View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
16 March 1928

10^th Parliament · 1^st Session

PAPERS
QUESTION
- NEWSPRINT IMPORTATIONS
QUESTION
- FEDERAL CAPITAL
QUESTION
- FEDERAL MEMBERS’ ROOMS, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- WORLD’S POULTRY CONFERENCE
QUESTION
- NATIONAL INSURANCE
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

The President (Senator the Hon. Sir John Newlands) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3885

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act Ordinances of 1928 -

No. 3 - Trespass on Commonwealth Lands.

No. 4 - Apiaries.

No. 5 - Methodist Church Property.

No.6 - Industrial Board. New Guinea Act - Ordinances of 1928 -

No. 4 - Appropriation, 1927-28.

No. 5 - Contracts.

No.6 - Mining. Northern Australia Act-

Central Australia - Ordinances of 1928-

No. 3 -Birds Protection.

No. 4 - Health.

North Australia - Ordinances of 1928 -

No. 3 - Birds Protection.

No. 4- Health.

page 3885

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT IMPORTATIONS

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

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

What are the quantity and value of importations into the Commonwealth of newspaper printing paper?
What portion, if any, of the local requirements is met by newsprint manufactured in the Commonwealth?

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

– The answers are -

Imports of newsprinting paper, not glazed, millglazed, or coated, during the last three years were as follows: -

In rolls not less than 10 inches in width. 1924-25, 95,008 tons, £1,932.535; 1925-20, 104,906 tons, £2.079,320; 1926-27, 108.595 tons, £2,089,011.

In sheets not less than 20 inches x 25 inches or its equivalent, 1924-25, 8,438 tons, £.169,423; 1925-26, 3,909 tons, £79,147; 1926-27, 14,833 tons, £287,502.

Newsprint is not yet commercially manufactured in the Commonwealth.

page 3885

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Transport Service

Senator GRAHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home and Territories, upon notice -

How many new buses have been purchased recently by the Federal Capital Commission?
Were tenders called for ?
When were the buses put into commission ?
What was the price paid for the chassis?
Who are the agents for the buses?
Have there been any breakages in connexion with the new buses; if so, what was the nature of such breakages, and how much has been spent on repairs?
Is it a fact that these buses will not accommodate more than seventeen passengers each ?
Is it not a fact that these buses are totally unsuitable for the work they are called upon to do?

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

– Inquiries are being made and the honorable senator will be advised as soon as possible.

page 3885

QUESTION

FEDERAL MEMBERS’ ROOMS, SYDNEY

Repairs to Furniture

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Railways, upon notice -

Is he aware whether certain of the chairs in the members’ rooms, Commonwealth Bank, Sydney, cannot be used by members because of the condition of disrepair into which the cushions have been permitted to fall ?
Is he aware whether the messenger in charge of the roomshas, in accordance with his general instructions, reported this fact to the department?
Is it afact that he has been informed that no funds are available to carry out these very necessary repairs?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The answers are - 1, 2 and 3. A requisition for repairs to cushions, &c, was received by my department, but funds were not available to enable the service to be carried out. The work will, however, be put in hand at the beginning of next financial year.

page 3885

QUESTION

WORLD’S POULTRY CONFERENCE

Senator ANDREW:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Markets, upon notice -

Will the Minister state whether the Government has received copies of the papers, &c, read and discussed at the World’s Poultry Conference in Canadalast year?
If so, will he make them available to members, and when?

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

– The answers are -

No.
The papers, &c., when received will be made available.

page 3886

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

asked the

Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to introduce a bill this session providing for national insurance?
If so, will friendly societies’ representatives be given an opportunity of considering the proposed legislation before it is dealt with by Parliament?

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– The honorable senator’s inquiry relates to a matter of Government policy and cannot be dealt with in reply to a question.

page 3886

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

In committee (Consideration resumed from 15th March, vide page 3829).

– At the same time the honorable senator believes that the duties will not have that effect on the industry ?

Senator FOLL:

– I doubt, if the increased duty of 4s. per 100 super, feet on Oregon will materially assist those mills engaged in cutting hardwoods, but in view of the opinion expressed by leading millers that it will, I propose to give it a trial. Messrs. James Campbell and Sons Limited, Brisbane, inform me that the timber industry was never in a worse state than it is at the present time, owing to heavy importations from New Zealand and overseas. Messrs. Hancock and Gore, another Brisbane firm, state that the existence of hardwood sawmills is dependent upon the passing of these duties. I have also received the following telegram from Mr. Headrick the secretary of the Atherton Tableland and North Queensland Timber Merchants’ Association:-

We definitely submit Oregon particularly greatly interfering with local building timbers owing low price almost annihilating sales. Present use extends almost all classes building timbers. Imperative protection be given, and yet more particularly to northern cabinet timber against Japanese oak, Pacific maple, and Noumean kauri. the importation of oregon has undoubtedly cut into the business of the better class of hardwoods produced in North Queensland. I was not aware previously, and I can hardly realize now, that importations of Oregon will injure the production of our furniture timbers such as silky oak and maple; but there is no doubt that the introduction of Japanese oak is seriously interfering with the North Queensland trade in furniture timbers. While I propose to vote for these protective duties, I think we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that increased rates on Oregon will add to building costs in Australia. Senator Needham this morning quoted some figures that were of considerable interest to honorable senators. Can the honorable senator say that if there had been an absolute embargo against the importation of softwoods since the war, we could have supplied Australian needs from local sources? I have received the following telegram from the secretary of the Eacham saw mills : -

Our sawmill closed indefinitely twentythird ultimo, throwing twenty-four men out employment caused through inability compete with imported cabinet woods. Japanese oak selling Sydney to-day 25s. 100 ft. super, less than we offered silky oak last week.

Senator CRAWFORD:

– According to cables that have appeared from time to time in the press, there has been a substantial diminution in the orders for

Oregon since these duties became effective. I understand that it is now practically impossible to get orders for a full shipload of Oregon. The uncertainty which so far has existed as to the duties which will finally be approved by Parliament has not enabled the full effect of the duties to be felt.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

– Unlike other honorable senators, I have not been deluged with correspondence and telegrams, nor have I been approached by the sawmillers, in relation to the duties on timber. Anything that I shall say to-day is the outcome of my personal observations. I cannot understand the objection to these duties on the ground that they will place a heavy burden on the people. My experience has shown conclusively that in the long run a hardwood dwelling is much cheaper than one constructed of Oregon or Baltic timber. A few weeks ago I saw in Tasmania a dwelling constructed entirely of Australian hardwood, which although 42 years old, was still sound. The owner assured me that the cost of upkeep during that period was infinitesimal compared with the cost of buildings constructed of Baltic timber.

Senator Verran:

– It is unreasonable to suggest that the timber is as sound to-day as it was when used for the erection of the dwelling 42 years ago.

Senator PAYNE:

– The timber is quite sound to-day. The suggestion that Australian timbers can never take the place of Oregon is ridiculous. If I had the time I could quote the opinions of some of the most eminent architects in Australia that such’ a statement is unwarranted. Complaint has been made regarding the weight of hardwood structures; but there is no necessity to use timber of the same dimensions when hardwood is substituted for Oregon. Senator Duncan said that Australian timber could never replace Oregon.

Senator Duncan:

– For certain purposes.

Senator PAYNE:

– It has been urged that for casing for concrete construction

Senator ANDREW:

– If the security is good ample money is available.

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– It is not.

Senator ANDREW:

– The ‘ Tariff Board, after studying the evidence and journeying through_the forests, reported on the 28th November, 1927, as follows : -

The Tariff Board has carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding the industry as a whole, and in the light of the evidence tendered and opinions gained from an extensive tour through the forests and around the sawmilling districts, and taking into consideration the position as disclosed by the latest official statistics of importations, has arrived at the conclusion that the granting of inincreased duties to the extent asked for is not justified by circumstances. There is no call for a serious or general departure from the conclusions and recommendations embodied in the board’s original report of the 2nd September, 1925.

– T have no doubt that Senator Kingsmill will change his views on. this subject when it suits him to do so. .Mr. L. G. Irby, the Conservator of Forests in Tasmania, in his evidence before the Tariff Board in 1925. said -

Of the balance of timber land in Tasmania, 700,000 acres should be a conservative estimate. As the bulk of this is unexplored, let us consider 10.000 feet to the acre as the yield. This gives 7,000,000,000 super, feet in the round, which with a’ 50 per cent, reduction, conversion works out at 3,500.000.000 feet of timber. Therefore, on these figures, the total yield of sawn timber on leased and unleased areas would bo 5,500,000,000 super, feet. … It will be seen that on a very conservative estimate the present rate of timber cut in Tasmania (hardwoods! can be largely increased without risk of a future timber famine. In fact, it is safe to assume that the present cut could be doubled.

The Queensland forestry report for 1926 dealing with the hardwood resources of that State contains the following statement -

There are large untapped resources of semihardwoods and fancy woods -in Queensland of which greater use should be made, sufficient indeed to serve any particular objects catered for by imports from Czecho-Slovakia. Japan and other countries. There are 00,000.000 idle feet of red satinay on Fraser Island, and 00,000,000 idle feet of grey and red satin ash on the Bungella Range near Mackay. There are untold millions of feet of tulip oak in the forests of the west coast line.

Mr. Lane Poole, when he was Conservator of Forests in “Western Australia, made the following statement concerning the position in that State: -

Between 500,000 and 750,000 tons of utilizable wood are being burned by sawmillers every year, and this destruction is mainly due to the quantity of small sizes not required. If there were a proper duty, these sizes would be of commercial value. I should wel- come a revision of the tariff, and would like to see so heavy a duty placed on imported woods so as to force the community throughout Australia to use its own wood.

Senator Thompson:

– Why not quote more recent opinions?

Senator HOARE:

– These are recent opinions. Sincere protectionists should offer no objection to these increased duties. Let us be honest in the expression of our convictions, whether we be protectionists or freetraders. Our purpose should be to impose such duties as will ensure the establishment of industries in Australia on a sound footing.

Senator Chapman:

– We must consider the effect-on all sections of the people.

Senator HOARE:

– Did the honorable senator take that view the other day, when we passed an item imposing a duty on butter from Great Britain.

Senator Chapman:

– But the timber industry already is protected to the extent of far more than 25 per cent.

Senato’r HOARE. - If existing tariffs are not high enough to protect the local industries, we should be prepared to vote for higher duties. South Australia, in 1897, established a ‘ pine plantation for commercial purposes. At the end of last year upwards of 28,000 acres had been planted out in softwoods. In his evidence before the Tariff Board a representative of the South Australian Government stated -

It is urged that the tariff protection of locally-grown pine timber should be continued. At present over 0,000,000 super, feet of beautiful pine timber is waiting to be cut. but the Government is unable to dispose of same owing to the keen competition of imported timber.

The late Mr. Walter Gill, F.L.S.. who was Conservator of Forests in South Australia, in his evidence before the Interstate Conference on Forestry, said that South Australian locally-grown pine had proved very satisfactory for the construction of the framework of houses, stables and sheds, and also as weatherboards, floorings and linings, and, when varnished, had a most effective polish. The federal executive of the Australian Timber Workers’ Union, in supporting the increased duties, urged all its members to vote for .the further protection of the timber industry, so that it could be stabilized in the interests of from 20.000 to 30,000 employees. What will happen to. our reafforestation schemes if we allow the importation of timber from cheap labour countries?

Senator Kingsmill:

– Can the honorable senator say how long it takes to make an afforestation scheme effective?

Senator HOARE:

– I understand that pine trees become marketable in about 25 years.

Senator Thompson:

– The Conservator of Forests in Queensland recommends the importation of large quantities of foreign timber in order to conserve the growing forests in that State for 30 years.

Senator HOARE:

– South Australian forests date from 1879. Already a considerable acreage of the Wirrabarra forest has been cut, and the timber utilized for the making of export fruit boxes.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15.

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia

– As this very interesting and extremely, varied debate proceeds, new issues are introduced’ and further points are raised which are susceptible of a different meaning from that which is stressed by their sponsors. I shall deal first of all with the views of forestry experts; secondly, with the Tariff Board aspect; and thirdly, if I have not exhausted my fifteen fleeting minutes, with one or two other features. Those who are supporting this proposed increase of the timber duties have quoted in support of their case views that have been expressed by men who hold prominent positions in regard to forestry in the Commonwealth, but more especially by Mr. Lane-Poole, whom I regard as the foremost forester in Australia. He has had in forestry more comprehensive technical training and practical experience than any other person whom I can call to mind. -I wish to lay stress also upon Mr. Norman Jolly’s views. Probably the most important document on forestry to which Mr. Lane-Poole has appended his signature is the report which he furnished to the Parliament of the Commonwealth on the 30th February, 1925, after he had become thoroughly acquainted with the forests of Australia, Papua and New Guinea. In it he made the following observations.

It will be asked how is it that with a population of a little under 6,000,000, the country is unable to provide its own timber requirements from an area of 24,500,000 acres which should obviously be yielding over 1.2,000,000,000 super, feet per annum. Why are we importing 304,500,000 super, feet? I have already partially answered these questions, and have stated that on the one hand our hardwood forests are not adequate and our demand is for softwoods, which we must import. The inadequacy of our hazelwood forests is duo to the gross overcutting which has taken place in the past, and to the very paltry efforts tha states have made to restore their forests and so manage them as to get a maximum yield per acre.

I stress the sentence “ our hardwood forests are not adequate and our demand is for softwoods, which we must import.” As I view the position, those who are supporting the higher duties demand that we shall displace imported softwoods with our hardwoods to a far greater extent than has been the case in the past. That would immediately lead to a material increase in the quantity of hardwood cut. Yet Mr. Lane-Poole has told us that gross overcutting has taken place in the past, and that only paltry endeavours have been made at replacement. How would it be possible in less than 25 or 30 years, to grow a sufficient quantity of softwood or hardwood to take the place of the imports which this tariff seeks to prohibit? Obviously it would be impossible. Softwoods can be produced in Australia ; but we should not waste our time with pinus -insignis, which is a second or a third grade timber.

Senator Ogden:

– What species does the honorable senator favour?

Senator KINGSMILL:

– Pinus ponderosa.

Senator Ogden:

– It does not do so well as the other varieties.

Senator KINGSMILL:

– It will grow just as well, though not so rapidly. If the honorable senator will stroll over to Westridge, near the .’forestry school, and also visit the nursery at Yarralumla, he will see some very wellgrown specimens which have an exceedingly healthy appearance. When the action that I have suggested has been taken it will be time enough to increase building costs by placing higher duties on imported timber. Such a policy at the present time would be uneconomical, unstatesmanlike, and in the highest degree foolish, The opinion of Mr. LanePoole that I. have read to honorable senators is from the actual report, not from any collated synopsis, such as that with which I understand honorable senators have been furnished. While they may be absolutely accurate in their text, they are robbed of a great deal of their value by the absence of the context. The opinion of Mr. Jolly, Chief Commissioner of Forests in New South Wales, is regarded very highly by every one who is acquainted with his scientific and practical attainments. In his report for 1925 he said-* -

The right policy for the State would be to fix the amount of timber it would sell from its own forests in any one year, and to utilize by the medium of importations the timbers of other countries for the purpose of supplying the balance of requirements.

It will be seen that the average importations during 1912 and 1913 were about the same as they were between 1923 and 1927. During 1926-27 the importations of timber dropped considerably below the quantity imported during the previous year. To meet the slightly increased importations, the Tariff Board recommended a small increase in the duties. If we consider this question from the per capita stand-point, we find that the importations have decreased considerably since 1912, the figures in 1912 being 93.33 per cent., dropping to 67.16 per cent. in 1924- 25, increasing to 82.68 per cent, in 1925- 26, and falling to 75.50 per cent, in 1926- 27.

SenatorGreene. - My figures show the reverse.

Senator CHAPMAN:

– I have given the Tariff Board’s figures. During the same years the native timber produced was as follows: -

From that table it will be seen that the production of native timber has not varied to any extent. I have already shown that importations have been practically stationary, comparing the normal years 1912-13 with 1924-27. With a considerably larger population there should have been a bigger demand, and the only explanation of the fact that there has not been a greater increase in the use of timber is that housebuilders, instead of using timber, have used substitutes. Honorable senators who claim that further duties on timber will force builders to use Australian hardwoods, should realize that their action will tend to a still further use of substitutes. Already the people of Australia pay over £1,000,000 annually as duties on timber. It is unreasonable to expect them to pay the further £700,000 per annum which these duties would impose. In its report the Tariff Board says -

Witnesses in favour of the request for additional duties admitted, however, that hardwood could not be used as a substitute for Oregon for many purposes, and that no matter what duty was imposed Oregon would still be imported. There are many purposes for which hardwood is not suitable and for which oregon is essential, amongst which might be mentioned -

Falsework for bridges;

Scaffolding ;

Facing boards for concrete work;

Operations where very long lengths are necessary.

Considerable evidence was tendered as to the respective selling prices of hardwood scantlings and those of competitive oregon.

From the figures submitted it would appear that in some cases, even with the additional duty asked for, the hardwood would be at a disadvantage in the matter of. price as compared with oregon. As in the case of other timber it is obviously not practicable to provide a duty that would meet what are regarded as the needs of the various local saw-millers concerned, operating as they do under different circumstances and conditions.

Towards the end of its report the Tariff Board has a good deal to say regarding the inefficiency of many of the timber mills. It points out that there are many ways in which the industry by its own efforts can improve its conditions. I have never seen a more scathing comment on any industry than is contained in the Tariff Board’s report on timber. We are not justified in imposing high duties to encourage inefficiency. Instead of asking for assistance in the nature of increased duties, thus placing a further burden on the people of Australia, the timber industry should organize to help itself.

Senator FINDLEY:

– There is a worldwide shipping combine. I know what is in Senator Kingsmill’s mind. He is opposed to the Navigation Act and to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and thinks that with cheap coloured labour we should be on the road to prosperity and happiness.

It has been said that imported timbers do not enter into serious competition with Australian hardwoods. I contend that they ‘ do. The proof is forthcoming not merely from within Australia but from persons directly interested in the timber industry overseas. In the Commercial Intelligence Journal, No. 1087, dated’ Ottawa, 28th November, 1924, and issued by the department of Trade and Commerce of Canada, the Acting Canadian Trade Commissioner in New Zealand, Mr. C. M. Croft, when dealing with the question of imported timber, stated -

It is now used to a great extent for studs, rafters, &c., and it is taking the place of certain native timbers to which it is equal though probably not superior. The price has proved the deciding factor.

In his opinion, imported timber is equal but not superior to the native timber; but the price is the deciding factor. The position is similar in Australia, and the price has been the deciding factor. The case submitted in support of increased duties on timber is unanswerable. I congratulate those engaged in the industry on the splendid case they placed before’ the Tariff Board, and for the. untiring efforts they have displayed in an endeavour to get that measure of justice to which they are entitled. The representatives of the industry stated before the Tariff Board that forestry opened up the country and assisted immigration. That statement is absolutely correct. Without forestry- there would be no small farms. Next to food they state thatwood is an article of which an abundant supply is essential to- the nation, and that on many of our railways 84 per cent, and up to 93 per cent, of the traffic carried consists of timber. They further state that many of our main ports have been built up as a result of the export wharfage rates on timbers, and that if these ports were forced to close, the backbone of many of our rural industries would disappear. Those statements are indisputable. Senator . Kingsmill based most of his arguments, against the imposition of these duties, on the coastal provisions of the Navigation Act ; but later he changed his ground.

Senator Kingsmill:

– I did not.

Senator FINDLEY:

Senator LYNCH:

– Notwithstanding that at the outset they had obtained more than they had expected, they came back to Parliament in 1921 for a further measure of protection. Once again they were sent away rejoicing. Four or five years later we were informed .’ that the position of the industry was as bad as ever, and that further assistance was required. The Government is now asking Parliament to sanction the imposition of these additional duties. In the name of all that is rational, when will this industry be on a proper footing?

Senator Thompson:

– A telegram was received to-day asking for duties even higher than those in the new schedule.

Senator LYNCH:

Senator Crawford:

– I added that, because of the greater durability of Australian timber, it was worth paying more to get it.

Senator CARROLL:

– If protection does not mean added costs, it is valueless. The chief argument of protectionists is that further duties are necessary because the existing duties will not’ enable local products to compete with those from other countries. That is an admission that increased duties mean higher costs.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 3.52 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 March 1928, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1928/19280316_senate_10_118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate16 March 1928

PAPERS

QUESTION

NEWSPRINT IMPORTATIONS

Senator OGDEN:TASMANIA

Senator CRAWFORD:Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

QUESTION

FEDERAL CAPITAL

Senator GRAHAM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir WILLIAM GLASGOW:

QUESTION

FEDERAL MEMBERS’ ROOMS, SYDNEY

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

WORLD’S POULTRY CONFERENCE

Senator ANDREW:VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:NAT

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Senator HERBERT HAYS:TASMANIA

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL

Senator NEEDHAM:Western Australia

Senator Duncan:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Duncan:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Duncan:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Foll:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator Foll:

Senator NEEDHAM:

Senator OGDEN:Tasmania

Senator FOLL:Queensland

Senator Duncan:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Needham:

Senator FOLL:

Senator CRAWFORD:QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator Chapman:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Kingsmill:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Thompson:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Andrew:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator Duncan:

Senator CRAWFORD:

Senator PAYNE:Tasmania

Senator Verran:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Duncan:

Senator J B Hayes:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Herbert Hays:

Senator PAYNE:

Senator Thompson:

Senate
16 March 1928

Senator OGDEN:
TASMANIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
Honorary Minister · QUEENSLAND · NAT

Senator GRAHAM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator ANDREW:
VICTORIA

Senator CRAWFORD:
NAT

Senator HERBERT HAYS:
TASMANIA

Senator NEEDHAM:
Western Australia

Senator OGDEN:
Tasmania

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

Senator CRAWFORD:
QueenslandHonorary Minister · NAT

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator ANDREW:
Victoria

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Mr GREENE:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator HOARE:
South Australia

Senator KINGSMILL:
Western Australia