Senate
17 November 1931

12th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 12th Parliament
  3. 1931

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

page 1674

QUESTION

RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Senator FOLL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) prepared to make a statement regarding the telephone conversation which took place yesterday between the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Thomas) on the subject of reciprocal trade between Great Britain and Australia, and can he also state whether, as the result of that conversation, we are likely to have any alteration in the tariff within the next day or two?

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

– I have no statement to make upon that subject.

page 1674

DEBT CONVERSION AGREEMENT BILL (No. 2)

Assent reported.

DEATH OF THE HON. PATRICK McMAHON GLYNN.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Miss D. Glynn the following letter in acknowledgment of the resolution of sympathy and condolence passed by the Senate upon the death of her father, the late Hon. Patrick McMahon Glynn, K.C. : - “ Glynneath,”

North Adelaide, 12th November,1931.

The President of the Senate,

Parliament House, Canberra.

DearSir,

The family of the late Patrick McMahon Glynn deeply appreciate the courtesy of your letter of sympathy in their greatloss.

Wo feel’ very proud that my father’s work for his country . should have won the recognition of his colleagues, and thathis memory should havebeen so honoured in the Senate.

I shall look forward to the receipt of the copy of the resolution passed, and thank you for this further great favour. yours faithfully,

Dympnaglynn.

page 1674

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Senator Brennan a letter intimating that he desires to move - “ That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 10 a.m. to-morrow,” for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, “ The duplication of control arising from the attitude of the Commonwealth Government in not utilizing the machinery of the State Governments in the allocation of £250,000 to be spent on relief work “.

Four honorable senators having risen in their places,

Senator BRENNAN:
Attorney-General · Victoria · ALP

. -I move -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till 10 a.m. to-morrow.

I do not profess to be cognizant with the position in other States with regard to the allocation of the £250,000 of Commonwealth money authorized to be spent on relief works, but the position that has arisen in Victoria has. been ventilated in the press of that State and the method adopted by the Commonwealth Government has met with almost universal disapproval. As honorable senators arc, no doubt, aware, there is in that State an organization established by the Government to deal with the distribution of funds for the relief of the unemployed. It has to be admitted, I am afraid, that it was necessary to have such an organization, because among the unemployed, as well as among the employed, there are many persons who, apparently, are prepared to take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to get more than their fair share of government expenditure. So efficient has the Victorian organization become, that, in the eighteen months of its existence, scandals in connexion with unemployment relief which, at first were revealed, have been almost entirely eliminated. Under the card system which has been adopted, the amount of work allotted to any person can be ascertained at once. In this way it is possible to distribute relief among the most deserving of the unemployed in something like a proper order of rotation. The Commonwealth Government set aside £250,000 for relief works in the various States, but instead of taking advantage of existing State organizations to ensure an equitable allocation of the money, it has preferred to depend upon its own organization. It has decided that relief work shall be allotted only to those persons who register at the bureau in Post Office-place, Melbourne, a portion of Little Bourkestreet, which is a narrow thoroughfare in the heart of the city. Considering the subject merely from the point of view of physical convenience, the result is likely to be a troublesome congregation of persons in one of the busiest parts of Melbourne. But it is not merely in that direction that abuses are likely, since, because of the lack of co-ordination between the State and Federal Governments, the distribution of the work will necessarily be somewhat haphazard, so that those persons who are most aggressive, though not necessarily the most deserving, will get more than their fair share of the total work which will be distributed. I take it that we all desire that the allocation of the work shall bear some ratio to the needs of those for whose benefit it is to be provided. The organization of the State is so complete that a man who obtains relief work has his sustenance allowance stopped immediately; but under the scheme of the Federal Government there is grave danger that men who have already been assisted by the State will get Federal relief work out of proportion to their needs. There is, moreover, grave danger of duplication, resulting in men who are drawing sustenance from the

State also drawing wages from the Commonwealth. Surely the desire of the Federal Government is that the work shall be allocated fairly ? In this matter, I am entirely on the side of the State, which has voiced a strong protest against the proposal of the Federal Government. The State Government does not ask to be allowed to determine oil what works the money shall be spent. It concedes to the Commonwealth the right to say what amount shall be spent, and the nature of the work on which it shall be spent; but it urges the Commonwealth to take advantage of its existing organization, so that the work to be done by Victorian citizens shall be distributed according to the needs of those who are willing to undertake it. Both Mr. Hogan, the Premier of Victoria, and Mr Webber, the Assistant Minister for Labour in that State, have spoken in the strongest terms of the attitude of the Commonwealth Government in this matter. I understand that Mr- Hogan has arranged to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Scullin) in Melbourne this week in this connexion. So far, there are no signs that the Federal Government proposes to recede from the position it has taken up. If it persist in its present attitude, the result will be what Mr Webber has described as “ a glaring example of duplication”. Whether money is provided by the Commonwealth Government or by the State Government, it comes in the long rim from the people of Australia, who are concerned that their contribution shall be spent in the most effective manner. I submit that it cannot be spent in the most effective manner if the Commonwealth Government, which has not an effective organization in existence to deal with this matter, allocates the relief work. I cannot understand why the Government should desire to proceed in this way unless it is for the somewhat sordid purpose of posing as the dispenser of this gratuity. As the custodian of the people’s money, the Government’s desire should be to ensure that that money shall be distributed as equitably as possible. One of the objects sought to be achieved by the Premiers’ plan is the elimination of unnecessary duplication of duties and services as between the Commonwealth and the States. This, although a comparatively small matter, is a glaring example of duplication which, instead of accomplishing valuable results, is likely to lead to abuses. It may be that the Leader of the Senate (Senator Barnes) will be able to explain what the Government has in view; but, pending his explanation, I submit the motion as a protest against the attitude of the Federal Government in this matter.

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

– I can assure Senator Brennan that the Commonwealth has at its disposal a most efficient organization, which is capable of carrying out any works of an all-Australian nature. In Melbourne, for instance, it is customary for men who are unemployed to register with both the Federal and State Governments, in order to have the fullest opportunity of obtaining employment. The amount proposed to be spent on works to relieve unemployment is, unfortunately, not large, but the Government has acted as generously as circumstances permit, with the object of providing work for as many hungry men and their families as possible before Christmas. The Government realizes that the assistance proposed to be rendered is as a drop in the bucket, but, unfortunately, its spending power is greatly restricted. Were that not so, a much larger sum would be made available. I do not know why there should be any feeling of envy between the State and Federal Governments in this matter. Every citizen of Australia has the same opportunity as his fellow citizen to register with either the State or the Federal authority.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

-. - The Government’s proposal will mean the setting up of two authorities.

Senator BARNES:

– A man who is out of work will generally seek every means of obtaining a job, and, therefore, he will register with both authorities. There will be no objection to his doing so. There may be something in what has been said regarding those who are now receiving the dole, but that matter may safely be left in the hands of the authority or authorities concerned. There ought to be co-ordination between the two authorities. Personally, I see no reason why there should bie -any jealousy between them. The object of the Government is that the most deserving element in the community shall be given something to assist them at Christmas time. Senator Brennan appears to be of the opinion that the State has a very much more efficient organization than is possessed by the Commonwealth to deal with this matter; but that is not so. For some months 1 was Assistant Minister for Works, during which period I came to the conclusion that the department under my control was as efficient as was humanly possible. The Government has no desire to stir up jealousy between the Commonwealth and the States. The only object which the Government has in view is to afford Christmas relief to those in need. I do not think that there is need to raise any objection to the course which, the Government proposes to follow.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE (Western Australia) [3.21]. - The VicePresident of the Executive Council (SenatorBarnes) does not appear to have grasped the main point of Senator Brennan’s remarks. In replying to the statements made by the honorable senator, the Minister said that the Federal Government has a most efficient organization for carrying out Commonwealth works, but Senator Brennan did not compare the efficiency of the Commonwealth Works Department and the State Works Department. He directed attention to the fact that unemployment relief requires a special organization apart from the ordinary public works organizations. Before the unemployment difficulty became acute, every State Government had its Works Department, which carried out ordinary State governmental works; but they found that their organizations were inadequate to deal with unemployed relief when it reached the stage which it has, unfortunately, now reached. It is no reflection upon the Commonwealth Works Department to say that that department is not organized to deal with unemployment relief. The department was established not for that purpose, but with the object of preparing plans and estimates, and supervising the erection of Commonwealth buildings. It was not established to deal with unemployment relief.

Senator McLachlan:

– That is not the responsibility of the Commonwealth.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No; it is the responsibility of the States. Under very great difficulties, the States have built up organizations to deal with unemployment relief, which, until they learnt the business, worked most unsatisfactorily. As Senator Brennan pointed out, this matter is dealt with by the States in two ways. , Any person who is unsuccessful in finding employment, either in the Government service or in private enterprise, is provided with, sustenance; but it has been found that certain clever individuals have been taking advantage of the generosity of the community by drawing sustenance while in receipt of income. The State Governments, through their organizations, have overcome such roguery - there are rogues in every community - on the part of the minority by building up organizations specially adapted for dealing with unemployment relief. The Commonwealth has no such organization. lt is not the function of the Commonwealth to provide unemployment relief, and there is no necessity for it to have such tin organization. Yet the Commonwealth Government is now asking the Commonwealth “Works Department to build up another organization to expend this small amount of relief which the Commonwealth is able to give at this period of the year. I trust that the Leader of the Government will appreciate the fact that Senator Brennan is not criticizing the action of the Commonwealth Government in affording relief or questioning the ability of the Commonwealth Works Department to do its job.

Senator Barnes:

– Then Senator Bren.nan’s argument was in the direction of the Commonwealth handing over the money for some other authority to spend.

Senator Sir GEORGE PEARCE.No. The honorable senator suggests, not that the £250,000 which is to be made available should be spent on works determined by the State authorities, but that the State organizations shall be used iu selecting the workers. For instance, £5,000 is to be spent at Cockatoo Island Dockyard, and some thousands of pounds will be spent in renovating post offices and other governmental buildings. Senator Brennan does not ask that the State authorities shall determine the way in which the money shall be spent. He did not say that the Commonwealth “Works Department is incapable of determining on what works the money should be spent. That is the responsibility of that department, . and the object for which it was established. But the selection of tlie men to be relieved should be made through a State organization. If the work is not allocated through a State unemployed relief organization it will necessitate establishing a separate Commonwealth unemployed relief department in every State. Senator Brennan suggests that that could be avoided by the work being allocated through existing State organizations. Is not that the more efficient and common-sense way of allocating the work? “When in Victoria yesterday, I read the comments of the Premier, Mr. Hogan, and of Mr. “Webber, who, I think, is the Minister in charge of unemployment relief. Those two gentlemen, who are members of the same political party as Senator Barnes and Senator Dooley, have criticized most severely the .action of this Government in building up a Commonwealth organization in Victoria to deal with the unemployment relief. For the sake of obtaining a few days’, or, perhaps, a few weeks’ work, men will be compelled to record their names on two registers. If registration is to be effectively carried out, these registers will have to be closely examined in order to determine whether the applications are genuine. If a man registers his name on the State register, the State authorities will know whether he is unemployed and receiving sustenance or not. If a second register has to be compiled, the Commonwealth representative will have to make similar inquiries. The Commonwealth should avail itself of the State machinery for this purpose. There is no question of jealously between the Commonwealth and the States-, as the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Senator Barnes) suggests. Senator Brennan is endeavouring to persuade the Government to avoid the overlapping which must necessarily occur if the honorable senator’s suggestion is not adopted. I read a statement by the Assistant Minister (Senator Dooley) in yesterday’s Argus to the .effect that 10,000 unemployed have registered-, in New South Wales, and that the Commonwealth authorities had been able to find employment for 500. Such registrations will be duplicated in every State of the Commonwealth. I join with Senator Brennan in appealing to the Government to avoid unnecessary duplication, to allow the Commonwealth Works Department to continue to do its legitimate work, and not place upon it the responsibilities associated with unemployment relief, for which purpose it was not established. If the honorable senator’s suggestion is adopted, money would be saved, and the Commonwealth and State authorities would not be victimized.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

, - Senator Brennan has told us something with respect to the position in Victoria; I wish to speak very briefly concerning the position in New South Wales. Rightly or wrongly, the impression hae been created in that State that, in making this money available for unemployment relief, the Government is not acting quite as genuinely as it would at first appear. An attack has already been made upon the Government by an honorable senator representing New South Wales who sits behind the Government, because of the manner in which unemployment relief work is being allocated in New South Wales, particularly in certain electorates. There is a very strong suspicion in some quarters in’ New South Wales, as evidenced by the utterances of members of the New South Wales Ministry and supporters of the Government in that State, that a certain amount of political capital is being made out of this matter, and that attempts are being made to render more secure certain seats held by supporters of this Government.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator knows that New South Wales is the breeding ground of suspicion.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– That may be so ; but there are things done by governments which excite and breed suspicion. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce) has pointed out that the Federal Government cannot make the inquiries that ought to be made before work is provided under the scheme that is now being launched. Last week I asked in this chamber certain questions relating to a meeting that was addressed by a supporter of the Government at Liverpool Camp, on the outskirts of Sydney. The report of that meeting, which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, stated that Mr. Rowe, the member for Parramatta, after addressing a meeting of unemployed at the camp, took the names of 200 men, and forwarded them to the Government, with the object of securing for them work under the scheme. I am aware, and the Government must admit, that others of its supporters also have compiled lists of men who are unemployed in their electorates, and have submitted their claims for participation in this relief. I wish to know whether the Government is accepting those lists on their face value, or is making inquiriesconcerning the individuals whose names appear on them. So far as I am aware, no inquiries are being made. It may be true that all of those men are genuinely unemployed and urgently desire employment, and that work for a week or two before Christmas would be in the nature of a godsend to them. The members of the State Government party in New South Wales resent this intrusion by the Federal Government into what they regard as their sphere. They point out that already there is a very large registration of unemployed men and women at the State Labour Bureau, and that they are endeavouring to find work for them in every possible way. Many of these persons have been registered for employment for a considerable time. Let it be conceded at once that all are equally deserving, and that it is necessary that all should secure employment. But unless they are “ given the tip “ by some federal member who supports the Government, to register their names afresh under this scheme, they may have to wait for another long period before obtaining relief, while those who have been registered through the agency of Mr. Rowe, and other federal members, may have been out of work only a day or a week, or not at all, and yet be eligible for immediate employment. The mere fact of having their names submitted by a federal member would give them an advantage over others who were not similarly situated. I can understand the refusal of the Government to trust the expenditure of even these miserable few thousand pounds to the Government of New South Wales. If that were done there would be no guarantee that the money would be expended in the relief of unemployment. There is a very general suspicion throughout New South Wales i hat the amount which has been raised by means of the unemployment tax is not being expended in. the relief of unemployment.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– The money would not be handed over to the State Government; they would merely nominate the men to be employed.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– The complaint of Mr. Lang and his friends is that the money has not been given to them to spend as they thought fit.- Had the Federal Government done that, it would indeed have been deserving of censure. All that is now asked, however, is that the Federal Government should use the State agencies that already exist in ascertaining the men who require help. The States have a proper system of registration and inquiry, under which it would be possible to choose the men required according to their place on the list. There could be no complaint regarding such a method of allocating the work, and the duplication to which Senator Brennan and the Leader of the OPPOS/011 (Senator Pearce) have referred would be avoided. In whatever way the matter is viewed, the Government, by setting up this new organization, or even by adapting all existing organization to this particular* purpose, must find itself involved in additional expenditure, and that must come out of the amount allotted for the relief of unemployment’. Instead of the men who are unemployed enjoying the full advantage of the expenditure of the £250,000 appropriated, at least £3,000 or £4,000 will be absorbed in the payment of salaries to the officers who will run the show. It is not the purpose of the grant that men who are already being paid for other services shall benefit by it. The Government should state whether any fresh departmental appointments have been made for the purpose of administering this scheme. I hope that they have not. But in any circumstances there will be expenditure, either out of the grant or out of Consolidated Revenue, that could be avoided by the utilization of State machinery I submit that it could be utilized with advantage without risk, and greater justice would be done to the unemployed in the various States. I regret exceedingly that the Government has considered it necessary to set up a separate organization, probably in order that it might get the whole; of the credit. Its first consideration should have been the men who are unemployed. Having lost sight of that consideration, it deserves the censure of the Senate.

Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP

– I regret keenly that every move made by this Government is regarded as a political move by certain honorable senators. 1 have no sympathy with any party which is prepared to exploit the present unfortunate unemployed position. Even though Senator Duncan may. have been contaminated by his association with what I have described as the breeding ground of suspicion, he ought not to have ventilated those suspicions in this chamber. In asking Parliament to appropriate this money, and in allocating it to different works, the Government had in view only one object; that was to expend the greatest sum possible in relieving those who unfortunately are unemployed at this particular time. There is a good deal to be said in support of the contention of Senator Brennan, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Pearce), and the State Government of Victoria in regard to duplication. But, if we look, at this matter fairly, divesting ourselves of all political suspicion, we must realize that, the Government having decided to make £250,000 available for the relief of unemployment, the money to be spent on maintenance work on Commonwealth property, it was only reasonable that the work should be carried out under the supervision of the Commonwealth Public Works Department. Long before this Government came into power, the Works Department was set up, and it now has offices and staffs in all the capital cities. When the depression came, we found that we had more officers than there were pounds to pay for public works, with the result that many men had to be discharged. When the sum of £250,000 was made available for relief works, it was decided to spend it on the painting and maintenance of Commonwealth buildings over which officers of the Commonwealth department had exercised supervision for years. Some of it was to be spent in the Postal Department, on work of which public works officers had made a special study. Now the Government is being criticized because it did not hand over to the State governments work which its own officers are peculiarly adapted by training and experience to perform.

Senator Thompson:

– Does that apply to the Cockatoo Island Dockyard?

Senator DALY:

– I am endeavouring to discuss this matter from an Australian point of view. A certain number of men were engaged by the Postal Department as linemen to carry out work in Adelaide, work which ha.d been held up for lack of funds. ‘ v

Senator Barnes:

– Telegraph linemen have always been employed by the Commonwealth.

Senator DALY:

– That is so, and Commonwealth officers are best fitted to select from the ranks of the unemployed linemen the most deserving cases for employment.

Senator Thompson:

– We have not yet had an explanation of the New South Wales incident to which reference .has been made.

Senator DALY:

– Some public men have found it necessary to get themselves placed on the silent telephone list, so that they will not be disturbed by persons ringing them at night. If I were in Adelaide now I should be disposed to take the same action as was taken by Mr. Rowe to secure some leisure for myself. Mr. Rowe merely did what any one might have done in his place. In order to prevent men from ringing him up, asking for assistance, he told them to send their names to him, and he would forward the names1 to the proper quarter. Some honorable senators seem to overlook the fact that the luxurious quiet of Canberra is a very different thing from the atmosphere prevailing in some city constituencies, whose representatives are almost continuously besieged for help of one kind or another. Senator Dooley has challenged any one to furnish instances of discrimination iu allotting employment under this scheme, and, so far, no one has taken up the challenge.

Senator Thompson:

– The Commonwealth offices in Sydney are crowded with people seeking assistance.

Senator DALY:

– Of course they are. Surely honorable senators know that, when the Government proposes to put in hand a scheme of this kind, members of parliament are inundated with requests for help. In such circumstances, honorable members have to consider the best way of dealing with such applications fairly and effectively, while, at the same time, allowing themselves a reasonable amount of leisure. Is any honorable senator prepared to say that he has not been approached regarding practically every item on the tariff schedule? It is only natural that representations should also he made to members in regard to relief work. If we shifted from the Commonwealth to the State governments the responsibility for administering this scheme, it would only mean that -State members would be approached, as federal members are now. There might not be the same duplication in the matter of applications, but we should be taking their proper work away from our own officers, whose salaries we have to pay.

Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania

.- The Minister has either chosen to disregard the motive which actuated Senator Brennan in moving this motion, or he has missed the point which Senator Brennan set out to make. Senator Brennan made no charge against the Government which would justify any one accusing him of being actuated by State jealousy.

Senator Daly:

– I made no such accusation.

Senator PAYNE:

– No ; but the honorable senator’s leader suggested it. State jealousy” does not enter into this matter at all. It seems only reasonable that State machinery should be used for the expenditure of this money. ‘ We have heard a great deal about the wonderfully effective organization of the Public Works department. We know that the Public Works Department is efficient, and we are proud of it, but there is no federal organization for dealing with the unemployed such as the States have. The

State bureaux have been in existence for two years, and those who have watched their operations must realize how difficult it is to ensure that the work is given to those who are most deserving. We have read in the newspapers of undeserving persons having practised deception to get relief work in preference to others whose claims were better. As a result of experience, the State organizations are now able to minimize these abuses, and Senator Brennan merely asks that the Commonwealth Government shall utilize the existing agencies which have been developed to a high degree of efficiency, [f that were done, considerable economy would be effected in the expenditure of the Commonwealth grant, because the Federal Public Works Department cannot, between now and Christmas, develop an equally effective system. I desire that the limited amount of money available shall be expended to the maximum advantage ; that will be done if the State organizations are used for the selection of the men who are to receive relief work. We may be sura that these organizations are sufficiently alive to the interests of their own States to select the men who are most necessitous and best qualified. I urge Ministers to bring before their colleagues the representations that have been made by honorable senators this afternoon.

Senator FOLL:
Queensland

.- Queensland members to-day received the report of the Under Secretary for Labour and Industry in that State, setting out the activities of his department in connexion with unemployment relief during the last twelve months. Probably in no other State has the relief been so well organized. Practically every man is assured of some work each week. He gets a period of relief employment and, when that is finished, is put on to what is called intermittent relief work, which may provide him with employment for one or two days weekly. At the Queensland labour bureau every person out of work can register. The officers of the bureau operate a card register on which the history and family circumstances of each appicant are recorded; the card shows the man’s occupation, age, family responsibilities, and the amount of relief he has previously received. The Federal Public Works Department in Queensland consists of two or three officers in a building in Adelaide-street, and 1 know that they do not maintain a similar register of men seeking work; indeed, they would not be justified in doing so, when the State bureau’s complete card system is available. Senator Daly cleverly evaded the main claim made by Senator Brennan, namely, that the Commonwealth should obtain its employees through the State labour bureaux. Senator Brennan did not ask that these bureaux should have the right to decide which post offices should be repainted, and what new works should be undertaken. With efficient State registers in existence, the setting up of federal establishments to do the same work for 8 comparatively small expenditure is unwarranted extravagance. We are nol complaining of the amount of money made available by the Government; we realize that in the present state of the public finances the Government could not ask Parliament to do more. But we are justified in asking that the Government shall make use of the most efficient machinery for the engaging of men to do relief work. The Commonwealth Government would have been well advisee” if it had paid the. £250,000 directly to the State Governments to enable them to extend their relief operations. In Queensland the relief expenditure has been on reafforestation, water conservation, and thi making of roads, sewers, Sc. - all works of permanent value to the community. It is not too late now for the Commonwealth Government to make use of the efficienState bureaux, thus ensuring that the relief will be distributed equitably and economically.

Senator DOOLEY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Works and Railways · New South WalesAssistant Minister · ALP

– The gravamen of the complaint against the Government is that it has not engaged mei for relief work through the State labour bureaux. Senator Brennan spoke principally of Victoria; in that State the men required for country work are engaged through the local labour exchanges. In the metropolitan area, a different policy is adopted. The Commonwealth Director of Works for Victoria controls a large staff in Melbourne and his department has, at all times, kept an employment register. When the intention of the

Government to make available £250,000 for tile partial relief of the unemployed was announced, former servants of the Commonwealth, some of whom have been out of work for years, immediately flocked to the office to register for engagement.

Senator Foll:

– Will the old employees be given preference?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Preference will be given to the most deserving cases.

Senator McLachlan:

– How can the departmental officer tell whether a case is deserving or not?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Each applicant’s circumstances are examined. I understand that in Victoria the department is working in conjunction with the State Labour Exchange. One trouble seems to be that the States are annoyed because the Commonwealth Government has not made them a present of this money to spend as they please.

Senator Brennan:

– That is not so.

Senator DOOLEY:

– At any rate, Senator Foll has claimed that the Commonwealth has made a mistake in not handing the money over to the States. But what was our experience in respect to the relief money voted to the States prior to last Christmas, and on a previous occasion?

Senator O’Halloran:

– Some of the money is still unspent.

Senator DOOLEY:

– That is so, and it is questionable whether what was spent was used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. At any rate, on this occasion, the Commonwealth Government has determined that, as it is spending its own money, it will spend it on Commonwealth property, and will engage the necessary labour through it own works officers.

Senator Cooper:

– What rates of pay will operate?

Senator DOOLEY:

– Award rates will be paid.

Senator Cooper:

– They may be in. conflict with State award rates.

Senator DOOLEY:

– Award rates will be paid, and each employee will be given work for not less than a fortnight and not more than a month. I do not know whether the few employees who will benefit by the expenditure of this money will be deprived by the States of the dole for the period during which they are employed by the Commonwealth; that is a matter for State decision. Honorable senators can rest satisfied that the Commonwealth department which is in control of the expenditure of this money is merely carrying out a function which it has been performing for years past. For instance, it has been providing relief work in New South Wales. The men who are at work on the Mascot aerodrome are employed month and month about. No dissatisfaction has been expressed in regard to the method adopted by the department in carrying out this relief work. I agree with the Leader of the Government (Senator Barnes) that, to a certain extent, some States have displayed a regrettable amount of jealousy in this matter, but there is no foundation for the complaints which have been voiced to-day.

From the day on which the announcement was made that the Commonwealth Government intended to make £250,000 available to relieve distress among the unemployed throughout the Commonwealth, I have had people knocking at my door, and putting up pitiable cases to secure my help. Men have told me that they have had their names registered at a State Labour Bureau for two years” without any chance of securing employment. One man who had lost his home was camped with his wife and two children on the bank of a river. To him I said: “ Certainly I shall send in your name, and see if you can get some of the work that is going “. There are scores of such cases.

Senator Sir George Pearce:

– Did the Minister make inquiries to ascertain the truth of the applicant’s assertions?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I know most of the applicants personally, and I had seen the hovels in which they were living. I knew that they were telling the truth. But the department takes nothing for granted. It has had sufficient experience in handling such cases, to avoid being taken in. Each case is dealt with on its merits. I can assure honorable senators that there will be no overlapping, and that no extra cost is involved in the engagement of these men by a Commonwealth depart ment, because the work is being done by a staff already iri existence. As a matter of fact, this extra work is a bit of a windfall to the officers of the Public Works Department.

Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Is the Assistant Minister suggesting that the officers have no other work to do?

Senator DOOLEY:

– I am not suggesting it. In fact, the department, without an increase of staff, could spend another £100,000. Its officers are willing to devote every hour to this relief work, and I am satisfied that the Senate will give them credit for the way in which they control the expenditure of this money.

I have heard many complaints about the unfair tactics and methods employed by State labour exchanges, particularly about the case with which a letter from a member of Parliament enables one man to take precedence over others.

Senator Foll:

– That does not occur in Queensland.

Senator DOOLEY:

– If it does not, it is due to the excellent foundation laid by the Labour Government in that State in organizing its labour employment scheme. The Commonwealth Government would be recreant to its duties if it did not insist on retaining the right to employ and dismiss the labour employed upon Commonwealth works under this relief grant. If the selection of the men were left to State labour exchanges, say, the State labour exchange in New ‘South Wales, one could easily imagine some honorable senators saying that this money was being provided for the benefit of. say, the

Carpenters Union, the Australian Workers Union, or the United Labourers Union. We avoid all such charges by directing that the expenditure of the money shall bc entrusted to the officers of the Public Works Department, and I am satisfied that under that arrangement the best is being done in the interests of the poor unfortunates who need relief.

Senator MCLACHLAN:
South Australia

– Having listened to the debate to-day, and to some observations made on Thursday last, it appears to me that there are two sets of labour bureaux in Australia. Each State has a labour bureau for its own purpose, and for the benefit of private people who desire to employ labour, and I learn to-day, for the first time, that a similar organization is conducted by the Commonwealth Public Works Department.

Senator Dooley:

– The department has an employment office.

Senator MCLACHLAN:

– I do noi associate myself with any suggestion that the expenditure of this money is being used to bestow political patronage upon one class or another. Whether this political patronage is to be in the hands of any particular member is not to me a matter of concern at the moment, but I am concerned with the position of State employment organizations. The Commonwealth Works Department, I understand, has also a list of unemployed persons. Apparently it is not up to date, because we have evidence of invitations given by various members to unemployed persons to send in their names for enrolment. Mr. Rowe, it would appear, has constituted himself a Commonwealth labour bureau. It is not desirable that members of Parliament should be placed in this position, and they would not be in it if this Government utilized, at least in part, the machinery established by State governments to deal with unemployment relief works. The attitude of the Commonwealth Government in this matter has created a most unfortunate impression in the minds of the people. I assume that its one desire is to render the maximum amount of assistance to necessitous persons. It has allotted £250,000 to be expended on relief works in the various States, and to avoid any suggestion of political patronage it should seek the cooperation of the State labour bureaux. This should be done in the interests of good business, to ensure to the States some form of safeguard in the interests of the taxpayers. Why should members of Parliament invite people to send in their names for registration?

Senator Daly:

– That is a mere allegation.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– It is an allegation that seems to be made pretty generally. Mr. Rowe made a definite statement in the public press, and it seems to be taken for granted that unemployed persons living in the vicinity of Cockatoo

Island Dockyard should send their names to members for registration. Why should there bo this political interference? Why does not the Government seek the co-operation of State labour employment agencies ?

Senator O’Halloran:

– The relief section is separated from the employment section in South Australia.

