Senate
7 May 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1931

The President (Senator the Hon. W. Kinsgmill) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1682

QUESTION

SENATOR COOPER

Senator BARNES:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · VICTORIA · ALP

– May I be permitted to say, Mr. President, that I am delighted to see Senator Cooper back in the chamber again, and fully recovered from the effects of the serious accident which befell him in Queensland early last month. I and my colleagues, in common, I am sure, with honorable senators generally offer him hearty congratulations on his recovery.

Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !

page 1682

EXAMINATION OF SIR ROBERT GIBSON

SenatorSIR GEORGE PEARCE.Will the Government have the record of that part of the proceedings in the Senate yesterday, covering the questions put to Sir Robert Gibson and his replies thereto, printed separately from Hansard so that it may be made available to honorable senators in a convenient form?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– I see no reason why it should not be done, and I shall have inquiries made.

Senator DUNN:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the following questions, without notice -

  1. Will the Vice-President of the Executive Council take action to compel the Leader of the Opposition (Sir George Pearce) to lay on the table of the Senate all correspondence, secret or otherwise, that passed between hint and the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, Sir Robert Gibson, a witness summoned by the Senate to give evidence on oath ?
  2. In the event of the Leader of the Opposition refusing to produce such correspondence, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council call the attention of the Federal Attorney-General to Senator Pearce’s action in holding secret negotiations with a witness summoned to attend before the bar of the Senate to give evidence on oath?
The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator must not infer that secret communications have been held unless he has means of proving it. The honorable senator would be in order in asking, “ Have secret communications passed, &c.?”

Senator DUNN:

-My question continues -

  1. At the same time, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council ask the AttorneyGeneral whether the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of improper conduct in approaching Sir Robert Gibson in the circumstances?
The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator cannot take it for granted that Senator Pearce, whom, of course, I am not to be understood as defending, made this approach to Sir Robert Gibson unless he has proof. He should submit his question in this form : “ Did the Leader of the Opposition approach Sir Robert Gibson, &c.?”

Senator Foll:

– Does Senator Dunn propose to apologize for his conduct yesterday ?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

Senator DUNN:

– I am putting the question through the President, and not through Senator Foll. I had reached the point - guilty of improper conduct in approaching Sir Robert Gibson in the circumstances.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator insists on putting his question in the way he is doing I shall rule it out of order.

Senator DUNN:

– Then I shall get on to No. 4.

The PRESIDENT:

– I can tell the honorable senator straight away that if he puts hia question in the form in which he has read it, it will not appear on the notice-paper. If he makes proper alterations in his question, in the preparation of which theClerk will assist him, it may appear. Obviously, it is a question which cannot be asked without notice.

Senator DUNN:

– I accept your ruling, Mr. President, and give notice of the question for to-morrow.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.I ask leave of the Senate, and I feel that it will do me the justice of granting my request, to make a personal explanation with regard to statements made by Senator Dunn in giving notice of his question. [Leave granted.] The only communication that I have had with Sir Robert Gibson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board in connexion with the Commonwealth Bank Bill and his appearance at the bar of the Senate yesterday, may be briefly explained. In justice to Sir Robert Gibson, I thought that I should acquaint him with the nature of the questions that I proposed to ask him as some of the replies would require preparation and involve the giving of figures. I, therefore, decided to ascertain when he would arrive in Canberra. In order that there may be no secret about the matter, I may explain that I instructed my private secretary to ask the manager of the local branch of the Commonwealth Bank if he knew when Sir Robert Gibson would arrive, and where he would be staying. My private secretary was informed that Sir Robert Gibson would be arriving from Goulburn or Sydney by motor car. The manager of Canberra branch of the Commonwealth Bank was not sure where Sir Robert Gibson would be staying, but informed my private secretary that as soon as he knew he would advise him. I had prepared a list of the questions that I proposed to put to Sir Robert, and I personally wrote him a letter to await his arrival in Canberra. Speaking from memory, it was to this effect -

Dear Sir Robert,

It is my intention when you appear at the bar of the Senate to-day, to ask you the questions which I forward herewith. If. in your opinion, any of these questions should not, in the public interest, be asked, will you intimate to me what they are and I will omit them.

Yours faithfully,

That is all that was contained in the letter. In order to remove any doubt which may exist in the mind of Senator Dunn, or any other honorable senator opposite, I propose to write to Sir Robert Gibson and ask him, if he has not destroyed my letter, to return it to me so that I may lay it upon the table of the Senate. He may have regarded it as unimportant and have thrown it in the waste paper basket. That was the only communication I had with Sir Robert with respect to the questions I submitted to him yesterday.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– A personal explanation cannot be debated.

Senator Barnes:

– I merely wish to say that I think the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) should have supplied me with a copy of the questions which he proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson. That is a courtesy which should have been extended to me, and which I would have much appreciated.

Senator DUNN:

– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if his attention has been drawn to the Prime Minister’s protest in the Canberra Times newspaper as follows: -

page 1683

QUESTION

MR. SCULLIN DISAPPROVES

The Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, expressed the view last night that it was quite improper to summon the chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, by the legal power possessed by the Senate, into the political arena to be crossexamined by senators, and to be called to express opinion’s. Mr. Scullin added that the function of the Bank Board was to administer that great institution and to act as the Government bankers. The Government had introduced the Commonwealth Bank Bill as a measure-

The PRESIDENT:

– The practice is not to allow an honorable senator to adopt the course which Senator Dunn is following.

Senator DUNN:

– Do I understand, sir, that that practice has been in operation during the two years I have been a member of this chamber?

The PRESIDENT:

– Such questions usually take the following form: - “Has the attention of the Minister been drawn?” or “Has the Minister seen a statement in a certain newspaper to such and such an effect?”

Senator DUNN:

– I commenced my question with the words, “I desire to ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if his attention has been drawn to the Prime Minister’s protest in the Canberra Times V I then proceeded to read the paragraph.

The PRESIDENT:

– Questions should be put to Ministers for the purpose of seeking information, and not with the object of giving it. Standing Order 98 provides -

After notices have been given, questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs and to other senators relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business on the noticepaper of which such senators may have charge.

Standing Order 99 reads -

In putting any such question, no argument or opinion shall be offered, nor inference, nor imputation made, nor any fact stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain such question. . .

I suggest that the honorable senator should place his question on the noticepaper. I should then have an opportunity to consider it and, if necessary, so to amend it that it would comply with the Standing Orders.

Senator DUNN:

– In view of the fact that I was quoting from a newspaper, I should like to know if I will be in order in ascertaining whether, in the opinion of Mr. Shakespeare, the editor of that newspaper, the statement is correct?

The PRESIDENT:

– Certainly not.

Senator GUTHRIE:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, if his attention has Deen drawn to the excellent leading article in this morning’s Canberra Times, and, if so, whether he will arrange for all the members of his party to read, learn, and digest it, so that they will be well-informed with respect to the position confronting us to-day ?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator’s question is not in order. In order to clarify the position, I think I should point out that it has been ruled by one of my predecessors that, “ No statement by or quotation from a newspaper should be included in a question, and that, “ Questions are not to be founded on newspaper statements or illustrations.”

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Barnes), if it is a fact that the Prime Minister’ (Mr. Scullin) carefully refrained from making the statement published in the Canberra Times until Sir Robert Gibson had given evidence before the Senate, and then only because the right honorable gentleman did not approve of the evidence so given?

The PRESIDENT:

– For the reasons I have already given, I rule the honorable senator’s question out of order.

Senator FOLL:

– I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) if he has cracked the whip over Senator Dunn-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order !

page 1684

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Service and Execution of Process Act -

Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 44.

Passports Act - Regulations amended - Statutory Rules 1931, No. 40.

page 1684

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Cadets

Senator DUNN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many male and female cadets were appointed to the staff of the Commonwealth Bank in the State of New South Wales for the years 1925. 1920, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930 r
  2. From what public schools or colleges were the majority of the cadets appointed in those years drawn in the State of New South Wales?
  3. What were the residential areas or suburbs - surrounding the City of Sydney from which the ‘metropolitan cadets were drawn?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The information is being obtained from the Commonwealth Bank, and will be furnished as soon as possible.

page 1685

QUESTION

TARIFF

New Factories

Senator FOLL:

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

  1. Did the Minister for Markets state, as reported, when speaking at Wagga on Saturday evening last, that by the end of this year, as a result of the Federal Government’s fiscal policy, 23 new factories, giving employment to 4,000 people, would be operating?
  2. If so, is. this intended as a modification of * the statement previously made by Mr. Forde that the Government’s fiscal policy would employ 50,000 people in addition to those already employed 1!
  3. Will the Minister gi.ve a detailed list of the 23 new factories, and tha number of new hands to be employed by each?
  4. Will the Minister also table a list showing the number of people thrown out of employment by the recent increases in the tariff schedule, including waterside workers, &c. 1
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable senators questions are as under . -

