Senate
11 November 1931

12^th Parliament · 1^st Session

COMMUNIST PROCESSION IN SYDNEY
QUESTION
- WAGE REDUCTIONS BY ARBITRATION COURT
QUESTION
- WHEAT BOUNTY
QUESTION
- PERTH BROADCASTING STATION
CUSTOMS TARIFF
- Second Reading
PAPERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Assistance to Small Bondholders

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

page 1565

COMMUNIST PROCESSION IN SYDNEY

Debate in the Senate - Speech by Senator Barnes.

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

– by leave - When I awoke from my slumbers this morning I was faced with a newspaper containing great headlines which stated that last evening I defended communism in the Senate. I did not know that there was any need for me to do this, for it has always seemed to me that the communists are quite able to do it for themselves. I thought that I was making a defence of the right of free speech. I was a little surprised also on reading the report of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) to find that he had put a construction upon my remarks which was very far from my thoughts. I know that he had no desire to be unfair to me; at least, I should be very loth to think so. Under the Standing Orders I had no right to reply to his remarks last night, and it is for that reason that 1 have obtained leave to make this statement. The construction that can be put upon words is sometimes rather amazing. I have given careful thought to the words that I used last night, as recorded by Hansard, and I cannot seevery much wrong in them. I cannot see that they should give offence to any one. I certainly had no desire to reflect on any one’s religious beliefs, though some of my friends appear to think that I had such a desire. That is not a thing in which I indulge. It is to make these points clear that I am offering this explanation. I hope that the press of this country which gave so much prominence to my remarks last night will be generous enough to give equal prominence to what I am saying now.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.4]. - by leave - I certainly had no desire to misrepresent the Leader of the Government, but I assure him that the words which he used last night conveyed to my mind, and in speaking to several others after the Senate rose, I found that they also conveyed to their minds, the impression that the honorable gentleman had made a comparison between communism and the Saviour,the Founder of Christianity, and had drawn a similarity between them in regard to doctrines and methods. That was my impression.

Senator Barnes:

– Nothing was further from my thought than to do that.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

– I accept the honorable gentleman’s statement. I would not have said what I did last night but for the impression his words made on me. I cordially accept the honorable senator’s explanation. If what he had intended to say last night had been clearly set forth I would not have said what I did in commenting upon his observations.

page 1565

QUESTION

WAGE REDUCTIONS BY ARBITRATION COURT

Senator KNEEBONE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Minister’s attention been called to the reported decision of the High Court to the effect that in some instances the 10 per cent. reduction in wages and salaries imposed by the Arbitration Court is illegal?
If so, what action, if any, does the Government propose to take to secure justice for those who may have been thus illegally deprived of that portion of their salaries and wages?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

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

The Prime Minister’s attention has been directed to the decision of the High Court in the case of the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation and Atlas Assurance Company, and others.
Where doubts have been thrown by the above decision on the validity of any other orders made by the Full Court of the Arbitration Court, ordering a 10 per cent. reduction, the organizations concerned may bring the matter before the court. The matter does not appear to be one that calls for intervention by the Government.

page 1566

QUESTION

WHEAT BOUNTY

Senator KNEEBONE:

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

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the position of farmers in South Australia in relation to the Commonwealth wheat bounty ?
Is it a fact that thousands of farmers in that State have assigned the whole of their crop proceeds to the State Bank on account of financial assistance rendered by that institution ?
Is it a fact that after the State Bank has recouped itself from the sale of the wheat, other creditors are to be paid from the residue, if any?
Will the Minister see that the farmers who grow the wheat receive the bounty directly and irrespective of their obligations to banks and other creditors?

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, 2 and 3. I am not in a position to state whether the circumstances of the farmersin South Australia are as set out in the honorable senator’s question.

The Wheat Bounty Act - 1931 provides that the bounty shall be paid direct to the grower of the wheat.

page 1566

QUESTION

PERTH BROADCASTING STATION

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

With reference to the PostmasterGeneral’s statement made to Mr. Archdale Parkhill, M.P., in the House of Representatives on 29th October, to the effect that the best offers that could be obtained for the rapid construction of broadcasting stations similar to the proposed Perth station varied from six to twelve months, and that the offers referred to were tenders which closed on 21st March, 1929, has the Postal Department ever tested the market for this class of equipment since the date mentioned?

In view of the fact that nearly three years have since elapsed, will the PostmasterGeneral make inquiries among manufacturers of radio stations as to the price at which equipment of the kind needed for Perth is now obtainable ?

Will the Postmaster-General answer Mr. Parkhill’s question “ from whom were such offers (for broadcasting stations) received”, by stating definitely the names of the tenderers on the occasion referred to?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

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

No; there has been no occasion.
Tenders are being invited for such equipment as it is necessary to purchase for the reconstruction of the Perth station.
The tenderers were (a) the Amalgamated Wireless Company Limited; (b) Standard Telephones and Cables Limited; (c) Scott and Company Limited; (d) United Distributors Limited.

page 1566

CUSTOMS TARIFF

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 10th November (vide page 1559), on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read a second time.

SenatorFOLL (Queensland) [3.8].- As this is a bill eminently suited for discussion in committee, I shall not speak at length on it at this stage. But it is an important measure, and there are several points to which Iwish to allude. Like other honorable senators, I voice my protest against the long delay that has taken place in submitting this measure to Parliament for consideration. Many of the duties provided in the schedule have been in operation for a considerable period. In my opinion, it is wrong for the administration to put such heavy duties into effect without giving Parliament an opportunity of discussing them.

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– That is so. That some of them have needed reconsideration is borne out by the fact that the Government has altered a number of them since the first of the schedules which are now consolidated was tabled in another place. I support the protests made by Senator Payne and Senator Colebatch and others who said that in many cases the reports of the Tariff Board have been ignored by the Government, and that in others it has acted entirely on its own initiative in imposing higher duties. Those who were members of the Senate when the Tariff Board was appointed will remember that it was specifically provided that the board, which has power only to recommend to Parliament, was given authority under the act to conduct a thorough investigation into all tariff matters, and to recommend to the Government prior to any action being taken by Parliament. It was recognized by the government of the day that Parliament, the Minister, and the department were at a great disadvantage in not having the necessary machinery to enable exhaustive inquiries to be made with respect to applications for higher or lower duties. Unfortunately, this Government has taken little or no notice of the Tariff Board’s recommendations, aud in many instances higher duties have been imposed without any recommendations at all having been made by the board. The result is that information is not available with respect to many of the items on which higher duties have been imposed. The Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs in this chamber is in a more favorable position than other honorable senators, and, doubtless, will supply information which should bc . before us now when the schedule is under consideration in committee. In the absence of any recommendation from the Tariff Board, honorable senators are at great disadvantage in discussing many of the duties embodied in the schedule.

I think I am safe in saying that a shorter second- reading speech has never been delivered by any Minister in charge of a tariff measure in this chamber than that delivered by the Assistant Minister (Senator Daly) a week or two ago. In effect, he threw this schedule at us and said, “Here you are. Any information required can be given in committee “. No details were given and the principle upon which the tariff schedule is based was not explained.

I protest against the attitude adopted by honorable senators who regard those opposed to unnecessarily high duties as an ti- Australians or freetraders. Surely they do not suggest that those who hold such views have no desire to assist Australian industries. Yesterday, Senator Crawford delivered a speech-

Senator Kneebone:

– It was a good speech.

Senator FOLL:

– Probably it was according to his lights. He said a good deal with which I am in entire agreement; but I resent his insinuation that any one who is not prepared to “ hit the roof “ in the matter of” tariff duties is a freetrader and indifferent to the welfare of this country. Senator O’Halloran adopted a somewhat similar attitude.

The attitude of honorable senators on this side of the chamber will show that they are always ready to render every possible assistance to protect Australia’s secondary and primary industries. I have always supported a protectionist policy, and I intend to do so in this instance. A supporter of a protectionist policy does not necessarily have to vote for every item in the schedule carrying an enormous increase in duty.

A careful analysis of the policy adopted by the Bruce-Page Government will clearly show that many of the industries established in Australia have been able to continue in operation in consequence of the generous treatment they received from that Government. It is unreasonable to suggest that honorable senators on this side of the chamber who believe that this schedule should be carefully scrutinized are anxious to throw open our ports, and allow foreign goods to be dumped into this country regardless of the country of origin or the conditions under which the goods are manufactured. I remind honorable senators opposite of the benefits obtained by some of the primary industries from the Bruce-Page Government which Senator O’Halloran went to so much trouble to condemn. For instance, the Dairy Export Control Board appointed by the previous Government, enabled those engaged in the dairying industry in Australia to participate in an orderly marketing -scheme which has been of great benefit to them. The sugar industry in Queensland - a great primary industry which is of vital importance to Australia - was safeguarded, in the first instance, by the action of the Bruce-Page Government. It is to the credit of that Government that it took the stand it did to protect that industry which has rendered such service to Australia. The dried fruits industry was practically saved from extinction by the action of the late Government, which was instrumental in having land made available, and afterwards appointing a board to investigate the disabilities under which those engaged in the industry were operating. In many instances their debts were wiped off, and they were given a fresh start.

Senator Lynch:

– Does the honorable senator include the preferences obtained from the Baldwin Government which assisted those engaged in the dried fruits industry?

SenatorFOLL. - The preferences were obtained from the Baldwin Government when the previous Government was in power, but I was referring more particularly to the financial grants made available to fruit-growers in the Murray area, and to the fact that during the period the Bruce-Page Government was in office, a board was appointed to investigate cases of hardship.

We must study the position in which this country finds itself to-day as compared with that which existed when the previous Government was in office. Senator O’Halloran stated that I am fond of reminding the Senate that to-day there are 400,000 workers out of employment in Australia, whereas at no time during the term of office of the BrucePage Government did the number exceed 100,000. Even the latter figure is probably an over estimate of the number who were unemployed at that time, since it was the number quoted by Labour candidates when urging the electors to return a Labour government, so that the problem of unemployment would be dealt with. Notwithstanding that the present Government has been in office for two years, and has had every opportunity to put its policy into operation, unemployment has increased fourfold. The unemployed are now told by Senator O’Halloran and other honorable senators opposite, that their numbers would be 600,000, instead of 400,000, had not the present Government been in office during the last two years. A statement of. that kind will give little satisfaction to men who have been waiting two years for the Government to find work for them.