Senator McLACHLAN:

– Yes, but the two organizations co-operate, and. that is all we now ask should be done by the Commonwealth Government. There is no suggestion that there should be complete control by a State organization over Commonwealth expenditure. The atmosphere of suspicion that surrounds this matter is entirely unworthy of this Parliament. The statement made by Senator Thompson indicates that there is to be political patronage in the distribution of this money. The proper and businesslike course for the Government to adopt has been indicated by Senator Brennan, namely, that there should be co-operation between the Commonwealth and State departments so as to ensure the maximum relief being given to persons according to their needs. Even now Senator Dooley should seriously consider whether there is not a great deal of substance in the complaint ventilated by Senator Brennan. If the Minister is conversant with all the details of State relief organizations, he will see in them the nucleus of the machinery necessary for the effective supervision of this expenditure.

Senator Dooley:

– Does the honorable senator suggest that it would be possible to satisfy the needs of all our unemployed by the expenditure of such a small sum of money?

Senator McLACHLAN:

– No, but I deprecate very much the intrusion of political influence in this matter in any shape or form. If there is to be political patronage, the public will have no confidence in the Government’s proposals for the relief of the unemployed, and there will be an unsavoury atmosphere about the whole business.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
South Australia

– I dissociate myself entirely from the remarks of those honorable senators who have criticized the methods adopted by the Government for the distribution of this money. I agree that Senator Brennan made out a rather plausible case, on the face of it, but a careful analysis of the facts will show that the position is not quite what Senator Brennan would have us to believe it to be. I can readily understand the attitude of the State Governments in this matter. For the last two years, on the approach of Christmas, the Commonwealth Government has strained its financial resources to the utmost to provide the maximum amount of relief work for unemployed persons in all parts of Australia, and dissatisfaction with the manner in which expenditure was incurred in some of the States no doubt weighed with the Ministry when’ deciding upon the method of distribution this year. Some State Governments saved expenditure by withholding rations from persons who secured employment under the Commonwealth relief scheme.

Senator McLachlan:

– Surely that will happen again in this case.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Because of the special efforts made by the Commonwealth Government to provide relief for the unemployed, urgent Commonwealth works, including the renovation and painting of public buildings, was held up. The Commonwealth Works Department is a thoroughly efficient organization and, as Senator Dooley has pointed out, it has a list of former employees and of persons who have been seeking employment over a long period of time. Similar employment lists are kept by every employer of labour in private industry of any magnitude. The principle to be observed in distributing employment is to provide first for those in necessitous circumstances, and in interpreting this principle the department, I take it, will consider the period of a man’s unemployment, the number of his dependants, and other factors which ought to be taken into account. Without expressly seeking the co-operation of the State bureaux, or imposing any additional work on them, the maximum amount of co-operation can be secured. In South Australia, for instance, a man must hold a registration card from the State labour bureau before he is entitled to sustenance. That card contains particulars of which the Works Director in that State would take cognizance when dealing with his application for employment under this grant. In applying the policy of the Government, the Works Director will be able to use his discretion, something which the Director of the labour bureau cannot do because, under the State organization, jobs are distributed by ballot. Cases have come under my notice in which men who have been out of work only a short time have been given employment under the ballot system when others who have been unemployed for long periods have failed to secure it. If the system in operation in the State were to apply to this Commonwealth grant, no discretion could be exercised in the allocation of the work.

The determination of the right of any man to receive the dole or sustenance payments is not a matter for the Commonwealth Government, but for the States which administer those forms of relief. Under the system’ which will operate in connexion with this grant there would be just as much check as under that suggested by Senator Brennan. It would be known to the authorities that men who have failed to keep up their weekly registrations had obtained work. When men who obtain work under the Commonwealth scheme return to register again, the check can he applied. I hope that when that time arrives the State departments will act sympathetically towards the persons concerned. As I understand the purpose of the Commonwealth grant, it is intended to be supplementary to, rather than in substitution of relief provided by the State. In South Australia a good deal of dissatisfaction exists among the unemployed. They have asked the State Government to make a pronouncement regarding the position of men who will receive work under the federal scheme. They desire to know what period will have to elapse before they again become entitled to assistance from the State. Let us suppose that a mau who has been in receipt of a sustenance allowance of 10s. a week receives a fortnight’s work under the federal scheme, and earns £5. If it is intended that his sustenance payments shall be withheld by the State for ten weeks, the result is merely to transfer his name from the State register to that of the Commonwealth, without the man himself benefiting in any way, in which case, there would be no addi tional cheer for him- at Christmas time. I do not say that a man who obtains employment under the Commonwealth scheme should receive rations from the State during the period that he is working; but I do claim that he should be treated sympathetically. The scheme of the Commonwealth Government provides that the money shall be spent only upon necessary -works, some of which are urgent. I have sufficient confidence in the Works Department to believe that the Commonwealth will get full value for every pound expended.

It is true that there have been some cases of imposition in connexion with relief payments; but the number is not great. I have read the press reports of prosecutions for- fraud in both Victoria and South Australia, and I find that they amount to only a small fraction of 1 per cent, of the total number of unemployed persons. Considering the large number of nien out of work, the period of their unemployment, and the fact that in many cases only skeleton staffs are employed, the fewness of the cases of fraud testifies to the honesty of the unemployed. In the light of these facts, the fear of fraud which some honorable senators have expressed appears to be without foundation.

Senator BRENNAN:
Victoria · ALP

– Senator O’Halloran said that previous distributions of Commonwealth moneys by State governments had resulted in those governments being relieved of their responsibilities. Whatever system of distribution may be adopted in this case, we must assume that any relief granted by the Commonwealth will be taken into consideration by the State authorities. The honorable senator said that the federal distribution was intended to be supplementary to, and not in substitution of,” any State distribution. If all workers were employed, and this grant were a real Christmas gift to the community out of the bounty of some person, all would be well; but the fact remains that, when this £250,000 and any grant made by the States has been distributed, there will still be distress among those who have not received any work. The federal distribution must, therefore, supplement what is done by the States.

Senator Dooley said that in country districts advantage would be taken of the existence of the State organization. I take it that that will be done because it is recognized that, at least in country districts, the State organization is likely to be more effective than the federal. Those who have spoken in favour of the motion have maintained that, by reason of its experience, the State organization must necessarily be more competent than&; any new organization to deal with a matter of this kind.

Senator O’HALLORAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The State organization is in constant touch with the federal organization in Melbourne.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Then it must be that tlie officers of the department are endowed with more common sense than is possessed by those who rule over them. Apparently, the officers have adopted the common-sense course of consulting with one another.

Senator Dooley:

– They are not directed to do otherwise.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Since responsible Ministers of the Crown in Victoria have protested against the Federal Government’s proposals, it appears strange that some Federal Minister has not made it clear that Commonwealth officers are allowed to co-operate to the fullest extent with the State authorities.

The Assistant Minister said that de- ‘ partmental officers would inquire into every case. In New South Wales alone over 10,000 applications have beer received, and if the officers of the department intend to inquire into every case, I wonder at which Christmas the distribution will take place. I know that the State organization is complete throughout Victoria, and that every application is investigated.

Senator Dooley:

– There are over 22,000 applicants for relief registered in Victoria.

Senator BRENNAN:

– Those men have not registered merely because of this grant of £250,000. Their name3 have been registered in accordance with an elaborate system of registration, which has been in operation for a couple of years.

Senator Daly suggested, although he did not say expressly, that in the distribution of this work the Commonwealth authorities would consider the claims of ex-public servants. Incidentally, the speakers on the Government side have stressed the point that it is Commonwealth money that is to be spent. I venture to make the point, as I did in introducing this subject, that it is the people’s money. A distinction between Commonwealth and State money ought not to be strictly drawn. It should be the desire of every one to see that the total amount available, whether it consist of Commonwealth or State funds, should be distributed in the most effective way. The view -of the Assistant Minister (Senator Daly), if I understood bini aright, is that the Commonwealth. Government will allow all those men who have served them in the past, and are accustomed to the work to be done, to have first claim. I do not think that that is the way in which this “money should be distributed ; it is for the whole of the unemployed. The point I desire to make is that tlie material at the disposal of the State officers is the best available. I feel that I am on strong ground in making the suggestion I have, particularly when I realize that those who have control of these organizations have strongly expressed the view which I have put to this chamber. I hope that mere mulishness will not prevent the Government from reconsidering the matter. .1 have no desire to make political capital out of this matter, and I am sure that those who have spoken in support of the views I have expressed do not wish to obtain political advantage. We merely desire that the Government shall see that the money to be made available is distributed in the most effective way. I trust that the representatives of the. Government in this chamber will heed what has been said, and will look further into the matter. If they find that we are in the right, I trust that they will not hesitate to retrace their steps merely because the suggestion has come from this side of the chamber. I appeal with confidence to the Government to adopt the most efficient and economical system. Having ‘ ventilated the subject, I ask leave te withdraw the motion.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 1687

QUESTION

EMPIRE TRADE CONFERENCE

Trade Treaties

  1. Does the Government consider that the making of threats such as are contained in the statement referred to is likely to assist the movement for intra-Empire trade agreements?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– As this question involves a matter of policy, it is considered thai; it should have been addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, and I am accordingly replying to it, instead of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs. After consultation with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade and Customs, I desire to say that there is nothing to add to the statement on this subject which was made in this chamber by Senator Dooley on Friday last.

Senator LYNCH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

In view of the impatience revealed by that Minister in the daily press for an immediate economic conference, and his anxiety to make trade agreements with foreign countries, will the Minister reconcile this latest attitude with the two years’ delay with the tariff schedule and the nature of the rates of duty in that schedule, both against Great Britain and those foreign countries?

Senator BARNES:

– The remarksmade by me in reply to question No. 1 on to-day’s business-paper apply equally to this question.

page 1687

QUESTION

FEDERAL LABOUR PARTY

Appointmentof Paid Organizer

Senator DUNN:
through Senator O’Halloran

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

  1. In view of the statement made by the Assistant Minister. Senator Dooley, on the 12th November, that no new appointment of an organizer since the resignation of Mr. Foleyhas been made by the Federal Australian Labour Party,Rawson Chambers, Sydney, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the following statement by Mr. A. J. McPherson, published in the Australian Worker, Sydney : “ Since taking up the duties of organizer for the Federal LabourParty, I have visited many of our metropolitan leagues.”?
  2. Will the Assistant Minister (Senator Dooley) continue to state in the Senate that no paid organizer has taken the place of Mr. Foley, ex-organizer of the Federal Labour Party in the State of New South Wales?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers are : - 1 and 2. The matter is not one which concerns the Government.

page 1687

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Alleged Mutiny

Senator DUNN:
through Senator O’Halloran

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

Is there any truth in the report contained in the oversea cables published in the Canberra Times that a mutiny occurred in the Australian naval fleet; if no, what are the facts of the case of mutiny, and will the Government present a statement to the Senate in connexion therewith ?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– There is not a vestige of truth in thisstatement.

page 1687

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND COTTON

Senator THOMPSON:

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

  1. Has he seen the newspaper notices of a statementby Mr. J. Bryce-Allen, a visitor to Australia connected with English cotton thread spinners, that Queensland cotton is short in staple and not even suitable for a coarse thread, that he intended taking a quantity back to England for further testing, and adding that American cotton was also of short staple and could only be used in coarser counts, but it was superior to Queensland cotton ?
  2. To satisfy honorable senators who voted for protection of the cotton industry, will the Minister ascertain if it is not the fact that Queensland cotton is of long staple, from 11/8 inch to 1 3-10 inch, as compared with the American, which is mostly7/8 inch, and which latter invariably was several points lower in the Liverpool market than the Queensland product ?
Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. Yes.
  2. The Queensland Cotton Board has advised that the average staple length of Queensland Cotton is11/8 inch, and the average staple length of American cotton 15-16 inch: also that the average price received for Queensland cotton on the Liverpool market has been¾d. to1d. per lb. better than the average prices for American cotton.

page 1688

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BONDS

Exchange Rates

Senator THOMPSON:

asked the Min- .ister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

In view of the reported statement of the Treasurer that special treatment would be considered in respect of overseas traders and others who purchased short-dated- Commonwealth bonds in order to avoid heavy exchange on remittances to London, is it practicable to discriminate in cases where purchase of bonds has been made at a discount, so that - those holders shall not have advantage both ways, i.e., in profit on purchase and in saving of exchange, and consequent favorable preferential treatment as compared -with other holders of converted stock?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The basis for the conversion of securities purchased with oversea trade money, owing to exchange difficulties, is laid down in section 16 of the Commonwealth Debt Conversion Act 1931, and is included in the terms and conditions on which the Commonwealth was authorized by an agreement with the States to arrange and effect a conversion. The Treasurer has no authority to deal with these securities except in accordance with that section, which does not provide for discrimination in the cases referred to.

page 1688

QUESTION

CONTROLLER OF CIVIL AVIATION

Visit to London

Senator FOLL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, * upon notice -*

  1. Is it correct, as reported in the press of the 13th instant, that Colonel Brinsmead is going to London in the mail plane delivering the Christmas air mail, and returning after tcn days in London?
  2. If so, will the Government consider arranging for Colonel Brinsmead to stay in London longer than this period in order that he may investigate progress made in civil aviation, and also conduct research work in the aircraft factories and laboratories of Groat Britain ?
Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– The answers are -

  1. Yes. The Controller of Civil Aviation i is due to arrive in London on the Srd December, and to leave on the return journey on the 10tl, December, 1931.
  2. It is not proposed to alter the itinerary that has been arranged.

page 1688

QUESTION

PORT OF BROOME

Senator LYNCH:

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

Will the Minister cause a full and proper inquiry into the suitability or otherwise of Broome, Western Australia, as a first port of call for overseas aerial traffic?

Senator DOOLEY:
ALP

– It is not proposed at the moment to make further inquiry into the suitability or otherwise of Broome, Western Australia, as a first port of call for oversea aerial traffic.

page 1688

QUESTION

EXCHANGE RATES

Senator LYNCH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon noti.ee -

In view of the current rumours about concerted action being taken to lower the rate of exchange on London below the level determined by the law of supply and demand, will the Government announce its determination neither to help nor countenance any such move, in the interest of the primary producers of Australia?

Senator BARNES:
ALP

– The Government has no intention of endeavouring to reduce the rate of exchange below the level determined by the law of supply and demand.

page 1688

CUSTOMS TARIFF

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 13th November (vide page 1668), on motion by Senator Daly -

That the bill be now read <a second time.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:
Western Australia

– For two years the burden of tariff increases as disclosed in the schedule which have been levied by this Government without parliamentary approval have been borne by the people of Australia. The complaints of the primary producers and the consumers against this Government are twofold. First, they complain of the excessive and burdensome nature of the tariff increases, and secondly of the autocratic action of the Government in levying these duties for a period of two years without consulting Parliament. The present tariff has been particularly injurious to the less populous States, and the Government has levied these burdensome taxes and the even more oppressive embargoes without consulting the Senate, which is the only chamber in which the smaller and less populous States have any voice in the legislation of the Commonwealth. In the lengthy debate on the tariff which has been proceeding for the last three weeks the most significant fact 13 that honorable senators representing every State excepting New South Wales have joined in denouncing the burden of high tariffs. Although no honorable senator representing New South Wales has denounced the tariff here, Senator Greene, who was once regarded as the arch apostle of high protection in Australia, but, unfortunately, is absent owing to ill health, has contributed a striking letter to the public press in which he points out that most of the increases in the tariff levied by this Government have been imposed illegally, inasmuch as the law provides that all increases must be referred to the Tariff Board before being brought into operation. Senator Greene, in the course of a very capable condemnation of the Government’s fiscal policy, said that in spite of the fact that he took a prominent part in increasing the tariff burdens of the people, he would, had he not been prevented through illness from attending the sittings of the Senate during the consideration of the schedule, oppose any increase which had not been recommended by the Tariff Board. Those honorable senators who have been through the schedule item by item know that a majority of the increases in duties, and the whole of the embargoes, have been levied by this autocratic Government without any reference to or recommendation from the Tariff Board.

Senator Payne:

– It is the absence of a reference to the Tariff Board of which we complain.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Yes. The absence of reference to the board is a breach of the law, and shows the stent to which this Government is prepared to go in carrying out its policy of prohibition of imports. When the Government announced prohibition of imports as part of its policy, I do not think any one anticipated that it would dare to carry this pernicious system to such extremes. No honorable senator representing New

South Wales has opposed the increased duties, but Senator Duncan, who spoke in support of the tariff, seemed to be appealing particularly on behalf of the interests of Sydney manufacturers. It is interesting to note that in that State there are two great movements endeavouring to get away from the dominance of its capital city. In these circumstances, it is easy to understand why there is in New South Wales what is known as the Riverina Movement, comprising particularly primary producers, and the Northern Rivers Movement, both of which are strongly agitating for separation from the State. I venture to suggest that the main reasons for this agitation is the dominance of the city ‘ of Sydney, which supports a high protective policy. The only real relief which these movements, if successful, would give is that recommended by the royal commission which inquired into the difficulties of Western Australia as effected by federation, a majority of whose members recommended that for a term of 25 years and thereafter until Parliament otherwise decided, Western Australia should have control of its own tariff. I do not think that the Riverina or Northern Rivers movements would ever be successful, even if operating as separate provinces, if they had to contend with a burdensome tariff imposed in the interests of Sydney. Every honorable senator must realize that the high and everincreasing tariffs are mainly responsible for the depopulation of our country areas, and are the main factors in building up such huge cities as Sydney and Melbourne, which, for twenty years, have been such a prominent and deplorable feature of our national life.

I wish to make a few particular observations with respect to the effect of the tariff on Western Australia. The primary industries of that State are carried on under a high protective tariff, which has been drawn up to suit the interests of the manufacturers and industrial workers of the two great cities of Sydney and Melbourne, the effect of which has been to increase the costs of production in every direction. The primary producers of the Commonwealth, and particularly of Western Australia, have to sell their products in the markets of the world in competition with countries in which the cost of production is much lower, the “remuneration of labour -is considerably less, and, in some instances, coloured labour is employed; yet they derive no corresponding advantage from the tariff. Successive governments in Western Australia have carried on during the last twenty years or more an active land settlement policy, but the tariff has reduced the value of the money expended on public works or advanced to settlers by from 6s. 8d. to 103. in the El. I do not expect any relief to be given to the primary industries of the Commonwealth by a tariff approved by this Parliament, because of the huge representation of the eastern capitals in the House of Representatives, and the dominating influence of the cities in the election of members to this chamber.

In 1925, a royal commission inquiredinto the finances of Western Australia as they were affected by federation, and in a report dated the 25 th September .of that year, indicated the only direction in which it was possible for the State to obtain relief from the tariff. Unlike the tribunals that at different times have inquired into the financial disabilities of different States under federation, we had no representation on the commission. This body was composed entirely of residents of the eastern States.

Senator Cox:

– What does the honorable senator call “the eastern States”?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

- Mr. Higgs, the chairman of the commission and an ex-Treasurer of the Commonwealth, was for many years the representative of a Queensland constituency. Mr. Entwistle was a primary producer and a resident of South Australia; and Mr. Stephen Mills was a resident of Melbourne. After an exhaustive inquiry into the position of Western Australia, the opinion was formed that the principal ills from which the State suffered were caused by the tariff, which at that date was very considerably lighter than it is to-day. Paragraph 129 of the report reads -

Your commission is of opinion that if the State of Western Australia hail not joined with federation, that State might have imposed customs duties partly protective and partly revenue-producing, and derived advantage therefrom; that, having joined the federation, whatever benefit the “ Commonwealth protectionist policy may have conferred upon other States of the Commonwealth, it has not benefited the State of Western Australia; that the primary producers of the State of Western Australia have to pay “more for their agricultural machinery, &c, than the primary producers of the eastern States; that the primary producers of the State of Western Australia have not the benefit of home markets like Sydney, with its 1,008,500 population, or Melbourne, with its 885,700 population - home markets of such value that three-fourths of the primary products of New South Wales and Victoria, other than wheat or wool, are consumed within those States; that the primary producers of the State of Western Australia have to sell their products in the markets of the world; that it is impossible to give the primary producers of Western Australia relief by way of reduced customs duties without injuring the secondary industries of the eastern States; and that the only effective means of removing the chief disability of the State i9 to restore to the State, for a period of years, the absolute control of its own customs and excise.

Commissioner Entwistle prefaced thai recommendation, to which he was a party, in the following terms : -

In my opinion Western Australia should never have entered the federation; but, having done so, there is, 1 feel convinced, only one complete and satisfactory remedy for her present disabilities, viz., secession. If that event occurred, all the other recommendations in this report would become unnecessary. As, however, it cannot be taken for granted that secession will take place, I have joined in recommendations having the object of relieving, at least to some extent, the present financial disabilities of the State of Western Australia.

The principal recommendation of the commission and one that stands out like a beacon light on a murky night, is that, for a term of 25 years, Western Australia should have absolute control of its” own customs and excise. I cannot conceive why this recommendation was not given effect at the time that it was made.

I find that no fewer than 61 separate tariffs are in operation within the British Empire. I ask the permission, of the Senate to have particulars of them incorporated in Hansard without being read.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. W. Kingsmill) . - Is it the pleasure of the Senate that the honorable senator’s request be granted ?

Senator Cox:

– No.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Then I shall read them. They are as follows: -

Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including Channel Islands and the Isle of Mau.

Europe -

Irish Free State

Gibraltar

Malta

Asia -

Aden, Perim and Protectorate

Bahrein Islands

Borneo, Brunei and Sarawak

Ceylon

Cyprus

Hong Kong

India

Straits Settlements

Federated Malay States

Other Malay States

Wei-hai-wei.

Iraq.*

Palestine.*

Africa -

Kenya Colony and Protectorate

Uganda Protectorate

Zanzibar

Mauritius and Dependencies

Nyassaland Protectorate

St. Helena and Ascension

Seychelles

Somaliland Protectorate

Basutoland

Bech uanaland Protectorate.

SouthernRhodesia.

Northern Rhodesia

Swaziland

Union of South Africa

Nigeria

Gambia

Gold Coast and Protectorate

Sierra Leone and Protectorate

Anglo-Egyptian Sudan

Tanganyika Territory.*

South-West Africa.*

Cameroon.*

Togoland.*

America -

Bermudas

Canada

Falkland Islands and South Georgia

British Guiana

British Honduras

Newfoundland and Labrador

Bahamas

Barbados

Jamaica, &c

Leeward Islands

Trinidad

Windward Island

Australasia -

Australian Commonwealth

Papua

New Zealand

Fiji

Pacific Islands

Territory of New Guinea.*

Western Samoa.*

Nauru.*

Norfolk Island

Mandated Territory

Had Western Australia been given the right to control its own customs and excise, from the point of view of the area administered it would have been the fifth largest of 61 British dependencies having that right. Throughout the British. Empire the right is held by some communities that are very small in regard to both area and population; in Australasia, for example,, Papua; New Guinea, Nauru, Norfolk Island, and Fiji. I cannot see any reason why a similar privilege should not be accorded ‘to Western Australia. Had the recommendation of the royal commission been given effect, it would not have been necessary for me to-day to oppose the adoption of the tariff schedule incorporated in this bill. Canada is the only dependency of those 61 whose area is larger than that of Australia. What is the use of having royal commissions inquiring into the disabilities of different States if, when recommendations are made by them, these are simply pigeon-holed and ignored, as has been the case with this very important recommendation. Of the three commissioners, Mr. Stephen Mills alone dissented from it; and being a resident of Melbourne, his principle objection to it was perhaps not unnatural. It was that the proposal was not desirable in the interests of the other States of the Commonwealth. He said -

The States in which manufacturing is most highly developed, and which have the greater part of the inter-State trade of Western Australia, supplying to that State between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 worth of goods annually, would not unnaturally regard the severance of Western Australia from the economic unity of the Commonwealth as ‘ unjustly barring against them a door which they had a right to regard as having been permanently opened to them by the Constitution.

In other words, he considered that the manufacturing interests of the Eastern States had a right to continue to exploit for all time the markets of Western Australia. You, Mr. President, know better than most persons how one industry after another in Western Australia has been destroyed in its infancy by the dumping of goods from the established factories of the Eastern States. We have not been able to obtain any protection for our infant secondary industries; yet the secondary industries of the Eastern States that have dumped their goods on us with, such persistence as to destroy our factories, demand and receive an exorbitant protection against other parts of the British Empire, and even against the Motherland itself.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the commission from whose report I have read.

Senator O’Halloran:

– But the honorable senator would not impose a tariff against the rest of the world?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Certainly I would ; but it would be a low one, based on revenue requirements. The recommendation that I have read, amplified in another part of the report, sets out that if the right to impose its own customs tariff were conceded to Western Australia, provision should be made that in no circumstances should its tariff against the Eastern States be higher than that against importations from other countries.

Senator Daly:

– The honorable senator would not object to a rise in the exchange rate?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Certainly not; I would welcome it. I hope that nothing which this Government does will be in the direction of lowering the existing rate. At the time that this report was written, it was admitted that, even under the then comparatively low tariff, Western Australia was involved in an additional expenditure of £3,500,000 annually, which represented the difference between what she had to pay for her imports from the Eastern States and the price at which she could obtain them in the open markets of the world.

I desire to emphasize what a tremendous market Western Australia provides for goods manufactured in the Eastern States, and how little those States buy from Western Australia. The facts are set out in the following table : -

Year by year, underthe operation of this tariff, Western Australia has been compelled to take an ever increasing quantity of goods from the factories of the Eastern States, while those States have, year by year, taken an ever decreasing quantity of primary and other products from the west. The people of Western Australia have been compelled to look to overseas markets for the disposal of their products, but the Government, by its embargoes and high duties, has so antagonized overseas peoples, that our market with them has been spoiled. Among our best customers abroad were Great Britain, France, Belgium, J apan and the Dutch Indies, and our trade with all those countries has been affected by the Government’s tariff policy. I have here a copy of a protest against the tariff prepared by the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce in Australia of Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. The trade position in 1929 is set forth in the following table: -

I protest as vigorously as I can against the action of the Government, which has offended our best customers abroad. One can hardly pick up a newspaper these days without reading of some retaliatory action by an overseas country against Australian goods. I have here a copy of the West Australian newspaper, of the 9th October, in which is reported a statement by the Premier of Western Australia, Sir James Mitchell, regarding the comparatively new duty on fruit which has been imposed by the German Government in reply to the duties Australia has placed upon German goods. The report is as follows: -

One of the points raised by speakers at the Road Board meeting was that it was impossible to export fruit to Hamburg because of the very high German duty which has been recently placed upon Australian fruit. Referring to this the Premier said that high tariffs brought retaliation and that the Federal Government should certainly reconsider these duties which had brought this retaliation upon tlie fruit-growers of Western Australia. He pointed out that before the recent tariff rises France bought goods from Australia annually, valued at £15,000,000, and annually sold to the Commonwealth £5,000,000 worth. This useful balance in Australia’s favour no longer existed, lt was noteworthy that unemployment and distress had resulted from the depression equally in high protection countries like Australia and America, with freetrade countries such as Great Britain.

That, of course, is true, but the depression has had its worst effects in those parts of the Commonwealth where trade nas been adversely affected by the Government’s embargoes and high tariffs.

Before federation, when Western Australia had control of her own affairs, her tariff schedule contained only 136 items, and the duties, for the most part, ranged only from 5 per cent, to 15 per cent.

Senator Daly:

– What was the population of Western Australia ait that time?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Whatever the population, the people were engaged chiefly in primary production, as they are now. When they managed their own affairs they allowed machinery, tools and everyday requirements to come into ‘the country either free or at a very low rate of duty. The present tariff schedule provides for increases on 433 items, apart from embargoes and excise duties. Under the old Western Australian tariff, only a few luxury items carried a duty of more than 15 per cent., and then they did not go above 20 per cent.

Senator Daly:

– What acreage was under crop in Western Australia before federation ?

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– There has been a considerable increase in the area under crop but this has been achieved in spite of the burdens of the tariff, and chiefly as the result of the Government’s borrowing policy. Incidentally, I may mention that the British money lender was deceived, as has been pointed out in the report of the British Economic Commission. The British investors thought that they were lending money to the Australian State Governments for the purpose of developing the States, building railways, &c. As a matter of fact, a large proportion of the money borrowed was taken by the Federal Government through the customs as duty on machinery and materials, and the money went into

Commonwealth revenue. In my opinion, this action was contrary’ to the provisions of the Constitution, in which it is laid down that the Commonwealth shall not tax the property of a State. The action of the Commonwealth Government was certainly unjust, and, I believe, illegal. It was particularly unjust to Queensland and Western Australia, which were not developed before federation. Victoria and New South Wales had very largely completed their railway programmes before federation, having imported rails, locomotives, &c, free of duty. Under federation, however, Western Australia and Queensland had to pay heavy duties to the Commonwealth Government on everything they imported for the prosecution of their public works, and the settlers, who obtained financial assistance from the Government, had to pay a duty on the goods they used in developing their properties.

Senator O’Halloran:

– And in return Western Australia has received huge cash disbursements from the Commonwealth.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– She has received small doles. The Commonwealth robbed’ Western Australia of millions, and has not given her in return even as much as was recommended by the independent authorities which inquired into Western Australia’s disabilities.

Under the old Western Australian tariff, sugar was admitted free, glucose at 2s. a cwt. ; ammunition, 5s. a cwt. ; arms of all kinds, 10 per cent. ; iron, plain and galvanized, free; corrugated iron, 20s. a ton ; agricultural machinery, implements, horticultural and viticultural machinery, free; and mould hoards and plough shares, free. Nearly all agricultural machinery was free then; but today, not only have Western Australian farmers to pay 12,^ per cent, more than people in the eastern States for machinery, because of the operation of the Navigation Act, but the Government has entirely prohibited, by means of an embargo which has never been submitted to Parliament for ratification, the importation of agricultural machinery from overseas.

Senator Daly:

– ‘Such machinery is still as cheap in Western Australia as in New Zealand.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– It is much dearer in Western Australia. Clothing and textiles carried duties that to-day would be regarded as nominal. Rails, fish-plates, tie-plates, switches, points, crossings, and intersections for railways and tramways were admitted free under the Western Australian tariff, so that even the private railways built in the State at that time were able to get their materials at a reasonable price. Scrap iron, pig iron, ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, and - various other items of iron and steel also were free. Iron is the basis of machinery and tools of trade, and when the schedule is under consideration I hope to give the Senate an opportunity to make many of the items free of duty as they were in “ the good old days,” which, I am afraid, will never return to Western Australia until its people control their own affairs.

Senator Daly:

– Secession.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– Two of the three members of the royal commission reported against secession, but even they agreed that Western Australia should be allowed for a period of 25 years to control its own customs policy. That could be clone by a simple amendment of the Constitution ; but I have yet to see in offi.ce in this Parliament a government that is prepared to do that measure of justice to Western Australia. Surely there is no reason why that great loyal State should not be afforded the justice recommended by the royal commission, and given a power which the Commonwealth has conceded to Papua, New Guinea, and Norfolk Island. Is Western Australia less important than those small dependencies? The only obstacle to granting to Western Australia the right to frame its own tariff is the selfishness and greed of those people in the eastern States who wish to exploit the residents of the less developed States. No greater scandal has ever been perpetrated in public life than tlie imposition of heavy duties on rails and other State-owned imports, thus imposing a burden on those undeveloped States which are still building railways and otherwise promoting land settlement and development. Both Western Australia and Queensland have borrowed millions of pounds for railway works, and it is entirely due to the operation of the tariff that the governments of those States have not, in recent years,, received in value more than 13s. 4d. for every £1 thus expended. The royal commission’s report pointed out that the Government of Western Australia incurred a liability of millions of pounds to assist settlers by heavy advances through the Agricultural Bank, the group settlement branch, and other instrumentalities, and that because of the tariff the settlers arc not receiving in value more than 13s. 4d. for every £1 of assistance given to them. The development of the State has been seriously retarded, and the prospect of the settlers repaying the advances of the Government has been entirely destroyed. If the Commonwealth Parliament were fair to Western Australia, it would relieve that State of at least one-third of the total amount advanced to settlers, that proportion being the estimate by an independent tribunal of the extra cost imposed on the settlers by the tariff policy. The main result of this policy has been the depopulation of the country areas throughout the Commonwealth and the development of two bloated economic monstrosities, Sydney and Melbourne, with populations of over 1,000,000 and approximately 1,000,000 respectively, which have been built up by a policy of ever-increasing customs duties, while tlie rural areas have simultaneously been reduced almost to destitution. The settlers on small areas, the most desirable type of yeomanry, suffer most through the injurious operation of the high tariff policy. The imposition of heavy duties has been in. direct defiance of the recommendations of all economists who have investigated the matter. First we had the valuable report of Professors Copland, Brigden, and Giblin, and Messrs. Wickens and Dyason, and later when Australia had been brought to the verge of destitution and repudiation, mainly through the high tariff policy, the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers summoned to their assistance leading economists and financial experts to frame a rehabilitation plan. This expert committee consisted of Professors Copland, Giblin, Melville, and Shann, all highly-qualified economists, and Messrs. Pitt, Simpson, Stanley, Strutt, and

Stuckey, the State Under-Treasurers. One of the most important recommendations made by these gentlemen was -

The increased primage duty and the valuation of imports in Australian currency, if adopted, should be accomplished by the abolition of embargoes-

I venture to say they had particularly in mind the embargo on sugar- and rationing in respect of imports imposed during the last two years, and by a reduction of some of the extreme protective duties.

They continued -

On the whole, about £8,000,000 should be obtained from a combination of primage, sales tax, and a revaluation of imports, accompanied by a reduction of embargoes and high customs duties and a more liberal exemption of basic foods and instruments of production.

But whilst the Government accepted inglobe the whole of the taxation proposals, even increasing some of them, the recommendations of the economistsand financial experts that the tariff should be drastically reduced and embargoes abolished have not been heeded.

Senator Daly:

– Why removeone sentence from its context.

Senator E B JOHNSTON:

– The paragraph I have read is complete, and its intention is clear. That such an important recommendation should have been ignored is amazing. If the financial rehabilitation plan fails, the responsibility will rest entirely upon the Federal Government, because of its complete ignoring of a crucial recommendation.

The tariff has caused a staggering increase in the cost of production. The Primary Producers Association of Western Australia has drawn up the following table showing the cost of establishing a farm of 1,000 acres in 1913, as compared with the cost in 1930: -

The extra cost of establishing a reasonably equipped 1,000-acre farm during the later period would be:- The average farmer working a property of this size would not have more than 2,400 bushels of wheat to sell, and at late prices this is not worth to him more than ls. per bushel, after paying for super., bags, &c, or £120. But the interest at 7£ per cent, on the extra cost, £1,400, is £105, leaving only £15. In other words, practically tho whole of this year's returns from wheat would bo required to meet the interest on tho increased costs of production. Even with wheat at 3s. a bushel there would be little left after allowing 10 per cent, for depreciation on plant and 5 per cent, on other perishable improvements. The above farm is equipped for sheep, but at present prices the farmer would be unable to carry on without getting further into debt. One thing alone will give some hope of saving the wheat industry, and that is a drastic reduction in the costs of production. And if our primary industries succumb, what is going to happen to our bolstered secondary industries, which are depending on our primary producers for markets ? Honorable senators will notice that, the increase since 1913 is £1,408, despite the fact that in that year wheat was realizing 3s. 9d. per bushel, and wool £13 13s. Id. a bale, which prices were considerably in excess of those ruling in Western Australia when this return was prepared three months ago. The desperate position of the primary producers, due entirely to the existence of the tariff,, has caused level-headed and reasonable bodies of men to propose desperate remedies. That is why on the 15th October last the Primary Producers Association of Western Australia, with more than 10,000 members, and the Pastoralists Association, including most of the graziers and pastoralists in that State, resolved, in self defence, and as a protest against the tariff, to boycott the products of protected industries sent from the Eastern States. Both associations unanimously carried a resolution as part of a definite plan of campaign. A more conservative, level-headed, moderate body of public opinion could hardly be found in the Commonwealth than that represented by those who form these two associations. Yet they have been so deeply moved by resentment at the wrong-doing of the Commonwealth Government, through the operation of its tariff, that in self-defence they have' proposed and are actually carrying into effect a boycott which is greatly to the detriment of the people who are engaged in manufacturing for the Western Australian market. The resolution they carried is us follows : - > That as all applications made by primary producers' organisations for relief from exces sive customs taxation have failed, and as the present Federal Government is apparently determined to maintain its present inequitable policy, thereby materially adding to the cost of development of farming and pastoral properties, all farmers, graziers, and pastoralists are urged to refrain from all further develop.mental work involving the purchase of ( 1 ) galvanized iron, (2) wire netting, (3) fencing wire, (4) galvanized iron piping, (5) farming and pastoral machinery, (fi) implements and tools of trade. I shall be pleased if the Senate will provide an opportunity for the removal of the duties on all the articles mentioned in that resolution, so that the primary producers may be in a position to produce at a considerably reduced cost compared with that which is obtaining to-day. {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- Is- not the importation of some of those articles prohibited ? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Embargoes are in force in regard to some of them. The tariff has put the great majority of the primary producers of Western Australia and of other States in a low financial state that will not permit them to continue the development of their properties as they would like to develop them; and, even if times improve, the Government will find that this boycott, unwillingly entered into by these Western Australian associations, will rightly be continued until adequate relief is given in regard to the whole of these items and the tariff generally. The gold bounty recently granted by thi3 Parliament is practically the only assistance ever given by the federation to one of the main industries of Western Australia. In the times in which we exist to-day it is of the greatest importance to the whole of the Commonwealth. It was approved by Parliament while the Prime Minister was in Great Britain, but when he returned to Australia, before even a single payment could be made under the provisions of the Gold Bounty Act, the bounty was reduced by 50 per cent. {: .speaker-JZ6} ##### Senator O'halloran: -- Because of the Premiers' plan. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- No. It was not mentioned at the conference at which the plan was drawn up. The reduction was made by the Scullin Government. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- After consultation with the representatives of the Gold Council. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- The less said about that the better. The real opinion of the gold-mining industry is voiced by the Kalgoorlie Chamber of Mines, yet that body was kept in most complete and blissful ignorance of the Commonwealth Government's proposal, and the Western Australian Goldfields Gold Bounty Council strongly objected to the decrease in the bounty. I believe that, if the truth were known, it would be plain that **Senator Daly** objected to this reduction as an act of repudiation. At any rate, this, the. first assistance ever granted to an industry of importance to the State of Western Australia, was reduced by 50 per cent, by the present Government before any payment, had been made. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- The first assistance ever granted to Western Australia by a federal government was the previous Government's grant of £130,000 to the gold-mining industry. {: #subdebate-11-63-s1 .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B ' JOHNSTON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- This was, at any rate, the first assistance granted to a specified industry in Western Australia by way of bounty. In any case, I should like to know how the £138,000 was spent. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- The money was placed at the disposal of the State Government for the specific purpose of assisting the gold-mining industry. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- I have no desire to deprive the Government of which the right honorable gentleman was a member of any credit for having provided a grant to assist the gold-mining industry of Western Australia; but I am sure it was not advertised from one end of the world to the other as the gold bounty has been advertised with a view to attracting fresh capital into Australia for the development of the gold.mining industry. The point I wish to make is that the gold bounty, small as it was, was reduced by 50 per cent, before any payment was made. It is the only bounty paid by the Commonwealth Government' on increased production. All other bounties are paid on total production. *[Extension of time granted. * The gold bounty has been reduced by 50 per cent., but customs duties on the protected industries of the Eastern States have been increased by 50 and 100 per cent. These industries have already .enjoyed 30 years of high protection, yet some of them have been given complete embargoes. In other cases, the duties have been increased by 50 aud 100 per cent, and upwards. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- And the ' industries they protect are still infants ! {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Yes. They are still, like the daughters of the horseleech, crying, " Give, give ". When we see the treatment they are receiving, compared with that of the gold-mining industry, which is carried on in the outlying parts of the Commonwealth, can we wonder that the feeling exists that the tariff is being used to protect industries for the benefit of Sydney aud Melbourne, at the expense nf the whole of the Commonwealth ? {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- Why not try to be a little less parochial? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Parochial! We have stood 30 years of tariffism in the alleged interests of the' nation, and suffered in our pockets all the time. I wish now to quote from reports of an inquiry made by Professors Brigden, Copland, and Giblin, and Messrs. E. O. Dyason and C. H. Wickens, into the burden which the tariff policy at that time imposed on Australian industries. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- At what time? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- About 2-J years ago. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- I rise to a point of order. I do not wish to take any unnecessary objection, but' is the honorable senator in order in quoting a comment on what is obviously some other tariff than that which is now before the Senate? {: #subdebate-11-63-s2 .speaker-KPQ} ##### The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon W Kingsmill: -- For the purposes of comparison an honorable senator is entitled to do so. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- These gentlemen said - >We estimate that Australian products which are protected, cost £36m. more than the same goods could bo imported for, duty free. Protected manufactured goods cost about £2Gm. more than free imports, and protected primary products about £10m. There is also, partly in consequence of protection, about £12m. of assistance to primary industry given by Governments from general revenue. A royal commission which recently inquired into the farmers' disabilities in Western Australia reported - . From these inquiries it would therefore postulate that wheat carried .10 per cent, on a 6s. per bushel price (in view of the fact that the 1 per cent, deduction for the assistance to other primary producers does not benefit wheat), which means 7.2 pence per bushel. With the lowering values on wheat, the resultant reduction per bushel remains and the percentage considerably increases. As this protection was based -on the tarin" of 1920-27, since when increases in tariff have taken place, although against these, lower costs 'in manufacturing machinery should reduce the cost to the farmer. Thus we have it estimated that the extra cost to the wheat-grower through the tariff was 7.2d. per bushel at that time. Then we have the following opinion expressed by **Dr. W.** H. Hancock, of South Australia: - >The farmer, if the burden of protection were lifted from his shoulders, might hope to make an additional 7d. on every bushel of wheat which he produces. Recent tariff increases are, however, accountable for a further cost, and some authorities assess the present burden imposed by the tariff, directly and indirectly, at ls. a bushel on the cost' of producing wheat. This seems to be an accurate estimate. When we take into consideration the huge areas of land we have that cannot be worked under the present high cost of production, also the competition which the wheat-growers of Australia have to face from other wheatgrowing countries in the markets of the world where they must sell the greater part of their product, I think we are entitled to take all the steps we can to try to relieve the wheat-growers -of Australia of the excessive burden imposed upon, them by the tariff. The schedule we are now considering has increased the burden from *1.* 2d. to ls. a bushel. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- With the assistance of the wheat bounty, the burden is now back to 7. 2d. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Very nearly. Unemployment has increased concurrently with every increase in the tariff. Two years ago, when the Scullin administration introduced its first tariff schedule, it was asserted that, following increased protection, there would be work for all. Let us see what really has happened. In September, 1.929, before this Government attained to office, the percentage of unemployment among trade unionists throughout Australia was 12.1. In November, shortly after the introduction of its first tariff schedule, under which we were assured that there would bc work for all, unemployment rose to 13.1 per cent.-, in March, 1930, it was 14.6 per cent. ; in June, 18.5 per cent. ; in September, 20.5 per cent. ; and in December, 23.4 per cent. During this time the Minister for Trade and Customs brought down a number of alterations to the tariff, all in an upward direction, and by March, 1931, the unemployment figures were 25.8 per cent., and at the end of June, they had risen to the unprecedented level of 27.6 per cent. The Minister may endeavour to persuade us that this increase in unemployment was due to other causes. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- The tariff had nothing whatever to do with it. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -The tariff was wholly to blame. If the Minister and his colleagues think otherwise, I challenge them to reduce the duties to the level of the 1908-1912 tariff. If this were done we should see an immediate improvement in the unemployment figures, and it would not be long before our people were at work again. {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- The unemployment figures quoted by the honorable senator confirm the prediction of the economists who made a special inquiry into the effect of the tariff. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- Yes ; that is so. If the people of Western Australia had control of their own affairs I am convinced that steps would be taken immediately to reduce customs duties at least to the level of the 1908-1912 tariff, which is the object of the Victorian tariff reform leagues. There would then be employment for all in Western Australia, and the exodus of farmers from the Eastern. States to that State would be reminiscent of the rush that took place to the Western States of the United States of America when land, taken from the Indian reservations, was thrown open for selection. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- Does the honorable senator know anything about group settlement ? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -The present position of the group settlement in Western Australia was brought about by the cancellation of the migration agreement, with the result that settlers in new areas were denied railway facilities which would have been given to them if the agreement had been honoured. If the group and other settlements in my State were relieved of the extra cost caused entirely by the tariff, and amounting to about 6s. 8d. in every £1 of liability incurred in respect of developmental work', the prospects of the settlers would be much brighter than they are now. Every one in Australia would like to see an extension of inter-Empire trade. Last year a special committee, representing the Primary Producers Association of Western Australia., and comprising Messrs. W. G. Pickering, J. E. L, Brinkley, **Mr. H.** Gregory, M.P., and myself, inquired into, and reported upon, the possibility of the development of Empire trade in primary products. In our report we directed attention to the need for the more extensive advertising of the products of the Mother Country throughout Australia, and pointed out that, although in the earlier days of Empire settlement British trade followed the British flag, the position had been entirely altered since the introduction of moving pictures. Trade now followed the picture film. Largely as the result of intense propaganda, through the medium of moving pictures under American direction, a marked preference for American goods has become evident in many countries. Even in Australia we import, under the general tariff, many commodities from foreign countries which should come from Empire sources and be admitted under the British preferential tariff. Referring to the effect on trade of the exhibition of motion pictures produced in the United States of America, the committee reported - >There is no doubt that the motion picture is a great factor .in building up an export trade. The old axiom that trade followed the flag is no longer true. The exhibition of motion pictures throughout the world, portraying American trade, customs and national life, has been of enormous benefit to her export trade, and this must continue to grow unless Britain can develop this important branch of industry. One phase of this business which appears to have been overlooked, has done much towards furthering and advertising American interests. For instance, the type of decoration of buildings, both exterior and interior, in which American products or manufactures predominate, and the furnishing of rooms -of various natures, all has had a trend to direct the public's attention to the design and material of American origin, and it is difficult to estimate how great an influence this has had upon the importations from that country. Possibly, this may be somewhat adjusted by the ratio of increase in British productions, but it is a point which your committee thinks might be emphasized in connexion with the diverting of foreign manufactures to Empire sources. Efforts may well be made by tlie dominions to encourage the development of this industry. During the last week or so there has been a distinct change in the attitude of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde).** For months he had been telling us that our trade with foreign countries is not a matter of much importance, because they buy from us only what it pays them to buy here. But last Friday the *Canberra Times* reported that the Minister had said that, if the British Economic Conference were not held soon - he suggested January instead of July - he would have to go on making trade agreements with foreign countries, which were anxious to negotiate agreements with us. {: .speaker-JZD} ##### Senator Foll: -- He was afraid that he might miss the trip in July. {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- That is so. For two years the Minister has disregarded the claims of Australian primary producers and consumers in the interests of Australian manufacturers, but last week he was prepared to throw them over in order that he might get away quickly to Ottawa and London. He sees the writing on the wall; he knows what the verdict of the electors will be. The Minister has also found that there is some virtue in imports. For nearly two years he has preached the gospel of embargoes and prohibitions; he has told us that there is no need to trade with foreign countries. But the other day he rejoiced that the estimate of customs and excise- revenue, for the period ended the 7th November, had been exceeded by £45,000. Indeed, the honorable gentleman seemed quite buoyed up because of that surplus. In *The World* of the 12th November there ls a report of the speech which the Minister in charge of this bill **(Senator Daly)** proposes to make at the conclusion of this debate. By some accident his carefully prepared speech was published in the columns of the press before being delivered in the Senate. The report is headed, " Tariff brings us new cash " ; but looking through the speech I have not been able to see any evidence in support of that statement. On the contrary, I claim - as I have shown clearly - that the policy of high protection has caused further unemployment, and has increased the number of dole recipients in every part of the world in which it has operated. The report continues, "Industries spring into existence with the imposition of scientific duties ". I shall not read further, and rob the Minister of the privilege of making his own speech. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- I should be glad if the honorable senator would do so, in order that the matter may be incorporated in *Hansard.* {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- In the newspaper report to which I have referred we have an example of the most' modern newspaper enterprise, although the publication of the Minister's speech is, perhaps, a little premature. I have dealt somewhat at length with the effect of the tariff on Western Australia. I desire now to quote from J. M. Robertson's *Fiscal Fraud and Folly,* in order to show that the experience of other countries in tariff matters is similar to that of Australia. On page 114 **Mr. Robertson** says - >And all the while, decade after decade, the tariff made depressions in trade recur, throwing idle uncounted millions of men for long spells of distress, and promoting similar depressions in other countries. The only difference is that the labourer, for whose sake the tariff is professionally imposed, is bled to the bone, while the agriculturist is bled all the time. The writer has pictured the state of affairs which exists in Australia. Under the heading, " The Victimization of the Parmer ", he continues - >Beyond this revelation of recent imposition on the American consumer, there stretches a long record of the systematic plunder of the fanner in the interests of the protected manufacturing industries. It began with the century; and all along the story has been one of the stultification of the bounty of natureby the shrewd and merciless extortion of the fiscal system engineered by the protected trades. In the days before the Civil War it was the southern producer of cotton and tobacco and cereals who were chiefly bled in the interests of northern manufacturers. We could alter that last sentence to meet Australian' conditions by making it read, " The western producers who were chiefly bled in the interests of eastern manufacturers ". The writer goes on to say - >All that could be said of the plundering of the Trench peasantry by the fisc in the eighteenth century was illustrated anew in the practice of the American republic. In recent times the story is only more complicated. *Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m.* {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B JOHNSTON: -- The interesting work from which I was quoting continues - >In respect of one tariff, some years ago, it was alleged in the American press that the farmer had been bled in one year to the extent of $800,000,000 by the extra prices he had to pay for the machinery and other articles he had to buy. But this ruinous extortion was nothing new; and the only way to pretend to recoup the farmer was to offer him protection on some of his produce. I regret that the brief time at my disposal does not permit me to amplify the comparison between America's position and Australia's tariff of abominations which we are now considering. The " tariff of abomination," so known in the history of the United States of America, was the tariff of 1828, in which the protective tendencies - of 1816 and 1824 were greatly developed. It caused great opposition in the south, and led to the nullification movement. This Australian tariff has caused great opposition in the west, and has led to the secession movement. The Senate should reject the bill. That would at least give us relief to the extent that we should then get back to the Bruce-Page tariff of 1928, which was bad enough. I can only say that while the tariff imposed by the Bruce-Page Government chastised us with whips, the Scullin Government tariff has chastised us with scorpions of a particularly objectionable type. I have gone carefully through the schedule to see if there is any good in it at all. I find that there are 433 items, apart from excise, under which increased duties are imposed, and in those 433 increases I can see the same number of reasons why the Senate should reject the bill *in tolo.* These increases will not assist primary production in Australia. On the contrary, the increased duties on the 433 items will be a direct burden on the great agricultural and pastoral industries. Every increase places another burden on those engaged in primary production, and will further increase the cost of living and of production in Australia. {: #subdebate-11-63-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The honorable senator has exhausted his time. {: #subdebate-11-63-s4 .speaker-K3L} ##### Senator SAMPSON:
Tasmania -- **Mr. President,** I bring you glad tidings. Looking around the chamber, it has just dawned upon me that, with the exception of the Assistant Minister **(Senator Daly),** who will reply to the debate, I am the only pebble on the beach, the only speaker remaining. The Senate is exhausted - I do not mean physically. Lord Beaverbrook's friend is not present to-day - I refer to **Senator R.** D. Elliott - who, as a good crusader, I anticipated would have taken part in this debate. Unfortunately, he is not here, and so I arn the last of the Mohicans. I did not intend to speak on the second reading of this bill; I preferred to make my remarks on the tariff when the schedule is under consideration. But I have had so many requests from honorable senators to participate in the debate that, by special request, I propose to give the Senate the benefit of a few thoughts on the tariff. I hold firmly to the opinion that there are two functions of government which should be outside of politics - defence and the tariff. If you, sir, visited the Senate club room and the room adjoining it, and opened the lockers in which the mail matter of honorable senators is placed, you would find them full of a vast accumulation of letters, pamphlets and telegrams all relating to the tariff. Then, when honorable senators get beyond the corridors outside this chamber, and enter the King's Hall, they are immediately accosted by various manufacturers' agents who pester them with tariff matters. That is only natural, because tariffs build up vested interests, and, human nature being as it is, these agents are out to defend what they have, to consolidate their gains, or to increase them further. During the debate some heat has been engendered. If any honorable senator has the temerity to suggest that a duty of 65 per cent, should be reduced to 45 per cent., he is immediately branded by certain honorable senators as a freetrader. The term " freetrader " seems to be synonymous with that euphonious term " scab," so frequently used in Australia. Apparently, in i lie opinion of some honorable senators, freetraders and "scabs" are in the same category. 1 contend that customs duties should be determined, not by Parliament, but by an independent body such as the Tariff Board. During the last few weeks those honorable senators who are members of sub-committees appointed by a section of the Senate have read quite a number of the Tariff Board's reports. The subcommittee to which I belong has most carefully perused probably 50 or CO of the board's reports, which are most illuminating documents. They show that the most careful consideration has been given to detail, and I would be quite satisfied to accept the recommendations of thai body on tariff matters. Reference hae been made to the Tariff Board's annual report, dated the 30th June of this year. Any one who has taken trouble, not only to read the report but to study it, cannobut come to the conclusion that the tariff is a subject which members of Parliament, even though their intention may be the best, have not the time to study properly. The Australian tariff and its opposite number - to apply a term much used in the army and navy - the wage-fixing system which we adopted in this country many years ago, are, in the main, responsible for the muddle in which we find ourselves to-day. Tariff protection and wage-fixing combined constitute an unholy union, and their offspring consists of rising production costs and prices which temporarily operate to the benefit of protected and sheltered industries, but ultimately conduce to their destruction. Under the heading of " The Tariff Habit ", the Tariff Board has something very interesting to say on page 20 of its annual report. Doubtless, honorable senators have read the paragraph; but I propose to quote it, because I think it worthy of our closest study, lt seems to sum up the whole position concisely, and, in my opinion, it is absolutely true. The board states - >In tlie course of the inquiries conducted by the board during the year under review, there has not been lacking evidence of the tendency of some manufacturers to turn to the custom* tariff for assistance without first making reasonable efforts to increase their production by other means available to them. Tlie foot that other manufacturers had received assist : 111Ce through the tariff appeared to lie tinmotive that prompted some to apply for very high duties, in some instances where manufacturers did not actually seek increased duties they appeared before the board to support proposals for such duties. It cannot he too plainly stated that the board, in dealing with requests for duties, will continue to thoroughly investigate the efficiency of the plants and methods of production of the applicants, and those supporting the requests. The board will also take into consideration the extent to which the industry is natural to Australia. The chief factor that will ultimately count in thu recovery of Australia from the present difficulties is reduced costs of production on the part of both the secondary and primary industries. Those difficulties will never be overcome by simply raising the duties under the customs tarin". The danger of too much tariff assistance lies in the development in industry of a sense pf dependence upon governmental assistance rather than in the promotion of earnest effort to self-reliance and maximum of -efficiency. That goes to the root of the matter, particularly iu regard to certain industries which one could name. It is obvious that no function of government requires greater restraint, wider knowledge or sounder judgment than the administration of a protective policy. It is fatal for such a policy to be the plaything of party politics, and to be used for vote-catching, us it undoubtedly has been in Australia. The tariff, as I have said, requires thorough investigation, great restraint, the widest possible knowledge, and the exercise of very sound judgment. If it is made a vote-catching contrivance, the result is bound to be almost catastrophic. Such influential vested interests are built up that it becomes a case of " pull devil, pull baker." This is only the second tariff with which I have had anything to do, and it is nightmarish in its proportions. It is unquestionable that, if carried to extremes, a , tariff is capable of ruining a country. I maintain that under the present Government our tariff has been carried to incredible extremes. I have been sent a pamphlet which touches on that aspect of the case, and contains very sound arguments. Tariff making may be likened to the use of drugs. Certain drugs are beneficial so long as they are taken in moderation; but the last state of the person who becomes addicted to their unrestrained use is exceedingly horrible. The pamphlet to which I have alluded was written by S. F. Ferguson, and is entitled *The Australian Tariff Debacle.* At page 6, **Mr. Ferguson** says - >When a government imposes upon the public a burden of protection greater than the public can carry, the results are disastrous to the protected industries themselves. In the belief that the subsidies promised by the increased tariffs are .forthcoming, capital is invested and labour is diverted into the apparently favored industries. An increased duty on one item alone would undoubtedly be beneficial to the industry concerned; but when the same legislative act gives additional protection to hundreds of industries, the one direct. "benefit-' is cancelled by the diffused effect on costs of ali the remaining "benefits", and the public is compelled to pay them all. That is the stage that we have reached to-day. Protection, given within the means of a community, and to carefully protected industries which are more or less natural, may have beneficial results; but indiscriminate protection, coupled with artificial wage-fixing, which takes little or no account of economic consequences, must inevitably lead to national ruin. The present tariff has placed the secondary industries in a sort of holy of holies, and has prevented them from the direct effects of the reductions that have taken place in the prices of goods manufactured abroad. When the world depression arrived, the prices of our manufactures did not decline in sympathy with the drop that took place overseas. Admittedly there has been some reduction; but it was belated and relatively slight, because our manufacturers, protected as they were, were not forced by outside competition to follow the downward trend to its fullest extent. The reductions that have been made were the result of inability on the part of primary producers to pay the prices previously asked. One afternoon, shortly after the tariff was drastically revised, there were seated in the Senate chamber representatives of France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and Japan. All thinking persons will admit that, with the world constituted as it now is, there must be reciprocity of trade be tween the different nations. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- Is the honorable senator opposed to the principle of protection? {: .speaker-K3L} ##### Senator SAMPSON: -- I object to being branded as a freetrader merely because I wish to reduce a duty from 65 per cent, to 50 per cent, or 45 per cent. Slogans are useful in their way, especially at election time. They appeal either to the emotions or to the passions of the multitude, not to the grey matter in their craniums. Time after time, when an honorable senator has suggested the slight reduction of a particular item that is absolutely excessive, so as -to bring it within reason, the parrot cry has resounded through this chamber, " You are a freetrader ". I 3hall endeavour to demonstrate that, from the point of view of reciprocity in trade between the nations, Australia has seriously transgressed. It is on that account that I believe that a revision of the tariff is essential. The effect of any tariff legislation must be given full and careful consideration. It will not be denied that in the final analysis Australia depends entirely on her primary producers. That is not a new thought; it has been expressed frequently during the last few weeks, and can be regarded as axiomatic. The reason is that secondary industries are dependent for their market upon the primary producers, and the employment that they can give is governed by the purchasing power which is made available both internally and externally by the primary industries. Every action that retards or restricts reciprocal trade between Australia and other nations makes it more difficult for our primary industries to carry on. The imposition of excessive duties has made it impossible for many of the manufactures of Great Britain to be sold in Australia. The workman in Great Britain does not take long to learn the reason for his being thrown out of work; and, following the dictates of human nature, he develops, perhaps unconsciously, a bias against the country which makes it impossible for its people to purchase the product of his labour, and thus contributes to his unemployment and consequent distress. A careful revision of our tariff would reveal many lines which could be purchased advantageously in Great Britain. It is obvious that any policy which restricts our purchases from Great Britain - which, by the way, is our best customer for our exportable surplus - must eventually re-act on ourselves. It is idle to point to, and to make a great mouthful of, the preferences that we give to Great Britain, the value of which has been variously stated at £8,000,000, £10,000,000, and even £12,000,000- figures that it is difficult to check up, although I am pleased that an attempt to do so has been made. The answer is that it is useless to give preferences if the preferential duties are so high that they prohibit importation. That is what is occurring with respect to many lines that are in every-day use. Much of the talk in regard to preferences is downright hypocrisy. The preferential duties may appear attractive in the tariff schedule, but they are not worth two hoots, because even under them it is impossible to import. If for no other reason than that Australia is > absolutely dependent for her security on the British Navy, the question of considerably reducing the duties on goods manufactured in Great Britain should be given seriousconsideration. We make no payment for that protection, without which there would be no feeling of security in this country, and that would have a considerable influence in hindering our development.' I do not consider it at all likely that foreign countries will publicly declare- their adoption of a policy of retaliation against -Australia, although there is abundant evidence that the people of France, Germany, and Italy would heartily support such action by their respective governments. Undoubtedly, serious retail ari on has actually been put in operation against Australia by individual merchants in different countries, against whose goods we have imposed excessive and unreasonable duties. Notwithstanding all the glib talk about a self-contained Australia, such a thing is not possible, even if it were desirable, as the world is constituted to-day. Excessive duties are dangerous, because they may serve to shelter inefficient industries, and because they afford such a measure of protection to other industries that undue profits are made. We have had examples within the last two years of high protection encouraging manufacturers to install more plant than was justified by the available market, which, in the case of Australia, is a limited one. With the exception of one or two lines, it is impossible for our secondary industries to export profitably. High tariffs also encourage the production of goods at an uneconomic price. No doubt most articles can be made in Australia; in fact, I go so far as to say that any article can be made here. It would be possible, no doubt, to grow tomatoes at the North Pole, but it would not be economic. It would be possible to conduct a polar bear stud farm at the equator, but that would not be the most suitable place at which to carry on the enterprise. Thus, although we can make anything we like in Australia, there are some things which it does not pay us to make. On the other hand, there are certain industries natural to Australia, and thesewe should protect and foster. There are other industries of the hot-house variety which we are extremely foolish to try to establish. Prohibitive duties disrupt trade generally. The community is best served by duties' sufficient to enable the efficient manufacturer to develop his business and secure trade by competition. I remember quite well, asI have no doubt do other honorable senators, the vain and empty mouthings of the Minister for Trade and Customs **(Mr. Forde),** when he sought to justify the tariff amendments by enlarging upon the benefits they would confer, and the amount of employment they would provide. All sorts of fantastic figures were produced in support of this extraordinary tariff schedule. At one time it was said that employment would be found for 100,000 men. That was the minimum claim, and the same sort of thing was repeated *ad nauseam.* As a matter of fact, this tariff schedule, which was going to cure the unemployment evil, has done nothing but accentuate it. Possibly the unthinking may have swallowed that dope, and believed that the things which were promised would come to pass. There has been sufficient time, however, since the introduction of this amended schedule for some of its boasted advantages to become apparent. The mountain has been in travail, but I doubt whether it has brought forth even the proverbial mouse. There is a sound case for the revision of the tariff schedule ; there is a growing demand for it, and it must be done. Those twin evils, the tariff and our wagefixing machinery, must be tackled. Let me read the following extract from an' article which has been written on the subject : - It is hardly necessary to point out that the greater part of the present grave economic crisis can be directly traced to two twin evils - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the "Harvester" award of 1907, which established a minimum wage for a man, his wife, and three dependent children (throwing upon industry the responsibility of making provision for 500,000 nonexistent wives and 2,000,000 nonexistent children ) ; and 1. the adoption of the policy of high protection to afford shelter to the secondary industries for the purpose of enabling them to meet the demand of maintaining the new basic wage. These twin evils brought into being the vicious circle, the outcome of which was a progressive rise in the cost of living; wages, and the tariff barrier, until breaking point was reached in 1929. Incidentally, by reason of the fact that the vicious circle built up a large urban population at the expense of those engaged in rural occupations, an extravagant policy of public borrowing overseas to maintain employment for what was really the surplus urban workers was entered upon. If a satisfactory revision of the tariff is to be made, it is essential that certain fundamental principles should be recognized. The first is, that only those secondary industries engaged in converting raw materials into finished goods at a reasonable cost are entitled to protection. Such protection should be gradually withdrawn as the -industry becomes established, and any other duties imposed for revenue purposes only should be definitely restricted. At the same time, arbitrary restriction, placed on industry by the working conditions laid down under existing Arbitration Court awards should be lifted. We must remember that world selling prices are fixed with mathematical precision by the law of supply and demand. We may legislate and attempt to control markets, but in the existing state of civilization, and under the present method of conducting trade and commerce, we always come back once more to that inexorable law of supply and demand. Furthermore, trade is not only reciprocal, but it is inter-dependent, so that if we seek to carry out a policy of trade exclusiveness and isolation within the present tariff barrier, or tariff wall, we shall set in motion a train of events which will result in the stifling of our export trade. There has been much talk in this chamber about freetrade and protection. For my part, I have never met any one, either in this chamber or in another place, who has professed himself a freetrader. I doubt whether there are any in this Parliament; but I have met many who are firmly convinced that we are facing in the wrong direction, and that it is high time that this hastily devised tariff was revised and corrected for the good of the country. That has been borne in upon me more and more during the last four or five weeks, because I have had the opportunity, while working on a committee with which. I am associated, of studying Tariff Board reports o:n various items contained in the schedule. I cannot support any increase of any duty which has not been reported upon by the Tariff Board. It is impossible for members of this Parliament, because of their multifarious duties, and of the demands on their time through travelling, &c, to study and digest the mass of data placed before them regarding tariff items, and to arrive at a proper decision as to what would be a fair and reasonable duty in any particular instance. A great many items in this schedule have not been reported upon by the Tariff Board at all, while in other cases the recommendation of the board has not been taken. the duties it suggested being very greatly exceeded by the Minister. Until proposed alterations have been reported upon by the Tariff Board there should be no tinkering with the tariff. Looking back over the last few years it seems to me that Australia has made an absurd and futile attempt to become overnight a great manufacturing country by the simple process of imposing duties on practically everything that might, conceivably be made locally. That explains why so many ephemeral industries have sprung up in city backyards. I have in mind an absurd project which was put forward in Tasmania a few years ago, and which, in all seriousness, was represented to the then Minister for Trade and Customs as worthy of tariff assistance. At that time I was more or less a supporter of the proposal, but in the light of subsequent events and fuller knowledge I am satisfied that it was quite unsound. Australia has tried to run before it could walk, or even crawl, and has nearly broken its neck in the attempt. It must take more lessons in crawling or walking, and in the natural order of events it should be able to run later. In tariff making we should aim at the happy medium, but while excessive duties continue to be granted, irrespective of their effect upon other industries, protection as now practised can prove only. a great hindrance to secondary as well as primary production. The debate on this measure has been long, but it has served a good purpose, and I trust that when the schedule is being considered in committee each item will be reasonably and dispassionately dealt with on its merits - if that be possible. "We all are more or less geographical freetraders or protectionists, and in that regard I cannot help putting to ourselves the question which formed the title of a comedy I enjoyed a few years ago - "Aren't we all?" {: #subdebate-11-63-s5 .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY:
Assistant Minister · South Australia · ALP , - I agree with **Senator Sampson's** statement that, in an economic sense, Australia " nearly broke its neck". It was at that dangerous crisis that the present Government came into office. It has taken us a long time to convince even one member of the Opposition of the serious physical condition of the country when it was committed to our care. {: .speaker-KLU} ##### Senator Sir William Glasgow: -- Care? {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- Yes; if it had continued in the charge of its former custodians the- next time it attempted to negotiate a hurdle it certainly would have broken its neck, and it would have needed no further attention than that of the undertaker. I am not unmindful of the possibility that the majority of honorable senators are prepared to reject this measure and revert to the old tariff schedule, but I ask them before taking such a hazardous course to realize the position of Australia when the Government assumed office. The Ministry was confronted with a grave financial crisis which had developed because of our failure as a nation to live within our means during the seven years prior to 1929. The Government had to face difficulties which were not of its creation. To help in the solution of them it framed its tariff policy, and that policy must be viewed as a whole. Anomalies, injustices, and indiscretions may be discovered by critics in respect of individual items, but such items, when considered as part of a general scheme, lose their nominal significance, and assume their real significance. The tariff can be fairly judged only if the bill is allowed to reach the committee stage so that the items may be reviewed in detail. No government could frame a. tariff without creating nominal injustices or anomalies, but I warn the Senate to be careful that in seeking to remove them it does not drive in one nail and loosen a dozen others. The first matter the Labour Cabinet had to consider upon its assumption of office was the financial position of Australia. It is all very well to talk about what Australia should and could buy, but the Government had to consider mainly what our people could pay for. {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- We could not buy anything we could not pay for. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- Can any one imagine a more foolish statement? During the seven years prior to the advent of the present Labour Government, did not Australia buy millions of pounds worth of goods that it could not pay for? {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- No; Australia was able to borrow money, and with that money paid for the goods. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- I might as well say that if I can borrow £5 from a friend I can afford to buy a new suit. {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- People can buy so long as other people are willing to lend them the necessary money. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- If that is the system of finance advocated by the opponents of Labour, I hope that for the sake of Australia's good name Labour will never be out of office. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Labour did most of the borrowing. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- That is not so. It is not honest trading to borrow money with which to buy goods, unless the borrower has a reasonable expectation of being able to repay. Often I have heard **Senator Colebatch** complain that Australia borrowed money abroad with which to build this Federal Capital City. His complaint was not so much of the borrowing as of the manner in which the money was expended. If we have not the means to buy an English bath, for example, and we borrow money for the purpose, is that honest trading? The Government was faced with a financial crisis, interwoven with which was a serious adverse trade balance. As the story of our finances was unfolded, it became evident that Australia's position was far more serious than even the most pessimistic member of the newly elected Cabinet had thought possible. The overseas position had, we ascertained, developed into a crisis of the first magnitude. Our national income for 1928-29 was estimated at £640,000,000, but was rapidly declining. Out of this national income credits had to be established to meet commitments at home and abroad. Previously our foreign obligations had been met by export^ plus borrowings. Apart from the menace to our national financial stability which continual borrowing constituted, the overseas loan market had definitely closed its doors to Australia. No longer could we look to external loans to make up the deficiency in our exports, or to meet the cost of excess imports. Our exports, plus the gold reserves, established the limits of our interest payments and "imports. If there was an excess of imports over exports default in respect of our interest commitments was inevitable. No attempt had been made to marshal the nation's financial resources, nor had the banks instituted any system of credit rationing. The Government did not take long to come to the conclusion that our external position was the greatest danger confronting the nation. It was realized by Ministers that the rapid decline of the national income, combined with the closing of the overseas loan market, would have its repercussions in the industrial sphere. The value of the output from our factories for 1928-29 was £420,445,288; the number of employees engaged was 450,482. The importation of goods of a luxury nature, or of classes which were being manufactured in Australia, was not only adding greater difficulties to our already precarious financial position overseas, but was also jeopardizing the existence of our principal secondary industries, and at the same time forcing thousands of persons out of employment on to the dole. Our western civilization has evolved a code of rights, among which is the right to live. Accordingly, the Commonwealth and the States recognize their obligation to furnish the wherewithal to those deprived of their employment. Hence each person thrown out of employment becomes a direct charge on the nation's producers, irrespective of whether they be engaged in primary or secondary industry. It was essential, therefore, that effective measures should be taken to keep as many in employment as possible. If the trade balance in any one year were adverse, stringent measures might not be necessary to rectify it, but the history of Australia's external trading during the seven-year period prior to 1929 lod the Government to the conclusion that the growth had become malignant, and that tinkering with the complaint would be futile. Viewed from a merchandise point of view, the value of imports had exceeded the value of exports by £78,000,000 during this seven-year period. Our average annual overseas interest payments amounted to £27,000,000, or a total of £190,000,000 for the seven years. Nothing the Government could immediately do would increase the total value of our exports or our national income, as the prices of wool and wheat were determined by world's parity. The Government had to make up its mind as to which of two courses would be of the greater benefit to the Commonwealth: - (a) Heavy increase in the then exchange rate; (Z>) restriction of imports. In considering the first alternative, due regard had to be paid to the effect on government finances. Our overseas interest payments totalled something like £29,000,000. Every 1 per cent; increase in the exchange rate meant an addition of £290,000 to the burdens of the Australian governments. It could be safely assumed that an exchange rate of at least 50 per cent, would be required to stem the flow of imports. Naturally, it would not be necessary for this rate to be imposed immediately, but it would be attained through gradual rises. The dependence on the exchange rate solely had within it the serious defect that it would enable importers of luxury goods, and goods which can and are being made in Australia, to compete for funds in the overseas markets against Australian purchasers of raw materials and other essential necessaries. The competition for funds by these people would send the exchange rate higher than would be necessary if only raw materials and essential commodities were imported. In other words, the exchange rate operating by itself as a corrective measure would erect an unscientific tariff wall, as it would not discriminate between the various classes of the goods imported into the Commonwealth. The following is a comparative statement of the importations of certain classes of goods for the years 1928-29 and 1930-31 showing the effects of the Government's import restrictive measures : - 1 ask leave. to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted ; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1711 {:#debate-12} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-12-0} #### Transport Workers Regulations - Exchange Rate Motion (by **Senator Barnes)** proposed - >That the Senate do now adjourn. **Senator Sir GEORGE** PEARCE (Western Australia) [9.6]. - I wish to draw attention to a further breach of the Government's election pledge to stand by the principles of arbitration; it is made by the latest regulations issued under the Transport Workers Act. The first regulations issued by this Government under this act were contrary to an award of the Arbitration Court. That tribunal had been asked to give preference to unionists, and had refused to do so; nevertheless, regulations were" issued by this Government overriding that decision, and giving preference in employment on the waterfront to members of the Waterside Workers Federation. The Government's latest regulations under the Transport Workers Act override another principle contained in an award of the Arbitration Court - that -when a waterside worker is engaged to work a vessel, his engagement lasts until the completion of the unloading of the vessel. "When the Senate has at various times disallowed regulations, and some of the unfortunate volunteers have obtained employment, that employment has under the award of the court continued until the completion of the unloading of the vessel on which they were engaged; but this has been altered by the latest regulations dated the 14th November, 1931. Section 6 of these regulations reads as follows : - {: type="A" start="G"} 0. -- ( I.) A licensing officer may, for the purposes of these regulations, determine whether any transport worker (being a waterside worker) is a member of the organization known as the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia or whether any person is a returned soldier or returned sailor within the meaning of these regulations. (2.) Any person or organization aggrieved by any such determination may within fourteen days of tho date of the determination appeal against the determination to a court of summary jurisdiction. (3.) The appeal shall be by summons calling upon the licensing officer to show cause why his determination should not be set aside. (4.) Upon the hearing of the appeal, the Court may as it thinks fit confirm, vary or set aside the determination and its decision on such appeal shall be final and conclusive and without appeal, and shall not bo questioned in any way. That regulation places in the hands of the officer administering the act the right to say to these volunteers, whose only crime, as I have frequently said, is that they obeyed the law of the country, and enabled its transport work to be carried on, " You are not members of the Waterside Workers Federation, and must cease work immediately ". At any rate, that is what happened on Saturday last. These men, working under an award of the court, were entitled to complete the unloading of the vessels on which they were engaged; but by these regulations they were discharged from their employment and were no longer eligible to get further employment. This overriding of an award of the Arbitration Court is the action of a government which told the electors that if it were put into power it would uphold the principles of arbitration ! {: #subdebate-12-0-s0 .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY:
South Australia Assistant Minister · ALP .- The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Pearce)** is in the habit of making speeches on the adjournment which bear somewhat on the humorous side. Let us see exactly what this Government has done. {: .speaker-KTX} ##### Senator McLACHLAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP -- You will need a microscope. {: #subdebate-12-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I ask honorable senators to allow the Assistant Minister to be heard in silence. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- I agree that a microscope is necessary to see the Government's offence. {: .speaker-K3L} ##### Senator Sampson: -- **Senator McLachlan** did not say that a microscope would be necessary to see the Government's offence; he said that it would be necessary see what the Government has done. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- The Government has been charged with having done something, and if the something it has done is an offence, logically, the honorable senator was referring to the Government's offence. However, I do not wish to raise any legal quibbles.' Using the argument advanced by **Senator Pearce** himself, I may point out that, in the first place, the passing of the Transport Workers Act was an overriding of the arbitration system. Prior to the passingof that act, the court had prescribed the terms and conditions under which men could find employment on the waterfront, and there was no condition relating to the licensing of any man. Under the Arbitration Act, power was given to the court to provide against discrimination. Parliament deliberately altered the law. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Anybody could get a licence. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- I am in the box at the moment answering the charge that has been levelled against the Government. {: .speaker-KTR} ##### Senator McLachlan: -- No; the Minister is in the dock. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- If I am in the dock, I would not be the first innocent man to be in that position, and if I get from the Opposition as fair a deal as the volunteer waterside workers have had from this Government, I shall be acquitted. Parliament, I repeat, determined that this power to decide who should be employed, and the terms and conditions of their employment should be vested in the Government. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Parliament never touched that power. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- Parliament decided that the Executive should not be fettered in the exercise of its power, and decided also that before a man could accept employment, whether hound by an award or not, he had to take out a licence. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- Everybody was eligible for a licence. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- The charge levelled against the Government is that it made regulations which had the effect of overriding an award of the Arbitration Court. I am attempting to establish that the Government has done nothing outside the power vested in it by Parliament. Obviously, if there has been an abuse of the delegated power, it, is the duty of Parliament to take the necessary action. But Parliament has, on numerous occasions, ratified the decisions of the Executive. Certainly one House has disallowed the regulations, but as honorable senators opposite have brought in measures to limit the powers of the Executive - we have been considering bills to amend the Rules Publication Act and the Customs Act - why did they not also bring in a bill to repeal the Transport Workers Act? {: .speaker-KP8} ##### Senator E B Johnston: -- The Government promised to do that. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- The charge against this Government is that it has abused certain of its delegated legislative powers. So long as the Transport Workers Act remains on the statute-book, and so long as Parliament chooses to vest in the Executive authority to make regulations under it, Parliament must take full responsibility, and the charge against the Government must fail. I admit candidly that the Transport Workers Act does abrogate the arbitration principle for which the Labour party stands. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- It does not. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- That act was on the statute-book before this party came into power. It will be repealed when the Government has cleaned up some of the mess caused by the preceding Govern- ment. {: .speaker-K3L} ##### Senator Sampson: -- The Government's failure to introduce a bill to repeal the act is the breaking of one of its promises. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator DALY: -- It is one of the promises which will be fulfilled after an appeal to the people, and when this Government comes back with a majority in both Houses. {: #subdebate-12-0-s2 .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE:
Tasmania -- I am astonished at the remarks, of the Assistant Minister **(Senator Daly).** He ignored entirely the charge made by the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator** Pearce), and had nothing to say iu. defence of this' Government's vindictive cruelty towards a section of our waterside workers who saved Australia a few years ago. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- Nonsense ! {: .speaker-K09} ##### Senator PAYNE: -- The people of Australia will want to know why these men arc not being treated like human kings. In no other part of the British Empire would any section of the people be treated in such a cold-blooded manner. The volunteer workers who have been so bitterly persecuted by this Government came to the rescue of the Commonwealth a few years ago, when an attempt was made to destroy our overseas transport services. They are now told by this Government that there is no work for them - that they must starve. The Leader of the Opposition put the case very fairly when he said that, hitherto, when regulations had been disallowed by the Senate, volunteer workers in employment were allowed to continue working on a ship until the vessel was discharged. Time after time the Senate has disallowed regulations repeatedly re-enacted by this Government; but, as I have explained, the volunteer workers who had secured employment following the disallowance of regulations, were allowed to continue until the ship on which they were working was discharged. Under the latest regulations, they are to be dismissed immediately following the gazettal of fresh regulations. It would be impossible to conceive of action more cruel than that. These nien have had little enough of employment, God knows, for many months. Now they are to be robbed by this Government of the right to work. The people should be told plainly of the lengths to which this Government is pre-" pared to go in its vindictive persecution of volunteer workers, in the interests of so-called unionists. I offer no apology for any warmth which I may import into this debate. I regard the action of the Government as dastardly in the extreme, and I hope that, when the people have an opportunity to express their opinion of the Government, they will do so in no uncertain way. {: #subdebate-12-0-s3 .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH:
Western Australia -- I wish briefly to direct attention to a matter of vital importance to oar primary producers. All honorable senators who are interested in their welfare are a!ware of their apprehension concerning the probably early alteration in the exchange rate on London. The present rate of approximately 30 per cent., which ha.s been in force for about ten months, has resulted in the accumulation of certain satisfactory balances in London, and now there is talk of a reduction of the rate. The directors of the Commonwealth Bank met in Sydney to-day to discuss this important subject. I need hardly remind honorable senators that, for the last two years, our wheatfarmers and wool-growers have been passing through a critical time. They have been losing heavily on every bushel of wheat, and every pound of wool produced. The increase in the exchange rate gave them some relief; but, if this is now to be reduced, they will again be placed in a most serious position. I have been to some trouble to ascertain the average price of wheat for the last two years. The Primary Producers Association of Western Australia has advised me that it was 2s. 7d. a bushel, which, as every one knows, is below production cost. Some authorities place this at 3s. 6d., others at about 4s. a bushel, and others still higher. I consider 3s. 6d. a bushel is a fair average return. Assuming the marketable production to have been 160,000,000 bushels a year for the "last two seasons, and taking the average price received at 2s. 7d. a bushel, the wheatfarmers of Australia in the last two years have lost £16,000,000. Wool-growers have suffered to a much greater extent. I mention those two industries because they are the two staple industries upon which Australia so much depends. I have no desire to belittle other sections of our primary producers who are making splendid headway against extraordinary difficulties'. In view of the serious effect which any reduction in the exchange rate would have upon our export industries, I appeal to honorable senators to-night to give this matter their serious attention, and urge them to lend their moral support to the movement to prevent a step which may have such a damaging effect on the welfare of our primary producers. Sympathetic consideration of their difficulties may postpone the action contemplated, and enable them to enjoy for this year, at all events, the relatively higher prices made possible by the present rate of exchange. I realize that there is another side to this case. I am aware that the present high rate of exchange is acting as a check upon the importation of goods; but I remind the importing interests that, while a lower exchange rate may facilitate imports, the reduced incomes of our primary producers will diminish their purchasing power, and, to that extent, injure trade generally. After the Franco-Prussian War, Bismarck is reported to have said that the next time Germany defeated France he would insist on Germany paying an indemnity instead of receiving one. We sometimes try to fashion plans for our progress, and the result is just the opposite to what we expect. Buying and selling is a leading activity in human relationship, and if the activity to buy is deadened the opportunity to sell is correspondingly injured. Let us make no mistake; if the buyer is not able to buy, it is useless for the seller to think that he can sell to him. If the people in the country cannot buy what they require, it is useless for city merchants to hope to sell to them. If, at this time, the Senate, by an expression of opinion, can do anything to assist those engaged in our primary industries, it will help a deserving section of the community, and contribute substantially to the welfare of the country as a. whole. If the prices of wool, wheat, and other primary products remain low, the effect on the country will be disastrous, because the primary producers will not be able to purchase the products of other industries to the extent that they otherwise would if prices were reasonable. Every year the Commonwealth must find £30,000,000 to meet its interest commitments in London, or make default. Previously that sum was met from repeated borrowings. Now we can borrow no longer. So the Government comes first in regard to London funds. Exchange accounts for £9,000,000 a year. If the rate of exchange is maintained at its present level for another twelve months we shall lose a further £9,000,000, but if in consequence of the high rate of exchange primary products to the value of £100,000,000 are sold overseas, we shall gain more than we shall lose. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator Barnes: -- Why not pay up, and stop talking? {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- It would be a good thing if the Leader of the Government **(Senator Barnes)** were to cease his interjections. If the honorable gentleman were a primary producer, he would understand what it is to produce at a loss for two years, and be threatened with a third year of failure. It is the duty of the Leader of the Senate to listen to what is said regarding this worthy section of the community, and to do what he can to make' its burden lighter. I am speaking in the interests of the country as a whole, when I try to obtain support for the efforts of the Commonwealth Bank and the associated banks on behalf of the primary producers of this country. As a result of having followed a policy of borrowing we now have huge interest commitments overseas, and since the Governments of Australia, both State and Federal, have no longer any credit in London, they are dependent on the produce of the wheat-growers and woolgrowers to see them through. But for the efforts of the primary producers the Government's position in London would be hopeless ; in fact it would be bankrupt. {: .speaker-JVF} ##### Senator Dooley: -. - Why did not the honorable senator give this advice to the previous Government ? {: .speaker-KRZ} ##### Senator LYNCH: -- There was no necessity to do so, because the rate of exchange was not then so high as it is now ; it has risen only since January of last year. When the rate was 3 per cent. o*r 4 per cent., it was not a matter of great concern ; but how that the price of wheat is low, the rate of exchange is a matter almost of life and death. I appeal to the Senate to help with its moral support the Commonwealth Bank and those who are entrusted with fixing the rate of exchange, so that the interests of the primary producers may be safeguarded, after which they will be prepared to take their chance with the rest of the community. I hope that other honorable senators who are acquainted with the subject, will take this matter up, so that the primary producers of this country" may know the Senate's desire to assist them. {: #subdebate-12-0-s4 .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES:
VicePresident of the Executive Council · Victoria · ALP -- The right honorable the Leader of the Opposition seems to be greatly concerned with the state of affairs on the waterfront. The Government also is anxious to maintain peace there, and to that end, it has promulgated certain regulations, to which some honorable senators have taken exception. Surely we have sufficient common sense to desire the work of the country to be carried on peaceably. Before the regulations which have been criticized came into operation, riots and disturbances on the waterfront were not infrequent. {: .speaker-K0F} ##### Senator Sir George Pearce: -- The. Government is now giving preference to the rioters. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- It was only after these regulations had been issued that* ships were able to sail regularly, and work on the waterfront generally was carried out peaceably. In every industrial dispute there are some who suffer; but those who are in the right, triumph in the end. The Government claims to have settled the troubles on the waterfront by peaceful means. A good deal was said by the Leader of the Opposition regarding arbitration. I remember when the right honorable gentleman fought side by side with me in the same trench for the establishment of a system of industrial arbitration. Whether he has changed his opinions on the subject I do not know; but I am still in the trench fighting for the settlement of industrial disputes in a commonsense way. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP -- Why interfere with the act? {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- The Government has not interfered with the act. ' The courts of' the land have been established to give effect to the laws passed by the legislature, and the Government does not desire to abrogate their authority. {: .speaker-K7F} ##### Senator Sir Hal Colebatch: -- These regulations are contrary to the decisions of the Arbitration Court. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- I do not think so, but, of course, the honorable senator is entitled to his opinion. The High Court is composed of gentlemen of great ability, who are not likely to be influenced in their decisions by their regard for me or any one else. Arbitration is sacred to members of the Labour party. Many of us can recall the conditions which existed prior to the introduction of compulsory arbitration, which got rid of low wages and unsatisfactory working conditions. The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Pearce)** said that the Government is endeavouring to bribe the electors. What bribe are we offering to the electors ? The Government was forced to adopt the course it did in consequence of the policy of the previous administration. It was not the desire of those associated with the party to which I belong to reduce the rate of pension by 2s. 6d. a week. The Government had to choose between paying pensioners 17s. 6d. a week, or giving them nothing at all. {: .speaker-JY7} ##### Senator DUNCAN-HUGHES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP -. - What has the honorable senator to say with respect to the suggested reduction in the exchange rate ? {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- That will probably be settled by those who, owing to the action of honorable senators, opposite, are still allowed to control the financial affairs of this country. Had the Central Reserve Banking Bill been passed by this chamber, the Government would have been in a position to do more in. the interests of primary producers thai! is possible under existing circumstances. The financial affairs of this country are still in the hands of the money changers, and the Government is powerless to intervene on their behalf. Prior to the last general elections, the representatives of the Labour party promised the electors many things, but the Government on assuming office was unable to give effectto many of its promises, owing to the action of the majority in this branch of the legislature. An amending Arbitration Bill, a Central Reserve Bank" Bill, and other measures which would have been of benefit to all sections of the community were rejected by the Senate. **Senator Lynch,** who has made another appeal on behalf of the primary producers, apparently overlooks the fact that he and many of those with whom he is associated rejected a Wheat Bill under which the Government proposed to pay the wheat-growers 4s. a bushel. The Government cannot be blamed for neglecting to assist those engaged in primary production. Other important measures introduced by this Government' have been defeated in the Senate. {: .speaker-JTL} ##### Senator Daly: -- And now honorable senators opposite wish to destroy the tariff. {: .speaker-K1L} ##### Senator BARNES: -- Yes. Had the legislation which this Government has introduced been passed by the Senate, the difficulties to which reference has been made would not have arisen, and the number of unemployed would be much smaller than it is to-day. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 9.59 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 November 1931, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1931/19311117_senate_12_132/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant