House of Representatives
26 October 1933
13th Parliament · 1st Session
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- PAPERS
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- ARNHEIM LAND EXPEDITION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- FINANCIAL RELIEF BILL 1933-
- PRIVILEGE
- QUESTION
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. H. Mackay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 3978
QUESTION
FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
Christmas Relief for Unemployed
Mr BLAKELEY:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES
– In view of the absence of full-time employment, will the Minister for the Interior have put in hand sufficient work to enable the unemployed in the Federal Capital Territory to procure some of the luxuries which those more fortunately placed are in a position to enjoy during the Christmas season ?
Mr PERKINS:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP
– Investigations along the lines suggested by the honorable member are being made by the Department of the’ Interior.
page 3978
QUESTION
STABILIZATION OF BUTTER MARKETING
Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP
– Has the Minister for Commerce been advised officially of the introduction by any State of legisla- - tion dealing with the stabilization of butter marketing? If he has, can he say whether the Commonwealth will introduce complementary legislation covering the whole field of butter production and marketing?
Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP
– Yesterday I re ceived from the Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales copies of a draft bill which the Government of that State proposes to introduce, and an intimation that the Governments of Queensland and Victoria also had introduced in their legislatures measures having a similar object. Incidentally, I was informed by him that the draft hill sent to me was not final, as it had yet to he reviewed. Until the States have definitely decided upon the nature of their legislation, and have given evidence of ability to pass it through -their legislatures, the Commonwealth Government can take no action in the matter.
Mr WATSON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
– A press paragraph yesterday referred to the Victorian bill’ in the following terms : -
The bill provides for the fixing of quotas for sale within the States and overseas, and making arrangements for adjustments within and between States where certain manufacturers or certain States obtain more than their share of local prices.
Has any government, even the Federal Government, constitutional power to legislate in such a way as to interfere with the free and untrammelled flow of trade between the States?
Mr STEWART:
– Under the Federal Constitution the Commonwealth Government has the power to regulate interstate and export transactions in any commodity. It is because that power is vested only in the Commonwealth thattrouble has recently arisen in connexion with certain State marketing boards.
page 3979
QUESTION
INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– It is reported in the Financial Times that at a conference that was held between the four major wheat exporting countries - Australia, the Argentine, Canada and the United States of America - with Russian delegates, the latter expressed dissatisfaction in regard to the effect of the International Wheat Agreement upon their country. Can the Minister for Commerce inform the House whether that report is correct? Has the Government received any communication from the representative of Australia in London ? If it has, will the honorable gentleman say what were the results of the negotiations?
Mr STEWART:
UAP
– I have no knowledge of the report in the Financial Times to which the honorable member has directed my attention, nor have I received from London an official intimation with respect to the matter.
Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister bo good enough to get in touch with the authorities in London with a view to ascertaining the results of the conference referred to, and to informing the House whether the negotiations have any bearing on the International Wheat Agreement?
Mr STEWART:
– I shall give consideration to the honorable member’s request.
page 3979
QUESTION
AMALGAMATED WIRELESS AUSTRALASIA LIMITED
Commonwealth Government’s Share of Profits - Payment for Patent Rights
Mr GIBSON:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA
– Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been drawn to the paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald which reads - “ The history of the wireless method of communication shows that the Commonwealth has received £150,000 as dividends from Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited? Can the honorable gentleman say how this amount is made up?
Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP
– The honorable member notified me of his intention to ask this question, and I have been able to look into the matter to some extent. I find that the total value of the dividends received by the Commonwealth from Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited since the commencement of the principal agreement in 1922, . and up to the 30th June, 1933, amounts to £152,0581s. 2d. The capital of the Commonwealth invested in the company now totals £350,000 14s., calls having been paid from time to time as required by the company ; consequently the average annual return on the investment over the whole period is equivalent to 5.4 per cent. It must.be borne in mind, however, that the Commonwealth had to raise this money by way of loan at different rates, of interest, and that has to be taken into account in considering the financial advantage or disadvantage of the investment. It will be clear that, at best, the financial benefit to the Commonwealth is negligible. The Government has paid to the company in respect of patent royalties, the sum of £296,625 7s. 2d. No expense was incurred by the company in the collection of that sum.. The Commonwealth has also subsidized the company for the working of coastal radio stations, to an amount of £358,154 0s. 9d.
Mr FENTON:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA
– Will the PostmasterGeneral state whether it is true that the Government has given notice to Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited of its intention to terminate the agreement under which a part of each- listening licence-fee is paid to the company?
Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
– The Government has given notice to Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Limited that it proposes to terminate the arrangement under which it has been paying 3s. out of every wireless licence-fee collected, as royalty on patent rights claimed by the company. The agreement requires a year’s notice to be given on either side of the intention’ to terminate it. That notice was given by the Government at the end of last February, and will take effect from the 1st March next. It is anticipated that “a saving of £70,000 a year will be effected, and this fact will be taken into consideration when fixing licence-fees for next year. Wo decision as to what the fee will be, however, can be reached until the saving has been actually effected.
page 3980
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION
Importation of British Guards Band
Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA
– Will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission has yet, come to a decision regarding the importation of the British Guards Band ? If it has not, will he receive representations from the Federated Australian Musicians Union on the matter?
Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP
– The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), and other honorable members, met me as a. deputation on this matter last Friday. I forwarded their representations to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has the exclusive handling of the matter; that is to say, whatever step is taken, will be taken by the commission. I have not yet had a reply from it. I shall request the commission to expedite its decision, and, ai the same time, draw special attention to the aspect raised by the honorable member.
page 3980
QUESTION
SHALE OIL DEVELOPMENT
Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP
– Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the present position regarding the bond of £5,000 entered into by Messrs. Treganowan and Chambers for the faithful discharge of their obligations in connexion with the development of the Newnes shale oil field?
Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP
– The Commonwealth Government did not desire to be unduly harsh with Messrs. Treganowan and Chambers, and consequently it waived its right to estreat the bond of £5,000 on condition that Mr. Treganowan entered into a new bond to invest an equivalent amount in a company to be formed for the exploitation of the shale oil deposits at Newnes and Capertee, New South Wales. That bond, to which the English, Scottish and Australian Bank Limited is a party, was entered into on the 31st January last.
Mr GARDNER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Can the Prime Minister say what is the position in connexion with the Baerami shale oil field and when it is expected that the development of that are,a will proceed?
Mr LYONS:
– The honorable member having intimated that he intended to ask this question I have been able to obtain the necessary information. A committee, known as the Newnes Investigation Committee, set up by the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales, is at present conducting investigations into the shale oil industry, with Newnes as the focal point. My colleague, Senator McLachlan, has informed me that it is anticipated that the report of the committee will he available early in December. If the report is favorable, both governments have undertaken to encourage the formation of a public company to carry out large-scale operations at Newnes. Further, the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales have undertaken, subject to the formation of such company, jointly to make available, by way of loan to the company, a sum of £80,000 on certain conditions, one of which is that the company will, without charge to the Commonwealth or to the State, report upon the possibilities of establishing the shale oil industry at Baerami, in New South Wales, at Latrobe, in Tasmania, and at other places upon which the Commonwealth or the State may require a report.
Mr SPEAKER:
– I draw attention to the growing practice of honorable members giving Ministers prior notice of questions to be asked without notice. That is not intended by the Standing
Orders. If an honorable member can inform a Minister that he intends to ask a question, he should place it on the noticepaper.
page 3981
QUESTION
SALES TAX REDUCTIONS AND REMISSIONS
Mr SCULLIN:
YARRA, VICTORIA
– Now that the Financial Relief Bill has been passed, will the Government expedite the reduction of the sales tax, as the delay in announcing reductions is holding up business and causing dismissals of employees in the wholesale and manufacturing trades?
Mr CASEY:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP
– I have just been informed that the Governor-General has given his assent to the Financial Relief Bill. The sales tax alterations are, therefore, now in operation, and will affect all sales made to-day.
Mr JENNINGS:
SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the sales tax remissions, which become effective from to-day, apply to special lines such as drugs and chemicals that are to form the subject of a special regulation?
Mr CASEY:
– Sales tax remissions as a whole will apply as from to-day. It is hoped that during this afternoon an announcement will be made giving, by more explicit definition,, the classes of articles covered by the omnibus item, “Surgical and chemical requisites”.
page 3981
PAPERS
The following papers were presented : -
Export Guarantee Act -Return showing assistance granted to 30th September, 1933.
River Murray Waters Act -River Murray Commission -Report for year 1932-33; together with Statements showing gaugings made at Gauging Stations, and quantities of water diverted from the River Murray and tributaries.
page 3981
QUESTION
DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY
Mr McCLELLAND:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA
-Is the Govern ment prepared to accede to the request of the Australian Dried Fruits Association that the scope of the dried fruits legislation be extended to include dried tree fruits?
Mr STEWART:
UAP
– In reply to previous questions, I have already stated that a decision in this matter has been held up pending consideration by the Government of its whole marketing policy.
page 3981
QUESTION
GOVERNMENT’S MARKETING POLICY
Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
– Can the Prime Minister inform the House when the Government is likely to come to a decision as to its marketing policy for our primary produce? Further, is the Government aware that its decision is a matter of grave importance to a number of industries which are now making arrangements for the marketing of the yield of the forthcoming harvest?
Mr LYONS:
UAP
– The matter is one which cannot be settled without the fullest consideration. The Minister for Commerce is handling the matter with a view to bringing it before Cabinet, but circumstances have arisen which have caused delay. For example the necessity for negotiations with the States regarding the butter problem has delayed the Government’s decision on the general question of marketing.
page 3981
ARNHEIM LAND EXPEDITION
Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY
– Has the attention of the Minister for the Interior been directed to the following report in yesterday’s Melbourne Age: -
ARNHEIM LAND EXPEDITION.
ToCost About £750.
Ministry Will. Contribute.
Canberra, Tuesday.
The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) received to-day an estimate that the cost of sending the special missionary expedition, arranged by the Church Missionary Society, to Arnheim Land would be £750. The expedition, which will consist of two missionaries and a wireless operator, has been arranged in the hope that unrest among the Caledon Bay aboriginal tribes and further loss of white life in Arnheim Land will be ended.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The honorable member may not read a long newspaper extract when asking a question.
Mr NELSON:
– Has the Minister’s, attention been directed to the following further report in the same newspaper: -
Brisbane, Tuesday.
The Rev. T. T. Webb, missionary in charge of the Crocodile Island Station, who passed through Brisbane to-day en route to Sydney and Melbourne, said that he had refused to join the expedition to Caledon Bay because it would have no permanent result.
Mr SPEAKER:
– T he honorable member should be aware that the object of asking questions without notice is to obtain, not to give, information. He may summarize a newspaper paragraph, and base a question on it, but he may notread long newspaper extracts.
Mr NELSON:
– Will the Minister inform the House - (1) What induced the Government to delegate to missionaries the functions of the Northern Territory police? (2) What is the amount of the Government’s quota of the expenditure on this futile mission? (3) Is it the intention of the Government to ignore the statement made by the Rev. T. T. Webb, the missionary in charge of the Crocodile Island mission?; and (&) Is it the intention of the Government to delegate to missionaries in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea the functions of the New Guinea police?
Mr PERKINS:
UAP
– Many suggestions have- been made to the Government regarding what action it should take. Mr. Brown, Secretary to the Department of the Interior, recently spent some weeks in Darwin, and while he was there, I asked him to study the situation, and advise what action should be taken. He replied that, in his opinion, the wisest policy would be to accept the offer of the missions. Subsequently, I interviewed those in control of the missions, and having inquired regarding the personnel of the expedition it was proposed to send, I have reason to believe that the enterprise will be successful. I was in telephone communication with Mr. Brown when he was in Brisbane on his way back, and he told me that he saw no reason for altering the opinion lie had formed when ‘he was in Darwin.
Mr NELSON:
– Did Mr. Brown form his opinion regarding the advisability of sending a peace mission after he had consulted with the police authorities in the Northern Territory?
Mr PERKINS:
– I cannot say how he arrived at his decision. I told him to take a little time to make up his .mind on the matter, and then to let mc know what he thought it would be best to do. The Government was being pressed by one section to send an armed expedition, and by another to send a force of police, and by still another to send a peace mission. Mr. Brown was told to make exhaustive inquiries, which he did, and the Government is now following the advice he tendered.
page 3982
QUESTION
AUSTRALIAN DEBT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mr WARD:
– Has the Government received any protest to the effect that Australia refused to pay in gold, or the equivalent of gold, on the coupon due on the 1st May hist upon the 4^ per centNew York loan, thus failing to keep faith with the terms of issue? Has the Government any knowledge of representations made to the British ‘Chancellor of the Exchequer to have Australian securities removed from the list of those suitable for investment under the Trustee Act?
Mr CASEY:
UAP
– The Commonwealth Government, in paying the interest due on this loan, obeyed the American law. In this respect, it is in the same position as those paying interest on ordinary securities held in the United States of America.
page 3982
QUESTION
COTTON YARN
Mr RILEY:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES
– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs state whether the Tariff Board report on cotton yarn has yet been received ?
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · UAP
– The inquiry was a most comprehensive one, and the delay has been due to the necessity for obtaining evidence from cotton spinners in Great Britain. The board has just recently completed its investigations, and though the report has not yet come to hand, I expect to receive it very shortly.
page 3982
FINANCIAL RELIEF BILL 1933-
Assent reported.
page 3982
PRIVILEGE
Sydney “ Sun “ : Comments on Parliamentary Allowance Decision.
Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay
– On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to the slanderous attack which has been made by a section of the press on the members of the Commonwealth Parliament regarding their action in voting themselves a partial restoration of the deductions which they themselves had previously made from their parliamentary allowance. Every member of this Parliament should regard such attacks as this as a personal insult, and as an unwarranted reflection upon Parliament. The integrity of honorable members has been attacked in newspaper articles in a way which is wholly unjustified and uncalled for. In an article which appeared in the Sydney Sun on Friday, the 20th October, this attack was launched, apparently in an endeavour to fix in the minds of the public a wrong conception of the steps taken by the members of this Parliament to restore in pant the deduction which had been made from their parliamentary allowance. But I now wish to mention in particular the Sunday Sun of last Sunday, the 22nd October, in which appeared an article that I cannot allow to pass without condemnation. I am not actuated by any desire to cause personal harm or financial injury to the writer of the article, but in the interests of honorable members, aye, of Parliament itself, it is essential that this challenge to the integrity of honorable members should be taken up; because if honorable members were guilty of the malpractices which are alleged against them they would not be worthy of places in this great legislative chamber. This poisonous screed would mislead the public into the belief that Parliament is a place of corruption, filled with degraded persons. Most honorable members have wives and children, the minds of whose friends might be influenced by the statements which . appear in the press. If such inaccurate and unjustifiable statements were allowed to pass unchallenged, our families would suffer mental torture and their friends would have cause to shun them. The article to which I refer in particular is headed -
The salary grab came as a thief in the night. and portion of its scurrilous contents reads -
But why did they creep together at midnight to arrange their salary grab in the furtive fashion of sneak*? “Cometh as a thief in the night “. . . , the midnight meeting of private members of the Federal Parliament, to jockey the public for a £75 rise in their salaries, by a swift and shameless parliamentary vote next day.
Then there follows: -
Was there no way of showing the public their honest claim, that they must organize their dip into the public purse with the celerity and secrecy of a pickpocket?
This may serve to make the act of rapacity seem more cowardly, but not less contemptible.
As a member of this Parliament, I object strongly to the abusive and objectionable language that is used in that article.
Mr SPEAKER:
– At this stage I must ask the honorable member whether he intends to fulfil the requirements of Standing Order 285, which provides that -
Any member complaining to the House of a statement in a newspaper as a breach of privilege, shall produce a copy of the paper containing the statement in question, and be prepared to give the name of the printer or publisher, and also submit a substantive motion declaring the person in question to have been guilty of contempt.
Mr BERNARD CORSER:
– I produce a copy of the newspaper containing the statement to which I refer, and I propose to conclude my speech by submitting a substantive motion which will fulfil the requirements of that Standing Order. It is unfair and quite improper to say that honorable members acted unjustly in restoring to themselves portion of the reduction they had previously suffered in their parliamentary allowances. Furthermore, it is absolutely untrue to say that private members of the Federal Parliament jockeyed the public purse when they made that restoration ; or that they did it by a swift and shameless vote at a midnight meeting. The claim that action was taken in secrecy, like that of pick-pockets, is almost too contemptible to merit a reference; but, unfortunately, those who read articles such as this, in what we all hoped were reputable journals, are naturally induced by such misstatements to look disparagingly upon honorable members. These mis-statements generate ill-feeling among those whom we class as friends, and serve to bring the parliamentary institution into disrepute. The discussion on members’ allowances took place when the sun had risen high above the horizon, when the press representatives were in the gallery, and
Hansard reporters were in. their place to put upon record whatever action was decided upon.
How could honorable members have partially restored their salaries other than by stating their case openly in Parliament, voting upon the matter and having their opinions recorded in. the journals of Parliament ? The step taken could not have been taken more openly, nor in a more honorable way. Are we not the same members of Parliament who reduced our own allowances by 25 per cent.? When the nation was found to be in difficulty, every honorable member in this chamber voted for that reduction. The right to fix the salaries of members was conferred upon the Parliament by the Constitution. When, last year, it was proposed to make a further cut in the salaries of public servants, and the allowances of members of Parliament, I opposed any reduction of public servants’ salaries, but voted for a further reduction of the allowance to honorable members. In the circumstances, not one member of Parliament merits these slanderous statements. We voluntarily subjected ourselves to a 25 per cent, reduction of our allowances, and not like sneak-thieve3 or pick-pockets. But what was the action of the Sydney Sun about the same time? Australia was in the throes of a depression, yet the company owning that newspaper increased the price of the journal by 50 per cent. Against whom, then, should these despicable statements be directed? The average number of persons in a Queensland electorate is 54,000. The restoration that has been made to its representative works out at -Jd. per annum for each elector, whereas the Sydney Sun proprietors increased the price of their journal by 50 per cent. In other words, the extra charge which has to be borne by the unfortunate workers, who have had their basic wage reduced is Id. a day for six days a week.
Every reasonable man in Australia will approve of the honesty of the action of honorable members in effecting a partial salary restoration, but it is necessary to disabuse the minds of all in connexion with these poisonous declarations by an unscrupulous press. If the people who read the headlines and article that appeared in the Sunday Sun would also read the truth as. it appears in Hansard they would then learn exactly what their representatives said and did, and would have dispelled from their minds any bias that may have been created through reading the newspaper report. They should also learn that, by this small restoration of salaries, their representatives had added to the cost of the Parliament an amount equivalent to only 1/3 d. a year for each elector. Parliament has in the last twelve months taken nothing from the people, but has remitted taxes to the general electors to the value of not less than f S,000,000. The small amount that will now be restored to members is merely in accord with the partial restoration made to public servants. Honorable members last year reduced their allowance by a further £50 and Public Service salaries were reduced by a cost of living adjustment; that amount has now been restored in each case with the addition of only 2-J per cent, of the reduction imposed under the financial emergency legislation. Nothing could be fairer than the method by which this was done. The statement that we are sneaks is unwarranted. Had we been sneaks we should not have openly ventilated this subject in this House. Had we done what has been done in any way different from the way in which it was done we should not have been worthy to continue as representatives of the people. The statement that we are thieves and pickpockets is beyond contempt were it not so damaging to the good name of the National Parliament of this young nation. Thieves and pickpockets would not have remitted £S,000,000 in taxation. I have no desire to attack any ,nam ber of the press; but I feel it necessary to defend myself as a member of the Parliament, and to defend Parliament generally. I shall not urge that anything be done to the press to satisfy my own feelings of resentment nor have I any desire to cause financial loss or personal degradation to any member of the press ; to do so, would neither satisfy my conscience nor remedy the barm that has been done, but I believe that as the integrity and honour of Parliament and of its members are at stake, it is necessary that
Parliament should express its entire repudiation of the statements of which I have complained. I greatly regret that a leading journal of Australia should have seen fit to misguide its readers a3 the Sunday Sun did in its issue of last Sunday. I therefore move -
That the comments appearing in the Sunday Sun newspaper of the 22nd October, 1933, printed and published in Sydney for the proprietors by the Sun Newspapers Limited, concerning the partial restoration of the parliamentary allowance to members of the Commonwealth Parliament are mischievous and malicious, and constitute a grave and unscrupulous attack upon the honour of the Parliament and its members. The House therefore declares the printer and publishers of the Sunday Hun newspaper to be guilty of contempt.
Mr SPEAKER:
– The Standing Orders require the honorable member to produce with his motion a copy of the newspaper containing the statements objected to, and also to name the printer and publisher of that newspaper.
Mr BERNARD CORSER:
– I produce a copy of the Sunday Sun newspaper in accordance with Standing Order 285. I understand that it is required by the law that the names of the printer and publisher shall be stated in ea-ch copy of a newspaper. I do not know whether the law has been contravened in this case, but the names of the printer and publisher do not appear in this journal, nor does the name of the editor of it, I have ascertained from other sources that the name of the editor is Frederic Eherenberg Baume.
Mr BAKER:
Oxley
.- I second the motion; but reserve my speech until later in the debate.
Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP
– I sincerely regret that it has been necessary for the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) to move this motion; but I associate both the Government and myself with it, I congratulate the honorable member upon the calm, dispassionate and restrained manner in which he has dealt with the subject, and upon the ability with which he has defended the honour and integrity of Parliament. I also associate myself with his refutation of the charges that have been levelled against members of Parliament by this newspaper and some other newspapers, which have published articles on similar lines. I do not desire- to cover the ground which the honorable member has so admirably traversed. I feel that honorable members on both sides of the House, whether they supported or opposed the proposal for a partial restoration of salaries of members of Parliament, would all associate themselves with the dignified attitude of the honorable member. I cannot conceive of anything that could do more harm to this country or to its prospects of recovery from the depression through which it is now passing than the destruction of the confidence of the people in the representatives they have sent to the National Parliament. Any suspicion engendered in the minds of the people, not as to the policy advocated by members of Parliament, but as to their personal integrity, would retard to a greater extent than anything else the steps that have been taken in this country to restore prosperity to it. Destruction of confidence in tho integrity of honorable members would be more harmful than any possible increase of parliamentary salaries.
The honorable member has rightly emphasized that there was only one honest means by which this Parliament could deal with the subject of salaries. That means was adopted openly and publicly before the people. Barnard has reported every word that was uttered by honorable members in the debate on the salaries proposal, and representatives of the press of Australia looked on. It has been suggested that something happened secretly in the night time. That is entirely untrue. The business relating to the salaries of honorable members came up for discussion after 9 a.m., and the decision was reached about midday. How nearer we could have got to sunlight and daylight I do not know. I believe that on this occasion a greater proportion of honorable members expressed their opinion on the salaries subject than on any other occasion when it has been discussed. A large number of members spoke in turn, and a substantial majority of them not only expressed their views, but also recorded their votes. Everything was done openly. I do not deny that honorable members approached me on the matter. They had a right to approach me as head of the Government, and point out that only one section of the community had been left out of the budget proposals for a partial restoration of the reductions made under the Financial Emergency Act. Honorable members were not alone in such representations to me. Taxpayers from all parts of Australia have done the same thing. Representatives of the public servants, the pensioners, and every section of the community have approached me, and I do not know that I am to be condemned for having listened to them. As a matter of fact, the representatives of a section of the taxpayers directly claiming to represent those who were responsible for the collection of sales tax, and the transmission of it to the Treasury, approached me in Melbourne, ‘ not in the secrecy of the night, but at the only time at my disposal, a Sunday afternoon. Are they and I to be condemned or charged with having indulged in secret doings because I arranged to see them on a Sunday, when they had no other opportunity to see me, and without the presence of the press? Every section of the community affected by taxation, salaries or pensions, had the right to make representations to me, not personally, but as the head of the Government. That is all that happened in connexion with this subject. It has been suggested that pressure was exerted, and that I gave way under it. No pressure was exerted; I was a free agent from beginning to end. I did what I believed was right, because I considered that the members of this Parliament, in common with all other sections of the community, were entitled to a partial restoration of the reductions that they had previously imposed upon themselves. I was just as ready to grant a partial restoration of salaries as I was to make reductions when I thought they were necessary. Indeed, I was the first to propose a reduction of members’ allow’ances. In the absence of the then Prime Minister and Treasurer (Mr. Scullin), it was my responsibility to deal with this matter. In view of the financial drift, it was necessary to make proposals for the cutting down of expenditure, and the first proposal which I submitted to the party was for a reduction of members’ allowances. That proposal was given effect in the form of a special income tax. It was, I think, in November of 1930 when the proposition was made, and it was dealt with by this Parliament in December, long before the Premiers plan was put into operation. The salaries of private members were reduced by 10 per cent., and that of Ministers by 15 per cent. That reduction was proposed by me, and I have nothing to regret. When circumstances changed, I had no hesitation in recommending -to this Parliament a partial restoration of the reductions suffered by various sections of the community, because it was necessary to lighten some of the burden that we had asked them to carry. ,1 have nothing to regret, and nothing to apologize for in respect of that action. In this House, in full daylight, I proposed a partial restoration of parliamentary allowances after honorable members had expressed their views upon it.
Mr Gabb:
– Why was not the proposal included in the budget?
Mr LYONS:
– For the reason that the Government felt that this was a matter for decision by Parliament. The budget includes the policy of the Government for the particular year to which it refers, and upon it the Government stands or falls. We would not agree to this House reversing that policy unless it were prepared to take the responsibility of its action; but the matter of members’ allowances is not a question of policy. This is the only tribunal that is able to fix the salaries of honorable members, and therefore the question of Government policy is not involved. It is a matter for this House and the Senate to decide, and because of that the Government did not include the proposal in the budgetThen again it has been suggested that, because a message was immediately brought down from His Excellency the Governor-General to enable this House to deal with the proposal to make a partial restoration of honorable members’ salaries, something in the nature of connivance or scheming had been resorted to. That is an entire misrepresentation, and is no more true than the statement of one section of the press - I do not know which - to the effect that the GovernorGeneral, while at Echuca, was communicated with by telephone at 3 a.m.
Mr Scullin:
– That statement was repeated in the Senate last night.
Mr LYONS:
– No such thing happened, because it was quite unnecessary. The question of messages is intricate and involved, and on all occasions is left to the responsibility of the Treasury officials. These officers, after consultation with the officers of the House and of the Crown Law Department, decide what messages are required. When the Financial Relief Bill was brought down no message was provided, but, on further consideration, the Treasury officials decided that one was necessary, and, later, just before the committee stage, a message was brought down and dealt with by this House. That message was brought down, not at my request, nor at the request of the Assistant Treasurer. At the same time the Treasury officials decided to bring down another message to cover the contingency of an amendment, to increase the appropriation being moved in committee. That was done without my knowledge, but in accordance with ordinary practice. I make that clear so that there can be no doubt in the minds of honorable members why a message happened to be ready immediately it was required. That indicates clearly that the story about the telephone conversation with the GovernorGeneral had absolutely no foundation. Honorable members have been very reasonable in respect of the reductions of their salaries. In 1930, the parliamentary allowances were reduced by £100, in 1931 by another £100, and in 1932 by £50, making a total reduction of £250. This Parliament voluntarily reduced the salaries of honorable members three times in succession. The honorable member for Wide Bay. (Mr. Corser) indicated the extent to which the reductions made with respect to public servants and pensioners have been restored; but when taxes were reduced last year honorable members did not restore any portion of their allowance, or ask that they should participate in the relief then granted. The remissions of taxation this year, and the concessions to public servants and pensioners on an annual basis aggregate £9,000,000. This Parliament has made that relief possible, but because it has been resolved to restore a little over £9,000 to members who have done this job, and loyally served the people through a very difficult period, abuse is hurled at us. Within the last few days, Cabinet decided that the great achievements df Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, and his services to Australia and aviation generally, should be recognized. We feel that such a grant is entirely justified, and has been well earned. The section of the press that has criticized our action so severely has applauded that decision, and if the amount were three times greater it would have done the same. If we are justified in granting that sum to a distinguished aviator surely it is not improper to restore a mere £9,000 to 112 members who have saved this country, and brought about national recovery to au extent not achieved by any other Parliament. The section of the press which has criticized us for this action has at times applauded this Parliament; I appreciate such help as it has given to me personally and to the Parliament, and all that we now ask is that some small recognition be given to our efforts. However great may bc the achievements of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith, this Parliament has done more for Australia and the Empire than could possibly be dene by any individual. I regret that such aspersions have been cast upon honorable members. They will not do good to any one - not to the critics, and certainly not to the Parliament or the Australian people. The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) submitted the motion in a dignified manner, and all that he asks is that the newspaper concerned shall recognize that it has been unfair. I trust that those in control of the various journals will realize that they have done an injustice to the members of this Parliament, and will, in the interests of Australia, and for the sake of the credit of parliamentary institutions generally, endeavour to undo the damage that they have done.
Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra
.- I associate the party which I have tie honour to lead in this House with the motion moved by the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser). I commend him for taking action to vindicate members of this Parliament from the scandalous attacks made upon them by a section of the public press. . Usually I disregard newspaper attacks. When I was Prime
Minister - and I think this will be admitted by my worst political enemy - 1 was carrying an exceptionally heavy load of responsibility. Some newspapers were helpful, but in the main the press was not; and rather than allow myself to be worried into a premature grave by journalistic critics I adopted the expedient, after six months of office, of declining to read leading articles published in those newspapers. Had I not done so I should have broken down long before I was relieved of the responsibility of office. Since then, I have more or less followed that course. Therefore, my withers are unwrung by the cheap criticisms and mean attacks that are made by newspapers upon members of this Parliament. I believe that a great service has been rendered to the people of Australia by the mover of this motion. We should let the press and,th( people of Australia know that we are not always going to be stunned into silence by the criticism of persons who, sitting behind closed doors, write anonymously about members of Parliament. I have met people who have chuckled over the criticisms of Parliament, but who when they too suffered at the hands of the press, wailed the loudest. As one who passed through trying experiences as head of the Government in difficult times, I say that there are certain stunt newspapers in Australia which are a national menace. For a news “ scoop “ some of these journals would wreck the nation, and I have had occasion to tell those controlling them of the injury they were doing to the country at a most critical period. On one occasion when a mischievous individual started trouble amongst the seamen und we were on the eve of a great industrial conflagration on the waterfront, I made a declaration in this House of the action the Government was taking in an endeavour to maintain the transport services. Two days later a journal closely associated with the one that is particularly under notice to-day, demanded to know what I was doing in the matter. For days I was attacked and vilified because I was not having some one arrested and put in gaol. At that time I was working from twelve to sixteen hours a day, and often after midnight I was in telephonic communication with the parties and others. In two weeks the dispute was settled in a constitutional way, but while the disturbance was in progress, I was not able to say a word as to what I was doing, although I was in close touch with a judge of the Arbitration Court, and with representatives of the ship-owners and of the men. I know that other Prime Ministers have had to suffer similar vilification. The Government may be in consultation with the representatives of Great Britain and of foreign countries, but however delicate the negotiations there are certain stunt newspapers which always wish to “ blow the gaff “, and reveal to the public their versions, very often untrue, of what is happening. I am very glad to have the opportunity to express my view3 upon this class of stunt journalism, which, unfortunately, is developing in this country, and in other parts of the world, and ‘ is without regard for the national honour, integrity, or welfare. My criticism applies not to all newspapers, but only to those that revel in stunt journalism. To-day the Sydney Sun ha3 given us a sample of this class of activity that is a menace to the country and a degradation to journalism. Parliament is very slow to resent attacks. Individual members occasionally take exception to press criticisms, but rarely do they voice their protests in this House. Because the parliamentary machine is slow to move, the motion before us has greater significance. The National Parliament does not move without cause. There must be serious national reasons before it acts, and I would not support this motion if it were frivolous and unnecessary; but it goes deep down to the roots of our democratic institutions. The limit of newspaper unfairness has been reached in the slanders that have been published concerning the action of the members of this Parliament in restoring to themselves £’75 of the £250 cut which they voluntarily made in their own allowances. Throughout the world to-day the parliamentary institution is being undermined. It is disappearing from many countries, and no influence is contributing more to its destruction, and to the death of democracy, than the stunt, journalism to which I have referred. Members of Parliament are made the target of cheap sneers “and alleged witticisms written from the press gallery; personal attacks are directed upon them so that they may be made to appear cheap in the eyes of the people. Nothing else so weakens the parliamentary institution. I say quite seriously, and not vindictively, to those controlling groups of newspapers, with their large aggregations of capital, that they should beware of what will happen to their interests in this country when the democratic parliamentary institution has -been destroyed. The only alternative to a democratically elected parliament is anarchy or a dictatorship; the country will go one way or the other, and whichever happens the newspaper capitalists will suffer most. Influences are at work throughout the world that are only too ready to destroy the parliamentary machine, and they are to be found in the different “isms” among various sections of the community. If those newspapers would *pause to consider what a disservice they render, even to themselves, they would be well advised to stop this clamour against members of Parliament and parliamentary institutions in general. It i3 unfortunate that, in this ace, n journal can obtain a wide circulation by slanderous abuse of public men, and attract readers who lap up these lies as they do the more unsavoury news that is published in the press. ‘Parliamentarians have been described as thieves, sneaks and pickpockets. Every statement made by the press about midnight meetings is based on untruths supplied from some source. A section of the press founds its criticisms upon untruths and promulgates them with venom. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion with regard to this Parliament which degrades .political life. The Federal Parliament of Australia has been conspicuously free from corruption during the 30 odd years of its existence, irrespective of what government has been in office, and the newspapers have had no warrant for their abuse and vilification of it. The story of midnight meetings is fictitious. I have no knowledge of a midnight meeting. At no meeting of the Labour party was the subject of increasing the allowance discussed, even for a minute. It is true that members privately expressed to each other dissatisfaction because they feared that no restoration would be made of the money that had been taken from them, and, in my opinion, wrongly taken, under the last cut after the budget had been balanced. But, beyond that, -not a word was said at any meeting of the party which I lead. Certainly neither a midnight meeting nor even a daylight meeting took place to consider this matter. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) pointed out, the proposal was mooted in this chamber at 9.30 a.m., and disposed of at 12.30 p.m. in broad daylight,
One criticism, is that members may be entitled to an increase of their allowance, but they have no right to give it to themselves. Who else is to make this restoration? If this Parliament had not interfered with the allowances of members, they would still have been receiving £1,000 per annum. Nobody else could have reduced the amount. Even with, the restoration that has been made, we shall draw less in the life of this Parliament than we should have received if we had allowed the salaries to stand at the amount obtaining when we were returned at the last general election. That is the answer to those” who say that we have gone behind the backs of the people. We cut our salaries three times - in 1930, 1931, and 1932. Members of my party voted for the full restoration of Public Service salaries, pensions, maternity allowances, and superannuation - for full and complete restoration to all sections that suffered a reduction under the Premiers plan and the financial emergency legislation. But we voted for only a very small, partial restoration of our own salaries. - I repeat, we shall draw less in the aggregate during the life of this Parliament than we should have received if we had left the salary as it was when we wore elected in 1931.
What is the justification offered for this attack by the newspapers? It is said by these journals that the restoration is unwarranted because of the state of the finances ; but is there any sincerity in that argument? The cost of the restoration represents a very small sum in comparison with the £7,500,000 of taxes that has been remitted. The 112 members of this Parliament are to receive partial restoration amounting to a little over £9,000 a year, but 700 persons in Australia are receiving, under the budget proposals, in remissions of income tax alone. £500,000. “We are expected to believe that the distribution of an extra £9,000 among 112 members .of Parliament will threaten the financial position of Australia. The remission of taxes to the amount of £500,000 to 700 individuals is applauded by the newspapers as a commendable act, and among those 700 persons are to be found the. most bitter critics of the members of this Parliament. If the finances of the country are in such a condition that £9,000 cannot be spared, we ought to review the decision to remit taxes amounting to £500,000 to 700 persons, whose individual salaries average over £5,200 a year. Each of them is to be relieved of tax to the extent of over £750, and yet they condemn this Parliament because we have restored a paltry £75 a year to each of those who are doing the legislative work of the Common- wealth.
On a previous occasion I protested in this House about the action of a certain journal, and I merely recall it now for the purpose of emphasizing my remarks. About two years ago an attack was made by the Sydney Bulletin upon a representative of His Majesty the. King, the State Governor of New South “Wales. That journal published a full-page cartoon, representing the State Governor as Judas. I protested in this House at the time, but no action was taken in the matter. I did not press for action, and I regret that I omitted to do so. We allow too many attacks of - this kind to pass unheeded until the almighty newspapers have the idea that we squirm under their criticism, but are afraid to defend ourselves. That day has gone by, for me at all events. I should not have concerned myself over this matter to-day were I not convinced that this persistent and grossly unfair criticism will create about the parliamentary institution an aura of suspicion, and destroy faith in the people’s elect. This class of journal holds up to opprobrium both the representative of the King and the representatives of the people. If we allow these press strictures to pass unnoticed, irresponsible newspaper critics will think that they can, with impunity, say what they please about us, and that they have the whip-hand because they can suppress even reports of discus-“ sions in this House. Yesterday the secretary of the Labour party issued to the press a brief and reasoned statement of the case for the restoration of parliamentary allowances. Up to date it has not been published in full by one newspaper that I have received. Some have published short paragraphs from it, and I understand that one newspaper complained that it contained offensive references to the press! These are the words to which exception was taken : - “ the press created hysteria regarding members’ salaries ;” “ wild hysterical outcry which has its genesis in the newspaper offices.” Those are the offensive references! How thin-skinned are the newspapers when they are criticized; how regardless are they of the personal or public feelings of members of this Parliament. Newspapers have advanced the plea that their criticism of the action of Parliament with respect to members’ allowances was published in the public interest. My answer to that is that if a newspaper feels called upon to criticize Parliament, it should do it decently, and in a manly way, and not refer to members as sneak thieves and pickpockets. If they criticize Parliament decently and fairly there will be no protest from me. Instead of doing this, these stunt newspapers ponder to the lowest instincts of the people by indulging in the worst forms of sensationalism, in order to attract readers and increase their sales. But despite these attempts to destroy the prestige of Parliament, members can continue to live in the fierce light of publicity which beats upon them, and yet eventually go out of public life, and pas; to the great beyond with their reputations untarnished.
Dr EARLE PAGE:
Cowper
.- I support the motion submitted by the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), and supported by the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin). I regret very much the necessity for action of this sort. Had the motion been moved by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, it would have had unani- mous support. I take strong exception to the terms in which this Parliament has been criticized by the newspaper in question. There is no justification whatever for the language employed. If similar terms were directed to members individually they would, undoubtedly, be libellous, and action could be taken in respect of them ; but since the criticism has been levelled at members collectively, it is not possible to do that. As to the reason for the criticism, I remind those critics outside who object to a partial restoration of parliamentary allowances that the members who support this proposal are definitely responsible to their constituents. .It has always seemed extraordinary to me that, as soon as a man joins the ranks of politicians, it matters not how good may have been his reputation as a private citizen, his character, in the eyes of the press, by some mysterious process is changed, and he becomes a target for the most hostile and very often unjustifiable criticism. I speak in this way because I have reason to know. Recently, for nearly twelve months, I laid aside my mantle as a politician, and I was astounded to find, when I was mixing again with my fellow men, as a private citizen, ‘ that my original character, which, I hope, is not one of which I need be ashamed, was more or less restored to me. My experience. I suggest, discloses the insincerity of these continuous attacks that are made upon the integrity of politicians. In the case of this Parliament, these attacks are unwarranted, because it has been conspicuously free of those scandals which are sometimes associated with parliaments in other countries. Since the inception of federation there has been scarcely a breath of suspicion against members of this Parliament. Its record i3, 1 sincerely believe, absolutely clean. This is a point which should be taken into consideration by newspaper and other critics before applying to it such opprobrious terms as. have been used lately by a section of the press. As is known to honorable members, I personally opposed an increase of the parliamentary allowances at the present time: but I do not suggest that those honorable members who think otherwise are not honest in their opinions. I believe that, if action had not been taken to restore partially the deductions made from members’ salaries, this Parliament could the more profitably and more ably lead public opinion towards the solving of the many difficult problems with which we are faced. But the mere fact that I hold this view does not imply that there is anything wrong with the moral character of those members who consider that a restoration should be made. They are entitled to their opinion, and possibly can advance as good reasons for it as T can for holding an. opposite belief. I should add, in this connexion, that, as it is not generally recognized that members representing the more distant States are forced to live away from their homes, they are obliged to make heavy domestic and other sacrifices in the discharge of their public duties. But members know all this, and know also that, if they secure election, they will become the target for public criticism, and be shot at by all and sundry. Very few members would complain of fair criticism. What we all object to is unfair and untruthful strictures such as those to which we have been subjected lately in a section of the press. The majority of the members of the party which I have the honour to lead have taken up a certain attitude with regard to the restoration of parliamentary allowances; but that, I repeat, does not mean that other members who hold the contrary view are moral degenerates, as has been suggested by some press critics. -Every member is entitled to his opinion on this subject. In this chamber he has an opportunity to express it, and, ultimately, he will be judged by his electors. I consider the recent press criticism quite unjustified ;, I am glad that a protest is being made, but, as I have already said, I should have preferred that the motion which has been made by a private member had been proposed by the Prime Minister.
Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney
– I approach, the subject of this motion from an angle somewhat different from that from which it has been viewed by previous speakers. I appreciate all that they have said, and I agree that the newspapers in this country have good reason to be thankful for the privileges and concessions given to them by this Parliament, especially the remissions of taxation under the Financial Relief Bill. Yesterday we were told that the various concessions given to newspapers by the Commonwealth Legislature amounted to over £500,000 a year. That being so, it is not unfair to suggest that the gentlemen associated with this class of business owe some measure of their prosperity to concessions obtained from this Parliament. But there is another angle from which we could discuss this motion, namely, the effect of recent press criticism on the dignity of Parliament, and the part which this same press has played in the past in maintaining . the dignity of the homes of the working people. That is just as important as any other consideration to all of us. The article complained of contains a pitiful wail concerning the lot of the poor basic wageearner, particularly in the State -of New South Wales. Yet this same newspaper did not publish a single protest regarding the reduction of 14s. a week that the same basic wage-earner had suffered prior to the last 2s. reduction ; on the contrary, it endorsed that reduction, in the language of the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) its professed regard for the basic wage-earner is “mere piffle “. The basic wage-earner appreciates this fact; therefore there is no need for me to elaborate it.
It is, I think, fit and proper to draw attention to the morals of these gentlemen of the associated press, who, by describing honorable members as thieves, robbers and pick-pockets, convey the inference that it is not only their duty, but also their policy to guard the morals of the people of Australia. I am confident that my actions in both private and public life will bear much closer examination than will theirs. The power that it wields enables the press to sway public opinion in whatever direction it chooses, and to withhold such information as will suit its” purposes. Its actions in many respects are more nefarious than are those of thieves. There are many men in our gaols to-day who, according to accepted standards of decency, are less deserving of condemnation than are those who have been responsible for many of the things that may be laid to the account of the Associated Press. These men conduct . their nefarious operations, not necessarily in the dark hours of the night, or the early morning, but in the full light of day; and they are in a position to prevent their doings from coming to the knowledge of the people, because they control the only means by which the people can be informed. The unmasking of some of these men would prove most interesting and illuminative, and I am certain that they would meet with general condemnation.
The latest attack by the newspapers is merely a repetition of the attempts that for years have been, made to discredit and misrepresent me and those who are associated with me. In a measure we have become accustomed to it. Almost everything that we have done in the political life of Australia has been misrepresented by these very same people. Our motives have always been impugned, and our actions given an ulterior purpose. We have never been credited- with the wish to advance the well-being of Australia and its people. I mention that fact particularly for the benefit of honorable members who sit, on the Government side of the House. This incident, I am sure, has brought home to them a more definite realization of what other men in this country have suffered over a long period, and in consequence they may now be more inclined to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward us in the future than they have adopted in the past. This slanderous policy of misrepresentation has continued unchecked for many years. I felt somewhat contemptuous towards the whole business, and was disposed to remain silent; but as all parties are. involved, I considered it advisable to define our attitude, so that the people generally may know exactly where we stand. . Those who control the press have no concern for the dignity of the home, which is more important than even the dignity of this Parliament, and they never fail to decry all our efforts to make the lot of the people what, we believe it ought to be. I ask the people to regard the slanderous misrepresentation of members of Parliament during the last few days as a sample of the methods that have always been employed by the Associated Press, and in the future, to judge us more tolerantly.
Mr GABB:
Angas
.- It is not my purpose to defend the press; it can well defend itself. I have suffered too much from the press to be inclined to advocate its cause. My parliamentary experience has been such, however, that I am thankful that we have a watchful press. I hold no brief for the Sunday Sun, and have not read the article complained of. An unfair press would deserve to be censured ; but one that honestly criticizes the doings of Parliament renders good services to the people of Australia.
I have listened to-day to statements extolling the integrity of Parliament. I claim that the maintenance of the integrity of Parliament lies in its own hands. If the feeling in the electorate is such as one would suppose, after listening to the remarks of the right honorable member for Cowper (Dr. Earle Page), there must be some reason for it, apart from the influence of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) described as the “ Stunt press “. The rigid party system which prevents a man from expressing his honest opinions on the floor of this House is to some extent responsible for the disrepute in which the parliamentary institution is held. At one time, it was universally believed that the Labour party was the only party which governed by means of a caucus. The public have now got behind the scenes, and are well aware that decisions arrived at by all parties in their party rooms so restrict the freedom of members that they do not record votes in accordance with their better judgment and inner convictions. There is another reason why the parliamentary system has, in a sense, become’ suspect. The sittings of this House are opened with the following prayer: -
Almighty God, wo humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Parliament. Direct and prosper our deliberations, to the advancement of Thy glory, and the true welfare of the people of Australia.
We ask Almighty God to guide and prosper our deliberations, when those deliberations, in the main, are held behind the closed doors of the party room, and the decisions actually made before we enter this chamber. I hope that
I shall not be out of order in saying that that not- only savours of hypocrisy, but also practically amounts to blasphemy. I regard such happenings as that as one of the outstanding reasons for the disrepute in which the parliamentary institution is held by the people.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) said that the Government did not include in the budget provision for the restoration of a portion of the allowance paid to honorable members, because “it wished first to have the decision of honorable members upon the proposal. The Government led by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), acted similarly in 1920 ; it “ sounded “ the House well and truly. A round robin had to be signed before the Government would move in the matter.
Mr HOLMAN:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I rise to a point of order. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the honorable member is now travelling over ground which has no relevance whatever to the motion movedby the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr.Corser). Although you have permitted him to make one such excursion, I take it that you were merely exercising indulgence, and that other excursions of a similar character will be out of order.
Mr SPEAKER:
– I have listened carefully to the honorable member for Angas, and shall ask him to observe the Standing Orders when I consider such a course to be necessary. The honorable member has been dealing with the question of privilege from another angle, and I have not, so far, found fault with his remarks.
Mr GABB:
– The Government sought to ascertain the opinions of honorable members on this occasion. As I sat in my place in this House, I was approached by an honorable member.
Mr Holman:
– I again rise to order. I submit that the honorable member is distinctly out of order in relating what occurred six or seven years ago.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable member for Martin must realize that, it is for the Chair to decide whether or not the remarks of an honorable member are out of order. Having twice risen to order, I hope that the honorablemembers is_now_ satisfied.
Mr GABB:
– I am leading right up to the question before the Chair. I was approached by an honorable member who said, in effect, “ If there is a move for an increase of salary, will you be quiet, or will you protest? We think that, if we can go to the Government and tell it that the House is unanimous, it will consent to an increase “. That occurred a fortnight ago; and it proves than an agitation was even then afoot to have the allowance of honorable members raised.
Mr Thompson:
– What was the honorable member’s reply?
Mr GABB:
– I told him that if ^ the matter were brought forward I would oppose it, as I had done before. When I entered this chamber on Friday morning last, a Minister approached me, and intimating that a certain move was contemplated, inquired what my attitude to the proposal would be. He added that if the request for an increase of the present emoluments of members appeared to be unanimous, the Government would grant it, but if not, he did not know what attitude the Government would adopt.
Mr Lyons:
– Surely there was nothing wrong in that.
Mr GABB:
– Perhaps not; but it indicated that the Government was not waiting for an expression on the floor of the House, but had already mapped out its course.
Mr Lyons:
– Do not be unfair.
Mr GABB:
– I have no desire to be unfair, but it has been suggested here today that it is almost unknown for groups to form, or for arrangements to be made between parties, for any particular purpose. I know that that is not so, for I have watched what has gone on. On more than one occasion, when there has been the semblance of a fight, I have been convinced that arrangements had been entered into beforehand.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable member cannot be allowed to continue along those lines.
Mr GABB:
– Since my remarks seem unpalatable, I shall not continue in that strain. Both inside and outside Parliament, I have said that I feel ashamed to he a member of this Parliament.
Mr Riordan:
– Then get out.
Mr GABB:
– I shall not do so voluntarily. I shall stop here so long as I can in order to help to keep Parliament clean. Ten or twelve independent members could clean things up by stopping the scheming, between party and party. We should not then come into this chamber with decisions already made, but members would be free to vote as they thought best. I shall not go out of parliamentary life merely because the atmosphere here is unpalatable to me, but shall stop here as long as I am allowed to stay in an endeavour to break down the rigidity of the party system, establish the right of honorable members to do what they honestly think ought to be done in the best interests of the country, and destroy the pre-selection system which determines who shall be elected to Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER:
– Order !
Mr GABB:
– I shall not’ continue in this strain for fear that I shall transgress the Standing Orders, but as I have said these things outside Parliament, I should be a coward if I did not say them here. I am certain that many other things happened on Friday last, but I am unable to prove them. I do not approve what the Sydney Sun said, but I am thankful that we have a press which, despite its bias in favour of the capitalistic class, keeps its argus eye on members of Parliament, and lets the people know what goes on in the legislative, halls of the country.
Mr MARTENS:
Herbert
.- The Bulletin of, the 25th October, contains, on page 12, an article which affects me personally. It is as follows: -
One of the 75’s - not the French field gun, as will he seen, but a Federal Labour member - Martens, M.H.E., for Herbert, Queensland - who moved that the Finance Relief Bill be re-committed so that honorable members might vote themselves another £7f> per annum. In one respect the artist has slipped - Mr. Martens is shown with his hands in his own’ pockets.
If the individuals who signed their names to that statement had a record as clean as I have they would not have written that kind of stuff. If it is journalism, then I say, “ God help journalism “. If the paid creatures of the press are paid £10 a week or more to do that kind of a job, then I hope that I shall never sink low enough to be associated with them.
Mr Bernard Corser:
– The honorable member should prosecute them.
Mr MARTENS:
– My motion for the recommittal of the Financial Emergency Bill was not moved for the purpose of enabling members to vote themselves another £75 per annum, or any other amount. I said that I thought that this Parliament should establish a zone system of allowances to members on the basis in operation in Victoria, Tasmania, and Queensland; failing that, I thought we were entitled to some restoration of the amount taken from us. I do not apologize for what I said, because I be- lieve now, as I believed then, that we are entitled to a restoration. A sketch in the Bulletin shows me standing with my hands in my pockets. I admit that I have a weakness for standing in that attitude: but the pockets are my own, and not those of some one else. The Sydney Sun has had, as it were, its hands in my pockets for a number of years, for it has overcharged me and the rest of the people of Australia for the stuff that it publishes. I am not concerned about the criticism of the press. During my 26 or 27 years of public and semi-public life, as a _ parliamentarian and an active participant in industrial affairs, I have come in for a fair share of press criticism, some of which has been unfair. I have not been greatly concerned about that, so long as the statements have been truthful. I believe that I am in a position which entitles people to criticize me for both my remarks and my actions ; but, I submit, that criticism should be- honest. In most cases the criticism of me has been honest. If those who criticize me are as honest as I am, they are at least fair. Those who know me will treat the paragraph in the Bulletin with contempt, for I pride myself that those who have known me longest - and there are some who have known me since childhood - would willingly give me a reference for honesty and fair play. I only hope that those who write such stuff as appears in the Bulletin, of the 25th October can say the same. But when a newspaper attacks members of this Parliament in the way that the Sydney Sun of last Sunday attacked them, it is time for Parliament to step in and do something. These newspapers go’into the homes of the people, and influence public opinion regarding members of Parliament and political institutions generally. I have always told critics of parliamentary institutions and members of Parliament that, if they are not satisfied with their representatives in the legislature, they should elect others. If a member is dis honest or incapable, or is inferior to another candidate, I have urged them to set him aside and elect the better man. But I have added that they should give Parliament credit for doing what it thinks is best in the interests of the country.
The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) spoke of the newspapers shedding crocodile tears on behalf of workers on the basic wage. There are always those who show sympathy for the workers in that way, but abuse them w_hen they stand up for what they believe to be their rights. If an employer follows a certain course of action, these people say he does so because otherwise he could not carry on his business; but if his employees take a certain course of action because the pay they receive is not sufficient to pay the household bill, they say that the action taken is entirely wrong, and that the workers are trying to upset industry. The press should at least be fair. At one time the Bulletin was rightly regarded as a worth-while journal; to-day it is the harlot of Mammon, a typical example of the yellow press, second only to Smith’s Weekly. I hope that Messrs. J. E. Webb, J. B. Dalley, and M. H. Ellis, of 252 George-street, North Sydney, who share the responsibility for the statement concerning me, have as clean a record as I have. I hurl their false accusations back in their teeth; they are too contemptible for further consideration.
Mr HOLMAN:
Martin
.- There appears to be agreement among honorable members generally, amounting almost to unanimity; and, after so many excellent speeches, there is little to justify me in addressing myself to the question before the Chair. I shall, therefore, be brief in dealing with the two or three aspects of the matter which I desire to mention. Like other speakers, I offer my heartiest congratulations to the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) for having brought this matter forward. We are indebted to him, not only for submitting his motion, but also for the manner in which he did it; the honorable gentleman has displayed courage similar to that which he showed when the clauses relating to the parliamentary allowance were under consideration a few days ago. The honorable member for Wide Bay was not “absent from his place in the chamber then, trusting that it would be carried without his co-operation, and that he would reenter the chamber with a character unbesmirched and yet able to take his share of the gifts to members when they were being distributed. Those who take the opposite view when they speak, but whose actions are not consistent with their phrases, will carry very little weight with honorable members, however they may be esteemed by the fourth estate for their readiness to take their cues from the press and repeat them with the authority which their place in this chamber gives to them. One honorable member says that Australia needs a vigilant press; I remind him that we, not the press, are the guardians of the public, and that, if it is essential that the press shall be vigilant, it is even more essential that honorable members who have been given the hint that something wrong is contemplated, should be vigilant and not leave the House at 10.30 p.m. to retire to the peace of their sleeping chambers, as one honorable member appears to have done last Thursday night. I shall not make further observations on this point, because they must occur to the mind of all who were here during Thursday night, after the honorable member to whom I have referred, overcome by emotion, withdrew from the presence of his fellow members. On his return next morning, he took upon himself to address honorable members in very much the same terms” as those which he has employed to-day. His language naturally provoked questions, under the pressure of which he said, in spite of all the virtuous indignation which he had displayed, that he would take every farthing of the proposed increase.
Mr Gabb:
– I said that I would accept up to £800.
Mr HOLMAN:
– I do not wish to impart any additional bitterness to the situation by misrepresenting things which are already bad enough. The honorable member for Angas said that, so long as the increase did not bring allowances up to more than £800, he would be there the first of every month with a drawn’ note-book in his hand ready to file the necessary receipt for the extra money; yet it is this honorable member who presumes to lecture us on the undesirability of hypocrisy in public matters. Well, I take it that no man is better qualified to speak on that subject.
In section 4S, in that part of the Constitution which relates to Parliament, it is laid down that members shall be paid an allowance of £400 a year “ until Parliament otherwise provides,” and no’ other authority is empowered to fix allowances. Some people say that it is a monstrous thing that members of Parliament ShoUld fix their own salaries; that there ought to be an impartial tribunal, presumably a judge; but the Constitution, which was adopted by the people, makes provision for nothing of the kind. If it be a monstrous thing that we should be charged with the duty of judging between ourselves and our masters, the blame must rest on the Constitution, which has provided for it. We did not make ourselves the judges of our own worth. Twice since the inauguration of the Parliament has the power vested in Parliament by the Constitution been exercised for the. purpose of increasing parliamentary allowances. On the first occasion they were raised from £400 to £600 a year, and on the second from £600 to £1,000. Both those increases were . effected by votes in this House, and in another place. The time came when, under the pressure of economic circumstances, it was thought that the allowance of £1,000 a year should be reduced, first to £900, and later to £800 and still later to £750. Those reductions, I remind honorable members, were made by Parliament itself. No angel from Heaven breathed forth a message that the time had come to make this sacrifice. We saw that the time had come, and we made the sacrifice. Although I was not a member at the time, yet I was- a reader, and, I regret to say, a reader of that journal which is being arraigned in this chamber to-day. When the reductions were made, there was no scurrying around Sydney by newspaper reporters to interview leading citizens for the purpose of obtaining their opinion upon what had been done. The reporters did not say to those leading citizens, “Look what these self-sacrificing, high-minded, and noble-principled members of ours have been doing. They have cut down their own salaries by £100. What do you think of that?” We did not hear that the gentlemen addressed by the emissaries of the press fell into raptures of admiration and astonishment at the news. Nor did they say, “ We had not the faintest idea that public men could possibly be so public-spirited “. None of those things occurred, and no comments on the occurrence were served up in the newspapers next morning with a proper supply of italics and black type headings. The complete incident, so far ,as I can remember passed without comment and without observation. A year had passed when the second £100 was cut off the parliamentary allowance. Again there was no recognition from the press of what had been done. Two years passed by. By then I had become a member of this Parliament. The allowance was reduced by still another £50, but again there was no demonstration. When the last £50 was taken off, the country was confronted with, a deficit of £1,500,000 for the year, and reduction was made by the members of both Houses of Parliament, not by any external power or impartial authority, or by any of the agencies for which honorable members yearned on Friday last, but of our own volition. We did it ourselves. I was here, and had some slight share in what was done. So far as my recollection goes, there was not even a division on the proposal. Now another twelve months have rolled by, and the financial position of the country - thanks to the really magnificent management of the present Ministry - has changed. This year’s budget showed, not a deficit of £1,500,000, but a surplus of £3,500,000. In the circumstances, the Government decided that there was no longer any occasion to impose the full amount of the reductions upon members of Parliament and of the Public Service. Last year, without hesitation or demur, we reduced our allowances by £50, but now the situation has changed, and there is no reason why we should forgo another £50 this year. Therefore, with the co-operation of our colleagues iti another chamber, we have restored it. We, ourselves, made all the cuts in our allowance, and we ourselves have restored one-quarter of what we had taken off.
The general public know very little of the Commonwealth Constitution, or of what takes place in Parliament, except what they read from day to day in the press. If the press would occasionally explain to our constituents, and to the public generally, the constitutional conditions under which Parliament functions, we should be saved from a vast amount of journalistic and oral criticism, much of which is based on ignorance. I venture to say that ninetenths of the gentlemen of the press are ignorant of most of the provisions of the Constitution. People have been astounded when I have explained to them constitutional points relating to the working of Parliament.
If time permitted, it would be interesting to quote the criticisms that have appeared in the press during the last three or four days, and it would be found that much of that criticism is based upon ignorance of constitutional provisions. I venture the opinion, from long experience of journalistic practice, that very few of the articles of which we have reason to complain were written by the pressmen whom we meet daily in this building, or see in the gallery of the House. Those who meet Parliament usually respect Parliament, but. it is from offices in Sydney, as from a reservoir of defamation that is connected with a reticulation system extending throughout the whole of the State, that these attacks emanate. Honorable members have all expressed their indignation at the mendacity which has been called forth on this occasion. I confess that while I share in their indignation, I am. also surprised. I thought that I had plumbed the lowest, depths of libellous infamy in days gone by, but I have never before seen anything to equal the statements which have been published on this occasion. It is stated in the particular article called in question that there was a midnight meeting of members of Parliament. The Prime Minister has already denied that, and I add my denial to his. There was no gathering, of members of Parliament, but only of members of the Government party. The Prime Minister did us the honour to invite us into his room to exchange views with him. We had to wait until he had disposed of certain business which was occupying his attention, and it may have been fairly late before the meeting took place, but it was certainly not midnight. Moreover, there was no member of the Labour party or the Country party present, nor was any independent member there.
Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– No decision was arrived at.
Mr HOLMAN:
– That is 30. Honorable members are supposed to have been unable to prepare a case for the criticism of the public. That is utterly untrue. Several members of this party presented their views, I among them.
The effect of this objectionable article has been to make some of the devoted supporters and warm personal friends of honorable members imagine that the man whom they regarded as a friend is, in reality, a whited sepulchre, whose innate hypocrisy has at last been unmasked by the ingenious writer of the article; that he must henceforth be known as a thief, a robber of the public funds, a hypocrite, and a liar. Those phrases are the equivalent of others which are to be found iu the newspaper which lies before you, Mi-. Speaker.
The arm of the law is not helpless in a matter of this kind. There is a law of libel, and, perhaps, ultimately it will be enforced. Heavy damages could be obtained if it were not for the fact that the task of assessing them depends on a. jury, and the minds of those who would constitute the jury - the tribunal to which honorable members must look for redress - have already been poisoned by the foul material which is contained in that article.
My friend, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) has done the right thing in resorting to the power of privilege which is reserved to honorable members. My one regret is that he has not gone a little farther. No doubt the honorable member has given the matter careful consideration, and believes that, if ‘ the motion is carried after honorable members have ventilated their opinions, we shall have done enough.
But my wish is to see that those who are responsible for this vile article - and I d3 not refer to the reporters who are now in the press gallery, because I do not hold them responsible - brought to the bar of this House, and made either to exculpate himself, to apologize, or, if he does neither, to be dealt with under the powers that are possessed by Parliament. Such drastic action may not be necessary on this occasion; it may be sufficient to put fear into the cowardly bosom of the person who cogitated this scheme. That would prevent any recurrence. In the circumstances it is, perhaps, well that honorable members should keep their emotions in check, and allow the motion to convey its full lesson to those who are responsible for this wicked fulmination.
I trust that those honorable members who have received this motion so sympathetically to-day will be ever ready to give1 equally sympathetic and vigorous support to any similar effort that is made to protect the good name and fame of Parliament, All who are here have some little standing in our different communities. We have some reputation and experience in the. affairs of the country, and we have been selected by our constituents to carry out the public duty of representing our fellow citizens’, and to speak in their name in Parliament. Why should we be besmirched by men who have no public standing, and who write under the cowardly shield of anonymity about men who are their superiors in every way, in the terms that have been employed in this mast scoundrelly and scurrilous article? I trust that the demonstration that has been made by honorable members this afternoon will, in some degree, clear the minds of the public, and that, if this action fail3, Parliament will take other steps to sustain its good name.
Mr WARD:
East Sydney
.- There is. at least one redeeming feature about the attack that has been made by the press. It has been directed against, honorable members generally. Honorable members of the Labour party are exposed in season and out of season to the venomous attacks of the press, and many honorable members opposite, who have to-day protested because they feel that they have suffered injury at the hands of the press, are experiencing, to a small degree, only what is the lot of members of the Labour party all the year round.
It is unlikely that the anti-Labour press would include its political friends in such a sweeping attack unless it had some ulterior motive. It is not the desire of that section of the press merely to injure members who are their political hirelings and who, by granting concessions and tax remissions, use their parliamentary positions to assist the tory press and those who control it. Its real purpose on this . occasion has been to divert attention from a far greater robbery than that which was mentioned in the Sunday Sun. I refer to the reduction of the basic wage in New South Wales by 2s. a week. If the intense press propaganda that has been concentrated upon the action of federal parliamentarians has served no other purpose, it has prevented many persons In New ‘South Wales, including the antiLabour Government which is led by Mr. Stevens, from applying that reduction of 2s. in the basic wage.
The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) claimed that the partial restoration of parliamentary salaries has imposed a charge of only one- third of a penny per annum on each elector in Queensland. It is significant that no honorable member has raised a protest against the greater robbery to which I have referred. This Parliament has established industrial tribunals, and State parliaments have done likewise, which are responsible for reprehensible and frequent robberies from the workers. It is only when honorable members are themselves involved in press criticism that they raise a protest-
Personally, I treat the article in the * Sunday Sun* with contempt. At the same time, I am rather amused with it, because I can see through the motive which has prompted those who control the anti-Labour press to subject honorable members to such severe criticism. My colleagues and I are pleased that our efforts to demonstrate that the time has come for an uplifting of wages and social services have been vindicated, and that the- Government of New South Wales has been compelled to withhold its hand from further reducing the wage of t he worker.
Honorable members opposite have complained bitterly about’ being misrepresented. The anti-Labour press, which is controlled by interests which they represent, misrepresents the actions of members of the Labour party all the year round, and, frequently, honorable members opposite themselves supply material to enable attacks to be made. My colleagues and I have been classed as pickpockets, burglars, and thieves, and honorable members opposite have gloried in the incident. I recall the time when they and their supporters assisted to fasten upon the then Premier of New South Wales (Mr. Lang) the terms “ repudiationist ; ‘ and’ “pickpocket”. They even raised the cry “Hands off the public savings “. No objection was raised then by honorable members opposite to press criticism. They felt that theywere justified in exploiting every possible avenue in order to propagate their venom against a particular organization and section of the community.
My colleagues and I are not a great deal concerned about the indignation and outraged self-righteousness of our friends opposite, who, perhaps, are supersensitive. We know the true quality of the anti-Labour press, and of the interests which control it ; we know that it is not in a position honestly to direct criticism against honorable members, and, therefore, disregard it. We, nevertheless, congratulate ourselves upon having been able to render a service to the people of Australia in general, by exposing the hypocrisy of those who are ever-ready to reduce the basic wage and allowances to pensioners. We voted for a partial restoration of parliamentary allowances because we believe in establishing higher standards of living. Our attitude has been consistent throughout.
This motion has been advanced only to allow honorable members to express their opinions in regard to certain press statements, which my colleagues and I treat with contempt. If we thought that honorable members were desirous of pressing the matter further with a view to imposing an adequate penalty on those responsible for the article, we should support that action. But we are of the opinion, andthis applies not to the mover of the motion, but rather to those who have spoken in support’ of it, that the opportunity has merely been taken to ventilate a grievance against- the terms of the article which appeared in the Sunday Sim, and not with any sincere desire to inflict a- penalty upon those who control the anti-Labour press. I support the motion, and hope that honorable members will press for a vote to be taken upon it; also that they will display at least some sincerity, and insist upon the anti-Labour press being appropriately dealt with.
Mr BAKER:
Oxley
– I support the motion. It is high time that consideration was given by Parliament to the recent malicious criticism of this legislature by the press of this country, and particularly the Sydney press. Probably the worst example of such criticism is that referred to in the motion. Members of Parliament, considering that they are carrying out one of the highest duties of citizenship iu the Commonwealth, decided last week to increase their allowance by £75 per annum.. This was merely a partial restoration, to the extent of 7-i per cent., of the 25 per cent, reduction they suffered under the financial emergency legislation. Those who criticize this action should remember that the Commonwealth Parliament controls the lives and liberties of more than 6,500,000 people, and is responsible for the collection and expenditure of* £70,000,000 per annum. This Parliament is the highest authority in the Commonwealth, and it is surely fitting that its members should be adequately remunerated for carrying out their important duties. Many of those responsible for the unfair press criticism of members of Parliament receive far higher salaries than are paid to honorable members, but the importance of their duties is considerably less than that of members of Parliament. By lending their names to various directorates and financial institutions these persons are handsomely paid, yet they have been loudest in their unwarranted criticism of Parliament and members of Parliament. The president of the Queensland Chamber of Manufactures, who has been particularly severe in his criticism of the action of Parliament in partially restoring the allowance to honorable members, has not hesitated to ask Parliament to grant to the interests with which he is concerned, assistance to the value of tens of thousands of pounds. Yet he and others like him object to honorable members receiving adequate payment for their services. I strongly protest against the terms of the article referred to in the motion. It seems that no epithet is too scurrilous, no accusation too bitter or unfair, for the press of New South Wales to apply to honorable members of this Parliament, Only yesterday the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Parkhill) informed this House of the concessions, of an annual value of £500,000, that have been made by his department to the press of Australia. The amount would he sufficient to pay, for more than half a century, the increase of allowances granted to honorable members last Friday. And the concessions granted by the Postal Department are only a fraction of the benefits enjoyed by the press in consequence of the actions of this Parliament. In these circumstances, one would have expected at least fair treatment of Parliament by the press.
In times gone by the English House of Commons had to fight to establish its rights and privileges. First it had to fight the ruling sovereign. ‘ It’ did so and won. Then it had to fight thecourts of the land. The courts contended! that they could overrule acts of Parliament, but Parliament established itssupremacy and demonstrated that it waa the dominating power. To-day we find, other forces in the community endeavouring to override the authority and! power of Parliament. Many of thepersons associated with the newspapersare also connected with companies and! organizations that control vast accumulations of capital, and they are using the power of their wealth to endeavour tosubordinate Parliament to their wishes.. No honorable member has any desire torob the press of reasonable liberty, but when liberty degenerates into licence of the most vicious kind it is time action was taken to curb it. The controllers of the press of Australia, who have adopted! the role of self-appointed arbiters of public morals, could not, in some1 cases,, afford to have their own morals investigated. Some of these gentlemen would: be utterly discredited if they had to stand in the fierce glare that beats upon legislators. At least it can bc said that, the action of honorable members in increasing their allowance has not harmed a single individual in the community. On the other hand, many hundreds of people have suffered through the action of Sir Hugh Denison and other members of the board of directors of Associated Newspapers. Associated Newspapers, which produces the Sunday Sun, was responsible some time ago for discontinuing the publication of the Evening News, the Sunday News, the Daily Guardian, the Sunday Guardian, and several other newspapers in New South Wales, and were thus the cause of hundreds, if not thousands, of men losing their employment, but it had no compunction in throwing these men out of work.
The persons interested in this newspaper enterprise have enjoyed large remissions of taxation from this Government. Members of the party to which I belong did not approve of some of these remissions, especially those relating to land tax; but men like F. H. Tout, a director of Associated Newspapers interested in the grazing and other industries, and other directors received substantial benefits in remissions of taxation. Yet these gentlemen have the insolence and temerity savagely to attack honorable members of Parliament for doing what they believe to be in the best interests of the community, and, in this particular case, for taking action in the only way that such action could be taken. Parliament is the only authority which can deal with the allowances of its members. It is well that these critics should remember that this Parliament has specific power to deal with those who contravene the rights and privileges of members. Section 49 of the Constitution provides that-
The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, and of the members and the committees of each House, shall he such as are declared by the Parliament and until declared shall he those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Section 50 gives each House of Parliament power to make rules and orders with respect to its powers and privileges. Under the Constitution, it will be seen, the powers and privileges of this Parliament are the same as were those of the British House of Commons at the time this Parliament was established. No great variation has been made in this connexion in the intervening years. It is well known that the House of Commons has, on frequent occasions, used its power to fine, reprimand, admonish, or imprison those who have offended against its privileges, or cast indignity and contumely upon its members. This Parliament has the same powers. I realize that the carrying of this motion will be a grave matter to those concerned, but the reasons which have actuated the honorable member in moving it are also grave. I therefore hope that the motion will be carried unanimously. It is a serious thing to attack Parliament in the way that it has been attacked recently. Within its own limits and privileges Parliament is the highest court in the land. It behoves those concerned to realize that there is no appeal from the decisions of Parliament within the ambit of its own privileges and rights. If the press of Australia continues to make savage attacks upon this legislature without just cause those responsible may be fined heavily or imprisoned for any period which the Parliament chooses to determine, or for an indefinite period.
I direct attention again to the fact, that the name of the printer and publisher of the Sunday Sun newspaper does not appear in the issue containing the particular article to which objection’ is now being taken. The Commonwealth law requires that the name of the printer and publisher shall be published in every issue of every newspaper. The Government should consider the desirability of prosecuting those responsible for the omission in this instance. Are the newspapers. to be allowed to place themselves above the law of the land - above even the law-makers of this colin. . try whom they are besmirching with their foul and unwarranted criticism?
I also suggest that at some future time the Government should consider the wisdom of appointing a royal commission to inquire into the activities of such organizations as Associated Newspapers. These concerns have a good deal to do with the moulding of public opinion. Unfortunately, they control the thinking of the people, because they supply the principal reading matter on which the public f rames its thoughts. This power of moulding public opinion is enormous, and itshould be subject to some control.
I- have much pleasure in supporting the motion.
Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne
.- I commend the motion to honorable members, and hope that some good will result from it. I have had the pleasure and misery of seeing similar motions carried by Parliament in days gone by, and have always regretted that only the officials of the newspapers have been punished by being brought to the bar of Parliament to be admonished by the Speaker. In my opinion, the owners of newspapers should, in one respect at least, be treated like the . owners of motor cars, and be responsible for the injuries caused by their servants. If the servant of an owner of a motor car is responsible through negligence for damage being done, I understand that the owner of the vehicle is liable. I think that the owner, the managing director, and the chief shareholder of a newspaper should be held responsible for any damage done by their newspaper to the character and reputation of people. After all, the paid employees of the newspapers are required to obey orders. We have had journalists of the highest standard in this country, but, unfortunately, we have also had others of the lowest standard. Some newspapers, because of the high standing of their employees, publish articles bearing the names of the writers; but, generally speaking, the newspapers adhere to that wonderful word “ We “. I remember one of the best qualified journalists of Australia who wrote in a particular journal under the name “ Telemachus “. The time came when he offended his employers by something he wrote. He was cut adrift, and, in spite of his great ability, was hard put to it to earn a bare living. At one time in my life, I tried to take the law into my hands, and I do not know that I regret it. A certain newspaper endeavoured to injure one of my best beloved friends, Mr. Prendergast, a gentleman of the highest repute in the public life of Victoria, and before a great com pany of people we burned a copy of the newspaper. I have never yet publicly given the name of the ‘ gentleman who suggested that that action should be taken, because I do not wish to injure him in any way. It cannot be denied that the press of a country may dominate its affairs. To-day, Australia is, to a large extent, in the hands of a newspaper combine, but we still have a few independent newspapers, and I hope that they will view properly the action that this House is taking to-day. A world famous journalist, Lord Northcliffe, who rose to a position of great authority by ruthlessly crushing his opponents, said, “I would not care if every man in a democracy had five votes, so long as I had con tool of the press of the country”. He certainly understood the power of the press. At one time in the dim and distant past a bill was introduced in the Victorian Parliament to curb and control the press, It contained a provision that any man or woman who was maligned, slandered, or injured by statements published in a newspaper could, by swearing an information before any magistrate that he or she had been slandered, maligned, or injured by such statements, obtain an order compelling the newspaper to publish the reply of that person in a similar column in the next issue. Had that legislation been enacted, it would have been a dominating factor in controlling the press of Victoria. At one time it was thought that le duel would be sufficient to restrain the liberties of journalists in France and Germany, but the only effect was to cause those journalists to become skilled swordsmen and deadly marksmen. M. Clemenceau - who later became known as the Tiger of France - was a skilled duellist. He fought in many duels, and because of being lefthanded few men cared to confront him. However, when duelling was forbidden in both Germany and France, the influence of le duel over the press of those countries waned. Switzerland is the only country in the world which has the referendum initiative and recall, and I have been assured by a native of that country that it has no yellow press like there is in Australia, and, to a worse extent, in the United States of America. Democracy is on its trial and there can be no real democracy unless the people control the Parliament every day of the year, instead of one day in three years. Having watched human nature for many years I have come to the conclusion that if a member of Parliament does something wrong, by the time the nest election takes place, the public have either forgotten the episode or forgiven him. It is astonishing how our citizens, with the divine power of a vote, forget and forgive, unless action is taken immediately to deal with the member concerned. There is good, in the worst of the press. I have many beloved friends among pressmen, andI know that they have to carry out the wishes of their employers. I repeat once again that we should summon to appear at the bar of this House, not the editor or the publisher of the newspaper in question, but the managing director and the chief shareholder.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 4003
QUESTION
CUSTOMS TARIFF 1933
In committee (Consideration of Senate’s requests resumed from the 25th October (vide page 3976) :
Item 98-
- Starch flours, per lb., British, 2d.; general, 3d.
Senate’s Request -
Amend sub-item to make it -
- Starch flours, n.e.i., per lb., British, 2d.; general, 3d.
Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP
– I move-
That the requested amendment be made.
This is a consequential amendment dealing with starch flours, and does not, in any way, alter the rates of duty. It is proposed to insert in - the item the words, “n.e.i.”, which as honorable members know, means “ not elsewhere included”.
Motion agreed to.
Item 98-
- Custard powders, per lb., British, 3d.; general, 4d.
Senate’s Request -
Amend sub-item to make it -
- Custard powders, per lb., British, 2d.; general, 3d.
Motion (by Mr. Guy) proposed -
That the requested amendment be made.
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia
.- The custard powder and the cornflour in dustries are closely allied, and this request, if agreed to, will mean a reduction of the protection granted to them. Cornflour is one of the principal ingredients in custard powders, and it follows that the cost of custard powders depends largely upon the cost of cornflour, and that the ability of the local manufacturers to compete with imports depends on the price which they have to pay for cornflour. I ask the Minister to give honorable members some further reasons for accepting this request. In the past our principal importations of custard powders have come from the United Kingdom, and unless the price of cornflour is reduced, the manufacturers of custard powder will undoubtedly experience trouble. I know that the Minister considers that the price of cornflour will be reduced, but that, of course, will depend upon the production costs of the industry. I am assured by the manufacturers of cornflour that unless they can reduce the price which they pay to the Australian maize-growers for their products, and probably bring about some other reductions of cost in their factories, such as labour costs, which many supporters of the Government advocate should be done, they will not be able to reduce the price of cornflour. I wish not to reduce but to increase the wages paid in Australian factories, and the price paid to the primary producers for maize. The Government, in accepting the Tariff Board’s recommendations respecting both cornflour and custard powders, proposes to undo the development that has taken place in these industries, by allowing inferior quality cornflour produced in black labour countries to undersell the Australian product by from £4 to £5 a ton. I do not know whether the Minister considers that custard powder can be manufactured from cheaper cornflour imported from abroad, but I hope that it will never be necessary to do that, and that the whole of the local market will be conserved for the Australian manufacturers. The Tariff Board stated that cornflour can be landed at £17 5s.1d. a ton free of duty, including exchange. That price works out at slightly under 2d. per lb. Under this proposal the duty on cornflour will be1¾d. per lb., but as that has to be shaded by the - exchange adjustment, it will be reduced to 1 5/16d. per lb., making the cost of imported cornflour landed in Australia, duty free, approximately 3 5/16d. per lb. According to the figures quoted by the Minister last night, the price of Brown and Poison’s cornflour, and also qf Globe and Ship brands, is 8d. per lb. in England. The price in Australia of Brown and Poison’s cornflour is 8d. per lb. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Australian consumers are being exploited because of the .existence of the local industry. The British manufacturers obtain maize from black labour countries at a much lower price than is paid by the Australian manufacturers for local maize; and taking into consideration the lower costs of labour, containers, cartons, and coal, in Great Britain, it seems unreasonable that the consumers of Great Britain should be charged the same price as that charged in Australia for a similar article. The duties on custard powders and cornflour should be referred back to the Tariff Board.
Mr Guy:
– The board considered these duties only this year.
Mr FORDE:
– The duties on galvanized iron and other items were referred back immediately to the board, and similar action should be taken in respect of this item. The board in its report stated that the Australian wholesale price for cornflour was quoted at £39 6s. 3d. a ton; that the price in Scotland is £16 10s. a ton, the difference being £22 16s. 3d. a ton; and that the wholesale price was £22 16s. 3d. a ton above the price charged by the Scottish manufacturers. It is evident that a good deal of profiteering is taking place among the middlemen in England, considering that the consumers in Great Britain are being charged the same price as is charged in Australia. It is not fair to hold out that great difference between the wholesale prices as an indication that the consumers of Australia are being fleeced. The local manufacturers would be able to sell cornflour at a much lower price if they were permitted to purchase duty free maize grown in black labour countries. According to the Tariff Board the local price is 5s. a. bushel, and assuming that the manufacturers could land in their factories .. imported maize at 3s. 6d. a bushel they would save at least ls. a bushel by purchasing abroad. Of course, I have no wish that the Australian manufacturers should use imported maize. We should give ample protection to both the cornflour and the custard powder industries, because there is no doubt that they provide an additional market for the Australian maizegrowers. It is a lucrative market for the growers. In fact, the Tariff Boardsays that it is too profitable altogether. The Tariff Board states that the maizegrowers, who are in close proximity to the manufacturers of maize products, are receiving too high a price for their maize, and that the question of lowering the duty on imported maize will have to be taken into consideration. The conditionsare now more favorable for importing maize than they have previously been. For the years 1925-29 maize, in America,, averaged 3s. lid., and in Great Britain, 4s. 3d. a bushel, whereas the price up to April of this year was ls. 2d. in America, and 2s. 2d. a bushel in England. In 1928, Australian maize averaged 5s. 4d., and in 1929, 5s. a bushel, and at present the Australian manufacturers of maize products are giving the latter rate, or what the Tariff Board considers too high a price. Those who made representations for a continuance of the present protection comprised the New South Wales Maize-Grower 3 Committee, who made their request through the Primary Producers Union. the Atherton Tablelands Maize Board, and the Council of Agriculture, Queensland. Those organizations, which represent the farming community in those 1 States, would not have made representations to .the Government had the industry not been- of vital importance to those engaged in primary production. In May, 1929, the price of maize in Chicago was quoted at. 1.7 dollars, equivalent to 5s. a bushel, but in January, 1933, the price to the American farmer was as low as 3s. Gd. a bushel, showing the substantial benefit which the Australian maize-grower enjoys. The price paid for maize by the Australian cornflour manufacturers is 5s. a bushel, as against the South African milling maize, which is quoted in England at 2s. 2d. a bushel. I have still to be convinced that the Australian cornflour manufacturers will be able to reduce their prices unless there is a substantial reduction of the price paid to Australian maize-growers, or they are able to reduce their labour costs. If a large number of operatives are to be employed in our Australian factories at reasonable wages, we should not support any proposition detrimental to our secondary industries. Surely these manufacturers and primary producers should not be compelled to submit to all sorts of humiliating inquiries, before they can receive any consideration, particularly when importing interests and. overseas manufacturers generally do not have to submit to such inquisitorial methods. If the Senate’s request is agreed to we shall be placing in jeopardy an industry that is giving employment to thousands of persons. Primary producers in Queensland, New South “Wales, and Victoria, benefit by the present duty, and I trust the committee will reject the request.
Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports
– Last night every honorable member who spoke in support of the present duty made out a good case in defence of the maize-growers. I have been in communication with the representatives of the employees engaged in the maize products industry, and with the managers of Parsons Brothers, in Melbourne, perhaps the largest distributors of maize products in Australia, concerning the statement made by the Minister last night. I do not disbelieve his statement, but there must be some reason for the margin between the Sd. and lOd. packets of cornflour.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr Sell:
– The item covering cornflour was disposed of last night.
Mr HOLLOWAY:
– The production of maize is closely associated with the duties imposed on maize products such as cornflour and custard powders. It was stated last night that, as the cost of these products to the local consumer is too high, the duty should be reduced. The cost to Australian consumers over the counter is not higher than it is in England. The American product is the cheapest. I understand that, in trying to give some preference to .British products, the Government is throwing open the door to manufacturers operating outside the British Empire. Those with whom I have been in consultation say that the retail price of cornflour is. not higher in Australia than it is in London or in any other large capital city in Europe. The reason given for what is regarded as a big margin bet-ween the prices of different packets of cornflour, and the same argument would apply to custard powders, is that, the 10d. packet contains not cornflour, but a superfine commodity made from a material known by another name. The two brands of packet cornflour sold over the counter in Australia at Sd. are similar to the 8d. packets sold in London. Has the. Minister ascertained why there is such a big margin between the wholesale price on a tonnage basis, and the retail prices? It is clear that the domestic consumers of cornflour and custard powders are not fleeced by the retail prices charged.
Mr Paterson:
– The fleecing takes place at the manufacturers’ end.
Mr HOLLOWAY:
– I am anxious to prevent exploitation, but tuy fear is that by reducing the duty we may ruin the industry, and throw out of work a number of the 600 who are employed in the industry in Victoria. If we are able to protect the industry and at the same time prevent exploitation we should do so. We should not interfere unnecessarily with those producing the raw material, or those who convert it into the finished product. If we cannot protect the growers of maize, and also the manufacturers of maize products, both engaged’ in Australian industry, what advantage is there in a protectionist policy? When the duty upon black-grown maize was reduced, importations increased to the detriment of the Australian maize producers, and when the duty on the manufactured article was increased a. slight rise was noticed and business increased. If, as is now proposed, the duty is reduced, the manufacturers of cornflour and custard powders will have to compete with products made from black -grown maize. This must affect the whole industry. We must either retain the duty ofl the manufactured article or reduce the rate on the raw material. I’f the latter course is followed, we shall be injuring an Australian primary industry, and if the former method is employed, we shall be injuring a secondary industry. I trust that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter in the interests of the men and women employed in Australian factories, and of those engaged in producing maize in different parts of Australia. I said last night that 18,000 acres of land are cropped with maize, and probably this area will increase as the manufacture of’ maize products develops. If we are to reduce the duties on this commodity, we shall, if we wish to be logical, have to reduce the duties on other maize products.
Mr NOCK:
Riverina
.- -I support the request of the Senate which provides that the duty on this item be reduced. In dealing with this subject, we should be capable of exercising some common sense, and of placing matters in their true perspective. A sound principle to observe in determining the protection which an industry merits is to consider the margin between the cost of the raw material overseas and in. Australia, plus the margin represented by the difference in labour costs overseas and in this country. In this instance, the old rate of duty on the raw material was ½d. and on cornflour, 3d. a pound. As was pointed out by the leader of the Country party (Dr. Earle Page), the manufacturers apparently have been trying to make a catspaw of the maize producers. The high price of custard powder is not due to the price of the maize that is used in its manufacture. Indeed, the total cost of the maize is much less than the amount of protection which would be given by the amendment. A similar position arose regarding the match industry. Members of the Country party are prepared to support a policy which gives reasonable protection not only to the’ workers and the manufacturers, but also to the consumers. The claims of my Labour friends are quite out of harmony with their declared policy. In the Labor Daily of the 24th October appeared the following statement: -
The Labour movement inNew South Wales has broken away from the worn-out shibboleths of indiscriminate high protection and laid down a basis of scientific administration of the tariff as a lead for the whole Australian Labour movement to follow, viz., preservation of the rights of the workers, equal preservation of the rights of the consumers, as well as letting daylight in uponthe profits, reserves and resources of manufacturing concerns.
I submit that honorable members who oppose the reduction disregard the consumers’ interests, and merely protect the manufacturers. That policy is not good enough for me. The Tariff Board’s inquiry has revealed that the manufacturers’ costs for labour and material are not the cause of the present price of custard powder. Inefficient methods or the desire for big profits are indicated, and the proposed rates represent such a high percentage of the total cost of labour and material that the manufacturers are amply protected.
Mr FENTON:
Maribyrnong
.- I understand that the Tariff Board has reported that1½ tons of maize are required for the production of 1 ton of cornflour, but local manufacturers say that 2 tons are needed.
Mr Nock:
– The protection would even then remain at 160 per cent.
Mr.FENTON. - I draw attention to the latest figures submitted regarding the retail prices which the consumers have to pay.
Mr Nock:
– The wholesale price should be carefully watched.
Mr FENTON:
– The great majority of purchasers of custard powder pay the retail price. A squatter who employs a number of men is able to obtain goods at what are called wholesale rates, but the ordinary purchaser pays retail rates. Although much is said to-day about the cost of production, we should give close attention to the cost of distribution, if the consumers’ interests are to be conserved. British manufacturers of custard powder obtain their raw material at a lower price than is paid by manufacturers in Australia, yet the finished article can be purchased retail in this country at the same price as that charged in Great. Britain. That, I think, is a striking tribute to the efficiency of the local factories. Even if the protection afforded to local industries were mountain high, we need not be concerned about it so long as the consumers get their goods of good quality at reasonable -prices. The establishment under our protective policy of Australian industries that manufacture goods from the products that are natural to this country obviously benefits the primary producers. Reductions of tariff rates have been brought about by British agencies in Australia.
The Tariff Board pointed out, in 192S, that if British manufacturers wished to provide the Australian public with an article that could be manufactured from raw material produced here, they should set up factories in Australia, and cater for the local market. Some of them have already done that. !No evidence was submitted to the Tariff Board on behalf of overseas manufacturers as to the quantity of maize required for the manufacture of a ton of cornflour. The reduction of duty requested by the Senate would result in the dismissal of Australian workmen, and the goods which they have been producing would be produced abroad from maize grown by coloured labour.
Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland
.- Mr. Chairman - [Quorum formed] - The proposal before the committee is that the British preferential and general duties on custard powders should be reduced from 3d. and 4d. per lb. to 2d. and 3d. per lb. respectively. Fears have been expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), and other honorable members, that if the reduction were made, the local manufacturers might not be able to get supplies of their cornflour for the manufacture of custard powder at a sufficiently low rate to enable them to compete with overseas firms. The report of the Tariff Board shows that the local manufacturers of cornflour have a tremendous margin of profit. I doubt if I have ever ‘read in any report by the board, figures which give a clearer indication of tremendous profit-taking by manufacturers. The maize used in making cornflour costs £13 6s. 8d. a ton, on the basis of 5s. a bushel, which is a good Australian price. The labour costs in Australian factories amount to another £5 a ton, so that the total cost for the raw material and the labour is £18 6s. 8d., and with cornflour selling at £39 6s. 3d., within a few pence of £21 is left to the manufacturer to cover overhead costs and profit. Imported cornflour, free of duty, but with exchange added, can be landed for several pounds a ton less than that amount. Surely when the manufacturers wish to have for their overhead costs and profit alone, an amount greater than the total cost at which cornflour can be imported, with freight and exchange paid, it is evidence of extreme profiteering, and shows that a substantial reduction of their price might well be made by the manufacturers, even though they pay more for their maize and labour than do their overseas competitors. I am satisfied that Australian cornflour for the manufacture of custard powder should be obtainable at many pounds a ton less than the price ruling to-day. The reduction of the duty on custard powders could be said to be consequential on the reduction of the tariff on cornflour, which should have the effect of compelling cornflour manufacturers to be satisfied with a somewhat smaller profit than they have been taking in the past.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP
.- The Tariff Board, which made au inquiry into this item in June of this year, points out that the rates recommended correspond to the rates on packeted cornflour, and that the cost of manufacture of custard powders, and the ability of local manufacturers to compete with importations, depend, to a large extent, on the price charged for cornflour. The local industry was established under the 192.1-30 tariff, and prospered, while the volume of importations was infinitesimal. The proposed reduction of the duties should have the effect of making cornflour available to manufacturers of custard powder at lower prices. There is no reason to fear that maize-growers will suffer. The board’s recommendation is based on a cost, in Sydney, of 5s. a bushel for maize, which is above recent quotations. Some honorable members have expressed alarm at the prospect of the industry being jeopardized by the lower duties. I believe their fears are groundless. Having inspected some of the mills, I have the highest admiration for the ability of the management. If there is evidence of injury being done by the lower duties, it will be brought under the notice of the Government. The purpose of the inquiry by the board was to ensure protection for consumers against excessive profits of manufacturers. I ask the committee to accept the Senate’s amendment.
Question - That the requested amendment be made - -put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Bell.)
AYES: 30
NOES: 20
Majority . . 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Item 105-
Piece goods, viz.: -
- (1) Velvets, velveteens, plushes, sealette, and cloths imitating furs, astrachans; Italians containing wool, ad valorem - British, 15 per cent.; general, 30 per cent.
Senate’s request -
Leave out “ Italians containing wool,” and add new paragraph - “ (3) Italians containing wool, ad valorem - British, 5 per cent.; general, 25 per cent.”
Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP
– I move -
That the requested amendments he made.
This material is not made in Australia. Italians of cotton are admitted at 5 per cent. British and 25 per cent, general, and have displaced the woollen material. It is to Australia’s advantage to admit at low rates material which contains wool. The cotton material is inferior to the woollen fabric, because it does not give the same finish or service. Italians are used in the manufacture of men’s shirts, coats, vests and overcoats, and for women’s aprons. “Woollen Italians are not now fashionable, having- been displaced by cotton and artificial silk kalians, which are much cheaper and have . a remarkably good appearance. Woollen italians are still used to a small extent in high-class tailoring. Cotton italians cost from8d. to1s.11d. a yard of 54-in. width, and woollen italians from1s. 9d. to 4s. a yard of 54-in. width. One Victorian manufacturer stated that 70 per cent, of the cotton italians used by him were priced at 8d. a yard f.o.b. Inquiries in the softgoods trade indicate that the lower duties incorporated in the request, will not result in any appreciable increase in the use of woollen italians. The prices quoted show that woollen italians are at a great disadvantage, apart from the incidence of the present duties. The matter is of very little importance, and the Government is of the opinion that the request can be agreed to without detriment to Australian production or revenue.
Motion agreed to.
Item 107-
-
Woven and embroidered materials in the piece or otherwise - Badges, hat and cap fronts (badged), medal ribbons, looping for boots and shoes; labels and hangers for. all purposes, including plain hanger material; tubular tie material in the piece; galoons, hands or bandings, tapes and the like having printed woven or embroidered lettering badge trade name or mark or design thereon : slipper, shoe, and blazer bindings, ad valorem - British, 45 per cent.; general. 70 per cent.
- Ribbons and galoons having not more than 48 ribs to the lineal inch and being not more than 3½ indies in width, ad valorem - British, 45per cent.; general. 70 per cent.
Senate’s request -
Amend item to make it - “ 107. Woven and embroidered materials in the piece or otherwise - Badges, hat and crap fronts (badged), medal ribbons, looping fur boots and shoes; labels and hangers for all purposes including plain hanger material: tubular tie material in the piece; galoons, bauds or bandings, tapes and the like having printed woven or embroidered lettering, badge, trade name or mark or design thereon : ribbons and galoonshaving not more than 4.8 ribs to the lineal inch and being not more than 3½ inches in width; slipper, shoe, and blazer bindings, ad valorem - British, 35 per cent.; general,60 per cent.”
Mr GUY:
Assistant Minister · Bass · UAP
.- I move-
That the requested amendment be made with the following modification : -
Insert “ (a) “ after “ 107.”
Insert “ not being water waved “ after the word “ribbons” (twice occurring).
Insert new sub-item (b) as follows: - “ (b) Regalia ribbons for use in the manufacture of lodge regalia, as prescribed by departmental by-laws, ad valorem - British, free; general, 25 per cent.”
Sitting suspended from 6.13 to8 p.m. [Quorum formed.]
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia.
.- I wish to refer to men’s hat galoons made from pure silk and artificial silk. Under the 1921-30 tariff, the rates of duty were 35 per cent, and 60 per cent, under subitem a and 35 per cent, and 50 per cent, under sub-itemB.By the tariff resolution of the 19th June, 1930, these rates were increased to 45 per cent, and 70 per cent. The tariff resolution of the 13th October, 1932, was agreed to by this committee without discussion, but when it came before another place the representative of the Government moved that sub-items a and b of item 107 be merged in one item carrying a duty of 35 per cent, and 60 per cent, instead of one of 45 per cent, and 70 per cent. I am assured by the manufacturers of these galoons, the Australian “Weaving Company Limited, of Richmond, Victoria, that if the request of the Senate is granted the result will be a considerable loss of trade to them and short time work for their employees. This company has purchased new machinery, but if the reduction is approvedthis machinery will not, be put into operation and those who were to be given work as the result of its installation will still be obliged to seek employment. The local manufacturer has now to meet very considerable competition from Japan in men’s hat galoons made from both pure silk and artificial silk. The tariff exchange adjustment scheme will bring about a further reduction of the protection afforded. The effect of that scheme will be to decrease the duty under sub-items a andB. from the present, rate of 45 per cent, to 33¾ per cent. The adoption of the Senate’s request would mean the reduction of the duty to 35 per cent. The application of the exchange adjustment to that rate will reduce the duty by8¾ per cent, to 26¼ per cent. The primage duty also has been reduced from 10 per cent, to 5 per cent. The Australian manufacturer has to pay the full rate of exchange on his raw materials, whereas importers of similar goods will get the advantage of tariff adjustments as the exchange fluctuates. This will be an additional- advantage to British manufacturers, and will lead to a large increase of the imports from Great Britain of lines that can be manufactured in Australia. This is a serious matter to the local company, which has established a most efficient business, because it will be made vulnerable to imports from Japan and Great Britain. Although this isnot what may be considered a big industry, it and 50 or 60 others of a like nature employ a considerable number of persons. Anything that will keep men and women in employment, and open up opportunities for others, should be encouraged. This is a most enterprising firm. No fault can be found with the quality of its products. Too much heed should not be paid to the manufacturer who wants 100 per cent, protection for what he produces, and the cheapest market in which to purchase his raw materials. Any manufacturer who is given effective protection should be pre- ‘ pared to obtain his raw materials from other Australian manufacturers.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP
– This item was amended in the Senate because the report of the Tariff Board was not received until June of this year. The board made an excellent report, which shows that the fears of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) are groundless. This industry prospered under the 1921-28 tariff, and was able to increase its business. In fact, that section of it to which the honorable member has referred has held practically the whole of the Australian trade for the last twenty years. The proposed duties are adequate, and unemployment is not likely to be caused. An amendment has been made in connexion with water-waved ribbons, so that returned soldiers who wish to renew their war ribbons may be able to obtain them at the lowest possible price. I ask the committee to agree to the Senate’s request.
Motion agreed to.
Item 120 -
- Sponge Cloths, or sweat rags - ad valorem British, 40 per cent.; General, 60 per cent.
Senate’sRequest -
Amend sub-item to make it -
- Sponge cloths, sweat rags and Dorset cloths, and material in the piecefor the manufacture thereof - ad valorem British, 40 per cent.; General, 00 per cent.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP
– I move -
That the requested amendment be made.
The proposal is to make the fabric of which sponge cloths and sweat rags are made, dutiable at the same rate as the article itself. The Tariff Board’s report on textile articles in 1932 recommended duties of 40 per cent, and 60 per cent, on the finished sponge cloths, in view of the fact that the local manufacturer was at a disadvantage because of the high prices charged for Australian cotton yarn. The committee has already approved of the duties on the finished cloth, and can reasonably agree to their application to the fabric.
Motion agreed to.
Item 136-
Iron and steel -
Plate and sheet (plain) -
Other - per ton, British, 48s.; general, 85s. and a deferred duty as follows: -
On and after 1st July, 1933 -
Other - per ton, British, 90s.; general, 145s.
Senate’s request -
Leave out “ 1st July,1933,” and insert “ 1st January, 1934.”
Motion (by Mr. White) proposed -
That the requested amendment be made.
Mr GREGORY:
Swan
.- I should like to have the assurance of the Minister that this deferred duty will not be made operative except upon the recommendation of the Tariff Board. I understand that the act stipulates that that shall be done.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP
.- This is merely a formal amendment. I point out to the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) that section 12 of the act stipulates that when a deferred duty on any goods is provided for in the schedule, the Minister shall refer to the Tariff Board, for inquiry and report, the question whether, the deferred duty shall or shall not operate on and after the date to which it has been deferred.
Motion agreed to.
Item 136-
Iron and steel -
-
. .
- Hoop, n.e.i., ad valorem, British, free; general, 15 per cent., and a deferred duty as follows: -
On and after 1st October, 1933 -
- Hoop, n.e.i. - per ton, British, 70s.; general, 120s.
Senate’s request -
Leave out “ 1st October, 1933,” and insert “ 1st January, 1934.”
Motion (by Mr. White) agreed to -
That the requested amendment be made.
Item 145-
Iron and steel plate and sheet, viz.: -
Corrugated galvanized, galvanized not corrugated, and corrugated not galvanized - per ton, British! 90s.; general, 130s.
Senate’s request -
Amend item to make it -
Iron and steel plate and sheet, viz.: -
Corrugated galvanized, galvanized not corrugated, and corrugated not galvanized, per ton, British, 20s.
Motion (by Mr. White) proposed -
That the requested amendment be not made.
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia
.- This item came up for consideration while I was Minister for Trade and Customs. We know that the request to reduce the duty from 90s. to 20s. a ton is made chiefly on behalf of freetrade interests. Honorable members should realize the absurdity of some of the requests which come from the Senate. The adoption of such a preposterous suggestion as that the duty on galvanized iron should be reduced from 90s. to 20s. a ton would do considerable injury to one of the greatest industries in Australia. If we accept the Senate’s request, we shall revert to the duties in operationin 1921-28, when there was a bounty on the production of galvanizediron in Australia. That bounty varied from £4 10s. a ton on the 19th June, 1930, . to £3 3s. a ton on the 3rd October in that year. Eventually, it was abolished, and a duty substituted. The country cannot afford to restore that bounty. Any one who has inspected Lysaght’s factory must realize the national importance of this industry. The establishment of this Australian factory has resulted in lower prices for galvanized iron in Australia than in New Zealand, where there is no local manu- facture and no duty. The wholesale price in Australia of 26-gauge galvanized corrugated iron, “ Orb “ brand, on which there is a duty of £4 10s. a ton, is £24 10s. a ton, less discount, averaging 6f per cent., making the net price £22 17s. a ton. Corrugated galvanized iron of the same gauge and brand costs £25 15s. a ton wholesale in New Zealand, less 2^ per cent, discount, or £25 2s. 2d. a ton. Corrugated galvanized iron is nearly £3 a ton cheaper in Australia, where there is a local factory and a duty of £4 10s. a ton, than in New Zealand, where there is- no local factory and no duty. That shows the fallacy of the argument advanced by freetraders that prices are cheaper when there is no duty and no local factory. I hope that we shall not hear to-night of the privations of the primary producers, and of the additional costs incurred by them because of the alleged profiteering of those who manufacture galvanized iron in this country. Not only does the galvanizediron industry assist the Newcastle Iron and Steel Works by obtaining from it its supplies of steel bars; it also gives direct employment to 1,200 workers, and indirect employment to 3,000 persons in associated industries. Each year Lysaght’s factory utilizes raw material to the value of £876,000, including 24,000 tons of coal, 70,000 tons of steel bars, 8,000 tons of zinc, 3,400 tons of acids; and it is estimated that this year requirements in this respect will be increased by 20 per cent., bringing the total value of Australian raw materials up to nearly £1,000,000.
Mr Hutchin:
– It will be more than that.
Mr FORDE:
– John Lysaght (Australia) Limited is a subsidiary company, not of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, as many people imagine, but of John Lysaght Limited, of Bristol, England. Country party members, who are hostile to the galvanizediron industry, should realize what the manufacture of galvanized iron in Australia means to the northern coal-fields of New South Wales. The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin) knows that the works at Newcastle purchase 8,000 tons of zinc from the electrolytic zinc works at Hobart each year, at a cost of about £157,000. When I was Minister for Trade and Customs I had a thorough investigation made of this industry and gave it adequate protection, and for my action I was subjected to considerable criticism by honorable members now on the Government side of the chamber. When in opposition, the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) was outspoken in his criticism of my action in prohibiting the importation of galvanized iron, notwithstanding that the Australian factory was supplying our requirements at lower prices than those ruling in New Zealand. The honorable member said -
It would be a much easier matter to-day to make out a sound case for a reduction of the existing duties, because of the falling costs associated with the industry. … It is quite unfair - in fact it is an outrage at this period of Australia’s affairs - to ask Parliament to put Lysaght Limited on to a normal dividend-earning basis. The tariff was never intended to be used in that way. . . .
He was then in opposition. Later, I had the happy experience of seeing the honorable gentleman eat his own words, when, as Minister for Trade and Customs, he justified a continuance of ihe protection afforded to this industry by the Scullin Administration. He then said -
As everybody knows these companies have been suffering the full effects of the depression, and are enjoying anything but full prosperity at the present time. Some of the companies were actually carrying on at a loss when prices were reduced. One company has not paid a dividend ‘for two years. … It may be added that Lysaght Limited have placed returns before the department showing that the selling price which will operate after the 1st March will not return any profit or margin for depreciation. The company has offered the fullest accountancy investigation into its affairs.
When the Scullin Government was in office the present Minister for Trade and Customs. (Mr. White) railed against the protection it gave to this industry, but when he became Minister, he caused an investigation to be made, with the result that he was convinced that the Australian manufacturers of galvanized iron were not making the abnormal profits he had thought they were making. The dividends paid by the company since it was established twelve years ago represent only 3^ per cent, of the money actually expended, notwithstanding, that the establishment of the Australian factory meant a heavy loss to the parent company in Bristol, England, which, prior to the establishment of the local factory, had supplied 75 per cent, . of Australia’s requirements. The Australian manufacturers are taking steps to enable them to supply the whole of Australia’s requirements of galvanized iron, which are estimated at 70,000 tons a year, including 15,000 tons of black sheet iron. The first mills established in this country had a capacity of 25,000 tons of galvanized iron a year. . Since then, . their capacity has been increased to 80,000 tons, and arrangements are now being made to increase it to approximately 120,000 tons per .annum. When these extensions have been completed, the Australian company should be able to supply the whole of Australia’s normal requirements of this material. Before .the depression, Australia used approximately 120,000- tons of galvanized iron a year, and. I hope that before long we shall again require . that quantity. When I was Minister, firms which imported galvanized iron from Baldwin’s, of Great Britain, complained :that their product was being shut out, and that they were being seriously inconvenienced thereby. I, therefore, suggested a conference between John Lysaght (Australia) Limited, and the- representatives of these overseas people, as a result of which they came to an amicable arrangement whereby Baldwin’s organization in Australia agreed to obtain its requirements from John Lysaght (Australia) Limited, and to distribute that galvanized iron to its own clients., That arrangement is still working, satisfactorily.. The public in Australia is getting galvanized iron at £2 5s. 2d. a ton less than is paid for it in New Zealand. I mention these things to show the absurdity of some of the requests which come from the Senate. I hope that the committee will not entertain this request.
Mr GREGORY:
Swan
.- Earlier this evening the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) referred to certain persons as the catspaws of the big importing interests. I accept the honorable gentleman’s assurance that he did riot refer to me, but I suggest that he take the mote out of his own eye. There may be others who are the catspaws of other interests.
Mr Forde:
– The honorable gentleman said that, in putting forward the policy of the party to which I belong, I was acting as the catspaw of other interests. That remark is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr GREGORY:
– I did not say anything of the kind. I have here a copy of a memorandum circulated by John Lysaght, in which the following passage- occurs: -
Reference is made in the Tariff Board’s report to the sum of £500,000 shown in the balance-sheet of the Australian company, as the price paid in shares by this company to John Lysaght Limited, Bristol, -for the processes, goodwill, brands and trade marks of the English company.
The two companies not only work together in. Australia and New Zealand, but the Australian company is expected to find interest on £500,000 worth of shares held by the parent company in England.
There is another form of combination which is operating to keep up prices. On page 6 of the Tariff Board’s report, the following appears: -
By an arrangement between the employer and employees, which i.s not registered in the Arbitration Court, piece-wonk rates are paid for most of the labour in the galvanized iron industry, and the rates, which were fixed at a percentage above the English base rates for similar labour when the New South Wales State basic wage was £3 18s. per week, increase or decrease as the State basic wage rises or falls.
During the early part of 1931, rollers who were working full time averaged £10 ls. 4d. a week, while the average adult earnings of employees were £6 9s. Id. a week. Two years ago, I quoted in this House a letter from Lysaght’s to its customers stating that, owing to the many complaints made in Parliament, they were prepared to deal with all who wished to deal with them, but that members of the association would be granted a special rebate which would enable them to compete successfully against outsiders. This industry, and the iron and steel industry with which it is allied, should be in a better position to meet competition than any other in Australia. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, which supplies the steel from which galvanized iron is made, has access to unlimited iron ore deposits of the very highest quality. It has coal mines at its doors, and is able to bring ships right to its works. Its factory is equipped with the best machinery, and it has built up a magnificent asset at the expense of the people of Australia.
Discussing the association between the iron and steel industry and Lysaghts, the Tariff Board states -
The principal item of cost in the production of galvanized iron is the steel from which the sheets are rolled. This steel, which is in the form of sheet bars, is wholly produced in Australia, and is supplied by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. The price paid for steel is based on a fixed percentage of the net selling price of galvanized iron.
According to sworn evidence given by Mr. Hutchinson before the Tariff Board, the cost of steel bars for the making of galvanized iron in Australia is higher than the cost of the finished galvanized iron in Great Britain. If the industry really needs assistance, it should bo granted in the form of a bounty. In 1921, the Hughes Government yielded to the claim of the industry for help by paying a bounty rather than by imposing a duty, because it felt that this necessary commodity should be obtainable by the people as cheaply as possible. A man who wishes to build a barn, or a shed, or a little home for himself, should be able to buy the material he needs in the cheapest market. When we consider that Australian industries enjoy an advantage of 25 per cent, by reason of the exchange rate, it becomes evident that Lysaght’s and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited ought to be able to carry on without further assistance. The Broken Hill company boasts that it possesses the best iron deposits in the world, the ore being from 66 to 68 per cent, pure iron. When the company began operations, it stated publicly that it wanted no assistance by way of bounty or duty, and that if it could not compete against the rest of the world without artificial protection it was prepared to go out of business. However, when Mr. Mackay became a member of the directorate, he began to use the influence which the company possessed to obtain concessions of various kinds.
Mr White:
– Does the honorable member suggest that the company has any influence with this Government?
Mr GREGORY:
– The Minister must remember the incident of the deferred duty on steel plates. I think he had been in office for two days when it occurred.
Mr White:
– If the honorable member suggests that the .action taken on that occasion was due to influence brought to bear by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company, he is not fit to be a member of this House.
The CHAIRMAN” (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA
– The Minister is out of order. .
Mr GREGORY:
– The statement which the Minister has just made is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn.
Mr White:
– I said that, if the honorable member suggested that the Government had been influenced by the company, he was not fit to be a member of the House. If the honorable member considers that statement to be offensive to him I shall withdraw it. If he does not regard it as offensive, what does he mean ?
Mr GREGORY:
– I shall have more to say on this matter when we are discussing the budget. There- can be no doubt regarding the influence which this company exercises, both politically and industrially. I have noticed that when an honorable member objects in this House to the granting of concessions to various interests,- there is always some one ready to suggest that he is actuated by ulterior motives. In this instance I am moved solely by desire to protect the interests of the people, and to ensure that they shall be able to buy what they need at a reasonable price. These industries have received generous assistance from the community. Lysaght’s and the Broken Hill Proprietary Company have between them received in bounties £1,850,000, but if assistance be. necessary, it is better that it should be given by way of bounty, than that the users of the commodity should have to bear the whole cost.
Mr Makin:
– Would the honorable member support a proposal for the payment of a bounty ?
Mr GREGORY:
– I .would, rather than that the present high duty should remain. If the Tariff Board, after due inquiry, reported that a bounty was necessary, I should be prepared to support it.
Mr Makin:
– Did not the honorable member, on a previous occasion, oppose the payment of a bounty ?
Mr GREGORY:
– I opposed the payment of a bounty of £4 10s. a ton by the Labour Government, when the bounty amounted to more than the whole of the wages paid in the industry. It is a remarkable thing that whenever this subject is before Parliament for discussion the price of galvanized iron falls, only to rise again when the discussion is over.
Mr Hutchin:
– The price will fall still further when the company’s turnover increases as result of the installation of new plant.
Mr GREGORY:
– Perhaps, but that will depend on what advantage the company can take of the Australian market. Both the Broken Hill Proprietary Company and Lysaght’s have always been prepared to accept the full value of whatever concessions have been granted to them. Every requirement for the manufacture of galvanized iron is available in Australia, including spelter from Tasmania, and iron ore from Iron Nob. But how can the industry carry on successfully when special privileges are given to every one engaged in it, from the coalminer to those who man the ships used to carry, the raw and finished product? Only a little while ago it was reported that it cost 2s. 9d. a bushel to transport maize,- from Atherton to Melbourne, and proportionately high transport costs have to be borne by users of galvanized iron. Every person on the land needs galvanized iron to develop his property, and the price of this much needed commodity should be made as cheap as possible. Our iron and steel products should be able to compete with those from any other country, particularly as they enjoy such a substantial exchange protection. In the circumstances, there should be no need for a duty. If any further assistance is to be granted to the industry, let it be done by a bounty, but by ali means it should be made possible for the public to have the finished product as cheaply as possible.
Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland
.- I wish to correct the misstatement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Forde) that honorable members of the Country party have always shown considerable hostility to those engaged in the Australian galvanized iron industry. Members of this party are well disposed towards the producers of every class of goods in Australia, and they certainly have no hostility towards manufacturers who are providing the needs of the country. Our criticism is directed, not at local manufacture, but at excessively high imposts on iron and steel products, which place a heavy burden on those who have to use these commodities for developmental purposes.
The honorable gentleman also attempted to make the point that the request which the committee is now considering is an absurd one, and will force the Australian industry out of business. To characterize the request of the Senate as absurd is foolish, because it is within £1 a ton of the last recommendation which was made by the Tariff Board, of British, £2 per ton, and foreign, £5 per ton. The requested duty is, consequently, not unreasonably low, and it is unfair to term the request as absurd.
Galvanized iron has aroused a good deal of interest in this chamber whenever it has been discussed. Only on one occasion did no debate take place upon the item, and that, perhaps, was due to the exceptional dexterity which you, sir, then displayed-
The CHAIRMAN:
– Order !
Mr PATERSON:
– I did not mean to be disrespectful or to imply any wrong v motive against the Chair. I merely complimented you, sir, on putting the item through so expeditiously.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The honorable member is not in order. As a matter of fact the Chair remembers very well what happened when this item was previously before the committee. The fact that there was no debate was not due to “exceptional dexterity” on the part of the Chair; it was due rather to honorable members’ lack of desire to discuss it, or to their inattention.
Mr PATERSON:
– I understand that on that occasion the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) had prepared a splendid speech, which did not see the light of day.
It is not surprising that a great deal of interest should be aroused when the item comes up to debate, because galvanized iron is a very necessary commodity and its price may, to a large extent, determine whether the development of the outback portions of Australia shall be speedy or retarded. I do not think that I shall waste the time of the committee if I quote a short extract from the Tariff Board’s report on galvanized iron dated the 18th August, 1933, which reads -
It must not be overlooked, however, that a low sale price for galvanized iron is of very great value to the community generally. Galvanized iron is undoubtedly the best material yet produced for many .purposes, particularly for use in rural and mining industries. Its strength, light weight, lasting qualities, adaptability for erection and fabri-. cation, and the low costs for its transport, place it in a field without any serious competitor, and there must be an increasing demand to extend the area of waterproof covering for stock, implements, plant, stores, &c, to extend house accommodation, and to fabricate into tanks, troughing and utensils.
It is well known that the high prices that have persisted for some time past have resulted in retarded development and some economic waste, and it is reasonable to expect that an increased demand will follow price reductions. The increased use of galvanized iron will result in increased employment, not only in the industries associated with its manufacture, but .also in the trades employed in its use; further, a lower price for galvanized iron is ‘bound to stimulate employment among some of the smaller rural industries, because many small settlers desiring to expand their activities have been unable to afford to pay the existing rates.
The reference concludes with the words -
It is interesting to record that the sales of galvanized iron increased rapidly after the price reductions made early this year. It has been pointed out to the board that the early months of the year generally represent the period when sales are highest, but there is little doubt that an appreciable proportion of the increased business was due to the lower prices.
The hoard has made two comprehensive reports on galvanized iron, the one to which I have referred, and another dated the 18th April, 1931. In the latter the board considered that sufficient protection was afforded to the industry by the high rate of exchange, which was then 30 per cent., but stated that if assistance were given to the industry the rates should be : British, 90s., and foreign, 130s.; provided that the ruling price for galvanized iron was brought down to £25 a ton gross. As those calculations were based on an output of 60,000 tons per annum, which had not then been reached, the then Minister for Customs referred the matter back to the Tariff Board. The result was the second report from which I have quoted and which states that the industry has now reached an output of 60,000 per annum. That should bring about a cheapening of production which, perhaps, is one of the reasons why the board has made a further alternative recommendation as follows: -
In conformity with its views expressed herein, the Tariff Board recommends -
That item 145 of the Customs Tariff 1921-1930, be amended to read -
Item 145. - Iron and steel plate and sheet, viz. : - Corrugated galvanized, galvanized not corrugated, and corrugated not galvanized, per ton, British preferential, 40s.; general, 100s.
That is £2 10s. a ton less than the previous duty of 90s. which the Senate has seen fit to request should be amended to 20s. We must remember that an exception is made in the case of this industry so far as primage is concerned, the full rate of 10 per cent, being retained. It will be noticed that galvanized iron, is omitted from the list that was recently tabled by the Minister, enumerating the items from or which there shall be either a reduced primage or none’ at all. I understand that the Tariff Board has made these recommendations after taking into consideration the protectional incidence of primage and exchange. The legislation which we passed in this chamber only two days ago also exempted galvanized iron from any reductions of British preferential rates of duty designed partially to offset the exchange rate. Honorable members should keep in mind’ that the benefit of the exchange rate is enjoyed almost in its entirety by this industry, because the whole of its raw materials are produced in Australia. It is true that spelter may be said to be increased in price owing to the fact that it is exported, but only to that extent does exchange affect the cost of those producing galvanized iron. The Tariff Board, in its last annual report, commented upon Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement as follows: -
The interpretation of Article X. of the agreement has given rise to much controversy. Both in Australia and in the United Kingdom it appears to have been assumed by some that the giving of “ full opportunity of reasonable competition” entails finely adjusting duties so as to place efficient manufacturers of the United Kingdom and of Australia on exactly the same price level in the Australian market. There is no doubt that such, a practice would seriously reduce the sale of goods that can be made in Australia and sold at reasonable prices. This would seriously dislocate industries which have been established for years and would lead to an increase in unemployment, together with wastage of huge capital investment. The subversive consequences of such a policy could not fail to engender opposition to the Ottawa agreement.
The agreement stresses the point that the duties imposed should permit of reasonable competition. The Board has many times urged this view both in its annual reports and in reports on individual subjects. The alternative to a competitive basis is the application of a prohibitive duty, a method of applying protection that the Board has consistently deprecated. It is true that prohibitive duties do secure the whole local market to Australian manufacturers, but at considerable risk of excessive cost to the consumer.
Tariff duties which exclude external competition may tend to stabilize unduly high prices and encourage heavy profit taking, or by taking away the pressure of competition m av reduce efficiency. Even where such results are not likely because of keen local competition, the imposition of prohibitive rates has frequently had a disruptive effect on the local industry itself, by inducing overinvestment of capital in manufacturing plant, thus dividing output and increasing overhead, the reduction of which Aras the professed objective when the prohibitive rates were imposed.
The Board, therefore, while heartily supporting the competitive principle in tariff - making, rejects the idea that duties should be merely equalizing. In established efficient industries where capital and overhead charges enter largely into production costs,, the division of the present market between local and overseas producers, by restricting local output, would increase the costs of production, necessitating higher selling prices and the imposition of higher duties to restore reasonably competitive conditions.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The honorable member’s time has expired.
Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison
.- I have seen this industry in operation and therefore can appreciate its importance to the Commonwealth. The objection to the, rates of duty which the industry now enjoys is based on the price which the agriculturalists have to pay for galvanized iron. They want cheaper galvanized iron. Let me point out that the output of this industry is used mainly not by the agriculturalists but in the cities and suburbs, in country towns and by the mining industry. The galvanized iron industry is’ peculiar in that economic factors upon which its cost of production depends are greater than those obtaining in respect of other classes of industry. The Newcastle works has practically a monopoly of the Australian market. That is objected to on principle by some honorable members, but that objection can be over-ridden by taking the facts into consideration. If we desire cheaper galvanized iron are we to get it by lowering the duties ? I suggest that the price will not be reduced by lowering the duty because the only effect of that would be to reduce greatly the turnover of the business. The output of the works has climbed steadily until to-day it is 60,000 tons. The managing director and the general manager are now abroad obtaining information as to the latest developments in this class of manufacture, and they are purchasing the latest plant capable of extending the output to 100,000 tons, which will just about meet Australia’s requirements within the next few years if the general trend towards a revival of prosperity continues. The Tariff Board, in fixing the present rate of duty, has taken all the factors into consideration. The goodwill of £500,000, to which objection has been taken, has been discarded by the board; but it has made pertinent comments about wages which are perhaps worthy of a little consideration. The industry employs 1,200 operatives and the wage bill is about £7,000 a week, the average earnings being £5 a week. The work is all carried out on piece-work and the rates fixed are those which have been in force in the industry in Great Britain with due relation to the basic wage obtaining here. It is idle to deny that the galvanized iron workers are earning above the average wage of ordinary industrial workers in Australia and perhaps some cause for complaint may lie in that direction, but we must take into account the fact that the prime labour cost in the galvanized iron industry is not more than 40 per cent, of the total cost, and, as the Tariff Board has observed, even a substantial reduction of wages would not permit of a very substantial reduction of prices. The only way in which a reduction of the price is possible is by increased turnover giving lower raw material costs and lower overhead costs. The Tariff Board has carefully examined this industry and the books of the company have been placed at its disposal. With an increasing turnover and with supervision by the board of the cost factors the effect- will be to reduce prices. In the fixing of the duty it has ordered the maximum selling price and as the turnover increases it can make further orders. That seems to me to be a perfectly sound and sane method of dealing with the industry. On the other hand, any disturbance of the industry will result in depriving it of the turnover which it is developing, and inevitably its costs will increase, and the purchasers in the long nin will be worse off than before. The bigger an industry is’ the bigger target it presents’ to its critics. The iron and steel works at Newcastle constitutes perhaps Australia’s greatest industrial group. The main industry and its subsidiary industries are characterized by great efficiency ; in fact, I doubt’ whether there is, throughout the world, a more efficient undertaking than that of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company limited, at Newcastle. The enterprise of the firm has been outstanding, and is exemplified in the number of industries which have grown out of the mother industry. During the depression, when governmental expenditure had to be curtailed, when loan moneys were unavailable, and railways and big constructional works needing large quantities of steel could no longer be carried out, the steel works lost much business, and many thousands of men lost their employment. When’ I was at Newcastle recently, the manager told me that, but for the consumption by the subsidiary industries of the products of the steel mill, it could not have carried on. I know that gentleman well enough to believe that what ho told me was true, and, had the works closed down, it would have been a matter of grave concern, not only for Newcastle, but also for the State of New South Wales, and the Commonwealth as a whole. I ask the committee not to accept the Senate’s request. I was amazed to find that some of the senators representing Tasmania had supported it. When the carbide industry was under consideration, they said that the industry was vital to Tasmania. If that industry is vital to that State, then the galvanized- iron industry is ten times as vital to Tasmania.. The production of zinc involves the whole Tasmanian hydro-electric scheme. While the Tariff Board is policing the iron .and steel industry, it is not likely to exploit the Australian market to its own advantage. The return on its capital has averaged less than 5. per cent., and I suppose that no honorable member would think of investing in an industrial concern which did not show a greater return than that. I doubt very much whether the industry in Great Britain is as efficient as the Australian industry. The British firm of Lysaght’s, of which the Australian firm is an offshoot, has been practically broken up into three parts, one being in Australia, another in South America, and the other - a small remnant - remaining in Great Britain. I venture to forecast that, when the new plant is in operation, with the increasing turnover and the supervision of the Tariff Board, the price of galvanized iron will steadily decline.
Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle
.- I quite agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin), who has a thorough knowledge of the operation of the works at Newcastle. It must not he forgotten that the British industry established a branch in Australia only at the’ request of the Commonwealth Government, which was anxious to reduce the price of galvanized iron from the then ruling rate of about £80 a ton. This industry was established in 1915. just after the war commenced, and at that time the primary producers were making little or no complaint about the prices charged by the importers of galvanized iron: The Lysaght works at Newcastle have been subject to continual investigation by the Customs Department and the Tariff Board. The firm is now proposing to expend £50,000 on the purchase of new plant, in order to increase its turnover.
Mr Hutchin:
– It proposes to expend something like £150,000.
Mr.WATKINS. - I was sorry to hear the deputy leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson) say that this firm, as a result of establishing an all-Australian industry, had added to the cost of galvanized iron. No industry is more Australian in its nature than the galvanized iron works at Newcastle. The iron ore is obtained from Iron Knob, the spelter from Tasmania, and other raw materials from Queensland. If we injure the main industry, naturally the subsidiary industries will be similarly affected. The Tariff Board recommended duties based upon the selling price of galvanized iron. If the price fell below £25 a ton, then the duty was to be £4 10s. a ton. The price to-day at every port of the Commonwealth is £24 a ton, which is below that charged for imported galvanized iron in 1915. This industry has been subject to more investigation than any other industry, and it has stood the test well. The officials of the department admit that the company has always placed its cards upon the table, and given them ready access to its books. As stated by the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin), the galvanized iron works at Newcastle are now ; directly employing 1,000 men and consuming approximately 700 tons , of coal weekly, the production and transport of which also provide considerable employment. Moreover, the distribution of the products of the works gives a good deal of employment on the railways, at distributing centres, and on the wharfs. It is difficult to estimate the actual number of men who depend upon the activities of this great Australian industry for a livelihood. The company has done all that has . been required of it, and in order to overcome the complaint mentioned from time to time by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory), now supplies galvanized iron to any one requiring it in 2-ton lots or over, instead of selling only through distributors. The price is now £24 a ton in every capital city in the Commonwealth, and the honorable member for Swan should feel satisfied that supplies are available at the same rate at
Fremantle as at Sydney. Allowing for the trade discount granted to distributors, the net price at which they receive supplies is £22 10s. a ton. Instead of the company saddling the primary producers with additional costs, as some suggest, it has made a determined effort to supply, not only their requirements, but also those of contractors and builders at a reasonable price. Some have objected to the present rate of duty on the ground that the employees in the industry receive a slightly higher rate of wages than obtains in other industries; but, as mentioned by the honorable member for Denison, all the men are on piece-work, and, considering the arduous nature of the work, they earn all they receive. If the duty were reduced and the company compelled to increase its production in Great Britain to meet the Australian demand, large numbers of men now employed at Newcastle would be thrown out of work. As the price of galvanized iron in New Zealand, where no customs duty is imposed, is £2 10s. a ton higher than it is in Australia, it cannot be said that users in the Commonwealth are being exploited by a sheltered industry. I am pleased to learn that the duty on this commodity is not to be modified in consequence of the exchange, which has such a disturbing effect on Australian trade. The honorable member for Swan said that the galvanized iron industry should be protected by way of a bounty; but, when a bounty was paid, the honorable member said that the cost was too great. The Tariff Board, ‘ which has conducted exhaustive inquiries into the operation of the iron and steel industry, has shown that the company has done everything possible to carry on its operations on an efficient and economic basis, and without compulsion has reduced the price of galvanized iron to the present Tate. The members of the Country party should remember that this great Australian industry can produce galvanized iron of a quality equal to that produced in any part of the world, and that at present it is meeting the requirements of Australian users. If the duty were reduced the company’s operations would be seriously curtailed, and there would be a possibility of this great industry, which is so essential to Australia’s national welfare and general development, being destroyed. As a result of the adoption of the Ottawa agreement, certain influences have been at work to single out this industry for special treatment.
The CHAIRMAN:
– The honorable member’s time has expired.
Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield
.- The honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) suggests that since the Ottawa agreement was signed, certain British influences have been exerted against this company, but I do not think that that is so. From my knowledge of the preliminary discussions, article 10 of the agreement, as the Tariff Board pointed out, was not intended to cover importations at duties which would increase the costs of certain Australian manufacturers by reducing their market and their turnover. The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson) quoted from the annual report of the Tariff Board, including the board’s interpretation of a competitive duty. The Tariff Board makes it quite plain that it has not acted on the assumption that duties should be so adjusted that the business of an industry such as this would be whittled away, and its production costs increased. A competitive level of duties was intended to apply only to those industries producing different commodities for some of which there would be a big demand in Australia and for others a comparatively limited or specialized demand. It has always been contended that in the ©ase of industries producing goods for which there was a considerable Australian demand, necessitating a heavy overhead expenditure, the duties should be practically prohibitive. The duties on some specialized lines should not be so high as to foster manufacture at extravagant cost. . Such goods should be subject to a competitive duty. The idea was that tariff rates should be so adjusted that outsizes and specialty lines, the manufacture of which could not be economically undertaken in Australia, would be imported, and the fact that these were coming in would provide some check against exploitation in the monopoly lines. But those conditions do not exist for an industry like the manufacture of galvanized iron, which has a large turnover in a product of very even type. I believe that it was clearly understood that if an industry could be efficiently established in Australia, a tariff would be provided which would give the industry the full turnover. The board, in its recommendation regarding galvanized iron, pointed that out, and also showed that in any other case of that kind there would be no competitive check upon a trickle of imports of specialty lines which, would protect the public from exploitation. The board stated that a monopoly duty should be conditional upon goods being supplied to the Australian public of adequate quality, and at a reasonable price. The board indicated what it considered a reasonable price, and also what would be reasonable adjustments of price following any alteration of costs in respect of wages and raw materials, such as spelter or coal.
The Tariff Board’s report on galvanized iron is over a year old, and since the Government has looked into the matter the company has made several reductions of price; but I believe that the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) is wrong in saying that those reductions have been made without any indication from the Tariff Board, because the board clearly laid down what the fluctuations of price ought’ to be. On page 11 of its report, it said that for every reduction of the basic wage by £1 the price of iron should be reduced 34s. a ton. What the committee ought to know is to what extent the supervision of the price and quality has been effective. For instance, during the last few weeks several alterations have taken place regarding production costs in New South Wales, which, undoubtedly, must relieve the company of certain expense. The reduction of the charge in New South Wales for child endowment must materially affect the cost of producing galvanized iron, and I have no doubt that it would greatly interest members of the Country party, and all other members of the committee, if the Minister could inform us that he had inquired from the company as to what adjustment it intended to m’ake in consequence of this reduction of its costs. I presume that lie has scarcely had time to inquire what adjustment will be made as the result of the lowering of the basic wage in New South Wales last week, but it would be re-assuring to know that he had already made inquiries, and had received an intimation from the company that it proposed to take appropriate action. If the committee is certain that the public is being protected against exploitation, the Minister is not unreasonable in asking us to agree to the continuance of the present tariff. Prom my knowledge of the basis on which the preliminary discussions with the representatives of the British Government were conducted, I do not think that in the case of this particular duty the British people should feel that article 10 of the Ottawa agreement is not being observed if the operation of the second alternative of the Tariff Board is continued. It is vital that the Australian public should know that by the adoption of the proposal for the higher rate, and for the policing of the price and quality, the matter is being closely watched, and the primary producers, the building trade and the mining industry are fully protected. If the Minister cannot give an adequate assurance, the committee has no option but to support the suggestion of the honorable member for Gippsland, that the alternative recommendation of the board should be adopted.
Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland
– The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) has referred to article 10 of the Ottawa agreement. I quoted from the annual report of .the Tariff Board in order to indicate that its interpretation’ of that article is a guarantee that the duties of 40s. a ton British, and 100s. a ton general, recommended by it do not merely place British and Australian manufacturers on an equal competitive footing, but gave a definite margin of advantage to the local industry. If rates of 40s. and 100s. a ton are regarded as fulfilling article 10 of the agreement, and as reasonably competitive, with a margin of advantage to the local industry, how can rates of 90s. and 130s. a ton be regarded as conforming with that article? Article 10 makes no reference to price agreements between the Government and the manufacturers; it simply stipulates that we must not impose duties against British goods that are higher than reasonably competitive rates, as interpreted by the Tariff Board. Now, 40s. a ton on British galvanized iron is regarded by the- bo;ird as a reasonably competitive level, with a little thrown in for the benefit of the Australian manufacturer, and therefore it is impossible to regard a duty of 50s. a ton higher than that as a reasonably competitive one. On page 6 of its report the Tariff Board shows the tremendous disparity between the Australian price of steel and the price of similar English sheet bars. It states -
At the company’s present output and present selling prices for galvanized iron the price of steel according to the “ steel agreement “ is between £8 and £9 per ton. According to The Iron and Coal Trades Review of 20th May, 1932, the price of English sheet bars delivered to manufacturers was from £4 15s. to £5 7s. 6d. per ton; Belgian sheet bars were quoted at £2 14s. per ton f.o.b. Antwerp, and at £4 12s. Cd. to £4 lus. per ton delivered to manufacturers in the Birmingham district; the delivered prices include duty at 33J per cent.
I realize that living conditions in Australia are better than those in Belgium; but the difference between £8 and £9 a ton, and the prices that I have quoted for English sheet bars, is tremendous; one is almost double the other. In order to test the feeling of the committee, I propose that we adopt the first of the alternative rates recommended by the board. I move -
That the requested amendment be made with the following modification: - Instead of “per ton British, 20s. “ read, “ per ton British, 40s.; general, 100s.”
The simpler arrangement would be to give the industry the lower rate of duty, and thus avoid the trouble of policing the price to the extent that will be necessary if the higher rate be continued.
Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle
.- I hope that the committee will not agree to the amendment. The whole position was thoroughly explained by the Tariff Board in its report, and I think it is clearly understood by honorable members. The price of the local product has beenreduced to £24 10s. for single ton lots. With discounts; this is- equivalent to £22 6s. Sd. Surely that should satisfy the honorable member for Gippsland? I trust that the committee will not accept the amendment, and thus break faith with a firm which was induced to commence operations in Australia, and is employing local workmen, and supplying to the users an entirely Australian product. It is time the anti-Australian outlook in this chamber ceased. The firm in question is doing its best to honour its obligations.
Mr Paterson:
– My amendment will not hurt it.
Mr WATKINS:
– Then why has the honorable member moved it? I feel sure that there is a sufficient number in this committee to reject it, and to insist on the Government honouring its promise to the firm. If the company was making high profits, something might be said in favour of the amendment ; but for the last two or three years its profits have not exceeded 3 per cent. Do honorable members of the Country party begrudge to this Australian industry even that small margin of profit, and would they prefer to encourage employment overseas rather than in this country? As a matter of fact, all British manufacturers of galvanized iron are not patriotic enough -to patronize their own blast furnaces. Some of them import their blooms from the Continent, principally from Belgium, with the result that a number of blast furnaces in Britain have been forced to close. This being an. all-Australian industry, it should receive adequate consideration at the hands of honorable members. The Senate’s amendment is really an insult to this chamber.
Mr NOCK:
Riverina
.- It has been said that there are two ‘sides to every question. The public of Australia has certain obligations with regard to its industries, and, on the other hand, its industries have certain obligations to the people. The Tariff Board has pointed out that the difficulty with this industry is that it has a monopoly of the Australian market, and, therefore, in the fixation of the selling .prices for its products, is not subject to restraint of competition, which is such a marked feature of other Australian industrial concerns. This afternoon, when speaking to another item, I indicated that I was prepared to support a tariff that was commensurate with the burden placed on any economic industry in Australia ;. that is to say, the tariff protection given should be sufficient to offset higher wages and higher costs for the raw material, and allow of a reasonable margin of profit. Statements made to-night suggest that the Australian galvanized iron industry has no protection other than that afforded by the tariff. This is not the case. Even on the figures submitted by Lysaght’s Limited, the protection enjoyed by that firm - apart from the tariff - includes freight, insurance, wharfage charges, agents’ buying commission, and primage and represents £14 5s. 5d. a ton. The f.o.b. London price of English galvanized iron is £13 15s. a ton, plus exchange. In the light of these figures, can it be argued that the protection enjoyed by the Australian industry is not more than commensurate with its greater burden of cost3? I admit that the industry is not taking advantage of the whole of the protection given, but I do not agree with the statement made by the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) that it voluntarily reduced its prices. A price list of English galvanized iron which came, to the market in spite of this excessive protection given to the Australian industry, shows that in January last it was selling at £24 a ton. This competition, I contend, was mainly responsible for the lowering of the price of the Australian product. On another occasion in. this House, I quoted relative prices for Australian and English iron, and showed that there was a margin of 25s. a ton in favour of the latter. It was significant that, within a fortnight or three weeks, the price of the Australian product dropped. If the Government gives to this industry a monopoly of the Australian market, it should see that the people of this country get a fair deal. A duty of £4 10s. a ton on British iron is excessive. The total price reductions made by the local industry since January, 1932, amount to only 14.3 per cent. This is not adequate in view of the reduction of interest rates, costs of coal, spelter, and wages, and remissions of taxation. There is definite need for a more efficient policing of the prices charged to Australian purchasers of this commodity.
A reduction of 10s. a ton during the last thirteen months is not enough. Some time ago I paid a visit to the works, and was impressed with what I saw there. The management is efficient and the employees are, I consider, entitled to higher wages than obtained in many occupations, because of the conditions under which they have to work. But making allowance for all these things I am convinced that the price of Australian galvanized iron can, and should, bo substantially reduced. The figures covering the prices of steel mentioned by the honorable member for Gippsland, in support of his amendment, are worthy of attention. The fact that this Australian industry can fix its own prices and pay to the Newcastle steel works 100 per cent, more for its raw material than is paid by manufacturers in England is, I think, sufficient evidence that something is wrong. How can the company justify its price of from £8 to £9 a ton for steel sheets, compared with £4 15s. paid in England?’ The rate of duty is practically prohibitive. It has resulted in the establishment, in one State, of an industry that has secured a monopoly of the Australian market and is thus able to fix its own prices. In view of the reduction of the child endowment tax in New South Wales, of lower wages, lower interest charges, reductions of the sales tax, as well as reductions of the prices of coal and spelter, increased turnover, and also’ because of the generally more promising trade outlook, it should . be possible for this company immediately to make further substantial reductions of the prices charged for its product. I shall support the amendment.
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia
.- It is difficult to understand the figures quoted by members of the Country party in this committee and in the Senate, in their endeavour to make the people believe that the burdens of primary producers are being increased by the protection given to the galvanized iron industry. John Lysaght Australia Limited employs 1,200 persons directly, and 3,000 directly and indirectly. No honorable member has yet endeavoured to explain why the price of . galvanized iron in -Australia is £2 5s. 2d. a ton lower than in New Zealand, where there is neither a duty nor a locally-established industry. As Minister for Trade and Customs,” I had an investigation made of the galvanized iron requirements on a wheat farm of 960 acres, the buildings on which consisted of a six-roomed house, a machinery shed, the dimensions of which were 66 feet by 24 feet, open 66 feet front; a stable 70 feet by 20 feet, open 70 feet front; a mouse-proof barn, 40 feet by 20 feet ; a chaffhouse, 25 feet by 20 feet ; two mouse-proof stack enclosures, 66 feet by 24 feet; a cow-shed 16 feet by 12 feet, open 16 feet front; a garage or buggy shed 18 feet by 16 feet ; and a fowl-house 20 feet by 12 feet. The tonnage of galvanized corrugated iron required for the walls and roofs of those buildings totalled 7½ tons. Those are greater than the requirements on an average farm; but in such a case, the Australian farmer would be £16 17s. 6d. better off than a New Zealand farmer, who had to purchase the same quantity of iron. That completely rebuts the fallacious argument of members of the Country party, that a tremendous burden is imposed on the farmers of Australia by reason of the duty of £4 10s. a ton on galvanized iron. I also had a careful investigation made into the percentage of galvanized iron used by the farming community.
Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP
– What is the life of galvanized iron?
Mr FORDE:
– At a conservative estimate, twenty years. Iron used at the seaside might not last longer than five or six years unless it is painted with an anticorrosive paint every six months; but I know of iron inland, that was in good condition after having been in use for 40 or 50 years. Different firms or distributors from whom inquiries were made estimated the percentage of galvanized iron used by primary producers at 15 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent., and 37½ per cent. A reliable estimate, therefore, would be 25 per cent.
Mr Dennis:
– That is -a liberal estimate.
Mr FORDE:
– It is. Some estimates place the figure at only 5 per cent. Those made by members of the Country party take into account the galvanized iron used in the country towns of Australia, although a large proportion of such iron is devoted to the use of town interests, and not to that of primary producers. Let me give some further figures in regard to the 960-acre wheat farm to which I have already referred. Assume that only 320 acres are cropped each year, and that a 12 bushel to the acre crop is garnered. The total amount of duty on7½ tons of galvanized iron at £4 10s. a ton, would be £33 15s. I presume that that expenditure would be incurred at the outset of a farmer’s operations, and would not recur every year. Capitalized over a period of twenty years, at an interest rate of 5 per cent., it would increase the farmer’s costs by½d. a bag of 3 bushels, or one-sixth of a penny a bushel. That dispels the argument that the farmers are bearing a heavy burden by reason of the existence of this duty. On the contrary, a farmer who needs 7½ tons of galvanized iron is saved £16 17s. 6d. compared with a similarly situated farmer in New Zealand where there is no local industry. It must be borne in mind that even before John Lysaght Limited established works in this country, that firm was supplying 75 per cent, of Australia’s requirements of galvanized iron” from its Bristol works. Australia’s experience of soaring prices during and subsequent to the war, made imperative action to safeguard us against such a contingency in the future. Consequently, the then Prime Minister, the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), when in London on one occasion, interviewed representatives of John Lysaght Limited, and gave them the assurance that’ if they established inside our tariff wall a factory that would produce what Australia required, adequate protection would be given to them. Up to the time when they were able to supply a substantial proportion of the requirements of the Australian market, the protection given was not wholly by means of a duty, but was a duty-cum-bounty form of protection. Subsequently the bounty was withdrawn, and a duty regarded as adequate was imposed. No effective argument can be advanced against this industry. Even members of the Country party admit that it is highly efficient. It provides a big local market for the products of our primary industries. The honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser), in a recent speech in Queensland, expressed the view that the local market confers the greatest advantage on the primary producer, and that that was one of the reasons for his advocacy of protection. I hope that he will enlighten his friends of the Country party as to the importance of building up this and similar big labouremploying industries, so that the consumption of maize butter, wheat, potatoes, onions, and other products of the farmers of Australia, may be increased. The butter industry, because of the local demand, receives £4,000,000 a year more for its output than would be received if the whole of its production were exported and sold in competition with the butter produced by countries whose standard of living is lower than that of Australia. The efficiency of this industry, and its performances, speak for themselves. There is no justification for the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Country party.
Mr PROWSE:
Forrest
.- I support the amendment moved by the deputy leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson). It is all very well for the deputy leader of the Labour party (Mr. Forde) to work out figures to show the effect on the price of wheat of the cost of the galvanized iron used to cover the buildings on a farm, but the matter should be viewed from another angle. An agriculturist in England pays £13 a ton for galvanized iron, whereas the wholesale price in Australia is £24 a ton. For the last galvanized iron which I bought I paid £30 a ton. A farmer in Belgium or France who pays about £10 or £11 a ton for galvanized iron, receives about 8s. 6d. a bushel for his wheat. The price of galvanized iron in Germany is less than it is in England, yet the German farmer also receives 8s. 6d. a bushel for his wheat. The deputy leader of the Labour party instanced the case of a man who obtains 12 bushels of wheat to the acre from 300 acres, and said that the cost of the galvanized iron used on his farm represents only .166d. a bushel. I reply that that fraction of a penny would be added to his losses; it would not come off his profits. In deciding which industry is of the greater value to the country, we must bear in mind Euclid’s axiom, “ The whole i3 greater than its part “. The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Hutchin) said that the Australian manufacturers of galvanized iron propose to introduce new and improved machinery. With that machinery installed, with coalfields near the coast, with extensive deposits of iron ore, and with workmen who claim that they are equal to the world’s best, there is something wrong if Australian manufacturers cannot produce galvanized iron as cheaply as can their competitors in other countries. In addition to the benefits which they derive from primage and exchange, they have the natural protection of the freight rates which their competitors have to pay. I realize the value of our secondary industries, so long as they operate on a competitive basis; but I attach little weight to the fact that the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), when Prime Minister, induced this com- pany to come here and establish a factory for the manufacture of galvanized iron. His action may have been wise; but I shall not support the establishment of monopolies to fleece the people of Australia.
Mr Forde:
– Galvanized iron is cheaper in Australia than in New Zealand.
Mr PROWSE:
– The users of galvanized iron in New Zealand may now be paying £2 5s. 2d. a ton more for it than do the farmers of Australia, but a little while ago they paid £4 10s. a ton less for it. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) has shown that a little healthy competition from the Mother Country caused the drop in galvanized iron prices in Australia. On page 6 of its report of the 18th August, 1932, the Tariff Board stated-
At the company’s present output and present selling prices for galvanized iron, the price of steel according to the “ steel agreement “ is between £8 and £9 per ton. According to The Iron and Coal Trades Review, of 20th May, 1932, the price of English sheet bars delivered to manufacturers was from £4 15s. to £5 7s. Bd. per ton; Belgian sheet bars were quoted at £2 14s. per ton f.o.b. Antwerp, and at £4 12s. Od. to £4 15s. per ton delivered to manufacturers in the Birmingham district; the delivered prices include duty at 33^ per cent.
Comprising as it does a large volume of regular business (now over 1,000 tons per week), sheet bars should be produced cheaply at the works of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited,’ and under these conditions it would be reasonable to expect the sale price of sheet bars to be in approximately the same ratio to the sale price of steel’ rails as exists in England and other countries.
That is what I have been saying should’ happen in our own factories. Why is it that the cost of manufacturing galvanized iron in Australia is nearly double the cost in England?
Mr White:
– There is a different currency there.
Mr PROWSE:
– The local manufacturers have > the protection of. the freight charges on imported galvanized iron. The present Government, like its predecessor, refuses to pay an Australian price for wheat grown by our people; but it would develop an exotic industry behind a high protection wall, at the expense of more important natural industries. We are asking the primary industries to carry a burden too great for them. I hope that the committee will agree- to the amendment, which is consistent with the Tariff Board’s report.
Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP
.-The Government will adhere to the Tariff Board’s report, except in relation to the penal clauses. The Government had to choose between the first and the second recommendations of the board, and it chose the second. The alternatives are clearly set out in the report of the Tariff Board. One honorable member said that, in some way, the Ottawa agreement is being broken. The board’s report was signed in August, 1932, before the conference began. Surely the honorable member will not deny that, if the board makes two recommendations, -the Government may accept which one it chooses.
Mr Paterson:
– If the first recommendation is in accordance with article 10 of the Ottawa agreement, the second cannot be.
Mr WHITE:
– Does the honorable member deny to the Governmentthe right to choose?
Mr Paterson:
– In the circumstances, I do.
Mr WHITE:
– The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker) said that he would support the Government’s action if he knew that the prices being charged by the company were reasonable,, and that the Government was taking the necessary steps to see that the users were not exploited. I assure him that that is being done, not by the Tariff Board, hut by the Trade and Customs Department. All factors, including the price of steel and spelter, and the wages paid, are taken into consideration. Already there has been a decrease of the price, and though I cannot forecast what may happen, as a result of the recent wage decrease, it is probable that there will be further decreases. Since January, 1932, the reductions have been -
Honorable members should give the company credit for carrying out its undertaking. The price of iron in Australia is less than the price for British iron landed in New Zealand, where no duty is in operation. British iron is landed in New Zealand at £23 12s. 4d., while the price of Australian iron is £22 7s. 7d. The industry provides employment and sells its product at a reasonable price. It is not true, as some honoroble members have suggested, that the output of the industry is bought chiefly by those engaged in primary industries. Probably more than half is used for building purposes in the cities.
Mr E F HARRISON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA · UAP
– More than 75 per cent.
Mr WHITE:
– That percentage probably includes the iron used for building purposes in rural towns. If the proposal of the Country party were accepted, it would be necessary to pay a bounty on the iron pro duced in Australia. When the bounty was previously paid, the annual production of Australian iron was 25,000 tons. Considerable quantities of iron were still being imported, the duty on which just about paid the bounty. If a bounty were to be paid on the present output of 72,000 tons a year, which is sufficient to meet Australia’s requirements, it would cost, at £3 10s. a ton, no less than £252,000 a year.
Mr Paterson:
– I did not ask that a bounty should be paid.
Mr WHITE:
– No; but it would naturally follow the acceptance of the honorable member’s proposal. If the bounty were fixed at £2 10s. a ton, the annual cost would be £180,000. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) said that some sinister influence was being brought to bear on the Government.
Mr Gregory:
– I said political influence.
Mr WHITE:
– When the honorable member was electioneering in Western Australia recently, he suggested to his constituents - that the Government had acted in some corrupt way in connexion with the duty on . galvanized iron. He was not able to justify that insinuation; but again to-night he suggested that improper influence was being exercised on’ the Government. The honorable member said that, two days after I became Minister for Trade and Customs, I suspended the free admission of steel plates under by-law without obtaining any report from the Tariff Board. I remind honorable members that, owing to the ill health of the former Minister for Trade and Customs, Sir Henry Gullett, it was necessary to deal urgently with many matters, awaiting attention, including this one; but action was taken only after due inquiry. At the present time, the duty on steel plates is, British 63s., and foreign 82s. 6d. ; but sizes not made in Australia may be admitted duty free under by-law, and there have been many such admissions. The duty was imposed in 1922, and since then plates of different thicknesses have been withdrawn from by-law admission on thirteen different occasions, as local mills have been able to manufacture. The latest instance occurred only this year, and is the one referred to. I do not wish to have the responsibility of deciding what admissions are to be made under by-law, and I have, therefore, passed that duty on to the Tariff Board. By-law admissions are now entirely dependent on the board’s recommendation. I do not know what is agitating the honorable member for Swan; whether he is actuated merely by general hostility .to a secondary industry, or whether he has been unfortunate in some of the by-law applications he himself has made to the department. I have taken out particulars regarding these applications, and they cover two pages. They relate to the goods required for both primary and secondary industries. Some of his applications have been refused; but many of them have been successful. The duty on galvanized iron is at present only 23 per cent., which is very reasonable when we remember that the duty on dried fruits is 100 per cent., on maize over 100 per cent., on rice 86 per cent., and on tobacco up to 600 per cent. I cannot understand why this hostility should be shown to an industry which is receiving- only 23 per cent, protection, and is supplying the public with an article of satisfactory quality at a reasonable price. Complaints have been received from “Western Australia regarding the quality of Australianmade iron, but tests have proved it to be equal to the best made in any part of the world. The board’s report is fair to the industry. If the duty were reduced, and the company’s output declined, the price would have to be increased. The Tariff Board has recommended what it considers to be an adequate duty after allowing for the difference in the costs of labour and material as between Australian and foreign countries.
Mr Gregory:
– I rise to make a personal explanation. The Minister has gone to a good deal of trouble to examine the departmental files in order to determine the number of applications that I have made for the admission of goods under by-law, his purpose being to cast a reflection on my activities in that direction. Special power is granted to the
Minister under by-law to consider, and, if necessary, grant the concession of admitting goods free of duty. To that power I raise no objection, but I contend that Parliament should know the extent of such concessions, and to whom they are granted. On investigation, I find that during the year 1930-31, the Minister remitted duties to the value of £2,000,000. Parliament should require a periodical statement, giving full particulars of all admissions under by-law. I have always held that opinion, which has been resisted by the Government. As the Minister has power to make these concessions, it is but natural that many persons should write to their representative requesting that certain machinery or other special requirements of local manufacturers should be admitted under by-law. I have received a number of such requests, some of which I have been unable to recommend; others I have forwarded to the Minister. Only a little while ago, a complaint was made in regard to alleged restraint of trade, and it was pointed out that the manufacturer had fixed the retail price of wire netting and fencing wire. The Minister actually wrote and said that that was done in the interests of the consumer. If that is the opinion of the honorable gentleman, it shows the class of man who is administering the customs tariff, and I can understand why he is likely to make every endeavour to protect the interests of manufacturers.
Mr NOCK:
Riverina
.- I take exception to the interpretation which the Minister has placed upon the amendment submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Country party (Mr. Paterson). The honorable gentleman declared that if the amendment were carried, a bounty would have to be granted on galvanized iron. That will not be the case, for the recommendation of the Tariff Board states that a duty of £2 a ton should afford adequate protection to the industry. In its report, the board points out that the present rate of duty of £4 10s. on British iron is practically prohibitive, and, following its recommendation, states -
If the foregoing duties be brought into operation, the provisions of the Iron and Steel Products Act authorizing payment of a bounty on galvanized iron should be repealed.
The terms of the amendment are in agreement with the board’s recommendations. I shall merely add that during the last thirteen months, the price of galvanized iron has fallen by only 10s. a ton, which is most unreasonable having, regard to the reductions that have taken place in interestand other costs, and in the prices of spelter and coal. ‘
Question - That the amendment (Mr. Paterson’s) be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - MR. Bell.)
AYES: 21
NOES: 33
Majority . . . . 12
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
page 4027
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
The following answers to questions were circulated: -
Commonwealth Bank Building at Adelaide.
Mr Perkins:
UAP
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
-
Alternative tenders have been invited for -
- portion of the front of the building in local stone, and the remainder in stone from other States; or
- all stone work in stone from other States with the exception of the base of the building, which will be in local stone.
- No decision will be given regarding the stone until tenders have been received.
- Freestone and granite.
The final decision regarding the stone rests with the Commonwealth Bank authorities. cruisers for Royal, Australian Navy.
Mr Francis:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : -
- Fifteen to sixteen years.
- It is anticipated that they will give many . years of useful service, but it would be. desirable to replace them with new vessels after about five years.
- The cost of keeping one destroyer in full commission is £46,000 per annum. This is chiefly pay of personnel and cost of oil fuel used.
- Such action is not considered necessary, as the naval authorities are fully aware of the capabilities of these vessels in heavy seas.
Duty on Sulphate of Ammonia.
Mr White:
UAP
– The Tariff Board’s report on sulphate of ammonia has not yet been received. After receipt and consideration, and any necessary action . taken, the report will be tabled.
Saw-milling Industry.
Mr Lyons:
UAP
– In view of sections 90 and 91 of the Constitution a State is not empowered to grant a bounty on the production or export of goods unless both Houses of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, by resolution, consent thereto. No information is, however, available as to any recent proposal by the Queensland Government to pay a bounty on Queensland timber sold in New South Wales and other States. If the honorable member has any definite information as to the payment by the State of any such bounty, he should supply the information to the Minister for Commerce. “Postage Due” Stamps.
Mr Archdale Parkhill:
UAP
– “Postage Due “ stamps may be purchased without limitation at face value by the general public making application to the Deputy Director in any State.
Peanuts
Mr Martens:
s asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -
Has any permit to import peanuts into Aus- ‘ tralia been granted to any person, firm or firms; if so, to whom, and why?
Mr White:
UAP
– With the concurrence of the Queensland Peanut and Cotton Boards, permits to import peanuts for manufacturing purposes have been issued. It is not the practice of the Department of Trade and Customs to disclose particulars about individual firms or companies. Permits were issued because there is a shortage of Australiangrown peanuts for manufacturing purposes.
Ministerial Travelling Allowances
Mr Lyons:
UAP
s. - Yesterday, the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb) asked the following question, upon notice: -
What was the amount received by each Minister as travelling allowance during the financial year ended 30th June, 1933?
The following amounts were received by Commonwealth Ministers in respect of travelling allowances during the financial year ended the 30th June, 1933:-
Bight Honorable J. A. Lyons, £155: Bight Honorable J. G. Latham, £59 14s. 3d.; Eight Honorable Sir George Pearce, £124 6s. 10d.; Honorable Archdale Parkhill, £111 10s. 8d.; Honorable A. J. McLachlan, £88 10s.: Honorable C. W. C. Marr, £119 13s. Id.: Honorable J. A. Perkins, £41 18s. 9d.; Honorable F. H. Stewart, £48 6s. 3d.; Honorable T. W. White. £23 16s. 10d.; Honorable J. Francis, £247 ls. .2d.; Honorable J. A. Guy, £117 0s. 3d.; Senator the Honorable W. Massy-Greene, £155 17s. lid.; Honorable Sir Henry Gullett, £6 14s. 4d.; Honorable J. E. Fenton, £60 12s. 6d.; Honorable C. A. S. Hawker, £68 12s. 6d.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 October 1933, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1933/19331026_reps_13_141/>.