House of Representatives
28 March 1935

14th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 426

QUESTION

TARIFFPROPOSALS

Mr.FORDE.- Does not the Minister for Trade and Customs consider that he took unprecedented action last night when he officially advised press representatives of his intention to table a tariff schedule this afternoon? Does he realize that, by having made this information available, the Governmentwillbe involved in heavy losses of revenue? What was his reason for making the announcement to the press before making it to Parliament?

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

– I am glad thatthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition has questioned me on this matter. I was advised thatthe representative of a certain Melbourne daily was sending an alarmist report to his newspaper regarding a certain tariff schedule that was to be brought down. That newspaper hav ing asked me if I would confine the information to it, as it alone had obtained it, I decided to take the action thatI took. I informed representatives of the press that the practice adopted on previous occasions when a tariff schedule was being tabled would be followed inthis case- that the schedule would be available to a representative of each newspaper at 3 o’clock to-day, but that they would be obliged to remain at the Customs House under supervision until such time as the schedule was tabled.

Mr.Forde.- Did not thehonorable gentleman realize that the knowledge that a schedule was to be tabled would lead to the withdrawal of large quantities of goods from bond?

Mr WHITE:

– Any such action would be the result of pure speculation as to what was in the schedule. As honorable members know, from the time that Tariff Board inquiries are made, there is constant agitation to learn when the schedule will be tabled. The guess that a Thursday would be the day chosen arises from the fact that it has so often happened on a Thursday, Friday being a short sitting day.

Mr.Scullin. - Can the Minister cite any precedent for the making of the announcement before the tabling of the schedule?

Mr WHITE:

– Yes. The announcement of the tabling of the last schedule was made by another Minister in Melbourne three days before the schedule was brought down.

Mr.Forde. - That was an accident. I understand that that Minister responsible was well caned for having made the announcement.

Mr.Scullin. - That is the only precedent, and it was a stupid blunder.

Mr. WHITE.What has happened is simply that I refused to bemade a party to the obtaining by the Melbourne Age ofwhat is considered a scoop. That newspaper states, “ In no ease is it anticipated that increased duties will apply to the new schedule.” It also makes other guesses, and agrees with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is unprecedented and that the country may lose a great deal of revenue. The answer to its conjectures will be supplied when the schedule is brought down. Honorable members will then be able ito see for themselves what it contains.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
INDI, VICTORIA

– In regard to the announcement published in the Melbourne press to the effect that a new customs tariff schedule is to be introduced, has the Minister for Trade and Customs any idea how this information was divulged, and if not, will he make inquiries with a view to finding out?

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member is mistaken if he thinks that the contents of the schedule have been divulged; they have not. No one other than members of the Cabinet and trusted officers of the department is in a position to know the nature of any tariff schedule before it is tabled. As to whether the statement that the schedule was to be tabled to-day was based on information or speculation it is hard to say, because similar forecasts arc made in respect of every tariff schedule. However, I shall make inquiries in order to learn whether, in this case, the report was based on information or .guesswork.

page 426

QUESTION

INFANTILE PARALYSIS

Sister Kenny’s Treatment

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Health read the statement which appeared in the Sydney press this morning, to the effect that he has been unduly tardy in accepting the offer of .Sister Kenny to make available particulars of her treatment for the relief of infantile paralysis, and that the British Medical Association in ‘Sydney has approved of the proposal and lent its aid to it? What steps can the right honorable gentleman take to expedite the utilization of the formula?

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for Health · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have not seen the paragraph to which the honorable member .refers; :but my attention was directed to it by a representative of the Brisbane press. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the Commonwealth Government has been in any way lax in its efforts to make available - to the people the treatment that has been developed by Sister Kenny. On the contrary, the Commonwealth has done everything within its power towards that end. Unfortunately, however, the powers of the Commonwealth in regard to health matters are very narrow, and by law are confined tomatters relating to quarantine. Every attempt made by the Commonwealth on. behalf of the people to extend its powers beyond that narrow limit has been resisted by the States. As to Sister Kenny’s flight to Townsville with five or six children who are suffering from infantile paralysis, the Commonwealth Government was not advised that it was her intention to hire au -aeroplane or to take these children with her. The responsibility in the matter clearly rests on the Queensland Government, in whose service Sister Kenny is at present engaged. She is conducting a clinic at Townsville under the supervision and, T understand, the control of the Queensland Health Department, which defrays the entire expense? of the clinic, but, so far as I know, does not pay Sister Kenny any salary.

Mr James:

– Why was not a clinicsecured in New South Wales ?

Mr HUGHES:

– I know nothing whatever of what has been done in New South Wales, but I should unfeignedly rejoice at any activity by the Health) Department of that State in this direction.

page 426

QUESTION

COMPULSORY WHEAT POOL

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Commerce · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Before a poll can be taken it is necessary to have the subject of it defined. The Wheat Commission recommended a pool controlled by a majority of government nominees. The wheat-farmers of Australia have asked for a producer-controlled pool. Before any proposition is placed before the wheat-farmers it is necessary to know exactly what scheme the governments of the States are prepared to support and implement. As honorable members know, arrangements have been made for consultation with the States on that matter on the 15th April next.

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Acting Prime Minister received a request from the Wheat-growers Federation Conference at Melbourne that payments under the grant to necessitous farmers should be made direct to the farmers, free from possible confiscation by State administrative boards, and that the grant to States for farmers’ debt adjustment should be allocated to States on the basia of the amount of farmers’ debts in the various States? Does he propose to give consideration to this request, and to varyaccordingly the legislation dealing with these matters ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– I have received certain communications from the “Wheatgrowers Federation. Both the bills dealing with this matter are before Parliament at the present time, and the Government’s policy in relation thereto will be declared on those measures.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– Will the Acting Prime Minister, when replying to the request of the Wheat-growers Federation in respect of the matter mentioned by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), point out that an amendment designed to carry out what. h as been asked for by the federation, was moved in this House last session in respect of the Wheat Acreage Bounty Bill, but it was not passed because the members of the Lang party talked the matter out on the title, and we never got to the bill itself.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

page 427

QUESTION

MARKETING CONFERENCE

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– A conference of Commonwealth and State representatives was held in Canberra on the 3rd and 4th December to discuss marketing problems, and a summary of the proceedings has been tabled in this House. Will the Acting Prime Minister state whether notes were taken of any speeches delivered at the conference other than the speech made by himself, and if so, will the House be furnished with a summary of the other speeches?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– The procedure of the conference was determined by the conference itself. It was decided that the opening speech setting out the problems to be discussed should be reported in full, and that the conference should then go into committee, publishing only the results of its subsequent deliberations.

page 427

QUESTION

GERMANY AND CONSCRIPTION

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Acting Prime Minister able to make a statement to the House on the position of the Commonwealth as a signatory to the Versailles Treaty, following Germany’s unilateral decision to establish conscription?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– In view of the negotiations at present proceeding between Great Britain and Germany on this subject, the Government of the Commonwealth thinks that it would be undesirable to make a statement at this stage.

page 427

QUESTION

EXPORT RESTRICTIONS

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Would it be possible for the Acting Prime Minister, without embarrassing the negotiations at present proceeding between the Australian delegation overseas and. the Government of Great Britain, to make a further .statement regarding Australia’s determination to oppose to the utmost any restriction of beef and butter exports?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– The Government feels that, to make a statement on this subject at the present time, would be injudicious, and might threaten the success of the negotiations being carried on overseas.

page 427

QUESTION

DUTY ON SCOURED WOOL

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to the press report, which states that the British Government proposes to place an import duty of 10 per cent, on scoured wool ?

Dr EARLE PAGE:
CP

– The Government has noted the report, and has asked for information regarding it from the High Commissioner.

page 427

QUESTION

STATION PIER, PORT MELBOURNE

Establishment of Post Office

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I have on more than one occasion made representations to the Postal Department to carry out the wishes of the people of Port Melbourne, and establish a small post office at the butt of Station Pier. Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral state whether anything is being done about the matter?

Mr HUNTER:
Minister without portfolio representing the Postmaster-General in the House of Representatives · MARANOA, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have made inquiries; but I have not yet received a reply from the department in Melbourne.

page 428

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO MINERS

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– Will the Minister for the Interior, during his forthcoming visit to Adelaide, make arrangements to discuss with the Minister for Mines in South Australia proposals for varying the conditions under which repayments of advances for the assistance of mining are made to the Commonwealth ?

Mr PATERSON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– I shall be glad to discuss that matter first with the honorable member.

page 428

QUESTION

GOLD EXPORTS

Mr CASEY:
Assistant Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– On the 15th March, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) asked a question, without notice, concerning the publication of statistics relating to gold exports of the the years 1930, 1931 and 1932. The figures quoted by him are substantially correct. Taking the three financial years 1929-30, 1930-31 and 1931-32, the value in Australian currency of net gold exports, that is, exports less imports, was approximately £51,500,000. For the same period the value of gold production in Australian currency was approximately £9,000,000. The difference would represent the value in Australian currency of exports from gold stocks as apart from current production. I invite the attention of the honorable member to the tables on pages 874 and 877 of the Year-Booh for 1933, ;which make the desired distinction between exports of gold currently produced and exports of gold from reserves. I may point out, also, that it is the practice of the Commonwealth Statistician to insert special footnotes calling attention to any amounts of gold exported from the gold reserve of the Australian Notes Fund. The Statistician has no means of ascertaining currently the origin of other exported gold, and can only make an estimate at the end of the year of the total net exports in excess of current production.

page 428

PRIVILEGE

NORTHERN territory MINING

Debate resumed from the 27th March (vide page 326), on motion by Mr. Blain -

That in writing a letter reflecting on the motives and actions of a member of this House, and in writing a threat, the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, Mr. E. G. Blackmore, be adjudged guilty of contempt.

Leave not granted.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– The desire of the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) to withdraw the motion not having been acceded to, I should like the opportunity to say a few words and move an amendment upon it. The honorable member was quite in order in bringing the matter before the House, because there is no question that the procedure adopted by Mr. Blackmore, the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, in writing to you, Mr. Speaker, waa irregular and out of order. If Mr. Blackmore had some complaint against, the statements made by the honorable member for the Northern Territory, his proper course was to write direct to the honorable member and let him deal with the matter. It seems to me an incorrect procedure for the subject to come before the House through a letter to you.

Mr Brennan:

– It had to come to the House through a letter addressed to Mr. Speaker.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The honorable member read to the House the letter written to Mr. Speaker, and that was the chief cause of his complaint. But as 1 think it would be an ill day for Australia and its free institutions if the right of reply to what is said in Parliament were denied to any citizen. I suggested to the honorable member for the Northern Territory that he should withdraw th° motion, as he had made his point and his protest, which was published to-day, far and wide, in every newspaper throughout Australia, and will be enshrined as well in Ilansard. We cannot too jealously guard our privileges here, and should fight for them when they are really attacked, but in this case any inroad that lias been made upon them appears to have been more by inadvertence than in any other way. In order that there may be no suggestion of the House not being able to express itself intelligently on the matter, I move -

That all the words after the word “ that “ hu omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words - “ the right of an individual, whose conduct has been criticized in statements made under cover of parliamentary privilege, to defend himself, is as clear as is the right of a representative of the people to speak’ freely when public interest demands it. While considering the statements made by the honorable member for the Northern Territory as being prompted by a desire to protect public interest, this House is of opinion that the letters of the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange replying to the honorable member’s charges do not amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege, but are, in effect, the exercise of the right of the individual to defend himself when charges are made under cover of privilege. While holding that opinion, this House considers that the chairman was in error in addressing his letter to Mr. Speaker instead of direct to the honorable member “.

Mr SCULLIN:
Yarra

.- I was given to understand that the motion wa.j to be withdrawn, and in the circumstances, have not come prepared with considered views upon what, after all, raises a very important issue. To express my own opinion frankly, I can see no contempt of the privileges of this Parliament in the action taken by the Sydney Stock Exchange or its chairman. I am very jealous of the privileges of Parliament, and would be the first to resent any contempt of Parliament, or any attempt by anybody, no matter who he is, to take away the privileges of hon orable members. But because we have privileges as members we also have responsibilities, and the people who put us here have rights, among which is the right to criticize. I am not going to suggest that the criticism levelled against the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) was right or wrong - that is a matter to be threshed out between him and those who criticize him - but I do suggest to the honorable member that, if a member rises in this chamber and describes people in rather uncomplimentary epithets, they have the right to reply. I do not think the writer of the letter showed much common sense in writing to you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am amazed that one occupying so high and responsible a position, with the training of a business man, should think of writing to the Speaker of the House as protest against any speech made by an honorable member in the House. That was unquestionably an error of judgment, as I think it has been described here already, but we should make our privileges and our dignity as a Parliament a by-word if we were to carry resolutions declaring guilty of contempt any one who had the temerity to criticize us. If we did, there would be few people left in this land who had not been guilty of contempt of this Parliament, and the queue which would be brought up to the bar of the House would be longer than that which waits at the door of a theatre where a popular picture is to be shown. I am sorry that the motion was moved, but as it is before the House it must be either accepted or rejected. Frankly, I think it should be rejected. The honorable member had a perfect right to use the floor of the House to ventilate his feelings. It is the privilege of an honorable member to protest against something he thinks is wrong. He probably could have worded his protest in language that would have been less objectionable than the epithets that he did use, but that is a matter for himself and not for me to judge. I think he was also entitled to voice on the floor of the House his protest against the action of the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange in writing to you, Mr. Speaker, and to use his position in Parliament to reiterate his former position. He is perfectly entitled to use the privilege of Parliament if he thinks that any wrong is being done.

I had one experience of having made a speech in this Parliament under the privilege of Parliament and, I think, I rendered a public service to Australia by that speech. But the Government of the day sought to destroy the privilege of that speech by trying to extract from me, through a royal commission, the source of my information. This I refused to give, taking whatever responsibility for that refusal a royal commission had the power to place upon me. I resented such a step then as I would resent such a step now. I regard this as one privilege that should be safeguarded, but never abused ; but in the matter of any challenge of the right of an honorable member to say what he may in this House, it is for honorable members themselves to consider the wisdom of their own words. For any one to challenge this right or to repudiate it outside this House would be the first step towards the breaking down of the privileges of Parliament; and the basis of those privileges is the protection of all honorable members of this House, however humble they may be on a social scale, or however humble may be the constituents they represent, in order that they may speak their views publicly without any fear of what the power of money may do to them outside because of what they say. But I submit that there is no undermining of that privilege by public criticism of anything honorable members may say. provided that the criticism is couched in such terms as will not break down the respect for Parliament which we must always endeavour to preserve. I do not think that is intended in this case, and therefore I am not prepared to treat so lightly the privilege of this Parliament or its dignity as to think that this motion should be carried. The amendment may rectify the position, but I think the rejection of the motion would certainly be the better course.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs

– The House is rightly concerned in preserving its privileges,one of the most vital of which is the right of freedom of full expression of opinion on any matter in this Parliament. That is an absolute privilege, but the honorable member in this case did not raise this matter as a breach of privilege because his right to criticize was affected. The ground of his attack was that a letter had been written which threatened him on account of his conduct in this House. This is a privilege which the House should be very very careful to conserve.

Bourinot, a Canadian authority, in his Parliamentary Procedure, dealing with the assaulting, threatening or challenging of members, says -

The assaulting, menacing or insulting of any member in his coming to or going from the House, or upon account of his behaviour in parliament, is a high infringement of the privileges of the House - in the words of the English resolution “ a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of parliament and a high crime and misdemeanour.”

These words indicate how strongly Parliament has always resented the attempt of any outside influence of any kind to try to prevent a member of this Parliament from doing what he considers it his duty to do. In this instance, the suggestion contained in the honorable member’s remarks was that on account of his action in this Parliament he was threatened by a letter that was written, and that in consequence of that letter his freedom of action in this Parliament might be interfered with. That really is the basis of his complaint. In such cases as that, while the charge made against the person alleged to have committed the breach might be sustainable, it is open to question as to whether this House should proceed against the person and condemn him unheard. The English practice as set out In May’s Parliamentary Practice, is :

It is the present practice, when a complaint is made, to order the person complained of to attend the House; and on his appearance at the bar, or, if a member, in his place, he is examined and dealt with, according as the explanations of his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise.

In this instance we are asked to condemn a man unheard for a breach of privilege. He is unheard except insofar as regards the information that has been presented to us in the letters read in the House. The member was entitled to raise the issue on the question of privilege. But then it becomes a question of fact; that is, as to whether there has been a breach of privilege and as to whether these documents reveal a threat menacing the honorable member on account of his conduct in this House. My difficulty in this matter is that sufficient information has not been given to us. We are aware, of course, of what .the honorable gentleman said, but we have had neither time nor opportunity to form an opinion as to whether it was or was not objectionable. I think the threat was that if the honorable member did not withdraw his remarks something would be published in the newspapers. It is very questionable whether that which was threatened actually amounts to a breach of privilege, but one would like to examine closely the correspondence before expressing a final opinion on the matter. The allegation is that he has been threatened because of his action in exercising his parliamentary duties. However, it would certainly be unwise for us to condemn the person charged without having first heard him. I listened very carefully to what the honorable member said. He. certainly did not mince his own words., and when he hit out so freely he must have expected the reply to be given just as freely. Of course, in making such a reply to an honorable member, persons outside are not entitled to exceed their rights. The honorable member has ventilated his grievance. He has expressed an opinion and is entitled’ to retain that opinion.

Mr Holloway:

– That cannot be taken from him.

Sir LITTLETON GROOM:

– No. The House is bound to protect him as fully as possible to the extent of his right of free criticism on the floor of this House, but in this case a charge is made against a person outside the House, and until the evidence is carefully examined on this point, this House, as a judicial body, would be going to extremes if it passed judgment on such a person without first analysing the evidence. Before passing judgment, it would be just to give the other party the opportunity to put his case. I think it would have been better if the House had allowed the honorable member to withdraw his motion, because in view of the serious step we are asked to take, I do not think it could pass judgment on the person charged without securing fuller information, and allowing more time for its proper consideration, than is now available.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

.- The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) must have been fully aware of what he was doing in submitting his motion. It can be taken at least that he was in possession of all the facts necessary to warrant his use of the language, now complained of, when he resorted to the means of bringing this matter forward as a matter of privilege. That, I feel, answers to some extent the objections raised by the honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Sir Littleton Groom). It is true that every member of the House is not in possession of all the facts in the same sense as an ordinary court of law would need to be. However, the fact remains that this gentleman intended to take a certain course to repel an attack which would, in his view, prejudice his representing the Northern Territory in this Parliament. In the course he took he said that an institution regarded as an important organization in commercial circles was responsible for many things which, if borne out, or allowed to remain unchallenged, would leave the impression in the minds of a large number of people that it was none other than one which adopted practices which could be placed in the category to which the honorable member referred. The thought that crosses my mind is that some of the gentlemen associated with the stock exchange are very prone to use equally strong language against those who do not approve of their particular political opinions, and are also capable of taking great pains to discredit such people in the eyes of the public. This occasion is one in which the opportunity of bringing one of them before the ‘bar of the House can be applied, and it should not be rejected without careful consideration. It seems to be the only process by which a real test can be applied to these people, to ascertain whether, as the honorable member for the Northern Territory suggested, they are among the greatest thieves and vagabonds that ever afflicted society. I am not familiar with the procedure which it is suggested should be taken. Nothing of this kind has ever been don? during my association with the Parliament, though perhaps some other honorable members may have witnessed such proceedings. I understand from what the honorable member for Darling Downs (Sir Littleton Groom) has said that, if the motion were agreed to, an opportunity would be afforded honorable members of ascertaining whether the statements complained of have been really made. At present I am somewhat undecided as to the issue, but if such statements as those referred to by the honorable member for the Northern Territory have been made, Parliament should not lend itself to the practice, but should investigate the matter with the object of ensuring that none of our citizens shall be left at the mercy of institutions of this character, and particularly of persons like the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange and many others associated with him. If the action suggested by the honorable member for the Northern Territory were taken, and i.t had the result of preventing future conduct of the kind complained of, a greatpublic service would be done. “Without doubt a good deal of this sort is going on, and if we are able to operate a process which will prevent a continuance of it, it seems to me that we should do so.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman · UAP

.- Yesterday the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) moved, with some enthusiasm, that a certain person connected with the Sydney Stock Exchange should be adjudged guilty of contempt for daring to criticize some observations that the honorable member had made in this House which were thought to reflect upon the Stock Exchange. The honorable member complained that what had been said against him involved the privileges of honorable members of Parliament, and that a threat had been made against him. What a threat it was ! Actually the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange stated that he would write a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, if satisfactory results did not follow the representations made by him to the honorable member for the Northern Territory, and to you, Mr. Speaker. My own view is that it is difficult to determine which of the two gentlemen, the honorable member for the Northern Territory or the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange, has been the more childish in his conduct.

Mr Maxwell:

– The whole thing is a storm in a teacup.

Mr BRENNAN:

– It is, no doubt, although the privileges of Parliament are very important. Honorable members enjoy the privilege of saying in this House, in accordance with the Standing Orders and in appropriate language, whatever is in their mind. That privilege, is conferred upon them, not in the interests of individuals, but of the public generally, and it is a privilege wisely bestowed. But such a privilege should be carefully guarded, and honorable members who exercise it should be careful in whatever they say about people outside of this House. Realizing that they speak under privilege they should do so with discrimination, and a sense of grave responsibility, particularly when casting any reflections on people outside of Parliament. The honorable member for the Northern Territory has shown himself to be quite fluent, and, I think, not particularly scrupulous in the things he says which reflect upon persons outside of Parliament. Yesterday, and on other occasions, the privilege which he enjoys here has been used to call a number of people by very harsh names, and to impute dishonesty and rascality to them. The honorable gentleman has employed some very opprobrious epithets, and for the most part has little supported them by evidence; and now he is full of resentment because the chairman of the Stock Exchange has complained about his conduct. He has actually asked us to say that that gentleman should be adjudged guilty of contempt. I am quite prepared, in matters of this kind, for the “ go “ to be a very willing “ go “. If the honorable member wishes to speak frankly, and to make strong statements in this chamber about people outside, as he is entitled to do, he should at least be sportsman enough to allow those whose good name is affected to make a fitting rejoinder to what he has said. I should bc very sorry to employ my position and privilege in this House to censure, much less to prevent, the utterances of those who have been, or who have felt that they have been, wronged or unfairly disparaged by speeches delivered here. As to the letter addressed to yourself, Mr. Speaker, I am not greatly concerned. I am not prepared to censure the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange for having written it. I have a shrewd idea that you. sir, will know precisely how to deal with it. When you feel that it should be brought before the House, in order to afford honorable members an opportunity to express their views on it, it will be time enough for us to concern ourselves about it. I have nothing further to say in regard to it, except that it seems that the person who addressed it to you had not much knowledge of parliamentary practice and procedure.

It follows from what I have said that [ have no intention whatever of supporting the -motion. I have jio knowledge of mining conditions in the Northern Territory, or of the state of mind of those who issue prospectuses in regard to rnining. I have my own general opinions about such things, but I do not propose, at this stage, to make a fuss about the matter.

The amendment, it seems to me, goes out of its way to inform us that the honorable member for the Northern Territory appeared to have been actuated by a high sense of public duty, or something of the kind; but I am not at all satisfied that that is the case. It appears to me that he embarks upon these matters either without thought, or with a good deal of vindictiveness. I am not prepared to throw a bouquet at the honorable member for the ill-considered speeches that once or twice he has made in this chamber. Nor, for the reasons that. I have already given, am I prepared to join in a censure of the gentleman who has written to you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you can deal adequately with that letter,- if you think fit to take notice of it. I do not regard it as of sufficient importance to justify action by this House. I think that there is much in what the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Maxwell) has said; that the whole thing is more or less in the nature of a storm in a tea cup. The honorable member for the nr>.i

Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has been in this House for only a very few weeks. I. have over him this advantage, that I have been a member of this Parliament for a fairly long period, and have become somewhat accustomed to the cut and thrust of parliamentary life. I certainly agree that honorable members suffer a good deal from outside criticism.

Mr Maxwell:

– Is it not -a fact that what is said about honorable members outside is not half so bad as what they say of each other inside this House?

Mr BRENNAN:

– There is something in that. In the heat of debate, members may speak very strongly, and occasionally intemperately. Some are manly enough to make a refraction, others are not. Politicians and parliamentarians as a class arc subjected to a good deal of unjust and ill-considered criticism by members of the general public. On the other hand, however, they enjoy certain privileges. I make no general complaint concerning the ordinary criticism of members by outside persons, and I certainly shall not. support an honorable member in his complaint against a gentleman outside who has merely made a reply to very severe strictures upon him by the honorable member himself. In my opinion, the honorable gentleman was looking for a retort, and seems to have been offended because the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange did not t.a,ke him quite so seriously as he thought he ought to have been taken. When he has been in this chamber a while he will find that honorable members will not take him quite so seriously as he takes himself.

Mr HUGHES:
VicePresident . of the Executive Council · North Sydney · UAP

3.23 . - The motion moved by the honorable member for Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) is having an unexpected reaction. It is without precedent in the history of this Parliament, and consequently, we have nothing to guide us in the consideration of it. But this need not disturb us for, as we have been reminded by the honorable member, and by other honorable members. Parliament is the highest tribunal in the land, and it is the prerogative of such a tribunal to disregard precedents, and if need be, to make them. The right of speaking under cover of privilege is a very dear one. It goes to the very root of the parliamentary institution. It would be impossible for Parliament to subsist without the privileges that its members enjoy. But as we have been reminded, in the course of those philosophical, but entirely unconvincing observations of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan), we have responsibilities as -well as privileges. That, of course, is undeniable.

As I understand the position, the honorable member for the Northern Territory has done what he did because he thought that it was in the public interest to do it. He may, of course, have been mistaken. The honorable member for Batman has chided him for having acted without sufficient cause. I do not know what has been transpiring either in the Northern Territory or on the Sydney Stock Exchange. In common with the honorable member for Batman, I have my own opinions regarding both of those places, but, being a wise man, I keep them to myself. Although the honorable member for the Northern Territory has been foolish enough to deal with a concrete case instead of spreading himself in generalities, I should be surprised to learn - whether true in this particular case, or not - that what he has said has not a wide application to speculative mining enterprises. Perhaps the honorable member for Batman will correct me, if, on the whole he considers that very much of what the honorable member has said is not apt. I make no comment whatever on the merits of the case before us; about that I know nothing. The honorable member for the Northern Territory has been reminded by the honorable member for Batman that he is newly come into a world that stands aloof from that other and wider world in which we sometimes move, “ as kings move among lesser men.” He has been told that when ho has been here a little longer it is not likely that he will do what he has done on this occasion. Perhaps that i.s condemnation of those .who have been here a long time. The honorable member for the Northern Territory has said what, in my opinion, he might well be excused for having said. Whether or not he has evidence to prove the correctness of his assertions is another matter. That could only be determined by an inquiry into the case in the manner adopted by a judicial body. As we have not at our disposal those convenient means that lie to the hands of ordinary judicial bodies, we must consider the matter broadly. The position as I. understand it is this: The honorable member # for the Northern Territory has said under privilege as a member of Parliament something which he might have refrained from saying had he been an ordinary citizen. That is what the people expect of a member of Parliament, that lie shall speak fearlessly and in the public interest. No man ought to hesitate to say what, he thinks ought to be said. Perhaps the honorable member has not gone about this matter in a fashion that would win the approval of the honorable member for Batman - a fashion, mark you, in the display of which the honorable member for Batman i3 of all men in the world the worst example; for when he sits astride of that Pegasus of his in the tourney, the lance is splintered, and instead of knitting-circle terminology we are given right goodly knocks.

The right of Parliament to protect its members when exposing what they conceive to be abuses is the most valuable of all the rights that it possesses. Without it, this institution would be utterly worthless. We have to fight against powerful interests. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Scullin) has said, even the humblest member of Parliament, representing the humblest constituents, must be able to denounce, if necessary, the greatest in the land. But, having said that, we must remember what we are. We represent the people, and it is the foundation of our system of parliamentary government and of our judicial system that no man shall be condemned unheard. If we have the right to speak, every man has the right to reply to us. The chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange has exercised a right which is . the foundation of British justice. The Magna Charta itself guaranteed that every man. should be tried by a jury of his peers and have the right to be heard. The chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange claims the right to be heard. It cannot be said that that is contempt of Parliament. The terms in which his letter was couched arose out of the fact that he is no more familiar with parliamentary institutions than are the honorable member for Batman and I with the stock exchange. If we went through that exchange we should be like Alice in “Wonderland, and when we came out of it we should be like the Babes in the Wood. A complaint having been laid against any member of the Sydney Stock Exchange, the chairman, arguing from analogy and from what he knew of the procedure in regard to that institution, would naturally direct his complaint to the Speaker of this House. That he made an error of judgment is certainly not a reason for charging him with contempt of this institution. He has shown it every consideration. He has informed the Speaker of his intentions, and they are sufficiently terrible j but there we may leave the matter. ‘ I, myself, have cowered under the lash many a time. The chairman of the stock exchange is not in contempt for he has done no more than he was clearly entitled to do. On the other hand we should do wrong if we rejected this motion, for then we should be condemning the honorable member for the Northern Territory, who has done no more than he ought to have done. Perhaps he was mistaken ; that is nothing. He believed that he was right. It is true that he did not speak in those measured Chesterfieldian periods which the honorable member for Batman would have us and the country believe are customarily employed in this honorable House, but in time he will learn to do so, patterning himself on the honorable member for Batman. I know nothing whatever of the matter to which the honormember for Batman referred when he spoke of some people having been covered with opprobrious epithets. I am concerned only with the correspondence that has been laid before this House.

Mr Scullin:

– The correspondent quotes the evidence in his letter.

Mr HUGHES:

– Yes, it was quoted by the chairman. It appears to me that both parties are right. The chairman of the Stock Exchange exercised his right to defend himself, and for that we. are not to condemn him, and certainly we are not to charge him with contempt and bring him before the bar of the House. On the other hand, we are not to condemn the honorable member for the Northern Territory. Perhaps, being a neophyte, he rushes in where angels - like the honorable member for Batman - fear to tread. The amendment moved by my colleague puts the matter quite fairly, and states what I believe to be the principle on which privilege rests. It also sets forth the rights of individual citizens of this country, rights which should be respected and observed by this House. This Parliament should not attempt to overawe and browbeat private citizens. Not because a man occupies a place within the hallowed precincts of this Parliament can he take away the character of a private citizen, and deprive him of the right to reply. Whether a man be a member of the Sydney Stock Exchange or the humblest individual in the land, he has the right to reply to any charge made against him. This principle is enunciated in the amendment, which is in these terms -

The right of an individual whose conduct lias been criticized in statements made under cover of Parliamentary privilege to defend himself, is as clear as is the right of a representative of the people to speak freely when public interest demands it.

While considering the statements made by the honorable member for the Northern Territory as being prompted by a desire to protect public interest, this House is of opinion that the letter of the chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange replying to the honorable member’s charges do not amount to a breach of Parliamentary privilege, but to be, in effect, the exercise of the right of the individual to defend himself when charges are made under rover of privilege. While holding that opinion, this House considers that the chairman was in error in addressing his letter to Mr. Speaker instead of direct to the honorable member.

I hope that honorable members on both sides of the House will support that amendment, and thereby conclude a situation which has served its purpose in permitting the honorable member for the Northern Territory to put before the people what he conceives to be the true position. The amendment will have this effect and will, at the same time, save this Parliament from being covered with ridicule and contempt.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- Sir-

Motion (by Dr.EarlePage) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 436

RESTRICTION OF EXPORTS

Formal Motion for Adjournment

Mr SPEAKER (Hon G J Bell:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– I have received from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Fordo) an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the House this afternoon for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The critical situation facing primary industries due to the restriction, and the threatened restriction of Australia’s exports to the United Kingdom after August, 1935.”

Five honorable members having risen in support of the motion,

Mr.FORDE(Capricornia) [3.46].- I move -

Thatthe House do now adjourn.

I have moved this motion in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the critical situation facing primary industries due to the restriction, and the threatened restriction, of Australia’s exports to the United Kingdom after 1935.I take this action because I believe that it is in the public interest to do so. I think the time has arrived for some plain speaking on this subject before Australia is committed to a policy that would be retrogressive and suicidal, and which would spell ruin for many thousands of Australian citizens. It would be too late to protest in this House after the British delegates have spoken and have been successful in cajoling the Australian delegates overseas into an acceptance of their terms. Australia is a young country in the early stages of development. We have a vast continent crying out for population, and the expansion and development of our primary industries are essential to increase our population. In thebeef industry in Australia 20,000 people are directly employed. There are 13,500.000 head of cattle in Australia, of which half are in Queensland, 3,300,000 in New South Wales, and 2,000,000 in Victoria. The employment of our people and the future of this great meat industry are at stake. I contend that the British Government has, up to the present, treated Australia in a very cavalier fashion in regard to the restriction of meat exports. We were told that the Ottawa agreement would give Australia an expanding share of markets in the United Kingdom. I know that there are some who will not agree with me when I say thatwe have cause for complaint in that regard. Sir Thomas Bavin stated upon his return to Australia the other day, that he regretted that there had been criticism of the British Government over theproposed restriction of Australian exports. We nave been told that, in the public interest, no man should hesitate to say what he believes to be right. Therefore, I propose to say now what I believe is right and should be said. The British delegates to the Ottawa Conference stated that the policy of the British Government in connexion with meat production was, first, to secure the development of home production, and, secondly, to give the dominions an expanding share of imports into the United Kingdom. I ask honorable members to note those word9 “an expanding share of imports into the United Kingdom “. What’ has become of that promise? Does it look as if the. British Government intends to continue giving Australia an expanding share of the British market if thereby we cut across the interests of Argentina or Denmark? Following upon the signing of the Ottawa agreement the British preferential duty on no fewer than 857 separate items and sub-items on our tariff schedule was reduced in order to enable British manufacturers to share the Australian market with the local manufacturers. When the Ottawa agreement was finalized it was assumed that the needs of the British producers were fully recognised and taken into consideration. Under the Ottawa agreement there was never any quota restriction stipulated as being necessary on Australian meat exports; on the other hand, the Australian primary producers were promised an expanding share of the British market. I believe the wavering policy of the Lyons Government 13 somewhat to blame for the British Government’s action up to the present, and its threatened action for the future. The Country party was very outspoken when it was in Opposition.; and in the election campaigns, where it had candidates fighting the Nationalist candidate, as happened in Calare, it was very indignant at any suggestion to ‘restrict Australia’s exports of primary products; but the solatium was four seats in the Cabinet, and this has made it quiescent. In order to show that I am not speaking without knowing the views of organised primary producers in Australia, I quote what The Queensland Producer, the official organ of the organised farmers of Queensland, said iii a leading article on the 20th March, 1935-

Australian primary producers are about “fed up” with the vacillation and backing and filling of the .Federal Government in connexion with the restriction issue. As a matter of fact they feel that they have been let down very badly through the Commonwealth authorities not making a firm stand against the meat quota proposals of the British Government, and are beginning to question the sincerity of the repeated assurances that Australia would fight restriction to the “last ditch.”

I do not think the most ardent supporter of the Government can truthfully say that it has been fighting restriction to the last ditch. Instead of fighting, the Government has weakly given way on a number of principles; and I believe that, step by step and trench by trench, it will yield to the representations of the delegates of Great Britain. Mr. R. Philp, President of the Cattle-growers Association of Queensland, expressed astonishment at the Federal Government’s decision. Mr. J. Simpson, Secretary of the Meat Board of Queensland, said the restriction was a terrible thing for Queensland, which had been encouraged to develop the new industry - that is the chilled beef industry - and was now stopped from doing so. He added that it would affect employment at the abattoirs, as naturally there would be less work necessary. Mr. Cambridge, M.L.C., Secretary of the Farmers and Settlers Association, commenting on the British Government’s proposals, said “ Reduction of output by a quota would put the meat industry back to where it was years ago, and all the recent advances would go for nothing.” He described the proposed quota as suicide. In Rockhampton, this matter has agitated the minds of those engaged in the cattle industry and the members of the Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce, and no less a person than Mr. W. G. Thompson, who was a Nationalist Senator for many years, brought the matter before the chamber in the following words:

It is an unfortunate hold-up. . . I think it is desirable that this Chamber and the grazing community should register their protest against the hold-up of exported chilled beef and express the hope that it will be of the briefest description in order to minimize the undoubted serious losses that will be suffered by a large section of the community.

Hehad the following resolution carried : -

The Rockhampton Chamber of Commerce and the graziers desire to impress on the Government the very grave effect on the grazing industry, commerce and industry, of the holdup in the chilled beef shipments and urge the earliest possible resumption to minimize consequent serious losses.

I could quote also the opinion of a number of other representative men in the industry.

Not only is the beef industry concerned about this ; those in the dairying industry are also vitally interested, mainly because of a statement made by the Acting Prime Minister himself last Saturday when opening the Bullaledah Show. The Daily Advertiser of Wagga, under the following big black headlines - “ Butter Restriction Next?” Feared hy Dr. Page.”-“ Ottawa Agreement Expiry “ - publishes this report : -

The first hint that the Commonwealth Government feared a possible restriction on butter exports to Great Britain but that anyattempts to introduce such a scheme would be strenuously opposed, was given on Saturday by the Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) when opening the Bulladelah Show. “I realize the value of the British market to our dairying industry and I believe we should do our utmost to retain it,”he said, “ Should, however, notwithstanding our efforts, our exports to that market be limited, we must search the world for other outlets for our surplus. As a last resort - and only as a last resort - will we advise our farmers to cease to advance, and I sincerely trust that the time will never come when that advice will be necessary.”

The right honorable gentleman pointed out that the Ottawa agreement would be expiring, and that he feared there would be an attempt to restrict the export of Australian butter. We have had several statements from the Acting Prime Minister. We had one from him on the 13th March, 1935, when he said, inter alia -

The present position in regard to mutton and lamb export is that,pending finality in the current negotiations with the British Government, the Commonwealth Government has been obliged temporarily to suspend export. This is because the volume of export for arrival in the second quarter has already reached the figure mentioned by the British Government in a recent cabled communication. The Government hopes that the position willbe clarified very soon, and that normal operations can be resinned. There is no prospect of even a. temporary suspension of beef shipments.

The one thing certain is that normal operations will not be resumed unless a more determined fight is put up by the Commonwealth Government. What did the Acting Prime Minister have to tell us within a week of that statement? He said on the 21st March, 1935, in a statement to the House -

Following on receipt of a cable from the British Government yesterday it has unfortunately been necessary temporarily to suspend the export of chilled beef. Some carcases, which would have been shipped as chilled beef within the next few days, will have to be exported as frozen beef.

Of course at a lower price to the primary producer! The Acting Prime Minister further said that the British Government proposed to place definite limits on the proportion of the total beef imports from Australia which should be supplied in a chilled condition. What will that mean to Australia? Scientific and practical investigations have proved that Australian chilled meat can be put on the London market. It is no longer to he the close preserve of the Argentine meat interests. The Argentine, of eourse, at once protested; and its protest has been heard. I asked the Acting Prime Minister only a couple of days ago whether, in view of the anxiety felt by meat producers in Australia over the export restrictions imposed by’ Great Britain, the Commonwealth Government would inform the British Government that, unless it permitted the importation of Australian meat into England., the whole question of meeting interest payments to British bondholders would have to be reconsidered, as only by export of goods can we meet our interest hill. Furthermore, I asked, “Does not the Acting Prime Minister think it unfair that meat grown by cheap, coloured labour in the Argentine should receive preference over Australian meat?” The right honorable gentleman replied, “ The Government has already made the strongest representations to the Government of Great Britain in this connexion “. Yesterday, the 27th instant, I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether he had received any cabled advice or information from the Prime Minister, and he said “ No.” Yet, according to the press to-day the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Stanley

Baldwin, made a speech in which he said that the British Government’s tendency was to turn from quotas to duties. Can the Acting Prime Minister say .what the present proposals are? Are we to expect further shocks? Are the primary producers to get further setbacks ? Where is the nigger in the woodpile? We know that British capitalists have invested £500,000,000 in the beef industry in Argentina. They wield considerably more influence in Great Britain than do the delegates from the dominions at any conference. For years it was said that chilled beef could not bo sent to England from Australia. We have proved that it can be successfully placed on the English market. That does not suit Argentina, which is, of course, fighting the progress made by the Australian meat exporters. The development of the chilled beef trade would not only convert the trade from frozen beef to chilled beef, but would, also increase the total trade because of the better prices that are obtained in England for chilled meat. The increased concentration on mutton breeds of sheep in suitable country, and in irrigation districts, has come to stay in Australia. The low prices foi- wool and wheat have accentuated the development of the fat-lamb industry in this country, and it would be a great pity if anything were done that would retard this development; but now, I believe, it is on the eve of a staggering blow. Despite the clearly expressed terms of the Ottawa agreement, the British Government has exerted the utmost pressure to have a ban placed on the export of not only beef, but also mutton and lamb, from Australia. The restriction now imposed has been, forced upon Australia with the aid of an accommodating government, six months before Britain was legally and morally entitled to introduce it under the Ottawa pact. I could give quite a number of instances of how the primary producers have suffered, but time will not permit. A man of the outstanding calibre of Mr. W. Angliss, M.L.C., of Victoria, speaking in Melbourne on the 26th February, said -

For the first time in my career I am opposed to the policy of the Lyons Government. I am very much afraid that the- proposed levy of ½d. per lb. on Australian meat exports would prove to be most disastrous, for the reason that the levy would mean from 2a. <m light sheep up to 3s. (id. per head of heavy ones. On a 000-lb. carcass .of beef il would mean £1 lis. 3d.

No doubt the Government realizes the force and power of the huge investments of British capital in Argentina exerted against Australian interests, but is the question of profits to dominate the situation, or is the red line of kinship to play its part in the equitable solution of our trade relationships with Great Britain ? Is there to be no consideration for the thousands of Australian exsoldiers who are engaged in the production of beef and lambs for export, and in the dairying industry? Surely profits are not to be given prior consideration to the welfare of the relatives of the 60,000 dead Australian soldiers, whose bodies lie buried on the battlefields of Europe? We are a debtor nation. We have borrowed £547,000,000 in London, and on it we must meet an interest payment of £26,000,000 annually. How are we to continue to provide that interest if Great Britain will not take our exports of primary products? We can only pay by exports of goods. It will mean that the whole question will be thrown into the melting pot. Professor Copland, in ail article published recently in Melbourne, said that unless Great Britain continued to take our exports of primary products, we should be in great difficulties in meeting our commitments overseas, and the whole question of interest payments would be involved. During the war, Denmark and Argentina were not assisting the Mother Country to the extent that Australia did. When England was blockading Germany, Denmark was supplying the enemy with foodstuffs. Great Britain’s treatment of Australia could not be worse if we had defaulted. Russia, on the other hand is generously treated by Britain. In 1928 Australia took £58,000,000 worth of British goods, whereas Denmark took only £10,500,000 worth, and th<> Argentine £32,000,000 worth. In 1934. Australia took £27,000,000 worth, Denmark £14,000,000 worth, and Argentina £15,000,000 worth.’ For many years Great Britain has enjoyed tariff preferences from Australia, worth £10,000,000 a year, whilst

Australia, in return, has received tariff preferences from Great Britain worth only £1,000,000 a year. Is there not to be some gratitude for that? There are 1,820 sets of duties included in the customs tariff of 1933, as proposed to be amended up to the 27th of March, 1935, and of those sets of duties, 1,596 give a preference to the United Kingdom. In addition to the preferences contained in the customs tariff 1933, a considerable number of preferences are given by the exchange adjustment and also by preferential tariffs. Since the Ottawa agreement was signed in 1932, 857 items or sub-items of the British preferential tariff have been reduced. It is important to note that Australia now supplies 25.1 per cent, of the imports of mutton and lamb entering England. With regard to frozen and chilled beef exports to Great Britain during 1934 Australia supplied 82,000 tons and New Zealand 52,000 tons, whilst the exports to Britain from all countries, including Australia and New Zealand, totalled 589,000 tons, Australia’s share of this supply being 14 per cent. Argentina supplied England with 465,000 tons out of a total of 589,000 tons. With regard to chilled beef Australia, supplied only 3,000 tons last year out of a total of 440,000 tons imported into the country, and it was estimated that Australia’s exports of chilled beef to Great Britain this year would amount to about 15,000 tons out of an estimated total of 440,000 tons. Apparently Australian, imports into Britain must be restricted because they compete with products from Argentina where British capitalists have £500,000,000 invested. Dealing with this policy on Britain’s part the Evening Standard, a leading newspaper in England, had the following to say : -

Tt is grotesque and humiliating that at this time we should be compelled to haggle with the dominions in an attempt to force on them cumbrous, unwelcome .expedients of quota or levy. It is common ground that there should remain a fair market for the dominions in Great Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

.- In regard to .the threatened restriction of butter and meat imports into Britain there is much to be said in favour of a statement made the other day at the Graziers’ Conference in which it was pointed out that it might be a good thing for Australia, seeing that it is not getting preference from Britain for its primary products, if it were to remove British preference from our tariff schedule and force Britain to compete on our market. When, the Ottawa agreement was introduced into this House the then Minister for Commerce (Mr. Hawker) stated that the cattle man would be receiving immense concessions as the result of that agreement towards the end of 1935. If restriction of our beef and mutton imports into Britain is the result of the Ottawa agreement then the cattle man apparently needs to be saved from the benefits which this Minister predicted he was to receive. The Deputy Leader of this party (Mr. Forde) quoted a claim made by Mr. Angliss that at the Ottawa Conference he appeared on behalf of the cattle-growers of this country. Mr. Angliss may have been sent by the Commonwealth Government to that conference but he certainly was not sent there with the approval either of the cattle-growers or of the sheepgrowers of this country. As the result of Mr. Angliss’ representations there the Only cattle man or sheep man to benefit under the Ottawa agreement was Mr. Angliss himself.

Mr Fisken:

– He is not a sheep man.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

– About that time certain restrictions were put on mutton imports into Britain, and after Mr. Angliss returned from Great Britain he disposed of his Australian interests to Argen-tine interests namely, Vesteys Limited. To-day Vesteys are operating in this country but they are not very concerned with restrictions; indeed they would be delighted if restrictions were placed on the export of meat to Britain. Mr. Angliss’ works in Melbourne, I understand, were disposed of to Vesteys Limited, as also were his Rockhampton meat works. The meat-grower of this country has had experience of the operations of the Vesteys Combine in the past. It has attributed the troubles in the meat industry in the Northern Territory, mostly to the men engaged in the industry, but from my own knowledge I know that no responsibility in that direction can be laid at the door of the men - that rather was industrial trouble brought about designedly by American meat interests to destroy the meat interests of this country in the interests of Argentine companies. All along the line we can see the Argentine interests working here to the detriment of the Australian meat industry.

We have had further threats of restriction in regard to butter and we are justified in expecting a statement from the Acting Leader of the Government (Dr. Earle Page) as to his attitude in regard to this matter. We have had many statements from ‘the right honorable gentleman in the past as a result of which the people are beginning to look upon his utterances with disfavor. They have found from experience that they are not able to take him seriously. Only as recently as the last election he went to the country as the Leader of the Country party, the policy of which was definitely “ no restriction “. To-day he is the Leader of the Government. Yet he gives the producer no lead as to his own attitude or the Government’s attitude in this matter. Instead he sent the Leader of the United Australia party overseas to conduct negotiations with interests there. When Mr. Bruce was sent overseas as High Commissioner the people of this country were told that he had been sent on that mission because he was fully capable of handling such a position as has now arisen with regard to restrictions on meat imports. As a matter of fact when it comes to a question of bargaining in regard to Australian industries I think the majority of the people of Australia would prefer to have Mr. Bruce instead of Mr. Lyons as their negotiator. When pitted against overseas interests, the producers of this country believe that Mr. Bruce would secure a better deal and would handle the position more effectively than Mr. Lyons. We recall that in 1923 the right honorable gentleman who is to-day Acting Leader of the Government definitely stated that he would never be associated in a government with the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes). That statement was typical of many we are now accustomed to hear from the Acting Leader of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– That matter has nothing to do with the question before the Chair.

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931

– I am giving instances of statements made by the right honorable member to show that the people are becoming sick and tired of his utterances and of the Government’s failure to take a firm stand in regard to this very vexed question of restrictions. The other day the sugar agreement was renewed for five years in order to stabilize that industry. I contend that we should have a statement as to the Government’s intentions to stabilize the wheat, meat and wool industries of this country; we should know where we are going; we should know definitely whether or not the Government will stand for restrictions of exports. We want to know particularly the Government’s attitude in regard to the export of our primary products. At the present time people engaged in wool-growing and grazing in Queensland are faced with one of the worst droughts in the history of that State. In the northwestern portion of Queensland, where the average rainfall up to the beginning of March over the last 40 or 50 years has been anything up to twelve inches, only 90 points of rain have fallen so far this year. The Minister for Lands in Queensland recently, on his return from a visit to that portion of the State, said that the conditions there were so bad that woolgrowers were shearing sheep and shooting them, and that the growers were suggesting a reduction of rents in order to be helped out of their difficulties. The financial institutions will not carry these people after the end of March, and they will then be forced to walk off their properties. In regard to restrictions on the export of meat it might be advisable for the Government to make representations to the shippers to reduce freights by a half-penny a pound in order to assist the industry.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member lias exhausted his time.

Dr EARLE PAGE:
Acting Prime Minister · Cowper · CP

– In view of all the circumstances it is amazing that the

Government should be accused of weakness in implementing its policy of resistance against restriction of our exports, and that its opponents should search almost back to the time of the flood for arguments on this matter.

It will be evident to honorable members not only that the subject-matter of the motion is ill-chosen, but also that the occasion which he has selected for his political attack is ill-timed. “When one remembers that the honorable member is the High Priest of prohibitions and restrictions, one wonders at that champion. The position is that the Commonwealth Government sent at the earliest possible moment to Great Britain the strongest delegation it could choose, headed by the Prime Minister himself, to handle these negotiations. Negotiations are at present in progress in London between British and Australian Ministersregarding meat problems, and members of the Government in Australia are not free to engage in any discussion of that particular matter. Most people will be satisfied, however, that the honorable member is effectively answered by the following resolution passed unanimously by the Federal Meat Advisory Committee on the 16th March, 1935:

That this committee appreciates the steps taken by the Commonwealth Government in the negotiations with the British Government in regard to the export of meat to the United Kingdom and supports the policy which is being pursued.

It is well for the House to remember that this committee is composed of representatives of all State governments, comprising all shades of political opinion, representatives of the exporters and of the producers.

As regards butter, there is no restriction on exports, nor has the British Government the power, at present, to impose restriction. On this subject, the Government’s policy is the same as that regarding meat.

No good purpose can be served by a political discussion of this subject at the present time. On the contrary, Australia’s best interests might be prejudiced thereby. This danger is borne out by the experience of an ex-PrimeMinister (Mr. Scullin) who admitted in 1930 that the failure of his mission overseas was due to untimely and embarrassing statements and resolutions made in the precincts of this House.

I notified the Leader of the New South Wales Labour party (Mr. Beasley) that as soon as I had finished making this short statement I intended to move the closure.

Mr Beasley:

– I refuse to accept that.

Dr EARLE PAGE:

– The honorable member hadthe opportunity to rise before I did, and’ he did not take it. I therefore move -

That the question be now put.

Mr Beasley:

– That is a cowardly thing to do. The Government is frightened to have the case discussed.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must know that he has made an offensive remark. He must withdraw it.

Mr Beasley:

– I withdraw it; but I say that it is a shabby trick.

Mr.Forde. - So it is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– At least the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) might remain silent when the Speaker is on his feet. He has already spoken to the question.

Motion put - The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 22

Majority 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 443

SUSPENSIONOF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Dr.Earle Page) put -

That the Standing Orders he suspended to enable the moving of a motion without notice.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 22

Majority . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the members of the House.

page 443

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS: PRECEDENCE

Dr.EARLE PAGE (Cowper- Acting Prime Minister) [4.37). - I move -

That Government business take precedence over general business for this sitting.

I do this for the reason that it is necessary to have business before the Senate, which, as honorable members know, is meeting this week. I have consulted those honorable gentlemen whom I could approach, in whose names notices of motion appear on ‘the notice-paper - the honorable members for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), Swan (Mr. Gregory),- and Echuca (Mr. McEwen) - and have promised them that I shall endeavour to have time made available before the rising of the House for the consideration of the matters that they wish to raise. I regret that the illness of the honorable member for Melbourne (Dr. Maloney) precluded me from consulting him. I am sure that every honorable member hopes to see him back in his place in this chamber at an early date. I trust that honorable members will agree to the motion.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- I protest against this deprivation by the Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) of the privileges of private members. In this age of machine politics and party decisions, private members have few privileges, because invariably government business is given precedence over all other matters. Private members’” day gives honorable members an opportunity to express their views on questions of first-rate importance to Australia. Certain honorable members have taken the trouble to give notices of motions. When they placed that business on the notice-paper, did they intend to go on with it? The Government has met the House for only a few weeks since the last elections were held. Why did it not call Parliament together earlier in the year, and thus give honorable members an opportunity to discuss these matters? I call upon those honorable members who have given notice of motion to show their disapproval of this cavalier action of the Acting Prime Minister.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– The Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) has given two. reasons for the acceptance of this motion by the House. The first is the necessity to send business to another place. That is simply answered by saying that if it is necessary for this House, which has the right to conduct its business as it thinks fit, to devote more time than was expected by the Government to matters that are placed before it, and the flow of business to another place is thus impeded, it Ava? the duty of the Government to call thi) House together much earlier than it did. It is well known that it is the intention of the Government to sit only for another fortnight, and then to remain in recess probably until about September.

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · FLP

– The latest suggestion is October.

Mr BEASLEY:

– That necessarily means that private members have to take advantage of every opportunity presented to them in the short space of time during which the Parliament will sit, to secure the consideration of matters in which they are interested, and to ventilate their grievances.

The second reason given by the Acting Prime Minister is that he has consulted and obtained the approval of honorable members who are sponsoring certain private motions. I say to the House that it is not only the privileged gentlemen in whose names notices of motion stand who should be consulted in this matter. Obviously the notice-paper contains motions of which notice would have been given by other honorable members had they had the opportunity to bring them forward. It is not right that, the Acting Prime Minister should consult only those honorable members whose names happen to be attached to the motions on the notice-paper. Many of us are vitally interested, in some of these motions. I think I oan fairly safely say that in their own hearts the honorable members concerned do not approve of the action that is now being taken to prevent them from proceeding with matters that are of vital importance to the people whom they serve in this Parliament.

Mr Forde:

– They have had the steamroller put over them.

Mr BEASLEY:

– Apparently that is so. It is to be regretted that they have become a party to the acceptance of this proposal of the Government. I take the view, judging by the way in which the business of the House is proceeding, and knowing that it will sit only for another fortnight, that an opportunity will not be given for the discussion of these important matters. The motion that stands in the name of the honorable member for Echuca (Mr. McEwen) is of vital importance to all of us. Does the Government intend to sidetrack the consideration of it, so that certain gentlemen overseas may arrange for the appointment of a chairman of the proposed commission to inquire into the Australian banking and monetary system who, like Sir Otto Niemeyer, will tell the people of Australia what they must do in these matters? It seems that there is some subtle purpose behind this move of the Government to prevent, the discussion of the matter this afternoon.

I repeat that the two reasons advanced by the Acting Prime Minister are the weakest that could have been given. It is our duty to preserve our rights, and to avail ourselves of all the forms provided by the Standing Orders to secure the consideration of the business of private members, as well as that of the Government.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Only within the last hour the House was invited to give very serious consideralion to the privileges of honorable members. So seriously was the matter viewed that, after a motion and an amendment had been tabled, the debate was closured. It is now contemplated that a House which was so insistent, upon the maintenance of the privileges of its members with respect to their right to speak in the Parliament without any act of intimidation being used against them, shall forfeit to the Government privileges which the Standing Orders prescribe. One could understand the desire of the Government to change the order of business if a great national emergency existed and it had become imperative to consider some new and unexpected, and, perhaps, dangerous matter; but there is nothing which it is proposed shall be considered to-day which did not appear on the business-paper yesterday. When the House mct this afternoon for the resumption of its business there were upon the notice-paper proposals which private members had made in the exercise of those very privileges which the Parliament, so jealously guards. On only one day in each month can matters which do not originate with the Government be the subject of substantive motions by honorable members. Now, without having even given an intimation of hia intention yesterday, the Acting Prime Minister (Dr. Earle Page) proposes in this most improper fashion, having regard to the orderly application of the Standing Orders, to deprive, not merely the movers of those motions of the right to move them, but also all honorable members of the right to participate in the consideration of the views which prompted the placing of those matters upon the notice-paper. I submit that this procedure not only deprives honorable members of privileges that are secured to them under the Standing Orders in connexion with to-day’s proceedings, but also involves the stultification of their rights for the next four weeks, because no subject referred to in these notices of motion may be referred to in any debate until the motions have been moved and disposed of. The postponement of private members’” business in these circumstances not merely is a gross contradiction of the attitude which the Governnent adopted in this House less than an hour ago. but also means that the opportunity for honorable members to discuss important matters will be denied to them for another four weeks. I take it, that not only those honorable members who have given notice of their intention to move these motions, but also other honorable members have engaged in some study of the subjects referred to, and probably have come prepared this afternoon to give serious consideration to them. On the other hand, they are unprepared to deal with the matters which the Government proposes shall be discussed. Thus the deliberative character of this chamber is being threatened, if not actually destroyed, by this ruthless disregard of the’ Standing Orders.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mm. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.) ayes . … . . 37

AYES: 0

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

SUPPLY (Formal).

Rabbit Pest in Western Australia - Trade with India.

Question - That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair and that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply - proposed.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Government the need for doing something to combat the rabbit menace in Western Australia. I donotthink it is necessary to stress the hardships being endured by agriculturists, who are suffering from the effects of low prices and restricted markets, the latter due, to a greatextent, to the policy we have adopted. In addition to that, however, farmers in Western Australia are now suffer- ing severely from a plague of millions and millions of rabbits which is sweeping over the State. Rabbits came to Western Australia from the eastern States, where they bred a rabbit that was even capable of crossing the Nullabor Plain. Besides the destruction of pastures, the rabbits are indirectly responsible for further losses. When they are poisoned, their carcasses lie about the ground, stock pick up and chew the bones, and become infected with toxic paralysis. In 1925, the Commonwealth Government provided £250,000 out of revenue for the combating of the rabbit pest in Western Australia. Most of that money has now been repaid. In 1927-28, a bill was passed enabling loan money to be used for this purpose, and certain sums were advanced by the Commonwealth and spent in Western Australia. The Government of Western Australia is anxious that the Commonwealth Government should continue to advance money for this purpose. Of course, it will have to be repaid by the State, but it will enable protective measures to be continued. The farmers of Western Australia have been compelled to buy rabbitnetting made in Australia, and, according to figures presented tothe Parliament of Western Australia recently, the average price of rabbit-netting over the last ten years has been £44 a mile. At one time I myself bought rabbit-netting at £17 10s. a ton, so that, in respect of that item alone, the farmers of Western Australia are paying an enormous tax for the maintenance of industry in the eastern States. In South Africa this netting costs nearly 50 per cent. less than in Australia although it is subject toa duty of 15 per cent.

I have on several previous occasions mentioned the need for reaching a trade agreement with the Government of India. I am sure that there is a possibility of a splendid trade in fresh fruits and vegetables between Western Australia and India. At the present time, that market is almost exclusively in the hands of Calif orni an and Japanese traders. The Government of India levies a duty of 30 per cent. on fresh fruit and vegetables, but if we were able to reach an agreement whereby that duty could be reduced to 10 per cent., the way would be opened for the importation of Australian produce. If this could be done, it would be of tremendous benefit tothe many small orchardists and vegetable gardeners around Perth, who at present lack a suitable outlet for their products.

I hope the Government will give serious consideration to those two questions, and see whether something can be done, more particularly with regard to the complaint concerning the millions of rabbits. I trust the Government will continue the loan policy it adopted in the past, to enable us to compete as far as possible with this scourge, which is one of the worst we have.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 22

Majority . . 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Dr. Earle Page) put -

That the House will, at a later hour this day, resolve itself into the said committee.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 22

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 448

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1985

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

Its purpose is merely to validate the collections of duty under the tariff proposals of the 6th December last until the 30th November next. Section 226 of the Customs Act provides -

No proceeding whether against an officer or otherwise for anything done for the protection of the revenue in relation to any tariff or tariff alteration proposed in Parliament shall except as mentioned in the next section he commenced before the close of the session in which such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed.

Under this section it was necessary that the tariff proposals should be either ratified or validated during the session. For some years past, as there was only one session of the Parliament, so long as the tariff was passed during the life of the Parliament this section precluded any action being commenced against an officer of the Government, which meant the Government, during that session. In 1934, the following wordswere added to the section : - or before the expiration ofsix months after such tariff or tariff alteration is proposed, whichever first happens.

That new section became operative as from the 1st of January,1935. The effect of the additional words is that unless a tariff proposal is passed by both Houses of Parliament within six months of its introduction importers who have paid duty at rates higher than those provided bythe existing customs tariff, can issue writs for the recovery of the extra duty paid, and the department would have no legal defence. It is obvious that steps must be taken to protect the revenue. This course would not have been taken except for the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), who is on a most important mission to the United Kingdom. Further, in view of the shortness of the present session, it would be useless to open up a complete tariff schedule for debate.

Mr.Forde. - Why open up a new schedule?

Mr WHITE:

– If the honorable gentleman wants a comparison between the actions of this Government in this respect, and those of his Government, I can supply him with particulars. The Scullin Government introduced its first tariff proposal on the 21st November, 1929. This was followed at varying intervals by others, but the House was not afforded an opportunity to debate any of these until the 28th April, 1931. This debate continued until the 20th October of that year, during which period 29 sitting days were partly or wholly devoted to consideration of the tariff. The Lyons Government brought down its first schedule on the 25th February, 1932, and tabled six further schedules; the sixth schedule, that of the 13th October, 1932, embodied the previous five, and was amended by a schedule on the 8th March, 1933. The debate on this consolidated schedule of the 13th October, which embodied the Ottawa agreement, was commenced on the 9th March, 1933. This, by the way, was a complete schedule, not like the Scullin Government’s incomplete schedules. A total of 70 sitting days was devoted to consideration of that consolidated schedule, the debate on it concluding on the 1st

December, 1933. This comprehensive tariff schedule contained 1,S00 items, and J. emphasize that this was only the fourth time since federation that a complete tariff schedule had been brought before Parliament. The validation bill now before the House would be unnecessary were the present session to be a long one. or if we were able to devote the whole of the time of the present session to consideration of the schedule, irrespective of other important matters needing attention. I ask Parliament to validate the collection of duty under this schedule until the end of November next.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 449

CUSTOMSTARIFF(EXCHANGE ADJUSTMENT)VALIDATION BILL1935

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

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is merely an incidental bill, hinging on the Validation Bill, and is concerned with exchange adjustment.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 449

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) VALIDATION BILL 1935

Second Reading

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

– I move -

That the bill be now rend a second time.

This bill also is merely a formal measure ensuring that preferences on certain Canadian imports will be continued, and validating the collections of duties on these imports.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Forde) adjourned.

page 449

POSTPONEMENT OF ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

– I move -

That Orders of the Day Nos. 5 to 18 be postponed until after Order of the Day No. 19.

My purpose is to introduce tariff proposals.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- Is this procedure being adopted by the Ministerin order that he may have the opportunity to bring down the tariff schedule which he announced in the press he intended to bring down? It is all very well for the impudent, arrogant Acting Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to sit there and sneer -

Mr Casey:

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a withdrawal of those words.

Mr FORDE:

– I do not contend I did not use them, but, if they are offensive to the honorable member I will, in accordance with the Standing Orders, withdraw them. It ill becomes Ministers to sit on the front bench, and whenanything is said which they do not like - I refer in particular to the Acting Treasurer, who usually sits there with a sneer on his face-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr FORDE:

– I shall leave it at that; but I have the right to protest against the actionof the Minister for Trade and Customs in now seeking to introduce a tariff schedule which he announced to the press last night he would introduce.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr FORDE:

– I expect, judging by the fiscal policy of the Government, that it would be difficult to find one protectionist among the members of the Government, and, as I believe I am justified in assuming that this tariff schedule is going to prove a staggering blow to Australian industry, I oppose this motion.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) has suggested that the business-paper bc altered, and that the item next to follow, namely, No. 5, stand over until consideration is given to No. 19. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that it is the Minister’s intention to bring down a tariff schedule. It is customary for the Government to advise honorable members of such an intention, giving them reasonably due notice of any alterations it proposes should be made in the order of the business-paper.

Mr Nairn:

– The honorable member received that notice in the press.

Mr White:

– The honorable member was told this morning of the Government’s intention.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I remind the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) that the right place to advise honorable members of matters of this kind is in Parliament, and not in the press. That being so, we now seek information here. It might be suggested that it is not customary to advise the House of the Government’s intentions with respect to tariff schedules, and, from remarks made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde)., I assume that that objection will be raised ; but the Government’s intentions could at least have been made known to honorable members in the usual way. I oppose the alteration of the business-paper, first, because the suggestion that it is not customary to disclose the contents of the tariff schedule until it has been brought down, does not apply in this particular instance ; and, secondly, because I believe this schedule will contain matters-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not discuss what possibly may be contained in the schedule.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I oppose the motion because this document may be of such a character as not to warrant an alteration of the business-paper. At any rate, I deduce from statements already made that the motion may not be in the best interests of this House or of other business which the House may be called upon to transact. For that reason, I claim, the Minister’s tariff schedule should wait over to be brought on in the ordinary way. Items appearing before No. 19’ on the business-paper are of much more importance and of greater concern to the well-being of the people of this country than this tariff schedule, and, therefore, should be considered as soon as possible.

Mr.Riordan. - Would the honorable member mention those items?

Mr White:

– If the honorable member proposes to do so, I shall move “ That the question be now put “.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I have no objection to doing so.

Motion (by Mr. White) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mb. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 22

Majority . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 22

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 451

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1935

CUSTOMS Tariff Amendment (No. 2) ; Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Amendment (No. 2); Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2). {:#subdebate-18-0} #### In Committee of Ways and Means: {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I move - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That the Schedule, to the *Customs Tariffs* 1933 as proposed to he amended by the Customs Tariff proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, Ono thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the twentyninth day of March, Ono thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of tho *Customs Tariffs* 1933 as so amended. tfr. *White.* {: type="1" start="2"} 0. That, on and after the twenty-ninth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, 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) Act* 1933-1934 as proposed to be amended by the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, be further amended as follows : - by omitting " 51 (c) (2) ". by omitting " 110 " and inserting in its stead " 110 (c) ", " 110 (d) ", " 110 (e) " and " 110 (f) ". by omitting " 114 (f) ". by omitting " 114 (a) " and inserting in itsstead " 114 (g) (1) ". by omitting " 115 ". by omitting " 131 " and inserting in its stead " 131 (a) ". by omitting " 161 (a) ". by omitting " 162 ". by omitting " 163 (a) ". by omitting " 165 ". by omitting " 166 ". by omitting " 167 ". by omitting " 171 (a) ", " 171 (b) ", " 171 (c) " and " 171 (d) ". by omitting " 177 (a) " andinserting in its stead " 177 (a) (1) " and " 177 (a) (2) ". by omitting " 177 (b) (3) ". by omitting " 180 (l) ". by omitting " 186 (as to deferred duty) ". by omitting " 192 ". by omitting " 208 (a) " and inserting in its stead" 208 (a) (2) ". by omitting " 281 (a) (2) ". by omitting " 283 ". by omitting " 326 ". by omitting" 346 (f) ". by omitting " 359 (e) ". by omitting "394(d)". 1. That the Schedule to the *Excise Tariff* 1921-1933 as proposed to be amended by the Excise Tariff proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, be further amended as hereunder set out, and that on and after the twentyninth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and thirty -five, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Territory for the Seat of Government, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the *Excise Tariff* 1921-1933 as so amended. The resolutions provide for - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Amendments of the Customs Tariff. 1. Amendment of the Customs Tariff (Exchange Adjustment) Act to meet the new method adopted for providing for exchange adjustment in respect of a number of items in the Customs Tariff Proposals. 2. Amendment of the Excise Tariff, in which provision is made for the compulsory maturation period for whisky to remain at two years. The Customs Tariff Schedule gives effect to 23 reports of the Tariff Board, and, apart from the alterations made to item 174, to which I shall refer later, provides for nine increases under the British preferential rates and thirteen increases under the general rates, also 86 reductions under the British preferential rates and 33 reductions under the general rates. The new principle adopted in the schedule of the 6th December last has been continued of inserting net duties appropriate to the present rate of exchange, with provision for automatic increases of duties as Australian currency appreciates in relation to sterling. The Governmenthas, so far as the British preferential rates are concerned, adopted the recommendations of the Tariff Board for present conditions, together with the corrective for exchange fluctuations recommended in each case. Several groups of duties in the schedule deserve special notice. The first group relates to apparel, and is covered on pages 1 and 2 of the schedule. The Tariff Board has found that the specific duties can be reduced considerably without exposing this important local industry unduly to competition from abroad. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Who will interpret "unduly "? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- -The Tariff Board has made recommendations in each instance, -which I advise honorable members to read. I think that they will agree with what has been said, if they believe in reasonable as against prohibitive rates of duty. After making allowance for exchange adjustments, the additional and alternative ad valorem rates of duty recommended by the board are substantially the same as those in the 1933 tariff. The Government has adopted the Tariff Board's finding so far as the British preferential tariff is concerned, but has not altered the duties under the general tariff in any way. The British preference under these proposals will thus be greater than it has been, so that there will be less likelihood of foreign goods penetrating the market. The next group of items of note is socks and stockings. I refer honorable members to page 3 of the schedule. Here again the specific rates of duty have been found to be much greater than necessary. The question of removing the primage duty on mercerized cotton, artificial silk yarns and raw silk, used in the manufacture of socks and stockings, is at present receiving consideration. Should it be decided to exempt these goods from primage duty, the exemption will offset to a certain extent the reduction of the duties on hosiery. On agricultural implements, which are dealt with on pages 6 to 8 of the schedule, a number of reductions have been made of the British preferential rates. {: .speaker-KFE} ##### Mr Gregory: -- We get no agricultural machinery from Great Britain, and the Minister knows it. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Gregory)** should know a good deal more about agricultural machinery than his interjection implies. He should know that we are now obtaining some agricultural implements from Great Britain, and that we could obtain more if the British manufacturers sought the business. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Does the Minister wish the British manufacturers to get more of our business? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The Australian agricultural implement manufacturing business is very efficiently conducted, and we are proud of it; but a little competition is good from the point of view of price. {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- But it is not good for employment here. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The report of the Tariff Board on this subject makes interesting reading. It shows that the industry employs directly 4,000 hands in 142 factories in the five mainland States, and uses Australian raw materials to the value' of £1,000,000 annually. The board makes a comparison between the prices of a representative group of locally manufactured implements and the estimated selling prices of a similar group of imported implements based on present costs of importing, but free of all duty. This comparison shows that over a group of typical implements the farmers arc not involved in any excess costs by having to buy Australian-made implements. The board further concludes that thu establishment of an efficient industry in Australia is to-day proving of distinct advantage to the farming community, by keeping prices stable when they would otherwise have varied considerably owing to fluctuations of exchange, and by preventing overseas manufacturers from increasing prices by .means of price-fixing arrangements. The board is of the opinion that the present prices, as a whole, are not Unreasonably high on account of excessive profit, the percentage which, in 1933, profit bore to capital employed being 1.85 per cent. The board is convinced that the price of certain implements, namely, mowers, should be reduced. It stated, however, that there is no evidence that, if the existing duties were removed, the farmers would be able to purchase mowers at a figure lower than the present prices. While it has adopted the findings of the hoard so far as the British preferential tariff is concerned, the Government has decided to make no alteration of the general tariff rates. Therefore, no greater injury will be done to this valuable industry in future than is being done at present. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- But it will be injured by importations from Great Britain. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member should recollect that, when his Government was in power, his assertion with every schedule that he brought down was that, as a result of it, employment would be provided for many thousands of persons. Under the policy of the present Government, the result of the economic overhaul of the tariff and the removal of the prohibitions and surcharges imposed by the Scullin Government has been that over 70,000 men have regained employment in secondary industries. I also remind honorable members who, apparently, believed that this was to be a schedule of 40 pages, that it contains only about twenty pages. No statement giving information in regard to its contents was made to any person before it was brought down this afternoon. Several pages of it, commencing from page S, are devoted to tariff item 174, machines, machine tools and appliances in connexion therewith. Following a recent special investigation into the incidence of the commercial local manufacture of machines and machine tools for use in Australian industry, in which the co-operation of the Chambers of Manufactures and the Chambers of Commerce of New South Wales and Victoria was obtained it was decided that the machines, and machine tools included in this schedule under item 174 are not being commercially manufactured in Australia, and could be included in the tariff at the rates of free British preferential tariff, and 15 per cent, general tariff. I point out that 366 items were embodied in the tariff of 1933 because they were constantly being imported under by-law. The better practice is for the schedule to show that they are free from duty. The provision for these machines under item 174, while not being detrimental in any way to the Australian engineering industry, will be of great assistance to Australian manufacturers generally, and to various rural enterprises, in reducing the cost of plant, and consequently decreasing the cost of overheads on goods manufactured therewith. The principal alteration in item 177 is a reduction of 10 per cent, in the duty on road rollers, and a reconstruction of the item in order to permit of simplification of the procedure under which tractors have been admitted free of duty British preferential tariff and 10 per cent, or 12£ per cent, general tariff, for use only on the farm or for other agricultural purposes, or as tractors. In future, the only condition attached to entry at these rates will be that the tractors are not used for incorporation in road rollers. I come now to motor body panels, item 359, which has aroused considerable discussion. Except for the exchange adjustment allowance since October, 1933, under the British preferential tariff the rates of duty have remained unaltered since 1920, and have been for complete sets of metal panels - The Government has, so far as the British preferential tariff is concerned, adopted the Tariff Board's majority finding, namely, a duty on pressed metal panels of 6d. per lb. when not fabricated beyond the trimming of edges, and of 9d. per lb. otherwise. Under the general tariff, the board recommended rates 6d. per lb. higher in each case. After very full consideration, the Government has decided not to make any alteration of the general tariff rates at present operating. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr E J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Is the Minister aware that the effect of that will be to increase the price of all metal bodies. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I. am not aware of that. I believe the honorable member will find, when he reads the report of the Tariff Board, that this will not only preserve a valuable industry, particularly to South Australia, but also definitely be of considerable assistance to the British motor industry. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- By permitting the importation of something that is now manufactured in Australia. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- -At the moment British unassembled chassis are admitted duty free. The assembled rates are 5 per cent. British and 45 per cent, general. The proportion of British to foreign is small. The British car has not captured the Australian market as has the American car. It must be obvious to honorable members that if the rates of duty on foreign chassis and bodies, which we have heard it said in this House are prohibitive, remain, that business will still be enjoyed by Australian companies. There is abundant evidence that the local manufacturers have *been* toobusy to complete all the orders offering, particularly the smaller orders, in which category some of the British cars fall. This will he beneficial to the industry. I believe that when honorable members read the report of the Tariff Board they will find that this provides a way out of a difficult situation. Employment in Australia will not be affected, but on the other hand it will be a splendid gesture and a valuable monetary concession to Great Britain. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- The Government must be giving some concession; it cannot he good for everybody. Mr.WHITE.- The honorable member is naturally suspicious. Surely he knows that the necessary attention has not been given by the motor-hody building firms to cases in which bodies have been requiredin small quantities. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I do not agree with the honorable member. Mr.WHITE.- That is what I would expect the honorable member to say; but nevertheless it is a fact. Mass production jobs suit the 'big firms which engage in that class of work. "When the honorable member has read the report of the Tariff Board I think he will agree, if he can preserve an unbiased view, that the Government has acted rightly. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr Beasley: -- How can the interests of both parties he served ? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- I regret that I cannot deal at any greater length with that aspect of the matter. I shall give all the information that is sought when the schedule comes up for discussion. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- When will that be? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- At the next sittings of the Parliament. The decision of the Government on this item, while not interfering with the production of the four large Australian body-builders, will permit of the importation from the United Kingdom of certain panels not largely produced in Australia, and provide work for the smaller body-builders in all the States,whose business has been languishing inrecent years. The motor-car organizations it Western Australia and Queensland have been pressing very hard for action that would revive this industry in those States. The schedule carries out the policy of this Government to fix the tariff at such a level as will, on the one hand, provide adequate protection for efficient Australian industries and, on the other hand, allow the importation at a reasonable cost of essential goods which cannot be economically manufactured in Australia. This policy definitely reduces costs of production and the cost of living without detrimentally affecting employment. It will not give severe shocks to the commercial community, as were given by other schedules that I could mention. On the contrary, the commercial world will, know exactly where it stands. Somehonorable members who describe themselves as protectionists have proved that they are prohibitionists. They prefer rule-of-thumb, haphazard methods, and the adoption of any rate that the Minister or the party considers is right, instead of action in accordance with the skilled opinion of the Tariff Board, which hears evidence on both sides. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- We had the same experts advising us in the department. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- The honorable member ignored many of the Tariff Board's reports. We have accepted its report so far as the British rates are concerned, and are adhering to the higher foreign rates. This will be of particular assistance to the primary producer in these difficult days, when his exportable produce is giving such a low return. ' As in the December schedule, in most instances the rates under the general tariff allow amargin for negotiation with countries with which it may be desirable to conclude a trade treaty. All the duties in the schedule, whether increases or decreases, shall operate as from 9 a.m. to-morrow. In conclusion I would state that, although none of the duties in the schedule is below the level which the Tariff Board is satisfied after an exhaustive inquiry will adequately protect industries and make for the greatest efficiency, I shall again not hesitate to refer to the Tariff Board for further review the case of any industry, apart from those industries which the Tariff Board has proved to be uneconomic, where it is shown that unemployment would be created by the new duties. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 476 {:#debate-19} ### CUSTOMS BILL J 936 {:#subdebate-19-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 14th March *(vide* page 65) on motion by **Mr.** White. - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- 1 wish that I could make on this bill some observations concerning the speech delivered by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** while you, **Mr. Speaker,** were not in the chair. The honorable member for Forrest **(Mr. Prowse)** then presided over Our deliberations, and listened with considerable satisfaction to what the Minister had to say. 1 assure you, sir, that the speech of that gentleman gave no pleasure to protectionist, members on this side of the chamber. This bill is one to which we offer no objection, because the purpose of it is to apply the British preferential tariff to imports from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It. is not of much significance. It merely gives those places a small concession that, they have already shown their willingness to give to Australia. It is surprising that there is no record of any importation since 1928-29 except one item of £23 from the Channel Islands, but the small territories of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have been good enough to extend to Australia tariff concessions already extended to Great Britain. The Minister has made this bill retrospective to the 1st January, 1935. As a general rule the Government is opposed to retrospective measures, and it has not been made clear why the usual practice has been departed from in this case. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- There has been only one shipment of goods from the Isle of Man for a long time, and if the provisions wore not made retrospective to cover the shipment the concession would be of no use at all. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Ab a general rule it is not wise to make legislation retrospective, and even in this ease I think that the goods in question might have been called upon to pay the higher duty. {: #subdebate-19-0-s1 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney -- The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** said that this legislation Amd been made retrospective in order to cover a shipment of textiles from the Isle of Man. I think that honorable members should have been told the nature of that cargo so that they would be able to judge whether or not it was likely to enter into unfair competition with the product of Australian industries. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The shipment consists of a variety of tweed peculiar to the Isle of Man, and not made in Australia. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- We cannot accept that statement as a justification for making this provision retrospective. Whether this particular variety of tweed is manufactured here or not, the point is that it will displace some locallymanufactured tweed, and in that way affect oar industries, and the employment they can provide. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- Does the honorable member know that these goods will have topay the British rate of duty? We .are merely transferring them from the foreign tariff to the British tariff. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- I am informed that for twenty years goods coming from the Isle of Man have been subject to a certain prescribed duty, and I cannot see why the Government should have chosen the present time, when we are in the midst of acute unemployment problems, to reduce that duty. Even though tweeds of a certain kind may not be manufactured in Australia, if they are admitted to this country the demand for Australianmade tweed will be reduced to that extent. {: #subdebate-19-0-s2 .speaker-KYI} ##### Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- That need not necessarily be a. loss; there is such a thing as international trade. {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- There is such a thing as protecting our own industries, and that is what I am concerned with at the moment. That, indeed, is what every country is concerned with at the present time. The demand for imported tweeds of this kind probably comes from the wealthy in Australia, but if such tweeds were not available they would get their clothes made from tweeds manufactured locally. The same people who want to wear imported tweeds, and for whose wishes the Government is now apparently catering, also take Australian money out of the country when they travel abroad - to the considerable injury of Australia. There is no lack of colour, variety or quality in the tweeds manufactured in Australia. *Sitting suspended from 6.15 to S -p.m.* {: .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY: -- This bill I think Income's a little more important in the light of knowledge that has come to our notice within the last couple of hours. It will accentuate the unfortunate position in which certain Australian industries will be placed by other action that the Government has taken. The most important feature of the bill is the unusual clause making it retrospective. That was referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde).** I do not know the amount of goods that will be involved, but' I take it that they have been purchased in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, and have not actually reached Australia. The House is entitled to know what importing interests are connected with the transaction. There may not be much involved in it, but that does not Affect the principle which should govern the consideration of all tariff schedules. It is more than likely that the importing interests concerned will not pass on to the general public the benefits which the bill will give them. There must be some benefit conferred by the bill or there would be no necessity to bring it in or to date its operation back to the 1st of January. My present feeling is that the House should not agree to the retrospective application of the measure. The usual practice of applying tariff schedules from the date on which they are tabled or on which they are passed, should not be departed from. Possibly the Minister may bc able to give us further information, but with my present knowledge on the subject I feel that the bill should not be made retrospective. {: #subdebate-19-0-s3 .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa .- The retrospective part of the measure is extraordinary and *certainly* requires more justification than the Minister gave in his second-reading speech, as pointed out by the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley).** The Minister told the House that the Channel Islands had their own separate tariff, and, consequently, came under our general tariff instead of participating in the preferential benefits extended to the United Kingdom. On the information so far before us, the time that is being occupied in putting this measure through is not warranted by the amount of trade involved, because the Minister said that there was no record of goods imported from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man prior to January, 1935, except that during 1929 goods worth £23 were imported from one or other of those places: It seems to me to bc making much ado about nothing to introduce' a retrospective tariff measure to apply to a trade which amounted to a value of £23 from 1929 to 1934. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- That: is so. It is made retrospective in order to bring it into line with what they have done to us. {: .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI: -- We have been told that it' wo put those islands on the same footing as the United Kingdom in our tariff, they will give a further preference to Australian wine. The Minister said that there was a wide range of Australian goods in which these islands are interested, but he did not state the volume of the trade. If it is on a par with the £23 worth already referred to, we must look for some other explanation of the milk in the coconut. The Minister is silent as to the trade that is going on at the present time. He does not say what goods are on the high seas now, or in bond, waiting to get the benefit of this preference. He does not tell us whether these who have bought from the importers have bought the goods on bills, or whether the shipping documents have changed hands and the bank documents have gone through to pay for the goods at the higher rate of duty. We do not know whether the reduced duty will be passed on, or mean additional profit to the importers. All these thing3 require explanation, and make me wonder whether there is not another reason for the bill. Can it be that big industries in the United Kingdom intend to shift their factories to these islands where they can exploit labour to their own advantage? It is an insult to the intelligence of the House to bring down a bill to deal with preferential duties covering £23 worth of goods in five years - an average of about £4 a year. The very ridiculousness of the proposal makes me wonder whether there is not something more- behind it. Like the honorable member for West Sydney and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I should like more information. Why is the House asked to consider a bill of this character, which seems hopelessly futile from the point of view of benefiting either the Channel Islands or Australia? Even if the islands gave a 50 per cent, preference on all the wine we sold them, it would not be . worth considering unless all their inhabitants did nothing but drink wine from morning till night. I am prepared to vote against the retrospective part of the bill unless the Minister can tell the House the quantity and value of the goods that will be affected, and the names of the importers who are going to get the benefit of it; The Minister should give the House an absolute guarantee that the importers will not get the whole benefit of the preference, but that it will be passed on either to the retailers or to those who buy the goods to use as raw material in other industries. The Minister also stated that the goods that would come from these islands were not of a class that would enter into competition with any goods manufactured in Australia. If only £23 worth is involved, it does not matter whether they come into competition or not, but if they are of greater value, if they are textile goods that oan be used 'on the persons or in the domestic life of the Australian people, then, when they are being used,, some goods that could be made in Australia are not being used. If they are 'textiles that are not absolutely made in Australia today, they will, if used here, displace some goods that are being made here, and to that extent they must be detrimental to Australian industry and lessen employment in our textile industries. If this trade is only a bagatelle, why waste the time of the House over the bill at all? I am satisfied that there is more in the 'bill than meets the eye, and I hope the Minister will make a clear statement of the necessity for .-dating it back - a thing which has never been done with a tariff measure before. {: #subdebate-19-0-s4 .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle ^- One.or two aspects of the matter relating to the general principle of Australia's trade should be mentioned. It is perfectly true that the bill contemplates what at first glance appears to 'be a very unimportant matter, merely extending the United Kingdom preference contained in our tariff to goods from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I regret that a suggestion made earlier in the life of the Parliament, that the House should be given the Opportunity to consider the general position of Australia's trade, as a preliminary to the Government devising measures dealing with trade relations between Australia and other countries, was not adopted. It is a mistake for this House to imagine any longer that it can successfully meet the problem of Australia's imports and exports and assist in establishing markets for its exports by these piecemeal negotiations of trade arrangements with one country after another. That would be a right and proper course to follow if it followed the formulation of such general principles as _ a debate in this Parliament might lay down, having regard to Australia's trade as a whole. But this bill, in effect, gives an additional provocation to Europe to regard Australia as a country which is not disposed, nt this juncture at .any rate, to attempt by a process of agreement with those countries to recover the markets which Australia has lost in Europe itself. It must be undoubted that the Ottawa agreement and the preferential tariff extended by Australia to Great Britain continue to be an exasperation to the governments of European countries which for years took a large proportion of our exports such as wheat, wool, timber and meat. I put it to the House that the gain which is to be made by an increased consumption of Australian wine in these two small islands will be more than offset by the repercussions of sentiment on the part of countries in Europe 'at their continued exclusion from competitive equality -in Australia, having regard to the fact that we look to those countries "to resume some continuous consumption of our exports. Furthermore, I point out that the primary producers' representatives in this Parliament have had to give consideration to the importance of Japan as a consumer of Australian primary products. Here we are dealing with Australian trade, widening the preference in respect to a restricted class of imports, and, I venture to say, adding to the discontent in Japan, which has a most unfavorable trade balance from its own point of view with Australia, and adding to the discontent of Germany and Belgium ; with the last-named, only quite recently, we had to make specific arrangements with respect to the consumption of our meat. By and large, this bill is so trifling in its present material advantages when considered in relation to the general question of Australian trade, that it becomes an additional provocation for reprisals on the part of European consumers of Australia produce and intensifies against us the policy of economic nationalism on the part of those countries in order that they may give themselves an added measure of protection. It is urged in support of this measure that goods to the value of only £23 have come into Australia from these countries during the last few years. In my opinion, that aspect is unimportant, because, for instance, in the future these two islands will enjoy the advantages of the British preferential tariff in Australia. "We know that these two islands now enjoy a much lower measure of taxation than is the case in the United Kingdom itself, and we can envisage the possibility of certain industries or manufacturers in certain industries in the United Kingdom transferring their plants to these islands in order to take advantage of the lower taxation prevailing, to the detriment of competitors in the United Kingdom, and not only seeking to sell in Australia, but also greatly widening the competitive disabilities which continental trade already suffers under our preferential tariff. With reference to the discussion which took place this afternoon, it is undoubtedly the view of the Government that Australia should increase the measure of preference given to British products in Australia. My comment on that suggestion is that, in respect to those exports from Australia which at present have the greatest difficulty in finding a market, there is no sympathetic reciprocity on the part of Great Britain herself. As a matter of fact, while we are increasing the competitive advantages for Great Britain in Australia, Great Britain is imposing a new and severe measure of restriction upon the consumption of Australian goods within the United Kingdom itself. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- Be kind to the Old Country. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- I am looking at this matter simply from the economic viewpoint of Australian industries. This bill, which is put forward as trifling in its consequences affecting goods only ii> the value of £23 within the last few years, entirely ignores future possibilities. Does the honorable gentleman deny that these islands are not sufficiently close to the United Kingdom for large factories to be immediately transferred to them ? {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- Why waste time talking about it? {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- The honorable gentleman, represents a city constituency. It is not for me to say whether he represents it properly or not; but I represent an electorate which is part of a State depending upon world markets for the consumption of the great bulk of its production. Western Australia, as a State, sells about 64 per cent, of its products outside Australia. {: .speaker-KOL} ##### Mr McBride: -- Where are those products marketed? {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- At the present time Western Australia is marketing the greater part of its products in the United Kingdom, because the markets of Europe have been closed to us as a result of the policy that is being pursued - as it has been pursued during the last decade - of attempting to arrange a sort of imperial tariff zone to the exclusion and disability of countries which previously were large consumers of Australian goods. As an instance of this I point to Belgium. For many years Belgium consumed a very considerable quantity of the products of the Wyndham meat works, but recently thatcountry ceased to take any meat at all with the result that only a month or so ago special arrangements had to be made with Belgium. I put it to the Minister now that Belgium has gone off the gold standard, ho sv does he propose that the Australian meat producers will find it possible to market their meat in Belgium despite this treaty? I ask him to point to one single pound of Australian meat, sold in Belgium since this treaty was concluded with that country in connexion with the importation into Australia of Belgian glass. The fact remains, we are pursuing an entirely wrong policy in the consideration of our external trade. We are taking countries piecemeal and endeavouring to make arrangements with them one after the other, dealing with each individually to the exclusion of those countries' competitors with whom also we hope to make trade arrangements. And by doing so, we are provoking a large number of- {: #subdebate-19-0-s5 .speaker-KOL} ##### Mr McBRIDE: -- Who started the provocation? The Scullin Government. {: .speaker-009FQ} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- The Scullin Government treated the majority of countries upon the basis of equality. Speaking by, a nd large, I contend that the general principles of British preference as have been incorporated in our tariff for the past 25 years were not fundamentally changed by the Scullin Government, but that this Government has fundamentally changed them. Unquestionably, the Ottawa Conference was called for this specific purpose. Honorable members will not repudiate the importance of the Ottawa Conference as a means whereby we could narrow as much as possible trade within the Empire. If that was not its purpose the Ottawa agreement was futile and its cost was a useless expenditure. I look at. it from the view-point of its reactions upon Australia which have intensified the difficulties of Australian producers in marketing their products, and T contend that the reactions of this agreement have fallen with special severity on primary producing Stales. I shall oppose the bill, not because of its particular importance, but. because of its relation to what I believe is the mistaken conception of the right way to deal with the problem of Australia's trade as a whole. {: #subdebate-19-0-s6 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- It is extraordinary how a minor bill of this kind can be magnified out of all proportion. This is a bill to give to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands the tariff which we have. extended to Great Britain. The honorable member has talked about world trade, and what we have done in that direction, omitting, of course, to raise any query as to what tha Scullin Government did in this direction. The biggest trouble we now experience in this respect is due to the fact that the Labour Government brought down deferred duties on glass prematurely. I have spent nearly a year arranging a trade treaty with Belgium, yet the honorable member asks what are we doing to solve the problem of Australian trade. While I have been arranging that treaty, however, our barley and meat trade, and the agencies for distribution in Belgium have vanished. We have been taking steps to revive trade which had been destroyed primarily by the tariff of the Scullin Government. In this bill we are offering to the Isle of Man a duty of ls. a yard and 20 per cent, on certain piece goods peculiar to that country in place of the foreign rate of 2s. and 50 per cent. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- What kind of piece goods? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- Mohair piece goods of a special kind, the complete shipment of which is valued at £32. The honorable member contends that a principle is at stake in this bill. He is trying to tell us that the industries of Great Britain might be moved to the Isle of Man or tha Channel Islands to the prejudice of our own industries. From time to time we have extended the British preferential tariff to such countries as Togoland, Tonga, Saint Helena, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent, and other islands. The islands involved in this bill are of as little or less importance than any one of these. Several extensions were made in respect of Crown colonies or islands which were overlooked when the Ottawa agreement was made. Subsequently we brought them into line with that agreement, and we are now following a similar course with the Channel Islands because of their own free will these islands have offered extra preference on Australian wines. I remind the honorable member that the State of Western Australia in which is the constituency he represents is an exporter of wine. Does lie not want this preferential trade which, though small, will benefit the winegrowers in Western Australia? The honorable member also dragged Japan into this discussion. At the present time we are trying to arrange trade treaties with Japan and Germany; but surely the honorable member knows, corning as he does from a primaryproducing State, that our principal market for primary products is the British market. Excepting wool, we export the bulk of our primary goods to Britain to which we are tied, not only by sentiment, but also, by common sense, and because the Ottawa agreement was soundly based from a commercial point of view. Ninety per cent, of our primary products, such as butter and eggs, &c.; is exported to Great Britain. Are we to refuse the British preferential tariff to these tiny islands, or, instead, treat them as foreign countries? It is amazing that honorable members should waste an hour or two in discussing such a trifling subject. If honorable members see fit to do that, then all I oan say is that they have a more fertile imagination than I have. Let us defer discussion on the great principles of world trade until we have the opportunity to debate it on a broader basis than is offered by this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In, committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2- >This Act shall be deemed to have commenced on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, {: #subdebate-19-0-s7 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- I move - >That the word "January" be omitted with a view to insert in Mcn thereof the word April The Minister has given no reason whatever why this measure should have a retrospective effect. I thought that in his reply to the arguments advanced by the honorable member for West Sydney **(Mr. Beasley)** and myself he would have informed us of the quantity .of goods imported from the Isle of Man. If, as has been said, such imports are small there is less reason than ever for departing from the. general practice of this Government not to make legislation retrospective in its effect. We certainly should not do so to meet the case of an importer who may have obtained £25 to £30 worth of goods from the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. {: #subdebate-19-0-s8 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney -- I support the amendment. Whatever the amount involved in this instance, it could not affect the real issue, but the principle involved is the important fac tor. Our ordinary customs legislation becomes effective on the day following its introduction into Parliament. That surely should be good enough in this case. It is extraordinary that any importing interests should be able to influence the Government to apply a principle in this case which is not applied as a general rule. I strongly object to retrospective effect being given to this measure. Importers who have obtained goods from the Channel islands or the Isle of Man should not lie given preference over importers from other places. Surely the importers who will be concerned by this measure were not advised when the original purchases were made that the Government intended to introduce this amendment of the law. Otherwise, the secrecy which usually surrounds the introduction of measures of this character cannot have been observed. The persons concerned bought the goods well knowing the rate of duty that would apply. If the clause is agreed to without amendment a distinct preference will be given to these people and the country will be deprived of revenue to which it is entitled. In these days when such a lot is being said abou* the need to balance budgets I decline to bc a party to the granting of this concession. {: #subdebate-19-0-s9 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- So far as I know, only one shipment of goods has come to Australia from the Isle of Man. T do not know the name of the importer, but I have just made an inquiry and ascertained that the value of the shipment was £32 and the rate of duty 30 per cent. British, so that the amount of duty would be about £.10. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Has the importer asked for a refund ? {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE: -- He has not; but as he has imported the only shipment from this source it seemed to the Government tobe reasonable that he should not he placed in an invidious position compared with other persons who may import goods subsequent to the passing of this bill. The Channel Islands gratuitously, in January, 1933, gave preferential treatment to Australian goods. If the importer of the goods from the Isle of Man is to be treated as he would have been had the goods come from Japan, Germany or France, he will have to pay an additional £5 in duty. The whole issue is so small that the business of the National Parliament should not be delayed by it. The Government is indifferent whether the clause has a retrospective application or not, but as it seems fair, in all circumstances, that it should operate from the beginning of the year, the committee may as well decide the issue. {: #subdebate-19-0-s10 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I am opposed to the clause as it stands. It seems that we are making some kind of bargain with the Imperial Government to let restrictions on beef remain to the disadvantage of Australian industries. Motion (by **Mr. White)** put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question - that the word proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Forde's amendment)** stand part of the clause - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 36 NOES: 20 Majority . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 36 NOES: 20 Majority 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Clause 3 (Definitions). {: #debate-19-s0 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter .- The committee has not been given sufficient information in regard to this measure. Wo do not know what is behind the desire of the Government to give preferential treatment to the Channel Islands. The trade of the United Kingdom with Australia has been fostered in every way. It may be said that a big proportion of our principal exports is marketed in Great Britain; hut, even so, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have given that country many concessions. This measure cannot be dissociated from the tariff proposals brought down to-day, under which an additional preference of 50 per cent, is to be given to British manufacturers over those who operate in foreign countries. The rates on agricultural implements are to be reduced from 15 per cent, to 5 per cent. When we consider other acts that have been passed affecting the poorer sections of the community- Motion (by **Mr. White)** put - >That the question be now put. The committee divided. (Chaibman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question - That the clause be agreed to - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause agreed to. Question - That the title be the title of the bill - put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 34 NOES: 20 Majority . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Title agreed to. Question put - That the bill be reported without amendment. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority . . 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-19-1} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-19-1-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I ask for leave to move the third reading of the bill. Leave not granted. Motion (by **Mr. White)** put - >That the Standing Orders be suspended to enable the remaining stage to be passed without delay. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. J. Bell.) AYES: 35 NOES: 19 Majority . . . . 16 AYES NOES Question resolved in the affirmative. Standing Orders suspended. Motion (by **Mr. White)** proposed - That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-19-1-s1 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- The Minister was not very explicit as to the Government's reasons for making the bill retrospective. Apparently the object is to cover the importation of mohair. Motion (by **Mr. White)** put - >That, the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.) AYES: 35 NOES: 20 Majority 15 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.) AYES: 36 NOES: 20 Majority . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 486 {:#debate-20} ### SPIRITS BILL 1935 {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 14th March, 1935 *(vide* page 67). {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- This is a small measure giving effect to a recommendation made by me, as Minister for Trade and Customs in the Scullin Government in 1931, providing that the period of maturation of whisky be two years. At that time, when I suggested this period, an amendment was moved proposing that the period of maturation be three years, and I replied that I was prepared to refer the matter to the Tariff Board. The House, however, decided in favour of the amendment. A little later there was a change of government, and my successor referred this matter to the Tariff Board for investigation and report. I think that was on 17th November. 1933. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- It was referred to the board by me. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The board carried out a thorough investigation, and recommended a two-years period of maturation. Certain passages in the Tariff Board's report which I will read, provide convincing evidence that the recommendation of the Government in 1931 was correct. W. A. Hargreaves, D.Sc, M.A., B.C.E., analyst, of 39 Hackneyroad, St Peter's, South Australia, giving evidence before the board, said - >The following opinions have been formed as the result of many analyses of brandy and whisky made with the object of determining the changes, if any, taking place in spirits during maturation: - > >. Maturation is merely a matter of flavour; > >Maturation does not increase wholesomeness. On the contrary, the longer a whisky is kept in wood, the less and less wholesome it becomes ; > >There is no necessity to increase the compulsory maturation period from two to three years. There is no real necessity to make it as long as two years ; > >In maturation, many factors come into play, and of these the most important fixed factor is evaporation; > >The country which is most favoured in regard . to evaporation has the advantage of faster maturation - in this respect Australia has a big advantage over Scotland. The Board's conclusions on the evidence tendered at the inquiry were - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That it has not been established that an extension of the compulsory maturation period from twoyears to three years is necessary in the interests of public health. 1. That the evidence as to the improvement in flavour of whisky stored in Australia for three as against two years is not sufficient tojustify government action to ensure compulsory maturation of whisky for a longer period than two years. The board, therefore, answers in the negative the Minister's reference as to whether there is any necessity for an increased maturation period for whisky from two years to three years. Up to the 1st of January, 1908, therewas no period of maturation provided for Australian whisky. After that date and up to the 21st October, 1931, the period was two years. The enforcement of a three-year maturation period for Australian whisky was, however, of comparatively short duration, as provision was made in the excise tariff proposals operating from the 26th February, 1932, for a reversion to the twoyearmaturation period until the 1st October, 1933, after which date the three-year period was to be again enforced. But by the excise tariff proposals of the 4th October, 1933, the date of the operation of the three-year period was further deferred until the 1st October of this year. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The date was postponed pending the completion of the Tariff Board inquiry. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Yes. There is no maturation period imposed on gin, because it does not contain the natural ingredients which occur in brandy, whisky, and rum, which necessitate the spirits being matured. In the case of whisky, brandy and rum, the spirit, or part of the spirit, used is distilled at a comparatively low strength, in order to retain those elements in the materials which give the characteristic flavour of brandy, whisky or rum, as the case may be. It is the spirit that necessitates maturing. My own view, after reading the Tariff Board's report, is that the twoyear period of maturation is sufficient. I feel satisfied that the -stand taken by the Government in 1931 was sound, and as this bill embodies the decision of that Government, I support it. {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay .- The evidence given before the Tariff Board and reports of experts on *his subject strengthen the view that the maturation of whisky plays a very important part in the health of the community, and also has an important effect upon the value of the fluid for medicinal purposes. The longer period of maturation also has to be taken into consideration from a protective and competitive point of view, because of the better quality of imported spirits which are matured over a long period. In the evidence given before the Tariff Board there is but one opinion expressed, other than those expressed in South Australia, in opposition to the extension of the period of maturation beyond two years. It is apparent from the report that the request for a shorter period has been made merely in the interests of a couple of small distilleries in South Australia. I am prepared to admire those people for the way in which they have been able to achieve their end. However, after reading such world authorities on this subject as **Dr. John** Campbell, scientific adviser to the New Health Society, late scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food in Great Britain and the West Indies Committee, author of such works as *Scientific Beverages* (Golden Health Library, 1928), and one of the most eminent of world authorities on the maturation of whisky, and other authorities, we are almost driven to the conclusion that the great distillery and wine and spirit interests of this country wholeheartedly support the idea that an increased maturation period is essential in the interests of the health of the community and for the improvement of whisky, {: .speaker-KNP} ##### Mr Maxwell: -- What is the honorable member's own opinion? {: .speaker-K6Q} ##### Mr BERNARD CORSER: -- My own opinion might not be. as valuable as that of an expert like **Dr. Campbell,** whose opinion was quoted before the Tariff Board, and from which a few excerpts, which I will read, might be of interest to this House. However, I assure the honorable member that I agree with this expert, that whisky matured for a longer period is certainly much more palatable and much more likely to contain much less fire than whisky which is matured over a two-year period, as was sought by those who put their case before the Tariff Board. **Dr. Campbell** declared - >During 1902 When the question arose in the London courts as to what exactly constituted genuine Scotch whisky I made a long series of experiments on this point and came to the conclusion that whisky could only be properly matured by long storage in wood. He went on to say - . During the first two years of storage, whisky develops undesirable qualities and loses condition. In the terms of the expert whisky blender and taster it goes " sick " and is really more palatable than when in the raw state. I understand that the term " sick " is well understood and in common use among people connected with the famous distilleries of Scotland ; but it seemed to be unknown to certain individuals who gave evidence before the Tariff Board. **Dr. Campbell** expressed the opinion that - >During the third year, it begins to recover and continues to improve progressively as the years go on by developing a, mellow character and bouquet which is the hallmark of matured whisky. The final extract that I shall make from **Dr. Campbell's** opinion is as follows - >Matured whisky is world famed for its bouquet and soft character and its medicinal value, and it would be unfair to undermine this reputation by marketing at an age that everybody - whether the distillers, the blenders and tasters, chemists, doctors, and the public -agree is inadequate to secure that degree of quality which is necessary in the interests of the public taste and health. No other country in the world, except Canada and Japan, has adopted the twoyear maturation period. Recently the New Zealand Government extended the period of maturation from two years to four or five years, for the reasons which no doubt induced certain members of the Tariff Board to recommend a three-year period for Australia. Personally I consider that a five-year period is much more desira'ble than even a three-year period, but I do not propose to move to amend the bill to give expression to that view. In Norway and in the Irish Free State the period of maturation is five years. In the United States of America the period was extended to four years after the abandonment of prohibition. In Great Britain it is three years; but the whisky distillers of Sootland generally market their whisky after from five to ten years' maturation, and I do not need to remind honorable members that Scotch whisky has an unrivalled name in the markets of the world. Big developments have occurred in Australia of late years in 'the distilling business and our most important distilleries are endeavouring to mature their whisky for five years before placing it .on the market, their object being to ensure that it will be of such a quality as will enable it to compete with imported whiskies. It would be detrimental, I submit, to allow immature Australian whisky to be placed on the market. For that reason I hope that no serious opposition will be offered to the continuance of the three-year period. {: #subdebate-20-0-s2 .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr STACEY:
Adelaide .- I support the bill, and my remarks at this stage will be brief, but if necessary I will discuss the matter further in committee. The majority report of the members of the Tariff Board is favorable to a two-year maturation period. Until recent years Great Britain had no minimum time for the maturation of whisky, but in 190S-9 a royal commission which investigated the subject, recommended a minimum period for maturation provided that such could be proved to be beneficial to the health of the community. It has, however, since been proved that long periods of maturation are detrimental to whisky. I take my stand on this subject with the majority of the members of the Tariff Board who, doubtless, were influenced by the valuable evidence given by **Dr. Hargrave** on the subject. The minimum time for maturation in Australia up to 1931 was two years. For a short period from that date until the 26th February, 1932, it was three years, and then it again reverted to two years. **Dr. Hargrave** definitely stated in his evidence that maturation was influenced by evaporation. As evaporation is four times as great in Australia as in England and Scotland it follows that two-years' maturation in this country would be equal to eight years' maturation in Great Britain. *[Quorum formed.']* The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Corser)** said that New Zealand had recently declared for a four or five year maturation period, but I understand that that decision was made as the result of a snap vote, without any inquiry, at the end of a session. In any case, no whisky is distilled in ' New Zealand. Scientists have declared thai the principal change takes place in whisky in the first twelve or fifteen months after its manufacture, and that lengthy storage detracts from its wholesomeness. The proposal to adopt a threeyear period in Australia is the camouflaged device of wealthy distillers to crush the small distilleries. By the wealthy distillers I mean the whisky combine, which in the last few years, has been able to store large stocks of whisky. If the three-year period is adopted the small distilleries not associated with the combine would probably be excluded from a market. I am interested in this subject because the only two distilleries not connected with the combine are in my own electorate. I know that a substantial amount of capital has been invested in these businesses, and that they are marketing a good product for which they find a ready sale. I. do not profess to be an authority oh the quality of whisky; but I have strong objections to the adoption of a maturation period of three or five years, which would result in the exclusion of the South Australian distillers from the market. The maturation period for brandy is two years, and I can see no reason why a longer period should be necessary for whisky. The storage of whisky in wood for more than two years makes it less palatable, whereas I understand that no change whatever takes place in whisky bottled after two years maturation in wood. {: .speaker-KZF} ##### Mr Lane: -- The honorable member knows nothing about whisky; he never drinks it. {: .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr STACEY: -- I have made it clear that I do not claim to be an authority on the subject. I accept the opinions of the experts who gave evidence before the Tariff Board. It has been shown conclusively that Scotch whisky won its reputation when there was no minimum period for maturation. At a recent show Australian whisky matured for two years was awarded first prize in preference to whisky matured for three years, which was given the second prize. It seems to me that many people confuse wine with whisky. Wine, of course, improves with a lapse of time, but this is not so with whisky. I support the bill, and ask ail honorable members to do likewise, in the interests of honest people who are marketing a good product, and should not- be left at the mercy of the whisky combine. {: #subdebate-20-0-s3 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP .- The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** has made a mistake in introducing this bill. I remember that when this subject was previously discussed by this House the opposition to the extension of the two-year maturation period to three years came from the two distilling firms which the honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Stacey)** has so naively said operate in his electorate. At that time Parliament refused to accede to thi*, request made on behalf of those distilleries. The Parliaments of Australia have, over a long period of years, striven to safeguard the health of the community, by enacting laws to ensure that all food products shall be pure. For instance, food must be marketed in proper containers. As the result of the Tariff Board's inquiry into the maturation period of whisky, majority and minority reports have been submitted to the Government. I cannot recollect this happening as the result of any other inquiry by the board. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- There have been several such cases. {: #subdebate-20-0-s4 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- The minority report of the board indicates that practically all the imported whisky sold in Australia comes from Scotland, Ireland, or the United States of America. In the United States of America, where big distilleries are in operation, the maturation period is four years, and in the United Kingdom ir. is three years. No reputable firms - those have been called the whisky combine, but actually the combine has gone out of existence - would think of marketing their whisky until it had matured for five years. They have a reputation to maintain which has been established over a period of years. It is very much more difficult to gain than to lose a reputation. Apparently these firms in South Australia which favour the maturation period of two years have no reputation to lose. {: .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr Stacey: -- They were the prizewinners for two-year-old whisky. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- No one drinks their whisky. If they succeed in their endeavours the result will be the marketing of a spirit requiring proper maturation, which will be comparable with the unmatured, raw wine known as " pinkie ". The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bernard Corser)** has quoted the opinion of a very eminent gentleman, **Dr. Campbell,** scientific adviser to the new health society, lately scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food and the West India Committee, and the author of several works on health matters. Another authority cited is **Dr.** Arbuthnot Lane, a prominent London physician. These are men of repute who have investigated this particular matter. I put. it to the House that the firm which is responsible for the distillation of very nearly- the whole of the whisky sold in Australia does not place it on the market until it is at least five years old. I do not know the names of the two firms referred to by the honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Stacey),** or whether they sell whisky under their own names. I should like to know whether one of them is Milne and Company. {: .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 -- Who they are does not matter. {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- It does. I have heard reports concerning Milne's whisky and have no desire to sample it. The honorable member for Adelaide appears to be diffident about supplying the name of the particular distillery that desires this two-year period. {: .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr Stacey: -- Is the honorable member an authority on whisky? {: .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP -- I am not; and I do not know that any honorable member in this House is. I notice that Milne and Company, of Grenfell-street, Adelaide, wine and spirit merchants, are opposed to the extension of the period beyond two years. Their output and sales of whisky are so small that they can hardly be taken into account. I advise the honorable member for Adelaide to suggest to them that they would do no harm to their reputation if they marketed a drinkable spirit, and that that cannot be produced if they insist upon a maturation period of only two years. Other firms have found that a longer maturation period improves the flavour, the aroma - the bouquet of the spirit. If these South Australian firms wish to compete with long-established and wellknown whiskies whose trade names carry a definite goodwill, they will have to improve rather than lower the quality of their whisky, by an extension of the maturation period. Even the report of the Tariff Board mentions the fact that the longer maturation period is favored by persons who have a knowledge of the subject. "When the firms which sell 90 per cent, of the whisky distilled in Australia deliberately choose not to market whisky which has been matured for less than five years, there must be something in the contention that the longer period has a beneficial effect upon the quality of the whisky. They have enormous stores to hold the stocks that are being matured, and, as business men, must expect some additional return for the ground or floor rentals that they have to pay during the extra period. I suggest that the Minister has been most ill-advised to bring this measure before the House. {: #subdebate-20-0-s5 .speaker-KYH} ##### Mr PRICE:
Boothby -- I candidly admit that I know nothing about whisky. But I have listened with close attention to the remarks of those who have spoken, and have carefully read the report of the Tariff Board on this matter. I support the contentions of the honorable member for Adelaide **(Mr. Stacey).** The conclusion to which I have come is that the people of Australia are not likely to be adversely affected by the consumption, of a whisky that has been matured for only two years. I remind honorable members that the reputation of Scotch whisky was built up before any maturation period was fixed. It was not until the industry had been in existence for many years, and those who were connected with it wished to protect it, that the argument was advanced that there was no merit in a two-year-old whisky. **Dr. W.** A. Hargreaves, who has given much consideration to this subject, gave evidence beforethe Tariff Board which strongly favours the two-years' maturation period. Hesaid - >Maturation is merely a matter of flavour. Maturation does not increase wholesomeness. On the contrary, the longer a whisky is kept in wood, the less and less wholesome it becomes. Another witness remarked - >Of two samples of whisky of a similar type forwarded for exhibit at a show, the first prize was awarded to a two-year-old whisky and the second prize to a three-year-old whisky. The Tariff Board has made a careful investigation of the whole matter, and I shall support its recommendation. {: #subdebate-20-0-s6 .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa -- If the maturation period for whisky were increased to 100 years, it would, perhaps, be the better for everybody, as the rising generation might then entirely forget the existence of such a spirit.. There has been a good deal of talk about the maturation period necessary for Australian whisky, but what is to be said of some of the raw " snake-juice " that is imported at the present time? The Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** remarked that both imported and Australian-made whisky had to be matured in wood for two years. I know some brands of imported whisky that would, burn the throat of a cast-iron image. Some of the imported stuff is worse than methylated spirit. One brand is known as Prince of Wales, and I regard it as a reflection on the Royal Family that such a spirit should be given this name. Whether these whiskys are matured for two days, two years, or 2,000 years, they are detrimental to the health of the community, and their importation should be prohibited. Control should be exercised over them as well as over the locally-manufactured article. I do not claim to be an expert, but it is nonsensical for honorable members to suggest that the quality of whisky is not affected by the length of the period in which it is matured in wood. The Tariff Board says that there are now 2,800,000 gallons of whisky in Australia, and that, at the present rate of consumption, this quantity is sufficient for fifteen years. Therefore, if no more whisky were distilled in this country, some of the present stock would remain in wood for about ten years. The decision of the Government in this matter seems to have been reached hurriedly, in the interests of a few individuals. I am not satisfied that whisky matured for two years is fit for human consumption. {: .speaker-KUW} ##### Mr Stacey: -- That is merely supposition. {: .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI: -- Certain brands of whisky are regularly called for, and the bulk of them are of Scotch manufacture. We. have always understood that the longer the period of maturation the higher the quality of the spirit. I favour at least a three-years' period of maturation, and in the committee stage I shall move that "three" be substituted for " two ". Whether or not that amendment is accepted, I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that a check is being made as to the quality of imported whisky. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- A certificate is received from the excise officer in Great Britain in regard to all whisky that is exported to this country. {: .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI: -- I have no doubt that some of the whisky that is said to have been matured for two years is bottled immediately it is taken from the still, and that if the climate where it is manufactured were a little hotter, the spirit would melt the glass. There ought to be some way of preventing the importation of immature whisky, which is a greater menace to public health than even " pinky " is. Raw, imported whisky is put up in attractive bottles and exhibited for sale in hotels, with the result that the public is induced to believe that it is 'buying good Scotch. As a matter of fact, it is often far inferior to whisky of Australian production. *[Quorum formed."]* {: #subdebate-20-0-s7 .speaker-JTY} ##### Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP; LP from 1944; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954 .- This subject should be debated without reference to the various brands of whisky that are being imported into Australia. We are concerned with providing by law for the wholesome quality of whisky placed on the market of Australia, and we are entitled to examine the reasons for imposing a condition that whisky shall be matured for three years before being put on the market. That provision was inserted in the act by what is generally described as a snap vote taken some time ago, and the decision to make it operative was deferred until October of this year. Up till then the rule was that whisky should be matured for two years. The practice in Great. Britain where whisky must be matured for three years before sale has been quoted to-night as something that we should apply in Australia. That provision has been in force in Great Britain since 1915. and was introduced purely as a war measure. Great quantities of spirit were taken from storage during the war and used in the manufacture of those high explosives which require alcohol as a base. The purpose of the law was to limit the amount of whisky available for human consumption at that time, and the example of Great Britain in this respect furnishes no argument for or against a three-year maturation period. This subject may be approached from another angle. We can see in it the machinations of the Scottish whisky combine, whose one purpose is to prevent the establishment and operation of distilleries in Australia, the product of which will come into competition with its own whiskies. Though I am not a rabid protectionist, I believe that we should be foolish, by an act of the legislature, to place obstacles in the way of an industry which has been successfully established in this country, and which satisfies a definite demand from consumers of whisky. The only purpose to be served by rejecting the bill, is still further to strengthen the grip of the overseas whisky combine. *[Quorum formed.]* The maturation of whisky is something altogether different from the maturation of wine. In the case of whisky the purpose of maturation is to attain a certain standard of wholesomeness and maturity in the alcoholic content. The effect of any further maturation is merely a matter of taste. Certain changes take place in the composition of the spirit, and if competent analysts are to be believed, one of the most significant of those changes is an increase in the quantity of fusel oil. In the opinion of the British Medical Research Council fuse1 oil is much more poisonous than ethylic alcohol if given in equal doses. Therefore, I cannot see why we should do anything the result of which would be to increase the deleterious properties of whisky sold in Australia. In the case of wine the effect of maturation is something wholly different. Whisky may be described as a dead fluid, in the sense that all living organisms have been destroyed in the process of distillation. Wine, on the other hand, contains millions of active organisms which effect chemical changes in the liquor. According to the evidence of **Mr. 0.** B. Seppelt, given before the Tariff Board, the process of ageing and maturing spirit, &c, has for its definite purpose the development of certain delicate ethers, which constitute the bouquet, and which, in the process of tasting, determine the value of such beverages. He continued : - >The greatest change in bouquet substances takes place during the first year, after which the age of a spirit is difficult to determine by the palate; a judge of spirits will find it impossible to tell the difference between a brandy of seven years old and a brandy 40 years old. We have also to consider an important statement by **Dr. W.** A. Hargreaves regarding the effect of evaporation on the maturation of any spirit. As the Australian air does not contain the same quantity of moisture as that of Scotland, the period during which whisky will mature in Australia is much shorter than in any part of Great Britain or northern Europe. It would, therefore, appear that a relatively shorter period is required in Australia than in some other countries for the maturation of whisky. If the House insists upon a three-year period of maturation becoming operative in October next, those engaged in the disposal of Scottish whisky in Australia will be still further entrenched, and at the same time, we shall definitely and deliberately be destroying the opportunities for Australian whisky distillers to continue their operations successfully. {: #subdebate-20-0-s8 .speaker-KJQ} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter .- I aD opposed to a decrease of the period during which whisky shall be matured. Recently honorable members have been inundated with circulars bearing the signatures of interested parties, including members of this House. The knowledge displayed in some of the letters signed by honorable members is in striking contrast to the intelligence shown by them in this House. I am not supporting any particular interests, and am anxious only to assist in protecting the health of the people. I have tasted whisky, but I am not an authority on its quality. When 1 need a drink I am always able to satisfy my thirst with good plain beer. But I have been in company with recognized authorities on the quality of whisky, including the late **Mr. John** Brown, who, from time to time, imported from Dewars in Scotland a hogshead of whisky which had been matured for at least ten years. Frequently **Mr. Brown** commented upon the unsatisfactory quality of whisky which had been matured for a much shorter period. I agree with some honorable members that whisky insufficiently matured has a tendency to burn or scald the throat, but the quality of the whisky imported by **Mr. Brown** was such that the effect, upon the palate was that of milk, yet after it had been swallowed it left the desired tingle. **Mr. John** Campbell,1 the scientific advisor of the New Health Society, claims that whisky which has not been matured for at least three years contains acids, including furfurol, which are injurious to the human system. After a short period of maturation these acids are more pronounced, but during the process of maturation they lose their power. **Mr. Campbell** also states that new whisky is crude, harsh and fiery. I can speak with some knowledge of new whisky, and particularly concerning an Australian, production known as Old Court, which, according to some, when compared with others which have been matured for a longer period, is dynamite. A fairly long period of maturation is necessary to destroy organic acids which are injurious to the human system. A report on the ageing of whisky states - >During the first three years of storage whisky develops undesirable gustatory qualities, and loose condition. In the terms of the expert whisky blender and taster, it goes " sick " and is really more unpalatable than when it is in the raw state. If the whisky goes " sick " I can quite imagine what happens to the consumer. During the third year it begins to recover and continues to improve progressively as the years go on by developing a mellow character and bouquet which is the hallmark of matured whisky. Arising out of the controversy on Scotch whisky in 1902, the excise authorities acting on the unanimous recommendation of the Whisky Commission, based on the evidence of all parties concerned, fixed three years as a minimum period of wood storage in bond before releasing for public consumption, and the discriminating public were quick to recognize the valuable gustatory and salutary qualities conferred by ageing, and the demand for matured whisky was universal. To-day this demand is satisfied by the marketing of whiskies blended from all malt pot stilled spirits and bottled usually at from five to ten years old. *[Quorum formed]* Laboratory records afford some data on the progressive changes which occur during the ageing of whisky in wood. New whisky contains 16 parts of volatile acid, 62 of esters, 13 of aldehydes, 30 of furfurol and 178 of higher alcohols, making a total of 272, whereas in whisky nine years' old the proportions are volatile acid 45, esters 98, aldehydes 25, fur- furol 1 and higher alcohols 294. ora total of 463. According to the article from which I have been quoting furfurol is the most injurious ingredient. Serious consideration should be given to that aspect. I am always anxious to encourage Australian industries, butI must give serious thought to the danger of placing upon the market an article which does not comply with the standard food tests, and is not of the best quality for human consumption. If we reduce the age of maturation of whisky here we shall probably be doing something that is injurious to the health of the Australian people. The previous speaker said that this was a measure arising from the war period, but even prior to the war people preferred aged blends of whisky to new whisky, and to-day the expert prefers his whisky or wine aged. Irrespective of price, much larger quantities of the aged Scotch whiskies are consumed in Australia than of Australian whiskies which have not had the opportunity of being similarly blended- and matured. The honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Lazzarini)** has indicated that he proposes to move an amendment in committee, and that amendment I am prepared to support. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read n second time. *In committee:* Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Interpretation). {: #subdebate-20-0-s9 .speaker-L07} ##### Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa -- I desire 'to leave the period of maturation at three years as now provided in the principal act. I think I can achieve what I want by voting against the clause, instead of moving an amendment. Clause agreed to. Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 493 {:#debate-21} ### RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1935 Message recommending appropriation reported. *In committee* (Consideration of Governor-General's message) : {: #debate-21-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I move - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend section 9 of the Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1934. The intention is to give the cottongrowers the bounty a week earlier than is provided for in the original act. Honorable members will appreciate the desirableness of this course, because of the great area that is covered in Queensland, and the large number of cheques that have to be issued. {: #debate-21-s1 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- As this measure provides that the time for payment of the bounty shall be advanced by one week in order to facilitate the operations of the Queensland Cotton Board, I do not intend to oppose it. I would, however, like to refer to the statement made by the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** in his secondreading speech, that the cotton-growers of Queensland, like many other primary producers, are suffering considerable disabilities. I remind him that his action in admitting to this country, under departmental by-law, yarns and cotton piece goods equivalent to 6,000 bales of cotton lint, resulted in a loss of £36,000 to the growers, thus further greatly accentuating their difficulties. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- This bounty gives them an additional £66,000. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- The amending bill does not do so, but the act which it amends does. The bounty system is really not so satisfactory as a means of protecting the industry. It will never develop on natural lines until the bounty system is replaced by adequate protection for all branches of the industry. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- It is protected now. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- It is only partly protected. **Senator McLachlan,** speaking in the Senate on the 9th November, stated the views of this Government with regard to the bounty system. This is what he said - >The bounty system of protection was designed to assist loca.1 industry until it could supply the major portion of domestic requirements. When an industry has reached the output necessary to supply the Australian demand, there is no sound reason for continuing the bounty, and the necessary protection is then afforded by means of customs duties. To revert to the bounty system in the case of galvanized iron would be to break a well-established principle. The logical conclusion of such action would bc the substitution of bounty assistance for all the protected items in the tariff schedule, which, of course, is impracticable. I agree entirely with **Senator McLachlan,** a responsible Minister in the Lyons Government, as to the need for a bounty in the initial stages of an industry. During the transition period, this form of assistance is essential; but when an industry can be said to be properly established, protection for it in all its branches should take the place of a bounty. The cotton-growers of Queensland would be much more satisfied if they had for their industry an allround policy of protection. The payment of a bounty means that it has to come up for scrutiny in the Estimates every year, with consequent instability instead of security, because "whenever a government gets into difficulties, its first act is to cut out bounties to industries. {: .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White: -- The cotton industry has both the bounty and protection. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- Certain branches are protected, but the growers would prefer a diminishing bounty if, in its place, they could be assured of adequate protection. Would the Minister or any of his supporters advocate a bounty for the woollen industry, or, as **Senator McLachlan** said in the Senate, for the galvanized-iron or steel industries? The cotton industry only asks for what is given to other industries, namely, adequate protection in the place of the bounty. When the bounty bill was passed in 1934, this statement was made on behalf of the industry in Central Queensland - >It is difficult to understand why governments cannot place cotton on the same basis as wool or other industries. If they would give us reasonable protection, we do not want bounties or any other form of assistance. That adequately expressed the opinion of the growers on this subject. I have been in collaboration with those interested in the industry, and while I do not oppose this measure, I regret that the Government has seen fit to undermine the protectionist policy which I put into operation and has introduced the bounty system. The Government, in its attitude to this industry, has committed blunder after blunder. The bounty is certainly better than nothing; but the industry will never develop properly until it is given all-round protection instead of the bounty. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported and - *by leave -* adopted. {:#subdebate-21-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 14th March *(vide* page 67), on motion by **Mr. White** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia .- As I have already expressed my views in regard to this measure, I do not intend to delay the second reading by speaking again. {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-KFK} ##### Sir LITTLETON GROOM:
Darling Downs -- The view has been expressed in regard to this matter which conveys the idea that the Government's .policy has not given satisfaction. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Forde)** that the general manager of the Queensland Cotton Board, **Mr. J.** R. Webster, said - >The whole scheme appears to be fairly well balanced, has been well thought out and the growers should benefit materially, provided always that the protection given to spinners is sufficient to enable them to obtain the bulk of the Australian yarn market. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- I can assure the honorable member that the Cotton Board is not satisfied that this is the best it can get from the Government. It wants protection, not 'bounties. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Sir LITTLETON GROOM: -- The opinion' of the general manager of the Queensland Cotton Board is as I have indicated. This industry in the past has suffered from a lack of definite, certain and consistent policy, and the present Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. White)** has gone to no end of trouble to rectify that position. The Queensland Cotton Board has accepted this scheme and is satisfied with it, but it wants it to be carried out in practice. The only thing that gave cause for anxiety recently was the admission of certain goods. That matter, however, has been thrashed out and the incident is over and done with, and I do not think we are likely to have a repetition of it. The cotton industry asks to be left alone to work out itsown destiny under the existing scheme in its complete form. There is evidence of the prospect of its becoming a very valuable asset among the primary producing interests of Australia. I protest against the attempt of the honorable member to convey the impression that this Parliament has not evolved a scheme which will give satisfaction. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr Forde: -- Half the growers are on the dole. {: .speaker-KFK} ##### Sir LITTLETON GROOM: -- The Queensland Cotton Board appears to be satisfied with the Government's present policy. This scheme is complete because it provides an assured home market to the grower and also links up every section of the industry, producing and manufacturing. If the industry is allowed to work out its own destiny under such conditions without interference, satisfaction will be given under this plan to the grower. Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. Bill- *leave--read* a third time. {: .page-start } page 495 {:#debate-22} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-22-0} #### Tariff Policy {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr WHITE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · Balaclava · UAP -- I move - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-JOM} ##### Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney -- It is unfortunate that the forms of this House enable the Minister for Trade and Customs to table a tariff schedule without honorable members being able to voice their protest against such action. While I am aware that in the past this practice enabled a Minister to take corrective action in the interests of Australian industries, it is most unfortunate that on the present occasion we are more or less helpless. Events this week have shown that the tariff schedule tabled to-day represents the payment by Australia of a price to meet the bluff of the British Government that Article 10 of the Ottawa agreement has not been fully implemented and that therefore we could expect no mercy in regard to our meat exports. Consequently some more Australian industries, which the Minister administering War Service Homes described as uneconomic before he left for England, must be sacrificed. Last Monday the Prime Minister of Great Britain, **Mr. Ramsay** MacDonald, the Secretary for the Dominions, **Mr. Thomas,** the President of the Board of Trade, **Mr. Walter** Runciman, and the Minister for Agriculture, **Mr. Elliott,** held a conference with the Australian delegation. The cabled reports show clearly that the Australian Ministers were given a week in which to come to heel. Then followed the dinner given by **Mr. Bruce,** at which a very significant personage, the Governor of the Bank of England, **Mr. Montagu** Norman, was prominent. Other guests included half the British Cabinet, and the editor of the London *Times.* Australia had signed on the dotted line. Before that week was up Australia had capitulated. Levies or duties - they mean the same - not quotas, became prominent in regard to meat, and accordingly duties were reduced in Australia to-day. The Australian delegation are in their £1,000 a week suite at the Savoy Hotel while we have to sit here and see Australian industries pay the price demanded.I take this, the only opportunity offered to me, to lodge my protest against this policy. The schedule tabled to-day can remain unratified until the 30th November next. So much for the Government's rnuch-vaunted policy of resistance to restriction ! A bold face and a sincere desire to win through for Australia would have saved our primary producers and preserved our secondary industries. This Government is spineless and easily bluffed. It can lay no claim to the confidence and respect of the people of Australia and, I believe, will soon earn the disrespect of its own followers. The United Australia party must rue the day when it took the United Country party into partnership. It was bluffed by the. United Country party to agree to a composite Ministry, and now sees its precious " national " Ministry selling Australia to overseas interests, including those of Argentina. This is the only opportunity that we have to register our protest; hut I warn the Government that thousands of real Australians will deplore its action, and will rally to our side at the first opportunity that presents itself.We are not prepared to sell out, despite the fact that in the House to-day the numbers are against us. To-morrow they will be with us. {: #subdebate-22-0-s2 .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE:
Capricornia -- I avail myself of this first opportunity to say something which we were debarred from saying at an earlier hour. The Minister for Trade and Customs has introduced a tariff schedule which strikes a blow at a number of Australian secondary industries. {: #subdebate-22-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The tariff schedule is not now before the House. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- I have no intention at this juncture to debate the schedule which is evidence of the Government's desire to undermine the protectionist policy of Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is doing what he said he had no intention of doing. {: .speaker-F4U} ##### Mr FORDE: -- If I am not allowed now to protest against the action of the Govern ment I shall take another opportunity to do so. Before the Prime Minister left for England the Government gave an assurance that during his absence there would be no reductions of customs duties. There has been a breach of faith on the part of the Government, for hardly had the Prime Minister left this country than the Country party, which previously had denounced the Nationalist party, took charge of the Cabinet. The step taken by the Government will give employment to foreigners and to workers in Britain, while Australian workers walk the streets seeking a job. The very existence of hundreds of factory workers in Australia is in jeopardy, because of the imports which will enter this country. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member must realize that he is now debating the merits of the schedule which is not now under the consideration of the House, and cannot be discussed on the adjournment motion. {: #subdebate-22-0-s4 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I take this opportunity to voice my protest Motion (by **Mr. Lane)** put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mb. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.) AYES: 33 NOES: 16 Majority . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. G. j. Bell.) AYES: 33 NOES: 17 Majority . . 16 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.23 p.m. {: .page-start } page 497 {:#debate-23} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS {:#subdebate-23-0} #### The following answers to questions were circulated: - {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-JNP} ##### Mr Baker:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND r asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the names and authors of all books, periodicals, pamphlets, and other publications prohibited, from being put into circulation in Australia since 18th December, 1931 ? 1. Which of the publications in the list are at present prohibited? {: #subdebate-23-0-s1 .speaker-KZR} ##### Mr White:
UAP -- In the public interest it is not considered desirable to publish all the information desired. {: #subdebate-23-0-s2 .speaker-KFA} ##### Mr R GREEN:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP en asked the Minister for Health, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is cancer increasing in Australia; if so, what is the percentage of increase in mortality during the last five years? 1. What amount has the Commonwealth expended in each State and the Federal Capital Territory in the treatment of cancer? 2. What amount has the Commonwealth expended in cancer research in each State and the Federal Capital Territory? 3. How was the money mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 spent, and under what conditions was it granted? 4. Under what advice was the above money allocated? 5. From whom does the Government obtain statistics regarding treatment (a) in public institutions, and *(b)* by private practitioners? 6. Are these statistics paid for; if not, is any assistance, financial or otherwise, given towards their collection? {: #subdebate-23-0-s3 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes:
UAP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions areas follows : - 1.Yes. Mortality rates for cancer have increased in the last five years from 98 deaths from cancer per 100,000 of mean population in 1929 to 105 per 100,000 in 1933. The increase in cancer mortality for the 5-year period is approximately 7 per cent. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Since 1928, the Commonwealth has spent £116,000 on treatment in the several States and Federal Capital Territory, in addition to £15,000 granted as subsidy to the funds of State organizations for the control of cancer. £7,000 in connexion, with the services of **Dr. Burrows.** 1. The Commonwealth has expended £18,000 in subsidies for research in the several States. These subsidies have been paid mainly to New South Wales and Victoria where research institutes exist. A small amount has been paid also to South Australia. 2. The money mentioned in paragraphs z and 3 has been spent as follows: - £100,000 in the purchase of radium for treatment of cancer; £16,000 in the working of the Commonwealth radium laboratory in the production of radon for treatment and in the maintenance and re-conditioning of the Commonwealth radium as use and experience have indicated the necessity; £7,000 was spent in connexion with the services of **Dr. Burrows** who was employed by the Commonwealth Government to organize services for a period of three years; £15,000 was spent in subsidies to aid in the formation of State organizations for the control of cancer; £18,000 was spent on subsidizing cancer research in the States. The radiumremainsthe property of the Commonwealth. It was issued to the universities and special treatment centres oil loan without cost on the condition that any losses were to be paid for by the institutions concerned, and on condition that modern treatment centres were established. The subsidies were paid to aid in the formation of State organizations for the control of cancer; and for special pieces of research work. {: type="A" start="S"} 0. The radium was purchased in 1928, and allocated under the advice of an Advisory Committee consisting of the Director-General Of Health, Professors Bailey and Sandes, of the University of Sydney, and Professor Laby, of the University of Melbourne. Subsequent allocations have been made on the advice of the Annual Australian Cancer Conference to which all States send delegates. 3. The Commonwealth Government obtains statistics regarding treatment from each of the large public institutions in Australia at which special cancer treatment centres have been established. Most of these centres hold radium on loan from the Commonwealth Department of Health free of cost. Treatment statistics are not available from private practitioners, but the majority of cancer patients is treated in the institutions from which the statistics are obtained. 4. The statistics are not paid for, but the Commonwealth has issued radium free of charge to the treatment institutions and supplies free of cost other services, including case sheets and other material for recording and compilation. The agreements entered into between the Commonwealth Department of Health and each of the institutions concerned provide for uniform recording of all cases, and the annual compilation of the statistical material. Citrusfruit Industry. {: #subdebate-23-0-s4 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page:
CP e. - The information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible in answer to a series of ?uestions asked by the honorable member or Boothby **(Mr. Price)** relating to tho extension of the citrus fruit industry. {:#subdebate-23-1} #### Randwick Military Hospital. {: #subdebate-23-1-s0 .speaker-JUQ} ##### Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES k asked the Minister for Repatriation, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. . Is **Dr. Willcocks,** a specialist attending Randwick Military Hospital, retained on an annual basis? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If so, on what days and times is he supposed to be in attendance at the hospital? {: #subdebate-23-1-s1 .speaker-DQC} ##### Mr Hughes:
UAP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. **Dr. Willcocks** is not retained by the Repatriation Department on an annual salary basis, but receives a fee of £2 12s. 6d. per visit to the Randwick Hospital. 1. He attends the hospital on Monday of each week, and remains until all cases listed for his attention have been dealt with. Party Telephone Lines: Advances to Settlers. {: #subdebate-23-1-s2 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
UAP y. - The information is being obtained, and will be furnished as soon as possible in answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Darling **(Mr. Clark)** regarding advances to settlers for the purpose of the erection of party telephone lines. {:#subdebate-23-2} #### Foreign Subsidized Shipping : Empire Policy {: #subdebate-23-2-s0 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: s asked the Minister for Commerce, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many meetings of Empire representatives have been held in London, to discuss foreign shipping competition, since the Ottawa Conference, when it was resolved that such Empire committee should meet? 1. Who were the members of the committee? 2. Who represented the Commonwealth at each meeting of the committee? {: #subdebate-23-2-s1 .speaker-C7E} ##### Dr Earle Page:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No Empire committee has been formed, but representatives of Empire countries have met frequently in London, and, in addition, there have been telegraphic consultations between the governments of Empire countries. 1. See answer to No. 1 above. 2. The High Commissioner has represented Australia at discussions which have taken place in London.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 March 1935, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1935/19350328_reps_14_146/>.