the honorable member’s question as early as possible.

page 2420

QUESTION

MOVING PICTURE INDUSTRY

Censor Boards

Mr MARKS:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the recent statement of the Chief Justice of Victoria that certain films released by the Censor Boards were an incentive to crime, and observing the many complaints from British film producers of rejection of British films, will the Minister consider calling for a report from the Censor and Appeal Boards so that such boards may have an opportunity of replying to the statement and complaints referred to?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– Reports on the subjects mentioned are being obtained.

page 2420

QUESTION

MR. WALTER LINDRUM

Mr MARKS:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the return to Australia of Mr. Walter Lindrum, the champion billiard player of the world, who has broken all existing records, has set up new records, and has won the British Gold Cup, will consideration be given to inviting him to Canberra to be officially welcomed by the Prime Minister?

Mr SCULLIN:
Minister for External Affairs · through Mr. Brenan · ALP

– The suggestion of the honorable member will receive consideration.

page 2420

QUESTION

PETROL AND OIL PRICES

Mr KILLEN:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice -

Whether the Government has further considered the matter of petrol and oil prices, and the request that has been made from many parts of Australia that a royal commission should be appointed to inquire into the matter?

Mr SCULLIN:
nan · through Mr. Bren · ALP

– The Government has this matter under consideration at the present time, and hopes to be in a position to make an announcement at an early date.

page 2420

QUESTION

IMPORTS

Mr THOMPSON:
through Mr. R. Green

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Can he state the actual value of imports permitted under the rationing scheme; if so, what is it?
  2. Can he state the value of goods actually imported under the scheme; if so, what is it?
Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 2. No separate record is kept of goods so imported.

page 2420

QUESTION

REPATRIATION OF COALMINERS

Mr JAMES:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Whether the £100,000 appearing in last year’s Estimates was intended -

to repatriate surplus coal-miners of the coal industry to other occupations ; or

) to repatriate the surplus mine-workers as a whole?

Mr SCULLIN:
through Mr. Holloway · ALP

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

The sum of £100,000 provided on the Estimates for 1930-31 was intended to cover assistance, in co-operation with the States, towards employment of surplus coal-miners. Owing to the nature of the developmental work which has been undertaken for this purpose, it will be necessary, as the work progresses, to employ engine-drivers, mechanics, and other trades directly associated with coal-mining, and such labour will be selected from those previously engaged in the coalmining industry.

page 2420

QUESTION

ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– On the 22nd May the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lewis) asked the right honorable the Prime Minister the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Was a communication received by him from Geneva, dated September, 1925, relating to alcoholic liquors, in connexion with -

    1. Restrictions in colonial possessions;
    2. Smuggling; and
    3. Wine-exporting bounties, as to nonalcoholic products?
  2. If so, what action has been or will be taken in regard to (c), and will he lay the papers upon the table?

I am now in a position to furnish the following reply: -

  1. The question of the honorable member presumably relates to correspondence with the international Bureau against Alcoholism, the head-quarters of which are at Lausanne, Switzerland. In March, 1025, the bureau invited the Commonwealth to be represented at an international conference of specialists on the alcohol question, which was to be held under the auspices of the bureau at Geneva in September, 1925, to study, inter alia, matters covered by -(a) Restrictions in colonial possessions; (b) smuggling; and (c) conflicts between alcohol exporting countries and prohibition countries. The then Commonwealth Government informed the bureau that it could not see its way to appoint a delegate to the conference.
  2. The question of wine exporting bounties is not specifically dealt with in the resolutions of the conference (see Proceedings, pp. 134,&c. ). The papers containing the correspondence with the bureau and the printed proceedings of the conference, and showing subsequent developments in regard to the question of alcoholism will be laid on the table of the Library for the perusal of the honorable member.

page 2421

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS:

page 2421

PAPERS

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

.- I lay on the table the following papers: -

Tariff Board - Reports and Recommendations -

Apparel Elastic.

Bates’ Salve.

Children’s Toy Vehicles.

China and Parianware; Porcelainware, Earthenware, &c.

Concentrated Must.

Fractional Horse-power Electric Motors.

Gold Leaf.

Gramophones, Phonographs and other Talking Machines, n.e.i., including cases imported with machines.

Haircloth for use in the Manufacture of Apparel.

Incubators, Foster Mothers and Brooders.

Leather, Rubber, Canvas and Composition Belting, and Greenhide for Belting and other purposes.

Masonry Waterproofing, Damp-proofing and Preservative Products.

Sheets composed of Asbestos and Cement or of similar materials.

Side Wheel Hand Type Lawn Mowers.

Silk Yarns and Artificial Silk Yarns.

Stay Paper and Stay Cloth, gummed on one side, in rolls cut to a width of not more than two inches.

Water Paints and Distempers in powder form and Kalsomine.

Wattlebark. and move -

That the papers be printed.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

– I desire to know just how long this farce which is being perpetrated by the Minister is to continue. These reports have been in the hands of honorable members for some time; the tariff schedule has been compiled without the consideration of them, and it is only when the Minister feels so disposed that they are taken into account at all. I ask, therefore, what is the use of presenting them allegedly as a guide to honorable members? In many instances the provisions of the tariff schedule are contrary to the recommendations contained in the reports, which bear on particular items. The Minister has emphasized the need for economy. In view of the waste of effort incidental to the compilation of these reports and their subsequent futility, it is manifestly absurd that the Tariff Board should continue to produce voluminous documentswhich are for all useful purposes valueless. It is ridiculous for the Government, after asking the Tariff Board to make an inquiry into some matter referred to it, to bring down a tariff proposal totally ignoring the conclusions of the board. What is the purpose behind such a procedure? The Minister satisfies himself that a request is fair and reasonable by personally inspecting the back yards of factories and other places, sometimes assisted by other honorable members! Naturally, they see just exactly what it is desired to show them, and no more. Having partaken of the hospitality of the firm concerned, the Minister says in effect, “ Now write your own ticket” and what is suggested is embodied in the schedule. In the circumstances, why should we proceed with this expensive farce of printing the reports of the Tariff Board?

Mr Forde:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member has stated that after the Minister had partaken of the hospitality of manufacturers, he allowed them to write their own ticket, and that what they suggested was then incorporated in the schedule. That innuendo is most offensive to me, and a gross misrepresentation of facts. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I suppose that I can do what an honorable member did yesterday, and withdraw, with mental reservation. I submit that the view that I have expressed,is generally accepted throughout Australia.

Mr BRENNAN:
ALP

– I rise to a point of order. The allegations of the honorable “member are offensive not only to the Minister and to the Government, but, I submit, to every honorable member who supports the Government. No graver allegation could be made in this House than that contained in the innuendo levelled at the Minister for Trade and Customs by the honorable member for Warringah, which is unsupported by one tittle of evidence. As the Acting Leader of the Government I ask that the innuendo and the statement be immediately withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McGrath:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– In asking the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) to withdraw his statement, I emphasize that what was allowed by the Chair through an oversight last night, must not be taken as a precedent. I shall not permit withdrawal with mental reservations, and I shall demand an apology if that is attempted. I ask the honorable member for Warringah not to proceed along the lines he is now following, and to withdraw his statement unreservedly.

Mr Brennan:

– It was a dirty thing to say.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– It wa.s a just thing to say.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honorable member for Warringah to apologize to the Chair.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I was replying to au interjection by the Minister, but at your request, sir, I withdraw and apologize. When I. was interrupted by the irrelevant remarks of honorable members opposite, I was contending that, in view of all the circumstances, the printing of these reports is a farce, and that that fact is recognized by every one who has had anything to do with tariffs. It is ridiculous that these reports should be produced and printed after the schedule has been compiled without any regard to the recommendations contained in them.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

.- The grossly misleading statements made by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) are evidence that he is incapable of maintaining this debate on a high plane. Evidently, the honorable member judges other people by his own moral standard when he makes innuendoes and insinuations regarding their integrity.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– That remark is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr FORDE:

– I did not think that the remark would be offensive to the honorable member, but if it is, I withdraw it. Frequently, during the course of this debate, honorable members have asked for the Tariff Board’s reports on certain items. The honorable member for Warringah has even gone so far as to suggest that the Minister was sitting on the reports.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– That remark was made in connexion with a report which has not yet been produced.

Mr FORDE:

– Now, for party political purposes, the honorable member objects to the printing of these reports. The reports of the Tariff Board have been printed to suit the convenience of honorable members, and, by arrangement with the Government Printer, they are circulated among members as soon as they are printed. However, in view of the attitude adopted by the Opposition to-day, I shall not table another Tariff Board report unless there is a request for thai to be done. When honorable members sitting on the front Opposition bench object to the printing of these reports, J take it that they are speaking on behalf of the Opposition. The honorable member for Warringah accuses the present Government of having ignored the reports of the Tariff Board. This Government, like its predecessors, regards the Tarin’ Board as an advisory body. That no government has felt bound to accept the board’s decisions is shown clearly in the board’s report for the year ended 30th June, 192S, which was signed by men who were appointed by the Bruce-Page Government -

The Tariff Board appreciates the disinclination of Parliament to relegate to any board or any other authority (oven if such authority be appointed by the Parliament) full power” to deal with (he Customs Tariff, even on a policy laid down by the Parliament itself. T>»* powers of the present board are of investigation and recommendation only, and it is doubtful if it or any organization would ever be clothed with any greater powers.

While not endeavouring to usurp the functions of the Minister or of the Parliament, the board desires to point out that as regards some of the most important subjects investigated by the board, either the Minister of the day or the Parliament has seen fit to act otherwise than in accordance with the recommendation of the board. Instances of important subjects on which the recommendations of the Board have not been adopted are the reports on the cotton bounty, and on the import duties affecting the iron and steel industry, and the timber industry.

When that report came into the hands of the honorable member for Warringah he did not utter one word of protest, because, as a supporter of the Bruce-Page Government, and an aspirant for office, he was prepared to do anything to get to the front ministerial bench. It is scandalous that an honorable member sitting on the front Opposition bench should be prepared to make such reckless and extravagant statements as he has made this morning merely in order to get a little cheap publicity. A few days ago the honorable member was given some publicity not to his liking. I claim that no man has acted more conscientiously than I have in the administration of the Trade and Customs Department. I say emphatically that no manufacturer is allowed to write his own ticket in regard to the duties he desires. If every man was as honorable in his dealings with manufacturers and others as I have been, there would be no cause for complaint regarding the standard of public life in this country. I resent the remarks of the honorable member.

Several honorable members rising.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There can be no further discussion of the motion now that the Minister has replied.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2423

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Mr BRENNAN:
AttorneyGeneral · Batman · ALP

– I move -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday next at 3 o’clock p.m.

I point out to those honorable members who. apparently, arenot in agreement with this motion, that the leaders of the parties on both sides of the House have agreed to the proposed adjournment. Indeed, the motion has been moved at their request. I think that it will meet the convenience of honorable members generally if we do not meet until Wednesday.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I hope that the Government will reconsider its decision. A number of honorable members, including myself, have arranged to stay in Canberra over the week-end, with a view to resuming our duties on Tuesday. We desire to push on with the business of the House with all possible expedition, in order that we may the sooner return to our homes. The adjournment is all very well for honorable members whose homes are in Melbourne or Sydney because it enables them to stay away from Canberra for an extra day; but I appeal to the Government to consider also the claims of those honorable members who come from a long distance and cannot use their weekends by going home or visiting their constituencies. We have been told repeatedly of the need for getting on with the business of the House. The tariff debate alone will necessarily occupy a considerable time. I shall not enter a strong protest against an adjournment until Wednesday, but I hope that the matter will be re-considered.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I do not object to the proposed alteration of the day of meeting, but I do object to a matter of this kind being brought forward without honorable members having been given notice of the Government’s intention. Had honorable members been aware that the House would not meet until Wednesday, they would have had an opportunity to make arrangements accordingly, and the extra day would have been used to the advantage of their constituents.

Mr M CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

– What about those honorable membersw ho cannot get to their constituencies?

Mr BEASLEY:

– I appreciate the position of those honorable members whose constituencies are far removed from Canberra. Had notice of the Government’s intention been given earlier, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. M. Cameron) and other South Australian members might have been able to get to their homes. The Attorney-General (Mr. Brennan) said that an adjournment until “Wednesday has the approval of the leaders of the parties on both sides of the House. It would have been an easy matter for the “Government to inform private members, as well as the leaders of parties, of its intention to propose this adjournment. The Government has acted unfairly in this matter. I remind the Minister that from time to time the Government finds it necessary to seek the co-operation of honorable members with regard to the conduct of its business. If, however, it chooses to disregard their convenience and the requirements of their constituents, honorable members will be justified in refusing to facilitate the conduct of government business during the remainder of the session. If the honorable member for Barker (Mr. M. Cameron) agrees with me, he should rise and urge the Government to advise members early in future of any proposed alteration of the sitting days so that they may be able to utilize the additional time to advantage, and not be forced to waste it as may be the case in the present circumstances. I do not propose to say more now. I merely intimate that in future the group of which I am a member will not facilitate the passage of government business if the Government adopts a similar attitude.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I regret that I cannot view the proposed alteration in the sitting days with complacency. There seems to be no insuperable reason why next Tuesday should not be devoted to a consideration of the tariff schedule. The Premiers Conference has been sitting in Melbourne all this week, yet the business of the House has not been interfered with to any great extent.

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

– The party has agreed to the alteration.

Mr CURTIN:

– I do not care whether the party has agreed to it or not. An honorable member is not obliged to comply with the decision of the party in such a matter. I feel that, as a general principle, Parliament should sit more frequently during the week, and that the duration of the sessions should be shorter. I have spoken on this matter before, and, therefore, shall not now say more than that I hope that Parliament will endeavour to meet the convenience of the representatives of all the States, and not only of those nearest to Canberra. The disregard of the claims of the more distant States is one of the reasons why the people of those States do not view federation more favorably.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I

Know the special circumstances in which this motion has been submitted. The Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) are absent in Melbourne on business of great importance to the country. Surely, therefore, the motion is reasonable. I agree with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Curtin) regarding the desirability of shortening the sessions of Parliament. I visit my home only about three times a year. The necessity of staying so long in Canberra means that I am unable to give to my constituency the personal attention I desire to give it. The Herbert district is not only a long way from the Federal Capital, but it covers a very large area of country. It has a coastline of 960 miles, and covers 72,000 square miles, so that I have a great deal of travelling to do to ascertain the opinions and the needs of about 62,000 electors which it contains. The representative of such a district occupies an unenviable position. I should like to see closer attention given to our parliamentary duties while the House is in session, and to that end I favour longer sittings, so that we may be able to get away to our constituencies for longer periods. Surely the people whom we represent are entitled to that. The honorable member for “West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) said that the group to which he belonged would not continue to facilitate the passage of Government business in certain circumstances. It is time that we called the honorable member’s bluff. If he does not like the way the Government does things, I suggest that he crosses the floor to the other side of the chamber.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- Honorable members apparently are not aware that the reason for the longer adjournment is to enable caucus to discuss certain important matters. Surely that is only reasonable. It would, however, have been as well if the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Brennan) had told us the reason for the adjournment. I feel that the consideration by caucus of the matters which the Government desires to bring before that body is of such importance to the country that the adjournment until Wednesday should be allowed.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

.- The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) objected to the statement made by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley). I thought that the honorable member for West Sydney had made it clear that the group to which he belongs does not object to the adjournment until Wednesday. No doubt the Government has good reasons for asking for the adjournment, and in a matter of that kind we are prepared to abide by the decision of the Government. Our objection is not to the adjournment itself, but to the absence of notice of it. Honorable members will not now be able to use the extra day to advantage as would have been the case had they known earlier of the Government’s intention. We hope that in future the Government will act differently in such cases. The honorable member who twitted us about our place as allegedly being on the other side might well be informed that a remark of that kind is quite unworthy of him. We made ho threat. So far as the parties in this House are concerned, the division lists-

Mr BRENNAN:

– I suggest that the honorable gentleman is getting entirely wide of the question before the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I have allowed the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) great latitude, and I ask him now to keep strictly to the motion before the House.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– The honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) made certain accusations against our group, and I suggest that I am entitled to reply to him. I was proceeding to show that the position occupied by that member, and those associated with him, is well demonstrated by the division lists connected with the debates in this House. On every working class issue, there has been no difference between the position of those honorable members and that of the Opposition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member not to pursue that line of argument. I have given him every opportunity to reply to the honorable member for Herbert.

Mr BRENNAN:
AttorneyGeneral · Batman · ALP

– I sympathize with those honorable members whose places of residence are so far removed from Canberra as to make it impossible for them to go to their homes at the week-ends. That matter was considered in connexion with a similar motion recently before the House. A rather vexed question is raised when it is endeavoured to decide what meeting days would serve most generally the convenience of honorable members; but that question, I suggest, hardly arises to-day. The motion that I have submitted has been tabled at the request of the Prime Minister, with the concurrence, I understand, of the Leader of the Opposition, entirely by reason of the f actthat an important conference is being held in Melbourne. I endeavoured to make my intention to submit this motion generally known amongst members, and 1 regret if any honorable member regards the notice as being too short, or if any one has been subjected to any inconvenience.

Mr Beasley:

– When did the Minister first know of the proposal?

Mr BRENNAN:

– Some days ago; but I am not here to be cross-examined. I rose as a matter of courtesy to indicate my endeavour to meet the convenience of honorable members in the special circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2425

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 3)

Bill brought up by Mr. Brennan, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BRENNAN:
AttorneyGeneral · Batman · ALP

by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The principal object of the measure is to overcome difficulties arising out of the reasons for judgment delivered by the majority of the High Court in the case the Australian Railways Union v. the Victorian Railways Commissioner, which was decided in December last. In that case the majority of the justices held that the material provision of section 34 of the act, which deals with the appointment and functioning of conciliation committees, was invalid, and that section 33, purporting to oust the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court in cases in which a conciliation committee had been appointed, was so bound up with section 34 as to be invalid also.

The court found that the scheme of section 34 was for the appointment of a conciliation committee consisting of members selected by the GovernorGeneral from among nominations by the disputants; that the members were not chosen as the authorized agents of the disputants, but as persons considered by the Governor-General as being likely to appreciate their interests; that the committee was given, in certain events, power to agree by a majority upon the terms of a proposed award ; and that the award so agreed upon was to be registrable as an agreement under section 24 of the act, thereupon having the force of an award of the court. The majority of the court concluded that a law enabling a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by discussion among themselves without any hearing or determination between, the disputants was not a law with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.

In the bill now before the House, it is proposed to overcome the objection raised by the majority, by giving a conciliation committee, when appointed, the powers of the court, other than (a) judicial powers, and (b) powers to alter the basic wage or standard hours. Thus the committee will be enabled to exercise powers of conciliation, as well as those of arbitration. In the bill two important departures have been made from the principle of the existing section 34. In the first place, the existing section provides that the chairman shall not be present at meetings of the conciliation committee until it is clear that the committee cannot reach an agreement. This provision was based on the view that, if an agreement could be reached, it would have a binding effect on the parties to the disputes. The High Court has, however, held that this would not bo the case, as the members of the committee are not the agents of the disputants. Accordingly, it is proposed that the chairman should be present throughout. If the members, with his aid, are able to arrive at the terms of a suggested agreement, on the whole or part of the matter in dispute, it may be referred to the parties, and if the parties accept it, it may be registered as an agreement under section 24. The other departure lies in what follows disagreement in the committee. The existing section 34 provides that, if the committee is finally unable to agree, the chairman shall draw up the terms of a proposed award, and then issue a summons calling upon the parties to show cause why an award in those terms should not be made. After hearing the parties, he then makes an award.

In view of the proposed new status of the committee, as a body empowered and required to hear and investigate the dispute in the event of an agreement acceptable to the parties not being arrived at by the committee, the existing procedure for the issue by the chairman of a show cause summons appears unnecessary. The proposal in the bill is that, in the event of all the efforts of the committee to reach an agreement acceptable to the parties proving unsuccessful, the committee shall, if necessary by a majority, have power to agree upon the terms of an award. The award, when made, is thereupon to have the same force as an award of the court. The object of the proposed amendment of section 33 is, where a conciliation committee has been appointed to oust the jurisdiction of the court, not only in cases of settlement of disputes, or applications to vary, but also in cases of applications to set aside, suspend or cancel an award. Paragraph 6 of clause 3 which amends section 33, is a drafting amendment, consequent on the proposed amendment of Section 34.

The amendments contained in clause 6 are designed to limit the powers of the court in the setting aside, suspension or cancellation of awards. Under the existing section an award may be suspended or cancelled (a) because the organization entitled to the benefit of it has committed a breach or non-observance of the act or of the award; (Z>) because a substantial part of the organization refuses to accept employment at all, or in accordance with the award; or (c) for any other reason which the court thinks fit. It is proposed to limit paragraph c to cases where some other default on the part of the organization has occurred. It is proposed also to give the court power to cancel it by consent, or when any fresh award is about to be made. Clause 7 validates the appointment of existing conciliation committees. At the present time none of them can function, in view of the decision of the majority of the court. Seventeen committees have already been appointed, and several others have been applied for. The other amendments in the bill are purely of a drafting character.

Generally, but with slight exceptions, the object of this bill, which must not be taken for a moment to represent the sum total of Labour’s policy in regard to arbitration, is to restore the law to the condition in which it was believed to be, when the last arbitration bill was finally accepted by the House of Representatives and another place on its passage through both Houses.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) adjourned.

page 2427

TARIFF

Customs Duties

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 28 th May (vide page 2406), on motion by Mr. Forde -

That the schedule to the customs tariff be amended -

Division V. - Textiles, Felts and Furs and Manufactures Thereof, and Attire

Item 105-

By omitting the whole of sub-item (g) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item: - “(g) Hair Cloth and Cloth of Hair in combination with other fibres for interlining apparel, per square yard, British,1s. 3d.; intermediate, 2s.; general, 2 s.6d.; and ad val., British. 35 per cent. ; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I am somewhat surprised that the Minister did not seek the first call on this item.

Mr Forde:

– I did not get an opportunity to do so; three honorable members opposite rose to their feet.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– If the Minister had risen he would have had precedence.

Mr Forde:

– Then let the honorable member for Wakefield sit down and I will speak.

Mr HAWKER:

– This particular item is a gross abuse of the principle of protection. In using the term “ gross abuse “ I do not impute any lack of integrity to the Minister or his officials; I use the term merely to express my opinion that the principle of protection is being carried to such extravagant extremes that any benefit that may be granted to those engaged in this industry is far outweighed by the extra cost of this cloth to the users of it in Australia. The appearance of this item in the schedule is another illustration of the danger there is in tabling schedules in the haphazard, hasty . manner that this Government has adopted. The Tariff Board was asked to inquire into this item on the 30th May last. On the 19th June a heavy increase was made in the duty. The board was not able to make its inquiry until February of this year. On the 29th of April it submitted a report which was almost entirely adverse to the action which the Minister had taken in June of last year. May I say, by the way, that I appreciate the action of the Minister in not suppressing this report? Although it is adverse to the action of the Government it has been made available promptly to honorable members.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– No credit is due to the Minister for making available to us a report which we are entitled to receive.

Mr HAWKER:

– In some cases, Ministers do not act as they should in these matters. The report, however, supports the opinion which has been expressed frequently from this side of the chamber that the tariff policy of the Government is thoroughly unsound.

During the period of almost twelve months, between the imposition of the new duties and the receipt of the Tariff Board report, certain manufacturers incurred a substantial capital expenditure in installing plant for the manufacture of haircloth. That this expenditure was unwarranted is shown by the report of the Tariff Board, which indicates clearly that the cost of a duty at even half the rate now in operation is more than sufficient to pay all the wages of the people making this cloth, all the factory overhead costs, all the fuel expenditure, and all the charges for stores, repairs, and maintenance. This is the kind of duty which puts two men out of work in order that one may be given a temporary job. The report shows clearly that there was no justification for the imposition of the present excessive duties, and that the conditions that prevail in Australia are unsuitable for the manufacture of haircloth. Put in view of the fact that certain capital expenditure had been incurred in establishing the industry, the board has recommended that a duty of about half the rate now in operation should be imposed.

I hope that the Minister will not insist upon the members of his party approving of the present duties. In my opinion, he should not expect them to go further than adopt the recommendations of the Tariff Board. Even duties at those rates must make this cloth much more expensive than it should be. Unfortunately, many of our citizens are to-day quite inadequately clothed. If we increase the cost of the materials used in making clothing - and haircloth is used principally for the lining of clothes - we shall make it impossible for people to buy new clothes. This, in turn, will have a serious effect upon the wool industry, and will hinder the development of those sections of the wool industry for the establishment of which Australian conditions are favorable. There are many reasons why it must necessarily be too expensive to make haircloth in Australia. It is not a matter of high labour costs, nor of inefficient management; but of the limited market available.

Mr Forde:

– If the honorable member will resume his seat I shall be able to clear up some of the misapprehensions under which he is labouring.

Mr Gullett:

– We have begged the Minister to make the first speech when new items are introduced.

Mr HAWKER:

– If the Minister i3 able to show that I am labouring under misapprehensions, I shall be glad. I hope that he will announce the withdrawal of this duty. He should not expect us to go any further than the Tariff Board recommends.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

.- It is true that this subject was last year referred to the Tariff Board for investigation. Prior to the 19th June, 1930, when the present duties were imposed, the duties applicable to “haircloth and cloth of hair and cotton or hair and wool combined for lining apparel,” were, British, free; intermediate, 5 per cent.; and general, 10 per cent. It was pointed out to the Government that there was a possibility of developing an industry in Australia for the manufacture of this cloth. Our importations of these goods in the last three years were as follow: -

To establish this class of manufacturing the investment of £S0,000 was necessary. Three firms are now engaged in the industry, namely, Amalgamated Textiles of Australia Limited; Downs, Coulter and Company, a branch of an English manufacturing firm; and the Bradford Cotton Mills Limited, of Sydney.

Mr Archdale PARKHILL:

– Are those firms engaged exclusively in manufacturing this cloth?

Mr FORDE:

– I understand that Amalgamated Textiles of Australia Limited have devoted their Goulburn mills exclusively to the making of haircloth. The Bradford Cotton Mills, of Sydney, manufacture cotton tweeds as well as haircloth. Downs, Coulter and Company are exclusively manufacturing haircloth. These three companies will provide employment for 200 persons in this industry when conditions are normal. At present 120 hands are engaged. The largest of the three firms, Amalgamated Textiles Limited, already employs about 400 hands in manufacturing woollen piece goods in the country centres of Bathurst, Albury, Wodonga, and Goulburn. The imposition of these new duties has made it possible for these firms to purchase larger quantities of Australian wool, for wool is used in the manufacture of haircloth. The combined plants of the firms now manufacturing haircloth locally have a capacity to produce 840,000 yards of this cloth annually. That the demands on the plant have not been up to expectations is due, it has been stated, to the presence, in Australia, of huge stocks of haircloth imported in anticipation of the increased duties. There is no doubt that importers, fearing an increase in duties, placed large orders overseas.

Mr Gullett:

– They knew that if representations were made for increased duties these would be successful.

Mr FORDE:

– They had no reason to believe that at all. They knew that inquiries would be made to ascertain whether the request for increased duties was justified, and in anticipation of higher rates they imported a huge quantity of haircloth. One importing house, which normally carried a stock of 10,000 yards, held 90,000 yards in stock in June, 1930. As the normal requirement of Australia is estimated to be 750,000 yards, it will be seen that local manufacturers, whose plants have a capacity of 840,000 yards, are well able to meet it. The local companies will be able to supply their product at a price a little in advance of the price charged for dutyfree imported haircloth of medium and better class quality. An assurance has been given by the larger company that prices will not be increased unless the cost of production rises. Leading wholesale piece goods firms, to whom locally manufactured haircloth has been sold, have commented very favorably upon it. The manufacturers of apparel in which haircloth is used are adequately protected by the tariff. Consequently they, in turn, should wholeheartedly assist in the establishment of this new industry.

An amendment to the wording of the item was made by the resolution introduced in March, 1931. The object of this amendment was to make the application of the item clearer, and, therefore, simplify departmental administration. A report has just come to hand from the Tariff Board which recommends that the duties be made 6d., or ad val. 45 per cent. British preferential; 7d. or ad val. 55 per cent intermediate; and 8d. or ad val. 0 per cent, general tariff. These rates are much lower than those in the schedule.

Mr Gullett:

– Will the Minister explain why he has imposed heavier ad valorem duties than were requested by the company in its application to the board ?

Mr FORDE:

– That will be explained in due course. The board appears to be chiefly concerned with the supply of the cheaper classes of this material. At the time of its inquiry the cheaper materials were not being made in Australia, but since the inquiry was closed a third company has engaged in the manufacture of this cloth, and proposes also to make the lower quality cloths. The principal reason actuating the board in submitting its recommendations no longer exists. Even if there were no local manufacture of these inferior cloths, the public would not be unduly penalized, as there is only three-quarters of a yard of this material in a suit, and the difference between the landed duty free cost of imported inferior cloths, and the lowest cost of Australian material would amount to about 6d. per suit. Since the average man does not buy more than two suits a year, the increased cost to him would not be more than ls. Even the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) would not buy more than four suits a year, so the additional cost to him would not be more than 2s. in the twelve months. The Australian material is of infinitely better quality than the cheaper imported lines which, prior to the imposition of the increased duties, could be landed in Australia at between 9d. and lOd. per yard, and the effect on the public would be that slightly increased prices would have to be paid for a much better article. I have a number of samples of these Australian cloths. If honorable members care to examine them, they must admit that no one could wish for better material.

In making its recommendation on these piece goods, the board seems to have been guided very largely by the evidence given on behalf of Downs, Coulter and Company, which company is manufacturing haircloth in Australia. It is understood that the company in question is more interested, at present, in the importation of that material from its principals in the United Kingdom, and it is stated that any orders which it cannot place in its Australian factory are sent to Great

Britain. For this reason the same importance cannot be attached to its representations as to those of an Australian company which depends for its prosperity on its Australian output. Great care must be exercised in considering partisan evidence of this nature. It appears certain that, if the board’s recommendation be adopted, this industry, which has been established under the duties in the June schedule, and in which capital to the amount of £80,000 has been invested, will have to be abandoned. Since the manufacture of this cloth was commenced in Australia, the makers have greatly improved the quality of the output, and deserve every encouragement. Local manufacturers are not taking full advantage of the tariff. Haircloth of Australian manufacture, and of excellent quality, is available at prices a little higher than those charged for the English material. If the duties are reduced as recommended by the Tariff Board, the opportunity will be present for. overseas manufacturers to dump their surplus production on the Australian market. If this happened, it would be impossible for Australian manufacturers to carry on operations under stable conditions or with continuity of output, which is essential if overhead costs are to be reduced and the people provided with cheaper material.When the duties were imposed in June, 1930, the industry was not established in the Commonwealth, but there was a definite promise that it would be. It is now on a fairly sound basis. The Government, in assessing the amount of protection necessary to enable the industry to be established, had estimates only on which to base its calculations. In the light of actual manufacturing experience, it has been found that the rates imposed are more than sufficient to protect the local industry. The Government, therefore, has decided to reduce the rates of duty on these cloths, but not to the extent recommended by the Tariff Board. Some honorablemembers appear to think that the Board’s recommendations should not be departed from. But every Minister for Trade and Customs has, since the establishment of the Board, varied its recommendations if, in his opinion, an alteration was necessary. That is what the Government proposes to do in this case. Close analysis of the details covering costs of manufacture in Australia and costs of imported lines, indicate to the Government that the lowest rates of duty under the British preferential tariff under which the local industry could operate successfully are 9d. per square yard and 35 per cent. ad valorem. I therefore move -

That the item be further amended by adding after sub-item (g) the following: - “ And on and after the 30th May, 1931.

Haircloth and cloth of hair in conbination with other fibres for interlining apparel - per square yard, British, 9d.; intermediate,1s. 3d.; general,1s.6d. ; and ad val., British, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 45 per cent.; general, 50 per cent.”

The departmental official who gives special attention to matters affecting the tariff, has carefully considered the report and recommendations of the Tariff Board. The amendment does not give the manufacturers all that they are asking, but it represents a substantial reduction of the duties contained in the schedule. The Tariff Board, on page 6 of its report, states -

In considering this question, it must be remembered that, as the result of the duties which have been operating since June, 1930, two local concerns have commenced manufacture at a considerable capital outlay, and are now in actual production.

Since then an additional firm has engaged in the manufacture of this class of material -

If the proposed duties are not ratified, or some other effective measure of protection substituted, then there is little doubt that those now engaged in the industry will suffer hardship, and the employment already created will be lost.

In view of the fact that although the cheaper haircloths were not being manufactured when the Tariff Board made its inquiry, but are now being made in Australia, and also keeping in mind the necessity to ensure continual employment in the industry, I feel sure that the reduced duties will be acceptable to honorable members.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- The Government, in ignoring the recommendations of the Tariff Board imposed absurdly high duties, which amount almost to prohibition. These will return little or no revenue.

Mr Lewis:

– We do not intend to get revenue from these duties.

Mr PROWSE:

– That may be the view of the honorable member for Corio (Mr. Lewis) but it does not represent the opinion of the people. These prohibitive duties will add to unemployment and help to increase the deficit. Since this Government assumed office, it has sacrificed £11,000,000 of customs revenue.

Mr Forde:

– Prior to the imposition of the present duty, this material was admitted free from Great Britain, from which country practically the whole of our supplies came. Therefore, it cannot be said that there will be any loss of revenue.

Mr PROWSE:

– If the Minister disregards the report of the Tariff Board, which has been set up at great expense to the country, either he or the board should be sacked. The report of the board with respect to items such as this should be submitted to Parliament, because that body is the creation of Parliament. The Minister appears to be a special pleader for secondary industries, whether they can be carried on commercially or not. So long as an article can he produced in Australia, he is satisfied. The honorable gentleman read from the report of the Tariff Board the statement that, as a result of the original protection afforded, certain factories were operating in Australia. He also said that other factories were entertaining the idea of manufacturing this material. I submit that there is not room for more than one efficient factory in Australia, considering the handful of people that have to be catered for and the purpose for which this cloth is made. When a group of these factories is brought into existence, the overhead charge becomes enormous, and the public have to pay for that extravagance. These high tariffs develop exotic, mushroom industries, which cannot be maintained without imposing an enormous burden on the public. The need to-day is for a general sacrifice. Will not these duties obviate such a sacrifice on the partof the companies concerned, and assure them enormous profits at the expense of the public, who already are bled white by taxation and the losses that have been occasioned by the drop in the prices of their commodities. One section in Australia is endeavouring to cope with the economic realities of the times, while another, with the assistance of Parliament, is being lifted into affluence. A system under which that is possible is manifestly wrong. I oppose the proposed duty, hut admit that I would support, though with reluctance, the rates recommended by the Tariff Board, because they at least would bring in a certain amount of revenue.

Mr.R. GREEN (Richmond) [12.4].- The Minister has furnished the committee this morning with some rather remarkable information. He admitted - and he is supported by the Tariff Board’s report - that in June last the duties imposed were greater than were asked for by the applicants. In addition to that, we have the admission of the Minister that this article was not being manufactured in Australia at the time when the duty was imposed. Thus a new principle has been imported into the administration of the tariff. I have always understood that when a duty was imposed the article in question was being commercially produced on a scale sufficient to meet at least 50 per cent. of Australia’s requirements. The Government could have made a promise to the manufacturers that when they were in a position to supply the Australian market a duty would be imposed. Surely those manufacturers had sufficient faith in the Government to accept its word ! The following letter was written by a firm in Sydney to the Minister for Trade and Customs on the 1st July, 1930: -

We desire respectfully to bring under your notice the following facts relative to section 105g of the Customs Tariff Schedule, which came into operation on the 20th June, and which schedule we understand is to be placed before the House this week for ratification.

It. was optimistic in assuming that the ratification of the duty would be sought within a week of its imposition. It is now eleven months since the duty was imposed The letter goes on to say -

This section refers to “ Haircloth andcloth of hair and cotton, or hair and wool combined for lining apparel “ used in the manufactureof tailoring -

Old Rate. - British, free; foreign, 10 per cent.

Under latest amendment. - British,1s. 3d and 35 per cent. foreign, 2s.6d. and50 percent.

On June 21st we landed a shipment of the material from Messrs. HardeckandSeckelof Holland, the prime cost oftheinvoicebeing £270. landed cost £820. Underthetariffrate. prior to the 20th June these goods would have landed at approximately £300, a difference of £520.

We are at a loss to understand why this enormous additional duty has been imposed on this material, as the only company at the present time that is manufacturing this class of material is the Amalgamated Textiles Limited, and one of their directors stated definitely yesterday that they were not in a position to supply the trade until the end of August, and then only in very limited quantities.

That bears out the statement of the Minister this morning that these goods were not being manufactured at the time that the duty was imposed, that only one firm was concerned, and that it was not able to make any deliveries before the end of August, the quantities even then being limited.

Mr Forde:

– The point is, that there were huge stocks in Australia, and thatthey were sufficient to meet the requirements for months.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The letter continues -

Samples were submitted by this company at the same time, the lowest being priced at 2s. 3d. per yard, whereas we import an infinitely better cloth at ls. (id. per yard.

The position is with us at the present time that we require this shipment (which we have bonded) for our immediate use, and if wo duty pay these goods the additional cost of production will of necessity have to be passed on to the public in the form of increased tailoring prices. If this is done, it will no doubt seriously affect our tailoring turnover, and the result will be that a certain percentage of our workroom operatives will be dismissed.

If the Amalgamated Textiles Limited, or any other company, were in a position to supply this material immediately wo would not be writing you, as the policy of this company is, and always has been, to support new Australian industries. We will certainly give our support to the Australian manufacturer of haircloth, but what are we to do for supplies in the meantime?

Another unfair aspect of this matter is the fact that South Australian and Victorian purchasers received supplies of haircloth by the same ship, and they, of course, paid 10 per cent, foreign duty whereas we were forced, owing to the fact that the ship did not arrive in Sydney before the 20th ult., to pay 2s. Od. per square yard and 50 per cent.

In submitting these facts to you we know that same will receive your earnest and reasonable consideration, and if it is possible to extend to us temporary relief in this matter by allowing us to have this shipment entered at the old rate, it would certainly be of great assistance to us.

The first point made by this letter is that the duty was imposed at a time when the goods were not being manufactured in Australia. I disagree totally with that principle being given effect in connexion with the tariff. Any goods that are sought to be protected should be commercially manufactured in Australia, and the manufacturers should be able to stand up to any competition with the assistance of a reasonable rate of duty, not an exorbitant rate such as has been in operation in this case since the 19 th June. Even under the amendment that has been moved this morning, the rate of duty will be out of all proportion to the requirements of the case. It is tariff madness to impose duties of this description. The result will be the use of cheaper canvases, which can be purchased for from 3d. to 9d. a yard. I expect that if that should occur a duty will be imposed on those canvases, and thus the people of Australia will be penalized for the benefit of a group of three exotic factories, notwithstanding the fact that Australia’s requirements of this article do not exceed the value of £80,0Q0. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) has said that one firm could turn out the whole of these requirements without any difficulty, and that the establishment of others would result in the overhead being considerably increased.

Mr Prowse:

– One firm could do it even on half-time.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Undoubtedly. The board’s report is a very illuminating document. At page 6 it says -

The foregoing review of the effect of the proposed duties on local production also indicates that the extent to which the local industry would provide employment would not be very great.

The labour entering into the production of haircloth is relatively small. A detailed statement submitted by the applicant of the cost of production in Australia of a typical line of cloth made from wool and hair shows that the cost of direct labour represents only 12-J per cent, of the factory selling price. The materials used are Australian wool and imported hair, the latter being imported in the form of yarn free of duty under departmental by-law. In almost every instancy the value of the hair used exceeds that of the wool, so that more than half of the raw material is imported. Therefore, apart from the direct labour in producing the material, the Australian labour resulting from the use of these materials would be confined to the treatment of the wool. . . .

The protection at present operating in the form of the proposed duties is very high; in fact, it was admitted to represent virtual prohibition of importation of mostlines. In many cases the ad valorem equivalent exceeds 200 pur cent. of the f.o.b. value. . . .

Considering all the circumstances, the board is of the opinion that the rates of duty asked for in respect of the goods under review, and which areat present operating under Tariff Resolutions of 19th June, 1930, and 26th March, 1931, namely: - Per square yard, British preferential,1s. 3d., ad valorem, 35 per cent.; intermediate, 2s., ad valorem, 40 per cent. general, 2s.6d., ad valorem, 45 per cent., are not justified.

Any industry that requires protection to the extent of 200 per cent. of the f.o.b. value of the article produced ought to go out of existence.

Mr.C. Riley. - The honorable member wants not a duty, but the prohibition of imports in the case of bananas and some other commodities.

Mr.R. GREEN.- In the case of bananas there is not a prohibition, but a duty of1d. per lb. I am not arguing against a reasonable duty; but when the ad valorem duty amounts to 200 per cent. of the f.o.b. value it goes far beyond what should be allowed tinder any circumstances. The recommendation of the Tariff Board was that the rates should be 6d.a square yard, and 45 per cent. ad valorem ; 7d. a square yard and 55 per cent. ad valorem ; and 8d. a square yard and 60 per cent. I ask the committee not to agree to the amendment proposed by the Minister. This may seem a small matter, but practically every individual in the community is affected, because all clothing worn by men contains a certain percentage of haircloth. I strongly object to the imposition of a duty equivalent to 200 per cent. merely to protect this industry. When the amendment moved by the Minister (Mr.Forde) has been disposed of, it is my intention to move that the duties shall be, British, 6d. ; intermediate, 7d. ; and general, 3d.; or British, 45 per cent.; intermediate, 50 per cent.; and general, 60 per cent., whichever rate’ returns the higher duty.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- This sub-item is as extraordinary as is the manner of its presentation. It constitutes a striking instance of the manner in which the Government has flouted the Tariff Board’s recommendation, and also discloses an entire change in the attitude of the Minister. I often wonder why the Minister is not ashamed of his actions with respect to sub-items of this nature.

On the 6th May of last year the Minister referred these duties to the Tariff Board, which did not commence to consider them until some months afterwards. On the 19th June, some five or six weeks after the Minister had gone through the farce of referring the matter to the Tariff Board, duties were imposed in excess of those sought by the applicants. The Minister did not even wait for the recommendation of the Tariff Board. In his desire to pile up customs duties and costs, he did not even consider the request of the applicants. It was subsequently ascertained from the Tariff Board’s report that when the duties were first imposed not a yard of haircloth or optimas was being produced in Australia. I emphasize the fact that the imposition of duties under such conditions is entirely a new departure, and it is extraordinary that any responsible Minister should penalize the public - that is actually what it means - to the extent involved in this case. What an extraordinary opportunity is presented to scrupulous or unscrupulous company promoters of approaching the Minister and saying that if he will guarantee them an opportunity to charge the public twice as much as they would otherwise pay, as is being done in this case, they will invest money in the industry and commence to manufacture. This is deliberately placing the manufacturers and a particular section of employers engaged in the manufacturing industry in a highly-privileged position at the expense of the rest of the community. I protest against tariffmaking in this way, not only in the interests of the people as a whole, but also in the interests of the manufacturers themselves. Action such as this is deliberately killing protection. This Government is proceeding to impose duties without discriminating between the possibilities of different industries, and by so doing is piling up costs upon the community. The Tariff Board’s report is a most illuminating document, and after reading it I am not surprised to find that the Minister is ashamed to ask the committee to agree to the original duties. This is a glaring instance in which the recommendations of the Tariff Board have been flouted. Before making its recommendation the board stated -

After a thorough examination of an extensive range of quotations and samples, the board is convinced that it the goods previously imported were made in Australia the average cost of these goods to users would, under the proposed duties, exceed the previous average cost by at least 50 per cent. In some instances the excess cost would appear to be not more than 40 per cent.,but it is much greater in the case of many of the big selling lines. [ submit that the Tariff Board’s estimate that Australian haircloth will cost the users 50 per cent. more is modest. I have with me two sets of samples, one of English and the other of Australian production. The former is invoiced at 1s. 3d. a yard, the landed cost of which in Australia, before the duty was imposed, was1s. 4½d. a yard. The samples of Australian haircloth produced since the duties wore imposed are priced at 2s. 3d. and 2s. 9d. a yard respectively, so that the actual increase in the price to the user is 100 per cent. I find it hard to. believe that honorable members opposite will acquiesce in tariff making such as this. I have never spoken disparagingly of Australian products, but there are features in connexion with the manufacture of haircloth which make it exceedingly difficult to produce a high-grade material in Australia. This is apparently due to the fact that some British manufacturers hold patent rights with respect to the methods of manufacture or over the machinery employed. If honorable members will examine the samples of the British and Australian products which I now place at their disposal, they will find that the British haircloth which is used principally for linings and paddings in the collars and shoulders of mens’ coats is of a certain weave, and gives a resilience which is not to be found in the Australian product. The British sample, which is quoted at1s. 3d. a yard, is infinitely superior to the Australian product which costs double that price. At times the hair used in this cloth penetrates suiting material ; but the English product is manufactured under a system by which the other constituent parts effectivelycover the hair, whereas the Australian product is produced under the warp and weave system. The imposition of these duties represents an enormous tax upon the Australian people, out of all proportion to the value of the article itself. The stiffening used in the shoulders and collars of mens’ coats is largely responsible for the retention of shape, and the length of time during which a suit can be worn depends largely upon that. A suit of clothes in which inferior stiffening is used very soon becomes hopelessly out of shape and consequently shabby. The imposition of these duties may cost the Australian people hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the action of the Government in this instance is a very definite contribution in the direction of reducing the quality of mens’ wearing apparel. Action in this direction is being taken in the interests of one or two manufacturers.

Mr Keane:

– Where is the material produced ?

Mr GULLETT:

– Principally in New South Wales. This is another example of the amazing and unprecedented manner in which duties are imposed.

Mr Forde:

– An inspection of the samples submitted by the honorable member shows that he has made a comparison between the best of the English product and the most inferior grade manufactured in Australia.

Mr GULLETT:

– If that is so it shows that the poorest of the Australian product costs twice as much as the best English cloth. I do not wish to use threats, but I feel compelled to say that this committee has not the last word on the duties to be imposed under these subitems. A great majority of honorable members will not calmly submit to tariff making of this description, which constitutes a glaring case of exploitation, and of piling up the cost of living for the benefit of a few manufacturers and the little coterie of employees concerned. ] regard the Minister as the greatest enemy of protection that we have ever had. In consequence of the imposition of the duties in this schedule, there will be a revolt not only against high duties, but against our protective policy generally. This tariff cannot be placed upon the statute-book. It is a travesty on tariff making, and the present Minister is not, as he thinks, a strong supporter of protection, but the greatest destroyer of legitimate protection that has ever occupied a seat in this Parliament.

Mr GIBBONS:
Calare

.- The material covered by this sub-item should be fully protected.

Mr Gullett:

– Merely because there is a small factory at Orange.

Mr GIBBONS:

– I understand that these duties are being imposed to assist in the development of a new industry in which £S0,000 has been invested, and in which 200 persons are employed. It is impossible for any country to develop its resources under a freetrade policy such as that enunciated by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). A considerable quantity of horsehair is available for manufacturing purposes in Australia, but at the present time it is being wasted. The development of the haircloth manufacturing industry will create a market for horsehair, and this will be of direct benefit to the primary producers.

Mr Killen:

– Does the new industry need a protective tariff of 100 per cent.?

Mr Hill:

– The duty amounts to 200 per cent.

Mr GIBBONS:

– The extra cost to the consumer will be more than counterbalanced by the creation of a market for locally-produced horsehair. Not always has the Minister made out a case for increased duties, but, in this instance, there is no doubt that the protective duty is justified, and that it will lead to the development of a new and a permanent industry.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Warringah

.- The Minister’s proposal in connexion with this item is the most extraordinary that Parliament has ever been called upon to consider. No sufficient reason has been given by the Minister for the proposed increase. No one has been found on the Government side to support the duty, except the honorable member for Calare (Mr. Gibbons) who, in a few halting sentences, referred to one aspect of the matter only. The simple fact is that this industry was the subject of an inquiry by the Tariff Board, a body which is concerned only with arriving at the truth, and this is what it said -

The range of material produced by the Austraiian manufacturers, although considerable, is by no means as extensive as that previously imported. … In the comparison of prices, many of the local goods were found to be not similar in quality to those imported.

Referring to the cost of the locallymanufactured article, the Tariff Board Stated-

After a thorough examination of an extensive range of quotations mid samples, the board is convinced that, if the goods previously imported were made in Australia, the average cost of these goods to users would, under the proposed duties, exceed the previous average cost by at least 50 per cent. In some instances the excess cost would appear to be not more than 40 per cent., but it is much greater in the case of many of the big selling lines.

The latest price for one Australian line in considerable demand is over 70 per cent, higher than the price at which a similar imported line was being sold in 1029. The most serious difference in price exists in the case of the cheaper lines. Previous to the imposition of tlie proposed duties, imported interlinings, made chiefly from cotton and hair, were available at from f)id. per yard landed in Australia. The COSt of a competitive locally-made line would exceed this figure by 100 per cent.

The protective duty has been increased by practically 500 per cent., and will result in an increase of 100 per cent, in the price of the commodity to the consumers.

Mr Gullett:

– That is if the manufacturers accept a reasonable profit.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– That is so. Duties of this kind are doing actual harm to legitimate Australian industries. Every honorable member of this House is prepared to assist in the establishment of Australian industries when conditions are favorable, and when it can be done without unduly increasing prices to the consumers.

Mr Beasley:

– Is this haircloth necessary to enable any other local industry to be carried on?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– The manufacture of this material is an industry standing by itself, but the cloth is used in the making up of men’s suits. It is employed by tailors as the inside packing for coats to keep them in shape. It has other uses besides. Now the industries to which this material is necessary will have to pay 100 per cent, more for it than before. In the tariff schedules of 1921 to 1930 the rates on this cloth were - British preferential, free; intermediate, 5 per cent., and general tariff, 10 per cent. In. the tariff schedules of 19th June, 1930, and of the 26th March, 1931, the duty was raised to, British, ls. 3d. per square yard and 35 per cent. ad valorem ; intermediate, 2s. per square yard, and 45 per cent, ad valorem; general, 2s. 6d. per square yard, and 50 per cent, ad valorem. There is no justification for such an extraordinary increase, especially in view of the Tariff Board’s report. The board recommends that the duties should be - British, 6d. per square yard, or 45 per cent. ad valorem; intermediate, 7d. per square yard, or 55 per cent. ad valorem; and general, 8d. per square yard, or 60 per cent. ad valorem. There is no justification for this increased duty; it will lead to exploitation of the public, and will damage the case for assistance to deserving Australian industries. Honorable members on the Government side should not give a silent vote, because this duty willbe the subject of comment from every platform during the next election campaign, I protest against the argument put forward by the Minister, and by some other honorable members opposite, that because a company expends money in buying land and erecting a factory for the carrying on of some industry, it is the duty of this Parliament to impose whatever duty is necessary to ensure its success against overseas competition. It is amazing that a Labour government should follow such a policy. The party to which I belong is sometimes described as the friend of the capitalist, but this party never showed itself to be so much the friend of the capitalist as has the present Government in its manipulation of the tariff. Apparently it is only necessary for a group of capitalists to buy a piece of land, erect a factory, install plant and begin manufacturing, with the assistance of 150 or 200 hands as in the present instance, for it to be able to demand from the Government, at the expense of the general public, protection even to the extent of 100 per cent. against outside competition. The community as a whole is required to bolster up the industry to enable it to carry on. No investigation is made as to what profits the company is making, or what is the cost of production, or the standard of efficiency. When the Minister desires the committee to agree to increased duties on, say, woollen goods, he brings into the chamber samples of locally-manufactured material, and holds them up as an example of what the Australian manufacturers can produce. I am not a draper or a mercer, and I do not know one sample from another, nor the good from the bad. Neither does the Minister. The Minister conducts farcical investigations of industries, of which he has no knowledge - until he entered Parliament he followed a clerical occupation - and yet he poses in this Parliament as an authority in regard to all manner of products. In this instance it is woollen material. If it were confectionery, he would produce a sample of that, and say what splendid articles the local factories were turning out. No greater condemnation of the manner in which the tariff schedule is compiled could be advanced than this: the Minister constitutes himself a judge and expert in regard to every article enumerated in the schedule. Every one knows that it is not humanly possible for one man to obtain, at a minute’s notice, even a reasonable knowledge of all these many industries and their products, when other men have been years learning about only one of them. I oppose this item.

Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr YATES:
Adelaide

.- The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) has stated that the Government is prepared to protect any capitalist who spends a little money in Australia in buying land, erecting a factory and employing a couple of hundred hands; in fact, that it is prepared to go to the extent of giving whatever protection is asked for. The honorable member contends that that is the motive behind the tariff schedule which we are now discussing.

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– This duty was imposed before the factory which manufactures haircloth was started in Australia.

Mr YATES:

– I am speaking now of the motive that actuated the Government in arriving at its tariff policy. What the honorable member claims is the motive behind this tariff schedule was, I contend, the motive behind every other tariff schedule introduced by this and former governments. The only difference is that in this instance the Government is faced with a condition thatconfronted no other government in Australia. It has been forced to impose duties not only to develop secondary industries in this country but also to find considerable revenue in order to meet its commitments. The position is unparalleled in the history of Australia. Although honorable members opposite may criticize the Government for jibbing at the hurdle of what is called default, yet not one of them has made any practical proposal to overcome our difficulties. Criticism of the character indulged in by the honorable member for Warringah will not assist us. The Government’s policy is to assist any capitalist who will establish a factory and employ 200 or more hands. That is what we want in this country. Adequate protection has been the genesis of all our secondary industries. I do not think that the complaint of the honorable member would be supported by the general public.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– The honorable member has given only portion of my complaint.

Mr YATES:

– I have given practically the whole of the honorable member’s complaint. I suggest that if any other capitalist is, as time goes on, prepared to establish a factory in Australia, the Government will extend to him what it considers to be a fair measure of protection. We do not know under what conditions imported haircloth is manufactured. Why should we send good money out of this country for the sake of reducing the price of a suit of clothes by a few pence ?

Mr Forde:

– The cost of the haircloth that is used in a suit of clothes is 6d.

Mr YATES:

– I am coming to that. Why should we send our money out of this country to build up foreign factories, over which we have no control, and which do practically what they like in their own countries? The intention of the Government is to develop Australia. The honorable member for Warringah has said that this duty will increase the cost of haircloth by 100 per cent.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– Does that not mean something to the worker?

Mr YATES:

– The result of the policy advocated by the honorable member, and which was introduced by the Bruce-Page Government, can be seen to-day in front of Parliament House, where human beings are lined up, half fed and living from hand to mouth in a land of plenty. By developing our secondary industries we shall give some employment to these men, but if we adopt the policy advocated by the honorable member for Warringah unemployment will be accentuated.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– If my suggestion were adopted, living would be cheaper and the workers would not starve.

Mr YATES:

– How could the workers live cheaply when they had nothing to live upon ? Over 300,000 persons are unemployed in Australia to-day, and how much better it would be for them and this country, too, if we could develop our secondary industries to such an extent as to provide employment for them. What difference does it make if the price of a suit of clothes is increased a little as a result of this duty? The duty on haircloth is ls. 3d. per square yard, and I suppose that the haircloth used in a suit of clothes would not be more than onefifth of a yard; and one-fifth of ls. 3d. is 3d. Therefore, this duty would not increase the price of a suit of clothes by more than 3d. Honorable members opposite have bitterly opposed nearly every item in this schedule. It is apparent that they are not anxious to develop our secondary industries. The Government, in giving effect to its tariff policy, is doing the right thing by Australia. The previous Government, which the honorable member for Warringah supported, left this Government with a heavy financial burden, and so that we may meet our commitments, it is suggested that we should call upon the old-age and war pensioners to make some sacrifice in this time of stress. Why should we need to penalize the returned soldiers? If war were to break out to-morrow, every one of our returned soldiers who are out of employment, or in receipt of war pensions, would be urged by honorable members opposite to take part in it in order to protect this country. They protected our country in its hour of need, but in their time of stress honorable members opposite wish to further add to their burdens. These increased duties are necessary in order to keep out the cheap-labour products of other countries, which, strangely enough, are suffering a depression similar to that which exists in Australia. The depression is world-wide. It is, therefore, evident that increased production in low-wage countries has not minimized the unemployment problem of those countries. It has yet to be shown that the protection policy of this Government has not been in the best interests of

Australia. According to the figures of the Commonwealth Statistician, as supplied to the Peace in Industry Conference, the pastoral industry up to 1919 produced approximately one-third of the wealth of Australia ; but in 1929 the manufacturing industry had developed to such an extent that it produced even more wealth than the pastoral industry. That development took place under the protection policy. Certain honorable members belonging to the Country party have always advocated freetrade and cheap labour.

Mr Killen:

– No honorable member in this chamber is a freetrader.

Mr YATES:

– Some honorable members are very near to being freetraders. They are advocates of a low tariff, and I submit that, if their objective in that ii; potion were achieved, they would then turn their attention to freetrade. It is a disease which lies dormant until it is given an opportunity to develop. The honorable member for “Warringah has complained that we have no means of ascertaining how the manufacturers conduct their business, whether their factories are efficient, or what profits they make. When another referendum is submitted to the people with the object of allowing this Parliament to take control of trade and commerce, so that the profits of companies may be inquired into, I expect it to have the support of the honorable member for Warringah. Given such power the Government could examine the books of a company and maks all the inquiries necessary to enable it to ascertain, as the honorable member suggests, whether an industry was being efficiently conducted or required further protection. I affirm, the policy of this Government with respect to new protection, which is to afford an adequate measure of protection to industries, at the same time assuring a fair wage to the employees and a fair deal to the consumer. For 27 years I worked in a factory that was built up under the protection policy, and the owner died recently worth nearly £1,000,000. I know the conditions under which that firm grew opulent, but there is no reason why those conditions should not be altered, and they would be altered had She Government power to inquire into the profits of companies. When the next referendum is taken, I trust that the honorable member for Warringah will cease to be a “ spare part,” and become a working machine in support of it. I have yet to learn that Australian industries are inefficient. I have visited one or two factories in my own State, and others in some of the other States, and I should like the honorable member for Warringah to explain to me in what way they are not efficient.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keane:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the honorable member to connect hia remarks with the item under discussion.

Mr YATES:

– I am replying to the argument of the honorable member for Warringah, who is opposed to this increased duty. It has been proved beyond doubt that this industry cannot progress unless it is given adequate protection. It has rightly been stated that the Minister cannot be expected to know every detail of the industry. No Minister would claim such a knowledge.

Mr ARCHDALE Parkhill:

– The present Minister does.

Mr YATES:

– Generally a Minister needs only to ascertain the condition of the industry, the number of hands it employs, and the nature of its production. His department gathers most of the details. Why should we not establish industries in this country? We have the labour and the raw material. We can produce an article comparable with the imported article. Therefore, the Government is fully justified in giving under this tariff the protection necessary to enable this industry to be properly developed.

Hr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL (Warringah) [2.30]. - I would not have risen again but for the remarks of the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Yates) in regard to the unemployed. The honorable member put forward the astounding argument that an increase in the cost of goods amounting to 100 per cent, is an advantage to men who are out of work, and he spoke of the poor unfortunates outside this building to-da.y, standing, half clad, in the piercing wind, with not only no haircloth in their clothing, but with very little clothing at all.

Mr Yates:

– A moment ago I was called to order for wandering from the question before the Chair and at the same time the Temporary Chairman said that the remarks of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) to which I was replying, had been quite away from the question. I ask now whether the honorable member is not again in the development of his argument departing from the question ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keane:

– The honorable member can rely upon the Chair to see that the debate is kept within the proper lines.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I have complete confidence in the ability of the Temporary Chairman to discern what is or is not in order. I was saying that the men who are standing outside this building to-day, ill-clad and half famished-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The sub-item under discussion is haircloth.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I was about to say and without haircloth in their clothing. The argument of the honorable member for Adelaide is that it is to their advantage to pay 100 per cent. more than they have ordinarily to pay for the constituent parts of a suit of clothes, if by some good chance they can scrape together enough money to buy the cheapest clothing offered for sale. Who is responsible for the unemployment to-day? The Minister has spoken of the 50,000 men for whom this tariff on haircloth and other articles in the schedule could provide employment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-I must insist on the honorable member connecting his remarks with the sub-item.

Mr. ARCHDALE PARKHILL.Later on the number was reduced considerably, and tinder this particular sub-item the number of men for whom he hopes to find employment is 150, and not 50,000. The 50,000 disappeared long, long ago, in the dim and distant past. To-day the Minister argues that a prohibitive duty on haircloth, which according to the Tariff Board means raising the price of the article by 100 per cent., will improve the position of workers in Australia. As a matter of fact ever since this schedule has been introduced the number of men among the ranks of those who are demonstrating outside this building to-day has been increased day by day and month by month, and will continue to increase. The only remedy suggested by the present Government is to back up the man with capital. It is a new policy for the Labour party to see to it that the man with capital does not stand any chance of losing it, while through it all the unemployed may starve and the worker have to pay 100 per cent. more for the necessities of life, or for the clothing which he must have to keep the cold wind out of his pneumonic parts.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- The small reduction of duty which the Minister proposes is mere eye-wash. The Tariff Board has found that a duty of 6d. is equal to the whole of the wages cost of making of haircloth, the whole of the factory overhead charges which can be apportioned to its manufacture and the cost of fuel, stores and maintenance. Yet the Minister even in his amendment for reduction now proposes a duty half as high again with an additional 35 per cent. ad valorem. No manufacturer should dare to ask the community to give him his labour free, his factory and overhead costs and the cost of fuel, stores and maintenance, and then half as much again plus another 35 per cent. As a matter of fact this haircloth making is a parasitical industry which cannot have the effect of helping men back to work in the aggregate. I heard with astonishment the honorable member for Adelaide supporting these duties. According to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) there are 200 people in Australia engaged in the manufacture of haircloth, and according to the Tariff Board the cost to the community is a great deal more than the wages of those men. One of the many sections of the Australian people which is bearing this added cost lives in the city of Adelaide. I congratulate the honorable member for Adelaide upon his consistency. He is not actuated by self-interest or the interest of his constituents in supporting these duties as were honorable members who supported the cotton duties. Of six warehouses in Adelaide three have had to close, and throw men out of work. Duties of this nature have brought about that result. The honorable member is certainly consistent. It is a rare consistency, because be is helping to give effect to principles which are of no advantage to his constituency or to his State.

Mr Prowse:

– A royal commission has said they are of no advantage to his State.

Mr HAWKER:

– Yes. The facts marshalled by the Tariff Board should have made that fact plain to the honorable member. Members on this side of the chamber are not protesting against these duties merely on behalf of a few warebouses in Adelaide. There are two types of opinion upon a tariff. Some people believe that when spoon-feeding of industries is kept to a minimum, a country develops along more healthy lines; its trade is more secure and the country is less exposed to slumps than it would otherwise be. Other people believe that if shelter is given to a country’s industries it provides more employment. These duties on haircloth come under neither of these headings ; they are simply a straightout abuse of the principles of protection. They provide an exorbitant bonus for certain manufacturers. I am not accusing the Minister of lack of integrity in handing out this particular bonus. It has become an obsession of his to hand out bonuses in this way. In this instance the duties originally introduced and subsequently amended were more than those for which the industry actually asked. The Tariff Board has marshalled a lot of useful facts to show that the manufacture of haircloth is not economically suited to Australian conditions, and that it is not possible to protect it without incurring a cost greater than the benefit that can be derived by employing 200 men. The fact is that the industry cannot be carried on in Australia except on extravagant lines. It is not due to the high cost, of wages. As the Tariff Board has pointed out, the wages cost is only 12-J per cent, of the value of the finished article. A duty running well over 100 per cent, is not necessary to make up for the difference between the wages paid on the Australian standard and no wages at all. It is not the high cost of wages in Australia that has induced the Minister to hand out a tremendous gift to the manufacturers of haircloth. Nor is it the cost of the raw materials, the bulk of which have to be imported. Haircloth is costly to manufacture in Australia because of the variety of patterns that are necessary, and because there is not a sufficiently large diversified local market to make it possible to manufacture cheaply on different patterns. The cost of installing the requisite machinery, for each particular type is too excessive. The duty, therefore, is of no advantage either to the Australian wage standard or to the protection of Australian industries, but is a drain upon both.

The point at issue upon this sub-item i3 not whether it is better for the country to have a high o’r a low tariff - I have my own views upon that issue - but whether these duties are not an abuse of the principle of protection. The Minister has an assurance that the cost of the Australian article will not be much above that at which the article can now be imported. That being the case, why the need for this huge duty? “Why cannot the Minister accept the recommendations of the Tariff Board for a duty of 6d. or 45 per cent., whichever is the greater? On some lines 6d. would be as high as 100 per cent. On the rarer lines, for which the demand is not so great, a duty of 45 per cent, could operate, and a certain amount of revenue might be derived from it. If the Minister believes that these cloths can be manufactured at only a little above the cost of the imported articles, why did he not leave the duties at from 45 per cent, to 100 per cent, as recommended by the Tariff Board? The industry would then have more than reasonable protection. Shortsighted abuses of protection give to it a bad name, and throw out of work more men than they employ. The Minister stated that these duties would promote the consumption of Australian wool. Not a very big proportion of wool is used in haircloths.

Mr FORDE:

– -Fifty-six per cent, of wool and 44 per cent, of hair.

Mr HAWKER:

– A few special clothsmay be half-wool, but in many of them the proportion of wool is comparatively small. In any case, the wool would be required whether the cloths were manufactured in Australia or in Yorkshire. The Minister’s policy will not create a new demand for wool, although it may diversify the competition for it. When Australia is booming, and conditions elsewhere are bad, a little extra local competition may help the wool market, but at other times Australia may be experiencing a depression while other countries are prospering. In the long run, the artificial creation of a haircloth industry in Australia will not provide any new demand for our wool; on the contrary, its increased cost Wil restrict the demand. The Minister’s statement, that the duties will increase the cost of a suit by not more than 6d., is an argument that can be applied to all extravagant duties. Any of us could live in affluence for the rest of our lives if we were given a charter to take 6d. out of the pockets of every person in the community. The additional sixpence may not make much difference in any particular case, but in the aggregate these extra costs are ruining the country, closing foreign markets against our exports, and keeping many of our people underclothed and out of work. The fact that the Government has trapped certain capitalists into spending £80,000 with a totally unjustifiable offer of protection is not a reason why the people should pay them £30,000 a year over the cost of imported cloths. I shall vote against the duty in any form, but will first support an amendment in accordance with the recommendations of the Tariff Board.

Mr FORDE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Capricornia · ALP

.- The criticisms directed against this item are the same as have emanated for many years from Nationalist and Country party members with freetrade tendencies. Ministers in charge of previous tariff schedules have been subjected to similar attacks at the instigation of people who do not want new industries established in Australia. They desire us to continue importing, and have always contended that Australia should be only a primary producing country. The granting of additional protection to the haircloth industry is merely a further step towards the redemption of the Prime Minister’s definite pledge before the last election that adequate protection would be given to Australian industries. The criticism directed against me is almost identical with that to which Mr. Pratten, when Minister for Trade and Customs, was subjected. In reply to certain statements by members of the Country party, and other freetrade supporters of the then Government, Mr. Pratten said, on the 24th November, 1925 -

It will be within the recollection of honorable members that when the last tariff was submitted to the House an outcry occurred in connexion with ladies’ imported undervests and knitted goods. Do honorable members know that the result of that tariff is that these goods are now being manufactured in Australia instead of being imported, and are cheaper than the imported goods they displaced? I quite anticipate another scream in connexion with this tariff, this time perhaps about the poor working man’s socks, or even his player piano; but proofs have been submitted to me that, quality for quality, the wholesale prices in Australia to-day of many items which were included in the last tariff passed by this House, are lower than at any time since the war.

That statement is equally applicable to the criticisms of honorable members to-day. The views of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) are well known. He stated in this Parliament in March, 1928, that the time had arrived for a tariff holiday.

Mr Gullett:

– And it would have been a good thing, too.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member spoke in extravagant terms to-day about insane decisions, but his intemperatelanguage was only in keeping with his declaration in 1928, that we should spend £50,000,000 a year cheerfully, and that his subsequent colleague, Dr. Earle Page,, was the most tragic Treasurer Australia had ever known.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keane:

– I must ask the Minister to adhere to the item before the committee.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) deplored the loss of revenue that would follow the imposition of these duties. An examination of the facts discloses that he doesnot know what he is talking about. In 1929-30, the total importations of haircloth amounted to £76,000, of which £75,000 came from the United Kingdomfree of duty. Only £362 was collected in duties on the balance. I believe thateven with this duty certain tailors will import special types of haircloth and pay the impost, and that instead of a fallingoff in revenue from this source, there wilt be an increase on the very small amount of £362 that was collected in 1929-30.

Some honorable members raise a protest that this duty would shut out importations from Great Britain. When the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) returned from the United Kingdom, he quoted the slogan of the Empire Marketing League “Buy homemade goods first; then patronize the dominions Surely there is no harm in our giving priority of preference to goods manufactured in Australia, and placing the second preference with the product of Great Britain.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. R. Green) declared that one factory could manufacture Australia’s requirements of haircloth. I admit that if it were sufficiently big, one factory could supply the requirements of Australia. At present we have three factories manufacturing haircloth. That will stimulate healthy competition and save the public of Australia from exploitation.

The honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett) claimed that the protection given in the general schedule is higher than was asked for. A prima facie case was established by the local industry for the same rates of duty on haircloth as were then given on cotton tweeds. A very good case was made out for those duties, of which I approved. No manufacturing costs were then obtainable; estimates only could be checked up by the departments. Since then £80,000 has been invested in factories for the production of haircloth and approximately 120 people are employed in the industry in Australia. The department now has some figures on which to work when checking manufacturing costs. When the company appeared before the Tariff Board, it asked for a slightly lower ad valorem rate than was originally sought. The difference was 5 per cen,t. in the ad valorem rate only.

Another point which the honorable member for Henty overlooks is that when the board made its recommendation, the inferior types of haircloth were not made in Australia. Now the Bradford Mills Limited, Sydney, are setting out to manufacture the inferior qualities, which will be available in Australia at prices very little in advance of those of imported lines landed duty free, exchange added. The price at which average quality imported haircloth sold in Australia, prior to the increased tariff, was ls. 6d. per yard. The Australian manufacturers’ price for a similar quality article ranges from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a yard. As only three-quarters of a yard of haircloth is used in the average suit, the increased cost to a man who buys but one suit a year is 6d., and to the man who buys two suits a year, ls. Almost invariably the extra cost will be borne by the tailor, as it is so infinitesimal.

It vas said that suits would lose their shape when made with the so-called inferior type of haircloth manufactured in Australia. I have here samples of the local product which are very superior to the quality of the imported article that is used in the majority of suits manufactured in this country. The imported inferior quality material is rubbish in comparison with these samples, and no self-respecting tailor would use it. I have seen samples of overseas, haircloth made principally of cotton or jute, with only a few strands of hair incorporated. Suits in which haircloth of that type was used would lose their shape very quickly. The poorest quality manufactured in Australia is far superior to the imported shoddy that was sometimes used by certain tailors prior to the establishment of these factories in Australia. I am very pleased that the Australian manufacturer refuses to produce a shoddy article. The average haircloth now manufactured locally contains 56 per cent, wool and 44 per cent, haircloth. I believe that the Australian public will receive much better value because of the superior quality of the home-made article.

The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) declared that the proposed duties represent the ad valorem equivalent of 500 per cent. That would mean that the f.o.b. cost would be approximately If d. a yard. I should be surprised if the honorable member could produce this material at that price. I should derive considerable pleasure, and amusement, from seeing the honorable member clad in a suit which incorporated haircloth of that description. The statement is merely in keeping with his wild allegations with regard to a 500 per cent, increase in duty. As usual, the honorable member is unable to prove his contention.

I hope that the item will be passed. Already the imposition of these duties has enabled a good industry to be established in Australia. The duties now submitted to the committee represent a substantial reduction on those originally scheduled. If they are rejected the néw industry will have to be abandoned, and some 200 employees will be thrown out of work. Instead of helping the unemployed, some of the representatives of whom were assembled in front of Parliament House this afternoon, the rejection of these duties would still further accentuate Australia’s unemployment problem. The trifling addition of 6d. a suit, even if passed on to the general public, is not worthy of consideration in comparison with the alternative, that of keeping people in. work. These factories have a capacity of 840,000 yards a year. Australia’s requirements during normal times is approximately 750,000 yards a year. There will therefore be no justification for importing haircloth in future. It should be our object to rectify the present adverse balance of trade. We should endeavour to make everything we possibly can in Australia instead of importing commodities. In that way we shall provide work for our people, and prosperity for the nation.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- The Minister has read to the committee another of those characteristic statements which have obviously been placed in his possession by interested manufacturers who are being granted these duties at the expense of the general community. I protest against the perpetuation of that kind of thing. The Minister made one or two extraordinary confessions in the course of this particular recital. He admitted to the committee that when he brought down his first schedule neither he nor his departmental experts had any knowledge of the Australian manufacturing costs of haircloth. That is an astounding statement to como from a responsible Minister. It has been clearly established that these duties have doubled the price of haircloth in Australia. Although the Minister knew what the effect would be, he provided the opportunity for this almost unlimited increase in price without knowing what would be the working expenses of the manufacturers interested. If tariffs are to be imposed in that way, the time has arrived for us to make the strongest protest within our power.

I desire briefly to traverse the steps taken by the Minister in arriving at the present duties. I do this because we have here an extreme case of his muddleheadedness and recklessness. I said previously that this schedule might well have been prepared by the departmental office boy. I now withdraw that statement, because it must be offensive to any intelligent Australian office boy. The Minister started off without any knowledge of manufacturing costs. He imposed a British preferential duty of ls. 3d. per square yard, and 35 per cent, ad valorem. Previously the British preferential duty was 5 per cent, ad valorem. He gave no reason for fixing the duty at the higher rate. The next step was to ignore the recommendation of the Tariff Board, which recommended a British preferential duty of 6d. per square yard, or 45 per cent, ad valorem. The Minister did not even pay the committee the courtesy of telling why he chose to disregard the Tariff Board’s recommendation. I emphasize that the report of the Tariff Board on this matter was unanimous. It recommended a duty only about one-fourth of that imposed by the Minister. The Minister may plead that he acted on the advice of his officers. I challenge him to produce the departmental advice he received in connexion, with scores of items in this schedule. I know that, when I was Minister for Trade and Customs, the officers of the department were opposed to many duties such as are contained in this schedule. I therefore conclude that this tariff schedule is either the Minister’s own creation, or was dictated by his manufacturing friends. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) saidthis morning that manufacturers had been given the privilege of writing their own ticket as to the duties to be imposed on certain items.

Mr Forde:

– I objected to a similar statement this morning, and I object now.. I ask that the honorable member be calledupon to withdraw it.

Mr GULLETT:

– I freely withdraw it if it is offensive to the Minister. I did not intend it to be offensive. I regard? it as a plain statement of fact.

Mr Forde:

– It is offensive to me.

Mr GULLETT:

– I do not suggest that the Minister has acted in any wrong way; but that he has exhibited monumental folly and pitiable weakness.

Mr Forde:

– The honorable member was Minister for Trade and Customs for nine months, yet he did nothing.

Mr GULLETT:

– It will take the country ten years to recover from the injury which the present Minister for Trade and Customs has done. We now come to the next step, which is that the Minister makes a slash at his own schedule. Heaven alone knows why he now seeks to reduce by 40 per cent, the duties he himself imposed! I doubt whether the Minister himself knows why he has done so. From a study of the schedule one cannot tell whether the Minister works in his sleep or on his head. The fact remains that the Minister is building up a monopoly in this country. At the most there are only two Australian manufacturers of these goods. They are given the exclusive control of the Australian market, and the liberty to charge what price they like. It is no wonder that some honorable members have protested on behalf of the workers. What assurance have we that, under this monopoly tariff, either the workers or the consumers will benefit?

Mr M CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; NAT from 1925; UAP from 1931

– There will be no haircloth in the workers’ garments.

Mr GULLETT:

– I have no words to express my contempt for a tariff of this kind, and I shall, therefore, say no more.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

.- The difficulty in which I, as a member of the group with which I am associated, find myself, in connexion with the item that is before the committee, is that which has confronted me all through the debate on textiles. The Minister wishes to reduce the duties set out in the schedule. I do not know whether that reduction has been sought by the employers or by the employees in the industry. If it has been sought by the former, the Minister must demonstrate to my satisfaction that it will benefit the workers before I can give it my support. It would appear, at first flight, that the workers will not benefit from the reduction. In the second place, the group to which I belong would like to know if the Minister is in a position <to inform the House whether the employers in this section of the industry, assuming that the change is proposed at their request, are at one with employers in other sections in making a slash at the wages of the workers in the industry at a time when they are asking a Labour Government to grant them concessions under the tariff. The question of lengthening the working hours is also involved.

Mr Forde:

– These employers come within the same category as those on whose behalf the honorable member advocated protection some time ago. The employers in the textile trade are in the same position as are the employers in the metal trades.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– The position is different, because honorable members in the group with which I am associated are acting in a representative capacity. Representations have been made to us in connexion with this and many other items. Last night our credentials were virtually challenged. The honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) claimed to speak on behalf of the workers. I doubt whether the honorable member can substantiate his claim. Indeed, I challenge him to produce one document in support of it. The members of this group are’ in a position to show that they represent persons intimately concerned with the item before the committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Keane:

– Order! This is not a general debate. I ask the honorable member to connect his remarks with the item before the Chair, which is haircloth.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– I shall do so. The item we are considering is one in connexion with which the Minister has moved for a reduction of the duty. I was indicating that my colleagues and I will be influenced in our votes by the facts which are placed before us. I am trying to show that the members of my group are speaking of definite requests made to us to press for the postponement of the consideration of this division of the tariff until the requests of the workers have been considered. I have received a telegram .from the President of the New South Wales Textile Workers Union, Mr. Downing, in these terms -

New South Wales textile workers support your attitude re tariff, and urge fighting every item. Whole industrial and political movement in this State is behind textile workers.

Mr Forde:

– In their own hearts, they do not want the duties to be taken off.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the honorable member is not dealing with the subitem under consideration, but with the tariff generally, and his representation of a section of the”’ workers in connexion with it. He has referred to the textile items generally, instead of addressing his remarks to the subject of haircloth.

Mr Beasley:

– I point out that the honorable member for “Warringah (Mr. Parkhill) is not correct in saying that the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) was speaking on the tariff items generally.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– On textile items generally.

Mr Beasley:

– That makes no difference to my objection.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– “We have passed a number of the sub-items and haircloth is now under consideration.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member for Martin must confine his remarks to the sub-item, haircloth. The question of the postponement of consideration of the item as a whole has already been disposed of.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– With all respect to the Chair, I submit that it is necessary to bring before the committee evidence, such as I am now adducing, in order that honorable members may appreciate the object of the members of my group in adopting our present attitude, regarding not only the textile items as a whole, but also the very sub-item now under consideration. We are called upon to vote for or against the proposals of the Ministry; but we have been assured that these can be better considered when honorable members have had an opportunity of hearing the views of those on whose behalf we are now speaking.

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

– The honorable member is not speaking for the operatives in the industry.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– Before the honorable member for Cook (Mr. C. Riley) entered the chamber, a few moments ago, I challenged him to prove that he had as much right, as have the members of my group, to speak for the textile workers. He has not produced a single document to substantiate his claim, while I have many documents to show my bona fides in the matter, though there seems to be a general desire to prevent me from bringing them under notice.

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

– If the honorable member has any more letters to read, I would be pleased to hear them.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– I welcome that remark. I thought that any such letters as that already read by me would be as gall and wormwood to the honorable member. I have received a telegram from the President of the Australian Labour Party in New South Wale3.

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

– Ouch !

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– The honorable member did not make a remark like that when he wanted the endorsement of the Australian Labour Party.

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

– I did not crawl to them; I fought them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair will not tolerate the continuance of the discussion on these lines. The honorable member for Martin must confine himself to the sub-item under consideration.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– I took a few notes of what the honorable member for Henty said. He asked whether the duty on haircloth was intended to meet the wishes of the manufacturers in the industry, or whether it was required in the interests of the consumers. To those remarks of the honorable member no exception was taken by the Chair. He spoke of the astounding methods by which tariff items were submitted to Parliament. That observation related to all items, and it was not challenged. He then commented on the extraordinary methods by which duties were suddenly, and without warning, placed before Parliament, and then, in a mysterious way, withdrawn. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) spoke eloquently and effectively on that point yesterday. Then the honorable member for Henty referred to muddle-headed methods. If all those remarks were in order, I fail to see how my own sapient observations can be considered to be out of order. The honorable member also said that the Minister apparently promulgated duties when there was no evidence of a recommendation regarding them having been made by the Tariff Board, or by the investigation officers, or by the hordes of experts who are swarming this country, and drawing large salaries. The honorable member also spoke of weakness shown in connexion with the presentation of tariff items, and used the term “ astounding folly.” In view of these facts, I think that I might be permitted to quote from

Alice in Wonderland-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member for Martin should know that a quotation from Alice in Wonderland would not be applicable to the sub-item before the Chair.

Mr Gullett:

– On a point of order, I submit, with all respect, that such a quotation would possibly have a very definite bearing on the attitude of the present Minister for Trade and Customs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair has ruled otherwise.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– Let me paraphrase the well know lines - “ The time has come,” the Minister said, “ To talk of textile things ;

Of shoes and ships and sealing wax,

Of cabbages and Kings.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have already ruled that such quotations have no bearing upon the sub-item before the committee.

Motion (by Mr. Brennan) put. -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.)

AYES: 44

NOES: 3

Majority . . . . 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Forde’s) be agreed to- put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. McGrath.)

AYES: 41

NOES: 4

Majority . . . . 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr.R. GREEN (Richmond) [3.35].- I voted against the amendment submitted by the Ministeron the ground of its inadequacy. Earlier in the debate, I gave notice of my intention to move an amendment to bring the duties into line with the recommendations ofthe Tariff Board. I therefore move -

That the item be further amended by adding after sub-item (g) as amended the following: “And on and after the 30th May, 1931 -

  1. Haircloth andcloth ofhair in combination with other fibres for interlining apparel, per square yard, British,6d., ; intermediate, 7d. ; general 8d.; or ad val., British, 45 per cent.: intermediate, 55 per cent.; general,60per cent., whichever rate returns ‘the higher duty.”
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Yates:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The item has already been amended by the committee. I therefore cannot accept an amendment to postpone consideration.

Question - That the amendment be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr Yates.)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Question - That sub-item g, as amended, be agreed to - put. The committee divided. ( Temporary Chairman - Mr. Yates.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority … … 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 2447

DISSENT FROM RULING OF MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McGrath:

– I desire to inform the House that, in connexion with the dissent from my ruling this morning by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge) a motion of dissent, duly seconded, was handed in by the honorable member immediately. I have directed that this notice of motion shall take precedence of all other business on the notice-paper.

page 2447

ADJOURNMENT

Speech by Mr. Eldridge, M.P.

Motion (by Mr. Brennan) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MAXWELL:
Fawkner

.- I cannot allow to pass without comment and protest the vile speech that was made last night by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge). The House will remember that the honorable member applied to the Christian Church the vile epithet “ harlot of mammon “. The church at large is quite able to take care of itself; but there was included in that condemnation the noble institution known as the Central Methodist Mission in Melbourne, whose platform I have had the honour and the privilege of occupying on many occasions, a platform so broad as to accommodate men of such widely differing views as the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Bruce), and the present Assistant Minister (Mr. Holloway).

To show the nature of this noble mission, I desire to place on record the institutions that are subsidiary to, and are being carried on by it.

Mr Eldridge:

– On a point of order, I submit that, as this institution has not been attacked, the remarks of the honorable member are quite out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McGrath:

– On the motion for the adjournment of the House an honorable member is at liberty to address himself to almost any question.

Mr MAXWELL:

– I think the House will remember that what was being attacked when the speech of the honorable member for Martin was made was the use of the platform of the Central Methodist Mission as a medium for the propagation of party political views. The occasion was availed of by the honorable member for Martin to make a general attack upon the Christian Church, of which the Central Methodist Mission is a branch. Therefore, I contend that my remarks are quite relevant.

Connected with the Central Methodist Mission is a boy’s training farm, where over 70 lads, mostly of the delinquent type, are being trained in farm work and market gardening. As a result of the work of that farm, hundreds of lads have been turned into good citizens. There is in South Yarra, in my constituency, a home for girls between the ages of fifteen and eighteen years, who have proved wayward, and have been committed to its care by the court or their parents. These girls are looked after, disciplined and trained, and many of them have been reclaimed and redeemed and made reputable citizens. Then there is a girls’ maternity home, to which poor, unmarried girls can retire on the eve of their confinement, and at which they receive kindly care and treatment. Another institution carried on by the mission is a girls’ hostel, which is under the superintendence of an experienced sister, where girls who have had to leave their homes to take up professional and business positions are provided with a comfortable home under capable supervision. A splendid institution conducted by the mission is the home for aged women, where poor, old ladies who are homeless, are taken in and are given kindly care during the evening of their days. Then there is a men’s hostel for workless and shelterless men and for old-age pensioners. In addition to these activities, the mission last year had repaired about 1,000 pair of boots and had made a large quantity of clothing, which articles were distributed freely among poor children. During the present period of stress, 100 girls, who are out of work, are being provided with a threecourse meal every day in the week, except Sunday, at the Central Methodist Mission.

I think that I have said sufficient to show that the Central Methodist Mission is the centre of a real, vital, spiritual life, and that it is doing a splendid service to the community. This is only one of similar institutions which are performing work of this character in an unostentatious way in the interests of the great Christian church, which this man has dared to characterize as “ harlots of mammon.” I leave it at that. I have said sufficient to show that the platform from which I spoke is under the auspices of an institution which is every day of the year doing a large amount of genuine Christ-like work.

Mr ELDRIDGE:
Martin

.- I submit that the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) has not advanced one valid reason why the remarks which I made last night were in any sense improper. In a somewhat lengthy statement he has outlined the work of the churches in Australia, and particularly that of the Central Methodist Mission in Victoria. I have every respect for the good work undertaken by any church which follows in the footsteps of the Founder of Christianity. I remind the House that although the discussion last night began with a complaint made by the honorable member for West

Sydney (Mr. Beasley) with respect to the improper use of a radio station, the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett), following upon the remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner, submitted a statement issued in the name of certain churches in South Australia, and that it was to the criticism of that statement that my remarks were principally directed. It will be remembered that the statement purported to express the horror of the churchmen who subscribed their names to the document that first of all there should be such a terrible thing in Australia as party politics. It became necessary for me to direct the attention of the House to the fact that these gentlemen who deplored parties in politics represented no less than about a dozen distinct parties professing to be representative of the Christian church - sects violently opposed to and distrusting each other, in some instances even reviling each other.

Mr Crouch:

– That is not so.

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– In addition to subscribing their own names, these people, speaking as Christian ministers, added the name of one Solomon, the head of the Jewish church, which is not a Christian church at all. I submitted that it was deplorable that persons claiming to occupy the positions they do in the community should be so lamentably deficient in logic and consistency, and, I think I said, even in a sense of ordinary humour, that they should deplore party politics and at the same time publish to the world that their church was split into smithereens with sects of different kinds which are always warring against each other. I pointed out that these persons could not unite in the service of the lowly Nazarene, but they could unite in the service of Mammon. I then proceeded to point to something that needs to be pointed out by those who profess Christi anity-

Mr Morgan:

– Does not the honorable member profess Christianity?

Mr ELDRIDGE:

– Undoubtedly I do; but 1 profess it in a practical way, and not as a hypocrite. Last night I was dealing with that section of people for whom the Founder of Christianity had the utmost detestation - the hypocrites and whited sepulchres. I pointed out that our opponents seem to overlook the entire character of the founder of Christianity, who did not mix with the elite. He did not associate with the bankers, and the well-to-do of His day. He was born with and worked for and loved the poor and the outcast of His day. He fought the higher people. He fought the very people that we are fighting and in that fight I asso- ciated myself last night and I consider in an entirely Christian spirit. Honorable members opposite, if they have never realized it before, must realize now, that, in our opinion, those against whom we spoke, are oily, canting humbugs, nothing more and nothing less. The church of late has unfortunately failed humanity. This country, in common with all countries, is beset with the spectre of unemployment. It is estimated that there are 20,000,000 persons unemployed throughout the world to-day. I invite honorable members to peruse my maiden speech in this House when I referred to the same subject. On that occasion I said something that is well worth repeating now in answer to the remarks of the honorable member for Fawkner. I then said -

To our Christian accusers, I say:

How many calvaries, O, Life’s compeers,

And Sons of Man, rejected and destroyed,

When twenty centuries of Christian years

Judas Earth’s twenty million unemployed.

Last night I said that no intelligent man can deny that churchmen are conspicuous by their absence from the ranks of those who are down and out. I submitted that in that sense churches have failed and also that many of those professing to be disciples of the lowly Nazarene are false to their profession. They are as the Scribes and Pharisees of old. The honorable member for Henty made some allusion to the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore), and in that connexion I am reminded of the scriptural condemnation of those who keep the outside of the platter clean, but the inside as far from that as possible. It was because of such circumstances that I expressed the opinion I did that in this lamentable failure of some professing churchmen - as in the exhibition given in the statement read by the honorable member for Henty of the alliance of some of the churches with the moneyed interests of the day - we had such a spectacle that, with great regret, one was entitled to say that churches which are guilty of such things are nothing but the harlots of Mammon.

Mr BRENNAN:
AttorneyGeneral · Batman · ALP

– I regret that the statement of the honorable member for Martin (Mr. Eldridge), to which exception has been taken to-day, was not challenged immediately it was uttered. In the confusion of the moment, however, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as myself, allowed the words to pass unnoticed. Wide and generous latitude is allowed to every honorable member in the expression of his opinions in this House, and it is our proud boast that in this Commonwealth no inquiries are made, and no privileges are given, on the basis of any man’s religious belief. All members of this House are in that respect entirely free. There is no room for doubt, how ever, that the words used last night by the honorable member for Martin, when referring to the Christian churches, if indeed he was not referring to all religions, were deeply offensive to every honorable member in this chamber.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Mr BRENNAN:

– If there is any honorable member to whom they were not deeply offensive, I invite him to declare himself. I speak now on behalf of the Government, and of the party which I have the honour to lead, for the moment, in saying that we dissociate ourselves entirely from the statement of the honorable member for Martin. As to his general opinions, I havenothing to say; he is free to hold them and to express them ; I am referring now to a particular phrase he used - a phrase which I scarcely like to repeat in this chamber - which he sought to apply to all religions which are deeply sacred to us all. The honorable member forFawkner (Mr. Maxwell) referred to the great work being done by the institution which he felt called upon to defend. So far as my knowledge goes, I can endorse every word he said, only adding that all the Christian churches in one way or another are engaged in great and godly activities on philanthropic and practical lines. I am glad to take this opportunity of dissociating the Labour party, the Government-

Mr Crouch:

– And the House.

Mr BRENNAN:

– And, indeed, this House, from the statement uttered by the honorable member for Martin, as being repugnant in the highest degree to every honorable member of this chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1931/19310529_reps_12_129/>.