House of Representatives
29 June 1934

13th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr.Speaker (Hon.G.H. Mackay) took the chairat 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 100

QUESTION

EXCHANGE WITH EASTERN COUNTRIES

Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– All the exchange on banking business between Australia and countries in the East at present has to pass through London. Will the Assistant Treasurer impress upon the Commonwealth Bank the advisability of establishing a clearing house at some strategic point. - for example, Singapore - in which the whole of the exchange business may be transacted and the necessary adjustments be made, thus shortcircuiting the period involved in having thematter arranged through London?

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Minister (Treasury) · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– So far as I know, there are no direct banking facilities between Australia and the Far East which would make possible a clearing house arrange ment such as the honorable member suggests. I shall, however, discuss the matter with the Commonwealth Bank Board and obtain fromthem a more complete reply to his question.

page 100

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Lyons) agreed to -

ThattheHouse,atits rising,adjourn until

Wednesdaynext at 3 p.m.

page 100

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Relief from Customs and Excise Duties.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– In view of the forthcoming exchange of warships, and with the object of establishing uniformity of procedure and the maintenance of harmony between the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Navy, will theMinister for Trade and Customs consider the question of granting relief from excise and/or customs duties on tobacco, spirits and other commodities consumed by the Royal Australian Navy?

Mr.WHITE. - This matter has been raised from time to time, and it has been found that the granting of such a concession presents undoubted difficulties. The Government has recently given consideration to the question, and is hopeful of being able to police the concession, if granted.

page 100

QUESTION

UNITED AUSTRALIA PARTY AND UNITED COUNTRY PARTY

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister willing to submit an interim report upon the negotiations that have been taking place between the United Australia Party and the United Country Party, upon which depend vital matters of public importance and national policy, particularly the downward revision of the tariff? ‘

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– As the honorable member for West Sydney knows so much about the matter,I suggest that hesubmit an interim report, upon it.

page 101

QUESTION

TRADE WITH BELGIUM

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Customs aware that the killing season for cattle in north-west Australia and the season for seeding barley in the southern States have been in progress for some time? Is he able to make an arrangement with the Belgian Government for the restoration of the market for beef which Australia previously held in that country, and to secure the continuance of the entry of Australian barley into Belgium?

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

– Belgium made of Australia certain requests that were not confined to concessions regarding beef, barley and glass. By a commercial arrangement an undertaking was given that within six months Australia would endeavor to come to a trade agreement with Belgium. In the matter of arranging trade agreements with different countries, many difficulties confront the Government. Strong efforts were made to come to a favorable trade agreement with Belgium, but it was found impossible to reach finality within the period allotted. Belgium has now made a new arrangement for the extension by two months of the period allowed, and during that time the negotiations will proceed. It is hoped that an agreement will be arrived at. Meanwhile, there is no ban upon the entry of Australian barley into Belgium, but the embargo upon beef still exists.

page 101

QUESTION

VALIDITY OF DAIRY PRODUCE ACT

Mr WATSON:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Commerce aware that a number of people have questioned the validity of the Dairy Produce Act passed by this Parliament last year ? Will the honorable gentleman take steps to avert possible serious developments?

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

– The most effective way in which the position can be clarified is for some of those who challenge the validity of the act to make an application for a judicial interpretation.

page 101

QUESTION

TOBACCO CROP

Mr THOMPSON:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement made by the Minister for Trade and Customs to a deputation of tobaccogrowers in Melbourne last week - that the manufacturers would purchase probably 4,000,000 lb. of tobacco this year- will the honorable gentleman arrange for the purchaseof the tobacco which for the last two years has been held by many tobacco-growers throughout Australia, particularly in northern New South Wales?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– As I stated last night, the crop this year is expected to be a very small one, the estimate being only 2,500,000 lb. As the principal manufacturing company has undertaken to purchase all the higher grades andthe ordinary usings of the darker grades, it follows that a proportion of the usable leaf carried over from previous years will be absorbed, because the ordinary usings of Australian leaf are in the vicinity of 4,000,000 lb. As the honorable member is well aware, some of the tobacco that is carried over from year to year is not usable. Therefore, it can hardly be expected that the whole of the carry-over can be bought.

Mr THOMPSON:

– In viewof the fact that the bulk of the tobacco now held in Australia is nearly two years old, and that the growers have not had any intimation from the manufacturers as to whether that old tobacco will be bought, will the Minister for Trade and Customs suggest to the manufacturers that they should meet, in conference, representatives of the Australian Tobacco-growers Association with a view to a definite proportion of that two-year-old tobacco being bought forthwith?

Mr WHITE:

– It must be obvious to the honorable member, from a recent report, that there is quite a lot of tobacco even in the district which be represents which is not usable. I amsure that the manufacturers will be prepared to meet a deputation of the growers, but I do not see how the Government comes into that question at all. I am unable to say whether the manufacturers would readily meet the growers, but I have no doubt that they would do so.

Mr Thompson:

-Cannot the Minister arrange for a conference?

Mr WHITE:

– If the honorable member would like me to act as an intermediary, I should be willing to da so.

page 102

QUESTION

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY

Mr GABB:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Trade and Customs assure the House that, as the Wine Export Bounty Act expires in February, 1935, legislative provision will be made for the continuance of the bounty in some form, in view of the possibility of an accident occurring between now and them?

Mr Scullin:

– How can any assurance be given, seeing that there is to be a prior election?

Mr WHITE:
UAP

– For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), as well as of the honorable member for Angas (Mr. Gabb), I may say that three or four months ago the announcement was made of the intention of the Government to introduce a bill for the continuance of the bounty.

page 102

QUESTION

TRADE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND GREAT BRITAIN

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Commerce aware that Mr. McCann, the Trade Commissioner for South Australia in Great Britain, is at present on a visit to this country? If so, has the honorable gentleman had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. McCann questions affecting trade between Australia and Great Britain ?

Mr STEWART:
UAP

– I have had several very valuable interviews and conversations with Mr. McCann.

page 102

QUESTION

PRODUCTION OF POWER ALCOHOL FROM WHEAT

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the statement of the manager of the Victorian Wheat-growers Corporation, Mr. C. Judd, that the Commonwealth Government should investigate immediately the question of the production of power alcohol from Australia’s surplus wheat, and that Canadian scientists were recommending that one-tenth of the annual consumption of motor fuel shouldbe produced from alcohol made from 25,000,000 bushels of wheat? Will the right honorable gentleman have the matter referred to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, for investigation and report?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The matter will receive consideration.

page 102

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Northern Territory - Report on Administration for year ended 30th June, 1933.

Postmaster-General’s Department- Twentythird Annual Report, 1932-33.

Ordered to be printed.

page 102

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Retrospective Payments

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In reply to a question respecting retrospective pension payments yesterday, the Assistant Treasurer (Mr. Casey) said -

We have been able to arrange that in cases where the delay is attributable to the department, a retrospective pension shall be paid as from the pay day after the day on which, had there been no delay, the pension would have been payable.

That statement appears to be very indefinite, and I ask the Assistant Treasurer exactly what is meant by it?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– If the honorable member is reading from the proof copy of Hansard, I shall be obliged to say that I said either at the time of my reply, or at least twice subsequently “ any considerable delay.” I think that the statement is self explanatory, and I do not think that I could add to it anything that would clarify it further. There is a normal time, which is fairly generally recognized, that must elapse between the application for and the granting of a pension. If the time is unduly protracted, and the delay is attributable to the department, then, instead of giving two fortnights’ pension, whichup to now has been the maximum amount of retrospective payment, the pension will be dated back to the first pay day after the day on which, had there been no undue departmental delay, the pension would normally have been paid. The first payment will include also two fortnights arrears.

page 102

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS IN BRISBANE

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

– In view of the number of applications for positions of telegraph messengers in Brisbane, and the temporary character of the present appointments, is it the intention of the Government to hold an examination for the position of telegraph messengers? If so, when will the examination take place ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I shall obtain the information which the honorable member desires as to the exact date of the examination, if any, and acquaint him later of its nature. I cannot speak offhand in respect of the details of postal administration.

page 103

QUESTION

MAIZE INDUSTRY

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-Will the Prime Minister include maize in the terms of theinquiry which he has promised with reference to wheat?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have not undertaken to carry out any inquiry. I merely promised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), that I would give consideration to the matter, and I shall do that also in connexion with maize.

page 103

QUESTION

INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer aware that parents of children who have reached the age of sixteen years, and are unemployed, are not entitled to claim a deduction of £50 under the income tax law despite the fact that the maintenance of those children is a much heavier burden upon the taxpayers than was the case when they were under sixteen years of age? Will the Treasurer give consideration to an amendment of the act soas to allow a deduction in respect of the unemployed dependants of taxpayers?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– There must be some limitation in regard to the age of the dependants, otherwise there would be chaos in the administration of the law. I cannot see how that limitation can be avoided, because if the age of dependants were raised, we should still be confronted with anomalies of the kind referred to by the honorable member.

Mr James:

– In the case of unemployed dependants, the deduction should continue.

Mr LYONS:

– I am afraid that it is impossible to accede to the honorable member’s request, because, if granted, the whole administration of the taxation law would be entirely upset. I should like to be able to agree to the suggestion, but I do not think that it is practicable.

page 103

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Tennant’s Creek Goldfield - Land Law

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Will the Minister for the Interior state whether the Government intends to assist the miners of Tennant’s Creek gold-field by the provision of a battery, as is done by every State in the Commonwealth? If so, will he facilitate the erection of the battery, so that some hundreds of men maybe able to make a living? Will he further make provision in the Estimates for the granting of assistance to miners and prospectors to enable them to develop their mines? Also, will he make arrangements to advance to miners one-fourth of the value of the gold content of the stone that they raise, such advance to be made on assay?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister for the Interior · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– So far, no provision has been made by the Government to deal with any of the matters raised by the honorable member. I shall, however, see that consideration is given to his representations.

Mr NELSON:

– Has the Minister yet decided to lay on the table of the Library, the report of Dr. Woolnough, dealing with his recent inspection of the Tennant’s Greek gold-field, and also the report of the committee or commission which some time ago investigated the administration of the land law of the Northern Territory?

Mr PERKINS:

– I have not had time to go into that matter, but I think that the report referred to will be laid on the table in the Library this morning.

page 103

BRITISH MIGRANTS

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the

Assistant Treasurer been directed to the following statement which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of the 7th June iast: -

page 103

VICTORIAN SETTLERS

225 Accept Compensation.

London, June 5

In the House of Commons to-day, the Secretary for the Dominions (Mr. J. H. Thomas) informed Mr. R. H. Turton (Con.) that 225 of the Victorian settlers had accepted compensation. He said that he would bc glad to inquire into any cases where there might be delay, partly due to the necessity of making adjustments. It was fair to say that, while there were many cases of great hardship, others had tried to exploit the situation. He had already urged the acceleration of arrangements of those wishing to return to England.

Sir Robert. Hamilton (Lib.): Are you aware that the claims of creditors led to one settler going to prison and to another becoming destitute?

Mr. Thomas: I will inquire, if the names are furnished. Compensation has been provided with the object of enabling the settlers to obtain a fresh start there.

Sir Robert Hamilton : Is anything being done to enable them to start afresh in Britain ?

Mr. Thomas replied that he would make personal investigations wherever possible.

I ask the Assistant Treasurer whether that statement is accurate, and if he is prepared to make a statement showing the allocation of the money that was voted by this Parliament to provide compensation for these settlers?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I have not seen the reference, but in any event the responsibility for the allocation of the money is on the Government of Victoria. The whole responsibility of the Commonwealth Government was, practically speaking, to advance to the State Government of Victoria the sum of £100,000, and the matter was then arbitrated as to where the responsibility lay for the finding of the money. The arbitrator found against the .State of Victoria so that that State is responsible for finding and allocating the money, and the only responsibility of the Commonwealth is to advance the money temporarily to the State of Victoria.

Mr WARD:

– When this Parliament was considering the allocation of certain moneys for the assistance of British migrants settled in Victoria, the Assistant Treasurer and other members of the Government stated in reply to criticism on the part of members of our party that the money which was then being voted would be used for the purpose, not of satisfying creditors, but of directly assisting these unfortunate settlers. I desire to know what authority the Assistant Treasurer had for making that statement and whether he is now prepared to admit that the contention of the members of our party, that the money would be used to satisfy creditors, was correct?

Mr CASEY:

– I do not remember taking part in the particular debate in any way; in fact I am quite certain that I did not do so. The terms on which this Parliament was asked to find temporarily the sum of £100,000 were clearly set forth in the bill. The subsequent arrangement as to how the money should be expended was to be the responsibility of Victoria. Now as the result of arbitration, the final responsibility is wholly on Victoria, and it is a matter, therefore, which does not concern this Parliament.

page 104

QUESTION

DATE OF GENERAL ELECTION

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yesterday in reply to my question regarding the date of the general election, the Prime Minister said that he would get in touch with the GovernorGeneral, and I should like to know whether he has yet done so?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– We are not hurrying so rapidly towards a general election as to have made it necessary for me to see the Governor-General since the honorable member’s question was asked.

page 104

CUSTOMS BILL

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– For the last two years there has appeared on the noticepaper a Customs Bill providing for two very important amendments, one dealing with the power of the Commonwealth to impose embargoes, and the other dealing with the period during which a tariff, introduced by resolution, may legally be continued. Will the Prime Minister, if possible, push this bil] through this chamber during this session?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I think that if honorable members will assist the Government to facilitate the business of the House-

Mr Gregory:

– Why is the Government keeping it back ?

Mr LYONS:

– That insinuation is entirely unworthy of the honorable member. I was proceeding to say that I hoped to give the House an opportunity to discuss the bill to-day.

page 104

QUESTION

COUNTRY PRESS DICTAPHONES

Mr JAMES:

– In view of the imposition on the 1st February last of an additional tax upon the country press for the use of dictaphones; will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House as to the amount of additional revenue received? Will he also state whether he considers that the six monthly payments in advance for the use of these dictaphones is a fair imposition ?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
UAP

– This is a long-standing matter, having been before two previous PostmastersGeneral. When I came into office I endeavoured to straighten it out on the basis of equity to the users of dictaphones and to the general public. Subsequently, I arrived at a basis which was fair to the department and to the user of the dictaphone. Although it involved an increase in the trunk line rates for the use of dictaphones, it has generally been accepted. In some instances additional dictaphones have been installed, and in other instances tele-printers have been substituted. I frankly admit that in some cases the dictaphones have been taken out altogether. The position is perfectly fair. The payment in advance is in accordance with the policy prevailing in respect of the payment of telephone rates by private users, and I see no reason why it should be altered in the interests of one section of the community.

page 105

QUESTION

COCKATOO ISLAND DOCKYARD

Compensation to Employees

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Has the Minister for the Interior given any consideration to the matters which I raised last night in respect of compensation payments to men who were injured when the Commonwealth was in control of the Cockatoo Island Dockyard ? If he has not already done so, will he treat the matter as urgent in view of the fact that these men have, for the last eight months, not received any compensation paymentbecause of the Department of the Interior and the Attorney-General’s Department not having decided the legal aspects of the matter ?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– When the honorable member asked his question yesterday, I was, unfortunately, absent from the chamber, but I subsequently told him that I would attend to the matter. I have asked the secretary of the department to look into it, and to procure the information for the honorable member.

page 105

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) 1934

Motion (by Mr. White) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Customs Tariff (New Zea land Preference) 1933.

Bill brought up and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

by leave- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide machinery to enable the Government to comply with certain provisions contained in article 9 of the trade agreement concluded with New Zealand last year. The agreement itself was approved and ratified by Parliament in November last. Article 9 provides that where the rate of duty on particular New Zealand goods entering Australia is higher than the rate of duty on the like Australian goods entering New Zealand the New Zealand Government may request the Commonwealth Government to admit like New Zealand goods into Australia at the rate of duty payable on the like Australian goods entering New Zealand. If the Commonwealth Government fails to comply with the request within three months, the New Zealand Government is free to impose on the particular Australian goods a duty not greater than that imposed in Australia on the same goods from New Zealand. The provision is a reciprocal one. While Parliament has been in recess, three applications have been received from the New Zealand Government requesting the Commonwealth to concede to New Zealand the equivalent of the New Zealand rate on knitted or lock-stitched piece goods of silk or artificial silk, unmounted wireless receiving sets, and dry batteries and dry cells. New Zealand accords free entry to Australia for all these goods, and there is a substantial and growing export trade from Australia in each item.

Mr Forde:

– How will the provisions of this bill affect, say,butter ?

Mr WHITE:

– The New Zealand Government may make a request, but there is no obligation upon the Commonwealth Government to agree to it. I quote the following figures to show how our trade with New Zealand has increased: -

In those items we hare not imported a pound’s worth from New Zealand^ Our total export trade with New Zealand in 1930-31 was valued at £2,978,118, and our imports from New Zealand were valued at £980,838. For the three-year period, 1930-33, our total exports to New Zealand were valued at £8,352,203, and our imports from New Zealand were valued at £3,072,562. It is the same story whether we consider primary or secondary production.

The Australian rates of duty as applied to New Zealand goods of the three classes I have mentioned are high, and practically preclude the New Zealand goods from the Australian market. There is little doubt that if New Zealand applied the Australian rates it would result in the loss of the New’ Zealand market for these goods.

With Parliament in recess, and in the absence of the necessary enabling machinery, it has not been practicable to meet the earliest of the New Zealand requests within the time provided in the agreement. Our inability to meet the first New Zealand request within the time limit has been explained to the Dominion Government with which arrangements have been made to meet the position.

The general provision proposed under this amendment is necessary to enable any future requests, from New Zealand to be met within the prescribed three months, and to obviate similar difficulties in the future. In its absence, and where it is desired to meet similar New Zealand requests, action can only be taken by the introduction into the House of Representatives of individual tariff resolutions. Circumstances will arise in which it will not be possible to introduce a resolution within the time the article allows. The consequences might easily be very serious (or Australia’s trade with New Zealand.

It is perhaps desirable to explain that the provisions of the article are not applicable throughout the entire range of the Australian tariff. The agreement contains two schedules,- applying respectively to New Zealand goods and Australian goods, in which are enumerated various classes of goods and the rates of duty applying thereto. Goods other than those enumerated in the schedules are subject to the British preferential tariff of Australia or New Zealand, as the case may be. The article applies only to the goods which are not enumerated in the schedules to the agreement and which are subject in general terms to the rates of duty for the time being in force under the respective British preferential tariffs.

The proposed amendment does not alter the original agreement. Its purpose, as I have said, is to provide the means to carry certain of the provisions of the original agreement into effect. The proposed amendment - merely sets up the machinery whereby Australia can accord to New Zealand the same rates of duty as New Zealand accords to Australia whenever the New Zealand Government so requests. The provision of the necessary machinery is a matter of urgency. I, therefore, ask honorable members to give this bill a speedy passage. New Zealand is a very large buyer of Australian secondary products, whereas exports of manufactured goods from New Zealand to Australia are practically negligible. Failure to meet the New Zealand request would mean a severe loss to Australia.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The members of the Opposition supported the trade agreement between New Zealand and Australia when it was submitted to Parliament last year, because they believed that it would foster amicable trade relations between the two dominions. We also thought that there was a great possibility of our developing an export trade with New Zealand, particularly in manufactured goods. I said when I spoke on that measure that we were disappointed that the negotiations for the lifting of the New Zealand embargo on the importation of Australian citrus fruits to New Zealand had not been successful.

Mr White:

– Those negotiations are still continuing.

Mr FORDE:

– I am sorry that they have occupied such a long time for it is of national importance to our citrusgrowers that they should have a reliable market for their products. The New Zealand prohibition has deprived them of what was previously a lucrative market for £150,000 worth of their surplus production. A meeting of the Federated Fruit-growers Conference held in Sydney yesterday resolved to urge the Federal Government to continue its endeavours to regain the New Zealand citrus market for Australia, even though it means the admission of New Zealand apples to Australia. I urge lie Minister to take this subject up with the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart). A very long time has elapsed since Senator MassyGreene visited New Zealand and put in train the negotiations for the lifting of the prohibition. I am glad to hear that there has been a steady improvement in the value of Australian exports to New Zealand, and particularly that the improvement has been shown in manufacfactured goods. That is what we, as protectionists, are aiming at. We desire our manufacturers to conduct their business on such an efficient basis that they will be able not only to supply the home market, but also to build up an export trade and so give employment to an additional 500,000 people in the factories of Australia. We should be able to compete with overseas manufacturers in the market of the sister dominion of New Zealand.

Mr Maxwell:

– What about the New Zealand manufacturers ?

Mr FORDE:

– I assume that they are able to look after themselves. I am speaking as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament in support of Australian manufacturing industries. There has been an increase in our exports of manufactured goods not only to New Zealand, but also to the East, and it is a most pleasing development. This is a non-contentious measure and I have very much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– Any measure that deals with our trade relations with New Zealand and involves customs duties is of greatest importance, particularly at the present time, to both our primary and secondary industries, and there is, therefore, an obligation upon the Minister to give honorable members the fullest information on the subject. We should be informed of the results of the visit of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) to the sister dominion. The visit of Senator Massy-Greene to New Zealand did not have the results that were expected from it, “ and apparently the visit of the Minister for Commerce has also failed to achieve the desired end.

I have no doubt the attitude of the New Zealand Government is based upon the principle of doing the best it can for its own people. Notwithstanding the interjection of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell), our uppermost desire is naturally to promote the interests of our people. If a battle of wits is proceeding between New Zealand and Australia I am quite prepared to take advantage of every opportunity to preserve the interests of this country, because at the moment, I am only concerned about the welfare of Australia. If this measure is designed to give practical assistance 10 Australian manufacturers, we also have to consider our primary producers, because both interests are worthy of our careful consideration. The Minister has pointed out that the bill deals with three specific items, namely, knitted or lockstitched piecegoods of silk or artificial silk, unmounted wireless receiving sets, batteries and dry coila; but I understand that there is in it a clause containing a general power to cover other items as well.

Mr White:

– That power is already in the principal act. We are now seeking to implement machinery to use it more rapidly.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Apparently the provisions of the principal act make it necessary for the Minister to approach Parliament on this matter, and it is now a question whether we should not retain that provision without alteration.

Mr White:

– It is necessary to have wider power for use during parliamentary recesses.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That raises the question whether such powers should be used during recesses. If the object of the bill is to assist certain of our secondary industries there should be no complaint about it; but the Minister for Commerce should first inform honorable members of the exact position in regard to trade negotiations with the New Zealand Government, particularly as they affect the exchange of primary products. While I am anxious to ensure that everything possible is done to expand our market with New Zealand, I have no desire that anything unnecessary should be done at the expense of any section of our own primary producers. The time to supply information is now, so that we may have an opportunity to study, and, if necessary, criticize the Government’s proposals. I am not content to await press statements issued by the Minister regarding his negotiations with New Zealand immediately before the elections.

Mr White:

– The recent conference at Canberra was the direct result of the visit of the Minister to New Zealand.

Mr BEASLEY:

– The Minister seems to assume that because he knows everything that occurred at the conference all honorable members should be equally well informed. Conferences of that kind held under the Government’s supervision are not always fully representative of the interests concerned. Large numbers of growers may be opposed to the decisions arrived at, but they will be denied an opportunity to express their opinions unless the matter is fully discussed in Parliament where their representatives may speak for them.

Mr BLACKLOW:
Franklin

– I appreciate the desire of the Minister to expedite the passage of this bill, but he ought, I think, to have given honorable members some further information on the matter. It is admittedly desirable to encourage trade with our sister dominion, but it behoves every one of us to look after the interests of his own section of that trade. I am concerned with the apple trade, *and with the proposal to admit New Zealand apples to Australia on more favorable terms. What is the present duty on New Zealand apples?

Mr Stewart:

– Three shillings a cental.

Mr BLACKLOW:

– I understand that the New Zealand Government guarantees an f.o.b. price to the growers for all apples exported from that dominion. Therefore, a duty of 3s. a cental will not prevent the New Zealand growers from shipping their apples to Australia and competing unfairly with our own Australian producers. That is a serious prospect for our growers, and I should like to hoar the Minister’s opinion of it. I know that the Minister has endeavoured to secure the co-operation of the New Zealand Government regarding quotas and varieties of apples exported to Europe, but New Zealand does not seem inclined to come to an understanding. The same thing may happen in regard to the Australian market. It may be that certain varieties of apples which, under the agreement, we are not allowed to export, will be sent by New Zealand to the Australian market. We should be given some more detailed information on these points.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- The bill refers to certain schedules, but copies of those schedules have not been supplied to honorable members. During the last recess the Minister for Commerce visited New Zealand, but no report on his visit has yet been presented, nor has any statement been made regarding the result of the recent conference iti Canberra of Australian and New Zealand representatives. It may be that, under this bill, New Zealand butter will be admitted to Australia in competition with Australian butter. It may also happen that New Zealand meat, butter and bacon will be admitted to the detriment of our primary producers, who surely should be entitled to their own home market. When the butter pool was first formed in Queensland, and a price fixed for butter consumed locally, supplies of butter were imported from New Zealand in an endeavour to smash the pool; and that would certainly have happened had not the Federal Government increased the duty on New Zealand butter. The Minister said that the bill would assist our secondary industries. That may be so, but we should not assist those industries at the expense of our primary producers who have been passing through such difficult times. The other day a shipment of chilled meat which was sent to England returned the exporters about £3 a head more than could have been obtained for frozen beef. Immediately the overseas shipping companies increased the freight charges on chilled beef, and grabbed 30s. of the extra £3. If we lift the duty on New Zealand butter and other primary products our primary producers will soon be going along to the Government for a dole ticket.

Mr White:

– We are not obliged under the agreement to reduce duties on New Zealand products, but if we do not do so the New Zealand Government may retaliate by raising the duty oil Australian products.

Mr RIORDAN:

– What is the present duty on New Zealand butter?

Mr White:

– It is Gd. per lb., and we are not obliged to reduce the rate even though the New Zealand Government reduces the duty on Australian products.

Mr BELL:
Darwin

.- The effect of the bill, I understand, is to enable the Commonwealth Government to give immediate effect to such trade agreements as are entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New Zealand. Certain specific items are referred to in the bill, but I understand that it may be made to apply also to other commodities which become the subject of negotiation. I desire to sound a note of warning regarding trade agreements to which the Government may commit this country. While we all agree that it is desirable to foster with New Zealand trade that will be beneficial to both countries, it must be remembered that it is difficult! to make such an arrangement without its being detrimental to some section of the primary producers in one country or the other. I am afraid that, when entering into negotiations with other countries in connexion with trade agreements, the Minister is not always so fully informed as he might be as to the possible effects of the proposed agreement. I do nol desire to reflect upon the capacity of the Minister; he has to rely a great deal on others for information to guide him in, these negotiations. I know that certain discussions are now proceeding, and that committees have been inquiring into the matters covered by the agreements, and have submitted recommendations. But I suggest to the Minister that the members of these committees are not sufficiently well informed to advise him. Directors of Agriculture and departmental health officers meet together and advise the Minister as to the effect of certain embargoes. But, after all, they know very little about the economics of the different industries affected by the imposition of these embargoes. I am sufficiently well acquainted with the personnel of these committees to know that they are well versed in the technical side of the industry, but know little of the economic effect of their recommendations. On the other hand I, as >a member of Parliament, know a good deal about the industries affected. When a Minister has entered into an agreement with a sister dominion the agreement is brought before the House, and the House must either accept or reject it. He can bargain. We cannot. But a bargain, to be a good one, must be beneficial to both parties.

Mr Beasley:

– We see only the bargain ; we have no opportunity to express an opinion on it before it is made.

Mr BELL:

– I think it is wrong that effect should be given to any agreement entered into enabling duties to be reduced or increased when Parliament is not in session, simply by a proclamation signed bv the Governor-General. It would rob members of Parliament of the power to exercise their right as the responsible representatives of the people. In any case, it is desirous that interests that may be detrimentally affected as the result of advice given to a Minister should first bp heard-.

Mr Maxwell:

– The interested party generally makes itself heard.

Mr BELL:

– Not always does it have the opportunity, and, if heard, the Minister possibly has made up his mind, and has carried negotiations to a point at which it would be very difficult to effect any alteration, This has happened many times in the past agreements, preferences have been nal agreements between the different dominions. I know that, in respect te past in regard to these so-called preferen given to one industry in our own country to the detriment of another, and in some cases to foreign countries at the expense of our own industries. That nearly always happens when the advice of practical men is disregarded while negotiations are proceeding. The advice of those who are well informed in these matters should be sought before the negotiations have proceeded so far that an alteration in the terms of the proposed agreement cannot be made.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– The honorable member for Darwin (Mr. Bell) has correctly stated the purpose of this bill.

It is designed to avoid unconscionable delays which must result under the existing procedure. As an illustration, at the present time we are negotiating with Canada for a supplementary trade agreement. The Canadian Parliament is going into recess, probably during this month, and is not likely to meet again until after the commencement of the new year. In the meantime, no matter whether the terms of the agreement arrived at between the respective governments should be put into immediate operation, ratification has to be delayed until both parliaments meet, lt can readily be seen that this must present a difficulty to the detriment of both pur ties to the agreement.

As a good deal has been said in respect to my recent visit to New Zealand, I think it necessary to give briefly the history of the embargoes which are at present operative between the Commonwealth and New Zealand. Some time ago, on the recommendation of the technical officers of the Commonwealth, an embargo was placed on the importation from New Zealand of apples and pears and nursery stocks because of the fear of the introduction into Australia of fire-blight. A similar embargo was placed against the importation of potatoes from New Zealand because of the prevalence of corky scab and powdery scab. New Zealand naturally resented the imposition of this embargo, claiming that we were not bona fide in our assertion that the embargoes were imposed for quarantine purposes, and it was only after the unfortunate experience of the visitation of thrips to Australia three or four _years ago, when there would have been a good market for New Zealand apples which the dominion was desirous of exploiting, that it resolved to have a complete understanding with Australia on the matter. Eighteen months ago, New Zealand imposed a counter embargo on the importation from Australia of citrus fruits. This, as indicated by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), was a very serious blow to the citrus fruit-growers of Australia.

Mr Paterson:

– At the same time was not a proclamation issued prohibiting the importation of onions into New Zealand ?

Mr STEWART:

– That prohibition was brought into force because the onions and other vegetables were likely to be infected with Mediterranean fruit fly. One of the objects of my visit to New Zealand was to confer with the dominion authorities on this matter. I found the position that confronted me very difficult. Unfortunately, I had to overcome the feeling in New Zealand that Australia was not “ playing the game.” As a result of my negotiations, however, a conference was arranged between the technical officers of the New Zealand Administration and our own officers, in order that the issues between the two countries could be fully discussed. That conference was held in Canberra last Monday week, and its findings have been made public, indicating that the technical officers of both administrations are now prepared to recommend the abolition of all embargoes, and to suggest that the necessary protection against the introduction of diseases into either country can be secured by setting up a process of certification of exports from both countries.

Mr Blacklow:

– There is an embargo existing between Victoria and Tasmania prohibiting the importation into Victoria of Tasmanian potatoes because of the prevalence of corky scab. Yet the Victorian market may be open to New Zealand potatoes.

Mr STEWART:

– The embargo against the importation of Tasmanian potatoes into Victoria is imposed for the same reason that Australia shut out the New Zealand potatoes. The Victorian representatives were present at the conference in Canberra, but under instructions they did not enter into the discussion because there is at the present time litigation proceeding between Tasmania and Victoria as to the validity of the embargo on the importation of Tasmanian potatoes. The Victorian representatives sat in conference and heard the representatives of New Zealand and the States of the Commonwealth declare that it was no longer necessary to prohibit the importation of New Zealand potatoes because of the danger of the introduction of scab. We are hopeful that one of the results of the conference will be that better relations will be established between Tasmania and Victoria. The recommendations of the conference will be considered by the respective governments. The officer who represented the New Zealand Government at the conference has arrived home only during the last few hours, and we have not yet had time to consult with the Government of the dominion as to its attitude towards the conclusions of the conference, but I am hopeful that very much good will result to the primary and secondary producers of both dominions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time. [Quorum formed.]

Bill reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 111

EXCISE BILL 1934

Notice of Motion No. 2 (Mr. White’s) - by leave - withdrawn -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend Part XI. of the Excise Act 1901-1923.

page 111

WAR SERVICE HOMES (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) AGREEMENT BILL 1934

Motion (by Mr. Francis) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to approve an agreement made between His Majesty’s Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and His Majesty’s Government of the State of South Australia and for other purposes.

page 111

DISTILLATION BILL 1934

Motion (by Mr. White) agreed to -

That ho have leave to bring iri a bill for an act to amend the Distillation Act 1901-1931.

page 111

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1934

Motion (by Mr. White for Mr. Casey) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend section 28 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1930, as amended by the Financial Relief Act 1932.

page 111

FLOUR TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1934

Motion (by Mr. White for Mr. Casey) agreed to -

That he have leave to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Flour Tax Assessment Act 1933.

page 111

CUSTOMS TARIFF (PRIMAGE DUTIES) 1934

In Committee of. Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 4th October, 1933 (vide page 3246) on motion by Mr. White (vide page 3229) -

That in addition to the duties collected in accordance with -

any law of the Commonwealth for the time being in force imposing Duties of Customs ; or

Customs Tariff proposals; there be imposed on and after the fifth day of October. One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, ad valorem Duties of Customs (in this resolution referred to as primage duty) at the rates hereunder set out on the undermentioned goods which are entered for home consumption on and after the said fifth day of October. One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, except such goods as are hereunder specified as being exempt from primage duty.

And upon amendments of the 3rd November, 1933 (vide page 4231) and the 8th December, 1933 (vide page 5854).

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

– I move -

That the Customs Tariff (Primage Duties) resolutions introduced into the House nf Representatives on the 3rd November, 1933, and the 8th December, 1933, be incorporated in the primage duty proposals of the 4th October, 1933, as on and from the 4th November and the 8th December, 1933, respectively.

This is a formal motion to enable the primage duties resolutions of the 3rd November and the 8th December, 1933, to be brought before the committee and debated in conjunction with the main primage duty proposals.

Primage duties were first imposed as from the 10th July, 1930, during the regime of the last Government with the object of producing additional revenue. The rate of primage duty at that time was2½ per cent. This rate was increased in November, 1930, to 4 per cent. In July, 1931, the principal rate was made 10 per cent. in accordance with the Premiers plan, whilst certain raw materials, machines, and goods affecting the primary producer remained at 4 per cent. Since then many exemptions have been made, or the rate has been reduced to 4 per cent. on various goods - mainly on goods used by our primary industries.

The primage duties proposals of the 4th October, 1933, provided for a new departure and reduced the primage duty on goods eligible for admission under the British preferential tariff and subject to protective duties under the customs tariff from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. The two main reasons for this action were: - (1) To give effect, as far as the finances would permit, to the Tariff Board’s recommendation on the protective incidence of primage duties; and (2) to carry out, as far as was possible under the then financial conditions, Australia’s obligations under article 14 of the United Kingdom and Australia Trade Agreement in respect to primage on British goods.

Considerable relief, amounting to approximately £585,000, has been given by way of the reductions of primage duties which were made in connexion with the budget for 1933-34. The revenue derived from primage duties represents a substantial item in the Commonwealth’s receipts; in 1932-33 it amounted to over £4,500,000. Practically the whole of the imported goods directly affecting the primary industries have been either exempted from primage duty or made subject to the low rate of 4 per cent. The Government has at all times realized the necessity for removing as faras is reasonably possible, any burden that presses unduly upon the primary industries.

Mr Beasley:

-It believes in removing emergency taxation before anything else.

Mr.WHITE. - This is emergency taxation, and it concerns some very destitute persons about whom I have heard the honorable member speak in this chamber. It will be appreciated that the Government, since it assumed office, has gone as far as it can in providing relief from these duties, and that any future alterations will be dependent upon the state of the treasury.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- This motion has been brought on unexpectedly. Certainly, the Minister has given some explanation on it; but even so, I consider that honorable members ought to be given an opportunity to go further into it. Has the Minister any objection to the debate being adjourned?

Mr White:

– No ; but there is now an oportunity to consider the matter before bigger measures are brought down.

Mr FORDE:

– I take this opportunity to say that I am opposed to remissions of taxation being made before there has been a full restoration of emergency cuts in the case of invalid and old-age pensioners, public servants, and other very deserving sections of the community, who have suffered considerably, and who were promised that as soon as the finances of the Commonwealth permitted, there would be a complete restoration. This Government adopts the attitude that there should first be a restoration to taxpayers, and that invalid and old-age pensioners and public servants should be the last considered. It cannot be asserted that there has not been an improvement of the revenues of the Commonwealth. The revenues of the Commonwealth showed a decidedly upward tendency in the first year that this Government was in office. That was not due to either its administration or its legislation. The Scullin Government, by sound administration, and by prohibitive and restrictive measures which prevented the importation of goods that could not be paid for, the result of which was to turn an adverse trade balance of £30,000,000 into a favourable one of £30,000,000, enabled the present occupants of the treasury bench to return a surplus immediately. Pensioners and public servants had been assured by the representatives of ali parties that the cuts which had been imposed on them would be restored to them as soon as the finances permitted, yet the first year’s surplus was not devoted to that purpose. On the contrary, an additional £700,000 was taken from pensioners, while taxation was remitted in the case of the wealthy section of the community to an amount of £2,000,000. Pensioners were further reduced to the extent of £750,000, although bondholders and banks were not asked to make any additional sacrifice. In the succeeding financial year, the Government had a further surplus of approximately £5,000,000. It again remitted taxation, chiefly in the case of wealthy landholders and its influential taxpaying friends, to an amount of £7,500,000, the aggregate remissions for the two years thus being £9,500,000. Admittedly, a portion of that was emergency taxation. I, however, am referring principally to the remission of federal land tax, which was not emergency taxation. It had been in operation for twenty years. I wish to impress upon the Minister the claims of invalid and old-age pensioners, and of public servants. They were promised that what were unquestionably emergency cuts would be restored immediately the finances of the Commonwealth permitted such action to be taken ; yet, although there has been a considerable improvement of the finances, the concessions in their case have been niggardly. I ask the Government to make a complete restoration of those cuts in the budget that is shortly to be brought down. The Labour party is definitely pledged to that policy. I move -

That progress be reported.

Question - That progress be reported and leave asked to sit again - put. The committee divided.

AYES: 16

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 17

(Chairman - Mr. Bell.)

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedin the negative.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty

– I take it that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), although he spoke with some little force on this subject, did not intend that his remarks should be taken seriously. These removals of primage have, in effect, been before this chamber for some seven months.

Mr Forde:

– The Minister gave us that information.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– The Minister made that perfectly clear, yet the members ofthe Labour party are opposing this purely formal step of removing impositions of primage upon industry. These reductions are part of the whole working fabric of the country, and have been so for more than six months. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition endeavoured to show that reductions of this kind, for instance, hi primage on goods, as in other directions, have exceeded proportionately the restoration of salary, pension, and other reductions. This is a very serious question. There has already been quite a substantial restoration of reductions, for example, in Public Service salaries.That has been entirely overlooked by the honorable member. The intention of the Government has been to make restoration in both directions, to remove the excessive depression- time taxation to some extent and simultaneously to restore, partially, some of the reductions which were made in pensions and Public Service salaries. I think that the Government has, up to date, held the balance fairly, and I am sure will continue to do so. I am surprised at the attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, because these primage charges fall heavily upon our secondary industries. They fall heavily upon the raw material required not only for secondary industry, but also for primary industry throughout this country. For instance, these charges fall upon corn sacks and a multitude of things, despite some exemptions, which are used by both primary and secondary industries. They are therefore a definite restriction upon employment. They were never a part of the protectionist system, and the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to admit, that. These charges were imposed by this Government with great regret because they represented a burden upon our industrial activities and therefore upon- our employment activities. Insofar as they have been lifted they have relieved and stimulated industry and increased employment, and the more these charges are lifted the more will employment be increased. Therefore the members of the Opposition, in resisting the removal of these primage charges upon industry, are hindering the restoration of employment in this country.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

– I cannot allow the lecture which has been given to us by the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) to pass without correcting his statements and his interpretation of the attitude of the Labour party. The honorable member said that this Government is holding the balance fairly by reducing taxation imposed under the emergency legislation proportionately with the restoration of reductions in social services and Public Service salaries. That statement is absolutely incorrect. The reductions that were made in social services under the first emergency legislation stand to-day in their full severity. In addition further provisions have been inserted in the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act which have added to the severity of the original emergency reduction. The only restoration that has been made in pensions by this Government was in respect of reductions imposed by itself, which doubled the first emergency reductions provided under the original Premiers plan. This Government has reduced very substantially the taxation under the original emergency legislation without making the slightest restoration to the invalid and old-age pensioners; in fact, it has added to the impositions upon them. Therefore the very basis of the case put up by the honorable member for Henty has been knocked from under his feet. The honorable member said that the restorations made to public servants and pensioners were in proportion to the reduction of taxation.

Sir HENRY Gullett:

– I said that that was the object of the Government.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The honorable member said that it was being done progressively and that the balance was being held fairly. I say that that is absolutely incorrect, and the honorable member, if” he knows anything about the facts, must admit that. The original reductions that were made under the Premiers plan with respect to social services stand to-day in the majority of cases. There have been remissions all round in taxation, even remissions in taxation that was not affected by the emergency legislation. I refer particularly to the land tax. I do not deny that my Government imposed emergency taxation with regret, but we imposed other taxation in the form of reductions with greater regret. Those impositions should be the first to be removed.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– The Scullin Government imposed them.

Mr SCULLIN:

– We imposed them and the honorable member supported them. We imposed them because we had no alternative. Now that money is available relief should be given to the poorer section of the community.

Mr White:

– That section is getting relief as the result of the removal of these primage charges.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Only indirectly. I am not objecting in principle to the removal of these charges, because I do not stand for the principle of the continuation of primage which was purely an emergency charge in a period of financial crisis. But impositions on the pensioners should be the first to be removed. Our attitude to-day is perfectly consistent with our attitude on the budget. I admit that these matters came up for consideration months ago, but it must not be forgotten that in the meantime we have had a long recess. We made our protest on these matters when the budget was introduced, and we are entitled to make a further protest now that the effort is being made to give legal effect to the vote of Parliament We have been consistent throughout. There is another aspect of the subject which should bo considered. It has been said that the reduction of the primage duties is consequent upon the ratification of the Ottawa agreement. The honorable member for Henty had something to- do with- the preparation of that agreement. Let him and other honorable gentlemen who support it review the happenings in the business world since that time, and point out, if they can, how Australia has benefited by the agreement.

SirHenrygullett. - We have had a few millions a year from it.

Mr SCULLIN:

– Mythical millions! Our position is worse now than it was before we became a party to the agreement, for Britain has entered into trade agreements with foreign countries with the result that Australia’s hands have been forced to such an extent1 that she is being asked to agree to restrictions and quotas that were never dreamed of before the Ottawa conference.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– Nothing of the kind !

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the honorable member for Henty not to interject. A discussion of the Ottawa agreement and of the general reduction of taxation would not be in order at this stage. The subject of primage duties only is before the committee.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The Minister stressed that the reduction of these dutieswas consequent upon the carrying out of the Ottawa agreement. I reply that in the light of our experiences since the ratification of the agreement and in view of the trade prospects ahead of us we should lose no time in reviewing it. When the budget was introduced last year, and it was proposed that reductions of this kind should be made, I moved an amendment, which was defeated, to the effect that provision should first be made for the unemployed and for the restoration of the emergency cuts in social services, salaries and wages. A promise was definitely made in this Parliament by honorable members of all parties that work would be found for the unemployed and the emergency cuts restored at the first opportunity. The Government has failed to give effect to that promise. We opposed these proposals of the budget of last year, and now we are opposing the effort to give legal effect to them and, in doing so, we are quite consistent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original proposals, with subsequent proposals incorporated, agreed to.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. White and Mr. Guy do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. White and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 116

CUSTOMS TARIFF (EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1934

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 3rd November, 1933 (vide page 4232), on motion by Mr. White -

That, on and after the 4th day of November, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time” in the Territory for the Seat of Government, the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Proposals introduced into the House ofRepresentatives on the fourth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty- three, be amended as follows(vide schedule, page 4232)

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

.- Honorable members will recollect that as a result of the Senate’s requests on the Customs Tariff Bill, which was discussed over a lengthy period, and passed by Parliament at the end of last year, a number of items in the customs tariff schedule were re-numbered. In the meantime, however, the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act, had been passed by both Houses, and in order to bring the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act into line with the Customs Tariff 1933, a resolution was tabled on the 3rd November, 1933. The purpose of the present bill is to confirm such resolution and so adjust the schedule to the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act as to make it conform with the schedule to the customs tariff.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- Judging by the brief explanation of this motion by the Minister, this is a noncontentious subject. Honorable members on this side of the committee took strong objection to certain provisions in the bills involved in the motion, but those subjects have been finally dealt with. We however, are apprehensive that the negotiations at present proceeding between the Leader of the Country party and the Leader of the Government, with a view to effecting a scaling down of tariff rates will be to the great disadvantage of Australian industries. It is quite possible that an agreement may be reached between the United Australia party and Country party for an interchange of preferences at the next general election.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The honorable member is not entitled to discuss that subject on this motion.

Mr FORDE:

– I am afraid that the negotiations which are proceeding will not help Australia’s manufacturing industries. I, therefore, ask the Minister to scrutinize carefully any proposals that may emanate from the free-trade party, and the shandy-gaff protectionist party opposite in order to ensure that they will not jeopardize the primary and secondary industries of this country.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted. [Quorum formed.]

Ordered -

That Mr. White and Mr. Guy do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. White and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 116

CUSTOMS TARIFF (PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA PREFERENCE) 1934

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 9th March, 1933 (vide page 130), on motion by Mr. White - (l.) That notwithstanding anything contained in -

  1. the Customs Tariff 1921-1930; or
  2. the Customs Tariff proposals as defined in this resolution; or
  3. the Customs Tariff by which the Customs Tariff 1921-1930 is repealed ; from and after the tenth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, at nine o’clock in the forenoon reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, thegoods specified in the schedule to this resolution, if produced or manufactured in the Territory of Papua or the Territory of New Guinea,and imported direct from either of those Territories, bo free of duty.

And upon an amendment of the 30th November, 1933 (vide page 5290) -

That the following item be added to the schedule - “ 16. - 254. (c) Balata, gum arabic, gum copal, gum damar, gutta percha, jelutong, stickiac and secdlac.”

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

.- This bill supersedes the Customs Tariff (Papua and New Guinea Preference) of 1926, and ratifies the noncollection of duty on certain goods not included in that act. It will be recollected that, in the Customs Tariff 1933, provision was made, in accordance with the Ottawa agreement, to grant free admission to certain products of the British Colonial Empire on which a duty has been imposed under the general tariff. Some of these products are produced in Papua and New Guinea, and are dutiable under the general tariff, because the products of Papua and New Guinea are not admissible under the British preferential tariff. The present Customs Tariff. (Papua and New Guinea Preference) exempts from duty certain tropical products which were dutiable under the 1921-30 tariff, and in order to extend the list to additional products which in the 1933 tariff were made free when produced in British nonselfgoverning colonies and protectorates, proposals were tabled in this House on the 9th March, 1933, and the 30th November, 1933. These proposals are now operating, and the list of commodities affected is set out in the schedule to this bill, which is designed to ratify the resolutions of the 9th March, 1933, and the 30th November, 1933.

Mr Forde:

– Will the Minister give an assurance that this is a machinery measure which does not vary the rates of dutv?

Mr WHITE:

– I do.

Amendment agreed to.

Original motion, as amended, agreed to.

Resolution reported; Standing Orders suspended ; and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. White and Mr. Guy do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. White, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 117

QUESTION

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) 1934

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 8th December, 1933 (vide page 5854), on motion by Mr. White -

That, on and after the eighth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, at nine o’clock in theforenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, the Customs Tariff (Primage Duties) Proposals introduced into thu” House of Representatives on the fourth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, as proposed to be amended by the Customs Tariff (Primage Duties) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the third day pf November, One thousand nine hundredand thirtythree, be further amended as follows: -

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

.- The purpose of this bill is to ratify certain duties which have been provided by Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) proposals since the 14th October, 1932, on certain Canadian goods which were entitled to the intermediate tariff by reason of the Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) 1931. Since the 14th October, 1932, nointermediate tariff has been operating, and, consequently, it has been necessary to specify certain rates for the goods in question. The rates included in the schedule are the same as those which operated in the intermediate tariff immediately prior to the. 14th October, 1932. The bill will merely empower the Government to print something in the nature of a separate schedule for Canada, which will be appended to the other. There will be no variation of the rates of duty.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I avail myself of this opportunity to remind the Minister that the country is still waiting for those good things which were to accrue from the Ottawa agreement. The Minister cannot point to any authority on primary or secondary industry who will to-day give his blessing to that agreement. The Government, when it forced the agreement through Parliament, bartered away the fiscal freedom of the country.

Mr White:

– I rise to a point of order. This bill does not deal with the Ottawa agreement, but with an agreement between Australia and Canada.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bell:

– The honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) must confinehis remarks to the resolution.

Mr FORDE:

– Seeing that we are now discussing certain preferences to Canada, I think that I am justified in referring to the failure of the agreement entered into between Australia and Canada.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Ottawa agreement is not now before the committee.

Mr FORDE:

– The Ottawa agreement was in part an agreement between Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, and I am therefore justified in pointing out that the present Federal Government let Australia down over that agreement. We did not receive a quid pro quo in respect of the undertaking into which we were drawn without consultation by the present Government. In my opinion, the Ottawa agreement was the greatest ramp ever perpetrated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr FORDE:

– The Minister should not be so touchy when he is reminded that the good things promised us at the time the agreement was entered into have not yet materialized. The Minister said, for instance, that the price of butter would immediately rise.

Mr White:

– Nonsense!

Mr FORDE:

– We were also told that there would be an increase in the price of beef. As a matter of fact, the Ottawa agreement has jeopardized the Australian secondary industries.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is again referring to something which is not before the Chair.

Mr FORDE:

– The subject before the Chair relates to an agreement entered into between A.ustralia and Canada. The Minister mu3t expect that we shall avail ourselves of this opportunity to point out that certain agreements entered into between Australia and other countries as a. result of the Ottawa conference have proved to be failures.

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

– I should not have risen to speak again but for the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) has criticized the Ottawa agreement, and has sought to introduce some damaging propaganda to the detriment of the Government. He referred to the Ottawa agreement as a ramp and as a failure.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I called the honorable member for Capricornia to order, and the Minister cannot now reply to him.

Mr WHITE:

– In spite of the fact that I raised the point of order the honorable member persisted in his attack. He must know that the Ottawa agreement has stimulated our wine, beef, and dried fruits industries.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr WHITE:

– It has also assisted in the relief of unemployment. The act to which the present measure before the committee refers was passed during the regime of the Scullin Government, and we are seeking to ratify the undertaking then made. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister for Trade and Customs at the time, ought to know something about it. He should know that it has nothing whatever to do with the Ottawa agreement, which was an Empire agreement. ‘We are merely seeking-, to ratify an agreement between Australia and another dominion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended, and resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. White and Mr. Guy do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the loregoing resolution.

Bill brought up by Mr. White, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

Sitting suspended from 12.k5 to 2.15 p.m.

page 118

CUSTOMS BILL 1932

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure is designed to improve the present working of the Customs Act. It was originated in the Senate some eighteen months ago, and I ask honorable members to treat it not as a means of debating the height of the tariff with respect to any particular item, or the protection afforded to any industry, but simply as an amendment of the act. A full debate on the tariff items took place last year, and it should not be necessary to have a repetition of it on this occasion. When the bill is in committee, it is my intention to propose certain amendments to it.

The bill covers certain minor alterations and other important alterations that have been awaiting attention for some time. The principal .alterations contemplated are three. The first is an amendment of the preferential, conditions. which enable the value of Australian, materials to be included in the calculation of the 75 per cent, of United Kingdom origin in ‘order that goods may qualify for preference. That relates specifically towool.

Mr Scullin:

– That will remove a very serious anomaly.

Mr WHITE:

– I believe that the. House will unanimously approve of it. The next proposal is the substitution of prohibitions by regulations instead of byproclamation. The third amendment provides that tariff schedules shall be discussed within six months after their introduction into the House.

Mr Gregory:

– They must be legalized?

Mr WHITE:

– They must pass into law.

Mr Scullin:

– What would happen if they did not?

Mr WHITE:

– They would lapse. As. honorable members are aware, there havebeen occasions when schedules have not been ratified, and a bill* has had to be rushed through to validate them before aa election whether honorable membersagreed with the rates or not. This will ensure that >the consideration of schedule* will not be allowed to remain in abeyanceyear after year. That principle, I think, can generally be approved. This is essentially a committee bill, and I urge honorable members to expedite its passage.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- To the first two principles, no objection can, 1 think, be taken. Certainly, the first point ought to have been cleared up long ago. While in London as Prime Minister, I attended a meeting of manufacturers. I was then informed by one gentleman that he could not qualify for British preference because he used Australian wool in the manufacture of his articles, as it was not regarded as a British product.

Mr GREGORY:

– The right honorable gentleman amended that provision years ago.

Mr SCULLIN:

– I believe that we brought down an amendment, but I do not think that it was passed. The present Comptroller-General of Custom* agreed that an anomaly existed, and the matter was placed on the stocks to be dealt with. It was never contemplated that any British manufacturer who used Australian raw material should be prevented from qualifying for British preference.

I raise no objection to the proposal 4o substitute regulations for proclamations, upon which a discussion took place some time ago, although I apprehend certain difficulties. I recognize that there is involved the principle of the right of Parliament to have a voice in the matter at the earliest possible moment, -

The third proposal involves considerably more than the second. It is that “tariff schedules must pass into law within six months of their having been tabled, or lapse. Under normal conditions, it might be proper to provide that the Parliament shall ha-ve an opportunity to either accept or reject a tariff schedule within six months. I point out, however. that we are living in abnormal times at present. All over the world, there are movements which are aimed at the development of the industries of different countries with a view to dealing with the unemployment problem. They are not directed against Australia or any other country as an act of retaliation “because of high tariffs, but they are having repercussions in every country, and Australia must be ever ready to meet whatever situation may arise. Therefore, the greatest elasticity must be allowed to whatever administration is in power.

Mr White:

– I propose to bring down a special bill to deal with the international situation.

Mr SCULLIN:

– The necessity might suddenly arise to protect Australia against the dumping of goods produced in other countries, proof of which is not available. It is known that to-day one nation is adopting extraordinary methods to place its goods in other parts of the world. I have read an address that was delivered by Major Douglas, in which ho claimed that Japan had put the Douglas credit theory into operation, but upside down. His explanation was that Japan was utilizing the national credit to subsidize the manufacture of goods with a view to capturing the markets of other countries. That explains many things that it has been difficult to understand. Manufacturers have shown me articles, the cost of the raw material used in which, they have assured me, has been as much as the articles could be sold for if labour had not to be paid for. Therefore, there must be an explanation apart from the question of cheap labour. I received a letter to-day from rubber workers in my constituency who recently were thrown out of work because a number of the stores are being filled with imported balloons against which it is impossible for the local article to compete. The balloons are not branded “Made in Japan,” but they are landed in Australia so cheaply that they can be sold at a very low figure. Serious developments might arise almost on the eve of the rising of Parliament, when it might not be possible to have a tariff schedule passed. Parliament always has control over its own affairs. If it does not wish a schedule to lie on the table for a longer period than six months, it can decide to deal with it. I know that honorable members have in mind schedules that have been unratified for a number of years.

Mr GREGORY:

– Four years.

Mr SCULLIN:

– A schedule that was brought down by the Bruce-Page Government lay on the table for about twelve months during its administration, and for the whole of the period that my Government was in office. During the war period schedules lay on the table for as long as three years. I venture to affirm that had this suggested provision been in operation during the war it would have been found necessary to repeal if. If it is now agreed to, Parliament will be forced to repeal it whenever special circumstances arise. After all, the protection of Australian industry is of the greatest importance to the development and the life of this country. What is wrong with leaving it to the Parliament itself to determine when schedules shall be dealt with? This would not confer upon the Parliament any wider power than it now possesses. The only argument that can he advanced against my contention is that the House of Representatives would be able to determine of itself, without the Senate having any say, as to when schedules should be passed into law. I am most reluctant to agree to the proposal without having given the matter a good deal more consideration, and without being furnished with greater justification for it than has been advanced by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White). I have no objection to the measure being taken to that stage in committee. 1 ask, however, that we be given the week-end to consider the effects of this amendment, which I contend has been sprung on the House.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- The questions raised by this measure have been before the Parliament for many years, and I am gratified at the intention of the Government to amend the act in certain directions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), I think, will agree that Parliament should be supreme.

Mr Scullin:

– Oh, yes.

Mr GREGORY:

– Should circumstances arise which make it necessary for special power to be conferred on the Government, it would be a simple matter for the necessary. legislation to be introduced. For more than four years taxation has been imposed upon the people without the approval of Parliament. I am satisfied that the Leader of the Opposition does not, in principle, agree with that. Parliament should approve of any taxation that is imposed. One House only has not the right to say that a section of the community shall be taxed. If the Government of the day had a majority in both Houses of Parliament it would be easy for it, should the necessity arise, to bring in special legislation to overcome any fault that may be found in this measure. The Government of the day should not be absolutely dominant and able to impose a tax upon the people without the approval of the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Power to prohibit the export of goods).

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– I understand that the object of this provision is to substitute the word “regulation” for “proclamation” in section 112. I hope that the Minister has carefully considered the effect of this amendment upon the administration of the Customs Department in the way of elasticity. I do not think that it can be said that any serious trouble has arisen in the past. Section 112 contains certain provisions which do require action to be taken by proclamation. He must bear in mind the need for action in emergencies.

Mr Gregory:

– That deals mostly with military matters.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– Even in those matters the administration should be left to executive action rather than to regulation. If the Minister, in the light of the experience of the past 30 years is satisfied that he will have sufficient power under this amendment I am quite prepared to accept it.

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

– There are merits in the procedure both by proclamation and by regulation. I do not say that regulation is more effective than proclamation.

Mr.Maxwell. - What is the reason for the alteration ?

Mr WHITE:

– It will enable the Parliament to make a quick judgment in the matter of regulation in respect of any tariff resolution which is placed upon the table of the House, and the administration of the law will present no greater difficulty than it did before.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Duty on parts).

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

– I move -

That the clause be omitted.

I do so with the object of inserting another clause in its stead. The clause as printed refers to a duty on parts of machinery and other parts having alternate or combined rates of duty - ad valorem and specific. No judgment could be made in a measure as to whether the duty should be specific or ad valorem, and the power is therefore given to the Minister to define how much of these particular parts should bear the rates.

Clause negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. White) agreed to -

That the following new clause be inserted: -

Section one hundred and forty of the principal act is amended by omitting subsection (2) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - (2.) When the duty on the complete goods is specific only or eitherspecific or ad valorem, according to whichever returns the higher duty, or both specific and ad valorem, the Minister may fix the proportion of the specific rate that shall be applied in determining the amount of duty payable on any part of such goods.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Time for commencing action).

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

– I move -

That sub-clause 2 be amended by omitting the words “ thirty-three “ and inserting in their stead the words “thirty-five”.

This amendment relates to an alteration of the date. The bill originated some eighteen months ago and it is therefore necessary that an alteration of the date should be made.

Amendment agreed to.

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

.- The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has suggested that this clause should be postponed to enable the members of his party to give more consideration to it over the week-end.

Further consideration of the, clause - by leave - postponed.

Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Proclamations prohibiting import or export may be re-enacted, cancelled or varied by regulation).

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

– I move -

That the clause be omitted.

I do so with the object of inserting a new clause in its stead which will not alter its meaning.

Clause negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. White) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted: -

After section 277 of the principal act the following section is inserted: - 278. Where, prior to the commencement of this act, the importation or exportation of any goods has been prohibited by proclamation, and the proclamation is in force immediately prior to such commencement, any such proclamation may be re-enacted, cancelled or varied by regulation, and until cancellation shallremain in force according to the terms in which it was issued, and, if varied, shall have effect according to its terms as so varied. Any such prohibition not re-enacted by regulation within six months after the commencement of this act shall cease to have effect.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

– I should like an assurance from the Minister that, if this clause is agreed to, prohibitions which have been in force for a certain period will need to be re-enacted, if so desired, by regulation. When this measure was before another place Senator Massy-Greene said -

Since we last discussed this matter the Government has had ample opportunity to review both the existing law and the amendment and I am now able to say that it has no objection to the amendment. The Government is prepared to re-enact all existing regulations within the period mentioned.

Will that be the case if this clause is agreed to?

Mr White:

– Yes.

Proposed new clause agreed to..

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

– I move -

That the following new clause be inserted : - (1a) Section 30 of the principal act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso : -

Provided that fish and other sea products gathered by any Australian registered vessel fitted out in and sailing from any port in the Commonwealth and brought to the Commonwealth in any such ship or in any tender registered in Australia and working in conjunction with such ship shall not be deemed to be imported for the purpose of paragraph (a) of this section.

Asa result of the amendment we shall not collect primage duty on fish caught in waters outside the three-mile limit by

Australian craft. It is strange that such an anomaly should have been allowed to exist and this amendment will rectify it.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 122

NAVIGATION (MARITIME CONVENTIONS) BILL 1933

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 26th May, 1933, (vide page 1965), on motion by Mr. Stewart - c

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– The object, of this bill is to bring Australia into line with other maritime countries which have signed the International Conventions relating to seagoing vessels. The first international conference on this subject endeavoured to secure uniformity among the big maritime countries in regard to methods of surveying, load line provisions, and examination of vessels generally. It was desired that all vessels should be thoroughly examined on a uniform basis in every country in order to ensure, to the greatest possible extent, the safety of persons travelling by sea, whether as passengers or as crew, and also the safety of property ‘transported by sea. The Minister explained, in introducing the bill, that its purpose was to implement Australia’s part as one of the signatories to the . Conventions. I am afraid, however, that if we pass the measure in its present form we shall not achieve our objective. Fundamentally the basis of the Conventions is that everybody in the world engaged in seagoing operations shall be subject to uniform conditions. The Conventions are founded on the practice of the maritime section of the British Board of Trade and Lloyd’s Register in Great Britain. If Australia is honestly to take its part as a signatory to the Conventions, it is under obligation to make sure that the practices of this country in regard to the matters involved are identical with those of other countries which have signed the Conventions. It is provided in the British legislation that the inspections and examinations shall be made by expert officers. The employment of engineer surveyors, ship surveyors, wireless surveyors and so on is specified in the legislation of other- countries which have implemented these Conventions; but there is no mandatory provision in this bill that the persons employed by our Navigation Department to do this work shall be thoroughly qualified in every respect. I fear, therefore, that persons may be employed who are not technically fitted to do the work. I wish not to attack the Minister or the bill, but merely to ensure that the right thing shall be done. I can see a danger in the wideness of the terms of certain clauses of the bill. We should take all care to ensure that only thoroughly qualified persons are engaged in this important work. If we employ unqualified ‘ persons, other maritime countries, which are parties to the Conventions, will soon know of it and will not be willing to allow their ships to be examined by our officers. I suggest, therefore, that the language of the bill should be strengthened to provide that only qualified examiners shall be employed. Some of these Conventions havebeen in operation for nearly 50 years. There has, during this time, been a gradual change in the type of ships and the nature of their equipment. Other nations copied British procedurebecause they believed it to be the best,, and we ought to be the last to depart from it. The provisions in this bill differ altogether from those in the British act.. For instance, it is stated in the bill simply that the ships shall be surveyed, but it isnot stipulated that the persons who carry out the survey work shall be- qualified todo so. I trust that the Minister will examine the matter from this angle, and: see that the men in his department possess the necessary qualifications. I am not casting any reflection on the men now engaged in the work; some of them may be qualified, while others may not have had an opportunity to pass the necessary examinations. It should be stipulated,, however, that men doing survey work should possess the qualifications laid downby Lloyds. I ask the Minister to see that the Australian act is on all fours with the British Merchant Shipping Act, which provides specifically that declarations’ of survey shall be made by persons qualified to do the work. This applies to surveys of all parts of the vessel, including the engines and wireless installation.

Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle

.- I also have had the case put before me by the Australian engineers. All they ask is that the Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britain shall be followed by this Parliament when amending the present Navigation Act in so far as it applies to the surveying of ships. Our act states that surveys shall be made by “ persons “, but does not state what qualifications those persons shall possess. The British Merchant Shipping Act in sections 2, 5, 9, 17, 46 and 53 indicates the technical -qualifications of the surveyors who are to be employed. The work of survey should not be left to unqualified persons who may have no knowledge of the intricate equipment which it is their duty to examine. Not only has Great Britain provided for the survey of ships by qualified persons in regard to ship’s engines, &c; it has also brought its legislation up to date by an amendment of 1932 which specifically deals with wireless installations. We are not opposing the bill as a whole, but we ask the Minister to make the alterations which have been requested. No one will be placed at a disadvantage thereby, and it will make foi* greater safety for those who have to go to sea. A ship’s captain might be a very good authority on navigation, &c, but, as regards the safety of the ship at sea, the chief engineer occupies almost as important a position as the captain himself. We have been taught in the past to copy British legislation, and here is an excellent opportunity to put the lesson into effect. By failing to include the provision which has been asked for we are placing ourselves .apart, from all other maritime nations of the world. The engineers are not seeking anything unreasonable when they ask for preference in regard to appointments for survey work.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The hill now before the House provides for certain amendments recommended by international conventions, but it also affords an opportunity to the Minister *to accede to requests made to him by a deputation from the Marine Transport

Council of Sydney, which waited upon him in Sydney on the 9th October, 1933. Replying to the deputation, the Minister stated -

There has been no opportunity in recent years of considering general amendments to these acts. Many requests for amendments have, however, been received, particularly in regard to the Navigation Act. If and when it is possible to introduce amending bills full consideration will be given to the points raised by the deputation. As the Navigation Act has yet to be amended to enable the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the Loadline Convention to be ratified, I can see little prospect of a general amending bill being introduced in the near future.

Mr Stewart:

– It is not proposed in this Bill to re-open the whole Navigation Act; we merely propose to carry out our obligations under the Conventions.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I take it, then, that the Minister does not propose to accede to the requests of the Marine Transport Council. It is. often very difficult to secure amendments regarding legislation which does not come prominently before a large section of the public. This bill is one that opportunity s offers for a general review of the Navigation Act, and should have been cordially welcomed. No doubt the International Conventions are important, but there is a responsibility on the Government to give effect also, in so far as is possible, to reasonable requests made by local organizations. I introduced the deputation which waited upon the Minister in October last, and, as it may be a long time before the Navigation Act is again before Parliament, I take this opportunity to put on record the requests made by the council on that occasion. They asked that section 1 should be amended by omitting the words, “ belonging to a ship registered in Australia “, and “ at any place in Australia “. Although the Navigation Act has jurisdiction only over vessels whose first port of clearance and port of destination are within the Commonwealth, it would be competent for a vessel trading on the coast, and registered oversea, to evade the provisions of section 132. That possibility is removed by the omission of the words I have quoted. If the lastmentioned words are allowed to remain, a vessel registered in Australia and observing Australian conditions, would be entitled to leave a seaman ashore at any port outside Australia, and deny liability. The omission of the words referred to would protect the seamen in this direction. It. is proposed that the words “ and medical expenses “ be inserted after the word “ agreement “ in the second line of sub-section 1 a. The reason given is that the medical expenses of the seaman are paid by the employer while he is being treated under the provisions of subsection 1 b when left ashore away from his borne port. The maritime unions urge that he be treated similarly at his home port. In cases where such expenses were heavy, the major portion of the wages paid would be absorbed in this direction. A further proposal is that the word “ and “ be substituted for the word “ or “ in the second last line. Under present circumstances, a certificate from either the Medical Inspector of Seamen, or his medical attendant, suffices. In many casus, this has had an adverse effect upon the seamen, as only a certificate from either of the persons I have mentioned is required, and the employer is enabled to deny further liability. As a result of experience, it is claimed that the seaman is without adequate protection, and that, the certificate of recovery from the two medical men is essential. Provision is made for difference of opinion by the proposal that the present proviso to the sub-section be struck out, and the following substituted : -

Provided that, in eases where a difference of opinion arises as to the condition of the seaman, the matter shall be determined by reference to an independent specialist acceptable to both parties.

Tt is further proposed that the proviso to sub-section 1 a be struck out, because it limits the payment of wages to a period governed solely by the duration of the articles of agreement. If the articles expire within one month from the date on which the seaman is left ashore, the payment does not exceed one month’s wages. In all other cases, it. is not to exceed three months, after which - in cases of accident, only - the seaman is brought under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, which provides for a payment of 30s. a week. Ho regard is paid to the seriousness of the complaint or injury from which the seaman is suffering. If a seaman who is employed on a ship, the articles of which expire within one month from the date on which ho is left ashore at his home port, is seriously injured and incapacitated for a lengthy period, he receives only 30s. a week after the expiration of the month, whereas if he were landed away from his home port, he would receive wages, sustenance, and medical expenses up to the time of his recovery. This discrimination is not equitable, and it is respectfully urged that the anomaly should he remedied immediately.

The next proposal is that the words “ and sustenance “ be inserted after the word “agreement” in sub-section ‘lb. It is contended that, although it is usual for a seaman, to be provided with sustenance while being treated under this sub-section, the provision should be clearly stated.

The last suggestion is that paragraphs b and c of sub-section 5 be deleted. The opinion held is that the inclusion of a stated period before a claim can be made is bad in principle, and encourages the seaman to ensure that he is incapacitated for the period mentioned. The reference to the period of fourteen days has been deleted from the seamen’s award. The inclusion of occupational diseases is also recommended.

I have specifically referred to these suggestions and opinions in order that they may be recorded. It would appear that there is no possibility of having them considered in conjunction with the measure that is now before the House, despite the fact that the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) stated in his letter to the Secretary of the Maritime Council that an opportunity to deal with the act had not presented itself for many years. It is likely that a similar set of circumstances will prevail for the next few years, unless there is a change of government, at the forthcoming election. That is something to which these men will have to look forward because this is a matter in which the public generally are only indifferently interested. The Government has decided to shelve reform, and apparently leave alterations in abeyance for a considerable period - that is, of course, if they . remain in office. The maritime unions have prepared their case in a most capable manner. They supplied the Minister for

Commerce with their suggestions practically twelve months ago. If the honorable gentleman has not had the time to devote to these questions, an officer of his department ought to have given attention to them. The Government has not acted rightly in having refrained from dealing with the local aspects of navigation now that the measure is before the House, but if the Minister is not prepared to make the amendments now, perhaps he may indicate his desire to take action in the very near future. Such a pronouncement would give some satisfaction to these mon. As we are not able to take action ourselves, the best that we can do is to endeavour to encourage action on the part of those who have for the time being the necessary power and authority. As we have failed to obtain immediate action, we should like an assurance that there will “ not be very much delay in meeting the requests of the men whose whole lives are practically absorbed in the industry.

Mr STEWART:
Minister for Commerce · Parramatta · UAP

– I am gratified at the general approval Of the purpose that underlies this measure, lt would be surprising if any other attitude were adopted, because, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) has stated, the purpose of the bill is simply to bring Australia into line with the rest of the world by ratifying the obligation which it undertook in the maritime conventions of 1929 and 1930. The object of the conferences and of the conventions which followed them was simply the protection of life at sea.

Fault has been found with only one phase of the proposals that are now before the House - the definition of “surveyor.” There is no variation with respect to the requirements of the survey, but there has been criticism of the faét that the measure does not make as specific a provision as is made by some other measures overseas. There is a reason for that, and it is not a sinister one. It is not the intention of the Commonwealth that there shall be the slightest laxity in the survey of our ships. So far from that being the case, Australia has shown the way to the rest of the world in. the matter of maritime legislation. We lave not a greater number of amendments to make to our act to conform to our obligations under the conventions because to a large extent the provisions sought have been anticipated for a number of years.

I am sorry that I am unable to accede to the request that has been made. It was formulated in very good temper and, .from the point of view of those who have made the representations, is not at all unreasonable. But the conditions prevailing in Australia are entirely different from those obtaining in Great Britain, and this makes necessary a greater degree of elasticity in our legislation than is needed in the corresponding legislation of Great Britain. Some of the survey work in Great Britain is undertaken by ship surveyors, who in Australia would be known as naval architects. Unfortunately, Australia has riot yet reached in shipbuilding the position that would ensure the availability of this type of man for the survey of our shipping. It is because of the necessity for elasticity in our legislation that we prefer to allow the position to remain as it is provided for in the bill, and to be a little more specific in the regulations that will be issued under the act. An indication that the Board of Trade has no objection to the practice that we adopt in this regard is furnished by the fact that only recently it appointed two officers of my department to act as its representatives in Australia in the survey of certain passenger ships that voyage to international ports. One of the two officers is a nautical surveyor; yet it is against the class of work which such men undertake that most of the agitation that has been given expression to-day has been launched. ‘

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has complained that certain further amendments of the act have not been proposed in this measure. I am afraid that I cannot give him. a great deal of encouragement to believe that there is likely to be an immediate re-opening of the subject. Indeed, if some of the observations and the forecasts of the honorable gentleman may be taken seriously, a promise by me that the act would be further amended at an early date, would not prove very reassuring to his constituents. I am, however, prepared to give the undertaking that there is no intention whatever to limit the area of operation that is now enjoyed by engineer surveyors. The regulations with which this bill will be implemented will retain to engineer surveyors their accustomed fields of survey, such as iron and steel hulls, machinery, engines, boilers and the like. I ask the House to pass the bill as drafted. When regulations are subsequently tabled, those who are interested will have the fullest opportunity to direct the attention of the legislature to any failure by me to redeem the undertakings that I have given.

Mr Holloway:

– I accept the assurance of the Minister for Commerce (Mr. Stewart) that the matter will be dealt with under the regulations, and, therefore, do not propose to move in committee the amendment that I have forecast.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 126

DEATH OF LADY NORTHCOTE

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister and Treasurer · Wilmot · UAP

by leave - I take this opportunity to express the great regret that the Government feels at the news of the death of Lady Northcote, the widow of the late Lord Northcote, who was Governor-General of the Commonwealth from 1904 to 1908. Lady Northcote was a lady of great distinction, and both during her sojourn in Australia and in the years that have followed she endeared herself to a wide circle of Australian acquaintances and friends. Her house in London was ever open to visiting Australians, and her interest in our country remained fresh and vivid to the end. 1 know that the House will be with me when I say that her passing leaves a gap in the lives and memories of a great many people, and that we learn of it with great regret.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- by leave - I desire to associate the Opposition with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). Lady Northcote played an important part with her husband when he was Governor-General of Australia in the early years of federation, and a few years ago I, with my wife, had the privilege of renewing acquaintance with her in London when she kindly invited us to her home for a rest during the activities of the Imperial Conference. Unfortunately, our stay was too short to enable us to avail ourselves of the invitation. By her acts of courtesy she displayed her continued interest in the welfare of Australia. She told me on that occasion that she had never forgotten her stay in this country. She was a charming personality, and I am sure that the Australian people generally will deeply regret her death.

Mr MCNICOLL:
Werriwa

.- by leave - On behalf of the members of the Country party I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons). I had the privilege of knowing Lady Northcote, and I can state that she, like Lady Novar, after her return to Great Britain, was a great advocate for Australia, and a good friend to all Australians abroad. Lady Novar has, at all times, extended a warm welcome to visitors from Australia, and I know that on the walls of her house there is displayed a fine collection of Australian paintings. In her garden there is a beautiful growth of Australian trees and shrubs. Her library contains a large collection of current. Australian newspapers. It has often been said that our Governors-General when they return to England are fine ambassadors for this country, and I can say truly that both Lady Novar and Lady Northcote have proved themselves to be fine ambassadresses. When Lady Northcote was in Australia she endeared herself to all Australians whom she met. In England she continued to show a lively interest in this country, and extended kindly hospitality to all Australians in London who were able to come into contact with her. The Country party combines with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) in expressing deep regret at the news of her death.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

. - by leave - I desire to associate myself with the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), and other honorable members in expressing regret at the passing of the gracious lady who, during the years of her distinguished husband’s occupancy of the highest office in the Commonwealth, endeared herself to every section of the community, and who since her departure from Australia has ever evinced the liveliest interest in the country’s welfare. Lady Northcote was a woman of outstanding qualities; she had read widely, she was a lover of art and music, but, above everything else, she was a lover of humanity. She was an understanding woman, with a great knowledge Of human nature. I knew her very well, and for many years enjoyed the privilege of her friendship. She bore herself with a natural dignity that owed nothing to art. She radiated charm and sympathy. I had the ho’nour to serve under Lord. Northcote in the first Ministry of which I was a member, and owe very much to the courtesy and friendly encouragement he and Lady Northcote extended to mp on every occasion.

During her stay amongst us, Lady Northcote laboured diligently to entourage every great public movement, mid since her departure she has been a. constant friend to Australia. She might well be said to have been the unofficial ambassadress of the Commonwealth.; no one could have . striven to advance its interests or sung its praises more loyally or effectively than did she. Only fourteen months ago it was my privilege to be her guest. She was then, as always, a very gracious and lovable woman, and her interest in Australia was just as vivid as it had been in those days when she and her distinguished husband lived in our midst as the representatives of His Majesty. Of Lord Northcote let me say that he was one of the greatest of our Governors-General. No one filled that high position with more distinction and greater success than did he. No one understood better than he what was expected of the representative of His Majesty in this country. And Lady Northcote was, indeed, a model helpmate.

The news of her death came to us all as a great shock. The people of Australia have lost a true and most powerful friend. I join with other honorable members and with, I am sure, the majority of the people of Australia in mourning her loss and honouring her memory.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

by leave - I feel gratified that the House has been given this opportunity to express it3 appreciation of the splendid work which Lady Northcote did for Australia in her high capacity as the wife of a GovernorGeneral. I first held office at a time when the position of Government House had just been revised. Lord Northcote and Lady Northcote were in residence, and maintaining the establishment in accordance with the ideals of that time. It fell to my lot to see a good deal of Her Excellency. She was a mo3t gracious personality, a woman of very high character and ability. She had the desire to foster the interests of Australia. Sympathetic with Australian aspirations in art, literature, and music, she went out, of her way to encourage, by extending her hospitality to them, those who were anxious to promote higher education and the intellectual life of Australia. It was rarely that one went to her receptions without meeting people like Rolf Boldrewood, Mrs. Aeneas Gunn, the heads of our educational institutions, and those interested in the higher well-being of Australia. Her life was . marked . by generous acts of charity. She sympathized with the desire that Australia should produce as far as practicable its own articles in its own factories. She visited and encouraged our factories, and it was her practice to use in Government House everything that could reasonably be produced in this country. She organized one of the finest exhibitions ever held in Australia. I refer to the Women’s Exhibition in Melbourne, which was a magnificent example of our women’s ‘ executive ability. During my last visit to England Lady Northcote showed me with pride a magnificent carpet which had been made by Australian women and presented to her. That carpet had in its centre and surrounding it the design of the coats of arms of Australia and the States. She stood by the side of her husband during his period of office at a time when there was abroad in this country in places an anti-federal feeling. She, however, traversed this Commonwealth carrying dignity and grace with her, symbolising the Australian ideal. Lord Northcote stands out as one of the greatest Governors-General of Australia, and his wife stands out as one who assisted to make his period of office so lustrous as it was. Her memory will always be an inspiration to Australia. She represented the finest type of English womanhood, and her influence was always in the direction of promoting lofty Australian ideals.

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · Corio · UAP

by leave - I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin), and other honorable gentlemen in regard to the late Lady Northcote. I had the privilege of her friendship for a good many years, and have much personal reason to regret her passing. She was, in the best sense of the word, a great lady of the old school, and representative of an era which is fast passing away. People of her type are little more than a memory to the generation of to-day. I echo the Prime Minister’s statement that Lady Northcote’s home was always open to Australians visiting London. When I arrived in London in 1924, as a rather obscure Australian civil servant, Lady Northcote was good enough to seek me out, and thereafter made my task much easier than it could otherwise have been by giving me frequent opportunities to meet at her house and at her table people prominent in both the governmental and political life of Great Britain, and also in the big public departments of the Old Country. Lady Northcote continued to do this for the five or six years that I was in London, and through her kindly consideration to me, and through the contacts and friendships that I was able to make, my period of service in London was made easier and, I like to think, more useful. Lady Northcote was always interested in Australia, and she constantly inquired ‘after the people she knew. She was also keen to inquire after and follow the activities of our principal public institutions. I deeply regret that she has passed from among us.

page 128

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1934-35

Bill returned from the Senate without requests.

page 128

ADJOURNMENT

Bankruptcy Administration - Petrol Commission - East- West Railway : Canberra Unemployed - Northern Territory : Loss of Settlers’ Stores - Postal Equipment, Hobart

Motion (by Mr. Archdale Parkhill) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– Yesterday afternoon and again last evening I directed the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) to the change in the bankruptcy administration of New South Wales that is to take place from next Monday, the 1st July. I wish again to emphasize that there is strong opposition in the commercial community in New South Wales to the proposed change. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the change was necessary in the interests of uniformity; but I pointed out to him that the present official receiver is working directly under the AttorneyGeneral, and must keep within the ambits of the act. The right honorable gentleman also said that a similar change was made in Queensland on the 1st July, 1933, and that there had been no opposition to it. I direct his attention to the report of the Attorney-General of June, 1933, with the object of supporting my contention that a similar change should not be inflicted upon New South Wales. It is stated in that, report that in the year 1932-33 the income from estates was £31,442, and the expenditure £30,886, leaving a profit of a little more than £550; but a footnote to the statement reads -

No allowance made for claim of £1,164 17a. Id. made by Queensland Government for loss incurred by public curator.

The public curator had been acting for the Commonwealth Government in this connexion. The losses incurred by dealing with sequestrated estates in the way now proposed must be aggravated by the change-over that i3 imminent in New South Wales and Tasmania. It has been stated that no protest, has been made respecting the change-over in Tasmania. I point out that Tasmania was in the fortunate position of having had only 39 estates sequestrated in the period August, 1932. to July, 1933. But the following notice in the Commonwealth

Gazette of the 24th May, 1934, is illuminating as indicating the expense that will be incurred in setting up this new department in Tasmania: -

ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT.

Offices created. - The undermentioned new offices have been created in the Official Receiver’s Section, Bankruptcy Branch, Tasmania, with limits of salary as indicated, subject to reduction in accordance with the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1933: - Official Receiver, Third Division, limits of salary of minimum £456, maximum £528; Clerk, Third Division, limits of salary of minimum £330, maximum £402; Clerk, Third Division, limits of salary of minimum £96; maximum £306; Typist, Fourth Division, Grade 2, limits of salary of minimum £234, maximum £242.

Why should such great expense be incurred in order to deal with so few sequestrations? It must be realized that possibly quite a number of the 39 estates sequestrated in that State in the period to which I have referred may have revealed no assets whatever. The income to be derived from this source in Tasmania cannot possibly cover the outlay in the setting up of this new Commonwealth department. The same remark may be applied to New South Wales. I again draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the protests which have been made by the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, the Retail Traders’ Association,andthe Law Institute against this proposed change. The president of the Sydney Chamber of Commerce, Mr. A. Spencer Watts, wrote to the Acting Federal Attorney-General (Senator McLachlan) on the 18th May, 1934, in the following terms : -

I confirm the telegram despatched to you to-day, reading: - “Writing to-day re proposed change in official receivership this State which this Chamber opposes.” The council of this Chamber, at a meeting on the 16th instant, by resolution, decided to enter a strong protest against the proposal of the Government to appoint a salaried officer to take over the work of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy in New South Wales. I trust that before any further action is taken in the matter, you will give this Chamber an opportunity of presenting its case and submitting to you the very serious objections from the stand-point of the commercial community and taxpayers to the proposed change.

The secretary of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales, Mr. Frank L. Edwards, wrote the following letter, dated 3lst May, 1934, to Mr. C. F. W. Lloyd, the present official receiver, New South Wales : -

At a special meeting of the executive of the Chamber, held on Tuesday, 29th instant, the following resolution was carried: - “That we protest to the Federal Government against the change in the system of Official Receivers in Bankruptcy in New South Wales, and against the proposed appointment on salary of an Official Receiver and staff for this State. We affirm that the trading community has every confidence that the existing system of payment by percentage is the best system and that it does not desire any change.” You are at liberty to use this resolution as you think fit.

In view of the fact that these two protests have been supported by the Retail Traders’ Association, and even by the Law Institute, I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider the whole position, and to confer with the commercial interests of Sydney before actually setting up the new department. Why should such a change be made? It can only mean increased liability by the Government.and increased expense to the taxpayer. The existing system of working through an official receiver operating on a percentage basis on the value of ‘the work done, has been satisfactory for the last 60 or 70 years. I trust that my appeal will be favorably considered by the Government.

Dr MALONEY:
Melbourne

.- Duty demands that I should direct public attention to the iniquity that is being done in Melbourne through the activity of what is known as the Royal Commission on Petrol. I ask how, in the circumstances in which that commission is sitting, how even the angels of God could ensure that justice would be done to the people of Australia. I attended a meeting of that commission recently, and found nine legal gentlemen - more than could sit around the table in the room - watching the proceedings and fighting in the interests of the oil combine, but I did not see a single legal representative watching the interests of Australia. The nine oil company representatives had the right to cross-examine witnesses in the interest of their clients, but no one was present to cross-examine them in the interests of Australia. Those nine men were led by the Attorney-General of Victoria, a man who with one hand takes honest government money for doing the work of the country, and with the other takes dirty oil combine money for fighting against his country. I used to respect the gentleman to whom I refer, but I can respect him no longer. Every consumer of petrol and oil in this country will Wonder why an Attorney-General should be allowed to take money in the form of fees from the oil combines in the circumstances in which he is doing. To my mind it is a terrible thing. While I was in the room, the commission decided that it would continue its proceedings in camera. I suppose that this was clone in order to. consider whether certain questions could be asked. I have known questions to be dodged or evaded by legal gentlemen in other connexions. I say that if a man who appears before a court of this country or a properly constituted legal tribunal refuses to answer questions which are asked in the interests of the country, he should be sent to gaol for a night to consider his position. If he refuses to answer the questions in the morning, he should be sent to gaol for a week. If then he still refuses to answer the questions, he should be sent to gaol for a year. Such procedure, in my opinion, would solve all difficulties very quickly. When the commission sat in camera all the members of the general public, including myself, and also the representatives of the press, who are capable of giving publicity to the proceedings of this body, were obliged to retire; but the nine legal luminaries remained in the room to consult with the commission. That, I consider, was infamous. I asked a well-known Melbourne magistrate how he would get on if he were obliged to di spouse justice with nine barristers on one side and none on the other. He said, “ Doctor, it would be impossible.” So I think it is impossible for the people of Australia to get justice from this commission under those conditions.

One of the prominent figures at the inquiry in Melbourne was Mr. Frood, a man who, I believe, has been responsible for saving ‘this country thousands of pounds in income taxation in connexion with these combines. I have known him for many years. The late Mr. Palmer, who, for some time, was the representative in this House for Echuca, directed attention to this matter very many years ago, and I gave him a promise that if he brought it up in the House I would help him to fight the combine. Another gentleman who took the matter up was Mr. Walter Marks, for some time the honorable member for Wentworth. On one occasion in this chamber he produced sworn declarations disclosing the methods of the oil combine to prevent the exploitation of the oil resources of Australia. He stated that when bores were down to a certain depth they were destroyed by dynamite or other means by paid emissaries of the foreign combines, with the result that those carrying out this work were discouraged from continuing. I do not say that all oil companies are linked together in this business. When France was in dire need, a proposal was made by interests backed by Standard Oil to buy the French Government tobacco monopoly for £200,000,000 in gold. The history of many oil companies is punctuated by murders and suicides. It is impossible to say how many firms or private individuals have been ruined by these accursed business organizations. Mr. Rockefeller is now distributing largesse throughout the world. What he is doing suggests to me that, in his old age - he is over 90 years old - he is attempting to still the pangs of remorse by gifts to institutions in various countries. I hold in my hand a list of men prominently associated with the combine in Australia. The first is Mr. Burns. Where is he? Echo answers - “ Where ?” Then there is Mr. Darch. Where is he? Again echo answers - “Where?” It is currently reported that not long ago he sacrificed for £15,000 a home which cost him £25,000. There are two others - Mr. Bryers and Mr. Comfort. Where are they? Once more echo answers - “ Where ?” The information which Mr. Marks gave to the House some years ago made it clear that Parliament, and not the Government alone, should deal with these combines. Honorable members should read a little of the history of Standard Oil. Many years ago, when Parliament was sitting in Melbourne, a gentleman connected with the company made a statement in South Africa to the effect that if the Australian Parliament would not let him have his way, he would buy up all the members. Evidently his opinion of their probity was not a very high one. Some months later, in Melbourne, I was introduced by the: late Mr. Randall Alcock, a well known merchant of Melbourne, to a clever and, as I thought, a courtly gentleman. I noticed that he evinced a desire to tajik about oil, so I told him at once that I had read so much about it that I hated the very word. Still he persisted and said, “ You must admit that the combine pays good wages and the people get a better article”. I told him plainly that I did not want to talk about it. Thereupon he asked, “Well, what do you want?” I replied, “I’ll eat with you and drink with you, and exchange pleasant conversation with you, but I will not talk about oil.” Then, as he still pressed me on the subject, I said to him, “ Were you in South Africa some time ago ?” When he informed me that he was, I asked, “Are you connected with Standard Oil?” He said, “Yes”. I then said to him, “ Are you the gentleman who stated that if he could not get his way in Australia, he would buy up all the members of the Commonwealth Parliament? “ His reply was, “I have been accused of that,” whereupon, I said, “ Well, as far as I am concerned, I wish, the Standard Oil Company was in Hell and you with it.” Cleverly, his answer came, “Well, doctor, you must admit that if it were there, it would make a very fine blaze!” At this juncture, Mr. Alcock, who had left us, returned, and said to me, “Willie, why are you quarrelling with my friend ? “ and he was man enough to say - “ The fault was entirely mine; the doctor has just told me that he would eat, drink and talk with me, but he would not talk about oil “. That man, I believe, eventually did. “ get “ two members of that Parliament ; but I should add that, at the following election, they were defeated. One has since died. I hope that God will forgive him if, as was reported, he had been bought by the oil combine. I have spoken to Mr. Frood, who appeared before the commission in Melbourne recently. From my knowledge of the man, there is nothing against him. I was unable to follow all the figures which he presented to the commission. I understand that he is an ex-soldier, and I suggest that when he was fighting for the people of Australia before the royal commission he was doing a much better work than was being done by the Victorian Attorney-General, who, as a legal luminary, takes money from both sides.

I come now to Sir Charles Merrett, another gentleman who has been prominently before the public in connexion with the inquiry by the petrol commission. I only wish that Mr. Ham and Mr. Menzies were as highly respected by their friends as Sir Charles Merrett is by his. 1 do not know him personally, but 1 have never heard a single word uttered against him. and the fact that he appeared before the commission fighting against the unjust charges levied on the people of Australia by the oil combine entitles him to the respect of every member of this Parliament. Mr. Pollock engaged the attention of the commission for several days. Besides giving voluminous evidence, he presented a petition containing 500 signatures of persons protesting against the operations of the combine, including university graduates, and asking that Mr. Pollock should be allowed to crossexamine witnesses. I understand that he has sound technical knowledge of the oil business. Nevertheless, he was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses who appeared before the commission.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon 6 H Mackay:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Order! I have listened to the honorable gentleman very attentively and I have reached the conclusion that he was proceeding to criticize, not only witnesses who appeared before the petrol commission, but also the royal commission itself, which has not yet completed its investigations. The honorable gentleman has been sufficiently long in politics to know that it is unbecoming for an honorable member of this House to criticize any body so constituted, until its report has been presented to the House.

Dr MALONEY:

– I was only endeavouring to show how helpless the people of Australia are in the hands of the combine. I did not say a word about the commission itself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I heard what, the honorable gentleman was saying. ‘His remarks concerning counsel and also some of the witnesses who appeared before the royal commission were couched in very strong terms. I, therefore, ask him to be more careful in his criticism of that body.

Dr MALONEY:

– Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to mend my ways; but I believe that the people of Australia are in agreement with me on this subject. I am sure that every purchaser of petrol is convinced that he is being treated unjustly by these high charges. The position could easily be remedied. If Parliament enacted a law to provide that the selling price of petrol in Australia should be the price charged in the country of origin, plus freight, duty, and reasonable distribution and administrative charges, there would be no complaint. Every one knows that unfair charges are being levied on the people by these combines. It has, I believe, been estimated that petrol users in Australia have been bled to the amount of £100,000,000 by excessive charges to provide unjust profits for the combines.

A few weeks ago, I discussed this question in the press, and mentioned particularly the price of kerosene, stating that a profit of ls. a gallon on the 36,000,000 gallons imported would provide an excess profit of £1,800,000 per annum. Kerosene can be landed in Melbourne at 5d. a gallon. If it were sold at lOd. a gallon, the profit would be about 100 per cent., which- should be sufficient, and yet the selling price of kerosene in Melbourne is ls. 10½d. a gallon, and 2s. 3d. at Bendigo. A profit of ls. a gallon on 36,000,000 gallons would give an excess profit of £1,800,000 per annum. I regret that the Attorney-General “ of Victoria should, under privilege, have made such an attack on a Commonwealth public officer.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

– I desire to bring under the notice of honorable members, a matter which is of vital importance to South Australia, and which should be of interest also to other parts of the country. I refer to the proposal of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins), to transfer 100 men from Canberra for employment at Port Augusta on ballasting and sleepering the EastWest railway. This may be an excellent idea so far as the Canberra un employed are concerned, but I remind the Minister that there is a tremendous amount of unemployment in South Australia also. In the town of Port Augusta alone there are 160 men in receipt of government unemployment relief, and, no doubt, there are others out of work who have not yet put themselves upon the relief scheme. Throughout the whole of South Australia, the percentage of unemployment is probably as great as, if not greater than, that for the Commonwealth as a whole. In the circumstances, it is a ridiculous proposal to transfer men from Canberra to a State that is already burdened with the problem of finding employment for its own citizens. It should be pointed out, moreover, that South Australia does not derive much benefit from the expenditure of Commonwealth loan money on works such as this. It was known in South Australia that this work would have to be done in the near future, and it was hoped that, during the carrying out of the three-years plan, employment would be found for South Australian citizens. Many of those out of work were looking forward to thi* opportunity to obtain employment. J do not make a habit of grumbling about State disabilities, but one of the last things I had to do before the adjournment of Parliament in December, was to complain of the action of the Commonwealth Bank authorities in bringing stone from New South Wales to Adelaide for building purposes, when excellent stone was available in South Australia. That may have been a small matter, but the principle involved in this proposed transfer of unemployed men is of the greatest importance. I earnestly appeal to the Government to make an effort to meet the situation in some other way.

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY · ALP

– Quite recently, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) and I were in the Northern Territory, and, while we were at Darwin, a fire occurred in the railway bond stores, resulting in the loss of large quantities of foodstuffs, and in damage to government property estimated at £8,290. Thi5 shed was used for the storage of foodstuffs and such like commodities consigned by rail to persons living in the hinterland of Darwin. When goods of that kind arrive at Darwin, they are taken possession of, while still in the ships’ slings, by the railway authorities, and stored until forwarded by rail. The consignee is not given the option of appointing his own receiving agent. The goods in question were the first which had arrived at Darwin since the wet season, and honorable members must know that during that season it is impossible to transport goods to the outback places. The result was that many of the consignees were relying on this shipment for practically a year’s supply of stores, and now those stores have been destroyed.* I asked the Minister who was responsible for the loss of the goods, which had been taken arbitrarily under the control of the Commissioner for Railways, and I was informed that under by-law No. 21, made in pursuance of powers conferred by the Commonwealth Railways Act, the Commissioner was not liable for the loss. The settlers in the north have been having a very bad time due to dwindling markets, &c, yet they will not receive one farthing’s indemnity for the loss they have sustained. I suggest that when the by-law was framed, it was meant to refer to goods in transit on the railway, and not to those iri store at the waterfront. It is estimated that the value of the goods lost was approximately £20,000, and it is not right that the Railway Department should refuse all compensation. Many consignees whose supplies were destroyed were not in a position to order more, and, consequently, their position is hopeless. Surely the Government cannot expect the Northern Territory to be effectively settled if it does not recognize its responsibility to those who are already settled there. Accompanied by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports I inspected the bond store, which is a building about one half the size of this chamber, where we found foodstuffs and other goods stored with matches, kerosene, benzine and other inflammable goods. Such an arangement would not be permitted in any other part of Australia. Although thousands of pounds worth of goods were stored in the building the department was too niggardly to employ a night watchman to assist in protecting them.

Mr Riordan:

– Why did not the Government insure the goods 1

Mr NELSON:

– They can be insured only up to the time at which they leave the ship’s slings. The department would have to protect the goods while under the control of the Railway Department, but apparently it assumes no responsibility while they are in the bonded store. On behalf of those who have suffered so seriously, I earnestly appeal to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) to assist those unfortunate consignees who cannot finance themselves, and to do the fair thing by recompensing them for the losses they have incurred while the goods were under its control.

Mr HUTCHIN:
Denison

.- I wish to make a strong plea on behalf of the aged and infirm. I am glad that the Postmaster-General (Mr. Parkhill) is temporarily in charge of the House, because I know that he will sympathize with me in the case which I wish to bring under his notice. The aged and infirm, to which I refer, are the vehicles in use by the Postal Department at Hobart, and which are employed in connexion with the maintenance of telephone lines and other matters incidental thereto. These vehicles seem to be in the last stage of their existence and have to submit to severe tests in running up and down the hills in the vicinity of Hobart. The use of such old vehicles must result in a loss of efficiency in connexion with the work of the department, and their retention from the angle of efficiency would not be sanctioned by those engaged in private enterprise. The Postal Department should maintain its equipment in the same manner as any other business concern. During the depression some of the equipment, and notably those vehicles in use at Hobart, have been allowed to get into a state of disrepair; but the time has now arrived when the department should take stock of the situation and make the necessary renewals. I can see no justification, by comparison with other activities, particularly those controlled by private concerns, for keeping in use such equipment. The maintenance costs must be heavy and must result in inefficiency as well as engender dissatisfaction in the minds of those who have to operate them. I bring this matter forward in the hope that the PostmasterGeneral will immediately make provision for the necessary repairs or renewals to be made.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

.- When the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) spoke this afternoon he waa under the impression that 100 men were being sent from Canberra to work on the East- West railway, and that no South Australians were to be engaged. Unfortunately, the honorable member was not present last night when the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) said that, in addition to the 100 men to be sent from Canberra, possibly 200 men were to be selected in South Australia. I understand that the amount originally allocated for the work was £60,000, but I believe that it has now been increased to over £200,000, thus making it possible to provide work for 300 men over a period of three years. When the position is fully explained I am sure that my South Australian colleagues will agree with me that it is only right that the work should be proceeded with. It has also been said that unnecessary cost will be involved in transporting men from Canberra to Port Augusta, and possibly in returning them here, but I understand that it is proposed to ask the men to repay the cost of their travelling expenses over a period of twelve months. When these facts are taken into consideration I think honorable members will agree with -me that it is better that 200 men resident in South Australia should be provided with work rather than that the whole scheme should be dropped.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:
Postmaster-General · Warringah · UAP

– 1 know something of the agitation going on, particularly in New South Wales, in connexion with the bankruptcy arrangements mentioned by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. E. J. Harrison). I can assure the honorable member that the representations he has made will be taken into consideration by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Latham).

The honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) is under a misapprehension as to the manner in which the royal commission on petrol is being conducted. The honorable member said that the Commonwealth has not a legal representative on the commission, but I may inform him that the chairman of the commission is Mr. Lamb, K.C., an eminent legal authority. In addition, the commission has the assistance of Mr. Bowie- Wilson, an experienced barrister who is now occupying the position held by Mr. Bussell prior to his appointment to the Victorian judiciary. In these circumstances, the commission is quite capable of carrying on important work on which it is engaged. I say nothing with regard to the statements that have been made by the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) respecting the different persons whose names he mentioned. I do not consider that he should have adopted the course that he followed, and, in the circumstances, do not propose to reply to his attack.

The matter referred to by the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) was fully discussed last night, and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Perkins) clearly explained the intention of the Government. The money for the work in question is being found by the Commonwealth, and it is desired to give employment to citizens of the Commonwealth. Work could not be found for them in Canberra.

Mr Hutchin:

– For what period are they going over?

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I believe that the period will extend to three years. The Minister for the Interior has informed me that, in view of the protests that have been made and the views that have been expressed by honorable members, the matter has been re-considered, and the money which was to have been set aside for the employment of these men will now be expended in Canberra, where they will be retained.

The Minister for the Interior considers that he made last night a full statement upon the matter that was raised by the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson).

Mr Nelson:

– That is quite wrong. He did not make a statement; he answered a question.

Mr ARCHDALE PARKHILL:

– I have been asked to inform the honorable member that the additional facts mentioned by him this afternoon will be taken into consideration by the Minister for the Interior.

I assure the honorable member for Denison. (Mr. Hutchin) that the fullest consideration will be given to the question of effecting renovations to trucks and vehicles utilized in the work of the post-office in the Hobart area. There is, doubtless, some foundation for the attitude adopted by the honorable member. During the years of the depression the post-office has been reluctant to renew any vehicles or equipment which could be serviceably employed, the object being to avoid undue expenditure. I agree with the honorable member that, inview of the uplift that is taking place in all sections of postal administration, the time has now arrived when a certain amount of expenditure is really warranted in order that a much greater outlay upon renewals may be avoided at a later stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 4.35 p.m.

page 135

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Public Debt.

Wise Netting Advances.

Export of Stud Sheep.

Tobacco Industry

Mr Riordan:

n asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Is it the intention of the Government to close the Tobacco Experimental Station at Mareeba?
  2. What action does the Government propose to assure to the tobacco-growers a market for theirleaf this year?
Mr White:
UAP

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

  1. The Minister in Charge of Development has advised as follows: - In accordance with the wishes of the States as expressed at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture held in February last, the Commonwealthactivities in respect of tobacco are now confined to research into diseases and conduct of tests of smoking quality. The States have assumed full responsibility for field investigations into diseases, selection, yield and quality improvement and for instructional, demonstrationsl and field experimental work. The Mareeba Experimental Station is not therefore required by the Commonwealthfor the conduct of work allotted to it. From the provisionof £20,000 for assistance to the tobacco industry an amount of £3,760 per annumhas been allotted to the Government of Queensland.

    1. The principal tobacco company has assured the Minister for Trade and Customs that they will purchase all the bright leaf available and so much of the dark leaf as will replace theirusings during the year.

The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) has asked a question, upon notice, regarding the increase in the price of tobacco. Inquiry will be made on the matter.

WirelessBroadcasting:Confiscation ofreceivers. mr.archdaleparkhill. - Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible, inreply to questions askedby the honorable member forBrisbane (Mr. George Lawson) in respect to confiscation of radio sets.

AirServices.

Mr.Francis. - Inquiries will be made, and a reply will be furnished as early as possible, to the question asked by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. A.. Green) in respect to the air service from Ord River to Wyndham.

Invalid andold-age Pensions.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - The information re- quested by the right honorable member or Yarra (Mr. Scullin) in respect to invalid and old-age pensions is being obtained and will be furnished as goon as possible.

Information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible, in reply to questionsasked by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James) in respect to invalid and old-age pensions.

Duty onfeldspar : Tariff- Board report.

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

asked the Ministerfor Trade and Customs, upon notice -

When will the Tariff Board’s report on a proposed duty on feldspar be available?

Mr White:
UAP

e.- The Tariff Board’s report has not yet been finally considered by the Government. It is not the practice to release Tariff Board reports until the Government makes a decision in regard to the board’s recommendation.

NorthernTerritory:Murdeeof Whites.

Mr.Nelson asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. Is he correctly reported in the Melbourne Herald of the 18th instant?
  2. If so, on what grounds did hestop the collection of evidence againstself-confessed murderers ?
  3. What is the attitude of the Government in regard to the conviction of natives who murder officers of his department and’ other white residents of the Northern Territory.
Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to No. 1.
  3. The conviction of such natives is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and not that of the Government.

War Pensions.

Mr Francis:
Minister in charge of War Service Homes · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · UAP

s. - Inquiries will be made, and a reply will be furnished as early as possible, to questions asked by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) in respect to war pensions.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 June 1934, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1934/19340629_reps_13_144/>.