House of Representatives
18 May 1938

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1938

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

page 1195

QUESTION

EXPORT OF IRON ORE

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– A telegram hasbeen received from the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, asking if we can secure from theGovernment some indication as to what action is to be taken in regard to the conserving of the iron ore deposits in that State, and mentioning that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is shipping large consignments of iron ore to a foreign country and is endeavouring to secure a monopoly of the iron ore deposits in South Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr MAKIN:

-Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate the intentions of the Government in this matter, with a view to the interests of this nation being conserved and the prevention of any action that might prejudice the position of other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– In regard to the first part of the question, I had hoped to make a statement to-day. I am not able to do so, but I shall definitely make it tomorrow. If some company is endeavouring to monopolize the iron ore deposits in South Australia, that is a matter, not for the Commonwealth Government, but for the State concerned.

Later:

Mr GREEN:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister able to inform me whether the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has been permitted, through other agencies, to export 76,000 tons of iron ore from Whyalla, South Australia, to Japan in the last few months?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– It is well known that exports of iron ore have been made from Australia for a considerable time. As to the actual quantity exported in the period referred to by the honorable member, I shall obtain information.

page 1195

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of recent promises by the predecessor of the present Minister for Defence in regard to the assistance to be given by the Commonwealth Government to rifle clubs, will that honorable gentleman explain why he is now seeking to limit the development of this economical and useful arm of defence?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honorable member that the form in which questions are asked often transgresses the rules governing the asking of questions, which definitely provide that an honorable member may not express either his own views or those of other persons.

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The number of members of rifle clubs for which provision is made in the Estimates is 50,000, and that number has already been reached. The number of applications for the establishment of new rifle ranges is considerable, but the Government hasnot made any allocation for rifle clubs other than that madefor the50,000 members to whom I have referred.

page 1196

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the following statement which appeared in a section of the Australian press last Saturday : -

Sydney, Saturday.

Because New Zealand is, after all, onlyexpressing the views held twelve months ago by Great Britain herself, the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hughes) sees nothing extraordinary in Now Zealand’s opposition to British foreign policy on the Spanish and Abyssinian questions. “ Spain’s case at the League of Nation’s Council meeting had been put most reasonably,” Mr. Hughes said. “ Recognition of Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia was to revert to the laws of the jungle.”

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! A few minutes ago, I reminded honorable members of the rules governing the asking of questions, and said that it was wrong for an honorable member, when asking a question, to quote the opinion of an outside person. The Minister is asked to reply to that opinion. I ask honorable members to observe the rules.

Mr FORDE:

– Are the expressed views of the Minister for External Affairs the considered opinion of the present Federal Government? If so, are they not somewhat at variance with the recent decision of the British Government, with which it is understood the Federal Government concurred? Does that mean that Australia has again changed its foreign policy?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must observe the rules governing the asking of questions.

Later:

Mr FORDE:

– Has the Prime Minister read a report which appeared in last Saturday’s Melbourne Herald of a speech made by the Minister for External Affairs in Sydney in regard to Italy’s conquest of Abyssinia? Ifso, are the views expressed therein the considered opinion of the Commonwealth Government on foreign policy?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I have not read the report referred to by the honorable “member, but I shall confer with the Minister for External Affairs as to his actual statements on the subject.

page 1196

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

UseofCopyrightMaterial.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Postmaster-General any information to give to the House regarding the report published recently in the press that a considerable saving will be made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission as the result of a voluntary arrangement with the Performing Right Association in regard to the amount of tribute to be paid for the use of certain copyright material in radio programmes? If not, will the Minister make a full statement to Parliament at an early date?

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

– I have no information on the subject, but I shall make inquiries, and, if possible, make a statement to the House.

page 1196

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

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

– Has the attention of the Minister for Defence been drawn to the report which appeared in the Brisbane Truth of Sunday last, in which it was stated-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The Chair insists upon the discontinuance of questions in this form. When a question is asked which expresses the view of some outside person, or even of the honorable member himself, the Minister is asked to give an answer to what that person has said. The honorable member may not state the view of any person.

Question not proceeded with.

page 1196

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– In view of the marked success which has attended the broadcasting of debates in the Parliament of New Zealand, will the Prime Minister give favorable consideration to the broadcasting of the debates of this Parliament ? If his decision is in the affirmative, will he consider the initiation of such broadcasts with the broadcasting of the speeches of representative members on both sides of this House in connection with the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The honorable member has assumed that the broadcasts in New Zealand have been a success. I have yet to be assured on that point. Until I am so assured, and until I am satisfied that the broadcasting of the debates which take place in this House would add to the prestige of the Commonwealth Parliament in the minds of the people. I am afraid that I am not prepared to accede to the honorable member’s request.

page 1197

QUESTION

BANK CREDITS TO FARMERS AND PASTORALISTS

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Is the Acting Minister for Commerce aware that banking institutions in New South Wales are displaying a general tendency to withhold necessary credits from farmers and pastoralists who are hard pressed as the result of drought conditions, and by so doing nrc compelling wool selling brokers and similar institutions to shoulder the major portion of the responsibility for drought finance? As a matter of urgency, will the honorable gentleman make representations to the Government of New South Wales and to the banking institutions in that State, with a view to prevailing upon them to accept their full measure of responsibility in this matter, and thus avert the tragic- -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Does’ the Minister not consider that the continuance of such a policy will be responsible for tragic and unnecessary loss of stock? Will he further state whether, in his opinion, fodder reserves in New South Wales are adequate to meet any special demand that may be made upon them as the consequence of drought conditions?

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

– I have received no complaints against banks or other financial institutions in New South Wales. Should such complaints be sent to me, I shall certainly discuss them with the other members of the Government, but I shall see how the land lies within the next day or two. I have had some attention devoted to the matter of fodder reserves. At the present stage, having consulted with certain leading men in New South Wales, I am of the opinion that there is no need for alarm at the possibility of a shortage of fodder owing to dry conditions in that State.

page 1197

QUESTION

WAR PENSIONS

Mr THOMPSON:
Minister without portfolio, assisting the Treasurer · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– On the 11th May the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) drew attention to the remarks of the Auditor-General for the Commonwealth, regarding the alleged unjustified payment of war pensions and asked what action the Government proposed to take to clear the appeals tribunals and twelve returned soldiers of the implication that the payment of certain pensions was unjustified. The Minister for Repatriation states that lie has received reports from the various pension tribunals associated with the Repatriation Department. This matter has been fully considered by the Government and it has been decided not to make any alteration of the present method of the assessment and granting of war pensions.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) recently asked for an assurance from the Minister for Repatriation that in all doubtful cases of war pensions the benefit of the doubt should be given to the returned soldier. The Minister is pleased to be able to inform the honorable member that every application for a war pension is considered on its merits. The whole of the facts are weighed, and every endeavour is made to arrive at an equitable decision, giving the .benefit of any reasonable doubt to the ex-soldier.

Later:

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation able to say whether the reply that he gave to-day to a question which I asked on the 11th May, is to be considered final ? If so, I desire to know what action tha Government proposes to take in connexion with the statement in the AuditorGeneral’s report that at least twelve returned soldiers are receiving pensions to which they are not entitled. Has the Government taken action, or does it contemplate taking action either to verify the statement of the Auditor-General or to clear the names of those men?

Mr THOMPSON:
CP

– The Government does not propose to take any action in regard to the cases referred to. The statement which I made this afternoon on behalf of the Minister for Repatriation, namely,’ that the Government did not intend to alter the present methods of dealing with pensions was, I thought, an effective answer to the Auditor-General’s statement. I may add that the Minister informed me that inquiries into the twelve cases referred to showed that the decisions of the tribunal were based upon evidence submitted and were in no way brought into question by the criticism of the Auditor-General.

page 1198

QUESTION

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL LOAN

Mr STREET:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer in a position to give me any information concerning the success or otherwise of a loan of £10,000,000 recently floated in London by the London County Council? Can he say what proportion of the loan was left with the underwriters, and bow the amount compares with the amount of the recent Australian loan that was so left?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The London County Council went on the London market for £10,000,000 a few days after the recent Australian loan was floated. Unfortunately 96 per cent, of the loan was left on the hands of the underwriters.

page 1198

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE BROADCAST

Mr CURTIN:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Treasurer inform me whether he has delivered an address on national insurance over the national broadcasting network since he delivered his second reading speech on the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill in this House? If so, did the honorable gentleman make a written application to the Broadcasting Commission for permission to make the speech? Did he forward a type script of the proposed speech to the commission? Will he lay on the table of the House the correspondence on the subject?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I delivered a speech over the A class broadcasting network last Monday evening on national insurance. The matter was arranged verbally and not by correspondence. I submitted a draft of what I proposed to say to the general manager of the Broadcasting Commission.

Mr BAKER:

– With reference to the statement of the Treasurer that the draft of a speech which he proposed to broadcast was recently submitted to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and was, of course, approved, can the Treasurer say-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! A question must not be based on the reply given to a previous question.

Mr BAKER:

– Is it correct to assume, as suggested to-day, that any draft of a speech proposed to be broadcast by the Treasurer will necessarily be approved by that body irrespective of its contents?

Question not answered.

Later:

Mr BAKER:

– On “a point of order I asked a question a few minutes ago and the Treasurer has not yet replied.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

page 1198

QUESTION

HOME-CONSUMPTION PRICE FOR WHEAT

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Acting Minister for Commerce inform me whether the Australian Agricultural Council, at its meeting in Canberra last week, discussed a proposal for the introduction of legislation to fix a homeconsumption price for wheat? Will he intimate what motions were proposed and carried, and whether the representatives of the various States agreed upon any scheme with the object of fixing a home-consumption price? Is it intended to print and circulate a full report of the proceedings of the council for the information of honorable members?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
CP

– A statement concerning the proceedings of the Australian Agricultural Council will be made in the House to-morrow. The representatives of the six States were unanimously of the opinion that the Commonwealth Government could fix a homeconsumption price for wheat by means of excise duties and bounty, but they could not agree upon any other means of doing so. The subject has been referred back to the States for further consideration and report to a meeting of the Agricultural Council which will be held in Perth in three or four months’ time.

page 1199

QUESTION

BOUNTIES

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Will the Treasurer have a return prepared showing in detail the bounties paid to particular industries in Australia each year since the 1st July, 1932, and also indicate for the convenience of honorable members the total amount so paid?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I shall be glad to do so.

page 1199

QUESTION

AERIAL SURVEY

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Defence make the services of the Australian Air Force available for the purposes of carrying out a complete aerial survey of Australia?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– An aerial survey is now being carried out. Sections of the air force are acting in conjunction with the military authorities in the matter.

page 1199

QUESTION

NATAL RECRUITING

Mr LANE:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In connexion with naval recruiting, will the Minister for Defence consider the desirability of accepting those older lads who, as the result of the depression, are still unable to obtain employment, instead of giving preference toyounger lads, as at present?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– I shall bring the honorable member’s suggestion under the notice of the Naval Board and seek its opinion.

page 1199

QUESTION

BOOCK BRE AK-OF-G AUG E DEVICE

Mr HARRISON:

– Has the Minister for the Interior received from the New South W ales railways authorities the report of their Chief Mechanical Engineer on the Boock break-of-gauge device? If not, can he advise the House whether the Government intends to take steps towards the standardization of the railway gauges?

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

– I have received from the Minister for Transport in New South Wales, for my confidential information, the report of the Chief Mechanical Engineer on the Boock break-of-gauge device. Since that report was made, a further report has been furnished by the Engineers of Ways and Works, representing all the Australian railway systems, who were in conference in Sydney, and took the opportunity to study the models and the drawings of the device. Among those who made the later investigation was the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the New South Wales Railways Department. The report is of such a nature as to make it appear that the expenditure necessary to put the device into use is not likely to be warranted.

In regard to the question relating to the standardization of railway gauges, I desire to state that the Commonwealth Government is interesting itself in this matter. At the last Premiers’ Conference held in Adelaide, the matter was raised, and it was arranged that a conference of Ministers of Railways and Transport should be held to consider it. Several meetings of the representatives of the various railway systems to prepare the agenda for the conference have been held, and the conference of Ministers, at which I shall preside as the representative of the Commonwealth, will take place later in the year, on a date to be fixed by the Commonwealth Government.

page 1199

QUESTION

NORTH AUSTRALIA DEFENCES

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– Before deciding on the defence expenditure to be incurred at Darwin, did the Minister for Defence and his advisers consider the advantage of and necessity for providing naval and air defence on the North Queensland coast, and will he review the matter in the light of the value of North Queensland, its lack of defence, and its geographical position in relation to Singapore and New Guinea and the protection of the northern coast-line of Australia?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– All the points mentioned by the honorable member were taken into consideration. Before being agreed to, the defence plan was thoroughly investigated by overseas authorities. The Government’s policy is to give to North Australia, as well as to the other parts of the Commonwealth, the maximum, defence possible with the money at its disposal.

page 1199

QUESTION

MOTOR CHASSIS AND ENGINES

Mr GREGORY:

– Is it a fact, as reported, that the Tariff Board’s report on the manufacture of motor chassis in Australia was referred back to the board for further consideration? If so, can the

Minister give the reasons for doing so, and can he say when this Parliament is likely to receive the report or reports of the Tariff Board on the subject?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– A report was received from the Tariff Board three or four months ago, but as certain information which the Government desired was not. included in it, the report was referred back to the Tariff Board. The required information was supplied, but, as I pointed out recently in this House, the report was handed to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White) on the day he left Australia, and he took it with him. The Minister has since cabled that he is forwarding the report to Australia with certain recommendations.

page 1200

QUESTION

SENATE ELECTIONS

Mr NAIRN:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it intended that the committee proposed to be appointed to inquire into the method of electing senators shall be appointed before the 30th June next, or after that date, when the new senators have taken their seats?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The Government does not intend to make the appointments until the new senators have taken their seats.

page 1200

QUESTION

COTTON BOUNTY

Mr FORDE:

– In view of inquiries from the cotton-growing districts as to the reason for the delay in restoring the cotton bounty, will the Minister indicate when it is expected that the proposed legislation will be introduced?

Mr PERKINS:
UAP

– Cabinet has agreed to the restoration of the bounty, and a bill to give effect to it has been prepared. It will be introduced at the earliest possible moment.

page 1200

COMMONWE ALTH BANKING LEGISLATION

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Treasurer been directed to the statement made by the chairman of the Bank of Adelaide, that if the reports were correct the Government proposed to introduce legislation to empower the Commonwealth Bank to take over a percentage of the cash reserves of the trading banks and that it would compel the trading banks to transfer more than £30,000,000 of their cash reserves to the Commonwealth Bank, thereby reducing their liquidity and power to maintain or expand advances to industry; also, has the Treasurer been informed that since that statement was made there has been evidence of a slight contraction of credit by some of the trading banks to place themselves in a more liquid position should this arise—-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is making an. assertion. To do so is not in order when asking a question.

Mr McCALL:

– In view of the need for the free flow of credit to primary producers and industry, will the Minister assure the banking community that no action will be taken by the Government which would necessitate thebanks contracting advances ?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

-I must regard the reported statement of the chairman of the Bank of Adelaide as hypothetical, in view of the fact that the public are not aware of the Government’s proposal as to the mobilization scheme for overseas funds. In any event, I criticize the calculation quoted by the honor able member in respect of the minimum deposits. With reference to the latter part of the honorable member’s question, I desire to state that the Government’s objective in setting up the Royal Commission on monetary and banking systems and in bringing inbanking legislation is to do good rather than harm.

page 1200

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Treasurer whether he has noted, what I think is an undoubted fact, that the Commonwealth parliamentary debates are printed on paper which is pale and anaemic and altogether unsatisfactory, and that the print is difficult to read at night? Will he inquire as to whether this is due to difficulty in securing better paper, or is it the fault of the printing machinery?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I shall certainly have the matter looked into.

page 1201

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: LIVE CATTLE EXPORT

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I desire to ask the Minister for Commerce whether, in view of the very earnest inquiries his department in conjunction with the Department of the Interior, made two years ago in an endeavour to develop a live cattle trade from Darwin to Singapore, which failed because of the lack of co-operation and the difficulty experienced in obtaining a 5,000 to 7,000-ton cattle boat, will he, in the light of recent events, prosecute the inquiries further so that this eastern trade in cattle from Darwin might be revived and extended to Lae and Salamaua to supply the residents and natives of the New Guinea gold-fields?

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

– The matter raised by the honorable member will have my attention.

page 1201

QUESTION

DEATH OF LEADING SEAMAN STORRER

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Defence make available for the perusal of honorable members all the evidence submitted to him in connexion with the death of Leading Seaman Storrer?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– I shall give consideration to the matter and advise the honorable member.

page 1201

PAPUAN ABORIGINES

Mr McCALL:

– In view of the early departure of the Minister for External Affairs toNew Guinea I should like to know whether his attention has been directed to the latest report on the Territory of Papua, on page 24 of which there is a reference to men with tails and the statement is made that Mr. Healey, the Assistant Resident Magistrate has reported that there is a tribe of people in the territory possessing tails. In order that honorable members may be assured—-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must vouch for the accuracy of the statement, otherwise he cannot base a question on it.

Mr McCALL:

– I vouch for it because it is contained in a departmental report, and I desire to ask the Minister if he will investigate the position during his visit to Papua.

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

– All that I can say at the moment is that I shall have the matter looked into.

page 1201

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL

Regulations.

Mr BEASLEY:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Treasurer make available such portion of the regulations dealing with national health insurance as has already been published in the current issue of the journal of the British Medical Association?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– I am not aware that even a forecast of the regulations has been published. I shall certainly look into the matter, and see if what might be a forecast of the form of certain regulations has been published.

page 1201

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an honorable member to ask a question, without notice, when a question covering the same matter is already on the notice-paper, pursuant to notice, and for a reply to the question asked without notice, to be furnished prior to an answer having been supplied to the original question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is not in order to ask a question without notice if a similar question is already on the noticepaper. If a question without notice has been allowed in those circumstances, it has been due to an oversight on the part of the Chair.

page 1201

QUESTION

VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS IN NEW GUINEA

Mr BAKER:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister in Charge of Territories explain; to the House the position with regard to the volcanic eruptions last week-end in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea, and state whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the new site for the capital of that territory?

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– The matter will be taken into consideration.

page 1201

PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES ADJUSTMENT BILL 1938

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

Assent reported.

page 1202

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1938

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Lyons) read a first time.

page 1202

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Contract Immigrants Act - Return for 1937.

Immigration Act - Return for 1937.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired at -

Alice Springs Northern Territory- For Administrative purposes.

Ivanhoe, Victoria -For Postal purposes.

Jandakot Agricultural Area, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

Maylands, Western Australia - For Defence purposes.

Meteorology Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1938, No. 37.

Navigation Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1938, No. 39.

Northern Territory Acceptance Act and Northern Territory (Administration) Act-

Ordinances of1938 -

No. 3 - Interpretation.

No. 4- Wills.

No. 5 - Registration of Dogs.

No.6 - Darwin Administration.

Crown Lands Ordinance - Regulations.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act -

Ordinances of 1938 -

No. 7 - Lunacy.

No. 8 - Industrial Board.

No.9 - Workmen’s Compensation.

No. 10 - Inquiry.

No. 11 - Roman Catholic Church Property Trust.

No. 12 - Auctioneers.

No. 13 - Companies.

No.1 4- Police Superannuation.

No. 15 - Real Property.

No. 16 - Inebriates.

No. 17 - Inquiry (No. 2).

No. 18 - Rural Workers Accommodation.

No. 19 - -Apprenticeship.

Adoption of Children Ordinance and Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance - Rules.

Regulations amended under -

Industrial Board Ordinance.

Plant Diseases Ordinance.

page 1202

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1937-38

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Consideration resumed from the 12th May, (vide page 1184) on motion by Mr. White (vide page 427) -

That the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-36 be amended as hereunder set out . . .

Mr SHEEHAN:
Cook

.- When the discussion was interrupted on Thursday last, I was referring to the cut glass industry, and to its potential value as a desirable secondary industry in Australia. A more sympathetic understanding of the true position of the industry is required. The Tariff Board could not be considered to be unaware of the actual facts with regard to it. A statement concerning the industry was made in this chamber last year by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), in reply to a question submitted by an honorable member on the Opposition side. The Minister’s statement was as follows: -

I promised the honorable member, in response to his inquiry, that I should order a full inquiry to be made into the matter. I have now received the report of those investigations, and it unfortunately verifies the fact that the cut glassware section of the Crown Crystal Glass Company Limited has been closed. Inquiries which I had made this morning, indicate that the principal reason advanced by the local manufacturers for the closing down of the works was the fact that large importations were being made from Czechoslovakia at prices with which the local company found it impracticable to compete … If I may refer honorable members to the Tariff Board’s report on this subject, it will be found that, despite the high duties which have obtained in the past on this commodity, the local manufacturers have secured only 25 per cent. of the local market.

This shows that those who desire to purchase luxury lines will exercise their preference, irrespective of the cost. If the cut glass industry were permitted to develop in Australia, its products would cease to be regarded as luxury lines. Cut glass goods made in this country would be eagerly sought after by householders generally, who would recognize their value, both utilitarian and ornamental. The Minister further stated -

I cannot let the occasion pass without referring to the profits made by Australian Glass Manufacturers Company Limited over the last few years . . . Taking into account its action in closing down the cut glassware section, these profit figures appear to indicate that this company’s concern is rather the preservation of its dividends more than the interests of its employees, by maintaining the cut glassware section in production.

The Crown Crystal Glass Company has made its profits from other sections of the industry and is entitled to a margin of profit from the cut glass section. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company

Limited andthe Colonial Sugar Refining Company are also making huge profits, but there is no suggestion that they are to be deprived of the protection given to them by the tariff. The Minister also said -

I have always said that if those engaged in an industry think that the protection is inadequate, they may approach the authorities with a view to having it increased.

Who are the authorities? The Tariff Board, or the Minister for Trade and Customs? However, the Tariff Board has been approached by the Secretary of the Cut Glass Employees Union with a request that the position of the employees be investigated. These men are waiting for an opportunity tobe re-employed; but. even if the board submitted a report which, from their point of view was favorable, it would take many months for the industry to be re-established, because of the necessity for the erection of huge buildings, kilns and plant. It is therefore essential that the board should submit its report as early as possible.

Other sub-items in the schedule relate to the duty on sanitary and lavatory articles of earthenware, and domestic pottery. The report of the Tariff Board dealing with this industry is entirely unsatisfactory. I understand that since the report was submitted, the Minister has conferred with the board and that a compromise has been arranged. A strange feature about the whole business is that Parliamentis asked in May, 1938, to ratify duties recommended by the Tariff Board in November, 1937, based on the conditions obtaining in 1936. Since the inquiry two years ago, conditions in the industry have materially altered, due to an increase of the basic wage by 10s. a week, with consequent increases of the cost of materials. The reduction of the duties on sanitary earthenware will enable overseas manufacturers to invade the Australian market at a time when, owing to the boom in the building trade, Australian manufacturers, after working industriously to develop the industry, had hoped to find a profitable market for their output. I had an opportunity to inspect these works recently, and I realized that we had the nucleus of an important Australian industry which should have adequate pro tection to ensure the maintenance of Australian conditions and standard of living.

It is stated that, Article 10 of the Ottawa Agreement prevents the Tariff Board from making a more favorable recommendation with regard to this industry among others. As honorable members know, Article 10 provides that the protective duty to be imposed shall not exceed a level that would give United Kingdom producers full opportunity for reasonable competition on the basis of relative costs of economic and efficient production. This provision in the agreement prevents the Tariff Board from functioning in the interests of Australian manufacturers.

I stated in my speech on the £10,000,000 loan bill for defence, that the Labour party believes that, owing to the exposed nature of Australian trade routes, defence will be impossible until such time as Australia is capable of producing within her own territory every necessity for war and for victualling an army and civilian population, for a long period. We recommend that the tariff should be used to provide this security. The development of Australia demands that we should adopt a protective tariff. The Labour party declares its fiscal principles in these terms: -

  1. Effective tariff protection of Australian industries, with measures to prevent profiteering and to assure industrial protection to workers.
  2. Import embargoes, if necessary, to assure the home market to Australian industries capable of fully supplying the demand, subject to control of prices and to industrial conditions, Australian standards.

This country should be guided by the results obtained in the two greatest manufacturing countries in the world from the institution of a tariff wall. I refer to Germany and the United States of America.

Germany presents the most remarkable instance in modern times of the use of a protective tariff in the fostering of industry and the building-up of a great empire. By means of the zollverein, or customs union, Germany changed from a number of small states, each with its own customs barriers, to a homogeneous economic area, with freetrade between the states, and a protective tariff to guard all of them from external competition. The adoption of the zollverein, with the unparalleled progress that followed it, was one of the principal factors in creating the Second German Empire. German factories expanded under adequate protection. Their growth was aided by Victorian England’s stubborn adherence to the principle of freetrade. Up to the Great War, protected German industries were actually pouring their surplus products at reduced prices, unhindered, on to a British market already served by British manufacturers.

The United States of America, like Germany, furnishes a striking example of a country whose industries have been nursed into huge proportions by protecting them against foreign competition. Up to 1860, America’s policy varied, but its tariff history since the civil wai” shows that a strong and consistent protective policy has been followed. Customs duties imposed indiscriminately during the war to raise revenue, were retained to help home industry. A tariff wall more extreme than any previous one was raised, and, behind it, industry flourished and grew strong. Wool and woollens, copper, nickel, steel rails and other steel manufactures, and marble - among other commodities - were all subjected to prohibitive duties, -with the result that great strides were made by American manufacturers.

The most striking expansion was that made by Andrew Carnegie, the steel magnate, and other corporations owning Bessemer .patents, when the duty on steel rails was increased. In many cases high duties were imposed in an effort to establish new industries, as was the case when velvets and plushes were subjected to very high import duties in 1894. This high tariff wall put American manufacturers in a position where they had sole access to their home markets, and the great progress they were then able to make enabled them to lower costs of production and thus permit of extensive exports. Prom its beginning in 1790 with one little spinning factory employing nine persons, the United States of America, through its ardent protectionist policy, has .become the most intensively organized and prosperous industrial country in the world, with 300,000 factories employing 8,000,000 workers. Surely this is an object lesson for Australia, and one to confound the pessimists. Since the war the nations have, in aa endeavour to re-establish themselves economically, practically unanimously adopted protective tariffs. Germany since 1924, has re-imposed high duties on imports, only relaxing them where reciprocal arrangements can be made with another country. Other European States have followed suit. Under Mussolini’s absolute sway, imports have been banned, according to the. necessity for rehabilitating or establishing the Italian article. In all climes, and at all times, we thus see that the nations, in order to correct internal depression or ensure industrial expansion, have had recourse to the tariff wall against the goods of their trade rivals. I would be prepared to place on any article a duty that would enable an industry to obtain a foothold in this country and maintain itself against foreign competition. I wish thi3 Parliament to concede assistance that will enable industries to become established in Australia. We have the example of the dry battery industry in my electorate. The Ever Ready Company commenced operations only a few years ago with but six employees. It was given protection by this Parliament. I was at the opening of its new premises a few months ago and saw 600 or 700 contented men and women there. It was a pleasure to go through those works, to see the modern methods of production employed and to know that only Australian labour is engaged and that an important Australian product is being turned out which has the advantage of the home market. The Labour party has always requested the Government to give protection to the secondary industries of this country so that they may develop fully and enjoy the advantages of the home market.

The Ottawa Agreement has come up for review in the course of this debate. According to to-day’s issue of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Government considers that one of the most important features of the Trade Conference in London will be the review of articles 9 and 12 of that agreement. That journal, says inter aiia, -

Domestic conditions have changed since the Ottawa Agreement was signed, and at times the Ministry lias been embarrassed. There have also been changes in the international situation which have made the need for indus-‘ trial self-containment more urgent …. The Commonwealth Government does not propose., to make any general departure from the” present principle by which the basis of duties is determined by “the Tariff Board, but t le Ministry thinks that Parliament should be free to disregard Tariff. Board recommendations if it is desirable.

The Labour party has been asking the Government to do that ever since the Ottawa Agreement was signed. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), who helped to draw up that agreement, definitely stated in this Parliament a few days ago that it was not satisfactory. Honorable members who sit on this side of the chamber have been advancing that contention for the last six years. I sincerely hope that the Government will not back down on the statement which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald to-day, and that the agreement will be considerably revised or even practically abrogated, because I am somewhat concerned at the further statement in the Sydney Morning Herald which points out that, at a luncheon given to Sir Earle Page and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. “White), one of the British representatives said -

The federation of British industries, in a statement submitted to the Government, urges that the new Anglo-Australian Trade Agreement should be more advantageous to Great Britain than the present one. It declares that if articles 9 to 13 of the existing treaty had been carried out in the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement. Empire economic cooperation would have been inaugurated. It adds that, on the contrary, the Australian Tariff Board had never fully implemented the principle of article 10, namely, that protective duties should not exceed a level that would give to United Kingdom producers a ful opportunity for reasonable competition.

These people will not be satisfied, no matter what the Tariff Board may do, until they get the open door. We all know what happened when the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited sought to develop the steel pipe industry. Overseas manufacturers protested, and their protest was upheld, with the result that the steel pipe industry in Australia was sabotaged. Article 10 of the Ottawa Agreement operates most unfairly against Australian industries. Why should overseas manufacturers be entitled to advantageous terms? We have not the opportunity to inquire into their profits. The Tariff Board does not investigate their operations and the cost of their raw material, but every phase of Australian industry is investigated to see whether there is a loophole which will enable some concession to be given to the overseas manufacturer. Article 9 of the Ottawa Agreement states -

Hi3 Majesty’s Government in the Common- .. wealth of Australia undertake that protection by tariffs shall be afforded only to those industries which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success.

That article should be immediately removed from the agreement. Who is to determine whether an industry is reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success? Everybody realizes that some industries may require three, four, or five years in which to develop and have reasonable opportunities .for success. Some may require even ten years. The point is, that it is very difficult to determine whether an industry has sound opportunities for success. The Australian people and the Australian Government should be prepared to give to any industry, by means of a protective tariff., an opportunity to develop in this country. I arn convinced that the present position in Australia is most unsatisfactory to the secondary industries, and in their interests I trust that the Ottawa Agreement will be abrogated.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I should like, in the first place, to express my keen satisfaction at the remarkable improvement which has taken place within recent years in the secondary in- ,dustries of Australia. I pay a tribute to the Government for the most careful attention -it has given to their development in season and out of season. To-day, our secondary industries employ 554,000 workers, an increase of 104,000 compared with the pre-depression period. The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins) indicated in his observations that factory production last year was valued at £17S,000,000, and said he anticipated that next year the value will be £188,000,000. That i3 a splendid record, of which any young country might justly be proud. I pay a tribute also to the employers and employees who have used every endeavour to produce the highest class of article which will compete with almost any article that is im-, ported. Undoubtedly that is one of the reasons for the special success that has been achieved. For quite a long while the Government has adopted an attitude with which I have never agreed, namely, that the reports of the Tariff Board must be accepted holus bolus. My view is that the Tariff Board consists merely of human beings.

Mr McCall:

– It is liable to make mistakes.

Mr FRANCIS:

– As my friend the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) has pertinently interjected, every human being is liable to err. To err is human; to forgive, divine. Let us forgive the Tariff Board its mistakes, by correcting them in this chamber. I propose at a later stage to submit a number of instances of failure on the part of the Tariff Board. I believe that the Minister also is to be blamed for having blindly followed the recommendations of that body. I shall he able to’ show that in some cases the cost of production has been substantially increased in the industries concerned since the presentation of the Tariff Board’s reports. I hope that the Minister will give very careful and sympathetic consideration to the evidence I shall later submit, and not continue to follow blindly the reports of the Tariff Board.

Some honorable members, by their speeches, have created an atmosphere which might lead the country to believe that our primary industries are not protected. All too frequently we have to listen to a tirade of abuse of, or a general attack on, our secondary industries. I believe, and in this I am in accord with the Government, that both our primary and our secondary industries are entitled to adequate protection. That is the only just method to adopt. I am not in favour of any unbalanced, lopsided tariff administration or organization. I feel certain that the Government will continue to provide adequate protection for our primary as well as our secondary industries. I am indebted to the proper authorities for a resume of some items of a primary character that have substantial protection. Let us take, for example, bacon and hams. In their case, the British preferential tariff is 3d. per lb., and the general tariff 4d. per lb. Butter and cheese are protected by duties of 6d. and 7d. per lb. respectively, bananas by a duty of 8s. 4d. a. cental, citrus fruits by duties of Id. and lii. per lb. respectively, other fruits by 3s. and 6s. & cental respectively, dried fruits, not including dates, by 6d. per lb. in each case, fruits and vegetables preserved in liquid by 5s. and 7s. a dozen respectively, wheat by 2s. a cental, barley by 2s. a cental, maize by 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. a cental respectively, meat by 3d. and 6d. per lb., processed meats by 2d. and 3d. per lb., milk, condensed, by 2d. to 2£d. per lb., and in dry and powdered form by 3d. and 4d. per lb. respectively. In the case of sugar, there is total prohibition. The duty on onions is £S a ton British preferential anr] £8 a ton general tariff; on potatoes it is 2s. 6d. per cwt. in each case, on other vegetables it is 2s. in each case, and on rice, cleaned, it is I-i-d. per lb. in each case. I am grateful for the opportunity to assist in making this protection available to them and many other primary industries, and I shall make every effort to ensure that all our primary industries arc adequately protected.

We have also heard quite a lot of criticism, of the iron and steel industry from the same quarter. I point out that wire netting is imported from Great Britain duty free, and that the duty on galvanized iron is £4 10s. a ton. I think the Acting Minister will agree that, prior to the depression, all of our requirements of galvanized iron were available in Australia; what limited quantity there was imported was selling at prices in excess of the Australian price. Because of an industrial disturbance in the industry, quantities of galvanized iron imported from overseas free of duty have recently been available. From whatever point we view the matter, we shall find that our primary industries are receiving adequate protection and generous and sympathetic help and assistance whenever necessary. If there is one industry which is not protected, the onus rests on it to acquaint the Minister of the fact, when he should automatically refer the matter to the Tariff Board.

Prior to the imposition of the duty of 6d. per lb. British preferential and 7d. per lb. general on butter in June, 192S, Australia was inundated with supplies of butter from the sister dominions and other countries during the cold months of the year, when the local production fell off, or when Australia was subject to droughts - which, unfortunately, were of all too frequent occurrence. At such a time, when a very limited quantity of dairy produce was being received from our agricultural areas and the price should have been comparatively high in order to balance the lower production, New Zealand and other parts of the world frequently inundated this country with butter, taking advantage of any slight increase of price because of the decreased production, with the result that prices were smashed and the industry found itself in difficulties again and again; consequently, the Government came to its assistance. I played no small part in convincing the Government of the wisdom of referring the matter to, the Tariff Board and helping in the passage of the increased duty through Parliament. The following tabic gives the imports of butter, and their value, in the years prior and subsequent to the granting of adequate protection to this industry : -

It will be seen clearly from this table that since 1928, when the Tariff Board recommendation was made effective, this industry has been granted substantial and effective protection.

Mr McCall:

– Is the honorable member aware that Professor Brigden reported that the primary industries of Australia had been granted protection valued at £40.000,000 i

Mr FRANCIS:

– I remember reading that report. I also remember reading a report made by the group of economists, appointed by the Bruce-Page Government to inquire into the incidence of our protective duties, in which it was stated that the primary industries of this country were substantially protected; with such protection 1 am heartily in accord. I have no hesitation in declaring that I am enthusiastically in favour of the protection of primary industries. I am anxious, however, that the public should be told the story in its true perspective.

Following upon the proper protection of the dairy industry in consequence of the report of the Tariff Board, the Government took steps to arrange for the organization of the industry on an Australiawide basis. The Dairy Produce Export Control Board was established, and it has done such good work that this industry has never been in a better position than it is in to-day. Of course those engaged in it still have to meet the serious consequences of the severe droughts which afflict the country from time to time. In consequence of the operations of this export control board uniform standards for export have been established and our butter has been packed far more attractively than ever before, bearing the universal nation trade mark - the kangaroo. Moreover, the board has been able to arrange for a substantial reduction of various . charges, such as marine insurance and the like. Under the heading of marine insurance there has been a saving of £.15,000 each year since 1935. Freight charges have also been reduced by £48,557 each year since 1935. The Commonwealth Government has also assisted in advertising our dairy products overseas. The fund made available for this purpose has amounted to £246,525. Exceptionally Hood work has been done in this regard in Great Britain by the Director of Australian Publicity, Mr. A. E. Hyland. I am glad to have this opportunity to pay a tribute to the excellence of this officer’s work. The constitution of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board has been varied somewhat from time to time in the light of experience gained over the years it has been operating, with the result that there is now a very wide appreciation of the good work that board has done. An amount of £1,500 has been spent each year on advertising Australian dairy products in eastern countries. I am glad to note that an additional £500 a year is now being devoted to this purpose.

Under the conditions to which I have directed attention it is1 not surprising that the industry has expanded. One other factor that has contributed to this end has been the importation of pedigreed stock from overseas. Substantial assistance has been granted in this regard by the shipping companies. It may he said, in fact, that they have nobly co-operated in a scheme which has led to a marked lifting of the standard of our dairy herds. The shipping companies carry pedigreed stock free from overseas to Australia. The expenditure incurred under this heading to date has been £15,279. The total number of pedigreed stock imported has been as follows: Cattle, 150; sheep, 130; pigs, 36.

Undoubtedly the operation of the Ottawa Agreement has resulted in greatly extending the market available in Great Britain for Australian dairy products. The preferential treatment, to the extent of 15s. per cwt. on Australian butter over that imported from other than dominion countries has meant a great deal to our dairy farmers. The development of the export market for Australian butter is shown by the following table, which gives the number of boxes of Australian butter exported in the years mentioned : -

Our exports are being maintained in the vicinity of 4,500,000 boxes each year in spite of serious droughts.

Mr. Francis.

Mr GREGORY:

– It is a pity that our dairy producers have only the British market available to them.

Mr FRANCIS:

– That is due to the policy of other countries. The Government’s efforts at the making of trade treaties with other countries should remove trade barriers in those countries and open up new markets. It is gratifying to know that, although for a good many years Australian butter could be bought on the British market at prices substantially lower than those paid for New Zealand or Danish butter, in recent months our butter has ‘been selling for a higher price than that from either New Zealand or Denmark. This is the first occasion in our history, and it is undoubtedly due to the policy of development and improvement that has been maintained during the last few years in consequence of the provisions of the legislation introduced by this Government for the assistance of the industry.

I wish now to deal with the confectionery industry. In consequence of a review of the industry by the Tariff Board, following upon the ratification of the Ottawa Agreement, certain reductions of duty on imported confectionery were approved, although, so f ar as I have been able to ascertain, no application was made for reduced duties. Those engaged in this industry in Australia have now accepted the new duties and are operating under the reduced protection; ‘but, unfortunately, the Government has not seen fit to accord the industry the measure of assistance which was recommended by the Tariff Board when circumstances made such assistance possible. The Government has adopted the view that, under articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Ottawa Agreement, it is obliged to accept any recommendations made by the Tariff Board. I entirely disagree with this view, and have said so on numerous occasions. I submit that this Parliament should be the supreme tariff-making authority in Australia. The proper procedure, in my opinion, is to request the Tariff Board to make an investigation into any industry and to report to Parliament. Such reports should be for the guidance of the Parliament. It should not he obligatory upon Parliament to accept all the recommendations made, for, after all, the Tariff Board is an outside body, and should not be superimposed upon the Parliament. Parliament itself should be supreme, for it alone is answerable as the elected representatives of the people. However, as the Government has adopted the practice of accepting the recommendations of the Tariff Board, I ask that a recommendation of that body in its report dated the 2nd September, 1936, on “ Cocoa beans, cocoa butter and substitutes therefor, caramel, cocoa, chocolate and confectionery “ be adopted. The board reported as follows: -

It is not the function of the board to make any recommendation with regard to what is purely a revenue matter, and, while it might reasonably be argued that the confectionery industry should contribute its quota to revenue by means of a primage duty on raw materials, the board is of the opinion that when the financial position of the country so permits, as much relief as is possible should bc granted the confectionery industry through the medium of reductions or removal of primage duty on such materials.

I do not consider that the confectionery industry has been treated fairly, for the primage duties have not been reduced. For a considerable time the Government has been making efforts to reorientate our affairs with the object of restoring the conditions that applied prior to the depression. We all know that certain reductions of salaries and wages, and of war pensions and old-age pensions and the like, special imposts have been either abated or restored. Only last week, when a certain measure was being considered in this chamber, members of the Government stated that our economic position had been so far recovered as to make possible the restoration of practically all the reductions that had been made of salaries, social services and the like. In these circumstances, I request that effect he given to the recommendation of the Tariff Board that the primage duty on the raw materials required by the confectionery industry be reduced and, if possible, removed entirely. The following table sets out the duties and primage that are now in operation in relation to this industry: -

The items enumerated in that list are the raw material of the confectionery industries. Many of them must he obtained from other than Empire countries and in respect of those a primage duty of 10 per cent, must bc paid. Surely, the time has come when relief could be granted from this heavy impost.

The Minister is concerned for the wellbeing of our secondary industries, and 1 hope that he will take an early opportunity to bring before his colleagues in the Cabinet the recommendation of the Tariff Board for a reduction of the primage duty on these items, with a view to effect being given to it in the next budget.

In its report, the Tariff Board stated that, generally speaking, there had not been any reduction of the rates of duty on the principal raw materials used in the manufacture of confectionery. Since the inquiry in 1931, it pointed out that, on the contrary, owing to the incidence of primage and the imposition of increased customs duties, the cost of imported raw commodities had risen appreciably. These raw materials are not made in Australia. The Australian confectionery industry is a large employer of labour and a consumer of large quantities of Australian raw materials. It is, indeed, one of Australia’s big secondary industries. The Tariff Board estimates the value of the Australian output of confectionery at £5,000,000 per annum, and states that, on that basis, its 7,500 employees receive wages totalling about £1,000,000 a year.

Mr Gregory:

– The industry makes a profit of £1,000,000 a year.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) does not give any consideration, to the reports of the Tariff Board. I direct his attention to the following statement in the report of that body: -

  1. A review of the financial position of a number of representative manufacturers indicates that the industry is not as a whole makins! high profits - in fact, the earnings of some large firms are low.

That is the finding of the Tariff Board after a complete examination of the industry. Yet, the honorable member is prepared to damage an important secondary industry by saying that it i3 making fabulous profits. My appeal is based on evidence submitted to the Tariff Board. I challenge the honorable member to produce evidence in support of his contention.

Another passage in the report of the Tariff Board reads -

Mr. X. C. North, on behalf of the Australian confectionery industry, requested that primage on all items of raw material tor the confectionery trade bo either removed or reduced, and that similar action be taken with regard to the duties imposed under the Customs Tariff on a. number of raw materials which cannot he produced in Australia.

The industry uses large quantities of Australian raw materials, namely, sugar, glucose (liquid), essences, nuts and kernels, butter, milk (powdered), gelatine, honey, fruits (dried and pulped), and packing materials. Many of these, because of methods of assistance and protection afforded to Australian producers, arc more costly than they would be if purchased at current world prices.

The Tariff Board recommended that, in respect of raw materials, the primage be either entirely removed or substantially reduced, but the Government has not given effect to its recommendation. It has, however, seriously inconvenienced the industry by reducing the tariff on imported confectionery, on the recommendation of the Tariff Board. I emphasize that a large proportion of the imported raw material does not qualify for admission under the British preferential tariff and is subject to a primage duty of 10 per cent. The following extract from the evidence submitted by Mr. Nash sums up briefly the attitude of the Australian confectionery industry towards the duties, both customs and primage, on .raw materials: - . . because of intensive competition within our industry, any concessions in duties on raw materials would not constitute extra profit to the industry, but would simply help to cheapen prices of our product to consumers, and by increasing the demand for same would automatically help increase the demand for many other Australian-made foodstuffs, for, as shown in a previous table, confectionery is not just a luxury, as some people imagine, but is actually only a very palatable form of consumption of a great variety of wholesome foodstuffs.

In addition to the reasons already given for some relief to our industry in the duties on raw materials, there is a very important further reason making such relief imperative, and that is the tendency, becoming more noticeable daily, of prices of overseas raw materials to rise considerably.

The report of the Tariff Board continued -

The Board agrees with Mr. Nash that the higher cost of essential requirements checks expansion of the industry and thereby limits its capacity to purchase more raw materials and employ more labour. The board has previously expressed the view that some of the duties imposed on the requirements of this industry should be lightened, but having taken no recent evidence on these subjects, is not in the position to recommend further in the matter.

It is not the function of the board to make any recommendation with regard to what is purely a revenue matter, and while it might reasonably be argued that the confectionery industry should contribute its quota to revenue by means of a primage duty on raw materials, the board is of the opinion that when the financial position of the country so permits, as much relief as is possible should be granted the confectionery industry through the medium of reductions or removal of primage duty on such materials.

I emphasize that that is the considered opinion of the Tariff Board after a most careful examination.

No evidence relating to overseas costs or prices is available, and the amount of tariff protection required can, therefore, be determined only on general grounds. According to the Tariff Board’s report, the main facts revealed during the inquiry showed -

  1. The present importations are very small, and amount to slightly over £20.000 sterling compared with a total consumption of approximately £A5,000,000.
  2. This low importation is not, however, the result of excessive duties, for the present duties are largely offset by the high costs of raw materials as the result of protection and the imposition of primage duty.
  3. The industry would appear to be efficiently organized and the products are of good quality and are sold at prices which are governed by keen internal competition.
  4. A review of the financial position of a number of representative manufacturers indicates that the industry is not asa whole making high profits - in fact,the earnings of some large firms are low. (e)No requests for reductions of duty were made either by United Kingdom or consumer interests.

Mr.Rankin. - The industry is insisting on retailers increasing prices by 80 per cent.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I emphasize that this is not a luxury industry, as some imagine, but an important branch of the foodstuffs industry, in that it utilizes many Australian and imported products and manufactures them for consumption by the public. The mere fact that confectionery and chocolate are pleasant to the taste does not make them luxuries; their constituents would not of themselves be so classed. In addition to the direct employment which it provides, the industry gives a great deal of indirect employment in those primary and secondary industries which produce its raw materials. For instance, confectionery manufacturers use annually about 20,000 tons of refined Australian sugar, thereby providing employment for growers and cutters of cane, workers in the sugar refineries and others. The industry also uses about8,000 tons of Australian maize syrup, or liquid glucose each year. As a ton of maize syrup is the product of 76 bushels of maize, it will be seen that the confectionery industry uses the equivalent of over 600,000 bushels of maize annually, thereby assisting those engaged in growing maize, as well as the manufacturers of glucose. As liquid glucose is also made from wheat, the industry also, at times, assists wheat-growers. About 500 tons of Australian gelatine, made from the sinews, hides and fat of cattle, is used each year. In that way, the industry assists pastoralists and their employees, as well as those engaged in the manufacture of gelatine. Similarly, its use of large quantities of butter, and of condensed and powdered milk, helps dairymen and factory employees. Aniarists supply honey, and orchardists the dried fruits and fruit pulpused in the manufacture of confectionery ; growers of wheat and maize find a market for their flour and starches, whilst the growers of almonds and peanuts have an outlet for their produce. The use of vegetable fats, mainly coco-nut, by this industry helps the manufacturers of such products, as well as their employees. Moreover, in the manufacture of the tins, and of the wood and cardboard box containers, and in the printing of labels, many other Australians find employment. The provision of factory buildings, and of plant and machinery, and the supply of goods for transport by rail and sea tend to increase the value of this industry to the community. Obviously, therefore, if the output of confectionery is to be reduced because of the rapidly rising prices, of materials and wages, the ultimate result will be that, in addition to the adverse effect on the confectioneryindustry itself, many primary producers and manufacturers of other Australian products, as well as their employees, will suffer. It is not, however, in respect of Australian raw materials that relief is sought by means of reduction of duties. I realize that Australian living conditions, and the measures necessary for Australian defence, must be taken into consideration. Moreover, I am averse from asking for a lower measure of protection for any other Australian industry whose manufactured products form the raw materials for this industry. Nevertheless, it is only fair to say that this industry suffers great disabilities, compared with its overseas competitors, particularly in respect of the prices paid for raw materials. The Australian price of maize syrup is about two and a half times the English price, and, in addition, wages and production costs generally are higher in Australia than in other countries. The disabilities under which the industry labours justify more sympathetic treatment by the Government in respect of the duties on those materials which it has to import. In order that Australian confectionery may maintain world standards, Australian manufacturers must import cocoa-beans from West Africa and South America, licorice from Turkey, gum arabic from the Soudan, dates from Arabia and Persia, and nuts from Spain, France, China, Brazil and Italy, in addition to a variety of articles from those and other countries.

Summarizing the requests of those engaged in the confectionery industry, I urge, first, the removal of primage on British-grown cocoa-beans, which are obtained mainly from British West Africa, but also from Trinidad and Ceylon; secondly, the removal or reduction of primage and/or duty on foreign cocoa-beans, whilst preserving a margin of preference for British-grown beans; thirdly, the removal of primage on gum arabic, a product of the Soudan; fourthly, the removal or reduction of primage and/or duty on the kernels of almonds, walnuts and Barcelona and Brazil nuts; fifthly, the removal or reduction of primage and/or duty on tins and aluminium foils, tinplate, licorice, menthol, vanilla beans, vanillin, lecithin, outside packages of raw material, box tops, albumen, essential ‘oils, and some special essences not produced in Australia. The concessions asked for are justified on the evidence furnished to and the recommendation made .by the Tariff Board.

I shall refer now to the rubber industry which made a substantial contribution to Australia’s recovery from the economic depression, during which period a duty of 4d. per lb. was imposed on imported raw rubber. Later, when there had been a certain amount of recovery, the duty was reduced to 2d. per lb., the present rate, which I submit should be removed. There is also a further impost of 10 per cent, primage on imported raw rubber, although the primage under trade agreements with other countries on imported rubber manufactured goods is only 5 per cent. It baffles me why the Australian rubber industry should have to pay a duty of 2d. per lb. on raw material and 10 per cent, primage, when 5 per cent, primage is charged on imported rubber manufactured goods. I do not think that the Government has done the fair thing by the confectionery and rubber industries. Perhaps their claims have been overlooked, and I appeal to the Government to give them sympathetic consideration when the budget is being prepared. Substantial profits are not made in these two industries, which are conducted efficiently, employ a large number of men and women, and pay good wages. They are also of great benefit to Australia and they should not be handicapped any longer by the tariff or primage imposts. I hope that in giving effect to its tariff policy in relation to secondary industries, the Government will desist from the practice of blindly following recommendations of the Tariff Board, thereby making that body superior to Parliament. I appeal to the Ministry to adopt the recommendations of the Tariff Board in respect of the confectionery and rubber industries, because there is overwhelming evidence supporting the recommendations. If the general duty were reduced and the heavy duty on raw materials removed, the confectionery industry would be sub- stantially assisted. The other request to the Minister is the removal of the duty and primage on raw rubber imported into Australia, and it is based on the fact that the duty was imposed in order to raise additional revenue during” the depression. Only last week the Ministry took certain action in the belief that the economic depression has passed. Because I hold the same belief, I appeal to the Minister to remove the duty on raw rubber imported into Australia, and if he cannot do that, to make strong recommendations to the Government with a view to having the 10 per cent, primage on imported raw rubber removed entirely or reduced. As pointed out, foreign countries under trade agreements export manufactured rubber goods to Australia and the primage charged is only 5 per cent., but the Australian industry is compelled to pay a duty of 2d. per lb., and 10 per cent, primage on imported raw rubber. An honorable member interjected that the industry could pass on the burden, but how could it when primage on manufactured rubber goods imported into Australia is only 5 per cent? “With the substantial advantage in their favour foreign competitors would make it impossible to pass on this impost as has been suggested.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time allotted to the honorable member has expired.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- In addressing myself to this subject it appears to me essential to determine first what I conceive to be the real function of Parliament upon these matters. I agree with the previous speaker that Parliament must not surrender its judgment to any board created under an act of Parliament. One must realize, however, that the operation and effect of tariffs; their relation to the domestic security of the people, and their effect on the fiscal and industrial fabric of the community, and upon international relationships, are matters that call for highly specialized training and knowledge. I confess that I am incompetent to substitute my judgment for the Tariff Board’s findings unless I have overwhelming evidence opposed to those findings. I believe that, apart from questions arising out of the Ottawa Agreement, consideration of the tariff requires specialized knowledge, that Parliament should be the watchdog of the people, and that the recommendations of the board should be accepted prima facie and should not be rejected unless for substantial reasons. I have read with much care the report of the Tariff Board and its reports on the specific items included in the schedule under discussion. My view is that one is totally incapable of deciding whether the report in respect of any specific item is right or wrong, because we have not the full evidence before us. The Tariff Board was set up to apply technical knowledge to technical subjects, and Parliament should accept prima facie the recommendations of the board, unless evidence brought before one, or one’s own knowledge, convinces him that the recommendation of the board is wrong.

Mr BRENNAN:

– The honorable member’s statement has very wide qualifications.

Mr SPENDER:

– The qualifications are wide, but can be applied rationally. If one happens to have been engaged in industry for many years, I suppose one is capable, provided one has knowledge of economics, to say that one is not satisfied about any particular item. Again, if one has had placed before him the conflicting view-s of different interests, then he may be, equally with the Tariff Board, in a position to determine the matter. Although I have at all times opposed, and still oppose, arbitrary action and the delegation of legislative authority by Parliament to another body, my own view is that in respect of technical matters - and I know of no more difficult and highly technical matter than the tariff - delegation is proper and before one rejects the recommendations of the Tariff Board one must be completely satisfied that it is wrong.

Advancing my general view on the tariff, I realize that, whatever it is, it must invite and be subject to criticism. I shall not be dogmatic on any doctrine I advance, because one cannot be dogmatic on any specific tariff matter. Freetrade, approached theoretically, has a strong case, but one cannot approach it except in its practical application to Australia. Divorced from its actual results, particularly in a new country, it has a strong argument to support it, but applied to the practical affairs of Australia it has very little* to support it at the present juncture. The view is advanced that the primary-producing industries should be given heavy assistance by way of bounties and tariffs, and the figures quoted by the previous speaker show to what extent the Government has included primary production under the protection of the tariff. But, at the same time, it is claimed that all goods imported into Australia should be brought in free of duty if possible, except where such goods cover the field of primary production. In this, there is a conflict of ideas. It is protection for primary industries and freetrade foi secondary industries, and it appears that the .duty of those who advance that argument is purely sectional, and not national. The primary producer says that he wants the full purchasing power of the money his products bring overseas and on the local market, but he does not want any restriction placed on imports, because it would affect his purchasing power and his export market. Those are the views advanced by what I believe to be sectional interests. Secondary industry advances a sectional view, too, because of the desire that it should prosper. My view is that one cannot approach any particular item in a tariff schedule dealing with either primary or secondary industry, and say that the policy to be. adopted in respect of that item considered separately should be this or that, because both primary and .secondary production are inter-dependent, and each item has an effect on every other item of production. I do not accept the general impression which has been created in Australia that Australia depends mainly on primary production. My view is that the destiny of this country is wrapped up mostly in the development of secondary industry. I acknowledge the great debt that this country owes to primary production in the past, as it does in the present, but taking the long view one must realize that the advance of Australia can be made possible only -by the provision of more a venues for employment, and on past experience and present conditions I fail to see how primary production can afford the necessary facilities. It appears, therefore,, that there are two conflicting views, each sectional, and the consumer comes between them. Each particular section requires protection. Primary production has had protection for years, and the products of secondary industry are protected by the tariff. In spite of all that protection, the cost of it, in most instances, is almost entirely passed on to the consumer. In the welter of the conflict between sectional interests, the interests of the consumer are apt to be lost sight of completely. I believe that the tariff should be used almost wholly for the purpose of adjusting differences with regard to production, that is, for the purpose of implementing governmental policy in stimulating production and diverting capital from non-productive to productive industries. The tariff should never be used for revenue purposes, except in respect of certain luxuries. Tariff imposts are indirect taxes and these are passed on to the consumers in a form which is uneconomic, because it throws an unfair burden upon them.

Mr Brennan:

– Upon the working classes.

Mr SPENDER:

– I agree entirely with the honorable member. A nation’s stability primarily depends on the purchasing power of the people. Having regard for the fact that the vast majority of people have only small sums of money to spend each week, the huge tariff imposts, which total over £40,000,000 a year, and are finally paid by the consumers on the goods they use, arc a departure from what 1 conceive to be the cardinal principle of taxation in a modern community - that it should be made to fall on the shoulders best able to bear it. Therefore, I oppose the use of the tariff for revenue purposes, and I earnestly hope that, in the not far distant future, tariffs will be used, except in respect of luxury lines, only for the legitimate .purpose of implementing the trade policy of the Government. That being my view on this subjectmatter, I now direct attention- to certain considerations applying to secondary industries.

The cost of secondary industries has, in the past, burdened the consumers unnecessarily. In my opinion, our prosperity lies along the path of industrial progress, but I arn not prepared to lend myself to a policy which will foster Australian industries irrespective of their co-st to the country. When the cost becomes prohibitive the industry is uneconomic. It appears to me that the two primary functions of a tariff policy designed to stimulate and encourage trade and industry are to have regard, first, to the national point of view, and secondly to the material welfare of the inhabitants. In considering the matter from the national viewpoint, I suggest that

I he approach is entirely different from that in the other case. The costs in an industry may be quite prohibitive if calculated merely on :iu economic basis, but, when national interests are considered, the costs must not be taken too closely into account, for economic considerations are submerged by national interests. .For instance, there are two industries which I believe should bc established in Australia. Judged by economic standards, the initial cost of their establishment might be considered prohibitive, yet, in the final result, they might prove of considerable economic value. I refer to the manufacture in Australia of our own transport vehicles, and also the establishment, through private enterprise, of the ship-building industry. I consider that on national grounds the establishment of these industries is essential. I refuse to accept the argument with respect to motor car manufacture that the demand is not sufficient to justify the encouragement of such an industry, since, in New South Wales alone, the number of motor vehicles registered is 300,000. In support of the establishment of the shipbuilding industry, one of the primary considerations is national security. If, in the past, we had laid the foundations of an Australian industry capable of constructing and maintaining all ship3 required by us, it would not have been necessary to send money overseas for the purchase of cruisers. Having regard to the fact that each year £10,000,000 is spent in outward freights, none of which is earned ‘in Australian-owned ships, we realize to what an extent we are depriving ourselves of wealth. If these two indus tries were established in this country, they would assist us both nationally and economically.

In determining the amount of protection which should be given to secondary industries, on the second basis, we mUM have regard to the material welfare of the people generally. The contention has been often accepted in the past that because a person has established an Australian industry he is entitled to protection. I consider that to be wrong. Many men whom I have met in industry seem to think that once they invade the sphere in which they produce articles hitherto imported, they are entitled to go to the Government and say, “ We want protection.” Frequently, protection has been given, apparently, for no other reason than that, but, obviously, that cannot be the proper way to approach the problem. We should consider the matter from the economic point of view, and the first question must be - will the cost of this industry be prohibitive? If we could view the world as an economic entity, with all the nations living at peace with one another, it might be Well for Australia to develop its primary industries, even at the expense of its secondary industries, accepting by way of imports the products of the highly industrialized and efficient areas of Northern Europe and the United States of America; but that, to my mind, is not the path that Australia must tread. It is necessary to establish and maintain Australian industries, which I regard as vital to the progress of this country, by means of protective duties. At some stage, however, these duties will impose too great a cost on the community, and the time will come when they will be uneconomic.

Mr Beasley:

– How is that stage to be determined?

Mr SPENDER:

– Not by any particular formula, but by the consideration of certain factors to which I shall refer at a later stage. I suggest that we must first consider how the protection of an industry affects our export markets, because, in so far as it does, it either increases or reduces our credit overseas. Secondly, we must ask ourselves to what extent the cost of goods is increased by tariff imposts, and what classes of goods are particularly affected. Where they affect the necessaries of life, the extra cost is passed on to the masses of the workers and reduces their purchasing power to a point at which they are frequently unable to procure sufficient essential foodstuffs and other necessaries. When that stage is reached, at least, the cost is prohibitive from the economic point of view.

The history of the operation of the Australian tariff provides instances of manufacturing industries which have not been conducted efficiently - even backyard industries - being able, by the aid of prohibitive duties, to make a profit at the expense of the community. An industry should be carried on efficiently, and on a proper costing basis. Its assets should be judged according to their productive, rather than their market value. After considering to what extent the methods employed are efficient, we must then determine the degree of inefficiency carried by the tariff. I am satisfied that frequently tariff protection has been given to industries which are not being conducted efficiently. Despite the rapid advance made in recent years by secondary industries, which reflects the highest credit on the executives and the workmen concerned - in the last ten years, industrial production has been almost revolutionized - there is considerable room for the weeding out of uneconomic industries, or their gradual extinction by providing a sliding scale of protective duties. Of course, in the case of inefficient industries, in which large capital is invested, and a great number of employees find work, the removal suddenly of protective duties would make the second condition worse than the first, but, unless these industries can be carried on efficiently, they must be gradually eliminated. The cost of inefficient production cannot always be passed on to the consumers, because the burden finally becomes so great that it vitally affects the welfare of the community by reducing disastrously the purchasing power of the people.

To summarize my views, it seems to me that the considerations in approaching the subject of the protection of secondary industries should be -

  1. What is the power of employment of the industry?
  2. What is the additional cost to the community ?
  3. What is the degree of efficiency of the industry?
  4. What other industries are assisted by the shelter of the protected industry ?
  5. What other industries are detrimentally affected by such protection?
  6. To what extent does the protection affect the purchasing power of money and increase the cost of living and the cost of production ?
  7. The capacity of the industry protected to diminish gradually the need of protection presently required by more efficient means of production.
  8. The extent of the protection required.
  9. The effect on primary industry.
Mr Beasley:

– Those considerations cover a very wide scope.

Mr SPENDER:

-Cartainly. No matter what views may be expressed on this matter, they invite criticism. I do not advance my opinions dogmatically, but these are the considered views at which I have arrived, and I know of no matter which so vitally affects the economic life of a country as that of tariffs and bounties.

I believe that the functions of the Tariff Board should be extended, and that the Board should be compelled to review periodically the conditions obtaining in industries to which protection has been given, in order to ascertain whether it has been properly applied and used. I think I am right in saying that, under the Tariff Board Act, the board is not obliged to review the position of an industry, except when a tariff matter is referred to it. A periodical review, at least every five years, should be made of all industries, primary and secondary, which receive tariff protection or bounties. This review should be made by the Tariff Board in respect of import duties, and by another body working in conjunction with the board in respect of primary products. Then we could determine the possible cause of a great deal of our economic trouble. Each industry says from time to time, “ our profits are not sufficient. We are unable to carry this or that burden”. One of the chief reasons for this complaint is the over-capitalization of the assets involved. This criticism applies particularly to primary industries, because, in respect of secondary industries, the values of the assets involved frequently find their own level. But much of the land held by primary producers, however, was bought at boom prices. In times of depression there i* an attempt to keep up the value of the land, and profits are calculated on a fictitious value instead of on the real value of the land.

Mr Beasley:

– These cycles arise out of the present system. Why not alter it?

Mr SPENDER:

– I do not agree with the honorable member. Depressions will come, no matter what system may be devised. I agree that under improved conditions the effects of depressions may be minimized, but I do not believe that under any system which the human intellect can devise depressions can ‘he avoided.

Mr Beasley:

– -That is an appalling outlook for humanity.

Mr SPENDER:

– I suppose there are some people who think that they can so fashion the world that no ill whatever can come to humanity, but I do not agree with them. The whole history of human endeavour during the last 2,000 years shows that man will never draft a system which will completely bring peace, security and plenty for all.

Reverting to my subject-matter, I say, therefore, that there must be a periodical review of all these matters so as to determine whether excessive values are being placed upon capital invested, whether investment is overcapitalized by an unnecessary amount being used in industry, and whether industry, in each particular case, is being run efficiently and full use is being made of the protection given. I believe that a high living standard has, to a large extent, been maintained by the combined effects of protection and consistent and heavy borrowing overseas. There must be some other way to maintain these standards. It is my belief that, in the last analysis, the natural resources of the country and the ability to develop these resources will determine the living conditions of our people.

Mr McCALL:
Martin

.- I listened with a good deal of interest to the excellent speech just delivered by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). Evidently the honorable gentleman made a profound study of his subject, for his speech was a valuable contribution to the debate. I agree with him that there has been a good deal of loose talk with regard to the assistance given to our primary and secondary industries.

The observations of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) impel me to remind honorable members of some statistics which I compiled for my speech on the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill in 1935. They may, I think, appropriately be presented to the committee at this juncture.

The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) mentioned the difficulties under which our primary producers were labouring, and asserted that if they had been assisted on the basis of the protection given to our secondary industries they would not be floundering in the morass of debt in which so many of them now find themselves, notwithstanding that for a number of years they have been receiving higher prices for their products.

I do not approach the consideration of this subject with any feeling of antagonism to our primary producers, because I realize that as wealth producers, they play an important part in our economic development. I know that they would be unable to carry on but for the fact that they are able to obtain remunerative prices in the Australian market for 54 per cent, of their production, and sell the balance in the overseas market at a reasonable price. I also know that our secondary industries would not have been able to expand to their . present dimensions but for the market provided by the primary producers and the assistance which they received in the form of tariff protection.

In this connexion I recall the following interesting statement made by Professor Copland : -

If all the factors were explored as carefully as factors relating to secondary industries were explored, we would all be surprised at the growing cost of assistance given to primary producers.

That observation was made in reply to the following statement made by the Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page), when speaking on the motion for the second-reading of the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill: -

The debt of the community generally to the primary producer has never been properly realized, and can never be adequately repaid.

Professor Giblin, speaking subsequently at a Science Congress in Melbourne, said -

The farmer hasbeen taught for so many generations that he is the backbone of the country; and that his activities are more of the nature of pious devotions than of sordid commercial ventures, that it is hard for him to believe that his country ever will fail to maintain him in the production of increased quantities of wheat and butter, even if nobody wants them and they are produced only to be destroyed. This doctrine receives so much support in political and general sentiment, that the farmer has some justification for his optimism.

Following these statements, and with the assistance of the two authorities mentioned, I made a survey of the position with a view to ascertaining the aggregate, and also the annual assistance that had been given, directly and indirectly, to our primary industries. I take, first, the position in Victoria. The report of the Victorian Closer Settlement Commission in 1933 disclosed losses amounting to nearly £10,000,000, in respect of which liability for interest and sinking fund payments is still being borne by Victorian taxpayers. -In Western Australia, the position is much the same. I find that the Government of that State advanced £7,602,000 to finance the group settlements scheme, and that the losses to date amount to over £5,300,000. The royal commission which inquired into the operations of the Western Australian Agricultural Bank reported losses of over £12,000,000, involving the taxpayers of that State in an annual liability of £615,000 for interest. At the present time, farmers of South Australia owe the State Government more than £14,000,000. The New South Wales Government has lost more than £7,500,000 inconnexion with the Murrumbidgee irrigation scheme. All honorable members are, no doubt, familiar with the report of Mr. Justice Pike, which was submitted to this House some years ago, and disclosed losses amounting to £29,000,000 in connexion with soldier settlement projects. That figure has been added to since the report was published. The aggregate assistance given by all Australian governments up to 1932 - I apologize for not being in a position to give later figures - totalled £151,000,000, of which amount £84,700,000 was outstanding in that year. These figures show that the aggregate assistance given directly and indirectly to our primary producers reaches a colossal sum.

The Auditor-General, in his report of 1934, stated that the total of direct assistance given in that year was £2,823,000. The revenue expenditure by departments on land and land settlement, immigration, mines, agriculture and pastoral, forests, fisheries, water conservation, supply and irrigation, properties resumed, country roads, bridges, electricity, &c., grain elevators, and development, amounted to approximately £10,000,000 annually. If we take the figures relating to the losses that have been incurred on developmental works such as country railways, cool stores, experimental farms, closer settlement, soldier group settlements, irrigation, drainage and country water supplies, we find that the loss amounts to £10,382,000.

Professors Giblin and Copland have estimated that the cost of tariff protection to primary industries is approximately £14,000,000 per annum. The principal industries assisted in this way are- Sugar, £5,100,000; butter. £5,300,000; rice and dried fruits. £800,000; maize, cotton and minor crops, £600,000 ; tobacco, £650,000.

Mr Rankin:

– Can the honorable member supply us with figures relating to the secondary industries?

Mr McCALL:

– Yes, and I shall do so before I resume my seat. I do not suggest that much of this assistance to primary producers is not justifiable; but it is unjustifiable for .any honorable member to -declare that assistance given by this Parliament to Australian industries is one-sided. The figures which I have cited show that the aggregate assistance given to our primary producers totals over £40,000,000 annually, equal to approximately £2 a week for every person engaged in primary production.

Mr Badman:

– The honorable member’s calculations are wrong.

Mr McCALL:

– The honorable member for Gr.ey (Mr. Badman) will have the opportunity to refute them, if he can, when he makes his own speech.

The act making possible an adjustment of farmers’ debts was supported and applauded by honorable members representing secondary as well as primary industries. It was felt that, owing to the low prices which had been ruling in overseas markets for primary products, our farmers were entitled to assistance.

Mr Paterson:

– Is this relevant to a tariff debate?

Mr McCALL:

– ‘Previous speakers have dealt with this subject without being called to order by the Chair, and I am replying to some of the statements made. I wish to quote the latest figures given to me by the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron), in relation to the distribution by the States of money provided by the Commonwealth under the farmers’ debt adjustment legislation. These figures show that the total amount paid to the States .for the purpose of farmers’ debt adjustment to the 31st March, 193.8, was £3,500,000. The debts of a large number of farmers have since been examined, and the States have agreed to grant additional assistance amounting to £2,500,000. The whole of that amount will he distributed by the end of the year. Thus, under this legislation, .farmers in difficult circumstances will have received to the end of this year approximately £6,000,000. I ask honorable members to bear in mind the fact that this distribution was made during a period when prices of primary products where reasonably high.

The Auditor-General, in his last annual report, issued on the 30th June, 1937, referring to the distribution by the Government of Victoria under the farmers’ debt adjustment legislation, made a start- ling disclosure. I point out that, under this legislation, Victoria has received from the Commonwealth more than any other State. The assistance it has given to indigent farmers has totalled over £1,000,000, while the distribution in “New South Wales has been only about £800,000. The Auditor-General has said, in effect, that in Victoria there has been a flagrant misappropriation of money. His actual words were -

In accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the act, I have, after due inquiry, issued my certificate to the honorable the Minister for Commerce, that, so far as has been ascertained, there has not been any breach of the conditions of the grant in the States above mentioned, with the exception of Victoria, where several questionable cases are under discussion. In that State the audit of the accounts for the year disclosed some cases of doubtful legality, inasmuch as advances were made to cover amounts larger than those which creditors were prepared to take in adjustment of their debts.

If that is not a flagrant misappropriation of public funds I do not know in what terms any honorable member would describe it. Let us .hear the reason for Victoria’s action. The Auditor-General went on .to say -

The extra amounts were made available to the creditors on the understanding that equivalent amounts would be passed on to the farmers for farming purposes.

I remember quite well that, in his secondreading speech on the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill, the Minister for Commerce said that -this money was to be applied solely to .the assistance of farmers who were in most necessitous circumstances. Legal provisions were inserted in the measure to ensure that that would be done. For this reason, I believe that the Auditor-General was quite justified in saying that there had been payments of doubtful legality. Any person who, in a private capacity, misappropriates funds, finds himself faced with a criminal charge. Similar action should be taken against whoever is responsible for this misappropriation in Victoria, whether he be a Minister or an official.

Mr Thompson:

– What has this to do with the tariff?

Mr McCALL:

– As a representative of the Country party, the Minister sees in my statement some reflection on the

Country party Ministry in Victoria. That, however, will not prevent me from making these facts known. I suggest that, had a United Australia party government, or a Labour government, been responsible, the honorable gentleman would probably have said that he desired an investigation.

Mr Thompson:

– On a point of order, I should like to know from you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, if the honorable gentleman’s references to the report of the Auditor-General, and the allocation of the money made available by the Commonwealth to Victoria under the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act, are relevant to the subject before the committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- (Mr. John Lawson). - The debate allows honorable members considerable latitude. I have given very wide latitude to the honorable member for Martin, and I should like him now to connect his remarks with the tariff.

Mr McCALL:

– I have concluded my remarks on the subject with which I was dealing. They were quite relevant to the debate, being a reply to statements thathad previously been made by a number of honorable members.

I wish to refer now to the important matter of the Government’s trade diversion policy. Surely, the present is an appropriate occasion for us to review the effects of that policy, to examine the reason for its introduction, and to see whether the Government was justified in the action that it took. I refer particularly to the diversion of trade in cotton piece goods and artificial silk piece goods from Japan to the United Kingdom, and also the diversion of trade from foreign countries that were not good customer countries of Australia, with the idea of giving local industries a greater proportion of the home market and also allowing good customer countries to obtain a proportion of it. I desire to deal particularly with the position that has developed since the Government introduced its trade diversion policy in relation to Japan. There are some very interesting statistics which prove beyond doubt that the Government was completely justified in the action that it took. I can recall the reasons which then actuated the Government. It was shown very clearly that, at the rate at which Japan was capturing the Australian market, within a short period it would have had a complete monopoly of the supply of artificial silk piece goods and to a large extent of cotton piece goods also. We know that this is a very important market for those commodities, and that a considerable proportion of it has always been reserved for Great Britain. In the aggregate, Great Britain purchases from Australia more than one-half of its total exports of all commodities, and more than four times as much as is purchased by any other country. It takes 93 per cent, of our butter, 91 per cent, of our cheese, 97 per cent, of our mutton and lamb, 92 per cent, of our beef and veal, 70 per cent, of our fruits, and 46 per cent, of our wheat. It is still the largest purchaser of Australian wool, taking 32 per cent, of our total exports. I believe that we should confine to Great Britain the proportion of the local market in artificial silk goods and cotton piece goods which it had always enjoyed. The latest statistics issued by the Department of Trade and Customs show that in the year 1932-33 the United Kingdom supplied 75 per cent, of the quantity and 81 per cent, of the value of cotton piece goods, excluding calico for bag making, imported into Australia, while Japan’s share was under 10 per cent, of the quantity and 21 per cent, of the value of those imports. The rapid decline which took place in the imports of cotton piece goods from Great Britain is shown by the figures for 1935-36. In that year, the United Kingdom’s share of Australia’s imports of cotton piece goods was slightly under 59 per cent, of the quantity and 70 per cent, of the value, while Japan had increased its proportion to 38 per cent, of the quantity and 20 per cent, of the value. The position is worse in relation to the trade in artificial silk piece goods. In that case, the rate of diversion of imports to Japan was even greater. In 1932-33, the United Kingdom supplied 34 per cent, of the quantity and 42 per cent, of the value of Australia’s imports, while Japan’s share of the market was 46 per cent, of the volume and 27 per cent, of the value. By 1935-36, the United Kingdom’s 6hare of the market had decreased to less than 11 per cent, of the volume and 29 per cent, of the value, while that of Japan had increased to over 85 per cent, of the volume and 60 per cent, of the value. “What has been the effect of this trade diversion, which I earnestly supported in this chamber and which the Opposition strenuously opposed? For the year 1936-37, after the restrictions were imposed, the United Kingdom supplied 73 per cent, of the quantity and 78 per cent, of the value of our imports of cotton piece goods. I ask honorable members to contrast that with the previous position - 59 per cent, of the quantity and 70 per cent, of the value. Japan, in 1936-37, supplied 22 per cent, of the quantity and 12 per cent, of the value. Contrast those figures with Japan’s exports to Australia before this policy was put into effect, namely, 38 per cent, of the quantity and 20 per cent, of the value. Even more satisfactory figures can be disclosed in relation to artificial silk piece goods. In 1935-36, before the Government instituted its policy, the trade of the United Kingdom in artificial silk had decreased to 11 per cent, of the volume, and 29 per cent, of the value. Now the proportion of the United Kingdom has increased to 30 per cent, of the volume, and 46 per cent, of the value. The Japanese proportion has decreased S5 per cent, to 66 per cent, of the volume. The following table gives further statistical information relating to the trade in cotton piece goods : -

I wish now to refer to the trade of Australia with the United States of America. The aggregate value of the imports of goods covered by the regulations dealing with imports from the United States of America in the year prior to the issue of the regulations, was £2,537,000. During the first year in which the restriction on imports was operative, the value of imports of that range of goods fell to £1,702,000. The total value of the trade diverted from the United States of America during the period from the issue of the regulations to the 31st December, 1937, was approximately £2,000,000. An examination of the trade situation between Australia and the United States of America over a period of years reveals a very serious disequilibrium. In fact, an alarming situation existed. The trade balance in favour of America for a considerable period was in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 per annum. In the decade ended the 30th June, 1935, our aggregate unfavorable trade balance with the United States of America totalled £180,000,000. During that time we remitted to the United States of America £22,000,000 in interest on government loans, and also substantial sums annually in respect of the profits of companies dealing in oil, motor cars and motion pictures. Throughout that period the duty imposed by the United States of America on Australian wool ranged from ls. 5Jd. to ls. 10½d per lb., which is 100 per cent. When our Government sought to arrange a trade treaty with the United States of America, the Government of that country replied that, in accordance with legislation passed by the Congress, such a treaty could be arranged only if it would increase the export trade of the United States of America. As Australia desired to increase its export trade to the United States of America, it was manifestly impossible for this Government to take any further steps.

The full effects of our trade diversion policy in respect of the United States of America will be realized when I state that according to the latest figures available we have, for the first time since the compilation of Commonwealth statistics, a balance favorable to Australia. That is a complete justification of the tra.de diversion policy. The latest figures that I have been able to obtain show that in addition to a trade advantage, Australia has benefited from the policy by reason of the fact that additional American capital amounting to £3,000,000 has been invested in Australia. Obviously this money has been expended here by American interests in order to manufacture in this country goods which otherwise would have been imported. This investment has, undoubtedly, added to the amount of employment available here. I have been advised that the actual number of additional persons employed is. 5,000, and the value of the goods manufactured here is £3,500,000.

Who would say, in the face of the figures I have given, that the Government was not amply justified in adopting the trade diversion policy in respect of both Japan and the United States of America?’ It is to be hoped that the alteration of policy, by the substitution of duties for the licence system will lead to a satisfactory response by the United States of America. I hope that an amicable agreement will eventually be made between the two countries, seeing that it is so necessary that they should remain on the friendliest possible terms.

Last week, in the course of this discussion, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) saw fit to attack the previous Minister in Charge of Negotiations for Trade Treaties (Sir Henry Gullett), and said tha.t the trade diversion policy, for which that honorable gentleman was chiefly responsible, had been futile, and had eventually resulted in his rejection from the Cabinet. That, in my opinion, was an unfair and unjustifiable statement. The honorable member also charged the honorable member for Henty with having endeavoured to draw a red herring across the trail when he introduced the proposal for a bounty system to encourage the construction of complete motor cars in this country. The honorable member for Henty has already participated in this discussion, so, although he does not need me to speak in his defence, being well able to stand up for himself, I feel that I should refute the unjustifiable charges of the honorable, member for Dalley. I remind that honorable gentleman that the honorable member for Henty moved a motion for the adjournment of the House on one occasion after he had retired from the Ministry in order to impress upon the Government the necessity to proceed, without delay, with the policy which he himself had sponsored. I believe that a great deal of credit is clue to the honorable member for Henty for the courage and foresight he showed in proposing this trade diversion policy. Although the subject was very contentious at the time, the figures which I have given, in this speech show very- clearly that the honorable member’s attitude in respect of both Japan and the United States of America was thoroughly justified.

Mr PATERSON:
Gippsland

.- I should not have participated in this discussion, except for certain remarks made by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), and the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall).

The honorable member for Martin expressed pleasure at being able to support the action of the Government in its successful attempt to preserve for Great Britain a large share of the textile market in Australia, that trade having .been enjoyed by the Mother Country for a great many years. As honorable members are aware, Japan had at one stage, obtained practically a monopoly of the artificial silk trade with Australia. It waa able to sell artificial silk here for approximately 4d. a yard, whereas similar goods, from Great Britain, Belgium, Germany and other European countries could not be landed for less than 14d. or 16d. a yard. Japan was able to market artificial silks at the very much lower figure because it has available an abundance of cheap labour. Another contributing factor was tha.t its currency had depreciated to a much lower level than those of Australia and European countries. Freights from Japan to Australia were also very much lower than freights from Europe to this country, for the remuneration of Japanese seamen was on a very low scale. Great Britain depended on Australia for a substantial export trade in these textiles, and Australia was naturally anxious to preserve Britain’s place in our market, particularly in respect of cotton piece goods, at least until it was possible for us to manufacture in this country the whole of our requirements.

The Commonwealth Government endeavoured to make an amicable arrangement with Japan to meet the situation that had arisen. The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett), when Minister directing negotiations for Trade Treaties, did his best to induce Japan to accept a reasonable quota of our trade, leaving a somewhat larger quota for Great Britain. Japan was unwilling to fall in with the Government’s proposals. At that stage it had captured practically the whole of the artificial silk trade and had set itself out to capture the whole of the cotton piece goods trade. While the negotiations were proceeding, Japan was capturing more and more of the trade to the disadvantage of Great Britain. The Commonwealth Government, therefore, had to choose between the Mother Country, which was its best customer, and Japan, which, although a good customer, could not be compared with Great Britain on the basis of cither sentiment or economics. The only thing for us to do was to decide in favour of Great Britain. This decision naturally gave offence, for the time being, to Japan; but when the Japanese Government would not accept a reasonable quota the Commonwealth Government could scarcely do other than it did. In order to show its friendly feeling for Japan, the Government intimated, when it adopted this policy of preference to Great Britain, that the high foreign duties imposed at that time would bc substantially reduced if and when the Japanese Government was prepared to accept a quota. Eventually, the Japanese accepted the quota and, true to its promise, the Commonwealth Government substantially reduced the duties.

Mr Mahoney:

– The Government made a mess of the whole thing.

Mr PATERSON:

– I do not agree with the honorable member. The Go vernment did the right thing. In fact, it took the only safe course that was open to it. Its only mistake was, perhaps, in not making a move earlier than it did.

Mr Mahoney:

– How much did the wool-growers lose through it?

Mr PATERSON:

– I do not believe that the industry as a whole lost anything. I am a wool-grower in a small way, and my returns in the year following the action of the Government were as good as they had ever been. The truth is that a certain amount of wool is grown in the world, and there is. a certain demand for it. If one country ceases to buy from another country from which it had usually bought, and goes elsewhere to obtain its supplies, then the countries which usually bought in those markets make their purchases in other markets. In the long run, there is very little difference. I believe that when Japan deserted our market, buyers from other countries came here to obtain their supplies. For instance, when Japan entered the South African market, buyers who were accustomed to operate on that market came to Australia. As a matter of fact, the millions of pounds which the wool-growers were supposed to have lost through the failure of the Japanese buyers to operate on our market were, in ray opinion, mythical.

My main purpose in rising to speak is to refer to certain observations made by the honorable member for Warringah in the course of his interesting and thoughtful address. He said early in his remarks that primary producers wanted all the protection they could get in regard to what they sold, but not too much protection on what they bought. Something of the same nature was said last week by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), in more emphatic language. I wish to present an aspect of this subject which may be new to the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). It might be thought that the primary producer would enjoy a properly-balanced economy if he had, on the one hand, protection for both what he sold and what he bought, or, on the other hand, if he had fr.ee trade for both his sales and his purchases. Such a view is, however, superficial, because, owing to Australia’s great distance from the . world’s markets, our primary producers, particularly those who are engaged in the exporting industries, would still have a real disability under either allround free trade or all-round protection. Under free trade, whether he sold on the local market or on the export market, the farmer would receive for everything that he produced, export parity rates, and he would buy everything that he required for his farm or his home - whether imported or produced in this country - at import parity rates or thereabouts. There is a substantial difference between import parity and export parity. In order to explain clearly what that difference is, I ask honorable members to imagine that a ladder rests on the floor of the chamber, with its upper portion leaning against the press gallery. I ask- them to imagine, further, that about half-way up the ladder there is one rung of a different colour, to distinguish it from the rest. That rung is to be regarded as representing the world price for the product that he sells and for every manufactured article used for primary production or for farmers’ domestic use. On an export parity basis, a man who produces an exportable product which he sells mainly overseas, obtains for it the world price represented by that special rung on the ladder, less all the costs incidental to transporting that product 12,000 miles, and less, also, in some instances, the value lost by deterioration. He has to accept that price, not merely on the produce that he sells overseas, but also on everything that he sells in this country. That is to say, he obtains, not the world price, but that price less certain deductions. In other words, the price that he actually receives may be., say, two rungs lower on the imaginary ladder than the rung which represents world parity. On the other hand, for everything that he buys he pays the world price, plus the cost of freight if the article is imported, or an almost similar addition if it is manufactured in this country - because local prices are determined, to a great extent, by the competition of imports - and also a substantial sum representing customs and primage duties. In other words, the price that he pays is represented by a rung of the. ladder considerably higher than the one representing world parity, lt will be seen that, whereas for the things that he sells the price may be two or three rungs below the one specially marked, for the things that he buys the price is represented by a rung well above it. The result is certainly lopsided and not what many people believe it to be. Is it any wonder that, in these circumstances, those who are engaged in primary production have organized themselves with a view to escaping from those disabilities which would compel them to accept every deduction incidental to transportation, not on what they send overseas, but on what they sell in this country? After years of effort, the dairymen of Australia have succeeded in establishing an organization which enables them to obtain a fair home-con-sumption price. There are some in the community who profess to believe that that price is far in excess of the price realized overseas for similar produce. Let me give some figures to show the position prevailing at present. The price of the choicest butter in Australia is 149s. 4d. per cwt., whereas the London price, expressed in terms of Australian currency, is about 160s. per cwt. to-day. In other words, the overseas price is approximately Id. per lb. higher than the Australian price. ‘ Wool, wheat, and mutton are still on a free-trade basis; that is to say, they are sold at world prices, less the cost of transportation. Australian manufacturers of woollen goods are able to obtain their wool at the price that overseas competitors pay for it in Australia, but the latter have to pay the cost of freight- to the country of manufacture. Wheat, unfortunately, is still sold at export parity rates. The freight on wheat to England is, I believe, ls. a bushel.

Mr Nock:

– Freight, and insurance represent about ls. a bushel.

Mr PATERSON:

– That amount, of itself, is a substantial discount from the actual world price. Consumers in Australia enjoy tha privilege of purchasing wheat at ls. a bushel less than the price which it brings in the great open markets of the world. The Australian wheatgrower really gets the world price, less tha costs incidental to the transportation of the grain overseas. He gets that price for the whole of his wheat - that sold in Australia as well as that sold overseas. So long as the export parity dictates the price of the local product, all costs incidental to transportation and selling overseas are suffered also in the local market. The same thing applies to mutton.When we have an exportable surplus of mutton, the Australian price is the price ruling for frozen mutton in England, less all costs of transportation to take it there. A real disability is suffered, therefore, by those whose products have to be sold in the far distant markets of the world. I mention these things in order to show that the position of the farmer is not so satisfactory as some people believe. When we remember that for a considerable period during the depression wheat did not bring more than 2s. a bushel at country railway stations, we cannot wonder that there was need to introduce the legislation to grant relief to farmers which the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) has criticized. For years many farmers were exporting their capital, because they were selling wheat at prices below the cost of production. They impoverished themselves to such an extent that this Parliament had to vote substantial sums to assist them. I put it to the honorable member forWarringah that it is no wonder that the primary producers want protection for that proportion of their produce that they sell in the home market, so that on rhat part of their output at least they should not suffer every disability associated with an export trade. Nor is it any wonder that they seek to obtain their requirements at prices which will enable them to continue to export their products overseas in competition with other nations. The Australian farmer producing exports is at a great disadvantage as compared with the manufacturer, in that, even if he is protected as is the grower of dried fruits, or the producer of butter, he gets the Australian price for only that part of his production that is sold in Australia, and he still has to compete with other nations on even terms, notwithstanding the disadvantage of heavy freights incurred in conveying the major portion of his production long distances to market. Australia consumes about 14,000 tons of dried fruits a year, and exports 66,000 tons. The growers of dried fruits at Mildura and elsewhere receive a home consumption price - and it is not an unreasonable price - on only a small proportion of their production. Similarly, the Australian dairy farmer produces about 180,000 tons of butter each year, of which only about80,000 tons is consumed in Australia. For the greater proportion of his production he has to take the price obtained in the open markets of the world ; and those prices are reduced by the costs incidental to transporting the produce long distances. It will be seen, therefore, that in seeking to obtain relief from the present lopsided state of affairs, the primary producer is neither illogical nor unreasonable.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Mr.BLAIN (Northern Territory) [8.0]. - I rise to protest once more against the effect of our fiscal policy on the development of the Northern Territory. This Commonwealth tariff, this Frankenstein monster, which is devouring all enterprise outside the southeastern parts of the continent, is directly opposed to the principle of scientific regional tariffs of which I am in favour. Ever since I have been a member of this House, I have advocated the introduction of regional tariffs for the development of the remote parts of the continent, with particular regard to the Northern Territory, in which disabilities associated with distance and isolation are particularly accentuated. I am pleased to note that two Australians, Messrs. Payne and Fletcher, have expressed similar ideasin their report on the Northern Territory. I remind honorable members that the south-eastern corner of Australia received its first impetus towards development under a freetrade policy. Now it is the turn of the more remote parts of Australia to develop, but the scale is tipped against them by our present tariff policy. I feel that this matter of the tariff is of the utmost importance to Australia, though I do not wish to be like the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) to whom the tariff always appears as did King Charles’ head to Mr. Dick. It is the duty of this Parliament to evolve a policy that will enable Australia to be developed to its maximum, but so far we have failed. However, we should not spend our time criticizing our predecessors for their failure, but should proceed to do what I have no doubt they would have done had they possessed our knowledge and opportunities. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) despaired of our ever evolving a positive fiscal policy that would solve the problems which confront us. I do not believe that we should despair. It is a poor commentary on our enterprise and intelligence to admit our helplessness in this respect. I believe that it should be possible to work out a policy represented by a mathematical “ curve.” In nature all forces and tendencies are eventually balanced by such a curve, and if this process is delayed in regard to human activities it is because of the inherent weaknesses in human nature. For instance, we know that when a certain number of sharks are living in an area where fish are plentiful, the sharks thrive until they multiply to such an extent in the favorable conditions that their numbers outstrip the food supply. Then they either die off, or go elsewhere, and the balance once more adjusts itself to a curve as the fish again multiply. Let- us consider another example: When the early Australian settlers drove their flocks out into the country they encountered the dingoes. At first the dingoes were comparatively few in number, and their ravages were not serious. Then, because of the plentiful food supply proTided by the flocks, the dingoes multiplied until they were in danger of wiping out the flocks altogether. Then man had to hasten to intervene to correct the balance or nature’s curve, and by destroying the dingoes, and erecting dog-proof fences, once more brought about a state of equilibrium.

Let us now apply these parables to Australia’s economic development, and to our fiscal policy. In the early stages of our development the Government of the country was in the hands of the leading pastoralists, and fine men and statesmen they were. Eventually the State thrived to such an extent that industrialism was born, and a new political party representing the industrialists, with their cry for tariff protection, was evolved. Then the Labour party was formed, and both it and the party representing the industrialists favoured high tariffs, the one in order to protect the employment of the workers, and the other to protect the product of the factories. This made it necessary for the Country party to come into existence in order to check the collusion between the other ‘two parties in regard to the tariff. For a time it fulfilled this function, but to-day it is showing signs of joining the high protection parties, in regard to some industries at any rate, and it may be the duty of the independents, who occupy a strong strategic position, to correct the .balance. We have the example of the honorable member for Wimmera (Mr. Wilson) hastening by human effort to prevent the curve taking its course. Things have reached such a stage now that the consciences of certain honorable members have begun to prick them. Members of the Opposition have been forced by their high protection principles to support monopolies with which in other circumstances they would have no sympathy. The honorable member for Warringah, whose speech on defence last week I greatly admired, to-day delivered a defeatist speech on the tariff. He seems to believe that it is impossible to remove the existing anomalies, or to evolve a sound progressive tariff policy. I sympathized with the honorable member in his bewilderment, but I do not believe that the situation is hopeless. Our fiscal policy must, draw a line of distinction between the small, inefficient, backyard industry that deserves to be wiped out, and the powerful monopoly that must needs be controlled. I am in favor of big industrial concerns, provided they are under proper control. This Parliament must decide the point up to which large-scale industry should be encouraged, and beyond which it should be checked. It must also decide the extent to which public utilities should compete with private enterprise and which further activity is to be declared a public utility. We cannot expect the Tariff Board as at present constituted to do this job; some more authoritative body, which would be a cross-section of the economic and tech- nical life of the country, should be entrusted with the undertaking; this would be a national planning authority.

The honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), drew an analogy between primary production in Australia and world parity, and showed how the Australian producer was compelled to pay both ways. The honorable member pointed out that the producer has not only !o fight against the vagaries of the seasons and bear the cost of production, but also to pay the cost of transport of his produce to the seaboard and then face the menace of world parity; and furthermore, he has to pay the cost of carriage on imported machinery and goods which he uses and which have to be transported 14,000 miles from the place of manufacture. The honorable member told a true story, but he appeared to be castigating somebody for not having taken positive action long ago. Yet it is distressing to reflect that parity does not exist in Australia, particularly in the Northern Territory, because of its remoteness. The honorable member for Gippsland, when administering the Northern Territory, failed to take positive action by introducing a regional tariff as I advocated. In the Northern Territory, we are in greater trouble with parity than with our export trade. The honorable member should have adopted the recommendations to bring about parity for the Northern Territory within the boundaries of the Commonwealth. The only proper course is to regard the Northern Territory and other remote areas in Australia as requiring different treatment from the south-eastern portion of the Commonwealth. I hope that honorable members will realize that the solution of the problem is parity and equity.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I have been mainly prompted to take part in this discussion because of statements made by the honorable member for Martin (Mr. McCall) and the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), regarding the incidence of the tariff policy on the primary producers of the Commonwealth. I have felt for many years that one of the least satisfactory features of the economic life of the Commonwealth is the manner in which we market our primary products. It has not given satisfaction to the primary producer or the consuming public. Having had some experience of the conditions under which primary producers work, and realizing that they do not get a better return from the investment of their capital or their labour than they are entitled to, I favour the principle of orderly marketing, but I consider that there are serious defects in the application of the principle of orderly marketing to our Australian economy at the present time. In support of that statement I shall quote extracts from Th» Australian Marketing Problem, written by Professor Copland and Mr. James. In their introduction to the book the authors wrote -

An interesting feature of controversies over marketing schemes is the comparative absence of any claim on behalf of consumers. This is all the more important in Australia because the furtive if not the ostensible object, of marketing schemes was to raise the home price. We have already seen that the home price scheme has been widely adopted. It involves heavy costs to Australian consumers.

They pointed out that whereas in European countries co-operative marketing has been advocated because it would reduce costs, co-operative marketing has not had that effect in Australia. The introduction proceeds -

From time to time organizations like the Housewives’ Association have protested against higher prices, but their protests have bad little or no effect upon official policy. This is in striking contrast to the experience of European countries where co-operative marketing was first justified on the grounds that it would reduce the costs’ of marketing and so lower retail prices. In Australia it is left to the royal commission and the economist to expound the defects of a marketing scheme that raises prices for the benefit of producers. This absence of the voice of the consumer may be the result of wage-fixing methods whereby the basic wage is varied automatically with the cost of living. Whether this be so or not, it is a fallacy to assume that a scheme of wage fixation or any other service can eliminate the costs involved in the home-price system inherent in Australian marketing schemes.

The two writers then went on to describe the effect of co-operative marketing upon the Australian consumer -

Even in the wool industry there are deliberate attempts on the part of the brokers and the pastoralists to adjust supplies coming forward at auction to the state of the market. In other industries much more fundamental and dangerous forms of interference with the free play of supply and demand are adopted.

Competition gives way to control, but this control must be very far reaching before it can have any chance of being successful. Even though successful in the sense that undoubted benefits accrue to the industry organized, control may not add to the sum of economic welfare. The price of sectional benefits maybe more than the community as a whole should be expected to pay.

While emphasizing the latter portion of the quotation, I am sure that no one favours a serious lowering of the protection granted to the primary producer or any other kind of producer. The primary producer is entitled to protection, and he should obtain it as part of Government policy. Owing to the inefficiency of present marketing methods the return to the primary producer is relatively low and the cost to the consumer very high. I consider that some central authority comparable to the Tariff Board should be set up and Tested with power to decide, and advise the Government as to what it considers to be a fair deal for both producer and consumer.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– A kind of Arbitration Court for the primary industries ?

Mr HOLT:

– Some sort of tribunal should be set up to decide questions of this sort. The honorable member for Gippsland referred specifically to butter, and, although I do not desire to create the impression that the butter producer is obtaining an unduly high return, I direct attention to the condition which can arise when the marketing of a primary product is controlled by a commodity board not subject to Government supervision. The honorable member for Gippsland pointed out that at the present time the price of butter on the London market is higher than the homeconsumption price in Australia, and he submitted this fact by way of support for the present methods of price fixation in that industry. But I would direct his attention and the attention of the committee to the following facts: Shortly after an increase of the basic wage was made by the Arbitration Court, the price of butter in Australia was increased by1d. per lb. by the authority in control of the marketing of butter. That increase occurred when the butter price in London was relatively high; therefore, it was not an equalization process levelling up the Australian price because of a relatively low London price. In the Sydney Morning Herald of to-day’s date there appeared the following report : -

An increase in the price of butter of1d. per lb. may follow the deliberations of the New South Wales division of the Australian Dairy Factory Managers and Secretaries Institute at a meeting held in camera at Winchcombe House on Monday night.

It was agreed to recommend the Primary Producers Union to ask the Commonwealth DairyEqualization Committee to consider an immediate increase of1d. a lb. in the Australian butter prices.

Reading that report the average citizen would assume that there had been a decreased overseas price to justify an increased Australian price, hut in respect of such an assumption, I shall quote from the May issue of the Monthly Summary of Australian Conditions, issued by the National Bank of Australasia Limited.

The London butter market during April was surprisingly strong, and values of Australian choicest quality rose from 115s. per cwt., at the opening of the month to 128s. per cwt. at its close. This marked firming of prices occurred notwithstanding an early and rather important increase in European production, and a total intake of butter into Great Britain during the month averaging 1,000 tons more weekly than the average for April last year.

The greatly enhanced values in Loudon have resulted in a market improvement in equalization returns, and the final adjustment for January equalized butter has given an average price of 137s. 7d. per cwt. This is a very satisfactory increase on the interim average of119s.10d. per cwt., when London realizations were estimated on much lower average returns than were actually experienced. Last year the average price realized for January butter was1 20s. 5d. per cwt.

The quantity of butter shipped from the Commonwealth to Great Britain from the 1st July last year to the 1st May, this year, totals 74,334 tons, against 62,243 tons shipped during the parallel period of the previous season. The increase in shipments so far this season is due principally to the much better production experienced in Queensland.

It would appear from those statements that either a higher price would have been justified in the corresponding period of last year, or an increase is not justified at the present time.

Mr Badman:

– Is not the price of butter lower now in Australia than in London ?

Mr HOLT:

– The price of butter in Australia is lower than it would be if the butter were bought on the London market, if equalization means anything, the increase of the price in London should be followed by a reduction of the price in Australia, otherwise it is exploitation. The .existing conditions, under which a commodity board can fix prices without any regulation by a Government authority, are unsatisfactory.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– Manufacturers fix their own prices.

Mr HOLT:

– No. Their prices are determined largely by tariff policy, which is based mainly upon the recommendations of the Tariff Board. Either by a tribunal such as a consumers’ committee, or by an extension of the activities of the Tariff Board, an investigation should bc made to ensure a fair and reasonable return to industries, having regard to the capital outlay and the labour involved. I do not believe that any primary industry could reasonably object to the conduct, of such an investigation. The present system is unsatisfactory, because a commodity board cannot exercise effectual supervision or regulation of prices. In some instances, where commodity boards hil vo been established by legislation, provision has been made for a government representative on the board, but that is not nearly so effective as having a representative of the consumers. In one instance, recently, the government representative was the head of a wholesale firm trading in the commodity in question, and he could not by any stretch of imagination be fairly regarded as representing the interests of the consumers. I suggest to the Government that some authority, whether the Tariff Board or a consumers’ committee, should be set up for the purpose of enabling the people of Australia to know that the prices charged for primary foodstuffs are reasonable - nothing more and nothing less. There should be justice for the primary producers and justice for the eon min era as well. Seeing that the Nutrition Council ha3 reported that certain sections of the community are not receiving the right quantities of essential primary foodstuffs, the time has arisen for government action to ensure that the public ha3 a fair deal. I make these suggestions not because of any feeling of hostility to the representatives of primary producers, but merely to direct attention to a system which is extravagant and inefficient, and while it does not necessarily assure a fair return to the primary producer, is at the same time placing a heavy burden on the consumers

Mr. JOLLY (Lilley) 1 8.33]. -I propose to refer briefly to one aspect of the tariff which, as far as J. am aware, has not yet been mentioned; that is, its effect on the public finances of Australia. The revenue from customs and excise duties represents more than 50 per cent, of the gross revenue of the Commonwealth. In the year 1936-37, this revenue amounted to £43,000,000, and the estimate for the current year is £44,500,000. The total revenue from all sources in the Commonwealth for the year ended the 30th June, 1937, was £32,000,000. It is interesting to note that the customs and excise revenue in 1931-32, in the depth of the depression* was £28,000,000, an increase over. the previous year of about 50 per cent., and in the peak year prior to the depression this revenue amounted to £11,764,000. This Parliament and the people of Australia should take more than a passing interest in the effect of the tariff upon taxation. The taxes levied by the Commonwealth Government for the year ended the 30th June, 1937, amounted to £62,773,000, of which indirect taxes, such as customs and excise duties and sales tax, accounted for £51,000,000, or 80 per cent, of the whole of the taxes levied by the Commonwealth. In this respect the Commonwealth is in a much happier position than the States, whose taxes are nearly all raised by direct means. If the States are to function effectively in the future, it will be necessary to have some adjustment, not only of the burdens they have to bear, but also of the means by which taxes are collected.

Mr Baker:

– “Why should the States function at all?

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– That is another matter, but I am prepared to debate it on an appropriate occasion. This Parliament should consider what is best in the interests of the people as a whole, and we should seriously study the effect of the tariff on the public finances. I should not have spoken at this stage, had not a suggestion been made that the proceeds of the tariff should be used largely for the purpose of protecting certain secondary industries. Honorable members should calmly survey the situation, for, if the customs and excise revenues were to be used for that purpose, it would probably be necessary to impose direct taxes to a greater extent than at the present time.

Whilst I agree that Parliament should have the final voice with regard to all tariff matters, it would be wise for it to give serious consideration to the recommendations of the Tariff Board. It would be impossible for the members of this chamber to consider in detail the various items dealt with by the board. Seeing that that body is largely composed of experts, we should hesitate before departing from its recommendations.

Mr Gregory:

– Evidence given before the board must be tendered on oath.

Mr JOLLY:

– That is a further reason why we should accept its recommendations. In a young country like Australia, it is necessary to protect our secondary industries; but it is the duty of this Parliament first to have a review made of the conditions in those industries that enjoy the privileges of protection, and secondly, to ensure that they do not in any way exploit thepeople. It is necessary to give serious thought to the best way to provide for uniform industrial conditions throughout the Commonwealth. We should endeavour, as far as possible, to make this country selfcontained. In addition to being protected through the tariff, secondary industries should be advised and assisted along scientific lines.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- This is an appropriate opportunity to remind the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins) and the Government not only that this measure relates to the levies being imposed upon imports into Australia, and the measure of protection to be given to both primary and secondary industries, but also that upon the tariff, the Treasurer relies for a rising proportion of the total revenues of the Commonwealth. All indirect taxes are not involved in the consideration of this measure, yet a survey of the incidence of the tariff as an instrument of taxation is long overdue. One of the canons of taxation is that the primary principle to be observed, as far as possible, is that taxes should be levied on the citizens in accordance with their respective capacities to pay them. This Government has steadily reduced the rates of direct taxation, and has relied increasingly upon revenue derived from various indirect imposts of which customs and excise duties are the chief. As the result of this policy, the proportion of indirect taxes has risen steeply, and, as a matter of budgetary practice, the revenue from customs and excise has been constantly underestimated when the committee of the whole House has been informed as to estimated revenue and expenditure. Consequently this Parliament has been handicapped in its treatment of the general financial position of the Commonwealth. When it has been pointed out that the revenue from customs and excise duties has risen £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 in excess of the Estimates, the Treasurer of the day has, rather mistakenly I think, declared this to show the growing prosperity of the country. As a matter of fact, the growth of imports has been due to the greater purchasing power of the Australian people.

Mr Perkins:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CURTIN:

– The Acting Minister endorses that view. When we have said that a great deal of the imports has proved detrimental to secondary industries, the reply of the present Treasurer (Mr. Casey) and of the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. White), who is now in England, has been “ No, the imports that have increased revenues are those that have come in in order to augment the capital reserves of Australia and to furnish machinery for industry.” It is economically unwise to levy customs duties on equipment imported to enable primary and secondary industries to become more efficient.

Mr Gregory:

– But approximately onethird of that equipment comes in duty free.

Mr CURTIN:

– I know it does, and when I direct the attention of Ministerial supporters with freetrade leanings to the fact that the bulk of these importations are injuring Australian secondary industries, I am not with the rejoinder that this importation of capital machinery is intended for the service of secondary industries.

Mr Hutchinson:

– They do not say that.

M r. CURTIN.- They do. Either this great increase of importations is detrimental to our competitive ability in the local market, secondary or primary, or else, as the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs has said, the arrival in Australia of more machinery and plant is necessary to further equip our industries. If the Minister’s reply is valid, I assert that the tariff proposals of the Government are unscientific and unsound, in that the imposition of duties upon the capital machinery necessary to make our secondary industries more efficient, while of service to the Treasurer in the preparation of his budget, and politically useful to the Government in that it adds considerably to the revenue without increasing direct taxation, none the less involves our entrepreneurs in increased capital outlay and makes their future costs of production higher than otherwise they would be. In the long run the effect is further to unbalance the whole of the national economy. I put forward this view because Australia is not a country of equal economic resources. Certain of the States suffer greatly as the result of this treatment of the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth entirely in the interests of taxation and not, as it ought to be treated, entirely for the purpose of providing for Australia that degree of protection for its needs industrially, while at the same time ensuring that essential imports will not have loaded on to them costs that are avoidable.

Mr Holloway:

– For revenue raising purposes.

Mr CURTIN:

– Yes. This subject has become one of very great importance, and I hazard a prognosis of what will be the economic activity of this country for the next five or ten years.We are, I think, forced to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the efforts being made to free international markets and to stimulate world trade generally, there is to be no great improvement of world trade for some years to come. Apart from economic hindrances noticeable in all countries we have the associated factors of more or less demoralized exchanges and political instability.

These things suggest, at least to me, and I think to honorable gentlemen who sit behind me, and I say it with no prejudice against our primary industries, but with the full realization of their significance in the economic structure of the Commonwealth, that Australia has reached the stage when we have to consider the possibility of a practical stalemate in the development ofthose of our industries which are dependent upon other countries for the consumption of their products. Therefore the time has come for the Government to readjust the tariff to meet the present position of Australia. The improvement of the unemployment situation during the last few years has been greatly attributable to the stimulation of our secondary industries, and the expenditure from loans by State governments on public works. I regret that the proportion of our people engaged, particularly in the older and more established of primary industries, is constantly declining. In recent years this Parliament, has been asked repeatedly to devise salvage measures to enable many of our important primary industries to overcome their difficulties. This is also true, I think, of primary industries in most countries. In Australia our farmers have, for several years, been receiving assistance either by way of bounties, marketing arrangements, concessions on railway freights, or financial assistance for the adjustment of debts. This being the case, I think that we shall have to put on one side the once hopeful prospect that we would be able to expand our land settlement projects indefinitely.

The assistance given to our secondary industries in general by the measures taken in the depths of the depression has resulted in a considerable improvement, but it is very doubtful if the rate of improvement can be maintained. I warn the committee that these industries have been constantly progressing. New units have been added to existing industrial establishments, and new industries, which have been established, have caused the demand for the plant and equipment which Australia has been importing in recent years to the great advantage of the customs revenue. 1 hesitate to essay the role of the pessimist ; but I believe the Government would be wise to heed the warnings that have been uttered from this side of the chamber during the last two years. The textile industry has made great strides in the last five years. Many years ago the boot industry received a great impetus following the imposition of protective tariff. It developed amazingly, with the result that to-day it is organized on a production basis in such a way as to enable the present output to be increased two or three-fold without giving additional employment. All that is necessary is that the employees at present engaged in it shall work a few more hours in each week. Under existing conditions hundreds of employees in the boot industry are working part time, and a considerable portion of the machinery is lying idle, simply because the market requirements can be met by the organized restrictions of production. I believe that the same conditions will manifest themselves in a few years in the textile industry. The Government must be aware that the machinery installed in many textile establishments has been outmoded, and more efficient plant is being installed, with the result that the potential productive capacity per unit of labour employed has, in many instances, been multiplied. All this surely means that the reduction of duties applying to secondaryindustries, for which the Government is responsible because it is a definite part of its fiscal policy, has not been of service to our secondary industries. At the same time, it has imposed taxation upon the capital required to equip those industries, and its only value, so far as it has value, has been to impose costs on production in order to furnish cash for the Treasury.

I put it to the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs that the time has come when the tariff should not be used predominantly to produce revenue. I can understand some government supporters holding that it should be used as an instrument in the interests of certain producers, in order to lower their costs of production, thus enabling them to dispose of their output on the world market. I can also understand other honorable members holding the view that it is imperative that Australian secondary industries should be given absolute security in, indeed the command over, the whole of the Australian market, in order that decent conditions of labour may be guaranteed to Australian workmen as well as to ensure that we shall have in this country an economic organization without which it would be impossible for us to make proper preparation for its defence should an emergency arise. The contest between these two points of view, and the determining of the balance between them, ought to be the only consideration when this Parliament is discussing the tariff schedule. The Government, however, regards the tariff as an instrument for raising revenue. In the Income Tax Assessment Bill there is provision that no person whose income does not exceed £250 a year shall be called upon to pay taxes. When the allowable deductions are taken into account a man with a wife and two children is exempted from income tax if his income does not exceed £400 a year. But can it be said that the Australian workers getting the basic wage or a little more are not levied upon by this Government, not according to, but regardless of their capacity to pay, in order to give the Government the money needed to carry on the services of the country and at the same time boast from one end of the Commonwealth to the other, that it is reducing taxation? This Government has reduced the tax on persons with large incomes by transferring the burden to the great masses of the people who have low incomes.

In my speech on the budget I asked the Government to give us some clear knowledge of the incidence of indirect taxation. I also suggested that a survey should be made and said that I would be glad if the very distinguished gentleman, Mr. Justice Ferguson, who presided over the Royal Commission on Taxation, were asked to conduct an inquiry into the incidence of indirect taxation imposed by this Government.

Mr Gregory:

– The report would be a startling disclosure.

Mr CURTIN:

– It would be. My admission that it would be startling is evidence of my complete lack of bias or partisanship. Mr. Justice Ferguson was thanked by the Treasurer for the invaluable service which he Tendered to this country, and I believe the Minister’s expression was echoed by honorable gentlemen representing all parties in this House. I repeat that I am prepared to trust such an investigation to that distinguished jurist or any other gentleman of equal standing whom the Government may care to select. What are the taxes? Is it a fact that the taxes on singlets, beer, cigarettes and apparel are taxes which, in the main, lower the effective wage of the Australian workers? Is it true that the taxes on machinery involve the Australian people in an increased and a recurring increased cost of production over that which would be justifiable were we to arrange our finances on another basis? These are queries which must be answered before this Parliament will be in a position to know the precise effect of so gallantly passing every schedule which the Minister for Trade and Customs cares to lay on the table - a practice which he has followed not only now and again but, since this Government has been in office, on every occasion on which the Parliament has mct.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Flinders

.- I rise solely for the purpose of commenting shortly on the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), that there should be some sort of a consumers’ board attached to the Tariff Board, or possibly functioning as a separate entity. I am under the impression that one of the functions of the Tariff Board is, not only to look into the needs of industry, but also to ascertain the effect of tariffs on the consumer. I feel that the scope of the Tariff Board might well be enlarged. It should be possible for the board to have a larger staff, so that it might examine more carefully the operations of industries. The Tariff Board sits as a court, when certain matters are brought to its notice. It sifts the evidence that is placed before it, and, for the most part, operates very efficiently. Unfortunately, however, this Parliament, thanks to lobbying, frequently does not give effect to the wisest of its recommendations. I con sider that it might be given a staff to inquire into conditions in industry; to ascertain whether the profits made are justified, and also to watch the interests of consumers. As is always the case in tariff debates, some members have helped to envelop this matter in a smoke screen by unfair attacks upon the primary and exporting industries, which have to bear the burden of the tariff - such as it is - «nd at the same time be content with world prices while being unable to receive an adequate price, even for what is consumed in Australia. That is not the fault of any particular government, but is due to a flaw in the Constitution. I suggest that there is a great deal in what the honorable and learned member has said. We might well have a branch of the Tariff Board to inquire into the profits that are made on the capital invested in primary industries, to see how the average net return in those industries compares with the handsome dividends that are paid in some of the protected secondary industries.

Mr Ward:

– It might also inquire into the wages paid to the workers in primary industries.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I entirely agree with the honorable member. It could inquire into the wages it is possible to pay in the majority of primary industries, and compare them with the wages that can be paid in protected secondary industries. The people of Australia could then regard the subject of the tariff in. a much fairer and more balanced way than is possible at the present time. I’do not speak with the authority of any primary industry, but I believe that every primary industry of which I have any knowledge would welcome an inquiry, first into the return on the capital invested, and, secondly, into what the farmer receives for his energy. From the enormous number of accounts that I have seen, of farmers who are engaged in many branches of farming operations, I venture to suggest that in very few cases would the return be even 5 per cent, on the farmer’s equity in his property. That is proved by the fact that, in every State, tribunals have had to be set up to reduce the commitments of the farmer so that he might receive some return on which to live. If some branch of the Tariff Board were to make an inquiry, and allow 5 per cent, oh the capital invested in any major branch of farming operations, it would be seen that over 75 per cent, of the farmers, big and small, are providing their energy for absolutely nothing. If the basic wage alone, without any margin for skill, were allowed to the farmer, his children who work for him, and the men whom he employs, it would be found that a very small percentage of the farms in Australia would show any return on the capital invested. It might be said that my remarks are somewhat extraneous to the point at issue. -My excuse for making them is that, whenever there is a tariff debate, we have the unedifying experience of hearing cheap sneers at the primary producers. Awful horror is expressed at the idea that the dairy-farmers, not 1 per cent, of whom, as every one knows, gets the basic wage, might increase the price of butter by Id. per lb. to the Australian consumer’. How many cries of horror have there been at the dividends that are paid by General Motors-Holden’s Limited, or at the fact that in many protected industries £.1 shares are to-day readily saleable at more than £4?

Mr MCCALL:

– There are wealthy graziers also.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I am making these remarks because I am acquainted with the facts, and because I know how many members, even of my own party, are abyssmally ignorant of them. There is no grazier in Australia who would not welcome the publication of his average profits for the last ten years on the capital invested, in order to show what a very modest return he is receiving. Some graziers are able to make a comparatively better return than the big majority because they have flocks that have been built up over a period of 50, 60, 70 or 80 years. Thanks to the excellence of their flocks, long-established graziers can in many cases make a reasonable return, but it is a very modest return compared with that made by the majority of the manufacturers, whereas those who have not been established for so long, and who did not have the opportunity to develop their properties when costs were lower than they are to-day, obtain returns which are so low that they would shock the people of Australia. The people would be still more greatly shocked if they could see the returns of average dairy-farmers over the last fifteen yean in Victoria. I hope that the Government will act on the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for Fawkner and other honorable members, and that the scope of the Tariff Board’s inquiries will be considerably enlarged, because I believe that the consumers and other sections of the Australian community would then have the opportunity to get a much fairer idea of the actual conditions than they have to-day.

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

. - in reply - I have listened with interest to all the speeches that have been made in the course of this debate. It is not my intention to reply to them in detail. Rather shall I make a few general observations. I, however, assure all honorable members that their remarks will not be disregarded. Many good suggestions have been made, and they will be considered by the department and the Government.

Mr Brennan:

– “Will the Minister reconcile the differences that exist in the views of his own supporters?

Mr PERKINS:

– They are quite easy to reconcile. Attacks have been made on the Government because of the methods it has adopted. It has been held up to ridicule because some of its supporters are freetraders while others are protectionists. This is a united party, which sunk its differences and went to the country with a policy on which, for the third time, it was returned to office by the people of Australia. On the Tariff Board we have members who have devoted much time and study to this matter. They have listened to what has been said by employees and employers, and, if necessary, even by the consuming public. Without bias, they have placed before honorable members the results of their observations and investigations. In spite of what has been alleged, the policy of the Government has proved very successful to the manufacturers of this country, because, during its regime, our factories have made more progress than -was made in any other decade of Australia’s history.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) quoted certain remarks by a Government supporter in another place. He said that the honorable senator in question had laughed when he was told that progress had been made as the result of the Government’s policy.

Mr Forde:

– He said that the Government should not claim that its reductions of the tariff had been responsible for the increased prosperity in industry generally.

Mr PERKINS:

– I hope, and I think the people of Australia also will hope, that he continues to laugh, and that our friends opposite will laugh with him. Australia has made such progress in regard to both the number of factories and the number of employees in them, that the Government has nothing of which to be ashamed. Figures which were published in. the press yesterday show that the present year has been more progressive than any previous year, the number of factories having increased by no less than 7£ per cent. There is nothing wrong with a policy under which that result was achieved.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), in a very fine speech, presented a lot of facts and figures. He must have been hard put to it to break fresh ground, because this was the sixth or seventh occasion in the last couple of years on which he has had to attack the policy of this Government. He armed himself with many of his old arguments, and produced evidence from one person and another in an effort to belittle the Government. The old arguments were answered on this occasion before he advanced them. He ridiculed the policy under the operation of which I had said that there are now 104,000 more employees in our factories than were employed in them previously. At the present time, millions of pounds are available for the extension of Australian factories. I frequently find myself in agreement with my friends of the Opposition, because I am a protectionist; but there is a limit to what I will do. In those halcyon days when the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Forde) was Minister for Trade and Customs, he was in a position to intro duce a Hitler-Mussolini tariff. He did not wait to obtain the consent of the people to any tariff proposals that he wished to bring forward. He simply tabled a schedule. I do not criticize or abuse him for having done so, because it was a case of “ other times, other manners”. The circumstances called for a vigorous policy, but the honorable member has said that the Labour party has not changed its policy. It is apparently “ the same yesterday, to-day and forever “. The policy adopted by the honorable gentleman when he was in office may have been correct for that period. It certainly would not be correct for this period. In fact to adopt it would be ruinous to the country.

Mr Forde:

– I said that the Scullin Government laid the foundation for much of the development that subsequently took place in secondary industries.

Mr PERKINS:

– The honorable gentleman said that the Government should not rely upon the Tariff Board.

Mr Forde:

– I did not say that the Labour party would abolish the Tariff Board. I said that the board should not be put above the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Order !

Mr PERKINS:

– I have no desire to misrepresent the honorable member’s views. I do not think that he will deny that he has adversely criticized the Ottawa Agreement. He stated in the course of that criticism that in consequence of certain articles of the agreement certain powers were taken away from the Parliament. My reply is that Parliament itself accepted the agreement. That being so, we are bound to adhere to it until it is varied. The British Government took appropriate action to fulfil its undertakings under the agreement, and we must take care that we do not dishonour our undertakings. To do so would be to cast a slur upon this country.

There is not much actual difference in the words which set out the Labour party’s tariff policy and those which set out the Government’s policy. The Labour party believes in adequate protection, and so does the Government. “We may differ in our interpretation of the word “ adequate “. The Government considers that the Tariff Board may well be left to determine what is adequate protection for a particular industry.

I come into contact with a good many manufacturers. Here and there one may be. found who has a grievance, but the great majority of them tell me that they are getting on famously. They do not ask for higher duties.

Mr Lazzarini:

– Because they have low wages.

Mr PERKINS:

– They are bound by arbitration awards and wages board determinations. Honorable members opposite should not forget that the Labour party on one occasion in recent years, fought an election on the issue of the retention of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. They cannot have it both ways. My complaint about the Tariff Board is that it is too busy and overworked. Cabinet has considered the possibility of setting up two tariff boards, but that was not found to be practicable. I hope that in the near future the Tariff Board will not have to work so continuously as it does to-day. I am glad to say that it does its work excellently. By and large, Australia has every reason to be proud of it. Because it does its work so well, the Government is able to give much more attention to matters of national consequence in other directions than would otherwise be the case.

The Leader of the Opposition referred in the course of his speech, to the bogey of the exchange position in London. His predecessor, the right honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Scullin), discussed this subject year after year until the last couple of years. I suppose he has now come to realize that the disasters which he feared are not likely to occur. The Government is wide awake to the position, and I am glad to say that trouble in that direction has been avoided. Just, as it seems that a grave difficulty is likely to arise, Government vigilance wards it off.

Mr Gregory:

– The manufacturers’ exports will provide funds in London!

Mr PERKINS:

– In my opinion, the honorable member for Capricornia was hardly fair to Great Britain in some of his remarks. For example, he pointed out the other day that the

British importation of Australian butter had declined. Thi3 was only to be expected seeing that Australia did not have sufficient butter to export to meet the demands. Droughts had occurred and our supplies had decreased. We cannot sell what we have not got. It has been complained that the British people are not buying our commodities to the same extent as formerly. I point out, however, that it is not so much that the quantity purchased has fallen off as that the price at which our goods are sold is lower. We cannot expect to get a price above world parity. Great Britain has fulfilled up to the hilt its obligations under the Ottawa Agreement, and we must continue to honour our. undertakings until the agreement has been replaced by something that will improve the situation.

I do not intend to deal with the arguments advanced by individual members, except in one or two cases. Reference was made to the incidence of the primage duty. That matter does not altogether concern the Department of Trade and Customs, but I shall bring the subject under the notice of the appropriate authority. I wish to deal briefly, however, with the trade diversion policy in relation to the wool-grower3, and also with the tobacco industry.

The honorable member for Capricornia sought to show that the tariff policy of the Government has resulted in huge losses to wool-growers. He quoted figures purporting to show that, as the result of the trade dispute with Japan, woolgrowers had lost many millions of pounds. This view is not tenable in the light of the facts, nor is it shared by those best placed to assess the position. During the year ended 30th June, 1937, which covered the whole period of the dispute with Japan, 2.924,000 bales of Australian wool were sold. The season closed with one of - the smallest carry-overs on record. The actual carry-over was only 47,000 bales compared with 76,000 bales held at the beginning of the year. In the history of the Australian wool industry there are only two occasions on which greater quantities of wool were sold in a single season. Sales in 1936-37 fell short of the record by only 135.000 bales. The returns from the sales amounted to £60.553.000 and that return has been exceeded only once in the history of the Commonwealth. That was in 1927-28 when the total return from the season’s clip exceeded the return for 15*86-37 by £320,000. Actually the value of the total exports of all commodities from the Commonwealth during 1936-37 constituted an all-time record. Only once in the history of federation has it been approached. That was in 1924-25 when exceptionally high returns were received from wool and wheat exports concurrently. There is nothing in these figures to substantiate the honorable member’s claims.

Dalgety’ s Annual Wool Review, in reviewing the season’s results, stated - a pleasing feature of the season’s wonderful results is that they are not in any sense due to boom conditions.

Winchcombe Carson Limited, in their annual review for the same season, said - lt is debatable whether average prices for the season in .Australia would have been higher if Japan had bought at Commonwealth auctions throughout the selling year. The spectacular spurt in prices in January when she resumed buying was due to her hunger for Australian merino.

During the general discussion of the schedule frequent references were made to the tobacco industry and. the” effect of the Government’s policy upon it. Although tobacco leaf, upon which the arguments of various honorable members were hinged, is not covered by the schedule, I feel that a defence of the Government’s policy is justified. When the Lyons Government assumed office in 1932 the tobacco industry was in the throes of a boom - an unhealthy boom - permitted by the extraordinarily high protection which the previous Government had accorded it. The Government was confronted with a state of affairs in which numbers of mcn, many unfitted for the task, had entered upon the production of a crop which calls for suitable soil and climatic conditions and which is susceptible to all kinds of diseases and pests. These are only starting points in the growing of tobacco, for the grower must apply expert cultural, curing and grading knowledge if tobacco is to be successfully grown and marketed.

The inevitable result of the entry of unqualified growers into the industry was the production of an alarmingly large crop - over 10,000,000 lb. - which con sisted to an overwhelming degree of the dark and inferior grades, whereas the demand in Australia and in other countries in which the white race holds sway is mainly for the brighter types of leaf of light smoking quality. The smoker is the final arbiter as to the quality of the tobacco he shall purchase, and if he wants a light tobacco, but finds that tobacco marketed contains the heavy or inferior grades of leaf, then there will be a reaction to the detriment of both the manufacturing and producing sections of the industry. The Government was convinced that this industry would never subsist if it continued to produce leaf of thu quality then being grown. Its first step towards the correction of this unhealthy development was to reduce the duties on imported tobacco leaf to a level considered adequate by the Tariff Board for the production of tobacco on sound lines.

The Government did not, however, leave the growers without assistance in the disposal of so large a crop. On the contrary, it arranged with manufacturers for the purchase of a large proportion of the crop at an average price of 2s. 3d. per lb. The manufacturers not only honoured this arrangement, but also purchased practically the whole of the crop which was in any way useable at an average price of about 2s. per lb. This was a remarkable achievement having in mind the fact that the 1931-32 crop consisted overwhelmingly of dark and inferior leaf.

In November, 1933, the Government increased the protection to the growers by imposing an additional 6d. per lb. on imported tobacco leaf, bringing the total duty up to 3s. 6d. per lb. In September, 1935, the excise duty on tobacco manufactured wholly from Australian leaf was reduced by 8d., from 4s. 6d. to 33. lOd. per lb. In May, 193C, a higher import duty was charged on tobacco leaf used in the manufacture of tobacco in which les3 than 13 per cent, by weight of Australian leaf was used, and in the manufacture of cigarettes in which less than 2^ per cent, by weight of Australian leaf was used. The effect of the 1936 measure was to force manufacturers to incorporate the required percentage of Australian leaf in their blends.

The combined results of the legislation introduced by the Government with respect to tobacco have been the creation of a much wider consumptive demand for tobacco products containing Australian leaf.

Mr Forde:

– Is the Assistant Minister (Mr. Thompson) now satisfied with the Government’s policy?

Mr PERKINS:

– Evidently he is/ Concomitantly, the usings of Australian leaf have increased to an enormous extent.

In 1931-32 approximately 2,600,000 lb. of Australian leaf was used by manufacturers, but in 1936-37, manufacturers’ usings had more than doubled, at 5,300,000 lb. The position now is that the tobacco industry is producing insufficient quality leaf to meet the demands of the manufacturers.

Mr Riordan:

– “We are producing the best leaf in the world!

Mr PERKINS:

– But not in sufficient quantity. The corrective is one for the tobacco industry itself by concentrating on the production of the better grades of leaf which are the life blood of the growing and manufacturing sections of the industry alike. Prices are right and offer the necessary inducement to growers to produce the better types.

In this connexion, I refer to a recently reported press statement by Mr. E. G. Darling, President of the Victorian Tobacco Growers’ Association, to the effect that the manufacturers had advised him of an increase of prices for the better grades of leaf. Press reports of the first tobacco auction sales held in Brisbane during the week ended 30th April, show that values were from 8 per cent, to 12 per cent, higher than at the opening sales in 1937. The top price received was 4s. 6d. per lb. while prices of 4s. 4d., 4s. 2d., 4s. Id. and 4s. were numerous for other top grades grown in the Mareeba and Dimbulah areas.

The tobacco industry is on a much sounder basis at the present time than ever it was. Many of the inexperienced growers who entered the industry in the depression period have, with the return of better conditions, resumed their normal occupations. Others have stayed on to become experienced growers and have acquired the technique of tobacco culture. There is, however, room for considerable improvement, particularly with respect te the elimination of unsuitable areas and the consequent production of an increasing proportion of the better grades of leaf. In the best interests of the industry as a whole, the Government will continue to encourage the production of quality leaf. It has provided protection by a tariff unrivalled in other tobacco producing countries, and exceeding that granted to any other primary industry in the Commonwealth. It has provided an annual grant for research and experimental and instructional work, for the purposes of improving the quality of locally- grown leaf. Let me reaffirm that the co-operation of the growers themselves for the improvement of leaf quality is essential if the tobacco industry is to reach the high plane upon which the leading primary industries of this country are placed.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the importation of beer in bottles, kegs and casks. Of late years, it has been imported also in small tins and cans.

The general debate being concluded,

Division I. - Ale, Spirits and Beverages

Item 1 (Ale and other beer, &c).

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- I rise to discuss, not the rates of duty on what, after all, is a luxury item, in respect of which the Government, if in need of revenue, might be justified in imposing higher duties, but to refer to the arrangement of the schedule. It contains three columns, headed, respectively, British preferential tariff, intermediate tariff, and general tariff. In many instances, the rates of duty in the intermediate tariff and the general tariff are the same. I should like to .see the way left open for an interchange of trade with other countries. The restrictions which have ‘been imposed make it almost impossible to export Australian goods to any country besides Great Britain. That country and the United States of America are making strenuous efforts to encourage international trade by the removal of some embarrassing restrictions. I suggest that the duties under the intermediate tariff be reduced in a number of instances sothat the way may be made easier for negotiations for trade agreements with other countries, instead of having the duty 3s. a gallon British, 6s. 3d. intermediate, and 6s. 3d. general tariff, I should like the intermediate rate reduced in order to offer greater encouragement to the development of an export trade to countries that are prepared to make trade agreements with Australia. It is not generally realized that an increase of £5,000,000 in the value of our exports would mean the employment of about 25,000 more men each at, say, £200 a year. If concessions were made in the intermediate tariff in respect of such items as iron and steel sheets, oil engines, bicycle parts, and chinaware, the making of trade agreements with other countries might be made easier. I hope that the Minister will give to this suggestion his serious consideration.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- I wish to repeat what I said during the general debate in regard to the disparity between the duties under the British preferential tariff and those under the intermediate and general tariffs. In respect of the item now before the committee, the British preferential rate is 3s. a gallon, whereas in each of the other sections it is 6s. 3d. a gallon. That is not a preferential rate to Great Britain, but an absolute prohibition of the importation from other countries of the articles covered by the item. I am not opposed to a preferential rate for Empire countries - indeed, I have always supported it - but the difference between some of the preferential duties and the intermediate and general rates is so great as to be ridiculous.

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

– The duty of 6s. 3d. a gallon under the intermediate and general tariffs is considered by the department to be a fair measure of protection to the Australian industry. Any lower rate would not have provided it with adequate protection.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The British preferential rate is only 3s. a gallon.

Mr PERKINS:

– It is true that the British preferential rate is lower, but 6s. 3d. a gallon is considered by the department to be reasonable protection against foreigners.

Item agreed to.

Item 9 (Spirituous preparations, nonmedicinal).

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- This item affects an important Australian industry which is practically essential to the well-being of the fruit-growing industry, particularly the berry fruits section. Owing to increased production and diminishing markets, that section of the fruit-growing industry is in a serious condition. The alterations to the existing tariff proposed by the Minister represent a reduction of the protection previously afforded to this industry. A study of the Tariff Board’s report makes it clear that these reductions were recommended in the terms of the Ottawa Agreement. That is clear from a perusal of the names of witnesses who gave evidence before the board. They included a representative of the importers of essences and chemicals, a representative of the British Essence Manufacturers’ Association, and a representative of the Joint Committee for Tariff Revision. Mr. S. F. Fergnson and Mr. J. S. Strong, speaking on behalf of the British Essence Manufacturers’ Association, said -

The existing duties do not afford United Kingdom manufacturers full opportunity of reasonable competition in Australia as envisaged by the United Kingdom-Australia trade agreement.

They went on to stress their right to a fuller opportunity to compete in the Australian market. I submit that this industry, having been scientifically and efficiently established in this country, is entitled to the whole of the Australian market. After considering the evidence the Tariff Board made the following comment -

The board is satisfied that its recommendations represent the utmost extent to which the requests of United Kingdom manufacturers can be met at present without undue risk of exposure of Australian industry.

Statistics show that during recent years there has been a steady increase of the imports of essences. Any one who has given thought to this industry knows that it has been of great value to Australian fruit-growers in that it has furnished them with an additional outlet for their produce. The export trade has been encouraged and is nowmaking satisfactory progress. Provided that this industry can be assured of a continuity of tariff protection,I am confident that it will expand further its export trade. I wish to stress the difference between the culinary essence industry and that concerned with concentrated technical and soluble essences. The former is almost exclusively confined to essences of lemon and vanilla, whereas the latter produces a much greater number of flavours and caters for a larger variety of trades. The essence industry deserves adequate support for the reasons submitted at the inquiry by the Tariff Board. Summarized those reasons are: It affords support to other local industries by its consumption of bottles, cartons, printed matter, engineering, &c. It affords a valuable additional outlet to fruit-growers by its consumption of fruit. It also helps to improve the standard, as essence manufacturers require the best fruit for their flavour extract properties. It is a substantial consumer of other Australian products such as glycerine, spirit, essential oils, &c.

It is a skilled industry and necessitates the installation of laboratories and modern scientific equipment. This aspect is of considerable importance, as in times of war the existence of such personnel would be valuable to the community. That this is recognized by the authorities is shown by the fact that all chemists belonging to the Australian Institute of Chemistry are recorded with the Defence Department, which has particulars of their qualifications, so that their services may be called upon if required in case of need. Esters, ethers, &c., are also protected underthe Key Industries Act of Great Britain,and these are closely allied to the essence manufacturing industry. It may be said also that the industry contributes directly to the excise by its consumption of spirit and by the excise duty which it pays, as well as contributing to the revenue and taxation generally. This is a most promising industry and is capable of developing a valuable export trade. The Australian product is equal to anything imported as regards both quality and the variety of types produced. No handicap is suffered by other industries using Australian essences. I ask theMinister to ensure that this industry is further encouraged. The greater the sales for the local products the lower will be overhead costs, and the lower the prices at which the products can be sold. Such a reduction would also assist in the development of an export trade.

Item agreed to.

Items 11 and 16 agreed to.

Division II. - Tobacco and Manufactures Thereof.

I tem 20-

By omitting the whole item and inserting; in its stead the following item: -

Tobacco,cut, n.e.i.-

The manufacture of the United

Kingdom, containing not less than 13 per cent. by weight of stemmed Australian grown tobacco leaf (or its equivalent in terms of unstemmed tobacco leaf) to the total stemmed tobacco leaf (or its equivalent in terms of unstemmed tobacco leaf) used in the manufacture of such tobacco, per lb., British preferential,9s. 3d.

  1. Other . per lb., British preferential, 10s.6d.: intermediate. l1s.6d.; general, Us.6d.”
Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.-I move -

That the itembe postponed.

This motion, if carried, may be taken as an intimation to the Government that the import duty on tobacco leaf, unstemmed and stemmed, for the manufacture of pipe tobacco and cigarettes should be increased by 6d. per lb., and that a further preference of 6d. per lb. should be given by way of a differential excise duty on tobacco manufactured from tobacco leaf, at least 33 per cent. of which, in the ease of pipe tobacco, and at least 10 per cent., in the case of cigarette tobacco, is grown in Australia, so that the Australian grower will have an additional protection of approximately 1s. per lb. The motion ought to be supported by several honorable members on the other side of the House, the Assistant Minister, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) among them. It is in accordance with a recommendation which he made in this Parliament on the 26th November, 1936, and again in 1937. I moved a similar motion on the 26th March, 1936, and the honorable member for New England supported me in eloquent terms. On that occasion he said -

I hope that because this proposal emanates from the Opposition the Government will not view it in any party spirit. I have always protested against the making of tobaccogrowing a party issue, and I cannot understand why the Government should deal with it in that way.

That was a very laudable attitude to adopt. The alteration was proposed with a view to encouraging the use of Australiangrown leaf in English tobacco factories. It was proposed to make some concession on tobaccoes entering Australia from England provided they contained a specified percentage of Australian leaf. In reality, it was of no benefit to Australian growers, because it was hot worth the while of English manufacturers to buy Australian leaf, take it over to England, manufacture it there, and then send it back to Australia. I am trying to impress the Government with the need for doing something more practical, something on the lines suggested by the honorable member for New England before he joined the Ministry. Recently the Tobacco Advisory Committee “met at Perth, and passed a resolution deploring the condition of the industry. The resolution stated -

That the Federal Government should be asked to approach the manufacturers with a view to concluding an agreement for the purchase of the entire tobacco crop at an average price of 2s. 6d. per lb.

It was also decided to ask the Government to increase the duty on imported leaf as has been suggested by the Select Committee of New South “Wales, which inquired into the industry. The amendment I have moved is in accordance with the views expressed by the New South Wale* Tobacco Committee. When I previously _ made this request, I was supported by the honorable member for New England, the present Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen), and the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Collins). The Minister for the Interior, speaking on that occasion, said -

I suggest that something in the nature of a check upon the imports of tobacco would be a correct course to pursue. In the last five years no less than £4.500.000 of Australian money was sent to the United States of America, a country that practically declines to trade with us, for the purchase of tobacco, a commodity which we have demonstrated that we are quite capable of producing.

He went on to say that he had no hesitation in supporting my proposal. On the 2nd April, 1936, the honorable member for New England supported an amendment which I moved for a preferential margin of ls. 6d. per lb. in the excise duty on tobacco manufactured from Australiangrown leaf. The Leader of the Country party (Sir Earle Page , was strongly in favour of my proposal for affording greater protection to Australiangrown tobacco. He is now Deputy Prime Minister, and I claim his support for this motion, if he is consistent. Speaking on the 29th February, 1932, in condemnation of the first Lyons Government for having reduced the protective duties imposed by the Scullin Government, he said -

There is no suggestion of a combined move by the Country party to defeat the Lyons Government. It does seem strange, however, that the tobacco industry has been sacrificed in favour of a luxury import from America. I will do my best to help the Australian industry.

I do not propose to criticize the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins), because I know that he has always stood for reasonable protection of Australian industry.

Mr Beasley:

– Yes; and to-day is his birthday, too.

Mr FORDE:

– On behalf of all the members of my party, I extend congratulations to the honorable gentleman on this occasion. Although we differ from him politically, we on this side of the House have the greatest respect for the honorable gentleman, and are pleased to see him back in the Cabinet, until such time as we are able to form a cabinet, with our own men after the next, election.

The Labour party increased the duty on tobacco from 2s. per lb. to 5s. 2d. per lb., and was responsible for a similar increase on leaf for the manufacture of cigarettes. As the result of this stimulus the number of growers increased from 647 in 1928 to 5,600 in 1933. In 1936 the number of growers decreased from 5,600 to 3,594. The Scullin Government imposed an excise duty of 4s. 6d. per lb., an increase of 2s. 2d. per lb. When the new Government reduced duties, it brought down on its head the wrath of Country party members, notably the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron), the Assistant Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Thompson), and the present Minister for the Interior. There was also great concern among the growers. It cannot be said that the industry is not paying its full share of revenue to the Treasury. The honorable member for New England stated that the industry should not be asked to pay more than £6,500,000 a year to the revenue, but this is a record of its contributions to revenue over the last five years -

This year, with the honorable member for New England, the right honorable member for Cowper, and the honorable member for Indi in the Cabinet, I have no doubt that the tobacco industry will produce £8,500,000 in revenue as the result of duties that are for revenue rather than protective purposes. The honorable member for New England, speaking in the House on the 2nd September, 1937, said -

This industry produces as much revenue as the income tax and more than the sales tax, the annual yield from it being over £8,000,000.

I supported the honorable member because I believed that he was justifiably indignant at the high tax imposed on the tobacco industry. In the same speech the honorable member said -

The Government is, therefore, able to make much more generous concessions than it has given hitherto. Unfortunately, however, it does not seem to be particularly interested in establishing a local tobacco industry. The reduction of excise on local leaf has been more than offset by a reduction of 8d. per lb. on the excise on cigarettes manufactured from imported leaf. . . . I am not putting these figures forward as absolutely reliable because I have not been able to obtain official information. The whole thing seems to be shrouded in official secrecy. I have been informed confidentially, however, that the loss was as much as £90,000, which was given to the manufacturers virtually as a bonus to offset the loss caused by the reduction by 8d. of the excise on local leaf. The Government’s gesture of help to the local industry has not had the effect of re-establishing the industry on a sound basis.

That statement was made less than six weeks before the honorable member was included in the present composite Ministry. The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs said to-night that the Government had done a great deal to assist the industry. He also said that the Government represented two united parties and they would decide these matters in a spirit of unity, but I should like to learn whether there is unity in the Cabinet on the tobacco question; if so, who has changed? The honorable member for New England also made this statement on the 2nd September: -

Ithas not resulted in a reduction of imports from the United States of America, which still supplies about 90 per cent. of all the tobacco consumed in Australia. Honorable members will agree with me that tariff protection is failing of its purpose when imports continue steadily to increase.

I then supported the views expressed by the honorable member for New England, and I still support them. His vote to-night will show where he stands. My desire is to reduce imports in order to build up the Australian tobaccogrowing industry. I have already indicated the extent of the decline in the number of persons employed in the industry. I did not deal with Queensland only, although it is the largest tobaccogrowing State, but the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) furnished figures showing the decline in his electorate which contains one of the finest tobacco-growing areas in the Commonwealth.When I visited the Tamworth district in New South Wales during the Federal elections in 1934 I found some of the barns filled with tobacco which the growers could not sell.

Mr Green:

– Is not the honorable member for New England President of the Tobacco Growers’ Association?

Mr FORDE:

– I understand that he was president of that association, ‘but that he was succeeded by another Country party member, Mr. McEwen, who is now in the Ministry. Mr. McKnight, who was president of one of the largest branches of the Country party in New South Wales, and president of the Tobacco Growers’ Association in the Tamworth district, presided at an election meeting which I addressed in that district and invited me to address the growers. Mr. McKnight supported the endorsed Labour candidate for Gwydir at that election and he stated at the meeting that the then Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) had let the tobacco growers down. Mr. McKnight said that he put the industry first and party politics second. He took me round the district and showed me barns filled to the roof with tobacco leaf which the growers could not sell, because the combine was sabotaging the industry. The action taken by the present Government has not been sufficient to give an impetus to the industry. On the other hand, the first Lyons Government had slashed the duties and put over 2,000 growers out of business. I shall now quote what the honorable member for New England said when discussing on the 26th November, 1936, the tariff proposals of 1935-36-

Although the Government, in this schedule, has made some small friendly gesture towards this industry, our imports of tobacco from the United States of America last year were greater than they were for the previous year. It cannot be said, therefore, that our tradediversion policy is injuring the American negro grower of tobacco. On the contrary, it is certainly injuring the white Australian grower. It is proposed in this schedule to increase the duty on American tobacco by 2s. per lb. We get 75 per cent. of our tobacco from the United States of America. It is also proposed that the Australian manufacturer should increase the percentages of Australiangrown tobacco to imported tobacco in manufactured pipe and cigarette brands, but although that may appear to be a concession, I point out that Australian manufacturers are already using higher percentages of Australiangrown leaf, namely, 25 per cent.in the case of pipe tobacco, and up to 3 per cent. in the case of cigarettes. Thus, to this concession the growers are compelled to say to the Government, “ Thank you for nothing.” As president of the Tobacco Growers’ Association of Australia, I should not “ look a gift horse in the mouth,” but I contend that this concession will not be useful, because, prior to the introduction of this schedule, Australian manufacturers were voluntarily using higher percentages of Australian-grown leaf in their manufactured brands than arc provided here. In its trade-diversion policy, therefore, the Government has done nothing whatever to divert any of our present trade in tobacco with the United States of America from the negro growers in that country to white growers in Australia.

The honorable member used strong language in that speech in condemnation of the weak, puerile policy of the present Government which he subsequently joined.

Mr Green:

– Wheredoesthehonorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) stand on this question?

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member usually supports protection for Australian industries and I shall watch with interest how he votes to-night. By moving the amendment I have given the honorable member for New England and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) an opportunity to support a principle which they supported on a previous occasion, and which also had the support of the Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page), who said that the Lyons Government, when it was a United Australia party administration, had let the tobacco growers down. During the Federal election campaign in New South Wales in 1934 the Country party spent thousands of pounds in the publication and circulation of literature throughout the Gwydir and other electorates exposing the weak handling by the Lyons Government of the tobacco quest ion.It showed that the agreement entered into between the then Minister for Trade and Customs (Sir Henry Gullett) and the tobacco manufacturers to buy the whole Australian crop at. 2s. per lb. had resulted in a reduction of the return to the Australian growers by £300,000 in comparison with the previous year’s return. The Country party stated that if it were returned with a sufficient number of seats to hold the balance of power and obtain a share of the government of the country it would see that a complete alteration was made in the tariff, so that the tobacco growers would receive protection adequate to enable them to establish their industry on a fair and scientific basis. The tobacco industry was in the doldrums until the Labour government came into power. I, as the Minister for Trade and Customs in that Ministry, handled the matter and the Labour Government did not disregard the claims of the tobacco growers, who had then as the president of their association the honorable member for New England, now an Assistant Minister. In fact, the honorable member was appointed a member of the Select

Committee set up by the Labour government to investigate the tobacco industry, and he was elected its chairman. It visited various parts of Australia, and furnished an illuminating report, deploring the misfortunes of the tobaccogrowers and recommending that they be granted adequate protection. The Labour Government acted on those recommendations and placed the industry on its feet: In localities where a few hundred growers had been operating there were soon thousands of them; hundreds of unemployed who had been looking for work were absorbed, on the farms, and artisans were engaged’ in building barns and shacks for the growers. With the change of tariff policy, however, over 2,000 of these men were put on the track. I urge the Acting Minister to use his influence with members like the Minister for ‘the Interior (Mr. McEwen) and the Assistant Minister, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson), to obtain their support for my amendment.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- I cordially support the amendment. The time is ripe for the Government to do something for the tobacco-growers, many of whom have been financially ruined through the slashing of the Scullin tariff by the Lyons Government. A short while ago, the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Perkins) said that some of those engaged in the industry were unsuitable for the work. Mareeba has been described by the tobacco experts of the New South Wales Government as the Virginia of Australia. In that district, 1,600 men were engaged in the industry when the Scullin tariff was in operation, but, owing to the action of the present Government in reducing the import duty and increasing the excise on tobacco, that number has been reduced to below 400. The Acting Minister for Trade and Customs has said that only one in four growers was suitable for the job, and also that inferior grades of leaf were being produced. Obviously, the Minister is trying to make excuses for the Government’s action. Certainly, in the first year, tobacco of an inferior quality may have been grown, because an attempt was being made to establish a new industry; but to-day the industry is producing leaf equal to, if not better than, that grown in foreign countries with black labour. The Minister also remarked that the Government had arranged with the manufacturers for the purchase of the leaf. The purchase price was 2s. per lb. although the lowest average cost of production has never been below 2s: 3d. per lb. In other words, the Government admits * having arranged for the sale of the tobacco at 3d. per lb. less than the cost of production. In reply to an interjection bv me, the Minister observed that the industry had never produced the requisite quantity of first grade tobacco.

Mr Perkins:

– It produced some leaf of good quality, but not sufficient of it.

Mr RIORDAN:

– If the industry produced 10,000,000 lb. in 1932, surely, after six years of experimentation, some improvement has been effected; and if the tariff and excise had not been interfered with by this Government that quantity would be produced to-day. The Minister also said that the men who were unsuited to the work went back to their former jobs, but I point out that 90 per cent, of those who embarked upon the work of tobacco-growing in 1931 did so because at that time they had no jobs at all, and the result of the tariff alteration by the present Government has been to send these men back into the towns to receive the dole. In Queensland, some of them were fortunate in obtaining relief work.

Mr Beasley:

– Some of them lost the savings of a lifetime.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Yes ; the treatment of them was disgraceful.

I have previously drawn attention to the abnormal profits made by the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company and Carreras Limited which manufacture 90 per cent, of the Australian output of tobacco. The case for the tobacco-growers in the New England district was stated by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Thompson) when he was president of the Australian Tobacco Growers Association. The combine set the growers in one district against those in other districts, asserting that one district .produced a better leaf than the other, and the result of the discussion was that Mareeba got the better of the contest.It seemed strange that blue mould was suddenly discovered at Mareeba. The explanation of this is that the slashing of the Scullin tariff forced many of the Mareeba farmers to leave their crops standing in the paddocks. Under the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the growers would receive an added protection of1s. per lb. That may seem a small sum, but it would be very acceptable to the growers. In the debate on these duties which took place in this Parliament on the 20th March, 1936, the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) stated : -

A good deal has been said about the merits and demerits of the very high protective policy applied to the tobacco industry by the Scullin Government, but, whatever may be said on that score, it ought to be recognized that, whether the duties were wise or unwise, they were applied by a government elected by the people.It is not right that a subsequent government should, in those circumstances, deal an economic death-blow to the people who were encouraged to enter the tobacco industry by the previous government. If a subsequent government felt that the protective policy had been carried to too great an extreme - andI will confess that that is my thought - there should be a gradual retreat, but the industry should be afforded adequate protection to maintain itself during the period of readjustment to the new circumstances.

Where does the Minister stand to-day? This Government has done its best to cripple the industry, in the interests of the tobacco combine. We have heard statements in this chamber about inferior leaf being produced in Queensland. Most of these allegations are subtle propaganda, put out by the combine for the purpose of destroying a new and important primary industry. Australian requirements are approximately 20,000,000 lb. annually. In 1933-34 we imported 11,600,000 lb.; in 1935-36, over 17,000,000 lb., and in 1936-37, approximately 19,500,000 lb.- practically sufficient to supply the Australian demand. Where does the Australian grower come in? The present tariff is inadequate to protect the industry. On the 26th November, 1936, the Assistant Minister (Mr. Thompson) said -

Most of our tobacco requirements to-day is produced by negroes in the United States of America, and bought by the BritishAustralasian Tobacco Company, which is one of the most heavily-protected concerns in Australia.

What chance has the Australian grower to compete against imported leaf grown by cheap coloured labour?

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Forde) referred to the attitude of Mr. W. G. McKnight, president of the Tobacco Growers Association, during the election campaign in the Gwydir electorate. As to that, I take the following from the Labor Daily of the 5th May, 1937:-

page 1245

TOBACCO-GROWERS DESERTED

Bitter Criticism of Countryparty’s Policy. nationalloss. “ I now declare that since Dr. Page sold out to the United Australia party, there is only the name of the Country party left. I have not deserted them ; but they have deserted me.”

This declaration, which sums up the attitude of many former Country party supporters in the Gwydir electorate, has been made by Mr. W. G.Mcknight, president of the Tobaccogrowers Association, and formerly president of the Attunga branch of the Country party.

If Country party members are earnestly desirous of assisting primary production, they should give every support possible to the tobacco industry. Instead of doing this, they are supporting a government which, by its tariff policy, is destroying what could bo made one of the finest primary industries in Australia. In North Queensland, there is a tremendous tract of country admirably suited to the production of high quality tobacco leaf; but this Government is not encouraging those who would like to engage in the industry. The amendment is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be carried.

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

– I sincerely hope that the amendment will not be carried. I assure the committee that the Government is very watchful of the interests of Australian tobacco-growers. Originally the duty on imported tobacco was 3s. per lb. In November, 1933, the Government increased the duty by 6d. per lb., and later by an additional1s. 6d. per lb. on imports containing not less than 13 per cent. of Australian leaf. It also reduced by 8d. per lb. the excise duty on tobacco made from Australian leaf. As the result of the Government’s tariff policy, Australian manufacturers have increased the quantity of Australian- leaf used in the manufacture of tobacco from 2,600,000 lb. to 5,300,000 lb. About six years ago, when tobacco-growing ‘ was commenced in the Mareeba district, I was gratified to learn from officials of the department that the growers were producing a leaf of good quality, though not in sufficient quantity. Subsequently, as many honorable members know, results were very disappointing. I visited the establishments of tobacco manufacturers in Melbourne, and had ample opportunity to gauge the quality of the Australian leaf. I regret to say that I was very disappointed. Even a layman could readily believe that a blackfellow -would not smoke tobacco made from some of the leaf that was shown to me. Many of the growers were quite inexperienced, and therefore were foredoomed to failure. I believe, however, that eventually tobacco-growing in this country will be an important industry if it is allowed to develop along normal lines. Although many honorable members opposite profess to be supporters of the Australian tobacco industry, I feel sure that some of them do not smoke tobacco made from the Australian leaf.

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- This item affects a number of tobacco-growers in Western Australia. The purpose of the tariff is to give preference to British manufacturers who purchase Australian leaf and incorporate not less than 13 per cent, of it in their output. The tobaccogrowing industry has been established for many years, and it is gratifying to know that we are now producing some leaf of good quality. The quantity of high-class leaf is somewhat limited, and strange though it may seem, the best average good quality leaf is grown in Western Australia, which is the last of the States to commence tobaccogrowing. I have no doubt that, in the course of time, growers in the other States will improve their output. The producers in Western Australia are indebted to a local manufacturer, Mr. Michelides, who for some years has been an enthusiastic supporter of the industry. From the Australian leaf he is producing a tobacco of very high quality, and is finding a market for it in the eastern States. Not long ago he conceived the idea that he would be able to sell some of it in Great Britain, and with that object in view he went to England to interview a number of manufacturers. He has told me that there is now every prospect of developing a useful trade in Australian tobacco with England. The sole object is to assist that export trade, and such assistance can be given by a concession amounting to ls. 3d. per lb. on tobacco manufactured in England, but containing not less than 13 per cent, of Australian tobacco. That is the percentage which is required in order to obtain the excise concession in the case of tobacco manufactured in Australia. This proposal merely asks that the same principle shall be applied with respect to Australian tobacco exported to England, manufactured there, and subsequently brought back to Australia. The purpose is to encourage the Australian industry. The effect would be that consumers in Australia would get a cheaper tobacco, and the consumption of the local article would be increased. I am astonished that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde), whose object I have no doubt is to obtain the greatest measure of protection for Australian manufacturers, Las not seen fit to support the item in its entirety. To do so would be quite consistent with his general support and advocacy of the interests of the tobacco-growers of Australia.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.– It is rather interesting to those honorable members who remained in the chamber to listen to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) during the - general debate, to find the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Forde) now advocating an increase of the duty on one of the biggest revenue items of thi whole tariff.

The argument of the Leader of the Opposition was that the revenue from indirect taxation included in the Australian budget was a serious impost upon the wage-earner.

Mr FORDE:

– The acceptance of my amendment would mean a falling-off of the total revenue, because under it preference would be given to tobacco made from the Australian leaf.

Mr HAWKER:

– The trouble with Australian-grown tobacco is, not only that a great deal of it is of poor quality, but also that even that portion of it which is of excellent quality has a slightly distinctive flavour, and time must be allowed for smokers to acquire a taste for it. In order to encourage the consumption of the local article, a very heavy preference is given to it. On tobacco worth 2s. per lb., the preference is something like 3s. 6d. per lb. An increase of that by another 6d. per lb. on certain mixtures would not very greatly accelerate the rate at which smokers would change over, but, to the extent of the extra import duty, would increase the revenue contributed by smokers throughout Australia. It is to increases of this sort, for which the Opposition is in large measure responsible, that a substantial portion of the revenue-producing section of the tariff is due. I hope that the committee will support the proposed alteration of the tariff, which is likely to have the effect of increasing the use of Australian tobacco, particularly that grown in Western Australia - in a small way to start with, but in the right direction - and that the probable results will not be marred in any way by an amendment, the principal effect of which would be to increase the revenue from indirect taxation, most of which ispaid - on tobacco items, at any rate - by the wage-earners.

Question put -

That the item be postponed (Mr. Forde’s amendment) .

The Committee divided. (Temporary Chairman - Mr. John Lawson.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolvedinthenegative.

Item agreed to.

Items 21. and 22 agreed to.

Division IV. - Agricultural Products and Groceries.

Item 42 agreed to.

Item 44 -

By omitting the wholeof sub-item (c) and inserting in its stead the following sub-item : - “ (3) Caramel, caramel paste and caramel butter - per lb., British,1½d. ; intermediate, 2d.; general,2¼d.

And in respect of paragraph (3) -

For each£1 by which the equivalent in Australian currencyof £100 sterling is less than £125 at the date of exportation - an additional duty of - per lb., British, .02d. ; intermediate, 02d. ; general, .02d.”

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

.- I move-

That the following be added to paragraph

sub-item (c) of Item 44:- “And on and after 19th May, 1938: -

Caramel - per lb., British l½d., intermediate, 2d.; general, 2¼d.

And in respect of paragraph (3) -

For each £1 by which the equivalent in Australian currency of £100 sterling is less than £125 at the date of exportation - an additional duty of - per lb., British, .02d.; intermediate, .02d.; general, .02d.”

The object of the amendment is to eliminate “ caramel butter “ and “ caramel paste “ from specific mention under item 44 (c) (3). Specific provision for “ caramel butter “ and “ caramel paste “ has been embodied in successive tariffs since federation, but recent inquiries have disclosed that these products are not now known in the confectionery trade in either New South Wales or Victoria. The Tariff Board has advised that at its recent inquiry into the goods covered by this item no evidence was given regarding the composition of caramel butter and caramel paste, or the rates of duty which should be applied to those products, and that in making its recommendations it had adhered to the wording of the item that had been in the tariff since 1902. The Tariff Board agrees that this item should be amended. In the event of any imports being made of caramel butter or caramel paste which contain caramel, or pure edible fats for the manufacture of caramel the items will, subject to the . committee’s acceptance of this amendment, be dutiable under appropriate tariff items according to the ingredient of chief value contained therein.

Amendment agreed to.

Item, as amended, agreed to.

Items 56, 57, 64, 79 and 84 agreed to.

Item 88 (Salt,-&c)

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

– The proposed operative rates of duty for present exchange conditions on salt covered by this item, when compared with those which operated under the 1933-36 tariff, represent no change under the British preferential tariff, but an increase of 10 per cent, under the general tariff. Provision has been made for an intermediate tariff rate of 30 per cent., which is equivalent to the former general tariff rate under the 1933-36 tariff. The intermediate tariff rate is, however, not operative. Under par exchange conditions the rates of duty will be 25 per cent. British preferential tariff, 40 per cent, intermediate tariff, and 50 per cent, general tariff. These .rates represent increases of 5 per cent. British preferential tariff, and 20 per cent, general tariff above the statute rates in the 1933-1936 tariff. The variations set out in the proposed item are consequent upon the recommendations of the Tariff Board in its report of the 15th October, 1936, on the local salt industry. Rates which were recommended by the board for present exchange conditions were 15 per cent.

British preferential tariff, and 30 per cent, general tariff. These rates have been adopted for the British preferential tariff and intermediate tariff levels, and a general tariff rate of 40 per cent, is proposed in order to provide the usual margin for trade treaty negotiations with overseas countries. Australia’s requirements of table salt in small packages are comparatively small, representing about 1,200 tons-, per annum, or approximately 1 per cent, of the total quantity of salt of all kinds produced annually in Australia. The local manufacturers’ share of the trade in table salt at the time of the board’s inquiry was about 100 tons per annum. The principal manufacturer and packer of table salt in Australia is the Cheetham Salt Company Proprietary Limited, Geelong, which also supplies 08Mactroy Proprietary Limited, Sydney, with salt for processing and packing. Processing merely involves the admixture with the salt of a very small percentage of magnesium carbonate, which prevents the absorption of moisture from the air. The cost of the salt represents from 11 per cent, to 38 per cent, of the total cost of production of table salt in Australia.

The wholesale selling prices of the local salt are slightly lower than those of the principal competitive line imported- from the United Kingdom, which is marketed under the name of “ Saxa “. However, despite the price difference in their favour, the local manufacturers had, at the time of the board’s inquiry, secured only 10 per cent, of the available market in Australia. This state of affairs can only be attributed to the goodwill which has been won by the imported product during a period of many years on the local market. A disability under which the local industry was previously placed, but which has since been remedied, was the practice of the Saxa people in not charging full exchange on table salt sold to their Australian customers. This practice was tantamount to dumping, but action has been taken which has been responsible for the full exchange being charged by the exporter concerned.

The Board carefully reviewed the duties on table salt, and was of the opinion that, with the elimination of the exchange allowance, the local industry would have a definite price advantage. For that reason it was not prepared to recommend any increase of the British preferential rate of duty for present exchange conditions. No evidence was available at the board’s inquiry concerning the costs and prices of table salt admissible under the general tariff. However, in view of the upward trend of imports from the United States of America, the board was not disposed to recommend any lowering of the general tariff rate of duty.

Imports of table salt for the years 1935-36 and 1936-37 were l,256 and 1,197 tons, respectively. Imports for the present year are, however, at the rate of 950 tons per annum. This would indicate that under cover of the proposed duties, which I submit are reasonable and adequate, the principal manufacturing company, by embarking on a virile advertising campaign, and adopting a much more attractive label for its product, has been able to capture a greater share of the local market than hitherto.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

.- As the salt industry has been firmly established, and is being scientifically conducted in this country, I think it is entitled to the whole of the Australian market. Salt is manufactured in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland. In all of those States numerous salt lakes exist. In addition, we have salt works producing salt by the solar evaporation of sea water. The lake deposits of salt in Australia are capable of producing millions of tons of salt. Many of them are sufficiently adjacent to the consuming markets to render them commercial propositions, and consequently they are extensively used for the production of salt. The supply of raw material far exceeds the demand. Five companies are operating in Victoria, eight in South Australia, five in Western Australia and one in Queensland. There are also a number of individual proprietors. The whole of Australia’s requirements of every grade of salt can be supplied from within its borders and there is no necessity for importations. The Australian production of salt is approximately 100,000 tons per annum. It is estimated that the rates of wages paid to workers in the industry in Australia are58 per cent. higher than in England. Competing English manufacturers pay huge dividends to their shareholders, and despite all the efforts of the Customs Department I fear that they dispose of much of their surplus production in Australia. Many other industries in Australia are dependent upon thesalt industry. It proved of great value to Australia during the Great War, and gives a considerable amount of employment. A tariff board inquiry was held in 1936. It was claimed by competitors that Australian salt was unsuitable for dairying purposes, but the board made inquiries in three States and expressed the opinion that Australian butter did not suffer by being mixed with the best Australian dairy salt. Statistics show that whereas the imports of rock salt have remained practically stationary, there has been a steady increase of imports of salt in packages not exceeding 14 lb. Instead of having to contend against imported salt the local industry should have the whole of the Australian market. There is ample local competition to regulate prices. The industry is efficiently conducted, and there is no desire to exploit the consuming public. Increased employment would be available to Australians if the local industry had the whole of the home market.

Item agreed to.

Item 89 agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 1249

ADJOURNMENT

Location of Pensions Department - Northern Territory: Payne Report

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- I understand that the Government contemplates transferring the Pensions Department from its present location in No. 2 Secretariat to premises situated at Civic Centre. If that be done, great inconvenience will be caused to honorable members, as was the case on a previous occasion when the department was situated there. Honorable members who desired to interview officers of the department had either to do so by telephone or travel to the north side of the city. The arrangement was most unsatisfactory. Probably there is no department of the Public Service with whose officers honorable members generally have greater personal contact than the Pensions Department. I understand that the reason for the proposed transfer is that the rooms now occupied by the Pensions Department are wanted to accommodate officers who will control the new insurance scheme. Surely there are other departments which could more easily be located away from Parliament House. I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to take steps to insure that the Pensions Department shallremain in its present situation.

Mr BLAIN:
Northern Territory

– I take this opportunity to refer to the apathy of the Department of the Interior in acting on the report of the Payne Commission on the Northern Territory. I do not wish to criticize the department or the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) unduly for the delay in bringing forward legislation to implement the recommendations of the commission, but in the interests of the development of the Northern Territory, as well as the defence of Australia, I emphasize that the matter is urgent. I should be glad to hear from the Minister a statement of the Government’s policy in this matter sothat we may know whether or not this report, like many others, has been shelved. I hope that the work of two able Australians will not have been wasted. My own views on this matter are clear. I approve of the general recommendations of Messrs. Payne and Fletcher. If I, and the majority of the people of the Territory can make up our minds as to what should be done to give effect to the report, surely the department, which for the last 20years has been charged with the administration of the Territory, should be able to do so. If it is not capable of doing that, it should be wiped out, and a new personnel created capable of knowing its own mind on subjects for which it is paid to know it.

Some questions, and particularly one, I am afraid that the Government trembles to face. I refer, of course, to the question of parity, and regional tariffs in particular, that I have been fighting for ever since I entered this House. These are the facts and I expect the Minister to give an early answer; but it will be no answer if the Minister takes shelter under an announcement that the Commissioner of Commonwealth Railways intends to act in the near future on thereport, and reduce the freight on cattle, etc., from Alice Springs to Adelaide. I intend to demand that any reduced rates be made retrospective ; and that this apply to customs duties collected; also that in future the Commissioner of Commonwealth Railways and the Minister for the Interior should scorn to use each other as a common shuttlecock of evasion in order to defeat every attempt by the member for the territory to obtain a fair deal—-

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon.G. J. Bell).Order ! The honorable member must not use such terms.

Mr BLAIN:

– I hope the Minister willtakewithhimsuchastaffaswillbe able to advise him and help him to thresh out all the problems which will confront him.. Having that in mind, I wish to make what I think is a highly sensible suggestion. I think we may take it that, through the natural limitations that apply to a printed document, the Payne-Fletcher report does not contain the whole of the background which influenced the Commissioners. I suggest to the Minister that the only way by which he can fully appreciate what was in the minds of the Commissioners is by firsthand enquiry on the spot. I therefore urge that he should ask either Mr. Payne or Mr. Fletcher to accompany him so that he will be able to learn from their own lips their views of whatever problems arise, and their answers to whatever objections he may entertain. The ministerial visit should be not merely a visit of inquiry, but a visit of construction, and when it ends the Minister should return with a clear and definite plan of action - fully criticized and approved by all parties - in his mind.

I urge the Minister to hasten his arrangements as far as possible to visit the Northern Territory, and to assure him that he will receive a hearty welcome there, and that we shall do everything possible to see that our problemsare fully and fairly placed before him. I notice that a small group of pastoralists have been making certain statements. No one can accuse me of a lack of sympathy with the pastoralists ; I have always tried to serve their interests, but there is a limit to my patience. In a recent statement, for instance, the Lessees’ Association claims that lessees should not be deprived of their right to compensation by the Crown for improvements upon resumption or expiry of their leases, whereas it is the actual fact that the Payne commission does not propose to deprive them of any such privileges, but on the contrary, would facilitate the collection of the value of improvements by outgoing lessees. The present provisions as to valuation and collection of reimbursement for improvements are vague in the existing Lands Ordinance, but the commission recommends that an incoming tenant shall be expected to pay for improvements at a value agreed on or determined, as soon as he steps on to the property. The recommendations are much more in favour of the old lessee than under present conditions. Again the association recommends that the Government should not approve the advance of public money for the erection of improvements upon security of a mortgage over the holding. At present a mortgage is taken over holding and stock if an advance of government funds is made for any purpose. The commission recommends that the Government should never take a mortgage over stock. I agree with that recommendation. A mortgage should not be taken over stock. I am mentioning these matters among several which have been brought up by the Lessees’ Association, merely to show that it has apparently not taken the trouble to read the report before condemning it. That indicates how wary the Minister must be of interested criticism, even when it seems plausible and appears to represent a section of Northern Territory opinion. Of course, the smaller selectors in Central Australia welcome the report and are clamouring to have it acted upon, and the Minister knows this. I instigated the appointment of Mr. Payne as a commissioner because I knew what a success he had made of land matters in Queensland and bordering on the Territory, and I had to press hard before the appointment was agreed to. I now intend to continue to press hard to see that the scheme evolved by the Commissioner, which exactly fits the needs of the Territory on all main problems, is carried into effect. It would be a crying shame if the money were wasted through hesitancy on the Government’s part or through its bowing to incompetent or interested opinion. Might I inform the House that there has been a feeling in the past - I do not say justified - that Government policy has been dominated by a group of Pitt-street pastoralistspeculators, whose words in the Pastoral Review I have been criticizing. Those people do not care a rap for the general interests of the Territory; it might be sunk under the sea for all they care, so long as they could make money out of it. It seems to me a sinister synchronization of events that an inexperienced journalist at Darwin has been doing his damnedest during the last few days to give a wrong impression of Territory prospects in a very skilful manner. But he flatters himself if he thinks that his summing-up will be allowed to pass unchallenged. I have confidence in the goodwill of the Minister in his sincere anxiety to make a good job of Territory development, and I, therefore, look forward to his visit, because I am sure that it will confirm him in a resolution to learn - but not on the evidence of these interested persons in Pitt-street; At the same time, I urge him to clarify the position with a preliminary statement of the Government’s viewpoint, particularly on parity.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin). If it is finally determined to remove the pensions branch to Civic Centre, I hope that suitable arrangements will be made for the transport to and from that part of Canberra of members who frequently have business dealings with that branch. In the old days, a bus journey of an hour was necessary in travelling from Parliament House to Civic Centre. Personally I hope that this branch will not be removed from its present quarters.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– in reply - Difficultyhas been experienced in providing accommodation in the administrative offices at West Block for the staff required to deal with urgent Treasury matters, and consideration has been given during recent weeks to the accommodation of the pensions branch at Civic Centre. It is considered necessary to

Accommodate as close as possible to the Treasury the staff engaged in connexion with urgent matters such as that of national insurance. This work is regarded as of greater urgency than that involved in the administration of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The best means of re-distributing the available space has been carefully investigated, andI hope that any transfer that may be found necessary will be only a temporary one. I shall take into consideration what has been said by the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin), and the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Martens), and, if it becomes necessary to make the change referred to, I shall see that it is done with as little inconvenience as possible to honorable members, particularly in regard to the matter of transport.

The honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Blain) has spoken of the Payne Commission. I had to exercise a little self-restraint to prevent myself from interjecting when he was speaking, because he used terms in regard to the Minister for the Interior (Mr. McEwen) which I consider to be unjustified. I now register my protest against some of his statements. I have read the Payne report through from start to finish, and most, if not all, members of the Cabinet, have also done so. Of course, the responsible Minister in this case is the Minister for the Interior, who has had much urgent work to attend to ever since his appointment to the Ministry. I know this matter is under his consideration at the present time, and it is expected that Cabinet itself will soon have an opportunity to consider the Minister’s recommendations in the light of the Payne report. Although this report is no direct concern of my own, I should appreciate a debate on some of the points of it with the honor able member for the Northern Territory. I have certain reactions to the report of the members of the commission. The problem of the Northern Territory is not one that canbe considered in vacuo; it must be regarded in its proper relation to the rest of Australia. I have doubts in my own mind as to whether the proper perspective is always kept in mind when gentlemen who are interested in the Northern Territory are discussing its merits and its future. I, however, undertake to bring the honorable gentleman’s observations to the notice of the Minister for the Interior.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

page 1252

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answersto questions ware circulated: -

Trade Balances Between Dominions

Mr Price:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Will he ascertain from the latest returns available the balance of trade between Australia andNew Zealand, Australia and Canada and New Zealand and Canada?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows. All the figures are in Australian currency : -

Postage Rate on “ Hansard

Mr Green:

n asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. As the postage rate on Hansard is 12 oz. for1d., will he secure a ruling from the Director-General as to whether pulls of speeches from Hansard sent inbulk may be posted at this rate?
  2. If this is not the allowable rate, is the lowest rate available that of second-class matter, viz., 4 oz. for1d.?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

Copies of Hansard and pulls of speeches from Hansard are transmissible by post at the rate of1d. per 12 oz., or part of 12 oz.

Duty on Imported Motor Chassis.

Mr Curtin:

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

What is the total amount that has been collected, to the end of April, 1938, as a result of the duty of . 7d. per lb. upon all imported motor chassis and parts, which was imposed to provide a fund for the manufacture of motor engines in Australia?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

The additional duty collected at . 7d. per lb. on motor chassis and parts from the date of the imposition of the duty to the 31st March, 1938, amounted to £710,538 12s.8d.

This period is the latest one for which the information is available.

Standardization of Railway Gauges

Mr Drakeford:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government taken any steps to have a further inquiry into the standardization of railway gauges, having special reference to economic and defence aspects, as agreed upon at the Premiers Conference in Adelaide, 1936?
  2. If no action has yet been taken, will he explain the reasons for the delay and give the House some indication of what the Government proposes to do in the matter?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

The matter has been listed for discussion at a conference of Ministers for Transport at a date to be arranged as early as possible. Conferences of officers representing the Commonwealth and the Transport Departments of several of the States have been held to drawup the agenda to be discussed at the conference of Ministers.

War Pensions

Mr Forde:

e asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

  1. . How many returned soldiers who served in the Australian Imperial Force and were discharged medically unfit, not due to misconduct, have not been granted war pensions? 2.Under what circumstances are returned soldiers who were discharged medically unfit refused a Avar pension?
Mr Thompson:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers : -

  1. Without a long and costly search in the Department of Defence of the records of discharge of all members of the forces, it is impossible to say how many were discharged as medically unfit, not due to misconduct, and even if that information is obtained a further lengthy investigation of the records of all applicants for pension would be necessary to determine which of those rejected cases had been so discharged.
  2. In determining whether an application for war pension should be granted or refused the Repatriation Commission has to have regard to all the known facts in each individual case. The more important of those facts are the service record, reason for discharge, and post war health and employment records. In many cases there is no possible association between the invalidity present on discharge with that for which pension is now claimed.
Mr Rankin:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the small numbers concerned, and of the undoubted justice of their claim, will the Government consider the granting of the service pension to South African veterans at the age of60 years?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

Full consideration was recently given to the question of according South African war veterans eligibility for service pensions, but the Government regrets that it was unable to see its way to take action in this direction,

Military Conscription

Mr Blackburn:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a letter in the Times of the 24th March, in which Sir Auckland Geddes writes - “With perhaps more knowledge than most men of the working of conscription in this country and as the only man now alive who ha3 been responsible to Parliament for the daytoday administration of compulsory military recruiting, I hold the fully matured opinion that on balance the imposition of military conscription added Tittle, if anything, to the effective sum of our war effort “ ?
  2. What positions were held by Sir Auckland Geddes during the war years, in relation to recruiting and to national service?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

  1. I have seen the letter to which the honorable member refers.
  2. During the war years, Sir Auckland Geddes held the following positions : - Director of Recruiting, War Office, London, 1916-17; Minister of National Service, 1917-19.

Wheat : Sales Publicity and Research

Mr Wilson:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will the Government give favorable consideration to introducing legislation to provide for a levy on wheat, similar to that imposed on wool and for like purposes, viz., for sales publicity and research?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

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

The Government does not consider that funds are needed for sales publicity for wheat; research is to-day carried out by the State departments of agriculture who refer to the Commonwealth Council for Scientific and Industrial Research certain research problems. The Government does not know that any considerable body of wheat-growers desires to pay a levy for cither of these purposes.

Duty on Douglas Fir: Tariff Board Report.

Mr Price:

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

  1. What was the date of the last report by the Tariff Board on the question of duty on Douglas Fir?
  2. What is the date on which the Tariff Board presented this report to the Minister?
  3. What was the date on which the Minister laid this report on the table of the House?
  4. Did the Government act on the recommendation of the Tariff Board; if not, for what reason?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

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

  1. The 9th November, 1933.
  2. – The 13th November, 1933.
  3. The 24th November, 1936.
  4. No. The reasons were stated by the Minister for Trade and Customs in May, 1936, when introducing tariff proposals, and in November, 1930, when the proposals were being debated.

Civil Aviation : Subsidies to Aero Clubs

Mr Green:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. What were the subsidies paid during the last financial year to the Royal aero clubs in each State, showing each State separately?
  2. Is there any recognized basis by which these respective Royal aero clubs allot portion of this subsidy to the country training clubs in each State?
  3. If so, what was the amount allotted last year by the Royal Aero Club of Western Australia to the country training clubs in that State; what were the names of the clubs, and the amount distributed in each case?
  4. How many pilots were trained last year at each of these country clubs, up to “ A “ licence standard, and what was the cost of training per head?
Mr Thorby:
CP

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

Subsidy is paid to the above aero clubs on a payment-by-results basis, in accordance with number of pupils trained, licences renewed and hours flown by each aircraft owned by the club.

  1. In principle this is left to the discretion of the committee of the respective clubs. Each club is permitted to dictate its policy for the development of flying training in accordance with its finances, but to obtain the greatest benefitsfrom the subsidy scheme, the club’s activities should progress on the lines of the policy of the Government as outlined in the agreement with the club. The threeyears’ agreement with the subsidized aero clubs which commenced on the 1st January, 1937, provided special encouragement for the development by the clubs of flying training in country districts. Provision was made for an increased bonus payment for pupils instructed at a flying training centre more than 25 miles distant from the head-quarters of the club, and also an increased annual payment for pilots who qualified for a renewal of their licence at such flying training centres. 3.No special amount was allocated by the Royal Aero Club of Western Australia for country training, but every effort was made by the club to foster country training at such centres as the number of pupils warranted and the finances of the club permitted. The following training centres were established on the dates shown : -

February, 1937 - Great Southern, embracing Narrogin, Wagin, Katanning, Gnowangerup.

August, 1937 - Wiluna, Meekatharra.

February,1938 - Kalgoorlie, Southern

Cross, Marvel Loch. 4. (a) Wiluna, 11; Great Southern, 3. (b) The Royal Aero Club of Western Australia advises that the average cost of training each new pupil at Wiluna and Great Southern is £42 and £371s. respectively.

Accommodation for Federal Departments in States

Mr Green:

n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What is the amount expended for the last five years in payment for rents on account of private premises occupied for federal departmental purposes in the capital of each State?
  2. What are the separate buildings occupied in each case, and the rental paid in each instance?
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

  1. Accommodation is occupiedin the undermentioned buildings. The existing annual rentals are set out below: -

It will be appreciated that changes are made from time totime in regard to the premises leased and the rentals paid. The list does not include post offices, divisional returning officers’ accommodation, and miscellaneous items, such as storage space, &c. It will be noted that of the sum of £45,425 estimated to be paid in rentals this year, the sum of £19,041 10s. l0d. will be paid to the Commonwealth Bank.

Tyres for Motor Vehicles: Cost to Commonwealth

Mr McEwen:
CP

n.- On Thursday, the 28th April, 1938, the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. What was the total cost to the Commonwealth last financial year for rubber tyres and tubes for all Commonwealth vehicles?
  2. Were the sales effected by tender or treaty price ?
  3. What, if any, was the total amount of discount, and the discount rate per cent.?

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

  1. £8,856 net, after deduction of discount.
  2. Approximately 93 per cent. by tender and 7 per cent. by treaty. The 7 per cent. refers to the cost of “remoulding”, for which there is no separate tender.

Overseas Trade Balance.

Mr Casey:
UAP

y. -On Wednesday, the 11th

May, 1938, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked the following questions,upon notice : -

  1. What was the amount of Australia’s overseas trade balance on the 30th April, 1938?
  2. What was the amount of imports into Australia for the period 1st July, 1937, to 30th April, 1938, and what were the types of the major groups of such imports?
  3. Is he satisfied with the position of Australia’s overseas trade balance; if not, what steps is it proposed to take to improve the position ?

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

  1. Preliminary estimate of Australian oversea trade balance at 30th April, 1938, £Stg. 11,692,000; £A.14,617,000.
  2. Preliminary estimate of total imports, 1st July, 1937, to 30th April, 1938, £Stg.93,006,000. Distribution by groups of imports for ten months not available. Imports into Australia for nine months, 1st July, 1937, to 31st March, 1938,£Stg.86,1 10,000. Major groups for nine months, 1st July, 1937, to 31st March, 1938.
  1. Such estimates as can be made indicate that, after taking into account invisible current and capital items in the balance of payments, the trade balance will be sufficient to meet the oversea debt service commitments without any serious drain on London reserves. Further, the London funds situation is sufficiently strong to relieve the Government of any anxiety on this score.
Mr Casey:
UAP

– On Wednesday, the 11th May, 193S, the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What was the value of exports from each State of the Commonwealth each year for the past five years ?
  2. What was the” value of imports to each State each year during the past five years?
  3. What was the value of exports during the past five years per head of the population of each State?

The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follow : - 1 and 3. The following table shows in British currency the total value and the value per head of population of the exports from each State of the Commonwealth for each year for the past five years: -

  1. The following table shows the value in the value per head of population for each State British currency of the imports by States and for each of the past five years : -

Commonwealth Bank: Unclaimed Deposits

Mr Casey:
UAP

y.- On the 29th April, the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Mahoney) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. What is the total amount of unclaimed money of depositors in the Commonwealth Bank where the amount of each depositor is £1 and under?
  2. What is the amount of unclaimed deposits over £1 ?
  3. Is any interest paid by the bank on these unclaimed deposits; if so, on what amount?
  4. What action is taken by the bank to find the owners of these unclaimed deposits?

The following information has now been furnished by the Commonwealth Bank: - 1 and 2. Records in the exact form asked for have not been maintained, but the following information is furnished in relation to the Commonwealth Savings Bank: -

  1. Total balances in respect to depositors whose individual accounts are less than£ 1 and have been unclaimed for a period of twoyears and upwards - £222,019.

  2. Total balances in respect to depositors whose individual accounts are £1 and over and have been unclaimed for a period of sevenyears and upwards - £183,072.

    1. In conformity with sections 38 and 51 of the Commonwealth Bank Act, the deposits referred to do not bear interest.
    2. The bank endeavours to trace and communicate with every depositor whose account is inoperative and has a balance of £1 or over. Particulars of such accounts unclaimed for a period of seven years and upwards are published in the Commonwealth Gazette.

Australian Broadcasting Commission : Visits of Overseas Artists - Policy in South Australia.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– On the 5th May, the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Badman) asked the following questions upon notice: -

  1. What was the cost to the Australian Broadcasting Commission in salaries and transport of all overseas celebrity artists who were engaged by the commission during the year ended the30th June, 1937?
  2. What were (a) the gross returns, and ( b ) the net returns, from all concerts at which overseas artists performed during that year?

The honorable member was, at the time, informed that his question hadbeen referred to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Theposition has since been investigated, but, in view of the normal business negotiations which have to be undertaken by the commission, it would be detrimental to the interests of the broadcasting service to disclose the particulars sought.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s.- On the 28th April, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) asked the fallowing questions, upon notice: -

  1. Was an advisory committee set up in South Australia to advise the Australian Broadcasting Commission on the general policy of broadcasting in South Australia?
  2. If so, what are the names of the members of this committee?
  3. What was the date of their appointment?
  4. How many times has the committee been called together?
  5. What recommendation, if any, did the committee make to the Broadcasting Commission and what action was taken thereon?

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The names of the committee are: Lady Bonython; Mrs. T. Slaney Poole; Mrs. H. F. Shornev: Miss Adelaide Meithke; Hon. Sir DavidGordon ; Hon. E. W. Holden, M.L.C.; Hon. H. Homburg. M.L.C.; C. A. S. Hawker, Esq., M.H.R; A. J. Hannan, Esq., K.C.; Professor G. V. Portus; Dr. E. Harold Davies; Dr. A. Grenfell Price; Dr. F. S. Hone; Dr. Charles Fenner; E. R. Dawes, Esq.; Claude Jennings, Esq.; J. W. Wainwright, Esq.
  3. Appointments dated from first meeting on the 14th January, 1938.
  4. Three times - 14th January, 21st March and 28th March.
  5. All recommendations made by the advisory committee are confidential.

Postal Department: Printingof Directories - Telephone Booths

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s.- On the 12th May, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) asked the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender received for (a) the printing of the Brisbane telephone directory, and (b) the printing of the country telephone directory, for the present term.
  2. Who were the successful tenderers?
  3. Who were the successful tenderers and what were the amounts tendered for the previous term ?

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

  1. In the interests of tenderers and the department, it is not the policy to discloseunit prices in tenders or the names of unsuccessful tenderers.
  2. Truth andSportsman Limited, Brisbane, we’re the successful tenderers for the printing of the metropolitan and country telephone directories in Queensland for the present term of threeyears. The total contract price was £10,269.
  3. For the previous term of three years, the Government Printer. Brisbane, was the successful tenderer for the Brisbane metropolitan telephone directory, the total contract price being £4,014. The Globe Printing Company Proprietary Limited, Brisbane, was the successful tenderer for the Queensland country telephone directories and the total price was £1,283, this covering one issue per annum in comparison with half-yearly issues as at present.
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– On the 12th May, the honorable members for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) and Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) made reference to delays in installing public telephones owing to cabinets not being available. The PostmasterGeneral has now supplied the following answer to the honorable members’ questions : -

It is regretted that delayhas occurred in installing certain additional public telephones In the Sydney metropolitan area, owing to the difficulties experienced bythe contractor for the supply of cabinets in obtainingstocks of suitable material. These difficulties have now been overcome, and the delivery of cabinets will be accelerated. The installations will be completed as quickly an possible after cabinets are available, and the outstanding proposals should all be metat an early date. The conditions under which public telephone facilities are provided have not been modified in any way and the temporary interruption to the programme of installations has been due entirely to the shortage of cabinets for reasons beyond the Department’s control.

EmpirePreferences.

Mr Lyons:
UAP

s. - On12th May the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser), in a question, without notice, referred to the report of remarks on the subject of Empire preference attributed to theRight Honorable the Attorney-General during the course of a speech in London. In bringing the reported remarks under my notice, the honorable member asked whether there had been any change in the Empire trade policy of the Government. I indicated to the honorable member that steps would be taken to ascertain exactly what the Attorney-General said. I have since been in communication with the Attorney-General, who has advised me that the propositions which he put forward in the course of his speech were identical with those contained in his speech in the House of Representatives when outlining the Government’s attitude towards the revision of the Ottawa Agreement. The Attorney-General states that he did not indicate or suggest any change in the policy of the Commonwealth Government.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– On the 12th May, the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Gander) asked if any representations had been made by the Government of New South Wales to the Postmaster-General’s De partment for the abolition of broadcasts of race meetings. The PostmasterGeneral has ascertained that no representations have been made.

Air Mail Surcharge.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the 12th May, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) made certain inquiries pertaining to the amount collected in respect of air mail surcharge. The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honorable member’s question : -

The actual amount of surcharge paid on air mail matter and the total sum prepaid are not recorded. The amount credited by the Post Office to the Department of Defence for the year 1936/37 was £132,772, which includes £63,377 in respect of air mail matter originating in other countries. The practice referred to has been in force wince the first regular air mail service was established in 1921.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 May 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380518_reps_15_155/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant