House of Representatives
27 April 1933

13th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr. Speaker (Hon.G. H. Mackay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1002

QUESTION

DAYS OF MEETING

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minisister · Wilmot · UAP

byleave - The Government proposes that the House atits rising to-morrow afternoon shall adjourn until Wednesday next. The course to be followed after Wednesday will he decided early, and communicated, to honorable members as soon as possible. costof Living.

Wages and Salaries

Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– In view of the serious effect which the continuous reduction of wages is having on the industrial life of the community, will the Prime Minister arrange for an investigation of the methodby which the cost of living index number is ascertained, and, also, its application by the Arbitration Court? Pending such investigation will the Government refrain from applying the cost of living index figure to the salaries of Commonwealth public servants?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I ask the right honorable member to give notice of the first part of his question so that the Government may have an opportunity to consider it. The second part is covered by a question upon notice, the answer to which will he circulated later.

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister any information to give to the House in relation to the reported possibility of a further drop in the federal basic wage, and its effect on federal public servants and workers under federal awards? Can he say whether the Government would impose the suggested reduction on its employees?

Mr LYONS:

– The notice-paper contains a question relating to this subject, and an answer to it will be circulated to-day.

page 1002

NEWNES SHALE OIL

Personal Explanation

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I rise to a personal explanation. In the course of a speech in this chamber on the 16th March last, I said, inter alia -

Subsequently, and following inquiries made by the Minister Controlling Development (Senator McLachlan), it was discovered that many tone ofshale, which had been paid for, had never been delivered to the bins, and that a man named Miller who, I understand, was in charge of the works, had been indulging in practices which the Minister regarded as highly questionable.

I have since found that my reference to Miller was incorrect. I have ascertained that no blame is attributable to him in connexion with short deliveries of shale to the bins at Newnes. My statement on the 16th March was apparently based either upon incorrect information, or upon an incorrect interpretation of certain information, and I regret any annoyance or injury that may have been caused to Miller as a result of it.

page 1002

QUESTION

PETROL INDUSTRY ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether, when deciding to appoint a joint royal commission, representative of the Commonwealth and the States, to inquire into the petrol industry, the right honorable gentleman was aware that the Attorney-General of the Victorian Cabinet (Mr. R. G. Menzies, K.C.) is counsel for the Shell Oil Company. Is there any assurance that Mr. Menzies, holding this dual position, will not resist the appointment of a joint, commission? If Mr. Menzies does not participate in the Victorian Government’s discussion of the proposed commission, is there any guarantee that ho will not otherwise influence the decision of the State Cabinet?

Mr LATHAM:
Attorney-General · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP

– When the joint commission was proposed, I was not aware that Mr. Menzies was retained by one of the oil companies. . But I am quite sure that any application made to the Victorian Government will be considered independently of Mr. Menzies’ personal interests. I have no guarantee of that, but I have read a newspaper statement by Mr. Menzies, which I believe to be accurate, that he will not take part in the consideration of this proposal by the Victorian Government.

page 1003

QUESTION

WIRE NETTING

Mr ABBOTT:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the high cost of wire netting, which is very little less than it was four years ago, and the importance of this commodity to the exporting industries, he will represent to the manufacturers that the price should be reduced?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall consider the suggestion.

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to know from the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the report of the Tariff Board relating to the dumping duty on wire netting has been received by him, or whether it has been lost?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP

– There is no duty on wire netting; but a dumping duty has been imposed for some considerable time. I shall have inquiries made to ascertain whether the application of that duty is still necessary. It was applied because wire netting was being sent to Australia and sold at considerably less than the domestic price. The local manufacturers had to be protected from that unfair competition.

Mr GREGORY:

– Has the Minister received from the Tariff Board a report relating to the bringing of wire netting under the provisions of the Industries Preservation Act; if so, when will the report be made public?

Mr.WHITE. - The Tariff Board has inquired into this matter, and its report is expected at any time.

page 1003

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF POLICY

Mr McNICOLL:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In respect of reductions of customs duties by (a) the BrucePage Government and (b) the Lyons Government, will the Minister for Trade and Customs have prepared for the information of honorable members and the public, a statement of the rate of duty on each item affected immediately before each reduction, and the extent of such reductions ?

Mr.WHITE.- The additional information desired by the honorable member will be prepared in conjunction with information asked for yesterday by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett).

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Attorney-General - (1) Is it not a fact that the Bruce-Page Government introduced and carried through this chamber two great tariff schedules, which covered a wide field and brought about many heavy increases in the rates of duties? (2) Did the commodities thus affected include iron and steel and many other essentials of primary production? (3) Did not the Bruce-Page Ministry include ‘ the present Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Gibson), the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. Hill), and the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Abbott), and was not the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Hunter) one of the Government “Whips? (4) Does the right honorable gentleman recollect that any of these honorable members withdrew from the Ministry as a protest against the proposed rates of duty?

Mr LATHAM:
UAP

– The schedules to which the honorable member for Henty has referred, increasing the rates of duty on iron and steel. and other commodities, were put before this chamber by the Bruce-Page Government. The honorable members named by the questioner were members of that Ministry, and I am very glad that they were in accord with its policy.

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he, the present Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill), and the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), when in Opposition two years ago, , did not strongly oppose the duties imposed on wire by the Scullin Government?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have no desire to shirk responsibility for any vote I have given in this House. So far as I am concerned, the reply to the honorable member’s question is in the affirmative, but I have no clear recollection of how my colleagues voted. The fiscal policy that I placed before the people of this country has been followed by the Government from the time that it assumed office.

page 1003

FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

Arbitration Tribunals

Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Will the AttorneyGeneral introduce an amendment of the

Industrial Ordinance covering the Federal Capital Territory in order to allow persons in private employment in the Territory to. approach the Arbitration Court?

Mr LATHAM:
UAP

– The Industrial Ordinance applying to the Federal Capital Territory is in the same condition now, with respect to the position of private employees, that it has been in for a number of years. Recent governments have not seen their way to alter it in the direction suggested by the honorable member. The matter is, however, under consideration, and as soon as an opportunity offers, a decision will be reached in regard to it.

page 1004

QUESTION

EXCHANGE RATE

Mr GREGORY:

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs explain what he meant last night when, referring to the possibility of the exchange rate being lowered, he said that’ the Customs Department could load invoices to make good any change that might take place?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– I explained last night that the act provides for a cash deposit being made by importers in cases in which it is suspected that there is dumping, until such time as the matter can be inquired into by the Tariff Board under the Industries Preservation Act, and a decision reached.

page 1004

QUESTION

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that fresh meat cut into joints is free from sales tax, will the Minister consider placing sausages in the same category? Much of the meat eaten by the poor in the community is consumed in that form.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Further exemptions from the sales tax will be given consideration when the Government is preparing its financial proposals for next year. The matter referred to by the honorable member may then be considered.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
INDI, VICTORIA

– When preparing his budget for the next financial year, will the Treasurer consider exempting from sales tax the implements and other requirements of shire councils, as well as chemicals, drugs and medicines?

Mr LYONS:

– .These and all other matters affected by the sales tax will be taken into consideration by the Government when it is preparing its financial proposals for 1933-34.

page 1004

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO WHEAT INDUSTRY

Mr MCCLELLAND:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Has the Government arrived at any decision in regard to certain recommendations made by a conference of wheat-growers and wheat-marketing representatives held in Melbourne seven or eight weeks ago?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No final decision has yet been reached in this matter.

page 1004

QUESTION

STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER

Mr SCULLIN:

– Is the Prime Minister yet in a position to say when we may expect the introduction of legislation following on the passing of the Statute of Westminster ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– Cabinet has not yet reached a definite decision in regard to this matter.

page 1004

QUESTION

GOLD BOUNTY

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– In view of the fact that seven months have elapsed since payment of the gold bounty was suspended, and also because a large number of prospectors and other gold producers are naturally concerned at the long delay in making payment for the gold won last year, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the amounts due will be paid without further delay?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I shall look into the matter and see what can be done.

page 1004

QUESTION

SECESSION OF TASMANIA

Mr HUTCHIN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– Has the Prime Minister seen the report in yesterday’s Argus of a meeting. held in Hobart in which the Leader of the State Opposition, Mr. A. G. Ogilvie, in advocating secession for Tasmania, said, inter alia, that’ “ Tasmania will never get justice from the Commonwealth “ ? If the Prime Minister thinks that statement worthy of a public denial, will he give it?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No. A statement of that kind coming from Mr. A. G. Ogilvie is not worthy of a denial by me.

page 1004

QUESTION

NAVIGATION ACT

Mr JAMES:

– Is the Minister for Commerce of the opinion that considerable harm will be done to the Australian shipping industry, and to Australian seamen, by the proclamation issued yesterday suspending the operations of certain provisions of the Navigation Act?

Further, is the Minister of the opinion that the action of the majority of foreign vessels trading with Australia, in taking on board sufficient bunker coal at Durban and other ports for the round trip, adversely affects the Australian coal industry ?

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– A perusal of the proclamation referred to by the honorable member will show that the suggestions in the newspaper paragraph to which he obviously refers are without foundation. The proclamation merely provides that, in certain unique circumstances, in which a continuance of the present limitations would cause obvious injustice to people who desire to travel by certain vessels, the provisions of certain sections of the Navigation Act may be suspended. During the brief period that I have administered the department, a number of cases which justified such an exemption have come under my notice. One of them concerned a man who was seriously injured on a mission station. The Bishop of Carpentaria realized that it was necessary that the man should receive hospital treatment at Thursday Island, and, consequently, he endeavoured to send him there by a steamer close at hand; but because of the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act the injured man could not be conveyed by that vessel, and therefore he had to be taken a further 120 miles in a launch before he could receive proper treatment. The proclamation will alter that state of things.

page 1005

QUESTION

GUM-BOOT INDUSTRY

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– In view of the unemployment that has taken place in the gum-boot industry, I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether the report of the Tariff Board relating to this industry has been received; and, if so, when will it be made available to honorable members? I ask this question because 150 employees have been dismissed from the industry in Brisbane.

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– The gum-boot industry is a seasonal industry, but in the factory to which the honorable member refers, sand shoes are manufactured, and they, of course, are a summer line. There may have been a transfer of some employees from one branch to another.

Mr Forde:

– That is not true.

Mr WHITE:

- Mr. Speaker, I object to the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the statement to which objection has been taken.

Mr FORDE:

– I have received definite information-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that the words which he used were unparliamentary, and, having been asked to withdraw them, he must not attempt to make any other observations.

Mr Forde:

– In accordance with the rules of the House I withdraw the remark to which exception has been taken, but I shall see the Minister afterwards and place the facts before him.

Mr WHITE:

– I shall be pleased to meet the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at any time. I made that statement advisedly, as a result of what I learnt from, a deputation of representatives of the rubber companies which this week waited on me in Melbourne. In making it I was referring to the trade in general.

Mr FORDE:

– That is a different matter.

Mr WHITE:

– The report of the Tariff Board has been received and considered by the Government. The item will shortly be under discussion by this committee, and certain amendments, which naturally cannot now be disclosed, may be made. Certain propaganda was indulged in by the Premier of Queensland, who said that the Federal Government was shattering the industry. I replied to that statement through the press, and the Premier of Queensland has retracted his statement. He now says that the Government has not reduced, but has maintained the tariff. But he points to a certain amount of dumping, which he says has taken place. He has been informed that the matter has been referred to the Tariff Board with a view to applying the provisions of the Industries Preservation Act in respect of the section of the industry which is manufacturing the cheaper line of gum-boots which, I understand, has been detrimentally affected.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister inform the House whether the North Australia Rubber Manufacturing Company was represented at the deputation which waited upon him in Melbourne? I understand that, prior to Easter, 156 employees in the gum-boot factory of the North Australia Rubber Manufacturing Company were dismissed on account of this Government refusing to adequately protect the industry.

Mr WHITE:

– The company mentioned was not represented at the deputation which waited on me on Monday last in Melbourne, but the deputation was concerned with the same industry.’ The dumping of gum-boots is a problem confronting not only Australia, but also Great Britain, where large quantities of gum-boots made in Japan are being dumped because of the currency depreciation. The tariff is adequate so far as the other sections of this manufacture are concerned. I think that, in view of the assurance which I have given the House not only to-day, but also previously, that the matter is being inquired into by the Tariff Board, that any alterations that may be found necessary will be brought down within the next few days, and that the anti-dumping provisions are being considered, no one’s employment should be jeopardized. That information should, I think be sufficient for the time being.

Mr Riordan:

– Why did the Minister tell the honorable member for Brisbane that the employees in the industry were being transferred?

Mr WHITE:

– I said no such thing.

Mr FORDE:

– In view of the parlous position of the 156 persons who have been dismissed from their work in the gum-boot industry in Brisbane, to say nothing of others who have been dismissed from employment in this industry in other parts of Australia, and also in view of the information that is already before Cabinet on this subject, will the Minister for Trade and Customs make provision for the item of the tariff schedule covering gum-boots to be considered immediately?

Mr WHITE:

– That is a reasonable request. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will promise to curtail his speeches on other items of the schedule, we shall be able to reach that item to-day.

page 1006

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Claims upon Properties.

Mr JAMES:

– Has the Government decided to suspend the provision in the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act relating to claims upon the properties of pensioners who have died since the 12th of October last ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No. This matter was raised by -the honorable member previously, and I think that I then promised that it would be considered. No decision has been made to suspend that provision of the act.

Mr JAMES:

– Has the Government decided to waive the claims upon relatives for refunds of payments to pensioners who died between the 12th of October and the 31st of December last, thereby giving to the dependants of the deceased pensioners the privilege that was given to pensioners to draw payments up to the 31st of December?

Mr LYONS:

– There has been no decision come to by the Government in the direction indicated by the honorable member; but I promise him that I shall inquire into the matter again.

page 1006

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE RECRUITING

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Some time ago the Prime Minister intimated that a report had been received from the Public Service Commissioner respecting the recruiting of juniors for the Commonwealth Public Service. Will the right honorable gentleman lay that report upon the table of the House? I also wish to know whether the Cabinet has yet considered it.

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The report has been received; but Cabinet has not had an opportunity to give full consideration to the recommendations of the Commissioner, and, until that has been done, it is not advisable to table the document. The Government will consider the whole question as early as possible, and make the report available to honorable members. In that report there is no recommendation that at an early stage there should be a resumption of recruiting, so that the matter is not really urgent at the present time. As the honorable member has raised this question on one or two occa-sions previously, I shall be glad to let him know the contents of the report.

page 1007

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to convene an Australian constitutional convention, and, if so, will he give consideration to the amendment of the Constitution to provide for an alteration of the Trade and Commerce section in order to permit of all-Australian organizations of primary production to correct the anomaly which arose out of the recent decision of the High Court affecting organizations of primary producers in Queensland?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I pointed out yesterday that I have asked for the co-operation of the States who will be represented at the forthcoming meeting of the Loan Council and the Premiers Conference. Without the co-operation of the States, the Commonwealth will be powerless to convene a convention. With regard to the other part of the honorable member’s question relating to an amendment of the Trade and Commerce section, I take it that any action on the part of the Commonwealth itself would necessarily be considered by the representatives of the States at such a conference, and probably at the Premiers Conference which will take place in the near future.

page 1007

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

Navigation Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1933, No. 47

page 1007

ROYAL COMMISSIONS BILL

Motion (by Mr. Latham) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902-12.

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

page 1007

PETROL COMMISSION BILL

Motion (by Mr. Latham) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to facilitate the proceedings of the Royal Commission appointed to hold an inquiry respecting certain matters in relation to mineral oils and petrol and other products of mineral oils.

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

page 1007

TARIFF PROPOSALS (1932-1933)

Customs Tariff (1932) : Special Duties (No. 4) : Primage Duties (No. 2) : Customs Duties (Canadian Preference No. 2) : Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1) : Special Customs Duty (No. 5) : Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 3)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from the 26th April (vide page 1000), on motion by Sir Henry Gullett (vide page 1167, Volume 135)-

  1. That on and after the fourteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs at the rates respectively specified in the column of the schedule hereto headed “ British Preferential Tariff “ be imposed on goods the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom. . . .

And on motion by Mr. White (vide page 29) -

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the thirteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-two, be amended as hereunder set out.

Group 6. - Amendments made by the present Government which are supported by Tariff Board reports.

Item 110, sub-items (c) (d) (e) (Corsets, apparel, neckties).

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I move -

That the sub-items be postponed.

In the circumstances which confront the gum boot industry to-day, Parliament should be given an immediate opportunity to consider the whole situation. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) has stated that he is sympathetic with the 156 employees who have been dismissed from their employment in this industry in Brisbane. He has also said that the report of the Tariff Board on this subject, which is now before Cabinet, recommends certain amendments in the existing duties. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask that in the special circumstances of the case, the item covering gum boots shall be considered forthwith, so that this industry may be given the protection that it deserves. We already have a great army of unemployed walking our streets, and as the winter months are approaching, it is desirable that we should take every precaution to prevent any additions to that army. The Minister informed the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) a few moments ago that he would be willing to have this item considered immediately if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would curtail his speeches on the items of the schedule which come before that dealing with gum boots. We are now offering the Minister an opportunity to give effect to his promise. My amendment is moved as an instruction to the Government to bring up the item covering gum boots for immediate consideration.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I sincerely trust that the Minister will accept the amendment of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) as he has already said in answer to my question that the request for the immediate consideration of it is reasonable.

Mr White:

– I also said that we would reach it to-day if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) would curtail his speeches.

Mr FORDE:

– That is obviously a foolish observation. The item in question is 330, group 8. We are now discussing item 156, group 6. Honorable members on this side of the committee will have a good deal to say on the items of the schedule which come before that which deals with gum boots, but we feel that as the livelihood of approximately 156 persons in Brisbane is at stake at the moment, we should at once consider the special circumstances of the gum boot industry. Queensland, as honorable members know, is not a great secondaryproducing State; its activities are confined principally to primary production. The North Australia Rubber Manufacturing Company’s works at Brisbane is probably the largest factory in the city. It gives employment to about 500 people, who work for reasonable wages under good conditions. It is impossible, under existing conditions, for the 156 people who have been dismissed from this industry in Brisbane to find employment in other avenues of industry. I therefore urge the Minister to give favorable consideration to the reasonable request that is being made. I have been assured, and so, I think, has the Minister, that it’ cannot be truly said that this is only a seasonal industry, and that these people would have been dismissed from their employment in the ordinary course of events. It has been hinted in some quarters that these persons have been dismissed in order to force the hands of the Government, but there is no foundation for such a statement. Our manufacturing enterprises are not philanthropic institutions. Obviously, if they cannot sell their products on the Australian market they must cease operations.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– The honorable member may not discuss the item, but only give reasons why it should be considered at this stage.

Mr FORDE:

– The chief reason why it should be considered is that 156 persons, many of them with wives and children dependent on them, are to-day walking the streets of Brisbane, whereas under reasonable conditions they could be continued in the employment from which they have been dismissed. Everybody knows that the basic wage is so low to-day that people are not able to save money to cover periods of unemployment. Immediately they are put out of work they are in extreme difficulty. T hope that the Minister will try to imagine what it would be like to be in their position, and recognize the anxiety of these unfortunate employees, as well as those in a factory in Melbourne where gum boots are also made. If the Minister realizes the plight of these unfortunate employees, he will take action immediately to bring them relief. The item now before the committee is not of such urgency that its consideration cannot be postponed, and if the Minister will give an assurance that he will bring on the item dealing with gum boots, and state the result of the Cabinet’s deliberations upon it, I shall not further debate “the matter. The Government has already given consideration to the report of the Tariff Board, and a decision is promised in two days. I am assured that the industry will resume operations if the duty is increased, or if the antidumping provisions are applied in order amply to safeguard the interests of this important Australian industry, which was built up as a result of the protection given by the last Government. Not only the action of the, present Minister and the present Government, but also their inaction, have largely contributed to the present unemployment in a number of secondary industries. In this instance we have an example of the effects of the Government’s inaction, and I urge the< Minister to accede to the reasonable request that has been made.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– It may save much discussion if I clear this matter up immediately. The duty on gum boots is 50 per cent., and there is also a surcharge of 50 per cent., which this Government did not remove, because it was aware-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister will not be in order in explaining or discussing the item relating to gum boots. He may only give reasons why the present item should not be postponed.

Mr WHITE:

– The reason why it is unnecessary to postpone it is that yesterday I took action to see that a deposit is paid on importations into this country of Japanese gum boots. This means that these goods cannot be dumped into Australia as heretofore. A great deal of fuss has been made over this matter. I appreciate the situation in which both the employees and the manufacturers find themselves; but they knew that the Government would be looking after their interests. Yesterday definite action was taken to ask for security until such time as the Tariff Board had made its report under the Industries Preservation Act. It is possible that I shall bring the item on for discussion this week. It is only necessary to frame an amendment, and as to-morrow is the last sitting day of this week, I think that I can safely’ say that the item will be brought down to-morrow. If we postponed the present item, we should have to postpone every other item until the item affecting gum boots was reached.

Mr GEORGE LAWSON:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I am familiar with the position of this industry so far as Queensland is concerned. Brisbane has one of the most prosperous rubber-manufacturing industries in any part of Australia. I stated in this chamber a few weeks ago that, as a result of the dumping into this country of Japanese gum boots, a number of employees in the industry had been dismissed. I asked the Minister a question a few days ago, and he promised that if I could give him information as to the number of employees who had been dismissed as .a direct result of this dumping he would look further into the matter. The Minister may attempt to make it appear that the reason for the dismissals was not the dumping into Australia of these Japanese goods; but I can assure the committee that the dismissals are directly due to it. I made it my business during the Easter recess to pay a visit to the Brisbane factory. Unless prompt action is taken, many more employees will be dismissed from the Brisbane mill, and, I take it, from other mills throughout Australia. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– I understand from conversations that I have had with persons in Brisbane that they were under the impression that the Government had taken action to reduce the duties on gum boots, and for that reason a number of persons employed in the industry had been dismissed, although, as a matter of fact, the duties have been somewhat increased.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may not discuss the item.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Whatever action the Tariff Board took, the position would possibly be eased if the Minister could say that the industry will be adequately protected.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member may only give reasons, or ask questions, as to why the present item should be postponed.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– A number of employees have been dismissed because no previous duty has been sufficient to keep from Australia large importations of cheap Japanese products which are causing unemployment in this country. I hope that the Minister will give early consideration to the duty on gum boots, in view of the urgency of the matter.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The Minister has undertaken to bring down an amendment this week. He could not have acted more generously than that, and his attitude is quite satisfactory to the Opposition. I am very pleased that I gave him an opportunity to take this line of action. He will agree with me that, had this matter not been raised to-day, the item regarding gum boots would not have been reached for another fortnight, or possibly another month, and that would be a long time to keep employees idle. I did not raise this issue for the purpose of scoring off the Minister, but because of a letter sent to every honorable member from Queensland, pointing out that 156 employees would be thrown out of work unless the Government took action to prevent it. The Tariff Board has been investigating the position of the industry for some time, and if the board is really overworked, additional members should be appointed, so that delay in dealing with the matters brought before the board will not be the cause of persons being thrown out of employment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is not now giving reasons in support of his amendment.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I accept the undertaking given by the Minister that he will bring down an amendment with regard to gum boots during this week.

Mr White:

– The dumping was settled by the action taken yesterday.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The duty on corsets under sub-item o has been reduced from 60 per cent, and 75 per cent, the rates imposed by the Scullin Government on the 21st November, 1929, to 30 per cent, and 50 per cent. These foundation garments - as they are called in the trade - are made by approximately six manufacturers in Melbourne, twelve in Sydney, and two in Brisbane. The Tariff Board inquired into this industry on the 17th .September and the 25th November, 1929, and its report is dated the 14th March, 1930. At that time, the number of employees in the industry was 739. Since then, however, considerable development has taken place, and at least two overseas manufacturers - the H. W. Gossard Company Proprietary Limited, and Nature’s Rival and Parisform Proprietary Limited - have established themselves in this country, and are employing a large number of persons in the production of garments that were formerly imported. There is invested in the industry about £235,000. Our importations of two different types of garments have been as follow : -

Australia’s requirements of all classes of these foundation garments are valued at approximately £700,000. The local production is increasing, and I am assured that to-day it represents a value of approximately £600,000. It would have been wise, I think, to have had a further inquiry into this industry before arbitrarily reducing these duties. No fault can be found with the quality of the Australian product. On that point, the Tariff Board reported as follows in 1930: -

Judging by the satisfaction given by the local product, the industry has justified the tariff protection granted. Mr. Berlei has given a definite assurance that his company will not take advantage of the requested tariff increase on .the surgical corsets by increasing its prices. As Berlei Limited is responsible for 77 per cent, of Australian production of corsets, he expresses the opinion that this assurance will effectively safeguard consumers against increases in the prices charged by other Australian manufacturers.

The object of the application is to prevent a decrease in local manufacture, and he anticipates that there will be no appreciable increase in output.

A further comment of the board reads as follows: -

The board is of the opinion that they and the seventeen other Australian manufacturers are quite capable of supplying the Australian demand for these particular garments.

It is true that Berlei Limited did not, in 1928, wish to have the duty increased. They expressed satisfaction with it, possibly because they were enjoying a preponderating share of the Australian market. Their competitors were Gossardsand other high-class overseas manufacturers, and they probably believed that the raising of the duty might lead to ‘the establishment in Australia of branch factories of those concerns, which because of their world-wide reputation, would present formidable competition. Subsequent to the inquiry by the Tariff Board, the duties were increased by the Scullin Government from 30 per cent, and 45 per cent, to 60 per cent, and 75 per cent., and in addition, a surcharge of 50 per cent, was imposed. This led to the establishment in Australia of the H. W. Gossard Company Proprietary Limited, and Nature’s Rival and Parisform Proprietary Limited. The headquarters of those two companies are in the United States of America, and prior to 1929, they supplied the Australian market with highclass foundation garments, for which there has always been, and for which there still is a steady, if a limited, demand in Australia. Upon the imposition of the higher duties, however, these companies found that the landed cost in Australia of such garments, when imported from the United States of America, was prohibitive. The previous duties of 30 per cent, and 45 per cent., although adequate to protect the local manufacture of low-priced or medium grade merchandise, did not materially affect the importation of the class of merchandise which the H. W. Gossard Company Proprietary Limited and Nature’s Rival and Parisform Proprietary Limited exported to Australia. They therefore considered the advisability of establishing a plant in Australia, with facilities for manufacturing jointly the products of the two companies. These considerations resulted in a visit being paid to Australia by the president of the H. W. Gossard Company Proprietary Limited in February, 1931. At that time, L was Minister for Trade and Customs. This gentleman held discussions with officers of the Trade and Customs Department, and with me as Minister in charge of that department. He was told that it was the policy of the Australian government of that day to encourage the transfer to Australia of such businesses, or the establishment here of branches of them. These companies now hold that they were given some assurance that there would be no reduction of duty. No minister for Trade and Customs, and no comptroller-general of customs, could give any intending manufacturer such an. assurance. The only assurance given was, that the then government would not reduce the duties on those goods that could be satisfactorily manufactured in Australia. We could not bind any future government or Parliament. These companies lost no time in estab lishing a manufacturing and selling organization in Australia. A building with an area of 25,000 square feet was secured in Melbourne, and a complete manufacturing plant, materials and equipment were sent to Australia, involving an investment of over £75,000. Eight skilled instructors were sent out at considerable expense to train Australian workers in the production of this highclass merchandise. Manufacture was commenced on a permanent basis, and sales organizations for each company were established throughout the Commonwealth. For some time the factory was unable to cope with the volume of orders received, buyers indicating that they considered the Australian product quite equal to that of the American factories. The enterprise progressed rapidly, and for the first year the average number of persons employed in all branches of the companies’ activities was 150. But before the organizations had been in operation more than six months, without investigation as to possible results, without warning and without reference to the local companies, the duties on corsets were dropped to the 1921-28 tariff rates of 30 per cent, and 45 per cent. The 50 per cent, super duty still prohibited the importation of high-class merchandise, and allowed the local manufacturer to supply the market, but on the 2nd September, 1932, the super duty also was removed, thus reducing the rates on corsets to 30 per cent, and 45 per cent., with no additional charges other than primage. Immediately afterwards, it was found that certain of the companies’ customers reverted to the importation of foreign merchandise, the lower rates of duty enabling them to do so at a cost which, although beyond that of the locally produced goods, was still sufficiently low to enable them to sell to their customers, owing to the fact that the market for high-class goods was not eliminated by the small increase in landed costs under the new rates of duty as compared with the cost of the locally manufactured article. The present Government promised that no tariff duties would be altered without prior investigation by the Tariff Board, and this company, which had invested £75,000 in Australia, and was employing 150 persons, had a right to expect that these duties would be referred to the board for investigation and report, especially as the board’s earlier report was more than three years old. I hope that even now the Minister will give further consideration, to this matter. I know that under the Ottawa agreement duties on goods from the United Kingdom cannot be increased except on the recommendation of the Tariff Board; the hands of the Government being thus tied, it cannot take summary action to prevent a number of persons from being thrown out of work, but it can ask the Tariff Board immediately to investigate the circumstances of the industry. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether he consulted these companies before arbitrarily reducing the duties. Why did he not refer them to the Tariff Board and allow the manufacturers an opportunity to give evidence - an opportunity which they did not have in connexion with the board’s previous inquiry three years ago, because they were not then operating in Australia. The altered economic position in Australia, and its effect upon protective duties warranted a fresh investigation, to which I ask the Minister now to consent.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

.- The remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) show that haphazard tariff making such as his Government was guilty of, and the reckless imposition of prohibitive duties, induces foreign companies to commence manufacturing in Australia to the detriment of established local companies. The principal manufacturer of foundation garments gave evidence at the previous inquiry by the Tariff Board that the rates of duty under the Bruce-Page schedule had proved effective in causing a steady decline of importations.

Mr Forde:

– That statement was made nearly four years ago.

Mr WHITE:

– This is an industry of which Australia may well be proud. Under a moderate tariff it has grown to great dimensions. It is efficient, and has not exploited the consumers. The presentduties have been operating since September last, and the fact that for the first eight months of 1932-33, the value of the importations was only £2,276, shows that there is no need to fear undue competition from overseas. The general rate in this schedule has been increased by .. 5 per cent, to comply with the Ottawa formula, and, as the Government is of opinion that tocal manufacturers are well protected, the duties may well be left as they are until the protests which the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) has predicted, are actually made.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- Sub-item d relates to apparel. Although exceedingly high rates of duty were already imposed on apparel, the Scullin Government in 1930 increased the rates by 200 per cent, and even 300 per cent. I have particulars of invoices showing that the duties on certain importations represented charges of 490 per cent., 224 per cent., and 181 per cent, on the f.o.b. prices. Yesterday, the Minister, in reply to a question asked by me, presented a return of over 40 items, to which the Industries Preservation Act applies. I doubt if members were previously aware that anti-dumping duties were being applied to apparel, That list shows- that costumes, coats, dresses and other outer garments for women, children and maids, from all countries, have been gazetted under the Industries Preservation Act. Section 5 of that statute reads -

  1. If the Minister is satisfied, after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board, that goods produced or manufactured outside Australia have been or are being sold to an importer in Australia at an export price which is less than a reasonable price, and that detriment may thereby result to an Australian industry, the Minister may publish a. notice in the Gazette specifying the goods as to which he is so satisfied.
  2. Upon the publication of the notice, there shall be charged, collected and paid to the use of the King for the purposes of the Commonwealth, on those goods -imported into Australia, a special duty (in this section referred to as “ the dumping below cost duty”).
  3. The amount of the dumping below cost duty in each case shall be the sum which represents the difference between a reasonable price of the goods at the time of shipment, and the export price of the goods.
  4. In this section “a reasonable price” means such a price as represents the cost of production of the goods, plus five per centum, plus free on board charges.
  5. In the absence of satisfactory evidence as to the cost of production the Minister may, after report by the Tariff Board, fix such amount as he thinks fit as the cost of production, and the amount so fixed shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be the cost of production.

In the exercise of those powers, the Minister can impose prohibitive duties on any goods, and honorable members may know nothing of what is occurring. Despite the enormous duties imposed on apparel, imports from all countries have been gazetted by the Minister under the Industries Preservation Act, following a report by the Tariff Board. * The act should be’ amended to provide that within a specified period every such report should be submitted to the House. Parliament should demand that more light be shed on these transactions. We recently despatched the Nieuw Holland to the Far East to promote trade with our neighbours. Yet, despite this gesture, we allow secret methods and influences to be employed to prevent importations.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) should not suggest that there is anything secret or surreptitious in the application of the Industries Preservation Act. Surely the honorable member does not contend that dishonest exporters in other countries should be allowed to send goods to this country on invoices that do not accurately state their values ! That is the purpose of the act. Would it be fair to Australian, manufacturers, or to other importers, or, indeed to any one, that an overseas firm selling goods at, say, £1 in its own country should mark down the price to 10s. for sale in Australia ? If that were allowed, many businesses in this country could not survive. That has been attempted many times in the past. The only arbitrary power vested in the Minister, as was exercised recently in connexion with the match-making industry, is that he may fix what he regards as a fair value for an article after an inquiry by the Tariff Board. He is also empowered, in cases in which he suspects that dumping is being practised, to require a deposit from the importer. The honorable member for Swan has repeated his statement so frequently that the general public may be led to believe that something dishonest is intended, or has taken place.

Mr Gregory:

– I think that is the case.

Mr WHITE:

– Some time ago, the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Jennings) referred to an article in the press by a union secretary in which it was stated that the admission of articles under by-law had thrown Australian workmen out of employment. The purpose of the writer of the article was evidently to- mislead the Australian public, as the articles which were admitted under by-law were raw materials for manufacture into goods in Australia, the free entry of which provided work for Australians which would not otherwise have been provided. The other case to which he referred was machinery required for a special purpose, and also to assist industry. At some time or other nearly every member of this chamber has asked for the admission of goods under by-law in special circumstances.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister must confine his remarks to the item now under discussion.

Mi-. WHITE.- That the Industries Preservation Act operates in respect of this item shows that fictitious or unfair prices have at times been stated on invoices, to the detriment of local manufacturers. The Government stands for honest trading, and will do what it can to ensure it.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) should realize that Australian industries must be protected against the product of cheap-labour countries. Cloth which may cost a British or an Australian manufacturer 3s. 5d. a yard to produce. can be manufactured in Japan and landed in Australia at ls. Id. a yard, because of the cheaper labour conditions in Japan. At- whatever price that material may be sold retail - perhaps from 7s. 6d. to 8s. 6d. a yard - the Japanese fabric is always from ls. to 2s. a yard less. Honorable members should realize that even Great Britain, which hitherto has followed a policy of freetrade, has recently, in the interests of her own industries and workers, been forced to adopt a policy of protection. I commend to the honorable member for Swan an article dealing with the woollen industry which appeared in the Melbourne Herald of the 25th April. What would have been the position of Great Britain had not that country years ago established factories for the manufacture of woollen goods? As in times past, Britain had to make a start in that direction, so now Australia must start, otherwise Australians will continue to be “ wood and water joeys “ for other nations. Australian manufacturers who do not exploit the public ate worthy of protection. Cloth manufactured in Australian mills at a cost of about 6s. 6d. a. yard costs as much as 35s. a yard by the time it reaches the tailor. The excessive profits in the clothing industry are not made by the manufacturers. It may. be necessary to introduce legislation to deal with the middleman. The Minister claimed credit, on behalf of the Government, for its recent action in connexion with the match-making industry, which he said had brought down the price of matches. That may be the ultimate result; but, so far as I know, the price of matches has not yet fallen. But the Minister did not mention the price charged in Australia for matches before the Australian factory began operations. Australian manufacturers of apparel are producing good-quality material under satisfactory working conditions for their employees, and by giving employment to Australians they are distributing money in this country, and so helping Australian businesses generally. If we destroy our textile factories, we shall not only throw out of work those directly engaged in them; we shall also cause stagnation in other businesses. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking no risks in connexion with his budget, whereas we in Australia are removing prohibitions which were imposed in the interests of the solvency of this country. I predict that if the policy of the present Government is continued we shall, within eighteen- months, have to impose further prohibitions if we are to remain a solvent nation. I agree with the statement of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Bruce) at the Ottawa Conference that Australia could not afford to remove the. prohibitions imposed on the importation of certain goods. Yet to-day the present Government is removing them. The result will be greater importation of materials from other countries, and further unemployment in Australia. That serious result will not be confined to the textile industry, for it will also injure our greatest primary industry, by destroying the home market for our wool-growers. I have every consideration for the Australian manufacturer, but I am even more concerned with the prospect before their employees. I fear that the action of the Government may injure our textile industry and cause serious unemployment, as has been the case already in the rubber industry. [Quorum formed.]

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I can understand the opposition of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) to these duties,, and his desire that the anti-dumping provisions of the Industries Preservation Act shall not be put into operation in the case of apparel. A policy of protection is not favoured by many retail houses, because their practice is to buy in the cheapest market and to sell to the Australian public at the highest price they can obtain. We must remember that there is little sentiment in business. During 1929-30 the Australian textile industry gave employment to 10,000 males and 51,000 females. This item deals with apparel for the human body, partly or wholly made up, including materials cut into shape therefor; also materials bearing any pattern, design or marking for the purpose of indicating that it is to be made up into separate articles of apparel; boxed robes; apparel not otherwise subject to a lower rate of duty and not imported for sale or trade and not exceeding a total value of £5. On such apparel the duties are 45 per cent. British and 65 percent, foreign. Those rates have been reduced from 60 per cent, and 75 per cent, respectively. The value of the production of these industries is considerable. The value of the dressmaking production in 1927-28 was £5,000,000, and in 1929-30 £4,700,000. The value of clothingwaterproof and oilskin - in 1929-30 was £159,000, and of clothing and tailoring £9,000,000. It will, therefore, be seen that apparel- covers a wide range of articles. The manufacturing of apparel -is one of our largest labour-employing industries. Thousands of our young people are absorbed in the factories so soon as they leave school, and the industry must receive adequate protection if it is to be safeguarded from the competition of foreign countries, which are able to dump into Australia goods for sale at less than the cost of production of similar goods in Australia. The increases of the duties on raw materials; such as woollen yarn, cotton tweeds and woollens, silk and artificial silk piece goods, have made it necessary to increase the duty on the finished article. The apparelmanufacturing industry is largely governed by changes of fashion, and high duties are required to safeguard it from the importation of foreign end-of-season lines, which can be disposed of at job or clearance prices. Thousands of girls are engaged in this industry, and, in the main, they receive small remuneration. Many of them are employed on piece-work. I do not think that even the members of the Country party would agree to force these unfortunate girls and young women to accept lower standards of living. The anti-dumping provisions of the Industries Preservation Act, about which the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) waxed so eloquent this afternoon, have been ineffective in protecting this industry, mainly because of the extreme difficulty of proving dumping.’

While I was Minister for Trade and Customs a great deal of trouble was experienced by the officers in checking alleged dumping, and certain officers were sent to other countries to investigate the conditions of manufacture. In some instances they were able to prove that foreign traders were evading our tariff. During the war our Australian manufacturers were able to supply the whole of our requirements, mainly because at that time there were few facilities for importing foreign goods. To-day our manufacturers are still able to supply local requirements. Before theScullin Government took office, the duties were . inadequate, and did not check importations to any extent. But the protection afforded the industry by the tariff resolution of the 22nd November, 1929, was largely responsible for the pronounced decline in the quantity and value of clothing imported into Australia. That protection gave a great impetus to the Australian industry, and our factories are now giving employment to over 60,000 operatives. The Government was rather hasty in reducing the protection afforded to this industry by the Scullin Government. The Minister did refer the matter to the Tariff Board for investigation and report, but I am afraid that he did not take the trouble to satisfy himself that the recommendation of the board was reasonable. In view of the numerous tariff reductions that have been made, I am firmly convinced that there has been little or no supervision by the Government of the recommendations of the Tariff Board. I move -

That sub-item (d) be postponed.

If that amendment is carried it will be an instruction to the Government to reconsider the item, with a view to reverting to the duties imposed by the Scullin Government.

Question - That sub-item d be postponed (Mr. Forde’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. ( Chairman - Mr. Bell. )

AYES: 18

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- Under sub-item e duties are imposed on neckties for human wear. At present the woollen industry of this country is in a difficult position, and the more wool that we use, the more we shall help the wool producer. The Minister stated last night that this year a record poundage ofwool would be used in the manufacture of Australian commodities such as clothing and neckties, and that at the last Melbourne sales the competition of the local manufacture* was really responsible for forcing up the price of the better classes of wool. In this country, quite a number of patriotic people are wearing woollen neckties. It may not appear to be a big item, but nevertheless every little helps, and the more we use wool in our manufactures, the better the position will be for the wool producers. Wool has many uses besides the manufacture of woollen neckties. Queensland has recently begun the manufacture of mattresses. I have a sample of these mattresses available for inspection by honorable members. If adequate protection is given to the various industries engaged in the manufacture of our wool, it will be possible to increase the local consumption of wool to a great degree. The Minister indicated last night that he recognized the truth of this statement. I, therefore, suggest that reasonable protection should be given to those engaged in the manufacture of woollen ties, which would undoubtedly become popular with sportsmen and others if the production of them were placed on a satisfactory basis. The members of the visiting English cricket team, and also the members of the Australian Eleven, were presented with Australian woollen ties some little time ago. The wearing of these ties overseas by the Englishmen will undoubtedly be a good advertisement for Australia. It is tragic that reductions of duties should be made at a time like this, for the effect of such reductions must inevitably be less employment for our people. I earnestly ask the Minister to agree to a postponement of this item with a view to restoring the duties to the rates provided in the Scullin tariff.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I compliment the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) on his eloquent appeal for adequate protection for this industry. If the Minister will agree to the postponement of this sub-item I shall not debate the subject any further.

Mr White:

– There is no need for the postponement of it.

Mr.FORDE. - Evidently the Minister is not in such a reasonable frame of mind as he was in earlier this afternoon. I, therefore, move -

That sub-item (e) be postponed.

I do so as an instruction to the Government to provide a duty of 6s. general, instead of the 4s. 6d. provided. Up to December, 1929, neckties were classified under apparel n.e.i., but special representations were made to the Scullin Government for a separate tariff item, on account of the duties payable on the silk and artificial silk from which ties were made. The tie-manufacturing industry of Australia was in a precarious position at that time, and the Scullin Government acceded to the request that was made to it. It has been estimated that, prior to the enforcement of the increased duties provided by the Scullin Government, at least 200,000 dozen ties of low-class foreign make were being imported into Australia annually at prices from as low as 2s. 9d. per dozen f.o.b. continental port. It was, of course, a far better business proposition for manufacturers to import their lower-priced ties ready-made than to manufacture them locally. Before the tariff schedule was amended to pro- vide for the classification of ties under a separate sub-item, the duty on ties was the same as that on made-up shirts, which, obviously, was unfair to the tiemanufacturing industry. The shirt manufacturers paid no duty on their raw material, the bulk of which was British cotton, while the tie manufacturers paid 35 per cent, ad valorem on all their raw materials, which contained artificial silk and was of foreign origin. At that time the manufacturers preferred to obtain cheap material from abroad, just as to-day we find the manufacturers of cotton tweeds preferring to import their coloured cotton yarns from Japan instead of spinning cotton yarns in Australia for use in our weaving mills, because of the low price of the imported article, and the lack of protection to the local spinning industry. The effect of this is that the people who had the courage to invest their money, and who influenced their friends to invest money in Australian industry are in a difficult position. Surely it is far better for us to pursue a policy which will result in an increase of employment in Australia, than to help foreign industries. What more congenial employment can there be than the manufacture of ties? It is light work which is suitable for our growing girls. Under the increased ad valorem duties of 60 per cent, and 75 per cent, granted by the Scullin Government, which duties were provided only after careful consideration by the Government, and by the experts in the Trade and Customs Department, this industry was definitely stimulated. The reduction of duty now proposed will, undoubtedly, hamper the industry. I, therefore, urge the Government to increase the general rate of 4s. 6d. which appears in this schedule to 6s. I am not asking for an increase in the British rate. The manufacture of ties in Australia is not confined to one factory. There are 35 tie manufacturers in this country, and they employ hundreds of people. In consequence of the depression, and of the flood of cheap imported foreign ties into Australia, these factories were working at only half time when the Scullin Government came into office. After the Scullin Government had increased the duty, our factories were able to meet the main requirements of Australia, and also to provide employment for hundreds of additional workers. I, therefore, hope that the Minister will agree to reconsider the foreign rate of duty.

Our tie manufacturers are fearful of the competition to which they are likely to be subjected from Asiatic countries. In this connexion I quote the following paragraph from a letter from an important tie manufacturing company in Australia :-

In respect of the duties on made-up ties, Tariff Item 110 e, as recommended by the Tariff Board, and set out in the schedule before the House, we desire that the foreign specific rate be increased to Gs. per dozen, instead of 4s. Od. as at present. We have every reason to believe that we will in the very near future be subjected to severe competition from Asiatic countries. I am informed by a leading men’s brace and suspender manufacturer, that the competition from this source is already alarming, and as we are allied to their industry we are very apprehensive as to the future.

Men’s braces and suspenders are already being imported from Japan and sold at prices which make effective local competition impossible, and our tie manufacturers fear that- the same experience may be theirs.

The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) has urged that the duty on this sub-item should be increased in the interests of the wool-growers of Australia. In regard to this aspect of the subject I point out that there is every prospect of plaited woollen ties becoming increasingly popular in this country. Encouraged by the Scullin Government’s fixed rates of 6s. per dozen British, and 7s. 6d. per dozen foreign on plaited woollen ties, one Australian manufacturer imported specially patented continental machinery for the manufacture of an entirely new style of such ties, for men and women. These ties are remarkably popular in France, Austria and Germany, where they are sold at low prices. Unless we have an adequate duty on such ties, it is certain that the continental manufacturers at the end of their season will dump their surplus stock in Australia at an absurdly low price, to the detriment of the Australian manufacturers. A visit to Sydney or Melbourne provides convincing proof of the popularity of these ties, and if the market can be preserved for the Australian manufacturers, our graziers will benefit, because the local market for their wool, which is the best market they can have, will be substantially increased. The Australian manufacturer to whom I have referred had the misfortune to see the fixed rates of duty of 6s. and 7s. 6d., provided by the Scullin Government, reduced to 3s. and 4s. 6d. before he could get his new machinery into operation. He is connected with a Victorian firm which has a factory in Sydney. Plaited woollen ties are now being marketed in all the big retail establishments of Australia. They are being made up in an attractive range of blended colours for sports and general wear, and are being sold at 2s. 6d., at which price they are remarkably good value. These ties are durable and non-creasable, and are opening up an entirely new avenue for the general use of wool in neckwear. Consequently, I hope that the’ Minister will display a spirit of sweet reasonableness - though we see it exhibited by him too seldom - and grant additional assistance to this meritorious local industry. The manufacture of these ties will, undoubtedly, provide extra employment. As the raw materials are all of local origin a reduction of duty is unjustifiable at this stage, for, as I have pointed out, it will expose the Australian industry to severe continental competition. If the public demand for plaited woollen ties increases, the local market should be protected for_ the Australian manufacturers. I am not asking the Minister to increase the British duty, for I recognize that the Ottawa agreement would make it difficult for him to do so. That agreement must be a nightmare to the honorable gentleman. The British rates of duty may only be increased upon a recommendation from that super body, the Tariff Board, which is to-day superior alike to Minister, Cabinet and Parliament; but the general rate of duty on woollen, ties may easily be increased. Because of the manipulation of the currency by Japan, it will be impossible for this Australian industry to develop unless reasonable protection is given to it. I, therefore, trust that my amendment will be agreed to.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– It is not necessary to postpone this item. The Government’s tariff-making is not done in this chamber at the suggestion of an honorable member. “This matter was investigated by the Tariff Board, certain recommendations were made, and these have been considered by the Government. The foreign tariff has been raised 5 per cent, to make the duties accord with the Ottawa formula. In 1929 the duties on silk piece goods were increased without a corresponding increase in the duty on finished ties. That was done by the last Government in its usual slapdash way.

Mr Forde:

– I was not the Minister for Trade and Customs at the time, and I altered that as soon as it was discovered.

Mr WHITE:

– The present Government does not make tariffs in that way. It prefers to be advised by the Tariff Board, which is in a position to take evidence from both sides, and make sensible recommendations. It is clear that the rates under the Scullin tariff were far in excess of what was needed for the protection of the industry, and an examination of - the books of a large number of tie manufacturers indicated that in some instances very large profits were being made. Provision is now made for the admission of silk and artificial silk piece goods for the manufacture of ties at the same rates as those obtaining under the 1921-30 tariff, while woollen piece goods for the same purpose are admitted at rates lower than the 1921-30 tariff level. In view of the admission of tie material at comparatively low rates of duty, there is little doubt that the proposed rates will prove sufficient to enable the local manufacturers to secure the Australian market. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) made a plea for the wearing of woollen ties; but I ask honorable members to look round this chamber, and see how many members are wearing such ties. It is a laudable thing to urge the wearing of more wool, and a wool week in Melbourne is doing much good in that respect. During the debate in this chamber yesterday we learned how efficient are the Australian woollen mills. By all means let everybody wear woollen ties, and hats, too, but for the present, at any rate, the majority of ties are not woollen, and the Government is confining itself to the trade as it stands. The Tariff Board made its inquiry on those lines. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) said that this industry was threatened with competition. He mentioned braces and suspenders, but he did not show how the local trade in ties was threatened. I suggest that, if at any time a prima facie case can be made out for further protection in regard to woollen ties, and if a large demand for them grows, and the manufacturers put their case forward, it will be considered by the Tariff Board and by the Government.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

.- The Minister speaks about the reports of the Tariff Board ; but things are happening every day that make it harder than ever for manufacturers to carry on their operations in this and other countries. The more the people of Australia wear goods made in their own country from Australian raw material, the better it will be. If all Australians were patriotic supporters of local industries, we should not need any tariff at all. Currency changes are having a most serious effect on our industries at the present time. The Minister states that, should the manufacturers get into serious trouble, owing to foreign competition, he is prepared to refer their case to the Tariff Board. But a certain time would be occupied in considering the matter, and disaster often overtakes manufacturers suddenly. Orders for most manufactured goods are given a long time ahead, and to-day the orders for many lines of goods have been suspended because goods manufactured in cheaplabour countries are being landed in Australia, and orders for more of these goods are being obtained. What will be the use of altering the tariff with regard to these goods after we have found the country flooded with them? In some Countries the employees work eleven hours a day. and seven days a week, and they are paid 9d. or1s. a day. There is no hope of Australian manufacturers meeting the competition of such countries as those. The Minister has power, under the Australian Industries Preservation Act, to deal with dumping, and I hope that he will avail himself fully of it should the occasion arise.

Mr Gregory:

– Is the honorable member afraid that the tie-making industry will suffer?

Mr FENTON:

– The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) would tie up every Australian industry. Ever since I have been a member of this Parliament, I have tried to do all I can to help forward Australian industries, and I shall continue to do so while I have a voice in this chamber. I am afraid that the Minister will find that an avalanche of foreign goods will soon play havoc with many of our important local industries. Yet the honorable member for Swan would remove the tariff wall, and allow goods made in cheap-labour countries to be poured into Australia in competition with the products of Australian labour. Yesterday, the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), said that we had power to put the duties against the foreigner up to 100 per cent, and even more. I shall vote for the postponement of this item as an indication to - the Minister that he should give consideration to the matters that have been mentioned.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I regretted to hear the Minister say that he would not have this item postponed, because the duties had been fixed on the recommendation of the Tariff Board in accordance with the Ottawa formula. I consider that it is the duty of our Tariff Board, as it is the duty of the British Tariff Board, to supply the Government with the necessary facts, and figures regarding an industry that seeks protection. But surely it is not a function of the board to consider the general tariff policy, and the economic situation of the country? I agree with the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan), that although this is only a small item, a number of small items together make a large’ one. Probably a thousand families are casually employed in Victoria in the manufacture of ties, and, in many instances, the fact that women are now engaged in this work prevents the male members of the same family from drawing sustenance from the State Government. In many cases, it is a question of a husband or son drawing sustenance, or of a daughter continuing in her employment. I should say that in a thousand cases in Victoria’, the fact that members of families are employed in the manufacture of neckties relieves the State authorities of the obligation to provide sustenance. General matters of policy ought to be considered, not by the Tariff Board, but by the Cabinet. This Parliament should not be tied down completely by the decisions of the Tariff Board. The Minister said that the tariff on this item had been adjusted by increasing the foreign duty by 5 per cent, in accord with the Ottawa agreement. Yesterday, several members, including the right honorable the Attorney-General (Mr. Latham), took much ‘ trouble to convince the committee that no maximum duty could be imposed under the Ottawa agreement, but that the Government was free to put up the duty against the foreigner as much as it liked. It seems, however, that there is still some doubt on that point. If the Minister- means that he has had to reduce the general tariff by 5 per cent, so as not to violate the Ottawa agreement, this is a contradiction of what, was said yesterday. I think that we should consider again whether this Parliament has tied itself up under the Ottawa agreement to such an extent that the Government cannot, when it thinks it desirable, put a foreign duty above 75 per cent. I contend that the duty of the Tariff Board is to collect evidence, and to assist and advise the Government as to whether or not an industry is carried on under decent conditions. and whether the tariff is sufficient. But it is not the duty of the_ board to enter into the merits or demerits of the economic effect of duties upon all industries.

Mr Paterson:

– Surely the board must consider that.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I do not think so. The members of the board have to be experts on fiscal matters, but they are not expected generally to examine the whole economic circumstances of the country. That, surely, is the duty of the Government, or otherwise Ministers would be thick-heads who jump whenever the Tariff Board pulls the strings. The Government should accede to the very reasonable request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) .

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) said that it would be a good thing if we could induce Australians to wear Australian-made goods to a greater extent than they do at present. I quite agree with the honorable member. A writer in the press recently drew attention to the use to which wool has been put in England. He said that an act was passed in the reign of Charles II, to help the woollen manufacturers, and it was declared that the dead should be buried in woollen shrouds. If In the reign of Charles II. it was compulsory to bury the dead in a woollen garment, why should not the living in this time of stress be compelled to wear garments manufactured in their own country ? Women who cannot obtain other employment could be engaged in knitting ties. I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) that, although individually this and a number of other items may be small, in the aggregate they represent quite a big thing. In view of the popularity that is enjoyed by the knitted tie in Australia to-day, it would be well if the Minister reconsidered the matter. The removal of the duty will destroy this industry in its initial stages. I feel sure that the Minister will recognize the wisdom of postponing the consideration of the item until further information concerning it has been supplied by the Tariff Board.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) endeavoured to be humorous at my expense ; but, whenever he adopts such a role, he is merely ridiculous. The honorable gentleman said that I had definitely stated that the importations of certain goods from Japan - for example, men’s braces and suspenders - were affected by the alteration of the exchange position, but that I made no mention of ties. That is a complete misrepresentation of my remarks. I quoted from a letter that I had received from one of the biggest tie manufacturers in Australia, in which the position is dealt with in the following terms: -

In respect to the duties on made-up ties, tarin” item 110 (e), as recommended by the Tariff Board and set out in the schedule before the House, we desire that the foreign specific rate be increased to 6s. per dozen instead of 4s. Cd. as at present. We have every reason to believe that we .will in the very near future he subjected to severe competition from Asiatic countries. I am informed by a leading men’s brace and suspender manufacturer that the competition from this source is already alarming, and as we are allied to their industry we are very apprehensive as to the future.

That proves conclusively that the Minister misrepresented the position. As a matter of fact, I distinctly mentioned ties. I now reiterate my statement that these ties are being imported from Asiatic countries. If the Minister were only sincere in his professions regarding

Ottawa-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable gentleman must withdraw the charge.

Mr FORDE:

– If the use of such terms is not to be permitted, we shall be greatly circumscribed in debate. A Minister who is so thin-skinned as to object to what I have said ought to make way for one who is more liberal minded.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable gentleman must withdraw the charge of insincerity.

Mr FORDE:

– If it is objectionable to the Minister, I withdraw it. I hope that he will not misrepresent me in future. The honorable gentleman further misrepresented the position when he said that the Tariff Board had found that Australian tie manufacturers were making extortionate profits. He quoted only a portion of the report of the board on this point. At page 11 of the report the following statement will be found : -

The board has had access to the balance-sheets, and trading and profit and loss accounts, over the past few years, of a number of the larger tie manufacturers. Examination of these documents shows that, although some local manufacturers have not been making undue profits-

That statement was not quoted by the Minister- and have, in fact, experienced losses over some of the periods reviewed, certain manufacturers have over the same periods been remarkably successful, and have, in the opinion of the board, made excessively high profits.

To make the sweeping statement that all manufacturers had made excessive profits, or to suggest that that was the case by quoting only a portion of the report, was to completely misrepresent the position. I trust that the Minister will accept my amendment, which does not affect imports from Great Britain. “We are prepared to allow the fixed rate of 3s. a dozen in the case of Great Britain to continue, because we realize that the Minister’s hands are tied by the Tariff Board, which has become an awful monster, without whose goodwill and recommendation this Government is impotent. The endeavour to tie the hands of future governments, however, will not succeed. We now have the opportunity to extend favoured treatment to the British manufacturer, by allowing the importation of his ties at the rate of 3s. a dozen. We ask, however, that the rate of 6s. a dozen shall apply to foreign imports. During the course of the investigation by the Tariff Board, it was claimed that in the period from 1927 to 1929 Australian tie manufacturers had found that large quantities of made-up neckties were imported from Belgium, Italy and Germany at the low f.o.b. prices of 2s.11d. and 3s. 6d. a dozen. These ties were landed into the large retail houses, with duty and all other charges paid, at approximately 6s. 9d. and 8s. a dozen, respectively, and they displaced locally produced, comparable ties, costing 10s. and 12s. a dozen. What was the result? A considerable number of workers were thrown out of employment. Since then, Japan has entered the field, and is dumping large quantities of ties on the Australian market. I know how nervous and sensitive the Minister is in regard to British manufacturers; he does not want to do anything that might injure them. I assure him that it is with a desire to be unusually reasonable with respect to competition that might be encountered from the United Kingdom, that I am prepared to leave the British duty at 3s. a dozen. I appeal to the honorable gentleman, however, to make the protection against the foreign article 6s. a dozen. This reasonable request is made on behalf of Australian workers, largely women, who are employed in tie. factories. Hundreds of them are out of work to-day, and they could be again engaged if this duty were re-imposed. In Melbourne, Sydney, and other capital cities, there are organizations which are looking after unemployed women who are facing a winter of dire distress and privation. This industry can give employment to a considerable number of those women; therefore I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, and to accept my reasonable amendment.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

– I support the request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). If it were acceded to, the British rate would not be increased, but foreign imports would be blocked out. The Ottawa agreement would not be in any way affected. Too much cheap stuff is coming into Australia from the East and competing with various industries in this country, with the result that local factories are closing down right and left.

Question - That sub-item (e) be postponed (Mr. Forde’s amendment) - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 17

NOES: 34

Majority . . . . 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-items agreed to.

Item 114, sub-items (b) (c) (e1, 2) (f1) (g) (Hats, caps and bonnets) -

Hats, caps, and bonnets -

  1. Wool felt hats for men and boys in any stage of manufacture, including wool felt hoods therefor - per dozen, British, 30s.; general, 50s., or ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
  2. Fur felt hats for men and boys in any stage of manufacture, including fur felt hoods therefor - per dozen, British, 48s. ; general, 72s., or ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
  3. Wool felt hoods for girls’ and women’s hats - per dozen, British, 20s.; general. 30s., or ad val., British, 35 per cent.; general, 55 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty..
  4. Felt hats and felt capelines.for women and girls, fur felt hoods for women’s and girls’ hats, berets, women’s and girls’ caps (other than bathing) of any material; hats and bonnets n.e.i. - per dozen, British, 45s.; general, 60s., or ad val., British, 45 per cent. ; general,65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

    1. 1 ) Panama and pandan plaited from the tip of the crown to the base of the’ brim and which do not contain any thread straws or other material joining the plaits or other material together - ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent.
    2. Other - per dozen, British, 18s.;. general. -24s., or ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Amendments (by Mr. White) agreed to -

That that portion of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on 8th March, 1933, relating to sub-item (b) of item 114 be incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of sub-item (b) of item 114 of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

That that portion of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on 8th March, 1933, relating to sub-item

of item 114 be incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of sub-item (c) of item 114 of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

That that portion of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on 8th March, 1933, relating, to sub-item

  1. of item 114 be incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of sub-item (e) of item 114 of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, . 1932.

That sub-item (f) be amended by adding the following: - “And on and after 9th March, 1933 -

  1. (1) Felt capelines for girls and women’s hats, per dozen, British, 24s.; general, 39s.; or ad val., British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.”

That that portion of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on 8th March, 1933, relating to sub-item (g) of item 114 be incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of sub-item (o) of item 114 of the Tariff Resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– The manufacture of hoods for girls’ and women’s hats is an old established industry, occupying a large number of factories and employees in my electorate and other metropolitan districts. During the last few years, notwithstanding that the duties were higher than are now proposed, the industry has passed through many vicissitudes. In 1929, 1931 and 1932 these duties were reviewed, but the British preferential rate of 20s. per dozen was not interfered with. The Government now proposes, however, to reduce the British rate to 10s. and the general rate from 25s. to 20s. This drastic cut will probably cause some of the factories to close. A couple of months ago I introduced to the Minister a deputation representing the manufacturers, employees, and milliners, and, in the course of the discussion, several statements in the Tariff Board’s report were challenged on the ground that they no longer applied. For instance, the board had stated that the manufacturers had not reduced prices after they had been granted higher protection, and that the local product was inferior to the imported. The deputationists affirmed that the manufacturers had, on the advice of the Tariff Board, amalgamated a number of the struggling companies, and, as a result of rationalization and the adoption of more efficient methods, had been able to reduce the price from 35s. to 28s. a dozen, and they promised that, if the old rates of duty were retained, they would endeavour to effect a further reduction. Mr. Sanderson, chairman of the Milliners Association, said that the mil-, liners preferred the local article because of its superiority, and also because they could obtain supplies from the Australian factories quickly to meet changes of fashion. The industry, including milliners and retailers, has unanimously asked for the retention of the old duties, or at least a reasonable compromise. At the deputation the secretary of the organized manufacturers said that they would endeavour to keep going without displacing any labour, if the Minister would compromise at duties of 15s. and 20s., instead of, as proposed in this schedule, 10s. and 20s. a dozen. In putting the case for the milliners, Mr. Sanderson stated that the milliners desired to continue to purchase their requirements from the local manufacturers rather than from the importers, because the price was satisfactory and the quality good. They suggested that the duty on hoods should be 15s. British, instead of 10s., and 25s. foreign, instead of 20s. Under the Scullin tariff they were respectively 20s. and 30s. They put the case from the point of view of the manufacturers. I now wish to put it from the stand-point of the employees in the industry. These workers have suffered hardship of late, and for some years have worked only broken time. It is true that some of them appear to earn good money, but I remind the committee that this is a seasonal trade, and that good wages are paid for only a few months each year, and only to a few piece-workers who have to rush the work through to meet orders. Spread over the whole year, the wages are low. These drastic reductions of duty will probably cause some of the factories to close altogether, with resultant unemployment. In order that the Minister may have an opportunity to consider this item further, I shall move that further consideration of the sub-items, as amended, be postponed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment in view of Standing Order 175, which provides that any clause may be postponed unless it has already been amended. This item has already been amended.

Mr White:

– I should like to meet the wishes of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I am prepared to leave this matter in the hands of the Minister, in the hope that he will reconsider it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The item may be postponed : with the leave of the committee. Does the honorable member for Melbourne Ports ask for that leave?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I do not desire to press in that direction in view of the Minister’s remark.

Mr JENNINGS:
South Sydney

– The item under discussion is a matter of concern to the hat-making industry, which has made great efforts towards stabilization in view of the economic position. Under the Scullin tariff the manufacturers of hats voluntarily reduced their prices in the belief that there would be no tariff reduction. Apparently, there has been some misunderstanding on the part of the Tariff Board, which states that the price of imported hoods is 28s. per dozen. The industry claims that it did not mention that price, but stated 23s. 9d. per dozen as the rate, a statement which is supported by the representative of the buyers. Consequently, as soon as the duty on hoods was reduced, I am informed that the repr esentatives of the British manufacturers in Australia held a meeting in Sydney with Australian buyers, and offered a price of 23s. per dozen, or less for immediate shipment. This is a matter of great concern to the Australian hatmaking industry, for it cannot manufacture hoods at that price. It was faced with the possibility of all the trade going overseas, which would mean that a large number of men would have no work and unemployment would be increased. The manufacturers appealed to the millinery buyers to assist them in keeping their employees at work. They agreed to sacrifice all their profits, and to reduce their price to 25s. 6d. per dozen, less 2£ per cent., and to accept the risk of bad debts and other contingent losses. I submit that a good case has been made out for this industry, particularly in view of the misunderstanding that occurred. I hope that the Minister will investigate this subject’ further, with a view to arriving at a compromise by which the duty will be fixed at 15s. British, the same as under the Pratten tariff and in conformity with the previous recommendation of the Tariff Board. There is grave danger of these articles being dumped into Australia, because of the commencement of the Australian season coinciding with the end of the English season ; and because I am informed that, even now, these hoods are being offered at 8s. per dozen f.o.b. English ports. That British manufacturers are adopting the view of Australian manufacturers in tariff matters is shown by the following extract from the Stockport Express of the 16th February, 1933. Under the heading “ Hatters and Tariffs “ the following extracts appear: -

The need for increased tariffs on foreign hats, hoods, capelines, &c, was emphasized at the annual meeting ot the British Felt Hat Manufacturers Association held at the Midland Hotel, Manchester, on Friday evening, 10th February. … In introducing Captain A. V. G. Dower, junior M.P. for Stockport, the chairman referred to the splendid help he had given to hat manufacturers, particularly on the question of tariffs. Proposing the toast of “ Our Trade,” Captain Dower said that they had not been able to achieve all they wanted. They had got a tariff of 20 per cent, on hoods, but he suggested they should try to get an increased tariff of 40 to 50 per cent. . . . He thought they would agree when they considered the great difficulties they had had to battle with, high taxation, trade restrictions, &c. . . . He continued, “ Let us press for a 40 to 50 per cent, tariff, and I think we shall get it. Another thing is, let us take advantage of the fact that at the present moment there are several foreign countries entering into trade negotiations with our country by pressing upon our Government the claims of ibo hatting industry. . . . You want to put up a perfectly watertight case to the Government. Remember what the Government wants is for us to show that as a result of these tariffs more men will be placed in employment in the hatting industry. Then we can hope for success in the trade negotiations. We are negotiating with Denmark at the moment, and with other countries after that. … It had always been the foreigner who had pinched our goods, but they should try to put the boot on the other leg.”

One might almost think that that was the report of a speech delivered in this Parliament. I certainly commend the British hat manufacturers for their attempt to save their industry from foreign competition. But the report clearly demonstrates that the British manufacturers are after the same basis of duty as the industry in Australia, although British production costs less through lower wages and the absence of arbitration conditions. The Australian hatting industry, which is a 90 per cent. Australian industry, uses Australian wool and employs Australian workers. I emphasize that the buyers of these goods are satisfied in every way with the Australian product. This matter is urgent, because the season will conclude in two or three months, and the industry needs to be assured of its position so that it may have continuity of employment and build up stocks for next season with the knowledge that it can manufacture and sell without any fear of loss because of fierce overseas competition.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I hope that the Minister will give favorable consideration to the representations made by the honorable members for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) and South Sydney (Mr. Jennings), and that he will agree to postpone this item so that further consideration may be given to it. This is one of the troublesome items in the tariff ; I recollect the difficulties experienced with it on a former occasion. No doubt the present Minister has had deputations from all sections of the industry, as I had, when occupying the position he now holds. The increased protection given to these goods by the Scullin Administration had a beneficial effect on the hatmaking industry in that it increased employment therein. During the period ended December, 1930, 16 per cent, of the workers in this industry were unemployed, while those in employment were working only one-third time. By December, 1931, employment in the industry had increased considerably, and those in employment were working half time. In February and March, 1932, when the effects of the “higher duties began to be felt, unemployment in the industry dropped to 8 per cent., and those in employment were working full time - 20 per cent, of them overtime. Moreover, large numbers of persons not regular members of the organization secured employment in the industry during February and March, 1932. The industry fears that a reduction of duty will create considerable unemployment. It is gratifying to know that both the manufacturers and the milliners desire the retention of the old rates of duty. The making of hats involves a large amount of labour. In the felt hat and sewn cap industry, 2,702 persons are employed, which with 2,600 employees in the millinery trade, gives a total of 5,302 persons. The output of the Australian factories has increased each year until for the year ended 30th June, 1932, felt hats numbering 2,060,712, valued at £499,203, were made in Australian factories. The manufacturers of hats are to be commended for reducing their overhead costs, and increasing their efficiency by amalgamating, and by adopting uniform standards and scientific methods which would be impossible to smaller organizations. The felt hat industry is established in Victoria, South Australia, and New South Wales, and uses Australian raw material valued at £21,000 per annum. Of the materials used in the manufacture of hats, 75 per cent, is of Australian origin, and comprises principally primary products. The Australian felt hat industry has created a market for rabbit skins. For the year ended the 30th June, 1931, it used 2,836,692 of them. Without this local market many thousands of men now engaged in trapping rabbits would be without employment. Other local materials used are wool, leather and galloons. Much of the trapping of rabbits, which is now being carried on by the unemployed throughout Australia - work which is essential to thewellbeing of this country - could not be continued if the hat making industrywere allowed to languish. Let me compare the rates of pay and hours worked in Australia with those in Great Britain. The average earnings of adult male workers in this industry in Victoria is £5 5s. a week, and of females, £2 5s. a week. In Great Britain the rates average £2 12s. a week for male workers, and £1 7s. “6d. a week for females.

Mr McNicoll:

– There is a difference between the values of the respective currencies.

Mr FORDE:

– The Australian wages are twice as high as the wages paid in Great Britain, and the difference cannot be accounted for by the exchange rate of 25 per cent. In Italy, whence many of our imports come, the wages are 35s. a week for male workers, and 18s. a week for female workers.” The hours of work in that country -are 56 a week as against 48 a week in Australia.

I now wish to refer to sub-items f and o relating to hats, caps, bonnets and hoods. Prior to the increased duty being imposed, the millinery industry was in a hopeless condition because of the enormous importations from abroad, the value of which increased from £56,671 in 1922-23 to £121,716 in 1927-28. The manufacturers of Europe and Asia have a distinct advantage over the Australian manufacturers, because their raw material is produced close at hand, and in most instances in the factory in which the imported hats are sewn. But plait or braid in the piece has to be imported by the Australian manufacturer; in fact, 98 per cent, of his raw materials are imported. Prior to the increase of duties, millinery would be jobbed at the end of the season in England and on the Continent at ridiculous prices. For instance, hats costing 8s. or 9s. each would be jobbed at a price as low as 24s. per dozen. These goods are sold in big parcels by manufacturers or warehousemen at the end of the season, when any price is a good one, because they must make room for their new season’s goods. As the seasons abroad are exactly six months ahead of ours, Australia became a dumping ground for these goods at the beginning or opening of a new season. That was one of “the problems which confronted the Scullin Government, and compelled it to safeguard the interests of Australian manufacturers and their employees. With reference to hoods, the industry desires that the specific rate of 24s. per dozen which applied to the general tariff before the tariff amendment of the 9th. of March last, be restored. The industry is forced to apply for this protection in the foreign rate as Asiatic goods can be bought at a price as low as 3s. a dozen f.o.b. Such goods do away with the sewing of braids, and unless this specific rate is restored, hundreds of straw hat machinists will be thrown out of employment. Experience has shown that there is no minimum to prices for labour and material in foreign countries. Hoods which sell in large quantities, such as paper panamas, are now being offered at about one-third of the prices ruling a few years ago. The duty of 60 per cent, on hoods is little protection to the local manufacturers, whose production costs are fixed hard and fast. The tariff amendment of the 9th March last has definitely given preference to Asiatic labour as against Australian and British labour. Before that tariff amendment operated, experience had shown that the importations of Asiatic hoods amounted to tens of thousands of dozens during a season. As, on an average, girls in Australian factories receive 6s. a dozen for sewing hats, every thousand dozen of foreign goods imported into this country, means £300 less in wages to Australian machinists. I, therefore, ask the Minister to postpone the consideration of subitem a, with a view to altering it to read as follows: -

Hoods, other than felt - per dozen, 24s. general, or ad val. 45 per cent. British, and GO per cent, general.

If that request should be granted the industry would be prepared to support sub-item F as set out in the schedule. What the manufacturers particularly want is the restoration ‘ of the fixed foreign rate. The milliners and the manufacturers have come together and agreed as to the protection necessary to safeguard the industry from foreign competition, and I ask the Minister to give favorable consideration to their request.

Mr DENNIS:
Batman

.- I am disappointed that as the result of the carrying of a prior amendment, it is now impossible to move an amendment to postpone the consideration of these subitems. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) and the honorable member for South Sydney (Mr. Jennings) as to the necessity for giving adequate protection to the hat-making industry. I know that, as a result of the recent variation of the tariff, many factory operatives are now working short time. This industry deserves the earnest consideration of the Government and of this Parliament. After all, one of our main objectives should be to encourage Australian factories to meet local requirements. The following remarks are taken from the Tariff Board’s summary and comments, in respect of the hat-making industry : -

The chief grounds on which support for the proposed duties was based at the inquiry were -

After approximately three years of operation the higher rates of duty under tariff proposals have reduced imports to a minimum.

The public has been well catered for by a local product giving- satisfaction in all respects, the range of types and prices suiting all tastes and purses.

There is sufficient plant and machinery in Australia to cope with the whole of the Australian requirements.

As a general rule,, prices of the Australianmade articles have been reduced in keeping with the times, and at the same time the quality has been improved.

The raw materials used are largely wool and rabbit fur of Australian origin.

Competition is experienced from imported goods selling at unduly low and dumped prices In some lines such as millinery, end-of-season goods are imported, and cause a glut on the market.

Prices are kept down by extensive competition.

I cannot understand why the duty on hoods for girls’ and women’s use has been reduced to 10s. a dozen, because that reduction has been the means of bringing about the dismissal of scores of girls who were previously employed on straw hatmaking. This industry is an important branch of the trade, and has been a great asset to the employees during the last few years. If the present duty is allowed to stand, men working full time will, in the near future, be compelled to work less than half time. If the Minister refuses to postpone these sub-items for reconsideration, I am prepared to join with other honorable members in dividing the committee on the item.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

.- This industry is not only valuable and efficient, but it is also an old-established industry. The proposed rates are lower than the rates fixed by the previous Government, to the following extent: Sub-item b, per dozen, 7s. 6d. British, 7s. 6d. general; sub-item c, per dozen, 12s. British, 12s. general. But they are higher by 5 per cent, ad valorem in the general tariff ad valorem rate on account of the preference formula, under the Ottawa agreement. There is an increase over the 1921-30 tariff rates, by the following margins: - Sub-item b, per dozen, 7s. 6d. British, 17s. 6d. general, or ad valorem, 10 per cent. British, 20 per cent, general; subitem c, per dozen,’ 12s. British, 24s. general, or ad valorem, 10 per cent. British, 20 per cent, general. The Tariff Board inquired into the duties on these goods in August and September last, and the proposed rates are based on its recommendations. The board, in its report of the 31st January, 1928, following an inquiry in 1927, drew attention to the following circumstances : -

  1. The very satisfactory position attained by some of the local mills, which were fully occupied, and- whose operations were so profitable that it was a matter for surprise that they coupled themselves with a request for further protection.
  2. The large earnings of some employees - £15 per week in one instance, and £13, £12, £11, and £10 per -week in others.
  3. The failure of the applicants to substantiate their allegation that severe- competition was experienced from imported hats.
  4. The fact that the first-class hat demand was not catered for by the local manufacturers.

To be perfectly fair, it must be admitted that there have been changes in the industry since that time; but, nevertheless, there is a similarity between certain, aspects of the 1928 report and the 1932 report. Since 1927, the progress of this industry has been steady. A review of the accounts of many of the large hat manufacturers showed that, with the exception of one firm, operations had been particularly profitable, and it must be remembered that this was in the depression period. ‘ In its last report, the Tariff Board made the following observations : -

A review of the accounts of certain other manufacturers shows that their operations have been particularly profitable, but on account of the manufacturing activities of these companies covering both hoods and hats, it has not been possible for the board to gain an accurate impression of the amount of profits attributable separately to hats and hoods.

The manufacturer’s wholesale price of the Australian-made hood (wool felt) is 247 per cent, higher than the f.o.b. price of the Britishmade hood, and 197 per cent, higher than the landed cost of the British-made hood free of duty, but including exchange at £125 10s. and primage.

It would appear, therefore, that the losses incurred by the one firm were attributable, not to a lack of protection, but to the unsoundness of the basis on which the firm conducted its operations compared with other hat manufacturing firms. A reconstruction of the finances of this company has since been undertaken, and this, together with the writing down of capital, should place it on a sound footing. The local industry is not at a disadvantage with regard to raw material when compared with overseas manufacturers, for the reason that supplies of wool and rabbit fur are available almost at the factory door at prices which, are no higher than those paid by overseas manufacturers except for the margin for exchange. The local manufacturers of men’s felt hats can supply all the requirements of Australia except those of very high-grade hats. The board points out, however, that the fixed rates imposed by the Scullin Government provided unduly high protection, and represented 100 per cent. British and 60 per cent, general on cheap fur hats and 100 per cent. British and 150 per cent, general on cheap wool felt hats. I feel sure that the rates now proposed, which, as I have already said, show & considerable advance on the 1921-30 rates, will adequately protect this section of the hat industry.

The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) referred to the deputation which he recently introduced to me in Melbourne. As the honorable member said, all branches of the wool and felt hat manufacturing industry, were there represented. In consequence of the information that was supplied to me on that occasion I promised to submit the representations of the deputation to the Tariff Board, to ascertain its opinion. I have since been furnished with a statement by the board in which it says- -

Assuming that the contention of the Australian hood manufacturers is correct, and that the actual charge for freight and packing is ls. 6d. per dozen, the board’s conviction that a duty of 10s. per dozen, British preferential tariff, is ample would not in any way be disturbed. The board considers that an efficient local industry, using Australian raw material, sheltered by a protective duty equivalent to at least 100 per cent, ad valorem, should be able to compete with ease against similar products manufactured overseas.

The board, in considering its report, did not determine a fair selling price for Australianmade hoods. A3 implied in the preceding paragraph, the board is of opinion that the Australian manufacturers should be able to produce and sell hoods at a price well inside the f.o.b. United Kingdom cost, plus landing charges and plus 10s. per dozen duty (the duty alone being equivalent to at least 100 per cent, ad valorem). The board would further comment that if this protection is insufficient, then the Australian industry must be regarded as uneconomic.

The points insisted on at the deputation prove nothing further. The board has reiterated the statement made in its report that the duty of 10s. a dozen, which is equivalent to 100 per cent, ad valorem, constitutes adequate protection to an efficient industry, and that if further protection is necessary the industry must be regarded as uneconomic.

The information which the manufacturers’ representatives have placed before me subsequent to the reduction of the rates have failed to convince me that the Tariff Board’s findings are wrong, and I commend the duties now proposed for approval by honorable members.

However, as this is such an important industry, and as the fear has been expressed that unemployment may result if the present duties continue, I promise honorable members that I will watch the progress of the industry very carefully. The Government cannot be expected to act on the mere assumption that certain things may occur. There is now no flood of importations from foreign sources, and if the present monetary position leads to the dumping of goods in Australia, the provisions of the Australian Industries Preservation Act can be enforced. As the manufacturers have been shown to be making extraordinarily high profits, and the employees are exceptionally well paid, and as the industry has been able to prosper even in a time of depression, I cannot agree that further consideration of this sub-item should be postponed.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- An informative article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday last under the name of “Gladys Owen “, which contains some interesting information on the tariff in general, and on this item in particular. The article was headed “ “Women and the Tariff ; How the Household Fares “, and I quote the following extract from it: -

From dress materials we turn to hats. Only a few days ago, we saw the Tariff Board’s report on felt hoods, those apparently shapeless pudding bags which are the raw material from which our winter hats are made.

In England, those shapes leave the factory at 9s. to 10a. a dozen; in Australia at 33s. And yet the duty, exchange, and primage amounted so high that it was prohibitive, and no English hoods could come here. Now the duty is to be lowered slightly, but only to the extent that the local manufacturer will be forced to reduce his price to 28s. per dozen in order to beat British competition. We know that for our winter hat all depends for smartness on the touch of the milliner’s hand, but surely some difference in price would be apparent if that milliner had been able to buy her hood at, say, ls., instead of 2s. 6d. At present, even with the reduced duty, an imported felt cannot be bought here except as a most expensive model, and the local factory can charge more or leas what it pleases. Is this lack of competition an advantage to us, and is it even within the letter of the Ottawa agreement? It is certainly not in the spirit.

As the Minister has stated, the protection accorded by this sub-item is equivalent to 100 per cent, ad valorem. The British price of these hats at the factory is from 9s. to 10s. a dozen, but even with the lower rate of duty, the Australian factories will be able to charge 28s. a dozen, and still compete with the imported article. In addition to the duty of 100 per cent, ad valorem, there is the exchange and also the primage, freight, and insurance to be considered.

Mr White:

– The Tariff Board has pointed that out on page 10 of its report.

Mr PATERSON:

– The writer of the article from which I have quoted has summed up the position accurately. It is not often that women folk deal with tariff matters, but this lady, apparently, has a good grip of the situation. She has shown clearly that this industry is being more than adequately protected.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but the Minister’s statement that no fresh facts were elicited at the deputation which I introduced to him requires some comment. The Tariff Board stated in its report that prices had not been reduced, but members of the deputation stated that prices had been reduced. The Minister has now also stated that prices have been further reduced from 33s. to 28s. a dozen for the 1932-33 season.

Mr White:

– That is so; but it was rather a death-bed repentance.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– The Tariff Board reported that the local article was inferior, but the representatives of the milliners, and probably the lady whose remarks were quoted by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) belongs to the Milliners’ Association, indicated that this was not so. The milliners are emphatically of the opinion that the local product is quite up to the standard of the imported’ article, and that the range of selection is quite as good. Mr. R. F. Sanderson, the principal of Headwear Proprietary, and chairman of the Millinery Manufacturers Association within the Chamber of Manufactures, is an authority on this subject, and I think that his opinion will be acceptable to the Minister. This gentleman has denied that the local article is inferior. It is really the imported article that is inferior, for it is made from the poor quality wools of Morocco and South Africa, whereas the Australian hood is made from Australian wool. The newspaper article quoted by the honorable member for Gippsland put the importers’ point of view. Many small milliners with shops in the capital cities are doing very good business, and charging exceptionally high prices for the imported hats which they handle. But a brief examination of this industry is sufficient to show that the finished hat in these shops was never obtainable more cheaply than at present. The people who handle these imported hoods in the big Collins-street and George-street shops charge £2 2s. and £3 3s. each for the finished article. There is no reason why they should not use the local article. As the honorable member for Gippsland has put the importers’ side, I may, perhaps, be allowed to quote the opinion of the Millinery Manufacturers Association. I do so in the words of Mr. Sanderson, which are as follow : -

The local article is as good as, and better than, the imported, being made from a better class of wool, and the milliners preferred to buy their hoods locally as with stocks available, ‘they are able to regulate their requirements in regard to quantities and colours. The local manufacturers are producing hoods in all colours and shades, and there is no question as to the completeness of the range of selection available. In regard to men’s hats, the board reported that all branches of the trade were catered for by local manufacturers, with the possible exception of very high-grade hats.

As we are not now considering men’s hats, I shall not pursue that subject any further.

I submit’ that there is every justification for the purchase of Australian hoods by even those milliners who support the views of the lady quoted by the honorable member for Gippsland, particularly as our hats are made from first-class Australian wool, whereas the foreign hats are made from the floor scrapings of the big woollen mills of Europe.

Mr Paterson:

– I am not advocating the importation of hoods.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– The chairman of the Australian Millinery Manufacturers Association has put his opinion in opposition to that of that lady, who has expressed merely the view of the millinery importers. I agree that those who buy hoods have to pay dearly for them, whether they purchase the imported articles or those made in Australia. I prefer at all times to encourage Australian manufacturers, who give employment to our own people, and use Australian raw materials. We should do everything possible to keep our own people in employment, thus avoiding having to grant sustenance to them. The Minister has hardly been fair in reviewing the facts placed before him by the deputation. The report of the Tariff Board is built upon reports made three or four years ago, when, undoubtedly, there was a prejudice against the local industry, and rightly so, because the manufacturers had been making large profits. But the scene has now changed. All the evidence from the employers, the employees and the milliners shows that, if the duty is cut in half, imported goods will come in and take the place of the Australian-made article. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to provide me with an opportunity to obtain a vote on this matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may ask the leave of the committee to move to postpone the item.

Amendment (by Mr. Holloway) - by leave - put -

That the further consideration of the subitems, as amended, be postponed.

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

AYES: 19

NOES: 33

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sub-items, as amended, agreed to.

Item 115, sub-items (a) (b) -

  1. Socks for human attire -

    1. 1 ) Cotton, per dozen pairs, British, 20s. ; general, 30s.; or ad valorem British, 50 per cent.; general 70 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
    2. Woollen or containing wool, per dozen pairs, British, 17s.6d. ; general, 25s.6d. ; or ad valorem British, 50 per cent.; general, 70 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
    3. Silk or containing silk but not containing wool, and n.e.i., per dozen pairs, British, 20s. ; general, 30s. ; or ad valorem British, 45 per cent.; general 65 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
  2. Stockings for human attire -

    1. Cotton, per dozen pairs, British, 30s.; general, 50s. ; or ad valorem British, 50 per cent.; general, 70 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
    2. Woollen or containing wool, per dozen pairs, British, 25s.; general, 35s.; or ad valorem British, 50 per cent.; general, 70 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.
    3. Silk, or containing silk, but not containing wool, and n.e.i., per dozen pairs, British, 30s.; general, 50s.; or ad valorem British, 45 per cent.; general, 05 per cent., whichever rate returns the higher duty.

Motion (by Mr. White) proposed -

That that portion of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 8th March, 1933, relating to item 115 he incorporated in the present proposals as on and from the 9th March, 1933, in lieu of item 115 of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I move as an amendment upon the proposed amendment -

That the fixed rates of duty (British Preferential Tariff) be omitted.

I take this action for three reasons. In the first place, the Tariff Board, in its report, stated that the rate of 15s. a dozen on stockings amounted to 150 per cent. and up to 200 per cent. protection on some of the cheaper goods. In the second place, one of the manufacturers who gave evidence before the board in connexion with this item - I refer to Mr. Foletta, representing Prestige Hosiery Limited - stated that the 1921-30 tariff was quite adequate. So far as the fixed rate is concerned, that is just about half the duty provided under the present item. Thirdly, by no stretch of the imagination can a duty of 150 per cent. to 200 per cent. against Britain be regarded as conforming with article 10 of the Ottawa agreement, under which we undertake to impose duties which shall not exceed such a level as will give the manufacturers of the United Kingdom full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production, provided that in the application of such principle special consideration may be given to the case of industries not fully established.

Sitting suspended from 6.18 to 8 p.m.

Mr PATERSON:

– The Tariff Board, in its report, gives the following extract from the evidence of Mr. Foletta, general manager of Prestige Limited: -

I wish to point out that we did not have a chance to apply to the Tariff Board or to oppose the last increase in the duties on hosiery. They were brought down by the Government without any reference to the Tariff Board. We, at Prestige Limited, were most averse to the last increase in hosiery duties, and thought them grossly unnecessary, but the Government brought them down. We say that, as the result of those duties, there has been gross over-production in our industry. Perhaps that has been a good thing from aneconomic stand-point, because the price of hosiery has fallen so much that we could do with about half the duties.

Question. - What was the effect of the prior duty? (Tariff Board note. - The “prior” duties were the rates introduced in 1927.)

Answer. - The prior duties were amply sufficient, as is proved by our balance-sheet.

Question. - Were they prohibitive duties in practice ?

Answer. - The duties prior to the November duties were not prohibitive, but they were quite sufficiently high duties to bring about a gradual expansion of the Australian hosiery trade. The duties imposed since then have perhaps been the very worst things that could have happened to the Australian hosiery industry.

The board then says -

There can be no doubt that the imposition of the prohibitive duties had a very unsettling effect on the trade generally. The sudden severance of business relations, built up over a number of years, caused much resentment. At the same time the application of the duties encouraged the installation of plant in Australia far in- excess of the requirements of the Commonwealth. This resulted in much disruption of the industry, including business failures, and caused serious economic waste. The board did not have the opportunity to inquire into the industry until nearly three years after the duties came into force.

Again and again it has been shown that when unnecessarily high duties are imposed it generally follows that there is a rushto install plant and to commence to produce the commodity affected. Invariably the result is over-production, and the weaker concerns go out of business altogether, causing a great deal of economic waste. That has happened in the hosiery industry. That industry has made wonderful strides, but at the cost of a sacrifice of expenditure upon superfluous plant and equipment induced by the excessive protection granted. An appreciable proportion of the capital invested in the equipment of factories has been entirely wasted. The British rate now proposed is 12s. a dozen pairs in the case of socks, and 15s. a dozen pairs in the case of stockings, with an alternative ad valorem duty of 45 per cent.; compared with 6s. a dozen pairs in the case of socks and cotton stockings, and 8s. a dozen pairs in the case of woollen stockings, under the Pratten tariff. Therefore, the present rate is twice as high in the case of socks, two and a half times as high in the case of cotton stockings, and almost twice as high in the case of woollen stockings. The Tariff Board says -

The board fully recognizes that the specific rates of duty which it is recommending, although approximately half of those now operating, arc high, particularly in regard to the cheaper lines of hosiery. For instance, the duties recommended would, on typical lines of circular knitted artificial silk stockings, represent from 150 per cent. to 200 per cent. on the f.o.b. value of the article.

These equivalents apply, however, to lowpriced goods; the ad valorem equivalents of the fixed rates on medium and high-class goods obviously recede as the prices increase, while the minimum ad valorem duties payable would be 45 per cent. (British preferential tariff) and 00 per cent. (General tariff), rates which the board has reommended as alternative to the specific duties.

As I have already said, I am not finding fault with the ad valorem rates, but am merely asking to delete the fixed rate from the British column, leaving the foreign column exactly as it stands.

A most interesting comment on this item is contained in a letter that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 11th March last, under the signature of Mr. W. H. Gardiner, Governing Director of Sargood, Gardiner Limited. He begins his letter by reminding us of our obligations under the Ottawa agreement, particularly article 10, under which we agree that duties shall not exceed such a level as will give United Kingdom producers full opportunities of reasonable competition on thebasis of relative costs of production. The letter then goes on to say -

Before examining the duties themselves, it is well to note that, in the case of all goods which enter the Commonwealth from the United Kingdom nominally free of duty, there is a minimum protective effect of 52 per cent. on cost. This is brought about as follows: -

Thus, all Australian goods are protected against British goods on the free list to the extent of a minimum of 52 per cent., and all duties whether ad valorem or specific, are additional to this universal protection.

I will only examine the new tariff rates as appliable to textiles leaving to others the examination of other items which they would be more competent to undertake.

In the wide range of goods covered by “ textiles “, the main changes so far brought about by the new schedule are in the duties on hats, caps, and hoods, and on socks and stockings. The ad valorem duty on socks and stockings, which was 50 per cent. British preferential, has now been reduced by 5 per cent. to 45 per cent., the same as the duty on hats and hoods.Thus, the minimum protective effect on any hat, hood, sock or stocking coming into Australia from England is now 1041/2 per cent. on the original cost, the details being -

I wish to emphasize the fact that this 451/2 per cent. ad valorem rate against Great Britain is equivalent to 1041/2 per cent. when we add to the ordinary protective duty the protection given by primage, exchange, freight and so on. Mr. Gardiner goes on to say -

This amount of protection is against British goods, and the general rate applicable to foreign goods is some 20 per cent. higher. But if, as is the fact, 104 per cent. amounts to prohibition, the addition of a still higher rate on foreign goods does not provide a preference that is of value and the reduction of 5 per cent. in the nominal rate of duty helps no one.

Some of the alternative specific duties on these goods have been reduced, but seeing that they are higher than the ad valorem rate, they still more completely exclude British, as well as foreign goods. To take an example -

On English cotton stockings at 7s. 6d. a dozen, at which price quite useful goods are procurable, the duty is 15s. a dozen, or 200 per cent. on cost, and the total protective effect, including landed cost, exchange, primage, and sales tax, is 264 per cent., under the new reduced schedule!

It would seem that the first beginning in the adjustment of tariffs to meet the Ottawa agreements must come as a great surprise, and a great shock to British manufacturers and to the British public. On the main range of textiles so far affected, the minimum total protection against the British manufacturer is now 104 per cent., while in certain cases specific duties increase this to 250 per cent. and 300 per cent. Is it wise even to use the word “ preference “ when such is the preferential effect ?

If, after waiting nine or ten months, Australia shows by her first tariff changes that her undertaking in regard to “ reasonable competition “ is in her view sufficiently met by a revised minimum protection of 104 per cent., and by her still retaining specific duties which impose a total up to two and three times that rate, is it likely that the British public will be able to feel very satisfied with the agreement or with the prospect of its continuance?

A most remarkable and informative letter is brought to a close with the following : -

Does the Australian manufacturer claim thathe cannot possibly compete unless British manufacturers’ prices are more than doubled? If this is so, is the Australian public prepared to carry on its shoulders such a load of added cost of living as is brought about by its so subsidizing its manufacturers? The latter may reasonably need some protection, but if they require imposts that will inevitably double and may even treble and occasionally quadruple the price of goods, is this a load that the public can afford to pay, seeing that it alone must of necessity pay for all such subsidies?

I feel that it were almost preferable that nothing were done at this stage, rather than that a set of proposals so devoid of any real attempt to carry out the Ottawa agreement should go before the British public as if they purported to be a beginning towards carrying it out.

Mr Fenton:

– One can easily tell that that letter comes from York-street.

Mr PATERSON:

– If it is sound, logical and true, what matters it whence the letter comes. Even the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) will not be able to satisfy the committee that this Parliament is honouring article 10 of the Ottawa treaty, when it imposes duties which, with exchange, primage and freight, amount in some instances to over 250 per cent. The manufacture of hosiery is a great natural industry producing a commodity that is universally used, and even Australia’s population of 6,500,000 is sufficient to enable such an industry to engage in mass production. If the average requirement of each individual is only four pair of socks or stockings per annum, the aggregate demand is 26,000,000 pairs per annum, or 500,000 pairs a week. Australian factories should be able to engage in this industry profitably, and they are, in fact, producing a good article ; but I complain of the immense height of these fixed duties against the United Kingdom. They are an evasion of the obligation into which we entered when we agreed to article 10 of the Ottawa agreement, which obliges us not to impose higher duties than will permit of reasonable competition on the part of British manufacturers. The Minister may attempt to counter my contention by reminding the committee that the Tariff Board has recommended these duties, and considers them in conformity with the Ottawa agreement. No government can shelter -itself behind the Tariff Board unless it is satisfied that the duties it proposes to this Parliament comply with the obligations which the nation has undertaken. This Parliament, not the Tariff Board, has contracted with the British Government; and whatever may be the views of the Tariff Board, we have to satisfy ourselves as to the fairness or otherwise of these duties and the extent to which they comply with the Ottawa agreement.

Mr Gibson:

– What has the Tariff Board said?

Mr PATERSON:

– The board admits that in some instances these fixed duties are equivalent to ad valorem rates of from 150 to 200 per cent. Whatever opinion may be held regarding the 45 per cent. ad valorem duty, no rational person can reasonably assert that the fixed rates, particularly when they amount to 200 per cent., can be regarded as carrying out our obligations under the agreement. Therefore, I submit my amendment.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– Fixed duties are imposed to prevent dumping. Although an ad valorem duty may be sufficient when prices are normal, in a line such as hosiery, sales of surplus quantities at the end of the season abroad may be made at prices so low that a specific duty is the only effective and reasonable one. The Tariff Board, in December last, completed an inquiry into this large and efficient hosiery industry. I agree with the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) that too many companies are engaged in the manufacture of hosiery; they were attracted by the inordinately high duties imposed by the Scullin Government. As a result of excessive local competition price-cutting is taking place and the manufacturers are experiencing difficulties. But the prices were never so low as they are now, when the Australian market is held by local manufacturers. The honorable member for Gippsland considers that the duties recommended by the Tariff Board are not in accordance with article 10 of the Ottawa agreement. That article merely requires that the overseas manufacturer shall have an opportunity of reasonable competition in the Australian market. We do not, however, want such competition to be unreasonable. Do honorable members want to destroy the hosiery industry and throw hundreds of people out of employment?

Mr Paterson:

– I certainly do not.

Mr WHITE:

– Is it not possible that a random amendment may cause such a disaster? The Tariff Board’s report concluded with these paragraphs- -

Inordinately high duties have been operating for approximately three years, and the board, as already stated, is convinced that their continuance is not in the’ best interests of either the hosiery industry or the public. On the other hand, as the industry has already passed through a stage of disruption, following the imposition of prohibitive duties, the board has been careful not to swing to the other extreme, as such a course might result in further disruption.

I think that is the answer to the honorable member for Gippsland -

The board therefore recommends duties which, while much lower than those now operating, are adequately protective, but which will permit of importation at a not unreasonable cost of any lines which are not fully catered for by Australian manufacturers. The reduction in duties will further place a limitation on the selling prices of the locallymanufactured goods.

That covers all the points raised by the honorable member, and I ask the committee to accept the duties printed in the schedule.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- What is the need for reducing the duties if after a prohibition of imports for three years socks and stockings are cheaper than they were before ? One could understand the recommendation of the Tariff Board if the manufacturers had been taking advantage of the high duties and prohibition to exploit the public. The proposed reduction of duties will not permit of fair and reasonable competition. Having regard to the exchange and other charges which imported goods have to bear, neither a fixed duty of 12s. a dozen, nor the proposed ad valorem rates would enable overseas exporters of socks and stockings to compete in this market. Therefore, the Minister cannot claim that these duties are in accordance with the Ottawa agreement. To that extent the honorable member for Gippsland is right. But he was unfair in abusing the Scullin Government for having prohibited imports of hosiery.

Mr Paterson:

– I merely read what is contained in the Tariff Board’s report.

Mr RIORDAN:

– The honorable member read a statement by the manager of the Prestige company, which had almost a monopoly of the market before the prohibition was imposed. The other stockings which came into Australia were dumped here by American manufacturers. Before the Kayser and Holeproof companies established factories in Australia as a result of the prohibitions imposed by the Scullin Government, the Prestige Company was manufacturing high-class hosiery, costing from 6s. 6d. to as high as 25s. a pair. The great masses of the people could not afford to pay those prices. Since the greater competition has caused a reduction in the prices of hosiery, it seems to me that there is no need to remove the prohibitions. The honorable member for Gippsland was unfair to the last Government. He should not forget that it succeeded a government which left this country on the verge of bankruptcy. With the statement of the Resident Minister in London (Mr. Bruce) at Ottawa that the Australian Government was forced to impose prohibitions in order to keep Australia solvent, I agree. The prohibitions imposed by the Scullin Government forced those manufacturers of hosiery who previously dumped their goods into Australia to establish factories here, and to employ Australian workers. Honorable members now in opposition said that the high duties and prohibitions of the Scullin Government would destroy Australian manufactures; to-night we have heard that the Tariff Board has declared that those high duties and prohibitions caused overseas manufacturers to establish factories in Australia. Despite the depression, the production of hosiery in Australia increased after the prohibitions were imposed, and at the same time prices fell. Silk stockings which at one time could be bought only by those who were comparatively wealthy, are to-day within the reach of all. The present Government has. no fiscal policy of its own other than to follow blindly the Tariff Board. It does not agree with the Country party regarding the tariff, while the protectionist policy of the Labour party is not acceptable to it. It pins its faith to the Tariff Board, a body composed of men without special training, who base their reports on evidence submitted to them. If that evidence shows that, notwithstanding the prohibitions, Australian manufacturers have not exploited the public, there seems to be no good reason for taking away that protection. Does the Government desire to see Australian factories close their doors and their employees added to the ranks of the unemployed? When the Scullin tariff schedule was before Parliament, the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), who was then in opposition, said that the duties were too high. Now he reduces the rates from 20s. a dozen pairs British, and 30s. foreign, to 12s. and 25s. a dozen pairs respectively. If the Minister says that those rates are fair because they allow British manufacturers to compete in the Australian market on equal terms with the Australian manufacturers, then I must agree with the honorable member for Gippsland that the tariff, instead of granting to British manufacturers equal opportunities in our market, is merely a means of obtaining revenue. At one time the Country party supported revenue tariffs, because it had representatives in the Ministry ; to-day, when it is not represented in the Ministry, it does not favour such tariffs.

Mr Paterson:

– How can a tariff be revenue producing if no imports enter this country?

Mr RIORDAN:

– The United Australia Party and the Country party agreed to accept the Tariff Board’s reports in tariff matters. The Government is at least consistent, for it follows the reports of the Tariff Board blindly, irrespective of any harm that may result from so doing. At the last election the Country party, in effect, said, “ The policy of the United Australia Party in fiscal matters seems to be all right; it will win votes, for it will neither scare manufacturers nor be unacceptable to the workers in industry. It will probably go down with the primary producers, and during the next three years the party can put up a sham fight”.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is digressing from the item before the Chair.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Ihope that the Minister will not accept the amendment of the honorable member for Gippsland.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- The Minister seems to have ignored the attack made by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), that the Government is acting in contravention of the Ottawa agreement. It was generally understood that, in view of the important concessions givenby Great Britain to our export industries, action should be taken to fix our tariff at a reasonable level in regard to British productions. If the Government is of the opinion that duties of 100 per cent., or even 200 per cent., are necessary, I hope that the people of England, will understand its attitude towards the Ottawa agreement. A duty of 12s. a dozen pairs is to be imposed on socks imported from Britain. This item covers children’s socks, costing 4s. or 5s. a dozen pairs, so that the duty in such cases amounts to 250 per cent. In addition to these excessively high duties, there is exchange and primage, as well as freight and landing and other charges. It would appear that there is no real intention to comply with the Ottawa agreement. If the Government wants to impose duties of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., why not impose an ad valorem duty and make the position clear? It is nonsense to say that these goods are being dumped into Australia. The Minister has told us emphatically on many occasions that the Government will protect Australian manufacturers against dumping. Some time ago I brought under the notice of honorable members the balance-sheet of the Mossgiel Woollen Mills in New Zealand, in which country the duties on hosiery are 20 per cent. British and 35 per cent, foreign. That company declared a dividend of 10 per cent, as well as a bonus of 10 per cent. It held £57,000 in cash and government securities, and its employees’ benevolentfund amount to £13,200. No Australian balance-sheet that I have seen contains such satisfactory figures. If those results can be obtained in New Zealand with the duties in operation there, how is that we in Australia, with duties amounting in some cases to 250 per cent, on the f.o.b. price English ports, cannot do the same? The duty on cotton stockings from Great Britain is 15s. a dozen pairs, although these articles are invoiced from Great Britain at 5s. 9d. a dozen. It would be better to have a fixed duty of 70 per cent., 80 per cent., or even 100 per cent, than to provide that the duty shall be 12s. a dozen or ad valorem 45 per cent., because in nearly every instance the duty will be fixed at so much a dozen pairs The Government should make clear its position in relation to the Ottawa agreement.

I agree with the honorable member for Gippsland that the high duties and prohibitions imposed by the Scullin Administration induced manufacturers to set up establishments in Australia. The result has been over-production, and these factories have been forced to reduce prices considerably in order to dispose of their stocks. The people of Western Australia and Tasmania receive no benefits from these high duties, yet they are compelled to pay enormous prices for these goods, while factories in Sydney and Melbourne continue to exploit the community.

Mr NOCK:
Riverina

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson). The report of the Tariff Board on hosiery is one of the most analytical and carefully-compiled documents ever submitted to Parliament. The protection given to the hosiery industry is an outstanding instance of unjustifiable and excessive protection. If we analyse the position, we find that in 1926-27 the value of the imports of hosiery was £1,659,624, and the customs revenue which the Govern ment received was £733,814; whereas in 1931-32, the prohibitory effect of the tariff was so great that the value of the imports of hosiery declined to £3,453, and the revenue which the Government received was approximately £3,000. Those figures contradict the statement of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) that the Government’s intention is to maintain the previous tariff merely for the purpose of revenue; the revenue has gone. If we further analyse the position, we find that for this loss of £733,814, the number of employees engaged in the industry is 4,440, and total wages paid in the whole of the industry is £600,000. We therefore have the position that in order to provide employment to the extent of £600,000, the Government reduced its revenue by over £730,000, and that loss had to be made up by further taxation through the medium of sales tax and primage duty. It has also been stated that hosiery is cheaper to-day than it was before this prohibitory tariff was imposed; but we find that for ordinary cotton socks of decent quality, which were available to workmen at 6s. a dozen pairs, the manufacturers’ wholesale price is to-day 12s. a dozen pairs, an increase in price of 100 per cent., so the people pay twice, through the price and through the extra taxation.

I submit that the reputation of the Commonwealth Government will be judged throughout the world by the way in which it carries out the Ottawa agreement. Yet we find the Tariff Board commenting as follows upon a list of prices of hosiery manufactured in Australia, submitted by the local manufacturers: -

It will be seen that in nearly every instance the duty chargeable exceeds the Australian manufacturers’ selling price.

How any government, which is professing to carry out the conditions of the Ottawa agreement to provide reasonable competitive conditions, can support such duties passes my comprehension. The Tariff Board proceeded to say -

Labour involved in the manufacture of socks and stockings is small in relation to total cost. In several cases coming under the board’s notice, the rates of duty now payable under the British preferential tariff is from three to ten times the amount expended on direct labour in Australia.

Any industry that has to be protected in excess of the total cost of the labour employed in it; is not economical. Furthermore, the representatives of the manufacturers stated before the Tariff Board that a tariff of half the rate which was provided would have been ample for the industry. We have also the statement of the board that excessive protection has resulted in much disruption of the industry, including business failures, and has caused a serious economic waste. The board also states “ the continuance of prohibitive rates would increase the likelihood of improper price- fixing arrangements In the face of such statements by an expert board after careful investigation of the position of this industry, it is up to the Government to review this item, and, by accepting the amendment moved by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), remove the fixed duty. Surely a protection of 45 per cent., with the addition of the natural protection, which brings it up to 100 per cent., should be sufficient to enable this industry to be carried on. Anything over 100 per cent, is excessive protection and should not be afforded.

A day or two ago, it was stated in this House that 150 men had been dismissed from Bonds Limited, but I take it that the incidence of the tariff is having a similar effect upon the whole of the hosiery industry. Much of the capital which has been put into the industry is likely to be lost, because the number of factories which have been established for the manufacture of hosiery in Australia is far in excess of Australia’s requirements. A similar position existed in respect of the boot industry, because of the excessive protection given to it. The possibility of high profits because of the high protection afforded induced many people to invest their capital in the hosiery industry; but so much competition has resulted from the increased number of factories, that the manufacturers are now cutting one another’s throats. A policy of protection which brings about such conditions is not in the best interests of Australia. The protection given to an industry should not be greater than its. cost of production, and if the Government disregards this policy, there will be difficulty in carrying out the Ottawa agreement. By its observance our own industries would not be robbed of a reasonable opportunity to succeed, even in the face of British competition. To sum up, those who are in need of socks are paying excessive prices for them. The loss of customs revenue of £730,000 is being made up by extra taxation upon the people, and much of the capital which has been put into this industry would have served a better purpose had it been diverted into other directions. It cannot be disputed that this prohibitory tariff has placed a considerable burden upon the users of hosiery, &c. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr BLAKELEY:
Darling

.- This Government’s drastic reduction of the duties upon hosiery is being criticized by the members of the Country party, the acting leader of which has now moved an amendment to reduce the duties still further. Although the Minister wants to half kill the hosiery industry, and the members of the Country party want to complete the job, so as to bring in outside competition, they all agree that it’ is a good industry. That is to me an extraordinary attitude. The Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) has said that it is one of the natural secondary industries of Australia. I certainly agree that it is a natural and efficient industry quite capable of fulfilling the requirements of the people of Australia.

Mr Paterson:

– Yet it is alleged that it needs a protection of 250 per cent, against British competition. ‘

Mr BLAKELEY:

– I shall deal later with the protection which was given to the industry by the Scullin Government. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) supports the Bruce-Page policy of paying the cost of governing this country out of customs revenue. That policy is being followed by this Government, although the Bruce-Page Government so increased the financial difficulties of this country that it was almost impossible for the succeeding government to pay its way. The present Government, in its pursuit of easy money, is following the example of the Bruce-Page Government. It has provided for drastic reductions of duties in various items, including socks and stockings. The honorable member for Riverina bewails the fact that £730,000 is being lost in revenue, and that only £600,000 is being expended in wages in the Australian industry. Surely he must recognize that, if there, were a loss in revenue of even £900,000, and the wages paid were only £500,0.00, a large percentage of the amount paid, in wages would be utilized in the purchase of primary products. I doubt whether any Australian products are used iu the manufacture of imported hosiery. Let me follow the honorable member’s argument to its logical conclusion. If we wish to obtain revenue by reducing duties in order to allow foreign goods to come into Australia, to the detriment of Australian manufacturers, we. could obtain, not £730,000, but probably several million pounds by removing the duty on this one item alone, and using in Australia only imported socks and stockings. The members of the Country party would be quite willing to allow foreign imports to flood this country. They would gloat over the tremendous revenue received in customs duties, although, of course, ample protection would be given to the onion and potato-growers.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the item before the Chair.

Mr BLAKELEY:

– Out best market for our primary and secondary products is the home market. Yet the supporters of the Government and the members of the Country party are not prepared to develop it. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), in his almost passionate and vehement repudiation of the attack made upon the hosiery mills of Australia, reminded me of one of his predecessors, the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde), although he really did not come up to the standard of that honorable gentleman. Any stranger listening to the speech of the Minister would have thought that he was praising the efficiency of the industry and defending it from unwarranted attacks, yet at the time he was dealing it a death blow. He is vainly attempting the impossible by trying to fight at the one time for Australian industries, the Ottawa Conference, and the Tariff Board. His efforts in that direction, like those of some of his predecessors, must fail miserably. Attention has been drawn by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) and other members of the Country party to the extraordinarily high protection given to Australian industries by the duties imposed by the Scullin administration. This at least can be said for the Scullin Government, that it set out to protect the Australian hosiery industry absolutely and completely from outside competition, and it did so. So successful was its policy in this regard that large numbers of our people bought knitting machines and engaged in this industry. Apparently the overseas manufacturers of these knitting machines were kept busy by Australian orders. It is not surprising that a few people over-reached themselves and that overproduction ensued. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) told a pathetic story of the amount of money that has been lost in consequence of the internal competition in this industry; but his remedy is a strange one. He would put an end to the internal competition by allowing the Japanese, the Germans, the French, and any other foreigners to participate in the trade in the Australian market. It would then be a case of confusion worse confounded. The anti-Australian outlook of certain honorable gentlemen in this chamber is astounding. They are quite prepared to allow the Australian workers to lose their work, and the Australian investors and manufacturers to lose their money; but they desire, at all costs, to assist the overseas workers, investors and manufacturers. Notwithstanding the allegedly high duties that are in force, the English hosiery manufacturers are successfully competing on the Australian market. But the Government is not satisfied with the amount of competition its policy is allowing, for it has referred this subject back to the Tariff Board for reconsideration. I have no doubt that that body, with its cranky an ti- Australian outlook, will recommend a reduction of duties on this item in accord with the Government’s desires.

The Minister and his colleagues, on many occasions,, criticized the tariff policy of the Scullin Government, but they are now following a policy of cut-and-slash which is causing increased unemployment in every direction. Yesterday the Minister challenged a statement of mine that unemployment had been caused by the tariff policy of this Government, and he asked me to produce definite evidence to this effect. I have since received a telegram from the secretary of the Textile Workers Union to the effect that there is this year 17 per cent, more unemployment among the members of the hosiery section of this union than there- was last year, and that there is now 45 per cent, more unemployment among the members of the spinning section of it than there was last year. I regard the secretary of this union as a reliable authority. From my personal contact with the men engaged in the hosiery industry I am also able to say that several mills have reduced hands recently, 150 having been dismissed from one mill alone. This is because of the insane policy of this Government iri trying to give effect to the Ottawa agreement which, after having been in operation for only three months, is tottering to its fall. Apparently, the Government does not intend to give any consideration to the Australian people. It is not concerned if 100 men lose their employment in Australia in order to provide 100 men with employment in some other country, because that will be giving effect to the sacred Ottawa agreement. I am opposed to the retrograde step of the Acting Leader of the Country party, characteristic as it is, but I am also opposed to the action of this Government in referring this subject back to the Tariff Board for another inquiry.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I hope that honorable members will not accept the amendment of the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson). To do so would seriously dislocate the hosiery industry and increase the amount of unemployment in our midst The Government having pinned its faith to the Ottawa agreement, now finds itself on the horns of a dilemma: The amendment is designed to give a greater measure of preference to the British manufacturers. Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement provides that our protective duties shall be fixed at such a level as will give the manufacturers of the United Kingdom full opportunity of reasonable competition on the Australian market.

But, in view of the fact that we have adequate plant and machinery in this country to supply all the socks and stockings that are needed here, there is no justification for importing these goods. The Government has already drastically reduced the protection provided for this industry by the Scullin Administration; but it is now going, further. The Tariff Board has been instructed to make another inquiry into the industry. Apparently the degree of protection now - afforded is still too high to conform with the provisions of the Ottawa agreement. It seems that full opportunity for reasonable competition by the British manufacturers has not. yet been given. No doubt the board, in its next report, will lean very definitely to the side of the British manufacturers, to the serious detriment of the Australian industry. I ask the Government, in the interests of the employment of our own people, to withdraw this reference from the board. Seeing that that body reported upon this industry as recently as the 9th December, 1932, there is no justification for seeking another report upon it at this stage? The Ottawa conference concluded on the 1st August, but the Tariff Board’s inquiry into soela and stockings took place at a later date. Apparently the concessions granted to the British manufacturers have’ not been great enough, so the industry is to be subjected to further insecurity and instability. If the fiscal policy of this country is to be partially f freetrade one year and high protectionist in the following year, it cannot be expected that our investors and manufacturers will put their money into Australian industries. If the Minister will agree to withdraw from the board the reference relating to this industry, we shall not further debate this item. We know that the. Tariff Board has about two years’ work ahead of it. We were told that 116 subjects were set down on list No. 30 for inquiry by the board. The average number of inquiries by the board annually is 70, although last year it made 78 inquiries. The 214 reports referred to by the Minister in his speech on the 8 th March last represented about three years’ work by the board. Is this one of the urgent items which the board is to reconsider in the light of the Ottawa agreement, or i3 it to be placed at the foot of the 116 items which appear in list No. 30? It would be foolish to- probe this industry again now, seeing that it was inquired into as recently as last December.

I make no apology for the high duties which were imposed on socks and stockings by the Scullin Administration. At the time those duties were enforced, there were heavy importations of these goods, particularly from the United States of America, with which country Australia had a large adverse trade balance. The aggregate adverse trade balance during the eight years previous to the assumption of office by the Scullin Government was £111,000,000. It was necessary to take drastic action to stem the tide of imports into Australia if we were to live within our means and meet our interest obligations. Obviously, the policy of the Bruce-Page Administration in piling up huge adverse trade balances could not be continued. The duties imposed by the .Scullin Government were high, but at least they- had the effect of providing employment for many thousands of our people who were previously out of work, and of reviving industries which were previously languishing. The policy of the Scullin Government resulted in a decline of importations of socks and stockings from a value of £1,148,000 in 1928-29 to a value of £67,000 in 1930-31. Employment in this industry was also stimulated. In Victoria alone an increase occurred from 2,704 persons on the 1st November, 1929, to 3,292 persons on the 31st August, 1932. Similar figures could be quoted for New South Wales, which is also an important hosiery-manufacturing State.

The Acting Leader of the Country party referred to the evidence given by Mr. Foletta, general manager of the Prestige Hosiery Company, on the 12th September, 1930, in opposing an increase of duty on cotton yarns. That gentleman was asked whether very high duties were not imposed on socks and stockings, and he said, in reply, that his company had not asked for the duties imposed on socks and stockings by the Scullin Administration. That is true. The Prestige Hosiery Company, which is probably the largest individual concern manufacturing hosiery in

Australia, engages in a high-class trade. Its chief competitors at the time to which I refer were the Kayser Company and the Holeproof Company of America. Those two companies have since been induced to come inside the Australian tariff barrier, and have now become formidable competitors with the Prestige Company, with the result that, although Mr. Foletta was opposed to an increase of duty_ on cotton. yarn, because he wanted to buy his raw material at the lowest possible price, and did not want the Queensland cottongrowers to be given protection, he appeared before the Tariff Board last year as one of the chief witnesses in favour of the retention of the duties on socks and stockings imposed by the Scullin Government. On page 4 of the Tariff Board’s report, the following evidence by Mr. Foletta appears: -

Prestige Limited is engaged solely in the manufacture of hosiery, about 1,100 persons being directly employed. It is not making socks although machines available would produce about 800 dozen full-fashioned half-hose per week.

Although some of the specific rates operating under the resolution may appear to be excessive considering the low prices obtaining in Australia for hosiery, a high protective duty is necessary to save dislocation of a complete, efficient and valuable secondary industry.

Prices charged by Australian manufacturers are now very close to overseas prices, plus exchange and primage duty. In Australia, cheaper grades of pure silk stockings are sold at prices ranging from 4s. lid. to 5s. lid. per pair as against 3s. lid to 4s. lid. per pair in England.

Prices have been substantially reduced in the past two years, as is illustrated in the following table covering some leading lines: -

Two years after he had made his chance statement at an inquiry into the duty on cotton yarns, Mr. Foletta became one of the chief witnesses for the retention of the Scullin duties. He pointed out that there had been a substantial drop in the prices of hosiery under what was considered to be a prohibitive tariff.

Complaint has been made that certain hosiery manufacturers have gone out of the industry; but has there not been a similar experience in every trade and calling in Australia? In a period of depression, there are said to he too many in every trade to supply the demand. If we go into any town or city we find that there arc too many butchers, grocers, and retailers of all kinds to meet the demand in this period of reduced purchasing power. Potato and onion growers complain that their market is depressed, and that there are too many producers in their industry. In the wine producing districts, we are told that there are too many grape-growers. Naturally, certain manufacturers are going to the wall. The Tariff Board, commenting on the quality of the production of the Australian hosiery mills, said -

The quality, range, and prices of the Australian product can he classed generally as satisfactory. This is particularly so as regards women’s stockings.

The hosiery industry is of great importance because it is a large employer of labour, a fact which seems to have been overlooked by the Acting Leader of the Country party, who would cut out the fixed rates of duty, and thus reduce the protection even below that given under the Pratten tariff of 1921-28. This industry gives employment to 10,878 persons in Australia. The value of the plant and machinery, land and buildings, is approximately £3,000,000, and the industry pays wages amounting to about £1,415,000 per annum. Theprimary producers are glad to have the advantages of such assistance as that given under the Paterson butter scheme, and I have always maintained that we should do everything possible to build up our primary as well as our secondary industries.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must confine his remarks to the item before the committee.

Mr FORDE:

– I have quoted from the evidence of the manager of the Prestige Hosiery Company to show that a substantial reduction has occurred in the price of hosiery. I find that on the average the reduction since November, 1929, amounts to 38 per cent. On the admission even of the Tariff Board, the hosiery made in this country is of as high a quality as that produced in any other part of the world. The industry exports in considerable quantities to New Zealand, India, Ceylon, New Guinea, and certain eastern ports, and the trade is increasing in both half hose and women’s hosiery. It is necessary to do what we can to increase our export trade. We have been told that too many manufacturers are engaged in the hosiery business at the present time, but the keen competition among them will keep down the prices. It is not necessary to refer this item to the board, in view of the result of the recent inquiry into the industry. To ask the board to keep in mind the provisions of the Ottawa agreement would inevitably lead to a recommendation which would be disastrous to the industry. Many parents to-day are dependent for their livelihood on the wages received by female members of their families who are employed in this industry. If article 10 of the Ottawa agreement is observed, British manufacturers must be given opportunities to compete with Australian manufacturers on an already overcrowded market.

Mr PROWSE:
Forrest

.- I support the amendment. The high protection given to the hosiery industry, as in the case of many others, has resulted in the investment of capital in factories which are too numerous for the Australian trade. When travelling on the East- West railway some time ago, I met a representative of Morley’s, a British hosiery firm which has an extensive Australian trade. When high tariffs were imposed against British goods, this firm acquired property at Ballarat for the establishment of a branch factory, but I am not sure” whether it has gone on with the scheme.

Mr Archdale Parkhill:

– It has.

Mr PROWSE:

– Its representative told me that it merely desired to hold its trade ; but, he added, “ Seeing that we have been compelled to open a branch in Australia, God help all other similar factories in this country, because we shall have no difficulty, at reduced prices, in manufacturing the whole of Australia’s requirements “. . That statement affords ample proof that the high tariff has attracted too many factories into this industry ; but, having invested their capital, the companies are only too glad to come to this Parliament and ask for excessive protection. Naturally, the heavy overhead charges due to the presence of too many factories bring about chaos, and even loss. I compliment the honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) upon his concise and illuminating speech. The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) did not effectively answer that honorable member’s argument. It must be well known to all of us that women are going about bare-legged because of the cost of stockings. These duties fall most heavily on the poorer section of the community. In some cases, the rate imposed is greater than the cost of the article itself. I hope that the good sense of the committee will enable the amendment to be carried.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- The experience of the hosiery industry shows the futility of prohibitive tariffs This industry was making good progress, and was being conducted on efficient lines until the prohibitive duties imposed by the Scullin Government resulted in its complete disorganization. “We notice, in the report of the Tariff Board, that the managing director of one of our largest hosiery establishments stated that those duties imposed were unnecessary, and had resulted in gross over-production and disorganization generally. When there is overproduction and over-capitalization in an industry, it cannot be said that it is efficient, because there must be more or less waste. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), by his amendment, desires to eliminate the fixed rates of duty in the British preferential column. I cannot support that proposal. The position as I see it is this f The industry has been established on unsound lines under a ridiculous duty, and a large amount of capital is invested in it. To make the position what it was previously, or to do away with the fixed rate of duty, would to my mind cause further disorganization in the industry, and possibly a loss of capital and additional unemployment. The effect would not be to create that confidence which is desired in the investing public. A tariff, ridiculous though it may be, and the erection of which has been proceeding for a period of about 30 years, cannot be corrected in a day, or even in twelve months. Unscientific though the Scullin tariff was, it brought about a condition of affairs that we cannot put right in a day. There will need to be a constant review by the Tariff Board so as to make sure that efficiency is gradually restored throughout industry. It has been stated that this duty is equivalent to 150 per cent., and in some cases to 200 per cent. Reading the Tariff Board’s report, however, it will be noticed that that high protection is mainly confined to certain lines of artificial silk stockings. I do not believe in prohibitive tariffs; in my opinion, our proper attitude is to adopt a competitive tariff; but I have no desire to see the Australian market flooded with cheap artificial silk goods. I do not believe that the throwing open of the Australian market to cheap artificial silk products would in any way benefit the Australian user of such products; nor would it benefit the primary-producing interests, particularly the wool industry, or improve the employment situation. Therefore, although .1 am generally in favour of reducing duties, I cannot in this case support such a proposal. The position as I view it is that this unscientific tariff wall which has been built up, and the unscientific . conditions that have resulted from it, cannot be struck away in a few months. The fixed rate of duty is imposed in order to prevent the importation of cheap artificial silk goods.

Mr Nock:

– It affects every other sort.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– It affects mainly the cheap artificial silk goods. As the price rises, the fixed rate of duty recedes, and the rate of 45 per cent.* or 60 per cent, takes its place. The fixed rate is primarily designed to prevent the flooding of the Australian market with cheap artificial silk stockings. I shall support’ the recommendation of the Tariff Board.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- It is noteworthy to find the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Forde) in harmony with me even to the extent of one point. The honorable gentleman concedes that this duty is not carrying out the terms of the Ottawa agreement.

The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Blakeley) referred to certain honorable members in this corner who are low tariffists, and appeared to regard as practically a freetrader any one who opposes a duty of 200 per cent., or even 250 per cent. A person who talks like that has entirely lost his sense of proportion; if, indeed, he ever had one to lose. When the terms of article 10 were cabled from Ottawa and I read them in the press, I thought that they conveyed the most hopeful sign that I had yet encountered. Broadly speaking, that article means the substitution of competitive for prohibitive tariffs. It seemed at the time so sane a proposal as to be almost too good to be true. Even discounting it considerably, I thought that we were surely at last emerging from the complete economic darkness in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gropes his way, to at least a glimmering twilight of fiscal sanity. But when a responsible Minister rises in this Parliament, and gravely defends a duty of from 200 per cent. to in some cases 300 per cent., as a reasonably competitive duty which gives effect to article 10 of the Ottawa agreement, all that I can say is that my disillusionment is complete.

Question - That the amendment (Mr. Paterson’s) upon the proposed amendment (Mr. White’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES: 15

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment upon the proposed amendment negatived.

Original amendment (Mr. White’s) agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 120, sub-item (cl a, b) -

  1. (1) (a) Huckaback towels, cut or uncut; huckaback towelling in the piece whether defined or not for cutting up, ad valorem British, 5 per cent. ; general, 25 per cent.
  2. Towels n.e.i., cut or uncut; towelling n.e.i., in the piece whether defined or not for cutting up ; terry cloth and terry robing in the piece, ad valorem British, 40 per cent. ; general, 60 per cent.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– I move -

That the following new sub-item be added: - “ On and after 9th March, 1933 -

  1. Sponge cloths or sweat rags, ad valorem British, 40 per cent.; general, 60 per cent.”

This sub-item was amended by the March, 1933, resolution, and the amendment is being made in order that that portion of the March, 1933, resolution relating to this sub-item may now be debated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- Would I be in order in moving an amendment to sub-item c?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bell).An amendment to a later sub-item having been agreed to, the amendment which the honorable member for Kennedy desires to move would not be in order.

Mr RIORDAN:

– This afternoon, a deputation waited on the Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Guy), and having regard to the representations made to him, I did not think it would be necessary for members of the Opposition to speak on this subitem. It is clear that foreign competitors are ousting both British and local manufacturers from the Australian market. That is partly due to the protection given to the producers of cotton yarn, for which Australian manufacturers have to pay 30d. per lb. as against 12d. per lb. paid by the British manufacturer. The British preferential duty is 40 per cent., and I desire the postponement of the subitem in order that the Minister may consider an amendment to give greater preference to the United Kingdom. “ As a private member cannot move to increase the rate of duty, I ask the Minister to propose a flat rate of 7d. per lb. in addition to the ad valorem rate of 60 per cent, in the general tariff. Both British and Australian manufacturers are suffering from the competition of coloured labour countries. The primary producers of cotton were encouraged by* the promise of a bounty to increase their production.

The Government, however, has withdrawn the bounty, but is attempting to compensate the growers for this loss by imposing an additional duty on yarns. This has increased the costs of Australian manufacture. What price the Japanese manufacturers pay for cotton yarn I do not know, but towels are being dumped in this country, and unless fixed duties are imposed in addition to the ad valorem rate in the general tariff column, the Australian manufacturing industry will disappear, and not even the British makers will have a chance in this market. The majority of the members of this committee have approved of the principle of the Ottawa agreement, and this item affords to them an opportunity to increase the preference to Great Britain by imposing an additional fixed duty of 7d. per lb. on foreign towelling. The evidence submitted to the Tariff Board strongly favoured the imposition of such a duty, and I hope the Minister will agree to the postponement of the sub-item so that he may have further opportunity to consider it in the light of the representations by the deputation to-day. The sub-item affects not only manufacturers of towelling and their employees, but also Aus- tralian primary producers engaged in the production of cotton.

Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong

– I support the request of the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan). I expected a statement by the Minister in regard to towelling, and I hope that before it is disposed of, he will give to the committee a general indication of his intentions. If the duties provided in the schedule are agreed to, the Australian market will be captured by the Japanese from both the Australian and the British manufacturers of towelling. I do not forget that Japan purchases large quantities of our products; but what chance have Australian or British manufacturers to compete against a country in which the factory operatives work eleven hours daily on seven days a week, with two days respite each month, and receive from 9d. to ls. per diem? Surely no honorable member, whatever his fiscal faith may be, is prepared to hand over the Australian market to foreigners producing under those conditions. I accompanied the deputation of Sydney and Melbourne manufacturers which waited on the Assistant Minister this afternoon, and their representations made it clear that the towel manufacturing industry in Australia will disappear unless it is protected against the unreasonable competition from the Far East. Until recently, portions of the towelling trade were shared fairly equally by Australian and British manufacturers. To-day, I have seen samples of foreign towelling, and I am astounded that Australian indentors should be prepared to introduce such goods and sell them to the community, having regard to the conditions under which they are manufactured. I have visited one of the towel factories in my electorate, and I can testify that it is completely equipped and efficiently controlled. The man in charge of it is qualified to manufacture towels against the best in his craft in any part of the world. He is a first class man who, had he been prepared to accept it, could have obtained a lucrative position in Britain, but he preferred to remain in Australia as a manufacturer on his own account. To-day, he is making a better-class article than was obtainable previously from overseas, and is selling it at a lower price.

This Australian industry is not exploiting the public. Austraiian towels cost a little more than imported towels, but they last nearly four times as long, proving the superior quality of Australian cotton. An industry which uses large quantities of Australian raw materials, employs Australian workmen, and gives Australian consumers a good article at a reasonable price should be protected. In these difficult times, we should not do anything which may result in Australian workers being thrown out of employment. Unfortunately, there is danger of that happening, because the uncertainty which exists has caused orders to be withheld. If the sub-item is passed in its present form, the Australian towel-making industry will be destroyed, while the British industry will not gain. I shall be greatly surprised if this Parliament, by its vote, indicates its willingness to hand over this industry to foreign sweated labour. I hope that the Minister will agree to postpone this item in order that this industry and its employees may be protected against foreign ‘ goods. I have been in touch with the manufacturers of towels in this country, and I know how keenly they feel in regard to this matter. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this sub-item in the interests of an important Australian industry.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the heavy importations of towels, chiefly from Japan, will be stopped by a fixed duty of 7d. per lb. on foreign towels, and 40 per cent, and 60 per cent, ad valorem, British and foreign, respectively. The Australian towel industry is undoubtedly in danger of being wiped out because of the large importations of towels from Japan. These importations are injurious to British and Australian towel manufacturers alike. Mr. Percy Fysh, chairman and managing director of J. F. & H. Roberts Limited, speaking at Manchester in January last, said -

Cotton and artificial silk goods from Japan on the Australian market are a menace to the Lancashire manufacturers, because the competition is one that cannot be met . . . Japan’s price beat us by more than 75 per cent, on some lines . . . Even the raw materials used in the manufacture of some of these particular Japanese goods could not be purchased even by Japan for the price at which the manufactured goods are landed in Australia.

Those remarks apply with equal force to this industry. If that is the experience of British manufacturers what must be the position of manufacturers in Australia? I quote this British manufacturer because, if I were to quote a similar statement by a local manufacturer, I should probably be told that the Australian factories are not up to date, or are inefficiently managed, and that their costs must be -reduced. The secretary of the Australian Association of British Manufacturers resident in Australia - a body which is bitterly hostile to Australian secondary industries - in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, pointed out that these importations from Japan constitute a serious menace to British trade. . Australian towels of medium grade cost 24s. a dozen, whereas Japanese towels of slightly lighter weight are obtainable at 16s. a dozen. The Japanese article can be sold at a lower price only because of the cheaper labour in Japan, the cheaper raw material obtainable there, and the manipulation of the yen to support Japan’s export trade. Japan buys her cotton in the world’s market, and thereby pays a lower price for it than Australian spinners pay for Australian cotton. It is important to remember that this towel manufacturing industry provides an outlet for the product’s of the cotton farms of Queensland. If cotton-growing in Australia is to be successful there must be a market for the cotton. Growers must not be compelled to rely on selling cotton lint to Japan and Great Britain. That, however, will be the case if protection is not given to Australian cotton spinners. It cannot be said that there is no competition in the manufacture of- towels in Australia, because we have seven towel factories, all making an article of a quality equal to that of imported towels. Since the Tariff Board conducted an inquiry into the industry in July, 1932, the position regarding importations from Japan has changed, because the Japanese have manipulated the exchange to suit their exportations. That factor was not taken into consideration by the Tariff Board at the time it made its inquiry.

When I was Minister I took a particular interest in this industry. I visited the principal factories, including Dickie’s, of Yarraville, Melbourne, and the Commonwealth Weaving Mills, of Sydney. There are other factories in Australia. Dickie’s towels are well known throughout the world, because the company is a branch of a well-known English .manufacturing firm. It has an up-to-date factory, and, under the protection given to it by the Scullin Government, the number of employees at the Yarraville factory has increased to 400. The Commonwealth Weaving Mills, of Sydney, has trebled its plant, and is now employing 130 operatives. It will employ 300 hands in its new factory, and the necessary machines are now on their way to Australia. The local towel is equal to the British article, and superior to the Japanese product. Working at full capacity, the Australian factories can supply 70 per cent, of the Australian market to-day, and, with the developments that are taking place, it will soon be able to supply 90 per cent, of the local requirements. Surely an industry that is able to supply a substantial proportion of the Australian requirements should be given adequate protection. I should like to know why the Minister is so hesitant about protecting this industry, which has absolutely proved itself. Since the imposition of the Scullin tariff, the prices to the Australian consumer have been gradually reduced at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum. That reduction has been brought about by more efficient management and operation, and by the growth of local competition. The greater the output of our factories the lower will be the price of their products, and the greater will be the quantities of Queenslandgrown cot.ton purchased, thus relieving the Queensland Cotton Board of its anxiety respecting the disposal of the present crop, which is the largest on record. This industry, which absorbs local raw material, should be given adequate protection against countries like Great Britain and Japan, which purchase their cotton on the world’s market. The manufacturers are making no unreasonable request. This country for years past has adopted the protection policy, although it is true that this Government is being forced more and more by the members of the Country party to adopt a policy of freetrade. Unless the Minister takes action to stem the tide of Japanese imports, our towelling industry will be destroyed, and British manufacturers will be unable to sell their products on this market. I ask the Minister to fix a flat rate of duty of 7d. per lb. general, and an ad valorem duty of 40 per cent. British and 60 per cent., general. We must protect the local industry against Japanese imports. The Japanese work eleven hours a day for seven days of the week. In many industries child labour is employed, and the workers are rested two days in every month. Their wage approximates ls. a day, while the wage in England is 7s. a day, and in Australia, 9s. a day. Unless the Minister gives me the definite assurance that he intends to protect this industry adequately, I shall seize every opportunity to debate the tariff until he is forced to take action similar to that taken in respect of the gum boot industry.

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

– I am not deaf to the appeals of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) and other honorable members. If. the case is as serious as it is said to be, there is certainly need for early action. The Assistant Minister (Mr. Guy) interviewed a deputation which came to Canberra today. Certain statements were made and the rate of duty advocated by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked for. But I submit that the Government cannot act on statements made by a deputation in the afternoon, and bring down new duties at night. The world is conscious of what is happening in Japan, because of currency depreciation; but the various .references to the labour costs and rates in various countries are, I consider, nebulous. I give honorable members the assurance that an immediate inquiry will be made into the allegation that Japanese towels are flooding the Australian market. If that can be proved, early action to prevent it will be taken under the Industries Preservation Act.

Mr Riley:

– Can action be taken without reference to the Tariff Board?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes, if necessary; in the same way that action was taken in respect of gum boots. In 1929-30, the value of Japanese importations of towelling into Australia was £490,000; in 1930-31, £246,000; in 1931-32, £229,000; and for eight months of this year, £202,000. There has, therefore, been a steady decline in the value of imports every year. The department will inquire into the matter, but the Government will not move in the direction suggested unless a sound case is established. Surely the various industries which complain of unfair competition can bring forward evidence to show that there has been an undue flood of Japanese towels into Australia. This industry waa the subject of inquiry by the Tariff Board in July and August of last year, and the board recommended the duties set out in the schedule. These rates are 10 per cent, lower in the case of the British preferential tariff, and 5 per cent, lower in the case of the general tariff, than the rates in operation immediately prior to this tariff amendment. They are, however, 10 per cent, and 25 per cent, higher than the tariff rates of 1921-30, although, as a result of the suspension of the cotton yarn bounty and the imposition of a duty affecting portion of the yarn used in the manufacture of towels, they are not strictly, indicative of the protective incidence of the two tariffs.

The Australian production is equal to about 27 per cent, of the total Australian requirements. The towelling industry of Australia is confined mainly to the manufacture of’ coloured towels, which represent approximately 85 per cent, of the total Australian output. The high cost of Australian preparation yarn, which is used in the manufacture of white towels, has made it difficult for the local manufacturers to compete with Japanese and English manufacturers in this line. White towels represent about 15 per cent, of the total output. On the basis of the figures submitted to the Tariff Board during its inquiry, duties of over 200 per cent, would be necessary to protect the white towel industry. Such a measure of protection is regarded as altogether unreasonable.

With regard to coloured towels, 60 per cent, of the raw materials consists of condenser yarns, which are admitted free of duty. The remaining. 40 per cent, is made of preparation yarns, which are heavily protected in the interests of the Australian cotton-grower and cottonspinner. The board was satisfied that the increased cost of Australian preparation yarn had lessened the effectiveness of the protection afforded to towel-makers prior to the imposition of the duty on yarn, and it endeavoured, from an examination of the data submitted at the inquiry, to determine the margin necessary to compensate towel-makers for the added cost of the raw materials. The figures indicated that the cost of the yarn used by the Australian manufacturers represented on the average 48 per cent, of their selling price, whereas the cost of the yarn used by the British manufacturers represented on the average 65 per cent, of their selling price. The wide difference suggests that the cost of the raw material is not the only reason for the much higher cost of the Australian towels. In fact, the figures presented at the inquiry disclose that the sum of the wages, overhead expenses and profits of the Australian manufacturers was on the average three and one-half times greater than the sum of those of the manufacturers of the United Kingdom.

The board is satisfied that the proposed duties will amply protect the Australian manufacturer of coloured towels, and it points out that the Australian manufacturers are making profits sufficiently high to permit a reduction of their selling prices. If the situation described by honorable members in regard to the Japanese competition has arisen since the board made its inquiry, and if there is scope for a further inquiry, there is ample time to protect the coloured towel industry.

Mr Forde:

– The ‘evidence was taken by the board in July of last year.

Mr WHITE:

– That is so. This matter of prices is something which those who are extreme in their protectionist beliefs should always keep in mind. I remind honorable members, in passing, of the action of the Government in regard to the price of matches. I do not suggest for a moment that this industry is comparable in any way with the match industry, but the action that the Government took in that connexion shows that it is alive to this aspect of the situation.

The Tariff Board considers that the selling price of Australian yarn- is unreasonably high, the present price being almost the same as the landed duty paid cost of similar yarn imported from the United Kingdom, which carries a composite duty equal to almost 88 per cent, together with primage and exchange.

As to Terry cloth and Terry robing, I remind honorable members that numerous patterns and designs of these fabrics are being manufactured in Australia on a commercial scale. In the opinion of the Tariff Board, the production is sufficient to meet Australian requirements, and to justify the inclusion of this class of material in the item at the rates of duty now proposed.

Huckaback towelling, on the other hand, is not being manufactured in Australia, and there is small prospect of its successful manufacture here in the near future. Several towel manufacturers stated at the inquiry that they would not oppose the admission of this material under departmental by-law, but the board favours the provision of specific duties in the tariff schedule. The duties on huckaback towels and towelling were first imposed for revenue purposes by the tariff resolution of the 3rd May, 1932, and it is intended to retain them.

Mr Riordan:

– If Japanese wages and conditions of labour were the same as those of Australia, the Australian manufacturer would still be at a 43 per cent, disadvantage, on account of the protection given to the primary industry which supplies the raw materials to the manufacturer.

Mr WHITE:

– This industry has been thoroughly inquired into, by the Tariff Board. In passing, and in defence of the Tariff Board, I may say, in reply to the statement of the Acting Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson), that he was thoroughly disillusioned by the way the Government was giving effect to the Ottawa agreement, that the honorable gentleman knew that the subject on which ho was speaking had been referred again to the Tariff Board for inquiry, in compliance with article 10 of the agreement. If he did not know it, he was informed of it by several honorable members.

I give honorable members an assurance that early inquiries will be made into any recent alteration of conditions in the towel industry, and action will be taken to meet any fresh developments. If an amendment of the foreign duty is necessary, such an amendment can be introduced before the schedule leaves this chamber, or it can be made while the schedule is before another place. In the meantime, I ask honorable members to allow the item to go through as it is.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I am not disappointed by the Minister’s statement, which, I think, is a very fair one ; but I wish to impress upon him the seriousness of the position, and to urge him to take any action that may be necessary before the schedule leaves this chamber. The information which was furnished to me by Griffiths and Sons, of City road, South Melbourne, is similar to that which was conveyed to the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Fenton) by Dickie Proprietary Limited, of Yarraville. Griffiths and Sons have not been in this business for very long, but they have 100 employees at present, and are rapidly building up an efficient organization. They, like Dickie Proprietary Limited, say that there has been an alarming encroachment by the Japanese on the Australian coloured towel industry in the last few months-. Both the English- manufacturers, with whom there has been some co-operation in certain directions, and the Australian manufacturers are being pushed off the local market by the Japanese manufacturers, who are making drastic inroads on our coloured towel trade. If these statements can be substantiated, action should be taken at once to preserve this Australian industry. We are not asking for any alteration of the preference given to the British manufacturers; but we expect the Government to give adequate protection against foreign competitors. In my opinion, action should be taken without delay in this regard, particularly if the Government expects the local manufacturers to remain loyal to the Australian cottongrowers. I trust that the Minister will take action before the schedule leaves this chamber; otherwise a deadly blow may be struck at this struggling industry. If the facts are in accordance with the state- merits made to the Assistant Minister this afternoon, something should be done immediately to protect this industry against its Japanese competitors. We should not wait until the damage is done.

Sub-item, as amended, agreed to.

Item 122, sub-items (a) (b) - 122. Articles n.e.i. -

  1. Partly or wholly made up from textiles, or feathers, not included under items 108 or 110, and including materials cut intoshape therefor, ad valorem British, 45 per cent.; general, 65 per cent.
  2. Partly or wholly of felt including materials cut into shape therefor, ad valorem British, 60 per cent.; general, 75 per cent.

Amendment (by Mr. White) agreed to-

That that portion of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 8th March, 1933, relating to item 122, he incorporated in the present proposals as on and from 9th March, 1933, in lieu of item 122 of the tariff resolution introduced into the House of Representatives on the 13th October, 1932.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- Will the Minister give an explanation as to why the duties imposed by the Scullin Government have been reduced?

Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP

.- An inquiry was made by the Tariff Board as to the necessity for the duties imposed by the last Government, and the only evidence tendered to the boardwas in support of the increased duties on articles made of felt. The board, therefore, assumed that the manufacturers of articles made of other textiles and of feathers were satisfied with the existing duties, and recommended the retention of the 1921-30 tariff rates. The proposal under sub-item a gives effect to the board’s recommendation, except that the general tariff rate is increased by 5 per cent. to conform with the Ottawa agreement preference formula. In regard to articles of felt - sub-item b - the only subject brought forward at the inquiry was slipper forms, which constitute the principal goods covered by the sub-item. The production of slipper forms and other felt articles cut into shape is an inexpensive secondary process associated with the manufacture of felt piece goods, which are protected by a composite duty equivalent to 30 per cent. ad valorem. The board considered that an additional duty of 10 per cent. would adequately protect the manufacturer of the secondary process product, and recommended a British preferential duty of 40 per cent. and a general rate of 60 per cent.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1049

ADJOURNMENT

Northern Territory: Land Laws: Liens on Holdings - Murray River Water Scheme: Hume Weir Operations - Navigation Act : Coasting Trade Provisions - Invalid and Oldage Pensions.

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

– If there is one section of the community that is enduring greater hardships than another, it is the primary producers of Australia, and if one section of those producers suffers more than another, it is the primary producers of the Northern Territory. Unlike their confreres in the south, they have no local market, and the cost of marketing their products is almost prohibitive. Playing a gallant part in the development of the northern portion of Australia, and they are deserving of special consideration and should be treated, not as national outcasts, but as national assets. They ask for a scientific re-adjustment of their rents, and of their debts to the Commonwealth Government. They ask the Government to do for them constitutionally those things which the Government did for itself arbitrarily with regard to the conversion loan, which was entirely successful. These settlers cannot fulfil contracts which they entered into at what were more or less peak periods and, consequently, are asking for an alteration similar to that which the British Government is seeking in regard to its contract with the United States of America. They also desire a moratorium for, say, five years, with respect to debts and mortgages incurred with the Commonwealth Government. They are entitled to more sympathetic and dignified treatment than they are now receiving. Nothing is to be gained by putting them off their holdings, because there is nobody else to take the land up, and, therefore, they should not be dispossessed of them. Furthermore, the settlers should not be submitted to the indignity of being posted in the Gazette as defaulters. That, in the opinion of reasonable men, is merely adding insult to injury. They ask for a fair deal between creditors and debtors, particularly since the debtors happen to be settlers of the Northern Territory, The land laws framed between 1914 and 1920 are useless to-day because of the changed circumstances that obtain throughout the* world. A re-adjustment of those laws is essential if these men are to remain on their holdings. In the economic struggle that is taking place in Australia, the whole nation will be - saved or damned together. We cannot single out one section, and say that it shall be permitted to survive while others may-go down. It is essential that the primary producers should be saved. When it is a case of the Government not benefiting as the result of their being driven off the land, I can see no good purpose in pursuing the methods that are adopted to-day. I stress these facts so that I may induce the Government to give to these people a reasonable opportunity of overcoming their difficulties. No one other than a professional optimist looks forward with enthusiasm to the immediate future. If land settlement is to be promoted, suitable conditions must be ensured. Every State in the Commonwealth is earnestly endeavouring to keep people on the land; but, unfortunately, those who come under the control of the Commonwealth Government are daily being forced off their holdings. For insignificant debts, ranging from £10 to £40, they are being sold up lock, stock, and barrel. Nothing is thereby gained. If there is one part of Australia which, in the interest of the stability of this country, demands settlement and development, it is North Australia;’ and every consideration should be shown to those who are doing the spade work in that territory. I have perused the reports and the correspondence of the Administrator, to see if there was in them any evidence of sympathy with the settlers, but not a scintilla could I find. I could quite understand this gentleman saying to the

Government, “ The law tells me that I must do so and so, but in the interest of the development of the territory I suggest that this and that be conceded “. I say, in all earnestness, that those who hold such responsible positions should at this critical stage advise the Government as to the best methods of keeping people on the land. I ask for a review to be made of the whole of the financial position of these primary producers, because they are in a most parlous state. In many cases, they have cattle, but the administration will not take a lien on stock. Ready cash is not procurable; consequently, these men are forced to drove their cattle over 700 or 800 miles of badly-watered tracks, and then rail them 1,000 miles to market, at which they arrive in such a poor condition that they are not even decent stores, and do not fetch any price. If there is one way in which these people may be made bankrupt, it is being followed by the administration. I feel sure that that is not .desired by the Minister in control of the Territory (Mr. Perkins) and the Government. I ask the Government to establish a basis of reconstruction that will enable these settlers to retain and develop their holdings. There should be a definite reduction of rents, which at present have a crippling effect.

The first essential in any attempt at land development in the Northern Territory is a scientific classification of the land, and a complete re-appraisement of values. Surely it is not reckless to suggest the adoption of the methods that are followed by progressive government’s in all parts of the. world. For the purposes of land administration, this territory is divided into four sections. Arbitrary lines are drawn enclosing areas approximating 125,000 square miles, and it is laid down that the rent shall be so much in this, that, and the other areas. Irrespective of whether a selector has exceedingly bad or exceedingly good land, he is asked to pay exactly 1,he same rent. That is not fair, nor is it scientific; and it does not conduce to successful land settlement. I suggest the classification of the territory into at least five sections - downs land, timber land, light carrying land, desert land, and tropical land. The rents should be fixed according to the quality or the value of the land in which a settler has taken up his holding. Surely it is not right to ask the same rent in bad as in good country. But apart from that, some consideration at least should be shown to men who are not able to dispose of their stock. The pastoralists, I know, have offered to give a lien on stock, but that will not be accepted; and consequently, these men are forced to put their cattle on the track under conditions that would never be tolerated by men who have any knowledge of the pastoral industry. The havoc thus caused to the settler reacts on the Government. If the classification that I suggest is made, much good will result. We have in the Northern Territory men with extensive experience of land values, namely, Messrs. Piggot and Shepard. To them could be assigned the duty of classifying the different areas. The graziers also should have representation on any body that undertook such a task; or, if that be not acceptable to the Government, I suggest that the services of an expert in the Queensland Department of Lands be enlisted. I go further and say that, in view of the isolation of this territory and the lack of marketing facilities, rents should be a secondary consideration to the settlement and development of it. It would be infinitely preferable to have the land worked, and its value enhanced, than to force unsuitable conditions on the men who are endeavouring to make it productive. Above all, I suggest that the hamstringing methods which are now adopted should cease. In the absence of any constructive suggestions from the administration, the Government should proceed on the basis of those policies that have proved efficient in all the States of the Commonwealth. I appeal to the Minister to instruct his officers to take liens on stock where men are financially embarrassed. Surely that is not an unreasonable request.

I shall summarize the official correspondence on this matter. I have a bundle of documents which show that men are being driven off the land for small arrears of rent. The justification offered for this action by the administration is the section of an ordinance which reads as follows : -

If any instalment of an advance is unpaid for three months after it becomes due, or if at any time the board is entitled to treat any advance as being immediately repayable, the board may, although no legal demand has been made for payment of the instalment or advance -

Enter upon and take possession of the holding in respect of which the advance was made, and of any goods and articles thereon which have been advanced by the board to the producer.

Sell the holding and the estate or interest of the producer therein.

That is far too arbitrary a power to give to any body of men under existing con:ditions. The administration should be instructed that this ordinance was never intended to be applied in that manner. A typical case is that of a man who owes £47 ls. lid. He gave a mortgage over his house in Darwin, but the Government was not satisfied and demanded a second security. That case is typical of many others. I shall quote the arbitrary official correspondence on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Indi

.- The cessation of work on the Victorian embankment of the Hume Weir is causing great apprehension in the northern end of my electorate. For a considerable time a large number of men have been employed on this embankment, and, a few weeks ago, Mr. E. B. Shaw, Consulting Engineer of the Murray River Waters Commission, informed the representative of the union that work on this section would shortly cease through lack of funds. At the present time, 197 men are employed on the section and if work is discontinued they will be thrown out of employment, and have no prospect for the winter, other than the dole. The amountrequired to proceed with the work is £8,000, and I understand that a part of this liability attaches to the Commonwealth. The construction of the weir is being carried out in accordance with an agreement between the Governments of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) the exact extent of the Commonwealth’s obligation. If the £8,000 were made available, work would be provided for the 197 men for approximately seven months, and the money would be expended almost entirely on labour, as the plant and material are on the job. The average weekly wage of the labourers, exclusive of time lost owing to weather conditions and holidays, is £2 3s. 4d. The amount of sustenance to which these men would be entitled if they lost their employment would be £1 12s. 6d., showing a difference of 10s. lOd. a week. But the commission receives out of the wages of each man on an average approximately 6s. a week for cottage rent, whilst the State; Government receives from the income tax stamps ls. a head weekly. Therefore, the actual difference between the wages that would be paid for useful work, and the amount that would be payable in sustenance, would be only 3s. lOd. a head weekly. During the seven months over which the £8,000 would be expended, the commission would deduct for rent approximately £924, and the Victorian Government would collect in income taxation £378, making a total of £1,302. On the other hand, the sustenance of 197 men for seven months would cost approximately £9,257. Therefore, sustenance would be more costly than wages, and the commission would lose the rent for cottages, and the Victorian Government the income taxation which it would collect from the men if their employment continued. It appears, therefore, to me that £8,000 should be made available to keep the men in employment over the winter months, especially as such employment would result in a net saving to the taxpayer and accomplish necessary work.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I protest against the answer given to me this morning by the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) in regard to the suspension of the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act. He stated that the- exemption granted this week to unlicensed ships carrying passengers, or cargo under certain circumstances, was principally, to meet cases* of emergency, particularly sickness, and he mentioned that the master of an overseas vessel in the Gulf of Carpentaria had refused to pick up a sick man and take him to a doctor. Surely that captain carried too far his regard for the law. A ship’s master having any regard for humanity would surely give succour to the sick regardless of the law, and if for such a humane action he were prosecuted, what judge would convict him ? I am afraid that this case was mentioned only as an excuse for complying with the desire of certain interests, particularly the British shipping, companies, to have the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act suspended. Moreover, the order in council issued this week permits an unlicensed vessel to carry cargo as well as passengers between Australian ports. Therefore, the Minister’s answer to me was not correct; The first portion of the order provides that any “person or goods” may be carried by unlicensed vessels in cases where there is a regular service by licensed ship or ships between the ports. It says -

Where, on the application of the Master, owner or agent of a ship, for which exemption under this order is desired the Deputy Director of Navigation for the State first certifies that he is satisfied that the transport of the persons or goods to the proposed port of disembarkation or landing is a matter of urgency and that a ship licensed to engage in the coasting trade, or holding, or eligible to obtain and hold, a permit to engage in the coasting trade, is not available for the service required.

It may happen that after the ship regularly trading to a port has loaded its cargo and sailed, a foreign vessel enters the port. On the plea that there is no regular trading- vessel available, the Deputy Director of Navigation may be satisfied to allow that foreign vessel to load any merchandise awaiting shipment. I am not concerned to debar overseas vessels from trading in passengers and cargo in Australian waters, so long as they conform to Australian navigation laws and Australian arbitration awards and employ white labour, as the Australian shipping companies are forced to do; but some of these overseas vessels have coolie crews, which work under sweated conditions, and: the action of the Government will enable them’ to compete against the Australian mercantile marine. . That, I submit, .is. most unfair. In my opinion, this action on the part of the Government is the beginning of an attempt to force down wages. On the 24th November last, the Minister, in speaking to a motion for the adjournment of the “ House, . moved by the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin), to discuss the provisions of the Navigation Act, said -

As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) pointed out,- the honorable member for

Denison crystallized the whole of his speech into one sentence when lie said that what he required was that the coast of Australia should be as free to British shipping as the Australian markets are free to British manufacturers.

The honorable member for Denison had referred to article 10 of the Ottawa agreement. At the time the Minister ridiculed the idea; but, apparently, the Government is now conforming to the wishes of the honorable member for Denison and other Tasmanian members, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), who claim to be so concerned about the conditions prevailing on the Australian coast, particularly between Tasmania and the mainland.

On several occasions I have referred to the cases of invalid and old-age pensioners who died between the 12th October and the 31st December, 1932. Pensioners were given the right to continue to draw their pension until the 31st. December, so long as they did not draw it after the latter date, and I claim that the same concession should be extended to the relatives of pensioners who died between those dates. In cases in which claims have been made on the estate of pensioners, the Government should waive its claim.. I have made representations to the department in respect of the cases of about seven different pensioners in my electorate who died between the dates mentioned, and to-day I received from the Prime Minister’s Department a letter stating that, in the case of one pensioner, the Government would waive its claim to an amount of about 35s. On behalf of many relatives of pensioners who have been assessed on the property of deceased pensioners, I ask the Government to waive all claims to the 31st December.

Mr COLLINS:
Hume

.- I desire to support the plea” of the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) regarding the men now employed at the Hume weir. I visited the weir recently and ‘heard the case put forward by these men. They explained that for an expenditure pf. about £8,000 work could be found for 197 married men with families during the forthcoming winter. Failing relief in the direction indicated, these men will soon be forced to accept the dole. I understand that the material required to complete the portion of the work on the Victorian side of the river is either on the job or has already been purchased, and will depreciate if not used. I support the plea of the honorable member for Indi for the greatest consideration being given to these men, and that they may be kept in work during the winter months.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- The subject which has been raised to-night by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) was brought under my notice by the secretary of the VictoriaRiverina Branch of the Australian Workers Union, Mr. Dale, and I communicated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) in regard to the matter. I am still awaiting a reply notifying the Government’s ‘ decision. The Australian Workers Union, to which most of the men employed on the weir construction belong, is concerned that 197 men will have to be granted sustenance in the near future if this work is not gone onwith. The difference between keeping them at work and throwing them on the State is not much, and it would be particularly unfortunate if they were thrown out of employment at the beginning of the winter. I hope that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) will be able to give a satisfactory reply to the point which has been raised.

I await with some interest the detailed explanation of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart), in reply to the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) regarding the recent proclamation under the Navigation Act. This morning the Minister assured us that the proclamation really amounted to no more than a suspension of the coasting trade provisions of that act to meet cases of real urgency. He cited a case of sickness. No person, however strongly he may feel regarding the retention of these provisions of the Navigation Act, would raise any objection to such emergency cases being provided for. Nor can I imagine any master of a ship refusing to take a sick person on board, and accepting the risk associated with his action. I have seen masters of vessels depart from their instructions to a greater extent than that when dealing with cases of sickness. About two years ago, in response to an SOS message, a ship on which I was travelling in the middle of the Indian Ocean went out of its course about 200 miles to relieve a sick woman, and take her to hospital. I cannot imagine the master of a ship refusing to pick up a case like that, even if his action were in contravention of the Navigation Act. That kind of thing would bring the law into contempt. Even without a proclamation a case like that could be met. It is a question, however, of whether this proclamation is not widening the scope of action too much, and I hope that there will be a definite assurance given that only in real cases of emergency will there be any suspension of this splendid law, which has operated for the protection of our own shipping and the maintenance of decent conditions upon our ships.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro- Minister for the Interior · Eden · UAP

– I regret that I was absent from the chamber when the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) commenced his speech; but I understand that the first portion was similar to the latter part of it, which dealt with land matters and the settlers of the Northern Territory. I am pleased, indeed, to have the views of the honorable member on land matters in the territory, because this subject concerns me as administrator of that portion of our continent. I assure the honorable member that the settlers are being leniently treated. Recently, a board has been set up to make further inquiries into’ the conditions of the settlers generally, the nature of their holdings, and the manner in which their work is being earned on; and the report of that body, when it is before the Government, will receive its favorable consideration. Individual cases that are brought under my notice have had lenient treatment, and, so far as I can ascertain, little complaint can be found with what is taking place in the territory as a whole. The honorable member referred to the prices paid for lands and leases generally. A few weeks ago I asked for a report, following on complaints that the rentals had not been reduced. Many settlers have expressed themselves as satisfied with the existing rentals, but for comparative purposes, we have taken the value of lands in the adjoining States of Queensland and Western Australia. The inquiries show that the rentals in the Northern Territory are considerably lower than those in Western Australia or Queensland, although the rentals in those States have recently been reduced. I can quite understand that there are individual cases of hardship, and, if the honorable member will bring such cases under my notice, I shall give them sympathetic consideration. I agree that the territory is a most difficult place to legislate for, because it has problems which do not exist elsewhere in Australia. We have tried to settle the territory upon a reasonable basis. The percentage of settlers who have left their holdings is not higher than that in any other part of the Commonwealth. Most men on the land are having a hard time. I shall see that the complaints voiced by the honorable member are brought under the notice of those administering the affairs of the territory.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory also referred to the harsh terms under which advances have been made to the settlers in the territory. A written agreement between a settler and the board which is making the advance may appear on the face of it to be harsh, but I assure the honorable member that the terms of the agreement are no harsher than those applying in the States. They are the actual terms, but they are administered with mercy, and the written provision that a man shall forfeit his home and property unless he fulfills certain conditions is not always given effect. We administer the law as humanely as possible, and it is likely that changes will take place as a result of the inquiry and recommendation of the board which has recently been appointed.

The honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson), ‘the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) have referred to the fact that within the last few days 197 men have been dismissed from the works at the Hume Weir. These dismissals are taking place because the men have completed their labour, and to put the blame upon the Commonwealth is scarcely the correct thing to do. To explain the position properly, it is necessary to go back to the commencement of the- works. It was originally decided to build a weir capable of impounding 2,000,000 acre feet of water. The work was started on that basis, but some time afterwards the British Economic Commission considered that before anything’ further was done, inquiry should be made as to what was the amount of water that could be economically used. Consequently, the government of the day appointed a special committee to make inquiries. That committee recommended that the impounding capacity be reduced to 1,250,000 acre feet of water. The River Murray Advisory Committee also made a similar report to the Government. It was proposed that the wings of the dam should be carried to a height providing for a capacity of 2,000,000 acre feet, and ^ large gap left between them, the levee being some 20 feet lower than the height of the -wings, thereby preventing more than 1,250,000 acre feet of water being stored. The four governments, however, decided that only such works as were essential for a capacity of 1,250,000 acre feet should be completed at the present time. The original scheme provided for the construction of a roadway across the top of the dam, but that was made impossible because of the curtailment of the work.

The four contracting parties are South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, and the Commonwealth. As the works have proceeded, certain other works outside the original agreement have been suggested. One was the construction of barrages across the mouth of the river Murray, and in that suggestion South Australia was principally interested. That State held that owing to the building of locks and weirs across the river Murray, the salinity of the water would extend considerably above its original distance from the sea, and therefore destroy the value of certain lands. It, therefore, asked the other three contracting parties to join with it in building barrages at the mouth of the river. The New South Wales Government wished to depart slightly from the agreement. It wanted to erect weirs without locks across the river Murrumbidgee, although, as first planned, locks were provided with the weirs. The original intention was to make the river navigable, but that would not be possible if ‘ weirs without locks were constructed. The New South Wales Government was persistent in its demand that weirs without locks should be constructed. The Governments of New South Wales and Victoria were both anxious to proceed with the Yarrawonga weir and the distribution channels, which were part of the original works. Last November, a meeting was held at the weir. I, as the representative of the Commonwealth, met Ministers from the three contracting States, but it was impossible to arrive at unanimity. Victoria was anxious to construct a road across the weir, but South Australia objected, not to a cost of £8,000 - it meant £51,000 in all - unless Victoria and New South Wales agreed to co-operate with it in building barrages lower down the river. Finally it was agreed to submit the matter to the River Murray Commission, and that body recommended that the four works should be pooled, and undertaken by the four contracting Governments. That meant that if the Commonwealth Government agreed to the construction of a road across the weir, and to the building of barrages and the Yarrawonga and Murrumbidgee weirs, its outlay would be increased by £97,500.

Mr Scullin:

– Would that expenditure provide for the original impounding capacity of 2,000,000 acre feet?

Mr PERKINS:

– No, because the gap would still remain,’. However, it was about Christmas time, and the possible dismissal at that period of the year of 197 men was the cause of some concern to the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales. They, therefore, agreed between themselves to spend up to £8,000 in anticipation of the four governments coming to an agreement regarding the pooling of the four works previously mentioned. Consequently, the work was put in hand. The actual work of providing for the 1,250,000 acre feet was not involved in the expenditure of this money.

Undoubtedly, it is a good thing- to keep men in employment; but it must be remembered that at the foot of the dam there is a roadway with two bridges which, admittedly, are in a poor state of repair. It was estimated that an expenditure of £15,000 would put the bridges and the approaches to them into proper repair, and so provide a road between the two States which was only 100 yards below the road proposed to be thrown across the top of the dam. The South Australian Government was agreeable to share in the expenditure of the £15,000 required for this purpose, but it was not agreeable to share in the expenditure necessary for the building of a road across the top of the dam. The fault for the failure to construct the road across the top of the dam does not rest with the Commonwealth Government. It was not merely a matter of its quota of £8,000, but an expenditure of £97,500. The whole additional work was contingent upon the completion of the barrages in South Australia, and the £97,500 would have been a liability of the Commonwealth. The Government, however, did not consider it necessary or wise to spend that £97,500 on those works. If so much money were available for expenditure, we considered that it should be spent where the expenditure would serve a more useful purpose.

The figures quoted by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Hutchinson) were interesting in that they showed that it is nearly as cheap to keep men at work as to keep them on the dole. But that would apply to many men who are unemployed in Australia to-day. Of course, it is a pity to put men on the dole if they can be kept at work. It is better for men to work than to remain in idleness. The Commonwealth Government, however, is not blameworthy for what has happened in connexion with the embankment at the Hume “Weir. It has done everything possible to push on with the work at the Hume “Weir, but the doing of useless work amounts to very little more than sand shifting.- The putting in hand of the work necessary to provide for the 2,000,000 acre feet is a matter for further consideration. From present indications, it will be some considerable time before Australia will even be able to make use of the 1,250,000 acre feet already provided for.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– The honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) has complained of the inadequacy of my reply to a question he asked this afternoon concerning the proclamation to grant exemption from the provisions of the Navigation Act under certain conditions to unlicensed boats operating on the Australian coast, and his remarks in that connexion have been supplemented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). I could have amplified my reply this afternoon and justified every provision in the proclamation, but out of consideration for honorable members, I contented myself with dealing with one case which I regarded as typical. This proclamation is intended to meet cases of emergency. I could have told the honorable member that paragraph c of the proclamation was designed to meet the kind of case which actually came under the notice of the department some time ago. Cases of undue hardship have also been brought under the notice of the department in very recent times. Paragraph c of the proclamation provides that a member of a family or a near relative of an invalid or recently bereaved person travelling upon a ship from a port outside of Australia to any port in the Commonwealth may be allowed to travel on an unlicensed boat if the Deputy Director of Navigation is satisfied of the bona fides of the case. That provision was included in the proclamation in order to meet a specific case - an aged lady returning from Australia to England because of a very serious illness. Her son met her in Adelaide, but the lady was too ill to be taken off the boat. Yet under our law the son would not have been allowed to travel by the boat with his mother to Sydney, her port of destination, if it had been a foreign boat. Fortunately, it was a British boat, and so he was able to obtain a permit to travel. I am sure every honorable member will be glad that that course was adopted, because the old lady died before she reached her destination. Had she been travelling on a foreign boat it would have been quite impossible for her son to travel with her. I do not think that any honorable member would like to have been a party to the separation of the mother and son in such circumstances. A further case to which paragraph c of the proclamation would apply came under notice only a week or so ago. In this case a father and mother who had been touring abroad were returning to Australia when the mother died. Her body was brought on in the boat. The son met the boat in Sydney and sought permission to accompany his bereaved parent and his mother’s body to the port of destination, but because it was an American boat permission could not be given. One of the objects of this proclamation is to allow permits to he granted in such circumstances. I am pleased that both the honorable member for Hunter and the Leader of the Opposition acquiesce in the granting of permission in cases of emergency of that kind.

I am glad that the honorable member for Hunter apparently confines his objection to the proclamation to the provisions of paragraph a to which he has referred in some detail. That provision was also included in the proclamation in order to meet a specific case. A British ship, the Taiping, was proceeding from Honkong to Australia when smallpox developed on board. A considerable party of people were waiting at Thursday Island to join the boat and proceed to Australia, but when smallpox developed it was impossible for them to board the vessel. The result was that they made application to come to Australia on a Japanese boat which was calling at Thursday Island at that time. The alternative to travelling on this vessel was to remain at Thursday Island for another month. Surely no honorable member would object to a provision to meet an emergency of that kind. I emphasize that no attempt is being made, as suggested by the honorable member for Hunter, to attack the wages and conditions of the Australian maritime workers.

Mr James:

– But provision is made in the proclamation to cover “ persons and goods “.

Mr STEWART:

– Permits will be granted only in cases of emergency. The Deputy Director of Navigation has first to be satisfied as to the urgency of the case and then as to the impossibility of a licensed ship doing the work. There will be no competition with licensed ships. Permits cannot be granted if licensed ships are available.

Mr Scullin:

– A good deal will rest upon the interpretation of the Deputy Director of Navigation as to what is urgency.

Mr STEWART:

– That is so; but he also has to be satisfied as to facts. No permit will be granted if a licensed ship is available. There is no foundation for the suggestion that has been made in a section of the press that the issue of this proclamation amounts to a general revocation of the coasting trade provisions of the Navigation Act. It is not possible that the slightest injury can come to Australian shipping interests as a result of the issuing of this proclamation.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minisand Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

– Regarding the pension cases mentioned by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), I have nothing further to add to what I said this afternoon. The department has exercised its discretion in regard to individual cases, and has given relief in certain instances. The granting of similar relief comprehensively is now under its consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.31 p.m.

page 1057

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Public Service: Salaries: Entrance Examinations

Mr Dennis:

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the fact that a further amount is to he deducted from the salaries of civil servants as from the 1st July next, on costofliving figures, whether the time has arrived when these reductions should cease, at any rate in the salaries of the lower-paid officers?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The matter of adjustment of Service salaries as from the 1st July, 1933, following variation in cost of living, is bound up with action under the Financial Emergency Act. The Government will consider the whole question in connexion with its budget proposals.

On the 6th April, the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Baker) asked the following’ questions, upon notice: -

  1. Have examinations been held during the past five years in any States of the Commonwealth for admission to any section of the Commonwealth Public Service?
  2. If so, what examinations have been held, when were they held, and in what States?
  3. Is it intended that any such examinations shall be held in the near future?

The following reply has been furnished by the Public Service Board of Commissioners: -

  1. Yes.
  1. The position is not yet sufficiently clear to enable any definite opinion to be expressed as to resumption of examinations generally. An examination for Telegraph Messenger in Perth, Western Australia and for Typist in Melbourne and Canberra will be held shortly; otherwise the’ staff conditions are such as not to call for additions to the Service in other positions at present.

Silver Coinage

Dr Maloney:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the proportion of pure silver in English silver coinage?
  2. What is the proportion of pure silver in Australian silver coinage?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. Fifty per cent.
  2. Ninety-two point five per cent.
Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - Information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible to the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), with respect to the attitude adopted by the Bank of England towards British silver coins coming from Australia or New Zealand.

Census.

Mr.GeorgeLawson asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - 1.Is it the intention of the Government to employ only male employees on census work?

  1. If not, what will be the approximate number of females required?
  2. Will he state whether vacancies to be filled by females will be competitive; if so, will the Government extend the same facilities to applicants from Brisbane as those from Canberra and elsewhere?
  3. What salary will be paid to each female employee?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. No. A number of females, principally minors, will be employed in Canberra to operate punching machines.
  2. Forty.
  3. It is not intended to hold a competitive examination. All requirements can he met from applicants registered lor temporary employment in Canberra.
  4. Salary will range from £63 per annum at sixteen years of age, with higher rates according to age, subject to any cost-of-living variation which may be made in Service salaries.

Embargo on Russian Goods.

Mr Gander:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Does the Government intend to act upon the resolution of the United Australia Party Conference, agreed to with one dissentient vote, that an embargo be placed on Russian goods, or is it intended not to restrain trade in following the example of Great Britain in the recent gesture against Soviet Russia?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - The action of the Government in the United Kingdom was taken for a specific reason, namely, to protect in Russia British citizens of the United Kingdom, and it does not appear that any additional action by the Commonwealth of Australia is necessary.

Exportsof Fruits and Vegetables

Mr A GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

en asked the Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

What has been the quantity and value of (a) dried and preserved fruits, (6) dried and preserved vegetables, (c) canned fruits, and (d) canned vegetables, exported from Australia (as distinct from “British countries”) to British Malaya, for the year ended the 31st December, 1932?

Mr.Stewart. - The information desired by the honorable member is not available for the year 1932. The following figures give the particulars in respect of the year ended the 30th June, 1932, the latest year in regard to which statistics have been published : -

Cotton Bounty.

Mr Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

n asked the Minister for

Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Will he lay on the table of the House all papers and reports relating to claims under the Cotton Bounty Act by Bond’s Industries Limited?
  2. Asregulations to assist in the investigation into payment of cotton bounties were passed as long ago as the 30th . June, 1932, will the Minister say how long the report or reports of such investigation made by public accountants of Sydney and a Trade and Customs Department accountant have been in the hands of the Trade and Customs Department?
  3. Is it a fact that such report discloses that Bond’s Industries Limited have been overpaid bounty to the extent of many thousands of pounds ?
  4. Has the department refused to pay the claim for £26,000, shown in the balance-sheet of Bond’s Industries Limited of the 31st December, 1931, as being due to the company by the Commonwealth Government?
  5. Is it a fact that a claim for £45,000 has not been paid? 6. (a) When was the last payment of bounty made to Bond’s Industries Limited; (b) what period did such payment cover; (c) why have no subsequent payments been made for the period ended 30th June, 1932?
  6. Is it a fact that the company’s auditor certified the correctness of accounts presented to the Trade and Customs Department, which accounts were subsequently found to be incorrect?
  7. Is the company’s auditor identical with Mr. R. W. Nelson, recently appointed chairman of the Shale Oil Committee?
  8. Have all matters relating to claims under the Cotton Bounty Act and payments made to Bond’s Industries Limited been examined by the Auditor-General?
Mr White:
UAP

– The investigation referred to affects one section only of the varied business of Bond’s Industries Limited, namely, the cotton spinning section, and involves debatable questions of law,. accountancy and commercial practice. The situation is an involved one, and may possibly be the subject of litigation, and it is considered that it would be unwise and unfair to discuss or disclose any of the details at the present juncture.

Export ofgold.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On the 30th March, the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Did the Commonwealth Government receive an; premium on the £12,000,000 in gold exported between January, 1932, and March, 1933?
  2. If not, who received the premium, what was the rate per cent., and on what amount was it paid?

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

The excessof the market price of gold in Australia over mint par (referred to in the question as a premium) was received by the persons who owned and sold gold. The Commonwealth Government sold no gold and received no premium. The Commonwealth Bank received the premium on the gold sold by it. The amount of this premium must be applied as provided in the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1932, namely, it must be placed in aspecial reserve account and applied as the board determines for the purpose of stabilizing exchange and for the purposes of the Note Issue Department. In the case of gold recently acquired by the bank, the bank paid the fullprice and so gained nothing by way of premium.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 April 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1933/19330427_reps_13_138/>.