Senator O’Halloran quoted a list of articles, the importation of which was prohibited by the Government. It is generally admitted that the slump in trade and the high exchange rates would have been sufficient to keep out many of the articles without any prohibition. I have a good deal of sympathy with the policy of prohibiting certain imports. Many of the articles included in the list are things that we can do without, especially when, by prohibiting their importation, we are assisting to adjust our trade balance with other countries. The fact remains, however, that the burden of these prohibitions falls on one section of the community-the primary producers of this country. Prom every election platform at every election candidates emphasize the importance to Australia of the wheat and wool industries, and point out that our national progress is bound up with their prosperity. Recent events have shown that Australia’s prosperity does, indeed, depend on those two industries. Concurrently, with the fall in the prices of wheat and wool, there was an increase in unemployment; and only when the prices of those commodities rose again did the outlook of the people once more become optimistic. Almost immediately the increased prices realized for wheat and wool were announced industrial stocks rose appreciably. The condition of the wheat and wool industries is a barometer of Australia’s prosperity.

– That fact is generally recognized, but I am pointing out that if Australia had not had Great Britain behind it, we could not have developed this country, free and unhampered, for over a century and proclaimed the White Australia policy before the world. It would be futile to suggest that Australia has been protected merely by its own lines of defence.

I propose to give the reason why, in my opinion, the United States of America has been more successful than Great Britain, in many instances, in placing its goods upon the Australian market. The amount of money that has gone from Australia to the United States of America for motor cars is almost staggering. Much of that money might well have been sent to Great Britain.

Senator Daly:

-Much of it could have been spent in our own country.

Senator FOLL:

– I am referring to complete motor cars, which are not made in Australia to-day. The reason why American cars have obtained such a grip on the Australian market is not only that they are considered more suitable than British cars for our conditions - a point which I dispute - but also that distributors in Australia have held joint agencies for British and American cars, -and on° account of the higher commission and the more favorable conditions which the American manufacturers have made available to their agents in Australia, the American article has been pushed by >the local distributors.

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

– Does the honorable senator advocate increased duties on American cars?

Senator FOLL:

– I am not particularly interested in that matter. I would buy from the United States of America only the things that I absolutely need, and cannot obtain from Great Britain, because that country has been prepared to take every possible shilling out of Australia, while on every occasion when we have tried to secure a market in the United States of America for our primary products, high duties have been imposed, with the result that our products have been practically excluded. In view of our adverse trade balance with the United States of America, I would encourage the importation of the products of that country only when they are useful to us as raw material, or necessary in other ways to our development. I have noticed that salesmen employed in agencies that handle both British and American motor cars are ever ready to push the sale of the latter in preference to the British article. If British firms had established their own distributing companies in Australia, and had adopted methods of organization similar to those practised by American companies, they would ‘have largely increased their sales in Australia.

I wish also to refer to the action of the Government in regard to purely revenue duties. I believe that, as in the case of land tax and income tax, revenue duties can he pushed to such a level that, instead of returning more revenue, they will actually return less. The present Government came into power pledged not to increase revenue duties. We know, of course, that it has increased revenue duties, in some cases to such an extent that it has killed the goose that laid the golden egg, and has actually lost revenue thereby. The present Treasurer (Mr. Theodore), speaking at Balmain on die 24th September, 1929, when he was campaign director of the Labour party, gave a definite undertaking that Labour, if returned to office, would not increase revenue duties. According to a report published in the Sydney Morning Herald - and, as far as I know, this report was never corrected by the Treasurer - he stated -

Labour will not impose higher excise duties on liquor or tobacco.

A Voice. - We want it reduced. (Prolonged applause ) .

When Mr. Theodore was able to proceed after this popular interjection, he said, “ noi will a Labour government impose customs duties for the sole purpose of raising revenue, as Dr. Page has been so fond of doing “.

– The greatest migration to Australia took place during the gold rush. When the Fisher Government was in power, it certainly placed some sort of embargo on the entry of migrants, but the Queensland migration arrangements were solely under the control of the State Government. One would imagine that the development of the secondary industries would have provided more employment and encouraged the influx of population from overseas, but statistics show that New Zealand, which has a comparatively low tariff, the duties averaging about 15 or 20 per cent., has enjoyed a greater proportionate increase of population during the last 30 years than has the Commonwealth. In 1891, the population of Australia was 2,250,194. By the 31st March, 1901, it had increased to 3,373,801- a satisfactorily rapid advance. During the same period the population of New Zealand increased from 626,658 to 772,719. In 1901 federation became an accomplished fact, and the tariff policy of Australia passed to the control of the Commonwealth Parliament. The slower growth of our population in the succeeding years is significant. By the 30th June, 1931, Australia’s population had grown to 6,500,536, an increase in 30 years of less than 100 per cent. In the 30 years New Zealand’s population rose from 772,719 to 1,510,914. That dominion cannot be regarded as having greater natural advantages than Australia. We have vast primary industries, metals of all kinds, secondary industries established throughout the Commonwealth, and extensive coal deposits and forests. Having regard to all these advantages there must be something wrong with our policy, when New Zealand, which is very little larger than the State of Victoria,has a relatively greater increase of population than the Commonwealth.

The figures for the last ten years during which very high customs duties have operated are even more striking. Despite an extensive migration scheme, which cost Australia millions of pounds, our population rose slowly; from 5,435,734 at the 30th June, 1921, it advanced to 6,500,536 at the end of last June, an increase of only 17 per cent. during the decade. In that period New Zealand, which, I believe, has not spent nearly as much as Australia on migration, increased its population from 1,218,000 to 1,510,914, a growth of approximately 25 per cent. That dominion is not nearer to the great centres of population, and is not naturally more attractive to migrants than is Australia; yet its increase of population was8 per cent. greater than that of Australia. I remind the Senate, too, that during the last ten years the Commonwealth and States have borrowed enormous sums and. incurred heavy expenditure in the development of primary and secondary production. Our industries have been heavily protected, and the prices of primary products have been high; yet, despite the apparent ability of the country to maintain many more people, the increase of population has been relatively small. Had the increase been at the same rate as in New Zealand, our population to-day would be 400,000 greater than it is.

Senator Kneebone:

asked a few moments ago whether I thought that we should bring migrants to Australia at the present time. I agree that we cannot introduce more people during the present period of unemployment, but had we given more attention to migration in the past, and increased our population in the same proportion as New Zealand, probably a good deal of the present unemployment would have been avoided. The lack of work for many of our people is largely due to under population; we control a large continent, we have been obliged to expend heavily on public works, and the overhead costs are too great a burden on a small population. The boot manufacturers, woollen millers, producers of dried fruits, and various other sections of producers, would be very much better off if they were catering for a bigger local market. [Extension oftime granted.] Over production would have been avoided had our population increased in the same ratio as that of New Zealand. One of the earliest matters to receive attention by any government that may be in office when the worst of the present depression is past, will be an increase of our population with a view to providing a greater local market for our industries.

Senator Lynch:

– The honorable sen ator’s argument is that our high duties have caused Australia to lose population, while the low duties of New Zealand have caused that dominion to increase hers.

Senator FOLL:

-I would not say that; but the added advantage which high duties were supposed to give Australia in assisting her to establish secondary industries have not materialized. It would seem that the argument that a country must build up her secondary industries in order to progress is not borne out, for New Zealand has concentrated upon primary industries and has relied upon a relatively low tariff. She has increased her population while ours is decreasing.

Honorable senators interjecting -

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask honorable senators, first, to refrain from interjecting, and, secondly, to refrain from interjections not addressed to the honorable senator who has the floor. Such conduct is, to say the least of it, extremely discourteous.

Senator FOLL:

– I wish to make some observations on the Australian woollen industry, although I have no doubt that Senator Guthrie will discuss the subject at length. It has been gratifying to our people generally to know that our woollen industry has made such great strides in recent years; but it must be apparent . to everybody that too many mills have been established here. At first our woollen manufacturers concentrated their attention upon the manufacture of flannels and blankets. In the course of time the market for these articles became over supplied. Our manufacturers then turned their attention to a more lucrative branch of the industry - the manufacture of worsteds. Factories were established in many places, regardless of economic considerations. Many little country towns received attention from company promoters, and mills were established largely because of the advocacy of the agents of woollen mills machinery. I do not think that this applies so much to Victoria as to New

South Wales. We know that many mills have been established in towns like Orange and Albury.

Senator Guthrie:

– It could not be expected that they wouldflourish under the operations of the Lang gang.

SenatorFOLL. - The woollen industry has now become part and parcel of our industrial activity, and I am quite certain that no honorable senator would think of doing anything to injure it. If I am satisfied that certain duties are necessary for the proper development of this industry, I shall vote in favour of them. But I was surprised the other day to read a. statement of a visiting English lady to the effect that blankets were being sold in Australia more cheaply than in Great Britain. If this is so why is there the need for such heavy protection ? We have a 30 per cent. exchange, primage duty, freight, insurance, and customs duties to give protection to this industry, and yet, I understand, still higher customs duties are being sought.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– If prices are lower here than in Great Britain why have we no export trade?

SenatorFOLL. - That is what I should like to know. A gentleman who was in Canberra last week showed us samples of the products of certain Victorian woollen mills. They seemed to me, as a layman, to be of excellent quality. We were told that these goods were selling in Australia at the same price as similar goods were selling for in Great Britain. In these circumstances, it is surely pertinent to ask, first, why there should be any need for additional duties; and, secondly, why we have not a substantial export trade?

SenatorO’Halloran. - The statements made by the honorable senator are at variance with those contained in the Tariff Board report.

SenatorFOLL. - The Tariff Board report criticizes the present tariff policy in many respects. It is extraordinary that our greasy wool can be taken 14,000 miles overseas, scoured, made into tops, spun, turned into worsted, and sent back to Australia at a heavy return freight to enter into serious competition with woollen materials made in Australia. I have always wondered why it is neces sary for us to export greasy wool. Why cannot we manufacture all our greasy wool into tops and hold sales of wool tops instead of greasy wool? I understand that some of the overseas manufacturers prefer to scour the greasy wool according to their own methods; but I look forward to the time when we shall scour all our own wool. I shall support any duties that I consider to be essential for the encouragement of the woollen industry ; but I hope that the Minister in charge of this bill will give us more information about the necessity for these duties than has hitherto been made available.

– I hope that the Minister will make an investigation into this subject.

The building industry has probably been hit harder than any other industry in Australia. In my opinion, the very high cost of building material is largely responsible for this. A builder told me not very long ago that one union, with which the men he employs are connected, had 90 per cent, of its total membership Unemployed. He said that men had come to him pleading for work for a few shillings a day. I know that the unemployment in this industry has been caused by a number of factors; but I have no doubt whatever that the high cost of building material is blameable to a considerable extent. To-day, the man who desires to build a block of offices in a city, or to knock up a cow shed in the country, or to build a suburban home, finds the cost’ of building out of all proportion to what it was a few years ago. The price of timber is a vital consideration in the cost of building. Many of our people think that the importation of softwoods .must necessarily restrict the use of our own hardwoods. I have gone t’o a good deal of trouble to investigate this subject, both in my own State and in other parts of’ the Commonwealth, and I have formed the opinion that softwoods and hardwoods are not competitors to any great extent. There is a proper use for both hard and soft woods in the same building. It seems to me that if we restrict the use of softwoods we shall also reduce the demand for hardwoods. The imposition of heavy duties on. Oregon has not had the effect of increasing, very greatly, the use of hardwoods. In practically all building operations, hard and soft woods alike are needed. Queensland is practically the only State in the Commonwealth producing softwoods in any quantity. I do not think Australia could have carried on during the ten or fifteen years when building operations were booming had it been compelled to depend solely upon the supply of local timbers. Mr. Swain, the Forestry Commissioner of Queensland, in his report for the year ended the 30th June, 1929’, said-

The native saw-milling industry lias been encouraged in. past years to develop overcrowded proportions by the ready availability of raw material from forests alienated by the Crown and in process of clearing. With the exhaustion of these private supplies the State forests are proving inadequate to carry the existing saw-milling capacity of the State. The normal consumption of softwood in Queensland is 100 super, feet of sawn timber per capita per annum, equal to, say, 130 super, feet of log timber, or, for the present population of 900,000 souls, 117,000,000 super, feet, at which rate the native pineries of Queensland would be finally cut out in twelve years1 time. This time will be lengthened by the rationing policy of the board.

The Forestry Department of Queensland, finding that the depletion of the softwoods had reached such alarming proportions, has for. years deemed it necessary to ration the quantity made available to the saw-millers. It is practically impossible for the whole of the softwood requirements of Australia to be supplied by our own mills, and it will always be necessary to depend upon the importation of a certain quantity. The Tariff Board, after investigating the position very exhaustively, more particularly with respect to the quantity of Oregon pine used in the different States, says -

Dealing first with the effect on the Aus-! tralian timber industry, information available to the board appears to establish ns a fact that, notwithstanding any action which might be taken as the result of the conference, it will still be necessary for a considerable quantity of Oregon to be imported for purposes for which it is essential, or, if not absolutely essential, at any rate the most suitable’. Amongst those purposes might be mentioned forming for concrete work and scaffolding. Even in hardwood, producing States like Tasmania and Western Australia, Oregon appears to be used for these purposes. Other uses to which Oregon is put, apart from the matter of price, are heavy beams, shoreing, gantry work, and for wood pipes. Oregon can bp obtained in greater lengths than it is possible to secure in hardwoods, and for that reason it is particularly valuable where long spans have to be bridged. A considerable proportion of the Oregon imported is “ clear “ Oregon, which is used, for special purposes, and is only partly competitive with Australian hardwoods. The board is of the opinion that to meet the special requirements referred to the importation of considerable quantities of oregan will continue, unless, of course, importation is made prohibitive. If importation were actually blocked, substitutes would necessarily have to be found, but the board considers that for many purposes the job would suffer seriously by the substitution.

In dealing with the cost of building to the individual, the board goes on to point out that unless it is possible to import soft timbers for use in conjunction with our Australian hardwoods, the cost of construction will be largely increased. This is an important matter to homebuilders, particularly in Queensland, where the dwellings consist almost solely of timber or some suitable substitute. The board further states -

There would appear to be little doubt that the higher duty sought would not prove effective in bringing about the replacement in Queensland oforegon by hardwoods to any appreciable extent.

One of the difficulties in Queensland is that the Forestry Department, probably acting under directions from the Government, has been used as a means to obtain revenue. The royalties on softwoods have been increased to such an extent that they are almost a luxury.

Senator Reid:

– The present. Treasurer (Mr. Theodore) and Mr. McCormack were responsible for that.

Senator FOLL:

– Yes. When they were in office they used the State forests purely for the purpose of obtaining revenue. I would not offer such strong opposition to the policy adopted had a scheme of reafforestation been embarked upon ; but the whole of the money derived from this source, and which in one year amounted to £300,000, has been paid into the Consolidated Revenue. Unfortunately, this money, which should have been used in reafforestation, was employed by the previous Queensland Government in. establishing State butcher shops and other State undertakings, with disastrous results. The Queensland forests are now largely depleted, and the price of timber has increased out of all proportion to its value. It should be the policy of all Australian governments to conserve the forests in the areas under their control, and to replace all trees that have been removed. I know that it is necessary to utilize the timber in all trees before they become “ ringy,” but adequate provision should be made for reafforestation in order to provide against the time when softwood supplies from overseas will either seriously diminish or cease. In some continental countries every man who fells a tree is compelled to plant two.

I again urge upon those engaged in secondary industries to realize that they are under the same obligation to the country as are those engaged in primary production. The primary producers have to dispose of their products in the world’s markets at world parity. It is true that the producers of butter receive slightly more for sales made in the home market; but, generally speaking, the primary producers have to dispose of their commodities at world parity.

The dominion of Canada, which resembles Australia in many respects, and where the standard of living compares favorably with our own, is doing much move than we are. The population of Canada is larger than that of Australia; but, generally speaking, the industries in Canada are conducted on similar lines to our own. According to the Canadian Year-Book, exports of fully or partly manufactured goods for the year ended 31st March, 1929, were valued at . £100,000,000. Of that amount £40,000,000 worth was exported to the United States of America., notwithstanding the high tariff imposed against imports from Canada. Those figures should be an object lesson to Australian manufacturers, who should realize that it is time they placed their house in order.

No one is desirous of injuring any of our primary or secondary industries, but those engaged in secondary industries in this country should realize that a heavy obligation rests upon. them. It is time they conducted their undertakings on economic lines, and assisted the development of this country by exporting their products overseas, as the primary producers are doing. The exports of primary production have assisted in adjusting our trade balance, in paying for our imports, and in meeting interest on our overseas commitments. It is unreasonable that that responsibility should fall upon one section of the community. I am at a loss to understand why a schedule imposing such heavy duties has been submitted to this Parliament. We protect industries to enable them to become firmly established, and to meet unfair competition from overseas; but the proposals of the Government in many instances go beyond that.

do not subscribe to some of the attacks made upon Australian manufacturers, who are as loyal and as essential to the community as are the primary producers. I find that some of the manufacturers have been actually staggered at the tariff which this Government has introduced. I.n” a bulletin published by the Sydney Chamber of Manufactures, dated 15th June, 1931, the manufacturers in that State resent the whole of the burden being placed upon their shoulders. They state -

Recent tariff criticisms imply that the Chamber of Manufactures is responsible for the whole of the present tariff. These are either bused on a lack of knowledge of the facts or u mischievous attempt to obscure the true position. We protest against the implication Mint we are responsible for the embargoes, surcharges and primage duties. These were steps taken by the Government mainly for the balancing of our external trade. They are not part of our protectionist policy.

The chamber has also been held responsible for the tariff on certain industries of a nature exotic to Australia, such, for example, as kraft paper, castor oil, &e. No representations have hee” made by thu chamber in connexion with these or any such ; nor has its support been (liven to the imposition of duties of this character.

In furtherance of its clearly expressed policy for effective protection for maintaining and stimulating industries, both primary and secondary, the chamber’s representations to the Customs Administration at Canberra have been made only after the fullest consideration of the needs of particular industries, of their efficiency and. of the Australian market for their products. The combined schedule of 405 tariff variations tabled by the Minister for Trade and Customs in the House of Representatives on Kith March last, incorporated the whole of the Scullin Government tariff proposals since the 21st November, 1029. Less than one-third of these has been the direct concern of this chamber and they include none of the prohibitions or surcharges.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Senator Plain). - Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

– As the first Victorian senator to speak on the tariff, I wish to say, first of all, that I am a protectionist to the backbone. Nevertheless, I am prepared to stand up against the Sydney gangsters who, because of the absurd conditions of employment laid down by the Lang Government, advocate a system of protection which amounts to prohibition. I hope that the protectionists of the old school,, among whom I include myself, have sufficient sense to realize that customs dutiescannot be heaped on the community without regard to economic conditions, or thewelfare of the community generally, including the workers themselves.

The tariff schedule before us appears tohave been drafted through an open gate,, for it contains no evidence of having been prepared in the light of the information supplied by economists and members of the Tariff Board, or of economic facts, which should be known to every person in the community. I have always been a staunch protectionist. I realize that, although Australia must rely chiefly on her exports of wool, wheat, butter, fruits, metals and other primary products, it. is essential that, side by side with the development and expansion of our primary industries, we must build up secondary industries in this country. It is wrong to imagine that we can develop and populate this country and find employmentfor all our people unless secondary industries are encouraged. We have a big and wonderful country; but not every person in it can be a primary producer. Notwithstanding that we have a population of only about 6,500,000 people in a country comprising 3,000,000 square miles, secondary, as well as primary industries are necessary if the country is to prosper.

In 192S-29, during the term of office of the Bruce-Page Government, and under a policy of high protection, there were 22,000 factories in Australia, employing 461,000 workers. The average wage for males was then £247, and for females, £110 per annum. Two years later, under a government which has broken all previous records in the matter of high duties, we have unprecedented unemployment. Since May, 1929, unemployment in Australia has increased from 9.5 per cent, of the population to over 30 per cent., with the result that there is stagnation throughout the country. Although Australia will continue to depend chiefly on primary industries, it is economically unsound to export the whole of our production of wool, wheat, skins, hides, fruit, iron and other products in their raw state. We must build up industries which will manufacture these raw materials into finished articles for use, at least by the people of this country, and also, if possible, by exporting the products of our secondary industries/ assist to pay our overseas indebtedness. So far the whole burden has fallen on our primary industries, since 97 per cent, of the total exports from the Commonwealth consist of primary products. Before I conclude, I hope to show that some of our secondary industries will soon have developed to such a stage that they will be able to find an overseas market for their products.

We hear a good deal about the Australian standard of living. At present, there is no real standard of living for our people, although it is true that those who have been kept in constant employment, particularly those in sheltered positions which cannot be interfered with, can still claim a . standard. But where is our boasted standard of living when 30 per cent, of the workers are on the bread line or below it because of unemployment?In the light of the facts which stare us iu the face, the less we say of our standard of living the better. The position was well put the other day by Senator Kneebone when he said that in South Australia wages had fallen, prices were falling, the purchasing power of the people was falling, and employment also was on the decrease. He pointed out that that State had had two years of falling prices and falling wages, and that every one knew the effect on the workers. Coming from a loyal supporter of the Government, the honorable senator’s remarks are a testimony to the incapacity of the Government which has been in power for two years.

Notwithstanding that I believe that many of the duties in the schedule are unnecessarily high, I am still a protectionist. I believe that it is necessary to give adequate protection to our secondary industries in order that they may compete with the products of other countries, as, for instance, the Continent of Europe, and Eastern countries like China and Japan, where the working hours are much longer and the wages lower than in Australia. We must give sufficient protection to our secondary industries to enable their products to coinpete in the home market against the pro- ducts of countries in which either coloured labour is employed, or the workers labour under conditions far inferior to those in Australia.

There ‘ are several secondary industries which can be established in Australia on sound economic lines, among them being the textile industry and the iron and steel industry. On the other hand, it is unsound to go too far in the direction of prohibiting the importation of goods from countries which are good customers of Australia. A policy of prohibition results in the creation of’ monopolies and combines. It is, therefore, wise to have a careful investigation of the effect of high duties before they are imposed. Australia is fortunate in having at its disposal the services of able economists and others to advise the Government in tariff matters. I advise all honorable senators to read ‘The Australian Tariff - An Economic Inquiry, by Professors Giblin, Brigden and Copland, and Messrs. Dyason and Wickens. The Tariff Board is composed of business men of experience who, like the other gentlemen named, are entirely unbiased in these matters. The Tariff Board weighs carefully the evidence which is given before it, and its reports are worthy of our most careful consideration. Yet the Government has disregarded its findings, and the advice of economists, while in other instances it has gone ahead without seeking their advice. Its action has led to the creation of monopolies, and has heavily handicapped primary producers, while preventing the cost of living from coming down. Although Australia produces wool, mutton, beef, wheat, fruits, butter and other primary products in abundance, the cost of living has not fallen in proportion to the drop in the prices of those’ primary products. Surely something is wrong ! I desire . to quote from the publication to which I just referred to show what these trained economists have to say before we, who are only laymen in these matters, decide on the attitude we shall adopt towards this tariff. The trained economists to whom I have referred conducted their investigation into tariff matters in May, 1929, before the increased duties and the prohibitions which were imposed by the present Government came into operation. In their report they say -

The tariff imposes heavy costs, but there are compensations.

With that statement, I agree. The higher costs are, to some extent, offset by the employment which is provided for Australian workers -

The adoption of a considerable, but not unlimited, amount of protection is justifiable on economic grounds in the circumstances of Australian industry.

We can all agree with that -

We estimate that Australian products which are protected, cost £30,000,000 more than the same goods could be imported for duty free . . . Preferential duties against nonBritish goods add something more to Australian prices, perhaps, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.

Senator Duncan made a claim which, I think, was grossly unfair. He said that we give the Mother Country far greater preference than she extends to us, and he alleged that that preference had amounted to as much as £10,000,000 a year. The economists show that as far back as 1929, before this Government imposed prohibitive duties, the actual amount of the preference was £2,000,000 a year; but since the present tariff with its embargoes and prohibitions has come into force, it is an idle boast to say that we extend any preference to the Mother Country. As a matter of fact, we give her no preference whatever. When the tariff reaches the committee stage, I intend to do what I can to maintain adequate protection for all industries, that can be economically established and carried on in Australia, and to see also that we give a definite preference to the Old Country that has done so much for us. The economists also say -

The diversion of production to the protected industries has increased the diversity of occupations and of opportunities, and introduced more stability into the national income than if it had been more dependent on the seasons and tho vagaries of overseas markets.

Generally, owing to the quality of out uncultivated land and the effect of increased exports on the market, we are satisfied that the same average income for the same population could not have been obtained without protection.

That is a good answer to those who claim that protection has been of no use to Australia -

The tariff has had the effect of pooling the national income to a greater extent than would have been practicable if assistance to industry were derived solely through the more obvious method of taxation. Employment has been subsidized at the expense of land values, enabling the standard of living to be maintained with a rapidly increasing population.

That hits me and others who own land, in that it shows conclusively that in the development of the secondary industries, the tariff has not resulted in upholding the value of our land -

The tariff falls with the greatest weight on the export industries. The value of their land and fixed capital is reduced, and the expansion of their production is retarded.

I have quoted sufficient to show that, after careful investigation, those economists consider that a protective policy is necessary in a young country like Australia ; that we cannot depend entirely on primary production. But it appears to me that the question we should ask is this: Are we to give protection to the extent of prohibition, so that all kinds of factories can manufacture under absurd laws and conditions such as obtain in New South Wales under the Lang Government? Members of the Government, and some honorable senators from New South Wales, seem to imagine that all that is required is to make the tariff wall so high that factories can be carried on irrespective of their efficiency or inefficiency, and of the hours of labour, and the rates of pay. That means slamming the door in the face of the old Mother Country, and other nations which are good customers of ours. It means building and bolstering up a race of inefficients, and definitely causes dear, instead of cheap, living. A tariff so high as that asked for in New South Wales, together with the hours of work and the rates of pay observed in that State, would encourage inefficiency, and increase the cost of living to the whole community. I will not vote for that sort of protection, keen protectionist though I am, because it really amounts to prohibition. I am, as I have already said, in favour of protecting only those industries that can be, and are conducted on sound economic lines. They must have well-equipped machinery, and they must be efficient. We have too many badly-managed, tin-pot, hothouse industries in Australia that have been built up amid artificial surroundings, and have produced an entirely false atmosphere, besides increasing the cost of living.

Senator Crawford:

– Give examples of such industries.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The manufacture of eye-glasses, toothpicks and pearl buttons. Scores of such industries are protected under the tariff. On plate glass there is a duty of 600 per cent., and other items carry a duty of 1,000 per cent. What is the use of making brass buttons, toothpicks, and eye-glasses in Australia for a population ‘of 6.000,000? Such trifling industries arc totally different from the textile and the iron and steel industries, which are worth encouraging.

The textile industry, particularly in the manufacture of woollen goods, has proved economically sound and highly efficient, both in regard to the quality of its manufactures and the variety of its designs. There is keen internal competition iu the industry. The Australian woollen mills now manufacture rugs and blankets, woollen materials suitable for men’s and women’s clothing, in a great variety of designs and weights, and the product is equal to that of the best woollen factories in the world.

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– They are even exporting their goods.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Yes. This is an industry which we ought to encourage, because it is deserving of protection. I have received a letter from the chairman of the Wool Manufacturers Association, in which ho urges the retention of the present duties, and remarks -

We trust you will do all possible to help us, as it would be an absolute tragedy for the woollen mills to have to again light for a decent protective tariff.

From inquiries that I have made, I find that this great industry is definitely entitled to protection. It may be argued that the Australian factories have, at first hand, the biggest choice of the best wool that the world produces. That is true, but I point out that the claims of this industry need careful consideration. Although some honorable senators may think that the tariff on textiles is out of all reason, I do not consider that to be so, after investigating the conditions of manufacture in other countries. The factory rates of pay in

Australia are four times as high as in Japan, and six times as high as in China. The hours of employment in Victoria are 48 per week - the 44-hour week in New South Wales is too short - while in China and Japan the working week consists of 72 hours. China and Japan have the same opportunities to buy wool as other countries. It will be said that Japan is a good customer of Australia. I admit that she bought 500,000 bales last year, but she does not purchase only Australian wool; she also obtains wool from the Argentine aud South Africa. With her working week of 72 hours, and her wage of 16s. per week, she has a tremendous start on Australian manufacturers, and her mills can produce cheaply compared with those in Australia, which are not in any way molly-coddled. Our employees do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. They are efficient, they work long enough, and their wages are not too high. Another strong point is that our mills are not profiteering under the very high tariff that has been granted to them, for since this tariff was imposed, the prices of all classes of woollen materials to the public have been reduced. The decrease in the factory prices under this admittedly high tariff has led to fierce internal competition, and instead of the public being exploited, it has had the benefit of that competition. Domestic flannels have been reduced in price by 33 per cent.; coloured flannels, 33 per cent.; all wool blankets - and there are none better in the world than those made in Australia. - 41 percent.; rugs, 36 per cent.; worsted suitings, 40 per cent.; overcoatings, 40 per cent.; and low tweeds, 33 per cent. Adding up the various quotations applying to woollen goods, it will be found that the decrease in the prices charged by the mills has averaged over 33 per cent., which shows the efficiency of the industry.

Senator Crawford:

– A strong argument in favour of high protection.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– The woollen industry is worth protecting. I am strongly in favour of adequate protection .for those big industries that have been, established on sound economic lines, and no industry that I know of is more deserving of being placed within that category than the woollen industry, because there is a huge supply in Australia of the best wool that the world produces, and internal competition has resulted in a manufactured product of excellent quality and great variety at reasonable prices.

In arriving at a conclusion iu regard to the amount of protection that it is advisable to give to this industry, honorable senators, according to the report from which I have quoted, should ask, first of all, “Is the industry desirable?” Of course the great textile industry i9 desirable. We have proved that, as conducted in Australia, it is extraordinarily efficient, and, having regard to the reduction in prices, there is no profiteering. This shows that the industry has been of benefit to Australian consumers under a high protective tariff; but there are other industries which do not show such results. Therefore, I claim that, when we go into committee, every item in the schedule should be discussed on its merits, according to the evidence available to us from the economists and the Tariff Board, and we should formulate our opinions accordingly.

To summarize, 1 may say that the prices of the woollen mills have been reduced, the goods are of high quality, and last, but by no means least, the industry gives employment at fair wages to a large number of Australians under pleasant, hygienic and humanitarian surroundings. The dust iu the factories is removed by fans, and the work is One of the most healthful occupations, because the mills are comfortable, well ventilated, and well lit. I desire honorable senators to remember these facts when they come to consider the individual items in the tariff. They may be inclined to say, “Look at these high duties; why cannot our factories compete on equal terms with those of other countries “. I desire them to remember that the wages paid in the textile industry, which are not a penny too much, are high compared with those in Britain, Germany, France, Belgium, and Italy. If we consider the conditions in the textile industry in China and Japan, we find that, in addition to the long hours of work, and the low wages paid there, those countries can obtain their supplies of wool as easily and as cheaply as can Australian manufacturers.

The wages in the textile industry in Victoria for a 48-hour week are £3 16s. 6d. for males, and £2 for females. In Britain, for a 48-hour week, wages are respectively £2 6s. 4d., aud £1 11s Id. In Japan, however, textile workers have a working week of 72 hours, aud receive 15s., while in China they work 72 hours for Ss. Honorable senators, when considering the duties imposed for the protection of the textile trade, ought to bear these facts in mind, and they will realize that if our mills are to prosper and develop, it is absolutely essential that all branches of the textile industry should receive adequate protection. Australia has always excelled in the production of wool. She is unique in that, while she possesses only 16 per cent, of the world’s sheep, she produces in value 32 per cent, of the world’s wool. This year we are going to put up a new record both in regard to the number of sheep and the quantity of wool we produce. For the first time, we shall have 115,000,000 sheep, and also, for the first time iu our history, we shall produce 1,000,000,000 lb. of wool, over 3,000,000 bales. We have topped 3,000,000 bales before, but we have never reached 1,000,000,000 lb. of wool, our previous record being 960,000,000 lb. Even at an average price of 9d. per lb., our wool clip this year will be worth £37,500,000.

The wool-raising industry has been responsible in the past for over 50 per cent, of our exportable wealth, and that industry has been built up without any protection. It has never asked for any. Senator Duncan said, quite incorrectly, that the primary producers had clamoured for, and obtained, protection. That is not so. The woolgrowers, who are the backbone of the community, and who have carried the country in the past, have produced 50 per cent, of its exportable wealth practically every year since McArthur first landed his few sheep in Australia. They have never asked for any protection, nor have they received any assistance by way of grants or bounties. Their lot has been persecution, not protection. They have been singled out for special taxation such as the land tax, which is an unjust class tax. This industry has been built up to its present standard because Australia is particularly suited in climate, soil, and herbage for sheep-raising, while the early pioneers, and those who followed after them, carried on the industry efficiently. Senator Duncan said that those engaged in growing wheat, barley, oats, &c, had obtained protection for their products, but I remind him that we do not import those things, and it was most unfair of the Sydney-sider to say that the primary producers had clamoured more than any one else for protection. 1 have emphasized the efficiency of the woollen manufacturing industry, because it has a direct bearing upon my argument. Until recently, our woollen mills were not receiving sufficient protection, and for 50 years they struggled along making little profit. Some were unable to equip themselves with the most up-to-date machinery. Some never paid any dividends, and many went out of business. Under the present tariff, the industry has developed rapidly, and become so efficient that the mills can produce the whole of Australia’s requirements. The best machinery has been put into them, because, without efficient and up-to-date machinery, they cannot’ compete. I hope that eventually we shall develop the industry to such an extent that we shall be able to export. Already the wool-raising industry provides employment for a great many people, and furnishes half our exportable wealth, but there is no reason why we should not go further, and export our manufactured textiles. Under the stimulation of the new tariff some of our mills have sent representatives to Canada, the western States of the United States of America, and to South Africa, seeking orders, and we have sold wool tops and blankets to Canada, the United States of America, and China. Some of the best blankets I have ever seen were made in Warrnambool, and, I was informed that they had been ordered for disposal in China and the western States of the United States of America and Canada. We have also exported tops, which are combed wool, to Canada.

Senator J B Hayes:

– We import blankets, also.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am surprised to hear that. I cannot see why we should import any blankets at all.

Senator Foll said that we should scour our wool here before exporting it, and thus furnish employment. That silly suggestion has been made before, but it is quite impracticable, because every woollen mill makes its own blend of various wools before scouring, according to the type of material in which it specializes. I have never been in any mill anywhere in the world which has not an individual blend.

Senator Foll:

– During the war Australia built up an export trade in wool tops.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– We still export tops.

Senator Foll:

– Well, that is carrying the process a good deal further than scouring.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– It is a step further, but the tops are exported to people who have asked for a special quality, and the wool is sorted to that quality and combed.

Another advantage of the textile industry is that it encourages decentralization. Victoria has many splendid woollen mills, every one of them up to date, while some have developed an overseas trade. Geelong, of course, is ae Bradford of Australia, but besides the mills in that town there are mills also at Ballarat, Stawell, Daylesford, Castlemaine, and Wangaratta. Australia’s policy in the past has, unfortunately, tended too much to centralization, with the result that our people have been driven into the cities. Victoria provides a glaring example of this evil, because no less than 57 per cent, of its total population lives within 20 miles of the Melbourne General Post Office Last year, the Australian woollen mills purchased 176,000 bales of wool, and this year it is anticipated that their requirements will be 200,000 bales, or 7 per cent, of the total clip. I hope that eventually we shall manufacture all our own woollen requirements within Australia - I do not want to see an ounce of woollen material imported - but even if we supplied all our own requirements in this respect, our woollen mills could absorb only 10 per cent, of the clip. We must sell raw wool to other countries, and I hope we shall also sell manufactured woollen goods.

I want to quote now from the report of the Tariff Board. In this connexion I may say that the Year-Booh has not correctly stated the added value given to our primary production by manufacture, say, of wool into cloth or milk into cheese. The value of primary products as stated is the world’s open market price, whereas in the case of manufactured goods the Y ear-Book gives the added value by manufacturing as plus heavy ocean freights and enormous protective duties. Even then primary products account for 75 per cent, of the annual wealth production of this country. Although I am an enthusiastic protectionist, I believe in having regard to the’ best advice available. I was the originator of the slogan, “ Australian goods for Australian people,” and I have always practised what I preached. For the last fifteen years I have not worn or used anything not produced in. this country; I apply that practice even to bootlaces. In regard to motor cars, if I cannot get an Australian or British machine, I am content to go without. The greatest help we can give to our people is to be enthusiastic supporters of the products of our own country. If our 6,500,000 people were to insist on buying Australian-made goods, they would give much more assistance to our factories and primary producers than is afforded by an abnormally high tariff, which merely increases the cost of living. [Extensionof time granted.]

Senator Kneebone, a staunch supporter of the Government, said -

We all recognize that undue interference with trade and commerce is uneconomic and unsound. The duty of the Senate is to decide what duties, if any, are excessive, and the extent to which they should be reduced.

With that sentiment, I entirely agree. Some honorable gentlemen have overstressed the value of the home market, which is often wrongly declared to be the best market. The United States of America has the highest tariff wall with the exception of Australia, which is so high that even an aeroplane cannot get over it. Yet, notwithstanding a home market of 120,000,000 people and record holdings of gold, the people of the United States of America are experiencing unprecedented unemployment and misery. This proves that over-protection, the cornering of gold, and the selfish resolve to be self-contained and trade only with their own people, have broken down hopelessly.

Senator Colebatch, in one of the best speeches I have heard delivered in this chamber, dealt with the effect of prohibitive duties in Australia, and quoted authentic statistics showing that, although the value of primary products has collapsed, the price of industrial products has steadily increased. Using 100 as the index number for the wholesale price in 1913, the honorable gentleman revealed these interesting figures -

Those figures show clearly that something is radically wrong with our economic system, and explain why the cost of living has not fallen as it should have done. We have the cheapest wool, wheat, fruit, vegetables, milk and butter; no other country in the world is so rich in the necessaries of life. Wool has been selling at from 8½d. to 9d. a lb..-; prime mutton and beef in Sydney and Melbourne have been realizing wholesale from 2½d. to 3d. per lb. I have been selling wheat at1s. 3d. a bushel - happily, the price is better now - and sheep for a few shillings a head. Last week, I sold sheep pelts for1d. each. When the prices realized by the producers are so low, the costs to the con- sumer should be much less than they are. I can buy a 4-lb. loaf in Geelong for 6½d.; in Melbourne, the price is 6d. to 8d.; in Albury, 8d. ; and in Canberra and Rand,1s., whereas in Great Britain, after freight has been paid on wheat from Australia, the price of a loaf is only8d.

The fault I find with the Government’s tariff policy is that, by excessive duties and prohibitions in respect of 78 articles, it has created monopolies and crippled the primary producers. Was ever anything more childish and senseless than the export duty on sheepskins?

Senator O’Halloran:

– That has nothing to do with the tariff schedule.

Senator GUTHRIE:

– But it is quite in accordance with the policy represented’ by this schedule. The cost of living should be 50 per cent. lower than it is. Monopolies have been created in respect of the manufacture of galvanized iron, barbed wire, and wire netting. Consider the effect of the tariff on the requirements of a cottager. Galvanized iron, which is the subject of a monopoly, is £26 10s. a ton, about double the price in any other country; sheet glass for windows is subject to tariff duties amounting to more than 600 per cent. Timber and nails also bear prohibitive duties. These burdens are not borne by the wealthy classes. They live in houses of bricks, mortar, slates, and tiles, but the working man and the farmer must have galvanized iron, timber, and glass. The poor are being penalized for the benefit of rich manufacturers. The Government has given monopolies to a few companies to enable them to pay ridiculously high wages and work their employees too short hours. This is at the expense of the cottager and the farmer. Sugar is grown in only one State, and the taxpayers are burdened to the extent of £7,000,000 a year to support the industry.

Mr. S.F. Ferguson, in The Australian Tariff Debacle, rightly said, “ Haphazard protection is a serious obstacle to Australian recovery “. With that I entirely agree. Australia has a higher customs tariff than any othercountry ; the Government has erected a tariff that is not only a wall, but also a roof, for the protection of secondary industries; it hashas ignored the Tariff Board’s recommendations in regard to duties and has gone to the extreme length of applying prohibition to many items. The Tariff Board’s report is a remarkably lucid and informative statement, and I support some of the conclusions arrived at by this body of unbiased business experts, after taking evi- deuce on oath. In this report the board found -

That under the rates of duty provided in the Customs Tariff 1921-1030, the industries seeking additional protection were earning substantial and, in some instances, abnormal profits.
That the increased duties asked for or proposed would represent a measure of protection out of proportion to the employment resulting from the industry.
That the loss of revenue which would result from the imposition of increased duties would be out of proportion to the wages that would be paid in producing the goods in Australia.
That the goods in respect of which increased duties were sought or proposed, are essential products to other industries, the cost of which is of vital importance to such industries.
The effect of the imposition of increased duties on undertakings concerned with developmental work and essential public services.
In the case of some classes of goods, there exist extensive ranges of types, patterns and designs, increased duties on which would tend to encourageattempts on the part of local manufacturers to produce a complete range rather than to concentrate on the production of those lines for which there is a more general demand and which are more capable of economic manufacture in Australia.

I have always contended that protection should be given only to industries that can be economically established and conducted on sound lines. The report continues -

The imposition of increased duties would merely place a serious burden upon the users of the goods concerned in a futile attempt to establish the industry in Australia on an economic basis.
In some cases, the industries concerned in the increased duties requested or proposed, held practically the whole of the market available.
That the requests made were ill-considered by the applicants.
The risk of the imposition of increased duties jeopardizing the export trade of the Commonwealth with countries supplying the goods in respect of which the increased duties were sought.

That supports my view that it is not sound or beneficial to either producers, consumers, or workers, indiscriminately to pile up customs duties without regard to the economic circumstances of an industry. The Tariff Board dealt with some almost Gilbertian requests for duties; some of them were almost criminally stupid. But that is not to be wondered at, having regard to the fact that Mr. Theodore, the campaign director for the Socialist party at the last federal elections, practically told the Sydney manufacturers, the greediest in the world, that they could write their own ticket if they supported the Labour party. They have written their own ticket. Without regard to economics, or the recommendations of the Tariff Board, the duties on page after page of items have been doubled. These things have happened simply because Mr. Theodore said, “ Write your own ticket “. This is a “ Write-your-own-ticket “ tariff.

Senator Daly:

– Nonsense !

Senator GUTHRIE:

– To-day there are 78 items on the prohibited list. I shall never stand for embargoes of that kind. Seven tariff schedules have been brought down by the present Minister for Trade and Customs (Mr. Forde) who promised that employment would be found in revived and new industries for 100,000 additional people. The fact is that unemployment has increased from 9.5 per cent. when this Government assumed office to 30 per cent. to-day. This is the effect that this wonderful “Write-your-own-ticket” tariff has had.

Although Senator Duncan is a red hot protectionist, and very loyal to his own State - I do not blame him for it - he must realize that the Lang gang is driving capital out of New South Wales, increasing unemployment there, and generally adding to the burdens of industry. The effect of the Lang policy has been to help Victoria, although, as a rule, New South Wales does not love Victoria. The honorable senator has asked for sufficient protection to make the maintenance of industry possible under the Lang gang regime. Do honorable senators realize that last year the bank deposits in New South Wales decreased by £8,000,000, while those of Victoria increased by £5,000,000? The 44-hour week and 20 per cent. higher wage policy of New South Wales has not only crippled industry and reduced employment there, but has been injurious to the whole of Australia. The total amount of wages paid in New South Wales last year decreased by 9.6 per cent., while in Victoria the total fell by only 3.5 per cent. Certain honorable senators from New South Wales have asked for a tariff high enough to enable the manufacturers of New South Wales to enter into competition with those of Victoria; but we cannot be expected to consent to a perpetuation of the policy of the present New South Wales Government. I shall not support a tariff high enough to protect industry against the inefficiency and stupidity of the present New South Wales Government. While the amount of wages paid decreased by 9.6 in New South Wales last .vear, the average decrease for Australia was only 6.G- per cent. Unemployment has increased 10 per cent, in New South Wales, while the average increase for Australia has been only 7 per cent. The figure for Victoria is 3 per cent.

Senator Duncan, and some other honorable senators from New South Wale3, in clamouring for higher and still higher protection, have foolishly tried to misli’«d the Senate by stating that the primary producers want additional protection. I t is well known, of course, that the tariff is largely responsible for the difficulties in which the Australian railways find themselves to-day. Extremely heavy burdens have been cast upon our producers by the tariff. To-day it costs ls. per lb. to produce wool, and from 3s. 4<i. to 5s. 6d. per bushel to produce wheat. Why is this? It is because wire, wire netting, shears, traps, and machinery of all kinds have been increased in price in consequence of the tariff. To-day it costs from 10 per cent, to 12 per cent, of the- value of the wool to get it from the farm to the market, and it costs 25 per cent, of its value to get it to Europe”. It costs from ls. 6d. to ls. 9d. per bushel to get wheat from the farm to the world’s markets. When I first became associated with the wool industry, the freight from Australia to London was -Jd. for greasy wool, and id. per lb. for scoured wool; to-day it’ costs 500 per ent. more than that?

Senator Kneebone:

– What has this to do with the tariff?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– Very much. Ships are forced to travel to Australia practically empty. I have seen ships come into the wharfs day after day high up out of the water, and when I have asked the reason for it I have been told, “ It is because you have shut out our goods by your embargoes “. It costs the wheatgrowers from 4£d. to 9d. per bushel to get their wheat to port, and from ls. 6d. to ls. 9d. per bushel to get it from the farm to Europe. Dear rails, dear fishplates, dear locomotives, and dear rollingstock have forced railway freights upwards.

– The high price of rails, fishplates, and all requirements for railway building and maintenance are largely due to the tariff. A good deal could be said in favour of the encouragement of key industries such as the iron and steel industry.

Senator Daly:

– Is the honorable senator a freetrader or a protectionist?

Senator GUTHRIE:

– I am in favour of a reasonably high tariff to protect any industries that can be conducted upon an economic basis ; but I am entirely opposed to the imposition of duties ranging up to 500 per cent. To show the high cost of certain farming requisites, I quote the lowest Australian wholesale price and the European f.o.b. price -

Those figures show the extent to which the Australian users of those commodities are penalized. The unnecessarily high prices charged involve the Australian primary producers in very heavy expenditure, and place them at a disadvantage as compared with the primary producers in New Zealand, who obtain their requisites at the following rates: -

Most of their requisites are admitted into New Zealand from Great Britain free of duty, and the total duty on tools and farming implements is less than 1 per cent, of the whole.

I am in favour of the payment of a bounty to those engaged in the manufacture of galvanized iron, but I am strongly opposed to the prohibition of imports. That results in the establishment of monopolies which are detrimental to any community. Senator O’Halloran quoted the prices of certain agricultural implements manufactured in Australia under our high protective tariff, and compared them with those in New Zealand and other countries. He quoted the Australian price of a header harvester at £154, but in going through the pricescharged in Australia I noticed that the rates closely approximate those of the imported article. This shows that notwithstanding the tariff the Australian manufacturers are charging the users almost the same price as is charged for an imported machine. In comparing the prices in Australia and in New Zealand, we must also take into consideration the fact that owing to the nature of the country in New Zealand heavier ploughs, harrows, and other farming machinery have to be utilized. Our coal, iron, and other commodities are unnecessarily expensive. Those engaged in industry have to contend with a multiplicity of arbitration awards as well as excessive cost’s, some of which are undoubtedly caused by the tariff. The schedule is full of anomalies, and many of the excessive duties are directly responsible for the high cost of living.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator has exhausted his time.

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– In following the speech of Senator Guthrie, I found it difficult to determine whether he was a protectionist or a freetrader. Apparently, he is a protectionist when the woollen industry is under consideration and a freetrader when industries in which he is not directly interested are concerned. Some honorable senators are outandout freetraders, while others, like Senator Guthrie, are what we might term of the “fifty-fifty” type. Frequent reference has been made to the high duties imposed under this tariff, but in view of the situation which confronted this Government when it took office, an amending tariff schedule was necessary, not only to further protect Australian industries, but also to assist in adjusting our adverse trade balance. Honorable senators opposed to a high protective tariff should realize that machinery has played a very important part in secondary production throughout the world, and that this has brought in its train an over supply of commodities. Other countries have found it necessary to protect their industries against foreign competition. The action taken by this Government was long overdue. When it assumed office the Commonwealth was faced with an adverse trade balance of £32,000,000, and the position was rapidly becoming worse. At that time we were importing goods to the value of £180,000,000 annually, and many of the commodities which were then coming into the country could be manufactured in Australia without detrimentally affecting the consumers. Had the Government not tackled the problem when it did Australia’s financial position would be worse than it is to-day. It was impracticable to submit every proposal to the Tariff Board for consideration; that would have taken years.

SenatorO’Halloran. - In the meantime, we would have gone insolvent.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Yes. Moreover, had the importers been aware of the Government’s intention to impose heavier duties or place embargoes upon certain importations, huge quantities of goods would have been dumped in Australia, and our requirements may have been met for some time to come. When embargoes were placed upon certain goods many importers wished to exempt orders which were then on the water. It will be seen that prompt action was necessary. Our adverse trade balance was rapidly increasing, and this Government, like the last Government, could not borrow further money overseas in order to meet its commitments. Moreover, the price of primary products, over which we had no control, was rapidly falling. Had the whole of our exportable surplus been sold, at a reduced price, it would have been impossible to balance our overseas trade. Drastic action was necessary in order to save the country.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.

Senator DOOLEY:

– In 1929 our adverse trade balance amounted to £32,000,000, but as a result of the fiscal policy adopted by the present Government, the position has been reversed. To-day, instead of a huge adverse trade balance, we have acredit balance of about £30,000,000. Whatever the opinion of honorable senators regarding the Government’s fiscal policy, they must admit that the Government has tackled a difficult position bravely. It would be well to remind honorable senators of the circumstances which led up to the serious financial position which faced the country when the present Government assumed office. Since the value of imports in 1922-23 exceeded that of the previous year by approximately £28,000,000, it is obvious that the importing interests were able to gauge the lines on which they could get in under the HughesMassy Greene tariff of 1921. The following comparison of the imports and exports of merchandise for the eight years commencing 1922-23 was compiled from figures obtained by the Commonwealth Statistician: -

Those figures reveal that over a period of eight years imports exceeded exports to the extent of about £14,000,000 per annum. Even the Bruce-Page Government realized that that state of affairs could not continue indefinitely. It sought to overcome the difficulty by reducing wages, abolishing the Arbitration Court, and allowing industry to find its own level, which meant that employers would be able to bargain with their employees individually. By seeking to abolish the system which regulates the conditions of labour, it attempted to rob the workers in industry of their only protection from exploitation. The last election was fought on the issue of the retention or otherwise of; the arbitration system. The Labour party received a mandate from the people to maintain that system. I do not blame the previous Government for the fall in the national income due to the lowness of the prices received for our products in the markets of the world. Of the causes of the reduction of the national income no government could have had any control; but the fact remains that when the present Government assumed office the price of wheat and other primary products was far below expectations.Faced with the possibility of default, the Government made an earnest appeal to the wheat-growers of Australia to produce more wheat with a view to correcting the trade balance. They responded nobly; but the fall in the price of wheat tended to nullify their efforts.

This Government, on assuming office, was also confronted with the difficulty of finding employment for the people. A good deal has’ been said about men leaving the land and going to the cities in order to get better wages than are paid in country districts. Surely it is not necessary for me to remind honorable senators that higher wages are necessary in the cities than in the country, where men are able to save money because of lack of opportunity to spend it.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Evidently the worker in the city must not be deprived of the right of attending the pony races!

Senator DOOLEY:

– A mau who works from 1 a.m. to 5 p.m. has as much right as any other man to attend a pony race if he so desires. Having worked in hoth the country and the city, I know that it is cheaper to live iu the country ; that a city dweller requires a higher wage than does a country worker. Honorable senators opposite say that our high tariff is largely responsible for the increase in unemployment in Australia. I ask them to point to any country in which unemployment has not increased beyond what it has in Australia during the last two years. .

Senator Kneebone:

– The cessation of borrowing increased unemployment.

Senator DOOLEY:

– The Government has not lost sight of the desirability of bringing down the cost of production so that our goods may compete with the goods of other nations. One factor in reducing the cost of production is the installation of up-to-date machinery in our factories. In a desire to see as much of that machinery as possible made in Australia, the Government placed prohibitive duties on certain articles of machinery. But the farmer has not suffered in consequence of this, for the implements used on our wheat farms to-day cost him less than similar implements cost in other countries where there is no tariff at all. It will be seen, therefore, that high duties have not increased the cost of production in Australia as compared with other countries. Honorable senators know the extent to which goods of foreign manufacture have been dumped into- Australia during recent years. The wai- had not long been in progress before Japanese goods were to be seen in almost every shop in Australia. Foreign goods were dumped into this country because there was no market foi- them in the country of origin. Goods were sold almost on the buyer’s own terms. That position has now been altered. When prosperity returns the full benefit of the tariff policy of the Government will be felt.

I am pleased to know that Senator Guthrie wears clothing made entirely of Australian materials. If we could induce everybody in the community to buy only Australian-made goods, it would be unnecessary, perhaps, to protect Australian industries to the extent that they are now protected; but the fact remains that the people insist on buying in the cheapest market. They have not vor learned to put Australia first. Reference has been made to “ tinpot, spoonfed little industries” that have been protected.The honorable senator who spoke of certain undertakings in that way is quite prepared to grant protection to the important industry which he so ably sponsors in this chamber. It must be remembered that Australia is a young country, and that its manufacturing industries should be fostered and assisted where necessary. Our machinery and our factory methods may not be as up to date as those in other part3 of the world, but wo are proud to know that our people enjoy a high standard of living, and are better clothed and fed than those in almost any other country. That should be a sufficient inducement to us to maintain that standard, so far as possible, and to protect our industries against the dumped goods of foreign countries. The people of Australia generally have never complained of the prices that they have to pay for goods made in this country. The costs of production are on the decline, and the cost of living has also fallen. When the Government first considered the need for the greater protection of local industries against the competition of foreign countries, the Australian manufacturers of agricultural implements undertook that if they received the necessary protection under the tariff, they would reduce their prices by at least 5 per cent., and I am pleased to know that they have kept their word in that regard. We must agree that the protective tariff has not placed a serious burden on the community.

Some honorable senators claim that the tariff is ruinous to the primary producers, and is imposing on them hardships that are too great for them to bear. The cost of their plant, it is said, has increased to such an extent that they cannot compete with other countries in the production of wheat, but I shall give the cost of farming implements in the freetrade countries of British East

– No ; but it should be mentioned as a set-off against the alleged disabilities which the primary producers suffer under the tariff. No one could be more sympathetic with the primary producers than I am.I know the hardships they have to endure, but I know also the hardships endured by many of those engaged in secondary industries, because I have had practical experience.

The last Government borrowed a great deal of money abroad, and I propose to give a few examples of the manner in which that money was spent. That Government was not worried about the getting of money, but about the disposal of the money it had- a very different position from that in which the present Government found itself when it took office.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– This has something to do with the tariff, I suppose ?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Of course, it has. The principle of protection may not be involved, but most honorable senators who have spoken against this tariff have claimed to be protectionists, though they have objected to the duties being so high. Some honorable senators referred to it as a sky-high tariff, but I remind them that the tariff was rendered necessary as much by the wasteful expenditure of loan money as by our excessive imports.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honorable senator is straining the latitude I have given him.

Senator DOOLEY:

Senator Carroll:

– Not one word has been said about freetrade.

Senator HOARE:

– - I should say that many words have been said in favour of freetrade, and one honorable senator, who has always posed as a 100 per cent, protectionist, surprised me very much by his speech this afternoon. It is now evident that he is a 70 per cent, freetrader, and a 30 per cent, protectionist. He balanced himself on the tight-rope very well, sometimes swaying one way and sometimes the other, but always coming back to freetrade. Indeed, he diverged from that principle only when the interests of the wool-growing and manufacturing industries were concerned. To my way of thinking, protection has never been given a fair chance in Australia. We have endeavoured by means of protective duties to foster our secondary industries, and to make Australia the nation she deserves to be, and then we have set about depriving ourselves of the benefits of protection by borrowing millions of pounds abroad. For many years Australia lived on borrowed money, instead of on its own revenue. Every time we borrowed £50,000/000 abroad, we imported £50,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and every £50,000,000 worth of goods we imported means that we spent £50,000,000 less upon goods manufactured in Australia. If, when in future we are obliged to borrow, we do our borrowing in Australia, instead of abroad, we shall derive the full benefit of protection.

According to Senator Guthrie, some Australian industries - he mentioned the textile and metal trade industries - should have high protective duties. Such duties should reach the sky, he said. In fact, his idea was that we should prohibit the importation of textile goods because Australia, fortunately, grows the best wool in the world, and because the textile industry is firmly established. But, if it be right to impose protective duties to maintain an established industry like the textile industry, it should be equally right to impose high duties on ploughs and harrows for the sake of establishing in Australia an industry for the manufacture of farming implements. Senator Guthrie says that these implements should be permitted to come into Australia free of duty on the ground that their manufacture is not an established industry in this country. Figures have frequently been quoted in this chamber to show that farming implements are cheaper in Australia than in freetrade countries where the farmers are at the mercy of the importers, who are not philanthropists. Ti our duties on farming implements were removed, these articles would not be one farthing cheaper to the farmers than the present price.

The honorable senator also said that something should be done to bring down the cost of production. He omitted to mention that while the cost of living has fallen by 19 per cent., wages have been reduced by 30 per cent. A fair reduction of wages would be more in keeping with the reduction of the cost of living. A reduction of the cost of production can be brought about only by reducing wages, and a reduction of wages means a reduction of the purchasing power of the people. The honorable senator showed that over a period of seven years the United States of America in its trade with Australia, had a favorable trade balance of over £200,000,000. That result came about, not because the people of Australia love America better than any other part of the world, but because they prefer American motor cars to the cars produced in other countries.

The honorable senator claimed that under the Bruce-Page Government there was less unemployment in Australia than there is under the Labour Government of to-day, and laid the blame upon the tariff introduced by this Government. He forgets that in every country in the world to-day, whether it be a freetrade or a protectionist country, there are more unemployed than there were two years ago, or even one year ago. The tariff has had no effect upon the unemployment figures.

Senator Carroll:

– Then, protection will not cure the unemployment evil?

Senator HOARE:

– Unemployment would have been worse in Australia but for the tariff. No nation has ever forsaken a protective policy for a freetrade policy, but there have been many instances of freetrade countries becoming protectionist.

A true protective policy would treat manufacturers, employers and consumers all fairly. No one section should be allowed to fleece or cheat another. If the manufacturer is not absolutely fair there should be some law on the statutebook compelling bini to be fair. A tariff that favours one section to the disadvantage of others is not truly protective.

Senator Guthrie complained that the price of articles used on farms had been increased by the present tariff. He mentioned wire netting in illustration, but, so far as I know wire netting is duty free.

I agree with the honorable senator that the metal trades afford a great deal of employment to our people at good wages, but the honorable senator was inconsistent in claiming that high duties should be imposed on metal importations because the metal industry has become well established. He forgot that this industry, and the textile industry, had to make a start. The textile industry was a very small affair when it first asked for, and obtained, protection, aud its growth has been gradual. It is not very many years since the people of Australia were importing 75 per cent, of their textile requirements. Other industries are equally deserving of the same measure of protection as was afforded to the textile industry in its infancy. Senator Guthrie has told u3 that Australia is exporting blankets to China, Canada, and the West Coast of America, and that in all probability the demand for them will grow because the Australian blanket is superior to that manufactured elsewhere. I trust that the trade will grow, but if the people who buy our blankets prefer them to those produced in other countries, it is probably attributable to the fact that Australia grows the best wool in the world.

When Labour was elected with a majority in another chamber, the people were aware that it was the party’s intention to increase the protective duties wherever necessary in order to build up home markets.

Senator Daly:

– And to rectify the trade balance.

Senator HOARE:

Senator Reid:

– The Labour party will not allow the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to control wages.

Senator HOARE:

– We would be only too willing to do that. We believe in one parliament, one arbitration court, and one destiny for the whole of Australia.

Many senators have raised the retaliation bogy; they have said that if we impose high duties and prohibitions against imported articles the nations affected will boycott our exports. Last year Australia imported from the United States of America £31,000,000 worth of goods, and exported to that country only £5,800,000 worth. America does not want our goods; why do we not retaliate? Merely because We prefer the goods that America can supply, and we shall continue to buy from her only so long as it suits us to do so. That applies to all other trading. We have been warned of what Japan may do if we do not remove the restrictions imposed upon her products. According to the Times Trade and Engineering Supplement, of the 1st August, 1931, Mr. Stuttaford, of the South African Parliament, demanded higher duties against the Japanese merchandise, and in support of his claim stated that Japan sent £1,557,000 worth of goods to South Africa, and bought only £190,000 worth. This publication continues -

An explanation of the Japanese point of view has come fromM r. Migiwa Tsutsumi, of the MitsuiBussanKaisha, an old-established merchant firm in Tokio. “We look upon the South African trade”, he said, “purely from the business point of view. If you have what we want at the right prices, we shall buy; otherwise we shall not”.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, of the 8th September last, we read -

At yesterday’s auction the strong Japanese competition wasa feature of the sale. Japanese buyers were again the chief operators.

What Mr. Migiwa Tsutsumi said of the South African trade with Japan applies to our wool - if we have what the Japanese want, and the price is right, they will buy, regardless of whether the Australian tariff wall is high or low.

– I give you that assurance, sir, and chance it. According to a newspaper report, Mr. Corser asked in reference to the suggested reciprocal trade treaty with New Zealand whether the Government would give an assurance that the necessary protective duties on Australian butter, cheese, and bacon would not be reduced. As a representative of primary producers, he was afraid that they might lose the protection which the tariff gives to them. His attitude reveals the inconsistency of the farming sections of the community; they are protectionists in respect of what they have to sell, and freetraders in respect of what they buy. They should broaden their minds, take an Australian- wide view, and recognize that a benefit to one section is a benefit to the whole. The duty of honorable senators is to legislate for all t he people, and not for one section only.

The railway systems of the Commonwealth and the States were constructed to promote land settlement and industrial development. Most of them are unprofitable, and the community as a whole has to make good the losses. The following table of details of expenditure also shows how the primary producers have been helped : -

In the two directions that I have just indicated the primary producer has been helped to the extent of £21,000,000. I make no complaint on that account. It is quite proper for the Government to help the primary producers. The trouble is that some honorable senators desire protection for the interests with which they are chiefly concerned, and do not want other interests to be protected.

– In South Australia, particularly, builders are not substituting other timbers for Oregon. They will continue to use Oregon irrespective of its cost, and as that will result in building being more costly than it is to-day I believe the duties should be reduced. I think that should prove to honorable senators that I am dealing fairly with the tariff.

Senator Glasgow referred to the inefficiency of certain Australian workmen. Let me quote the following paragraph from the Melbourne Herald of the 9th November, 1931 : -

AUSTRALIA BUILDS BEST CAR BODY.

Wins in Newyork against all Countries.

Computing in New York against the best motor body production of most countries, an Australian-built Holden body recently won the contest for the best body fitted to a standard general motor ear. The Australian body was the only one in the contest not of the famous Fisher design, so the Australian win is of special importance, as the Fisher design is a world standard for nigh quality car body work. The contest was arranged by General Motors to test the products of its different assembly works throughout the world. To guard against special preparation, the cars were chosen by selected dealers, in each country, and had to be shipped direct from dealers’ showrooms to America. They were then examined competitively byGeneral Motors experts, who placed the Australian-bodied car first in assemblage, body construction and finish.

That is something of which Australia, and particularly South Australia, which docs not speak of secession, has reason to be proud. We have proved that the Australian workmen are quite as efficient as those in any other part of the world. We have competed against them in the construction of motor bodies and have won out.

Senator Thompson:

– The honorable senator is the best “ booster “ I have heard outside America.

Senator HOARE:

– In Australia we have something to boost. We have workmen of whom we should be proud, andI, as an Australian, wish to give Australia the credit that she deserves.

Senator CARROLL:
Western Australia

– We are all familiar with the side-shows at the seaside, and elsewhere, where Aunt Sallys are set up to be shied at by any one who has a penny to spare; but I have never seen Aunt Sallys so readily and frequently set up and knocked down as they have been during this debate. Those honorable senators who advocate unlimited protection have had the audacity to charge others, who desire some limit to be placed upon this policy, and its application, with being out-and-out freetraders. I do not think “it can be said, truthfully, that any honorable senator who has spoken during this debate has advocated freetrade.

Senator Daly:

– They were not game to.

Senator CARROLL:

– We have never at any time claimed to be freetraders, and have never attempted, or even thought of, advocating such a policy. But despite the statement of the Assistant Minister (Senator Daly) we contend that there is a limit beyond which the protective policy should not go, and that when it exceeds that limit it may defeat the very object for which it was brought into operation. That limit, many of us urge, has been passed in the schedule now before the Senate, and that is the point from which we approach the discussion of this subject. There is no desire on our part to impute motives to those who do not see eye to eye with us. We do not charge them with not being as good Australians as we are, but we do say that the salvation of the country does not lie exactly in the direction which they suggest it does. I remind those who do not see eye to eye with myself and others on this subject, that we are just as good Australians as they are. We are just as anxious for the welfare of this country, just as eager to see it succeed, and become all that we hope it will be, even though we are not quite at one with them with respect to the manner in which that desirable result may be brought about.

Before proceeding further, I propose to reply to several statements made by Senator Hoare, for whom I have the greatest regard, with respect to the production of our primary industries. He quoted - I do not charge him with having done so with malice aforethought - certain statements concerning the protection given to primary industries, suggesting that it had been freely granted by the people of Australia, and that the Government was now asking for similar protection to be given to the secondary industries by means of the tariff. Any pro tection given to the primary industries of this country was quite a secondary consideration - almost an afterthought. It was not the first move, but was demanded by those engaged in the industry because of the unfortunate position in which they were placed - because of the intensive struggle in which they were engaged in a country whose secondary industries were highly protected. I refer honorable senators who hold a different view to the reports of the Tariff Board, particularly the report of 1926, which deals specifically with the dairying industry. After a most exhaustive inquiry on the subject, the board stated that it was impossible for the dairying industry of Australia to continue, and to pay decent wages, and that were it not for the fact that the dairy farmer and his entire family worked regardless of wages and conditions imposed by the Arbitration Court, it would be impossible for them to live.

Senator Crawford referred to glucose as an example of protection to a primary industry. The honorable senator’s referonce was unfortunate. He said that the high duty on glucose was of great benefit to the maize-growers of Australia. I well remember when the honorable senator, us Assistant Minister for Trade and Customs, introduced into the Senate a measure to increase the duty on glucose. That was a different thing altogether from any of the duties now before us, because, in that case, the Tariff Board recommended the increase. Evidence had been presented to it that (he American manufacturers of the glucose which was being sent to Australia were making it from maize which cost them 2s. 8d. a bushel, whereas Australian manufacturers of glucose had to pay 5s. 9 el. a bushel for their maize. As soon as that duty was granted by the Government, the price of maize in Australia dropped from 5s. 9d. to 3s. 8d. a bushel; it has not again risen to its former price. Those who gave that evidence before the Tariff Board were guilty of false pretences, and they ought to have been put in gaol. The honorable senator also referred to dried egg albumen, which, he said, is dutiable at the rate of ?560 a ton. At first sight that seems a tremendously high duty; but the honorable senator did not tell us how many thousands of dozens of eggs would be necessary to make a ton of dried albumen. Having mentioned ?560 a ton as the duty on dried egg albumen, he went on to say that the duty on bananas was only Id. per lb. Probably a ton of dried egg albumen has never yet been imported into this country, so that his whole argument is worthless.

During recent weeks all honorable senators have been inundated with a tremendous amount of literature from those who are seeking favours at their hands- I cun not put it otherwise. I am not annoyed at having received this literature - I regard it as a necessary affliction, lt reminds me of the story of a man who alighted from a railway carriage at a suburban station on the outskirts of a city, having in his hand a leaflet issued by a firm of land salesmen. Seeing a boy, he inquired how far it was to the place mentioned on the leaflet. When he was informed that the distance was about 3 miles, he told the boy that that could not be so, because the leaflet he held stated that the lond was only five minutes’ walk from the railway station. The boy replied that he could believe him or the land salesman, adding, “ But I am not trying to sell you a block of land “. I regard this literature in that light. The people who send it to us are entitled to send it; but, like the land salesmen, they have an object in doing so. Throughout this debate honorable senators have quoted from the pamphlets, leaflets, and letters, statements which they have described as facts. They would have’ us believe that they are incontrovertible, like the words of Holy Writ. The mere recital of such statements proves nothing. No honorable senator .has yet attempted to show that these statements can be substantiated.

Senator Crawford quoted from The Australian Tariff, by a number of wellknown economists, all of whom can safely be regarded as having dealt with the problems from an academic point of view, entirely without bias. Several quotations from their book have been given to the Senate in support of n policy of high protection, yet any one who has read the book right through cannot but feel that those men were apprehensive of high duties. Indeed, they say that the policy has been carried beyond reasonable limits.

Senator Brennan:

Assistance to Small Bondholders

Motion (by Senator Daly) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Some days ago, when discussing the Commonwealth Debt Conversion Bill, a promise was given that consideration would be shown to small bondholders. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes) gave his assurance that the matter was engaging the attention of the Government, and that provision would be made for necessitous cases. Notwithstanding that promise, a man whose life savings amounting to £200 were invested in government securities was recently told that it was most unlikely that any assistance would be extended to him at all, and that if he was in need of the money, he could sell his bond. I submit that that is not the kind of communication which should be addressed to a man who either assented voluntarily to the conversion scheme, or was compelled to do so under the legislation passed by this Parliament. After all, he was merely asking for something which was his own, and of which he had been temporarily deprived. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter, and give instructions that replies of that nature are not to be given to bondholders.

Senator DALY:
South AustraliaAssistant Minister · ALP

– I shall bring the matter under the notice of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Barnes), who, after conferring with the Treasurer (Mr. Theodore), will probably be in a position to make a statement on the matter on the adjournment of the Senate to-morrow night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 November 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19311111_senate_12_132/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate11 November 1931

COMMUNIST PROCESSION IN SYDNEY

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

Senator Barnes:

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE:

QUESTION

WAGE REDUCTIONS BY ARBITRATION COURT

Senator KNEEBONE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:ALP

QUESTION

WHEAT BOUNTY

Senator KNEEBONE:

Senator DOOLEY:Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

PERTH BROADCASTING STATION

Senator DOOLEY:ALP

CUSTOMS TARIFF

Second Reading

Senator FOLL:QUEENSLAND

Senator Kneebone:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Lynch:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator FOLL:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator FOLL:

Senator McLachlan:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Daly:

Senator FOLL:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator FOLL:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Daly:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Kneebone:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Daly:

Senator Kneebone:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Kneebone:

Senator Lynch:

Senator FOLL:

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator FOLL:

Senator Guthrie:

Senator Sir George Pearce:

Senator E B Johnston:

Senator FOLL:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator FOLL:

Senator O’Halloran:

Senator FOLL:

Senator Reid:

Senator FOLL:

Senator GUTHRIE:Victoria

Senator Crawford:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator MCLACHLAN:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Crawford:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator J B Hayes:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Foll:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Foll:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator DUNCAN:NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Kneebone:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Kneebone:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senator Sir Hal Colebatch:

Senator GUTHRIE:

Senate
11 November 1931

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

Senator KNEEBONE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BARNES:
ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GUTHRIE:
Victoria

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DUNCAN:
NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT

Senator DOOLEY:
New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

Senator HOARE:
South Australia