Senate
4 September 1924

9^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

PAPER
QUESTION
- WEST WYALONG POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS IN LONDON
QUESTION
- DELIVERY OF MAIL-MATTER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- S.S.GUNEMBA
DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL
- Third Reading
WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL
- Second Reading
CRUISER CONSTRUCTION
CASE OF MUNITION WORKER DUNK
- Appointment of Select Committee
- Ordered -
QUESTION
- THE GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

The Deputy President (SenatorNewland) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3930

PAPER

The following paper was presented: -

New Guinea - Report of Board of Inquiry appointed by Administrator, Rabaul, to investigate a charge against District Officer O. J. Thompson.

page 3930

QUESTION

WEST WYALONG POST OFFICE

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Is it a fact that the sum of £3,000 has been placed uponthe Estimates for alterations to the post office atWest Wyalong, New South Wales?
If so, will he inform the Senate what alterations are proposed to be effected by this expenditure?
Is it not impossible to make any alterations of a satisfactory nature unless the 20-ft. frontage corner-block next to the present post office is acquired? 4.Willhe consider the advisabiliy of acquiring this block and incorporating the building at present upon it in the scheme of alterations?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions axe as follow: -

£2,891 is included in the current year’s Estimates for alterations to the post office building at West Wyalong. 2, 3, and4. The question of the alterationof thebuilding is now under consideration, but the plans have not yet been decided upon. So far as can be seen at present the building can be altered to meet requirements without acquiring additional land.

page 3930

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS IN LONDON

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has his attention been drawn to a cable from the London correspondent of the Sun in terms very derogatory to Australian citizens now in London, especially that part of it which states that Australians were cadging outside AustraliaHouse and making from 25s. to 30s. per day?
If so, will he take steps to preventthe publication of such slanderous statements?

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Prime Minister has furnished the following reply : -

Yes.
Apart from deploring the publication of statements of the nature of those made in the article in question, the Government hasno power to interfere.

page 3930

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF MAIL-MATTER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Whether it is correct that the Postal Department, in respect to the metropolitanarea in Western Australia, proposes tostop delivery of mail-matter to persons placing their homos away from made roads?
Whether it is intended to apply the innovation elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
If it is proposed to refuge delivery of mail-matter to persons so circumstanced, and stop the mail-man from calling as usual,will the Government also decide tostop the imposition of taxation on such persons?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

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

Ithas been ascertained that in Western Australia deliveryhas been discontinued in certain instances where it was necessary for the postman to leave his bicycle at the made road and trawl a considerable distance through heavy sand to reach theaddressee’s dwelling. The matter is now being investigated. 2 and 3. There is no intentionof departing from the present practice of delivery within the recognized boundaries.

page 3930

QUESTION

S.S.GUNEMBA

Senator McDOUGALL:

asked the Min ister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

Will he make available for senators all papers in the department in connexion with the building, trials, and sale of the s.s.Gunemba?

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

– The Minister for Defence will make the file available for the honorable senator’s perusal athis convenience, at Parliament House.

page 3930

DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Wilson) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

.- I should like the Honorary Minister (Senator Wilson) to let the Senate know how long the Government thinks the industry will need effective protection before it will be able to stand on its own feet. An effort should be made to discover the exact extent of the liabilities incurred in. subsidizing various industries in the hope that some definite action might be taken to make them self-supporting. I pointed out in my second-reading speech, in reply to a direct question, that if the Labour party were in power it would help industries such as this by the socialization of the means of marketing the produce. By collective handling, the producers would obtain the full fruits of their labour, and would not have to provide the profits of the middlemen. Senator Duncan seemed to think that I advocated that socialization of the holdings of the producers of dried fruits. To make my point quite clear, let me draw attention to the objective of the Australian Labour party with regard to the socialization of industry, production, distribution, and exchange. The resolution carried by the Interstate

Labour Conference in 1921 defined the position of the party in the following terms : - collective Ownership.

That this conference declares -

That the Australian Labour party proposes collective ownership for the purpose of preventing exploitation, and to whatever extent may be necessary for that purpose,
That wherever private ownership is a means of exploitation it is opposed by the party; but
That the party does not seek to abolish private ownership even of any of the instruments of production where such instrument is utilized by its owner in a socially useful manner and without exploitation.

I do not think that any honorable senator can object to that resolution, which showed clearly that it was intended to resort to the socialization of an industry only when that industry was exploiting the public. No one will suggest that the people engaged in the production of dried fruits are exploiting the community. The exporters of the fruit are exploiting the local market, while the growers have to bear the brunt of the cost of disposing of their surplus products in the overseas markets, and on that account they are now compelled to seek Government assistance. The conference that drafted the resolution which I have read was the body best fitted to define what it meant, and it is therefore clear that the Labour party only wishes to socialize those industries that are actually exploiting the community. I have no desire to delay the passage of the bill. My only regret is that it means staving off the evil day, since the relief proposed to be granted cannot be permanent. Certainly, the temporary difficulties of the growers will be removed by a loan, although they will have to pay a high rate of interest for the accommodation. It seems to me that a party that has granted a bonus to the sugar-growers equivalent to 2d. a lb., and has assisted vignerons to the extent of 4s. a gallon on wine that is exported, might have attempted to do something of a practical nature that would permanently assist the dried-fruit industry. Whether the bounties that this Government is so fond of granting; are given in connexion with iron, beef, or dried fruits, there should be some fixed principle embodiedin one act of Parliament, laying down what measure of assistance is to be afforded to all needy industries.I sincerely hope that the bill will result in tiding the dried-fruit producers over the coming year; but I doubt whether their difficulty will then be at an end, for the settling day must eventually come.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– Iamsurprised at the remarks of Senators Findley and Gardiner. I thought that I clearly explained that the assistance wouldbe purely of a temporary nature, and that the bill had been brought down after a most exhaustive inquiry into the position of the industry. The Government was convinced that some action must be taken to keep the growers on their holdings, so that the properties would not fall intoa state of disorder. I pointed out that the past season had been a most unfavorable one during the drying period, and that consequently, a large proportion ofthe fruit was of second and third grade, and decidedly below the usual standard. The high prices of land, of which Senator Findley spoke, have been paid by private buyers, and have no bearing whatever on the policy of government assistance, state or federal, in the fruit-growing settlements. I do not wish to defend every government action taken with respect to the irrigation settlements, for I realize that undue cost has in some instances been heaped upon the occupants of the blocks; but Senator Findley and others appear to have lost sight of the fact that since 1914 wages have increased by 61 per cent. It mustbe remembered that a great deal of labour is employed in the industry. The basic wage in 1914 was£2 14s. a week, and to-day it is£4 8s., which is more than the grower receives weekly on the average for his year’s work. The price of fruit since 1914 has increased by only 35 per cent.

Senator McDougall:

– How many men per acre does the grower employ?

Senator WILSON:

– It all depends upon the area he holds. In the picking season he may have two or three groups of three or four pickers at work. If he holds a small area, and the crop has been so regulated that all the grapes do not ripen at the same time, it may not be necessary to employ very much labour, but in a hot summer, when all the grapes ripen about the same time, even a small man may have to employ at the one time considerable labour for picking. Senator Findley was concerned as to whether Australia could go on producing dried fruits, but when he learns that Great Britain imports 1,139,889 cwt. of dried fruits, of which quantity Australia supplies only 191 cwt., surely he must recognize that there is ample room for Australia to increase its production in this direction. According to a cable received from the High Commissioner, prices for dried fruits have considerably improved on the London market within the last few weeks, and Australia, as a result of the advertising of its fruits at the Wembly Exhibition, and through other means, is supplying approximately 85 per cent. of the British consumption of dried fruits at the present moment. A representative of the Australian dried fruits industry, who is now making inquiries in London, states, according to the High Commissioner’s cablegram, that, if a greater quantity of the Australian commodity were made available, it would be much easier to create and hold a market in London. As a business proposition it is absurd to talk of creating a demand for the Australian article and yet supply only small quantities of it. To hold a market, Australia must be prepared to give continuity of supply. Senator Findley blamed the present Government for the difficulties of the people who are engaged in various fruitgrowing industries. When the Prime Minister and I were in London, we looked into the position of all these industries, and at the instigation of the Prime Minister I devoted a lot of time to an investigation of the possibility of marketing Australian products in Great Britain. We both returned to Australia fully convinced as to what should be done to put these industries on a proper footing. Senator Gardiner would endeavour to do so by socializing them. Our idea was to organize them. Senator Findley must also recognize that the Commonwealth Government has no control over the settlement of returned soldiers on the land. The purchasing of the land, its development, and the high valuations placed upon it, are matters over which the Commonwealth exercises no control. Therefore, the honorable senator was wrong in holding the Government to blame in this regard. He said that men should not have been put on the land to engage in these industries, but I make bold to say that every industry in Aus tralia of any worth has had to pass through just as serious a time as is now being experienced by the dried fruit industry. Until a few years ago, a sheep could be bought for2s., but the man who had the pluck, energy, and industry to carry on through those serious years which were experienced by pastoralists is to-day in an exceptionally fortunate position, and wool growing is now Australia’s greatest industry. When farmers could not realize more than1s. 9d. or1s. l1d. a bushel for their wheat, and people were leaving the land, it was realized that if the wheat industry was to be kept going more scientific methods must be employed. Those scientific methods have since been employed. Where the yield was formerly 4 or 5 bushels an acre, it is now 15 or 16 bushels an acre. The dried fruit industry was handled very well when Australia was consuming all that was produced, but the position is different to-day, when’ 75 per cent. of the output must find a market overseas. That market exists, and can be supplied, but only if the industry is successfully handled and marketing operations on the other side of the world are put on a proper footing. It is true, as the honorable senator says, that the assistance given by this bill to those engaged in the dried fruit industry is of a temporary character only. It is temporary because the circumstances demanded something from the Government of a temporary character, so that the growers might be assisted until a bigger scheme could be brought forward. Various conferences are now being held, and investigations made, in order to submit to Parliament a scheme of a permanent nature, which will put this industry on a proper footing, and I shall be very disappointed if it is not completed before this session ends. The greatest difficulty encountered is that of finance, but another difficulty is the fact that we have lost control of the marketing of our own fruit.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– Did not the honorable senator go to London in order to put the matter right?

Senator WILSON:

– -How could I put the matter right when it was wrong at this end ? One object the Prime Minister and I had in making inquiries in London was that we might tell the people here what should be done. I left no stone unturned so that I might return with a proposition that would remove the difficulties encountered in marketing Australian products in London. Senator Findley drew attention to the prices some growers were receiving. If he were in London he would know what prices the consumers are paying. The trouble is that our products are passing through too many hands before they reach the consumers. The assistance given by this bill will enable the people engaged in the dried fruit industry to carry on until the 1925 crop is marketed. It is a matter of importance to the Commonwealth Government to see that the land upon which millions of public money has been advanced is fully developed. The assistance we are now giving will enable the growers to buy manures and plants in order to keep their areas in proper condition. I can assure honorable senators that ‘ as soon as the negotiations to which I have already made reference come down to what may be regarded as commercial tin tacks, enabling a practical scheme to be evolved for giving permanent assistance to this industry, not a minute’s delay will occur in submitting a bill to put these people and the industry itself on that better and larger footing suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3936

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator Elliott:

– Is not this bill practically a remission of the excise duty ?

Senator GARDINER:

– Unfortunately it is not. It is a bounty. If the Minister will give me assurance that he will accept an amendment to remove the excise duty, I shall support him. Honorable senators cannot, by interjection, infer that the bill is a remission of excise duty. It is a proposal to subsidize the exporters of wine to the extent of 4s. per gallon. That bounty is about twice the value of the wine itself judged by the prices which the wine-makers pay for the grapes. The following statement, supplied by the Department of Trade and Customs shows the total amount of the bounties paid by the

Commonwealth on. the undermentionedproducts up to the 16th April, 1924 : -

Senator Crawford:

– And the excise on Australian sugar more than pays for the lot.

Senator GARDINER:

- Senator Crawford, ever alert to protect the interests of the sugar industry, declares that the excise paid on sugar production has more than paid for the whole of the bounties in the list which I have just read. For the last five years there has been an agreement with the Commonwealth Government under which sugar-growers of Australia have been able to obtain 2d. per lb. more for their sugar than they would have received for it in open competition with sugar producers in other parts of the world.

Senator Crawford:

– The honorable senator’s information about the outside market is not accurate.

Senator GARDINER:

-It is a fact that in open competition the sugar-growers in Australia would have been obliged to accept about 2d. per lb. less than they have been getting from the Australian consumer. Under this measure the Government intends to pay a bounty of 4s. a gallon on all wine exported. According to figures quoted by Mr. Gabb in another place, the growers of grapes required for fortifying wines get only about1/4d. per lb. - barely sufficient for the handling of the grapes - leaving nothing for the grower. The bounty should be proportionate to the amount paid to the growers of the grapes.

Senator H HAYS:

– I wish that I could think so. Let us consider also the position of the potato-grower. In Tasmania, Victoria, and New South Wales, crops of potatoes are being produced for which there is no market. Although this is one of the most expensive of crops to produce, the potato-growers of Australia have approached neither the Commonwealth nor the State Parliaments for assistance. That is due to their lack of organization and their inability to speak with a united voice.

Senator Lynch:

– They are too busy working to approach the Government.

Senator H HAYS:

Senator H Hays:

– In consequence of the big war stocks held.

Senator WILSON:

– No, it was owing to the lack of adequate marketing facilities and to-day that industry is still in difficulty. We shall have to improve our marketing organization, and make our products more attractive. I saw many of our primary products on sale in Smithfield, and I ami glad to say that there has been a considerable improvement. In the case of canned fruits, however, we have been at a disadvantage in that the Australian surplus marketed in London has, up to the present, been regarded as a job lot. California sends to London 2,800,000 cases a year, and Australia only 200,000, which is bought up, as I have said, as a job lot, and we have had to be content with from1s. 6d. to 2s. per dozen below Calif orni an parity. This is all the difference between being able to produce and market successfully or otherwise. As a result of improvements in our marketing arrangements, our canned fruits are now labelled, graded, and presented to the British consumers in such an attractive form that, instead of being under Californian parity, offers have been made for the 1924-5 pack on a basis equal to Californian prices. If on that basis we cannot market our canned fruits profitably, then we must look for the remedy elsewhere. Except that their production is larger, and that they are nearer to the market, Californian growers have no marked advantage over Australian producers. We shall never be able to develop our primary industries if we throw up the sponge simply because we get beaten for a yearor two.

Senator H Hays:

– Will the Government give the same assistance to other primary industries?

Senator WILSON:

– I know of no primary industry that has not received some assistance. The policy of the’ Government is to help those primary industries that are properly organized, and in which there is evidence of efficiency in production. I ask the Senate to assist in the passage of this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

The bounty under this act shall be payable in respect of fortified wine exported from the Commonwealth on and after the first day of September, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and on and after the first day of August, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-six.

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House ofRepresentatives be requested to amend the clause by leaving out theword “twenty-six” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ twenty-nine.”

The effect of this amendment will be to extend the term during which the bounty will be payable, for five years instead of two.

Senator Hoare:

– Make it one year, and we will support the amendment.

Senator BENNY:

– The period I propose is not too long. Both the grower and the wine-maker have to make their financial arrangements. If the clause is passed in its present form, the bounty will be payable for a period of only about eighteen months. It is quite true that some winemakers may have displayed sufficient sagacity to store up a few thousand gallons of wine and have it available for export, but we have to pay regard to the general interests of the grower and the wine-maker. I trust, therefore, that the amendment will be accepted.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am indifferent about the term, but as this is experimental legislation, I think that the shorter period stated in the bill is preferable.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– The Government has given this question careful consideration. If the payment of the bounty is extended over a longer period, the interests of the small grower may be jeopardized. I admit that on the other side, those interested in the development of the wine trade require time to perfect their organization, but the view of the Government is that if the period is extended to five years, we may lose control. If that happened, the object of the bill would be defeated. The price paid to the grower is the governing factor. Senator Benny has already told us that the wine-makers meet and agree to certain prices. Unless they pay fair and reasonable rates to the growers, payment of the bounty may be withheld. We wish to see how the scheme works, and we have been advised that it would not be wise to extend the period.

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

– I suggest that Senator Benny should alter his request by substituting “ 1927 “ for 1929. This would extend the period for the payment of the bounty to three years instead of two, and I think it would be acceptable to the Government. The Ministry would know if the marketing arrangements were proving satisfactory, and it is probable that the extra year would obviate the necessity of growers again applying to the Government for further assistance. I am supporting the bill, because I know what a struggle it is for small growers to make a success of their calling. Every weekend, upon my return to South Australia, I go amongst the growers at Tea Tree Gully, and I know how they are placed. Last season they received only £3 a ton for their grapes. I do not agree with Senator Benny that the wine-makers, as a body, have suffered much. Some of them are sitting behind banking accounts up to as high as £250,000. The grower is the man who has felt the pinch, and he wants assistance.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– The growers have asked for the extension of the term.

Senator HOARE:

– But the Government will not accept an amendment extending the term by three years.

I desire to help the small grape-growers, than whom no producers are more worthy of assistance.

Senator Benny:

– They have asked for this bounty for six years.

Senator HOARE:

– There is a chance of obtaining an extension of one year, but there is no hope of Senator Benny’s suggestion being adopted. I therefore urge the committee to accept the compromise that I have suggested.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– If the matter is left to the Government, there will be very little chance of obtaining an extension even of one year. As Senator Benny has remarked, the growers have asked that the bounty be payable for six years.

Senator Wilson:

– The Government’s explanation as to why a short period should be fixed had not been communicated to the growers when they made their request.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:

– What the Government has dignified by calling an explanation is about the weakest argument I have ever heard. The Government suggests that it is afraid it may lose control. I asked the reason, and the only answer from the Minister was that the Government was advised that it would lose control. Why, or in what way, the Minister has utterly failed to show. The period suggested by Senator Benny is a reasonable one, although it does not fully meet the wishes of the growers. If some extension is not granted, the utility of the bill will be destroyed. If the measure is passed in its present form, I am sure that at the end of two years there will be an agitation for an extension, which will have to be granted. I advise the Minister to take the proper action now. There is every probability that, with the firm establishment of the export trade, there may then be no necessity to appeal for a further extension.

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

– I am inclined to agree with Senator Hoare. I can understand the Minister adhering to the bill as it stands, but if the period were extended to 1927 it would be a fair compromise. By fixing a short period there will be an inducement to the exporters to fulfil the conditions laid down, so that there will be a good chance of the renewal of the bounty. I endorse the sentiment of Senator Hoare that we should protect the small growers. Claimants of the bounty are required, under the bill, to furnish the Minister with particulars of their operations.

Senator Pearce:

– They will be on trial.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes ; and during the next two years they will be more circumspect in their dealings than if the bounty were made payable over a longer period.

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

– I suggest, asa compromise,that the bounty be paid until 1928. An extension of only one year is far too small. Let meassure Senator Hoare that I have as much sympathy as any other honorable senator for the small growers.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– They are protected under clause 10.

Senator BENNY:

– Of course. The bounty will benefit the small growers and the employees in the industry just as much as the winemakers. It will keep the vineyards in cultivation for the benefit of the whole community. No contest between the big and the small man is involved; their interests are identical. After all, the bounty will be paid out of their own money, which is collected by way of excise duty, and it is not asking too much to extend the period from 1926 to 1928.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister, · NAT

– Perhaps I was rather unfortunate in my explanation to Senator O’Loghlin, but I maintain that if a five years’ period is agreed to, Parliament will have no further say as to the manner in which the industry is carried on for the next five years. If the bounty is to be reviewed by Parliament two years hence, however, the growers are likely to see that the conditions laid down are observed. Surely there is good reason for not making the period too long. If my honorable friend, Senator O’Loghlin, does not understand that explanation I am sorry.

Senator O’Loghlin:

– I understand it, and so does the Minister.

Senator WILSON:

– Legislation of this character should be reviewed fromtime to time. As the export trade improves I have no doubt that, if the conditions are reasonably observed, Parliament will extend the period. I ask that the bill be adhered to.

Request negatived.

Clause, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 -

The Minister may withhold the whole or any part of the (bounty if he finds that a price, which in his opinion was less than a reasonable price, was paid for any doradilla grapes used inthe production of the fortifying spirit containedin the wine in respect of which the bounty is claimed.

Senator ELLIOTT:
Victoria

.- What is meant by a “ reasonable price “? The phrase is extremely vague. The interpretation of “ reasonable “ would vary according to the opinion of the Minister administering the department. A minimum price should be inserted.

Senator Wilson:

– It cannot be done. I wish that it could, for it would save the Minister alot of worry.

Senator ELLIOTT:

– It is expecting a great deal of the Senate to ask it to pass the clause in this vague form.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– In some districts this year men ‘have received prices below the cost of production. In other districts very fair prices have been received. The clausehas been inserted so that the Minister must be assured that those distillers who take advantage of the bounty are paying reasonable prices for ‘the grapes they purchase. In some districts there may be only one distillery to which the grapes when picked must be delivered. This clause provides that the distiller must pay a reasonable price for the grapes if he desires to get the benefit of the bounty payable upon the wine in which his spirit is used.

Senator GARDINER:
New. South Wales

– Senator Elliott has struck a rather good idea. I think we should insert in the bill a minimum of, say, £5 a ton, which price would, I understand, ensure to the grower a better price than he obtained last year. If we take steps to ensure that the primary producer gets a fair price for what he produces, the price of his product will regulate itself at every subsequent stage it reaches before getting to the consumer. His price could be based on his cost of production while affording him a living wage. The Minister (Senator Wilson), as a practical grower, should have some idea of what theminimum should be, but it should be fixed in the bill. It should not be left to the whim of any Minister who may have an exaggerated idea of the value of the labour of the primary producer, and hot of the share of the bounty that the merchant or distiller should take.

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

– The danger of fixing a minimum price for grapes is that the minimum may have the tendency to become the maximum. As there is a very early prospect of another party being in power in sympathy with the grower, it is safer to leave the fixing of the price to be paid to the grower to the discretion of the Minister than to lay it down specifically in the bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.

Preamble and title agreed to.

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

. - I move-

That clause 4 be reconsidered.

There was a misunderstanding on the part of honorable senators in dealing with this clause. When I moved tohave “ 1926 “ struck out, with a view to insert “1929” in lieu thereof, Senator Hoare was anxious to move to insert “ 1927,” which would extend the payment of the bounty for one year beyond the period provided. I realize now that there is no chance of getting the Government to agree to my proposal to extend the payment for three years, but I should like honorable senators who are inclined to agree to an extension for one year to have an opportunity to provide for it by a further consideration of clause 4.

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

– I ask the Senate to stand by the bill as already agreed to. It has been most carefully explained that the clause as it now stands is a safeguard to the small growers.

Question put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 7

NOES: 10

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6.20 to 8 p.m.

page 3950

CRUISER CONSTRUCTION

Cost in Australia.

Senator GRAHAM:
Western Australia

– I move -

That a return be laid on the table of the Senate showing the estimated cost of the construction of the two proposed new cruisers in Australia, detailed as follows : - Cost of hulls, decks, bulkheads, armour, engines, boilers, &c.

I do this in order to obtain for myself and other honorable senators information as to the cost of these portions of the vessels in order to enable us to judge between the diversity of opinion that exists amongst experts as to the relative cost of constructing vessels of the same tonnage in England and in Australia. I hope that honorable senators will support the motion,, so that we may have the desired information placed before us.

Senator PEARCE:
Minister for Home and Territories · Western Australia · NAT

– I ask Senator Graham not to press this motion. Even if carried, it would be absolutely impossible to comply with it, for the sufficient reason that before detailed estimates can be prepared, . plans and specifications are necessary. Those plans and specifications are not here. The Shipping Board gave an approximate sum which, from the information at its disposal, it was considered might be the total cost of constructing these cruisers in Australia. The board stated that, because of the paucity of information available, it was impossible to give a definite price. The Navy Board also prepared an estimate, but in that case also no definite information was available, and the estimate was based largely on information obtained from books. Neither the Shipping Board nor the Navy Boardhad plans and specifications upon which to base its estimate. Honorable senators will, therefore, see that even if this motion were carried, it could not be complied with. The only thing is to wait until the report of Sir John Monash is tabled, when honorable senators will be able to see the estimates referred to. Even then they will be unable to obtain the details asked for by Senator Graham. In the circumstances, it is useless for the Senate to pass the motion.

Motion negatived.

page 3951

CASE OF MUNITION WORKER DUNK

Appointment of Select Committee

Debate resumed from 28th August(vide page 3707), on motion by Senator Gardiner

That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. William Dunk, with full power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to move from place to place, such committee to consist of Senators Graham, J. B. Hayes, H. Hays, Payne, Thompson, McDougall, and the mover.

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

.- When this matter was before the Senate on Thursday last, Senator Pearce promised that he would have certain legal points which arose during the discussion referred to the legal advisers of the Commonwealth. That was done, and a report has been forwarded to Senator Pearce, under cover of the following memorandum from the Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department, Sir Robert Garran: -

With reference to your letter of 29th August, 1924, stating that Senator Pearce desired to be furnished with a report re the case of Munition-worker Dunk. I am forwarding herewith a report by the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor on the question, for. Senator Pearce’a information.

The report of the Crown Solicitor reads -

Case of Munition Worker j. P. Dunk.

I acknowledge receipt of your memorandum dated 20th August, 1924, requesting the favour of a report in regard to the above matter.

The papers were originally forwarded to me by the Department of Defence early in February,1920, to enter into negotiations with Dunk and to offer him the sum of £120 in full and final settlement of his claim under the Seamen’sCompensation Act.
Dunk proceeded to England as a munition worker under an agreement which contained a clause as follows: -

That this agreement shall not nor shall anything done under or in pursuance of this agreement be deemed to create a contract of service or apprenticeship by the volunteer with the Commonwealth Provided however that if personal injury by accident is caused to the volunteer while on board the vessel during his passage from Australia to Great Britain or from Great Britain to Australia in pursuance of this agreement the Commonwealth shall be liable to pay compensation to him or his dependants in accordance with the Sea men’s Compensation Act 1011 as if he were a seaman in the employment of the Commonwealth on board such vessel during his passage from or to Australia and for that purpose that act and the regulations thereunder shall apply as if they were incorporated in and formed part of this agreement.

During his passage from Australia to England Dunk sustained certain injuries.
Weekly payments of compensation, computed under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, were made to him.
My Sydney office had interviews with Mr. Dunk but were unable to arrive at a settlement with him.
The Deputy Crown Solicitor reported to me that lie had considerable difficulty in dealing with Mr. Dunk, as he kept making long rambling statements on matters which had no connexion whatever with the questionof compensation. Dunk stated that his age was 73, and there was some medical evidence at this time that ho was suffering from senility. As nothing could be fixedwith him the papers were returned to the department, andI was instructed to abandon the question of a lump sum compensation.
In August, 1920, I was instructed by the Secretary, Department of Defence, that Mr. Dunk had expressed his willingness to accept the sum of £120 in full and final settlement of his claim for compensation under the Seamen’s Compensation Act as embodied in paragraph 8. of the munition workers’ agreement. The Deputy Crown Solicitor was instructed to arrange the matter, and reported to me that on 1st September, 1920, settlement had been effected by payment of £120 in redemption of the liability of the Commonwealth under an agreement dated 14th June, 1917, and the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911 to continue weekly payments.
A deed of release was duly executed by Mr. Dunk.
The matter was treated as if it arose under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, and for thatreason the release was tendered to the prescribed authority, the Collector of Customs, Sydney, to be recorded under the Act.
On 20th December, 1920, Messrs. Windeyer, Fawl, Williams, and Osborne, solicitors in Sydney, wrote to the Defence Department in reference to the settlement effected, and stated that theregistration of the agreement had been refused on the ground that the amount paid was wholly inadequate for the injuries received, and suggesting that the matter be referred to a judge of the District Court, Sydney, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct amount of compensation payable.
The reference by Dunk’s solicitors to the Registrar of the Court was incorrect; they apparently confused the Registrar with the prescribed authority under the Seamen’s Compensation Act. The prescribed authority stated that he had not raised the question of inadequacy of compensation. The solicitors were communicated with and informed that the recording of the agreement was being proceeded with, and that if they desired to oppose the recording they could do so in accordance with the method prescribed by the regulations.
They were informed that the Commonwealth could not agree to the suggestions contained in their letter for reference of the matter to a judge of the District Court.
In February, 1921, a notice was received from the prescribed authority to the effect that Dunk objected to the agreement being recorded, on the ground that the amount of compensation paid to him was inadequate, and that he, the prescribed authority, would not record the agreement except with Dunk’s consent in writing or by an order of a judge of the District Court.
The Deputy Crown Solicitor asked me for instructions whether it was desired to have the matter referred to the court for determination or whether any other action was to bo taken.
On 23rd February, 1921, I wrote to the Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department, that the matter appeared to me to be one outside the provisions of the Seamen’s Compensation Act, and that, though that act was taken as the basis of the compensation, it conferred no rights on Dunk, and gave no jurisdiction either to the Collector as prescribed authority or to the District Court in connexion with the redemption of liability, and that I had instructed the Deputy Crown Solicitor to treat the matter as settled so far as the Commonwealth was concerned, and to take no further action to have the release recorded under the act or to obtain any order of the District Court thereon. I stated further that if Dunk brought any action in the District Court I proposed to contend that the court had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter, and that the release given by Dunk was a complete answer to any claim that he might have.
This proposed action on my part was approved by the Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department, on 26th February, 1921, and on 28th April, 1921, Dunk, by his solicitors, instituted proceedings in the District Court, Sydney, for an application for arbitration under the Seamen’s Compensation Act to settle the amount of compensation payable to him.
The application was heard at the District Court, Sydney, on the 2nd June, before His Honour Judge Scholes, and I quote from the report made to me by the Deputy Crown Solicitor, as follows: -

The facts of the case, as you are aware, are as follow: -

On the 14th June, 1917, an agreement was entered into between Dunk and the Commonwealth for the conveyance of Dunk to England for the purpose of making munitions.

One of the terms of the agreement was that the said agreement should not nor should anything done under or in pursuance thereof be deemed to create a contract of service or apprenticeship by Dunk with the Commonwealth provided that if personal injury by accident were caused to him while on board the vessel during his passage, the Commonwealth should be liable to pay compensation to him or his dependants in Accordance with the Seamen’s CompensationAct 1911 as if he were a seaman in the employment of the Com- monwealth, and for that purpose that act and the regulations made thereunder should apply as if they were incorporated in and formed part of the agreement.

Dunk was injured on the voyage to England, as a result of which he was totally incapacitated for work.

On arrival in England Dunk was placed in a convalescent home and eventually returned to Australia.

Whilst in England he was paid compensation amounting to about £13 and after his arrival in Australia received weekly payments totalling about £90.

On 1st September, 1920, Dunk, in consideration of the sum of £120 paid to him, executed a release redeeming the Commonwealth’s liability to continue to make payments of compensation to him in respect of his injury and discharging the Commonwealth from all liability in respect of such injury.

The total amount of compensation paid to Dunk was thus about £223.

Dunk was admitted to proceed as a “poor person “ in accordance with the provisions of the District Court Act, and solicitor and counsel were assigned to him for the purpose of applying for an arbitration under the Seamen’s Compensation Act.

A copy of the notice of application that was served on me and a copy of the answer thereto have been forwarded to you.

Mr. Telfer of counsel appeared for the applicant on the hearing of the application, and Mr. A. L. Campbell of counsel for the respondent.

In answer to the judge, counsel for the respondent relied on the following defences to the application: -

Objection to the jurisdiction on the ground that the applicant was not a seaman within the meaning of the act;
objection to the jurisdiction on the groundthat on the true interpretation of the agreement the arbitrator should be the High Commissioner under clause 6:
if applicant were a seaman he was outside the act, as the ship was a ship in the service of the Commonwealth engaged in military work;
the court had no jurisdiction over the ship (Clarke v. Union Steamship Company, 18 C.L.R.142) ;
the injuries did not arise put of or in the course of the employment. His Honour after hearing argument on the first ground of defence made somesevere comments concerning the Commonwealth in regard to its taking such a point, but observed that the point was a sound one.

He then said that the respondent’s objection amounted to this: that the applicant should have brought a common law action on the contract, and stated that the applicant was so entitled to do.

He stated that he intended to hear the case, and that he would treat the application as a District Court plaint allowing any amendments necessary to bring it into order.

On its being pointed out that the claim was for £500 (the jurisdiction of the District Court only extends to actions for amounts not exceeding £400) counsel for the applicant offered to forgo the balance and limit the claim to £400, but the District Court rules do notallow of this being done at the hearing - it must be done on filing the plaint.

His Honour then remarked that he was determined to hear the case, and for that purpose ruled that he had jurisdiction, observing that he left it to the Commonwealth to correct him later if it thought fit.

Evidence was then given as to the injuries, and an admission was made that the applicant had received £13 in England, £60 in Australia (the military authorities say the amount received in Australia was £90), and £120 under the release.

His Honour then referred to schedule 1 (1) of the Seamen’s Compensation Act, which showed that the maximum amount the applicant would have been entitled to have received would have been 15s. per week (he being in receipt of an old-age pension of 15s. per week) i.e., £156 in all over the period from the accident to date.

That being the case he said he had received more than his allowance, and had no case until the amount received was exhausted by weekly payments of 15s. per week.

Counsel for the applicant then applied for a suspensory order and asked, for the respondent’s consent, which was refused.

His Honour refused to make a suspensory order, stating that the applicant would not be prejudiced in future proceedings after the payments had been exhausted as above mentioned.

He then made an order for an award in favour of the respondent. Afterwards he again stated that the applicant could bring another action later, but this statement was not included in the order.

The judge’s findings in this case are impossible to understand, and I do not attempt to furnish an explanation therefor.

The question now arises as to whether, seeing that the award was made in favour of the respondent, the award can be appealed against, and if so, whether any good purpose would’ be served by appealing against it.

Clause (3) of the second schedule to the act provides that either party may appeal against the court’s decision (see also S.R. 18 No. 163 regulations 36 and 37) and I do not think that a party would be precluded from appealing from an adverse decision on a point of law simply because on the facts the award was in his favour.

In this particular case, however, I do not think any good purpose would be served by appealing, as it may be that the applicant will not bring the matter before the court again, and if he does do so, the question can be determined then as well as now.

As an appeal must be lodged within 21 days after the decision appealed against, I shall be glad to receive your instructions as soon as possible whether or not it is desired to appeal in this instance.

In my opinion the attitude adopted by His Honour Judge Scholes was quite indefensible from a legal point of view, but as I did not think that any advantage would accrue to the Commonwealth from an appeal I did not advise an appeal, and the Secretary, Department of Defence, subsequently informed me that his department did not desire an appeal to be prosecuted.
On the 3lst March the Deputy Crown Solicitor received a further letter from Mr. Dunk’s solicitors in the following terms: -

We have been consulted by Mr. J. T. Dunk with reference to the further prosecution of his claim for compensation.

The matter of Mr. Dunk’s claim came before Mr. Justice Scholes on the second day of June, 1921, when His Honour decided that on that date he could not make an award but that at a later stage Mr. Dunk could bring a further affidavit to the court when he would always get the help and sympathy of the court.

Before taking any further proceedings we shall be glad to know whether the Commonwealth is prepared to make any further offer.

The facts of the case are already well known to you and the department and it is clear that Mr. Dunk is entitled to sympathetic consideration and we are writing you in the hope that something will be done so as to avoid any further litigation.

We shall be glad if you will send a copy of this letter to the proper authorities. 21: I was instructed by the Secretary, Department of Defence, to defend any further claim by Dunk against the Commonwealth, and a further application was made by Dunk to the court on 22nd August, 1922. This application was opposedby the Deputy Crown Solicitor under instructions from me, and came on for hearing before His Honour Judge Cohen at the Metropolitan District Court, Sydney, on 18th September, 1922. I quote from the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s report to me in regard to the matteras follows: -

Mr. Telfer of counsel (instructed by. Messrs. Windeyer,Fawl, and Osborne, solicitors, Sydney) appeared for the applicant, and Mr. Hinton of counsel appeared for respondent.

The courtwas informed that the Commonwealth contended that the applicant was not a seaman to whom the act applied, that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the application, and that the applicant was estopped by the judgment of the court in the previous proceedings instituted by him.

After hearing argument on the above contentions, His Honour requested counsel for the applicant to enter on evidence.

Evidence was given by the applicant as to the extent and nature of his injuries and as to the amount of compensation which had been paid to him.

When the applicant had concluded his evidence, Mr. Hinton referred His Honour to the court record of the previous application which was with the clerk of the court.

After hearing argument on the question of estoppel, His Honour said that on the application he would make an award in favour of the Commonwealth.

On the question of costs, His Honour said that he did not think that the Commonwealth should ask for costs against the applicant, an old-age pensioner, but on counsel for the Commonwealth stating that his instructions were to ask for costs, His Honour allowed costs against the applicant on the lowest scale.

I instructed counsel to ask for costs, because I considered the respondent was legally entitled to costs, and it was as well to have an order for costs.

I propose to have the respondent’s costs taxed and to apply to the solicitors for payment thereof, unless I receive your instructions to the contrary.

Instructions were subsequently given to me that in view of the circumstances it had been decided that payment of the costs should be waived, and no further actionhas been taken by me in the matter.
A good deal of misconception in regard to the case appears to have arisen. The liability of the Commonwealth to pay compensation arose from an agreement only and did not arise from statute at all. The provisions of the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911 had to be considered, not as statutory provisions but as terms incorporated into the agreement. As the liability arose from agreement the liability could be released by agreement. The release given by Dunk on payment of £120, in my opinion, released the Commonwealth from any further liability to pay compensation to Dunk under the agreement. The release has just as much force as the agreement, and Dunk cannot rest on the agreement and repudiate the release.
The matterhas twice come before the Metropolitan District Court, Sydney, and each time on the application of Dunk’s solicitors. The first application came before Judge Scholes, and he made an award in favour of the Commonwealth. The second application came before Judge Cohen, and he made an award in favour of the Commonwealth with costs against Dunk.
As far back as 12th August, 1920, the Secretary to the Department of Defence in a memorandum to me of that date states, “ I have to inform you that Mr. Dunk has now expressed his willingness to accept the sum of £120 in full and final satisfaction ofhis claim.” This was followed by the offer of that sum and its acceptance by Dunk and the execution byhim of a deed of release in favour of the Commonwealth, and this release has been followed by two awards of the Metropolitan District Court, both of which were in favour of the Commonwealth. It is therefore perfectly clear that Dunk has nofurther claim in law against the Commonwealth.

Gordon H. Castle,

Crown Solicitor.

– I am glad that statement has been read to the Senate. Here is a question which I asked the Senate only this week -

Is it a fact that the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and Mr. Dunk, munition worker, brought the Government under the provisions of the Seamen’s Compensation Act?

The answer to that question was “ No.” I thank the Minister for reading the agreement. It has a direct bearing upon my attitude. This is the view of the Crown Law authorities of the agreement under which Mr. Dunk was working -

One of the terms of the agreement was that the said agreement should not, nor should anything done under or in pursuance thereof be deemed to create a contract of service or apprenticeship by Dunk with the Commonwealth.

That is perfectly clear. I wish honorable senators to note what follows -

Provided thatif personal injury by accident were caused to him while on board the vessel during his passagethe Commonwealth should be liable to pay compensation to him or his dependants in accordance with the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911,as if he were a seaman in the employment of the Commonwealth, and for that purpose that act and the regulations made thereunder should apply as if they were incorporated in and formed part of the agreement.

That explains why I asked whether the agreement brought the Commonwealth under the Seamen’s Compensation Act. I believe the official answer in the negative was perfectly correct, but it did not state the whole truth. At all events, Dunk was firmly of the opinion that he came under the provisions of the Seamen’s Compensation Act. Honorable senators, I hope, will pay special attention to the proviso which I have just read. The Seamen’s Compensation Act sets out clearly the strength of Mr. Dunk’s claim, notwithstandingthat he had accepted a sum of money in final settlement. In February the Commonwealth asked him to accept £120 in full settlement of his claim. He was not disposed to do so then, but in August he agreed, because he had a chance to go to England with friends. Evidently he accepted the offer in the full knowledge of his rights under the Seamen’s Compen sation Act, clause 9 of schedule 2 of which provides -

An agreement as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum, if not recorded in accordance with this act, shall not, nor shall the payment of the sumpayable under the agreement, exempt the person by whom the weekly payment is payable from liability to continue to make that weekly payment, ; and an agreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid to a person under a legal disability or to dependants, if not so recorded, shall not, nor shall the payment of the sum payable under the agreement, exempt the person by whom the compensation is payable from liability to pay compensation, unless, in either case he proves that the failure to register was not due to any neglect or default on his part.

What happened? When Mr. Dunk accepted that money as final settlement, the matter was referred to the registrar of the court, and the agreement was turned down on the ground that the compensation was not sufficient for the injuries sustained.

Senator Pearce:

– The Crown Solicitor states that it was turned down because the registrar was not the prescribed authority under the agreement.

Senator GARDINER:

– Senator Greene emphasized this point when he was speaking to the motion last week. He quoted a letter on the departmental trial from Messrs. Windeyer, Fawl, Williams, and Osborne, a very reputable firm of solicitors in Sydney. This is what they wrote -

We have been consulted by Mr. J. T. Dunk, of 160 Oxfordstreet, Paddington, Sydney, with reference to his claim againstthe Commonwealthunder the Seamen’s Compensation Act. By agreement dated the 1st September, 1920, the sum of £120 was paid to Mr. Dunk, purporting to be in settlement of his claim. The registrar of the court has refused to register the agreement upon the groundthat the amount stated is wholly inadequate for the injuries received.

Senator Pearce:

– They only repeat Mr. Dunk’s statement.

Senator GARDINER:

– This is a dispute between Mr. Dunk and the Crown Law authorities, and I base my claim for the appointment of a select committee on a perusal of the file and my knowledge of Mr. Dunk, who is by no means such an old man as Senator Pearce or the Crown Solicitor would have honorable senators believe he is. The Minister says that Mr. Dunk’s statement is incorrect. A select committee could decide that issue. I am not asking for the appointment of a one-sided committee in order to secure a verdict for Mr. Dunk. Ifhis claim cannot be established fairly on the evidence produced, then I do not want a verdict in his favour. From what I know of Mr. Dunk, I should describe him as a highly intelligent and truthful man. It is admitted, of course, that he told a lie about his age. In 1917 he said he was young enough to enlist as a munition worker. In the circumstances, that was an offence which could easily be overlooked.

Senator Pearce:

– He said he broke his arm on the ship, but the ship’s doctor heard nothing of it.

Senator GARDINER:

– At all events, the Commonwealth admitted liability. The Minister, basing his knowledge on departmental documents, declared that Mr. Dunk had never worked for the Commonwealth. That is not true. He worked at Vickers’ steel works in England for thirteen hours a day for a fortnight, until his shoulder gave way. Before he enlisted he was a fine, vigorous type of manhood, and’ he bore a good character, as the following reference from Sir Joseph Cook, High Commissioner for Australia, testifies : - 14 Lower South-road, Bohemia,

St. Leonards-on-Sea. 14th February, 1918.

I know Mr. James Dunk as a resident of Parramatta. His character and reputation are good. I believe him to be honest, trustworthy, and capable. I have much pleasure in recommending him.

The Minister just now said that Mr. Dunk was not injured on the voyage, and I repeat that on the two occasions when the matter came before the committee the Government admitted that he had been injured. The following is a copy of the medical certificate obtained by Mr. Dunk: - 20th February, 1918.

I have this day seen and examined Mr. J. T. Dunk. He is suffering from the result of an accident. He is unable to use his right arm owing to the stiffness of the shoulder joint and pain. He is unable to grip with his hand. I do not consider that he will ever be able to resume work.

Morgan, M.D.

Senator GARDINER:

– Yes. Under the Seamen’s Compensation Act, according to Sir Robert Garran, Dunk might have been awarded 30s. a week for life, and why the Government did not pay the money I fail to see. I do not think it wishes to be a party to any sharp practice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Newland). - The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GARDINER:

– I shall conclude by asking leave to amend the motion by leaving out the word, “ William “ and inserting in its stead the initials “ J. T.,” and by leaving out the word “ Payne “ and inserting in lieu thereof the word “Reid”.

Leave granted; motion amended accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered -

That the committee report to the Senate on Thursday, 11th September.

page 3958

QUESTION

THE GOLD-MINING INDUSTRY

Debate resumed from 24th July (vide page 2434), on motion by Senator Lynch -

That, inasmuch as the gold-mining industry of the Commonwealth has during late years given unmistakable evidence of alarming decline, and as such decline cannot be said to arise from any fault on the part of the people carrying on the industry, but is entirely due to external causes, including amongst others -

The diminishing margin between the cost of production and realization, rendering the industry unattractive alike to men of small and considerable means;

The compulsory denial of a free market during the war period for the purpose of ensuring that vital necessity - an ample gold reserve - to the Commonwealth and the British Empire;

The double disadvantage involved in such denial in being obliged, on the one hand, to accept a fixed price for its product, and on the other an enhanced cost of production due to war conditions;

The increasing burden of supporting our secondary industries without any countervailing advantage to itself;

The need to go farther out into virgin country and farther down in the older places in the search for fresh reserves of payable ore, thus entailing still heavier expense;

The action of the several State Governments by means of rewards, bonuses, subsidies, and cheap rail, water, and crushing rates in fostering this industry, and thereby increasing its tax-paying capacity; and the failure of successive Federal Governments to do likewise, but, on the contrary, exploiting that capacity to the utmost; the Senatetherefore desires to record its firm expectation that - in order to remedy the present stagnant condition of the industry, renew its vitalizing power in the exploration and settlement of our vast unexplored territory, restore its waning strength as a stalwart buttress of our secondary industries and profitable consumer of our primary products, and repay in Borne measure the nation’s obligation to it for its sterling invaluableaid during the war - the Government will render unto it immediate and substantial assistance.

That, further, the Senate is of opinion that such assistance can best take the form of-

Adequate relief from taxation in the established centresof its activity;

Liberal help to persons going out into new country to search for and obtain undiscovered wealth, thus making a new addition to the assets and resources of the Commonwealth.

Senator THOMPSON:
Queensland

– When this motion was previously under discussion Senator Grant remarked that miners “ could find a more healthy occupation, for, as everybody knows, both metalliferous and coal mining are extremely unhealthy callings.” Senator Crawford then interjected - “ Senator Graham says that mining kills a man in two and a half years.” I am reported to have interposed with the remark that “ Gold mining is a healthy occupation.” In justice to myself, and also to Senator Grant, who subsequently remarked that I knew nothing about the matter, I may mention that, although the Hansard staff is usually remarkably careful, a slip was made on this occasion. The words I used were “ coal mining,” not “ gold mining.” It is well known that coal mining, strangely enough, is one of the most healthy occupations. In discussing the necessity for assisting the gold-mining industry, Senator Lynch has pointed out the disabilities under which the industry is carried on in Western Australia, and a few remarks concerning the position of the Mount Morgan Company of Queensland would not be out of place. The Mount Morgan gold mine has been the most important gold mine in the world, and although today it has passed into the phase of being a copper-gold proposition, it is probably still in the same category. Its present position was explained at the last annual general meeting of the company by the chairman of directors, Mr. R. S. Archer, who said -

Mining operations for the last year resulted in a loss of £65,092. This was the third year in succession in which it had been found impossible to obtain from the products of the mine sufficient revenue to meet expenses incurred in its working and the treatment and realization of the metals. The total loss on mining for the three years was£ 191,831. Fortunately for shareholders, and also for the employees, the company’s outside investments had returned the fairly substantial income of £81,416 in that period, so that the net loss to shareholders was reduced to £110,415 for the three years. Since April, 1920, shareholders had received no return whatever on their capitel. This was not encouraging in view of the fact that considerable economies had been effected. The company’s technical staff was continually working on the problems directly connected with the treatment of the ore at minimum cost, and further benefits should be obtained in the current year from ‘ improved treatment practice, whichshould enable some reductions tohe made in concentrating, smelting, and converting costs. The price of copper continued to hover around pre-war levels, but wages and material required in the working of the mine were vastly higher.

– I am afraid not. The high rate of wages and increased costs in other directions make the mine a non-payable proposition at the present time. But it is just as well for the sake of our honorable friends opposite, who are always declaring that capitalists are not sympathetic persons, to point out that a great concern has been kept going for four years at the expense of its shareholders. It distributes very large sums of money annually inthe shape of wages, and it is the sole support of a township of 10,000 inhabitants. Too much credit cannot be given to the shareholders of the company for the humanitarian policy they have adopted. I am afraid that the proposals which have been put forward to help the gold-mining industry will be of very little assistance to Mount Morgan Company. I understand that the Government are willing to remit a certain percentage of the income tax collected from gold-mining companies, but, as a matter of fact, remission of income taxation is of no practical assistance to a mining company which is making a loss. Another proposal put forward is that a £1 for £1 grant should be made for exploratory work. Thatshould benefit the Mount Morgan Company, because, while there is no likelihood of further development by sinking, there is every likelihood that lateral exploration may produce some new development. The Government could assist the industry by a remission of the duty paid on machinery purchased overseas. As a matter of fact, the Mount Morgan Company, which has occasionally had to order very elaborate machinery from abroad, because it could not be obtained in Australia, has already benefited from a remission of duty in the way I have suggested. The Government might also come to the assistance of this company by a remission of the duty which had to be paid on coke which had to be ordered from England, because a strike in progress in Australia had prevented the company from securing coke locally. The company had exhausted its available resources at the time, and in order to keep the mine going was obliged to place orders for coke in England. One direction in which the Government have given assistanceis in the remission of duty on material required for the manufacture of explosives, which are extensively used in the Mount Morgan mine. I join with Senator Lynch in suggesting that prospecting should be encouraged. I know that in practice it has been found difficult to apply government assistance to prospecting intelligently and properly, but perhaps a good scheme may be evolved by granting this aid through the states which are in a better position to give it proper supervision than the Commonwealth itself would be. I am satisfied that there is gold yet to be discovered in Australia, and anything that can be done to open up fresh fields will greatly benefit the whole community. I hope that the suggestions I have thrown out will receive consideration, and that as much assistance as can be given to the mining industry will be afforded to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 9.13 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 September 1924, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1924/19240904_senate_9_108/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 4 September 1924

PAPER

QUESTION

WEST WYALONG POST OFFICE

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS IN LONDON

Senator McDOUGALL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF MAIL-MATTER IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator LYNCH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

S.S.GUNEMBA

Senator McDOUGALL:

Senator WILSON:Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

DRIED FRUITS ADVANCES BILL

Third Reading

Senator FINDLEY:Victoria

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator REID:QUEENSLAND

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Cox:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator Wilson:

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator GARDINER:New South Wales

Senator WILSON:South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator McDougall:

Senator WILSON:

Senator O’Loghlin:

Senator WILSON:

WINE EXPORT BOUNTY BILL

Second Reading

Senator WILSON:Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

Senator Benny:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Benny:

Senator WILSON:

Senator Benny:

Senator WILSON:

Senate
4 September 1924

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator McDOUGALL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PEARCE:
Minister of Home and Territories · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT

Senator FINDLEY:
Victoria

Senator REID:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator WILSON:
South AustraliaHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT

Senator BENNY:
South Australia

Senator GARDINER:
New South Wales

Senator O’LOGHLIN:
South Australia

Senator H HAYS:
Tasmania

Senator MCDOUGALL:
New South Wales

Senator WILSON:
Honorary Minister · South Australia · NAT