  1. Yos.
  2. No. The statement made by Mr. Forde was based on an estimate prepared by the Chamber of Manufactures, and will be much more than fulfilled after a double dissolution and the election of the majority of Federal Labour senators to this chamber, when the Labour party’s policy will be put into operation. That, together with an improvement of world prices for our exportable products, will give a great stimulus to Australian manufactures. Already the tariff proposals have reresulted in thousands of workers being kept in employment who otherwise would have been thrown out of work.
  3. The new factories referred to, which are branch factories of overseas organizations, are set out hereunder; but we already have reports of several additional ones: - Godfrey Phillips (Aust.) Proprietary Limited; Carreras Limited; Julius Kayser and Company (Aust.) Limited; Holeproof Hosiery Company, United States of America; Lea and Perrins (Australia) Limited, Sydney; W. and A. Gilbey Limited, United Kingdom; Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company; Philips Lamps Limited, Holland; Magnavox (Australia) Limited, Sydney; Herbert Bosch and Company, Germany; Qualeast Company, Derby; Abrahams and Company, Birmingham; Brico (Aust.) Limited, Sydney (British

Piston Ring Company ) ; J. and E. Atkinson (Australia) Limited; H. Brasseur, France; Hipkiss Kershaw (Aust.) Limited; Fuller Brush Company, United States of America; Johnson and Johnson, United States of America; W. T. Rawleigh Company Limited, Canada; Bon Ami Company, United States of America; J. Baars and Sons, Holland; H. W. Gossard Company, United States of America; Joe Lowe Corporation, United States of America; Joe Lowe Food Products Company Limited, England. In addition, there have been many more now factories opened by Australian manufacturers.

  1. The information is not available, but there is direct evidence that the number of persons for whom employment has been provided as the result of the tariff schedule introduced by the Government far exceeds the number of persons who have been thrown out of employment as a result of such tariff schedules. The process of manufacture and marketing of Australian-made goods necessarily entails the employment of more labour than that engaged in the importing and handling of imported goods.

page 1685

QUESTION

FUEL OIL FROM COAL

Senator FOLL:

asked the Minister representing the Assistant Minister for Industry, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Assistant Minister for Industry is approaching the gas companies in Australia relative to the recovery of motor spirit from coal?
  2. Is it a fact that the Public Accounts Committee recently thoroughly investigated this proposal and supplied a comprehensive report?
  3. If so, has the Assistant Minister seen this report, and also, the one recently presented to Parliament by Dr. Rivett, on “ Fuel Oil Production, from Coal”?
  4. Will the Government consider the advisability of communicating with Imperial Chemicals Limited, of Great Britain, and also with I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G. Germany, with a view to ascertaining whether these companies are prepared to operate in Australia their latest proposals for the extraction of fuel oil from coal by the hydrogenation process ?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No recent investigation on this subject has been made by the committee. A report was, however, furnished by it (Parliamentary Paper No. 11 of 1920) dealing with shale oil, power alcohol, liquid fuels, &c
  3. See reply to No. 2. Dr. Rivett’s report is receiving consideration.
  4. Consideration is at present being given to this proposal.

page 1686

QUESTION

APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNORGENERAL

Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In view of the doubts cast on the validity of the appointment of His Excellency the Governor-General as violating section 8 of the Judiciary Act, docs the Government propose to take steps to validate such appointment?
  2. If the answer to the foregoing question be in the negative, will the Minister explain how the provisions of section 8 of the Judiciary Act, which render a judge of the High Court ineligible for such appointment, hare been overcome?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. No. The Government has no doubts on the subject.
  2. The honorable senator’s question implies that there has been a contravention of the section, which is not the case.

page 1686

QUESTION

DUTY ON OREGON

Senator McLACHLAN:

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

Has the Government reviewed the duty imposed on Oregon in the light of the representations of all sections of the trade; if so, with what result?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– This is one of the items in the tariff schedules now before Parliament, and a full opportunity to discuss it will bc presented when the schedules are under review.

page 1686

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Perth Building

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice -

  1. Have tenders been received from Western Australia for the bronze work in connexion with the new Commonwealth Bank at. Perth ?
  2. Has any tender been accepted?
  3. Will preference be given to Western Australian firms who are capable of doing the work, in view of the fact that the new bank depends on the people of that State for its business?
Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. This matter is now receiving consideration.
  3. As the tenders submitted by firms in Western Australia are some thousands of pounds in excess of the lowest tender and other tenders received, it is not likely that the work will be allotted to a Western Australian tenderer, particularly in view of the fact that considerably lower tenders have been received from firms who can be relied upon to carry out the work in a satisfactory manner.

page 1686

QUESTION

SUGAR INQUIRY COMMITTEE

fees to Members.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. With reference to the Minister’s statement showing the fees, &c, paid to Messrs. Gunn and Townsend and Mrs. Morgan for their services on the Sugar Inquiry Committee 1931, why were not similar payments made to Mr. F. C. Curlewis, a representative of the Australian Sugar Producers Association, Mr. W. J. Short, a representative of the Queensland Cane-growers Council, Mr. C. G. Fallon , a representative of the employees in the sugar industry, Mr. F. A. L. Dutton, a representative of Australian manufacturers using sugar in their manufactures, and Mr. William Young, a representative of Australian fruit-growers, who were also members of the committee?
  2. Who paid these five members for their services on the committee?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. When the committee of inquiry was appointed it was decided that the expenses of the members representative of organizations other than the Government would be defrayed by the various interests represented. It was stated, however, that funds were not available to pay the travelling expenses, &c., of a representative of the domestic consumers, and it was urged that the Government meet this liability. As it was thought most desirable that the domestic consumers should have representation on the committee, payment of transport and out-of-pocket expenses was approved in this case. After the committee had been sitting for some time the Australian Canning Fruit-growers Association intimated that further funds were not available to continue the payment of the expenses of their representation (Mr. W. Young), and asked that, in order to prevent his withdrawal at that stage, the Government should bear his transport and out-of-pocket expenses. This proposal was approved, and £104 has been paid to him as expenses. This amount was inadvertently omitted from the reply given to the honorable senator on the 30th April. No remuneration for services (other than the ordinary salaries of the departmental officials) has been paid by the Government to any member of the committee . Any payments made to members of the committee have been to cover out-of-pocket expenses.
  2. Presumably the organizations which they represented on the committee boro the expenses.

page 1687

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING

Senator DUNN:

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

  1. How many sea-going vessels on Australian shipping articles were subject to marine surveyors’ examination during the last two years ?
  2. How many of the vessels were given an extension of time?
  3. What did the time amount to in weeks or months to each vessel that was granted such exemptions?
  4. What were the names of the vessels and the companies concerned?
  5. Will the Minister issue instructions by a Commonwealth Government proclamation throughout Australia directing marine surveyors in government or private employment to stop giving exemptions after the general survey of all Australian vessels above and below wind and water, and further recommend that all such repairs on examination and recommended by surveyors be carried out?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– It will be necessary to obtain reports from the various States, which will take some little time. The information will be obtained and supplied to the honorable senator.

page 1687

QUESTION

MR. CRAWFORD VAUGHAN

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Was a report presented by Mr. Crawford Vaughan on his return from his mission to the United States of America in 1918?
  2. If so, will the Minister lay the report, and also the papers referring to his mission, on the table of the Library?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

  1. The papers, which are available in the Prime Minister’s Department relating to this matter, do not contain any report by Mr. Crawford Vaughan.
  2. The file of papers is being placed on the table of the Library.

page 1687

QUESTION

GOLD AND DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRIES

Senator HOARE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. What was the total gold yield and value thereof in Australia covering the period of the last ten years?
  2. What was the total value of the dried fruits produced and sold in the last ten years in Australia and overseas?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The desired information is being obtained.

page 1687

QUESTION

MAIN ROADS GRANT

Senator HOARE:

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

What was the amount of money made available to the various State Governments for main roads -

For the lastfive years; (b) For the last ten years; each period being shown separately?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

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

The amounts shown in the above statement include payments in respect of the financial year 1930-31 up to and including the 6th May, 1931, only.

page 1687

QUESTION

GALVANIZED IRON

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– On the 26th March, Senator E. B. Johnston asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the price of galvanized iron has been further increased in Western Australia ?
  2. What steps have been taken to relieve the people of Western Australia from exploitation in regard to the price of this commodity ?
  3. What is the difference between the retail prices of galvanized iron in (a) Sydney, and (b) Perth?
  4. Will the Government take steps to establish a uniform price for galvanized iron in all the State capitals?

Iam now able to furnish the honorable senator with the following information : -

  1. The manufacturers’ selling prices, and the dealers’ selling prices, were each increased by £1 per ton on the 1st and 2nd March, 1931, respectively.
  2. Galvanized iron is sold by the manufacturers to any one in Western Australia in minimum quantities of 2 tons at exactly the same prices, f.o.r. Fr em an tle, as is charged by the manufacturers to similar buyers in

Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide, ex. company’s stores. In consequence of complaints made regarding the manufacturers’ selling prices and rebates, the Government requested the Tariff Board, inter alia, to inquire and report whether Australian galvanized iron is marketed in an equitable and efficient manner having particular regard to methods of distribution and the manufacturers’ policy of wholesale prices and discrimination (if any) between purchasers. The Tariff Board reported that it was of opinion “ that the Australian manufacturer markets his products in an equitable and efficient manner; price concessions based on quantities purchased apply equally to all classes of purchasers irrespective of their commercial designation, i.e., whether wholesalers, retailers or consumers. The only discrimination exercised by the manufacturer is that of restricting purchasers to those who take a minimum quantity of 2 tons in unbroken cases; the board considers that this is reasonable “.

  1. The dealers’ retail prices of galvanized corrugated iron in 5 feet to 8 feet lengths in cases are: -
  1. The manufacturer has established a uniform price for Fremantle, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Adelaide. This applies to quantities as low as 2 ton lots, and they will supply any purchaser of these quantities at this uniform price. Where higher -prices are being charged this is being done by traders over whom the Commonwealth Government has no control. The regulation of retail prices is a matter that only the State Government can deal with.

page 1688

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR MACHINE GUNS

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– On the 17th April last, Senator Duncan asked several questions relating to machine guns alleged to he missing from the ordnance stocks in Sydney. I replied at a later date to the effect that no machine guns were missing, and that police officers had not searched certain stores in Sydney for eighteen such guns.

In view, however, of the seriousness of the matter the Minister for Defence caused the Director of. the Investigation Branch to make further inquiries, and that officer has now reported as follows : -

With reference to the questions asked in the Senate by Senator Duncan, and your replies thereto as published in Hansard, page 1095, I have to advise that I interviewed Senator Duncan on the 24th April, when he informed me that his questions .were based upon a statement made to him to the effect that the lessee of a bulk store, owned by Mr. Gardiner, in Waverley, stated that recently two police officers visited the store and produced warrants to search the premises for machine guns, &c. A search was made, but without result.

Investigations were made by this branch in Sydney, with the following result: -

The Police Department has no knowledge of any such search, and there is no record of a warrant having been issued.

The tenant of the bulk store referred to is a Mr. George Matteson, but he stated he was not at the store at the time of the search, but his brother, Gustave Matteson, who was present, had allowed the search to proceed.

Mr. Gustave Matteson stated that about the end of February or early in March, two mcn called at the store and stated that they were police; also that they had called three times previously (the store is often left locked up) to search for stolen machine guns. One of them added that they had searched other stores in the district, and it was also stated that the instructions came from the military authorities.

The nien did not give their names or produce any warrant or even means of identification, but Mr. Gustave Matteson invited them to proceed with the search, which they then did very thoroughly, being on the premises for about an hour.

As neither the Police Department nor the 2nd District Base has any knowledge of the matter, and as this office, which would be certain to have known if any such action had been officially designed, was similarly without information, it is clear that the affair was the work of impostors.

Mr. Gustave Matteson supplied a description of the two men, but it is without the slightest distinguishing feature, and discovery will, therefore, not be an easy matter. He will, however, at once report to the police should he see either of the men again.

The result of investigations has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Sydnev.

page 1688

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion of Want of Confidence - Commonwealth Bank Bill

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– by leave - I have just been informed that notice of a motion of want of confidence in the Government has been given in another place, and following the usual parliamentary procedure, government business will be suspended until the debate on the motion has been disposed of. I, therefore, move -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Wednesday next, at 3 p.m.

The adjournment of the Senate until Wednesday next will enable honorable senators to give their closest attention to the Commonwealth Bank

Bill, which is one of the principal measures to be dealt with at the moment, and I hope that, as a result of a careful study of its provisions, they will come back on Wednesday and carry it unanimously.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1689

ADJOURNMENT

Commonwealth Bank Bill: Examination of Sir Robert Gibson - Pbimage Duties

Motion (by Senator Barnes) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.36]. - The Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) a few moments ago charged me with discourtesy because I did not supply to him a list of the questions which I proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson, Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank Board, who was summoned to the bar of the Senate yesterday. I wish now to assure the honorable gentleman that no discourtesy on my part was intended. I did not think he would expect me to furnish him with a list. I may add that, if my omission to do so could be construed as an act of discourtesy, he also must plead guilty to the same charge, because he did not supply me with a list of the questions which he proposed to ask.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– I direct attention to the nature of the replies furnished to me yesterday in answer to questions which I put to the Leader of the Senate with reference to the total amount of revenue collected by the Government in primage duties on jute goods, phosphoric rock, sulphur and fertilizers. The replies stated that the estimated amount of primage duty received for bags and sacks totalled £88,104, and the amount paid on rock phosphates, sulphur and fertilizers was £25,367. I wish to emphasize that these excessive charges on our primary industries have been imposed, so far, without the approval of Parliament. This Government has acted as though it were the sole dictator in the Commonwealth. Without reference to Parliament, it has imposed whatever taxation it has considered necessary. Since November, 1929, the fateful time when it took office, we have had list after list of tariff schedules, all imposing excessive burdens on our primary industries, and only now are members of another place being given the opportunity to consider them. The original primage duty on all imports was 21/2 per cent. Later, again without the approval of Parliament, it was increased to 4 per cent., and up to date this Government has exacted a total of no less than £113,471 from our wool and wheat industries at a time when they can least afford to pay the extra taxation. Because of the low prices ruling overseas for our exportable products, our primary industries are passing through a period of depression without parallel during the last 25 years. The Government chooses this time to impose new tariff charges which are nothing short of barefaced robbery. This additional burden has been imposed on the wheat industry at a time when it has been promised, but has not received, assistance from the Government. That assistance was approved by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament; yet the Government has done nothing to give effect to that decision. Many other sections of the community are being assisted by this Parliament. Previously, when an act was passed granting assistance to an industry, that industry received the benefit of it. The wheat industry stands alone in having failed to reap the advantage of an act passed by both Houses. The act approved of the payment of 3s. a bushel f.o.b. for the last wheat crop, Not a farthing of that amount has been received by the wheat-growers from the Government. On the contrary, this huge burden is added to the costs of their jute goods, and to the fertilizer that is absolutely necessary to the conduct of their operations in most parts of Australia, particularly where the soil is not sufficiently fertile to produce wheat at a profit without fertilization.

The second question that I asked was -

Are the exporters of wheat and wool entitled to a refund of the primage duties paid on cornsacks and wool bales? If not, why not?

The answer that I was given was, “ No “. Why is it that every other person who imports goods into Australia, and then exports them, is given a drawback of the amount of duty paid? The sum of £88,104 has been collected in primage duty, very largely on cornsacks and woolpacks that have subsequently been exported.Why is there not a drawback of the amount of duty paid on those goods when they are exported? Refunds of duty are paid on many other commodities when they are exported. We learn from the newspapers that in Adelaide the master of a Norwegian vessel purchased out of bond a motor car for the sum of 5s. That car was brought into Australia, but no duty was paid upon it, since the purchaser shipped it away again. Yet duty is charged on cornsacks, which are necessary for the carrying on of our great wheat industry, and the woolpacks that are needed by those who are engaged in the pastoral industry. These sacks and packs are simply filled with grain and wool, and immediately exported; yet the Government refuses to refund the amount paid in primage duty when they entered Australia. If any section of the community is given a drawback of duty when the article upon which it has been paid is exported, the primary producers ought to have that consideration extended to them, particularly at a time like the present. I hope that the Government will agree to the whole of these primage duties being refunded immediately the jute goods are exported.

Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP

– Replying to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), I assure the right honorable gentleman that, although I considered it a discourtesy to me that he did not supply me with a list of the quesions that he proposed to ask Sir Robert Gibson yesterday, I took the view that that discourtesy was quite unintentional. I was not similarly discourteous to the right honorable gentleman, because I did not notify Sir Robert Gibson in advance of the questions that I proposed to ask him, and, in fact, did not prepare a list of them before his appearance at the bar of the Senate.

It is somewhat queer that Senator Johnston should be continually complaining - I might almost say, wailing - about the disabilities under which the farmers of his State are suffering. My mind goes back to the situation that developed in this chamber a few months ago when the Government, in its anxiety to help the farmers not onlyof Western Australia, but also of every other State, placed before this Senate certain proposals which it desired to have made law. In contradistinction to the honorable senator’s travail at the present time, on the important occasion when his vote would have counted for something, and would have enabled assistance to be given to the farmers of his and other States, where was he? It would have been necessary to place a bullockbell on him to keep track of his movements. It ill becomes the honorable senator to endeavour to impose on the farmers of his State by making it appear that he is doing his best to help them, when at that crucial period he failed to to do what lay in his power on their behalf.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.48 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 May 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19310507_senate_12_129/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant