View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives
10 May 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- WATERSIDE WORKERS
QUESTION
- NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE
QUESTION
- INDECENT LITERATURE
QUESTION
- IMPORT OF CALIFORNIAN PRUNES
QUESTION
- CANBERRA MILK SUPPLY
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS AIR MAIL SERVICE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL
QUESTION
- CANBERRA HOUSING
QUESTION
- SURVIVING MEMBERS OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- CHAIR OF AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH
POSTAL DEPARTMENT’S SURPLUS
QUESTION
- LEAGUE OF NATIONS
QUESTION
- MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD
QUESTION
- CENSORSHIP OF BROADCAST ADDRESS
QUESTION
- EXPORT OF IRON ORE
QUESTION
- OREGON
PAPER
LOAN BILL 1938
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1937-38
- In Committee of Ways and Means:
ADJOURNMENT
- Wednesday, 11 May 1938
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Canberra: Milk Supply - Adherence to Building Plan
- Radio Valves
- Commonwealth Ammunition Factory: Acceptance of Commercial Orders
- Trade Marks Fees
- Public Service: Working of Overtime
- Wireless Broadcasting : Control of South Australian Stations

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took thechair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 956

QUESTION

WATERSIDE WORKERS

Refusal to Handle Cargoes

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is the intention of the Government to apply the penal sections of the Transport Workers Act to waterside workers in Sydney, should the Waterside Workers Federation enforce its decision that its members shall not load certain materials on foreign vessels?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– The matter to which the honorable member refers is under the consideration of the Government, through negotiations that are taking place between the Attorney-General and the representatives of the unions concerned. I am hopeful that a satisfactory settlement will be reached without taking action along the lines indicated by the honorable member.

page 956

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE

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

– In view of the widespread interest, mingled with doubts and fears, in the minds of many people in connexion with theCommonwealth Government’s national insurance scheme, will the Treasurer consider the advisability of deferring to a later date than was originally intended, the resumption of the second reading debate on the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill, in order that the fullest consideration may be given to that measure before we are asked to vote upon it?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The matter of the date for the resumption of the. second reading debate on the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill has been considered by the Government, which has decided to fix it for Thursday, the 19th May next, thus allowing for the pre-consideration of the measure a clear fortnight from the date when I made my second-reading speech upon it.

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have before me a copy of the report of the proceedings and decisions of a conference dealing with unemployment insurance held at Canberra on the 13th August last, and attended by representatives of all the States. At that conference the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) is reported to have said in connexion with Sir Walter Kinnear’s report -

Sir Walter Kinnear’s report was received later, and copies will be distributed to members of the - conference litis morning, but as neither the Commonwealth Government, nor you, gentlemen, have as yet bad the opportunity to study this report upon health and pensions insurance it is not proposed to discuss it at this conference, but to concentrate upon Mr. lnce’s report with respect to unemployment insurance. It appears clear, however, that any such scheme as has been recommended by Sir Walter Kinnear will be of considerable direct and indirect benefit to the States, and will call for close co-operation between the Commonwealth and State Governments.

I also direct the attention of the right honorable gentleman-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is asking a question, and not giving information.

Mr ANTHONY:

– This deals with my question. It is a statement by the Premier of New South Wales, which appeared in Friday’s issueof theSydney Morning Herald. In it that gentleman is reported to have said -

So far as he was aware, State governmentswere not consulted by the Federal authorities about the bearing of the Commonwealth’s national insurance scheme on State finances and taxation.

In view of those statements, and of the very far-reaching nature of the Government’s proposals, will the right honorable gentleman call such a conference as he indicated should he called, before proceeding further with the matter?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

-Sir Walter Kinnear’s report has been available to the public and the governments of the States for something like nine months, and an opportunity for an examination of it, as well as for making suggestions associated with the proposals of the Government, has been available for a similar period. There does not seem to be any reason to call a conference at the present time; but as is the case with other sections which are involved or are likely to be affected by the proposals, the Government will be only too pleased to receive suggestions from the governments of the States, if they desire to make them, and to consider them before the bill is finally passed.

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I noticed that in the concluding passages of the speech which the Treasurer delivered in this House last “Wednesday on national insurance, lie paid a compliment to the work of Sir Walter Kinnear in regard to both the bill and the regulations. At a subsequent meeting in Sydney of the British Medical Association, statements were made which indicated a knowledge of the regulations and of matters not contained in the bill. If the regulations have been available to persons associated with the British Medical Association or representatives of other bodies, will the Treasurer make them available also to members of this Parliament, so that both the bill and the regulations may be considered together?

Mr CASEY:

– No regulations have been made available to any outside body, although, naturally, in the course of discussions certain matters which necessarily will become the subject of regulations may have been discussed. The regulations have not yet been put together on paper. As soon as that is done they will be made available to honorable members.

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– “Will the Treasurer inform the House whether it is a normal parliamentary procedure in this Parliament to prepare, in advance, regulations, the legislative effect of which is dependent upon the statutory enactment of a bill only just introduced into Parliament and not yet debated ? Is it not an impertinent anticipation of the decision of this Parliament to act in such a manner in connexion with the National Pensions and Insurance Bill?

Mr CASEY:

– I fail to see the relevance . of the honorable member’s question, inasmuch as I do not believe it to be based on fact.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that the national insurance legislation which the Government has introduced must cut across the finances of the social services of State governments, does not the Treasurer consider it advisable to consult with the State governments before asking this Parliament to reach finality, on this subject, so that they may have an opportunity to adjust their finances to meet the interference that will automatically be brought about thereby ?

Mr CASEY:

– I cannot admit that the Government’s proposals cut across proposals of the States.

Mr HARRISON:

– Are they not likely to affect contributions to hospitals?

Mr CASEY:

– In any event, a considerable time must elapse between the passage of this bill through Parliament and its coming into operation. The period must inevitably be some months. This should allow time for any necessary financial adjustments to be made

page 957

QUESTION

INDECENT LITERATURE

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– “Will the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs say whether the statement purporting to have been issued by him to the press, which appeared in last “Wednesday’s newspapers, with reference to the steps he was taking to prevent the importation of objectionable magazines, is, in the main, accurate, particularly that portion in which he explained that two problems were involved, one being the objectionable character of the magazines, and the second that the imports were on a dumping basis? Will he also make it quite plain that when he said it would be a matter for the Government to determine whether any special protection could be granted to Australian producers, he did not intend to convey the impression that the Government was contemplating any action for the purpose of protecting local producers of indecent literature?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The interpretation placed on my statement by the honorable member is the opposite of what I wished to convey. It has been found that the sale of indecent literature is having a detrimental effect upon certain decent Australian publications, and at the same time is encouraging other publishers in Australia to run a little loose in order to hold some of the trade they already have. T believe that the steps which the Government proposes to take should ment the situation.

page 958

QUESTION

IMPORT OF CALIFORNIAN PRUNES

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Acting Minister for Commerce -

Is it a fact that Australian Glass Manufacturers Company Limited has made application to be permitted to import prunes from California, to have same packed and exported ?
Does the Government think that, in view of the fact that the prune growers of Australia are compelled to export 50 per cent. of their production to a market which is already weakened by Californian exports, and that this company is manufacturing its bottles under the protection of a prohibitive duty, it should be permitted to import the product of our competitors?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– I assure the honorable gentleman that, from inquiries which 1 have made to-day following upon representations by certain leading men in the prune industry, no such application has yet been lodged with the Department of Trade and Customs. Should one be lodged, the Government will take the matter into consideration.

page 958

QUESTION

CANBERRA MILK SUPPLY

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Health inform the House as to what part has been played by the Department of Health in the recent inquiries and litigation in Canberra dealing with the matter of milk supplies ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– There have been two processes - one, an inquiry into the cost of milk, and the other, litigation in connexion with certain matters between Canberra dairymen and other persons. The Department of Health, naturally, has the matter of milk supplies under consideration. In regard to the recent litigation, if that is what the honorable gentleman is driving at, all that I have to say is that certain officers of my department, were subpoenaed to give evidence, by both the plaintiff and the defendant, but having been previously examined by the lawyers representing both sides, none was called.

CANBERRA HOUSING

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the shortage of houses in Canberra and of the fact that tho Government recently caused to be evicted from his house a person who had always paid his rent in order that some other privileged person might occupy the premises, will the Minister for the Interior inform me what action the Government proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs and to provide houses for persons now compelled to live in lodgings? Some of these persons have had their names on n waiting list for four years.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– The Government is aware of the acute housing shortage in Canberra, .and officials of the Department of the Interior and the Treasury are in consultation, in the initial stages, in regard to the preparation of plans for the Government for the next year for the building of homes to meet the present situation.

Mr STACEY:

– Will the Minister for the Interior confer with the chairman of the South Australian Building Trust, which is erecting- four-roomed -brick houses with conveniences at a capital cost of £450, and letting them for a rental of 12s. 6d. a week, with a view to the adoption of a somewhat similar plan for the erection of houses in Canberra at, perhaps, a slightly higher cost?

Mr McEWEN:

– I have already arranged for the officers of my department to investigate and. report upon the building programme of the South Australian Building Trust. If necessary, I shall myself confer with the chairman of the trust.

page 959

QUESTION

SURVIVING MEMBERS OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Prime Minister noticed that according to the local press a list which purports to give the names of eight or nine surviving members of the first Commonwealth Parliament who are said to have met in Melbourne yesterday contains the name of the late honorable Males Staniforth Smith? as this gentleman, who was at one time Administrator of New Guinea and Acting Administrator for the Northern Territory, died on the 14th January. 1934, will the Prime Minister take steps to correct the statement, which as Mark Twain once remarked concerning a report of his own death, i3 greatly exaggerated ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am afraid I cannot undertake responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of statements in the local press.

page 959

QUESTION

CHAIR OF AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH

Mr HAWKER:

– Is the Prime Minister aware that suggestions have been made that the Government’s delay in deciding in which university to arrange for the establishment of a chair of aeronautical research is partly, at any rate, actuated by its desire to wait and see which university can secure an endowment which would reduce the cost to the Government of the establishment of this chair? Will the right honorable gentleman put an end. to those suggestions by making it quite plain that the chair will not he put up for auction, ‘but that the university at which it will be located will be the one at which it can best function, find from which it will be able to render the most widespread service to the people of Australia?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– It must not necessarily be assumed that the Government, in any event, is prepared to accept the whole cost of the creation and endowment of a chair of aeronautical research. The Government is delaying action in this matter not for the reason suggested by the honorable member but because other important matters are more urgent. At an early date consideration will be given to this matter and a decision reached.

Mr HOLT:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Development been directed to the published statement of Professor Miller, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at the Sydney University, to the effect that it would be inconsistent to establish the Chair of Aeronautics at the Sydney

University, seeing that the aircraft factory and the Aeronautical Research Laboratory are in Melbourne?Will the Minister give consideration to this evidence of agreement in academic circles in favour of the establishment of the Chair of Aeronautics at the Melbourne University?

Mr CASEY:

– I have read the statement of the Professor of Engineering at the Sydney University. The matter will be considered by the Government.

Mr HARRISON:

– Has the attention of the Minister been further directed to the statement made by Professor Miller that the establishment of an aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend was a serious blunder. In view of that statement will he consider the scrapping of the aircraft factory at Fisherman’s Bend with the object of establishing it in close proximity to Sydney in which a chair of aeronautics is to be established.

Mr CASEY:

– I think that I can reply to the question by saying that what has been done has been done.

page 960

POSTAL DEPARTMENT’S SURPLUS

Mr WILSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Will the Government give serious consideration to the urgent need for the allocation of some reasonable sum from the surplus derived by the Postmaster-General’s Department for the purpose of providing better postal and telephonic facilities, including both manual and automatic exchanges, in country districts, the erection of necessary buildings and increased remuneration to allowance postmasters.

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– I shall submit the honorable member’s requests to the PostmasterGeneral.

page 960

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Italy and Abyssinia

Mr JAMES:

– Has the Government a foreign policy, and, if so, has it given any instructions to its representatives at Geneva in connexion with the status of Abyssinia now being discussed by the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The Government’s for eign policy has been placed before the people with absolute clearness and has received endorsement by a majority of electors. The Abyssinian question will be dealt with at the appropriate time by the Government.

page 960

QUESTION

MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD

Mr. THORBY laid on the table the following paper : -

Munitions Supply Board - Report for period 1st July, 1935, to 30th June, 1937. together with report of the Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- I move -

That the paper be printed.

I do so in order to direct attention once again to the belated nature of this report which brings before the Parliament facts in connexion with the operations of the Munitions Supply Board only up to the 30th June, 1937. This is too late a date, I submit, for this Parliament to have before it information which it ought to have had in order to consider fully legislation just passed relating to munitions supply. I have not had an opportunity to review the report, but I submit to the Parliament that an advance precis of it ought to have been circulated a fortnight ago, having regard to the fact that the Parliament was then being invited to vote very large sums of money for munitions supply. The fact that the report is submitted to us after we had made our decision in the matter, and not before it, is indicative of how unsatisfactory generally is the practice of these bodies which, either under statute or as a matter of courtesy, furnish reports which are subsequently tabled for the consideration of honorable members of the Parliament. I acknowledge that there has been a great acceleration of expedition in relation to the tabling of this report compared with previous reports - no doubt, representations made on previous occasions have had some effect - but I cannot but feel that the report, tabled at this juncture, will be of service to honorable members of the Parliament only insofar as we are asked to give further effect to a policy the principles of which have been accepted without the guidance which this report no doubt would have given.

Mr Thorby:

– The report would have had no bearing on the debate on the Loan Bill.

Mr CURTIN:

– I have not yet had an opportunity to look at it; I merely move that it be printed because I have a very vivid recollection of how belated have been all previous reports of the Munitions Supply Board. The Minister says that the report of the Munitions Supply Board would not have been of any help to Parliament in dealing with certain expenditure which did most certainly include provision for munitions supply.

Mr Thorby:

– In the future.

Mr CURTIN:

– Most certainly we were voting money for activity in the future; but, in order to know the extent of the organization we would need for the future, it was, I think, desirable at least, if not necessary, that we ought to have been informed as to how the present organization was functioning, what it was doing, and what were the recommendations which the board saw fit to make to the Parliament. I know the Minister is very annoyed at me for taking this course.

Mr Thorby:

– Not at all.

Mr CURTIN:

– I do not desire to accept from boards of this kind, or from instrumentalities of State, any inadequate summary of their work; I desire that, in this matter, and, indeed, in respect of all similar matters, reports which relate to the functions of these authorities be submitted to the Parliament prior to, and not subsequent to, the Parliament deliberating upon the subject covered by them.

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

. - I do not know what object the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Cur tin) has in view in making the statements that he has just made. His final request has already been met. Ample opportunities will be given to discuss this matter, not upon the printing of the report just tabled, but, first of all, upon the statements which I have made of a general character in regard to defence, which have still to be debated. As a matter of fact, the honorable gentleman himself secured the adjournment of that debate.

Mr.Curtin. - This House has already voted £10,000,000 for defence purposes, a very considerable portion of which is to be expended upon munitions supply.

Mr LYONS:

– That is so, and before the Government’s defence policy is completed, this House will have to vote very many more million pounds for that purpose. The report which is now before us will assist honorable members in coming to wise decisions when further appropriations for defence are sought. The Leader of the Opposition said that this report should have been in the hands of honorable members earlier, but I remind him that they will have ample opportunity to acquaint themselves with its contents before the further discussions which will take place on the subject. There has been no avoidable delay in the presentation of the report, nor has the department wasted time in preparing it. Honorable members will recognise the great amount of work that the Minister has had to deal with, particularly of late. The report was received by the Minister only to-day, and it was tabled by him without delay.

Mr Curtin:

– I am not blaming the Minister.

Mr LYONS:

– No good purpose can be served by the motion, as sufficient copies of the report havebeen circulated among honorable members to acquaint them with its contents.Whether or not it shall be formally printed is a matter for the Printing Committee to decide. Pending a decision of the subject by that committee, copies have been distributed among honorable members for their information. I hope that, on reflection, the Leader of the Opposition will agree that there has been no avoidable delay, and that the discussions that have taken place in regard to the defence programme could not have waited until the report was received.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.-(in reply) - I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) that, generally, the Printing Committee should decide whether or not more copies of the report should be printed than would ordinarily be the case, but the right honorable gentleman must know that the Standing Orders give to honorable members the right to move that documents which have been tabled be printed. Had I not taken the course that I have followed to-day, I could not have done anything in the matter. Although the Minister for Defence (Mr.

Thorby) has had the report for only a few hours the fact remains that 10½ months have elapsed since the termination of the period covered by it, and it omits one year altogether. I refuse to believe that a report of the year’s operations could not have been prepared in less than 10½ months.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . Nil.

AYES

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment of J. M. Fielding, Department of the Interior.

page 963

LOAN BILL 1938

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

Assent reported.

page 963

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1937-38

CustomsTariffAmendment(No.1);

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 8th December, 1937 (vide page 463), on. motion by Mr. White (vide page 427) -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1936 he amended as hereunder set out. . . .

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro- Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Eden · UAP

– The tariff schedule before the committee, which was laid upon the table on the 8th December, 1937, includes the schedules introduced on the 24th June and the 7th September, 1937. A comprehensive memorandum has been prepared and distributed among honorable mem bers, which will enable comparisons to be made between the proposed rates of duty under each item and those operative under the 1933-36 tariff. In order to avoid unnecessary debate through a misunderstanding by honorable members, I should like to make it clear at the start that only the proposals of the 8th December last are now under discussion. An opportunity to debate the proposals introduced on Wednesday last will be given to honorable members at some later date.

As this is the first tariff debate in this the Fifteenth Parliament, I shall, at the outset, particularly for the information of new members, outline the Government’s tariff policy and also the procedure usually adopted by the Government in tariff-making. In 1931, the Prime Minis(Mr. Lyons) stated the tariff policy of the Government. Epitomized, this policy is -

Efficient industry as an essential qualification for tariff shelter;
A reasonable, as distinct from a prohibitive, tariff level;
Tariff-making, after public in quiry, through the Tariff Board, and not by arbitrary ministerial action.

Honorable members will, I am confident, agree with the wisdom of granting tariff protection only to those industries which have been established on efficient and economic lines or which have reasonable prospect of developing along such lines. They will, too, agree that to be effective a tariff need not represent virtual prohibition. A tariff which gives more protection that is reasonably adequate for an efficient industry confers no benefit on such industry. On the contrary, the probabilities are that excessive protection may react to the detriment of the industry. Efficiency in industry is stimulated by healthy competition. whereas the inducement to efficiency is lacking when an industry is sheltered by duties which shut out competition. Unduly high protection brings the twofold danger of lack of efficiency and the consequent detriment to the consumer.

The Tariff Board Act provides that the Minister shall refer to the board for inquiry and report certain matters connected with the tariff, including the necessity for new, increased or reduced duties, and that inquiries relating to any revision of the tariff shall be held in public, the evidence being taken on oath. All interested parties are invited to give evidence, and the board has the power to summon any person to attend the inquiry and to give evidence and produce documents. The ability and impartiality of the board are unquestioned, and experience has proved that, in sifting the uneconomic from the economic industries, and in assessing adequate as distinct from excessive duties for the latter, the board has been remarkably sound. In its tariff -making, the Government and the legislature have been greatly assisted by the expert guidance given by the Tariff Board.

Charges are made from time to time about what is sometimes described as the instability of the tariff, and protests are made against alleged continual tinkering with the duties. It must be recognized that, in industrial progress, change and development are always taking place. Due to this, tariff revision is necessarily a continuous process following upon inquiries by the Tariff Board into the items calling for review from time to time. It can be safely said that, as a general rule, no tariff item is investigated by the board with consequent alteration of the rates unless the circumstances of the industry concerned justify it. Since the Prime Minister’s declaration in 1931 of the Government’s tariff policy, certain developments have occurred which have had their effect upon tariff-making. They are -

The Ottawa Agreement.
The decision to make allowance in fixing rates of duty for the protective value of exchange.
The adoption of a policy of trade treaties or agreements with good customer countries.

The Ottawa Agreement, which secured preferential treatment for all of our major exports, except wool, in the largest overseas market in the world, contributed largely to the revival of prosperity in Australia. In exchange for the preference accorded in the United Kingdom to Australian primary products, the Commonwealth agreed to the adoption of certain principles in Australian tariffmaking, and these have since been adhered to. The agreement has been in operation since the latter part of 1932, and while, generally speaking, it has operated to advantage, experience has proved the need for some revision of its terms. A review of the agreement is about to take place and, as honorable members are aware, a ministerial delegation recently left to represent the Commonwealth in connexion with such revision.

Before November, 1933, the Tariff Board made its recommendations regarding rates of duty necessary to protect Australian industries on the basis of Australian currency being at parity with sterling. Exchange, however, has quite as definite a protective effect as has a customs duty, and it is obvious that a rate of duty which would represent adequate protection with Australian currency at parity with sterling would constitute excess protection while Australian currency is depreciated as compared with sterling. In order, therefore, that the protection should not, owing to the incidence of exchange, be excessive with possible attendant evils of monopoly, uneconomic production, and unduly high prices to consumers, the Government, after obtaining an exhaustive report from the Tariff Board, decided to make, as regards the rates of duty provided on protective items under the British preferential tariff, a deduction equal to onefourth of the duty payable or one-eighth of the value for duty, whichever was the lesser. Later, a more exact way of making allowance for the protective value of exchange was evolved, and,since November, 1933, the Tariff Board, in its findings, has recommended two sets of duties, namely : -

those for present exchange con ditions, and
those which the board considers should operate if Australian currency were at parity with sterling.

The margin between the two sets of rates varies in the different tariff items according to the proportion of imported materials or Australian materials with a world parity value used in manufacture of the goods. With this system, the application of which is not confined to the British preferential tariff, there is an automatic adjustment by an increase of the rates of duty as Australian currency appreciates towards sterling. This adjustment preserves the protection to Australian industry irrespective of the relationship between Australian currency and sterling.

As the result of the adoption of a policy of trade treaties, an intermediate tariff column was reintroduced into the tariff schedule which, for some years, had two columns of rates, namely, British preferential tariff and general tariff. The object of the intermediate column is to provide a convenient avenue for expressing the level of duties which form the basis for trade treaties. The rates proposed under the protective items of the intermediate tariff express, in every case, a protective level for Australian industry as well as preserving the margins of preference to the United Kingdom required under the Ottawa Agreement. The rates under the intermediate tariff are brought into operation by proclamations from time to time, as occasion requires. Many of them have not yet been brought into force.

The rates of duty appearing in the general tariff column of the proposals represent in many cases a level midway between the Tariff Board’s (a) findings for present conditions and (b) findings for normal exchange conditions, and enable the Government to offer countries with which a trade treaty is contemplated a more favorable rate under the intermediate tariff.

The Government’s tariff policy needs no vindication from me. A preliminary estimate by the Commonwealth Statistician indicates an average employment in factories for the present financial year of 554,000. This figure exceeds by 104,000 the average number employed in factories in any year before the depression. Factory production in 1936-1937 reached £178,000,000, a record in the history of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding that pre-depression prices were on a much higher level than they are now ; and preliminary figures suggest that for 1937-1938 the figure will reach £188,000,000. Returns from trade unions indicate that unemployment is at a lower level at present than at any other period since the records were instituted. The improvement during 1937 amounted to no less than 2½ per cent., the figure now standing at 8 per cent.

That industrialists have confidence in the Government’s tariff policy is evident from the information given in the Prime Minister’s policy speech last September that a recent limited survey of 350 representative firms showed that more than £11,000,000 of capita] has been applied to extensions of established industries, that more than £3,000,000 has gone into entirely new industries, and that industries absorbing a further £10,000,000 of capital are in course of organization and will come into production at an early date.

It is possible that the marked increase which has taken place in respect of the value of imports may be attributed by some to inadequacy of tariff protection. To illustrate the fallacy of any such deduction, I would point out that the extraordinary development that is proceeding in secondary industry has one effect upon our external trade which is not fully appreciated. The mounting demand for essential raw materials and capital equipment has helped to push up our import values to a marked degree.

It is a commonplace that prosperity derived from good seasons and improved export prices - as witness our excellent trading position of last year - will inevitably react so as to stimulate imports. Such a reaction is now operating, but it is completely dwarfed by the import- stimulating effects of industrial expansion.

The most recent statistics issued by the CommonwealthBank show that the monthly average values of imports of machinery and raw materials have moved as follows : -

The combined average mouthy increase over 1936-37 in these sections alone is £A.1,1 30,000, or 50 per cent. of the total.

Of the remaining sections imports of piece goods and vehicles account in equal measure for an increased monthly average of £529,000 or 23 per cent. The remaining sections - manufactures, unclassified goods, oils and foods - combine in the order given to produce the remaining 27 per cent.

When it is remembered that the classification adopted by the Commonwealth Bank only partially segregates raw materials and capital goods, it is not too much to say that these account for about 80 per cent. of the increase of imports which has taken place during the present financial year.

We have to recognize the fact that the character of our imports has undergone, and is continuing to undergo, a profound change. Consumers’ goods are giving place to producers’ goods, and they will continue to do so in step with the further progress of secondary industry.

All this explains, but does not condone, the marked expansion of imports, which this year will be the chief factor responsible for a renewed, though certainly not extravagant, drain on our accumulated London funds. The signs so far give no real cause for anxiety. Demand for imports, and especially capital imports, will slacken as industries become established. The reaction from last year’s good export season is already almost spent.

The duties in the proposals have now been in operation long enough for their effect to be judged. Possibly some manufacturers will consider that, in the care of their goods, higher rates should have been imposed; but I know of no single instance where an Australian industry, operating economically and selling at fair prices to the public, has been detrimentally affected to any extent by the rates of duty in the proposals. If it can be definitely established in any case that the rates provided are inadequate for economic industry, I am prepared to refer the matter back to the Tariff Board for further inquiry.

I commend the schedule to the committee as representing a level of protection, which is fair to the interests of the manufacturer, the employee, and the consuming public.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- The Labour party approaches this tariff debate with the knowledge that it has not wavered one iota from the protectionist policy for which it has consistently stood for a great many years. Unlike the Govvernment, it knows definitely where it stands. Its policy is clearly and unequivocally set out in the party’s platform in these words -

Effective tariff protection of Australian industry, with measures to prevent profiteering, and to ensure industrial protection for the workers.

We believe that protection should be conditional upon those two qualifications being enforced. Owing to the limitations of the Commonwealth Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament is denied power to fix prices. At any rate, that was the decision of the High Court some years ago, but whether it would to-day give a similar decisionis a matter for conjecture.

Another plank of the Labour party’s platform even goes so far as to provide for the imposition, if necessary, of embargoes against exports to assure the home market to Australian industries capable of fully supplying the demand, subject to control of prices and of industrial condition? according to Australian standards.

The Labour party’s tariff policy has in the past been subjected to a great deal of misrepresentation. This applies particularly to the drastic measures that had to be adopted by the Scullin Government when it was faced with the two grave responsibilities of protecting Australian industries, and of rectifying our adverse

Trade balance overseas. The Scullin Government had received a definite mandate from the people to deal with those problems, and it tackled them courageously, with such good effect that much of the improvement in regard to trade, employment and improved financial position which we note to-day may be traced largely to the policy it inaugurated. Although difficulties, due to the depression, became accentuated in the first year the Scullin Government was in office, difficulties that were in no way the result of the administration or legislation of that Government, but were due to world conditions generally, a substantial improvement in regard to employment in secondary industries was nevertheless effected. In order to illustrate this, I propose to give some examples of the substantial increase of employment which took place in a number of major secondary industries even during the depths of the depression as the result of Labour’s protectionist policy. In the woollen and worsted industry employment was provided in 192S-29 for J 1,400 persons, but in .1931-32, when the depression w’as at its worst, employment, in this industryhad increased by 2,260 to 13,600. In the hosiery industry employment was provided in 1928-29 for 11,519 persons, and in 1931-32 for 12,500, an increase of approximately 1,000. In the same period employees in the cotton spinning industry increased from 950 to 1,650. Many other industries also recorded increases. For example, Australian knitting mills in 1928-29 gave employment to 11,500 persons, and in .1931-32 to 12,500. Before the introduction of the Scullin Government’s tariff manufacturers of wireless equipment were employing only a fewhundred persons; in 1931-32 there were no fewer than 2,000 employees in this important Australian industry. In the galvanized iron industry there was an increase of persons employed from 800 to 1,200, and manufacturers of dry batteries increased the personnel of their establishments from 85 to 600. I mention these facts to show that even in those years, when the depression was becoming more acute, the protectionist policy of the Scullin Government did more than arrest the tendency to greater unemployment in

Australian industries; it substantially increased employment in secondary industries which benefited from the protectionist policy. Moreover, but for the strong action taken by that Administration in increasing the duties on many items and imposing prohibitions and restrictive tariffs on others in order to lessen imports, our trade balance would have drifted to such an extent that Australia would have been compelled to default, because during the period when the Bruce-Page Government was in office our trade balance drifted by £70,000,000. As the result of the tariff policy of the Scullin Government, which involved the imposition of prohibitions, the rationing of imports, and substantial increases of duties on what may be called luxuries and goods that could be economically and efficiently manufactured in Australia, an adverse trade balance of £34,000,000 in one year was converted into a favorable trade balance of £30,000,000 two years later. Naturally the taking of such drastic action interfered with the business of certain importing interests. But strong measures had to be adopted in order to grapple with the difficulties which had been gradually becoming more serious owing to the complacency and inaction of the Bruce-Page Government, and to that Government’s collusion in active borrowing overseas to the extent of approximately £40,000,000 per annum during its last three years of office. The money came to Australia in the form not of gold, but. of imported goods which displaced the products of Australian factories and rendered it impossible for our secondary industries to expand and give increased employment to Australian workmen.

I warn the present Government against a renewal of overseas borrowing, with its resultant disadvantages to Australia. In consequence of the growth of economic nationalism in other countries, I would say to those who believe that our primary producers have everything to gain from a lower tariff, that 011 r primary producers will have to look more and more to the local market for the disposal of their products. They must realize their dependence to an increasing extent upon the people of Australia for the marketing of their goods. When we remember that nearly 560,000 people are directly employed in Australian secondary industries and are paid wages aggregating approximately £90,000,000 per annum, we must realize the tremendous importance of the local market. Excluding gold, approximately 60 per cent, of the products of the land, are consumed in Australia. The value of the local market is indicated in the latest figures compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician. Those show that in 1936-37 the total value of primary production, excluding gold, in Australia, was about £230,000,000, and the value of the market provided by Australian secondary industries was £149,000,000. Australia, being a debtor country, must export sufficient goods not only to pay for its imports but also to cover interest and other charges overseas which amount to approximately £28,00.0,000 per annum. The most recent figures relating to Australia’s trade balance show that for the ten months of the present financial year the favorable balance is £11,600,000. In order to meet our overseas commitments we require a favorable trade balance of £28,000,000, and, as only two months of the financial year remain, it is evident that the total will fall far short of the figure mentioned.

We know from bitter experience what happens when governments encourage the importation of goods that can be manufactured in this country. Before the economic depression Australia was importing £141,000,000 worth of goods per annum. More than half of these could have been economically and efficiently manufactured in Australia, and given employment to our own people. Since the present Government assumed office the trade balance has again been allowed to drift. It is frequently stated by those who wish to tear down the tariff wall that Australia is a primary producing country and must depend more upon the export of its primary products than upon its manufacturing industries. The Labour party is of the opinion that what is needed is well-balanced economic development, providing for scientific advancement, side by side, of all primary and secondary industries. The value of the output of Australian manufactures for the last five years was £1,S65,000,000, whereas the value of all classes of primary production was £1,020,000,000, or £845,000,000 less than the value of our secondary products. These figures demonstrate that Australia does not live upon its exports and that some practical consideration must be given to the further development of secondary industries. During the five-year period mentioned,, the value of Australia’s experts was £655,000,000, but the value of the raw materials used in Australian factories was £1,059,000,000, or £404,000,000 greater than the total value of exports. The aims of the tariff protection for which the Labour party stands may be divided into two classes, economic and non-economic. These may be summarized as follows : First, a country is inferior in status if it does not possess and develop industries such as are established in other advanced countries. For Australia to be mainly dependent on primary industries would be to place its people in the position of hewers of wood and drawers of water foi- the people of more favored countries. Secondly, diversity of industry and employment is indeed a social advantage, making for greater versatility and the development of various aptitudes in the population, and generally speaking, promoting a fuller and richer natural life for the people of this country. We maintain that a country should be as independent and as self-contained as possible, in order that it may be less vulnerable to the effects of any war which may disturb markets abroad. Thirdly, certain industries are specially desirable directly for armaments, or in case essential supplies should be cut off, or to promote the population of vulnerable areas, such as are to be found in the north-eastern portion of tropical Queensland.

The economic advantages of tariff protection are, briefly, these: First, protection promotes new industries and employment, and therefore additional industries and employment. Secondly, it follows that, because of the added demand for new industries, protection enlarges the home market for all industries, including the primary industries and all others that are unprotected. Thirdly, local competition and the increasing scale of production reduce prices, in many instances even below the prices of free imports. Fourthly, the tariff reduces imports, and therefore lessens the burden’ of payments overseas. I think that it must be admitted by all that the tariff also protects wages and labour conditions against the competition of low-wage countries; that it ensures greater stability in protection by promot ing industries that are not at the mercy of the seasons; and that it reduces dependence on the vagaries of foreign markets in normal times, especially in relation to staple products such as wool, butter and meat. I believe that the impact of the economic depression would have been felt to a much greater extent in Australia had it not been for the existence of secondary industries in this country. The further we develop those secondary industries, the less we shall feel the impact of any future economic depression. Professor Copland, of the Melbourne University, in his book Australia To-day, expressed himself in the following terms -

There is a belief that primary production is more important to a country than manufacturing. This is a mistaken view, and it has led to much misunderstanding concerning the contribution made by manufacturing industries to the national income and the economic prosperity of the country.

Another distinguished economist, in the person of Professor Giblin, wrote as follows in his book Australia 1930 -

It is to be expected that our future development in Australia must be chiefly by secondary industries. If we cannot succeed in efficient secondary industry, then our growth will be very small and fitful. If an attempt is made at present to extend in primary industries at the expense of secondary industries, it will bc to knock our heads against a brick wall.

Professor Giblin has never been noted in this country for being a high protectionist.

Let us consider the growth of employment in the primary and secondary industries. It will be found that in 1919 there were 440,000 persons engaged in the farming, dairying and pastoral industries, and 323,000 in the manufacturing industries. Ten years later, in 1929, the numbers were 419,000 in the primary industries, and 450,000 in the secondary industries, a decrease of 25,000 in the primary industries and an increase of 127,000 in the secondary industries. Take the figures for 1937, the latest for which statistics are available. They show that 449,000 persons were then engaged in the farming, dairying and pastoral industries, and 493,000 in the manufacturing industries - 44,000 more in the secondary industries than in the farming, dairying and pastoral industries. The falling off of employment in primary production from 1919 to 1929 was due in large measure to laboursaving machinery in the wheat industry and other primary industries. No doubt labour-saving machinery has been installed also from time to time in our factories, but for which the increased volume of employment which the secondary industries provide would have been very much greater than it has been.

I believe that we have reached the stage in connexion with our tariff policy where, to a great extent, the economic future of Australia lies in the balance. Australia to-day is at the cross roads. Many manufacturers say they would embark on further development hut for the uncertainty of the future. The Hon. F. P. Kneeshaw, M.L.C., ex-President of the Australian Chamber of Manufactures, speaking in Sydney on the 17th August, 1937, at the annual conference of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures, had this to say -

In fact, the numerous reductions in protective tariffs have been the cause of much harassment in industry and have detracted from the further development that would have been possible in some industries had not their competitive capacity been worsened by the tariff changes to which I refer.

I think it is pretty well known that in politics, Mr. Kneeshaw is a very prominent member of the Nationalist party. It cannot be said that he was speaking as a representative of Labour, or of any body that is biased against the policy of the present Federal Government. A very prominent member of another chamber, Senator Leckie, in the course of remarks concerning the claim that the reductions of duties brought in by the present Government had increased the number of employees in the secondary industries of Australia, said -

As one instance of the sort of thing that creates derision, 1 refer to Hie claim made by the Ministry that its tarin* policy is responsible for the large increase in the number of employees in the factories. Could any claim be more childish? The claim is so ridiculous Hutt it create* derisive laughter in the minds of all who know anything of industry. Tariff protection has boon reduced by the present < Government, and therefore the Government’s fiscal policy could not. have contributed to increased factory employment.

That statement was made by Senator Leckie, a Nationalist representative from Victoria.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– They should muzzle bini.

Mr FORDE:

– He is very outspoken, and I admire him for his outspokenness, particularly in view of the fact that he is the father-in-law of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies). lie made that statement as recently as the 23rd June, 1937. So much for the contention of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), and other representatives of the Government, that the increase of employment in the factories of Australia has been due to the present Government’s policy of reducing duties. In the aggregate, this Government has reduced duties on approximately 2,000 items and subitems of the tariff.

Another aspect of this Government’s tariff policy is revealed in the obnoxious clauses of the Ottawa Agreement, the subjugation of the parliamentary control of our fiscal policy to the Tariff Board, trade diversion, and the like, which have left manufacturers in a state of uncertainty as to the future, and have inflicted tremendous losses on a large number of our primary producers, notably the woolgrowers of Australia. In the opposite direction lies Australia’s safety. First, the deletion of clauses 9 to 13 of the Ottawa Agreement; secondly, Parliament to have complete, power in dealing with tariff matters, and not to hand over its powers to a Tariff Board created by Parliament. In the opinion of honorable members who sit on this side of the House, the Tariff Board should revert to the position of- an advisory committee. Thirdly, there should be recognition of Australia’s right to develop fully its secondary industries by means of effective tariff protection, so as to enable those manufacturers who are prepared to invest their capital in Australia to produce goods that were formerly imported, observing Australian standards of wages and conditions of employment without fear of losing the whole of their investment due to a withdrawal of the tariff protection, and without a feeling of insecurity as to the future. That feeling of insecurity in regard to the continuity of a tariff policy renders it impracticable for many of the major secondary industries of Australia to develop to-day. The claim of the Government that the secondary industries have flourished and not suffered, and that employment in factories has increased as the result of reductions of duties, is so much political balderdash that would not convince even Senator Leckie. Industries have progressed in this country, not on acount of any of the reductions of duty made by the Government but despite them and mostly on account of the improvement of world conditions generally. How can the Government say that reductions of the tariff will not adversely affect secondary industries, when the whole purpose of such reductions is to allow goods produced outside of Australia to enter this country and thereby diminish the sales of Australian goods ?

Articles 9 to 13 of the Ottawa Agreement were specifically designed to allow British manufacturers to capture portion of the Australian trade, and. that they have done so is shown by the huge increase of Australian imports from Great Britain during the last six years. I do not blame the Tariff Board for the inquisitorial nature of the inquiries it has conducted into a number of Australian industries, for, undoubtedly, the Ottawa Agreement cut right across the protectionist policy of this country. We were, in fact, asked to review the degree of protection that was being accorded to a number of our industries. Certain articles of the Ottawa Agreement definitely stated that overseas manufacturers must be given equal opportunity with Australian manufacturers to compete for the Australian trade, and the Tariff Board had no option but to recommend reductions of duties to make this possible.

Australian imports from Great Britain in 1931-32 were valued at £17,400,000. By 3936-37, the value of them had increased by about £21,000,000 to £38,500,000. That shows a ‘ marked increase. The Government has announced that, since the ratification of the Ottawa Agreement, duties have been reduced on 1,200 items under the British preferential tariff and on 687 items under the general tariff, making a total of 1,8S7 reductions. Nothing in the Government’s fiscal polley gives ns any guarantee that effective protection will be accorded to our industries in the future. .Just nt present, British manufacturers fire not fighting for our trade as hard as they were doing some little time ago. This is undoubtedly because they arc more busily engaged than formerly in fulfilling orders placed with them by the British Government for defence equipment. The great rush to construct armaments has kept the factories of Great Britain fully engaged, and they have not been able to sharpen their pencils, as it were, and get busy in an endeavour to secure a greater proportion of Australian trade. This, however, is probably a temporary circumstance. When the already-placed orders for defence equipment have been fulfilled, no doubt the British manufacturers will again turn to Australia and seek to gain a stronger footing on our market. This will, obviously, be to the detriment of our industries. It will then be realized how subversive to our own interests the Government’s fiscal policy really is. It will be found then, that many Australian industries, which so far have been able to retain the major portion of our home market, are actually vulnerable to attack by overseas manufacturers. The Queensland Chamber of Manufacturers voiced this fear last year when, according to a report published in the Courier-Mail of the 25th April, it eta tedWhen there is a cessation of the intense concentration of Armament production which has prevented the export of many types of manufacture!) to Australia, many of our industries will, owing to the reduced tariff, be placed in a parlous position.

The undesirable effect of the huge increase of imports that has occurred in the last six years cannot be viewed with equanimity. Even under existing conditions, the expansion of a number of major industries in Australia has been seriously limited because of uncertainty of the future. On the one hand, the Government asks the people of Australia, and also people abroad, to invest their money in local industries, but, on the other hand, it declines to assure such industries of adequate protection on the Australian market. If investors were assured that no drastic change would be made in our fiscal policy, and if manufacturers were confident that no dislocating variations of our protective duties would be made, progress in both the primary and secondary industries of Australia would hp greatly accelerated.

Early this year a Sydney manufacturer stated that if our protective du tic*” were stabilized for five years, many new industries would be established in Australia. It is common knowledge that many manufacturers are unwilling to extend their operations because the Government’s policy obliges thom to observe a policy of caution. Tariff stability is, therefore, an urgent necessity. The national interests demand nothing less than this, but tariff stability can never be accomplished as long as Parliament is denied complete control of the tariff, and the iniquitous Articles 9 to 13 of the Ottawa Agreement remain in force to make it impossible for Parliament to increase duties until recommended to do so by the Tariff Board, which is. itself, a creation of the Parliament.

The conference of the Australian Natives Association, held in March of this year, expressed the opinion that -

Any agreement which perpetuates the tragic position of Australia being deprived of her complete tariff policy autonomy, cannot possibly he tolerated. Minus complete autonomy, national status is obviously meaningless.

This declaration, which supports the view that I am stating, was published in the Melbourne Age on the 4th March last. There is no denying the accuracy of the view enunciated by the Australian Natives Association. Even the present Prime Minister, in a policy speech which he delivered in 1931, admitted the truth of my contention that full tariff-making powers should be preserved for the Parliament, for he said -

We do not believe it possible to remove tariff-making from Parliament.

The question now is whether the right honorable gentleman is prepared to take steps to restore such power to this Parliament, and to make the Tariff Board an advisory body as Mr. Massy-Greene intended it to be when he introduced the original tariff board bill in 1921.

At the annual meeting of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures held last year, Mr. M. T. Eady said -

The council was convinced that the existing tariff protection was so finely cut that any slight change in the general economic conditions would, be followed by importations, with serious results to local secondary industries, and for that reason it pressed strongly for an amendment of the Ottawa agreement.

There can be no denying this view, in corroboration of which I direct attention to the following resolution of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia at its last conference : -

That this annual meeting of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia records its appreciation of the Prime Minister’s statement that -

notice seeking a review of the Ottawa agreement will be given, probably before the next election; and

all interests, commercial and industrial, will be consulted before any changes are made; and at the same time draws the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the urgency of the matter and requests that the revised agreement provide specifically that -

The Commonwealth Parliament is the final arbiter as to the rates of duties to be imposed.

Recognition of the principle that British manufacturers be given preference in the Australian market over foreign competitors doesnot mean that Australian secondary industries shall not be adequately protected against competition from the United Kingdom.

Australia’s future prosperity will depend, in my opinion, upon the extent to which local production will take the place of imported articles. The Government should take steps to ensure the development, on a scientific basis, of both primary and secondary industries. These must be developed side by side. As the representative of a very large primaryproducing electorate, I am cognizant of the fact that primary producers have to depend more and more upon the development of the local market.

The Director of the International Labour Office at Geneva, in his 1937 report, points out that -

All the great importing countries in Europe have been raising obstacles to the entry of foodstuffs from abroad and show little tendency to lower them.

With a limited world market for our primary products, the importance of our home market becomes more apparent. By the expansion of secondary industries a greater home market will be developed. Unfortunately, the Government now in office includes honorable members with low tariff tendencies and even honorable members with an avowed free-trade outlook. I do not intend to recount the utterances of all the honorable members of the conglomeration of divergent fiscal views which sits on the front bench, but I feel that I must refer to a statement made by the present Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) in 1931. No one will deny that that honorable gentleman is very outspoken. He says what he thinks. I ask him now whether he will stand up to this statement that he made in 1931 -

As a straight out freetrader, I believe in buying in the cheapest market. It does not matter to me where the article is made so long as it serves the purpose for which I want it.

Does the honorable gentleman still subscribe to that doctrine, or has he changed his outlook?

Mr Gregory:

– Who made that statement?

Mr FORDE:

– The Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron), a prominent member of the Country party. I know that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) has been very consistent in his tariff outlook. I recall one occasion travelling in Western Australia with the honorable member when we were fellow members of a royal commission. He invited his colleagues to visitNortham, a very important centre in his electorate. I met a number of the honorable member’s constituents at that time, and I discovered that he had educated them in his own fiscal outlook. He has consistently advocated low tariffs and even free trade.

What I want to know now is whether the Assistant Minister for Commerce still considers that he is entitled to buy in the cheapest market on a freetrade basis, or does he want to hedge on that statement? I shall be interested to ascertainby what circumlocutory methods of reasoning he will be able to explain away that view and advocate the policy for which this Government asserts that it stands. W as it his f reetrade advocacy that caused him to be included in the composite ministry on the nomination of the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) who, I understand, refused to his party the right to select its representatives in the Ministry? No doubt the right honorable gentleman remembered quite well the definite announcement of his colleague, that he was a straight-out freetrader, and said: “ Here is an opportunity to get a leavening of freetrade outlook in a Government which has already reduced 2,000 items and sub-items of the tariff; we want to accelerate the speed at which it knocks down the tariff walls.”

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

– And undermines the policy of protection.

Mr FORDE:

– That is so. We know that a straight-out protectionist policy cannot be expected from a Government made up of Ministers holding these divergent views on protection and freetrade. The Prime Minister himself, in advising the electors of Indi to vote against the Country party candidate four years ago, said -

Dr. Earle Page urges that all tariff duties should be taken back to the 1921-1928 level, and that Australia should abandon the making of capital goods and centre upon consumption goods. I doubt whether Dr. Earle Page can be really in earnest in this proposal.

Let us look at the fantasy of Dr. Earle Page’s policy.

The immediate effect of it would be to close the two great iron and steel works of Australia. Then all the engineering works such as the great railway workshops at Newport, Victoria, and Newtown, New South Wales, would automatically be put out of business.

Taking the workers and their families, hundreds of thousands would overnight lose their sustenance and cease to become consumers of primary produce.

That was the opinion then of the Leader of the Nationalist party in regard to the low tariff advocacy of the Leader of the Country party before those two parties contracted a political marriage of convenience. It was no surprise to me to find that the Leader of the Country party when questioned in regard to his fiscal views, at a conference of that party at Wagga, said -

I have been able to get Mr. Lyons to accept my viewpoint on tariff policy.

The Prime Minister, who had formerly heaped sarcasm and ridicule on the Country party and its tariff policy, afterwards took some of the members of that party into the composite ministry, and is it any wonder that to-day there is a feeling of anxiety and apprehension among the manufacturers of Australia as to how far they will be able to trust a Government made up of low tariffists, and even avowed freetraders, like the Assistant Minister for Commerce, who because of his low tariff tendencies was taken to the bosom of the right honorable member for Cowper? I appeal to those representatives of the Country party who decry the protection of secondary industries, to realize that Australia does a great deal to protect the primary industries also. For the five years 1931-1932 to 1936-1937, Commonwealth provision from revenue and loan for relief and other forms of assistance to primary producers amounted to £19,000,000, to which must be added £12,000,000 which will be allocated, we are told, for the adjustment of rural debts; these two amounts total £31,000,000. Then there is the community’s contribution in added domestic prices through the operation of price stabilization schemes, such as those applying to butter, dried fruits and sugar; this contribution, according to the Prime Minister, when speaking at the Sydney Show of 1936, amounted to approximately £5,500,000 a year or £33,000,000 for the six years. I do not criticize assistance to Australian primary producers to secure home-consumption prices for their products, based on cost of production, and intended to assure a reasonable return on capital invested and the labour employed. The Labour party stands for that, but I do deprecate the one-eyed outlook of the freetrader who claims a home consumption price for what he sells on the Australian market, and, at the same time, wants to buy his goods iii the cheapest markets of the world, as was demanded by the Assistant Minister for Commerce in 1931.

We find that exchange benefits to the exporters of primary produce for the five years, 1932-33 to 1936-37, amounted to, for butter, £8,700,000; for wool, £39,900,000; and for wheat, £.14,300,000. In five years, therefore, currency depreciation gave butter, wool and wheat nearly £63,000,000 greater value in Australian currency than would have been its value expressed in sterling. This applies to all exports to-day. Against this, we find that the extra cost to Australian governments as the result of adverse exchange rates for the seven years 1930-31 to 1936-37, amounted to no less than £42,500,000. These figures speak volumes; they show clearly that tlie Australian public has contributed generously to the assistance of our primary industries. This record should be borne in mind by those who are continually protesting against what they term excess costs owing to adequate protection being afforded to secondary industries.

I wish now to say a few words in regard to the Ottawa Agreement. In a speech last year, the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) referred to the increased sales of our primary products since the signing of that, agreement. To a very great extent, these increased sales to the United Kingdom have ref tilted, not from the Ottawa Agreement, but from improved economic conditions throughout the world, and from the great revival of industry in Great Britain, which has enabled it to increase its imports of primary products from all countries. Speaking in the Senate on the 29th April, 3936, Senator Leckie very clearly set out his views in regard to this when he said -

To my mind, tlie benefits which hove accrued to Australia as tlie result of that agreement appear to have been rather exaggerated. Such benefits have never been stated definitely in figures. We have heard vague statements as to the benefit* that have accrued under the agreement to the producers of Australia, but some of those benefits arc imaginary.

That bears out the views of honorable members on this side of the House.

Mr GREGORY:

– Was he then president of the Cham’ber of Manufactures?

Mr FORDE:

– Definitely no; all I know is that he is a nationalist senator and the father-in-law of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Menzies). In 1932, Australia exported 24,100,000 bushels of wheat to the United Kingdom, representing 22.8 per cent, of Great Britain’s total, imports of wheat; in 1937, it exported. 22,400,000 bushels, representing 23.1 per cent, of Great Britain’s imports. In 1935, Australia’s exports of wheat to. Great Britain dropped to 17,600,000’ bushels, or 17.5 per cent, of Great Britain’s total imports, whereas Great Britain increased its imports from foreign countries from 34,600,000 bushels, in 1932, or 32.S per cent, of its total imports, to 45,900,000 bushels in 1935, representing 45.9 per cent, of its total imports. Yet wheat was one of the items included in the Ottawa Agreement. In 1932, Great Britain’s purchases of butter from Australia amounted to 1,790,000’ cwt, or 21.5 per cent, of a total of 8,300,000 cwt. In 1937, its imports from Australia amounted to 1,490,000 cwt., or 15.8 per cent, of a total of 9,400,000 cwt. Thus, imports from Australia decreased by 300,000 cwt., or 5.7 per cent, of Great Britain’s total imports. These figures show that, although Great Britain’s purchases of butter have increased, both the quantity of imports from Australia and their percentage to total imports have decreased considerably. The same may be said in regard to barley. Let it be clearly understood that I fully realize the importance of the British market to Australia, just as I realize the advantage of reciprocal trade within the British Commonwealth of Nations, with due regard to the necessity for developing our own secondary industries. The Ottawa Agreement has not been wholly responsible for the increase of exports from Australia, and is no excuse for retaining those obnoxious clauses 9 to 13, which jeopardize our secondary industries, or for preventing Parliament from adopting its proper role of sole arbiter of tariff matters. [Leave to continue given.] The Oversea Trade Bulletin for 1937 shows that last year Great Britain took 4S.79 per cent, of Australia’s exports, as compared with 56.26 per cent, two years earlier, while exports to the remainder of the Empire were 10.61 per cent. of the total, as compared with 9.78 per cent. two years ago. Thus, the Empire market in the last two years has declined from 66.04 per cent. to 59.4 per cent. of Australia’s total overseas markets. The figures in regard to wine show that in 1937 Great Britain obtained 19.7 per cent. of its imports from Australia, whereas for 1932 24.4 per cent. of its total imports were from Australia.

When the Government introduced its trade diversion policy in 1936 Ministers claimed to be acting courageously. They regarded it as a first step of a considered policy to place our overseas finances on a sound and enduring basis. We were told that it would completely restore confidence in Australia in theminds of investors overseas, with the result that this country would experience no difficulty in obtaining all its loan requirements. We are accustomed to such well-rounded phrases from the Government,but in due course most of them prove to have been meaningless. So sound is our position overseas to-day that 66 per cent of the £7,000,000 loan floated in Loudon recently bus been left with the underwriters. Moreover, a large amount of the funds held in London will have to be made available to meet our commitments there, since the trade balance for the last ten months is only £11,600,000 in our favour, whereas £28,000,000 is needed to meet interest and other loan charges. Now, after much damage has been done to Australian primary industries, the Government has been forced to accept the view expressed by members onthis side of the House when the trade diversion policy was inaugurated. I direct the attention of honorable members to the following statement in the “Brown Book” entitled The Record of the Lyons Government, which was issued by the Government during the last election campaign

Mr. Curtin in his book gives further currency to the untruth that because of the absence of the Japanese wool buyers from the sales in the latter half of last year the Australian grower lost millions.

The statement continued -

The charge that the Australian wool industry suffered great losses because of the dispute has no support from any informed quarter.

That is a sample of the propaganda issued by the Government. In reply to it, I shall quote, first, some remarks by the President of the Graziers Association of New South Wales, Mr. J. P. Abbott, who, in an address which was broadcast in June, 1936, said -

If Japan, because of Australia’s new tariff, reduced her purchase of Australian wool by 50 per cent. it would mean a loss of £6,000,000 a year to Australia.

There was widespread indignation among the graziers of Australia at the blundering associated with the trade diversion policy and the methods and procedure adopted in bringing it into operation. Australia lost Japan s wool trade and has not completely recaptured it. In order to show how adversely the Government’s proposals affected Australia’s trade with Japan. 1 point out that whereas exports from Australia to Japan for the year ended June, 1936, were valued at £17,600,000 in Australian currency, their value fell to £539,000 in the six months June to December, 1936. For the corresponding six months of the previous year they were valued at £8,000,000. The significance of those figures was explained in theRockhampton Morning Bulletin of the 28th September, 1936 -

To anyone not interested in the pastoral industry these figures may not convey very much, but to each grower they are often the difference between progress and retrogression, and to Australia with its wool clip of about 3,000,000bales it signifies a loss of £7,500.000.

Honorable members who have studied this subject know that when the dispute with Japan was eventually settled, that country was able to restrict its imports of wool from Australia to such an extent that reliable wool brokers estimate that Australian wool-growers lost £5,000,000 per an num.

I shall not trespass further on the generosity of the committee, but in conclusion I express the hope that the Government will endeavour to pursue a consistent protectionist policy for Australia, and will not allow itself to be influenced by importing and free-trade interests. I realize that a Cabinet which includes hardened freetraders like the Assistant Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) must often find itself on the horns of a dilemma. How can we expect adequate protection to be given to Australian industries by a government comprising freetraders and low tariffists as well as men who would in one fell swoop reduce the Australian tariff to the level at which it stood between 3921 and 1928. Other Government supporters claim to be reasonable protectionists. They profess to stand for scientific protection, but the policy which they really advocate is one which will permit goods to be imported from other countries in competition with well-managed and scientifically conducted Australian factories to the detriment of the 50,000 boys and girls who leave Australian schools every year and seek employment, some of them unsuccessfully. If those young people are to be absorbed in. industry, as they have a right to expect, their opportunity will be provided principally by secondary industries. Eventually, the Government had to abandon its trade diversion policy, which resulted in the loss of millions of pounds to the primary producers of Australia, because of the chaos that it created. I now ask the Government to exclude from any future agreement which it may make the iniquitous sections 9 to 13 of the Ottawa Agreement, so that the Tariff Board may be placed in its rightful position as an advisor to this Parliament, instead of being, as it now is, superior to this Parliament in the fixing of tariff duties. The future development of Australia, and the growth of its population depend on the scientific development of our primary and secondary industries side by side.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I was glad to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) stress the need for a reasonable and scientific tariff. Such a pronouncement from him is, in the light of his record as Minister for Trade and Customs, highly amusing. The Tariff Board Act provides that the Minister may not impose duties until after the receipt of a report by the Tariff Board, but various governments have acted in defiance of that legislation. The most flagrant disregard of the enactment was the action of the Scullin Government in increasing the duties on- numbers of articles by 100 per cent., and, in some instances, by even 300 per cent.

Mr Mahoney:

– That was necessary to safeguard the finances of Australia.

Mr GREGORY:

– I am merely relating facts, but if our finances were in danger through excess of imports, that problem should have been dealt with by raising the exchange. [Quorum formed.] It would appear that the one aim of the Scullin Government was to honour a pledge given to manufacturers prior to the elections, that the Labour party would impose prohibitive duties if it were placed in power. Unfortunately, that Government was not alone in disregarding the provisions of the Tariff Board Act. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the trade diversion policy of the present Government was unwise. It is remarkable that the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett.) who so vigorously denounced such a policy when in opposition should have been its protagonist when a change of-government took place. In adition to causing losses to Australian producers, that policy caused strained relations with other countries.

I do not desire to discuss at length the relative merits of freetrade and protection, but honorable members who would understand them would do well to study Coghlan’s statistics for the years prior to federation. It will be remembered that whereas Victoria had a heavy protective tariff, New South Wales followed a freetrade policy. I well remember reading in 1890, reports of public meetings convened to discuss the prevalence of sweating in Victorian factories and of most degrading destitution among the workers of that State under the policy of protection in operation there. Between 1886 and 1900, under a policy of freetrade. manufacturing industries in New South Wales made greater progress and employed more persons than did similar industries in protectionist Victoria in 1900. Moreover, the conditions of employment in Now South Wales were superior.

In view of the conditions existing throughout, the world to-day it would be most impolitic to adopt a policy of freetrade, even if it were possible to do so. We must have regard to the injury which such a policy would do to existing industries, some of which should not have been established in this country. I well remember that the general manager of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited said publicly in 1913, that his company desired no protective duties, bounties, or other form of assistance from governments. He said that if the company could not compete with the rest of the world without a duty it would not commence the production of steel. Possessing as it does a huge coal deposit adjacent to its smelting plant, and perhaps the largest deposit of iron ore in the world, it should, even allowing for different industrial conditions, be able to compete successfully with overseas manufacturers without the assistance of high duties. From 1920 onwards there has been an almost continuous demand by manufacturers for increased duties on certain products which form the raw material of other manufacturers, and this has resulted in the cost of commodities being increased to an alarming extent. I hardly like to imagine that conditions in Australia are as bad as they are in the United States of America; but it is interesting to note that Mr. F. W. Page, who for many years was the Chairman of the Tariff Board in that country, stated -

Lying campaign contributions, expensive and misleading propaganda, costly and expert lobbying, astute distortion of evidence and consideration enjoyed by men in control of government affairs are among the means at the disposal of “ big business “ for securing duties needlessly high. And the power to divert the effects of the law is as important as the power to make it. The more monopolistic a business may be, the more completely is it able to dictate the prices the consumer must pay and producers must receive for the raw material. This obvious advantage explains why the United States tariff has been called tho mother of trusts.

We know that such things are done. I recall receiving a letter from a Melbourne manufacturer of nails and barbed wire who was compelled to purchase his raw materials from Lysaght Limited or Bylands Limited, who complained that the suppliers were dumping these goods at a price below cost; hp. added that they insisted upon doing that unless he would undertake to refrain from selling his goods in New South Wales and Queensland and raise his prices by £6 a ton. When I brought the complaint to the notice of the Minister for Trade and

Customs, who referred the matter to the Tariff Board, I was informed that he had withdrawn this charge of restraint of trade from the Tariff Board as the complainant had withdrawn his charges from the manufacturers of the rods. I have in my possession a printed price list supplied by those two firms, showing that they fix not only the wholesale prices but also the retail prices of fencing wire and wire netting. Some time ago I showed that the prices of wire netting, barbed wire and fencing wire in South Africa were. 33 per cent, lower than in Australia because of the duties imposed here. Undoubtedly a cartel in Australia is operating to the detriment of the users of these and other commodities. I also received a letter from a Belgian manufacturer to the effect that he could not quote for wire netting and other similar goods because the Australian trade had already been apportioned. It is worthy of note that Lord Dudley is now in the United States of America urging the iron and steel industries of that country to join in the British and continental cartel. There may be monopolies that by efficient organization can keep down prices and so benefit the community, but that is not the policy of those concerned in the manufacture of the goods I have mentioned. We know perfectly well that the international situation is unsettled and that trade barriers lead to unfriendly relations and eventually may cause major disputes. In these circumstances we naturally ask why unnecessary restrictions should be placed upon trade. Although the trade diversion policy introduced some time ago must have cost this country millions of pounds, which was borne wholly by our export pro’ducers, the manufacturers did not lose. Under our present policy we are asking the primary producers of Australia to provide sufficient funds in London to enable manufacturers to purchase their raw materials on favorable terms. Fully 33 per cent, of our imports are admitted duty free under licence. We are so surrounded with tariffs, cartels and secret agreements that production costs are enormously increased and the primary producers who have to take the risk and responsibility of producing tlie nation’s wealth are the greatest sufferers. Even before the adoption of the Ottawa Agreement preference was given to Great Britain. I believe in giving preference to British goods, but not to the extent of practically imposing an embargo against foreign goods. In pre-war days, because of the immense area of the British Empire, or because of the fact that it contained one-fourth of the. people of the world, there were few complaints; also trade was reasonably free and there were few difficulties in obtaining the essential raw materials. “With a moderate British preference of 10 per cent, to 15 per cent, and a duty of 25 per cent, to 30 per cent, on foreign goods, trade should, flow freely without detriment to Australian manufacturers or offence to foreign countries. Wire netting of British manufacture is admitted duty free, but a duty of £10 a ton is imposed on imports from foreign countries. It appears that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company is now acting in conjunction with overseas steel interests because, whereas formerly New ‘Zealand purchasers were getting supplies at the same rate of discount as users in South Africa, now, owing to some secret arrangement, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company is able to get the New Zealand trade against foreign competition. .Some years ago when prices of barbed wire in Australia were high, imports were being received from New York at a cost of £12 a ton whereupon a duty of £9 a ton was imposed to enable the Australasian makers to exploit the farmer. Is it fair to impose unnecessarily high duties on barbed wire, fencing wire and wire netting - commodities which are so essential to those who are developing our outback country. Moreover, the duty on rails imported from Great Britain is 45s. a ton, whereas on foreign importations it is 125s. a ton. The duty on fencing wire imported from Great Britain is 52s. a ton, and on foreign importations £6 a ton. Unnecessarily high duties nor only interfere with trade, but also create resentment in other countries; such provocation should be avoided, particularly when efforts are being made to promote a better understanding between nations. Under the protectionist policy adopted shortly after the inception of federation, industries were established on a sound basis, and prior to 1920, complaints were not made by those engaged in agricultural pursuits or any other sections of the community. There were, of course, a few persons who were imbued with the idea that freetrade was essential for the development of the country, whilst another section was equally insistent on the merits of high protection. The reports of the Inter-State Commission show that that body favoured the imposition of moderate duties, under which, it was contended, it would be possible to build up industries on an economic basis. But after 1920 a section of the community became imbued with the idea that in consequence of the war and its effects upon the community heavier duties should be imposed in order to assist Australian industries. The Bruce-Page Government, with the assistance of some members of the Country party, continued to increase duties, but the debacle took place when the Labour party came into power and introduced those prohibitive duties which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition described to-day as “ reasonable and scientific protection.” The Labour party’s tariff schedules were prepared without reference to the Tariff Board or head officials of the Customs Department.

Mr FORDE:

– In no instance were duties increased without consultation with leading officials of the Customs Department.

Mr GREGORY:

– I cannot believe that the officials of that department recommended the imposition of duties ranging from 100 per cent, to 300 per cent, upon clothing. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will refer to the report of the commission appointed by the Bruce-Page Government, to inquire into the incidence of the Australian tariff, he will find that the duties imposed in respect of clothing, prior to the increases imposed by the Labour party, were £600,000 higher than the salaries and wages paid in the clothing industry. In the rubber industry salaries and wages -amounted to £1,300,000. whereas duties, had the goods beer imported, would have amounted to £2,100,000.

Mr Forde:

– Before prohibitions and restrictive duties were imposed to rectify the adverse trade balance, the Tariff Board was consulted at length by Cabinet.

Mr GREGORY:

– Duties on clothing were increased by up to 300 per cent, without any investigation. The duties on rivets, bolts, screws and other similar goods were increased to such an extent that one would imagine that they were of gold and not of steel or copper. It was done without inquiry or investigation and, undoubtedly, at the behest of the manufacturers.

Little should be done in tariff making to give offence to other countries. A great deal of the trouble that threatens the world to-day is due to economic nationalism, which has resulted in countries not being able to find markets for their goods. Recently, the Executive made regulations to restrict migration to Australia from certain foreign countries. Italy and Germany have ever-increasing populations, and the result of our policyis that not only do we not allow the people of those countries entry into this country, which has an area equal to that of the United States of America and supports about 7,000,000 people instead of the 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 that it could support, but, also, by putting tremendous imposts on their goods, we refuse to trade with them. What must be the natural result of such a policy? The publication from which I have already quoted says -

Nations, like men. need a fair share of the earth’s natural resources. It is the better part of wisdom if these resources are held readily available through the peaceful channels of trade. All nations find themselves in need of natural elements they do not themselves possess, and in need similarly of markets for their own industrial or agricultural output. If we could see a general adjustment of excessive barriers that shut off materials and markets from peaceful acquisition to-day, the imminent danger which confronts the world would be materially lessened, for the right to buy and Bell freely is a right that all nations would welcome, and there is not one among them that would not choose this peaceful method of raising their living standards to the suicidal method of attempted conquest.

The nations of the world will not fight for the things they need if they can get these things through the peaceful pursuit of trade. If the legitimate channels of commerce remain reasonably open to them, we can hope that the world’s merchants will remain merchants, and not, perforce, become privateers. But let these channels be closed, let man be denied the fruits of plenty by a policy of isolationism at home or abroad and he will turn to force in the last desperate attempt to achieve his end.

That principle applies to-day. We should be ever so much more careful in our relations with other countries than we have been. The tariff restrictions that were imposed in 1935 not only did grave injury to our own producers, but also imperilled our relations with other countries by creating irritation, jealousy and resentment. I have previously drawn the attention of the committee to the statement made by the chairman of the Tariff Commission in the United States of of America, Mr. Page, that raising the tariff wall leads to all sorts of corrupt practices. By restrictive quotas and ministerial patronage, we have opened the door wide for similar practices. In 1935, we imposed what was virtually an embargo against the importation of foreign motor chassis. I do not blame the Minister himself for what followed - after all, the Government must take responsibility for policy - but the result has been that officials of the Customs Department fix the quota for the different importers for each year on the basis of the importations of the previous year. The developments that are taking place in the motor car industry make this the wrong basts for assessing requirements. I have received letters from importers who desire to import larger consignments of motor chassis than they imported last year, when they did very little trade. In many instances, the smaller trade that they did last year was due to the fact that they were preparing for a campaign this year. The quota operates to prevent them from importing larger numbers., whereas other firms who were operating at full strength last year are not hampered in any way. That is not fair trading, and it is .bound to create an unfortunate impression overseas. I do not expect much from the Government at the present time, but I believe that, in the very near future, it will find how essential it is that all countries should come together and endeavour to promote peaceful trade.

Another aspect of the existing tariff policy is the disadvantage that it imposes upon Western Australia. The home market in that State is very small, but the farmers have to accept world prices for their goods; on the other hand, for their purchases, they have to pay not only the prices fixed by the manufacturers in Victoria and New South Wales, but also freights,’ which are equal to the freight charges on goods carried to the State from Great Britain or the United States of America. That is a scandal. Some years ago, I had a return prepared which showed that the cost of developing a 1,000 acre farm in 1913 was £2,600 as against £4,400 in 1930-31. The tremendous increase is due to the continual growth of the cost of wages, materials, and the like, as the result of the protectionist policy which has built up in the eastern States wonderful cities - of which we are proud - at the expense of the agricultural communities in the other States. In order to give to Western Australia a chance to develop its huge area and to obviate the complaints that are continually voiced to-day, its people should be able to import their requirements on a low tariff basis. I want to see that great State developed and the people who go upon the land have some chance of making good. With the low returns and big costs, they have been in difficulties for a number of years, and every addition to their costs magnifies their troubles. The high tariff policy of the Australian Labour party contrasts with the policy of the Labour party in the United Kingdom, where Labour men are out and out free traders.

Opposition members dissenting.

Mr GREGORY:

– They are at least “ low-tariffists “. I point out to honorable members of the Opposition that wages do not always follow prices, and, no doubt, the worker earning £5 a week to-day is not so well off as was the man who was receiving £2 10s. a week before the war. It is questionable whether, in view of the increased cost of living, the worker has derived any advantage from nominally higher wages.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- Unlike the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) who is an out and out free trader, I believe in protecting local industry. During the last two years this Government has made a terrible hash of the tariff. There is no question that the trade diversion policy hampered industry in every city of the Commonwealth. As an example of that I cite a Sydney firm, of motor car importers. The quota was based on the firm’s imports during a period of depression; and is so low to-day that the business can hardly be carried on. The firm handles particularly the Packard car; this is a highly priced product, and was not much in demand during the depression, but following the economic recovery, the demand for it to-day is much greater than can be supplied within the restricted quota. The Labour party is in favour of protecting Australian industries, particularly those that produce their goods under favorable conditions. I had an opportunity of inspecting the Ford factory in Geelong last year, and the organization for the manufacture and assembly of cars was a revelation to me. After witnessing the speeding-up method that that factory employs I hope that it will be the last factory of its kind to be established in Australia. I was struck by the fact that there were scarcely any men of more than 40 years of age at work. When speaking to the manager in his office later I mentioned this matter to him, and asked him the reason. He replied “We do not keep them.” They are put on the scrap heap and left to depend on the invalid and old-age pension.

Mr GREGORY:

– When I went through the Ford factory I saw at work many men older than 40.

Mr MULCAHY:

– I inspected the factory a week after the honorable member did, and the manager told me that members of the Country party who had inspected it had been quite satisfied. More than 4,000 men are employed in that factory, but one can scarcely find one who is more than 40 years of age. The speeding-up methods employed by some of the American firms engaged in the manufacture and assembly of motor car bodies should not be allowed in Australia. I mention this matter so that honorable members may take an opportunity to inspect the factory and ascertain for themselves the truth of what I have said.

When the Government imposed a quota on American cars we were informed by the then Minister in charge of trade treaties (Sir Henry Gullett) that motor cars would be manufactured in Australia within six months. That was from twelve to eighteen months ago; so far not one car has been manufactured in Australia, and I do not think that the Government ever intended to give encouragement to that industry. When statements are made in this Parliament by responsible Ministers they should not be made with the object of misleading honorable members into casting a vote that may do great damage to Australia. When I first entered this Parliament, I believed a Minister’s statement could be relied upon, but my faith has been shattered by the misleading statement that the manufacture of motor cars in this country would take place within six months, whereas there was really no expectation of any such development.

I remind the honorable member for Swan that the Labour party in Great. Britain and the Labour party in Australia are faced with different circumstances. I do not know what the tariff policy of the Labour party in the British Parliament is, and I am not concerned with it, but I am concerned with the policy of the Australian Labour party, which, I am satisfied, is the only policy from which the manufacturers of this country and the people generally can expect any benefit. I have listened to the honorable member for Swan speaking in this House on numerous occasions, and it is evident that if only the farmers in Western Australia could obtain their supplies from overseas at a cheap rate, he would be content. The provision of employment for Australians does not concern him. He is quite prepared to accept goods from Japan or Czechoslovakia, so long as they are cheap. During the last four or five years every city in Australia has been swamped with cheap Japanese goods. Recently, there were displayed in the library of this “building, samples of real and imitation jewellery produced by Australian manufacturers, but under a trade treaty with Czechoslovakia this market is being flooded with cheap jewellery from that country. I am convinced that the Government, by its tariff policy, has done irreparable damage to the secondary industries of Australia. When tariff schedules come before this committee for debate, I should like them to be discussed in a non-party spirit. Honorable members should be actuated by a desire to encourage Australian industries, particularly those that produce goods under reasonable conditions, and that do not take excessive profits from the public.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- When the trade diversion policy was instituted in 1935, various firms were allotted import quotas based upon the volume of their business during the preceding twelve months. It was, of course, necessary to fix quotas upon some basis, but there was no particular virtue in the dates chosen, and no reason why the quotas should be regarded as. fixed and unalterable, instead of being adjustable according to circumstances, and in accordance with reasonable business expansion. As it has turned out, some motor companies were given quotas in excess of what they have needed, while others were allotted quotas unreasonably low, due usually to the fact that they were only building up their businesses during the twelve months prior to the inauguration of the trade diversion policy. The firm which holds the agency for the Packard car is a notable example of this. I have on previous occasions brought this matter under the notice of the department, but I have always been informed that the department cannot depart from the original arrangement. I have never heard any reason why it should not adopt a more flexible arrangement that would be fairer to the various competitors in the trade. For that reason, I support representations of the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) on this subject.

Every tariff schedule that has been introduced for general discussion has brought forth a complaint from the Opposition that the tariff policy of this

Government is resulting in the destruction of Australian industries. It is such ;in old complaint that we have now become quite accustomed to it. Thu obvious answer is that Australian industries were never more prosperous than they are to-day, so it is quite evident that the tariff is not doing them any harm.

I wish to refer to one item in the schedule introduced on the 4th May, namely, that referring to minor explosives, particularly cartridges. Numerous complaints have reached me from various quarters that Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, which enjoys a monopoly of the manufacture of such goods in Australia, is using its monopoly unfairly, and in a manner that should be checked either by the Minister for Trade and Customs or the Tariff Board. In order to establish an Australian industry for the manufacture of cartridges for shot guns and rifles, a high duty was imposed on imported cartridges. I agree that it wu3 desirable that the industry should be established here, . but it is now almost exclusively in the hands of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, which is not giving good service. At the commencement of ite manufacturing in Australia the company produced goods of very inferior quality, and it has not given proper service to retailers of ammunition. Moreover, it has used the big stick against any retailers who attempt to import ammunition from other countries. There have been complaints that retailers were unable to obtain supplies from Imperial Chemicals Limited, and that the prices were very high. However, I shall lon ve prices out of it. Retailers wore unable to import from the United States of America because of the embargo against such importations and this practically completed the monopoly of the company operating in Australia. Some retailers, however, placed orders elsewhere, and I am informed that an executive of the company, a Mr. Poole, told them that they had no right to place orders overseas. He threatened them that if they placed any more orders abroad, he would cut them off the company’s list, and they would not get any further supplies. One man stated that he would appeal to the Government, but Mr. Poole is alleged to have replied : “ We are too powerful; your appeal would have no chance.” That sort of thing should not be tolerated. If a company is given a virtual monopoly, as this one has been, it should not be allowed to take advantage of it in order to exploit the public. The Government should step in to see that justice is done. There is no complaint, I understand, about the quality of shot gun cartridges, but what are described as metallic cartridges, namely, those used for rifles, were simply rub: bish, and the public would not buy them. Lately, the company has been producing rifle cartridges of better quality, but it refuses to release them until the supplies of old cartridges have been used.

The company also manufactures clay birds used by sporting men in shot gun competitions. I think we all agree that, if men must shoot for amusement, it i3 better that they should waste ammunition on clay birds than on live birds kept in captivity. The complaint is that the company is keeping the price of clay birds practically up to the level at which they could be imported. The protection against imported clay birds amounts altogether to 135 per cent., and the company charges for its locally manufactured birds a price which is only ten per cent. less. The result is that not many are being bought. This is another instance of what occurs when high duties result in the establishment of monopolies. The Government should, while giving effective protection to Australian industries, establish a body of some kind with power to police the operation of the tariff. I regard tariff duties as an award to an industry. It is the duty of the Government, which is responsible for the imposition of tariffs for the protection of Australian industries, to see that the people are treated fairly. In my opinion, this duty might very well be delegated to the Tariff Board.

Mr Martens:

– How could the Tariff Board do that?

Mr NAIRN:

– The Tariff Board is in possession of all the information upon which the protection of particular item? is based. If its staff we re augmented by the appointment of investigation officers, any complaints of unfair treatment could be examined, the officials could inspect factories and ascertain the true position, and report to the Tariff Board, which in turn would submit its recommendations to the Minister, who could take the necessary parliamentary action. I see no obstacle to the Tariff Board carrying out this duty if the Government would invest that body with the requisite authority to police the tariff awards.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

. -I cannot endorse some of the remarks of previous speakers, particularly the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory).

Mr Brennan:

– The honorable member is an authority on bananas and sugar.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– But not on disloyalty.

Mr Brennan:

– That is hardly relevant. The honorable member is not fair.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– The honorable member for Swan has complained that our primary producers have suffered disabilities from the pro- tection given to secondary industries. I am afraid that he, and others who share his views, overlook the fact that but for the protection given to secondary production the Australian market for primary products would be invaded, if not in some instances captured, by manufacturers in cheap-labour countries, and the defeat of the Australian manufacturer would at once react to the detriment of Australian primary producers. I agree that the honorable member is, in tariff matters, consistent, although his arguments have become somewhat weather-worn. It is as well that we should emphasize the value to primary producers of the Australian market, which was created and is maintained by our system of protection. The dairying industry may be cited as a case in point. The measure of protection given to that industry has enabled those engaged in it, by organization, to obtain a remunerative price for the whole of the butter sold in Australia, and to dispose of the balance in London in competition with other countries whose costs of production are much lower than those in Australia. It should be obvious to all honorable members that the more we increase secondary production in Australia, and the greater opportunities we provide for the employment of Australian workmen at remunerative wages, the better it is for our primary producers.

Mr.Gregory. - General MotorsHolden’s for example? Or the Australian Glass Company?

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– It is true that General Motors-Holden’s has made substantial profits during the last three years. If, in the opinion of Parliament, the profits of any industry are the result of exorbitant charges, it is competent for Parliament to ascertain if Australian users are obtaining value for their money, and, if necessary, review the protective duties. It may be found, after investigation of some industries, that it should be possible for a better product to be manufactured for the price charged. This might be said of the motor-body building industry, and particularly regarding one firm. It might be suggested that it should supply a commodity nearer in quality and price to the competitive products from overseas.

The honorable member for Swan dealt with the tariff in a general way, and the burden of his remarks was that our primary producers were detrimentally affected by the protection given to secondary industries. I do not agree that that is so. As a representative of Western Australia, the honorable gentleman cited, as an illustration, the position of the wheat industry of that State. I remind him that wheat-growers in Western Australia are not the only primary producers in Australia.

Mr Gregory:

– Then consider the wool industry.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– Wool is a commodity which we grow for the rest of the world. We do not pretend that our entire production is required for manufacture in this country.

Mr Brennan:

– The Bruce-Page Government sold the Commonwealth Woollen Mills.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:

– The development of the manufacturing side of the wool industry is a credit to Australian manufacturers. It has been of immense benefit to our producers of wool.

– The Government has collected from the levy approximately £740,000. The money has been paid into consolidated revenue and ear-marked, I understand, but, at the same time, I doubt whether the project will ever become a reality. I think that all the ear-marking in the world will not save it from its ultimate destination. So I ask the Government to do the real big thing. Let it realize that it has made a mistake in this matter and, once and for all-, lift this levy.

I again congratulate the Government, and say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that my unbounded admiration for him still exists. If it is impossible for him to read his speeches on the tariff, then, having heard him so often, I feel sure honorable members on this side of the House will be pleased to repeat them for him.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- The honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Harrison) was surprisingly assertive and full of knowledge. lt would have been very enlightening to me had he mentioned the factories which he said had been compelled to close their doors. Three or four times he stated definitely that that had happened as the result of the tariff policy of the Scullin Government. A man who, I should say, is at least as intelligent as the honorable member, the present High Commissioner for Australia in London, Mr. Bruce, has admitted that the policy of the Scullin Government saved Australia. That cannot be denied. Some of the friends of this Government have taken advantage of certain things which were done by the Labour party. The protection which that party gave enabled them to establish and develop industries. They have exploited the people of this country, and the Government now in office has proved ineffective to deal with them. Wo have been told by the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby) and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) that the Government intends to do certain things by means of different laws. It proposes to prevent people from shifting from one part of Australia to another. They will have to give an undertaking that they will not go to a certain place. If the Government has the power to take such steps, why does it not also seek to control those who charge exorbitant prices for different commodities? One portion of tho schedule that we now have before us deals with tobacco. I notice a certain reduction of the tariff on tobacco imported from England, provided that 13 per cent, of Australian tobacco is blended with it. I suggest that that will have no effect as far as the tobacco industry in Australia is concerned. The growing of tobacco leaf is not confined to Queensland; a very large quantity is produced in the southern States. The industry was being developed under the tariff policy of the Scullin Government, and eventually it would have proved of vital importance and of very great value to this country, but it was practically killed in a month or two by the reduction of the import duty and the raising of the excise duty by 100 per cent. A similar result is noticeable in the case of other in dustries. It would be interesting to know why Lysaght’s are being allowed to bring, large quantities of iron into this country from overseas. Is the Government assisting to smash the labour conditions in the galvanized iron industry? Is it aiding and abetting the company to defeat the men -who are working for it under rotten conditions, which should not exist, considering the support given to it by this Parliament in the past? This Government is not prepared to see that the recommendation of Judge Cantor, a judge of the Arbitration Court in Now South Wales, is put into operation. I suggest that whatever means could be used by this Government to bring these bushrangers - they are nothing else - to heel would be justified, but it will do nothing in any shape or form to assist in that direction, because to do so would be to interfere with its friends. The position as I see it i3 that the object of this schedule and of the general tariff policy of this Government is not to assist in the slightest degree the industries of this country. Different State premiers have claimed that what their Governments have done has been responsible for tho so-called prosperity that exists to-day. There may be a certain degree of prosperity, but it is not as great as is claimed. A considerable degree of poverty is still to be found. There are conditions in protected industries which should not exist even without protection. I say quite definitely that either this Government is ineffective or it is too cowardly to use the power that it possesses. We have been told that Holden’s make9 enormous profits. The tobacco monopoly is in a similar category, yet it is not treating its employees as well as they were treated a few years ago when its position was not as good as it is at the moment. Immediately it achieved the object it set out to attain - the wiping out of the import duty and the raising of the excise duty, which made it impossible to produce what should and would have been grown in Australia - this monopoly, instead of treating its employees as they should have been treated under the improved conditions, treated them worse than previously. Every other monopoly is in a similar position. It is unfortunate that we have to give protection to these concerns for the sake of the workers of this country. They are not worthy of any consideration whatever. The tobacco monopoly sought and obtained from the Commonwealth Government protection which enabled it to become established on a footing which would not have been possible in any other circumstances, and immediately it felt that it was standing on firm ground it flogged the men and women whom it employed. I do not intend, on that account, to advocate a freetrade policy, as was suggested by one honorable member who spoke this afternoon. Free trade has been advocated by that honorable member ever since I entered this Parliament, and possibly throughout the whole of his lifetime. He at least is honest in that regard. Such a policy would not achieve the object that we desire. If this Parliament has the power to control these matters, it should be exercised. The honorable member for Perth (Mr. Nairn) has suggested that the Government could exercise control through the Tariff Board. It should let us know what power it possesses. While the honorable member was speaking, I asked him by way of interjection to state in what way the Tariff Board could act, and he replied that the Tariff Board had the power to act if the Government would give it the right to do so. Let the Government give the board the right to take whatever action it considers necessary, and thus place these people in the position that they should occupy. If there is any way in which they can he compelled to treat their workers fairly, they should be made to do so. There are industries which, under proper protection, would have been established, and doubtless would have proved successful and of value to Australia. I have referred to one in this chamber on a by-gone occasion. We have been informed by the chairman of a tobacco concern in Victoria of the enormous amount which was put into a new venture when it seemed that the tobacco growing industry would be developed in this country. Within a few months more than one half of the money thus invested was lost. It may be suggested that if they had hung on it would have been better for them. I can visualize that. But the difficulty was that all the money they had was put into the undertaking, and when the slump occurred, as the result of the lowering of the import duty and the raising of the excise duty, those who were supporting them with credit were not prepared to continue that support. Those who were incapable of doing so had to desist, but in a number of cases in which the credit could have been continued, those who were giving it were notprepared to continue it, because they believed that tobacco growing in Australia was doomed to extinction. Quite a large number of concerns were affected. I say quite definitely that this industry would have been established in the States in a very satisfactory condition under the tariff policy of the Scullin Government, but this Government denied that protection to it. The enormous amount which we are sending to another country for tobacco leaf would very largely have been saved to Australia had the opportunity been given to develop the local growing industry. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) has admitted that each year a better class of tobacco leaf is being produced locally. That improvement would have continued in greater measure if people had been allowed to remain in the industry. This Government has nothing at all to its credit so far as the protection of Australian industries are concerned. Rather should it hang its head and say, “ We have killed some industries very effectively.”

Mr LANE:
Barton

.- The most amusing feature of the speech of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Martens), waa that he forgot the existence of Queensland. In season and out of season, we have had representatives from Queensland who have told us of the disasters which have attended the growing of tobacco at Mareeba in that State. The honorable member for Herbert has said so many times that this country was rescued by the Scullin Government, that I think, he honestly believes such to be the case. During the six years of my membership of this Parliament, however, he has not produced any evidence to prove that the Scullin Government did what would give to Australia an impetus to lift itself out of the slough of despond. The greatest blessing ever enjoyed by Australia was conferred by the advent to office of the United Australia party in 1931. During the last six years, I have listened to speeches on the tariff by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde). He has repeated the same speech so often that we all know it off by heart before he begins to make it, his principal theme being that the tariff policy of the Scullin Government placed Australia in a position favorable to recovery. All that I know about the policy of the Scullin Government is that under it certain privileges were given to different concerns. It disregarded the reports of the Tariff Board, and of its own officers, and said to huge monopolies, “ Come in.” I am not sure that it did not say to them, “ We shall let you know a week or two before the tariff is introduced what is going to happen.” I have been assured that the works which one of the biggest monopolies in New South Wales established were begun because it knew beforehand what tariff was shortly to be imposed. What was done in the one case I suppose was done in other cases. What racked Australia at that time was the fact that in the Scullin Government there was no stamina, no commercial knowledge, no knowledge of what was necessary to bring prosperity back to Australia. Following upon complaints that honorable members of this House had made about the treatment meted out to the tobacco-growers of Queensland, 1 made a two months’ tour of that State some time ago. I was told before going there that a great, deal of tobacco had been produced which the tobacco companies would not buy. I went to Queensland seeking both information and advice. I went through the Mareeba tobacco-growing areas and visited many farms. I also visited many towns. I came to the conclusion that a great deal of inferior tobacco leaf was being produced. It seems to me that an effort has been made by some honorable members of this House to cover up the inefficient methods of certain tobaccogrowers. The year before I went to Queensland the tobacco companies had been very generous to the Queensland tobacco-growers, and had bought tobacco leaf to the value of £12.000,000, but, unfortunately, they had to destroy by burning, leaf valued at £3,000,000. I also made some inquiry into the tobacco growing industry in the electorate of New England. I ascertained that an expert from the New South Wales governmental staff, who had been sent there to make an investigation, came to the conclusion that the only use that much of the tobacco grown in New England could be put to was as a fertilizer.

While I was travelling through the Mareeba district I was told by an expert that tobacco-blending was very much like tea-blending; it had to be done by experts, otherwise the product was of very little use. I well remember meeting one young; fellow in Queensland who told me that he had sold his tobacco for 3s. 6d. per lb., at auction. Another man told me that he had sent his product to the market but could not sell it. When he complained in a certain quarter, he was told that there must have been some mistake, and he was advised to have his product regraded and send it to the market again. He did so, at a cost of £2 15s., and it was again rejected by buyers. Some honorable members would have us believe that tobacco may be grown as easily as cabbages, but the fact is that the tobacco plant is most delicate, and requiries scientific treatment. One man told me that in one season he had put 5 acres under crop and had got a first-class price for his product. The next year he thought he would extend his operation somewhat, and he put 7 acres under crop. But he got a smaller return from the 7 acres than from the 5 acres, the reason being that 7 acres proved too large an area to cultivate effectively by himself. He could produce from it o n 1 v an inferior leaf.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Did the honorable member believe him?

Mr LANE:

– Of course I did; he was an honest man working in the industry. If I were to publish that young man’s name, he would probably be run out of the business for life.

While I was in Queensland I endeavoured to discover the extent to which Queensland people smoke home-grown tobacco. I met a wharf labourer in

Cairns and asked him to come to the kiosk and have a cup of tea with me. While we were there I said to him casually, “ I suppose you smoke Queensland or Mareeba tobacco?” I shall not repeat the oath he used, but he added, Never on your life ; we can’t smoke it “. In Bundaberg I went to a tobacconist and asked for some Queensland tobacco.

Mr FADDEN:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Did the honorable member make any inquiries about the rum?

Mr LANE:

– I did not. If alcohol were produced for use as a power spirit, I would co-operate with anybody to get a Bale for it, but I -have no other interest in it. I said to the tobacconist in Bundaberg, “ Do you sell Queensland tobacco ?” He said, “Oh, no; we give that to the hoboes. We have to give it away; we can’t sell it.” At Rockhampton I went into three tobacconists’ shops and asked for Queensland tobacco. One man replied, “ Sorry, sir, but it is not made.” I believe a company did make some tobacco in Queensland from the Queensland leaf, but the business was not profitable.

– The honorable member for Batman has a crooked mind.

Mr BRENNAN:

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Whatever its views are on other subjects, it must be admitted that it did serve to educate the public on the need for the establishment of secondary industries on a reliable basis. lt is absolutely essential to have tariff stability, but that can only be established when Parliament has restored to it complete control of tariff policy. In this respect the view of the Australian Natives Association, a great national organization with an Australian outlook, should be heeded. It declared, at its conference this year -

Any agreement which perpetuates the tragic position of Australia being deprived of complete tariff autonomy cannot possibly be tolerated. Without complete autonomy national status is obviously meaningless.

The view of the Australian Natives Association cannot be ignored. Any reasonably minded person will admit that the setting up of industries on a firm foundation, and their development and expansion, is a primary function, if not the basic function, of any nation which considers itself progressive. Because I fear that the Government is not solid on the question of tariff regulation, I make these remarks, notwithstanding that similar views have been already stated effectively by the honorable member for Capricornia. Many things could be said in this debate, but I wish to avoid needless and tedious repetition. I, and my constituents in the Maribyrnong electorate, believe that it is essential to have clauses 9 to 13 of the Ottawa Agreement removed or amended - I should say removed altogether - so that complete control will be regained by this Parliament. The Government should pursue a policy under which those engaged in secondary industries would know, not for a brief time, but for a long time ahead, what the tariff policy would be. Having that knowledge, we could look forward to continued expansion of secondary industry and that greater stability which would make for the progress of the nation. We should develop our tariff policy on the lines laid down by Labour and get away from the emasculating policy that the Government has pursued in recent years. Quormn formed.^

Mr SCULLY:
Gwydir

I ask honorable members to cast their minds back a few years. I know that some of the things I am about to say may be unpalatable to Government supporters. I also know that they have been said before, but they will bear repeating. In 1929, ten months before the Scullin Government took office, Australian credit overseas was at an exceedingly low level. Attempts made by the BrucePage Government to float loans in London had been unsuccessful, and, if one may judge by the failure of the £7,000,000 loan floated by this Government a few days ago, there is again a feeling of uneasiness in London about the financial strength of the Commonwealth. During the Bruce-Page Government’s seven years’ term of office - years of unexampled prosperity - the Commonwealth debt overseas increased by £53,000,000, and imports exceeded exports by £70,000,000. Despite warnings by prominent members of the Labour party, the Bruce-Page Government allowed Australian finances to drift until 1929, when overseas credit was completely stopped. To-day we are experiencing some of the back-wash of the financial debacle. This Government is now arranging to fund treasury-bills that were issued in London at about that time. The action taken by the Scullin Government to increase protection to our secondary industries, and to impose embargoes in respect of a number of tariff items, was entirely successful ; an adverse trade balance of £30,000,000 was converted into a favorable balance of £32,000,000, and this country was saved from default in its overseas obligations. Earlier in the debate this evening the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) reminded the committee that the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) was, for some time, associated with the Scullin Government, and endorsed its tariff policy, but later became the leader of the government that reversed it.

I consider it necessary to direct attention to these facts in order to emphasize that, although this Government takes to itself credit for the improved position of the Commonwealth, the credit is really due to the Scullin Government, whose courageous action in tariff matters made recovery possible. The Melbourne Age, which does not support Labour’s policy, in a recent article reviewing the depression period, declared -

It is indisputable that the courage and prescience of the Scullin Government saved Australia.

The Sydney Bulletin, another independent newspaper, said -

Only one way was open to an honest government in 1929-30, and the Scullin Government took it by raising tariffs and imposing prohibitions. That saved Australia from default.

Similar statements have been made by other newspapers which are not supporters of the Labour party, and they indicate that the claims being made by supporters of the present Government are not borne out in actual fact. I hope that the Government will quickly realize that a policy of scaling down the tariff schedule will reduce the possibility of increased productiveness in Australia. By adopting such a policy the Government is treading the same slippery road that led to the economic crash in the period 1931- 1935. We must export £29,000,000 more of goods than we import if we are to pay the interest on our overseas debt and preserve our London funds. The writing was seen on the wall only this week when 66 per cent, of the amount of the Australian loan placed on the London market was left on the hands of the underwriters. Making all sorts of excuses, the Government claims that the loan was placed on the market at the wrong time, and that world affairs were responsible for its failure. To me the main cause is obvious: The Government’s policy of scaling down the tariff has resulted in Australia not being able to export a sufficient quantity of goods to preserve the trade balance, conserve its London funds, and so maintain its credit abroad. I hope that the Government will take cognisance of these facts, and adopt the only course that will give stability to industry and increase our population, thereby giving the Australian people a better opportunity to protect their land in the event of grave necessity.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– Prior to the last general election the Sydney Sun, which is not a supporter of the Labour party, declared that the present Government was the greatest tariffslashing government in the world, and that it had done nothing else than slash the tariff. Although I seldom agree with the views of that journal, I agree with that statement. The attitude of the Government towards the tariff is to reduce it to an instrument of taxation for revenue. The Australian tariff is no longer protectionist; all that the Government wants is a revenue tariff. As a result of that policy, it has been able to secure additional money in the Treasury, and it boasts that it has balanced the budget. There is no statesmanship or economic reconstruction of the nation in such a policy. A gramophone could he made to say, “I move that this item and that item in the tariff be reduced,” in order to permit a flood of imports to enter the country and compete unfairly with Australian industries. A revenue tariff is the most cowardly form of obtaining revenue known to governments., and every authority on taxation holds that view. The most conservative governments in the world have accepted the principle that the first canon of taxation is to tax those who can best afford to bear the burden. The chopping down of the tariff, which is the policy of the present Government., places the burden on those who can least afford to bear it. The Government is not operating a protectionist tariff, but a revenue tariff, mainly in the interests of importing firms. In the tariff schedule before the committee, there are unwarrantable discrepancies between the British preferential rate and the general rate. For instance, there are items in which the preferential rate is ltd. and the general rate 9d. ; in other cases the preferential rate is 15 per cent, and the general rate 50 per cent. I submit that discrepancies like these are so great that only goods from other parts of the British Empire can come into Australia, and goods from other countries are shut out. The Government has declared that Australia must trade with the countries of the world in order to promote friendly relations and a peace psychology. When the preferential rate is 1-Jd., and the rate against other countries is “9d., can one claim that a proper balance is maintained? Differential treatment of this sort is the most prolific cause of mistrust and hatred of Australia, and, if persisted in, it will probably cause some nations to force trade on Australia by other than peaceful means. I have never opposed the principle of British preference. I have always taken the view that we should allow some measure of preference to the other nations constituting the British Commonwealth of Nations; but, when the preferential rate is fixed at ltd.. and the general rate at 9d., I think that Suck a policy is foolish. Examining the schedule one can find all sorts of similar discrepancies. On one page of the schedule, there are set out items on which the preferential rate is 18 per cent.., and the general rate 45 per cent. On another page there are items on which the preferential rate is 22 per cent., and the general rate 50 per cent. With such a wide margin of preference to the British Commonwealth of Nations, reasonable trading opportunities are not given to outside countries. The goods of those countries are practically shut out from Australia, and I submit that the Government is treading on dangerous ground when it proposes such wide gaps between the British preferential rate and the general rate. Can the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), by any stretch of the imagination, prove that that is preferential treatment? He claims to have some knowledge of the commercial world. If he has, he must know that a duty of 9d. in the general tariff, compared with a preferential duty of ltd. means the total exclusion of goods from foreign countries. That is the only feature of the schedule which I am attacking at the moment.

During the last two or three years, a great deal has been said concerning the motor car industry in this country. The Government announced that through the medium of the Tariff Board it intended to try to do something for that industry. I submit that the overseas motor manufacturers are bleeding this country white. It’ i.- essential for the even and general economic development of Australia that its road transport system should be placed beyond the exploitation that is at present being practised by those manufacturers. British and American magazines in which motor cars are advertised for sale show that a Ford car, which is sold in Australia for £350, costs only £65 in i lie United States of America. Such a difference in price is ridiculous. The Cadillac car, which is a wealthy man’s car, sells in the United States of America for just over £800, yet the price in Australia is £1,800 or £1,900. Making every possible allowance for freight, profits for middlemen, and all other charges, that is exploitation of the worst possible kind. Australia cannot continue its transportoperations unless the motor industry is established here and given proper protection. Speeding up and other tactics of the worst possible nature are practised in industry in the United States of America. This Government, through the instrumentality of the tariff, should take definite action to see that Australia is protected against the exploitation from which it is now suffering. I have not seen all the establishments that make motor bodies in this country, but the one which provides ah illustration of the greatest tragedy in the economic life of our people is the Ford factory at Geelong. It is the greatest speeder-up and life-destroying agency one could imagine. Henry Ford is recognized in the United States of America, and I believe the world over, as the greatest speeder-up in industry. In his book he has told us that in walking through his factory he saw men taking nuts from one box and putting them in another. A noise in the factory caused a couple of the employees to look up. thus diverting their attention from their task. Ford has told us that he immediately came to the conclusion that if those men had not taken their eyes from their task the job would have been done more effectively; consequently he searched America for blind men, who would not be able to see what was hap- pen ing in the factory and therefore would concentrate on their task. Ford has been hailed as a philanthropist because he found employment in his factory for blind men, yet he admits having done so in order to speed up his operations. That is the sort of industry which is being developed in Australia to-day. Motor bodies are being manufactured under the same soulless conditions. I do not suppose that General Motors Holden’s and the other motor body manufacturers are any better than the Ford Company. It is economically impossible for any country to develop without motor traction. If motor transport ceased in Australia, our economic life would almost como to a standstill, yet this Government sits supinely by and does not raise a finger to prevent the exploitation that is being practised. I repeat that a Ford car, selling for £65 in America, is sold for £355 in Australia. Motor trucks are on the same basis. This disparity applies also to the Chevrolet, the Cadillac, and all other makes of cars. British cars are in a similar category. I invite honorable members to peruse in tlie Parliamentary Library or elsewhere, British magazines which advertise the prices of cars for sale in Great Britain, and to compare those prices with the prices at which such cars arc being sold in Australia. We are not getting a fair deal. In the interest of the economic development and safety of Australia, this Government should come down with a. heavy hand and make it possible for cars of a uniform type to be manufactured in this country. Permission could be granted for . the importation of other cars, but such a duty should be placed on them that only the wealthy could afford to purchase them. A car of a lighter type could be manufactured in Australia. It could have a diesel engine, burning crude oil, which can be produced from our own oil-fields, thus making us independent of the foreign companies. If the Government would direct its energies to that end it would be worthy of governing Australia. It knows as well as anybody else that the abuses of which I have spoken arc going on. It knows why there are adverse trade balances. If there is anything which should engage the attention of governments, and particularly of this Government, to-day, it is the need for establishing the production of motor car engines in Australia.

I have a final word to say as to how this Government gives protection to industry. It always talks with its tongue in its cheek when it claims to be anxious to increase the volume of employment.When the workers in protected industries are economically battered to such an extent that they are forced to use the only defensive weapon they possess - the strike - the tariff policy is thrown overboard. That is the case to-day in connexion with Lysaght’s Limited, the biggest sweaters and speedersup one could find. At the best, their works are nerve-wracking, and destructive of soul and health. The men’s teeth fall out, and the fumes arising out of the operations of the industry destroy their chests. In an endeavour to better their conditions, they are to-day on strike; and because they are on strike, tariff protection goes by the board and the goods manufactured by the company in the United Kingdom are allowed to enter Australia free of duty. That is not right. Although the Labour party believes inprotection, I have said in this Parliament a thousand times that I shall never consciously vote for a purely revenue tariff, and never support the imposition of a duty to protect an Australian industry which cannot supply the home market. Those are sound principles upon which to operate a tariff policy. When an industry, established on a reasonable basis, can supply Australia’s requirements, I am prepared to vote for the maximum amount of duty to ensure that the local market shall be preserved for local producers. Such a policy, of course, cuts both ways.I think this Parliament could do a great deal more than it has hitherto done to keep a tighter hold on industry. I realize the constitutional limitations under which we labour, and I know that this Government cannot be expected to do all that a Labour government would do to meet the position; but it is a tragedy that our fiscal policy should be employed as an instrument with which to flog our people into working under unhealthy conditions. The Government, in my opinion, is using the tariff for this purpose. The workers in our iron and steel industry are not getting a fair deal.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member realize that English galvanized iron, duty free, costs £5 a ton more than Australian iron ?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Whether the difference would be 5d. or £5 does not affect the case I am putting.

Mr.Harrison. - I do not know how the honorable member can reconcile his views with those expressed earlier to-day by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr LAZZARINI:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1934; ALP from 1936

– T hey can easily be reconciled, and if the honorable member’s brain was not so clouded even be could reconcile them. I have never violated the pledge which I signed as a Labour member. I have always stood for adequate protection for the industries if this country. My record in this Parliament for twenty years, with a break of two or three years during which I doubt whether any tariff schedules wore dealt with, shows that I have consistently spoken in favour of and voted for adequate protection.

Mr Anthony:

– Does the honorable member believe in embargoes on imports of goods which can be manufactured in this country?

Mr LAZZARINI:

– I am not talking of embargoes. I have said a thousand times that I would protect up to the hilt any industry which could supply the Australian market with its requirements. The honorable member may put what interpretation he likes on that statement. I favour a protectionist tariff policy but not a revenue tariff policy. The honorable member obviously wishes to protect his wealthy friends from contributing byway of taxation their proper share to the costs of government. He and his colleagues are prepared to take the money needed for governmental expenditure out of the pockets of the consumers and the poorer classes of people by means of a revenue tariff instead of by direct taxation. Every world-wide authority on taxation has agreed that the first principle of honest taxation is that taxes shall fall . on the shoulders of those best able to bear them. Any other system of taxation is cowardly. In supporting the policy which this Government is operating honorable members opposite are violating this principle, for in many respects the Government’s tariff is a revenueproducing instrument. This, I assert, is a cowardly system of taxation, and is being operated by a cowardly government.

Mr GREEN:
Kalgoorlie

.- The controversy as to the respective merits of protection and freetrade has been waged more or less incessantly since the inception of federation, but of late years the freetrade policy has had very few stalwarts in this chamber. You, Mr. Chairman, I would describe as one of them. Although I come from the same State as you and live under very similar conditions I cannot agree entirely with the views that I know you and the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) honestly hold on this subject. I believe that it is necessary for Australia to manufacture, as far as possible, all its own requirements, and that this should be done, provided that the cost of the goods so manufactured is not unduly increased to our consumers. I consider, however, that some authority should be constituted to protect the consumers against the charging of unreasonable prices by manufacturers. Undoubtedly, those whose industry is protected, owe something to this country, and they should not be allowed to charge exorbitant prices for their goods. It cannot be gainsaid that for a considerable number of years the price of manufactured articles in Australia, has been higher than would have been the price of similar imported goods. If it were not so, protective duties would have been unnecessary to encourage . Australian secondary industries. Most people expect that until industries are firmly established, production costs will be somewhat high, but they also expect that when industries become firmly established they will be able to market their products at prices comparable with those of similar goods from other countries plus freight charges. Australia has not yet reached that happy state of affairs. Undoubtedly, primary producers who live in areas remote from manufacturing centres have to pay more for certain goods under a protectionist policy than would apply under a freetrade policy.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member is making a good Country party speech.

Mr GREEN:

– I am expressing views that I have frequently expressed in this House. My attitude has not altered, though I fear that the attitude of the Assistant Minister has varied somewhat since his elevation to the Cabinet. Every fair-minded person must admit that if the primary producers have to pay more for the goods they purchase because we are operating a protectionist policy, protection should be extended to primary products. In other words, there should be a home consumption price for primary products.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– The honorable member may hear something more on this subject after the next meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council.

Mr GREEN:

– I shall be very pleased if the council can formulate some policy to establish a home consumption price.

It must also be agreed that more is involved in our protectionist policy than the mere manufacturing of goods. The adoption of such a policy, undoubtedly, provides diversity of employment; that in itself must result in the provision of work for a greater number of people than could be employed if our attention was devoted solely to primary production. So far as the export of wool, wheat and other commodities are concerned, the conditions that might have come from an entirely freetrade policy have vanished into thin air because of the attitude taken up by overseas countries with regard to imports of primary products. Australia, like many other primary producing countries, experiences difficulty in selling its produce because of what is loosely termed economic nationalism. Even if we were prepared to allow everything to come in from abroad we still would not get a market in Germany and Italy for our wheat and other primary products. However exorbitant the cost of production in those countries, they prefer to supply themselves with wheat rather than import at a much lower price from a country like Australia. Willy nilly, our friends opposite, whether they are freetraders or not, must view the policy of protection from different angles. Undoubtedly it provides, for the eastern States at any rate, a home market for primary products, and in New South Wales and Victoria, partly reconciles people who are fortunate enough to have land in close proximity to dense populations, to some of the disadvantages of high duties. Primary producers in the other States do not have those compensations. The unemployment of youths is a tremendous problem in Australia and in every country of the world to-day, and protection, because it provides employment in secondary production commends itself to us. That aspect is accentuated by the distressing circumstances of some of the primary industries. Many of the youths who secure employment on the land to-day find that farmers are able to pay only a miserable pittance. Secondary industry also produce skilled workmen, so that if we are attacked - although I consider that there is little danger of that - we shall be able not only to manufacture small arms as we have been doing for a number of years, but also to produce ordnance, upon which, our friends tell us, our very existence depends. It has been said ad infinitum by freetraders that because of our policy of protection we are compelled to pay higher prices than would be the case if duty free importations were permitted, but that is not always so. At the present time, with every country engaged in a huge expenditure on armaments, the price of steel is high. If galvanized iron were not manufactured in Australia to-day we would have to import all our requirements at from £5 to £6 a ton above the Australian price. The statement that Australian galvanized iron is not so good as the imported article has, I think, been exploded. It may have been true with respect to the very heavy gauge iron used 40 or 50 years ago which can still be seen on the roofs of farmhouses in different parts of Australia, but the “ Orb “ iron manufactured in England by Lysaght’s Limited is no better than the “ Orb “ iron manufactured by that firm in New South Wales, though the price of the imported article, duty free, is £6 a ton higher. The price of Australian corrugated iron, 26-gauge, is £27 a ton, from which a maximum discount of 7 per cent, is allowed in some cases, making the net price £25 2s. 3d. a ton. Imported iron of the same quality costs from £31 to £33 a ton.

Mr Gregory:

– Are those quotations from Germany or the United States of America ?

Mr GREEN:

– No. I am sure that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) believes, as I do, that if it is impossible to secure our requirements from Great Britain we should not import iron from a foreign country which may take up arms against us. Lysaght’s Limited have endeavoured to speed up production in various ways until to-day they have an output of 100,000 tons per annum, which is just within measurable distance of Australian requirements. Because some retailers and farmers have experienced difficulty in securing their requirements of iron, the Customs Department permitted duty-free entry from Great Britain of 12,000 tons of iron; but because of the high price only 50 tons has been imported; many people have decided to let their work stand over with the hope that they will be able to get the local product at the lower price. There is no immediate possibility of the price being lowered.

Having said so much for protection in Australia I propose now to deal with some very serious problems that are confronting us in respect of highly-protected industries in this country. Some years ago the Labour party advocated a policy known as the New Protection. It provided not only that manufacturers should receive fair treatment so that their industries would be placed on a payable basis, but also that the Australian workmen employed by them should be paid fair wages and given reasonable conditions. That policy has not been given effect, although it was reasonable to expect that a concern like the Broken Hill

Proprietary Company Limited, which has the monopoly of the steel industry of Australia, would, if only as a matter of policy, treat its employees fairly.I have been informed by a man who was closely connected with Lysaght’s corrugated iron works that only about 50 per cent. of the men employed by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited are unionists. Nohonorable member will deny the right of men to band together in order to secure a fair returnfor their labour. The reason for the small proportion of unionists is that about 10 per cent. of the men employed by the company occupy key positions. Being skilled workers, they are placed on the staff, and, because of that, are not allowed to join any union. The result is that, in the event of a strike, the skilled men would not be affected, and as the company could obtain other men to replace the unskilled strikers it would be able to cany on. In the circumstances there is no incentive to the workers to become unionists.

Grave danger exists when men improperly trained and insufficiently fed take the place of men on strike. Within the last year or two the Broken Hill Proprietary Company has taken a financial interest in the manufacture of corrugated iron by Lysaght. The man to whom 1 have referred as having been employed by Lysaght, told me that in the past, whenever a dispute seemed imminent in Lysaght’s works, employers and employees met around a table, with the result that the trouble was always settled on a fair basis. To those honorable members who are more closely acquainted with the iron and steel industry than I am, I tender my apology for raising it, but I have done so because it was not mentioned earlier. Seventeen years ago, when the Commonwealth Government decided that the galvanized iron industry should be established in Australia, it provided for a bounty of £4 10s. on every ton of corrugated iron produced. Later, the bounty was discontinued in favour of a duty. The existing duty on galvanized iron is £4 10s. a ton, British preferential tariff, and £6 10s. a ton foreign. At the inception of the works 200 men were brought from Lysaght’s factory in Great Britain, but a large num ber of them found the work intolerable in Australia’s greater heat, notwithstanding that they were paid 89 per cent. more than they would have received had they remained in the Old Country. They therefore sought easier jobs. The duty of the man whom I have mentioned was to dip the black sheet iron into a sulphuric acid bath. The dipping was necessary to prepare the sheets for the process by which they were galvanized ; a highly trying, exhausting and unhealthy job. He was expected to handle 27 tons a day. When the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited obtained a financial interest in the works, a case was cited before the court. A round-table conference was refused and the men were advised that, in future, all matters in dispute would be thrashed out in the Arbitration Court. The result is well known to honorable members. A log of claims was submitted, but the result was a big reduction of wages. The new award provided a rate of 14s.8d. a ton for the first fourteen tons of iron produced, and 6s. a ton for the next fourteen tons. Men, instead of being paid89 per cent. more than the English rate, worked, in many instances, for only £3 18s. a week. It has been said that the mechanization of the industry resulted in men who previously earned £12 a week having to accept £6 a week. It is greatly to be regretted that methods employed by Henry Ford and other manufacturers in the United States of America have found their way into Australia. Especially is that to be deplored when it is remembered that the representatives of the workers in this House assisted to establish this industry. One cannot help asking when a halt is to be called. Although I am prepared to stick to my party in a general way in assisting Australian manufacturers. 1 hope that the time will soon arrive when prices will be such that no company, especially one established with the assistanceof this Parliament, will be able to show a profit of £1,250,000 in a year and at the same time make drastic reductions of the wages paid to its employees.

Mr.RIORDAN (Kennedy) [11.0]. - I rise to support the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) on the measure before the House. I desire to refer at the outset to remarks made by certain Government members concerning the tobacco industry. Government supporters on the hustings have tried to make the people believe that they are the protectors of both secondary and primary industries. Tonight, however, we heard the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Lane) make a spirited attack on one of our important primary industries in Queensland, the tobacco industry. This industry was established in Queensland during the regime of the Scull in Government. Up to that time £3,000,000 was paid away every year to foreign countries for tobacco of all kinds. In December, 1930, the Scullin Government increased the rate of duty on foreign black-grown tobacco from 3s. to 5s. 2d. per lb. When the Lyons Government came into office it reduced the duty in February, 1932, from 5s. 2d. to 3s. per lb. In December, 1933, it increased the duty to 3s. 6d. per lb., but at the same time increased the excise duty on Australian leaf from 2s 4d. per lb. to 4s. 6d. per lb. The result was that the industry, which had been established during the depression to provide employment and a profitable undertaking for the small investor, received a blow from which it has never recovered. During the period of adequate protection, vast tracts of land in the hinterland of Cairns were thrown open for settlement. It has been claimed that the Scullin protective duties led to the creation of fictitious land values, but that is not so. I have here a telegram received on the 7th March, 1932, by the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens) from the Queensland Land Administration Board. It is as follows : -

Crown landsMareeba made available tobacco homesteads at 2s.6d. per acre payable over ten years. Personal residenceof applicants required in order prevent speculation ; 329 blocks comprising51, 000 acres settled on these terms. Large number of blocks still available at 2s.6d. A few blocks were auctioned without conditions by Crown. Highest price realized £3 per acre.

I ask leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted ; progress reported.

page 1007

ADJOURNMENT

Alkaliindustry:claimofmr.g.k.

McPhail - Ex-Imperial Soldiers in Australia - Postal Department : Jointers Working in Manholes - Canberra Horsing Conditions - Canberra Community Hospital: Board’s Reply to the Lewis Report - Silicosis - Destruction of Rabbits.

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the House do now. adjourn.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.-I desire to bring under the notice of honorable members certain matters in connexion with the alkali industry in Australia. The industry is of tremendous importance to the Commonwealth. The defence requirements of the country make it indispensable to us, apart from its ordinary commercial uses. Without alkali the manufacture of explosives would bo impossible, and the same applies to important industrial products such as soap, glass and paper. Until quite recently, imperial Chemical Industries supplied most of Australia’s requirements by importations from overseas. All efforts to establish the industry in Australia were unsuccessful until a South Australian engineer, Mr. G. K. McPhail, a returned soldier, reported that he had a suitable combination for alkali manufacture. I propose not to go into all the details in connexion with this matter, but to give a few facts showing how Imperial Chemicals Industries have gained control of the industry in South Australia, and how the man who was first responsible for discovering a combination for alkali manufacture in. Australia has ‘been pushed aside. The Government has been approached on several occasions by Mr. McPhail, who strongly contends that he has been unjustly treated, but so far the Government has done nothing in the matter. On the 28th August, 1937, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons), from which the following is extracted : -

Referrring to the interviews of this week which have been had with you and Senator the Honorable A. J.McLachlan on the above subject matter, the writer has advised Mr. McPhailto place before you the following proposition for a settlement of the existing differences : -

That he should unreservedly withdraw all threats of litigation against the

Government and rely upon his moral rights (if any) in such matter.

That such moral rights (if any) should be determined upon by a committee of investigation consisting of a nominee of the Government and a nominee of Mr. McPhail presided over by a chairman to be agreed upon between us.

Such committee to inquire into the ques tion as to whether Mr. McPhail has any moral rights and if so as to the nature of same and as to the amendment of compensation (if any) to be paid to Mr. McPhail for any infringement of or in relation to such rights.

His claims,he submits,should be investigated, and the Government should have a nominee, Mr. McPhail should have a nominee, and the two nominees should agree as to a chairman. The facts of the case, as I understand it, are that in 1922 Brunner Mond Limited, now merged in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, reported adversely on the whole of Australia being likely to be suitable for the production of alkali. They reported their inability to find any combination for the production of alkali, and abandoned their efforts. In 1930, Mr. McPhail asserted that certain portions of South Australia were suitable for the production of alkali. He approached the Scullin Government, which encouraged him to investigate further the possibilities. On the 5th January, 1931, Dr. Woolnough, Commonwealth Geological Adviser, advised the Government as follows: -

The results of investigations have proved conclusively that in no part of Australia is there to be found that combination of conditions essential for the successful and economically sound manufacture of soda and soda ash.

This statement by Dr.Woolnough refers to the investigation by Brunner Mond Limited, which failed. When this information was conveyed to Mr. McPhail, he insisted most definitely that he had completed a scheme regardless of the failure of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited. Giving evidence on oath on the 15th May, 1931, before the Tariff Board, the managing-director of Brunner Mond Limited admitted that his company had spent £40,000, and its conclusion was that alkali manufacture was impracticable in Australia. Mr. McPhail was advised to confer with Imperial Chemical Industries Limited with a view to comparing schemes, so that the cost of production might not be increased as against other industries. This he did, and his proposals were subjected to close scrutiny. After the defeat of the Scullin Government, Imperial Chemical Industries Limitedwas invited to assist the Commonwealth advisers in the preparation of a report on the possibilities of the industry. I am informed that the Commonwealth advisers, after consultation with Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, presented a report advising against the establishment of such an industry, and the then Minister in charge of Development (Senator A. J. McLachlan) publicly condemned the possibilities of establishing any such industry. Despite the adverse reports of both the government experts and Brunner Mond Limited, we find that, by 1935, Imperial Chemical Industries had control of the whole scheme. Senator A. J. McLachlan approved what Brunner Mond Limited was doing, although he denounced the same in 1933 when it was in the hands of Mr. McPhail. The question might well be asked, why the Commonwealth Government should hand this monopoly of vital raw materials to an international combine of this kind and what were the circumstances which resulted in Mr. McPhail’s claim that what he did was a fundamental point in enabling Imperial Chemical Industries Limited to set going a combination for the production of alkali in Australia. Imperial Chemical Industries Limited is one of the greatest international combines in the world, and last year it made a profit of more than £9,000,000. Several of the Ministers, including the Minister for Defence (Mr. Thorby), have visited these works in South Australia, and I am confident that the Government must have in its possession the fullest information relating to this matter. I do not know the law on the matter, but here is a citizen of Australia, a returned soldier, an engineer and a business man of Adelaide, who claims that he has been deprived of his reward for service which he rendered to Australia in getting this industry established. He asserts that his moral claim, at least, should be investigated. His suggestion is reasonable, namely, that he should be given a nominee, the Government should be given one and these two nominees should agree on an independent chairman. If Mr. McPhail had not been brought into contact with Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, that firm would not have been able to establish an industry which Brunner Mond Limited could not establish and the Comomnwealth geological advisers stated was impossible of establishment.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

– I desire to bring under the notice of the Government a matter of great importance to Australia, and I want it to make representations to the Imperial authorities with regard to the treatment of ex-Imperial soldiers now resident in Australia. In the last two years there have been brought under my notice three or four cases of exImperial soldiers who were receiving pensions, and who had commuted their pensions in Great Britain for a lump sum and had come to Australia. All these men were incapacitated, otherwise they would not have received pensions. Since coming to Australia some of them have been able to receive medical treatment at military hospitals but others have been denied similar treatment. There is one case of a man who was removed from the Prince of Wales Hospital; he was permanently incapacitated, but the Imperial authorities stated that his injuries were not due to war service. One day in our party room, in the presence of a number of honorable members and the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation, the man stripped and we saw that he had been literally shot to pieces. Another case is that of a man who received a life pension in Great Britain for war service. He enlisted in 1914, was attached to the 12th Battalion of the Munster Regiment and had one year and 137 days’ service. He was wounded and gassed and received from the Imperial authorities a life pension of 60 per cent. This man was receiving medical treatment at a military hospital at Liverpool, England. He was advised by the doctors there to go to Australia on account of the condition of his health. He took their advice, and brought his wife and three children to this country. For nine years he received medical attention at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick. During the same period he received a 60 per cent. pension, and, eventually, he died. His widow applied for an Imperial widow’s pension, because she and her children were destitute. She was granted by the State a widow’s pension, in addition to child endowment for her children until they had attained the age at which they were no longer entitled to it. To-day, she and her children, two of whom are out of employment, are destitute. She has endeavoured to obtain an Imperial widow’s pension. The matter has come before the responsible authorities, but her claim has been rejected, although the medical officer - I believe it was Dr. King, of Randwick - definitely stated that her husband had died from the effects of the war. It is a serious matter for the family of a man who served in the Imperial Army, was incapacitated, came to Australia, and was not in a position to make any provision for his dependants, to be thrown on the resources of the State or the Commonwealth. I consider that representations should be made to the Imperial authorities on behalf of the widow of this deceased soldier.

Mr Lane:

– Has not the honorable member himself made representations to the Imperial authorities?

Mr MULCAHY:

– I am asking the Government to make them. There are several similar cases throughout Australia. It is the duty of the Government to see that such persons are not dumped in this country when incapacitated to become a charge on the Commonwealth or the State. I hope that representations will be made by the Government to the Imperial authorities, with a view to seeing that these people receive at least sufficient sustenance to keep body and soul together.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I desire to bring under the notice of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Perkins) a matter which is causing a great deal of concern to the members of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia. I regret that it is necessary to ventilate it on the floor of this House because, understanding the case of the men, I believe that if the department had given it the sym.pathy and consideration it merits, it would have been adjusted long ago.

For a number of years - in the vicinity of 25 years, I understand - it has been the practice in the Postmaster-General’s Department to allow jointers, when working in manholes, to be accompanied by a mate or an assistant. This not only makes it possible for the work to be carried out more expeditiously and efficiently, but also gives protection to the men who are working on the jointing. There have been many cases of recent date in which men have collapsed when working alone in manholes, and, but for the fact that passers-by noticed their predicament, the result would probably have been worse than it actually was. In several instances the men have had to seek hospital attention. The question of providing jointers with an assistant has been taken by the department before various tribunals for consideration on a number of occasions. On one occasion, the department wanted youths to work with the jointers, but Mr. Justice Higgins, who beard its plea, decided that it was in the best interests of both the men and the department that the men should have adults as assistants when engaged on this particular work. Mr. Justice Powers, at a subsequent hearing, confirmed the decision already given by Mr. Justice Higgins. It appears that in the. particular district affected - I understand that it is the Kogarah-Bexley district which comes under notice in this case - an engineer named Jones some little time ago attempted, unsuccessfully, to introduce this particular method, and that he is now endeavouring to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to ventilate his spleen upon these men. At the moment it seems to be his idea that the accepted practice should be departed from. He has said that where the manholes in which the men are employed are in close proximity to one another it is necessary to have only one assistant working between two jointers. In one case, two manholes which were considered by engineer Jones to he in close proximity to each other, were found to be a mile apart when measurements were taken. Mr. Jones maintains that that constitutes two manholes in close proximity to each other. Any person who has the least knowledge of the risk which these jointers have to take in carrying on their work must recognize the necessity for having some one close at hand in case of emergency, such as a leakage of gas into the manhole or through the ducts from other manholes. On many occasions this has brought about the collapse of men who have been engaged on this work. It is absolutely necessary to have an assistant close * by in case of ail emergency, as well as to help in carrying out the work In view pf the enormous profits that are being made in the Postmaster-General’s Department, there can be no grounds for the usual argument in support of such an economy as it now proposes to introduce. The union has taken the matter up with the Deputy Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Sydney, but has not succeeded in obtaining any alteration of the practice in this district. As a matter of fact, it has been treated discourteously in connexion with this particular complaint in that it has not even received a reply to communications which it has addressed to the department. Therefore. I believe that the Government should indicate very plainly to the department that this practice should not be persisted with, and that the men should be given the absolute maximum of protection. Reading some of the instructions issued to the engineers by the department, it might appear to those who are unaccustomed to working in industry that every protection is being given to these men in their employment. In my opinion, those instructions are issued by the department only with a view to protecting itself in the event of any fatalities occurring in the ranks of these men in the course of their employment, because, should there be a claim for compensation or a civil action for damages against the department, it could quote the instructions issued to its engineers to indicate that it had taken the maximum precaution to protect the men against injury or death. I worked in government employment before I entered this Parliament, and know that these instructions are issued time after time, and are entirely ignored by the engineers and other officers of the different departments. They know that the instructions are issued for the purpose which I have indicated, and that it is never expected that they should be acted upon. I hope the Government will avail itself of the earliest opportunity to have this matter adjusted, because I believe that the request of the union is a reasonable one, as all it asks is that the Postmaster-General’s Department should take steps to secure the maintenance of conditions which it has already obtained in this particular service.

I wish to refer briefly to the eviction from a house in Canberra a few days ago of a young married man and his wife. I have made inquiries into this subject and am informed that the man was evicted because he happened to be in occupancy of certain premises without having gone through the ordinary departmental channels to obtain the tenancy. Instead of putting bis name on a list and awaiting his turn to get a house, he rented rooms from a person who held a tenancy and when that person left the house he continued’ in occupancy of it. The Department of the Interior collected rent from him for about two months but eventually decided that it needed the house for some man whose name was higher up on the list. It is not to criticize the practice of giving premises to persons whose names appear in order on a waiting list that I direct attention to this matter, but it is to express a strong protest against the failure of the Government to provide housing for people who have to work in the Federal Capital Territory, and to protest also against the giving of preferential treatment in this matter to public servants. We recognize that public servants who have to come here to work should be provided with houses, but so also should other people who have to work in the Federal Capital Territory. l t is the duty of the Government to provide houses for all and to give preferential treatment to none. In a statement which the Minister for the Interior furnished me on this subject, he stated that up to the present 1157 houses have been erected in Canberra. He also added that -

Tn connexion with tlie transfer to Canberra of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Defence Department, the Government must build houses for the accommodation of the transferred officers. In this connexion the

Government is pursuing a building plan which will, over a period of five years, provide the necessary accommodation for the officers of those departments to be transferred.

The whole situation is unsatisfactory, for I have been informed that the order iu which houses are made available is as follows : first preference is given to permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service, second preference is given to other Government employees, and third preference is given to other persons in the Federal Capital Territory. The unfairness of this procedure is shown by the fact that the young man who was evicted Was born in the Federal Capital Territory and has worked here all his life. He is a married man and his wife is an expectant mother. I am informed by the department that the only concession made to this man -was that the Government undertook to store his furniture. In an apology in the local press for the Government’s action in this connexion, Mr. Percival, an officer of the Department of the Interior, said -

This man had been allowed live or six weeks in which to find other accommodation.

In view of what the Minister had to say about the inadequacy of the Government’s housing policy, I should like to know what possible hope there was of this man obtaining a house here, when it is admitted that the Government has failed to erect sufficient homes to meet the requirements of its own employees? Mr. Percival said that the department appreciated the urgent need for more houses. He is also reported to have said -

Approximately 55 permanent officers wert transferred to Canberra annually. During the past year 52 houses had been* built by the Government. However 50 more permanent officers would arrive in Canberra within tinnext few days. Many houses were also required for skilled tradesmen who had been brought to the city for special jobs.

If 50 more Commonwealth officers arrived in Canberra in the next few days it is difficult to imagine what the situation will be. There is certainly every reason to agree with the Government that the housing shortage is acute, but it is the Government’s duty to correct this position, and further, it is within its power to do so. I want the Government to indicate to the people already residing in the Territory when they can expect, an improvement in respect of housing conditions. The Government should at once embark upon a comprehensive housing scheme, and I hope that it will take immediate steps in this direction.

Mr BAKER:
Griffith

.- Recently the Acting Minister for Health (Mr. Archie Cameron) tabled in this House a report by Mr. Lewis on the Canberra Hospital. Details of that report were published in the press, and the document was recently brought under the notice of the Public “Works Committee. According to information I have received, it was to-day disclosed to the Public Works Committee that a report had been furnished by the Canberra Hospital Board in reply to the report by Mr. Lewis. It is difficult to understand why the reply of the Canberra Hospital Board to statements made in Mr. Lewis’s report could not have been made public at the same time as the original report. This should have been done in fairness to all concerned. I ask the Acting Minister for Health whether he will now table the report of the board ?

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- I strongly support the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) respecting Mr. McPhail and the part he has played in connexion with the establishment of the alkali industry in Australia. The general opinion in Adelaide is that Mr. McPhail has been treated harshly and unjustly. Nothing short of a full inquiry by a special committee will meet the needs of this case. By interjection the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) has inquired as to Mr. McPhail’s standing. I can assure the honorable member, and all other honorable members, that Mr. McPhail is a reputable and well-respected business man of Adelaide. He is a very competent engineer, whose activities warrant the granting to him of every assistance in his endeavours to protect our alkali industry from a great international monopoly. I sincerely hope that the statements of the Leader of the Opposition will be closely investigated, and that in fairness to Mr. McPhail, the proposed committee will be constituted.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

. I know it is not popular to speak at any length at a late hour of the night on a motion for the adjournment of the House, but private members have very few opportunities to ventilate matters affecting their districts and their constituents. Foi this reason, I feel justified in bringing under notice a matter which concerns the members of the Operative Stonemasons’ Society of Australia in the hope that the request I now wish to make on their behalf will be granted. In June last, the members of this organization applied to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for an award for a 40-hour working week. The application was based on the unhealthy nature of the industry anc strong evidence was tendered on this point. It was shown by reports of the Silicosis Committee that out of approximately 400 masons examined in New South Wales, over 50 were affected by the trade disease to a compensatable degree, with a further 35 potential cases. It was also’ shown by the results of a medical examination that the number of masons in Victoria and South Australia affected by the disease was in similar ratio to those of New South Wales. The court, however, held that it would be necessary to have a much greater number of men medically examined, and stated that it would ascertain if the Commonwealth health authorities would undertake the examination. When the matter again came before the court recently, the court stated that the stonemasons themselves should apply for the setting up of a medical commission to inquire into the complaints. The Operative Stonemasons Society of Australia wrote to Dr. Cumpston, Director-General of Health, and also to the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), asking that early action be taken in regard to this matter. I may add that the industry has had a 40-hour week in New South Wales since 1920. The materials used in New South Wales are precisely the same as those used in the other two States and the methods are similar. The organization is satisfied, therefore, that a competent examination would show results that would satisfy the court of the justice of the claim. I ask the Minister to ascertain if there is in the department a file on this subject, and -whether any representations, either to the Government or to the Minister for Health, have been made by the court. The Government should consult with the Commonwealth DirectorGeneral of Health to ascertain how far it is possible to meet the wishes of the court for a wider medical examination.

On many occasions during the last few years I have expressed my regret that the portfolio of the Postmaster-General is not held by a Minister in this chamber. We have, of course, in this chamber a Minister who represents the Postmaster-General, but the lack of direct access to the PostmasterGeneral hinders honorable members a good deal, as important matters cannot be dealt with at first-hand. In respect of the conditions of cable- jointers in the employment of the Postal Department raised by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), I might add that 1 brought this matter under the notice of the Government in 1936 when the dangerous nature of their work due to the escape of gases in the manholes arose in the first instance. At that time three men were affected by gas fumes in the Bexley district and had to be taken to a hospital. One was detained over the weekend. One of them would have passed away, due to suffocation, if a passerby had not noticed his condition in time to have resuscitation methods applied. The whole trouble in this instance has been caused by an engineer named Jones, who has endeavoured to “buck “ what might be called established practice in regard to the employment of a jointer and a mate to work together in this class of employment. In every other section in the metropolitan area of Sydney no trouble exists because departmental instructions have been generally adhered to. When the engineer Jones caused the trouble in 1936, the organization drew the attention of the department to the matter with the result that the following instruction was issued: -

Where cable-jointing is being executed in manholes or tunnels, a jointer should not be employed single-handed if an adequate supply of fresh air is not available to him or work is being performed under conditions which impose or are likely to impose any risk on the employee concerned.

Subsequent to that, things went along quite satisfactorily, Jones had to accept the position. But again he has endeavoured to circumvent the instruction. I might add that, many years ago, the department submitted an application to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, seeking to replace adult mates to cable jointers by the appointment of youths. First Mr. Justice Higgins and later Mr. Justice Powers flatly refused the application and said that the services of youths would be valueless. The organization takes the view, and rightly, that, as the department had already attempted through the court to break down a principle in connexion with the employment of these men and has failed to do so, it has no right to endeavour to overcome its failure by direct methods which are now causing disaffection among the employees involved. This matter, in my opinion, requires only firm handling by the Minister to clear up the trouble. I ask him to take the necessary steps to deal with it.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · Indi · CP

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) referred to the recent eviction of a tenant of a home owned by the Government in the Federal Capital Territory, and the acute shortage of houses which undoubtedly exists in Canberra at present, and offered some observations on that subject. The Government, of course, concedes, as I said in reply to a question this afternoon, that there is an acute shortage of housing accommodation. But this is not a condition peculiar to Canberra ; it is one that exists in almost all of the capital cities and provincial cities in Australia to-day. The peculiar circumstances of the development of Canberra, the recent resumption since the passing of the depression of public works in the Federal Capital Territory, with the consequent influx of a number of tradesmen and others, and the extension of government departments, particularly the Department of the Interior, have resulted in an acute shortage of houses in Canberra at the present time. It is from that fact alone that the necessity for the recent eviction arose. I take this opportunity to say that the fact that this person was evicted is no reflection on him personally. It was an unfortunate necessity which arose solely because of the determination of the Department of tho Interior to act fairly in regard to .the housing accommodation at its disposal. Applications for housing accommodation are recorded in the order in which they are received, and accommodation is made available on that basis. The only qualification to that statement is that the department observes a certain order of priority as to the classes of persons who are eligible to be granted houses. First preference is given to permanent public servants of the Commonwealth; temporary public servants receive second preference; and thereafter other persons in the Federal Capital Territory are provided with accommodation as it becomes available. In their desire to secure housing accommodation in Canberra, some people have attempted to evade the departmental system of making houses available according to strict order of priority. A man may rent rooms in a home of a tenant of the department, and in the event of such tenant vacating the property he has entered into full occupation of the whole dwelling, thereby defeating the purpose of the Government. The circumstances leading up to the eviction to which reference has been made are that the person who was evicted from the home occupied and rented rooms in it. The tenant left the house, and the sub-tenant entered into full occupancy. His rent payments were accepted by the department for several weeks, but subsequently he was given notice to vacate the premises so that it could be allotted to another person whose name came next on the register of persons awaiting bornes. He declined to vacate the premises, with the result that the department was forced to approach the court for an eviction order. He was given at least five weeks’ definite notice to vacate the premises, and even longer notice that he would ultimately have to get out. As he declined to leave the house, the processes of the law had to take their course. When he complained that he had nowhere to take his furniture, the department offered to store it for him, without cost, until such time as he found a home or rooms into which it could be placed. I wish to repeat that no slur is attachable to the person who was evicted.

On the general question of housing in Canberra, I may say that the Government is well aware of the necessity for providing sufficient homes to accommodate legitimate applicants for them. At the present time consideration is being given to the best means of solving this problem.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- The Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) has offered an excuse rather than give solid reasons for the eviction of the persons referred to by honorable members. Some time ago, in the city of Melbourne, Victoria., when an acute shortage of houses existed, steps were taken by the Government to ensure that, in circumstances in which an owner asserted his right to take possession of his own property, thereby driving out its tenant, a home was provided for the evicted tenant, so that the discredit of forcibly removing a tenant and his family, including, as in this case perhaps a wife in a delicate state of health should not attach to the community generally. That sort of thing should not be permitted in this capital city, which is far removed from other cities and places where evicted tenants might possibly obtain other accommodation. The Minister attempted to justify the action of the Government by saying that the person evicted had been a tenant of a part of the building only, and that when the real tenant left it, he took possession of the whole house. I endeavoured to point out by interjection that the person who was subsequently evicted was legally in possession of that part of the dwelling of which he was apparently the accredited tenant, and in respect of which he had paid the rent. Not only that, but for a time his rent was accepted by the department. Clearly he was regarded as a desirable tenant, until pressure was brought by the Government to forcibly remove him in order to make way for another. Apparently, the other person was not in the street and homeless, but had accommodation elsewhere. Had the Minister risen to a proper appreciation of the decencies of the situation, he would undoubtedlyhave accepted the responsibility of seeing that other accommodation was provided for the woman and her family before such drastic action was taken. Such action brings discredit on this capital city in which the Government is supposed to have unlimited areas at its disposal. The Government as landlord has no excuse for such an. action of oppression against a woman in that state of health. 1 join with those who protest against the Government’s action. The excuse offered by the Minister is quite unworthy of him and of an Australian government.

Wednesday, 11 May 1938

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
BarkerAssistant Minister for Commerce · CP

– The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) raised the matter of silicosis among stonemasons. I heard of the matter only half an hour or so before it was brought up. I assure the honorable member that it will be taken up to-morrow morning, and as soon as I can make a statement to the House upon the subject I shall do so.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Cor io · UAP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), supported by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin), referred to the claim of Mr. McPhail in connexion with the alkali industry in South Australia. Although I am not acquainted with all the details, I do know something of this case, and with great respect to the honorable members, I must state that the account I heard differs both in essence and in emphasis from that just stated. However, I shall put the matter before the Minister responsible, and final consideration will be given to it immediately.

The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy) mentioned the position of Imperial ex-service men in Australia, and in particular the case of Mrs. Haywood, the widow of an ex-service man. I shall bring the matter before the notice of the Minister for Repatriation, and ask him to communicate direct with the honorable member for Lang.

The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), supported by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), made representations on behalf of jointers working on manholes in the Bexley district. I am not familiar with the circumstances, but will bring the matter under the notice of the PostmasterGeneral.

Recently, the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Prowse) asked why the European rabbit had never prospered or become a pest in North America or South America. I brought the matter under the notice of the officers of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, who are without specific information, but express the opinion that it is not due to the operation of any particular disease, but rather to the presence of natural enemies in those countries. However, the information is not conclusive, and investigations are still being pursued.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.5 a.m. (Wednesday).

page 1015

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Canberra: Milk Supply - Adherence to Building Plan

Mr Makin:

n asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice -

Has he read the report of the evidence given before Mr. Justice Lutein in Canberra last week, concerning the operations of the Canberra Dairy Society?
If not, will he undertake to do so, and later to make a statement on the serious position of the milk supply in Canberra?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1.No.

No: butI am attending to the question of the Canberra milk supply.

Mr Watkins:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Acting Minister for Health, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to the sworn statement made in the Canberra Supreme Court on the 2nd May, by Clyde P. Greenwood, that the Canberra Dairy Society was given official warning by the DirectorGeneral of Health (Dr. Cumpston) two or three days before the arrival in Canberra in February 1936, of the New South Wales Director-General of Dairying, Mr. L. T. McInnes, who visited Canberra for the purpose of making investigations into questions concerning the Canberra milk supply?
Did the Director-General of Health give any such warning, and if not, will the Acting Minister bring the facts before the Attorneygeneral?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

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

At a meeting of the Federal Capital Territory Advisory Council on the 15th October. 1935, a resolution was passed requesting the Minister to arrange with the New South Wales Government to make available the services of Mr. McInnes to investigate the milk supply of Canberra. The resolution embodied nine specific aspects of milk supply and distribution as matters for investigation. These nine aspects, taken collectively, represented a very comprehensive inquiry.

On the 22nd November, the DirectorGeneral of Health advised the secretary of the Advisory Council that it would not be possible for Mr. McInnes to visit Canberra before the beginning of January, but thathe would make his inquiries early in that month.

Actually it was not possible for Mr. McInnes to arrive in Canberra before the 3rd February, on which date he commenced his inquiries.

As all proceedings of the Advisory Council are conducted in public the fact that Mr. McInnes was to make an investigation was common knowledge.

SirCharles Marr asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government give consideration to the question of the appointment of a special standing committee, whose particular function would be to examine and approve all proposals for works and services in the Federal Capital Territory, and to see that in all ways the plan approved by Parliament for the building of Canberra is not departed from without the consent of Parliament?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The suggestion made by the honorable member will be considered by the Government. I am advised, however, that no departure from the approved plan would be made by the Department of the Interior without the consent of Parliament.

Radio Valves

Mr Scholfield:
WANNON, VICTORIA

d asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

In view of the fact that an alteration in duty on valves has been recommended to this House, is it still his intention to refer this matter to the TariffBoard for inquiry in the near future?
Would any such inquiry include valve parts?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

Yes.
The Tariff Board in arriving at its findings would necessarily have to take into consideration the extent to which valve parts were manufactured in Australia.

Meetings of Parliament.

Mr Blackburn:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

n askedthe Prime

Minister, upon notice -

Why was Parliament not called together this year earlier than its first day of meeting (the 27th April, 1938) ?
How many days has Parliamentsat in each of the following years: - 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?
Does the Government accept as valid the provision of The Bill ofRights - “that for redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently “ ?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s question are as follows : - 1 and 3. A large amount of preparatory work was necessary in order that the Government might be in a position to place before Parliament, on the resumption of its sittings, a programme of work. In particular, the Government’s proposals connected with defence, and the national health and pensions insurance scheme required a great deal of attention. In addition to the pressure of business associated with the parliamentary programme, the Government was closely occupied, up to the time of the departure of the ministerial delegation from Melbourne on the 22nd March, with the consideration of various matters affecting Australian trade likely to be discussed at conferences overseas.

It would have been possible to have summoned Parliament to meet on a date just prior to Easter. This would, however, have caused considerable inconvenience to members representing constituencies in the more distant States, and for this reason the date of re-assembling was fixed for the earliest convenient date after Easter.

2.-

(a). General elections were held during 1934 and 1937.

Commonwealth Ammunition Factory: Acceptance of Commercial Orders

Mr Drakeford:

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Have any directions been given to the munitions establishments not to seek orders or to refuse orders if offered for the supply of sheet or strip brass and other metals, previously supplied to outside firms?

Mr Thorby:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

As the output of the rolling mills and foundry of the Commonwealth Government Ammunition Factory is now required for the purposes of the Department of Defence, notice has been given to all concerned that the Department will be unable to accept commercial orders for sheet metal after the expiry of six months.

Trade Marks Fees

Mr Price:

e asked the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General, upon notice -

Is it a fact that on quite a number of occasions the honorable member for Boothby in speeches and questions suggested a reduction in trade marks’ fees?
Is it also a fact that the then AttorneyGeneral promised consideration of the suggestion that the scale of charges be reduced from £5 to £3, i.e., £2 on lodgment of the application for registration and £1 on registration of the trade mark?
Will the Attorney-General give this question his attention and grant this request?

Mr Hughes:
Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : - 1, 2, and 3-

The revision of the whole of the law relating to trade marks is now under the consideration of the Government.

Rifle Clubs.

Mr Thorby:
CP

y. - On the 3rd May the honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Green) asked to be supplied with a list of applications for the establishment of rifle clubs in Western Australia. I am now in a postion to inform the honorable member as follows : -

The number of applications for new rifle clubs received by the District Base Commandant in Western Australia is nine (9), as follows: -

Public Service: Working of Overtime

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s - On 5th May the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) asked the following question, upon notice : -

Will the PrimeMinister supply the number of hours of overtime worked in the Patents Branch, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Trade and Customs in the lost twelve months, and the amounts paid for overtime in each of these departments for that period?

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

Postal Department : Surcharge on Air Mail.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– On the 5th May, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) asked the following question, upon notice: -

In view of the fact that other parts of the British Empire with a serviceable area approximately as big as the Commonwealth of Australia, such as South Africa, have penny postage within their boundaries, and that the airmail between Africa and England is carried both ways without surcharge, will he advise the House why comparable charges cannot be made in Australia?
Ifhe cannot see his way clear to eliminate this surcharge, willhe consider the reduction of the present figure of 1,700 per cent. per oz. to the more modest figure of, say, 100 per cent. per oz.?

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answers to the honorable member’s questions : -

Without knowing all the circumstances which govern the policy of other countries, I regret I am not in a position to say why Australia is unable to adopt comparable charges for its overseas air mail services.
The Government has carefully examined the financial aspect of the charges to be imposed on mail matter to be conveyed by the overseas air services, and has reached the conclusion that, for the time being, it is in the best interests of Australia to impose a charge of five-pence per half ounce, in lieu of the existing rate of1s. 6d. per half ounce.

Wireless Broadcasting : Control of South Australian Stations

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 5th May, the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clarke) asked the following question, upon notice : -

What broadcasting stations in South Australia are owned and/or controlled by Advertiser Broadcasting Services Limited, or Advertiser Newspapers Limited?
In what broadcasting stations in South Australia do Advertiser Broadcasting Services Limited and Advertiser Newspapers Limited hold shares?
What are the numbers of shares held by each of these companies in the various broadcasting companies?

The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answer to the honorable member’s questions : - 1, 2 and 3. Advertiser Newspapers Limited holds the licence for5AD. The latest information available shows the company’s shareholdings in other South Australian broadcasting stations to be limited to sixty-five in a total of 820 shares in Midlands Broadcasting Services Limited, the licensee of 5P1. By agreement with the companies concerned, Advertiser Newspapers also control 5MU, 5PI. and 5SE

National Fitness Campaign.

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

n.- In reply to the question asked by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) concerning the national fitness campaign in Great Britain, I have now to advise that the Department of Health has been keeping in close touch with the measures which havebeen taken in England in the campaign directed towards physical fitness.

The National Health and Medical Research Council considered the position at its first meeting, and passed a resolution in the following terms: - “ The Council considers that the whole system of health supervision of children should be immediately reviewed with the object of securing -

Regular and complete supervision of bodily health during infancy and childhood to the age of sixteen years.
Regular interaction of all children in the elementary principles of hygiene and in phy sical culture.
Regular instruction of all girls in the composition and pre paration of food.

The Council cannot accept the present state of supervision of child health as adequate, nor indeed asbeing the maximum that the public will permit. It believes that a definite extension on lines indicated will receive widespread public approval.”

This is a matter for State governments primarily, but the Commonwealth Government has recently given a lead by arranging that demonstration centres shall be established in each capital city for pre-school children with the object of studying possibilities and demonstrating methods of improving the health of children at this earlyage whensuch measures are most likely to prove beneficial. It is understood that in some States the possibility of measures along these lines amongst school children is being considered.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 May 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380510_reps_15_155/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives10 May 1938

QUESTION

WATERSIDE WORKERS

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE

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

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr ANTHONY:RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr ANTHONY:

Mr LYONS:UAP

Mr BEASLEY:WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:

Mr BAKER:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr CASEY:

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CASEY:

Mr HARRISON:

Mr CASEY:

QUESTION

INDECENT LITERATURE

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PERKINS:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

QUESTION

IMPORT OF CALIFORNIAN PRUNES

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

CANBERRA MILK SUPPLY

Mr STACEY:ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

Mr MAKIN:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:UAP

QUESTION

OVERSEAS AIR MAIL SERVICE

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Mr CURTIN:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:CP

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOUSING

Mr JAMES:HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr STACEY:

Mr McEWEN:

QUESTION

SURVIVING MEMBERS OF FIRST COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT

Mr GREEN:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

CHAIR OF AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH

Mr HAWKER:

Mr CASEY:UAP

Mr HOLT:

Mr CASEY:

Mr HARRISON:

Mr CASEY:

POSTAL DEPARTMENT’S SURPLUS

Mr WILSON:WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:UAP

QUESTION

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Mr JAMES:

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

MUNITIONS SUPPLY BOARD

Mr CURTIN:Fremantle

Mr Thorby:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr Thorby:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr Thorby:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

Mr LYONS:

Mr Curtin:

House of Representatives
10 May 1938

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

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

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr STACEY:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CASEY:
UAP

Mr WILSON:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · Wilmot · UAP

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

Mr GANDER:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro- Acting Minister for Trade and Customs · Eden · UAP

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

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

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth